Your clothes were asking for it: Now in mens!

[CorruptUser]

Why? Whether or not you follow the news doesn't seem like a particularly significant predictor of someone's ability to reason through a trial fairly and in a logical fashion.

Actually, yes, yes it does. This isn't some obscure story buried on page C5 in The Bumfuck Nowhere Chronicle, this is a story that has been dominating all news radio and tv stations as well as the internet and "word on the streetz" for well over a month.

I hope you don't expect a citation for my claim that "pays attention to news at least once a month" is strongly correlated with "not stupid/crazy".

[Garm]

That's a REALLY bad example.

I meant sufficient as in "unlikely to be pre-disposed to a certain verdict due to media coverage" and not "likely to decide guilt or innocence properly". They were able to find the former, even if popular opinion believes, by a wide margin, that they failed to get the latter at the same time. I doubt they'll have anywhere near as much trouble in accomplishing the former in this case, which would lead me to hope that they'll also have a far better chance of accomplishing the latter as well.

And if the 'proper' verdict is truly not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, would you be happy with that verdict?

I sort of expect Zimmerman to get off. I'm just happy that he's going to court. I feel like due process has taken effect and now we can have an actual trial instead of just having him continually pilloried by the court of public opinion. I really want to see Sanford P.D. get their day in court. They botched this investigation so hard it's ridiculous.

[Iulus Cofield]

When he gets acquitted (and he will if he can retain a halfway decent lawyer and get an unbiased jury), I predict rioting.

[Ghostbear]

Actually, yes, yes it does. This isn't some obscure story buried on page C5 in The Bumfuck Nowhere Chronicle, this is a story that has been dominating all news radio and tv stations as well as the internet and "word on the streetz" for well over a month.

I know plenty of people that only bother reading the "The Bumfuck Nowhere Chronicle" for their news, who don't bother with any big name news sources. I don't bother watching any news on TV (actually, I don't bother watching TV at all...), and radio might as well be useless to anybody that doesn't have a car. I get all of my news from the internet, and it wouldn't have been that particularly difficult for me to miss this story -- either because I wouldn't have bothered reading any articles on it, or just not encountered any. This is exactly the kind of story that, while dominating big news media, is pretty easy to miss if you don't give a shit what those sensationalist fucks think.

Incidentally, the story can't have dominated news that much over the past month, considering that this thread is only 3 weeks old itself.

I hope you don't expect a citation for my claim that "pays attention to news at least once a month" is strongly correlated with "not stupid/crazy".

You need that and and convincing enough argument that somebody checking the news once a month would be almost guaranteed to hear about this story.

I sort of expect Zimmerman to get off. I'm just happy that he's going to court. I feel like due process has taken effect and now we can have an actual trial instead of just having him continually pilloried by the court of public opinion. I really want to see Sanford P.D. get their day in court. They botched this investigation so hard it's ridiculous.

Yeah, I expect there's a good chance that he'll be found not guilty -- the initial way the case was handled doesn't seem to be very conductive to having sufficient evidence to confidently find someone guilty. We'll see though.

[CorruptUser]

March 23 is when Obama made the "he looks like my son" comment, which I have absolutely no problem with; the President is allowed to personalize tragedy. This thread started on the same day in response to some pundit's "he was wearing the wrong clothes so he's to blame" comments. But the story was in the news quite a bit before then, starting on CBS March 8th, according to Wikipedia.

What I also want to know, regarding this case, are the New Black Panthers going to be arrested for that $10,000 bounty on Zimmerman? Quite sure that's illegal.

[Ghostbear]

But the story was in the news quite a bit before then, starting on CBS March 8th, according to Wikipedia.

Yes, but you said dominating the news through radio, TV, and internet for "well over a month". Which it couldn't have been doing so thorough a job at, judging by how long it took us to create a thread for it. Anecdote, sure, but you'd expect a dominant news story to be covered here right away, instead of after someone made some dumbassed comments related to it on a TV show, and somebody wanted to discuss that.

[CorruptUser]

Alright, I'll concede that point; we'll agree that the Trayvon case didn't dominate the media until roughly March 23rd.

Now if we can just agree that "people who pay some inkling of attention to the news" make better jurors than "people who have been 'out camping' for the past 2 months*".

