Zimmerman Charged With 2nd-Degree Murder 995
George Zimmerman, the neighborhood watch volunteer who shot Trayvon Martin, was charged with second-degree murder. He faces up to life in prison if convicted in the shooting. From the article: "Special prosecutor Angela Corey announced the charges but would not discuss how she arrived at them or disclose other details of her investigation, saying: 'That's why we try cases in court.'
Second-degree murder is typically brought in cases when there is a fight or other confrontation that results in death and but does [not] involve a premeditated plan to kill.
Corey would not disclose Zimmerman's whereabouts for his safety but said that he will be in court within 24 hours."
Bad Slashdot (Score:4, Insightful)
Not news for nerds.
Re:Bad Slashdot (Score:5, Insightful)
More like, still not news for nerds.
How many fucking Treyvon/Zimmerman articles do I have to read here?
Re:Bad Slashdot (Score:5, Funny)
None, but stand your ground on this issue.
Re:Bad Slashdot (Score:5, Insightful)
How many fucking Treyvon/Zimmerman articles do I have to read here?
None, if you stop clicking on the links. Odd that you are in this story when there are 14 other current stories, and links to 5 most talked about, and 5 "on this day" stories on the front page. You must want to be here.
Besides, what is this, the second one? On a story of national interest?
Or should we be checking your post for a secret clue to where you are being held captive and forced to read Slashdot against your will?
Re:Bad Slashdot (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh, for crying out loud... this sort of whining has been going on since Slashdot was first started.
Why is it so hard for people to understand that Slashdot is "News for Nerds" AND "Stuff that Matters". Really, it's always been there, and it's hardly a long motto. RTFA has never been a favorite activity of Slashdotters, but it seems we've decended to the point where people can't even be troubled to read the entire name of the site. There was an enormous discussion on Slashdot on the day of the 9/11 attacks and that was hardly "News for Nerds", but it sure as hell fell into the "Matters" category.
If you want to complain, then at least complain about the relative merits of this case being something that "Matters" outside of Florida or not. At least you'll be a little more on track with that.
Re:Bad Slashdot (Score:5, Informative)
It's not always been there, I see:
"Slashdot: News for nerds, stuff that matters"
at the top of my browser.
No "and"
Newsworthy Non-Tsunami (Score:3)
http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/the-monitors-view/2012/0411/A-tsunami-warning-system-makes-waves [csmonitor.com]
I'd have expected to see something in slashdot about the huge earthquakes near Indonesia and their results. Why do undersea earthquakes sometimes cause catastrophe and sometimes do not?
The Zimmerman arrest poses no such nerdish question.
Re:Bad Slashdot (Score:5, Informative)
Why is it so hard for people to understand that Slashdot is "News for Nerds" AND "Stuff that Matters". Really, it's always been there, and it's hardly a long motto.
I've always assumed that "Slashdot: News for nerds, stuff that matters" meant that articles would be "News for Nerds" OR "Stuff that Matters", not AND.
I've never nitpicked grammar before, but I'll be damned before I allow poor boolean logic to be applied to this site.
Plus I get to write two sentences in this post that end with "and". Life doesn't get better than this.
Re:Bad Slashdot (Score:4)
Stuff that matters for Americans, more like it.
As a rest-of-the-world'er, this sort of news doesn't matter to us in the slightest. And there is nothing in TFA that would interest nerds either.
Re:Bad Slashdot (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Bad Slashdot (Score:5, Interesting)
Zimmerman was carrying a KelTec.
He's only a 'gun nut' in the sense that he carried an unreliable cheap POS. That is nutty. He's _lucky_ it fired, must have had less then 100 rounds through it. I'm guessing no range time to speak of past whatever is required to get the carry permit in FL.
He maybe a 'cop wannabe' but a 'gun nut' would be carrying a better weapon.
Personally I'm convinced his status as 'Judges son' has everything to do with how his case was handled. Every i dotted etc as the prosecutors know they will be facing defense lawyers from hell.
This is out of control (Score:5, Interesting)
Someone put six bullet holes, last night they shot up, a parked police car that was left near the scene of the shooting. The message being that violence against the police is coming if they don't arrest Zimmerman and charge him with murder. They shot up a cop car. As if that neighborhood didn't need a reason for a neighborhood watch now they have guys firing live rounds into police cars? That's a safe neighborhood?
The amount of media coverage. International press. 24/7 news cycle. The constant lies. "Zimmerman is white". Showing images of Trayvon Martin when he was only 12 and not 17 (and 6'3"). Editing the 911 call from Zimmerman to make him seem racist. The media wants a circus. A race riot. They want another OJ trial, or Rodney King riot, or Casey Anthony or Amanda Knox level ratings. Who cares if the guy is innocent or guilty or whatever. What's most important is getting ratings and possibly causing a race riot.
