Mark my words... Zimmerman will walk.

[TBA]

Probably will never be arrested.

No matter how guilty he is... the "Stand Your Ground" law will protect him. All he's gotta do is say he feared for his life and that will be enough. No matter that he lies, no matter his behavior prior to the moments before the shooting.

As evidence I submit this:
http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/stand-your-ground-law-protects-those-who-go-far-beyond-that-point/1222930

I hope like hell I'm wrong. But I don't think so.

This is one fucked up State.

[Spacedog1973]

1. This is worrying

[DrDan]

2. you do know there are more than 20 states with similar laws . . . .

[TBA]

3. Yea... But I live in Florida

So I feel the Florida fucked-up-ed-ness more.

[DrDan]

14. as do I

[TheWraith]

27. Actually, it's more than 40 states with similar laws.

I believe 22 have passed explicitly named laws, the rest have functionally identical laws with no duty to retreat.

The fact is the OP is simply wrong. There is NOTHING in the law, in Florida or elsewhere, that cites fear as a standard. Period. The law says you must have a REASONABLE expectation of death or severe bodily harm. In other words, what another person in the same situation would have thought.

[Hugabear]

43. Isn't that highly subjective?

I understand the "reasonable" requirement. The problem is, even that term is very subjective. What might be unreasonable to some could be seen as reasonable to others.

All the defense would have to do is confuse the jury enough to the point where they believe his bullshit.

[laundry_queen]

63. Not really in 'law' terms

In the Canadian system, 'reasonable' has a very specific definition. Yes, it can be taken as subjective, but they do defiine what 'reasonable' means. Basically, it's an ABOVE-AVERAGE person in all areas - education, common sense, intelligence, reasoning abilities - at least in the 75th percentile. So you can't just say, "well, *I* would have thought that was reasonable. My friend would have thought that was reasonable." You have to think, would a high educated, intelligent person reasonably assume that their life was in danger. I think in this case, the answer is and OBVIOUS no. Is it possible any Joe Blow may have thought they were in danger? Yes. It is possible a REASONABLE person would have thought that? No.

[Hugabear]

65. I never presume to think what "high educated, intelligent" people might think

Especially in a state that would elect someone like Rick Scott for governor.

[laundry_queen]

76. Ooo you got my typo.

Good on you.

I expect that many a Floridian would fancy themselves plenty reasonable, and would probably view the whole 'reasonable person' doctrine 'elitist'. But I have been told that most get instructions on what a reasonable person is when they serve on a jury. Hopefully in this case at least one listens. That is, if there is ever a jury.

[hifiguy]

69. Well, maybe, bit the only person who could tell the other side

of the story is dead. Which is why laws like this are so terminally fucked-up. There's no way to disprove anything this racist, toenail-chewing imbecile want to use as a justification.

[Major Nikon]

55. Similar does not mean the same

I don't know of any state that goes as far as Florida's law does. Alabama's comes close, but the one in Florida is truly nutty.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/03/23/1077185/-Why-Stand-Your-Ground-Is-Actually-Shoot-First-

[DrDan]

61. Iwas hoping your citation would support your claim so I could see why Florida stands out - it fails

"Some 24 states followed Florida in putting Stand Your Ground laws on their books, at least ten of which are nearly identical . . . "

http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2012/03/28/10-states-copied-floridas-stand-your-ground-law/

Perhaps you could be a bit more specific regarding why Florida's law goes further than other states

[Major Nikon]

62. Read the actual laws carefully

Go to your link and examine the laws listed in the links, then compare them with the Florida law. I didn't go to all of them, but I can see the difference right away. The one it says is the closest is the Michigan law, so take a look at that one.

Michigan's law lacks the following excerpt from the Florida law:

776.041?Use of force by aggressor. —The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:

(1)?Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or

(2)?Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:

(a)?Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b)?In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

What this means is that even though Zimmerman was the aggressor, he is specifically exempted from prosecution by the very law itself. In all 10 of the states listed in your link, the word "aggressor" doesn't even appear.

So go read the Michigan law closely and you'll find the following excerpt:

(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or to another person or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

As you can see, the Michigan law only applies if the person is not the aggressor, yet the Florida law specifically allows for that defense in that instance. That is the key difference. Zimmerman is not the only example of this. There have been numerous instances in Florida where the aggressor uses deadly force, yet is immune from both criminal prosecution and civil penalties. That is why nuts like Zimmerman are specifically protected by the nutty Florida law, and is why he will most likely escape all state charges.

