Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Actually, he absolutely CAN be tried in a civil court by Trayvon's parents- sued for "wrongful death" or whatever the legal term might be. However, I heard rumors that Martin's parents are not considering this - at least not at this time.
Maybe. It depends on what the court says about it. No one can say for sure until the courts says yes or no. Some people think they will say yes, others think they will say no. In other words, no one really knows.
I would think they can. I'm sorry, I should have been more clear. The news stories of this terrible incident seem to portray the unrest as a white vs black issue, which is not accurate. But accurate or not, that is the theme.
No, you don't understand. It isn't a white versus black issue, and hasn't been portrayed that way. It has been portrayed as yet another example of how black people, particularly young black men, are treated in our society...and the American justice system (run by white people) over the centuries.
the only reason obama brought the trial back is because they are both black
it just makes my whole country look like a joke.
So the president can just do whatever he wants because hes the president?
And every body supports this opinion
Am I missing something here, I haven't followed the case that closely but I don't think Obama had anything to do with how or why this case was tried. Can someone fill me in or is this just a case of misinformation?
You're completely correct. Heyimacrab's post baffles me.
Something to think about. This article reinforces my personal theory that this case ONLY got to court as a means to appease the outcry from blacks (and others). There was never any intent to apply color-blind "justice". It was a sham court.
The prosecution threw the fight, and did a horrific job of presenting alternative narratives to Zimmerman's story, and they did nothing to "protect" the victim here (Trayvon Martin) from being demonized as an "angry, aggressive black MAN" instead of the 17 yr old TEENAGER he was. Shameful. A disgraceful display of insincerity and *intentional* incompetence of the prosecution .
Somewhat surprisingly to me, the jury didn't find there to be sufficient evidence that Zimmerman was guilty of murder, although I personally feel there was enough to at least convict him of manslaughter (which was an option). In any case, I think it's hard to deny that Zimmerman is responsible for Trayvon Martin's death since he followed him around, despite being told not to by the police dispatcher, and then shot him. A lot of people are saying that Zimmerman had a right to defend himself (assuming Martin attacked Zimmerman without provocation), but I think that Martin, a black youth, had a right not to be stalked by an armed stranger, as well as a right to defend himself from said stranger, which is why I hope someone files a civil suit against Zimmerman. And I hope that this incident, along with any subsequent civil suit, will help open up a broader discussion about everything from the dangers of Stand Your Ground laws to the racism that still exists in our society and the types of things non-whites have to endure that whites often don't despite claims that we now live in a post-racial society.
A lot of people are saying that Zimmerman had a right to defend himself (assuming Martin attacked Zimmerman without provocation), but I think that Martin, a black youth, had a right not to be stalked by an armed stranger, as well as a right to defend himself from said stranger...
This. ^^^^^
And "Stand Your Ground" laws totally undermine such rights as well as feed the minds of people already paranoid. It does not point the way to a healthy society.
... And "Stand Your Ground" laws totally undermine such rights as well as feed the minds of people already paranoid. ...
How true!
We already have self defense laws. They're sufficient.
And talk about paranoia, it's interesting as I read the forums here in Colorado that the same people who think the Zimmerman verdict was correct, tend to be the people who are in an uproar here in favor of gun rights...and fracking...and no immigration reform...I could go on. And you hit the nail on the head -- it's a mindset of paranoia about virtually every national issue.
There are more articles on the internet where he discusses the prosecution's strategy more thoroughly. It makes me wonder how the case ended up with these particular lawyers on the prosecution side. It makes me wonder if the case had gone differently, had better lawyers been on board.
Here's some interesting commentary on one of the prosecuting attorneys by a Harvard law professor who has experience in high profile cases himself:
Alan Dershowitz?... I have a hard time believing anything that guy ever says since he said waterboarding people is completely appropriate. Of course, not related to this case but his defense of torture methods really makes it hard to take him seriously on anything anymore!
I think it was wrong to have him not proven guilty, but what's almost as bad are those hoodlums who are running around burning flags, and rioting in the streets. What is that going to prove? That you can't be civil in dire times? Once again something bad happens in the US and people are going around rioting, or stealing, or doing something absurd and uncalled for.
I can't believe those numbskulls that are in California, burning the Californian flag, like it had anything to do with it.
Wth is wrong with people? They turn their anger and disbelief on people who have nothing to do with this. This is one of the reasons I don't watch or read the news. But of course I read one article and all I see are idiots doing idiotic things.
