Why is George Zimmerman allowed to roam free tonight?

So it seems Martin may have attacked Zimmerman because he was a homosexual rapist, at least according to Rachel Jeantel. http://t.mediaite.com/mediaite/#!/entry/rachel-jeantel-tells-piers-she-and-trayvon-feared-zimmerman-might,51e5762fda27f5d9d0f8d828/1

I don't really have much to add to that other than if Martin had killed Zimmerman that certainly would have been a hate crime.

DevilStick wrote:
H.P. Lovesauce wrote:

I love language! I love trying to catch the dog whistle when trying to catch the racist subtext under polished, reasonable-sounding sentiments.

If you think a dog whistle is being used here, please educate us.

Wow, I didn't even get this at first. If anyone thinks I'm being racist please feel free to let me know, I just thought I was having a discussion and otherwise can keep my thoughts to myself.

Ballotechnic wrote:
Stengah wrote:

The fault certainly shouldn't lie with the kid who was simply walking home from the store. How is "surrender to the unknown man following you home at night" the choice he should have made? Zimmerman wasn't a cop. He had no uniform or badge. Nothing identified him as a member of the neighborhood watch.

Indeed. I was never aware that it came out Zimmerman asked him to surrender him.

realityhack wrote:
Mystic Violet wrote:

And earlier in the thread we already established that leading a stalker to your place of residence is the an extremely dangerous idea.

+1

Possibly, or going somewhere where there were other people. But almost anything is better than turning back to confront the individual.

As the fight happened in someone's yard, well away from Zimmerman's car, the question of how Martin confronted Zimmerman (if he even did, we only have Zimmerman's version, and he's not the most trustworthy individual) is very important. Did Martin try to reverse the situation and start searching for Zimmerman to confront him? Or did Martin confront Zimmerman after Zimmerman had already found him hiding in that person's yard? It was dark, and Martin hadn't spend a lot of time in that neighborhood. I don't know how familiar with the are Zimmerman was either, so it's entirely possible that they ran into each other by accident (Martin trying to get home, Zimmerman trying to get back to his car after thinking he lost Martin).

Either way, Martin had every right to be walking home that night, and was doing absolutely nothing illegal when Zimmerman decided he was one of "them" and needed to be investigated.

Jayhawker wrote:
Ballotechnic wrote:
Jayhawker wrote:

One of the 911 calls said the scuffle was taking place on his back porch. Is this where you claim Trayvon chased Zimmeran to?

I don't claim anything, I have no stake in the matter. What I'm referring to is the evidence presented before the jury. I never said Treyvon chased Zimmerman anywhere, only that the testimony was that Martin confronted and jumped Zimmerman.

You're referring to this testimony? Which the jury heard and took into account.

So you have heard evidence that Zimmerman caught up to Martin and confronted him. It would take a heavy does of confirmation bias in order to come up with a scenario in which Martin confronted Zimmerman in a backyard. But it wouldn't take much to imagine Martin hiding from Zimmerman in a back yard.

There is a link on the very first page of this thread to the audio of Zimmerman admitting that he was chasing Martin in the first 911 call, as well as Zimmerman asking that police call him because he refused to meet them in a safe place. He was worried about a kid with skittles and iced tea "getting away."

Where on the link I provided does it indicate that Zimmerman caught up to and confronted Martin? Evidence of the physical confrontation yes, but not that Zimmerman cornered or confronted anyone.

And while Zimmerman identified him as an older teen, he didn't know that he was simply returning from a store with treats. He profiled him because of the recent string of burglaries in the are (12?) and his matching the description of the purported burglars.

Yes, he followed Martin reporting his position to the dispatcher. But you can see by this photo of the crime scene, it wasn't a heavily concealed area so while it's technically a backyard it's not much.

Ballotechnic wrote:
DevilStick wrote:
H.P. Lovesauce wrote:

I love language! I love trying to catch the dog whistle when trying to catch the racist subtext under polished, reasonable-sounding sentiments.

If you think a dog whistle is being used here, please educate us.

Wow, I didn't even get this at first. If anyone thinks I'm being racist please feel free to let me know, I just thought I was having a discussion and otherwise can keep my thoughts to myself.