[DrDan]

74. I am not a lawyer, but it seems to me to be saying the same thing -

the difference in wordiing being "aggressor" vs "not engaged in an unlawful activity". Even though the aggressor, Zimmerman was not doing anything illegal. Seems to me to be within the law in either case.

What am I missing.

[Major Nikon]

75. This...

In Florida no matter where I am, I can pick a fight with you, push you, beat on you, and then if you start beating me up and I feel I am in danger of "great bodily harm" with no other way out, I can pull out my gun and shoot you deader than hell. All perfectly legal. And not only can I not be arrested, prosecuted, or convicted, your family members have absolutely no right to sue me.

In Michigan, I can only invoke the self-defense protection under the law if I am the one who is attacked. So the moment I initiate the fight, I lose all self-defense protections under their law.

Big difference.

[DrDan]

83. I am not trying to be difficult - but I do not think the Michigan law says that at all.

It seems to boil down to the few seconds before the shooting - did the shooter feel threatened. It makes no difference what happened before that - as long as no laws were being broken. It does not matter who was the aggressor as long as within the law.

". . . . if I am the one who is attacked" - that could be the aggressor as perhaps is the case with Zimmerman.

It all boils down to the few seconds before the shooting - did one (either one) feel threatened.

Anyway - any cases in Michigan that shed more light on this?

*****************************************************

on edit - pehaps we view who is the agressor differently. For example, with this particular case, lets say Zimmerman follows Martin - Martin feels cornered and attacks in self-defense. I consider Zimmerman to be the aggressor. Perhaps you see Martin as the aggressor as he attacked Zimmerman?

Zimmerman imo was the aggressor in following Martin - but was breaking no laws - hence within the bounds of the MI law.

[Vattel]

4. If Zimmerman is not lying about what happened (I know, a big if), he shouldn't be arrested.

Even though he stupidly pursued Martin, if Martin attacked him and knocked him to the ground, and if Zimmerman reasonably feared great bodily harm, then the shooting would be justifiable self-defense in most jurisdictions, even those that don't have stand your ground laws. I don't have a problem with that. Of course, I wasn't there and so I don't know if Zimmerman is telling the truth about Martin throwing the first punch, etc.

[ret5hd]

11. Seein' as we're talkin' 'bout "ifs"...

then, from what you're sayin', what would be Trayvon's acceptable responses include? I mean, seein' as some dude was stalking and approaching menacingly him while walking innocently down the street, shouldn't he have had the same legal defense of SYG?

So, what are we sayin' at this point? Is everyone at every modern "Showdown at the OK Corral" innocent of murder?

[Vattel]

15. Depends on what the details are.

Suppose after following Martin, Zimmerman runs up to him, his gun visible to Martin. Then under the law Martin's throwing a punch would be justifiable self-defense even if Zimmerman did not intend to hurt him. And I would have no problem with that legal result either.

If you disagree with traditional laws governing self-defense, I would be interested to know how you would alter them.

[Logical]

18. If Zimmerman touched him first then Zimmerman is guilty of murder

[Amerigo Vespucci]

35. None of the evidence...zero percent, none...supports anything Zimmerman has said

You have the 911 tapes, the police station video, the EMT tapes. They all contradict every one of his claims.

"If Zimmerman is not lying about what happened?"

How the hell would this be proved, conclusively, at this point? How could he possibly come up with stone-cold evidence that neutralized all of the ACTUAL evidence I listed above?

He should be arrested, given a fair trial, and if found guilty, placed in the general population of his nearest local prison.

That's what "should" happen.

And if he has substantial evidence to receive a "not guilty" verdict, he should be allowed to roam free on the streets of his town.

[sabrina 1]

57. Wrong, HE was the aggressor, Trayvon is the one who, had he succeeded in disabling him even

killing him, has the law on his side. Where are you coming up with Zimmerman being the victim here? Under no scenario was he the victim. Clearly you are not putting yourself in the place of a teenager walking home from the store noticing he is being followed and then accosted by a total stranger who he thought intended to do him harm?

