State v Zimmerman

[Tero]

He found one:

[FBM]

This argument, like every other, would benefit greatly from more reliance on facts and less on rhetoric. "Not guilty" is not equivalent with "innocent." The evidence couldn't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman was guilty of second-degree murder. From all I've read about it, I'm not convinced either of his innocence or his guilt. The problem is that people bring in so much emotional baggage into their opinions. Anti-gun people want to see him guilty. Pro-gun people are happy to see him walk. Black people want this, white people want that. None of which have any relation to what actually happened on that particular night. It's sad and telling that so many allegedly rational people find it so hard to be disinterested and objective about the facts or lack of. What is so incredibly hard about admitting that you don't actually, really know for sure?

[Tero]

I only want FL to remove SYG and concealed weapon permits. Zimmerman can go play cop or bouncer with a club.

[FBM]

I only want FL to remove SYG and concealed weapon permits. Zimmerman can go play cop or bouncer with a club.

Then why all the rhetoric directed at this particular case? Your political bias is clouding your reason on this. Isn't that blatantly obvious? Just like the pro-gun people's bias is clouding theirs? Is this case nothing more than a convenient political platform to preach for one's side? Sad. Nobody gives a rat's ass about the evidence; they just want to use this incident for their broader political motives. Sad days for evidenced-based reason.

[JacksSmirkingRevenge]

I concur.

[Tero]

Oh, I will rant with the next gun case as well. This was all we get on CNN live this year. All gun nuts are the same to me, Z was the average nut.

[laklak]

I only want FL to remove SYG and concealed weapon permits. Zimmerman can go play cop or bouncer with a club.

Not going to happen. Same thing will happen that did after Newtown, lots of hot air, bunch of talking heads mournfully mouthing platitudes, maybe a couple of people holding up signs. Then business as usual. We like our guns, we like SYG, we like concealed carry. There isn't a snowball's chance in hell that's going to change.

[Warren Dew]

This argument, like every other, would benefit greatly from more reliance on facts and less on rhetoric. "Not guilty" is not equivalent with "innocent." The evidence couldn't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman was guilty of second-degree murder. From all I've read about it, I'm not convinced either of his innocence or his guilt. The problem is that people bring in so much emotional baggage into their opinions. Anti-gun people want to see him guilty. Pro-gun people are happy to see him walk. Black people want this, white people want that. None of which have any relation to what actually happened on that particular night. It's sad and telling that so many allegedly rational people find it so hard to be disinterested and objective about the facts or lack of. What is so incredibly hard about admitting that you don't actually, really know for sure?

Technically, one can't ever know anything for abolutely sure.

However, in this case, if you actually look at all the evidence, it is enough not just to cast doubt on the prosecution's theory, but to prove Zimmerman's actual innocence beyond a reasonable doubt. The prosecution presented no real evidence of Zimmerman's guilt, as even the leftist anti Zimmerman sources admitted at the time. Instead, the prosecution's evidence bolstered the credibility of Zimmerman's self defense claims, and the defense's evidence sealed that conclusion. As the defense attorney said, even if the burden of proof had been on the defense to prove that Zimmerman was innocent beyond a reasonable doubt, the defense met and exceeded that bar.

The gun control argument is tangential to the case. The people in favor of gun control aren't really taking issue with the Zimmerman's legal innocence. Rather, they seem to prefer a world where Zimmerman wouldn't have had a gun, so that Martin could have bashed Zimmerman's brains out on the concrete instead.

And you know what? They can get that world by living in the UK, where gun control is a lot more strict, and violent crime rates are much higher. I'd prefer that world not be forced on those of us who stay in the U.S., though.

[Seth]

This argument, like every other, would benefit greatly from more reliance on facts and less on rhetoric. "Not guilty" is not equivalent with "innocent."

It is in our legal system.

The evidence couldn't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman was guilty of second-degree murder.

Correct, therefore he is innocent of second-degree murder.

From all I've read about it, I'm not convinced either of his innocence or his guilt.

You weren't on the jury. The jury said he did not commit second-degree murder or manslaughter and is innocent of those crimes.

The problem is that people bring in so much emotional baggage into their opinions. Anti-gun people want to see him guilty. Pro-gun people are happy to see him walk. Black people want this, white people want that. None of which have any relation to what actually happened on that particular night. It's sad and telling that so many allegedly rational people find it so hard to be disinterested and objective about the facts or lack of. What is so incredibly hard about admitting that you don't actually, really know for sure?

