Jenksismyhero

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jul 16, 2013 -> 04:09 PM) Well, I agree with much of what you are saying. However, the hooded sweatshirt was associated with criminals and criminal behavior well before African American males began wearing it as a fashion statement. I think part of the culture in poor areas or ghettos (regardless of what the ethnicity or race of the people inhabiting them) is to adopt part of the identity of criminals, because they are sometimes admired due to the fact that police or establishment is universally loathed or despised. If that is the case, the reason the "uniform" is suspicious is not entirely due to the person wearing it, but because it was long associated with criminals or criminal behavior in the first place. Just like a white guy wearing a wife beater is, well, a wife beater, or a Hispanic male wearing a bandanna and a collared shirt with the top button buttoned is a thug. SS, I feel like your incessant need to scream racist! about every race-related opinion diminishes ACTUAL racism. It's the same reason half of society tunes out Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton immediately. Moreover, I find it hard to believe Zimmerman is racist for thinking Martin in a hoodie might be up to no good when you and I both know if Martin was wearing khakis and a dress shirt he wouldn't have done anything. So clearly it's not just the fact he's black, it's his clothing and actions coupled with recent events in his neighborhood.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jul 16, 2013 -> 02:15 PM) I have to ask you...do you ever find it annoying when white people (OR lighter skinned people) go out of their way to prove they're not racists? I've been seeing a LOT of this as of late, and it makes me believe they're closet racists. The words, trying too hard, come to mind when I see it...so I was wondering your perspective on the same. I don't think they're closet racists, I think it's the white guilt thing I was talking about weeks ago. The fear of being labeled a racist - or worse, being looked upon as someone that doesn't care enough about minorities - is just too much to bare. So you go out of your way to, oh I dunno, argue with a black person about what is/isn't racist. Or you make sure to call everyone that might have a prejudicial/stereotypical thought about a minority a racist (because only racists have those thoughts).

QUOTE (Jake @ Jul 16, 2013 -> 01:30 PM) The new thing I keep seeing, especially in light of this verdict, is this insistence that the only remaining racists are black people. Huh? Where?

Perfect! I'm glad they said that.

Oh, and I'll be glad to see Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Jr. and the rest of the racial activists calling for calm in the wake of the verdict. You know, like not committing hate crimes: http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/...0,5135359.story http://www.myfoxdc.com/story/22850763/jogg...t#axzz2Z8TvGzrd

Apparently the jurors didn't talk about race one time during their deliberations. Glad they could properly see through the media-driven bulls***. Also sounds like they were 3-3 at the beginning, but after reading and re-reading the law they all agreed there was simply not enough to convict him of 2nd degree or manslaughter.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jul 15, 2013 -> 03:30 PM) http://gma.yahoo.com/george-zimmerman-gun-...topstories.html Im pretty sure the bravado is starting to get to them, insinuating you are going to hold people responsible? Id take my victory and gtfo of town. He's got some suits against the media i'd imagine. But yeah, I'd get out of town as fast as possible and hope you can find a job one day.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jul 15, 2013 -> 02:06 PM) We really need to stop comparing it to OJ because they are very very different. In the OJ case the prosecution had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that OJ killed 2 people. The jury found that the prosecution did not reach its burden. In the civil trial, the plaintiff had to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that OJ killed them. The criminal trial and jury trial have nothing to do with each other. The criminal case never found OJ innocent, no criminal case ever finds someone innocent, unless the person is relying on an affirmative defense, like Martin. This is why comparing to OJ is very misleading because there was an affirmative defense. Now lets look at Martin. In Martin we have a law: Now maybe there is an argument that some how in a civil case they should apply different burdens, but here is the problem, in a civil case the burden on an affirmative defense is on the party making the defense. Thus where in criminal court it was the prosecutions case to prove that it was not self defense, in a civil case it will be Zimmerman's burden to prove that it was. Which is why I believe Florida made the law I quoted, to specifically prevent liability in this situation. Im not going to dig up Florida case law, but what is the point of: If not to prevent people who use self defense from being sued in civil court? I dont really care either way, I just think that OJ and this case are pretty different. I don't think we're on the same wave length here. All i'm saying is that the verdicts in both cases do not become findings of fact for the purpose of the case. In the civil case with OJ they still had to show under a lesser burden that he killed those people before they could win. OJ couldn't prevent the suit based on his NG verdict. Same with Zimmerman. He can't just say I have this not guilty verdict, they decided I shot in self defense, you can't sue me. He's going to have to defend the self defense angle again in the civil case (unless he wins a SYG hearing).