This pretty much stems from the idea that many people are entirely comfortable detailing the "mistakes" made by the African American teenager that was walking home from 7-11 versus the adult wannabe rent-a-cop carrying a gun and looking for trouble. No one believes that had Zimmerman been black and the Martin white that people would be wasting time trying to find blame with the kid.

Jayhawker wrote:
Ballotechnic wrote:
DevilStick wrote:
H.P. Lovesauce wrote:

I love language! I love trying to catch the dog whistle when trying to catch the racist subtext under polished, reasonable-sounding sentiments.

If you think a dog whistle is being used here, please educate us.

Wow, I didn't even get this at first. If anyone thinks I'm being racist please feel free to let me know, I just thought I was having a discussion and otherwise can keep my thoughts to myself.

This pretty much stems from the idea that many people are entirely comfortable detailing the "mistakes" made by the African American teenager that was walking home from 7-11 versus the adult wannabe rent-a-cop carrying a gun and looking for trouble. No one believes that had Zimmerman been black and the Martin white that people would be wasting time trying to find blame with the kid.

I thought Zimmerman was Hispanic?

Stengah wrote:

As the fight happened in someone's yard, well away from Zimmerman's car, the question of how Martin confronted Zimmerman (if he even did, we only have Zimmerman's version, and he's not the most trustworthy individual) is very important. Did Martin try to reverse the situation and start searching for Zimmerman to confront him? Or did Martin confront Zimmerman after Zimmerman had already found him hiding in that person's yard? It was dark, and Martin hadn't spend a lot of time in that neighborhood. I don't know how familiar with the are Zimmerman was either, so it's entirely possible that they ran into each other by accident (Martin trying to get home, Zimmerman trying to get back to his car after thinking he lost Martin).

Either way, Martin had every right to be walking home that night, and was doing absolutely nothing illegal when Zimmerman decided he was one of "them" and needed to be investigated.

I think backyard might be a source of confusion. I tend to think of an enclosed space, but it really was more of a walkway.

Any you are right, there is no evidence or testimony that Martin was doing anything illegal before or after Zimmerman profiled him. But I believe things went south after the physical altercation.

Jayhawker wrote:

One of the 911 calls said the scuffle was taking place on his back porch. Is this where you claim Trayvon chased Zimmeran to?

That statement is a little misleading. The public sidewalk where the fight took place was just off his back porch.
IMAGE(http://www.wagist.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/map_600.jpg)

This all boils down to the fact that Zimmerman is not a cop. If he was a cop he would have known better than to pursue and attempt to confront someone with absolutely zero probable cause. "Walking while Black" is not probable cause. So the majority of police wouldn't have pursued him without a 911/non-emergency call and a description of a perpetrator and a crime in the vicinity, i.e. probable cause, except now you also have the idiocy of these stop and frisk procedures in NY but thats another issue.

The case is an absolute mockery of our criminal justice system. A citizen acting as law enforcement, i.e. he is a vigilante the second he decides to go above "observe and report", over steps probable cause which is the foundation of when a cop can pursue and confront an individual, shoots the teenager, and gets off on some idiotic state SYG law that has moved defense "burden of proof" of what has always been an "affirmative defense" to prosecutorial burden with a reasonable doubt standard.

This is idiotic. So according to the SYG laws citizens can now act as police officers WITH LOWER STANDARDS! Is everyone blind to the potential of where this ends up, what happens when the far right militia groups figures out the blank check they now have in their hand. This is beyond scary when you start thinking it all the way through.

Nomad wrote:
Jayhawker wrote:
Ballotechnic wrote:
DevilStick wrote:
H.P. Lovesauce wrote:

I love language! I love trying to catch the dog whistle when trying to catch the racist subtext under polished, reasonable-sounding sentiments.

If you think a dog whistle is being used here, please educate us.

Wow, I didn't even get this at first. If anyone thinks I'm being racist please feel free to let me know, I just thought I was having a discussion and otherwise can keep my thoughts to myself.

