America's struggle for racial harmony: myth or reality?

[Udderdude]

Honestly for the "prosecution didn't do their jorbs" crowd

Like I said pages ago, the prosecution screwed themselves the moment they went for murder 2/manslaughter instead of negligent homicide. They literally could not win this case unless the defense was a complete mess, which didn't happen.

Maybe they really were delusional enough to think they could win on that, or maybe they thought they were giving the public what they wanted. In either case, it didn't work out.

[BryanM]

The Florida lesser included offenses flow-chart, copypasta'ed of course:

1. First degree murder
2. Second degree murder
3. Manslaughter
4. Second degree
5. Third degree murder
6. Vehicular homicide

Lesser offenses:

1. Attempt
2. Culpable negligence
3. Aggravated battery
4. Aggravated assault
5. Battery and assault

To prevent double jeopardy, everything applicable from the main charge down is automatically included. He was on trial for everything on this list except Murder 1 and Vehicular homicide. Just walking around outside certainly isn't negligent, you'd still have to prove he started the fight and knew it'd give him an excuse to kill the guy. (Which sounds more manslaughter-y to me, personally. It's not really like dumping toxic waste into a lake.) And then convince a jury it applies.

[Udderdude]

So you're saying they didn't even have a chance at culpable negligence? If so, what was this thing even doing in court besides giving the public what they wanted? (all except the verdict, of course)

[louisg]

I'm guessing in most other places with sane self-defense laws it'd be manslaughter (maybe involuntary? again, check out the Wikipedia links to various styles of self-defense laws state-by-state). This conflict sounded very much avoidable. And I do think it is a pretty obvious case of prejudice, too, for the record.

Adding some fuel to the fire, I was looking up whether Zimmerman sustained a concussion (you can get one pretty easily if you hit your head; people playing sports get them), and he was not diagnosed with one. He also declined hospitalization that night (not something you should do if you were getting your head bashed into the pavement and fearing you might be killed, though that could just be more evidence of his poor judgement or crazy disposition I guess).

I want to take this opportunity to point out that winning a court case *does not* mean that what was presented there is necessarily the truth as it happened. I know some people here have a lot of trust in the law and legal system, but I think it helps to think of it more like a chess game. It's scary to think that people fall through the cracks because they don't have good representation, but it happens a lot.

In my town some old guy shot 3 kids with an AK-47. They were all white. One of the kids were brandishing a gun, but he ended up shooting them all in the back. I don't know what has happened to him, but he had to go into hiding, and people burnt his house down.

If those 3 kids were black, people would be like "they were brandishing guns!". In Florida, I'm pretty sure how it would end up.

It's bullshit.

There was one I was trying to find, maybe it was this one, where some geezer found some kids in his trailer, lined them up at gunpoint, and shot them in the back of the head. IIRC. I think he got off. There've been cases where people have got off after shooting a crook in the back, through a door, then claiming the guy was coming at him, and the jury buys it. Pretty disturbing.

On the topic of unjust laws in general, there's some terrible stuff having to do with "zero tolerance" laws like 3-strikes. There was even a case where someone got life in prison for stealing a Barney tape for his daughter, even though he had mostly cleaned up his act. And going back to the case of the warning shot lady, that sounds like another case where laws which didn't give the judge much wiggle room.

[CMoon]

Is this really about America's struggle for racial harmony, or America's willingness to accept tragedy as a consequence of prevalent gun ownership? I think if Zimmerman isn't carrying a gun to begin with, he's probably not confronting Treyvon. Zimmerman may well be racist, but I think the police originally made the right call--and in that sense there is nothing racist about it. If you support laws that say it is acceptable to publicly carry firearms and kill people in self defense, then you're gonna have to deal with the consequences when a teenager gets killed.

And yeah, this story was completely blown out of proportion because they tried to make it a race issue; that and everyone likes to have an opinion (even though none of us know what really happened.) People are upset about the findings of the jury, but wouldn't it make more sense for them to be upset at the laws which defend Zimmerman's actions?

[brentsg]

I'm guessing in most other places with sane self-defense laws it'd be manslaughter.

Again, the stand your ground law was never invoked.

[jepjepjep]

I want to take this opportunity to point out that winning a court case *does not* mean that what was presented there is necessarily the truth as it happened. I know some people here have a lot of trust in the law and legal system, but I think it helps to think of it more like a chess game. It's scary to think that people fall through the cracks because they don't have good representation, but it happens a lot.

