George Zimmerman found not guilty....no surprise

davesdatahut: The verdict came in last night and it should be no surprise to anyone, based on Florida law. The jury had to apply a law that says if you feel your life is threatened, you can shoot someone. What choice did the jury have?
Zimmerman said he felt his life in danger, there were no witnesses to the event beyond people offering snippets and there also were photos showing he had some injuries. I don't see how the jury could have reached another conclusion, based on the law.
That being said, Zimmerman was 1 million percent in the wrong. He should never, ever have been following Martin. The cops told him to back off, but he ignored them, apparently because he saw himself as the neighborhood protector.
And so, now, one kid is dead. And one guy will be looking over his shoulder for a very long time...and will live for the rest of his life knowing he killed someone when he didn't have to.
Perhaps, now, Florida will change its law. Or perhaps police will be very, very strict with neighborhood watch groups and do whatever they can to convince members not to run around with guns.

near50ohoh: i wish that were likely. (and since this seems to be the only way to talk to you these days, dave,how are you? ) i barely followed the case. didnt even hear about it until someone in a word game mentioned it. but i saw the verdict read last night on the news.
i'm glad i live in canada. there are places in canada where even the cops dont wear guns on duty. so this boggles my mind!!
there's threat and then imminent threat. maybe he did feel at some level of threat but tell me how he felt lethal force was required against a kid when he could just have held the gun on the kid till the cops arrived? uh the real cops not his wanna be self. thats the standard in shootings by cops. and i wonder why oh WHY it isnt used on joe blow citizen?
i was surprised when more wasnt done to find out about the manslaughter angle the jury expressed interest in . why their verdict was accepted with that question standing. will the crown,(oops sorry prosecution in usa) appeal? it would seem they expressed a need for a lesser charge that wasnt given to them so they weren't properly instructed or given adequate means to reach a decision. which renders their decision to be suspect in my view (but who am i) and therefore subject to appeal. which what you said makes me think is needed in this case. he doesnt sound like anyone's idea of a hero, so i wonder if he will feel guilty for this decision? he got what he set out to get, predator that he seems to be and attention to boot. wow what more could he want?

it's a thought anyway.

davesdatahut: Near, the crux of the issue was the the so-called Stand Your Ground law in Florida that allows lethal force to be used if someone believes their life is in danger. That gives the shooter some very wide latitude and very much ties the hands of the prosecutor. In most states, he probably would have been convicted at least of aggravated assault or unintentional homicide, if not manslaughter.
In the Zimmerman case, there probably was room for a manslaughter conviction, but I'm guessing the jury could decided there was reasonable doubt, which requires a not guilty verdict under the law.
Perhaps this case will prompt some changes in the law or greater limits on who can carry a concealed weapon.

near50ohoh: just saying dave if cops have to justify a shoot as appropriate force then so should any one carrying a firearm!! and i dont think you disagree.

davesdatahut: In this case, the law did require justification, but it was clearly pretty lenient. Zimmerman merely needed to believe that his was in danger. Of course, the evidence had to at least point to that as well. And in this case, lacking much evidence other than the injuries to Zimmerman's head shown during the trial, and his claim that he was being attacked, it was enough to thwart any prosecution.
Florida has reaped what it has sewn with its concealed-weapon carry laws and Stand Your Ground.

just_a_silly_girl: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57433184/fla-mom-gets-20-years-for-firing-warning-shots/ meanwhile, a Florida woman gets twenty years in prison, under the same laws for firing "warning shots" as she was being beaten by her husband whom she already had a protection order against...she did not shoot or harm anyone, yet Zimmerman murdered a teenage boy and is acquitted...I do not understand this logic or so called "justice"....

davesdatahut: I don't know anything about that case beyond that CBS news story, but it would seem that battered women would be among the primary class of people for whom that law was passed in the first place. Did that incident happen before the Stand Your Ground law was adopted?

just_a_silly_girl: That I am not sure of...but the sentencing was yesterday..so I assume that it happened after the Stand Your Ground law was adopted, but I would have to do more research in order to know for sure. Btw, how are you? I miss you..it's "lily of the midwest" I just changed my username..I hope that you and Bella are doing well.

davesdatahut: That would be a key fact...whether that law was adopted before or after the case. If after, then it sounds like she should have been acquitted....and I am good!! Hope you are doin reasonably well yourself.

