The Murder of Trayvon Martin

[DrPhil]

Rant/

I don't dislike Rush Limbaugh and I sometimes see what he is at least trying to say. With that said....

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2013/07/22/barack_obama_has_more_in_common_with_george_zimmer man_than_trayvon_martin

(This part has nothing to do with this thread)
I agree, white people around the world and in the U.S.A. should not feel guilty. Guilt is annoying and breeds annoying things like (1) diversity trainings, (2) color blindness, (3) colorblind racism, (4) nonstop apologies, and (5) apologetic demeanor that is actually conducive to racism and discrimination.

DUH, white people around the world are not the only people to have slaves and participate in slave trades. Anyone who has studied history knows that Native groups and groups of the African diaspora, among other groups around the world, owned people because slavery is about using easily targeted humans as cattle. No, white people around the world are not the only people to go to war to abolish slavery to boot. That would be amusing considering white ethnic groups around the world are among the central components of world slavery. It is like whooping someone's ass for centuries, coming to your senses and apologizing, and expecting to be thanked for coming to your senses. The abolition of slavery in the Americas was generally not rooted in the inhumanity and immorality of slavery. For many abolitionists, it was rooted in what can be gained beyond the slave trade. Many of these white people did not hate Black people, they loved money which is the monetary root of slavery around the world. Money is correlated with race, ethnicity, and culture but it is spans beyond race, ethnicity, and culture. Abolish slavery if you can find a better way to make money and to oppress disadvantaged racial, ethnic, cultural, and religious groups.

(This part has something to do with this thread)
No, President Obama is not more similar to Zimmerman than Martin just because he is biracial and "raised in Hawaii by two rich white people and attended a prep school." People tend not to see our resume' or family background when they see us. They tend to see the group identifiers with which they believe we can be easily categorized.

/rant

[maconmagnolia]

Originally Posted by Mizeree I2K

Well that's obvious. In those jurors minds they basically thought about somebody like Zimmerman protecting their neighborhood from somebody like Martin. That's all that was.

I don't think that's fair. The jurors said that they wanted to convict Zimmerman of something, but under the law, they couldn't do so.

The state overcharged the case, could not back it up, and this is the natural end result. I think that if they originally would have charged Zimmerman with manslaughter and made their case that way, he would have been convicted. Unfortunately, that isn't what happened.

[DrPhil]

Iota Guy, I was really trying to figure out whose username is GrandDragon. There is nothing about Kevin's posts in this thread that are Klan material.

[TonyB06]

Originally Posted by maconmagnolia

I don't think that's fair. The jurors said that they wanted to convict Zimmerman of something, but under the law, they couldn't do so.

The state overcharged the case, could not back it up, and this is the natural end result. I think that if they originally would have charged Zimmerman with manslaughter and made their case that way, he would have been convicted. Unfortunately, that isn't what happened.

I disagree. How did "overcharging" (by this, I'm presuming you mean murder 2) prevent jurors from convicting on the lesser included charge of manslaughter?

I thought, as did many others, manslaughter was clearly proven. Given that it was a lesser included charge, it was certainly there for the jurors to consider.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by TonyB06

I disagree. How did "overcharging" (by this, I'm presuming you mean murder 2) prevent jurors from convicting on the lesser included charge of manslaughter?

I thought, as did many others, manslaughter was clearly proven. Given that it was a lesser included charge, it was certainly there for the jurors to consider.

Manslaughter is a matter of intent, negligence, and justifiability. Even if manslaughter could be proven, manslaughter potentially carries a heavy sentence in Florida. That is why the defense and judge wanted the jury to know that manslaughter is not doing Zimmerman a favor. Manslaughter is not the lesser penalized charge in Florida that it is in some other states.

One explanation of manslaughter with a firearm:
http://www.richardhornsby.com/crimes...html#Penalties

[badgeguy]

I was watching a little Hannity last night when I got home, and was just curious about something he kept trying to point out.....he kept asking his guests about the list of 61 murders that took place over the weekend in Chicago, and kept asking where were the protests over these?

I am kinda wondering the same....even though the nation right now is so hung up in the Trayvon case, what about all the other murders that are happening? Shouldn't there be some protesting to try and stop the violence in the cities??

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Mizeree I2K

Well that's obvious. In those jurors minds they basically thought about somebody like Zimmerman protecting their neighborhood from somebody like Martin. That's all that was.

What makes this obvious?

How about you sit your Oklahoma, "white privileged" country ass down somewhere and shut up.

I'll take privileged. There's no doubt about that. But country? There's nothing wrong with that, many of my friends are country as hell, but I don't think anyone who knows me would say that.

You need to learn how to communicate civilly if you want to be taken seriously. If you don't care, why communicate at all? Do you just enjoy being crass?

[DrPhil]

Badgeguy, then you are just as under-researched, misinformed, and unable to multitask as Hannity.

