Did the Trayvon Martin Case Expose Flaws in Stand Your Ground Laws?

[ThomasT]

I really wish that everybody at PF would just let this go for a while. It seems that there's going to be some sort of investigation. So, let that investigation take its course. It's become a national issue, so it probably isn't just going to get buried.

There have been some informative, for me, statements wrt the moral and legal issues involved. Thanks for those.

Hopefully, the truth of the matter will be ascertained as precisely as possible and justice will be done. My own cynical belief is that this isn't normally the case, but since this particular case has gotten nationwide attention, then there seems to be good reason to believe that a thorough and honest investigation might actually happen.

 

[genericusrnme]

I'll be honest, I don't know what side to take but I'm really more on the side of zimmerman if only for the fact that everyone else is so irrationally against him.

I wonder how different everyone's opinions would be if this image were floating about;

"Oh my god, that poor zimmerman, he was just trying to make his neighbourhood safe and that 'gangsta' started laying into him, if I was in his position I would have shot too. That vandal was already caught with stolen jewlery"

As opposed to;
http://cdn.eurweb.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/trayvon_martingeorge_zimmerman2012-wide1.jpg
"Wow, zimmerman is twice the size of that poor little child, like that little boy could pose any threat to big strong zimmerman. Zimmerman should be put to death for his hate crime"

I seriously doubt this is hate crime or racial crime or w/ever it's branded as and since zimmerman was found to be bleeding after his encounter with trayvon I'm more inclined to believe that it was self defence. If someone was in my face attacking me and I had a gun, I'd shoot then. Maybe not to kill them but I'm guessing aiming is kinda hard when you're having your head stoved in.

Y'know who should be arrested?
Spike Lee
Regardless of wheter zimmerman did anything wrong, broadcasting his address (which was actually some elderly couples address) to a bunch of hyped up idiots is definitely wrong.

 

[BobG]

Video of George Zimmerman in custody immediately after the incident:
ABC News Video

This doesn't necessarily contradict what was reported in the police report, since first aid was administered at the scene before Zimmerman was brought to the station, but it does suggest any injuries were less severe than Zimmerman's lawyer suggested.

 

[wuliheron]

Video of George Zimmerman in custody immediately after the incident:
ABC News Video

This doesn't necessarily contradict what was reported in the police report, since first aid was administered at the scene before Zimmerman was brought to the station, but it does suggest any injuries were less severe than Zimmerman's lawyer suggested.

I don't see any blood or visible wounds and he doesn't even look stunned or shocked after having killed someone. Not that any of that means much other then the case just keeps smelling worse with every fact revealed.

 

[Dale]

Compelling a jury to vote a certain way happens given the evidence as compelling is a form of influencing (not exactly a form, but is the act of influencing someone to produce an outcome), so that isn't absurd.

No amount of evidence can compel a jury to convict, at least not in the USA. The usual name for this is jury nullification, where the jury renders a verdict of not guilty despite the fact that based on the evidence the jury themselves are convinced that the defendant is in fact guilty. So it is an absurd standard that no amount of evidence can meet.

 

[russ_watters]

I say "not sufficient evidence" in the sense that it is more hearsay than evidence to an actual case of events on the scene. It is more of the opinion of the officer than being something that actually details the events of a particular incident.

That is patently false. The key components of this - and probably all - police reports are statements of fact, not opinion. 'Lying in the grass bleeding' is a statement of fact. Someone is either bleeding or not - it is not a matter of opinion. It could be an erroneous or falsified fact, but it cannot be an opinion.

 

[netgypsy]

Yes this is a terrible tragedy and one that could have been avoided if the man had been carrying a stun gun instead of a hand gun. As a parent I feel the pain of this young man's family. And looting and destroying a store as the mob did helps in what way?

Florida is home for many many very old people who live alone. They are constantly taken advantage of and many carry handguns because they have been previously attacked. But there has to be a better way to prevent this sort of thing from happening.

At this point people want a lynching - they don't want the truth. They want Zimmerman convicted whether he is innocent or not and if he is not tried and convicted there will be additional violence. Assuming Zimmerman is brought to trial and not convicted, if I were on the jury I'd leave the country because at this point no one wants the truth, they want BLOOD, REVENGE. It's so very sad.

 

[wuliheron]

Yes this is a terrible tragedy and one that could have been avoided if the man had been carrying a stun gun instead of a hand gun. As a parent I feel the pain of this young man's family. And looting and destroying a store as the mob did helps in what way?

Florida is home for many many very old people who live alone. They are constantly taken advantage of and many carry handguns because they have been previously attacked. But there has to be a better way to prevent this sort of thing from happening.

At this point people want a lynching - they don't want the truth. They want Zimmerman convicted whether he is innocent or not and if he is not tried and convicted there will be additional violence. Assuming Zimmerman is brought to trial and not convicted, if I were on the jury I'd leave the country because at this point no one wants the truth, they want BLOOD, REVENGE. It's so very sad.

"There is no justice in or out of court." Clarence Darrow

Majority rule IS mob rule. Democracy isn't about majority rule and it isn't about civility either. It's about minorities being empowered enough to feel being stepped on all the time is worth it. The minute it isn't worth it anymore, they protest or even revolt. Welcome to the reality of protests, riots, and even terrorism when things get really out of hand.