I think it was wrong to have him not proven guilty, but what's almost as bad are those hoodlums who are running around burning flags, and rioting in the streets. What is that going to prove? That you can't be civil in dire times? Once again something bad happens in the US and people are going around rioting, or stealing, or doing something absurd and uncalled for.
I can't believe those numbskulls that are in California, burning the Californian flag, like it had anything to do with it.
Wth is wrong with people? They turn their anger and disbelief on people who have nothing to do with this. This is one of the reasons I don't watch or read the news. But of course I read one article and all I see are idiots doing idiotic things.
Zimmerman is actually bi-racial, white and Peruvian to be exact.
I absolutely agree with the notion that Martin had the right to defend himself against an unidentified man who was following him. He had more right to self-defense than Zimmerman did, yet because he was not carrying a gun, that makes a difference. If Martin had had the gun, and felt threatened by Zimmerman following him, and shot/killed Zimmerman, what route would that trial have taken? Probably not the same as this one.
And yes, Martin's family absolutely can go to civil court over Martin's death. The burden of proof in wrongful death is far different than criminal court. But again, it wouldn't do much of anything for the family. Everyone already knows that Zimmerman was responsible for his death. Most of the reason the Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman (I think it was mostly Goldman's family) took OJ to civil court was because there was never anything saying "yes, OJ killed these people." That was a question up in the air after his acquittal, whereas it has never been up in the air with the Martin/Zimmerman case. The Goldman family wanted it on record somewhere, somehow, that yes, OJ Simpson was responsible for these deaths. They never expected to get any money out of him. They just wanted it out there. I don't think the Martin family would have anything at all to gain over going to civil court, but it's within their right to do so if they choose.
Also, getting a conviction in civil court at least hands down some punishment on the offender for causing the death. They can take every single asset they have to pay the court-ordered payment, and also it makes it harder for the killer to make money off his crime by selling books and made for tv movies.
Videos of rioting in Miami began circulating quickly after last night’s not guilty verdict in the George Zimmerman murder trial. But there was no riot in Miami.
The conservative media were beating the riot drum all week. Fox News host Bill O’Reilly asked his guests if a not guilty verdict would trigger rioting. The conservative Washington Times polled its readers, and 74% said there would be riots. The self-styled National Liberty Foundation offered a how-to-survive the riots post that includes a potpourri of conspiracy theories about the Department of Justice, New Black Panther Party, and Russian troops being brought into the U.S. to put whites in FEMA camps. And at The Other McCain, Robert Stacy McCain made this boldly racist prediction:
So it was hardly surprising that a video of a riot in Miami began circulating on Twitter within two hours after the verdict was announced last night.
Except there was no riot in Miami. The video was from the 2011 Stanley Cup Riot in Vancouver, Canada. The debunked video has since been deleted, but that probably won’t matter.
Millions of guys jailed (and lives ruined) for minor drug offences is a greater injustice.
Your issue has nothing to do with the issue of this thread.
Sorry you didn't make the connection. Let me spell it out more clearly.
This case has raised issues about justice and race in America.
My point was that, despite the lynchmob/witch-hunt mentality whipped up by the Zimmerman case (and other cases like it) ... a greater racial injustice is perpetuated by the "war on drugs" which results in young black american men being the most incarcerated group in the world per capita.
If you want to help young black men, forget Zimmerman, change sentencing laws. State prosecutors are a far bigger menace to society than defence lawyers.
Millions of guys jailed (and lives ruined) for minor drug offences is a greater injustice.
Your issue has nothing to do with the issue of this thread.
Sorry you didn't make the connection. Let me spell it out more clearly.
This case has raised issues about justice and race in America.
My point was that, despite the lynchmob/witch-hunt mentality whipped up by the Zimmerman case (and other cases like it) ... a greater racial injustice is perpetuated by the "war on drugs" which results in young black american men being the most incarcerated group in the world per capita.
If you want to help young black men, forget Zimmerman, change sentencing laws. State prosecutors are a far bigger menace to society than defence lawyers.
I think you do a disservice to Trayvon Martin by bringing the drug issue into it.
I think it depends how the mention of drug use is intended. Daozen nevered said Trayvon was on drugs. Nor did he imply it. He simply presented an even worse example of profiling found in the war on drugs. I can see how it is a hot trigger to mention drugs with this case, but I think you could carefully consider that Daozen has good intentions and spound reasoning. As an example of Daozens position consider the difference in sentencing for crack (more black persons) and cocaine (more white persons).