I couldn't agree more with this. We are a nation of laws and we have a legal system, but it is certainly not a justice system.

[BryanM]

It's a little defeatist, but in general I'd agree justice isn't something our system can give. Not until we put Skynet in charge of things at least. David Parker Ray certainly didn't get a granule of what he deserved.

In one of those sensationalist "What Would You DO>>!>@!" episodes, they had some white teens jacking up a car, and a set of black teens doing the same thing. 1 call to 911 for Whitey, 10 for TanLad.txt. And more confrontations. And one guy called 911 twice while the white kids were messing up a car.... to report some black kids sleeping in a car.

"(If they were white) I'd stop them sooner" big lolololololllllllllllllllllllluzzzzzz


Oh, and The Onion reports on the matter.

[louisg]

I'm guessing in most other places with sane self-defense laws it'd be manslaughter.

Again, the stand your ground law was never invoked.

And I said, you don't have to invoke it like a hadouken or something. Florida doesn't use the castle doctrine and I think that and 'duty to retreat' are mutually exclusive with having a stand-your-ground law on the books. Go look at the links I posted and read up on self-defense laws and how they vary state to state.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doc ... our-ground
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doc ... _positions

"States with a Stand-your-ground Law:
No duty to retreat, regardless of where attack takes place."

So, to me, it sure sounds like you don't have to be like I PLAY MY STAND YOUR GROUND CARD, -50000 HP! I WIN!

[ZacharyB]

I believe that the legal system is just. What it is not, is righteous.

[Ed Oscuro]

mutually exclusive

Mutually inclusive, actually.

The negligence points are pretty interesting, I forgot all about that. I think that would've been more appropriate here.

And of course part of me doesn't regret that Zimmerman isn't in jail because jail does nothing good to people.

About the "if Zimerman doesn't have a gun, he won't confront Trayvon" part - yeah I think there is a link between having a gun and feeling empowered. However if - of course it's a big if - the person is well trained and self-aware, that can be overcome. So I think that this general case shouldn't reflect on all firearm owners.

[louisg]

mutually exclusive

Mutually inclusive, actually.

Duty to retreat and stand your ground? Or Stand your ground and castle doctrine?

[Ed Oscuro]

That doesn't make sense. It's mutually inclusive with overlap. The only question is which one overlaps the other (i.e. has more consequences) - obviously that is stand your ground.

I guess what you were trying to say is that the intent of having limits on one law would exclude the limits set out by the other, which makes sense. Having legislative intent in a castle doctrine where a person is excluded from using that defense on the street, for example, is mutually exclusive with having a stand-your-ground law.

Personally all this talk makes me realize that it's very easy to talk about these things "as law" in a vacuum, but quite hard to actually come to grips with what it should mean (if anything) for actual behavior.

[louisg]

That doesn't make sense. It's mutually inclusive with overlap. The only question is which one overlaps the other (i.e. has more consequences) - obviously that is stand your ground.

I guess what you were trying to say is that the intent of having limits on one law would exclude the limits set out by the other, which makes sense. Having legislative intent in a castle doctrine where a person is excluded from using that defense on the street, for example, is mutually exclusive with having a stand-your-ground law.

Personally all this talk makes me realize that it's very easy to talk about these things "as law" in a vacuum, but quite hard to actually come to grips with what it should mean (if anything) for actual behavior.

Right, exactly. I don't see how you can have a stand-your-ground law and a duty-to-retreat in the same state. That article lists stand-your-ground as "no duty to retreat, regardless of where attack takes place." (if you can legally be there).

[brentsg]

So, to me, it sure sounds like you don't have to be like I PLAY MY STAND YOUR GROUND CARD, -50000 HP! I WIN!

I guess this is where not being a lawyer in FL hurts me.

I've read numerous times that if the stand your ground defense is claimed, a hearing is conducted on this in particular. However it's been reported that it can only be invoked once and the defense was saving this for the possible appeal.

However, the fact that this is Florida's law intrinsically changes the playing field since there isn't any "regular" self defense law now.

[louisg]

So, to me, it sure sounds like you don't have to be like I PLAY MY STAND YOUR GROUND CARD, -50000 HP! I WIN!

I guess this is where not being a lawyer in FL hurts me.

I've read numerous times that if the stand your ground defense is claimed, a hearing is conducted on this in particular. However it's been reported that it can only be invoked once and the defense was saving this for the possible appeal.