*Supposedly one of the OJ jurors claimed that.

[Qaanol]

What I also want to know, regarding this case, are the New Black Panthers going to be arrested for that $10,000 bounty on Zimmerman? Quite sure that's illegal.

What I want to know is, since George Zimmerman turned himself in, will the NBP pay that $10,000 to Zimmerman for his success in capturing and detaining Zimmerman?

[Lucrece]

A bounty is such a far-fetched idea. I personally found progressive journalists willing to publish the Zimmerman's family house phone and location (and ended up spreading the wrong one) more appalling, since we can expect better from groups that supposedly are not extremist militants.

[Save Point]

Alright, I'll concede that point; we'll agree that the Trayvon case didn't dominate the media until roughly March 23rd.

Now if we can just agree that "people who pay some inkling of attention to the news" make better jurors than "people who have been 'out camping' for the past 2 months*".

*Supposedly one of the OJ jurors claimed that.

Wow, I think that people who have never heard of the case will make better jurors since the pool won't be poisoned by predisposed opinions on who is guilty or innocent. The only evidence they're supposed to consider is what they hear during trial, and it's virtually impossible to do this when you've already been bombarded by media reports for the past month. Make no mistake about it: no matter how much you try to force yourself to limit your analysis to what you hear in court, there will always be some mark of what you've heard prior. Shucks, this is one of the reasons why we sequester juries in the first place and instruct them not to do any independent research.

It's bad news bears for Zimmerman that the entire country has been paying attention to this and wants blood, or else whoever his new lawyer is could move for a change of venue. As it stands, that probably won't help much, and Zimmerman might even find more self-defense sympathizers where he is than elsewhere.

[sourmìlk]

I'm kind of worried that he's gone to trial basically because of public outcry. The idea that the public can demand that somebody go to trial regardless of what the prosecutors think at the whims of the populace bothers me. Criminal justice shouldn't be subject to the majority rule of the populace or something.

[Ghostbear]

Alright, I'll concede that point; we'll agree that the Trayvon case didn't dominate the media until roughly March 23rd.

Now if we can just agree that "people who pay some inkling of attention to the news" make better jurors than "people who have been 'out camping' for the past 2 months*".

It hasn't dominated the news in anywhere near thorough enough of a fashion that I'd expect most people to have heard of it. Someone who makes some cursory check at the news (or only follows local events) would have zero difficulty in not hearing about this case. The problem isn't people who have been camping for the past two months, but people that have been camping for the past two years. People who are effectively hermits or whatever aren't going to make good jurors, certainly. But there's nothing about "I haven't bothered following the news this month" that makes an otherwise functioning member of society a poor juror. Sure, a lot of people that don't follow the news won't be good jurors, but in all of those cases, the fact that they aren't following the news isn't your predictor, it'll be the fact that they don't have a job and live in the middle of a forest, it'll be that they're 90 years old and don't ever leave their home, it'll be that they have a mental illness, and so on.

Not following the news tells you nothing about somebody's ability to be a juror; any traits that might actually do so that might be commonly linked to it are your actual disqualifiers.

[kiklion]

I'm kind of worried that he's gone to trial basically because of public outcry. The idea that the public can demand that somebody go to trial regardless of what the prosecutors think at the whims of the populace bothers me. Criminal justice shouldn't be subject to the majority rule of the populace or something.

It depends on what reasons a DA may use to decide to prosecute someone. If a DA decides not to prosecute someone because of the costs involved with a low chance of a conviction due to limited evidence, then is the public demands that they don't mind the wasted cost, there is little reason not to prosecute someone and see how the jury decides.

[CorruptUser]

Alright, I'll concede that point; we'll agree that the Trayvon case didn't dominate the media until roughly March 23rd.

Now if we can just agree that "people who pay some inkling of attention to the news" make better jurors than "people who have been 'out camping' for the past 2 months*".

*Supposedly one of the OJ jurors claimed that.

Wow, I think that people who have never heard of the case will make better jurors since the pool won't be poisoned by predisposed opinions on who is guilty or innocent. The only evidence they're supposed to consider is what they hear during trial, and it's virtually impossible to do this when you've already been bombarded by media reports for the past month. Make no mistake about it: no matter how much you try to force yourself to limit your analysis to what you hear in court, there will always be some mark of what you've heard prior. Shucks, this is one of the reasons why we sequester juries in the first place and instruct them not to do any independent research.

