The problem is, no one knows who started the confrontation (except, presumably, Zimmerman), and so there was no basis for a conviction.
Zimmerman started following Martin. Morally, he was unquestionably to blame. Had the jury instructions still required him to retreat, it's not certain that the verdict would have been the same. I have to admit that I have not really been following the case very closely. I can't say, with any sort of certainty, had a more typical self-defense instruction been given, that the result would have been different. However, I do find it disturbing to see the disproportionate effect these sorts of laws have on minorities. ( see http://io9.com/disturbing-chart-shows-rise-in-justified-killings-of-773490798 ) As a social policy, these laws are making it easier for armed citizens to kill unarmed people, based on their own vague, individualized notions of feeling threatened. They're taking away any duty to mitigate the harm caused by the fear of other people. We shouldn't be striving for a shoot-first-ask-questions-later standard policy.
A) No one knows who started the confrontation, except Zimmerman. B) This is irrelevant. It is impossible to know what is going through the head of an attacker. Until that individual actually attacks, you don't know if you need to run or not. Even training in body language only goes so far. The moment that Zimmerman had no means of escape, whether or not the 'stand your ground' law even existed became irrelevant.
I agree he followed him, but following someone isn't the same as confronting them. The state says Zimmerman started the confrontation, and Zimmerman's side said Martin doubled back and confronted Zimmerman. Ultimately, the evidence is inconclusive. I don't know if a more traditional self-defense instruction would have helped or not. Zimmerman claims he was on his back with Martin on top of him. Under traditional self-defense, there is a duty to retreat if able, but I'm not sure the prosecution even had the evidence to show that Zimmerman could have retreated at the time he used deadly force (which isn't to say he couldn't have, only that the evidence itself would still be inconclusive). Personally, I like the traditional rules having a duty to retreat, unless it is an unreasonable risk to one's life or the life of another one is protecting to do so. And I also make an exception for a person's home - I don't think anyone should have a duty to retreat from their home in the event of a home invasion.
Of course, there's also the issue of what is one supposed to do when an armed man starts following you?
It didn't see evidence that Martin knew he was armed. Also, Zimmerman says he'd stopped following Martin by that time; the state said he hasn't. Who knows. In general, I don't think it should be illegal to follow someone in public places.
Perhaps not, and as a practical matter that would probably be difficult to prove. But it certainly can make the followee uncomfortable and fearful. If someone were following me, and then came upon me again a short time later, I'd still be concerned about their intent.
I would too. I wouldn't assault them, though, and ultimately whoever took that first action in the Zimmerman/Martin situation pushed events over a line. If it was Zimmerman, he should be in jail. But I don't think anyone in that jury box had enough certainty in their mind to say one way or another. In any event, I don't see any 'good' coming from the case or the entire underlying situation. Whoever started the physical confrontation, it's still a sad situation.
Absolutely. No matter what you think of Zimmerman, the fact remains that an unarmed 17 year old kid went out to buy candy and wound up dead.
Please. A poor innocent black toddler angel walked to the store to buy sweets and was brutally gunned down in cold blood by a racist gun-wielding murderer. Spin much? A heroic man, protecting his neighborhood and sacrificing his own time and safety, was brutally assaulted by a man who jumped him from behind and viscously assaulted him until the helpless man reluctantly was forced fired one bullet from his legal firearm, preventing imminent death or great bodily harm. Amazing how much you can twist the facts to your own advantage.
Actually, what she said was factually true, so far as we know. She said an unarmed 17 year old went out for candy and ended up dead. Martin was 17, he was unarmed, no one seems to dispute that he went for candy, and you can't really dispute the fact that he's dead. [MENTION=38553]chicagoliz[/MENTION] didn't say he was a poor innocent kid brutally gunned down by a racist. The point is, whether you believe Zimmerman was right or wrong, the undeniable facts are what they are.
I'm sorry, but saying he had candy is completely irrelevant to his assault on George Zimmerman. The only purpose is to attempt to portray Martin as someone he is not. Is the contents of Zimmerman's wallet relevant? No. Anyone who uses the fact that he had candy to support their claim of Martin's innocence only shows how biased they truly are, and it's sad. Enough said.