Give me one reason, any reason, why Zimmerman should not have been viewed by Trayvon as a threat to his safety? Give me one logical reason why Zimmerman had any right to harass a citizen walking home from the store? How often do strangers follow teenagers and accost them on the street on their way home from the store? Would you want your child to be subjected to such behavior, for no reason at all? And as it turns out, Trayvon's fears were well founded. He is dead at the hands of the stranger he feared.

[Oneka]

68. One reason

Zimmerman, claims that he was walking back to his truck, not toward Trayvon when Trayvon approached him, and began the confrontation. With no apparent witnesses to refute Zimmermans statement of the events, there is exactly zero evidence that
Zimmerman accosted Martin. Therefore the
available evidence suggests that Martin accosted a man who was walking away, and was therefore not a threat.
If evidence comes to light to refute Zimmerman's statement of events, then your assertion might be correct, until then, it simply is not.

[sabrina 1]

72. Except there is a witness, his girlfriend states that he was approached and may have had

Last edited Mon Apr 2, 2012, 03:46 PM - Edit history (1)

his earphones knocked out off his head. Trayvon was dead within a minute of that call. They will have to answer that witness's testimony.

[Oneka]

73. I hope it gets

That far. I personally would love to hear her entire story come out at court. I don't think we have heard her complete story yet, but what I have heard so far, won't help the prosecution much at all. Her statements so far ,likely,will not be enough to prove who attacked who first.

[arely staircase]

78. very well said. i believe the cultural norms based on racial stereotypes have been

obviously adopted however subconsciously by people on both sides of the political spectrum regarding this story. Nobody assumes the syg law was applicable to trayvon. And part of that is people unable to put themselves in his place. There seems to be an underlying assumption that in a confrontation between a black man and a white man it is the latter who may need.to "stand his ground."

[sabrina 1]

82. Yes, it's strange really. I don't understand why anyone is giving any credit at all to the lie that

Zimmerman was ever a victim in this situation. He simply wasn't, so to me, it doesn't matter what Trayvon did to defend himself, the sad thing is he didn't, couldn't do enough.

[drm604]

88. "Nobody assumes the syg law was applicable to Trayvon."

That's not true. From the beginning, I've assumed that it may be applicable to Trayvon Martin, and I've heard many other people say that it is. So it's incorrect to say that nobody assumes it's applicable.

[arely staircase]

89. ok then virtually nobody

You me and a couple of others on a message board. I believe my point stands.

[tabatha]

5. The only person who had the right to stand his ground - was Trayvon.

If the defense does not make that clear, then they should be replaced.

[magical thyme]

22. I think you mean if the prosecution does not make that clear....

Isn't the burden of proof on the prosecution really either that Zimmerman didn't actually feel threatened in any way or that Zimmerman stalked with intent to do bodily harm or kill?

The problem with the SYG laws is that they have been extended to include any place that Zimmerman had a right to be, he had a right to defend himself with deadly force from a perceived threat.

If the prosecution can prove that he was stalking, it seems more likely they can prove that he went after Trayvon with the intention of harming him, as opposed to feeling threatened by him.

[tabatha]

86. Yep, brain frt - meant prosecution.

[Nye Bevan]

6. I think he'll do some time.

I think they are slowly and painstakingly assembling a case, going over all the evidence like the 911 tape and the video that shows him to be uninjured. I think they will threaten to charge him with second degree murder but end up doing a plea deal for manslaughter with him going to prison for something like 2 to 3 years at best, a year in county jail at worst.

[nadinbrzezinski]

10. And the investigative officer

WANTED to charge with manslaughter that night.

[Ikonoklast]

7. I can be the agressor, initiate contact, and wait for you to take a swing at me.

I can then shoot you dead. legally, just as long as I can prove that I had a right to carry a weapon, and a right to be where I was at the time I killed you.

Looks like a good way to settle old scores.

[nadinbrzezinski]

8. At the state level probably

But I don't think the Feds will.

So it will take extra dimensions.

Remember DOJ is already involved. The last thing you want as a small city pd is the Feds sniffing. Who knows what else they might find.

[uponit7771]

16. Good point, FlawDuh will allow him to go but feds don't have a "Shoot Cause You sKeered" law

[nadinbrzezinski]

23. And murder at the federal level

Has no statue of limitations.

This has also taken on a civil rights dimension.

I usually do not pay attention to such local cases, but this one is probably of national importance.

