Zimmerman Found Not Guilty

[avonjax]

From Mother Jones


http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/07/trayvon-martin-jordan-davis-stand-your-ground

[If_I_Loved_you]

"The Sneetches"

The first story in the collection tells of a group of yellow creatures called Sneetches, some of whom have a green star on their bellies. At the beginning of the story, Sneetches with stars discriminate against and shun those without. A "fix-it-up chappie" named Sylvester McMonkey McBean appears and offers the Sneetches without stars the chance to have them with his Star-On machine, for three dollars. The treatment is instantly popular, but this upsets the original star-bellied Sneetches, as they are in danger of losing their special status. McBean then tells them about his Star-Off machine, costing ten dollars, and the Sneetches who originally had stars happily pay the money to have them removed in order to remain special. However, McBean does not share the prejudices of the Sneetches, and allows the recently starred Sneetches through this machine as well. Ultimately this escalates, with the Sneetches running from one machine to the next,

    "until neither the Plain nor the Star-Bellies knew
    whether this one was that one... or that one was this one
    or which one was what one... or what one was who."

This continues until the Sneetches are penniless and McBean departs a rich man, amused by their folly. Despite his assertion that "you can't teach a Sneetch," the Sneetches learn from this experience that neither plain-belly nor star-belly Sneetches are superior, and they are able to get along and become friend

"The Sneetches" was intended by Seuss as a satire of discrimination between races and cultures, and was specifically inspired by his opposition to antisemitism.

[JayBird]

From the above article:

"It's apparent that Michael Dunn is white, it's apparent that Jordan is black," McBath said. "But the issue is the Stand Your Ground laws. The issue is not the racial part of it. We're not going to center and focus on that, because that doesn't do any good for the country.

I guess my question would be, how can you determine if someone 'feared for their life' or that they honestly believed they were in 'imminent' danger? In a completely erroneous blog that I won't even give the respect of reposting here the writer posed the statement that "I have an deadly allergic reaction to peanuts and more importantly their dust, therefore if I am in Florida and you are eating them I will nicely ask you to leave the area. If you do not, I will utilize my legally owned firearm to protect my life." The writer lives in a town called Tavares which on google I found was in the Tampa metro so I guess that's far enough away from panhandle peanut farmers to say that. At first I chalked it up to Internet idiocy, but then I wondered "do others feel the same way?" And if they do, are they legally allowed to defend themselves with deadly force?  And if change to the law does not come, how wide can the interpretation of it get? I would certainly hate to get shot while on a smoke break because the guy passing me has lung cancer.

[JayBird]

^I loved that book as a kid. Adults can learn so much from Dr Seuss and kindergarten kids.

[If_I_Loved_you]

^I loved that book as a kid. Adults can learn so much from Dr Seuss and kindergarten kids.

+1

[strider]

NotNow, is there a established state definition of the term aggressor?  I know sometimes government definitions differ from what the normal publicly accepted definition is.

I am not aware of a definition in the statutes.

True there isn't and I even believe it is up to the police officer or state attorney's interpretation of the events to define and determine "aggressor" case by case

As there is no officially stated definition, then any generally accepted definition can be used:

Pretty open to interpretation.  If police and courts are going to be faced with "stand your ground" issues, one would think the first step, as someone else suggested, would be to officially define the term aggressor as it applies to "stand your ground".(and therefore, by default, self defense).

Perhaps more importantly, it must be defined when and if a person loses that protection.

With the TM/ Z case, Zimmerman was initially the aggressor so Martin had that protection or right to use deadly force.  When did that right switch from Martin to Zimmerman is the big question.

If the law had been better written to account for the many issues we are hearing about, perhaps Martin would never have lost his protection or rights and with the actual result being the death of Martin, Zimmerman would have been found guilty.  I think it is the lack of definition that prevented the courts from stating that Zimmerman was the aggressor and therefore at fault.  Or. alternatively, stating that Martin was at fault beyond a reasonable doubt. As it is, even with a jury decision, there will always be that doubt.

[Overstreet]

The law before SYG required a retreat effort often taking away the defense capability makeing you a target for an attack from behind. SYG is a good thing.

Hand ringing and decision making over incomplete information in the news is a bad thing.