Why do we need to know "for sure?" The inquiry into this event went much further than it should have or needed to because it was a political prosecution. The police themselves refused to charge based on the evidence they had at the time, which was simply affirmed by the trial.

Of almost any case of someone shooting a black youth I'm absolutely sure that Zimmerman acted within his rights in protecting himself. All the evidence was reviewed in detail by a jury of his peers and he was vindicated.

What seems to disturb you is the fact that it's lawful to use lethal force against an "unarmed" attacker. Except that Martin was NOT "unarmed." He had two perfectly good arms with fists on the ends, which are without any doubt "deadly weapons" under the right circumstances...like these circumstances.

[FBM]

...
What seems to disturb you is the fact that it's lawful to use lethal force against an "unarmed" attacker. Except that Martin was NOT "unarmed." He had two perfectly good arms with fists on the ends, which are without any doubt "deadly weapons" under the right circumstances...like these circumstances.

Where have I even vaguely alluded that it bothers me that it's legal to use lethal force against an unarmed attacker? It doesn't and never has. I suspect you're doing exactly what I actually was complaining about, viz, letting your political bias cloud your reasoning, which in this case has somehow led you to think I was talking about self-defense laws at all. I wasn't.

[Seth]

...
What seems to disturb you is the fact that it's lawful to use lethal force against an "unarmed" attacker. Except that Martin was NOT "unarmed." He had two perfectly good arms with fists on the ends, which are without any doubt "deadly weapons" under the right circumstances...like these circumstances.

Where have I even vaguely alluded that it bothers me that it's legal to use lethal force against an unarmed attacker? It doesn't and never has. I suspect you're doing exactly what I actually was complaining about, viz, letting your political bias cloud your reasoning, which in this case has somehow led you to think I was talking about self-defense laws at all. I wasn't.

Maybe so. For that I apologize. I guess my comment is directed more at the simpering liberal panty-waists who think that criminals deserve consideration and safety while plying their trade.

[Sean Hayden]

Zimmerman instigated the conflict and then felt he had to shoot Martin to keep from getting seriously hurt. I guess it's unremarkable that some people don't see Martin as a victim prior to his attacking Zimmerman, or even after being shot dead, but it's still disappointing. I've always felt that most people don't like instigators. In fact I can't recall off the top of my head ever hearing someone say about the victim of an instigator that they could have just run away, at least not when they've chosen to do otherwise. Yet in this case Martin not only chose to do otherwise but ended up shot dead because of it, and yet the instigator is now in the eyes of some something of a hero. It's disappointing.

[FBM]

...
What seems to disturb you is the fact that it's lawful to use lethal force against an "unarmed" attacker. Except that Martin was NOT "unarmed." He had two perfectly good arms with fists on the ends, which are without any doubt "deadly weapons" under the right circumstances...like these circumstances.

Where have I even vaguely alluded that it bothers me that it's legal to use lethal force against an unarmed attacker? It doesn't and never has. I suspect you're doing exactly what I actually was complaining about, viz, letting your political bias cloud your reasoning, which in this case has somehow led you to think I was talking about self-defense laws at all. I wasn't.

Maybe so. For that I apologize.

I guess my comment is directed more at the simpering liberal panty-waists who think that criminals deserve consideration and safety while plying their trade.

I don't see either extreme position as being superior to the other, and neither of them worth what 5 minutes of disinterested analysis might suggest.

[FBM]

@ Sean: I think the evidence shows that Zimmerman instigated the contact, but not necessarily the conflict. That difference isn't trivial.

[Daedalus]

Zimmerman instigated the conflict and then felt he had to shoot Martin to keep from getting seriously hurt. I guess it's unremarkable that some people don't see Martin as a victim prior to his attacking Zimmerman, or even after being shot dead, but it's still disappointing. I've always felt that most people don't like instigators. In fact I can't recall off the top of my head ever hearing someone say about the victim of an instigator that they could have just run away, at least not when they've chosen to do otherwise. Yet in this case Martin not only chose to do otherwise but ended up shot dead because of it, and yet the instigator is now in the eyes of some something of a hero. It's disappointing.

The legal argument is that Martin could have simply not spent 40 seconds smacking the crap out of Zimmerman. Being stalked, being confronted, even being scared are not LEGAL excuses to resort to force. He made a choice to do that, and that choice (while it should NOT have led to his death) is what let Zimmerman get off the charges.

If not for that, Zimmerman would have been charged IMMIDIATELY.

Basically, Zimmerman was a fucking negligent wannabe cowboy, but his mistake was legally negated by Martin's choice to jump on him. Two wrongs don't make a right, nor do they make a felony.