I think it depends how the mention of drug use is intended. Daozen nevered said Trayvon was on drugs. Nor did he imply it. He simply presented an even worse example of profiling found in the war on drugs. I can see how it is a hot trigger to mention drugs with this case, but I think you could carefully consider that Daozen has good intentions and spound reasoning. As an example of Daozens position consider the difference in sentencing for crack (more black persons) and cocaine (more white persons).
I am very well aware of what you are saying.
But bringing side issues into any issue simply clouds the situation and makes a problem so big that it seems too large to deal with. It is no different than when Congress piles amendments on bills that are not directly related to the primary bill.
If you want to deal with the drug issue, fine, deal with it. If you want to deal with the problem of stand your ground laws, deal with it. If you want to deal with the problem of child pornography, deal with it. If you want to deal with the problem of the homeless, deal with it.
But as soon as you say you want to deal with the issue of drugs, stand your ground laws, child pornography, and the homeless, you begin to lose support for doing anything. I may want to deal with stand your ground, but not want to deal with the drug issue...you've just lost a huge group of people. Take one issue at a time.
A lot of people are saying that Zimmerman had a right to defend himself (assuming Martin attacked Zimmerman without provocation), but I think that Martin, a black youth, had a right not to be stalked by an armed stranger, as well as a right to defend himself from said stranger...
This. ^^^^^
And "Stand Your Ground" laws totally undermine such rights as well as feed the minds of people already paranoid. It does not point the way to a healthy society.
Stand your Ground in FL protected both Martin and Zimmerman. Had Martin owned a gun legally, he could have shot Martin and been defended for doing so under stand your ground. Neither side presented enough evidence, but the police did not have enough evidence to give the prosecution to convict Zimmerman, especially with Zimmerman's side well presented. So found a jury. That part is done, the Federal case of discrimination is still in the investigation phase, and the civil suit is still an open question mark.
Zimmerman was a coward to shoot young Martin, in my opinion. But he MIGHT have been physically weaker than Martin and Martin might have been fighting for both his rights to walk home and his life. Problem is, Zimmerman shot him, so we do not know what was going on in Martin's head. That in Florida, because of Stand Your Ground (which came to be when a father/mother/brother defending his home was convicted of manslaughter for killing an intruder who ended up lying partly outside the home and partially inside it-- this happened multiple times and across racial lines before Stand Your Ground was passed).
I live in Florida, get more news of Florida affairs than do non-Floridians, so know some things from more a close to the happening situation. Stand Your Ground was also passed because of folks being afraid to be neighborhood watch volunteers because they could not even legally defend themselves if attacked without being killed. There is no equivalent to justifiable manslaughter in Florida as there is in other states.
I think we need justifiable manslaughter laws, not Stand Your Ground, but that is my own opinion.
@vinylyn, I hear you. I had the same problem with a thread mixing up guru scandals, the legitimacy of Tibetan Buddhism as a stream, and a few other things. I posted my own new threads each with a clear topic. So yes, now I do see your point.
And yes, Martin's family absolutely can go to civil court over Martin's death. The burden of proof in wrongful death is far different than criminal court.
Floridian here. Not necessarily. Florida law is very different than the OJ case or any other case in some other state because of stand your ground law. It says
"A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force , unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer..."
If he were to invoke a stand your ground self defense claim, and the court agreed, he would be completely and totally immune from any civil action. If the court does not agree, it could go forward and I bet he would lose just like OJ did because as you said the proof requirements are much different.
But, the proof requirements are not the issue. The issue is the above mentioned immunity from civil action to begin with. They chose not to invoke the immunity and go to trial for the criminal matter. They have yet to hold a "stand your ground" hearing. If they do have the hearing next week and it's upheld, it would be completely impossible under FL law to go to civil court over it.
@vinylyn, I hear you. I had the same problem with a thread mixing up guru scandals, the legitimacy of Tibetan Buddhism as a stream, and a few other things. I posted my own new threads each with a clear topic. So yes, now I do see your point.
And, I do agree with you that the unfairness in drug laws needs to be addressed, as well...just separately.
