Trayvon vs. Zimmerman - The trial

[Phishfan]

I have been pretty level-headed with this whole thing, but c'mon.  Of course he should've been arrested.

I'm fine with the verdict and I think that the route that we should go now is to realize that the laws are not good if an unarmed man can get spooked by a kid he profiled and followed and then kill him in the name of self-defense.  I understand that the law protects that, but it shouldn't.

So, like with Caylee's Law, the pendulum should swing and make Trayvon's law.

I am of the belief that if you choose to carry a firearm, that you should willingly be held to a higher standard to "de-escalate" situations.

I understand the ruling, but that this happened is a bad thing and laws need to exist to change it so it can't happen again.

Dave you are making complete assumptions here. Yes the law should not allow for an armed person to use a gun if spooked. That is not what the jury felt happened here and evidence shows otherwise(though maybe not the level of injury some would feel is life threatening). Reasonable fear of death or serious bodily harm is much more than being spooked. How exactly do you de-escalated being beaten? I can listen, understand, and agree with the position Zimmerman should not have left the vehicle but using this case for any discussion about de-escalation is baseless.

[masterfins]

Based on what I have seen/heard.  The jury got this verdict correct, but in the civil trail Zimmerman should be found liable in a wrongful death action. 

From what I've heard I don't see Zimmerman going to trial in a civil case.  Zimmerman never disputed shooting Martin, and a criminal jury just found him not guilty, in effect he was acting in self-defense.  So, under FLA law he is immune to civil litigation when acting in self defense.  It's not like the OJ case where Simpson said he didn't do it.

[Phishfan]

^^^ I do not think you are correct. Winning a Stand Your Ground hearing includes immunity from a civil lawsuit. I do not think this aquittal includes that immunity.

[Landshark]

Looks like the DOJ is going to review the verdict

[Dave Gray]

Dave you are making complete assumptions here. Yes the law should not allow for an armed person to use a gun if spooked. That is not what the jury felt happened here and evidence shows otherwise(though maybe not the level of injury some would feel is life threatening). Reasonable fear of death or serious bodily harm is much more than being spooked. How exactly do you de-escalated being beaten? I can listen, understand, and agree with the position Zimmerman should not have left the vehicle but using this case for any discussion about de-escalation is baseless.

I understand what the jury decided.  I'm not disputing that the facts are even any different than the story that both sides seem to kind of agree on.

What I saying is this.  Zimmerman created this conflict, by following and questioning, without justifiable cause or any kind of badge or title or responsibility to do so.  It doesn't mean he deserved to be attacked, but knowing he was armed, he shouldn't be allowed to seek out a confrontation and then use a gun in that confrontation.  That's my opinion.  If you choose to carry, you need to not be following people around who don't know who you are and then be allowed to use that gun to kill them if they feel threatened by you and respond.

Under normal circumstances, if Treyvon attacked Zimmerman and Zimmerman responded, nobody would care.  But Zimmerman sought out a conflict...not necessarily a physical one, but he escalated a situation instead of avoiding it.

[Spider-Dan]

I think Zimmerman deserves precisely the same amount of respect and tolerance from the public (after being found Not Guilty) as Casey Anthony did after being found Not Guilty in hers.  And no, that's not being facetious; that is a dual commentary on both of their cases.

In any case, I don't see any sort of future in a "Trayvon's Law" scenario.  FL conservatives (who control the FL legislature, mind you) are too busy wildly cheering this verdict; this outcome is the result of carefully-crafted concealed carry and aggressive self-defense laws Working As Intended.

Why would any rational-minded conservative pass a law that would protect a criminal like Trayvon Martin (who committed felony assault and battery on Zimmerman for no reason) and imprison a civic-minded lawfully-armed citizen like George Zimmerman?

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

I think Zimmerman deserves precisely the same amount of respect and tolerance from the public (after being found Not Guilty) as Casey Anthony did after being found Not Guilty in hers.  And no, that's not being facetious; that is a dual commentary on both of their cases.