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jul 15, 2013 -> 02:03 PM) Yeah, I agree...but that is where it does not make a whole lot of sense. I don't know why the prosecution should have to prove it wasn't self defense. They proved that Zimmerman shot and killed Martin. The burden of proving self defense, which would seem to be an affirmative defense, should have then been on Zimmerman's lawyers, as I always understood it. I think SS posted an article that every state but Ohio places the burden on the prosecution. I'd imagine it has to do with the fact that the state has to prove you did something wrong. And killing someone in self defense is not wrong. Though I get what you're saying and agree it's weird. I guess if we did it the other way you might as well force the defense to prove you didn't kill someone with intent/premeditation too, but we don't do that either.

SB I think you're wrong. The NG verdict is not a finding that Zimmerman shot in self-defense, it's a finding that the state couldn't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he did not shoot in self defense. That's where my comparison to OJ's trial comes in. If what you're saying is true, OJ should have been able to say "ok, they found me innocent, as a factual matter I did not kill those people" and he could never have been sued in a civil case. But he was, because the NG verdict is not a finding of fact. I think Zimmerman will have to prove as an affirmative matter that he shot Zimmerman in self defense. He can't rely on his NG verdict to do that.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jul 15, 2013 -> 01:18 PM) The OJ trial really has nothing to do with how a Zimmerman civil trial would play out. The difference is OJ never argued self defense, the question was, whether OJ actually committed the murder. The Zimmerman trial is different, there is no doubt that Zimmerman killed Martin, the question was whether or not that killing was lawful. The ultimate question being, if Zimmerman was lawfully allowed to shoot Martin, then under what theory could there possibly be recovery in a civil trial? Conversely, OJ was never allowed to kill those people, thus there is no conflict in finding him not guilty under a beyond a shadow of a doubt standard, but liable under preponderance of the evidence. But where is this really all going? Even if Zimmerman was somehow found liable he can just file bk. Well no s*** they're different. My point was the NG verdict wasn't a finding of fact that could be used in the civil trial (i.e., OJ didn't do it, or Zimmerman killed in self defense).

