Zimmerman NOT Guilty??

this is ridiculous.

Jay Smooth said it well:

The fundamental danger of an aquittal is not more riots, it is more George Zimmermans.

STAND YOUR GROUND INCREASES RACIAL BIAS IN “JUSTIFIABLE HOMICIDE” TRIALS via The Society Pages

At MetroTrends, John Roman and Mitchell Downey report their analysis of  4,650 FBI records of homicides in which a person killed a stranger with a handgun. They conclude that stand your ground “tilts the odds in favor of the shooter.”  In SYG states, 13.6% of homicides were rules justifiable; in non-SYG states, only 7.2% were deemed such.  This is strong evidence that rulings of justifiable homicide are more likely under stand your ground.

But which homicides?

The very kind decided in the Zimmerman trial today.  A finding of “justifiable homicide” is much more common in the case of a white-on-black killing than any other kind including a white and a black person. 

Follow link to a good bar graph representation

Why did we have a trial when everyone assumes he was guilty?  We should have just lynched him when he was first caught, could have saved the time and effort of having a court and justice system.

Let's go back to the old days "Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth".

Nice mob mentality here on the forums.

Not the only ones making assumption, Todrick

Fake riot videos:

http://www.politicususa.com/2013/07/14/riot.html

Zimmerman's brother on Trayvon Martin:

http://gawker.com/zimmermans-brother-calls-trayvon-martin-a-gun-running-...

Winston, my post was not directed at you at all.

Catchfire

I think I am reading the spirit of both these threads correctly. A majority of the people here on the forums wanted Zimmerman found guilty of this crime (now many are upset that is not guilty).

We had a trial, evidence was presented, and justice was given based of the facts provided to the judge and jury. It is the best system of justice we have, we may not like the results but we have to work with that what we have.

He was found innocent by a jury of his peers, based off the laws and court procedures of the country.

Now in the case you provided she was found guility by a jury of her peers, based off the laws and court procedures of the country. It is a chance that you have to take when dealing with lady justice. 

One only has to look at the fact that slavery and the Jim Crow system were all enshrined under the law.

And I saw NDPP's post in the other thread. Looks like so far the riots are an invention of FOX News, though I wouldn't be surprised if people were driven to that.

This guy was also aquitted.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2336859/Texas-jury-acquit-man-sh...

And this guy.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/06/04/2095821/citing-stand-your-gr...

I guess we shouldn't have a problem with those either, right? After all, who are we mere peasants to have our own opinions once our overlords have given thumbs up or down? Not our place to make those calls. A good slave defers to his masters when making moral judgements.

Is a transcript of Zimmerman's testimony available on the web somwhere?

Jacob Two-Two wrote:

This guy was also aquitted.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2336859/Texas-jury-acquit-man-sh...

And this guy.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/06/04/2095821/citing-stand-your-gr...

I guess we shouldn't have a problem with those either, right? After all, who are we mere peasants to have our own opinions once our overlords have given thumbs up or down? Not our place to make those calls. A good slave defers to his masters when making moral judgements.

And this guy had his sentence commuted:

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2010/12/paterson_commutes_sentence_...

The issue isn't race, it's a gun-crazy culture and the idea that one can defend personal property -- mere things -- by taking a human life.  Or kill someone on a hunch.  The verdict isn't black-white, hispanic-asian or any other race combination, simply a confirmation of a might-makes-right society where possessions have a greater value than life.

Jacob Two-Two wrote:

There is nothing that makes these two notions mutually exclusive. Just because there are many other prejudices that lead to the devaluing of human life in the US, doesn't mean that race isn't one of them. There's a strong argument to be made that it is the biggest prejudice, but even if it isn't, it's clearly a large factor.

That's fair, but in this case, looking only at what was presented by both sides of the case there's no way that anyone, of any race would have been convicted in FL, given their laws.  This despite the salivating media, desperate to continue the ratings boom.

6079_Smith_W wrote:

@ richardp

I think there's a woman facing 20 years, mentioned above, who might disagree.

And I presume everyone has already seen that the federal justice department is going to review this case:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/14/justice-department-george-zimme...

What are the facts of this woman's case, and how are they analogous to Zimmerman's?

autoworker wrote:

What are the facts of this woman's case, and how are they analogous to Zimmerman's?

In that both involve the discharge of a firearm, even if only one actually resulted in a bullet hitting someone and killing him.

As for my other feelings about why ZImmerman may have gotten off, I think I make that clear upthread.

6079_Smith_W wrote:

In that both involve the discharge of a firearm, even if only one actually resulted in a bullet hitting someone and killing him.

As for my other feelings about why ZImmerman may have gotten off, I think I make that clear upthread.

There's two sides to every story.  I haven't read a lot on it, but it didn't take me long to find the husband's claims:

http://jacksonville.com/news/crime/2012-05-16/story/marissa-alexanders-h...

Again, I can't say for certain who's being truthful but if it was demonstrated that Marissa Alexander was not acting in self defence then her guilt and sentence could be justified.  Given the husband's history of spousal abuse with past partners, it tends to sway me in Ms. Alexander's favour, which would lead me to question why self-defence wasn't given consideration, but again, I don't know the case.

onlinediscountanvils wrote:

(Very interesting chart)

I've not seen that before -- do you have the article / data from that?  I'd love to read it!

There has been some interesting analysis of the Stand Your Ground law in the Tampa Bay Times:

"

The Times analysis found no obvious bias in how black defendants have been treated:

• Whites who invoked the law were charged at the same rate as blacks.

• Whites who went to trial were convicted at the same rate as blacks.

• In mixed-race cases involving fatalities, the outcomes were similar. Four of the five blacks who killed a white went free; five of the six whites who killed a black went free.

