Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

hack89

(39,171 posts)
Wed Jul 17, 2013, 09:03 AM Jul 2013

Jimmy Carter: Zimmerman jury got it right

"I think the jury made the right decision based in the evidence presented because the prosecution inadvertently set the standard so high that the jury had to be convinced that it was a deliberate act by Zimmerman and that he was not defending himself and so forth. It's not a moral question, it's a legal question and the American law requires that the jury listens to the evidence presented."

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.
37 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Jimmy Carter: Zimmerman jury got it right (Original Post) hack89 Jul 2013 OP
Much as I love Jimmy Carter . . . markpkessinger Jul 2013 #1
Well, to be fair... pipi_k Jul 2013 #11
You're missing his point. Avalux Jul 2013 #13
That's right, and flawed laws will undermine our justice system. Eddie Haskell Jul 2013 #18
My view is that after hearing the words of B37, how she characterized them Ninga Jul 2013 #22
Exactly. Jawja Jul 2013 #27
They could not "invalidate" a law. former9thward Jul 2013 #31
I did not mean literally. Jawja Jul 2013 #32
I understand. former9thward Jul 2013 #34
There is no such thing pipi_k Jul 2013 #33
Good point. Jawja Jul 2013 #36
At the time I was surprised at the murder charge panzerfaust Jul 2013 #2
Good points. Hassin Bin Sober Jul 2013 #6
I'm not sure YarnAddict Jul 2013 #9
That seems to sum up the misconception that COLGATE4 Jul 2013 #12
We know a confrontation happened. Hassin Bin Sober Jul 2013 #16
Well said. This is ridiculous. Zimmerman should have been held criminally liable. nt stevenleser Jul 2013 #17
And none of which was referenced in Jury Instructions One_Life_To_Give Jul 2013 #26
My 2 cts exlrrp Jul 2013 #10
What else *would* he say?? Blue_Tires Jul 2013 #3
Yep. (nt) Nye Bevan Jul 2013 #4
Come on Carter knows the PA usually goes high and includes the lesser chargers. SYG play a HUGE part uponit7771 Jul 2013 #5
President Carter Crepuscular Jul 2013 #7
program note: 'The topic of today's Two Minutes Hate, will be Jimmy Carter' markiv Jul 2013 #8
You're trying to argue that it was somehow COLGATE4 Jul 2013 #14
Prefferable to an aquittal One_Life_To_Give Jul 2013 #30
Carter isn't infallible. I like him, but he is wrong here. nt stevenleser Jul 2013 #15
Oh dear, poor Jimmy ... under the DU bus he goes ... Myrina Jul 2013 #19
Peanut shells and tire tracks ksoze Jul 2013 #20
Ermm.. ananda Jul 2013 #24
I think it ws a refernce to the zero based policy here ksoze Jul 2013 #28
Right on schedule... Safetykitten Jul 2013 #29
They were mislead, confused and lazy. DCBob Jul 2013 #21
Agree. lumberjack_jeff Jul 2013 #23
He is right. Are_grits_groceries Jul 2013 #25
Sorry, Mr. Carter, but I would have hung that jury. Brigid Jul 2013 #35
Me too coeur_de_lion Jul 2013 #37

markpkessinger

(8,366 posts)
1. Much as I love Jimmy Carter . . .
Wed Jul 17, 2013, 09:18 AM
Jul 2013

. . . 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)
11. Well, to be fair...
Wed Jul 17, 2013, 09:40 AM
Jul 2013

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)
13. You're missing his point.
Wed Jul 17, 2013, 09:43 AM
Jul 2013

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.

Ninga

(8,259 posts)
22. My view is that after hearing the words of B37, how she characterized them
Wed Jul 17, 2013, 10:39 AM
Jul 2013

"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.

Jawja

(3,233 posts)
27. Exactly.
Wed Jul 17, 2013, 11:06 AM
Jul 2013

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)
31. They could not "invalidate" a law.
Wed Jul 17, 2013, 11:19 AM
Jul 2013

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.

former9thward

(31,684 posts)
34. I understand.
Wed Jul 17, 2013, 11:35 AM
Jul 2013

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)
33. There is no such thing
Wed Jul 17, 2013, 11:31 AM
Jul 2013

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)
2. At the time I was surprised at the murder charge
Wed Jul 17, 2013, 09:19 AM
Jul 2013

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)
6. Good points.
Wed Jul 17, 2013, 09:28 AM
Jul 2013

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)
9. I'm not sure
Wed Jul 17, 2013, 09:35 AM
Jul 2013

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)
12. That seems to sum up the misconception that
Wed Jul 17, 2013, 09:43 AM
Jul 2013

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)
16. We know a confrontation happened.
Wed Jul 17, 2013, 09:52 AM
Jul 2013

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.

One_Life_To_Give

(6,036 posts)
26. And none of which was referenced in Jury Instructions
Wed Jul 17, 2013, 11:05 AM
Jul 2013

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
without any dangerous weapon being used


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.

exlrrp

(623 posts)
10. My 2 cts
Wed Jul 17, 2013, 09:38 AM
Jul 2013

I think in most states, certainly here in OR, he would have been charged with manslaughter or negligent homicide----and convicted.

uponit7771

(90,193 posts)
5. Come on Carter knows the PA usually goes high and includes the lesser chargers. SYG play a HUGE part
Wed Jul 17, 2013, 09:23 AM
Jul 2013

...in Zimmerman getting off

 

markiv

(1,489 posts)
8. program note: 'The topic of today's Two Minutes Hate, will be Jimmy Carter'
Wed Jul 17, 2013, 09:34 AM
Jul 2013

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)
14. You're trying to argue that it was somehow
Wed Jul 17, 2013, 09:44 AM
Jul 2013

negligent homicide - a charge which was never brought.

One_Life_To_Give

(6,036 posts)
30. Prefferable to an aquittal
Wed Jul 17, 2013, 11:13 AM
Jul 2013

If you could prove that Z left his car intent on committing a Felony then 2nd makes sense. But that is a high bar.

ananda

(28,758 posts)
24. Ermm..
Wed Jul 17, 2013, 10:59 AM
Jul 2013

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)
28. I think it ws a refernce to the zero based policy here
Wed Jul 17, 2013, 11:06 AM
Jul 2013

for anything that supports the jury's verdict. that is deemed a Z supported and the shunning begins.

Are_grits_groceries

(17,111 posts)
25. He is right.
Wed Jul 17, 2013, 11:03 AM
Jul 2013

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)
35. Sorry, Mr. Carter, but I would have hung that jury.
Wed Jul 17, 2013, 11:52 AM
Jul 2013

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.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Jimmy Carter: Zimmerman ...