Revisiting Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman’s' Presumption of Innocence until Proven Guilty......
by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Liberty -vs- Tyranny
Trayvon Martin,a 17 year old teenager entering young adulthood was shoot dead in Sanford Florida. This much we know with certainty.
When the story first broke this classical liberal with libertarian leanings accepted, based on the early news reports, that George Zimmerman as guilty of a horrendous and unforgivable crime.
However,as more information surfaced I began to question the veracity of the liberal contention that Zimmerman had in reality committed an act of first degree murder (my initial conclusion).
Given time, and the proper reflection after new information (and opinions based on this information) surfaced it seemed, at least to this writer anyway, to step back and chill just a bit. This I have recently been able to accomplish. Absence my initial judgement (which was based solely on emotional determinations) I have been able to see things kn a more rational light.
Which is to saw we must allow justice, which admittedly is very slow, to play itself out. Citizens of Sanford Florida taking matters into there own hands is decidedly NOT the answer.
The type of Neo Nazi fascism that is clearly demonstrated in the linked article is dangerous, wrong, and poses a great and unprecedented threat to our republic. Every liberty loving individual who respects thebrule of law, whether they be liberal or conservative MUST come forth and strongly denounce the rhetoric and bigotry evident in the linked article.
Irrespective of what anyone may passionately believe George Zimmerman must be considered innocent until proven guilty in a fair, open, and honest trial. Trayvon Martin, and his family are deserving of seeing justice served if, as this writer sincerely believes Trayvon was gunned down without justifiable cause. Which only serves to illustrate the point that impartial justice is difficult to achieve.
Perhaps when the time arrives that Zimmerman is indicted, and I believe he will be, it will be best if the jury is made up of 3 white men. 3 black men, 3 white women, and 3 black women. In the event the decision is split 6/6, resulting in a "hung jury" a 13th person, an individual jurist (preferably black) revewing testimony should caste the deciding vote as to quilt.
That's my view. What's yours?
Via: Memeorandum
Rational Nation USA
Liberty -vs- Tyranny
Trayvon Martin,a 17 year old teenager entering young adulthood was shoot dead in Sanford Florida. This much we know with certainty.
When the story first broke this classical liberal with libertarian leanings accepted, based on the early news reports, that George Zimmerman as guilty of a horrendous and unforgivable crime.
However,as more information surfaced I began to question the veracity of the liberal contention that Zimmerman had in reality committed an act of first degree murder (my initial conclusion).
Given time, and the proper reflection after new information (and opinions based on this information) surfaced it seemed, at least to this writer anyway, to step back and chill just a bit. This I have recently been able to accomplish. Absence my initial judgement (which was based solely on emotional determinations) I have been able to see things kn a more rational light.
Which is to saw we must allow justice, which admittedly is very slow, to play itself out. Citizens of Sanford Florida taking matters into there own hands is decidedly NOT the answer.
The type of Neo Nazi fascism that is clearly demonstrated in the linked article is dangerous, wrong, and poses a great and unprecedented threat to our republic. Every liberty loving individual who respects thebrule of law, whether they be liberal or conservative MUST come forth and strongly denounce the rhetoric and bigotry evident in the linked article.
Irrespective of what anyone may passionately believe George Zimmerman must be considered innocent until proven guilty in a fair, open, and honest trial. Trayvon Martin, and his family are deserving of seeing justice served if, as this writer sincerely believes Trayvon was gunned down without justifiable cause. Which only serves to illustrate the point that impartial justice is difficult to achieve.
Perhaps when the time arrives that Zimmerman is indicted, and I believe he will be, it will be best if the jury is made up of 3 white men. 3 black men, 3 white women, and 3 black women. In the event the decision is split 6/6, resulting in a "hung jury" a 13th person, an individual jurist (preferably black) revewing testimony should caste the deciding vote as to quilt.
That's my view. What's yours?
