Let's talk about Trayvon Martin, George Zimmerman, and how unbelievably fucked up this all is

"who needs facts, burden of proof, presumption of innocence, etc when you have yr gut amirite"

that's not it at all. the facts are that zimmerman killed a kid, and we all know that. all the rest is armchair lawyering that's trying to convince people that an acquittal is anything at all short of a basic statement that america is an apartheid state (or parts are at least) where certain lives have no rights and no value.

the attempt to divert a systematic problem w/ america into monday morning quarterbacking over 'the rule of law' is precisely part of trying to diminish what this case means.

everyone running out and pontificating about how xyz about felony laws are tricky and in fact the charging was important but the conviction was going to be hard because etc. is playing a role in diminishing and diverting the real point here.

and i don't understand the _eagerness_ to rush into this crap, outside, maybe of the fact that it psychologically makes this situation easier for people to accept if they turn it into the sort of thing one can have a pleasant discussion about, with a back-and-forth and truth in both sides. there's no back and forth here, no truth in both sides, no mitigating legal circumstance, no community of common interests such that a rational discussion is possible. that's what this decision means.

don't give the amateur lawyering an inch. that's just appeasement.

there's no presumption of innocence here. everyone _agrees_ who shot who. and there's no possible reasonable doubt that zimmerman could possibly have feared for his life. that's really it. even if you find some loophole vis a vis crummy fla law, that's besides the point. there's no notion of 'justice' in this decision, unless you worship the fact of the law (any law, anyone else's law, the fact of there being a law, the law for some and not others) itself.

does it feel good to be proud of 'calling' the case? like a point spread in a basketball game? is it a smart feeling? a superior one? comforting? i don't understand.

yeah if you're gonna advocate ignoring the rule of law and inconveniences like burden of proof and presumption of innocence cuz they didn't work out the way you wanted (this time) so in favor of mob justice and not diminishing 'the real point' you might want to make sure you actually have the mob and the guns on yr side first.

xpost yeah, everyone itt is clearly overjoyed about it....

zimmerman's acquittal had fuck all to do with presumption of innocence and burden of proof. nor am i arguing for mob justice for zimmerman!?

do you have any idea what i'm saying at all balls? who are you arguing against? it isn't me! are you worried that if i get too mad, the first window with a brick through it will be yours?

no idea how good it feels to 'call' the case (has anyone here done that?). i can't imagine it's a superior feeling to whatever you're indulging in right now. if you're trying to prove it's not possible to have a 'rational discussion' about this though kudos. as long as you realize that armchair activism is as empty and pathetic as armchair lawyering. but hey if it makes you feel like you did something, you stood up against this injustice and posted some stuff on a thread on the internet w/ ppl that effectively agreee w/ you have fun, fight the power. you're totally making a difference here man.

clover i have absolutely no worries that at any point you might actually act on yr beliefs

Sorry to interject here.

All this talk about justice, burden of proof, police work, "we'll get you, Zimmerman"-- not to mention racial implications-- is playing into the same obfuscation of What Is Actually Fucked Up Here, which is that America is occupied by a junta of gun-wielding psychopaths. I was reading about CCW permits, specifically the bill in Illinois and the completely batshit language that surrounds its discussion-- "you can't carry under the age of 21 or if you've had a DUI? this is BULLSHIT"-- and it honestly seems to an outsider that America is not so much a nation that Hates Black People but a nation that has been so deeply poisoned by the lies of gun lobbyists and the legalese surrounding the 2nd Amendment that it is impossible to imagine America without guns. Which is what James Baldwin said about race in the 60s... re-watching some James Baldwin videos this morning when he's saying "you are talking about a nation I have never seen" and "if you think you are yourself white you are beyond hope" I can't help but draw parallels to gunlanguage. Like, the idea that lawmakers have to even be debating the extent of permissibility of possession of these child-killing objects means you've already lost. An America without guns should be the object here and any shifting of blame, whether "right" or "left", to ALEC or racism or hoodies or what-have-you, is imho detrimental to your nation's safety.

"a thread on the internet w/ ppl that effectively agreee w/ you"

ok if you effectively agree w/ me why are you being such a huge douche about it? i don't understand why you are arguing with me, i think u feel threatened but i don't know y.

the attempt to divert a systematic problem w/ america into monday morning quarterbacking over 'the rule of law' is precisely part of trying to diminish what this case means

this is otm

All this talk about justice, burden of proof, police work, "we'll get you, Zimmerman"-- not to mention racial implications-- is playing into the same obfuscation of What Is Actually Fucked Up Here, which is that America is occupied by a junta of gun-wielding psychopaths.

otm about the tragedy of america's inability to imagine life without guns, but i hate all the "you're talking about this, but you really need to be talking about THIS" crap. it is possible to reasonably and productively discuss different aspects of a subject, even one that's weighted with moral and emotional import.

