General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsJimmy Carter: Zimmerman jury got it right
When asked if Carter believed if race played a part in way the Zimmerman Trial played out Carter was reluctant to give a direct answer.
"I've seen outbreaks of this before, in California when a man was beaten up by police and when Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated; there were terrible race riots. And I think eventually no matter how deep the emotional feelings and moral feelings might be -- with time passing, we start seeing what we can do about the present and the future and put aside the feelings about the past."
Carter thinks America is moving forward and making progress.
http://www.11alive.com/news/article/299139/40/Former-Pres-Jimmy-Carter-speaks-on-Zimmerman-acquittal-
Jimmy appears to blame the prosecution for the results.
markpkessinger
(8,366 posts). . . He is not, and never was, a lawyer, so I'm not sure I would trust his analysis as definitive for American law.
pipi_k
(21,020 posts)there are tons of non-lawyers here who hold the opposite opinion based on their own interpretation of the law (and, in many cases, their own emotional reactions). It's just as well not to trust them, either, right?
Avalux
(35,015 posts)The law is flawed - the prosecution was tasked with proving Zimmerman did not act in self-defense. Yes, the bar was too high; with the law as written and the evidence presented, impossible to do.
But you know, some laws are meant to be broken....as a juror, I probably would have chosen doing the right thing instead of following the law.
Eddie Haskell
(1,628 posts)Ninga
(8,259 posts)"as both" being at fault, thinking both had a responsibility to retreat, flies in the face of reason and understanding and exposes to me, that B37 most likely made up her mind early on in the trial.
I am so surprised at how my sadness has not diminished, especially since the 4-coward-jury
members are trying to distance themselves- just rubbing the wound raw.
The Jury had a chance to invalidate an immoral law by using common sense. Instead,they supported this immoral law by exonerating Zimmerman and the State of Florida as well.
They may have done what was "legal," but they didn't do what was right.
former9thward
(31,684 posts)Juries do not have that power. If they had returned a verdict that was contrary to the law the defense would have made a "Judgement Notwithstanding the Verdict' motion to the judge. The judge can then overturn the juries decision. If the judge did not do that then it could be appealed where it would have been overturned.
Jawja
(3,233 posts)I meant refuse to acquit.
former9thward
(31,684 posts)Juries have the power to acquit even when the facts show the law was violated. The prosecution can't appeal. They do not have the power render a guilty verdict if the facts show the law was not violated. The defense can appeal and would win.
pipi_k
(21,020 posts)as "common sense", IMO.
There's no universal standard.
What is "common sense" to one person who has grown up in X environment, and has X life experiences is not the same as what's "common sense" to another person who has had Y experiences from Y environment.
panzerfaust
(2,818 posts)I believe that had manslaughter been the ONLY charge filed, it would have increased the odds of the jury convicting.
Although manslaughter was included as a possible finding along with the murder charge, human psychology is such that having rejected (or accepted) one thing, you are likely to reject (or accept) a second similar thing.
By not convicting on murder, I believe there is good psychological evidence that it would make it more likely that manslaughter would also be dismissed. Which, I further believe, was the intent of the State.
Southern Values: Need to keep them in their place.
Hassin Bin Sober
(26,243 posts)I think if the state had concentrated on the reckless way in which Z placed HIMSELF in a situation where he got in to a fight, regardless of who threw the first punch, the state may have had a better chance.
I think the whole "evil intent and depraved mind" muddied the water.
YarnAddict
(1,850 posts)CLEARLY, of Z had stayed in his car, Trayvon would be alive today, and none of us would have ever heard of George Zimmerman.
But, OTOH, getting out of his car wasn't illegal, following someone was not illegal, asking him what he was doing was not illegal . . .
So, how could the state have concentrated on what Z did that led to the confrontation?
COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)most posters on this topic have. What Z did prior to the physical confrontation with T is legally irrelevant. What the jury had to decide was 1) who started the physical altercation, 2) did either party try to withdraw from it and 3) would a reasonable person have believed (s)he was in danger of death or great physical harm. Nothing that took place before the first blow was struck was relevant to proving Murder 2 or Manslaughter. Apparently the jury decided that there was enough reasonable doubt about these to acquit Z.
Hassin Bin Sober
(26,243 posts)There is no evidence TM was doing anything wrong.
TM was minding his own business.
TM was legally justified to be where he was.
There is evidence TM was apprehensive, fearful or whatever you want to call it, of being followed.
