Black teen shot and killed by neighborhood watch in Orlando gated community

[gargamel]

Originally Posted by kirant

I know I've posted on this before, but I think I can work my way around the laws present in this case. Can someone with a little more knowledge in American laws answer this for me?:
- The two conditions for manslaughter are that 1) Person A kills Person B and 2) Person A didn't commit a justified homicide or reasonable homicide (where justified and reasonable homicide are defined elsewhere)
- Part 1 is obvious. Zimmerman killed Martin. However, is the burden of proof of proving that Zimmerman had no other due course of action, since he claimed it was in self-defence, in the prosecution's hands?

If the above is required, then I understand and agree with the verdict. It's always been my assumption that a self-defence claim required burden of proof to stand.

If a defendant admits to killing someone, that defendant bears the burden of introducing some evidence of self-defense. Once the defendant does that, the burden shifts back to the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the killing was not done in self-defense.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Nage Waza

Uhh, seriously? He teaches at Harvard, you might want to care what he says. You can choose to disagree.

Dershowitz has also spent much of his life promoting civil rights.

Oh I think Puckluck hates him because he's hard pro Isreal.

[Nage Waza]

Originally Posted by valo403

Actually, there wasn't. The full investigation took place after attention was paid to the incident and the State stepped in.

The 'full' investigation? This is rhetoric. The police began their investigation and decided not to press charges. The media lied to bring race into the equation. The state certainly stepped in and was wrong to do so.

Trust me, I don't like this story one bit and Florida has things to fix, but in the end the guy was innocent which is what the police investigation determined.

This is a pretty good interview with the police chief where he is very clear that the police did a good job in their timely investigation:

http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/10/justic...-lee-exclusive

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by valo403

Actually, there wasn't. The full investigation took place after attention was paid to the incident and the State stepped in.

Yes there was an investigation the night of the shooting...where are you getting any other information?

I know that GZ was in custody for more than afew hours at the police station for example, and that the neighbors were all interviewed by police as another. All this right after the shooting. Pictures were taken as well documenting all of it which were used in trial IIRC.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Nage Waza

The 'full' investigation? This is rhetoric. The police began their investigation and decided not to press charges. The media lied to bring race into the equation. The state certainly stepped in and was wrong to do so.

Trust me, I don't like this story one bit and Florida has things to fix, but in the end the guy was innocent which is what the police investigation determined.

This is a pretty good interview with the police chief where he is very clear that the police did a good job in their timely investigation:

http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/10/justic...-lee-exclusive

The initial investigation was half assed. The fact that the follow up investigation brought up enough evidence to get this case to a point where a guilty verdict was well within the realm of possibility speaks volumes to how poor the local police performed.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Yes there was an investigation the night of the shooting...where are you getting any other information?

I know that GZ was in custody for more than afew hours at the police station for example, and that the neighbors were all interviewed by police as another. All this right after the shooting. Pictures were taken as well documenting all of it which were used in trial IIRC.

And that was that, little to no follow up. A thorough investigation wasn't conducted until attention was paid to the case from the outside.

You can call me looking out my window when I hear something an investigation, but that doesn't make it a thorough or proper one.

[CaptainCrunch]

I don't have a problem with forcing an investigation and a trial, even after the police said that there was no reason for charges.

I know there was a significant cost to this trial, but a case like this really should have judicial oversight.

[Nage Waza]

Originally Posted by valo403

And that was that, little to no follow up. A thorough investigation wasn't conducted until attention was paid to the case from the outside.

You can call me looking out my window when I hear something an investigation, but that doesn't make it a thorough or proper one.

You can feel that they did not do enough of an investigation, but they did do one and it turns out they were correct with their conclusion. I wouldn't call what happened after the initial investigation being thorough, it was certainly political.

Claims there was no investigation is wrong. There certainly could always be more 'investigation', but in this case it was not warranted.

[Nage Waza]

Originally Posted by valo403

The initial investigation was half assed. The fact that the follow up investigation brought up enough evidence to get this case to a point where a guilty verdict was well within the realm of possibility speaks volumes to how poor the local police performed.

Say what? How was a guilty verdict within the realm of possibility? I suppose since a charge was laid (against the police wishes) there is always a chance.

Now you claim the local police performed poorly, you don't know that and there was NO evidence to support that claim.

[puckluck2]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Oh I think Puckluck hates him because he's hard pro Isreal.

You have no idea what you're talking about.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by puckluck2

You have no idea what you're talking about.

coming from you, I take that as a compliment

thanks

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Nage Waza

Say what? How was a guilty verdict within the realm of possibility? I suppose since a charge was laid (against the police wishes) there is always a chance.