plus balls on fire

why would i feel threatened? 'omg he might deconstruct me!' i think that internet calls for mob justice are laughable and that 'any discussion of changing laws is appeasement! we must overthrow the system! w/ strongly worded essays!' is the type of incompetent leftism of the past forty years that's partly responsible for getting us to this place.

contendo that wasn't my point at all, though I'm sorry you think it's crap, I'm not trying to show you a bigger elephant, I'm expressing my frustration that much of the debate continues to re-affirm the existence of guns in the hands of American civilians by assuming that this current reality is unchangeable

http://i4.ytimg.com/vi/WEBxd6h4QM0/hqdefault.jpg

"There is this devastating satirical piece in the Times. Devastating."

ok balls a) i didn't say anything about deconstruction b) i didn't call for mob justice c) i didn't object to discussions about changing laws.

so i think maybe you're arguing against someone else

(to be honest some of my vitriol is against ppl not in this thread but in my facebook feed and elsewhere, but this thread gets it b/c no way am i getting into that on social media. so maybe you are doing the same?)

okay, that was more dickish than i intended. sincere apologies goon tie. i annoyed by the recent tone of the thread, not by anything you said.

my take is that the laws in question are a travesty reflecting bankrupt values. the verdict spits in the face of justice. the response of many reeks of pathological racism, the complete failure of human decency. the whole thing, as goon tie says, puts our national cancer on full display.

but it's still important to understand not just the feelings we experience in response to all this, but the facts of the case as we can best apprehend them, even when they seem to be quibbling details. neither one of these things necessarily robs the other.

then again, i'm counterrevolutionary by nature, so maybe clover's right

np, none taken and I agree with your second-to-last post.

i've been kinda thanking "God" that i haven't seen anything to be disgusted and outraged on my facebook wall yet though i think the sadly huge amount of blocking i had to do around the time of sandy hook might've helped w/ that.

I havent seen anything objectionable on my facebook wall either.

there's no possible reasonable doubt that zimmerman could possibly have feared for his life.

The jury sure thought so. This is why people are discussing trivial details here that are so meaningless to you. Ignoring laws and the legal process because you know what's true and just could be same rationale used by groups like crackpot militias, KKK, etc.

do you think the legal process here actually took us closer to 'truth'? is that an actual claim you would like to make?

the truth is that it was impossible to prove that GZ wasn't acting in self-defense, that's really the only truth the legal case was about.

ding ding

Defense from what though? Can you use lethal force to defend yourself from non-lethal force?

Defense from what though? Can you use lethal force to defend yourself from non-lethal force?
--Treeship

Absolutely.

Though in this case the question is moot because the victim went and armed himself with a sidewalk.

yes. our response to threat doesn't have to be precisely proportional. after all, we can't always know whether an assailant intends to intimidate, harm or kill us. if the law forced us to find out before responding, it wouldn't be of much use to those in harm's way. and besides, zimmerman alleged that martin explicitly threatened his life.

I've made the mistake of reading some comment sections on articles at various sites. Seems like 2/3 or more make reference to "era of black racism", "reverse racism", "THEY are the ones who won't let racism die", etc. Several months ago a co-worker said the same sort of thing, I was aghast. Seems like this is much more prevalent then even a few years ago. I know she listens to Limbaugh, right wing rhetoric has fanned this, no?

i mean, lots of people and institutions are at fault here: zimmerman, the responding officers, sanford police and prosecutors, "stand your ground" laws, american racism and gun nuttery, etc.

but the failure of justice in this case resulted to a large degree from the fundamental uncertainty that always accompanies cases like this. when someone is killed and there are no witnesses besides the killer(s), and no evidence to conclusively disprove the killer's self-justifying account, it becomes very hard to eradicate all reasonable doubt.

of course the law isn't applied evenly or fairly, so the fact that the jury reached a defensible verdict doesn't mitigate my outrage. i hardly think that if the roles were reversed and zimmerman lay dead that most american juries would be so quick to find in martin's favor.

and of course amongst those comments are ones like this which negate all the racism is dead and they should just get over it ones, this one written by a man running for a county board position in NC:

JB Howard
Since 1965 Blacks have been catered to paid hugh sums of cash and lived on the threat of hostility against whites. Blacks will not be happy as long as there is a white person in this country they continue to live as polarized thinkers and have their hands stuck out for the check.

was just getting into it on facebook with this woman when she said "you *always* trust your government huh"

xposts, see the jury didn't reach a defensible verdict, this is where we disagree. and i say this being fully aware of the evidence. i think the emerging consensus that the jury reached a 'defensible' verdict is a spectacular example of... something. real-time media ability to alter-the-conversation maybe.

like what if the verdict was guilty? would everyone here on ilx be insisting the evidence wasn't there for a conviction, and much as we hate it, zimmerman shoulda walked? obviously no. so whatever verdict is reached, somehow its ok because it was reached by a jury, and that makes it a magical thing sprinkled with juridical fairy dust.

he should have been hauled up on manslaughter. i hope zimmerman lives a frightened life, nervous about whether that car slowing down is gonna say 'neighborhood watch, george'

that said

http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/2013/07/10/george_zimmerman_trial_trayvon_martin_s_shooter_is_probably_going_to_walk.html

