Florida Does it Again: Zimmerman Ruled Not Guilty

The Something Awful Forums > Archives > Comedy Goldmine > The Goodmine > Florida Does it Again: Zimmerman Ruled Not Guilty

Samurai Sanders: Nov 4, 2003; Pillbug

Is this going to embolden other neighborhood watch assholes like Zimmerman and cause even more black kids to get shot?

# ¿ Jul 14, 2013 05:25

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 5, 2024 12:27

Samurai Sanders: Nov 4, 2003; Pillbug

Yardbomb posted:

A whole lot of people still think Zimmerman's white because they didn't actually pay attention to anything.

I thought the issue wasn't that Zimmerman was white but rather that Martin was a black male teenager, with all the unfortunate images that puts in people's heads.

# ¿ Jul 14, 2013 05:31

Samurai Sanders: Nov 4, 2003; Pillbug

I guess the best way to settle this racial not/racial thing would be with examples where someone has gotten acquitted from shooting someone not black under similar conditions.

# ¿ Jul 14, 2013 06:14

Samurai Sanders: Nov 4, 2003; Pillbug

SpiderHyphenMan posted:

If he truly is afraid for his life that'd be pretty cool. Make him experience what Trayvon felt that night until the day he dies.

I only think punishment is worthwhile in terms of a deterrent to others, if he suffers in secrecy that doesn't accomplish that goal at all.

edit: plus, if the feeling of guilt and fear of retribution were all it took to deter people from crime, there would be no crime.

# ¿ Jul 14, 2013 09:30

Samurai Sanders: Nov 4, 2003; Pillbug

I'm still not clear on whether the prosecution put up a competent case and were held back by Florida's laws/an honest lack of evidence/Zimmerman actually acting in self defense, or whether they just screwed up.

# ¿ Jul 14, 2013 09:48

Samurai Sanders: Nov 4, 2003; Pillbug

Am I correct in thinking that the actual crime, the only thing the jury was allowed to investigate, was what happened after they met behind those houses?

The reason this is messing with me is, it makes me wonder how basically any murder gets prosecuted, since of course there's gonna be a confrontation and a fight that no one sees except for the killer and killee.

# ¿ Jul 14, 2013 18:32

Samurai Sanders: Nov 4, 2003; Pillbug

Captain Backslap posted:

Lots of murders probably don't get prosecuted, some murders (many? most?) that do get prosecuted have provable motives or provable premeditation, and not all murder cases have "self defense" as a possible explanation. There's probably often more evidence to go off of in other murder trials, too. This case had very little to work with.

It just seemed to me that the fact that one party died meant that the still alive party could make any explanation they wanted and have it count as a self defense scenario. Especially if the killer being armed and the killee being unarmed doesn't matter.

# ¿ Jul 14, 2013 18:40

Samurai Sanders: Nov 4, 2003; Pillbug

natetimm posted:

This has basically been the way it is for a long time and it's the reason the mob does things like kill witnesses because one person's word against another without compelling evidence otherwise usually isn't good enough to convict.

Yeah...it looks like I had an unjustifiably high expectation of the state's ability to prosecute murder (or even manslaughter) in situations like this. Well, I learned my lesson.

# ¿ Jul 14, 2013 18:52

Samurai Sanders: Nov 4, 2003; Pillbug

Captain von Trapp posted:

Twenty years is wildly unjust. However, the undisputed facts of the case are that she got in an argument, left the house, went to her car, got her gun, walked back in, and fired it. She initiated the use of deadly force, and the law does not protect that.

If she had killed him and then made up some self defense scenario, would she have been acquitted just the same as Zimmerman?

# ¿ Jul 14, 2013 19:46

Samurai Sanders: Nov 4, 2003; Pillbug

Twee as gently caress posted:

No because she would have committed murder and would not have witnesses and evidence backing up the fact that she really acted in self-defense.

What I mean is, if she had come in, had a scuffle with him and both of them were injured, and then shot him, who could say if it was self defense or not? Isn't that the same situation as here?

# ¿ Jul 14, 2013 19:51

Samurai Sanders: Nov 4, 2003; Pillbug

comedyblissoption posted:

This obviously creates a situation where if you are in a physical conflict with no witnesses and you believe you could create a self-defense scenario and lethal force is introduced, you are incentivized to kill the other person.

Yeah, this is what I was trying to get at, that's what I was worried about, and that's what I was wondering about that other case, if what's her name actually killed the man other than just firing at him, would she have been better off?

I mean, as it is she's got 20 years in prison, it would be hard to do much worse.

# ¿ Jul 14, 2013 20:03

Samurai Sanders: Nov 4, 2003; Pillbug

It must be absolute hell to try and reverse engineer how a fistfight went down.

# ¿ Jul 14, 2013 21:48

Samurai Sanders: Nov 4, 2003; Pillbug

Volponi posted:

Before you laugh too hard:

A federal court can't overturn an acquittal, because of double jeopardy, right?

