George Zimmerman's Acquittal: Four Blunt Observations

[HiPointDem]

1. George Zimmerman was at fault for killing Trayvon Martin.
Ignore the pious post-verdict declarations by Zimmerman’s (skilled) defense lawyers. The police dispatcher told Zimmerman to stay in his car. If the wannabe cop had followed reasonable instructions and/or had decent training as a neighborhood watchman, he would have remained in his vehicle. Zimmerman deserves heavy blame.

2. The “system” sometimes works in mysterious ways.
The American justice system bends to public opinion, politics, institutional bias, and sometimes even flat-out corruption. In this case, prosecutors came under understandable public pressure to punish Zimmerman for his foolhardy behavior. The prosecutors brought severe criminal charges and put forward the best case they could. Still, the ambiguity surrounding the last minutes of Martin’s life left plenty of room for reasonable doubt. The jury could have convicted on manslaughter but made a plausible choice not to. The defense lawyers brayed afterward about Zimmerman suffering grave injustice. Baloney. He endured 16 months of intense suspicion and court supervision. He’ll never escape the moral legacy of a needless killing. Sounds like rough justice to me.

3. The next step should be a private wrongful-death suit, not a federal civil rights prosecution.
Civil rights activists are calling for the U.S. Justice Department to prosecute Zimmerman for violating Martin’s civil rights. While one can sympathize with the demand, especially in the emotional aftermath of the state-court acquittal, federal civil rights charges would require the government to prove that Zimmerman is an old-fashioned racist. That would not be easy to do. NAACP President Ben Jealous has compared Zimmerman’s acquittal to one six decades ago of two white men accused of kidnapping and murdering black Mississippi teenager Emmett Till. But that kind of hyperbole won’t hold up in court. Zimmerman’s defense would again be able to engender reasonable doubt, leading to more heartache. Much better to give Martin’s parents an opportunity to prove by the much lower civil legal standard (“preponderance of the evidence”) that Zimmerman acted irresponsibly. A wrongful-death action might lead to the best possible outcome: a swift settlement, including some kind of money payment to compensate the victim’s family and a public apology from Zimmerman.

4. Liberal gun-control advocates are already overplaying their hand.
“Murder has now been legalized in half the states,” proclaimed Ladd Everitt, spokesman for the Washington (D.C.)-based Coalition to Stop Gun Violence. This loopy statement echoes many less-extreme attempts to associate Zimmerman’s defense with Florida’s controversial “stand your ground” law. That statute eliminates the traditional obligation to retreat in the face of life-threatening violence. Such statutes may be problematic (personally, I think they are), but the Zimmerman case isn’t a good example to make the argument against stand your ground. In fact, the defense team waived the opportunity to invoke the statute to preempt the prosecution. Instead, Zimmerman’s lawyers made a more conventional self-defense argument. Their contention was that Zimmerman never had an opportunity to retreat because Martin had him pinned to the ground. Stand your ground just wasn’t relevant to this defense. In the end, what got Zimmerman off was the most basic of all criminal-law concepts: reasonable doubt.

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-07-15/george-zimmermans-acquittal-four-blunt-observations#r=rss

Good stuff, for BizWeek -- #3 in particular.

[LAGC]

1. #4 is spot-on as well.

As detestable as "Stand Your Ground" is, this case isn't a good example of it being at play at all. Zimmy could have made the very same basic self-defense claim in a non-SYG state.

But the biggest advantage Zimmy had going for him was that he was the only surviving witness. "Dead men tell no tales" and all, so it was pretty easy for him to craft and control the narrative.

Bet he'll have a much tougher time in civil court, if indeed Trayvon's parents sue, which they should.

[JDPriestly]

31. Actually, I believe the jury disagreed with your point. Stand Your Ground laws have

apparently changed the jury instructions for self-defense in Florida.

Maddy told ABC News that had she followed her heart, she would have held out for a guilty verdict.

“I was the juror that was gonna give them a hung jury,” she said. “I fought to the end.”

. . . .
It's worth remembering that if Zimmerman had shot Martin before Florida passed its "stand your ground" law in 2005, the jury would have been instructed that the shooter "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."

That might have given Maddy all the moral ammunition she needed.

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-stand-your-ground-zimmerman-trayvon-martin-20130726,0,5166758.story

If the jury instructions had not been changed due to Stand Your Ground laws, Zimmerman might well have been convicted. He should have been in my opinion, but it is very hard to get a conviction with so little hard evidence. But he made no claim that he tried to retreat. To the contrary. He did not try to avoid a confrontation or let the police handle it.

The Stand Your Ground law was to blame for the acquittal. Jury instructions mean the difference between a guilty verdict and a criminal on the street, and the Zimmerman case is deadly proof of it.

