I think it’s important that George Zimmerman has had a trial.
I don’t know if George Zimmerman is guilty of murder under Florida’s laws or not. That’s partly a subjective determination which can only properly be made by a judge or jury. Martin’s death was not so clear-cut that a cop or prosecutor ought to have decided that Zimmerman should face no consequences. In our system, that decision is, and should be, made in a courtroom.
Given the US’s historic and ongoing racism, I think it’s reasonable to particularly fear such decisions being made by cops or prosecutors in cases where the person killed was a young black boy. It is reasonable to wonder, when a clearly innocent, unarmed, black kid is shot to death and the police decide no charges are needed, if the same decision would have been reached if the body were white.
That all remains true if Zimmerman is found “not guilty,” which strikes me as the most likely outcome (and one I’d probably vote for myself, if I were on the jury). From the progressive, anti-racist point of view, victory doesn’t require a guilty verdict. Even in a hypothetical perfectly non-racist system, injustice would still happen, and sometimes people would get away with murder. This is because our justice system, when it’s working properly, is and should be biased in favor of the dependent defendant.
I don’t blame people for being unhappy with Zimmerman being found not guilty (if he is found not guilty), or for correctly seeing it as part of a pattern in which black lives are taken less seriously by our justice system. But I also think that, given the facts of this case, it wouldn’t require racial bias for the jury to find that Zimmerman acted in self-defense.
Russell Simmons writes:
Even with this important day coming soon, I remind myself that we have already accomplished a tremendous amount in the memory of Trayvon. All we ever asked for was for equal justice for the young man who was killed that drizzling night in Sanford, Florida. If George Zimmerman had rights, so did Trayvon Martin. And that is why Mr. Zimmerman was properly arrested and charged with murder in the second degree. He will soon be judged by a jury of his peers, and that is the best we can do.
Victory should not require any particular verdict in this trial. That there was a trial is the victory.
Of course, some people consider it ridiculous that there was a trial at all, or that the jury is being allowed to reach a verdict. Over at Ethics Alarms, Jack writes:
Last week, Judge Debra Nelson, presiding over Zimmerman’s trial, rejected the motion by Zimmerman’s defense team to dismiss the case before a single defense witness had been called, because the prosecution had not met its burden of proof. Media analysts were quick to note that such motions are routine, but this one wasn’t: it was obvious and undeniable that the prosecution’s case could not support a verdict of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. A courageous, fair and ethical judge would have dismissed the case: Judge Nelson did not. Judges usually default to the position that we should let the jury decide, but when the evidence won’t support a legitimate guilty verdict, as in this case, that position is irresponsible.
Not for the first time, Jack genuinely can’t imagine that any reasonable person could ever disagree with the right-wing view. This case is not nearly as clear-cut as he suggests.
According to Findlaw:
Florida’s jury instructions (which are based on the Florida statute) spell out three elements that prosecutors must prove to establish second degree murder beyond a reasonable doubt:
- The victim is deceased,
- The victim’s death was caused by the defendant’s criminal act, and
- There was an unlawful killing of the victim “by an act imminently dangerous to another and demonstrating a depraved mind without regard for human life.”
The last element — an “imminently dangerous” act that shows a “depraved mind” — is further defined by Florida’s jury instructions. Three elements must be present:
- A “person of ordinary judgment” would know the act, or series of acts, “is reasonably certain to kill or do serious bodily injury to another”;
- The act is “done from ill will, hatred, spite, or an evil intent”; and
- The act is “of such a nature that the act itself indicates an indifference to human life.”
Note that prosecutors do not have to prove the defendant intended to cause death, Florida’s jury instructions state.
IF the jury is persuaded that Zimmerman, who told the dispatcher “Fucking punks. Those assholes, they always get away,” before disregarding the dispatcher’s request to stay put and chasing after a 17-year-old kid in the dark while carrying a gun, had demonstrated both ill will and committing an act that was very likely to lead to serious bodily injury, they could reasonably find Zimmerman guilty of second degree murder.
The jury could also find Zimmerman guilty of the lesser included offense of manslaughter. Findlaw again:
To establish involuntary manslaughter, the prosecutor must show that the defendant acted with “culpable negligence.” Florida statutes define culpable negligence as a disregard for human life while engaging in wanton or reckless behavior. The state may be able to prove involuntary manslaughter by showing the defendant’s recklessness or lack of care when handling a dangerous instrument or weapon, or while engaging in a range of other activities that could lead to death if performed recklessly.
So to find that Zimmerman committed manslaughter, no finding of spite or ill will is required.
Zimmerman’s strongest argument is that Martin’s death was in self-defense. Although not all witnesses agreed, both Zimmerman’s injuries and the testimony of the closest third party witness support Zimmerman’s testimony that Zimmerman had been punched in the nose, and that Martin was on top of Zimmerman and may have pounded Zimmerman’s head into the ground.
I think someone in that situation could very reasonably fear “death or great bodily harm,” even if he provoked the situation himself through his own idiotic actions. However, from the standard instructions given Florida juries in self-defense cases:
The use of deadly force is not justifiable if you find George Zimmerman initially provoked the use of force against himself, by force or the threat of force, unless:
* The force asserted toward George Zimmerman was so great that he reasonably believed that he was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and had exhausted every reasonable means to escape the danger, other than using deadly force on Trayvon Martin;
So there if the jury believes that Zimmerman “initially provoked the use of force,” AND if they believe that Zimmerman had not “exhausted every reasonable means to escape the danger,” then they could reasonably decide that Zimmerman was not acting in legitimate self-defense.
Honestly, if I was on the jury, I’d probably vote “not guilty.” Someone on the ground, being straddled and beaten, can reasonably be in fear of death or serious injury, and may not believe he has any way out other than his gun. And although much of Zimmerman’s testimony doesn’t seem credible to me, that he was on the ground being straddled and hit by Martin does strike me as credible, given his injuries and the neighbor’s testimony.
But I’m not on the jury. And I don’t think the judge was wrong to think that determination should be made by the jury.
* * *
A couple of random thoughts:
* Ironically, it seems to me that if Zimmerman had died – if in the course of the scuffle Zimmerman’s head had hit the pavement so hard that Zimmerman died of a mortal injury – that Trayvon Martin would have a much stronger case for self-defense than Zimmerman has.
* Although I think Zimmerman may have reasonably been in fear of his life, given how objectively minor his injuries were, that fear was almost certainly mistaken. If Zimmerman hadn’t had a gun, it is overwhelmingly likely that both Zimmerman and Martin would be alive today. Yay guns!
* I actually think that chasing after someone in the dark with a gun, unless there are highly compelling circumstances justifying it, should itself be a crime – even if the gunholder winds up in a situation where he fears for his life. (I don’t find Zimmerman’s story that he didn’t pursue Martin credible, although of course a jury could reasonably disagree with me about that.) The potential for an otherwise nonlethal conflict to escalate into something deadly when idiots like Zimmerman bring a gun into what had been a non-gun situation is obvious, and in my opinion Zimmerman’s actions showed a depraved indifference to that possibility. That should be a crime. But maybe it’s effectively not a crime, under current Florida law.
* I find it disgusting that so much of the discussion of this trial, and the trial itself, (such as admitting evidence that Martin had – gasp! – smoked pot at some point!) has been about disparaging Martin and his friend Rachel Jeantel. In particular, the racist, sexist, classist, and fatphobic attacks on Jeantel have disgusted me. For more on this, read Erikka Yancy, Demetria Lucas, and Mychal Denzel Smith.
Gee, Barry, when did believing in the legal standard of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt become a “right wing view”? Good to know. The jury instructions you quoted still included that part, and there is no way, no way at all, the the evidence presented by the prosecution could reasonably and fairly be called conclusive to the BARD standard. And since the evidence never was there, there should not have been a charge or a trial….as the standards of prosecution ethics dictate. Even if we feel, as I do, that Zimmerman was at fault for the whole tragedy. That makes it a civil issue, where the standard is “preponderance of the evidence.”
That isn’t what I said, of course.
Given that the standard of proof for self defense in Florida is that the prosecution has to rebut the self-defense claim beyond a reasonable doubt, and that Florida has the rule that even if you started a violent fight, you are allowed to use lethal force if you reasonably fear that the fight you started is going to get you injured or killed, it is hard to see how Zimmerman could be convicted.
In most states, with less absurd self-defense rules, I think Zimmerman would be convicted. While the situation he was in might have put him in fear of death or serious injury, as someone who hasn’t followed the trial closely, it doesn’t seem like it was likely or anywhere close to certain that he was. Likewise, it seems clear that Martin reasonably felt that Zimmerman’s behavior was threatening violence, so in many states Zimmerman would not have a self defense claim at all.