I assure you my intention wasn't to do Mr Martin a disservice. I think it's a tragic, tragic case. Personally this Zimmerman guy seems like a bit of an a-hole, and the not-guilty verdict feels "wrong". BUT I think we need to respect the rule of law, and face the fact that a jury, with more information than any of us have, found him not guilty. (As others have mentioned, it may be different in a subsequent civil case where the burden of proof is lower - ie, balance of probability vs the criminal standard of beyond reasonable doubt).
However I think you also continue to miss the connection I have made between this case and the wider issue of blacks in prison, usually as a result of non-violent and/or drug-related offences. This issues are directly connected as issues of race + justice. I sincerely wish for justice for African Americans, but I think prosecutors are more of a menace than defenders. It's the same issue - race + justice - it just feels like a "side" issuer because race + justice spans so many things.
I understand that @seeker242 but it is still not automatic, the immunity still has to be invoked by a judge, and other than the civil suit possibility it could be charged as a civil rights case, as well. It doesn't seem likely that that would happen. But the family is still within their right to attempt to seek it if they so desire and if they are willing to take on the chance they will have to pay the legal bills for Zimmerman if he is granted immunity in a civil suit.
I didn't find out about the verdict until Sunday morning. When I read the news, while disappointed, I told myself, "This simply indicates that the world needs more compassion."
There appears to be some jumping to conclusions here. One is that the juror who is going to write the book has said that she is setting it up so she will not make money off the effort. Of course, I can't validate that, but it's been widely reported.
There appears to be some jumping to conclusions here. One is that the juror who is going to write the book has said that she is setting it up so she will not make money off the effort. Of course, I can't validate that, but it's been widely reported.
I could have sworn I saw that the juror backed out of the book deal now. I dunno. I don't own a TV nor subscribe to a good old fashioned newspaper, so I haven't followed the trial, other than the bits and pieces I've read here and there on the net, as well as from random people posting 140 character commentary or less on it. That's why I really don't like to give a total opinion on the matter. I wasn't there, I don't know all of the facts, and in the end the only "fact" that matters is that someone was killed by the hands of another, and now that man will forever be haunted by his actions. Both instances are quite sad and I feel for all involved. The only "opinion" I really have is what I mentioned before about the media. I just avoid news programming at all costs for the very reasons I've listed before in this thread.
As for the video I posted above, although I agree with a lot of what the nun said, I found some of her comments to be a bit... uncalled for (in terms of coming from a nun). I dunno. It may have just been me. But I was somewhat shocked at the few subtle jabs here and there. I didn't think they were needed. Otherwise I agree with the over all sentiment.
...in the end the only "fact" that matters is that someone was killed by the hands of another, and now that man will now forever be haunted by that fact. Both instances are quite sad and I feel for all involved. ...
As for the video I posted above, although I agree with a lot of what the nun said, I found some of her comments to be a bit... uncalled for. I dunno. It may have just been me. But I was somewhat shocked at the few subtle jabs here and there. I didn't think they were needed. Otherwise I agreed with the over all sentiment.
Yes, I too have some sympathy for George Zimmerman. Though not much. His life still has some possibilities, and what restriction his possibilities have was of his own doing. On the other hand, Trayvon has no life and no possibilities.
I agree, the video overall was reasonable, but there were places I sort of winced.
Yes, I too have some sympathy for George Zimmerman. Though not much. His life still has some possibilities, and what restriction his possibilities have was of his own doing. On the other hand, Trayvon has no life and no possibilities.
You are right. Martin has no life and no possibilities now as you've pointed out. However, my beliefs state that he will go on and be born into a new life once again, as we all will, until we reach enlightenment. Zimmerman, on the other hand, is going to be experiencing karmic hell, and he's going to wish he was dead. Again, both are very sad instances. I wouldn't want to have been either one of them that night.
I feel bad for everyone involved, especially the family members who are left behind to deal with this. Those who lost Trayvon, and those whose lives are in upheaval because they are related to Zimmerman. His whole family is getting death threats, and now a family member of some sort has come forward to say George Zimmerman molested her for several years. His hope at one point was to be a judge, and that's not going to happen. I'm not saying he should be able to just pick up and continue his life as normal, I'm just saying that his life will never be normal again, and neither will his wife or their marriage or his parents and so on. It's just a tragic situation all around that could have been prevented on several levels. Why didn't he warm Trayvon that he was going to shoot him and give him a chance to respond first? Lots of whys and what ifs that none of us know. Even though it is sad all around, I still am of the opinion that he should have been held legally responsible. As the man with the only weapon, he had the higher ground and had the option of making different choices multiple times that night.
