The Current Events Thread

[Madican]

Alright then, how would you improve the self-defense laws without harming the ability for people to protect themselves? Keep in mind Zimmerman did not use the Stand-Your-Ground statute in this trial; his argument was purely self-defense.

[Reyo]

That's what we do...constantly. We go through controversial court cases where the judge finds some misc. act "unconstitutional", and then future cases are based on that finding. While the Zimmerman case was probably not as "life changing" as the ongoing battle to find same sex marriage constitutional, it's still important. Then again, there's still the issue of exactly HOW the court system is flawed? Is it flawed just from this one case? How so? Or was it flawed from the beginning in which case what should we have done about it? Or what should we do about it now? Should we write letters to the supreme court that Zimmerman should be tried again because "the court system is flawed?"

Plus, there's the issue that the flawed court system is ALWAYS brought up during controversial case findings, which leads me to believe that it's less because the court systems are legitimately flawed and more because a decision was made that wasn't in favor of your personal opinion.

[Chopstix]

Okay I mentioned court systems being flawed because there are THOUSANDS of cases each year of innocent people being sent to jail and guilty people walking free. If you honestly believe that a verdict truly shows that a person is innocent I can direct you to some cases where the guilty party admitted they did it after being set free.

[Reyo]

And that would be called "new evidence", which would warrant another trial without being called "double jeopardy." That happens all the time to both guilty parties going free, and innocent parties being locked up. If that's seriously what you believe, that this is an example of a guilty person going free, then the only way to do anything about it is to find new evidence to suggest he was guilty. As of now, however, a group of 12 jurors looked at the evidence and found him to be innocent.

The system did precisely what it was designed to do.

Besides, I never said that a jury's decision is 100% proof of what hapoened being truth (I went and looked even, and couldn't find it). A jury's decision of guilty or not guilty is society's attempt to ensure that something we say is true has the best possibility of actually being accurate. A group of 12 unbiased people making an educated decision based on evidence is going to be a hell of a lot more accurate than any pandering the media has been feeding us.

[Lambeth]

Then again, there's still the issue of exactly HOW the court system is flawed?

From my perspective:

Punitive vs rehabilitation: It's far too focused on punishment over rehabilitation. That leads to people getting caught in the cycle of crime which they can't get out of. They commit some minor crime which lands them in prison, where they then get hardened up by people far worse in prison. Then you have a person who relies on crime because it is all they know.

Institutional racism: The incarceration rate for african americans is 40%. The black population of the US is around 12%. That's a lotta black folks.

War on Drugs: Marijuana is a harmless drug that a lot of people get sent to prison for. Black people in particular get it really bad. The War on Drugs also largely prevents addicts from seeking treatment when it comes to harder drugs like meth. The War pushes everything underground.

Private prisons: Some more conservative states have private prisons. Which means monied interests influence judges to send people to prison, so they can make a tidy profit.

[Reyo]

Then again, there's still the issue of exactly HOW the court system is flawed?

From my perspective:

Punitive vs rehabilitation: It's far too focused on punishment over rehabilitation. That leads to people getting caught in the cycle of crime which they can't get out of. They commit some minor crime which lands them in prison, where they then get hardened up by people far worse in prison. Then you have a person who relies on crime because it is all they know.

Institutional racism: The incarceration rate for african americans is 40%. The black population of the US is around 12%. That's a lotta black folks.

War on Drugs: Marijuana is a harmless drug that a lot of people get sent to prison for. Black people in particular get it really bad. The War on Drugs also largely prevents addicts from seeking treatment when it comes to harder drugs like meth. The War pushes everything underground.

Private prisons: Some more conservative states have private prisons. Which means monied interests influence judges to send people to prison, so they can make a tidy profit.

That's all true, but none of them have to do with the Zimmerman case. Zimmerman was set acquitted of his charges, meaning he won't fall into that trap (which actually works to support the decision that was made). It was an issue of a mexican american being put in jail, not an african america, and even if it were about minorites in general, it was about a minority NOT goong to jail. It was about murder/manslaughter, not drugs. He certainly wouldn't be rich enough for a private prison...

