How can you now claim you’re talking just about normal societal standards?
Since when is SYG a “normal societal standard?” And if it is, how can it have some specific rule that “takes it off the table?”
See, this is the problem. You want to talk about how morally, Zimmerman is guiltier than a fox in a hen-house, go right ahead. But don’t start trotting out the legal terms and standards, making lofty pronouncements about how they apply, and then try to hide behind the claim that you were just talking about societal standards.
Since this is an opinion forum my personal opinion is I don’t really care about opinions on this case and only care about discussions involving the actual law.
The biggest helper in that regard would be evidence that he was motivated by racial animus. This might appear in his text messages, about which we know very little. Even without “I’m begging,” a witness that could show Zimmerman shot Martin while Martin was backing away, arms up, or while Martin was on the ground and Zimmerman over him, would support that finding.
Yes, that – combined with other evidence – could help such a finding. The idea is that the prosecution needs to show that Zimmerman acted out of an ugly, malicious, ill intent. A pursuit of the fight where the other person is trying to disengage is consistent with that.
It is my opinion that a lot of important issues have been exposed or generated by the Trayvon Martin shooting that merit discussion. I’m not interested in insults or fights, but I do want to hear people’s opinions about the implications of the case beyond narrow readings of the law as it governs this case.
I’m not aware of anyone claiming that. What I understood you to be saying was that Zimmerman getting out of his car to ask Martin what he was up to constituted “initiating the conflict”, and that therefore Martin was entitled to use violence, or that Zimmerman was legally or morally responsible for the fight. That’s nonsense.
If you want to play that game, you need to ask if it was the drug-dealing thief and gangsta wannabe.
Keep in mind this whole series of Trayvon threads started with someone asking why Zimmerman wasn’t arrested right away and then after he had been arrested involved lengthy discussions on the likelihood of his conviction for 2nd Degree Murder. It’s disingenuous for people to posit opinions about either of those things and then when shown their opinions collide with the fact, for those people to hide behind the fact this is in IMHO. I’m more starting to wish this thread had been started in GD so people couldn’t hide behind the venue. If someone is solely talking about their opinion on whether Zimmerman was doing something morally objectionable, that’s fine, but it’s disingenuous for people to make legal arguments and claims but then say “hey I’m just saying Zimmerman deserves punishment, not making a legal argument or claim.”
And I agree. I think the problem is Florida’s law.
I’m horrified at the needless death of a teenager. And I can’t understand either why there’s a triumphant tone associated with Zimmerman’s seeming legal immunity – it results from a law that’s foolish, shortsighted, and upends ordinary criminal procedure.
I am also horrified at the seeming willingness that some people have to react to that tragedy by creating another: advocating punishing Zimmerman regardless of what the law says. We can’t become a society that does that.
Do you think that the fact that so little or Trayvon’s Martin’s blood was found on GZ, or that the position in which Martin’s body was found, is some indication that Martin had disengaged from the altercation before the shot?
If I’m not mistaken, a post-shooting analysis of the gun revealed no indication that Martin had touched it, yet GZ claims Martin saw it – which suggests to me that Martin might have partially retreated from a position of dominating Zimmerman.
The forensics that have been released indicated it was a very close shot, with one report saying there were indications that the barrel of the gun may have been touching or nearly touching a piece of Martin’s clothing when it was fired (but not pressed against his body.)
I think that people have been unwilling to concede that Zimmerman might be entiteld to his self-defense claim under the law because of the long and verifiable history of a bias in the application of the law in which black death is treated more lightly than white death, and accused black people face harsher conseuquences than whites.
So the Trayvon Martin case briefly appeared to be a moment in which some of that history – which is denied by too many people – could be acknowledged, and we’d move from there. It is fair to say, I think, that black families have a real, actual stake in having that problem acknowledged by the larger society.
I too find myself clinging to straws that this case might turn out – in the courtroom – as ascribing some responsibility to Zimmerman for his actions, and should it be proved that he acted out of racism, not self-defense, I hope everyone will accept that he is fully responsible.
I realy don’t wish to deprive George Zimmerman of full rights to a fair trial, the presumption of innocence, or an acquittal under Florida statues if the state cannot meet its burden. I don’t think George Zimmerman should be made to pay for wrongs he didn’t commit. I don’t want to live in that kind of politicized society.
