Why Were Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman Held to Two Different Standards of Justice?

[sinkingfeeling]

By The Daily Take, The Thom Hartmann Program | Op-Ed


http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/17637-why-were-trayvon-martin-and-george-zimmerman-held-to-two-different-standards-of-justice

Listen carefully to the difference between the "You Must Retreat" language in the pre-2006 jury instructions and the instructions used in the Zimmerman trial. Remember, before 2006 Florida law said that even if the other guy started the fight, you still had an obligation to run. The old law read as follows:

"The fact that the defendant was wrongfully attacked cannot justify his use of force likely to cause death or great bodily harm if by retreating he could have avoided the need to use that force."

By comparison, here are the Stand Your Ground instructions that actually were read to the Zimmerman jury:

"The danger facing George Zimmerman need not have been actual; however, to justify the use of deadly force, the appearance of danger must have been so real that a reasonably cautious and prudent person under the same circumstances would have believed that the danger could be avoided only through the use of that force. Based upon appearances, George Zimmerman must have actually believed that the danger was real.

"George Zimmerman... had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force, if he reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself ..."

So, the question: Why was Trayvon Martin judged, both in the trial and in the media, on the basis of the pre-2006 Florida self-defense law that requires a person to do everything they can to avoid violence up to and including running away?

And, equally troubling, if that was the standard that Trayvon Martin was held to, why was George Zimmerman, who actually held the gun and fired the shot, held to a different standard and allowed to stand his ground and kill an unarmed teenager without penalty?

[madaboutharry]

1. Exactly.

[Bay Boy]

2. If the defense had convinced the jury that Trayvon was on top

and pummeling Zimmerman MMA style how would they have expected Zimmerman to retreat even according to the old law?

[sinkingfeeling]

3. Zimmie followed Trayvon. He could have stayed in his SUV.

[Bay Boy]

4. No shit...

...I hadn't heard that before.

Yes there is no doubt that Zimmerman instigated the confrontation. All I'm saying is that once the jury was convinced by the defense that Trayvon was on top of Zimmerman pummeling him there was no choice of escape for Z. I don't know what the reality of the situation was but it's what the jury was lead to believe.

[John2]

5. That is my

point. They totally ignored the evidence in the case, Zimmerman first pursued Trayvon Martin, and now we know , he had a loaded gun on firing position when he did.

They totally ignored the Deadly Weapon Doctrine with a firing arm, because it wasn't just that Zimmerman followed Trayvon but it was with a loaded gun. That automatically places Trayvon in imminent danger through the entire event. They ignored all of that evidence to get to Martin being the aggressor and John Good's testimony.
And there was no evidence, that Trayvon was ever the pursuer in the entire Trial, except what Zimmerman claimed. Jeantel disputed that and she was the last person that talked to Martin other than Zimmerman.

The judge ignored that evidence, the prosecuttion ignored it and so did the jury. They did exactly what the defense wanted them to do. They saw Trayvon as the criminal and the aggressor beating up this poor man, who was only trying to do good. Zimmerman even provided them with an encore.

[Aristus]

8. So Zimmerman would have sustained a pummeling.

So fucking what? Having that fat, ugly face messed up is not the same as danger to life and limb...

[Bay Boy]

9. Really?!?

IF the jury believed that Trayvon was on top of Zimmerman pummeling him. If it really was true... then you REALLY think that Zimmerman should have just taken it? REALLY? How long should he have let it go on?

[Aristus]

10. Well that shitheap could have fought BACK, at least.

A gunshot was a wild overreaction. In all my life, I've never brought a gun to a fist-fight. And I'm still here.

I suppose it helps that I never went around stalking and harrassing people who were minding their own business...

[Bay Boy]

13. I can go with that logic...

...I don't recall Zimmerman saying he punched back. That would be a better first reaction.

[John2]

11. He had hands,

knuckles and feet, just like Trayvon. Apparently he didn't know how to use them according to him. That is why I don't believe his lying story or the people supporting him. There is no evidence he ever used them either except his gun. Trayvon didn't have a gun. The reason he thought his life was in danger, is because he claims Trayvon went for his gun. Apparently he didn't think about his life, until Trayvon went for his gun.

[Igel]

6. TM wasn't found guilty.

Or did I miss that?

In fact, the jurors were told to disregard pretty much everything up to the act that caused TM's death.

At that point, the standard about a reasonable a cautious person kicked in. Was there reasonable doubt that such a person would have felt in fear of his life and used lethal force?

That's it. That's all they had to conclude. They didn't have to conclude anything about TM except that whatever TM was doing could have been reasonably interpreted in that context by GZ as something to be in fear of his life of. Nothing more. TM was not on trial. He was issued no death sentence. All that happened is that the jurors said that GZ wasn't guilty of manslaughter or 2nd degree murder, and there may have been 6 different reasons for that conclusion among the 6 jurors.

It's not a case of "two people were fighting; one has to be guilty and the other innocent." That's playground justice. And not very forward-thinking playground justice at that.

Even when I have to judge between kids who are fighting and arguing, often I just look at them and say, "I don't have enough evidence and you don't have any either." Then it heats up again and I *do* have evidence, it's just not considered "fair" by the one kid who gets punished. Often the other gloats, which makes matters worse. This is all best done in isolation, before their peers can form teams based less on facts and more on "he's on my time, he's not" and feel humiliated because the other team vicariouis gloats while "their guy" is punished. That's life.


Did SYG apply? The evidence says that it couldn't. The new standard said even if he could retreat when he was in fear of his life he didn't need to. He didn't. The old standard said he needed to retreat when he was in fear of his life if he could, but since he couldn't, he didn't need to . He didn't. The new SYG wording was moot. It found no application.

[bemildred]

7. Money comes to mind. Always a big help in our "justice" system. nt

[Sam1]

12. It's plain as black and white.