This pretty much stems from the idea that many people are entirely comfortable detailing the "mistakes" made by the African American teenager that was walking home from 7-11 versus the adult wannabe rent-a-cop carrying a gun and looking for trouble. No one believes that had Zimmerman been black and the Martin white that people would be wasting time trying to find blame with the kid.

I thought Zimmerman was Hispanic?

And?

Zimmerman had a history of calling the police on every black kid that dared walk in his neighborhood. That he was Hispanic was not the issue. It was the dead black kid that people feel so free to place blame on that is the problem.

Would you feel better if I said a black Zimmerman killing a Hispanic Martin would also not result in the free pass Zimmerman got in this case?

Jayhawker wrote:
Nomad wrote:
Jayhawker wrote:
Ballotechnic wrote:
DevilStick wrote:
H.P. Lovesauce wrote:

I love language! I love trying to catch the dog whistle when trying to catch the racist subtext under polished, reasonable-sounding sentiments.

If you think a dog whistle is being used here, please educate us.

Wow, I didn't even get this at first. If anyone thinks I'm being racist please feel free to let me know, I just thought I was having a discussion and otherwise can keep my thoughts to myself.

This pretty much stems from the idea that many people are entirely comfortable detailing the "mistakes" made by the African American teenager that was walking home from 7-11 versus the adult wannabe rent-a-cop carrying a gun and looking for trouble. No one believes that had Zimmerman been black and the Martin white that people would be wasting time trying to find blame with the kid.

I thought Zimmerman was Hispanic?

And?

Zimmerman had a history of calling the police on every black kid that dared walk in his neighborhood. That he was Hispanic was not the issue. It was the dead black kid that people feel so free to place blame on that is the problem.

Would you feel better if I said a black Zimmerman killing a Hispanic Martin would also not result in the free pass Zimmerman got in this case?

I would feel better if nobody had gotten killed.

We all would. The issue is, someone did, and now it has become sport to blame the dead black kid.

I'd also say that if the kid turned out to be white, Zimmerman would not have gotten a pass. And no one here would be coming to his defense.

The actions of this immature holster sniffer has entirely soured me on the whole idea of carrying a firearm. I'm not going to begrudge someone else's decision to do so, but the idea of having anything at all in common with that pudwaste is just too fcukin repulsive.

Jayhawker wrote:
Ballotechnic wrote:
DevilStick wrote:
H.P. Lovesauce wrote:

I love language! I love trying to catch the dog whistle when trying to catch the racist subtext under polished, reasonable-sounding sentiments.

If you think a dog whistle is being used here, please educate us.

Wow, I didn't even get this at first. If anyone thinks I'm being racist please feel free to let me know, I just thought I was having a discussion and otherwise can keep my thoughts to myself.

This pretty much stems from the idea that many people are entirely comfortable detailing the "mistakes" made by the African American teenager that was walking home from 7-11 versus the adult wannabe rent-a-cop carrying a gun and looking for trouble. No one believes that had Zimmerman been black and the Martin white that people would be wasting time trying to find blame with the kid.

Why should anyone be uncomfortable pointing out the mistakes that either party made or discussing the evidence presented at the trial?

You could also say, with a large degree of confidence, that if Zimmerman didn't have injuries to his head, a witness who saw him being assaulted, or if Martin had defensive injuries, Zimmerman would have been convicted of 1st Degree murder or Manslaughter and rightfully so.

Jayhawker wrote:

We all would. The issue is, someone did, and now it has become sport to blame the dead black kid.

I'd also say that if the kid turned out to be white, Zimmerman would not have gotten a pass. And no one here would be coming to his defense.

Do you honestly think that's what's happening here? That I or anyone else is making sport of this?

Believe it or not I give all of two _______s what color the people involved are/were. I do take umbrage on a media willing to convict someone before a trial takes place for their own purposes, or ignoring the evidence at hand.

Nomad wrote:

I would feel better if nobody had gotten killed.

+1

EDIT: That'll larn me fer not readin' the whole thing.

