Why Zimmerman was aquitted

[davidn3600]

Self-defense? When is it justified? When should a person be able to use lethal force to defend themselves?

Is self-defense conditional on physical injury or just fear of it? In other words, is the fear someone is going to kill you enough to justify it? Or do you have to wait for that person to cause you life-threatening injuries?

Think about this scenario...a woman is attacked from behind in a dark alley by an unarmed man and she's forced to the ground and he's on top of her. She fears he is going to rape her or maybe even kill her. Unknown to him, she has a gun in her purse which she's able to pull out. She then fires a bullet into the man's chest and kills him. Is this self-defense?
For those that say yes, that this is self defense. What makes it so?
For those that say this isn't self-defense, what do you want the woman to do? Let him do whatever he wants and then call the police?

The whole idea of self defense is that you are able to protect yourself from death or serious bodily harm BEFORE it happens. It doesn't mean you have to first experience death or serious harm in order to use lethal force to defend yourself.

So what does Florida law say? Here it is...and you can look it up...It's Florida Statue 776.012...
A person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if: (1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony."

So going by Florida law, the woman in the above scenario is justified in pulling out a gun and killing that man. Why? Because she was in legitimate fear of serious bodily harm....even though injury might not have yet occurred. The man in that scenario only took her to the ground. He didnt rape her yet. He didnt verbally threaten her. He is unarmed. Maybe his plan was to rob her or kidnap. Maybe he had no plans to kill or rape the woman. We'll never know what he truly intended to do because he's dead. She made an assumption. And under the law, she's allowed to make that assumption when she reasonably believes her life is in danger.

In order to convict Zimmerman, the jury would have to make an assumption that Zimmerman was the attacker. This may have very well been the truth. Even the jury might have thought this was the truth. However, there isn't any proof of this beyond a reasonable doubt. And ultimately, that is why we have an acquittal. The prosecution failed to prove what really happened because they had no case to begin with. Zimmerman killed the only other person on the planet that could say for certain what happened. The prosecution has the burden of proof, not the defense. The defense can sit there and lie their butts off. But the prosecution has to prove their narrative beyond reasonable doubt. This is just simply how our justice system works.

During the trial, I felt this was leaning towards acquittal. Because the prosecution was relying heavily on emotions and not facts. That is typically a bad sign. Plus, some of the state's witnesses actually helped the defense. And to top it off, the state's case was so weak that Zimmerman didnt even have to testify to explain himself.

Does the law need to be changed? Maybe. But be careful. Change it too much and that woman in the above scenario could be serving a life sentence for killing a man that was trying to rape her. There is a reason we have self defense.

[Humanist_Activist]

1. The fact that he followed Trayvon Martin should have been enough to assume he was the attacker...

he was the aggressor, and followed/chased Martin. Martin, at that point, was perfectly justified to feel like his life was in danger.

[Riftaxe]

25. If you ignored the law, then yes

As far as being aggressor goes, no one knows, not even the psychics at DU. It was only icing on Zimmerman's cake that the prosecutors did the defense job for him, from the illiterate girlfriend with the sloth like mental agility to the responding officer's response which had to be stricken.

This is a case that was not won by the defense, but conceded by the prosecution.

[Humanist_Activist]

49. Zimmerman is not a credible witness, being a liar and a man with a history of violence...

Martin was dead, so we had unreliable eyewitness testimony that was itself neither able to strengthen or weaken Zimmerman's defense, as a result, negligence should have been proven, and manslaughter should have been the verdict.

[LiberalFighter]

86. Why was the girl friend illiterate? Because English was not her primary language?

That is bigotry. She knew 3 languages. Try interpreting in your mind what someone tells you into your native language and respond lightening fast.

[rug]

33. Convictions are not based on assumptions.

[Humanist_Activist]

50. Yes they are, all the effing time...

Hell, the jury here acquitted because a living white perp was more believable than a dead black victim.