Via: Memeorandum
There's been a lot of misinformation coming from both camps. Some lunatic African-American Congresswoman from Florida claimed that Mr. Zimmerman outweighed Trayvon Martin by 100 pounds and that Zimmerman had made a point to tell 9/11 that Trayvon was black (he only mentioned that he was black WHEN ASKED - NBC News also tried to do a similar stunt, purposefully splicing the tape to make Zimmerman look like a racist). Then there's the New York Times judge, jury, and executioner, Charles Blow, who claims that Zimmerman was coming after Trayvon with a gun and that Trayvon was only defending himself (yeah, like anybody would punch somebody who's holding a frigging gun on him) AS IF IT WERE A FRIGGING FACT!............And then, of course, on the other side, and right out of central casting, you have clowns like Sean Hannity and Limbaugh who are slanting the story to the other side, leaving out such critical information as the voice experts precluding that the scream could have ever come from Mr. Zimmerman and refusing to interview recent witnesses that have also contradicted the shooter's story.............The entire damned coverage is basically a joke, I guess is what I'm saying.
ReplyDeleteYES!!! Therefore I reference (as I likely will going forward) to the body of my post.
DeleteI notice you left out Florida's kooky "Stand Your ground" (re: the mobile Castle Doctrine) law. Do you think it matters?
ReplyDeleteJMJ
I refer you to the body of my post...
DeleteThe stand your ground law ABSOLUTELY needs to be looked at. No disagreement from this fellow.
DeletePlease if you will, explain to this 60 year old dunce exactly your perception of what needs to be changed with these laws. Because if someone enters my home and I have reason the even remotely suspect the unlawful intruder is going to harm my wife or myself I will, regardless of law protect my interests. This includes up to and killing the son of a bitch.
ReplyDeleteANY QUESTIONS?
Les, the Stand Your Ground law takes the Castle Doctrine with you wherever you go. This isn't someone breaking into your home, it's someone walking by you in a shopping mall. I think you need to read more about this.
DeleteJMJ
jmj - I read it, I understand it, and so it goes. I INTENTIONALLY WORDED MY RESPONSE AS I DID. For a purpose. I leave it to you to guess why I did.
DeleteLes, I totally agree with the defending the home provision. I wouldn't hesitate blowing somebody away under those circumstances, either. My issue is far more with the fact that these laws can be significantly abused/extreme. I mean, just look at that case in Texas where the guy was running away after a burglary and the neighbor went out on his porch and smoked the guy. The stand your ground law in the state of Texas apparently allowed that.
ReplyDeleteReally? Here is the simple solution. Explain the intent of the law through a media blitz. The prosecute to the full extent of the law each and every dimwitted asshole who don't understand the substance and intent of the law. EVERT GODDAMNED TIME IT HAPPENS.
DeleteThat would definitely work.....and exactly why it won't happen. Unfortunately.
DeleteLes,
ReplyDeleteif i were you, i'd do a little more research in regards to your last paragraph in regards to what it takes to acquit. you will never have 13 jury members on a case as the law stands now as you propose.
and why only black and white jurors? isn't Zimmerman's hispanic race deserving of being on that jury? in fact, i'll ask why race should even be considered as a qualification for being on any jury?
DON'T NEED TO GRIPER. I worded it as I did intentionally. For a purpose and to make a point. I refer to my response to jmj's comment.
DeletePlease, by all means, fill the panel as you wish. Again, I did so to make a point. You urther illustrated it for me. Thanks...
FACT: Trayvon Martin was not breaking any laws when he was returning to his father's girlfriend's condo.
ReplyDeleteFACT: Zimmerman was a self-appointed neighborhood watchman who made a determination that Trayvon Martin "looked suspicious" based solely on his appearance.
FACT: Trayvon Martin was unarmed. George Zimmerman was armed.
FACT: Trayvon Martin is dead from a gunshot to his chest.
I live in a city and see young men of all shapes, sizes, and colors wearing hoodies. They don't scare me, nor do they look suspicious just because they're walking down the street.
My sympathy is with the victim and his family. This didn't have to happen. We can thank the stupid Florida "Stand Your Ground" law for this tragedy.
Shaw, I think that there's more than enough for an aggravated manslaughter charge to be filed here. Whether there's enough for a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt at this point, that I have a somewhat lesser absolute feeling for. I'd really need to hear more of the evidence and testimony.
DeleteWill - Agreed...
DeleteLes, the intent of the Stand Your Ground law was to appease paranoid screwballs. Mission accomplished.