In any case, I don't see any sort of future in a "Trayvon's Law" scenario.  FL conservatives (who control the FL legislature, mind you) are too busy wildly cheering this verdict; this outcome is the result of carefully-crafted concealed carry and aggressive self-defense laws Working As Intended.

Why would any rational-minded conservative pass a law that would protect a criminal like Trayvon Martin (who committed felony assault and battery on Zimmerman for no reason) and imprison a civic-minded lawfully-armed citizen like George Zimmerman?

The ONLY thing that would change the outcome of this verdict would be to lower the standard of conviction from "Beyond a reasonable doubt" to something lower.  Is that what you really want?

[Spider-Dan]

As previously stated in this thread, in Florida self-defense places the onus on the prosecution to prove that the killing was NOT justified.  In many other states, self-defense is an affirmative defense, which places that onus on the defendant to prove that the killing WAS justified.

[el diablo]

The ONLY thing that would change the outcome of this verdict would be to lower the standard of conviction from "Beyond a reasonable doubt" to something lower.  Is that what you really want?

Not true. What would change the outcome, is changing the legality of deciding someone is guilty of something, and then following (pursuing) them with a gun.

[SCFinfan]

As previously stated in this thread, in Florida self-defense places the onus on the prosecution to prove that the killing was NOT justified.  In many other states, self-defense is an affirmative defense, which places that onus on the defendant to prove that the killing WAS justified.

So what? In a Jackson v. Denno hearing, to determine whether statements made to police are suppressible, the burden of proof that

1. the defendant was adequately advised of his Miranda rights,

2. the defendant knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived his rights,

3. the statements subsequent to knowing, intelligent, voluntary waiver were voluntary as well

is on the state.

Do you want to be rid of that too?

[Spider-Dan]

How is that relevant to this case?  You're saying that the state would have to prove something that they would have had to prove in this case anyway, right?

If Zimmerman had to prove that he was justified in killing Martin, the entire nature of the trial is changed.  He almost certainly would have had to take the stand, at a very minimum.

[Sunstroke]

Wait a sec...as someone who has pretty much blown off this whole situation from the start, are you telling me that, of the two people who were actually there, the only one still alive wasn't asked to take the stand?

How is that even possible? Was the prosecution not allowed to call witnesses to the stand?

[Spider-Dan]

You cannot force a defendant to take the stand.  The Fifth Amendment guarantees you the right not to incriminate yourself.

If he had taken the stand to testify, however, he would have been compelled to undergo cross-examination by the prosecution.

[CF DolFan]

I understand what the jury decided.  I'm not disputing that the facts are even any different than the story that both sides seem to kind of agree on.

What I saying is this.  Zimmerman created this conflict, by following and questioning, without justifiable cause or any kind of badge or title or responsibility to do so.  It doesn't mean he deserved to be attacked, but knowing he was armed, he shouldn't be allowed to seek out a confrontation and then use a gun in that confrontation.  That's my opinion.  If you choose to carry, you need to not be following people around who don't know who you are and then be allowed to use that gun to kill them if they feel threatened by you and respond.

Under normal circumstances, if Treyvon attacked Zimmerman and Zimmerman responded, nobody would care.  But Zimmerman sought out a conflict...not necessarily a physical one, but he escalated a situation instead of avoiding it.

So Zimmerman is guilty based on the fact he was following to observe? In what country is that illegal? I mean ... as a teen I had security follow me and my friends around department stores. Should that be illegal too?

If you want to see a similar case where the white man is guilty of profiling and then killing a teenage black kid then read this. I don't think you will find too many people who will disagree that this guy should get put away even if the kid was the thief.  http://fox6now.com/2013/07/16/opening-statements-to-begin-in-john-spooner-homicide-trial/

On another note ... does anyone actually believe the people destroying things and rioting are supporting Trayvon? These people are just looking for reasons to act stupid!!

[Phishfan]

I'm not disputing that the facts are even any different than the story that both sides seem to kind of agree on.

questioning

You may not think you are but you keep throwing in slight assumptions that have no basis in the facts of the case. Here is yet another example. We do not know that Zimmerman questioned Martin. In fact, Rachel Jeantel testified the first words she heard spoken were from Trayvon Martin.