[rug]

51. No they're not, not by a longshot.

[Rex]

2. All I know is that usually when you shoot and kill someone

it is investigated as a crime.

[HiPointDem]

13. +1. That it wasn't in this case until the public forced the issue is Clue 1. That the police

treated zimmy like a resort guest is clue 2.

[Blue_Tires]

81. +1

[LiberalFighter]

87. Probably why the blacks in their neighborhood don't trust the police.

Also, wasn't the current police chief just recently appointed? I'm thinking sometime soon that he will be gone.

[underpants]

43. Yeah we have leaped over that fact

Killed someone tonight!.... okay no biggee here's your gun. Have a nice night.

[question everything]

94. Not when you protect your home - in all states

and when you feel you are in danger - in Florida and in other states.

[Rex]

100. But this wasn't about protecting a home now was it?

This was about some amount of perceived fear (if you take Zimmerman on faith) being enough to use lethal force in a confrontation. Which usually results in a criminal investigation.

Sorry, but that is just the facts.

[Scootaloo]

103. Well, remember, this is DU...

And just because the gungeon got axed doesn't mean we got rid of all the people living in not just fear, but certainty of the idea that any minute now, their home is going to be invaded by a bunch of "thugs." So for some people, killing a black man is just preemptive home defense, is my guess.

[GreenStormCloud]

107. The "Gun Control & RKBA" forum has not been axed.

Seems that you are engaging in some wishful thinking. The rest of your post is mere broad brush insulting of fellow DUers.

[Scootaloo]

111. No, it's slender-brush insulting of some DU'ers with a specific set of beliefs

But thanks for the RKBA forum info. I'd forgotten I trashed it!

[question everything]

105. Of course not. This is why Florida and other states enacted the law

It’s a law that allows people to, well, stand their ground — pretty much anywhere — instead of retreating if they reasonably believe doing so is necessary to “prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.” In short, after the law was passed, people could defend themselves even outside of their homes — with deadly force if necessary — if they believed someone was trying to kill them or seriously harm them.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/07/15/everything-you-need-to-know-about-stand-your-ground-laws/

[Rex]

108. And usually the police will do a criminal investigation

by bringing in the potential victim into an interrogation room and asking them why they shot and killed said other person. Sometimes their story pans out as self defense and sometimes it turns out to be homicide.

It is SOPs.

They do it all day long in every state.

[madinmaryland]

3. All of your explanations are moot...

The real reason was that the NRA changed the laws (or shall I say paid for the laws to be changed in Florida) which allowed this tragedy to happen. Based on the way the NRA law is written in Florida, the jury had no other choice than to acquit.

That is the sad state of affairs that our country is experiencing. The trial was nothing more than show, and took all of the emphasis off of law (which could not be entered into evidence).

An absolute travesty.

[beevul]

8. As another poster pointed out...

As another poster pointed out, the law was passed under a Democratic governor - Reubin Askew - in 1974.

[Skittles]

14. the NRA influences more than just repukes

look at how many gun humpers we have on DU

[beevul]

16. And that goes for laws passed in 1974? N/T

[Skittles]

18. the NRA goes back over a century

[beevul]

20. Are you asserting that the nra is responsible for this law passed in 1974 by a Democrat?

Are you asserting that the nra is responsible for this law passed in 1974 by a Democrat?

If you have some proof, I'd be happy to see it and agree with you if its true.

Short of that, I'd sooner believe that Mister Peabody and Sherman took the wayback machine back to 1974 and did it themselves.

[Skittles]

21. the NRA has SICKENED America for DECADES

YES YES YES

[beevul]

22. So no proof then. Ok. N/T

[rl6214]

72. I don't know of any "gun humpers"

Only gun owners.

[Boudica the Lyoness]

79. This term 'Gun Humpers'

is really getting on my nerves. Please explain the difference between a gun humper and a gun owner.