• Overall, black defendants went free 66 percent of the time in fatal cases compared to 61 percent for white defendants — a difference explained, in part, by the fact blacks were more likely to kill another black.

"Let's be clear,'' said Alfreda Coward, a black Fort Lauderdale lawyer whose clients are mostly black men. "This law was not designed for the protection of young black males, but it's benefiting them in certain cases.''

"

In any case, I can't fathom a scenario where the Zimmerman trial would have turned out differently, no matter the race of the defendant, given presentation of identical evidence.  This case was cut-and-dried IMHO.

Please. As if this would all have been exactly the same if it had been a white 17-year-old boy that had been shot dead in the street. First off, he wouldn't have been killed in the first place, since a white boy wandering around isn't "suspicious". But more to the point, the image of a dead white young man is a shocking image of tragic waste for America. It would have provoked a response, a need to lay blame in a case where it was obvious who was in the wrong.

I agree that this verdict was not technically incorrect. It was a valid interpretation of the law as it exists, but that does not mean that there was no other way that this case could have gone. Part of a jury's duty is to evaluate laws and reject them if they are shown to be creating an unjust outcome. That doesn't happen often, of course, but this is precisely the kind of case that can prompt such a reaction. Or that is, it would have been if the body had been white. The image of the dead black young man is not shocking. It is all too familiar to the public. Like panhandlers and child abuse, it is regrettable but a fact of life. It provokes no response, not need to see someone punished. It generates little outrage and much shrugging amongst white middle America.

Yes, human life is worthless in the US, but some lives are clearly more worthless than others.

Warning shots don't HAVE "a target".  The purpose of warning shots is to prevent a confrontation before anyone is harmed.  Do you really equate that with intentionally firing a gun, at close range, with the sole intent of killing an unarmed teenager, a teenager the shooter was only following because he was black?

Please don't go there.

America is a wasteland of far right racists.

Had the kid been white,Zimmerman's Hispanic roots would be a lightning rod and these Tea bag yokels would be calling for his deportation.

Not only was Trayvon Martin black but his fate was sealed the minute Obama said that 'he could of been my son'

Racism,anti-Obama hate, Tea baggers and right wing media managed to turn victim into criminal.

I give up on the US...They're nuts.

richardp wrote:

onlinediscountanvils wrote:

(Very interesting chart)

I've not seen that before -- do you have the article / data from that?  I'd love to read it!

PBS Frontline: [url=http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/criminal-justice/is-there-racial... There Racial Bias in “Stand Your Ground” Laws?[/url]

For those pushing for federal charges based on some sort of racial profiling argument, it's going to be tough to make that case:

Quote:

After interviewing nearly three dozen people in the George Zimmerman murder case, the FBI found no evidence that racial bias was a motivating factor in the shooting of Trayvon Martin, records released Thursday show.

Even the lead detective in the case, Sanford Det. Chris Serino, told agents that he thought Zimmerman profiled Trayvon because of his attire and the circumstances — but not his race.

Serino saw Zimmerman as “having little hero complex, but not as a racist.”

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/07/12/155918/more-evidence-released-in-trayvon.html#.UePaBo21Eo5

I wonder if anyone's researching the possible correlation between an increase in Stand Your Ground laws, and a rise in the number of concealed weapons permits. Perhaps it's become critically problematic, as more Americans feel the need to carry a gun, rather than keep it at home. Are there more guns kept in vehicle glove boxes, than under bedroom pillows, nowadays?

Left Turn wrote:

[url=https://www.facebook.com/harsha.walia]Harsha Walia's amazing Faecbook post:[/url]

Quote:

hoodieup is a powerful symbol in solidarity with trayvon martin, but let's be clear that the hoodie did not kill trayvon, nor sadly, was his murder or the verdict exceptional - they are part of a long and disgusting legacy of white supremacy, and more specifically anti-black racism. trayvon and zimmerman as well as the legal system are all flip sides of the same coin - a system built on white supremacy, settler-colonialism, imperialism, empire, state and societal exclusion, dispossession, theft of land and labour, slavery, mass incarceration and deliberate impoverishment. our personal commitments and collective actions can transform this, so let's stand up, be counted and end white supremacy and all the unjust systems it enforces.

...not to mention: fear, misunderstanding, and demagogues willing to exploit travesty to further their own agendas.

The prosecution did not introduce race as a factor in the case even though it clearly is. This fellow nails it pretty well:

Quote:

What behavior did Martin display that would have suggested he was criminally inclined? Zimmerman’s team could produce nothing to indicate anything particularly suspicious about Martin’s actions that night. According to Zimmerman, Martin was walking in the rain, “looking around,” or “looking around at the houses.” But not looking in windows, or jiggling doorknobs or porch screens, or anything that might have suggested a possible burglar. At no point was any evidence presented by the defense to justify their client’s suspicions. All we know is that Zimmerman saw Martin and concluded that he was just like those other criminals. And to the extent there was nothing in Martin’s actions — talking on the telephone and walking slowly home from the store — that would have indicated he was another of those “fucking punks,” the only possible explanation as to why George Zimmerman would have seen him that way is because Martin, as a young black male was presumed to be a likely criminal, and for no other reason, ultimately, but color.

http://www.timwise.org/2013/07/no-innocence-left-to-kill-racism-injustic...

So why didn't the prosecution raise race as a factor in the killing? I would suggest the prosecutors are as much instruments of the state as is the legislature and by not raising race they reduced the trial a hearing on the "stand your ground" law. (Although standing your ground is a luxury enjoyed only by lighter skinned people even when instigating a confrontation.) The state prosecutors have allowed the law to withstand a criminal court challenge and now all young black men are on notice that they must submit to burly thugs looking for trouble or expect to be shot dead in cold blood.

Or as one twitterer pointed out: The system did work just as intended. It supported institutionalized racism.