Zimm's father is a magistrate. The role of the magistrate is to handle citations when they first come into the criminal justice system. This is why Zimm's 3 arrests have never been prosecuted, nor do they show up on his record. It looks like daddy put in the fix for sonny-boy. And there was an earlier molestation accusation that didn't go anywhere, either. So, now we know where that came from, thanks to @karasti.
Zimm did some community college work relating to criminal justice but failed or dropped out. Couldn't cut the mustard.
The juror who said she had a book deal seemed awfully familiar with Zimm in her interviews. She always referred to him as "George", and spoke in her interviews of "stand your ground", even though that never came up in the court case. I can't help but wonder if she might have been a "stealth" juror; a friend of the family, or maybe her husband (a lawyer) knew Zimm's father, the magistrate. We may never know, but there seemed to be something not quite right about how chummy her manner was when she spoke about Zimm. Given the apparent history of so many dropped charges or lost files from Zimm's earlier arrests, one can't help but wonder if the whole thing--the incompetent prosecutors, some friendly jurors, a judge who appeared to be out to get Zimmerman, but who grinned from ear to ear upon hearing the verdict--was a set-up. Either by Zimm's father who had all the connections within the system, or by a small community that has always stuck together since the days of the plantation system.
The thing that keeps popping up for me regarding this whole thing is this.
The ninth Bodhisattva precept: 9. A disciple of Buddha does not harbor ill-will but rather cultivates and encourages lovingkindness and understanding. The harboring of ill-will is a poison for individuals and for the community. Even more corrosive is the harboring of ideas of revenge.
There is an inordinate number of people who support, and agree with, Ted Nugent. Jeffrey did specify *some* Americans, not all, and that wouldn't be inaccurate. He's treated rather like a god in some aspects, by some groups of people, which is frightening.
I'm an American, but I find Nugent to be way off base hear ie inappropriate. If you like Nugent, then cool 'whatever floats your boat'. Nugent isn't the one who is responsible I just find his view inappropriate. As karasti pointed out I did say 'some'. Hey we are all deluded beings wandering samsara. Nugent is welcome to walk the earth; the more the merrier.
One thing that came from reading Nugent is to consider compassionately the stress to Zimmerman and his family. That is a real thing to suffer and it is as important as the victim of the altercation. Zimmerman has life in front of him and I wish him to find his way and perhaps even become a non-violent person or even Buddhist. Still I found Nugent inappropriate here:
I find that because first of all where is the evidence Trayvon was a delinquent? Second of all even if he were a delinquent Zimmerman couldn't have known that just by looking at him.
This:
if Trayvon Martin was a minor, then Trayvon Martin’s parents may be held liable for the emotional pain and suffering Mr. Zimmerman has been put through for the past 18 months, and surely for the rest of his life.
is also inappropriate because a young man is dead and thus pushing the blame to Trayvon's parents at a time when they are grieving their son puts less value on a human life than I would like to see. It's also unreasonable to have house arrest on your pre-eighteen children or to expect it.
@vinlyn, can you see where I am coming from? I'm sorry to have seemed to be laying blame on all Americans.
I just can't bear to read Ted Nugent because I already have a good idea of what it will say. Seeing the name "Ted Nugent" says enough. And the comments probably look even worse.
One thing that came from reading Nugent is to consider compassionately the stress to Zimmerman and his family. That is a real thing to suffer ...
Suffering brought on completely by his own actions.
Indeed. Yet there is Angulimala and so forth that show that vindication is possible and it is like the moon having come out from behind the clouds when an evil person takes up the path to compassion and enlightenment. I wish that for Zimmerman and his family.
Yes, but I don't think that means we withhold compassion, especially from his wife and family and the lawyers who had nothing to do with his decision and yet suffer for it. The rest of us still have to share a world with him, and while I disagree with his actions and the finding of him not guilty, reacting to him and his family (and the lawyers, judge and jurors) with violence and hatred only perpetuates the feelings that contributed to this issue to start with. If he and his family have to live in fear due to all the threats they have received, that does not make anyone any safer, quite the opposite.
Yes, but I don't think that means we withhold compassion, especially from his wife and family and the lawyers who had nothing to do with his decision and yet suffer for it. The rest of us still have to share a world with him, and while I disagree with his actions and the finding of him not guilty, reacting to him and his family (and the lawyers, judge and jurors) with violence and hatred only perpetuates the feelings that contributed to this issue to start with. If he and his family have to live in fear due to all the threats they have received, that does not make anyone any safer, quite the opposite.