# ¿ Jul 14, 2013 23:17

Samurai Sanders: Nov 4, 2003; Pillbug

Three Olives posted:

Federal and local are completely different jurisdictions with different statutes, there is no protection from federal charges just because you are cleared on local charges.

I guess I'm not at all clear on what a civil rights trial would be about. I guess that's not the same crime as murder or manslaughter, since those aren't things the feds can prosecute anyway? Or am I wrong?

# ¿ Jul 14, 2013 23:21

Samurai Sanders: Nov 4, 2003; Pillbug

Would a federal trial be about whether Zimmerman racially profiled Martin, i.e. about the things that happened before he went after Martin? Things that didn't matter to the murder trial at all?

# ¿ Jul 14, 2013 23:26

Samurai Sanders: Nov 4, 2003; Pillbug

Volponi posted:

It will stretch any credibility that they're taking it up for anything other than political motives, but I'm not convinced the DoJ is concerned with credibility.

It will also (rightly or wrongly) multiply by about a billion some people's perception of racial motivation, considering that a black president made prejudicial statements about the shooting before any evidence was known, and now his black attorney general wants to further investigate an acquitted man after Al Sharpton and the NAACP disliked the verdict.

And it will raise a lot of questions of possible undue influence and conflicts of interest and pehaps malicious prosecution, and many people will not believe the DoJ is acting in good faith.

But yes, I believe they can, and I would not be surprised if they do.

Yeah...when you put it that way it doesn't sound like a good thing at all, for anyone. Better to keep working on fixing Florida's laws and attitudes at a local level.

# ¿ Jul 14, 2013 23:30

Samurai Sanders: Nov 4, 2003; Pillbug

SpiderHyphenMan posted:

^Or we could do something that has a chance of working. Unless you were being sarcastic. My detector got broken last night.

"If I had a son he'd look like Trayvon" = Prejudicial Statement.

Good to know!

No, I wasn't being sarcastic, I'm just trying to get my head around the far away implications of the federal government interfering with a state murder trial.

And yeah, I also think Obama should not have said that, the president should avoid making personal comments about things outside of the realm of the federal government.

# ¿ Jul 14, 2013 23:36

Samurai Sanders: Nov 4, 2003; Pillbug

skylined! posted:

It doesn't invalidate dick, other then the possibility that Zimmerman isn't culpable in, bare with me now, other crimes that the state of Florida did not prosecute for.

Amazing, I know.

I only think this is okay if they can be 1000% clear about this, both legally and to the public. I don't know how they could though, could someone go into details about how the federal case would not be about whether or not he killed Martin unlawfully?

# ¿ Jul 15, 2013 00:18

Samurai Sanders: Nov 4, 2003; Pillbug

SpiderHyphenMan posted:

Couldn't the DoJ charge him with Murder 3, hypothetically? Or was did the jury find him not guilty of that as well?

I thought charging anyone with murder was the exclusive right and duty of the state, not the feds.

# ¿ Jul 15, 2013 00:23

Samurai Sanders: Nov 4, 2003; Pillbug

Captain von Trapp posted:

Yep. Suspended three times. Once for skipping, once for fighting, and once for weed.

I read an investigation of my own school district some time ago that makes me think he was lucky just being suspended for fighting. Or he must have been doing it gently enough that even his blackness didn't cause the admin or teacher who saw it to immediately expel him and call the police.

edit: the investigation revealed that it basically goes like this
white kids fighting: "oh well, boys will be boys"
black kids fighting: "oh god they're trying to kill each other!"

# ¿ Jul 15, 2013 01:59

Samurai Sanders: Nov 4, 2003; Pillbug

ghostwritingduck posted:

He also hasn't shown any sorrow over killing someone. To me, that's the thing that makes it really difficult to defend Zimmerman.

I figured his lawyers strongly advised him not to show remorse even if he felt it until the trial was concluded. Maybe now we'll see something different?

# ¿ Jul 15, 2013 03:18

Samurai Sanders: Nov 4, 2003; Pillbug

OldTennisCourt posted:

Why would they not want him to show remorse? Wouldn't that help their case? "He didn't want to kill him but had to and he's still broken up about it"?

I thought him showing remorse would (slightly) undermine the case that he was justified in the killing.

# ¿ Jul 15, 2013 03:21

Samurai Sanders: Nov 4, 2003; Pillbug

Beaters posted:

Zimmerman started the fight with his stalking. Had he minded his own loving business this poo poo would never have gone down.

Yeah...this is pretty much what I see as the biggest gap between the law, and what's actually right and wrong.

# ¿ Jul 15, 2013 04:07

Samurai Sanders: Nov 4, 2003; Pillbug

spunkshui posted:

This might blow your loving mind but did you know someone can act suspicious AND be black.

HOLY poo poo!