Not being a criminal lawyer i'm not 100% sure on this, but I really doubt they'd consider the NG verdict a finding of fact as to self defense. If that were the case, there would never be a civil trial after a criminal trial finds someone innocent. OJ for example would have argued that the NG verdict in his case was a finding of fact that he was not the killer. But he obviously didn't make that argument since he was found guilty in the civil case. I think Zimmerman will have to do this whole song and dance over again.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jul 15, 2013 -> 11:55 AM) I have insurance, why would I start pretending Im Sherlock Holmes when I can just call up state farm and get a replacement? Seems a hell of a lot cheaper/simpler, wouldnt even want to guess what legal defense fees are for murder. I dunno, it's dealing with insurance companies. I'd do a lot of things before subjecting myself to that more than I already do as part of my job.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 15, 2013 -> 11:53 AM) not really What do you mean not really? No one saw anyone in the act, they saw black kids standing nearby. The victim told the cops that and they looked in his bag. The victim assumed the black kid did it without actually knowing. How is that any different than what Zimmerman did/assumed?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 15, 2013 -> 11:17 AM) The specific profile was "black person." In four out of eight break-ins, nobody saw any suspects. In two others, suspects were eventually caught (one was a group of three black kids and a white kid, the other was a black kid who lived next door to the house he broke into). That's about as exact of a profile as was available. edit: This Daily Beast article from last year covers the incidents It's a good thing the people in the second example were racist and believed the three black kids standing nearby were the culprits. You, SB and others would have thought nothing of them and not gotten your laptop back.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jul 15, 2013 -> 10:53 AM) ...and this is where the issue of self-defense will come into play in a civil suit. I may be mistaken or misinterpreting the law as written in Florida, but I believe it grants complete immunity against civil cases in cases of self-defense. Being that Zimmerman was found to have killed Martin out of self-defense, wouldn't that grant him immunity to a civil case? As the law is written: 776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.— (1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement office 776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, 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; or (2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013. 776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm. I don't think it offers immunity (SYG would if they wanted to try to argue that) but it is a defense just like the criminal case.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jul 15, 2013 -> 10:45 AM) What is that evidence? Because he was on the phone with his friend girl telling her he wasn't scurred? That's teenage male machismo. Maybe I am ignoring it. Maybe I need to consider more that maybe he was just a stupid teenage who thought he was a hardass and engaged Zimmerman because he wanted to "show him" and smoke his ass. There certainly are plenty of teenagers these days like that. It could be male machismo, but I have to believe the reasonable person if they're scared will at least say something to the friend about being uncomfortable. She made it sound like he was more angry/annoyed. That, and you have the near 20 minutes of being followed and he doesn't really do anything other than try to lose the guy. He's not going to a house, he's not screaming for help, he's not calling the cops himself. And on Zimmerman's side I still think it's important to remember he didn't really "chase" or run after Martin until he went in between or around a building and he lost him. He stayed in his car the majority of the time. That to me doesn't sound like someone who wants to start a fight. If he really wanted to confront Martin why wait? Just go up to him right away and ask him what he's up to.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jul 15, 2013 -> 10:38 AM) I really think if you drill down into the legal aspects here, the problem is in a conflict between laws. The manslaughter charge is intended to align with showing that a person's actions primarily and ultimately led to a death, even if that was not the originial intention (as it would be in murder). Given that basic, common criminal law principle, there isn't much question that what Zimmerman did should be manslaughter. Then there is the stand-your-ground law, which gives special protection to people in confrontations beyond what was on the books (and, yes, beyond what is found in statutes in other states). The protection given here, specifically the law basically stating that you do not have to retreat to avoid conflict, means he was protected in his actions. So really, to me, the problem is specifically the stand-your-ground law. A law which is not only unnecessary, but inherently dangerous. Hopefully it is modified or removed from the statutes at some point in the future. All the rest of these topics, about race, definition of stalking, poor prosecution work, jury decision-making, jury instructions, whether or not people should be able to carry guns, etc., are red herrings here. They make for theater but don't get at the heart of the problem. Yeah, this is manslaughter but for the self-defense aspect. By giving the not guilty verdict, the jury bought Zimmerman's story that he killed Martin out of self-defense (it's not like the jury found him not guilty on a lack of evidence for killing).

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jul 15, 2013 -> 10:33 AM) Unless they are committing an overtly criminal act, I wouldnt think anything regardless of whether they were white, black, etc. I guess I dont assume that people who are walking on the street are criminals, regardless of the circumstantial connection that they may have to other unrelated crimes. Call me old fashioned, but I dont consider walking on the street to be a suspicious activity. Even in a gated residential area? That to me is the difference. There's a limited number of neighbors/strangers in that kind of place. You most likely have seen everyone before. This isn't living in Lincoln Park where you see a hundred thousand different people a day.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jul 15, 2013 -> 10:30 AM) The mistake is that the self defense laws, as far as I understand them, were never intended to benefit someone who was encouraging an altercation by threatening an innocent party. That is the huge distinction here that cannot be proven because the other party to this altercation is dead. Say Zimmerman had not killed Martin, but had only seriously wounded him, and he testified that Zimmerman initiated the altercation by repeatedly following him, eventually addressing him verbally and then brandishing his weapon. What is the outcome then? To Lost's question earlier, you're damn right if this is a black guy carrying a weapon and following a white kid around and they come to blows and the black guy eventually shoots and kills the white kid, this is an entirely different animal. Except we have plenty of circumstantial evidence to suggest Martin didn't feel threatened at all and that Zimmerman's actions while creepy probably wouldn't be considered threatening either. I feel like you keep ignoring that. As far as your scenario, does Martin still attack Zimmerman?

QUOTE (lostfan @ Jul 15, 2013 -> 10:19 AM) And THAT is why black people are so pissed about this. This doesn't translate well from tweets and Facebook posts. Mine was lamenting "how they see us" or something like that. Lost in translation long ago. It makes us feel like we are pariahs and a subclass of 3/5 of a person and the resistance to trying to make that point feels like a slap in the face. Another mod saw my post and did it I guess, lol Lostfan, honestly, if the script were reversed here - it's a predominately black neighborhood that's experiencing crime being committed by white teens - and you happen to see a white teen that you've never seen before, you're not thinking to yourself "wonder what he's up to?" Maybe you don't care enough to call the cops on him (but you might, especially if you've been a victim of a crime and watched as the cops did nothing for you and your neighbors), but I find it hard to believe you wouldn't at least think that to yourself. I understand the problem that you're talking about, but I think in this situation it really isn't some overtly racist act of Zimmerman to wonder what Martin is doing given what was happening. It's not like he's living in a densely populated and diverse area and he's just assuming every black kid is up to no good.