Ballotechnic wrote:
Stengah wrote:

As the fight happened in someone's yard, well away from Zimmerman's car, the question of how Martin confronted Zimmerman (if he even did, we only have Zimmerman's version, and he's not the most trustworthy individual) is very important. Did Martin try to reverse the situation and start searching for Zimmerman to confront him? Or did Martin confront Zimmerman after Zimmerman had already found him hiding in that person's yard? It was dark, and Martin hadn't spend a lot of time in that neighborhood. I don't know how familiar with the are Zimmerman was either, so it's entirely possible that they ran into each other by accident (Martin trying to get home, Zimmerman trying to get back to his car after thinking he lost Martin).

Either way, Martin had every right to be walking home that night, and was doing absolutely nothing illegal when Zimmerman decided he was one of "them" and needed to be investigated.

I think backyard might be a source of confusion. I tend to think of an enclosed space, but it really was more of a walkway.

Any you are right, there is no evidence or testimony that Martin was doing anything illegal before or after Zimmerman profiled him. But I believe things went south after the physical altercation.

Considering Zimmerman shot Martin during the physical altercation I'd say "went south" is a severe understatement.
It's a public walkway yeah, but the point is that it was not viewable by a car on the street, so by going there Martin was attempting to run away from Zimmerman. Zimmerman got out of his car to continue his pursuit of Martin.

Ballotechnic wrote:

Do you honestly think that's what's happening here? That I or anyone else is making sport of this?

Believe it or not I give all of two _______s what color the people involved are/were. I do take umbrage on a media willing to convict someone before a trial takes place for their own purposes, or ignoring the evidence at hand.

There's zero doubt that Zimmerman killed Martin. The law found his actions legal, but that doesn't mean that the public has to like it. What the media outrage is is people expressing disapproval of the laws that made what Zimmerman did legal, and the legal culture* that was perfectly willing to let it pass unremarked until the public outrage made it act to save face.

*There's got to be a better phrase for that, but I've been up for 17 hours.

Ballotechnic wrote:

Why should anyone be uncomfortable pointing out the mistakes that either party made or discussing the evidence presented at the trial?

You could also say, with a large degree of confidence, that if Zimmerman didn't have injuries to his head, a witness who saw him being assaulted, or if Martin had defensive injuries, Zimmerman would have been convicted of 1st Degree murder or Manslaughter and rightfully so.

Without the injuries and witness, Zimmerman would have had a much harder time establishing self defense.

If you assume Martin did confront and assault Zimmerman, Martin made the mistake a young man would make. He chose to fight back rather than moving on and avoiding the crackpot neighborhood watch guy. He may have been scared or maybe angry since he certainly had every right to be walking there. A lot of young men would make this mistake, regardless of race. Nonetheless, choosing to fight is rarely the right or justifiable choice, and I think that held true in this tragedy. This is not a dog whistle, it's a recognition that young males don't always make great decisions.

For his part, Zimmerman's mistakes certainly outweigh Martin's. Zimmerman was an adult, and should have stayed in his car. While he had a right to bear arms, he set in motion a chain of events that Zimmerman should have foreseen could lead to a confrontation with Martin while he was armed. This strikes me as incredibly irresponsible at the very least. I think we can all agree Zimmerman deserves the majority of the blame even if the DA was unable to prove criminal culpability in court.

Stengah wrote:

There's zero doubt that Zimmerman killed Martin. The law found his actions legal, but that doesn't mean that the public has to like it. What the media outrage is is people expressing disapproval of the laws that made what Zimmerman did legal, and the legal culture* that was perfectly willing to let it pass unremarked until the public outrage made it act to save face.

*There's got to be a better phrase for that, but I've been up for 17 hours.

It appears the district attorney (the "legal culture") initially decided not to press charges, due to a lack if evidence to disprove Zimmerman's side of the story.

Zimmerman's actions were not "determined legal". The DA didn't have the evidence to overcome the burden of proof in a criminal case (per the jury anyway).

Maybe the result would have been different if someone was recording the incident with a mobile phone. Maybe a video would have confirmed Zimmerman's story.

DevilStick wrote:
Stengah wrote:

There's zero doubt that Zimmerman killed Martin. The law found his actions legal, but that doesn't mean that the public has to like it. What the media outrage is is people expressing disapproval of the laws that made what Zimmerman did legal, and the legal culture* that was perfectly willing to let it pass unremarked until the public outrage made it act to save face.