 

[mheslep]

(1) Zimmerman stereotyped the victim saying he was on drugs, up to something, etc... When an autopsy report states that the victim was not on drugs...

Where's that coming from? http://www.kctv5.com/story/17286084/trayvon-martins-autopsy-still-under-seal say the autopsy is still under seal.

 

[jim hardy]

Never mind.

 

[phoenix:\\]

No amount of evidence can compel a jury to convict, at least not in the USA. The usual name for this is jury nullification, where the jury renders a verdict of not guilty despite the fact that based on the evidence the jury themselves are convinced that the defendant is in fact guilty. So it is an absurd standard that no amount of evidence can meet.

No need to bold the word compel as I have told you what I meant by it which is in correspondence to the actual meaning of it. A certain amount of evidence, i.e. tangible facts to the case can heavily influence/compel a jury to convict. Your last statement is irrelevant.

That is patently false. The key components of this - and probably all - police reports are statements of fact, not opinion. 'Lying in the grass bleeding' is a statement of fact. Someone is either bleeding or not - it is not a matter of opinion. It could be an erroneous or falsified fact, but it cannot be an opinion.

More like false statement, incorrect account, incorrect version, or lie, half-truth, etc... False (untrue) fact (truth) seems more akin to an oxymoron.

In addition, what I stated is not "patently false". Police statements if cross examined are facts. Facts are truths, it is true that the officer said x and y, but not true that x and y exist or occurred. Saying something and it being true is dependent upon its validation, "person lying in the grass bleeding", is a version of the story I've told which is an opinion, what looks to be blood could be ketchup or something equivalent. Unless examined, it remains an opinion of the officer.

That's not how court works. Innocence is the default state, you don't try to prove it

Yes, that is how the legal system works. I am not saying he is guilty or innocent, two sides claim to different stories, so I am thinking the legal system is the best option before unnecessary violence takes place. And, seeing that the grand jury is deciding his fate, I alluded to it being left up to them to decide whether to indict or not. My personal opinion is moot compared to their decision. But I think a trial is a better option that could, if there is, guilt on Zimmerman's part, or prove to people who are damn near calling for his crucifixion, his innocence.

Remember the controversy surrounding the Duke case where 3 lacrosse players were accused of spouting racial slurs and raping an African-American girl? The outcry was nearly the same as this case, and through the justice system it was found she was lying and actually sleeping with multiple males. Once that was proven, everyone shouting on the hilltops for their immediate prison time became silent. It's better to wait for the evidence, but seeing as people who "claim" such things, aren't actually impartial to the matter.

Majority rule IS mob rule. Democracy isn't about majority rule and it isn't about civility either. It's about minorities being empowered enough to feel being stepped on all the time is worth it. The minute it isn't worth it anymore, they protest or even revolt. Welcome to the reality of protests, riots, and even terrorism when things get really out of hand.

That is all created by the government to instill more sheep-like mentalities amongst people. No-one should be living such lives as this isn't the days where we actually need to keep a mate around, live unnecessarily as people generally do, or horde lots of money. Now people want to look younger instead of allowing the process take its course, but those are different topics.

Just like this case, blown way over the top. African-American kid gets shot? Happens a lot believe it or not, but this particular case is way overblown because of the mishap in investigation. Sure the police have issues with their process and favored Zimmerman because he was in constant contact with them so they kind of knew him and wouldn't think, based on his past record of actually helping in catching criminal (some of which were African American) and not having to get violent with them at all, and they were in his neighborhood. So when he shot a kid, they more than likely jumped onto the assumption that he was actually defending himself. That is my take on how this occurred and why the investigation was seemingly mishandled.

As I was saying though, obviously the government keeping people in the dark of the happenings and the media in a fury. First Kony 2012, now this, what bills are being signed currently? (Too conspiratorial, but still... seems a bit unnerving and like too much sugar for my tastes)

 

[mheslep]

Never mind.

?? The Lincoln address was exactly on point, 150 years after it was made. This thread should use the relevant passages as a sticky.

 

[phoenix:\\]

Most replies in this thread are replies of my defense in the position that police aren't always truthful.

 

[jim hardy]

?? The Lincoln address was exactly on point, 150 years after it was made. This thread should use the relevant passages as a sticky.

Thanks Mheslep

i didn't want to sound like lecturing.

Might try it again later on with a better intro.
Anyhow here it is without my running inteference.

http://showcase.netins.net/web/creative/lincoln/speeches/lyceum.htm

Hard to believe he was just twenty. And wrote this in 1838.

 

[Dale]

No need to bold the word compel as I have told you what I meant by it which is in correspondence to the actual meaning of it. A certain amount of evidence, i.e. tangible facts to the case can heavily influence/compel a jury to convict. Your last statement is irrelevant.

"Heavily influence" ≠ "compel". Since it is obvious that "compel" is a silly standard to apply I don't know why you continue to use the word. If you mean "compel" then try to actually justify your use of the word instead of complaining about bold typeface. And if you don't mean "compel" then stop using the word.

I agree that a police report by itself is not sufficient evidence to heavily influence a jury, and that is a standard which could be applied reasonably.

 

[Astronuc]

Thread is closed pending moderation and a cooling off period. Some posts are drifting way off-topic.