Cherokee 26: Lets not forget that zimmermans face was pretty fucked up......if zimmerman blatently had a gun and wanted to shoot trayvon just for shits and giggles...zimmerman wouldnt have even been touched....so theres your self defense right there....obviously gangsta thug wanna be trayvon started something.

OCD_OCD: "Cops" did not tell him to back off. The operator, who is not a law enforcement officer, said that they didn't need him to do that.

Neighborhood watch means just that. They watch people, observe and ask questions of people in their neighborhood that they don't recognize. There is nothing wrong with asking someone if they are new to the area, or asking them if they are lost or if they are there visiting someone.

That being said, it did not have to come to blows. The escalation to violence came from Trayvon. The jury never even learned that Trayvon was there because he had been suspended from school.

The media and racial divisionists went wild on this case and failed to look at it without any bias about race. The racial element being falsely whipped up as an excuse for hate is disgusting.

The prosecution never proved its case and that is why we got the verdict we did.

davesdatahut: Ok, you can parse it to say the dispatcher told him to back off, but that's a semantical parse. She was a representative of the police department. Therefore, it is reasonable to say the 'police' told him to back off. Or, the 'police department' told him, if you will.
In any event, the incident itself should never, ever have escalated. Zimmerman should have taken the advice of the 'police department' and let the police come and do their job. That's how neighborhood watch is supposed to work - 'eyes and ears' for the police. Or, in the maximum, he could have asked Martin what he was doing there. Maybe. The purpose of the watch is to alert police of suspicious behavior, not to go off being Dudley Doright.
Whether there was any racial motivation in the case, we'll never know. There was no evidence of it presented in court. Indeed the only racial stuff mentioned in court was Martin supposedly saying on the phone that a 'creepy ass cracker' was following him. So we don't know, and won't know. Maybe there was. Maybe there wasn't.
There is certainly no evidence justifying a civil rights case, so the Justice Department also appears to have no case. And a civil case for damages will also be a high hurdle, based on what's known so far.
The matter is likely to conclude as a tragedy for all, with one set of parents losing a child and one man living for the rest of his life with some level of fear and the ongoing knowledge that his actions, no matter how well- or ill-intentioned, ended in someone's death.
As for racial divisionists, I agree there. I have no time for people who jump to conclusions and needlessly stir up division. (can you say Al Sharpton???)

OCD_OCD: Dave, I hate to argue, but a police dispatcher is not an officer. They are private citizens employed by the police department. They have absolutely no law enforcement training at all. Her words were "we don't need you to do that", not "stop". She also asked where he went, didn't she? was that also the "police" telling him to find out where Trayvon disappeared to?

Asking someone what they are doing and if they live there is not the same as attacking a person. As neighborhood watch, Zimmerman had the right to ask Martin what he was doing and why he was there. neither had the right to attack the other.

Heck, our pup got out in the middle of the night and we were searching streets and alleys in our neighborhood for her and I was asked what I was doing in the alley at that time of night. I just told the guy I was looking for my pup, described her and asked if he had seen her. He said he hadn't but he would go look out front. It did not have to lead to a physical confrontation. If I had been an asshole and chewed the guy out for asking, it would have escalated, but it didn't because I knew why the guy was asking (because I probably did look like a crazy person running around behind houses.). My husband probably looked even more suspicious doing the same thing because he is obviously male.

OCD_OCD: The people that disgust me are the ones with a racial agenda and are openly race-baiting and have to become violent and hateful in their actions and words. Al Sharpton already proved more than once his ability to whip up racial hatred based on a lie...remember Tawana Brawley and all of those Duke Lacrosse "rapists"? Did Sharpton ever apologize? No.

No one will ever let anything go as long as people keep renewing the hatred and racial division. If something is wrong, it is wrong on the face of it and should not be touted as always racially motivated. People may like or dislike me, but my first thought is not that they like me or dislike me because of my color, nor do I them.

davesdatahut: You're splitting hairs here...You know and I know the dispatcher doesn't have law enforcement authority, but they are the initial public contact with the department, speaking for the department when someone calls. When they pick up, they are the police department. It is reasonable to conclude that if a dispatcher says 'you don't need to do that,' it means 'we will take it from there.' Not as powerful as if a desk sergeant gave the same response, but still the response of the police to the citizenry.
When she asked where he went, that's her seeking info to pass on to an officer, not the go ahead for a citizen to take action, unless there an obvious emergency.
Zimmerman decided to take it from there, on his own. Not totally unreasonable. You cited your own case a a reasonable example of citizens asking what someone is doing down that alleyway in the night. But he did, in what may have been an aggressive manner. We dont' knwo. Something led to a confrontation that did not have to happen if Zimmerman simply said to the dispatcher 'ok, but please get here right away. Something seems odd with this guy and I'm gonna keep tabs on him from my car.'

