continuing proofs America is wacko [2]

Did texas get that fucking asshole law ?? And manslaughter what the flying fuck. ..

Every State makes its own laws Norc, just like Nations in Europe. All of them have some kind of law that allows a person to defend themselves, and usually their family and home. It just gets tricky figuring out exactly when and where it's OK to defend yourself, because all the laws are a little different.

Manslaughter is a legal term for when the law finds you responsible for somebody's death, even if you didn't necessarily mean to kill them. For example if you were driving a care recklessly and hit somebody, or you lit a careless fire that burned somebody in their home.

In this case you could argue that Zimmerman was responsible for the situation that killed Travon Martin, even if you couldn't prove that he ever intended to kill him. For a murder conviction you have to prove a lot more, ( as you should!)

I think it's indisputable that Zimmerman was responsible for Martin's death: that is, if Zimmerman hadn't been present that night, Martin would still be alive.  But Florida's stand-your-ground law is written so broadly that even if you start a confrontation, you can still shoot someone if you believe your life is in danger.  Because no one but Zimmerman knows exactly what happened and witness testimony was all pretty contradictory, there was no way to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman's belief that he was in danger was unreasonable by the standards of Florida law

And yeah, Texas passed the law that restricts abortion.

I feel justice systems and laws should feel fair and not random. I know there wasn't much evidence, but i think everyone can conclude that shooting someone for hitting u in the head is overreacting. A good punch could've solved it. Damn, this system is fucked up.

David H wrote:

In this case you could argue that Zimmerman was responsible for the situation that killed Travon Martin, even if you couldn't prove that he ever intended to kill him. For a murder conviction you have to prove a lot more, ( as you should!)

 Yeah! If u by accident hit someone with a car it's manslaughter, but shooting someone isn't ?! It makes absolutely no fucking sense!!!

Norc wrote:

 Yeah! If u by accident hit someone with a car it's manslaughter, but shooting someone isn't ?! It makes absolutely no fucking sense!!!

Not necessarily, on both counts. If you accidentally hit somebody with a car, but you hadn't been being reckless (drinking, speeding, running through stop signs on purpose etc.) you almost certainly wouldn't be charged with manslaughter.  You have to have created the dangerous situation by doing something that the jury thinks is dumb enough that you should be punished for the death.

Shooting somebody in self defense is a tricky one. It falls to a jury to decide if there was a reasonable threat, and there is often just one person who can tell the story.  It's a situation nobody should ever be in, but unfortunately people do seem to try to kill each other all the time, both with and without guns. And often the courts don't get it right.

It stupid anyhow. I think anyone who tibks shooting s 17 year old boy as the best possible solution to a problem should get punished anyhow.  If he felt threatened or not. Killing should be the last solution srly. The kid according to himself had hit him in the head or something, and i can't see how that justifies in killing him. Zimmerman had in the first place the best hand, being older, heavier and having a gun.

My point being, there was no reason to kill him. A kid

I agree.  Personally I'd been hoping for the manslaughter conviction as the most balanced of the options.  

But to be fair, he didn't just hit him in the head. Although Z's nose was broken, it was having his head repeatedly slammed into the paved sidewalk that Zimmerman claimed was threatening to kill him.

 And although he had no way of knowing how young Travon was that night, there are still plenty of 17 year old men who could kill a person like that.  These are things a jury has to consider carefully.

Also, don't think this is over. There will still be civil rights challenges, and I would expect the family to sue  Zimmerman for wrongful death in civil court, like happened to OJ Simpson.

His life is ruined whatever happens. The important thing is what we can all learn from this. This will be a part of the National debate for years.

Yes, but there were no witnessess.

I can't see Zimmerman getting out of a wrongful death suit. And I think that what he did should count as manslaughter, but the court has to work within the confines of the laws that have been passed. (Obviously there's plenty of problems with the courts themselves too, but in this case I don't think they were the main one.)

Norc wrote:Yes, but there were no witnessess.

Well yes and no.  One of the things that's changed the whole "game" in the last 10 years is that almost everybody has a mobile phone (except me  )

Trayvon was talking to his friend as he George was first following him.  George and others were calling the police as the tragedy infolded, and all those conversations were recorded. None of that would have existed 15 years ago.

And remember that in  civil court, unlike in criminal court, there's no requirement to prove guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt".  You've just got to convince the jury that what you say is the most probable explanation, and a lot more evidence is allowable that may have been excluded from the first trial.

After this discussion I just broke down and read some of today's news.
It's not as wacko as I'd feared.
But then I haven't checked FOX.....

i just. this whole shit makes me so angry. it really provokes.

Yeah, me too.  I've stopped and re-edited every post before sending it to make sure it's fair.

What has concerned me most today is imagining 100 million people who are just as angry.  That can be like a bomb with a fuse hanging out.

I have to say I'm proud of how the press has so far been mostly a voice of calm. Maybe they're finally leaning that they don't have to light a match to every fuse, no matter how much it would help their ratings.

yepp. i think it's a lesson learned that some things, although we get angry and frustrated, will never be solved with violence.

With regards to the verdict- and I have been keeping a fairly close eye on the trial throughout- I will say its the verdict I was expecting.
I dont think its right morally,but I think it was the only real decision the jury could come to basing their verdict on nothing more than the evidence presented and the laws of the State.
If that trial had been here I suspect it would have got one of our rare Not Proven verdicts- as it seemed to me the evidence neither proved he was acting in self defense nor that he wasn't.
As the US has no Not Proven verdict I think under the laws of that State they could not reasonably have found him guilty.
Having said that I think there is a lot wrong with a law which allows an armed adult to create a situation in which he ends up shooting an adolescent dead, a boy who would not have died had Zimmerman not begun the proceedings leading to it, and yet not in law have any share of the blame for the result.