[Nye Bevan]

29. Murder is not generally a federal crime, HOWEVER I found this little gem while researching this:

But, there is one statute that may apply: 18 U.S.C. 249, Hate Crime Acts, which was just enacted in 2009. That statute provides:

(a) In General.— (1) Offenses involving actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin.— Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, a dangerous weapon, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin of any person—


(A) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, fined in accordance with this title, or both; and

(B) shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life, fined in accordance with this title, or both, if—
(i) death results from the offense; or

(ii) the offense includes kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill.

In other words, if Zimmerman killed Martin because of his race, then he can be prosecuted under this section.

http://sdfla.blogspot.com/2012/03/did-george-zimmerman-commit-federal.html

This sounds very promising, especially given the "coons" comment.

[nadinbrzezinski]

30. Yeah, usually the Feds let the locals deal with murder

But as you wrote, civil rights law is part of the mix

[tkmorris]

44. Actually no, the Feds don't "let" the states do anything

In almost all cases of murder the Feds have no standing whatsoever to do anything else. They CAN'T take the case away from the state, as they have no Federal crime to charge them with. The Hate Crimes law is one way in which they may be able to do so in this case, but they will have a difficult time making the case that this was incontrovertibly racially motivated.

It is very easy for us third party observers to believe that such a crime is racial, but the Feds have to prove that it is, which isn't all that easy to do.

[jeff47]

77. Generally, Murder is a state law

States have blanket laws against murder. The feds do not. As such the feds aren't letting the locals deal with it, the feds can't prosecute.

As far as I know, there's only 3 ways the feds can charge someone with murder:
1) Murder happens on federal property
2) Victim is a federal employee
3) Hate crimes law

[nadinbrzezinski]

80. Exactly and number three

limited at best at what they can charge, which applies here.

[Quixote1818]

9. If George had NOT gone after Trayvon I would agree but since he did

I think there is wiggle room even with this nutty law. The writer of the law has even said this.

[Major Nikon]

58. The "writer of the law" was the NRA and ALEC

The sponsor to the bill doesn't even know what it means.

http://www.progressflorida.org/blog/2012/03/why-stand-your-ground-is-actually-shoot-first.html

[BootinUp]

12. There is still the civil rights possibility. nt

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

20. If FL's stand your ground law is like other state's laws...

then if Zimmerman walks and the protections of the SYG laws are determined to be in effect then he is also protected from civil suits arising from the incident. The Castle Doctrine and SYG laws typically provide an affirmative defense for the criminal proceedings and a civil liability protection as well.

[jeff47]

79. In state court. There is no federal SYG law.

Even if the state determines they can't charge due to SYG, the feds can charge based on the civil rights violation.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

13. If the state can prove that Zimm did not have reasonable cause to fear for his life or

that zimmerman unnecesarily escalated/provoked the situation then the stand-your-ground (SYG) law will not matter. Contrary to the media hype use to boost ratings, the SYG laws are not get out of jail free cards. The SYG laws have a defined limitation of what scenarios they protect and protections of SYG is forfeited if the "victim" is acting unlawfully or as the agressor. If the state can prove either scenario then the SYG will not apply and zimmerman will have to prove that he feared for his life.

The failure in this case was not the SYG laws... it was a racially motivated bias and laziness leading to piss poor police investigations.

Whether it's the state having to prove someone's guilt (stand-your-ground laws) or a defendent rigorously defending/justifying his actions (duty-to-retreat laws) the facts are the facts and the truth will out eventually. Personally, even knowing about the Treyvon Martin case, I still feel that Castle Doctrine and SYG laws are preferrable to have versus the duty-toretreat alternatives. Both sets of laws are tough pills to swallow and if I had to choose one then I'd coose the one that presumes innocence.

Right now I think it's a toss-up as to whether Zimmerman will walk or not.

[Quixote1818]

19. I would agree that its a toss-up

and had it been a white kid shot and Zimmerman black, then he would be toast! There is clearly a double standard.

[Vattel]

21. I would prefer a duty-to-retreat law

so long as it is not formulated in a way that is not apt to get innocent people convicted of manslaughter. Self-defense is not justified if one can easily escape harm without resorting to violence. It's a tricky issue though.

[Johnson20]

66. What about having to retreat from ones home, if for instance

you must abandon you wife or young children in other rooms? Or the same thing on the street?

[Life Long Dem]

31. Because of the SYG law, he had no duty to retreat.

The prosecution can't now say he could have and should have retreated. Zimmerman should have retreated, but because he had a gun...

