The fundamental issue is that the Florida law is ****ed up. It shouldn't even be possible for Zimmermann to get off scot-free, even if we take his most favourable account of the events as fact.
The other issue of racism in Zimmermann himself, as well as the system (as in, the law still leaves room for jurors to decide, i.e. if Zimmermann was black and Martin white, Zimmermann would not have gotten off free (even with his excellent legal team, which obviously Zimmerman could never have afforded without the outcry)) is of course somewhat more important in the great scheme of things, cause it's not Florida specific, but even the people who are on Zimmerman's side in this, should see that the law as it is in Florida is insane, and really could potentially be used on absolutely every killing that happens there.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
It doesn't matter what the laws were. The simple fact is that criminal trials have to convict beyond reasonable doubt, and there is no clear account of what happened. The prosecution witnesses were crap. Zimmerman may be suspected, but you can't convict on that basis.
Well, you can, has happened often before. Court trials aren't a black and white thing, and this one too, had the jurors thought differently, perhaps cause the evidence had been presented differently, could have just as well gone another way.
Again, my point is that the law is unjust in Florida. I am saying that taking Zimmerman's testimony, in any other country (the UK and Germany included), Zimmerman would have been convicted of at least manslaughter, reasonable doubt would not factor into it, as Zimmerman has admitted to following and shooting Martin.
Originally posted by Oliver North
I'd be surprised from what I know of UK law if Zimmerman didn't face a conviction there, same with Canada, though in both cases there would be a huge slant on the way things are interpreted because of our gun control laws.
Yes, that would be a fundamental issue here too. You have to have an extremely good reason for a concealed carry license here, neighborhood watch doesn't quite cut it. However, even accounting for that, what Zimmerman did, would not fly in court here. Obviously, knowing that, had he done it here, the defense would not have pursued that line of reasoning, likely. So who knows what an actual outcome would have been.
The fundamental issue is that the Florida law is ****ed up. It shouldn't even be possible for Zimmermann to get off scot-free, even if we take his most favourable account of the events as fact
he other issue of racism in Zimmermann himself, as well as the system (as in, the law still leaves room for jurors to decide, i.e. if Zimmermann was black and Martin white, Zimmermann would not have gotten off free (even with his excellent legal team, which obviously Zimmerman could never have afforded without the outcry))
but even the people who are on Zimmerman's side in this, should see that the law as it is in Florida is insane, and really could potentially be used on absolutely every killing that happens there.
Also, you say the Florida law is insane? It's interesting how you didn't even bring up the other Florida law. Here, educate yourself:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/10-20-Life
Had Zimmerman been convicted of manslaughter, he would have been doing 20 to life. So please keep your bias and ignorance to yourself. I completely respect an opposing view, but not when it's as misleading as possible.
The prosecutor dropped the ball. They went all or nothing pushing for the harshest conviction and got nothing. I personally think he should of gotten manslaughter but it wasn't in the cards with the way things progressed and he went free.
The only thing I strongly disagree with is with how people are threatening his family. You can't hate on people wishing for the best for their loved one and being happy when it happens. Even his family realize how much of a tragedy the loss of a young life was and going after them isn't justice it's just wrong.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, you can, has happened often before. Court trials aren't a black and white thing, and this one too, had the jurors thought differently, perhaps cause the evidence had been presented differently, could have just as well gone another way.Again, my point is that the law is unjust in Florida. I am saying that taking Zimmerman's testimony, in any other country (the UK and Germany included), Zimmerman would have been convicted of at least manslaughter, reasonable doubt would not factor into it, as Zimmerman has admitted to following and shooting Martin.
No, it would have been down to the same issue in the UK (minus him being allowed to carry a gun in the first place of course).
Again, it doesn't matter what the law was here. He was not convicted purely because the jurors could not be sure that he started the fight and hence was not acting in self-defence. It doesn't matter what the law is- the same jury would have acquitted on that basis. And yes, a different jury might have decided differently, obviously. But there is no specific law that got Zimmerman off of this. All this 'Stand Your Ground' malarkey is irrelevant; this was a classic self-defence plea that could work under any jurisdiction.
Originally posted by Bardock42
The other issue of racism in Zimmermann himself, as well as the system (as in, the law still leaves room for jurors to decide, i.e. if Zimmermann was black and Martin white, Zimmermann would not have gotten off free (even with his excellent legal team, which obviously Zimmerman could never have afforded without the outcry))
I thought we put that false myth to rest? With the more serious felonies, whites are convicted more often than their black counter parts.
Of course, the opposite is true with the drug offenses.
But, in this case, the justice system's propensities are not in favor of your position.
In fact, I don't think this would have been a big deal, at all, if Zimmerman was black and Trayvon white.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Again, it doesn't matter what the law was here. He was not convicted purely because the jurors could not be sure that he started the fight and hence was not acting in self-defence. It doesn't matter what the law is- the same jury would have acquitted on that basis. And yes, a different jury might have decided differently, obviously. But there is no specific law that got Zimmerman off of this. All this 'Stand Your Ground' malarkey is irrelevant; this was a classic self-defence plea that could work under any jurisdiction.
This is true.
In the UK an Canada, much more emphasis is put on "mens rea" than in the US. It is a steeper hill in those countries to prove "guilty mind", in this case, especially considering the recordings from 911 that show Zimmerman did not have a malicious intent: he was just trying to protect his neighbors from what he thought was another thief. That hardly proves guilty mind.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
No, it would have been down to the same issue in the UK (minus him being allowed to carry a gun in the first place of course).Again, it doesn't matter what the law was here. He was not convicted purely because the jurors could not be sure that he started the fight and hence was not acting in self-defence. It doesn't matter what the law is- the same jury would have acquitted on that basis. And yes, a different jury might have decided differently, obviously. But there is no specific law that got Zimmerman off of this. All this 'Stand Your Ground' malarkey is irrelevant; this was a classic self-defence plea that could work under any jurisdiction.
It is surprising how many refuse to see this.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
No, it would have been down to the same issue in the UK (minus him being allowed to carry a gun in the first place of course).Again, it doesn't matter what the law was here. He was not convicted purely because the jurors could not be sure that he started the fight and hence was not acting in self-defence. It doesn't matter what the law is- the same jury would have acquitted on that basis. And yes, a different jury might have decided differently, obviously. But there is no specific law that got Zimmerman off of this. All this 'Stand Your Ground' malarkey is irrelevant; this was a classic self-defence plea that could work under any jurisdiction.
Originally posted by dadudemon
This is true.In the UK an Canada, much more emphasis is put on "mens rea" than in the US. It is a steeper hill in those countries to prove "guilty mind", in this case, especially considering the recordings from 911 that show Zimmerman did not have a malicious intent: he was just trying to protect his neighbors from what he thought was another thief. That hardly proves guilty mind.
Canada actually puts the most emphasis on what might be called "reasonable force", and the context the force was used in, when deciding self-defense cases. However, I'm not 100% sure you don't have a point in terms of a murder charge, or possibly manslaughter, so fair enough. Other laws in Canada would easily apply, even if we ignore the ones related to gun control. There is no way he wouldn't do time for reckless endangerment here.