Now you claim the local police performed poorly, you don't know that and there was NO evidence to support that claim.

How was a guilty verdict not within the realm of possibility? This was anything but an open and shut case in either direction, there was a very real chance that the jury could have returned a guilty verdict and there was a sufficient basis to support it.

And sorry, the local police conducted a poor initial investigation. I'm not sure why it offends you so much to have someone point that out.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by valo403

How was a guilty verdict not within the realm of possibility? This was anything but an open and shut case in either direction, there was a very real chance that the jury could have returned a guilty verdict and there was a sufficient basis to support it.

And sorry, the local police conducted a poor initial investigation. I'm not sure why it offends you so much to have someone point that out.

No there wasn't....not even close.

In fact it was so far from a possibility of 2nd degree murder, the prosecutions last minute hail mary to allow lesser charges fell on deaf ears with the jury.

Had they treated this as a negligent manslaughter case from the beginning, its possible that we may have a different outcome, but the initial charges were so far from what lined up with the evidence available, they were doomed to fail from day 1.

[CaptainCrunch]

I respect that the jury took their time and reviewed the evidence, and even asked for a proper clarification on the Manslaughter charge to see if it fit.

Its not like they decided to make sure that they got one more free meal from the state even though they had decided on a verdict to get them home.

In a lot of ways this was as near to a dream jury as it gets. 6 woman, 5 white 1 hispanic or black according to the prosecutor. Four are mothers. One was a gun owner but stated that she had a problem with the type of weapons being sold and that it should be harder to get them. One of the woman during the selection process was asked if Zimmerman did something wrong while following Martin said that she thought that he did something wrong.

The jury couldn't nail Martin on the 2nd degree charge. They took a pretty careful look at manslaughter to the point of asking for a redefinition, which usually means they are trying to stick him with something and couldn't convict on that.

It was also reported that some of the jurer's were pretty emotional when they handed back the non guilty version as in they were upset.

By all concepts if you have a unarmed young man shot by another man, and the family in the audience, you want an all woman jury with the majority of them being mothers.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by transplant99

No there wasn't....not even close.

In fact it was so far from a possibility of 2nd degree murder, the prosecutions last minute hail mary to allow lesser charges fell on deaf ears with the jury.

Had they treated this as a negligent manslaughter case from the beginning, its possible that we may have a different outcome, but the initial charges were so far from what lined up with the evidence available, they were doomed to fail from day 1.

Any time a case goes to a jury there is a legitimate possibility of it coming back with either verdict, and the evidence was there to support either result.

[Derek Sutton]

Originally Posted by valo403

Any time a case goes to a jury there is a legitimate possibility of it coming back with either verdict, and the evidence was there to support either result.

Evidence or media reports?

The prosecution admitted (re enacted) that Martin was on top Zimmerman hitting him, they did not even try to prove otherwise. There was no evidence to show murder.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Derek Sutton

Evidence or media reports?

The prosecution admitted (re enacted) that Martin was on top Zimmerman hitting him, they did not even try to prove otherwise. There was no evidence to show murder.

Huh? The evidence was sufficient to have the case sent to the jury, therefore it was sufficient to sustain a verdict in either direction. That's how a criminal case works.

[Maritime Q-Scout]

The Onion pretty much summed up this entire thread:

http://www.theonion.com/articles/zim...view:1:Default

Zimmerman Found Not Guilty, Technically, But C’mon

“The jury acted within the letter of the law, I guess, if you want to be official about it, and acquitted Mr. Zimmerman of both second-degree murder and manslaughter charges,” said legal scholar Jeffrey Frazier about Zimmerman’s culpability in the events of February 26, 2012, which, trial or no trial, have been pretty clear all along, right? “Mr. Zimmerman did not violate any Florida state laws—although, please, give me a break—and is an innocent man, I suppose, if you’re sticking to the strict legal definition of that word.”

[transplant99]

“The jury acted within the letter of the law, I guess, if you want to be official about it, and acquitted Mr. Zimmerman of both second-degree murder and manslaughter charges,” said legal scholar Jeffrey Frazier about Zimmerman’s culpability in the events of February 26, 2012, which, trial or no trial, have been pretty clear all along, right? “Mr. Zimmerman did not violate any Florida state laws—although, please, give me a break—and is an innocent man, I suppose, if you’re sticking to the strict legal definition of that word.”

I think many, including this author, confuse "not guilty of charges against them" with "innocent"....they are quite different things.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by transplant99

I think many, including this author, confuse "not guilty of charges against them" with "innocent"....they are quite different things.

Under the law, you are innocent until proven guilty. Legally, he was not proven guilty. He's, therefore, innocent in the eyes of the law.