I haven’t been following the case closely. Is there any reason to believe that Zimmerman had “exhausted every reasonable means to escape the danger, other than using deadly force on Trayvon Martin”? If the jury believes that Zimmerman provoked the violence, what is the standard of proof for the claim that he had exhausted every reasonable means of escape? Is it still something the prosecution has to disprove beyond a reasonable doubt?
Sure it is. “Not for the first time, Jack genuinely can’t imagine that any reasonable person could ever disagree with the right-wing view.” My view is that the prosecution didn’t prove its case, and that’s an objective position, not a right wing position. I like to see killers punished as much as anyone, but first you have to prove they are killers. The prosecution’s witnesses either had credibility problems or bolstered the defense’s case. How is recognizing that “right wing”?
My post was pretty clear. Why progressive politics now apparently means chucking fair trial standards because of the color of the victim is beyond me. You say he should be tried, but there was not enough evidence to sustain a charge. The reason bringing those kinds of cases is unethical is precisely because a jury might convict, wrongly. The judge is supposed to be a failsafe when the prosecution is unethically over-zealous (or intimidated by racial politics, as in this case.).
Issues of witness credibility are almost never decided as a matter of law. With very, very rare exceptions (i.e. situations where you have conclusive proof that the witness committed perjury), credibility is an issue to be decided by the trier of fact, not the trier of law. To argue the opposite — THAT’s what’s tantamount to “chucking fair trial standards”.
Hi, Jack. Nice to see you commenting here, by the way!
I think my post was clear about what I was disagreeing with, since I quoted you directly. I disagree with you that “it was obvious and undeniable that the prosecution’s case could not support a verdict of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” It is not the idea of “reasonable doubt” I disagree with – in my post itself, I wrote that “our justice system, when it’s working properly, is and should be biased in favor of the dependent,” which I think makes my position on reasonable doubt extremely clear.
Rather, I was disagreeing with you that the case was so “obvious and undeniable” that it was ethically wrong for the judge to allow the jury to deliver a verdict. I don’t think your judgement is as objective and infallible as you apparently believe it is. Some of your opinions – for instance, in your post you cited that a witness “couldn’t read the letter she dictated herself” as evidence of how ridiculous it is that Zimmerman is on trial, as if the inability to read cursive in one’s third language somehow logically discredits a witness – suggest that you’re not at all unbiased in this case. (Admittedly, my belief that you’re not objective partly comes from having read your many, many, many angry diatribes about this case on your blog.)
And finally – although this was not explicitly stated in your original post – the position that “there should not have been a charge or a trial” against Zimmerman is certainly a view widely held only among right-wingers.
1. If you agree with reasonable doubt, Barry, then you don’t recognize it. Again, and I was a prosecutor for a bit, and trained as one, what was offered just doesn’t meet the standard, and ideology has nothing to do about. The bias is on the side of those who argue that a black kid is dead,a white guy shot him, so it has to be possible to convict him of something. Wrong.
2. A witness who is unable to substantiate the dictated account she refers to in her testimony is has credibility problems. That all. Obviously.
3. Alan Dershowitz is a right winger? Dan Abrams is a right winger?
4. If you are NOT angry about celebrities trying to get Zimmerman and his family killed, and elected officials presuming racism without proof, and broadcast media editing a 911 tape to incriminate someone, you have some explaining to do.
I agree that it’s a good thing a trial was held in this case, regardless of the verdict.
I think you’re guilty of sloppy thinking here, though:
But that presumes that absent his gun those would have been the only injuries that Zimmerman would have sustained. I don’t see where that is a valid presumption.
Absent a gun, would Zimmerman have stalked Martin? We don’t know, we can’t know. But we do know that there is statistically less chance of fatal injuries in confrontations that don’t involve guns. I think.
Very difficult to say, meaningfully.
I am taking my daughter to a midnight showing of ‘Man of Steel’. Some criminal thug element wearing a squid t-shirt makes a threatening move towards me and her as we cross the dark parking lot. I raise my ‘Alas: Zionist Sewage’ t-shirt to reveal my Glock. Squidboy reverses course and disappears into the shadows.
Was that a confrontation? Was Squidboy coming to inform us that he had seen some Boy Scouts cooking Smores on my engine block and that I should wash it, and my view of his ‘threatening’ behavior was way off? Did he mistake the glint of my Glock for a candy wrapper and, as a cowardly diabetic, flee to avoid an insulin shock?
No way to know, really, even in the case where we have one or more eyewitnesses. (Note the current case; the eyewitness is on trial.) Statistically? Your results will come down where your presuppositions have you draw your definitions. The gun nuts will include every ‘I pulled up my t-shirt and showed my Glock’, real and imagined, under confrontations to boost their numbers; the hoplophobes will include every kindergarden quarrel over who gets the blue crayon as a confrontation to boost theirs.
So if there were a witness in a trial who was totally illiterate, they would not be a credible witness because they were unable to read a transcript of their statements?
No, that would not be a credibility problem. If someone read them a transcript of the statements, and they didn’t recognize them as their own statements, or they contradicted them verbally, THAT would be a credibility problem.
Like others, I have not followed the trial closely, but my impression is that the state has either done an appallingly bad job of presenting the strong case of Zimmerman’s guilt, or an adequate job of presenting the weak case for his guilt. (I assumed he was guilty at the beginning; now I have no idea.) I mention this purely to note that I don’t particularly have a dog in this fight.
The one place I’ll strongly agree with Ampersand: it is a good thing and a victory for black civil rights that there was a trial at all, that a black man’s life was taken seriously by the system, and the judicial machinery activated to seek justice (however half-assedly) on his behalf. That is a win. Yes, it is possible (I don’t know) that the case against Zimmerman is so weak that it should have been tossed out in some perfect world of jurisprudence; we don’t live in that perfect world.
Witness credibility is ALWAYS a matter for the jury. Let’s say that we’re in a car accident at an intersection, and we sue each other for injuries in the accident. You bring in 20 witnesses who all watched the accident and claim that I ran the red light, including Percepton, the superhero who perceives all and is always honest. I bring in Lyin’ Joe, who claims he was watching from a block away through binoculars and clearly saw that you ran the red light. A judge would never direct a verdict for you, because credibility of the witnesses is solely for the jury, and a jury might decide that Lyin’ Joe’s account is more credible than all 20 witnesses you bring in. So to say “these witnesses weren’t credible, ergo Judge should have dismissed,” betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of how trials work.
Now, I’m not completely familiar with FL law, but my bar review addled brain is thinking that voluntary manslaughter, or Florida equivalent, is the most likely outcome, due to imperfect self defense: i.e. that Zimmerman had a good faith subjective, but unreasonable belief that his life was in imminent danger. The fact that he acted unreasonably is enough to negate a justified homicide, but the subjective belief is enough to negate the “depraved” part of the second degree murder. So we’re left with an unjustified intentional killing done without malice.
I live in central Florida so have been sorta forced to follow the case.
According to local media, manslaughter charges of any kind have not been filed; therefore, if the jury finds Zimmerman not guilty of Murder 2, Zimmerman walks, since in Florida law the jury can only rule on the charges in the indictment, not on included charges. As a result, prosecutors sometimes file charges of both murder and manslaughter in case the jury decides that the motive/reasons for murder aren’t there. In the infamous Casey Anthony case, for instance, the prosecution charged her with both Murder 1 and aggravated manslaughter. The prosecution also did this with a identical twins case since they were having enough issues establishing which twin allegedly did what without adding in the whole murder/manslaughter issue, and just yesterday prosecutors on a completely unrelated case said they’d be filing joint murder/manslaughter charges on four people in a case where it’s not clear if the shooters were malicious or just seriously drunk or both.
Mind you, the local media is not renowned for its accuracy or legal expertise, so this could be entirely wrong.
Bottom of the 4th paragraph, I believe you mean “defendant” and not “dependent.” I have nothing else to contribute to this discussion.
Two quick points:
1. The people who are celebrating the fact that the government “at least” put Zimmerman on trial (despite the prosecutors’ and police’s own doubts as to whether the charges were provable) are obviously ignoring the financially bankrupting and otherwise potentially life-ruining burdens imposed on the defendant in a case like this. In fact, I believe Zimmerman actually has spent time in jail already as a result of this prosecution, even though, again, even the government didn’t think the charges would hold up (with good reason, as it turns out).
2. People should keep in mind that, in following TM, even while armed, Zimmerman was not breaking the law. It was even pointed out through a prosecution police witnesses that EVEN IF Zimm had confronted TM and told him to “get the hell out of here” (hypothetically), even THAT would not have been against the law. So the notion that some people have Zimm should be found guilty because he was “stalking” a teenager while carrying a loaded weapon amounts to nothing more than lynch-mob lawlessness. Change the law if you like, but please don’t advocate incarceration for people who aren’t in fact breaking any laws.
There are a lot of anti-Trayvon people who thought Zimmerman was innocent from Day 1 and they will never change their mind. Those are the right wingers.