I agree that all else being equal, "never heard the case before" > "biased by media prior to trial". Except in cases that get national attention, all else isn't equal. The pool of people that don't pay attention to the news at all are according to my claim are inferior to the pool of people who do pay attention to the news.

Sure, there are people who have never heard of Treyvon. There are also people out there who don't know who our Vice President is.

[Роберт]

Sure, there are people who have never heard of Treyvon. There are also people out there who don't know who our Vice President is.

If I had to guess... probably more U.S. citizens have heard of Treyvon than know who our veep is.

[Diadem]

Just a suggestion, but you could also solve that problem by doing what civilized nations do. Not have a trial by jury.

Just saying...

[Ghostbear]

Just a suggestion, but you could also solve that problem by doing what civilized nations do. Not have a trial by jury.

As far as I know, that's always an option available to the defendant. It's just rarely chosen. I'm not 100% on the "always" part, but bench trials do exist in the US.

[Chen]

New images from ABC news show that Zimmerman actually did have a bloody head after the shooting.

There's some autoplaying video on that page but it was the best place I found the image.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/george-zimmerm ... 5FnG2PJl2d

Looking at the Florida statute

776.041 Use of force by aggressor. —The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

Section 2a) will likely allow him to continue using the self-defence argument even if he was the one who initiated the conflict, since he can argue he was in imminent danger of great bodily harm, as evidenced by the contusions on his head. Which likely means he won't be imprisoned for it.

[CorruptUser]

Yeah but he will probably lose the civil trial. He better get married and hide all his assets in his wife's name, because he'll be broke for life. He will have trouble finding a job due to the legal system; gas station attendants can lose their jobs after fighting off attackers, because if someone gets injured in a separate incident afterwards the owner can be liable because the attendant "had a history".

Even if innocent, I don't want to be Zimmerman.

[Iulus Cofield]

This furthers my supposition that any competent lawyer will be able to secure at least an acquittal. I still worry that we'll see a reaction similar to what followed the Rodney King or OJ trials (not weighing in on whether or not I think those defendants were innocent).

[CorruptUser]

Meh, Rodney King was a violent felon who was severely intoxicated while leading police on a high-speed chase. While the police brutality was just that, brutality, I honestly have trouble raising sympathy for violent drunks. The riots themselves weren't just about the 3 white and 1 hispanic policemen getting off the hook; just prior tensions were high because a Korean woman was acquitted for murder of a black girl she thought was shoplifting. So, umm, Florida, make sure that your police hadn't brutalized a violent drunk on tape a year prior to Treyvon's death?

[Chen]

Yeah but he will probably lose the civil trial. He better get married and hide all his assets in his wife's name, because he'll be broke for life. He will have trouble finding a job due to the legal system; gas station attendants can lose their jobs after fighting off attackers, because if someone gets injured in a separate incident afterwards the owner can be liable because the attendant "had a history".

Maybe for the jobs aspect but if the above defence is used and is deemed accurate it prevents criminal prosecution AND civil action

776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.—
(1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.
(2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.

[Jonesthe Spy]

I highly doubt a video still of what may or may not have been a minor injury is going to get Zimmerman off. If there are actual medical records showing the kind of injury he claims to have suffered then that would probably help his case, but i kinda suspect that such records would have already been brought forth if they existed.

And btw, Rodney King was NOT a "violent drunk". He was drunk and was acting erratically, but not violently. Go back and look up the actual case history and whatnot if you think otherwise.

[CorruptUser]

I highly doubt a video still of what may or may not have been a minor injury is going to get Zimmerman off. If there are actual medical records showing the kind of injury he claims to have suffered then that would probably help his case, but i kinda suspect that such records would have already been brought forth if they existed.

And btw, Rodney King was NOT a "violent drunk". He was drunk and was acting erratically, but not violently. Go back and look up the actual case history and whatnot if you think otherwise.

He beat a man with an iron bar and robbed him, and was sentenced to 2 years in prison for that. He may not have been violently resisting arrest (something the officers dispute, kind of), but he was violent. After the beatings, he was a menace to society due to alcoholism*.