[LiberalFighter]

89. That is bullshit. It was passed in 2005.

[beevul]

90. To which law do you refer?

So called "stand your ground" which was not envoked, or basic self defense law?

[LiberalFighter]

92. SYG

[4 more years]

106. Alec and the NRA helped pass the law in fla.

Alec and the NRA have been on a crusade to pass this type law in as many states as they can and will. Alec is a conservative group and is dangerous to our way of life. Another right wing group of total nuts.

[LiberalFighter]

110. I don't know why you needed to tell me that.

It had no bearing on my response.

[beevul]

112. The subject of this thread is why zimmerman was aquitted.

Or at least...that's what I took it for.

"Stand your ground" was not invoked in this case.

The basic self defense law passed in 1974 under a Democratic governor was. It was the law which zim was found not guilty under.

[spin]

29. This was a straight forward self defense case not a stand your ground case. ...

It's hard to retreat when you are on your back with your opponent on top of you.

[Hoyt]

38. Even harder to try to retreat when you are a bigot with a gun.

[rl6214]

73. Prove he was a bigot

It couldn't be done in court. But we all know you have special powers.

[Hoyt]

76. Yep, doesn't take much to figure it out if you are open to it. Most gun nuts aren't, especially the

ones creeping out of the gungeon after their boy gets his gun back.

[rl6214]

77. Who's creeping out of the gungeon?

You're just pissed because you can't get in.

[Hoyt]

78. Badge of distinction. And I was booted for saying "most gun cultists are bigots."

Still true, perhaps even more evident.

[rl6214]

80. Again, a statement you have no proof of but you love throwing it out there.

Most people that make statements like that just need to look in the mirror to see a bigot.

[Hoyt]

84. Hell, you guys make statements of all the threats you face and why you carry guns or keep a cache at

home. You have much less evidence than me.

Like I've said before, go to almost any gun show or gun store and tell me what you see -- well, it will be easier to tell me what you don't see. You just won't admit it, so go post to your buddies in the gungeon. My guess is that some of the folks there might have pulled their guns on Trayvon long before Zimmy did -- and you are correct, I have not facts only impressions from reading their callous gun nuttery and knowing lots of gun nuts from the 1950s to current.

Better go check to make sure your guns are loaded, the minorities are going to riot according to some.

[rl6214]

88. Yes, my guns are loaded, they are useless if they aren't

But where I live, I am the minority and I don't fear my neighbors.

Show me one statement I've made about any threats I face, otherwise you're just playing the blame game like you always do with your broad brush "you guys". Fact is you don't know jack about me or most of the other members here. I'm surprised you are posting out in the open and not hiding in your anti gun clubhouse where you can't be replied to.

What I see when I go to a local gun show is a place where whites are in the minority not the other way around. I know that's what you're trying to get at.

[beevul]

113. No. You were booted for...

Here, I'll just correct your inaccurate interpretation of this:


You were booted for a history ...no strike that...a LONG HISTORY of uncivil behavior, insulting anyone who doesn't agree with you on the gun issue, making filthy insinuations, attributing words and/or actions and/or beliefs and/or positions to people who disagree with you on the issue.

Your little statement about gun owners and the kkk which you refer to, was simply the last straw.

GC&RKBA also has an SOP, which says:

"Discuss gun politics, gun control laws, the Second Amendment, the use of firearms for self-defense, and the use of firearms to commit crime and violence."

What you were doing almost exclusively, around the time you got blocked and for quite some time before that, was not "discussing" anything.

Theres a word for that.


If that sort of behavior is something you'd like to wear as a badge of distinction, that's on you.

[Jenoch]

4. "... is the fear someone is going to kill you enough to justify it?"

Yes. It is if it is accepted that a 'reasonable person' would have that fear. That is the law in Florida and in many other states.

[HiPointDem]

15. go away

[Skittles]

23. so Trayvon should have killed Zimmerman

[B Calm]

30. The law probably only applies to white people.

[Hoyt]

39. Exactly.

[rl6214]

74. Can you prove he was in fear for his life?

The jury believed Z was in fear for his.