There are a lot of anti-Zimmerman people who thought he was a murderer from Day 1 and they will never change their mind. Those are the left wingers.
But there are a LOT of people like me (many of whom are lawyers:) we know about racial bias in the courts; we thought a trial was needed; we thought Zimmerman was probably guilty; we looked forward to the trial; we expected the state to give good evidence; we were shocked by how bad the state’s case actually was. Many of us have changed our mind, both about Zimmerman’s likely conviction and (often) about the ethics of even proceeding further with a trial. Counting us as “right wing” is dishonest and, frankly, illiberal.
It shouldn’t be, since people are allowed to (a) chase people; and (b) carry guns. Neither of those things is really something that we can prohibit and it’d probably be a second amendment violation if we restricted it as you suggest.
Also: judges can absolutely enter a directed verdict for the defense. They can’t enter a directed verdict for the prosecution, of course.
My own view is that:
1) of course the public perception and pressure are affecting the court and prosecutor’s actions;
2) this happens all the time, though almost never in a way that favors black men;
3) and which is wrong whenever it happens.
I feel like there are a lot of left wing people who have an emotional desire for this case to “balance” things: perhaps to give Trayvon a few extra rights and a bit of extra consideration, to make up for the gazillion black men who get/got totally screwed by the system. In that vein, I feel like there are people who hope that Zimmerman gets convicted of something, and who wouldn’t be all that sorry if he was convicted even if the law didn’t really allow for it, because (of course) he’s an asshole and Trayvon is dead. I do not think you personally are in that category, BTW.
And that is a reasonable emotional response–but an illiberal one. The fact that people want Zimmerman punished doesn’t mean that he should be punished in this case. The fact that black men are routinely mistreated doesn’t make this a good place to “balance” things.
It doesn’t even mean that he should be obliged to present a defense, given the extraordinarily bad testimony of the state’s witnesses. “Punishment” includes the obligation to defend yourself against charges which are known to be unsupportable–just look at what happens to black men all over the country when they’re arrested for vague charges, right? Obviously that is a form of state punishment as well, conviction or not.
FWIW, the “balancing” aspect can be appropriate IMO if a black man is a defendant, especially if he is a defendant in a relatively victimless crime. But it’s not appropriate to use Zimmerman as a stand-in for social racistsm; that is a scary thought. There’s a huge difference between “extra relief” and “extra punishment.”
People are allowed to (a) drink and (b) drive. And yet we still manage to make drinking and driving a crime.
You dno’t actually have a constitutional right to do either, and the connection generally against “chasing people” is much more tenuous than drinking and driving.
What the state CAN do is to require (for example) that if you carry a deadly weapon, and initiate a fight and then use it to kill someone, you have a harder time proving self defense. Or something else. And of course they can limit guns in some circumstances (airports, schools, etc.) But it would almost certainly be unconstitutional to make it a crime per se merely to “chase” someone if you have a gun.
I have a question for Jack:
If I am reading you correctly, you are asserting that if, in Florida, someone is killed, and the killer asserts that the killing was in self defense, and there is not strong evidence that this is not true, a trial should not be held. Is this a correct reading of your opinion?
In particular, if, in Florida, I were to encounter Zimmerman, and shoot and kill him, and I said that I thought he was reaching for his gun, and there were no witnesses, and he was shot in the chest, no trial should be held?
If I am correct in what I think I hear you saying, and you are correct in your interpretation of the Florida law, that is one screwed-up-law.
I believe that in Florida a great deal of weight is put on the police investigation of the scene, Mike. So if you said Zimmerman charged you, and the muddy footprints showed that indeed he was running towards you, and you said he knocked you down, and indeed there was a big imprint where someone landed on the ground (and your entire rear half was covered with mud), and you said he hit your head against the pavement, and indeed you had abrasions on the back of your head and they found your blood on the pavement where you said it happened, etc. etc. etc., then yeah, under the Florida statute there shouldn’t be a trial.
If the police investigation doesn’t support your version of events, though, then all bets are off. That’s my understanding of the law, anyway. They didn’t take Zimmerman’s statement and then close the case; they took his statement and conducted a fairly extensive investigation, then recommended (as I recall) that he not be prosecuted because it looked like self-defense to them under the SYG law. (I seem to remember they changed their recommendation after public protest and media outcry, including the fabricated/edited 911 recordings.) The most damaging thing to the state’s case thus far, that I’ve seen, has been the state’s lead investigator saying, in essence, that Zimmerman’s story is accurate and that the physical evidence supports a narrative where Martin was the aggressor.
Mike: Guilt has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. A charge itself only requires probable cause, but “A prosecutor should not institute, cause to be instituted, or permit the continued pendency of criminal charges in the absence of sufficient admissible evidence to support a conviction.” (ABA Criminal Justice Standards) That means sufficient evidence to support a verdict of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
In your hypo, “the killer asserts that the killing was in self defense, and there is not strong evidence that this is not true,” if the defendant’s story is credible and the circumstances support it, then the prosecutor should presume that at best the killing was self-defense, and at worst it cannot be shown that it wasn’t self-defense sufficiently to justify conviction beyond a reasonable doubt, and as a result, not go to trial.
What I don’t understand is why that would seem wrong to you, or anyone. Prosecutors are not supposed to take a flyer on convicting someone whom they think is a bad guy ,without sufficient evidence. That is how innocent people (most of them African Americans, by the way) get on death row or lose 30 years of their lives. Juries make mistakes. Juries are not infallible. A prosecutor’s job is to see that justice under the law is done, not to throw bad guys into a courtroom and hope the jury doesn’t like them, so a conviction can be made out of inadequate evidence. Casey Anthony was almost certainly guilty, but the prosecution over-charged without enough evidence to link her to the murder. All they had was circumstantial evidence, and that wasn’t very strong either.
It is unethical for a prosecutor to go to trial without sufficient evidence. And that protects you and me as well as George Zimmerman.
@ Robert: You hit the nail on the head. It isn’t just a case of a shooter claiming self-defense in the absence of any other evidence. It’s a case of a shooter claiming self-defense and an extensive police investigation turning up a lot of evidence that is completely consistent with the shooter’s story and no real evidence that the SD claim is bogus.
And as far as putting the shooter on trial for the sake of putting him on trial (or for the sake of demonstrating to society that the “system” cares about black “victims”), consider the consequences for the defendant:
1.. Legal/expert fees in the hundreds of thousands of dollars;
2. Probable loss of job;
3. Probable damage to future career prospects;
4. Temporary incarceration;
5. Risk of permanent incarceration if the judge/jury screw up;
6. Being publicly turned into a pariah due to the inability/unwillingness of millions of Americas to accept the idea of “innocent until proven guilty” or to accept a verdict of non-guilty.
Exactly. “Putting the shooter on trial for the sake of putting him on trial (or for the sake of demonstrating to society that the “system” cares about black “victims”)”, which is exactly what Barry seems to be approving, is the definition of a show trial, which was the thrust of my original post. And again, progressives need to do some soul searching about why their ideology has been so warped that it leads them to such a conclusion, because it is a despicable one.
You are absolutely right about the consequences to the innocent of a bogus prosecution done for the sake of appearances. And the moment we stop conducting thousands and thousands of bogus prosecutions for the sake of looking tough on crime and for the sake of “fighting the drug war”, I will agree that THIS bogus prosecution should also be thrown out.
But in the meantime, if we aren’t going to do it right, then the bullshit basis for our actions needs to be fair and balanced. We are balancing bullshit. If this particular extrusion of bullshit offends you to the point of deciding that all the bullshit needs to go, then I’ll join up with that cause. But I won’t wade into the sea of bullshit, pick out one turd and say “zomg THE INJUSTICE!!!!”
“And the moment we stop conducting thousands and thousands of bogus prosecutions for the sake of looking tough on crime and for the sake of “fighting the drug war”, I will agree that THIS bogus prosecution should also be thrown out. ”
That’s pretty cruel, IMO. I would think everyone would be on board with minimizing the occurrence of injustice generally, and never supporting any particular injustice. If I read you correctly, you think that because the government commits a lot of injustices, this particular injustice is somehow, well, just. I’m not sure what to make of that other than perhaps you are not a morally serious person.
Wow, Robert, that’s a jaw -dropper. “And when everyone stops doing wrong, then I’ll object to people doing wrong in this case.”
Unethical, and idiotic.
I think a lot of the Zimmerman defenders have forgotten, once again, that Zimmerman shot an unarmed black teenager to death for no good reason whatsoever. Nothing about the weakness of the prosecution case has changed that.
Now Zimmerman may walk. But there is no reason to celebrate that as some kind of triumph of justice. It’s not. It really sucks.
A black teenager is dead because this idiot wanted to play Dirty Harry. THAT hasn’t changed.