Yes, his family I do have sympathy for...assuming they did not teach him to be racist.
Yes, his family I do have sympathy for...assuming they did not teach him to be racist.
I would feel sympathy for his family *especially* if they taught him to be a racist. How horrible it must be to live a life where you hate an entire group of people for no apparent reason other than your own fear and projections. What a miserable existence that must be. I mean, I suffer enough with my own problems of being angry at this person or jealous of that one or filled with desire for another. But just imagine how crippling it must be to live a life where you just lump everyone of a certain trait/characteristic/background/what-have-you together, and just feel hate and fear towards them for no justified reason, other than trying to grasp at some form of "happiness" in the guise of a superiority complex. What an awful, wasted life. Those are people who especially deserve love, patience, and compassion... those are the people we need to help and not turn away, thinking they are a lost cause or beneath us in terms of showing sympathy and compassion.
And, yes, there will be those who are fixed in their ways and just plain ignorant and dangerous with their fear/hate. All you can do for them is pray, I suppose, and hope that some day, in some lifetime, they will eventually experience peace and love.
We watched the movie "42" for family movie night tonight, and there was a part where Jackie Robinson and his wife stayed with someone in Sanford, FL and had to be shuttled away for fear of harm in the middle of the night. Sad to see that it seems some things never change in some areas of the country.
But overall I do agree with @SillyPutty, but emotionally sometimes I struggle. I know logically that I need to have even more compassion for those who are so hateful because I know it means they are suffering greatly. But sometimes it's so hard to keep that frame of mind when they are so cruel to others as a result of their suffering. With some people it comes easier for some reason (for example, I found it not very difficult to practice Tonglen and Metta meditations for the Boston bombers) yet I struggle with other people.
When we watched the movie, I was thankful that my kids didn't grasp entirely the importance of it. They have a hard time grasping the vitriol and language and the 10 year old especially doesn't entirely understand that this represents a period of time where that was common. Even more so, he doesn't understand yet that it still happens today. There is a scene in the movie where a white player tells Jackie "maybe someday we should all wear your # 42, then no one would tell us apart" as a joke and my 10 year old thought that would be awesome. To him, there is no difference and he didn't get the joke that obviously people would still notice Jackie was the only black man. People are just people to him, and I'm glad for that. But at the same time, it makes it that much harder to explain that that level of racism still exists.
Was Zimmerman truly racist? I really don't know. Some of the media reporting was actually fixed, that's why he is suing NBC, because what they put out there as his call to 911 was edited to make it sound worse than it was. It's one of the first impressions most people had of Zimmerman and so it sticks in our minds. But that doesn't make it accurate. Perhaps he is racist. I really don't know.
Comments
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alafair-burke/george-zimmerman-jury-instructions_b_3596685.html
Something to think about. This article reinforces my personal theory that this case ONLY got to court as a means to appease the outcry from blacks (and others). There was never any intent to apply color-blind "justice". It was a sham court.
The prosecution threw the fight, and did a horrific job of presenting alternative narratives to Zimmerman's story, and they did nothing to "protect" the victim here (Trayvon Martin) from being demonized as an "angry, aggressive black MAN" instead of the 17 yr old TEENAGER he was. Shameful. A disgraceful display of insincerity and *intentional* incompetence of the prosecution .
And "Stand Your Ground" laws totally undermine such rights as well as feed the minds of people already paranoid. It does not point the way to a healthy society.
We already have self defense laws. They're sufficient.
And talk about paranoia, it's interesting as I read the forums here in Colorado that the same people who think the Zimmerman verdict was correct, tend to be the people who are in an uproar here in favor of gun rights...and fracking...and no immigration reform...I could go on. And you hit the nail on the head -- it's a mindset of paranoia about virtually every national issue.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/07/14/alan_dershowitz_zimmerman_special_prosecutor_angela_corey_should_be_disbarred.html
There are more articles on the internet where he discusses the prosecution's strategy more thoroughly. It makes me wonder how the case ended up with these particular lawyers on the prosecution side. It makes me wonder if the case had gone differently, had better lawyers been on board.
Alan Dershowitz?... I have a hard time believing anything that guy ever says since he said waterboarding people is completely appropriate. Of course, not related to this case but his defense of torture methods really makes it hard to take him seriously on anything anymore!