ReplyDeleteJMJ
"Given time, and the proper reflection after new information (and opinions based on this information) surfaced it seemed, at least to this writer anyway, to step back and chill just a bit."
ReplyDeleteAfter initially declaring it murder at my own blog, I now am backing off, as you are.
I also agree with Shaw's stated facts, while disagreeing with her and Jersey's editorializing over the Stand Your Ground law. It is simply a restatement of one's natural right to defend one's own life and property. If you are the aggressor, it doesn't protect you.
Zimmerman may or may not be guilty of the wrongful taking of a life, depending on the facts that are established.
I still maintain that it was very imprudent for Zimmerman to follow Martin.
And I agree fully SF.
Deletei see a lot of arguments based on hindsight but none based on foresight and that scares me more than anything.
ReplyDeletepeople make decisions based on foresight not hindsight and "intent" is determined from foresight not hindsight. and intent is the most important element of any criminal offense.
Griper: Could you elaborate? I'm not understanding your point.
ReplyDeleteHere is my point. I have carried a gun as part of my duties, I have a concealed carry permit, and it is a grave responsibility.
No matter how many break-ins my neighborhood had suffered, I would not be confronting potential burglars with a weapon anywhere other than inside my home. Who wants to end up shooting someone as Zimmerman did? It's a use of disproportionate force, and Zimmerman did not have to place himself at that dark sidewalk with Martin.
Conservatives have already jumped on me over this stance, but there is a fundamental difference between using deadly force when someone is in your house, and when you are following someone through your neighborhood.
Griper, I've been contemplating your comment for some time and I, like SF am having difficulty in understanding your premise (whatever it is) as well.
DeleteEven given the entire story has not yet likely been told the use of deadly force in this case is more than highly questionable. As a result my sympathies are also with the Martin family.
ok,
ReplyDeleteforesight is making decisions prior to any incident in question. hindsight is making judgments based on what is known after the incident occured.
how many of the arguments above is based solely on what Zimmerman knew before shooting the boy?
every argument above has a basis of what is known now of both persons after the incident happened.
les,
even your argument of the use of deadly force being questionable is influenced by your knowledge that the boy was not armed.
silverfiddle,
your argument of disproportunate force can only be declared by the knowledge that the boy was not armed.
this is hindsight knowledge not foresight knowledge.
and every one of Shaw's premises are premises of hindsight.
if you want foresight knowlege place yourself in Zimmerman's mind prior to the incident as well as the boy's mind prior to the incident.
and i see no argument by anyone that comes even close to doing that.
this is an effects based argument meaning each of you are being unduely influenced by the effects of the incident. this is why everyone was so ready to declare Zimmerman quilty of a race crime before.
and the effects of this incident that we know is only what this media presents it as being and as we have learned, distorted and disputed.
and each of you have already passed judgment of some form or another as to what should occur next even tho you have already admitted that not all the facts are known yet.
now, i have tried to explain myself so take what i said as you will. it is not a putdown of anyone just some words to think about.
Les and I have both said that we've backed off of initial positions and are now wide open to whatever facts may be established. I can put myself in Zimmerman's place before the shooting. I would not have pursued Martin. Period. When you have a gun you just don't want to put yourself in that position. It's not prudent. I am no longer declaring Zimmerman a criminal, but I am saying he was foolish to ever get out of his vehicle.
ReplyDeletesilverfiddle,
ReplyDeletei never said to put yourself in his place. i said to put yourself in his "mind" so i stand by my comment. there is a big difference.
------------
and one more thing. you acknowledge possessing a concealed weapons permit. you don't need one to use it in your house or on your property.
that permit declares to the world that you will use it as needed whenever you carry it. and at that time you are "standing your ground".
so it may mean more than just protecting yourself or your property. it means a wilingness to stand up to "danger" wherever and whenever it may be. so, yes it is a very grave responsibility.
----------------
whether or not Zimmerman saw this situation as a dangerous one no one can say yet because we do not know what he was thinking at the time.
whether or not the boy saw himself in a dangerous situation we do not know. if either one of them did they may have reacted differently than they did and the boy may still be alive.
i'd be willing to bet neither one saw it as a dangerous situation or foresaw the possibility of the end results as it happened.
that is my last word on this issue. i don't want to be seen as trying to intimidate anyone.