However, the fact that this is Florida's law intrinsically changes the playing field since there isn't any "regular" self defense law now.

Yeah I think you *would* have to be really familiar with FL law to definitively know. I'm guessing going off what I've read that this is how it works.

[BryanM]

Didn't want to jump into the semantics hoops here; but the gist of it: Stand your ground adjusts the self defense statute, they're one and the same. The "no duty to retreat" clause it added didn't come into play since he was pinned, so you can say it wasn't a factor.

During the pretrial the defense could have fought to have the judge dismiss the thing, but the lawyers gambled against it. The internet assumes that he thought it unlikely the judge would think the prosecution had no merit, so it'd just be tipping their strategy to the state.

I dunno if its presumption provisions give you a free pass to commit murder: ie, if you kill someone, your prosecutors have to prove you WERE NOT afraid for your life, as opposed to you having to prove you feared for your life. Which, I dunno if that's the standard in states not owned by ALEC or not, since the long years of Florida coverage has only given me internet lawyer powers in this very small niche.

[brentsg]

I find it odd that so many people are talking about the case generating growing interest in doing away with "stand your ground" laws in various states, when it would seem to me that it wasn't particularly important in this case.

[Ed Oscuro]

I think a lot of people figure that stand your ground could have been a factor in this case, and on top of that it isn't clear that it is necessary as a robust self-defense law already existed before it. So it looks like stand your ground provides an unintentional help towards recklessly instigating conflicts.

If you ask me, the Texas law allowing deadly force to protect property (any property) is more worrisome.

[louisg]

If you ask me, the Texas law allowing deadly force to protect property (any property) is more worrisome.

Yeah, that has been having shockingly awful consequences.

[Udderdude]

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/os-georg ... 8518.story

So now the DOJ is trying to turn this into a civil rights issue. I don't even know how they're going to try arguing this one, seeing as the FBI investigated the guy and found no evidence of racist tendencies.

Maybe neighborhood watch organizations will be declared racist and need to be heavily regulated ..

[Ed Oscuro]

They should have just charged him with something with "negligence" in the name and been done with it.

I agree that it looks like they want a conviction so they're just trying again.

[Udderdude]

Yeah but see this post : http://shmups.system11.org/viewtopic.ph ... 06#p931106

They had a shot at negligence and couldn't even get that, apparently.

[GaijinPunch]

While "smokes weed" is not anything worth bringing up, "starts fights" is, because it shows a prior history. Turns out they didn't even need it to win anyway.

Indeed, however, in context (at least the way I see it) it's kind of a moot point. If some dude chases me at night, there's a good chance I'm going to use physical force to get out of the way. If I'm black in Florida, probably more so).

So now the DOJ is trying to turn this into a civil rights issue.

I've not heard anything about a civil trial, but you know that's coming down the pipe. I doubt Zimmerman has any money (yet) but they could probably get a chunk out of his book deal, I'm sure.

[louisg]

Yeah but see this post : http://shmups.system11.org/viewtopic.ph ... 06#p931106

They had a shot at negligence and couldn't even get that, apparently.

I don't think that was something they pushed for. From what I've read so far, it actually sounds initially like two jurors were for manslaughter, one for murder, 3 for not guilty. As the deliberations went on, 2 of them changed their minds.

Everyone on both sides is trying to make this some simplistic thing where either Zimmerman is this monstrous Nazi who shot Martin because he hates blacks, or make it this thing where Zimmerman gets out of his car and Martin shows up and just starts beating him to a pulp unprovoked. I don't think either situation is very credible, to be blunt. To me it sounds like far from an open-shut case.

It's been reminding me of the Simpsons episode where Mr. Burns hits Bart with the car, and then they both have these far-flung tales of how it all went down.

[Udderdude]

If some dude chases me at night, there's a good chance I'm going to use physical force to get out of the way.

There was a good 3-4 minutes where Zimmerman stopped following Trayvon, went back to his car and continued talking with the 911 dispatcher while waiting for the police to arrive. At that time he had no sight of Trayvon or any idea where he went.

If you listen to the 911 call you can even hear Zimmerman stop his laborous breathing because he isn't following anymore.

I wouldn't use the word "chase" either, which implies running.

My own (unproveable and thus probably bullshit) theory is that Trayvon was long gone, when his girlfriend (whom he was on the phone with at the time) egged him on into confronting the guy.