[slackmaster]

37. JADP - There was no duty to retreat under Florida law even before the SYG law was passed

[Life Long Dem]

38. It was only in your home where you had no duty to retreat

And SYG expanded this to anywhere in public you have a right to be.

[slackmaster]

47. No, there was never a DTR anywhere, any time in FL or most other states...

...Including CA where I live. SYG expanded the scope of the presumption of reasonableness for defensive actions. It shifts burden of proof and shields a person from civil liability.

[Life Long Dem]

48. Your right.

The states I have lived in all had the DTR. With the exception of being in your home.

[provis99]

34. under this law,

the police must prove he did not reasonably fear for his life, or they cannot arrest him. What the state attorney generals believe at this point is not relevant, since they cannot charge him if the police cannot prove he did not fear for his life.

from the law itself:"2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful."

[Major Nikon]

60. "reasonable cause" is not the standard contained in the law.

The law says reasonable belief which is something else entirely. Zimmerman only had to believe he was in fear for his life. Whether this fear matched the cause or not is irrelevant.

Furthermore, even if Zimmerman initiated the contact and confronted Martin, he still is fully protected by this nutty law.

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/03/21/do-stand-your-ground-laws-encourage-vigilantes/what-the-florida-stand-your-ground-law-says

[mainer]

17. His life will still be ruined.

But I'd rather it get ruined in jail.

[Johnson20]

67. I predict a plethora of

defamation of character and libel law suites regardless. If Zimmerman walks he will probably walk a very rich man.

[alphafemale]

24. He'd better tattoo some eyes on the back of his head.

I'm just sayin'

[CakeGrrl]

36. Yes. People can only take so much in-your-face injustice.

I won't try to guess how it will compare to the Rodney King riots, but a lot of people won't take this sitting down.

If SYG is used to keep him out of jail, Pandora's Box will be opened.

[Life Long Dem]

25. Was deadly force necessary to prevent the defendants imminent death?

With SYG, you can stand your ground, but still deadly force is necessary only when to prevent imminent death.

Remember Trayvon had Skittles and a can of ice tea. Firearms, bladed weapons, explosives, and vehicles are among those weapons the use of which is considered deadly force. Was deadly force met with deadly force? We saw the police station video. They'll need to come up with more than that video to show deadly force was necessary.

[madrchsod]

26. stand your ground? maybe...

i`d say the lack of any standard police procedure dealing with a murder is the main problem the state faces in prosecuting this guy.

opps! i`m assuming the state will actually bring any charges against this guy.

[spanone]

28. another clairvoyant thread....

[HipChick]

42. I'm not Ms Cleo but

he can never live a normal life...at least not in this country..

and because of his cop wanna be persona, he'll end up like that Holloway killer boy, he end up getting into trouble in some other altercation...he's a ticking timebomb..

[EFerrari]

52. It's not a bad guess given the erosion of the rule of law

in this country. There are more cases like this and not all in the south, either. One in Dayton, one in Pasadena and that one up in White Plains. I bet you could easily fill a blog just tracking cases like this one.

[immoderate]

32. I think you are right, but...

I think the feds will have to step in and try him on civil rights violations. The vibes on this are international.

--imm

[Amerigo Vespucci]

33. I agree 100%, and have posted the same on DU multiple times.

He's going to get some kind of anger management plea deal...I'm not a psychic, I can't predict the specifics.

But my gut is telling me that this sick motherfucker will not spend one day behind bars.

[backscatter712]

39. That would protect him at the state level, but he can still get pinched on the federal level.

He'll probably get charged with violation of civil rights, and might do a couple years in the federal pen.

[obamanut2012]

40. The coverup has been exposed too much

And, there are too many legit witnesses of good character. He will take a plea deal, involuntary manslaughter, very little prison time (hell, many none), and he legally won't be able to own any more firearms.

[kudzu22]

41. I think you're right, but not due to a conspiracy

I think they just don't have enough evidence to convict. Only two people know for sure what happened that night, and one of them is dead. The other one doesn't have to testify. Absent any evidence, he has to walk. It sucks but that's the way it is. Sometimes the guilty go free in order to avoid convicting the innocent.

[man4allcats]

45. If he does walk,

he might want to see about getting a new identity. Bad things have been known to happen to bad people. I'm not advocating that, of course. I'm just sayin'...