I don't think they needed to in the trial, but did they talk about what about him looked suspicious to Zimmerman (other than being black/male/teenaged/in a hoodie)?

# ¿ Jul 15, 2013 05:12

Samurai Sanders: Nov 4, 2003; Pillbug

Say theoretically you're in some place in America where racism is an actual concern against you as a white person. All you have to do is step five inches in any direction and you're back in a place where your race is in control of basically the entire chain of power from the very top of the government, down to you.

# ¿ Jul 15, 2013 06:45

Samurai Sanders: Nov 4, 2003; Pillbug

Zombies' Downfall posted:

Does the ground really constitute a deadly weapon? If so, isn't every single person you walk past at the mall a lethal threat? And I can see it now, a cop is acquitted for gunning down a black guy holding a comb because he thought it was a city block.

Yeah, that's what is new to me from this case. I had no idea that I had a legally lethal weapon at my disposal just by virtue of being on the ground and not floating in the air.

# ¿ Jul 17, 2013 18:14

Samurai Sanders: Nov 4, 2003; Pillbug

ClemenSalad posted:

Maybe instead of linking FREEP levels of media you would look and know he's called the police 46 times and only 6 times on black people.

Was that just statistical, reflecting the makeup of the people he saw go by?

# ¿ Jul 17, 2013 18:20

Samurai Sanders: Nov 4, 2003; Pillbug

TheChad posted:

You are better off just ignoring people like that, unfortunately.

People like that are life-long experts at not letting people ignore them though, so easier said than done.

# ¿ Jul 18, 2013 18:37

Samurai Sanders: Nov 4, 2003; Pillbug

If posing with a gun in a photo confirms that you are a violent criminal then drat, a lot of people are violent criminals, including a lot of people here at SA.

# ¿ Jul 20, 2013 02:14

Samurai Sanders: Nov 4, 2003; Pillbug

TheChad posted:

Yes but a 158 pound kid could get murdered by a 200 pound wanna be cop with a gun and MMA training.

Speaking of this, how reliable are the claims that Zimmerman is just terrible at fighting? Is it just his and his trainer's say-so, or anything else?

# ¿ Jul 20, 2013 02:33

Samurai Sanders: Nov 4, 2003; Pillbug

A War Criminal posted:

Uh smoking weed is a crime. As is vandalism. As is truancy.

Not violent ones. In my mind there's a big wall between crimes like those and violent crimes, lots of people engage in the former but would never touch the latter.

Also, if you're white, those things are just "boys will be boys", but if you're black it's a prelude to you killing someone.

# ¿ Jul 20, 2013 02:52

Samurai Sanders: Nov 4, 2003; Pillbug

I wish what he did prior to the altercation WAS a crime, but it's not.

Unless the feds have an interest in it on racial profiling grounds, anyway. I can't tell if they are serious or just saying stuff though.

# ¿ Jul 20, 2013 03:50

Samurai Sanders: Nov 4, 2003; Pillbug

numbs posted:

Honestly, I think it's good that he wasn't found guilty. It's a bunch of he-said she-said. From what I've heard, Martin was on top of Zimmerman when he shot him so it's less likely to be a racism issue. I feel bad for anyone that actually thinks Zimmerman shot this boy because he was black. Zimmerman was part of the neighborhood watch, why would he throw his life away to shoot a black person?

Because those people always get away?

# ¿ Jul 20, 2013 03:58

Samurai Sanders: Nov 4, 2003; Pillbug

Would this have been any different if the 911 operator had said "don't follow him" instead of "we don't need you to follow him"?

# ¿ Jul 20, 2013 07:37

Samurai Sanders: Nov 4, 2003; Pillbug

tezcat posted:

Zimmerman disregarded Trayvon's civil rights, disregarded his law enforcement training, disregarded any kind of training as a neighborhood watchman, disregarded CCW training, as well as any moral obligations to not follow someone who was literally walking home with candy with no criminality happening. This while saying "punks always get away".

So I guess the question is do you think he would have listened given he ignored all the other life training and advice?

In a legal sense for the trial, I mean. Yeah, it wasn't gonna stop him from being a vigilante.

# ¿ Jul 20, 2013 07:53

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 5, 2024 12:27

Samurai Sanders: Nov 4, 2003; Pillbug

natetimm posted:

Yes. I agree, this is the perfect time to have the conversation. However, I worry that making Zimmerman an example will be more important than actually solving our racially hosed justice system. Zimmerman got off because our system favors the accused(as it should) and we need to ask why if it was a black kid in the same place he would be locked up for life. It's not about making Zimmerman pay, it's about fixing our hosed up society.

I don't really care what happens to Zimmerman as long as his acquittal doesn't encourage more trigger-happy people to do what he did. We may never know if it did or not, though.

# ¿ Jul 20, 2013 08:59

The Something Awful Forums > Archives > Comedy Goldmine > The Goodmine > Florida Does it Again: Zimmerman Ruled Not Guilty