[Skittles]

93. I believe the one being stalked by a gun-toting vigilante was the one in fear for his life

that sounds REASONABLE to me

[rl6214]

97. He was not being stalked

And he had no idea Z was carrying a weapon so your "sounds reasonable" is unsubstantiated.

[Skittles]

98. done here

if that paranoid, gutless coward had taken the stand his ridiculous story would have been torn to shreds

[Nevernose]

5. No, he had privately bought lawyers

Who used brilliant smoke and mirrors to obfuscate things.

A poor person would have already been in jail. There would have been no calling a pretty white woman to testify as to how afraid she was of black dudes doing another home invasion, no 80 year old professional hack to make shit up about what happened that night (and contradict Zimmerman's story!), no baseless, factless cartoon to confuse things.

Money can get whatever you want in this country.

[TheKentuckian]

64. A poor person should never have to face the resources of the state with both hands tied behind

their back.

I think a defendant should get matching funds. If they have the money and are convicted then the same is forfeit, if they are acquitted they owe nothing.

[Daalalou]

6. The woman in your scenario...

... did nothing to provoke the attack. She didn't follow the man in her car, then on foot. Complete opposite of Zimmerman.

I still believe that the woman in your scenario is more like Trayvon. I believe Zimmerman may have grabbed him or shoved him, and Trayvon punched him in response.

[davidn3600]

10. And like I said, it's very possible Zimmerman was the attacker

The problem is...did Trayvon have a reasonable fear that his life was in immanent danger? We also don't know the whole story. We don't get to have Trayvon's side of it.

But do you have a right to just attack anyone you think is following you? No. Did Trayvon have a right to attack Zimmerman?

Nothing Zimmerman did in the lead-up to this was illegal. Disobeying a 911 operator is not a crime. Getting out of a car is not a crime. In order for Zimmerman to be the attacker, he would have had to attack Trayvon. He might have. But we don't have any evidence that he did.

[HiPointDem]

17. there's no particular evidence that trayvon attacked zimmy except the liar & stalker's say-so.

yeah, the guy that called martin a "f*****g c**n". there's a reliable witness.

[rl6214]

75. You are believing the report that was proven wrong.

F**king punks was what was said.

[HiPointDem]

82. believing my own ears

[rl6214]

83. Yup, as opposed to attorneys on both sides and the FBI

[HiPointDem]

85. yup.

[Skittles]

19. you're being stalked by a gun-toting CREEP for no reason

WHY WOULD YOU NOT FEAR FOR YOUR LIFE???

[davidn3600]

27. Yeah, you're right...you have a point. I wont argue that.

Especially considering the fact that if Trayvon feels he is in danger, he wouldn't attack Zimmerman. At least not at first. Typical fight or flight response will be to first flee or hide. It would make no logical sense for Trayvon to approach a person who is stalking him. That would be stupid because you dont know who they are, what they are capable of, and most importantly you don't know what weapons they have. If you have no weapon, and they have a knife or a gun...your dead. So your survival instinct is going to tell you to do whatever you can to avoid the confrontation. Unless you get cornered, in which case you would fight.

However, that piece of the puzzle is missing. Without this version of the story proven, reasonable doubt remains.

[jmg257]

44. The issue was

Last edited Tue Jul 16, 2013, 12:39 PM - Edit history (1)

nevermind.

[MH1]

46. NO EVIDENCE that Trayvon attacked Z - but evidence to the contrary.

The prosecution completely threw the case. They didn't want to win. They missed OBVIOUS stuff. Like how clean the dead Trayvon's pant knees were. That one item TOTALLY refutes Zimmerman's story. Then that he was on the cell phone right before the confrontation and the call ended abruptly - yes that is a pro-Trayvon witnesses story, but the phone call timing at least was corroborated by physical evidence, and even without her testimony it really doesn't make sense if Trayvon was planning to attack Zimmerman. He would have attacked, then called his buddy to gloat about what he'd done after he'd beaten Z senseless (which according to Z must have been his plan).