I can't believe those numbskulls that are in California, burning the Californian flag, like it had anything to do with it.
Wth is wrong with people? They turn their anger and disbelief on people who have nothing to do with this. This is one of the reasons I don't watch or read the news. But of course I read one article and all I see are idiots doing idiotic things.
I absolutely agree with the notion that Martin had the right to defend himself against an unidentified man who was following him. He had more right to self-defense than Zimmerman did, yet because he was not carrying a gun, that makes a difference. If Martin had had the gun, and felt threatened by Zimmerman following him, and shot/killed Zimmerman, what route would that trial have taken? Probably not the same as this one.
And yes, Martin's family absolutely can go to civil court over Martin's death. The burden of proof in wrongful death is far different than criminal court. But again, it wouldn't do much of anything for the family. Everyone already knows that Zimmerman was responsible for his death. Most of the reason the Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman (I think it was mostly Goldman's family) took OJ to civil court was because there was never anything saying "yes, OJ killed these people." That was a question up in the air after his acquittal, whereas it has never been up in the air with the Martin/Zimmerman case. The Goldman family wanted it on record somewhere, somehow, that yes, OJ Simpson was responsible for these deaths. They never expected to get any money out of him. They just wanted it out there. I don't think the Martin family would have anything at all to gain over going to civil court, but it's within their right to do so if they choose.
Also, getting a conviction in civil court at least hands down some punishment on the offender for causing the death. They can take every single asset they have to pay the court-ordered payment, and also it makes it harder for the killer to make money off his crime by selling books and made for tv movies.
http://www.politicususa.com/2013/07/14/riot.html
This case has raised issues about justice and race in America.
My point was that, despite the lynchmob/witch-hunt mentality whipped up by the Zimmerman case (and other cases like it) ... a greater racial injustice is perpetuated by the "war on drugs" which results in young black american men being the most incarcerated group in the world per capita.
If you want to help young black men, forget Zimmerman, change sentencing laws. State prosecutors are a far bigger menace to society than defence lawyers.
But bringing side issues into any issue simply clouds the situation and makes a problem so big that it seems too large to deal with. It is no different than when Congress piles amendments on bills that are not directly related to the primary bill.
If you want to deal with the drug issue, fine, deal with it.
If you want to deal with the problem of stand your ground laws, deal with it.
If you want to deal with the problem of child pornography, deal with it.
If you want to deal with the problem of the homeless, deal with it.
But as soon as you say you want to deal with the issue of drugs, stand your ground laws, child pornography, and the homeless, you begin to lose support for doing anything. I may want to deal with stand your ground, but not want to deal with the drug issue...you've just lost a huge group of people. Take one issue at a time.
Zimmerman was a coward to shoot young Martin, in my opinion. But he MIGHT have been physically weaker than Martin and Martin might have been fighting for both his rights to walk home and his life. Problem is, Zimmerman shot him, so we do not know what was going on in Martin's head. That in Florida, because of Stand Your Ground (which came to be when a father/mother/brother defending his home was convicted of manslaughter for killing an intruder who ended up lying partly outside the home and partially inside it-- this happened multiple times and across racial lines before Stand Your Ground was passed).
I live in Florida, get more news of Florida affairs than do non-Floridians, so know some things from more a close to the happening situation. Stand Your Ground was also passed because of folks being afraid to be neighborhood watch volunteers because they could not even legally defend themselves if attacked without being killed. There is no equivalent to justifiable manslaughter in Florida as there is in other states.
I think we need justifiable manslaughter laws, not Stand Your Ground, but that is my own opinion.
"A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force , unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer..."
If he were to invoke a stand your ground self defense claim, and the court agreed, he would be completely and totally immune from any civil action. If the court does not agree, it could go forward and I bet he would lose just like OJ did because as you said the proof requirements are much different.
But, the proof requirements are not the issue. The issue is the above mentioned immunity from civil action to begin with. They chose not to invoke the immunity and go to trial for the criminal matter. They have yet to hold a "stand your ground" hearing. If they do have the hearing next week and it's upheld, it would be completely impossible under FL law to go to civil court over it.
I assure you my intention wasn't to do Mr Martin a disservice. I think it's a tragic, tragic case. Personally this Zimmerman guy seems like a bit of an a-hole, and the not-guilty verdict feels "wrong". BUT I think we need to respect the rule of law, and face the fact that a jury, with more information than any of us have, found him not guilty. (As others have mentioned, it may be different in a subsequent civil case where the burden of proof is lower - ie, balance of probability vs the criminal standard of beyond reasonable doubt).