For folks insisting that Zimmerman shouldn’t have been charged, try to imagine if the colors were reversed. Is there any doubt that Zimmerman would have been arrested, charged, and held without bail? There is certainly no doubt in my mind. Nor is there any doubt that his defense would not have been a cause celebre for the right wing.
My hope is that if Zimmerman is acquitted, that a wrongful death suit is filed. As it is, Trayvon Martin deserves this trial. His stupid death at the hands of this jackass with a gun is worth this much.
“For no good reason”? He was getting his head slammed against the sidewalk. Self-defense is a perfectly good reason to shoot somebody.
Well, Zimmerman says he was getting his head slammed against the sidewalk. AFAIK, we don’t have Martin’s version of events. If the evidence presented to the jury supports Zimmerman’s version he should be acquitted. If the evidence presented to the jury supports Zimmerman’s version that does not mean that Zimmerman’s version is the true account of what happened. Both those things are true.
Conrad and Jack –
We do not have a justice system that delivers justice. We have a justice system that largely delivers theater. That being the case, “this is an injustice” is not a particularly compelling argument. Sometimes correcting the state of the theater is more important than correcting the (largely fictitious) level of justice in one case; we have a long, long history of the theater completely ignoring the appearances when it came to black people’s lives.
It is not morally idiotic to attempt to forestall civil war, and continued devaluation of the appearances when it comes to black people’s lives is a perfectly valid rationale for civil war. Respecting the appearances means that even our theatrical justice system can command the impression of legitimacy from all citizens, which is worthwhile.
Is that perfect? No. If you want to switch your focus from “poor george zimmerman” to “poor victims of this theatrically farcical system”, then fine. I am with you. “Let the theater continue, but this particular play is terrible, join me in getting it suppressed”, however, is not a morally compelling argument. It is not persuasive to ignore the last 1,000 victims of the blood-stained farce, then to pick out the 1,001st martyr and declare that people not sharing your sudden dudgeon are morally obtuse.
If you have a long record – heck, even a short record – of opposing the theater of justice, of opposing the posturing and rhetoric that results in crushed lives – then I withdraw that characterization, Jack and Conrad. Do you have such a record? (Some libertarians do, to their credit.)
Like I said, no good reason. Mr. Zimmerman’s head would not have been in any danger if this racist pr!ck had not decided, against good advice, to stalk and confront a black teenager who was doing nothing more than “walking while black” across Zimmerman’s turf. He then lost a fair fistfight, then pulled a gun and fired in the middle of getting a deserved a$$whipping.
Thanks to vagaries of the criminal law he may walk. But that doesn’t constitute a good reason for shooting Martin. Just means that a coward and a bully might get away with killing somebody who in a more just world would be alive today.
Stonetools, the fact that you (and others, sadly) are still aping these outrageous talking points from the race grievance industry and arn’t being chased into the street and mocked by decent people proves how toxic that lies surrounding this case are. There is no evidence, none, that Trayvon was profiled, that Zimmerman initiated the direct confrontation, or that race played any part in the incident at all. This is all confirmation bias, and you are blithely willing to condemn a fellow citizen to make a dubious race-relations point. Your characterization of “a deserved whipping”—there is no such thing under the law—and the circumstances of the kid’s death are wholly supposition, even fantasy but to you it’s undeniably true, because oh how you want it to be true.
How did you get this way?
We interrupt this legal analysis to bring you this Literary News Break:
In Albert Camus’s The Stranger, the protagonist kills the member of an ethnic minority group, arguably in self-defense. The prosecutor lacks much evidence about the crime, but is able to present ample evidence that the protagonist is an asshole – and thereby wins a murder conviction. Readers are supposed to identify with the protagonist, disdain the shallow moralizing offered by the judicial system, and embrace the ultimate meaninglessness of it all.
We now return you to the legal analysis, already in progress….
Here’s a developing story.
Now, Judicial Watch has their agenda. I would not say that their interpretation of what this is all about is proven. But it sure looks suspicious. I would like an explanation of what the DoJ’s mission was for these employees and what they did.
Judicial Watch has a history of getting things wrong…but this type of finding seems resistant to their peculiar bias. If true, this is devastating to the state’s credibility, and I’d say pretty well undermines the basis of my position.
Stonetools, your argument sounds like “Zimmerman is a racist because he killed a black man, and since he killed a black man he’s racist”. Circular reasoning proves nothing.
The concept that Mr. Zimmerman followed Martin out of racial animus instead of concern regarding seeing a stranger in the high-crime area he lives is is hardly proven.
Sites like Judicial Watch always think they are breaking some major news story or exposing a secret cover-up, when in fact they are actually misreporting old news. The Orlando Sentinel reported on the CRS’ efforts in Sanford over a year ago, and it seems the purpose was to cool tensions and make sure protests didn’t get out of control. That’s been their job for decades.
http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-04-15/news/os-trayvon-martin-george-zimmerman-justice-departm-20120415_1_federal-workers-racial-tensions-peacekeepers
Re: In Albert Camus’s The Stranger, the protagonist kills the member of an ethnic minority group, arguably in self-defense
He killed an Algerian Arab, right? Arabs aren’t a minority in Algeria. (I haven’t read the book, so correct me if I’m wrong).
Re: But in the meantime, if we aren’t going to do it right, then the bullshit basis for our actions needs to be fair and balanced. We are balancing bullshit. If this particular extrusion of bullshit offends you to the point of deciding that all the bullshit needs to go, then I’ll join up with that cause. But I won’t wade into the sea of bullshit, pick out one turd and say “zomg THE INJUSTICE!!!!”
I’m pretty much in agreement with this, Robert.
I haven’t followed the details of the case. It’s possible he was guilty of flat-out murder (I guess, without Martin’s side of the story, we’ll never know, but I wouldn’t be shocked if that was the case). I think I agree with Ben Helford that he should be found guilty of some kind of manslaughter. He was clearly behaving recklessly and irrationally in provoking this situation to begin with, and he shouldn’t be able to get off scot-free by invoking ‘self-defence’. (Nor am I at all convinced his life was in danger).
I was talking with a Black friend about it over the weekend and he thinks there are going to be race riots if Zimmerman gets off scot-free.
The problem is that unequally applied justice is unjust.
Example:
I’m oppose to the death penalty, 100%. I don’t think we should kill people. I think it’s unjust.
It would produce fewer specific acts of injustice if we were to pass a law exempting [white|black|male|female] people from the death penalty. Nonetheless, though this would produce fewer specific acts of injustice, it would also be a terribly unjust law.
Surely you can see that.
We have a situation where over and over, year after year, unarmed young black men committing no crime are shot dead in the streets and the people who killed them walk away with a slap on the wrist.
Many young black men go to jail as a result of the war on drugs, and ‘bogus prosecutions done for the sake of appearances.’ Surely you already know this. Surely I’m not telling you anything new.
This is our system. It’s what we’ve got. If the only time it bothers you is when it seems like someone might be punished for chasing down and shooting a black child in the night, then I’d suggest that perhaps you are not a morally serious person.
—Myca
Aaaah, agreeing with Myca, it burns, it burns, what’s next, will I start liking blueberry Poptarts?
@Hector – We don’t know that he provoked the situation. Nor do we know that he didn’t provoke the situation. The fact that is known (he got out of his car and walked in the same direction as someone else) is not inherently provocative. Even “hey man, do you live around here? do you have business here?” is not, unless delivered with exceptionally malevolent tone, provocative. I’ve been asked that exact question (by a black man, ironically enough) and when my answer was “no, I’m visiting family, I’m just taking a walk”, I was advised – not unkindly – to take my walk in another direction.
(It only took me 12 hours to realize that this was because I had walked into the middle of a four-warehouse marijuana growing operation. Because I’m a genius.)
It might also be worth noting that Zimmerman was in the neighborhood watch. He wasn’t a random person harassing random pedestrians; he was concerned about this particular neighborhood and had legitimate reason for being so concerned. That doesn’t prove that he wasn’t a provoking jerk about things on this date and time, but it does (or should) mute the apparently common belief that he was just some guy who liked to wander around hassling black kids on a whim. That doesn’t appear to be the case.
Well, except for the “black child” part. Come on, dude. 16 year olds who have phones (apparently) filled with discussions of street fighting, gun sales, and drug use are not children. They’re young men.
According to the CIA’s World Factbook:
@Myca: “Nonetheless, though this would produce fewer specific acts of injustice, it would also be a terribly unjust law.: ”
OK, but that’s not the situation we’re talking about. Nobody here is advocating that blacks should be treated differently under the law or that it’s OK when blacks, in particular, get put on trial on charges that clearly aren’t supported by the evidence. So yours is a complete straw man argument as far as I’m concerned.