No REASONABLE reading of the ACTUAL evidence supports Z's story AT ALL.

I'm betting those jurors will never reveal their identities. (and I don't blame them for that.)

[IL Lib]

67. ???

Last edited Mon Jul 15, 2013, 08:32 PM - Edit history (1)

If you have a wife or daughter and she was stalked by a male, would she have the right to "attack"? In your opinion, what should Trayvon have done?

[liberal_at_heart]

7. I'm done. I'm tired of hearing why the law states why Zimmerman had to go free.

If I had been on that jury, I would have voted guilty on manslaughter. I'm done hearing the excuses. I can't handle seeing these threads anymore. I'm going to have to start trashing and blocking threads. This is just too sad to see so many justifying what happened tonight because of the law.

[Skittles]

24. oh and the NRA has nothing to do with it either!!!

no such thing as a sick gun culture in America - nope

[Hoyt]

40. Most of them are gun nuts who can see themselves in Zimmerman's position, having shot an unarmed

black kid who did nothing wrong. Bigots and guns prevailed in Florida on this one.

[MH1]

47. The funny thing is, I don't understand how any normal, reasonable, decent person

could see themselves ever being "Zimmerman" in a situation like this. What he did, normal, reasonable, decent people DON'T do. So why do any of these people hang out at DU, unless they're trolls?

[Hoyt]

56. I used to believe that. While some are trolls, there are still some bigot gun nuts in Democratic

Party. Some remind me of the Dixiecrats from the 1940s - 1960s. Some are basically Tbaggers when it comes to guns and/or racial issues. Whatever, no decent person could have supported Zimmerman.

[bvar22]

58. Not just "see" themselves in Zimbo's place,

..but fantasize, romanticize, and HOPE to be in Zimbo's place some day soon.
"They" are High Fiving each other and celebrating today!
It is now LEGAL in Florida to grab a gun, chase down, and kill Black Children!

My Wife & I live Out in the Woods in the deep South.
We produce a lot of our own food, and enjoy an independent, sustainable lifestyle.
There are other Old Hippies like us who have moved into this area for what we have found here, and we enjoy their company.

There are also a few "Survivalists" or "Preppers" that have moved into this area,
and they are completely nuts.
They dream about the day it will be OK for them to shoot other people. That IS their GOAL. They live that in their head ALL DAY, EVERY DAY. They hang out at the Gun Counter at WalMart dressed in their camos, and get excited telling their dreams of shooting hungry people to each other.


How many times a day do you think Zimbo fantasized about gunning down a black kid as he fondled his gun and pretended he was a COP?

[Blue_Tires]

57. +1

[defacto7]

9. I have always wondered...

and this may be an overstatement but in general it is true....

Why is the United States the only country that supports, "Innocent until proven guilty"? Most including the UK, Canada and other European countries say, "Guilty until proven innocent." The idea sure hasn't been working here, and the ludicrous thing is that in every circumstance I have been involved with, the IUPG is a lie because the accused are usually treated as GUPI but without the standards that would be present if the law actually said GUPI. This is why there is nothing a US citizen can rely on to find justice or safety in our court system. It's ambiguous and turned inside out.

[rug]

36. "Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat."

"The burden of proof lies with who declares, not who denies."

That is the standard in common law countries including most of those who once formed the British empire.

Think about it. Do you really want to have the burden of proving yourself innocent when accused by the state?

[defacto7]

61. Thanks for the reply Rug,

I thought that point would come up but your reply is much kinder that I was expecting from the subject.

I am no lawyer so I'm going by the seat of my pants based on my having lived overseas in several countries and also that my wife is German so I get a European perspective.