I've not heard anything about a civil trial, but you know that's coming down the pipe. I doubt Zimmerman has any money (yet) but they could probably get a chunk out of his book deal, I'm sure.

There won't be a civil trial, he's protected from that by law. What the DOJ is trying to do is completely different, and implies a greater government or private institution implementing discrimination. How they're going to argue that is beyond me.

This is honestly the worst case they could try to argue this with, as there's no evidence of racism, or racist neighborhood watch organizations, and the big bad stand your ground law wasn't even invoked.

Maybe they could try arguing the police were somehow discriminatory, but it sounds just like a textbook fuckup rather than intentionally destroying evidence.

[BareKnuckleRoo]

Indeed, however, in context (at least the way I see it) it's kind of a moot point. If some dude chases me at night, there's a good chance I'm going to use physical force to get out of the way. If I'm black in Florida, probably more so).

Yeah. Really, this is the sort of thing where if Zimmerman'd just listened to the dispatcher and waited for the police instead of being a tough guy (because he had a gun, that'd be my bet) and confronting Marvin, this likely wouldn't have escalated to the point of physical violence, certainly not with a teenager getting a bullet. It's not like Martin's alive to tell his side of the story about what happens, so we can't really be certain if Zimmerman had confronted Martin with a threat, with gun drawn, etc, or if Marvin saw a creepy guy stalking him who he thought might be dangerous and attacked first, but regardless, Zimmerman used shit judgement when he decided to play mister tough guy because he saw a black kid on the street at night.

Zimmerman not only reported Martin to police, he also followed him. A police dispatcher told him it wasn't a good idea. Investigators subsequently agreed.

"The encounter between George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin was ultimately avoidable by Zimmerman, if Zimmerman had remained in his vehicle and awaited the arrival of law enforcement," they wrote in a March 13 capias document, which authorizes an arrest. "Or conversely if he had identified himself to Martin as a concerned citizen and initiated dialog in an effort to dispel each party's concern."

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/may/18 ... n-20120518

Obviously, being a moron and using shitty judgement isn't a crime alone, and I'm no lawyer so I haven't enough knowledge to comment on if I think this qualifies as negligent manslaughter even if Martin did attack him unprovoked (I somehow doubt this, the guy was muttering about how criminals get away before hanging up on 911, I have a feeling Zimmerman said something threatening towards Martin when he got close which made the kid think he was getting chased by a crazy stalker). But he's still a dumbass for getting himself into a confrontation he could have avoided if he'd actually listened to the dispatcher.

My own (unproveable and thus probably bullshit) theory is that Trayvon was long gone, when his girlfriend (whom he was on the phone with at the time) egged him on into confronting the guy.

I can see this being possible too, but his girlfriend hasn't testified to confirm this (and probably wouldn't even if it were true as it'd hurt his case...) so it's difficult to know where exactly the truth is here. Even if that's so, Zimmerman was the adult in that situation and frankly, he shoulda known better than to act on his presumption of 'black kid at night = must be one of them burglars again' and try to confront/follow the guy when he was told by 911 it wasn't a good idea to do so, so at least part of the blame must lie with him. I don't know if he should be found guilty of outright murder (we don't know if he really wanted to kill Martin), and I haven't really read enough about the case to have a seriously thought out opinion one way or the other, but Zimmerman does deserve at least some sort of punishment for displaying a seriously flawed judgement in that situation.

[Udderdude]

his girlfriend hasn't testified to confirm this (and probably wouldn't even if it were true as it'd hurt his case...)

It's arguable she did so anyway because she kept changing her story and often seemed confused or uncooperative. She was the prosecution's star witness ..

Zimmerman does deserve at least some sort of punishment for displaying a seriously flawed judgement in that situation.

Yeah, I agree he shouldn't have been following him at all. But he did back off.

[louisg]

OK, screw this, I'm going to the My Little Pony thread

[BryanM]

It's been reminding me of the Simpsons episode where Mr. Burns hits Bart with the car, and then they both have these far-flung tales of how it all went down.

This is literally how our court system works.

There was a Frontline, I think, on some kids who were pressured into making some small bottle bombs or something by an FBI tool and then when it went to trial they suddenly became criminal terrorist masterminds according to the state and angels by the defense.

It's always a story versus some other story. Not even evidence is clean and pure. The times fingerprints and fire patterns are misused, yeesh.