The Trial of George Zimmerman

[Søren]

Oh fuck now, now that rant is the end of down with the sickness

[Shane for Wax]

Kinda wordy for a Disturbed song.

[PosthumanHeresy]

Because he used capslock, it is now impossible to not read that as the lyrics to a Disturbed song.

I've only seen him turn off capslock once. During that, he crowned himself "Ambassador of Rock at Spotify"

[Sigmaleph]

There's no dichotomy there. A useful heuristic pointing in favour of a claim is also evidence.

That's basically the definition of heuristic: "something useful for solving a problem or coming to understanding other than evidence." Racist stereotypes are heuristics. Most logical fallacies are heuristics.

Not how I usually see the terms used, but there's no point in arguing semantics. The ultimate point is whether referencing expert opinion, in this case, provides information that is useful and relevant to the argument. I argue it is, and shouldn't be dismissed. Do you disagree?

[Damen]

I find it interesting to note that Martin had a greater claim to protection under the Stand Your Ground law, considering he had been stalked and then confronted by a complete stranger for no discernible reason with the end result being an altercation.

It's also probably why Zimmerman's defense didn't try to use Stand Your Ground as the basis of his defense.

[Shane for Wax]

I got nothin'.

[m52nickerson]

[Please provide a cite to where the Judge and the ASA's on this case stated that Zimmerman had a right to escalate from non-deadly force to deadly force.

Okay, from the Judges instructions to the jury:

JUSTIFIABLE USE OF DEADLY FORCE
An issue in this case is whether George Zimmerman acted in self - defense. It is a defense to the crime of Second Degree Murder, and the lesser included offense of Manslaughter, if the death of Trayvon Martin resulted from the justifiable use of deadly force.

“Deadly force” means force likely to cause death or great bodily harm.

A person is justified in using deadly force if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself.

In deciding whether George Zimmerman was justified in the use of deadly force, you must judge him by the circumstances by which he was surrounded at the time the force was used. The danger facing
George Zimmerman need not have been actual; however, to justify the use of deadly force, the appearance of danger must have been so real that a reasonably cautious and prudent person under the same circumstances would have believed that the danger could be avoided only through the use of that force. Based upon appearances, George Zimmerman must have actually believed that the danger was real.

If George Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in any place where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony. In considering the issue of self - defense, you may take into account the relative physical abilities and capacities of George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin.

If in your consideration of the issue of self - defense you have a reasonable doubt on the question of whether George Zimmerman was justified in the use of deadly force, you should find George Zimmerman not guilty.

However, if from the evidence you are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that George Zimmerman was not justified in the use of deadly force, you should find him guilty if all the elements of the charge have been proved.

The full instructions here... http://media.cmgdigital.com/shared/news/documents/2013/07/12/jury_instructions_1.pdf

Again, "A person is justified in using deadly force if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself."  Zimmerman had the right to use deadly force as soon as he thought he was in danger of great bodily harm.  That is all the was required.

Also you can see that Zimmerman had the right to "stand his ground".  Zimmerman did use that defense because it is part of Florida's self-defense statute.  People are getting confused on this because Zimmerman did not ask for a self-defense hearing based on the stand your ground section to avoid prosecution.  He and his lawyers decided to go right to trial.

Now, here is comments about the decision from the Special Prosecutor Angela Corey.

http://www.clickorlando.com/news/prosecutors-weigh-in-on-george-zimmerman-verdict/-/1637132/20987802/-/item/0/-/v4mjuj/-/index.html

Read it and you will notice one thing, not one mention that Zimmerman did not have the right to use deadly force under the law.  Had that been the case, as you are saying, that would have been the central argument.  It was not.

I find it interesting to note that Martin had a greater claim to protection under the Stand Your Ground law, considering he had been stalked and then confronted by a complete stranger for no discernible reason with the end result being an altercation.

It's also probably why Zimmerman's defense didn't try to use Stand Your Ground as the basis of his defense.

Zimmerman did use the stand your ground law as it is part of Florida's self-defense statute.  See the above jury instructions from the Judge with states that Zimmerman had a right to stand his ground. 

Martin would have been covered by the law, and not Zimmerman, if the prosecution could have proved Zimmerman started the physical altercation or threatened Martin with physical harm.  Unfortunately they could not. 

[KZN02]

Anyways, KYM has it's own page on the case. Lots of images and videos, as well as a lot of controversy in the comments.

[Osama bin Bambi]

I found this article on Zimmerman's past, according to his old MySpace page. Gee, why wasn't this brought up in the trial?

[KZN02]

Gee, it's as if these 2 actually want there to be riots or something ...

[The Right Honourable Mlle Antéchrist]

What I've learned from all of this:

When white people demonstrate, it's a "protest". When black people demonstrate, it's a "riot".

[ironbite]

Damn skippy and don't you forget it.

Ironbite-*goes off to protest*

[erictheblue]

[Please provide a cite to where the Judge and the ASA's on this case stated that Zimmerman had a right to escalate from non-deadly force to deadly force.

Okay, from the Judges instructions to the jury:

What I asked for was somewhere where the Judge said Zimmerman had a self-defense claim. What you gave me is the stock Jury Instruction. But even if those were the judge's own words (and not a stock reading), it never says Zimmerman had the self-defense claim. All it does is tell the jury that if they believe Zimmerman was in mortal danger, then they could find him not guilty based on self-defense.

[mythbuster43]

What I've learned from all of this:

When white people demonstrate, it's a "protest". When black people demonstrate, it's a "riot".

It's sort of like when a white guy smokes pot, he's a "stoner" but when a black guy smokes pot he's a "gangsta." Or like when a white preacher says that America deserves to be destroyed by God, he's a "good Christian concerned about moral decay in the country" but when a black preacher says it, he's an "anti-American terrorist sympathizer."

[m52nickerson]

What I asked for was somewhere where the Judge said Zimmerman had a self-defense claim. What you gave me is the stock Jury Instruction. But even if those were the judge's own words (and not a stock reading), it never says Zimmerman had the self-defense claim. All it does is tell the jury that if they believe Zimmerman was in mortal danger, then they could find him not guilty based on self-defense.

If you looked at the link you would that those are the instruction from the Judge to the Jury in this specific case, those are her instructions.

No, they don't say if the Jury believe he was in mortal danger, it says if they believe they he thought he was in mortal danger, "George Zimmerman must have actually believed that the danger was real."  It even says in that instructions "he danger facing George Zimmerman need not have been actual."  Meaning they could have though differently than he did but if they believed he feared for his life he had the right to use deadly force.

So the jury found that Zimmerman could have feared for his life (reasonable doubt he did not) and that was all that was needed for a self defense claim, or as you put it earlier to escalate to deadly force.

The instruction also mean the the jury did not use their own interpretation of the law, as you stated before.

Zimmerman did not use a Stand Your Ground defense, yet it seems the jurors used their interpretation of that law in their deliberations.