*There's got to be a better phrase for that, but I've been up for 17 hours.

It appears the district attorney (the "legal culture") initially decided not to press charges, due to a lack if evidence to disprove Zimmerman's side of the story.

Zimmerman's actions were not "determined legal". The DA didn't have the evidence to overcome the burden of proof in a criminal case (per the jury anyway).

Maybe the result would have been different if someone was recording the incident with a mobile phone. Maybe a video would have confirmed Zimmerman's story.

By "determined legal," I meant that the results of the trial determined that what Zimmerman did was legal.

This is a case where we know very little for certain, but several of the things we DO know set people off quite a bit. It is also related to a very bad, controversial 'stand your ground' law and the two debates are mixing in a strange way.

We do NOT know if Martin confronted Zimmerman.
All we know is that the two ended up in a confrontation, not who started it, what was said, who got physical, etc. etc.

We DO know that Zimmerman fancied himself as a lot more than community member who called things in if he saw something suspicious.

AFAIK it is completely uncontested that Martin was doing nothing wrong at the time Zimmerman chose to call 911.

We know Zimmerman chased after Martin despite the dispatcher specifying at least twice that they did not need him to do that.

We know that the local PD responded in a reprehensible way to the incident.

--

Ultimately the prosecution was not able to show beyond reasonable doubt that Zimmerman committed manslaughter.
That is NOT the same as saying his innocence was proven.

Personally I think the jury likely made the right decision (I have not been the closest observer) as I think there is some reason to believe that Zimmerman's version of events is *reasonably possible*

I think the head of the local PD and most of the officers who responded should be permanently dismissed from law enforcement.

I think the policy and laws around emergency operators giving orders should be considered carefully.

I think the stand your ground law must go.

... oh, And I think we should have a congressional resolution stating that the official position of the United States is that Zimmerman is a racist jerk.

Stengah wrote:

By "determined legal," I meant that the results of the trial determined that what Zimmerman did was legal.

Only in a very specific sense. By that standard a person who is found not guilty (note the finding is not innocent) because of mishandled evidence but clearly committed the crime did something 'legal'
It is much more accurate for most purposes to say that the results show that his actions could not be proven to a high standard of evidence to be criminal under a specific law.
In fact the jurors could all think it was more likely than not that he committed murder and the verdict could be the same as that is not the standard.

realityhack wrote:

This is a case where we know very little for certain, but several of the things we DO know set people off quite a bit. It is also related to a very bad, controversial 'stand your ground' law and the two debates are mixing in a strange way.

We do NOT know if Martin confronted Zimmerman.
All we know is that the two ended up in a confrontation, not who started it, what was said, who got physical, etc. etc.

We DO know that Zimmerman fancied himself as a lot more than community member who called things in if he saw something suspicious.

AFAIK it is completely uncontested that Martin was doing nothing wrong at the time Zimmerman chose to call 911.

We know Zimmerman chased after Martin despite the dispatcher specifying at least twice that they did not need him to do that.

We know that the local PD responded in a reprehensible way to the incident.

--

Ultimately the prosecution was not able to show beyond reasonable doubt that Zimmerman committed manslaughter.
That is NOT the same as saying his innocence was proven.

Personally I think the jury likely made the right decision (I have not been the closest observer) as I think there is some reason to believe that Zimmerman's version of events is *reasonably possible*

I think the head of the local PD and most of the officers who responded should be permanently dismissed from law enforcement.

I think the policy and laws around emergency operators giving orders should be considered carefully.

I think the stand your ground law must go.

... oh, And I think we should have a congressional resolution stating that the official position of the United States is that Zimmerman is a racist jerk.

If I remember correctly, the investigating officer didn't buy Zimmerman's story and wanted to arrest him and do a full investigation, but was not allowed to by either his superiors or the DA because Zimmerman claimed it was self-defense in his statement. Because of that, they knew that in order to win they'd have to prove they had reason to doubt his version of events. I wouldn't say the entire department should be fired, I'd much rather have Florida's Stand Your Ground law repealed.

realityhack wrote:
Stengah wrote:

By "determined legal," I meant that the results of the trial determined that what Zimmerman did was legal.

