That’s your opinion of my opinion, and you are welcome to it. Zimmerman is a free man. I find that abhorrent. He stalked a young man who was walking through his neighborhood, initiated a confrontation and shot the man. He started all the danger and brought a gun to a skittles fight. The jury should not have let this killer go free. There is no dispute that Zimmerman is a killer. There is no dispute that Martin was innocent of any wrongdoing. This isn’t a failure of the prosecution. This is a failure of the jury to do their duty.
As for the Gray case, had she actually been shooting at the man’s backside and “all the evidence shows it”, there would, at that range be the evidence of a bullet whole in the man’s backside. Another jury, this time with a black person who had been repeatedly beaten by the complainant and in the supposed seconds he has his back turned, while frightened and excited and in fear for her life within the space of a few feet deliberately misses him, is sent to prison for 20 years for not killing the black man.
I’m going to put both cases down to Florida juries being racist and wanting as many black people dead and in prison as possible.
Yes, it’s my opinion and nothing more than that. I’ve never in my years of posting at the SDMB so strongly criticized a jury, even the OJ case. But the Zimmerman jury let a killer go. Based on race.
Bricker, I have some life experience that you, as a Latino, have never had. I’m a really white guy who has been in a lot of places where there are only white people are talking and race comes up. The number of white people who would be able to totally put aside their ugly prejudices in a dispute between a white person and a black person is exceedingly small. They exist, but there aren’t a lot of them in this country. The prejudice is there, and it is deep and nasty. Not light and funny like a comedy club.
So tell us, how would you have voted on that jury? I would have not voted to acquit on manslaughter under any circumstances and would have hung the jury over the issue if possible. I would have gone along with a second degree murder.
The bullet hole was in the kitchen wall, at the same height as Gray’s head. Why do you discount the jury’s finding she was aiming for his head and missed? She was standing in the kitchen – if she shot “in the air” the bullet hole would be in the kitchen ceiling. What makes you think she deliberately missed, when three witnesses testified that she was trying to hit him?
Absolutely not. The job of the jury is NOT to impose their sense of what the law should be. As a juror, you should be applying the law as instructed by the judge. And the two facts you mention – that there is no dispute that Zimmerman is a killer and there is no dispute that Martin was innocent of any wrongdoing – don’t create a violation of the law. You WANT the law to punish under those circumstances – i get that. But the law requires more. There WAS a dispute about Martin’s being innocent of any wrongdoing. The defense said that Martin attacked Zimmerman. You could, as a juror, disbelieve that – no problem. But even if you did, you still haven’t described a violation of Florida law.
THAT is where the problem lies. As a juror, you’re saying you’re willing to convict on a violation of your personal law, your own sense of what the law should be.
I would have voted to acquit. As a lawyer, I believe I could have presented a case for guilt of manslaughter. As a person, I believe Zimmerman was guilty of manslaughter.
But as a juror, I would be bound to weigh only the evidence adduced at trial, and apply the law as given to the jury by the judge. And under those standards, there is plenty of reasonable doubt. Not guilty.
We can play at what-ifs all day; what if someone breaks into my house and I shoot him dead. Texas’ Castle doctrine would imply I’m off the hook for criminal prosecution, but his family could still sue me and cause me extreme hardship just by virtue of the legal costs associated with the suit, especially if there isn’t any money for me to recover from them in a counter-suit.
That’s my point- the civil courts are for civil matters, and the criminal courts are for criminal matters. If someone commits a crime, they’re tried in the criminal courts.
If there’s a legitimate reason to claim damages, then it’s a civil thing. But IMO, most wrongful death suits like this are just a way for the families to get their desired punitive outcome in a different manner.
That’s why I’m against it- if the guy was the breadwinner, then sure, they should be able to sue for lost wages, etc… But in the case of a child, etc… it’s purely a punitive thing, and that’s not what the civil courts are really intended for.
Would it change your mind to know that Ms. Alexander lied about what happened? I mean actual, provable lies, not speculative ones:
When tested, the garage door worked just fine.
He didn’t say that, what was actually said was captured by the 911 call that was previously referenced.
She didn’t fire into the ceiling, she fired into the wall at around head-height.
So, Ms. Alexander left the house, went to the garage to get her gun, came back when she didn’t have to, said “I’ve got something for you” and fired her gun at about head-height. Witnesses and the evidence contest what she says. That’s self defense to you?
What about the loss of consortium? A family that loses a child has lost more than future wages. If someone caused that loss through reckless action (or inaction) why shouldn’t they pay?
This sounds like an argument in favor of abandoning the principle of double criminal jeopardy. Or the exclusionary rule, for that matter.
[QUOTE=The Second Stone]
There is no dispute that Martin was innocent of any wrongdoing.
[/QUOTE]
Actually there is considerable dispute. Martin punched Zimmerman in the face, knocked him down, broke his nose, blackened his eyes, sprained his back, and pounded his head into the pavement. Many if not most people would consider that to be wrongdoing, especially in response to a stranger’s question “what are you doing?”
I don’t want to speak for DStarfire, but I think what they’re getting at is something like a man who is accused of abducting, holding and killing a person.
They state finds the body and charges him with murder. He is acquittted.
So they charge him with rape. He is acquitted.
So they charge him with kidnapping. He is acqutted.
So they charge him with manslaughter. He is acquitted.
Etc, etc. Double jeopardy may exist, but so many violent crimes have supporting crimes that the state can just keep charging someone until they get the verdict they want.
Do you have any reasonable doubt that Zimmerman killed Martin? Of course not. What you have doubt about is whether his intent was self-defense. I don’t. The context of his conduct leading up to firing the gun is “in my humble opinion” stalking and looking for a confrontation and getting one.
There really isn’t any room not to convict voluntary manslaughter. None at all. It would be a stretch to not convict for second degree murder. George Zimmerman initiated the confrontation, knowing he had a gun and intending to use it against someone he knew was unarmed by the time he pulled the gun. He stalked, confronted, combated and shot to death an unarmed minor. All of which is undisputed.
To add something here - If they are found GUILTY in criminal court - you can still sue them in Civil for the damages - its just at that point there usually isn’t anything to ‘win’.
The current MJ trial is a good example of this - they just aren’t directly suing the doctor.
Had OJ been found Guilty - I fully believe that the wrongful death suit would have happened anyway - as he had assets the other parties would want access to.
So, the only time we usually hear about these ‘wrongful death suits’ is when the media picks up on them for these ‘higher profile’ cases.
If that is what happened, he is defending himself against what he correctly judged in an instant to be a homicidal nutcase. Whom he did not know was armed. I don’t accept Zimmerman’s all innocent claim because of the context of the encounter. Zimmerman was looking to start a confrontation he had no right to start. He followed the guy and had a gun doing it. There was no cause to follow Martin.
if Texas Castle Doctrine is written similarly to Fla - you would be immune from civil suits on the finding that you “stood your ground”. What it takes to ‘officially find that’ may differ - as in the Z case, he did not assert that for the criminal case, so he has to go thru some ‘process’ to gain that immunity.
Or at all credible. It cannot be mentioned by the prosecution that he did not testify. His credibility in such a situation doesn’t even come into play. A juror with half a brain, which this one clearly did not have, should not have found someone who did not testify to be “credible”.