“We have a situation where over and over, year after year, unarmed young black men committing no crime are shot dead in the streets and the people who killed them walk away with a slap on the wrist. ”
Sounds horrible, but can you cite me a single PARTICULAR case in which this has happened (i.e., give me the name of the victim and the name of the killer who was allowed to “walk away with a slap on the wrist?” I’m no criminologist, but my sort of walking-around impression is that this is actually a pretty rare scenario. By far, most young black men who are shot dead in the streets are shot by other young black men. The young black men shooters, moreover, typically aren’t caught. When they are, I BELIEVE they tend to go to prison rather than receive a slap on the wrist on their way out the door.
If we’re really serious about solving society’s problems, it seems to me we need to be serious about separating fact from melodramatic musings. I really don’t think Mr. Zimmerman should be going to prison for 25 years just because people THINK that young blacks are being routinely mowed down in the streets by killers who are permitted to “walk away with a slap on the wrist.” At a minimum, I insist on some empiraical examples of this alleged phenomenon.
Just to update my previous comment:
Local news is now reporting that the prosecution is asking that the judge allow the jury to ALSO consider lesser charges of manslaughter or aggravated assault.
If the judge does NOT allow this, then the jury can only consider Murder 2, and whether or not Zimmerman is guilty of killing Martin out of ill will, malice, and so on.
Carry on with the rest of the discussion.
with “self defense” laws like this, this is what scares me the most about rightwingers fighting to put guns in women’s hands to “protect” themselves from rapists. when “self defense” laws are used to protect the attacker rather than the victim, thats a problem. imagine i am a republican woman with a gun in my purse, a man is following me down the street intent on raping me, and i pull out my gun that the rightwingers TOLD me to use to protect myself, the rapist shoots first and kills me and doesn’t see a lick of punishment for it because he had “reasonable fear for his life” when he saw i had a gun too. that’s just crazy. an attacker should not be able to claim self defense against people defending themselves from HIM.
@ashley: In your hypothetical, how do you know the guy following you down the street is intent on raping you? It seems a little contrived, doesn’t it? If you pulled a gun on a guy for no apparent reason, then, yeah, it seems like you might be creating a pretty dangerous situation that could result in your own death at the hands of someone who interpreted your pulling a gun on him as an immediate threat to his life justifying his use of deadly force. Are Repulicans really encouraging their women to behave this way? If so, where are the all the dead bodies that must be piling up somewhere as a result?
Was he an actual member of the neighborhood watch, or just self-appointed? Also, the neighborhood watch were specifically *not* supposed to carry guns, as I recall.
First off, “their women?” Seriously? Secondly, yes, pro-gun Republicans frequently argue that arming women is the solution to rape. (Which, incidentally, doesn’t require a pile of bodies as proof. The fact that someone’s *encouraging* something doesn’t actually mean it’s happening.)
Also, self-defense with no duty to retreat pretty much means that, regardless of who threatened, stalked, or attacked whom, if there are no other witnesses, the person who shoots first is the one who can claim they were acting in self-defense, because the person who can dispute their side of the story is dead.
@KellyK: I don’t mean just encouraging woman to pack heat. I mean encouraging them to pull a gun on men who are simply following them. Encouraging people to own or carry gun doesn’t mean encouraging them to act recklessly or in a paranoid fashion every chance they get.
Also, note that in the Zimm case, whils GZ was packing heat the whole time, he didnt pull it on TM until the latter was on top of him and had already bashed his head multiple times. That’s a very diffrent scenario from the one described by the previous poster, where the lady just pulls a gun on a dude and then is shocked to find the dude responding with equivalent force.
@kelly again: Not recognizing self defense as a legal defense means someone who is attacked and can’t escape must either die or go to prison. Seems harsh, no? If someone jumped out of the bushes and attacked you, said “You’re going to die tonight,” and started to pound your head against a concrete sidewalk, and the only means you had to stop him was to shoot him, do you really think you’d deserve to go to prison for that?
Honestly, people seem to want GZ to go to prison just because he had a gun, forgetting that it was perfectly legal for him to be carrying it.
“In your hypothetical, how do you know the guy following you down the street is intent on raping you?”
if a man is following me carrying a gun, am i supposed to give him the benefit of the doubt? do i have to know that his intention is specifically rape, and not murder, or mugging, before i can defend myself with the gun the republicans have told me i should own for protection? or are the republicans framing me, and using me as a tool to support their gun agenda, uncaring of my fate?
rachel jeantel testified that trayvon martin said he was being followed over several phone calls. trayvon repeatedly said he was trying to lose the follower, and could not lose him. trayvon referred to zimmerman as a “creepy ass cracker”. describing him as creepy demonstrates that trayvon was receiving very negative vibes from the man following him. it is pretty clear if somebody is insistently following you armed with a deadly weapon, will not stop following you, and is sending out dangerous signals, it is more than reasonable to believe yourself in lethal danger. trayvon martin acted in self defense, but according to republicans he had no right to act in self defense, and his doing so justifies his death to them.
@ashley: OK, in your original hypothetical, there was no mention of the guy carrying a gun until after the lady with the purse pulled her gun. I would agree if the guy is following you while brandishing a gun, then taking out YOUR gun is more than reasonable. All you said originally was that the guy was “intent on raping me,” and it wasn’t clear how you could possibly have known that (or the fact that he was armed) simply from the fact you were being followed.
As for GZ and TM, I’m not clear on where you are getting your facts. There’s simply no evidence that GZ actually pulled out his weapon at any point in time prior to the sidewalk ass-kicking. And I see no justification for someone (TM) physically attacking another person, WHO HAD NOT DONE ANYTHING ILLEGAL, simply because he (TM) was picking up “negative vibes.” (Good luck with codifying that “negative vibes” provision into law, btw.)
As for TM’s supposed inability to “lose” the “cracker” Zimmerman, putting aside your reliance on testimony from Jeantel that I don’t think she gave and wouldn’t trust anyway given her admitted lies on the stand, you are ignoring the fact that Tm could have easily retreated to his father’s condo. Of course, he wasn’t required to do so — thanks to the very Stand Your Ground law that otherwise seems anathema to Trayvonistas. He could have retreated to the condo. He could have called 911. He could have simply approached GZ to find out what the problem was. Instead of any of the non-violent options, he jumped GZ, threatened to kill him, and starting bashing his head into the concrete. At least that’s all according to the evidence.
Why are drugs prosecutions bogus? I get that you disagree with the law. Is that all you are saying. You are not claiming that they are actually bogus are you?
well i was comparing the situation to trayvon’s, in which the pursuer had a gun, so i assumed it would understood to be the case but i was not explicit, nevertheless, if somebody is following you without a gun, and you are armed to protect yourself, there is a very good chance you will pull out the gun threateningly to warn them off. at no point is it necessary to shoot to accomplish the goal of warning a pursuer away, and it would almost never come to that. and virtually the only case a person would shoot YOU if they also carried a gun, is if they HAD been a threat to you in the first place, otherwise they would put their hands up and announce “don’t shoot, i’m not meaning to harm you.”
in trayvon’s case, zimmerman himself told the dispatcher trayvon was running away from him, and that he was following him, so that is not “unreliable” jeantel’s testimony, it is the dispatcher’s record. so clearly zimmerman was acting like a threat, and trayvon understood him to be a threat. trayvon may or may not have seen the gun, but he didn’t need to, as zimmerman’s actions conveyed that he was up to no good. who gets out of a vehicle and starts chasing a person? how could any reasonable person not read that as a threat to their safety? and i have a hard time believing that you are more interested in policing a 17-year-old kid’s terrified response to a grown man much larger than him chasing him, than to the fact that zimmerman decided to threaten the kid in the first place. and do i think martin, 100 pounds lighter than zimmerman, was a true threat to zimmerman, who zimmerman could not have subdued without using his gun? no. not at all. i do not believe whatsoever that shooting trayvon was a legitimate last-resort self-defense response, even if zimmerman was not the agressor.
“in trayvon’s case, zimmerman himself told the dispatcher trayvon was running away from him, and that he was following him, so that is not “unreliable” jeantel’s testimony, it is the dispatcher’s record. so clearly zimmerman was acting like a threat, and trayvon understood him to be a threat. ”
With all due respect, that’s not an accurate characterization of the evidence. GZ made it clear he was only following at a distance in order to keep an eye on TM’s whereabouts until police arrived. He wasn’t chasing him. The difference is that, when you are chasing someone, you’re trying to catch them.
As for TM’s reaction, common sense suggests he should have recognized the difference between being followed and watched from a distance and being actively chased as happens in, for example, in “The French Connection.” Whether he felt threatened, we simply do not know. It’s entirely possible he just resented the attention. Perhaps he figured it was racial. Perhaps he figured it was because he was a teenager. Perhaps he thought GZ was a pervert. However, it doesn’t follow from any of those surmises that TM felt physically threatened by GZ. That’s all speculation on your part.
” trayvon may or may not have seen the gun, but he didn’t need to, as zimmerman’s actions conveyed that he was up to no good.”