Theres always 2 sides to every coin; 3 if you count the edge. I'm not claiming that the beating was justified, just that Rodney King was not exactly a model citizen.

*I'd feel safer living near a registered sex offender than a guy that routinely drives drunk. Well, depending on the offense.

[Jonesthe Spy]

Using the phrase "violent drunk" pretty much always implies a drunk person who is being violent, which in turn excuses the behavior of the police who gave him a literally crippling beating. And I find your reasoning that someone who in the past committed a violent act should be categorized as "violent" for the rest of their lives to be fallacious. There is certainly no evidence that the cops knew of King's record when they attacked him.

[CorruptUser]

Using the phrase "violent drunk" pretty much always implies a drunk person who is being violent, which in turn excuses the behavior of the police who gave him a literally crippling beating. And I find your reasoning that someone who in the past committed a violent act should be categorized as "violent" for the rest of their lives to be fallacious. There is certainly no evidence that the cops knew of King's record when they attacked him.

1) I'll concede that "violent drunk" implies things which weren't there. Unless you believe the officers' claims.
2) I never said it excused the police's behavior.
3) My argument has not been "he should have been beaten", rather it's "he was an Asshole Victim".
4) Fallacious or not, that's actually how the legal system works...
5) There is evidence they believed he was on drugs, specifically PCP (he wasn't).

[Chen]

I highly doubt a video still of what may or may not have been a minor injury is going to get Zimmerman off. If there are actual medical records showing the kind of injury he claims to have suffered then that would probably help his case, but i kinda suspect that such records would have already been brought forth if they existed.

I don't know if medical records like that would necessarily be made public. They'll surely come up in court if needed but I don't necessarily think they'd hit the media. And the video still is enough evidence to at least put reasonable doubt in a juror's mind. Unless the story the prosecution tries to paint is that he shot the victim and then fell over and hit is head. The story that he paints is unfortunately far more reasonable, especially with evidence that there was at least SOME injury to his head. It might in fact be sufficient to get him out of civil charges as well since even there the story just needs to be one that is "more likely" to have happened. If that story is the more likely one, section 776.032 that I posted earlier makes him immune to even civil action.

[CorruptUser]

He isn't immune to vigilante action though. I still can't figure out why none of the NBPs were arrested for offering a 10k bounty on his kidnap/murder; quite sure that's some kind of crime.

[Diadem]

I disagree on philosophical grounds that vigilantism is a crime if the official system for justice bluntly refuses to even look into the event.

Though they are looking now, so that's something.

[Chen]

I disagree on philosophical grounds that vigilantism is a crime if the official system for justice bluntly refuses to even look into the event.

Though they are looking now, so that's something.

They never refused to look into the event. They investigated. Florida has a ridiculous stand your ground law that prevents arrest WHILE they are investigating even in cases as blatant as this one.

[Diadem]

Well not quite, they only started up the investigation after public pressure. Without a massive public outcry nothing would most definitely have kept happening.

[Chen]

Well not quite, they only started up the investigation after public pressure. Without a massive public outcry nothing would most definitely have kept happening.

Do you have some sort of reference for this? As far as I know the outcry was for not arresting him which was simply following the law, as stated in this thread repeatedly. The police continued to investigate the crime as far as I can tell. Wikipedia seems to have plenty of points where the police chief defended their investigations, which does tend to imply they were doing something.

[Iulus Cofield]

Well not quite, they only started up the investigation after public pressure. Without a massive public outcry nothing would most definitely have kept happening.

The police took Zimmerman in for questioning shortly after the killin and interviewed neighbors the same day as well.

There's no justification for vigilantes here. The NBP should use that money to hire a lobbyist to change the self defense laws in Florida.

[CorruptUser]

There's also no justification for not prosecuting vigilantes or similar. Just because a vigilante does "good" doesn't mean society can sit back while the law is routinely broken. Doing things that aren't always what you think are best is pretty much the foundation of an orderly society.

[Griffin]

The investigation wasput on hold by the prosecutors office, no? The police had been investigating (arguably poorly, though we really don't know enough to determine), and the prosecution called them off (until now).

We don't really know why, and its unlikely the full details will ever come out.