I’m just giving an account of my own inner resistance to let it go, despite all the pundiitry that predicts he will walk away. I think many ill-intended will see it as a victory against anybody who ever raised the issue of the terrible situation many black people (including children) face because they are constantly under suspicion and often the entire legal establishments works against them with extreme bias.
It seems possible to me that Martin could have disengaged and was retreating from his straddle, and that GZ reached forward with the gun to close the distance.
This is my concern about this case, and I will add that in my opinion abandoning the process of law because we don’t like the outcome in one particular case would be a far greater tragedy than the death of one person, because it puts everyone at risk.
If the law is wrong, even grievously so, the correct action is to change it going forward, not to ignore it, or for that matter to retroactively criminalise behaviour that is specifically legal at the moment.
All that said, if Zimmerman’s story is true, and he was attacked without provocation and was having his head pounded into concrete, it is my opinion that he had a moral right to use lethal force to defend himself.
I’m pretty sure, as a matter of law, GZ’s past record of arrests and testimony about his character could yet be introduced into the trial if the judge rules it is relevant without opening any door to discussion of Trayvon’s past and character The judge indicated in the bail hearing that he was not inclined to consider GZ’s past record of arrests relevant to GZ being a flight risk, but I’m not sure that indicates he will automatically prevent the prosecution from bringing it up if they can show it is relevant to their meeting their burden. I assume others know the law better than I do in this respect.
The defense lawyer has already said he has no plans to make Trayvon Martin’s history or character an issue for the defense.
Actually, while it’s true that the two issues are not connected, I don’t see any possible way Zimmerman’s past record of arrests could be introduced during the prosecution’s case-in-chief.
In the fake cross-examination thread, I authored this explanation about prior bad acts and their admissibility:
[QUOTE=Bricker]
The issue here involves what’s often called 404(b) evidence, after the section of the evidence code defining it: prior bad acts and their admissibility. In general, you can’t bring up something bad the defendant did in the past for the purpose of arguing to the jury, “See? He acted like that before, so we know he probably did the same thing now!”
There are exceptions to this general rule. You can bring in prior felony convictions, but only for the purpose of impeaching the defendant’s credibility. That is, you can say to the jury, “Don’t believe him; he’s a thrice-convicted felon, so of course he’s ready to lie on the stand.”
You can bring up prior bad acts to show a common plan, scheme, or motive. There’s a lot of detail about this that I’ll leave out for now, but in general the idea is that if the accused had some sort of ‘signature’ or some very unusual twist or practice, you could bring up his prior instances and show that the same thing occurred in the present case.
Finally, there’s absence of mistake. A shoplifting accusation might be met with the defense of, “I honestly forgot I had those in my hand when I walked out of the store.” If that defense is made, the prosecution can introduce prior shoplifting convictions and argue to the jury that a mistake like that in unlikely from someone who has already been accused and convicted of shoplifting before.
I basically agree with everything you posted, but if I understand SYG correctly, it removes “the duty to retreat” from a person faced with a life-threatening situation. Morality aside, I would prefer that people who have a clear opportunity to retreat from a lethal situation be required to do so by law. It may be shown that in this situation that GZ didn’t have that opportunity, but I don’t want a law that removes the duty to retreat if that option is available to a person who thinks another is threatening them, and especially one that positively blocks the state from bringing the matter to a full trial.
I suppose there’s some suggestion of that feeling around, but unlike the reverse, it has a basis: that on the strength of the evidence thus far made public, it’s a true statement. Zimmerman can’t be convicted unless the law is subverted.
Anyone who makes that statement without the qualifier is, I agree, worthy of your dismay. We simply don’t know what the prosecution has that isn’t public. As one example, I’ve mentioned the text messages, which could contain admissions against interest that could prove the case against Zimmerman.
So I don’t think anyone should claim that Zimmerman can’t be convicted without subverting the law, period.
But I do think it’s a fair comment – if somewhat meaningless – to observe that based on the available public evidence, he could not be.
It is so typical that someone who is losing an argument will accuse the other person of being a racist. I point out that Trayvon doesn’t speak Standard English based on his twitter feed and you say that other people in his family speak Standard English. I think the fact that he was suspended three time from school indicate that he was having difficulties. You apparently aren’t familiar with idea that all the children in the same family don’t turn out the same.
Well, it’s possible. In general, entrance wounds bleed very little compared to exit wounds, so I wouldn’t say it’s proof beyond a reasonable doubt, but it can be cumulative evidence that Martin had stepped back or was retreating.