Well, there’s no evidence he saw the gun, right? The only evidence in the case is that it would have been impossible for him to see the gun, because it was holstered and concealed. Presumably you agree that cases should be decided on the evidence and not on fantasy or speculation. If so, for these purposes, we have to assume TM did not know GZ was armed. (Which, btw, might explain why he thought it was safe to attack him with his fists.)
” who gets out of a vehicle and starts chasing a person? ”
Again, he wasn’t “chasing” TM, he was following him from a distance. And as to who does that, I would suggest that following a suspicious individual so as to be able to point him out to police who are en route to the scene is not exactly a radical departure from observed behavioral norms. This is what concerned homeowners, neighbors, and homewatch volunteers do when they see something suspicious taking place in their communities.
“how could any reasonable person not read that as a threat to their safety?”
How is being followed from a distance by an apparently unarmed individual a threat to one’s safety? At most, it’s a cause for concern, which concern presumably could be addressed by going to one’s father’s condo, calling 911, or peaceably inquiring as to why one is being followed.
” and i have a hard time believing that you are more interested in policing a 17-year-old kid’s terrified response to a grown man much larger than him chasing him, than to the fact that zimmerman decided to threaten the kid in the first place.”
I can barely make sense of this, but would point out that you are tossing out a bunch of speculative assertions as if they were proven facts. (a) There’s no evidence or reason to think TM was “terrified.” (b) GZ had no way of knowing TM was 17 years old. (c) GZ was not “much larger than” TM. That’s just factually false (although the fact you cite GZ’s supposed size advantage suggests that you really do understand that TM did not see GZ’s holstered weapon: If TM knew GZ was armed, I doubt any physical size difference would have mattered much to him). (d) GZ wasn’t “chasing” TM. and (e) GZ didn’t “decide to threaten” TM. That simply never happened, and I don’t understand how anyone remotely conversant with the facts of the case could honestly discern any evidence of GZ’s making threats against TM.
” and do i think martin, 100 pounds lighter than zimmerman, was a true threat to zimmerman, who zimmerman could not have subdued without using his gun? no. not at all.”
You are ignoring the fact that TM launched an unprovoked physical attack on GZ, got him on the ground, straddled him, was punching him in the fact “MMA style,” and was banging his head against the concrete. Sure, GZ weighed 185 lbs. vs. TM’s 158 lbs. (a difference of 27 lbs., not 100 as you claim), but obviously the weight difference alone wouldn’t automatically give the physical advantage to guy who was pinned to the ground getting his head smashed, at least not in the REAL world that most of us are concerned with.
” i do not believe whatsoever that shooting trayvon was a legitimate last-resort self-defense response, even if zimmerman was not the agressor.”
Clearly, you don’t. The question is why you don’t, given the evidence in the case. Perhaps it’s because, in your mind, the black guy can only be the victim in any given situation. Perhaps it’s because you think that guns are so intrinsically evil that even the LAWFUL carrying and use of a gun should result in a lengthy prison term. Perhaps you just don’t like Hispanics and think they should be convicted of whatever charges are brought against them regardless of the evidence. Perhaps you are so angry and resentful toward people you disagree with politically that you can only see this case in terms of which side, politically, you want to see “win.” I don’t know what’s behind your thinking here, but I find it disturbing.
Conrad, you seem to be assuming that every uncorroborated detail of Zimmerman’s story – for instance, that “TM launched an unprovoked physical attack on GZ,” and that GZ kept his distance from TM – is true beyond doubt. Why are you assuming that Zimmerman’s account is entirely true, especially when we know he’s a liar? (Nor does Zimmerman’s account of the fight, which you’re discussing as if it were verified fact, seem very plausible.)
As I’ve said, if I were on the jury I’d vote for “not guilty” – I think there’s reasonable doubt here. But your unwillingness to consider that Zimmerman, who clearly is a liar, might not have been telling the complete unvarnished truth is bizarre.
Finally, let’s look at this paragraph:
This is a lengthy paragraph that consists of nothing but speculating that another comment-writer here has secret, hidden, evil motivations. Don’t do that here; the purpose of this blog is not to provide a space for comment-writers to make personal attacks on each other.
I’m not assuming that every uncorroborated detail of GZ’s account is true beyond any doubt. But, for these purposes, since the state has the burden of proof, I’m treating his account as dispositive to the extent that it’s uncontroverted. For example, the ONLY evidence as to who initiated the physical confrontation, as I understand it, is from GZ. There weren’t any other witnesses and the state hasn’t presented any evidence to show that GZ initially attacked TM and not the other way around. I recognize that it’s POSSIBLE, factually, that GZ hit TM first, but that’s not a reasonable conclusion based on the evidence presented. It certainly cannot be the case that a reasonable jury could conclude, beyond a reasonable doubt, that GZ initiated the altercation.
Which leads to your second point, i.e., my “personal attack” on another commenter. I’m sorry if you construed it as such, but my point was simply to challenge the other commenter to come to terms with the implications of her apparent refusal to deal with the actual evidence in a rational way. If someone makes assertions such as GZ had a 100-lb. weight advantage over TM, or that GZ had “decided to threaten” TM, where neither assertion is remotely warranted by the evidence, then I’m just at a loss to understand what’s motivating that person’s assertions. Perhaps I shouldn’t have spelled out any unflattering possibilities, but frankly, I can’t think of any possibilities that would be flattering. I guess I was hoping that the commenter would realize — especially if she ever finds herself on a jury — that there are serious issues at stake and one shouldn’t base a decision on whether someone should spend the rest of his life in jail on baseless speculation, bias, etc. My apologies.
Conrad, to move from this (emphasis added by me):
to this:
is a MAJOR shifting of goalposts. The latter is a reasonable (although still arguable – juries are allowed to consider credibility, and it is not true that no reasonable jury could fail to find Zimmerman’s story credible) statement; the former is simply a disputed part of Zimmerman’s story, which you
falselytreated as if it were known and indisputable “fact.”Exactly right – and even more, you shouldn’t have dedicated an entire paragraph to spelling out your insulting speculations about the state of another commentator’s mind. Saying “but my motives were good” is not a good enough reason, in this forum. Please keep that in mind in the future. Thanks!
I don’t think I’ve moved the goalposts at all. I have made it clear all along that I’m talking about the evidence in the case as the relevant frame of reference. I refer to that as a “fact,” because, FOR THESE PURPOSES, it should be treated as a fact. If it’s relevant and if the state can’t/doesn’t refute it, it should be treated as a fact by the jury, unless there is some fairly compelling reason to regard Zimm as a completely discredited witness. Even then, however, it would never be OK for a jury simply to assume the OPPOSITE of what GZ had testified. (IOW, if the state introduces zero evidence on the issue of who hit whom first, the defense introduces GZ’s statements that it was TM, and the state purports to impeach GZ credibility as a witness, that still wouldn’t justify the conclusion that GZ hit TM first).
Conrad – are you suggesting that in all criminal cases, juries must always believe anything the defendant as fact unless there is evidence to the contrary? I don’t think that’s a commonly accepted legal standard.
Sorry, missing the word ‘says’ up there after “anything the defendant”
Would documentation of Zimmerman lying be a fairly compelling reason to either regard him as completely discredited or not credible? Keeping in mind, of course, that we are not restricted to discussing this as if we were members of the jury at his trial and, therefore, able to consider evidence outside of that presented at trial. Which, I believe, is what those you have been responding to are doing.
It’s truly weird, from where I sit and read, that you have, over the course of quite a few comments, been insisting that we can only discuss the case by pretending we’re on the jury. We aren’t on the jury. We aren’t restricted by the existence of a jury to pretending that we’re on that jury. We are perfectly capable of discussing what we would do if we were on that jury and discussing why we think that justice will or will not be served. As Amp has done. It’s not either/or.
Do I need to accept, for example, that OJ Simpson is not guilty of the murders of which he was accused? Does the prosecutor’s horrible attempt at trial determine whether or not Simpson was guilty? No it does not. I am perfectly capable of thinking both that the jury came to the correct verdict and that Simpson got away with murder(s). I’m pretty sure that I’ll come to the same conclusion about Zimmerman.
I’m having a hard time understanding your point, Conrad.
@EZ: No, the jury doesn’t have to believe what any particular witness says. They can discount it provided there’s a reason to discount it (i.e., they shouldn’t discount it arbitrarily or for some baseless reason, e.g., “I don’t trust Hispanics to tell the truth.”
However, at most, the jury can NOT credit the witness’s testimony. It can’t make the leap that, if they think a witness who says “the light was red” is not a credible witness, that in fact the light was green. If the other side has the burden of proving that the light was green, they have to come up with some affirmative evidence to that effect. They can’t satisfy that burden simply by putting a “the-light-was-red” witness on the stand and then demonstrating that THAT person is a liar, and ergo the light was green.