The idea of Innocent until proven guilty is a great "idea" and is grand and beautiful as a simplistic ideal. But like many ideas it has fallen short based on what people can get away with and who is able to manipulate the grand statement. My main problem is not with the idea, but the application. In the US we "say" IUPG but in practice it is not applied. My experience is that in most cases we are in fact GUPI under the pretense of IUPG. This opens up ambiguities that can and are manipulated, sometimes in grotesque ways. In countries that espouse GUPI as a premise there are safeguards that mark the accuser and make them clearly responsible for the accusation. If they accuse unfairly or maliciously they are in deep shit and are made to pay for their accusation and in some cases that would include their lawyers; it can even be criminal. So there are few passé, middling, malicious or false accusations. If you make an accusation, you had better be sure. If the government charges someone with a crime there are levels of proof that have to be passed before the charge. On this later point I am not so sure how much scrutiny is required.

Here, it's not so. For one thing the lawsuit industry is too lucrative to have those kinds of safeguards. If you convince people they are IUPG but not actually define the consequences of false claims then the system can be manipulated, and that is how I see the present trial and it's tragic outcome getting by, along with the myriad of lesser known trials that end with injustice.

If IUPG could be held to a standard that works, then I am for it. But as long as it's just a mirage, it is useless.

[TheKentuckian]

65. There is no reason to think prosecutors have to high a hill to climb

I believe it is typically too easy to get a conviction.

Factor in our private prison industry and you are talking crazy because you can't just somehow change the standard and everything else you described just follows. You are not saying to change the standard, really, what you actually propose is a complete rebuild of our criminal legal system otherwise you would have nothing but the presumption of guilt in the same adverserial, often racist, and wealth driven system.

Straight up accusation is guilt for all but the wealthy and probably them too.

It doesn't matter, other then jury nullification by covertly going to a trial with it in most folks heads that if someone is accused they are damn well guilty unless they prove they aren't because such changes would require substantial amendments to the constitution.

[defacto7]

66. I think you are reading a lot into my statement that wasn't there.

But I understand your point. I haven't called for change to the system at all. I am saying that the system as it is is broken and disingenuous. How that is fixed... I do not know. I do know that there is more balanced and reasonable outcome with a system that isn't trying to pull something on the public. As far as the prison population... I'm not sure where that comes from unless you are making a different point of some sort.

Our system is flawed. There are others that are less flawed. But with ours, at least we have a system. There are many things that are stuck and practically immovable that are part and parcel of the corruption that has become the justice system in America. Sorry, but I do not have answers or fixes nor do I even try to assume such. My point is to try to see strait and know where we actually are in the scheme rather than pretend America the Beautiful still exists in the political and corporate world if it ever did.

[TheKentuckian]

70. Just because you don't take something to its logical conclusion doesn't mean the conclusion

isn't baked into your cake, actions and policies have impacts and consequences.

I didn't discuss population but rather structure, we have a big private prison industry here that is already a perverse incentive to convict. Bolstering this with a presumption of guilt plugged into the system would be greatly evil.

[Skittles]

11. Zimmerman is a gutless coward whose story would have been TORN TO SHREDS

THAT is why he did not testify

[KT2000]

12. which only proves

that murder assures that only one side of the story will be known. The way I see it, Trayvon had every right to kill Zimmerman because he was the one acting in a threatening manner by following him and not saying who he was.

[TM99]

26. Zimmerman made the 911 call.

Zimmerman followed Martin. Zimmerman had a gun. Martin had a bag of Skittles.

Those are facts. They are not emotions. The jury made their decision based on the manipulation of emotion and lies the defense told.

It is a travesty of justice, the reasons all are quite aware of.

[exboyfil]

28. So why was Trevor Dooley convicted of manslaughter

when everyone agrees that James made the first physical move?

Florida sucks.

[DCBob]

31. you got it backwards... TM was being followed and potentially being attacked..

and feared for his life.. so he fought back.