Rhetorical statements, given that one cannot put themselves in another individuals mind. An individuals mind remains their unique and sole property. Although I'm sure a collectivist would disagree with me.
DeleteI am not sure what you are implying so I'll hold judgement. But you seem to be saying because know one is using "foresight" only hindsight we can not know what the conditions were and therefor should give Zimmerman a complete pass on his rather inexplicable actions.
Personally I think at the very least Zimmerman acted extremely imprudent. Whether his actions should be consider murder is something for a jury to decide, aaauming he is eventually charged with a crime.
Perhaps Will is closest to correct in that Zimmerman's actions constitute manslaughter.
One thing is reasonably clear, Zimmerman, if he is charged with nothing will have escaped justice. Which would be a terrific miscarriage of justice. That Griper is how I see it.
Griper: I'm not trying to pick a fight, and you haven't intimidated me, so no hard feelings!
DeleteProtecting yourself and property while on your property is very different from "standing your ground" in public space. And you're right, I don't need a permit to defend my own home. Point is, I rarely conceal carry although I have a permit. In the real world, clear shots and clear-cut blatant justifications rarely present themselves, which is why police and military go through so much training. Add in the pressure of making a split-second decision, and you could end up changing your life and others' forever.
Out in a public place where no evidence of a violent crime occurring is a strange and very poorly chosen place to "stand your ground." And speaking of that, Florida's stand your ground law doesn't permit people to run around with weapons and challenge passersby that they think are a danger. Even if he had seen the kid crawling out of a neighbor's window with a laptop computer he would not have been justified in shooting him. Chasing him? Perhaps, but as we've already seen, who knows what can happen when two strangers meet in the night under murky conditions. Is it worth it? I think the result speaks for itself.
A "suspicious" character who is not committing a violent crime that must be stopped needs to be left to the cops. That's what they're paid for. I bet Zimmerman wishes he had done that.
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=Ch0776/ch0776.htm
First, I'd like to say Happy Easter to all who celebrate this day.
ReplyDeletesecond, I was asked to elaborate on one of my previous comments and I did. and i am pleased to see that the both of you are coming to an understanding of my meaning behind it.
the only thing i will add is this.
les,
no i do not mean that we give Zimmerman a pass. I mean that people should suspend all judgment of each person of that incident until we get all of the facts and are sure that we are not allowing the media to influence our judgment by how they are presenting the story.
at the moment everyone should have reasonable doubt as to what happened if for no other reason than that we know that we have not been told all the facts.
and that reasonable doubt should include the judgment of "imprudent actions" also.
but i'll agree with you that our minds are our property and that is the reason that a jury is instructed to declare guilt beyond "reasonable doubt" instead of "absolute certainty". it is the intent or what was on that person's mind at the time that is the difference between the two criteria.
We know with absolute certainty who committed the act in this incident. Zimmerman did. but what we are not sure of is his intent or what he was thinking at the time. it is intent that will define the act.
that is the difference between murder, manslaughter or self defense, the intent behind the act. and to a person who believes in "free will" that would be seen as addressing the cause of the act.
and in our form of the justice system cause or intent is the determining factor of the meaning of justice.
am i making sense?
Thank you for your clarification, I am comfortable that we have arrived on the same page and we are desirous of seeing justice served. The scales of justice are represented by balance which can only be truly achieved by maintaining impartiality until ALL evidence is in.
DeleteThank you Griper for your reasoned comments.
silverfiddle,
ReplyDeletea police officer's action is dependent upon his knowledge of the law. the profession of police work are probably the poorest trained professionals that there is given this need of knowledge.
our government has enacted far too many laws for a policeman to do his job properly with the training he has.
given the enormous number of laws a policeman needs to enforce, his training should be numbered in years not in weeks before he is allowed to put that badge on.
in my mind and experience, a policeman is the last person to ask advice about the law even tho they should be one of the first.
Take the poll to vote whether George Zimmerman is guilty or innocent.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.guiltpoll.com/george-zimmerman-guilty-or-innocent-take-the-poll/
Take the poll to vote whether George Zimmerman is guilty or innocent.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.guiltpoll.com/george-zimmerman-guilty-or-innocent-take-the-poll/