OCD_OCD: I think they both made bad decisions. Zimmerman because he was closely watching strangers in the neighborhood because of all of the break-ins and Martin because he apparently felt that aggresion was needed.

Their history is what it is. Zimmerman's history showed that he and his neighbors were concerned about the plague of break-ins. Martin had a history of fighting and was at that time expelled from school. The jury never learned that he had been expelled from school or that he had a history of fighting because it would obviously have been prejudicial to him. The fact that there was evidence on his phone (that the prosecution never gave to the defense) that Martin dealt in pot and guns doesn't make Martin look good, either, but again, that information was never given to the jury either.

They both bear responsibility here. It was stupid and tragic. The law is the law and there is no place for racial animus where there is no basis in fact.

davesdatahut: On the matter of racial agendas, I could not agree more. Sharpton is the King of Kings when it come to self-promotion at the expense of social harmony. The Brawley mess set back race relations here in New York in many ways. And neither he, nor his evil cohorts, Vernon Mason and Alton Maddox, NEVER apologized for what they did. It was, and remains, utterly unforgivable, inexcusable and a complete stain on the history of race relations.
People of his ilk are about themselves, and not much more. Disgraces to the nation.
Martin Luther King was a leader. John L. Lewis was a leader. Ralph Abernathy was a leader. The Al Sharptons or the world are charlatans.
Ditto any white leaders who pull the same type of shit and stoke fear among whites at the expense of blacks.

OCD_OCD: Yep. And don't forget the Westboro Baptist Church, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, David Duke and Rev. Jesse Jackson as racial shit stirrers. I despise them all.

davidk14: .

It is interesting the FBI had already concluded BEFORE the trail that Zimmerman had NOT discriminated against Martin.

The justice department wants to do an investigation but because the FBI had already concluded that there was no racial issues, the DOJ will not be able to shove a spike up Zimmerman's butt no matter that the president originally said Martin could be his son.

PFU.

davesdatahut: The Westboro folks are a uniquely foul lot. Duke, too. Jackson started off in the right direction before he went off the rails.

OCD_OCD: Some people, particularly older people, have forgotten (or have chosen to ignore) the fact that this is not 1950s or 1960s America. They need to live life and quit trying to keep racial animus alive in newer generations.

davesdatahut: As for the Zimmerman case, yes, there is nothing about the case that we know of that makes it racial. There may have been. But we don't know.
That still leaves the larger issue of race and law enforcement in America, which has a long and ugly history that still goes on today - the latest case notwithstanding.

OCD_OCD: Police departments and racial issues is a tough one. Black and white cops alike are just as prone to giving someone a beat-down if they don't submit immediately. If you look at what is happening and not at the color of who is doing it or who it is happening to, you will find that just as many white cops and black cops will give a beat down to a perp that is is uncooperative or violent.

Are their racist cops? Yeah, I'm sure there are. Are they all white or all black? Nope. They are both. Don't forget that Hispanic cops do the same thing to Hispanic perps. There are good and bad cops just like good and bad teachers, plumbers and lawyers. It depends on the person and not their color.

davesdatahut: I was talking more about the race of people the cops go after. While things have improved somewhat, it still sucks to be black in America if you're on the wrong side of the law. Of course, it sucks to be anyone on the wrong side of the law, but especially if your black and poor.
Did you see the Ken Burns documentary on the Central Park jogger case in New York back in 1989? Really well done.

OCD_OCD: I dunno, Dave. My father was in law enforcement and while there are hot-headed cops, the majority of cops, regardless of their color, are out there trying to do the right thing. I would probably want to elbow someone in the kidney if I'd had to chase their ass down after they were running from the scene of a crime, too. Nothing to do with color, either.

OCD_OCD: I haven't seen the Ken Burns documentary on the Central Park jogger case. I'll have to look it up. I don't know that I have heard about that case. I might have read something about it and just don't remember.