if you are suggesting, as you did above, that Zimmerman should have pulled his gun at the earliest opportunity after the battery that could have allowed him to scare Trayvon away with it, I agree. but nobody knows if that opportunity was afforded to him. if you are suggesting that Zimmerman should have had his gun pulled prior to any confrontation, then he would be guilty as hell. then he wouldn't have been using it simply for defense and would be a clear indicator of intent.
Judging and blaming are not mutually exclusive and it's stupid to think of it as slicing up some finite blame pie. I can judge and blame Zimmerman for his behaviors (criminal or not) without saying the blame (and all of the blame is his). Zimmerman might not be to blame for murder, but he is to blame for being an idiot. Yup.
not what I am talking about. I am talking about blame for the situation in question, not blame for whatever judgement he lacks.
That vote was cast before they even looked at the law or knew what the law was. That was just riding on the trial emotion high. She stated in the interview that once they all read over the law, it was a unanimous decision that he was not guilty of any of those crimes. You're damn right he wouldn't have, because "young white teen male" was not the description of who was robbing their neighborhood. I can't stand it when people make this argument... "oh, if he was white he wouldnt have been stopped" yeah no shit... the description of the burglars were black male teens. Why do you blame the prosecutors? They absolutely did their job. They had a lousy case to work with. You can't make up the facts, make up the evidence, and design your own witnesses. You have to play the hand you're dealt. Aside from some minor trial tactics, i.e. objections/word play they did about as well as you could do. No prosecutor was winning that case with that evidence and those witnesses. No he couldn't. You can't just go around pulling a gun on people. That's called aggravated assault.
they absolutely did not do their jobs. the prosecution tried a case for a charge that the evidence did not warrant. their job is to shape a case and file charges based on the evidence that exists, not because the the dishonest media and racist groups whip the public up into a fury with lies.
If the Prosecutors knew going in that the best case they could make would be a manslaughter charge, they should have done that. When they tried to add on additional charges so late in the case, that sent the wrong signal to the Jury and everybody else that was watching this play out. They panicked, tried to cover their asses, and lost everything. We won't even go into the jury selection. This Prosecutor and his team got their asses handed to them so badly that you might think they were rookies. High Profile murder cases in Florida always seem to go awry. Makes you wonder sometimes..
It is not so much the prosecution teams fault, but their chief prosecutor Angela Corey, who was brought in specifically for this purpose - to be a complete bitch. She is the reason this trial became a mess and this case became a media frenzy. She is the one who came in with the murder charge. She is the one who with held VITAL INFORMATION from the defense and the court. Most likely this case doesn't even get to a trial had she filled out her affidavit truthfully and completely. She put her team in a difficult situation, trying to prove a man guilty of a crime the evidence did not support. It is that simple. There was a reason GZ was never charged initially, because the evidence did not support that he committed a crime. Had she come in with an aggravated assault charge, I think the jurors may have felt more comfortable with a guilty verdict (even though self-defense is still applicable). Let's face it, the jurors are humans too. Some wanted to convict him for something, but it couldn't be for such ridiculous charges. Would it have been wrong for them to convict him for an agg. assault charge even if it was in self defense? Of course, but it would have put an end to all the nonsensical opinions we are seeing and hearing today. It would have been far easier for them to prove agg. assault as well. But what's done is done. Angela Corey - I hope she is disbarred.
There is no way to know that at all. Maybe Martin attacked him because George had the gun and Martin feared his life was in danger? We have no idea what happened and there is really nothing to prove who or why was hitting each other and if they really feared for their life or not. I don't buy Zimmerman's story of getting his head bashed into the ground repeatedly, because I've seen kids fall off bikes and have worse head injuries than he had after getting his head bashed into concrete? I have no proof though, and Zimmerman was the only left to tell the story, so the jury legally had no evidence for murder. There is no way to turn around and then say Martin was committing a crime. There is no evidence to suggest that unless you just wanted to be bias in that direction. Bias in the other direction is that George was hunting Martin which I don't believe.
For all we know he already had his gun pulled. We'll never know which is why he should walk because the state could not prove he "murdered" Martin.
I think they could have gotten manslaughter too. The juror who spoke out said they didn't fully believe Zimmerman's story. There was room to sway them.
But the lack of judgment directly led to the situation in question. Which is why the comparison of Zimmerman to a rape victim is horrible. It's not even close in terms of risk involved, expected behavior/outcome by society at large, or in terms of just how poor the judgment involved was. That's like saying - to use an example someone gave earlier in the thread - that the parents aren't to blame if they allow their child to spend the night at a level 3 registered sex offender's house and something bad happens. They're not doing anything illegal. The illegal/bad thing was committed by the sex offender. You're saying no crime was committed so no blame can be allocated for the situation. I cannot believe you really live your life in such a black and white manner.
actually, that is a horrible analogy because a parent would certainly be charged with a crime for letting their child stay with a registered sex offender if something happened. it i called child endangerment. but just because Zimmerman put himself in a bad situation because of his judgement does not equate to legally liable for a subsequent criminal situation, as this case and this jury have shown. you have it wrong on both accounts.
Holy fuck, can you read? I never once said he was legally liable. I have said it was the right verdict. Jesus Christ. ETA: As to the horrible analogy, Zimmerman WAS charged with a crime... exactly as the negligent parents would be... and they would be convicted if it could be proved that they knew they were putting their child into a dangerous situation.
Its very amusing how pissed you get when you ASSERTIONS get challenged. Fcol, its a discussion forum, let the short man syndrome play out in another arena, If Martin had lived, he would have been charged with Battery, surely even you can see that....
The lack of judgement in this case was on the part of the person that had a clear path to his home, (these assholes always get away), told his friend he was running, and clearly doubled back, to commit Battery, on an armed man. PS if Zimmerman, had taken his gun out, right away....he would have been just in shooting when the first punch was thrown Zimmerman. Actually showed discretion, and restraint.
I'm not pissed at all. What, does "holy fuck" equate to pissed off in your book? I'm flummoxed, perhaps, since I cannot for the life of me figure out what JetBlue is trying to say these things in response to my posts, but hardly pissed. I mean, the funny thing is, my assertion did not get challenged. JetBlue responded to something I never said. And, yes, Martin very likely would have been charged with battery.
And actually would have been the first to commit a crime being you can't just go around whipping your piece out at people so I guess at that point Martin would have had the right to defend himself.