[Chen]

The investigation wasput on hold by the prosecutors office, no? The police had been investigating (arguably poorly, though we really don't know enough to determine), and the prosecution called them off (until now).

We don't really know why, and its unlikely the full details will ever come out.

The prosecution wouldn't let the cops arrest him. I don't recall reading anywhere they called off the investigation though.

[Jonesthe Spy]

Well not quite, they only started up the investigation after public pressure. Without a massive public outcry nothing would most definitely have kept happening.

Do you have some sort of reference for this? As far as I know the outcry was for not arresting him which was simply following the law, as stated in this thread repeatedly. The police continued to investigate the crime as far as I can tell. Wikipedia seems to have plenty of points where the police chief defended their investigations, which does tend to imply they were doing something.

Well, the thing to remember is that the matter was pretty much dropped and probably nothing at all would have happened except for the fact that the media got a hold of the recordings of Zimmerman's 911 calls, which show beyond a shadow of a doubt that Zimmerman had decided Martin was a criminal and chose to follow him and force a confrontation against the advice of the 911 operator.

http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/ ... erman.html

[Thesh]

Well, the thing to remember is that the matter was pretty much dropped and probably nothing at all would have happened except for the fact that the media got a hold of the recordings of Zimmerman's 911 calls, which show beyond a shadow of a doubt that Zimmerman had decided Martin was a criminal and chose to follow him and force a confrontation against the advice of the 911 operator.

http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/ ... erman.html

Are you reading the same transcript I am? Because the transcript doesn't give any hint that Zimmerman continued to follow Martin after being asked not to (it implies the opposite), and it ends with Zimmerman stating he doesn't know where Martin is anymore. Besides, whether or not Zimmerman thought Martin was a criminal was irrelevant. The case is about whether Zimmerman had reason to believe his life was in danger when he shot Martin. He is not on trial for being suspicious of people, he's on trial for murder and his claim is that it was in self defense.

[lutzj]

Zimmerman released on $150,000 bail. He has gone into hiding and waived his right to appear at his arraignment (that is, he doesn't have to appear in court until the real trial) for fear of death threats but is wearing a GPS ankle-bracelet.

Spoiler:

SANFORD, Fla. -- George Zimmerman, who got out of jail on $150,000 bail early yesterday morning, went back into hiding and is likely to have fled to another state to avoid threats as he awaits his second-degree murder trial in the killing of Trayvon Martin.

His release came hours before the Sanford City Commission rejected by a 3-2 vote the resignation of Police Chief Bill Lee, who was roundly criticized for not initially arresting and charging Zimmerman.

Authorities can pinpoint Zimmerman's location with a GPS ankle bracelet, which he must wear round the clock, but the public may not see him again for some time.
He has waived his appearance at his arraignment next month, so he can stay underground if he wants.

Zimmerman already has experience lying low: For more than a month before his arrest, he eluded the media and his whereabouts were not known. His attorney has suggested he had several options for where Zimmerman can stay now, and a judge indicated he was willing to let him leave the state.

Until the next time he must come before a judge, Zimmerman will have to skip such routine pleasures as eating in a restaurant or taking a long stroll outside, said Jose Baez, a former attorney for Casey Anthony.

Anthony, acquitted last summer of killing her 2-year-old daughter, went into hiding after her release from jail.
"He may be free, but he's not free," Baez said.

The police chief is on paid leave. Lee had stepped aside temporarily in March to let emotions cool. Not too long ago, the commissioners gave him a "no confidence vote" that City Manager Norton Bonaparte said still stands.

The shooting also led to the local prosecutor recusing himself from the case, and the governor appointing Angela Corey, who eventually charged Zimmerman.

Monday, the majority of commissioners blamed the polarization over the Martin case and its handling by the police department on outside groups. They said they wanted to wait for an outside investigation into the police department's handling of the case to conclude before accepting the resignation agreement drawn up by the city manager and Lee.

[CorruptUser]

Zimmerman released on $150,000 bail. He has gone into hiding and waived his right to appear at his arraignment (that is, he doesn't have to appear in court until the real trial) for fear of death threats but is wearing a GPS ankle-bracelet.

Can you really blame him for that? Regardless of the inevitable verdict, he's going to have to stay out of Sanford for the rest of his life. Hell, a not guilty verdict might get some assassination attempts or a few riots.