[GreenStormCloud]

39. There were several eyewitnesses.

Review the trial.

[LAGC]

41. I meant of the initial encounter.

The events that led up to the initial struggle where Trayvon supposedly just attacked him for no reason. All we have is Zimmerman's story.

What I think happened was: Zimmy, playing hero wannabe-cop, confronted him, maybe even tried to detain him, and Trayvon fought back.

But without any other witnesses he walked.

[GreenStormCloud]

47. Who threw the first punch is irrelevant.

The law does not entitle TM to sit on Z on continue to beat on him. When Z yelled for help, the law required TM to stop. When he didn't stop, then it became legal for Z to use his gun.

Good testified that he saw TM on top of Z, hiting on Z.

[magical thyme]

62. Goode's testimony was contaminated

and should have been thrown out on that basis. The judge seriously erred in allowing two contaminated witnesses to testify and for their testimony to stand.

There is no proof that Z yelled for help. Z claims that he yelled for help but he also claims that Martin was smothering him which would have made it impossible for him to yell for help. Can't have it both ways. :shrug

[GreenStormCloud]

64. Good was a prosecution witness.

[magical thyme]

65. I had Goode mixed up with Donnelly. My bad.

Donnelly and the cartoonist who met with witnesses should have had their testimony stricken completely, imho. And the defense should be in big trouble.

Interesting, I just head a snippet of day 1 testimony on sequestration, in which O'Mara requests that the judge relax sequestration rules. They already knew they'd violated the rules with the cartoonist.

[dkf]

2. Civil suit: This is where the laws passed with stand your ground do mean something...

If it was self defense he can ask for an immunity hearing. If granted he can have all his lawyers fees expensed to the Martin family.

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2013-07-16/news/os-george-zimmerman-civil-immunity-20130716_1_george-zimmerman-trayvon-martin-benjamin-crump

If Zimmerman is sued in this case, a judge would determine whether "stand your ground" applies. If the judge rules it does, Zimmerman would be released from liability. If the judge rules against that claim, the case would be tried before a jury.

Moments after Zimmerman was found not guilty, defense attorney Mark O'Mara said, "If someone believes it's appropriate to sue George Zimmerman, then we will seek and we will get immunity in a civil hearing, and we will see just how many civil lawsuits will be spawned by this fiasco."


Retired Circuit Judge O.H. Eaton Jr., who served in Sanford for 24 years, pointed out that if Trayvon's parents sue then lose a "stand your ground" hearing, they could wind up paying Zimmerman.

The statute provides that anyone who prevails in a civil "stand your ground" hearing may collect attorney fees, court costs, expenses and compensation for lost income.

[HiPointDem]

6. bullshit.

[Pelican]

26. Makes sense....

Process in place to keep frivolous lawsuits down to a minimum...

Be sure of your case as opposed to throwing stuff at the wall to see what sticks and taking your chances.

[JDPriestly]

33. That myth about frivolous lawsuits.

They are far more rare than people think, and, at least in California, usually filed without a lawyer.

There are several reasons. First, the cost of just filing the papers is pretty high for the indigent or low-income or mentally ill in California.

Second, lawyers really don't make much money on frivolous lawsuits, that is good lawyers don't make enough money on frivolous lawsuits to run their offices, etc.

I think that frivolous lawsuits used to be more common than they probably are now.

Lawyers need to win and need to win large verdicts or settlements.

Also, filing a frivolous lawsuit can get a lawyer in trouble with the Bar Association depending on how frivolous the lawsuit is and how often they file such suits.

The biggest problem with frivolous lawsuits is maybe with minor personal injury cases and false evidence. But that does not apply to shootings.

California used to have a problem with lawyers filing lawsuits under consumer protection laws that made foolish lawsuits about minor technical violations easy to file by private attorneys. But, the voters changed the law that permitted that.

No. The Stand Your Ground laws are just vicious and deny justice to a bereaved family like the Martins.

[HiPointDem]

5. bullshit.

[dmr]

17. If he was any good as a Neighborhood Watch person, he would have stayed in his car.

He was taught by the police to observe and report.

Had he used good judgement and followed the rules, the police dispatcher wouldn't have had to remind him NOT to follow Trayvon.

Not following the rules in my opinion was an act of aggression toward Trayvon.

Zimmerman betrayed the trust given to him by the neighborhood and the police.

[BainsBane]

20. Killing is an act of aggression

Targeting someone because he is black, stalking and killing him is clearly aggressive. If you're too emotional to figure out shooting someone is aggressive, well, let's just say that defies reason.

It's watch, not kill. It's a pretty basic concept. Killing an unarmed boy is morally reprehensible, as is defending a killer over a law abiding citizen minding his own business walking home from the store.