Wait, wait...don't tell me...despite the "I am kinda wondering the same," this isn't your own opinion. You are just expressing the opinions of others and gaining information to embark on discussions encouraged by leaders of our country.

Blah.

*****

People need to separate their own outrage from how they represent this topic to students:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/you-wont-believe-what-teachers-plan-to-tell-kids-about-trayvon-martin.html

I'm just learning about this. I'm going to dinner this evening. But, more power to those who protested in this manner:
http://wordondastreet.com/spread-the-word-do-not-spend-any-money-on-july-23rd-2013-in-honor-of-trayvon-martin/

Polls Show Wide Racial Gap On Trayvon Martin Case

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by badgeguy

I was watching a little Hannity last night when I got home, and was just curious about something he kept trying to point out.....he kept asking his guests about the list of 61 murders that took place over the weekend in Chicago, and kept asking where were the protests over these?

In other words, he kept trying to change the subject.

What I suspect Hannity understands but would prefer not to address is that people aren't protesting about a murder per se, so questions about protesting other murders are just redirection to give him the upper hand. People are protesting a killing, a jury verdict and a stand-your-ground law that they see as symptomatic and symbolic of inherent problems of inequality and injustice in our legal system.

[badgeguy]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

In other words, he kept trying to change the subject.

What I suspect Hannity understands but would prefer not to address is that people aren't protesting about a murder per se, so questions about protesting other murders are just redirection to give him the upper hand. People are protesting a killing, a jury verdict and a stand-your-ground law that they see as symptomatic and symbolic of inherent problems of inequality and injustice in our legal system.

Ok. Then why are we only seeing protests about FL laws when there are at least 21 other states with the same law? I know that the media seems to be driving alot of this debate because its good for their business...I would think that people who are upset about this law (which according to many was never even used as a defense in this case....) then wouldn't they want all states to change it? An why the call for boycotts to FL....they are not the only state to have had such an issue...just the most recent and upfront....

[Kevin]

No, procedurally, he never requested a stand your ground hearing. Not knowing much about Florida law, that could be a lot like our preliminary hearings in Oklahoma. They're a good place to find out what the state plans on doing, but aside from a few cases (I have one right now where I might just win the Preliminary Hearing assuming the judge follows the law), they are almost always won by the state because the burden is low.

Reading the Florida statute, if the Defendant wants a stand your ground hearing, he must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the immunity attaches to their actions.

We can only speculate what happened with the defense and why they chose not to have that hearing. A quick reading of the political tea leaves would reveal that no way would Judge Nelson want to deal with the political fallout of simply dismissing this case and following that, when (not if) the defense lost that hearing, the state would have won what many lay people would consider to be a major victory and it could have given jurors the wrong idea at trial. Some might think that the judge had already heard about the potential self-defense and hadn't bought it. Jurors aren't always going to get into what the difference between beyond a reasonable doubt and preponderance of the evidence is.

[Munchkin03]

Originally Posted by badgeguy

Ok. Then why are we only seeing protests about FL laws when there are at least 21 other states with the same law? I know that the media seems to be driving alot of this debate because its good for their business...I would think that people who are upset about this law (which according to many was never even used as a defense in this case....) then wouldn't they want all states to change it? An why the call for boycotts to FL....they are not the only state to have had such an issue...just the most recent and upfront....

The Florida one is actually far more extreme than the other ones. For example, Pennsylvania requires that the other person is armed, and a hearing is required. Not all laws are made equally; furthermore, were any 16 year olds killed in other states as a result of their "stand your ground" laws?

[Kevin]

I'm not even sure SYG was the total culprit here. You'd have to research Florida case law to determine what duty to retreat means and how it'd be applied to the facts which were in evidence.

The facts showed that Zimmerman pursued Martin in a non-violent manner. The uncontroverted (but also unproved) testimony of Zimmerman was that Martin assaulted him, got the better of him in a wrestling match and was slamming his head against some concrete.

Assuming that was the case at that point, the jury might have found that he didn't have the ability to safely retreat (or whatever FL law would say) and that the force was justifiable.

Like I've said, it's not the best set of facts to champion the cause of inequality and privilege with.

[Psi U MC Vito]

IIRC, from what I heard, Florida's Stand Your Ground law doesn't have a duty to retreat.

[SigKapSweetie]

Sorry, the Zimmerman Case Still Has Nothing to Do With 'Stand Your Ground'

A few commenters note that the jury instructions in Zimmerman's case included "stand your ground" language:


'If George Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in anyplace where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.'

That language is part of the standard jury instruction [3.6(f)] in cases where the defendant claims his use of deadly force was justified. But it is hard to see how it applies to the facts of this case, since Zimmerman claimed he was unable to retreat and therefore did not base his defense on the right to stand your ground. The fact that a legal provision was mentioned in the instructions does not necessarily mean it was relevant in reaching a verdict. For example, the instructions also mentioned accidental killings and attacks on dwellings, neither of which applies to the circumstances of the encounter between Zimmerman and Martin.