Trayvon Martin's murderer George Zimmerman is still a free man

[tim722]

Originally Posted by BVS

Help me out here, I haven't seen Holder say anything specifically about a civil rights charge, just that they will continue the investigation they opened back when this first occurred.

I heard speculation about a civil rights charge as early as Friday from some on the right. So would a civil rights charge be the only way the DOJ can go, is that why there's this speculation?

I just haven't seen anything about a charge like Tim has suggested

BVS. You agree that the DOJ is continuing their investigation. When it's concluded, they either suspend their case or charge a civil rights charge. Only two outcomes. So yes they are still looking to charge him with a civil rights violation. They can't charge him with anything else. And i got that from Sharpton on MSNBC as well as Fox as well as CNN.

[tim722]

Originally Posted by iron yuppie

Let me trace a hypothetical situation here. Person A is looking to cause a fight for whatever reason. Person A begins to hassle Person B, eventually throwing a punch at Person B. The punch misses. B swings back and connects, breaking A's nose. A pulls out a gun and shoots B in the head. A then claims self-defense, citing the broken nose and a fear of being killed. As far as I can tell, based on the verdict of the Zimmerman case, A has broken no laws. Does this not sound insane?

Person A is at fault as he threw the first punch. Person B has a right to defend himself. However in the Zimmerman case, there was no evidence or witnesses to say he threw the first punch. So it is not insane. If a witness looked out his window or their was video to support your scenario, Zimmerman would have been convicted of murder in my opinion.

[Diemen]

Originally Posted by The_Pac_Mule

That being said he was definitely a pussy who'd never been in a fight, but should he be held responsible for that?

If he ends up killing another person because of said inexperience? Absolutely he should be held responsible.

[LuckyNumber7]

I would say that's true only because he decided itd be a good idea to play police officer while armed even though the police told him not to.

[iron yuppie]

Originally Posted by U2DMfan

But those beatings were always relative to all parties involved. If one is a weakling, then chances are someone is not just going to keep hammering on them. Especially if neither party is drunk and out of control.

Agreed. I think in general this thread is underestimating the difference between getting one's head swatted around and getting shot in the bloody chest at point-blank range.

But I think the most salient point thus far is what Headache said however many pages back: if you take the gun out of the equation, both Martin and Zimmerman would have walked away with their lives intact. I just don't buy that Martin was going to beat Z to death over being followed. If Martin were that enraged, Z must have threatened him in some way.

[PhilsFan]

Originally Posted by nbcrusader

The prosecution failed to prove otherwise.

Because the laws don't make any sense?

[AEON]

Originally Posted by iron yuppie

... if you take the gun out of the equation, both Martin and Zimmerman would have walked away with their lives intact. .

Perhaps. But how much of a beating is Zimmerman obliged to take? His nose was already broken and his head was getting pounded against the concrete - and he was pinned.

He can't tap out - there's no ref to step in and stop it (even though he did cry out for help - which none came).

Since there is a legally carried gun in the equation (Zimmerman's) - and both men are legally allowed to be where they were at that moment before the fight (proven by law) - Once Martin started punching and pinned Zimmerman - Zimmerman only has two legal choices:

1) Trust that Martin will eventually, voluntarily stop beating him. Maybe he stops with the broken nose, maybe he doesn't stop until Zimmerman's brains are pouring onto sidewalk - how is he to know? He can't - he has to trust that the same man that just jumped him would have the civility to simply stop fighting once he inflicted light damage. Oh - and hope that after beating him he does not find/grab the gun and use it (which Zimmerman claims was happening - but let's say that has not happened yet).

2) Shoot him

A third option may have been a non-lethal shot, but it seems that controlling the aim of the weapon while getting your arse kicked and with a broken nose is bit much to expect.

The forensics seem to point out that Martin not only started the physical confrontation, but he was certainly winning the confrontation. Once someone is pinned and effectively beaten (Zimmerman) - he is then at the mercy of the winner (Martin). I believe that was the heart of the case - at least the legal portion of it - that Zimmerman had the legal right to use his legally carried weapon to stop Martin from continuing to cause further bodily harm.

Also - punching someone and breaking their nose may get you charged with a misdemeanor assault. Straddling someone and punching them ferociously after breaking their nose will get you charged with a felony.

Martin had already stepped across the line into felony assault/battery charges.

[nbcrusader]

Originally Posted by PhilsFan

Because the laws don't make any sense?

NO.

We are not talking about some unique law that Florida recently enacted. The laws governing this case all are rooted in common law. This type of case has been heard hundreds, if not thousands, of times.

A desire for a different outcome does not equal "the laws don't make sense".

[PhilsFan]

I know it's not a Stand Your Ground case. I mean the gun laws.

[AEON]

A broken nose is considered Great Bodily Injury.

I'm guessing if the fight had ended at the moment just before the shooting - Trayvon Martin would have probably been charged with felony assault - based solely on the forensics.

[iron yuppie]

Originally Posted by nbcrusader

NO.

We are not talking about some unique law that Florida recently enacted. The laws governing this case all are rooted in common law. This type of case has been heard hundreds, if not thousands, of times.

