The Jury found George Zimmerman not guilty in the death of Trayvon Martin, the 17 year old black teenager killed last year. Just thought everyone should know.
Just to be picky, he wasn't found not guilty for shooting and killing him, he was found not guilty of murder. It's common knowledge that he killed him.
With the lack of evidence to show murder and the self defence claim, I can understand why this verdict was reached.
^^I personally agree with Jubilex. We'll probably never know what really happen, but there was no solid evidence for the murder instead of self defence claim, so the verdict makes sense to me.
I have another question for people to chime in on: Why was this set up as a black-white racism thing when Zimmerman is actually Hispanic?
GUILTY AS H*LL! Not guilty doesn't mean innocent.
Well you're right, it doesn't, but come on. You don't know if he is "guilty as he.ll". I mean I don't think what he did was really smart or maybe even right, but you can't say that he is guilty just as I can't say he's innocent. We weren't there, but just as Jubilex said, there wasn't close to enough evidence to convict him. Maybe what he did was ill advised, but it wasn't murder.
Ok. You're right. I can't know for sure. It just seems fishy to me. An unarmed teenager? I dunno. Something doesn't seem right. Just my point of view. Sorry to come of as an *ss. I'm just very zealous of this case. We have to remember a teenager lost his life. And people are forgetting that in that fits of passion.
I definitely agree with you about emotion clouding reason in this case on both sides. I think following a teenager was Zimmerman's biggest mistake. People are calling him a hero, and that isn't true. A teenager did lose his life, and for whatever the reason it was a tragedy indeed because it could've been avoided if Zimmerman made some different choices. That said, I there wasn't enough evidence to convict him and I really don't think race played a role in Zimmerman's actions (at least conciously) or in the trial. If the races had been reversed, the same verdict almost definitely would've been reached.
My opinion is: Two facts. He IS guilty of killing Trayvon, whether through self defense or not. He did pull the trigger, he is responsible. 2nd fact remains, is that there was not enough evidence or proof. My uncle, a lawyer of 22 years and still going, said it best," You have to PROVE the case in court. There are three standards of proof, by preponderance of the evidence, that's what they will use if he is sued for money. The next highest is clear and convincing evidence, which is an 85-90% chance he did it. The highest is Beyond Reasonable Doubt. BUT Beyond Reasonable Doubt is still about a 99.5 %. " My Dad then looked at me and said," How many times did you study as hard as you could for a test and you got it back and it said a 99 or 99.5 %, yet you studied enough to get a 100? That is how it went with the prosecution." So even then it is hard to convict.
No one has suggested that Zimmerman didn't kill Trayvon. We all know he did. But whether it is murder or not is a different story.
I read through case notes after the verdict. Prior to this I had never seen any information on the case. I had not even heard of it. So it's reasonable to suggest that I was free of any emotional bias that was exposed in the media. I can fully understand why the not guilty verdict was reached, based on the evidence that I read.
I agree that it is a tragedy that Trayvon lost his life, but I believe a murder conviction would have been unjust. It's not murder if there is no prior intent to kill, and it is not manslaughter if it is in self defence.
Not how I meant to come across. My bad.
No worries. I understood what you meant in the rest of your post (about justice being difficult to obtain), but I wasn't sure on what exactly you meant about that first bit, so I wanted to clarify.
h ttp://www.reuters.c om/article/2013/07/16/us-usa-shooting-florida-unrest-idUSBRE96F16Q20130716
ht tp://www.thegatewaypundit.c om/2012/04/it-begins-youths-screaming-this-is-for-trayvon-beat-78-year-old-white-man-in-toledo/
This is what happens when we listen to demagogues in this country. In my opinion, when Al Sharpton calls this "A new Civil Rights movement," it's cheapening MLKJ and others' accomplishments. I see no element of race in this case that wasn't placed there by onlookers. Stop using the tragic death of a child to advance your political agendas (I'm looking to you, Al Sharpton, and you, Eric Holder).
The simple fact of the matter is that the Prosecution had no case. In fact, the grand jury process was bypassed to make the trial move swifter, and the police department was going to drop the case before it was taken up by people who read about it. The only eye witness testimony (Called by the prosecution, might I add) said nothing more than that he saw Trayvon on top of Zimmerman "ground-pounding MMA-style."
Did Zimmerman evoke the attack by harrassing the poor kid? Probably. But you can't smash people's heads on the ground. That's against the law, and once that happens, the victim's legally allowed to shoot you. Which is what happened.
Has our system been disgustingly unfair to minorities in this country? Yes. Did that happen here? No. Or at least, there's no reason to assume it did.
I'm not sure how manslaughter and murder laws work (which I should since I want to become a law major) but murder is murder regardless. Someone was killed. I don't think you need intentions most of the times to kill someone. Some people kill people for no reason. Also, we don't know if there were prior intentions to kill this teenager. That's something no one will know. NO ONE. This could've been avioded had he walked aways from this teenager.
The information is easily to find. I'm Australian, our laws are different, but I had no trouble understanding murder and manslaughter laws when I looked them up. I suggest you do the same.
"murder is murder"
Uh, no. There's a good reason murder and manslaughter are seperate, as well as allowing for self defence claims. Imagine if you spoke to someone on the street and they attacked you. In defence you smashed their head in with a bottle in the hopes they might fall unconscious, but they died? Would you think it's fair that you go to jail for years for murder?
I know this is not what happened with Trayvon and Zimmerman. I'm just using the example to explain to you why these laws exist.
"We don't know if there were prior intentions to kill"
Exactly. The burden of proof was on the prosecution. They could not show this. Why send a man to jail for something that might have been true?
"This could have been avoided if he had walked away from this teenager"
Very true. The death is tragic. But that does not mean that Zimmerman should have gone to jail for it.
What happened might not seem fair to you, and that's okay. But your claims do not make it just to send Zimmerman to jail. There was not enough evidence to convict him.
I think one of the problems here is the 'stand your ground law'... which states that you can use deadly force in self-defense without making any attempt to retreat or defuse the situation. Which I think just invites trouble- like the Treyvon Martin case.
McKay: Difference between murder and manslauter.
Myrder is devived into 3 degrees. First and Second degrees are sloghtly different. 3rd is Manslaughter.
1rst degree is plain and simple, premediated and deliberate. Criteria being different state to state
Second degree murder is unplanned murder, but with malice. It happened, on the moment. Depending on the case, this may or may not land you Capital Punishment.
Manslaughter is a distinct crime and is not considered a lesser degree of murder. The essential distinction between the two offenses is that malice aforethought must be present for murder, whereas it must be absent for manslaughter. Manslaughter is not as serious a crime as murder. On the other hand, it is not a justifiable or excusable killing for which little or no punishment is imposed.
Sources: My uncle, lawyer for 22 years to now. and Legal Dictionary.freeonlinedictionary. com for manslaughter.
So I went I looked up a summary of all the evidence presented by both sides and I have to say the verdict was pretty obvious. The prosecution had no case. Was it tragic that a teenager got killed? Yes.
Did Zimmerman make great choices? No.
Does he deserve to go to jail? No.
I don't know why, but this case reminded me of To Kill a Mockingbird....