Conquer Club

This scenario was tossed out a few times, usually with the assumption that racism was behind the Martin shooting and with the immediate supposition that Zimmerman would have been tossed in jail and never heard from again to the cheers of all the "racists" that applaud the Zimmerman verdict.

Interesting fact: that scenario did play out. Sure, there are some differences. You'll never see the exact same situation occur again with races reversed*. What happened?
http://themartialist.net/?p=306

A black man confronts a couple of white teenagers after calling 911. He purposely took his gun with him to the confrontation. He engaged in the confrontation because he was afraid the teenagers would get away. One of the teenagers charged at him and was shot twice and died. Scott was charged with manslaughter and, like Zimmerman, was found not guilty.




* Here I accept for argument's sake that Zimmerman can be considered white.

Doc_Brown wrote:This scenario was tossed out a few times, usually with the assumption that racism was behind the Martin shooting and with the immediate supposition that Zimmerman would have been tossed in jail and never heard from again to the cheers of all the "racists" that applaud the Zimmerman verdict.

Interesting fact: that scenario did play out. Sure, there are some differences. You'll never see the exact same situation occur again with races reversed*. What happened?
http://themartialist.net/?p=306

A black man confronts a couple of white teenagers after calling 911. He purposely took his gun with him to the confrontation. He engaged in the confrontation because he was afraid the teenagers would get away. One of the teenagers charged at him and was shot twice and died. Scott was charged with manslaughter and, like Zimmerman, was found not guilty.


* Here I accept for argument's sake that Zimmerman can be considered white.

" At 3:00 in the morning he heard a disturbance outside, looked out the window, and saw three teenagers trying to break into his car. "

He had a motive without knowing the race of the kids breaking into his car. George Zimmerman was working off of a few assumptions (regardless of race):

1) A kid was walking at night alone
2) He was wearing a hoody
3) He felt he was up to something
4) (?) Racial motivations

In one scenario, we have someone witnessing a crime on their own belongings, on the other, we have no real prompt. Martin have every right as an adult (he was 19, IIRC) to be where he was. The kid here did not, so I don't think these two situations are comparable as that was a key element that made the Martin v Zimmerman case heated.

BMO

Firstly: why was his first call to the police after the shooting? Surely regardless of whether or not he was going to confront them, at least getting the wife to call the cops straight away would have been a smart option..?

Secondly: When in light of the thread where PS quoted the legal detail on the stand your ground law; no where does it say you get to go out and confront the perp: there's standing your ground, and then there's actively running forwards...

While again I am sure this fits within the letter of the law (and at least this time there seems to be much more clarity around the case), to me personally there are so many better options as to how one should resolve this situation. And that resolution is determined by what laws you operate under: to me stand your ground and similar laws (when combined with firearms) promotes this kind of reaction/resolution.

A big difference right from the beginning:
Scott witnessed a crime in progress in his neighborhood
and also took the witness stand at his trial.

The Law in NY allows for the legal use of a weapon in this situation,
because Scott was out numbered by the perpetrators of the crime.

Zimmerman saw no criminal activity, just a person he determined
as suspicious walking through the neighborhood.

Doc_Brown wrote:This scenario was tossed out a few times, usually with the assumption that racism was behind the Martin shooting and with the immediate supposition that Zimmerman would have been tossed in jail and never heard from again to the cheers of all the "racists" that applaud the Zimmerman verdict.

Interesting fact: that scenario did play out. Sure, there are some differences. You'll never see the exact same situation occur again with races reversed*. What happened?
http://themartialist.net/?p=306

A black man confronts a couple of white teenagers after calling 911. He purposely took his gun with him to the confrontation. He engaged in the confrontation because he was afraid the teenagers would get away. One of the teenagers charged at him and was shot twice and died. Scott was charged with manslaughter and, like Zimmerman, was found not guilty.

* Here I accept for argument's sake that Zimmerman can be considered white.

I'm actually quite surprised that, given the charge of manslaughter, it turned out that way. And that's with no thought given to the races being mixed around...that just seems to be almost the definition of manslaughter to me. I suppose the fact that they were in the act of a crime against his property swayed the difference.