So that puts this particular law above scrutiny? What exactly is your point?

[Jive Turkey]

Originally Posted by iron yuppie

Let me trace a hypothetical situation here. Person A is looking to cause a fight for whatever reason. Person A begins to hassle Person B, eventually throwing a punch at Person B. The punch misses. B swings back and connects, breaking A's nose. A pulls out a gun and shoots B in the head. A then claims self-defense, citing the broken nose and a fear of being killed. As far as I can tell, based on the verdict of the Zimmerman case, A has broken no laws. Does this not sound insane?

Taking the first swing completely changes the the situation. In this case, it was never established that Zimmerman initiated the physical confrontation.

Originally Posted by U2DMfan

If I am beating you up - with the full intention just to beat you up - and the thought of KILLING you never even crossing my mind - why should I have to pay with my life because you are such a weak baby that punches to your head constitute a threat to your life?

At what point does someone being physically stronger than you amount to a threat to your life? At the point where you begin to get scared? So now that is the justification? It's just tough to pin that down.

I just think it's totally unreasonable that he thought he was going to be killed. Not that he DIDN'T believe that, but it's like...those morons who believe 9/11 was an inside job. It's not that they don't believe it, it's that it's ridiculous to believe it. And so, Zimmerman is fine and dandy as far as the law is concerned because he was scared enough? This might be consistent with the law but it doesn't feel right. Shouldn't there be an objective measure w/r/t this? I know it's probably impossible.

It was the "Even if he thought he would be killed" (or something like that. Can't remember the wording) that I was responding to. If not using it when you think you're about to be killed, when is the appropriate time? He didn't even have to believe he was about to be beaten to death; being beaten to the point of permanent injury was a real danger

Originally Posted by Diemen

If he ends up killing another person because of said inexperience? Absolutely he should be held responsible.

If he's not the one who initiated the fight, his inexperience is irrelevant. He apparently didn't want to fight in the first place, so why should he have to take a beating?

[ntalwar]

Originally Posted by PhilsFan

I know it's not a Stand Your Ground case. I mean the gun laws.

Stand your ground was included in the jury instructions.

[BVS]

Originally Posted by nbcrusader

This type of case has been heard hundreds, if not thousands, of times.

I have to wonder if this is true. If so why are there so many inexperienced vigilantes? Maybe something should be done about neighborhood watch officials? I think his pursuit probably makes this case somewhat rare, I would think, if not then I think we may have a wannabecop problem in this country and we're going to end up with a lot of innocent dead people.

[Diemen]

Originally Posted by Jive Turkey

If he's not the one who initiated the fight, his inexperience is irrelevant. He apparently didn't want to fight in the first place, so why should he have to take a beating?

Maybe he shouldn't have been the self appointed neighborhood watch (and packing heat) if he doesn't know how to handle himself in a fight and would freak out and shoot someone who got the better of him in one.



Speaking of packing heat... Zimmerman apparently had a prior record of assault against an officer, and a restraining order from an ex-fiancée - and yet he was still legally allowed to concealed carry?

Nope, gun laws have nothing to do with this...

[iron yuppie]

Originally Posted by Jive Turkey

Taking the first swing completely changes the the situation. In this case, it was never established that Zimmerman initiated the physical confrontation.

Right, but what if Z did actually initiate the fight? Furthermore, how many fights have absolute clarity in terms of initial aggression? Is the person who initiates physical conflict always the one to blame? Certainly in the absence of witnesses and sometimes even with them, the law seems to be condoning deadly force as a resolution to conflict. That doesn't sit well with me.

And, again, if we look closely at Z's injuries, he was nowhere close to death. I just can't accept the argument that his reaction - to shoot the kid directly in the chest - was commensurate with what he was suffering through. His perception of danger should not be a justification for his actions.

[cobl04]

Not sure if this has been posted already, but former poster Onebloodonelife (I always go to type that as 1blo0d, thanks mofo) posted this on Facebook. Similar case, if not even more ridiculous reaction from the white man killing the black man.

Jordan Davis update: Michael Dunn charged with first-degree murder, trial scheduled for September 23

[tim722]

Originally Posted by cobl04

Not sure if this has been posted already, but former poster Onebloodonelife (I always go to type that as 1blo0d, thanks mofo) posted this on Facebook. Similar case, if not even more ridiculous reaction from the white man killing the black man.

Jordan Davis update: Michael Dunn charged with first-degree murder, trial scheduled for September 23

Then there's one in Houston where the black woman killed the white man.

http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?se...cal&id=8815444

[deep]

at least somebody knows what time it is

Bruce Springsteen dedicates 'American Skin' to Trayvon Martin at Ireland show on Tuesday | NJ.com

Trayvon died because he is black and Zimmerman walked because he is white.

[AEON]

Originally Posted by deep

Trayvon died because he is black and Zimmerman walked because he is white.

It is tragic, emotionally-charged, twitter-ready statements like this that keeps this country divided.

BTW - Zimmerman is as "white" as President Obama.