No, it shows he had a purpose in going out. He left his father's house, in the neighborhood, walked to the convenience store, bought candy and an iced tea and then was walking back to his father's house. Otherwise, you could say he was just hanging around, walking around with no apparent purpose, and if you're hanging around with no apparent purpose, then you're likely to be contemplating mischief. He wasn't just out wandering aimlessly, which you can sure as heck be sure they would have claimed. Again, the fact is he went to buy candy -- a perfectly legitimate purpose. It's something I might have done myself, especially when I was 17. He was out to get candy. That's not misleading. I don't see how that "portrays him as someone he's not." I think it's sad that you don't find it sad that a 17 year old kid died.
Who cares if he went out for a legitimate purpose if he wound up assaulting someone? Would it matter if I'm on my way to donate money to an orphanage when I rape someone? Ludicrous. Glad the trial is over and the victim can move on with his life. Martin assaulted someone and got what he deserved. The crime and punishment happened in roughly 45 seconds, and luckily, it worked out the way it was supposed to for everyone involved. All the silly arguments are just empty noise at this point.
Because TM was not on trial for assault. He wasn't there to defend himself. Your comparison to you donating money to an orphanage and raping someone along the way is misplaced and not analogous. The trial was about whether Zimmerman had reason to fear for his life. Part of that would be a claim that TM had no discernible purpose for walking through the neighborhood. But he had a clear purpose. It points to the truth of the matter and is relevant to determining whether Zimmerman's belief was reasonable. It is clear that you have a very definite POV on this matter. There's really no need to twist the facts and make red-herring arguments.
I'm afraid you are ignorant of the trial and the facts. The trial all hinged on the 'moment of mutual altercation' forward. It had nothing to do with whether Martin or Zimmerman had a 'right' to be there. They both did by the way. They were both where they had a right to be and one person was assaulted, which is undeniable, and one person was shot with no other injuries. People like you love to look at everything other than the giant elephant staring at you, because once you admit the facts, all your other matchstick houses fall apart.
What I'm actually concerned with here is the law. The law has been changed by ALEC and NRA-backed legislators. You have not read what I have written. I admit that I have not followed this trial very closely, as I've been busy with numerous other things. With the way the law was written, yes, it was probably unlikely that Zimmerman would have been found guilty. My issue is with the way the law has been changed and the effects that those changes have had. Your ad hominem attacks don't really help your point.
Hello Liz! Welcome to the the land of the ignorant...And don't you dare disagree with me or I'll poke your eyes out with a stick!
I can accept that. I was under the assumption you knew the facts of the case and were just ignoring them.
As much as I hate to say this, I think race was a factor here. I'm willing to bet that if Martin had been a white kid, Zimmerman would have been found guilty of manslaughter at the very least.
The jury was multi-racial. If race played any factor (which it did), it is what caused this fiasco to go to trial in the first place.
To be honest, JJ, I read CL's statement as simply taking the broadest stroke overview of the situation. I would completely agree with her, but I'd add a couple more lines. Absolutely. No matter what you think of Zimmerman, the fact remains that an unarmed 17 year old kid went out to buy candy and wound up dead; no matter what you think about TMs death, the fact remains that a young man who set up a simple block watch and was out helping to protect his neighborhood, wound up in a situation where he felt he had to use his weapon in self defense; in the end, it's a tragedy all the way around, with no winners, one life lost, and one life pretty much destroyed.
The jury did not contain any African Americans. But you're right - race is what caused this whole thing in the first place. Well, I don't really want to go around and around, but Zimmerman caused this by following Martin. It doesn't matter that he was legally allowed to do so. Had he not done that, and had he not been armed, this would not have happened. It is a tragedy, and maybe it is too bad for Zimmerman, but it was his own bad judgment and actions that led to this. I'm willing to accept the possibility that he did not mean to kill Martin, that at some point he was fearful, and maybe even felt at least a little bit badly about it. But it was still his fault.
Yeah the media and the African-American community made this about race. It had nothing to do with race from the beginning. That's amusing, blaming the victim. I'll bet you feel the same way about the girl from Steubenville too, huh? Disgusting.