So you have two people legally within their rights to be in the same place at the same time. You have evidence one caused the other apprehensiveness. You know a confrontation happened.
You know who actively initiated the confrontation by their own actions by exiting their vehicle.
You know one was armed and the other wasn't. The unarmed one, a minor BTW, is dead.
Pro gun people talk all the time about the extra responsibilities a CCW brings. I submit actively avoiding getting in to fist fights with 17 year old boys should be one of those responsibilities. In other words, jumping out of your car in the dark when it's raining to follow a 17 year old boy is a bad idea when you are armed. Especially since you are in cell phone contact with the police and no one's life or limb is in clear and present danger.
I'm off to work.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)One_Life_To_Give
(6,036 posts)Excusable Homicide as instructed to the Jury
When the killing occurs by accident and misfortune in the heat of passion, upon any sudden and sufficient provocation, or
note it has no reference to this part of the statute
Maybe some lawyer will tell me I am reading the statute incorrectly. But it seems to me if there was a fight and one party was accidentally killed by a fist it was intended to be "Excusable" but if a deadly weapon was introduced then it would not be.
On edit I think the 2nd degree charge was a bad move as well. Z's negligence would have been much easier to prove.
I think in most states, certainly here in OR, he would have been charged with manslaughter or negligent homicide----and convicted.
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)uponit7771
(90,193 posts)...in Zimmerman getting off
Crepuscular
(1,057 posts)got it right.
markiv
(1,489 posts)make those hisses and boos equally loud, he's an enemy now
(I do think manslaughterr would have been a fair verdict, careless security guarding (improper self identification) is similar to careless driving (no headlights)), ie what can be proven is that he carelessly created the situation
COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)negligent homicide - a charge which was never brought.
One_Life_To_Give
(6,036 posts)If you could prove that Z left his car intent on committing a Felony then 2nd makes sense. But that is a high bar.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Myrina
(12,296 posts)ksoze
(2,068 posts)as the bus rolls on...
Why would disagreeing with Carter be tantamount to throwing him under the bus?
He could just be wrong.
IMO, the prosecution did mismanage the case, but they were NOT alone. The whole
case was mismanaged from the beginning due to the racist mindset of the entire
system. The racism is endemic and institutionalized.
ksoze
(2,068 posts)for anything that supports the jury's verdict. that is deemed a Z supported and the shunning begins.
Safetykitten
(5,162 posts)Oh, and so people know, I always thought he was a horse's ass.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)Other than that, they got it right.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)The blame for the verdict rests primarily on the prosecutor and secondarily upon Florida law.
Are_grits_groceries
(17,111 posts)There are many points that were brought up. Most were not relevant to use in a finding of Zimmerman's guilt or innocence of murder or manslaughter.
Many of the actions Zimmerman took were morally wrong,and in an of themselves, might result in a separate charge. I don't know. The problem is legally combining them into one act.
This case had several defined events in sequence.
The defined part of the Martin case that is legally relevant to the charges began with the final confrontation and altercation. Do I think Trayon was wrong? No. I might want to get the jump on some weirdo following me too.
When that fight began, the self-defense issue kicked in. Did Zimmerman fear for his life and use his gun? All of the other material is moot at this point. You have 2 people engaged in a fight with someone they have no clue about. The fear and adrenaline in both is over the top. The gun wins.
This case was a clusterf*** by the police. Their initial investigation was laughable. Two devotees of CSI could have conducted a much more thorough examination of the scene & witnesses plus perform more efficient evidence gathering. It has to be done ASAP so that memories and evidence found is fresh. That hampered the prosecution from the beginning.
SYG was not used as a defense. It was a classic self-defense case.
A civil case is a different animal. That is where Zimmerman should be nailed.
And don't jump on me as a RW, redneck, teabagging, racist who wanted to free Zimmerman. He and his loathsome defense attorneys belong on the lowest rung Dante ever thought of. All of them would have to climb on ladders to look snakes in the eye.
The laws passed and the hardened attitudes about 'other people' set this in motion
These have to be changed or some form of this travesty will happen over and over. Minorities will bear the brunt of it.
Brigid
(17,621 posts)I would not vote to acquit somebody who shoots and kills an unarmed kid, especially when such obvious racism is involved. And as for yielding to pressure, I'm from IN. I know from racism, and I've been dealing with ditsy, fearful old biddies like the ones on that jury all my life. Add to that the fact that I have a lot of Irish in me, and I have everything I need to be quite stubborn when I need to be.
coeur_de_lion
(3,660 posts)No way would I have let an acquittal go through.