[Cronus Protagonist]

32. Zimmerman Zupporters READ THIS

It's the Zimmerman Zupporter patch! Free with every Saturday Night Special gun purchase at our store.



(I think a brown shirt is the best thing to put your patch on...)

[tabasco]

45. Minor irrelevant point

The SS actually helped wipe out the brownshirts.

A black shirt would be most appropriate.

[Cronus Protagonist]

60. And I thought the brownshirts were the precursor to the SS

I suppose they were just fledgelings... lol Besides, that's the ZZs now - the Zimmerman Zupporters!

[Dorian Gray]

34. In your scenario

the man already took her to the ground. That's physically aggressive and already assault.

[DCBob]

37. exactly.. the woman had every right to blow the guys head off.

Last edited Sun Jul 14, 2013, 10:01 AM - Edit history (1)

The GZ/TM situation was much different. It was an altercation started by GZ which turned into a fist fight then GZ overreacted and killed the kid with a gun. Clear case of manslaughter... imo.

[Dorian Gray]

114. Agree 100%

[RBInMaine]

35. So there can be no prosecution if the person who started the fight kills the other guy?

And therefore eliminates the only possible witness? You are almost saying circumstantial evidence isn't good enough, but it is. It is as good and even sometimes better than direct evidence. We convict people all the time on circumstantial evidence. They didn't have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman started the fight, just that he was not justified in using deadly force. There was lots of evidence, in fact, that his actions DID start the fight due to him pursuing Trayvon with a very negative attitude about him in his head and having profiled him, all his lies afterward, that Trayvon was only 158 pounds, and that his injuries were minimal. Trayvon had the right to defend himself too.

I agree this was a tough case for Murder-2, but it was a strong manslaughter case. And I think the prosecution's main mistake was they didn't go after manslaughter from the beginning as their main charge. They pushed the Murder-2 charge as their main narrative which was too high a hill to climb. But if they had pushed the manslaughter narrative from beginning to end, that Zimmerman was very negligent and reckless in his behavior which led to Trayvon's death AND that Trayvon was defending HIMself, I think it would have been a more compelling case.

The narrative should have been: "Zimmerman acted recklessly from beginning to end, incited a fight, and as Trayvon was defending HIMSELF from Zimmerman, Zimmerman shot him. You don't get to incite a fight and then kill the other person who is just defending himself as anyone would, especially a scared teenager."

I am sure the jury was stuck on too much fuzziness about how the fight started and what happened during the fight, and was also stuck on the self-defense defense argument. Having some prosecution witnesses virtually support Zimmerman's story was very damaging to the prosecution's case. Also, common sense says that if the local police didn't arrest and charge him immediately, they believed his story.

The sad thing here is the risk that more cases like this will happen. People will virtually start fights, kill the other person, and then just claim self defense. It is a sad precedent.

[HockeyMom]

41. "no duty to flee"

I find that as giving anybody free reign to KILL somebody else. Sorry, Gunshine State, I will not do that. That is totally INSANE. If you can run away, why wouldn't you? Only if you WANT to kill somebody with your gun, like Zimmerman. Unfortunately, there are too many people who just want to do that.

[underpants]

42. Gunshine State

spot on

[ConcernedCanuk]

48. Without going into detail and arguing about all this

.
.
.

We seem to be doing OK up here in Canada without carrying guns.

CC

[Boom Sound 416]

109. Seriously!

There are more people in California.

Calling it apples to oranges would be an insult to grapes.

[Evergreen Emerald]

52. The woman could be shot under stand your ground.

Your scenario--Trayvon Martin was in the woman's position.

We are through the looking glass, upside down and backwards where the aggressor can shoot the person using a self defense excuse.

[Jawja]

53. Zimmerman was acquitted because

NO jury in Sanford, FL was going to convict his sorry ass because the Sanford police let him go, State's attorney refused to prosecute him... It was outside pressure that brought in the prosecution and their verdict was basically jury nullification. They were standing behind the Sanford Police. May have been a different story if the community had done the right thing in the first place.