On thing to ask the Americans however- there is talk here of following the US method of televising trails- the argument is based on the maxim 'justice must be seen to be done' (although this seems to forget every court has a public gallery and anyone can go to any trial so long as there is room).

From observing this and other American cases I have many concerns- the risk of a show trial where justice seems the last thing on peoples minds- Michael Jackson- OJ for example- or in this case the added pressure on witnesses who must be stressed enough giving evidence, especially those whose backgrounds are unlikely to take them in contact with officialdom much.
And lastly the lawyers, who when watching US trials always strike me as playing to a wider audience than the one in the court, where they they should be focused. They sometimes seem more like wannabe actors.

America has had televised trials for some time-what are your thoughts on it?

I agree with your thoughts on the trial, Petty. I'm not a fan of televised trials, though. It just leads to a media circus around high profile case which puts pressure on lawyers on to pander to uninformed people. I suppose it's possible to have responsible live coverage of trials, but I don't trust the American media to do it and I'm not sure I'd trust the British media either.

I'm not sure I'd trust the British media- Eldo

No, me neither.

There was a long time when no cameras were allowed in American courtrooms at all. Sketch artists and written transcripts communicated the story quite well enough for most people without putting everybody involved on what is basically a reality TV show.

When People's Court was first dreamed up as a cheep daytime TV show, the plaintiffs and defendants waived their rights to a trial and agreed to let their case be arbitrated in front of a camera to get around the ban.

In my opinion, televising trials fundamentally interferes with the process of justice. If you can avoid that in Scotland, by all means do it!

i agree with everything you say Petty, and i do see how there were lack of evidence that the court couldn't really do anything drastic, but it|s the fact that he was found not guilty that really provokes me. something did happen and however much we twist and turn the events, he still killed a young boy and that should not go unpunished. that is at least my thoughts on it.

I think it is just awful, it to me is like the reality shows which I despise. I did my practicum at the court house here and it was very serious. We dress very formal, not with the wigs, but with long gowns and the crossed tie. You can come and watch, but there is serious protocol. It is dealing with some one's life and story. People including judges appear to act differently, even out of character when the eyes of several natilons are on them. I would not like it , at all.

And dear Eldo today was packing day for you I believe. Should not you be fast asleep?

I think that its a terrible thing that a kid should have been shot, and only under situations of imminent danger of ones family or oneself should it be legitimate to use extreme force.
I do however think that the race issue has got in the way of what should have been a pretty straightforward case. If for example a latino or a White kid had got shot, there wouldnt have been probably any major publicity, but because he is Black, suddenly its a terrible race crime. If a latino kid had been killed would people be marching on the streets in protest? I am just trying to get the other side of the debate, but the jury, I assume there was a jury?, had to weigh up the evidence, and if there was any doubt at all, couldnt declare him guity. I would be surprised if the kid had just been walking down the road minding his own buisness, nobody gets shot for just walking, so he must have been up to something violent, this is not to justify his Death, but it could be the guy Zimmerman felt his life was in danger and if he was untrained or panicked it would only take a second to fire his gun. Its a terrible thing, but I do think people are super sensitive about cases where its a White/Black trial and the White guy seems to get off scot free, in this case it seems unjust but there may have been reasonable doubt.

And this is why Im glad that the UK are TRYING to crack down on guns in this country ! Guns are NOT a plaything, I never encouraged my son to have a gun as a toy, the only gun he had was a water pistol ! My daughters feel the same, their sons didnt play with guns as kids either.
Im afraid of the people that are in a perpetual "Hollywood" style mind frame. Truthfully, I havnt been up to speed on this case but, was Zimmerman a "neighbourhood watch" guy ? (odd turn of phrase that..Hood...usually means to cover or hide something?) & there were no witnesses ? So, theoretically Zimmerman could say " in the course of my duty as... I found a youth in the act of..." exceptable excuse for plugging him ! I dont think so !! Even if you get beaten upon, first instinct is to draw a gun AND FIRE IT ? The lad was only 17 ! My son is older ! (18) We gotta get out of this mentality that all problems are solved with a gun, with bullets, bullets kill you uneducated fool ! There is NO COMING BACK ! EVER ! That kid will not see Christmas, he will not laugh with his mates, he wont grow up. YOU will, but you will have the vile taste of sick in your mouth for what you did, & there is NOTHING you can do ! I can see the problematic intricacies in this case but, times have moved forward, technology has also, we need to review the Law & make adjustments so that some people should get the punishment fitting to the crime. Zimmerman committed a crime. He took away & destroyed a young life. We cant keep brushing this aside, this happens all to often.

that boy would never have died if Zimmerman followed him. he was a volunteer and instead of calling cops he followed. he made the dangerous situation. who started and if it really was that kid threatening zimmerman, we might never know, no witnessess it's just word against word (personally i don't think there was that critical a situation that shooting him dead was the only possible solution, the grown man should've been the adult in the sitation) BUT we can all agree that the boy would've been alive if it wasn't for Zimmerman and i think that should go punished. when you take someones life, you take their future, their chance to change, grow, get children, grow old etc etc. i don't think there is any worse crime than that and no one can justify killing someone. ever. not in the long term. if he was coming at you with an axe or whatever i might udnerstand, but did the boy have any weapons? was he larger than him? was he provoking? who provoked?