[Cheshire Cat]

The jury spoke. The jury system, a jury of peers, goes back some 800 years, peers mean citizens, and is a color blind term, eg. one does not have a jury based on a racial, age or other makeup, it is made up of people qualified who are then vetted by both the prosecutors and defense. It may be open to discussion as to whether racial makeup should be considered. Both sides present their evidence within the rules of evidence. Both sides bring forth witnesses, depending on the ability and the quality of the attorney's, some witnesses are better prepped than others, though all are supposed to tell the truth as they know it to be, in fact are sworn to tell the truth. Having lost a grandson, I grieve for the family who in this case lost their son, but the jury heard all the evidence and the arguments and the jury spoke.
Now, personally, I think that GZ was overcharged and the prosecutor could not overcome that decision, I thought he would get manslaughter, but never thought the elements of 2nd degree murder were in play. I further think that it would be improper for the justice department now to file charges against GZ, again, the elements for Civil Rights violations will not be in play.
My heart goes out to Trayvon's parents. I am only lucky that at 17 I did not get into a situation like that.

Good post, common sense and facts.  I agree.

[Cheshire Cat]

Well I am sure many people have been made aware of the call by some celebrities and others with agendas for folks to "Boycott Florida".  Yes, this is the latest outcropping of outrage, injustice or whatever.  I don't mean to sound flippant about this but really?  Really?  The purpose and drive behind this is what?  Many claim it has to do with putting pressure on Florida lawmakers to change the law.  Will it? No it won't.

Firstly the changes the "people" (citizens) want should come from the people and make themselves manifest in proactive change not via hitting at the entire population of Florida.  Here's the deal.  Are the thoughts and actions of celebrities, most of them living above the "fray" of financial struggle and day to day real world challenges, what we are going to rely upon for true social change or for equitable discussion of our system of laws?  For me the answer is a resounding "No".  While attempts at leadership through celebrity may get temporary attention to an issue it is also a great way for celebrities to do what they like which is to "stay in the spotlight".

This whole "Boycott Florida" thing is at it's best a "shortsighted" attempt to payback some "entity" that folks feel has delivered them an injustice.  Which as it turns out is the entire State of Florida.  The problem is that the only folks that will be impacted by the boycott of celebrities are the fans of those celebrities who may want to see them in live performance.  The impact of average citizens could impact tourist income but it won't.  People will still vacation here, drawn by weather, beaches, food and fun.  Any loss of income via tourism is not going to force legislation because the politicians and legislators will be taking home their sizable paychecks, benefit packages and enjoying their perks, many of them put into office by guess who?  Celebrities.  lol

http://tlcnaptown.com/2124974/eddie-levert-joins-stevie-wonder-in-boycott-of-florida-stages/

[JayBird]

^ I will agree that it could be a good thing if the proper measures are taken to change the law as it is currently written. I do not agree that it is even remotely close to a good thing as it stands today. These laws were seemingly passed across the country in some sort of bid to attract votes and curry political favor instead of actually enabling people to properly defend their lives and property, at least in my opinion.

[fsquid]

like most things, the outrage will pass and it will be business as usual.

[JayBird]

like most things, the outrage will pass and it will be business as usual.

Agreed, have been in NYC since Monday afternoon and in all the talk of Zimmerman, haven't heard a peep of the boycott Florida with the exception of Stevie Wonder.  And he included all states that have SYG laws, so I believe this may be the case of the media trying to blow it out of proportion. Obviously people are still bringing kids to Disney and people are still happily buying orange juice. Anyone remember Freedom Fries? Look how quickly that faded and the whole country was behind them.

[fsquid]

Been in Richmond, VA and there is more talk about the government furloughs starting than this case.

[thelakelander]

Been in Richmond, VA and there is more talk about the government furloughs starting than this case.

I was at a family reunion in Alabama when the verdict came in.  The next day, the minister in the church the family went to, went on for a good 10 minutes about the verdict and a call for their community to remain calm.  Boycotts were not mentioned but they did briefly mention Florida's crazy laws that negatively impact black males moreso than other races.

[thelakelander]

The largest difference in the Davis and Martin cases is there were a lot of eye witnesses at the gas station.  In the Martin killing, no one truly knows what happened except Zimmerman.