In this case, I don’t believe the state presented any evidence, and I don’t think any existed, that GZ threw the first punch or otherwise instigated the physical altercation. All we have is GZ testimony. Call him a liar, and what you’re left with is simply no evidence on the issue. There’s still no affirmative basis for the claim that GZ threw the first punch, as some people here seem to believe.
One name? Sure. Officer Johannes Mehserle shot an unarmed black man named Oscar Grant in the back as he lay on the ground, killing him. On November 5, 2010, Mehserle was sentenced to two years. With double credit for time served, he was released on June 13, 2011. He served 7 months, 8 days post-sentencing and only 367 days overall.
This was something of a victory. The men who murdered Amadou Diallo were never punished at all.
You can find another 20 names and cases here. There are plenty more.
The fact that you think you’re qualified to discuss this case while being apparently ignorant of all this is absolutely stunning. Robert is on the right, and though he now identifies as libertarian, he has traditionally voted Republican … but he knows the history here.
What almost all of these have in common – and what they’ve got in common with the George Zimmerman case – is that in our culture, black men are perceived as more threatening and dangerous than white men. That perceived threat, in the absence of any weapon, in the absence of threatening behavior, is what is used to justify everything from lethal force to following a kid down the street, disobeying orders from the authorities, and confronting him.
There’s a reason there isn’t a spate of unarmed blonde 16 year old girls being shot dead in the street. There’s a reason that, if it had been an unarmed blonde 16 year old girl George Zimmerman shot and killed, I doubt we’d be seeing the rousing defense of his right to confront an unarmed teenager with a gun.
—Myca
@ jake: I agree we are not restricted to talking about this as if we are jurors. However, whether we have any formal role to play in the controversy or not, we are citizens. We all purport to care about justice. I don’t think it’s just OK to advocate the conviction and incarceration of a fellow citizen based on rampant speculation, bias, etc., simply because we are on the internet. I guess it comes down to how seriously one takes these issues or whether this is all just for our personal amusement.
Furthermore, I don’t think that all of the factual issues I have taken up with other commenters really depend on whether or not one is approaching the discussion as jurors would (should). For example, the claim that GZ was 100 lbs. heavier than TM is false any way you look at it. If someone is openly touting that fact as a reason why we here should all regard GZ as deserving of conviction and a life sentence, then I think it’s appropriate to speak up and point out the falsity of that statement. I don’t think it’s much of an answer to say, “well, sure, but we’re not jurors, so what difference does it make if it was 100 lbs. or just 27?” I guess the problem I have with that is that, while we don’t have to be serious, intellectually honest people here because this is just an internet forum, GZ in fact is a real person with a real wife and a real family.
As for whether proven lies would be a legitimate reason to discredit a witness’s testimony, of course it would. However, again, it wouldn’t justify the inference that, with respect to anything the witness said, the exact opposite thing must be true.
Myca, I’d bring a little different focus to the cases you cited and say that they are examples of cops being able to use inappropriate force against civilians and get away with it. Yeah, there’s racial animus in there as well (at least anecdotally I’d guess more fatal incidents involve minorities) but we’ve seen plenty of examples here in Chicago of young white men and women getting the $h!t kicked out of them by cops (at the least). There was a famous case here in Chicago just recently when a white female bartender refused to serve a drunk cop and got the crap beaten out of her by him for it. Other cops in the bar did not intervene. The only reason that he got punished was that there was a video camera in the bar that caught the whole thing and then got broadcast on TV.
The person who told George Zimmerman not to follow Trayvon Martin was a civilian employee of the city who had no authority to order Zimmerman to do or not to do anything.
Myca:
This has some truth to it:
But that doesn’t mean that this is true in this case:
You’re making the presumption that the reason George Zimmerman kept an eye on Trayvon Martin and eventually stopped and questioned him is that Martin was black. It’s a presumption that everyone who seems to have prejudged Zimmerman’s guilt has made. But there’s no direct evidence of that. And there’s plenty of evidence that Zimmerman has kept an eye on a lot of people, questioned their presence and even called the cops on a bunch of them. The fact that racism exists and that it’s been the cause of a lot of bad things happening to black people does not mean that since a bad thing happened to a black person in this case that the motive was racism.
Conrad:
I don’t mean just encouraging woman to pack heat. I mean encouraging them to pull a gun on men who are simply following them. Encouraging people to own or carry gun doesn’t mean encouraging them to act recklessly or in a paranoid fashion every chance they get.
I don’t think many of the people encouraging women to carry* guns to prevent rape have explicitly encouraged them to pull a gun on men unless they’re sure that the men intend to rape them. What I have seen pointed out, as a criticism of the idea that “women should carry guns” is a good way to stop rape, is that if women wait until they’re sure that a man following them intends to rape them–or even if they wait until a man following them grabs them by the arm or shoulder–the risk of the gun being used against them becomes rather high. So maybe Ashley is criticizing this because she sees it as the only way for a woman to use a gun in self-defense against a rapist that is likely to be effective.
*keeping a gun in the house to defend against home invasions is more likely to work, I think, if only because hostile intent is clear before there is any physical contact with another person.
No, I’m not.
George Zimmerman kept an eye on Trayvon Martin and eventually stopped and questioned him because he perceived Trayvon Martin as dangerous. I think that his perception of Martin as dangerous was influenced by Martin’s race, but saying that isn’t the same as accusing him of racism.
Here comes the science:
I swear to god, nobody is as interested in pinpointing who is and isn’t racist as conservatives. This isn’t about ‘personal virtue,’ it’s not about pointing fingers, it’s about a systemic inequality that makes the lives of black men worth less, and it’s about trying to take that seriously and change it.
—Myca
@ closetpuritan: It could be that the best reason to encourage women to arm themselves is the overall deterrent effect on the criminal population if they know that more and more women are carrying guns.
@ Myca: I appreciate that you provided a purported example of an unarmed black man was “shot dead in the street,” but the case you cite was a case of police misconduct against an arrestee. I thought the point you were trying to make was that unarmed black members of the general public were being routinely killed by non-black members of the general public and the “system” was basically looking the other way.
Yes, I understand that you read what you wanted to read into my post. What I said was:
Your response was:
Would you like some more PARTICULAR cases?
You need to not do that. An unarmed black man was shot dead. Shot in the back, while lying on the ground. It’s on video. There’s nothing ‘purported’ about it.
—Myca
“I doubt we’d be seeing the rousing defense of his right to confront an unarmed teenager with a gun.”
Is there any evidence whatsoever that GZ confronted TM with a gun?
He had a gun, and confronted an unarmed teenager. I’m not implying that he had the gun out and in Trayvon Martin’s face.
Well, I guess he showed her.
—Myca
Uh, yes you are. That phrasing explicitly says what you say it doesn’t. “Confronted with a gun” and “confronted, while in possession of a gun which eventually came into play with tragic results” are starkly distinct ways of phrasing it. One is rhetorically useful to you and the other is not; you used the one which is rhetorically useful.
But inaccurate.
The talking point on this and other blogs consistently is that Zimmerman was getting his head “bashed” against the sidewalk. I’ve seen the pictures, that sure doesn’t look like bashing to me. My children get worse scrapes tripping on the playground. Does he have some wounds? Of course. But, they sure look pretty minor. (Of course, a jury could disagree.) For me, that raises the question about the reasonableness of this and other similar laws. What if Martin had a gun? Could he have shot Zimmerman since he had a fear he was being stalked? Would Martin have had to been hit first? How much hitting is required before you can shoot? If they both had guns and shot each other, would neither of them go to prison if they had both survived? These types of laws make me fear that we are heading for the good ole’ days of the Wild Wild West. And I’m not a very good gunslinger.
@77: “We have a situation where over and over, year after year, unarmed young black men committing no crime are shot dead in the streets and the people who killed them walk away with a slap on the wrist.”
I don’t really get your point in making this statement. You’re calling this a “situation” as if there is some kind of systematic scheme underway that makes it legally OK for people to shoot young, unarmed men “on the street” provided those unarmed young men are black. The implication is that there’s overt racial discrimination in how that specific category of cases is handled under our legal system.
Even if I stipulate that there have been specific cases in which the killers of young, black men were allowed to walk away with only a slap on the wrist, how does the number of those cases compare to those in which a young, black man was killed and (a) nobody was caught at all, or (b) the killer got a lengthy prison sentence? I would have to think the numbers are pretty small. Isn’t the greater societal scandal the sheer number of young blacks being killed on the streets, period? What is the point of your focus on the relatively rare case in which the known killers get off with just a slap on the wrist?
Of course, if we just focus on the overall number of young blacks being killed on the street, we would have to acknowledge that about 90% of those murders are committed by other blacks.
It seems important to a lot of Trayvonistas to make the GZ case about some larger grievance against I’m-not-sure-who-exactly (Whites? Hispanics? Police investigators? Gun-owners? Homewatch volunteers?) You seem intent on lumping the case into a purported phenomenon in which the justice system is simply OK with slayings of unarmed black youths. But if this specific case really IS simply one more example of that ho-hum, everyday phenomenon, why is the case getting so much attention nationally?