[Bigmack]

4. Why isn't the fact that Z was taking amphetamines (adderall) getting more interest? nt

[ceonupe]

30. The same reason

You can't go to wallgreens and buy a 1/8 ounce of weed. BIG PHARMA

[Lurks Often]

43. I'm thinking the prosecution may have looked into it

found it was a legal prescription within normal dosage guidelines prescribed by a MD and decided it wasn't worth bring up at trial.

[Dustin DeWinde]

7. the next step is a civil rights conviction and a 20 year sentence for zimmerman.

How casually you admit that Zimmerman is at fault for trayvons murder yet so blithely comment he should get no prison time. Nuts to that.

You Zimmerman supporters would do better on a right wi.g site where your fellow conservatives would nod and say amen. Liberals are free thinkers and one of us will always challenge your faulty reasoning and if warranted your outright bias.

Lucky you, I just happened to be the first decent American to see and call out your twisted post for what it is.


Anyway, long story short:________ _________ and the horse you rode in on

[davidn3600]

18. Sorry, but the law is the law

It's not about being right wing. You can only charge Zimmerman with the laws as they are written right now. For the feds to bring a federal prosecution, they would have to be able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Zimmerman is a racist. The FBI already did an investigation and determined there was no evidence of racial motivation.

So if you are the government, how do you prove he's a racist when FBI agents will testify that he's not?

Zimmerman is not the first person in this country to get away with murder, and he won't be the last.

It is what it is.

[BainsBane]

23. He's obviously racist

That isn't the bar. They have to prove he killed Trayvon because he was black, which is much harder.

[Dustin DeWinde]

29. no time for teabag trolls

I see you didn't deny your rightwing orientation bagger. I will not waste time and energy trying to reason with the likes of you, but Zimmerman will go to prison.
And the president of the united states is black
More minority babies are now born each year than white babies
Your children and grand children don't share your antiquated views.
This is reality. Enjoy. Or fume. It doesn't matter reality will proceed regardless

Liz Warren 2016. Lmao

[HiPointDem]

32. "yet so blithely comment he should get no prison time" = wtf are you talking about?

first, i didn't say anything like that.
second, i didn't write the article.
third, i'm not a 'zimmerman supporter"

fourth, i doubt you're a decent american or a liberal.

[MotherPetrie]

8. They can take #4 and shove it.

[Pelican]

27. Truth hurts?

Is it a surprise that when people say things like "Murder is now legal" that people take them less seriously?

[Kingofalldems]

59. People meaning you

[Jenoch]

10. While I too am dissappointed in the outcome of this trial,

your response of 'bullshit' to the point that the distpatcher DID NOT give instructions to Zimmerman is not helpful.

Florida law does NOT allow a wrongful death suit if the defendent is acquitted in a self-defense case.

[HiPointDem]

11. bullshit.

[Jenoch]

12. It would help with the discussion

if you would cite some legal issues rather than just your reply of 'bullshit'.

[HiPointDem]

13. no point in discussing the matter with you. bullshit is all you got.

If Trayvon Martin's family decides to file a wrongful-death suit against George Zimmerman, they could be opening a Pandora's box, according to Zimmerman's older brother.

The martins just won a wrongful death suit against the homeowners association and will file a civil suit against zimmerman, for all that you claim it's illegal.

[Jenoch]

15. I don't know anything about

Zimmerman's brother. I do know that Florida has a law that says a defendent in a self-defense case is immune from civil suit for damages. Your emotions do not change the law.

[HiPointDem]

16. funny that the martins are planning to file a civil suit then, and funny that the zims are worried

about it.

the law does not say what you claim. it says something related, but different. it does not preclude filing a civil suit; it imposes new barriers on *winning* such a suit.

[Jenoch]

22. This is certainly not a funny

situation to me. I do not know why you find it so humerous.

[dkf]

24. There is nothing precluding a civil suit...

If you read the article I posted you would know he can then ask for a SYG hearing to claim immunity.

If it is granted he can then ask for his expenses to be reimbursed by the Martins.

What is the point of simply responding bullshit? Very odd response.

Can you please explain why the article I posted above is incorrect? I would like to know if so.

[HiPointDem]

25. the point is that i'm sick of your bullshit, dkf, & 'bullshit' is all i feel you deserve by way of

response.

[dkf]

34. Well that isn't helpful to anyone reading your thread.

Your OP gives good relevant info. It's too bad you stop there.

[Mr. David]

49. Wrong.

Stand Your Guard defense has to be determined by the courts first.

There WILL be a hearing to determine that - and Z will lose big on that, so the civil trial will make Z poorer and will forever be in heavy debts.