. Many will see this as an unsatisfying outcome; many will think it shouldn’t be this easy to kill someone, concoct an uncontradictable excuse, and get away with it. But a legally satisfying verdict cannot always be the same as a morally satisfying verdict. It would be unjust if Zimmerman were convicted based not on the strength of the evidence against him, but rather on the public sentiment against him.

like what if the verdict was guilty? would everyone here on ilx be insisting the evidence wasn't there for a conviction, and much as we hate it, zimmerman shoulda walked? obviously no. so whatever verdict is reached, somehow its ok because it was reached by a jury, and that makes it a magical thing sprinkled with juridical fairy dust.

nah. i figured a guilty verdict was likely from early on, given florida law and the initial police response. i would have been very happy to see zimmerman convicted, of course, and wouldn't consider such a verdict legally irresponsible. there's always room for interpretation. if that weren't the case, we wouldn't need juries.

reposting Alfred's link from earlier because it's the most otm thing I have read today

http://prospect.org/article/zimmerman-acquittal-isnt-about-stand-your-ground#.UeLwW3PYUNw.twitter

Yep

it's generally otm, but this bugs me:

This [basic self defense] was the basis for Zimmerman's defense, and under Florida law it was the state's burden to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. (Intuitively, this may seem like a quirk of Florida law, but the vast majority of states place the burden of proof on the state to disprove a claim of self-defense.)

i would expect (or at least hope?) that most people don't see this as a strange "quirk". the burden of proof should be on those who wish to assert that a crime has occurred. that's a cornerstone of american legal system.

yes, i will take the standard the jury applied to zimmerman over the standard that zimmerman applied to martin.

i agree that the burden of proof should always rest with the prosecutor. the thing is that in this case, when it was clear that zimmerman was the one causing the altercation, and that trayvon was not armed and didn't seem to pose a credible threat to cause serious harm to zimmerman -- dude probably could have backed him off just by saying that he had a gun i mean, come on -- it's strange to me that a self-defense plea would hold up. i don't really understand how you could ever disprove a claim of "self defense" in any manslaughter case unless there are witnesses under the precedent set by this case.

Zimmerman had the broken nose, the facial bruises and the cuts on his head. Without those he probably would be headed to prison.

i think it's okay to question a jury's verdict

i don't really understand how you could ever disprove a claim of "self defense" in any manslaughter case unless there are witnesses under the precedent set by this case.

― Treeship, Sunday, July 14, 2013 10:17 PM (1 minute ago)

it wasn't ever clear, from a legal standpoint, that "zimmerman was the one causing the altercation." everyone seemed to agree that zimmerman pursued and attempted to confront martin, but zimmerman claimed that martin started the fight (martin, of course, wasn't around to present his side of the story). and it doesn't seem so wildly unreasonable to think that an angry but unarmed man might pose a credible threat. after all, zimmerman claimed that he only reached for his gun as a last resort, as his head was being slammed into the pavement.

i don't buy zimmerman's story, not one word of it, i want to make that clear, but i don't think the jury was wrong to say that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

i think it's okay to question a jury's verdict

― the late great, Monday, July 15, 2013 1:29 AM (3 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

preferably in a way that doesn't boil down to "but this guy's an asshole!"

i think it's possible to think that zimmerman deserves to be in jail for one reason or another but still be ok with a not guilty verdict for second-degree murder (the manslaughter charge is another story and i still want to see this broken down tbh). the time for outrage was a year ago when zimmerman was walking free and the cops were bungling the evidence. the deck was stacked against a conviction from the get-go; my personal principles privilege trial rights above most else - and i'm cool with zimmerman skating on the murder charge just like i'm fine with any other criminal getting his case thrown out due to cop abuse/coerced statements, etc

also for those who want to focus on the real-world effects of the case rather than the legal particulars, how about how GZ has been basically unable to leave his house or jail for the past 16 months and has probably feared for his life, and his life will probably never be the same. that's something of a silver lining, if that's your sort of thing. i'd like to hope he learns something from all this but given the "support" he's got from the other side it's probably pretty unlikely, unfortunately

that there's an other side one of the most distressing things about all this

yeah i think this is all a recipe for even more deeply-entrenched beliefs on the part of the zimmermans and their supporters (they seemed like dubious folks to begin with, remember the whole thing with GZ's wife failing to report income to the court, not to mention brother and dad's racist invective?)

obviously the whole dramatic arc of a trial makes the moment of a verdict an inevitable as well as opportune moment to express righteous outrage, but like a lot of other folks on this thread, i think the stuff most worthy of outrage happened some time ago (the killing itself, the way evidence was/not gathered) or are pervasive parts of our culture (racism, the politics of gun culture).

but yeah in terms of "cosmic" justice zimmerman is basically always going to be walking in a prison of his own making, at least until he is forgotten (which may be a while).

I think you guys are underestimating how many places there are in America for someone like Zimmerman to hide.