[rucky]

55. ^^this^^

[malaise]

54. I think you should know how to spell acquitted

before you weigh in on this topic

[PA Democrat]

59. Glaring problems with your analogy....

Your analogy needs to state that a woman driving safely in her car sees a guy she thinks LOOKS like a rapist based upon the color of his skin and her bigoted belief that all black men are rapists. She gets out of her car and PURSUES him despite the fact that the 911 operator tells her to stay in her car. The woman would have to be significantly larger than the man, and the man would need to feel threatened by the woman.

I could go on, but it's not worth the effort.

Keep spinning....

[IL Lib]

69. +1 n/t

[NaturalHigh]

62. I have seen several posts...

saying (paraphrasing) A guy with a gun shot an unarmed kid. That makes it murder. Thinking like that is overly simple.

People arm themselves to protect themselves. As you mentioned, as I did in another thread, most people would not argue that a woman doesn't have the right to shoot someone who is trying to rape her. Most sensible people also wouldn't argue that anyone in danger of being beaten has the right to shoot the attacker.

People who want to take away the right to use lethal force for self defense should hope they don't get their wishes. No right to self defense = more innocent victims.

[Bragi]

63. I couldn't disagree more

Self-protection my ass. The Zimmerman mess has two fundamental underlying causes: racism AND GUNS.

Without an insane gun culture, the altercation between Z and M would have been highly unlikely to result in a lethal ending.

America's horrific, stupid and bizarre gun culture is a very real factor in this tragedy, along with racism.

[mstinamotorcity2]

68. Because children of color

have never been safe in America.

[Blue_Tires]

71. So "legally," how does Martin NOT get killed on the night in question?

Remember Zim already considers him a suspicious criminal, possibly armed...

[GreenStormCloud]

91. Call 911, NOT his girl-friend, for starters.

He was already close to his home, he could have run home.

He could have said to Z, "Sir, I have called 911 and the police are on the way. Is there something you need?" (In a polite voice.) At the same time, use the phone to take a picture of Z.

[Blue_Tires]

95. I get it, but of course if you're being followed by a crazy man

you're a victim LONG before the police arrive, and that's assuming the dispatcher even takes you seriously (Unless Martin pulled one of Zimmerman's stunts and insinuated on the line that the stalker was much, much more dangerous than he might have been)...

And if I think Z is dangerous/means me harm (and I do know the stance/body language when someone profiles me as a criminal), I'm not waltzing up to him for a chat...

Of course this is a 36-year-old me talking and not 17...

[Nine]

96. He didn't call her, he was already on the phone with her.

And from her description of the conversation, he was wary of the weirdo following him but not in a state of full panic.

But thanks for blaming the victim and accepting the defense's unproven claim that Martin had an opportunity to escape.

[GreenStormCloud]

101. I responded to the question of what could he do?

Since he was already on the phone with her, he could have got off the phone and called 911. You don't have to wait until you are in a panic, in fact, if you do then you waited too long.

[Nine]

102. I stand by my post. (nt)

[GreenStormCloud]

104. So instead of discussing rationally, you choose to insult. N/T

[question everything]

99. Thank you for a well reasoned level headed analysis

I did not follow the trial, only listen to analyses in the news and in sympathetic venue like MSNBC.

And it was clear that the prosecution had a weak plan. Many of its own witnesses turned out to help the defense. And it was clear that he defense had a stronger presentation. Add to this Florida's law, and the odds of conviction were getting weaker and weaker, as was evident even on the pages of DU.

The reality of our criminal system is that the prosecution has to prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the defendant committed a crime and, as the defense team demonstrated, it did not.

This does not mean that Zimmerman is an innocent angelic boy. But this is our system. Did people here and in the streets wanted the jury to ignore the presentation? like the jury at the Simpson trial? And, oh, I don't remember protests and streets closing after the Simpson trial.