[Justice4allofus]

46. Zimmerman's reputation is tarnished though

It is unfortunate that he will likely not be arrested, as you say. But at least millions of Americans will have an image of him of a shameless coward shooting skittle-armed teenagers.

[Cosmocat]

70. This was his lottery

I don't see how BLATENTLY obvious it is that he simply just executed the poor kid, that the morons can keep him from being charged.

But, make no mistake, this guy was a kept loser who was going no where in life.

Given their bizarre up is down and down is up frog/scorpion mindset, this incident will make him as a right wing hero. LOTS of money and fame to be made in that twisted circle.

Short of him spending the least decade or more in prison he deserves, this will be a money maker for him. I mean, it isn't like this clown had a life to begin with.

[Quixote1818]

71. I don't think he is a right wing hero

They are just coming to his defense because they are upset Blacks might get their way. I think if Zimmerman walks and they get their way, they will throw him to the gutter because they know he is a loser.

[Cosmocat]

84. Could be

I think being the lunatics they are, they will recreate history enough in their frenzy to "win" on this that he will get a niche with them.

Joe "the Plumber" is not much less of a pathetic loser as this clown, and all of a sudden that moron is a congressional candidate.

[Hoyt]

49. Even if it gets that far, at least one of 12 jurors will use SYG, bigotry, love of guns, or whatever

to let him walk. SYG muddies this whole tragedy -- not for me, but for jurors. I too hope I'm wrong.

[Initech]

50. I'm seriously worried a riot will break out if he does.

[RZM]

51. I think that's highly unlikely

Maybe some random and widely scattered stuff, but nothing serious at all. I don't think the stage is set for that, at least compared with the last two major such disturbances we've had (Los Angeles in 1992 and Cincinnati in 2001).

In both of those cities tension had been building for a while between the black community and the police. Both were triggered by direct police violence as well. Here the police weren't the actual aggressors. I don't think that accusations of police incompetence or even a cover up will be enough to spark major riots.

You might see larger and more organized protests, but they will mostly be peaceful. I could be wrong, of course, but I don't see it happening.

[Initech]

54. They said the same thing about Rodney King.

And look what happened in LA. Riots went on for like two weeks - the simple fact is George Zimmerman is currently the most hated man in America and if he walks, I think something that drastic could happen.

[RZM]

59. I understand the line of thinking, but I guess I just don't see similar outcomes as very likely

The LA riots were decades in the making. There had long been a sense that the LAPD had been running wild and not being held to account for it. It was very much an LA thing too. People in LA had specific grievances against the police there.

Same thing with Cincinnati. There were very specific grievances against the Cincinnati PD as well that had been accumulating over a several years.

This strikes me as different. I think the grievances here are more abstract and diffuse. I just don't see it turning into riots. Like I said, you might see some scattered stuff here and there. But the major protest actions won't be looting and violence. They will be peaceful marches. I think cooler heads will prevail and people will keep it civil.

[EFerrari]

53. Imho, we're nearing a tipping point

where the outrage and heartbreak over the way our predatory "justice" system treats young black men is greater than the stigma that used to keep people quiet about their victimization by law enforcement et al. Yes, there will be a riot. It's just a matter of which community goes first.

[shimonitanegi]

56. I am afraid you're right

The police can't arrest Zimmerman because there is no probable cause to charge him.
Even If the grand jury indicts him, one angry white juror could easily cause a hung jury.
So, he will walk in the end.

[WeekendWarrior]

64. Hey may walk

but I can see vigilante justice doing what it does, unless this guy has bodyguards for the rest of his life. He'll have to change his face, change his name and move to another country. I just can't see him coming out of this unscathed.

Hopefully, I'm wrong. I'd much rather see him stand trial.

[Pryderi]

81. He'll be arrested and tried, but found innocent n/t

[Maraya1969]

85. Now that the FBI is involved I don't think you are correct. It goes

to the grand jury on the 5th or the 15th and they will decide. I think that he will definitely be tried, if even for a hate crime since they have audio specialists who will testify that he used the word fucking "c**n" when referring to Martin. Also 2 new audio specialists were on Lawrence O'Donnell last night and both said the screaming was not Zimmerman.

I think that the authorities know this is not going to go away. They have to do something.

[fascisthunter]

87. I think you are right... it's why the left needs to seriously step up