Isn’t it possible that the GZ case simply doesn’t have anything to say to us about race, the “system,” or any larger social issue? Why can’t it just be about about two individuals and the decisions they made, without having to serve as validation for whatever larger observations people want to make about society?
(For example, there has been a ton of attention paid to the fact that TM was wearing a hoodie; but what evidence is there that this had anything to do with the incident? This was a clear attempt by people completely unconnected to the event deciding to make the killing about something THEY wanted to talk about, and not let the specific facts of the case speak for themselves. I think the word for that is “exploitation.”)
What I have seen pointed out, as a criticism of the idea that “women should carry guns” is a good way to stop rape, is that if women wait until they’re sure that a man following them intends to rape them–or even if they wait until a man following them grabs them by the arm or shoulder–the risk of the gun being used against them becomes rather high.
A better criticism is the fact that rapists are generally at least an acquaintance of the woman’s. Carrying a gun around against Stranger Dude is not going to help you much if your rapist drops a drug into your beer at a party, or is your husband, say.
Just because a gun may not be of use in every situation is no reason not to have it in those situations where it would be of use.
@81: The cuts may appear small, but there was medical testimony that in order to get cuts like that FROM BASHING, the impacts on the head would be pretty substantial. GZ could easily been killed or suffered serious brain injury from that kind of beating.
Ms. Cynical,
My understanding is that Zimmerman saw Martin, but then lost him. Martin then suddenly jumped out of the bushes and attacked Zimmerman (that creepy ass cracker).
I’m just curious, but how long would you let your own personal head be bashed into the sidewalk – not knowing what is going to happen next – before you would use any strong force available against the assailant to get him off you? I mean you personally, not your judgement of what someone else should do.
Sometimes if you’ve been in a similar situation, you have a little more empathy.
This sounds off-topic, but it’s really not: When I was in high school, I had a job at a fast-food place with a girl in my class. She was heavily in favor of high taxation for societal good, and she pictured people with (what she thought) unlimited means being taxed. Like her father. He could probably pay 90% without breaking a sweat.
So at the job, she was expecting to buy some nice clothes with her first paycheck. She even had the clothes picked out. This was decades ago when low-earning people actually paid some income tax, and her first paycheck was way below what she had expected because of all the various deductions. She was really upset. Now she was being taxed – herself. Moral of the story: She just quit and her dad bought her the clothes she had picked out.
But in this case, if you are violently attacked out of the blue – so substantially that you think that if you lose consciousness that may be it (you die) – you may feel differently if it’s happening TO YOU. You may feel intense panic. Other people may have the same reaction as YOU.
Seriously? “Trayvonistas?” “Purported?” Look, dude: if you don’t understand the racial differences (and class differences) in the justice system, then you really need to do a bit of reading. The differences in treatment are well documented facts; they aren’t speculative fiction.
Pleeeeeeease tell me you didn’t just call “slayings of unarmed black youths” a “ho-hum, everyday phenomenon…?” I’m sorta amazed you’re still posting on Alas.
Luck. Every now and then a few select cases happen to be picked up on as a national phenomenon. That’s rare. Most injustice simply gets ignored or swept under the rug. And of course it doesn’t usually get reported, because the only available reporters for things like, say, “police beating up black kids” are the people who are doing it.
Even if it gets reported by a third party, most reports are similarly ignored, swept under the rug, or, occasionally, actively suppressed. And the media doesn’t really care. I mean, if they covered all the cases of government misconduct it would be all they wrote about.
@88: “Pleeeeeeease tell me you didn’t just call “slayings of unarmed black youths” a “ho-hum, everyday phenomenon…?” I’m sorta amazed you’re still posting on Alas.”
You don’t have to agree with me. You don’t have to like me. But please don’t flat-out misrepresent what I’m saying. Go back and read post 41. Myca wrote: “We have a situation where over and over, year after year, unarmed young black men committing no crime are shot dead in the streets and the people who killed them walk away with a slap on the wrist. ”
So, it was HER implication that this is a common event that takes place all the time without anybody doing much about it . I actually disputed that point with her (i.e., how common those cases really are). That’s clear from my comments. Yet, you take the hypothetical premise of my question, “IF this is a ho-hum, everyday phenomenon, . . . ” and you affirmatively ascribe that believe — which I’ve already made clear I disagree with — and try to pin it on me as some, sinister, deeply-held personal conviction justifying, what, that I should banned from this site?!!
Seriously, dude?
Ms. Cynical:
Mythago: True, although that seemed less relevant to wbat Ashley was trying to say. But maybe good to bring up anyway.
No, which is why I never said self-defense should not be a legal defense, just that it should have some limits. Otherwise you can literally start a fight with someone stronger than you, and then shoot them with impunity when you’re losing. If you’re the one who starts the fight, or the one who escalates it, a defense of self-defense should be viewed with a certain amount of suspicion and a hell of a lot of questions. That’s all.
KellyK,
Yes. and in this case, Zimmerman absolutely did provoke the situation. He was warned not to, and he went ahead and provoked it anyway. And now someone’s dead.
I’m not generally a big believer in deterrence theories of punishment, but in this case I think Zimmerman needs to be found guilty of *something* for the exemplary value as much as anything else. If he’s acquitted, lots more Travon Martins will end up being killed.
@92: I’m just not clear on what you mean by “limits.” First, there are already “limits” on self-defense: you can’t just claim self-defense and then automatically avoid conviction, regardless of the evidence and the circumstances.
As for whether someone who starts a fight should be precluded from claiming self-defense, I think it would be difficult to make hard and fast rules that would produce the results you wanted in every circumstance.
Besides which, I’m not sure it’s the legal standards concerning self-defense that makes the TM-GZ case so difficult for people. I think it has more to do the issue of not knowing exactly what happened (i.e., lack of eyewitnesses).
@93: Not sure what you mean by “provoked the situation.” How — by calling the police?
Mainly I disagree with your suggestion that GZ ‘needs” to be found guilty of “something.” I think people should only be guilty of breaking laws, and then only if there’s proof of that beyond a reasonable doubt. Just sending people off to prison because you think they “need” to be convicted of “something” sounds sort of totalitarian to me. YMMV.
Conrad @84: “This may be of use” is different from “this should be the focus of the discussion”. We teach people not to store oily rags in the garage, but not to the exclusion of teaching them to keep matches away from children.
Re Zimmerman, there was also medical testimony that his injuries were superficial.
If I shoot 1000 rounds at you with a machine gun, but miss with 999 of them and the 1000th just nicks the tip of your earlobe, your injury is superficial. But I attempted to kill you. If (as testified) TM was bashing GZ’s head against the pavement, that is not a trivial assault; GZ being strong enough to keep himself from being badly injured by it doesn’t let TM off the hook, anymore than TM dodging the bullet and having his earlobe nicked would absolve GZ of pulling the trigger.
Hector:
Provoked as in “annoyed someone” != provoked as in “incited to violence”. He may have done the former. There is no evidence he did the latter.
By someone who had no more authority to warn or advise than I do.
See above. There is no evidence that Zimmerman did anything to give Martin a legal reason to assault him.
The question before the court is not whether someone’s dead, but whether it is beyond reasonable doubt that Zimmerman is guilty of murder or manslaughter.
This is an outrageous statement. The job before the jury is to determine whether or not George Zimmerman committed murder or manslaughter, not to convict him of “something” as an “example”. God help us all if that’s what American courts turn into.
Alternatively, lots more Trayvon Martins will be more polite towards George Zimmermans.
mythago:
My understanding of the legal standard is that you can use deadly force in self-defense if you are in reasonable fear of serious injury, not that you have to wait until you have already been seriously injured. Presuming that the only eyewitness is correct and Trayvon Martin was on top of George Zimmerman, how many times would Martin have to bash Zimmerman’s head into the concrete before Zimmerman was justified in firing his weapon? What would happen if the next blow rendered Zimmerman unconscious? Or dead?
Robert, if I nick your earlobe with my fingernail while trying to punch you, can you then say “this is the same kind of injury I would get if you shot at me with a machine gun and missed, therefore clearly I was shooting at you with a machine gun?” The point is that the ‘medical evidence’ Conrad refers to is disputed.
RonF, please see above. Again, the issue is not that Zimmerman managed to escape the worst of a murderous assault.
Mythago, your argument presumes that it is known that the actual assault did not put GZ into danger of serious injury or death. But that is not in fact known. To extend your metaphor, we don’t know if the nick on GZ’s earlobe was caused by a fingernail or a machine gun bullet. The burden is not on GZ to prove it was a machine gun bullet – the burden is on the prosecutor to prove it was a fingernail.
It does seem to me that is the defense’s contention. And if I understand the law correctly, all they have to do is establish that it’s reasonably possible.