The Zimmerman Trial

[DinoDoc]

You mentioned innocent in your previous post. Only Zimmerman has been given an innocent verdict.

Zimmerman was given a not guilty verdict. There is a difference,

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Zimmerman was given a not guilty verdict. There is a difference,

Potato, Pahtahtoe

in·no·cent (n-snt)
adj.

2.
a. Not guilty of a specific crime or offense; legally blameless: was innocent of all charges.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/innocent

[Sava]

The problem with "the profit motive" is that it only applies to sociopaths who are unable to think rationally about anything else beyond their own enrichment... often to their own disadvantage! They are a small percentage of the human population. It's silly to have a set of policies that only benefit or lead to greater efficiencies to a very small group of people. Even if you completely ignore the utterly immoral realities of such a system, it is a bad system by economic standards. Empowering larger groups of people with more resources ultimately leads to greater economic activity. This should be a no-brainer. Unfortunately, that same greed (and/or idiocy) blinds people to this obvious fact.

[Wiglaf]

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/07/george-zimmerman-race-trayvon-martin-national-conversation-94381.html

Let’s act as if the main threat to young black men in America is overzealous neighborhood watch volunteers who erroneously consider them suspicious, call the police and follow them, then shoot them in self-defense after a violent altercation in confusing circumstances that will never be entirely disentangled. Let’s pretend that this happens all the time.

[PLATO]

Question: If Zimmerman is not guilty by reason of self defense, then doesn't this imply that Trayvon was guilty of assault? Afterall, if you are defending yourself, you must be being assaulted, correct? If Zimmerman started the assault, then how could self defense apply?

[Wiglaf]

Question: If Zimmerman is not guilty by reason of self defense, then doesn't this imply that Trayvon was guilty of assault? Afterall, if you are defending yourself, you must be being assaulted, correct? If Zimmerman started the assault, then how could self defense apply?

I thought we covered this, the answer is no. Self defense applies whenever a person reasonably believes he is in imminent fear of death or great bodily harm. Someone is guilty of assault only when they knowingly or recklessly put someone else in fear of imminent fear of death or great bodily harm.

Hypothetically if I am walking on a street and I think I am alone, and I recite lines from a play I am acting in that sound threatening, like "You in the shrubbery, I'm going to kill and rape you tonight!", and contrary to all appearances, a kid was hiding in the bushes and became terrified and shot me, that would be an example of neither one of us possibly committing a crime.

[Sava]

If Zimmerman started the assault, then how could self defense apply?

Exactly.

[DinoDoc]

No one was able to prove who started the assault and the prosecution lacked the evidence necessary to sustain the charge. Hell no one could conclusively say who was yelling for help on the tape.

[Wiglaf]

The jury conclusively said it was Zimmerman.

[rah]

x-post never mind.

[Wiglaf]

If Zimmerman started the assault, then how could self defense apply?

In most cases, and I think in Florida, starting a fight prevents you from making most self defense claims. (Unless someone really, really escalates the fight, or you were not posing any threat somehow)

[PLATO]

I thought we covered this, the answer is no. Self defense applies whenever a person reasonably believes he is in imminent fear of death or great bodily harm. Someone is guilty of assault only when they knowingly or recklessly put someone else in fear of imminent fear of death or great bodily harm.

Hypothetically if I am walking on a street and I think I am alone, and I recite lines from a play I am acting in that sound threatening, like "I'm going to kill and rape you tonight!", and contrary to all appearances, a kid was hiding in the bushes and became terrified and shot me, that would be an example of neither one of us committing a crime.

Yes, I see that. My question really speaks to who started the physical altercation. Did Trayvon, coming up to Zimmerman from behind, believe he was in imminent danger and needed to take action or was he just going to teach that "creepy azz cracker" a lesson about following him? IF (and it is a big IF) Zimmerman was not, in fact, following Trayvon when Trayvon confronted him, then Trayvon is guilty of assault. It seems to me that the evidence points that way. Beyond a reasonable doubt? Probably not, but I do believe the implication is there.

[Sava]

No one was able to prove who started the assault

Wtf?

Trayvon was going home. Zimmerman chased him and started the confrontation. This isn't in dispute. It's not like Zimmerman was in between Trayvon and his house. Zimmerman pursued him.

I'm really baffled how this became a partisan issue. I mean, I know Republicans are racists. But still. I guess I'm underestimated the blinding effect on reality that politics has on these people.

[PLATO]

Wtf?

Trayvon was going home. Zimmerman chased him and started the confrontation. This isn't in dispute. It's not like Zimmerman was in between Trayvon and his house. Zimmerman pursued him.

I'm really baffled how this became a partisan issue. I mean, I know Republicans are racists. But still. I guess I'm underestimated the blinding effect on reality that politics has on these people.

Dumb post...review the evidence and quit following the fantasy.

[Wiglaf]

Yes, I see that. My question really speaks to who started the physical altercation. Did Trayvon, coming up to Zimmerman from behind, believe he was in imminent danger and needed to take action or was he just going to teach that "creepy azz cracker" a lesson about following him? IF (and it is a big IF) Zimmerman was not, in fact, following Trayvon when Trayvon confronted him, then Trayvon is guilty of assault. It seems to me that the evidence points that way. Beyond a reasonable doubt? Probably not, but I do believe the implication is there.

Yes the implication is there.