Skip to main content

View Diary: George Zimmerman, Off The Hook (186 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Bullshit. SYG is why Zimmerman walked, the juror.. (16+ / 0-)

    admitted that fact.

    It was not a case of self-defence since Zimmerman put himself into the situation and could have retreated at any time without risk.  

    He was allowed to kill Trayvon because SYG gave him a license to kill any non-white he decided was a threat.

    Tax and Spend I can understand. I can even understand Borrow and Spend. But Borrow and give Billionaires tax cuts? That I have a problem with.

    by LiberalCanuck on Fri Jul 19, 2013 at 07:24:05 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Huh. (3+ / 0-)

      Here's a DB of the SYG cases.

      1/3rd of SYG claims in Florida were made by black defendants. They had a 55% success rate. This is actually better than the white defendants success rate.

      Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

      by KVoimakas on Fri Jul 19, 2013 at 07:28:44 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Not (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        LilithGardener, Faito, Laconic Lib
        a comprehensive review of Stand Your Ground states found that black individuals citing the statute whose victims were white were less likely to go free than any other perpetrators.

        For fatal cases that have reached a verdict in Florida, the attack was more likely to be considered justified if the victims were black (78 percent) than if the victims were white (56 percent), according to the Times database.

        Research conducted by John Roman, a senior fellow at the Urban Institute's Justice Policy Center, has also suggested that blacks do not necessarily "benefit" from such laws. Roman found that in states with Stand Your Ground laws, "the killings of black people by whites were more likely to be considered justified than the killings of white people by blacks." Roman found that white people were 354 percent more likely to be found justified in killing a black person than another white person across Stand Your Ground states. He found that white shooters with black victims were disproportionately more likely to be found justified in non-stand your ground states as well, but to a lesser extent.

        http://mediamatters.org/...

        If I had one wish, Republican men would have uteruses.

        by Desert Rose on Fri Jul 19, 2013 at 07:37:11 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Living in a fact free zone much? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      happy camper

      Zimmerman could have retreated?  Absolute nonsense. He was on his back with TM on top of him.  The evidence supports that and it has nothing to do with SYG.

      The law says he had to be in reasonable fear of serious bodily injury or death.  It has said that or something similar from the days of common law.  Reasonable means that not only did GZ have to feel that fear but a reasonable person in those circumstances would have felt the same fear.  That's what the jury found and the evidence supported that.  

         

      •  The scope of your facts (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Batya the Toon, Laconic Lib

        Mind the fact that Zimmerman pursued Martin, who posed no threat initially.  Why should there have been a confrontation of any kind here?  The answer to the question of reasonableness is subject to the scope of considerations here.

        •  That is not relevant to the law (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          shaktidurga

          TM escalated the force to deadly force, not GZ.  Anything prior to that point is irrelevant.  Both were in a place they had a right to be, doing what they had a right to do.  TM initiated the violence.  Even if you don't believe that, you cannot reasonably believe that the prosecution disproved that TM initiated the violence beyond a reasonable doubt.

          •  You haven't shown that (3+ / 0-)

            Why would prior actions be irrelevant?  It is very plausible to argue that Zimmerman was an aggressor who approached an innocent party out of the blue in a threatening manner.  If Martin were alive to prosecute, might he have claimed that he was standing his ground?

            •  No, because there was no deadly force from GZ (0+ / 0-)

              There is absolutely no indication of deadly force from GZ.  You can make something up which has no basis in evidence, like GZ drew his gun and approached TM, but there is absolutely no evidence to support this.  Unless there was deadly force used or threatened, then these events have no relevance to the self defense claim.  You can argue that the force TM used did not put GZ in reasonable fear of death or serious bodily injury, that's a fair argument, but the jury found he did.  

              If we speculate we can speculate anything, but the facts bring us to a very limited decision tree.  Was GZ in reasonable fear of serious bodily injury or death at the time he fired or not?  That's it.

              •  Z was in fear of serious injury if you believe him (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                a2nite

                and his story(s) about where his gun was change form inside his beltand pants on his ass, to on his hip so Trayvon can see it, grab for it with one of 3 or 4 arms.

                ZHole is lying killer. Too bad Florida self defense laws make it easy for a lying killer to walk.

              •  Unfortunately, (0+ / 0-)

                Unfortunately, there is only one person left alive from the encounter to testify.  The assailant thereby gains the upper hand in inquiries subsequent to the encounter.  

                GZ displaying an unconcealed weapon is a complication.  To me, it signifies the owner's willingness to use deadly force.  In certain cultural contexts, not necessarily shared by both persons involved (in any given encounter), it indicates more than the willingness, but the intent to use.  

                There is a degree of pretense involved here in the legally-sanctioned display and use of firearms in everyday life, and the belief that this, in all but a very few circumstances, is somehow not a pathological situation, frought with potential for misperception of intent and wrongful acts of violence.  

                Giving legal sanction to an inherently pathological encounter between an armed person and unarmed person -- especially in circumstances where the unarmed person is behaving innocently up until that moment -- is one of the great misbegotten consequences of the political climate we live in.

      •  Really? only one witness put Martin on top in the (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        a2nite

        struggle. 2 saw z on top and 2 witnesses said they both were standing when the shot was fired.

        And the paid expert forensic witness was full of self serving shit.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site