However I think you also continue to miss the connection I have made between this case and the wider issue of blacks in prison, usually as a result of non-violent and/or drug-related offences. This issues are directly connected as issues of race + justice. I sincerely wish for justice for African Americans, but I think prosecutors are more of a menace than defenders. It's the same issue - race + justice - it just feels like a "side" issuer because race + justice spans so many things.
I hope that clarifies what I'm saying ...
Namaste
I didn't find out about the verdict until Sunday morning. When I read the news, while disappointed, I told myself, "This simply indicates that the world needs more compassion."
There appears to be some jumping to conclusions here. One is that the juror who is going to write the book has said that she is setting it up so she will not make money off the effort. Of course, I can't validate that, but it's been widely reported.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/jtes/zimmerman-juror-decides-not-to-write-a-book
As for the video I posted above, although I agree with a lot of what the nun said, I found some of her comments to be a bit... uncalled for (in terms of coming from a nun). I dunno. It may have just been me. But I was somewhat shocked at the few subtle jabs here and there. I didn't think they were needed. Otherwise I agree with the over all sentiment.
I agree, the video overall was reasonable, but there were places I sort of winced.
Zimm did some community college work relating to criminal justice but failed or dropped out. Couldn't cut the mustard.
The juror who said she had a book deal seemed awfully familiar with Zimm in her interviews. She always referred to him as "George", and spoke in her interviews of "stand your ground", even though that never came up in the court case. I can't help but wonder if she might have been a "stealth" juror; a friend of the family, or maybe her husband (a lawyer) knew Zimm's father, the magistrate. We may never know, but there seemed to be something not quite right about how chummy her manner was when she spoke about Zimm. Given the apparent history of so many dropped charges or lost files from Zimm's earlier arrests, one can't help but wonder if the whole thing--the incompetent prosecutors, some friendly jurors, a judge who appeared to be out to get Zimmerman, but who grinned from ear to ear upon hearing the verdict--was a set-up. Either by Zimm's father who had all the connections within the system, or by a small community that has always stuck together since the days of the plantation system.
http://rare.us/story/nugent-zimmerman-should-sue-trayvons-parents/
This: is also inappropriate because a young man is dead and thus pushing the blame to Trayvon's parents at a time when they are grieving their son puts less value on a human life than I would like to see. It's also unreasonable to have house arrest on your pre-eighteen children or to expect it.
@vinlyn, can you see where I am coming from? I'm sorry to have seemed to be laying blame on all Americans.
I just can't bear to read Ted Nugent because I already have a good idea of what it will say. Seeing the name "Ted Nugent" says enough. And the comments probably look even worse.
And, yes, there will be those who are fixed in their ways and just plain ignorant and dangerous with their fear/hate. All you can do for them is pray, I suppose, and hope that some day, in some lifetime, they will eventually experience peace and love.
But overall I do agree with @SillyPutty, but emotionally sometimes I struggle. I know logically that I need to have even more compassion for those who are so hateful because I know it means they are suffering greatly. But sometimes it's so hard to keep that frame of mind when they are so cruel to others as a result of their suffering. With some people it comes easier for some reason (for example, I found it not very difficult to practice Tonglen and Metta meditations for the Boston bombers) yet I struggle with other people.
When we watched the movie, I was thankful that my kids didn't grasp entirely the importance of it. They have a hard time grasping the vitriol and language and the 10 year old especially doesn't entirely understand that this represents a period of time where that was common. Even more so, he doesn't understand yet that it still happens today. There is a scene in the movie where a white player tells Jackie "maybe someday we should all wear your # 42, then no one would tell us apart" as a joke and my 10 year old thought that would be awesome. To him, there is no difference and he didn't get the joke that obviously people would still notice Jackie was the only black man. People are just people to him, and I'm glad for that. But at the same time, it makes it that much harder to explain that that level of racism still exists.
Was Zimmerman truly racist? I really don't know. Some of the media reporting was actually fixed, that's why he is suing NBC, because what they put out there as his call to 911 was edited to make it sound worse than it was. It's one of the first impressions most people had of Zimmerman and so it sticks in our minds. But that doesn't make it accurate. Perhaps he is racist. I really don't know.