I'm not saying these issues don't exist. I'm saying they have nothing to do with how the jury found Zimmerman to be innocent. Unless we want to stop taking cases until the issues are resolved, which would be just plain silly, it's no use to try and yell at the court system for having these flaws to "fix them" because...well...they are tryng to.

I mean hell...just a few months ago, was marijuana legalized in a handful of states? That's progress. The problems are certainly not being ignored, and certainly shouldn't be used as some excuse for why a jury's decision was wrong.

[Lambeth]

I thought you were asking what I thought the flaws of the justice system were. Race undoubtedly had a lot to do with the zimmerman case though.

[Syobon]

So from what I understand Zimmerman was found innocent because the shooting was considered 'justified'? Could someone explain what the American law is on police shooting and how it applied in this case? There is too much information out there on this case to find something this specific.

[Madican]

So from what I understand Zimmerman was found innocent because the shooting was considered 'justified'? Could someone explain what the American law is on police shooting and how it applied in this case? There is too much information out there on this case to find something this specific.

Not exactly. He was found not guilty of murder, which requires intent and malice aforethought, and not guilty of manslaughter, which is an unlawful killing. Zimmerman claimed that he shot in self-defense after having his head slammed against the concrete by Trayvon Martin, which the jury accepted as a lawful reason to shoot.

[TheStranger]

Nice work Florida, you've actually managed to look WORSE than the rest of the South for once.

[D-vid]

So from what I understand Zimmerman was found innocent because the shooting was considered 'justified'? Could someone explain what the American law is on police shooting and how it applied in this case? There is too much information out there on this case to find something this specific.

Not exactly. He was found not guilty of murder, which requires intent and malice aforethought, and not guilty of manslaughter, which is an unlawful killing. Zimmerman claimed that he shot in self-defense after having his head slammed against the concrete by Trayvon Martin, which the jury accepted as a lawful reason to shoot.

Shooting someone who is unarmed dead is not a case of self-defense here unless your life was in danger if you didn't do it. Having the gun and pointing it at Martin would have sufficed to make him stop, since, again, he was unarmed and not significantly physically superior to be able to easily take the gun away. And even then, there's shooting at areas that don't result in immediate death.
And murder has a different definition here too. It wouldn't have been murder probably, but the big difference is that a murder can be something without forethough/planning.

[Cynical Slob]

When people are taught to shoot they are taught to shoot for the greatest centre of mass on a human body, which is generally the area encompassing the chest and the head. You can shoot for the arm or the leg but you have an incredible chance of missing, and if you're in a location with people around, the significant chance of hitting an innocent bystander. Another thing to consider with this line of thought is that generally the people that are ballsy enough to attack an armed person are usually high on whatever drug that makes them go psycho. If you shoot some poor sod who's gone nuts on meth in the leg, they're not going to stop, plain and simple as that. Therefore, those trained in the use of firearms have to consider that when they're using them. Of course, I admit I'm not too well versed with the American police (yeah I know he was neighbourhood watch) but I do understand that they have to assume everyone has a firearm (although that's getting away from the point.)

Was Zimmerman's life in danger? We know he was beaten quite maliciously, but the extent to which he would start fearing for his life is the real conundrum here. To quote Madican, if he indeed did have his head slammed against the concrete floor, that would've been more than enough to definitely antagonise and aggravate someone (have you ever had your head hit really hard before? If you have, you'll know that it makes you super angry when you get hit.) Therefore, he would not have been thinking completely clearly, and as only a Neighbourhood Watch member we can understand that he would not have received anything quite like the Police training about maintaining calmness and a level head. Thus we can conclude that it might very well be possible that he was fearing for his life -- even if, retrospectively, there was no logical reasoning to conclude that he might have been murdered, that part in our brain that controls our emotions (reptilian brain, I think it might be called, or animal brain, idk) supersedes the ability of our prefrontal cortex in response time, which, when you're in the middle of a fight like Zimmerman was, you don't have the precious second to react.