In your view would a manslaughter charge on Zimmerman suceeded?

Lootifer wrote:In your view would a manslaughter charge on Zimmerman suceeded?

As I understand the law (which is QUITE limited, admittedly), I think it probably would have. There is no reason to believe that Zimmerman intended to kill Martin prior to whatever transpired between them, yet Martin is dead. Self-defense would probably be the defense used, but given that Zimmerman placed himself into the situation unnecessarily and against guidance by the police, I tend to think that defense would fail.

Lootifer wrote:In your view would a manslaughter charge on Zimmerman suceeded?

The jury considered a manslaughter charge and found Zimmerman innocent of manslaughter. So, the answer is clear. A manslaughter charge did not succeed.

See I find that pretty distastful personally.

Zimmerman put himself in the position where it was likely there would be some kind of confrontation. Add in there was no actual crime being committed and he instigated the situation. To me that is in contrast to the definition of self defense/stand your ground as PS cited in the other thread.

Doc_Brown wrote:

Lootifer wrote:In your view would a manslaughter charge on Zimmerman suceeded?

The jury considered a manslaughter charge and found Zimmerman innocent of manslaughter. So, the answer is clear. A manslaughter charge did not succeed.

Yeah, I just found out they could do that.

I asked this in the other thread, but I'm not sure if you're reading that one. So given this, what is the incentive for the prosecutor to ever ask for a lesser charge? Why wouldn't they always trump up the charges, if the jury can settle on a lesser one anyway? This seems ripe for unfairness to me.

Because the prosecutor first charged for 2nd degree murder, and when the prosecutor then saw how lacking her case was she asked the jury to also consider manslaughter. It should not be unfair (unless you say that they Prosecutor should only be able to Ante UP so 2nd to 1st degree Murder) and not withdraw chips from the table, in terms of poker. So Calling and raising is fine but you can't change your big blind down to the small blind.

Juries are not permitted to consider lesser charges in some states. They can only render judgement on the charges offered. I'm not sure how it works in other states. In this case, the prosecutor had to ask the judge to allow the jury to consider the lesser charge. The defense had the ability to argue against it of course. After some deliberation, the judge allowed the jury to consider manslaughter, but not 3rd degree murder and child abuse. I think one reason prosecutors would hesitate to overcharge and then use the lesser charge as a backup is it makes their case look weak if they have to go back later and request the lesser charge. As soon as the prosecutor did that in this case, it was pretty clear to everyone that even the prosecutor didn't think the jury would convict Zimmerman on the original charge. I'm not sure how that would affect the jury, but I could see that a last minute introduction of a much lesser charge would signal to them that the case is weak.

I always felt it was more of a manslaughter thing. I felt Zimmerman was a vigilante type, but I don't believe he went out that night with an intent to kill anyone, but it was clearly due to his poor decisions that the events occurred as they did.

rishaed wrote:Because the prosecutor first charged for 2nd degree murder, and when the prosecutor then saw how lacking her case was she asked the jury to also consider manslaughter. It should not be unfair (unless you say that they Prosecutor should only be able to Ante UP so 2nd to 1st degree Murder) and not withdraw chips from the table, in terms of poker. So Calling and raising is fine but you can't change your big blind down to the small blind.

I LOVE poker analogies! The reason I would consider it lacking in justice is because it could potentially set someone up to be found guilty of a charge that they should not have been charged with in the first place (as we know, innocent people are sometimes found guilty, including some very serious crimes). Particularly if there is a political motive at play.

Quite right. I compare what the prosecutor did was to go all in blind, and then look at her cards in the middle of the hand and say, I only meant to put half of my chips in. If you are going to charge me for something, make sure you can prove it first or i'll make you regret your foolishness. (In a perfect justice system anyways....)

Scott said Cervini charged him, yelling "I'll get you" or "I'll get him." It was three against one, he was on his own property, three kids were breaking into his car, and one of them ran at him and threatened to "get" him. Sounds like self-defense to me. He didn't shoot the other two, just the one kid who was attacking him.

Looks like Stormfront.org loves this case.