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Jul 15, 2013 -> 10:06 AM) I don't think Zimmerman was a dirty racist. I think he was a guy who was very frustrated over the rash of crime in his neighborhood and was trying to improve the situation. However, I stand by my belief that if you are not a police officer, you don't follow/chase somebody unless you actually see them committing a crime. It doesn't matter that Zimmerman never intended to actually confront him. It is realistic to expect that if somebody is following/chasing you that you might initiate a confrontation out of fear. This is exactly why you don't do that. A 17 year old male who hadn't actually committed a crime ended up dead because Zimmerman went a little bit too far in trying to prevent crime. It clearly doesn't rise to the level of murder, and probably not probably not even manslaughter, but there has to be some level of accountability here. I think having to live in hiding and fear for your life probably for the next 10 years (if not for life) is a pretty good punishment for him.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 15, 2013 -> 09:52 AM) Because the consequences of them making a mistake are "the person they shoot at is dead". They've taken an enormous responsibility upon themselves. If a person carrying a concealed weapon makes a wrong decision, someone winds up dead. I can make a mistake in a post on Soxtalk and no one dies. What's the mistake here? It's either self-defense or it's not. He didn't use the weapon improperly or irresponsibly, he felt compelled to use it and a jury agreed. If he had a knife on him and he stabbed Martin and killed him it would have been the same decision. Nor do I believe that the gun played any role in Zimmerman's thinking about whether to tail Martin. I don't think he ever wanted to confront him. He stayed in his car for 20 minutes. That doesn't sound like someone who was itching for a fight.

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Jul 15, 2013 -> 09:46 AM) I have no problem with the fact that Zimmerman had a gun. I also have no problem with the fact that he profiled Martin and called the police as a result. It was very unfortunate for Martin that he was walking through a neighborhood where there had been several crimes committed by people fitting his description. I do have a problem with Zimmerman getting out of his vehicle and following/looking for the kid after being told not to by the police operator. Crime prevention by citizens should never be about engaging someone unless you are actually witnessing the person in the act of a crime. I guess it's an extension of the court system in that it's better to let a few people get away with crimes rather than convict (or in this case, kill) one innocent one. I don't know how you write a law that draws that line. I'm glad that's not my job. For all we know Zimmerman intended to stay 30 feet away. It was 20 minutes of "stalking" or "chasing" right? If Zimmerman really intended to confront Martin he had every opportunity to do so. But he didn't. He stayed in his car and kept his distance until he couldn't see Martin anymore. I mean look, I don't understand why people think that's such a horrible thing. In the City of Chicago if you get robbed you don't even get police to show up at your door anymore to look around. You call it in and report it. The only hope you have of catching the criminal is if he comes back and robs other places around you and is eventually seen by someone. So being a little proactive in your neighborhood is about your only shot. Debate all you want about whether Zimmerman is just a dirty racist, but his intentions to me were perfectly reasonable given the circumstances.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 15, 2013 -> 09:46 AM) That still doesn't answer the "what could Martin legally have done to protect himself" question? He's got an unidentified man following him. This is a threatening action by all accounts. Whether he should be running up to whatever house he can find and asking for help, screaming, or attacking the guy first, everyone has basically agreed "unidentified man following you" is a position where Martin is being threatened and has some sort of right to defend himself. If he knocked Zimmerman to the ground with a body blow, that's not an unreasonable response. If he tried to knock the guy out to give himself time to get away, that's not an unreasonable response to that situation. Shooting first without any other action would clearly be unreasonable, but at some point he'd have the right to defend himself with a gun if he had one. Is it when Zimmerman reaches for his weapon? Is it if Zimmerman throws a punch or grabs him? At what point does the kid get the right to shoot? When he fears imminent death. It's the same standard that applies to everyone. And you may or may not get a jury of your peers to agree with you. And btw, I don't agree that knocking someone down with a body blow or trying to knock them out for being followed is an appropriate response. Screaming for help, calling 911, running to the closest house, etc. are more reasonable actions.