I don't believe Zimmerman is innocent, I believe he is not guilty.

[Madican]

So from what I understand Zimmerman was found innocent because the shooting was considered 'justified'? Could someone explain what the American law is on police shooting and how it applied in this case? There is too much information out there on this case to find something this specific.

Not exactly. He was found not guilty of murder, which requires intent and malice aforethought, and not guilty of manslaughter, which is an unlawful killing. Zimmerman claimed that he shot in self-defense after having his head slammed against the concrete by Trayvon Martin, which the jury accepted as a lawful reason to shoot.

Shooting someone who is unarmed dead is not a case of self-defense here unless your life was in danger if you didn't do it. Having the gun and pointing it at Martin would have sufficed to make him stop, since, again, he was unarmed and not significantly physically superior to be able to easily take the gun away. And even then, there's shooting at areas that don't result in immediate death.
And murder has a different definition here too. It wouldn't have been murder probably, but the big difference is that a murder can be something without forethough/planning.

You are looking at all the facts after the event without considering how the event went down in the first place.

When the altercation happened it was night, which means low visibility. When Zimmerman approached Martin, who was in a dark hoodie in a gated community, he had already noticed Martin's hand straying to his side every now and then. Now we know it was ice tea and some Skittles, but Zimmerman had probable cause to believe there was a weapon.

As for body stats, Zimmerman is below six feet and over two-hundred pounds, not muscle. Martin on the other hand is over six feet and all muscle because he was a football player. When it came to close-quarters-combat he had a huge advantage over Zimmerman, especially since he was right on top of him. Head trauma, which being slammed into concrete repeatedly causes, can kill people through concussions pretty easily. Not to mention Martin's knuckles were bloody and Zimmerman's nose was broken, that's some major pain.

Then there's how the altercation happened. Yes, Zimmerman ignored the 911 dispatcher to leave Martin alone. However, Martin seems to have been the one who attacked Zimmerman first, since we know Zimmerman had a gun, which means he had no reason to physically engage Martin. Regardless of how it happened, Zimmerman ended up on his back with Martin over him. He feared for his life, got the gun out, and shot. There is no "shooting specific areas" you realize, that's just Hollywood bullshit. Like CS said, when anyone draws a gun they shoot to kill because there is nowhere in the body, other than the booty, that is lacking vital body parts such as arteries or organs. You can die of blood loss from being shot in the shoulder just as easily as being shot in the heart.

I do not think Zimmerman is guiltless in how this went down, but neither do I think Martin is wholly innocent. They both made bad decisions and it ended with Martin dead. However, I do not think Zimmerman is a murderer when I consider the context of everything.

[Kamak]

Just because a reasonable person wouldn't throw a punch at someone if they already had a gun, does not mean they are incapable of making that bad decision. We know Zimmerman was capable of bad decisions when he ignored the dispatcher's orders.

In addition, the only people who know the order of events are Martin and Zimmerman. It's possible that Martin thought this guy was trying to hold him up or kill him and retaliated under self-defense and got killed for it. Unfortunately we don't know and if Zimmerman was at fault, he's not telling.

Also, wasn't it determined that the wounds Zimmerman had were more in line with being slammed into wood rather than the concrete sidewalk that he claimed? I remember they said they were pretty shallow for concrete. When we only have one side of the story, it's much harder to get the best picture.

[D-vid]

I am aware that getting shot anywhere can be deadly.
However, I'm willing to bet a shot in the head or upper body kills you faster than a shot in the arm, and is harder to treat.
What we know is, Zimmerman engaged Martin after being told not to by police, he may have been assaulted, then ended up killing the boy. The fact he ignored the police instructions alone already makes me completely flabbergasted at how he gets off without anything. A person died why? Because Zimmerman thought he could be a daisies hero by facing the "suspicious individual"?