Only in a very specific sense. By that standard a person who is found not guilty (note the finding is not innocent) because of mishandled evidence but clearly committed the crime did something 'legal'
It is much more accurate for most purposes to say that the results show that his actions could not be proven to a high standard of evidence to be criminal under a specific law.
In fact the jurors could all think it was more likely than not that he committed murder and the verdict could be the same as that is not the standard.

I made certain that I said legal and not innocent, and the Florida court has rule that although there's no doubt that Zimmerman killed Martin, he did not commit a crime in doing so. That's what people should be angry about. Not specifically that Zimmerman walked, but that Florida law is set up to allow such things to happen.

Without intending to trivialize the actual event, I've started trying to imagine alternative outcomes to the Zimmerman/Martin tragedy based on some of the legal and social justice theories presented by the discussion participants. In short, based on various theories, how do we get to a "happy ending" assuming that the same conditions that brought Martin and Zimmerman together is unavoidable? I accept my initial example here may be flawed. However, with help from others, maybe it can be improved to illustrate how changes in law, cultural perception, and other factors may get us to a more socially acceptable outcome.

So here's an example:

Setup: System changes: Color-blind judicial system, color-blind law enforcement
Setup: Specific actor changes: Zimmerman is armed but doesn't or otherwise can't draw his weapon

Play scenario: Zimmerman profiles and decides to pursue Martin. 911 calls made; Z told not to pursue. Z exits car to either pursue M or to identify specific address where M was last spotted for relay to 911. M and Z physical encounter begins, Z doesn't draw weapon. First responders arrive, separate M and Z, Z's injuries are tended. Z is hurt but conscious. Police investigate.

Possible new outcome: M and Z both state they were acting in self defense. Police confiscate Z's gun. Police arrest both. Proper crime scene analysis done. Physical evidence secured with proper chain of custody. Police determine M was stalked by overzealous and unofficial night watch volunteer Z and simply fought to protect himself. No charges against M. Z charged with harassment and child endangerment. Court date pending.

All sorts of parameters can be changed and tested here, including removing CHL, changing interpretations of self-defense, elimination of stand your ground, etc. The actors, too, can have minor changes to their actions. However, no sweeping arbitrary changes can be made. For example, M can pound the crap out of Z for two more minutes before first responders arrive but Z must remain conscious (because Z was conscious after the original encounter). Also, M can survive or be killed but Z cannot be killed. Z can, however, be grievously injured. I admit it needs some work. Again, I'm not in any way trying to trivialize events. I just think this thought experiment might be a way to illustrate and test some of the theory discussed.

Removing the gun from the situation would have slowed escalation and perhaps averted the use of lethal force; since Zimmerman didn't seem to perform very well fighting with just his body we can perhaps conclude he lacked the tools needed to engage in a potentially very dangerous situation (which he did intentionally). If you're going to stick your nose in other people's business (which you probably shouldn't do, but if you are anyway) you ought to be able to moderate the amount of force you use.

Going forward it seems the wisdom of allowing neighborhood watch participants firearms should be questioned. Police train for years to deal with tense situations while carrying a firearm, for the average citizen these types of situations might just be too much. A tazer coupled with a go-pro camera should be enough to provide the necessary information, but keep participants from getting overzealous.

Sadly, it seems like Zimmerman's neighborhood was primed for this tragedy.

Ballotechnic wrote:

Going forward it seems the wisdom of allowing neighborhood watch participants firearms should be questioned. Police train for years to deal with tense situations while carrying a firearm, for the average citizen these types of situations might just be too much. A tazer coupled with a go-pro camera should be enough to provide the necessary information, but keep participants from getting overzealous.

Sadly, it seems like Zimmerman's neighborhood was primed for this tragedy.

The police train for these situations and *still* get it wrong quite a lot.

I believe the formal neighborhood watch in Zimmerman's community expressly prohibited watch members from carrying weapons. This seems to be common practice.