[Jenoch]

50. "Stand Your Guard"?

Do you have a link to this concept?

[Lurks Often]

44. The HOA settled out of court, it never went to trial.

The lawyers of the HOA insurance company almost certainly met with Martin's family and lawyers and came to an agreement that both sides found acceptable.

[pipoman]

14. #3 won't happen,

or if it does, won't prevail.

In #4 it states, "That statute eliminates the traditional obligation to retreat in the face of life-threatening violence."...there is nothing 'traditional' about 'duty to retreat'. It was a short lived experiment by some states which ended in far too many innocent people being made penniless or incarcerated, and thus has been repealed by every state that tried it..those states all reverted back to some form of stand your ground...which is the true 'traditional' standard..

[applegrove]

21. The last point is wrong. The judge gave

the jury instructions on stand your ground just before they started deliberations. So stand your ground got in the back door. I wonder if the defence didn't know it would happen like that so they announced they weren't going to use it in their defence, thus tricking the prosecutors into not mounting an anti syg case. I'm certainly not a lawyer. But I wonder how the verdict might have been different if it was known the SYG law was going to be presented to the jury like it was in the end.

[Boom Sound 416]

35. Martin's parents have already settled with the HOA

For a beleieved 1 million dollars.

http://m.nydailynews.com/1.1308943


Curious to see what they will persue in civil court against Zim.

[hack89]

36. They would have to get through a self defense hearing first.

if the judge determines that TM's shooting was self defense (which is a good bet) then there will not be a civil trial. And the Martins will have to pay Z's legal fees.

[Boom Sound 416]

37. Interesting

That may very well be that then.

[Bjorn Against]

42. If the judge is not a racist asshole then he or she will allow the suit to move forward

The burden of proof is different in this case than it was in the criminal trial, the burden will be on Zimmerman to show it was self defense. He has absolutely not shown through a preponderance of the evidence that this was self defense, I don't see how any reasonable judge could throw the case out based on the killer's word alone when the physical evidence does not even match the child killer's claims.

[hack89]

45. Time will tell. nt

[ananda]

38. I don't like being told how to think or act.

For example, the need for gun control is very basic right now.
There is never a wrong time to push for gun control.

[GreenStormCloud]

40. Dispatcher did NOT tell Z to stay in his truck.

That is a DU myth that refuses to die. Read a transcript of the call. He was ALREADY following TM when the dispatcher said, "We don't need you to do that."

Yes, I believe Z behaved foolishly and caused the confrontation due to his aggressiveness.

[Vattel]

46. Was Zimmerman at fault for shooting Martin?

If Martin attacked him and tried to slam his head into the sidewalk, then I don't see why Zimmerman would be at fault. I guess that the author of this piece, like so many others, pretends that he knows that Martin didn't assault Zimmerman as Zimmerman was trying to return to his car.

The author also makes the incorrect claim that the "police dispatcher told Zimmerman to stay in his car."

Of course, this case was never about evidence and facts.

[HiPointDem]

48. for anyone with a functioning brain, the implicit message when a police dispatcher tells you

"we don't need you to do that" is STOP DOING IT.

Unfortunately, assuming zimmy has a functioning brain is a bad bet.

[Niceguy1]

52. unfortunately

There is no legal obligation to obey a 911 dispatcher

[HiPointDem]

53. no, no legal obligation; but only an idiot would try to claim that the message was something

other than "stop doing that" & only a tiny-dicked cop wannabe with issues about his masculinity would have kept doing it.

[Niceguy1]

54. amd being an idiot

Isn't illegal.... if it was more people would be in prison that would be free lol

[HiPointDem]

55. being an irresponsible small-dicked idiot may be enough to lose a civil suit, though.

[Niceguy1]

56. in a perfect world, yes

But Florida self defense law prevents that.

[pintobean]

57. Okay, I have to ask

since you've mentioned it twice. How do you know about the size of the man's dick? Was it in the news, testimony at trial, or something you found out in some other way?

[ksoze]

63. LOL

[Vattel]

61. The dispatcher didn't suggest that Zimmerman stay in his car.

He said "we don't need you to do that" after Zimmerman was already outside his car. Zimmerman replied, "Okay." And according to Zimmerman, he did not ignore the advice of the dispatcher. Is Zimmerman lying about that? Did he try to find Martin after the dispatcher suggested that he not do that? Who knows?

[Warpy]

51. Biz Week is often pretty amazing

and is worth reading even without the occasional high profile article.

[Kingofalldems]

58. I see the republicans jumping in to defend their boy Zimmy

[JustAnotherGen]

60. +1

We have some recent DU additions that are here for propaganda/disinformation. Look to who controlled the Georgie Murderer Trial discussions at DU and it's pretty evident.