And now we have the political pressure. Elections. Press. Appealing to the base. Even Obama had to give his opinion. "If I had a son he'd look like Trayon". Please Mr. President throw more gasoline on the fire. This is before Obama knew of the facts of the case. Just like when Obama blurted out an opinion about the cop who arrested the Harvard professor and then ended up having to have beer at the White House with the both of them. Will Obama have a beer with George Zimmerman?
This event is exposing the worst of this country. A perfect storm of all that is wrong with where we are today. The media being anything but objective. The politics doing nothing but making everything racial and partisan. And the overwhelming majority of citizens ignoring the facts and rushing to judgement.
Re:This is out of control (Score:4, Insightful)
Someone put six bullet holes, last night they shot up, a parked police car that was left near the scene of the shooting. The message being that violence against the police is coming if they don't arrest Zimmerman and charge him with murder. They shot up a cop car. As if that neighborhood didn't need a reason for a neighborhood watch now they have guys firing live rounds into police cars? That's a safe neighborhood?
It stopped being a safe neighborhood when armed vigilantes started stalking the streets, harassing people based on their suspicious blackness, and killing them when they legitimately stand their own ground against threatening behavior.
The police didn't want to nip that in the bud, so now they have an even bigger problem. I hope they get off their asses and establish sanity with a minimum of further violence.
Re:This is out of control (Score:5, Interesting)
“He would be the last to discriminate for any reason whatsoever,” Robert Zimmerman wrote. “One black neighbor recently interviewed said she knew everything in the media was untrue and that she would trust George with her life. Another black neighbor said that George was the only one, black or white, who came and welcomed her to the community, offering any assistance he could provide. Recently, I met two black children George invited to a social event. I asked where they met George. They responded that he was their mentor.”
Interviews with neighbors reveal a pleasant young man passionate about neighborhood security who took it upon himself to do nightly patrols while he walked his dog.
“He once caught a thief and an arrest was made,” said Cynthia Wibker, secretary of the homeowners association. “He helped solve a lot of crimes.”
Zimmerman told neighbors about stolen laptops and unsavory characters. Ibrahim Rashada, a 25-year-old African American who works at U.S. Airways, once spotted young men cutting through the woods entering the complex on foot, and later learned items were stolen those days. “It’s a gated community, but you can walk in and steal whatever you want,” Rashada’s wife, Quianna, said. They discussed the topic with Zimmerman when the watch captain knocked on their door late last year. Zimmerman seemed friendly, helpful, and a “pretty cool dude,” Ibrahim Rashada said.
Where is this racism? I don't get it? Where is your damning proof that he's a racist? He helped and worked with the black people in his community, who trusted and respected him. Where is he obviously racist?
Re:This is out of control (Score:5, Interesting)
His name is Zimmerman -- he's obviously a white jew who hates black people.
As with many others, I too initially thought he was a white jewish person. I also made a number of other assumptions which were not true -- that there were few, if any black people living in the neighborhood and more. The article is rather informative but the more interesting facts are later in the piece where people are less likely to read them. I especially liked the bit at the very bottom amending the story stating that the number of times police were called was between a much wider range of dates (from 2004 rather than from 2011).
The fact about people, myself included, is that regardless of how much I want to learn the truth, we tend to blind ourselves to facts that disagree with our positions. The more I learn about this case, the more sympathetic I become to Zimmerman... not that I wasn't initially sympathetic... I was. But then I started reading slanted articles and statements which really painted Zimmerman as Rambo with an axe to grind against black people. But that's really not the case either.
Zimmerman is being painted in ways that simply don't fit. I think that this case is too public now and real justice cannot occur. If he's acquitted, there will be riots -- violent riots and "warnings" using real bullets in targetting police cars indicate that retaliation for a not-guilty will involve the use of firearms. I also think a "guity' verdict will result in other tragic things such as a diminishing right to defend one's self, one's family and one's community. There will be no justice in this case. It's impossible.
Re:This is out of control (Score:5, Insightful)
Does it make his actions acceptable to you? Ignoring sane neighborhood watch protocols and the 911 operator and confronting someone while packing a gun?
I don't know that Zimmerman did confront Martin. The operator told him he didn't need to follow, and it's unclear what happened after that because of conflicting testimony. Considering how few real facts are known, the only reasonable response is to say that I have no idea whether Zimmerman's actions are acceptable or not. However, following someone is not usually illegal. Having a gun is not illegal. And, in Florida, shooting someone and killing them with a gun is not illegal under certain (very special) conditions which you may or may not agree with, although it is the law.
Now it seems the prosecutor has collected enough facts that she thinks she can convict Zimmerman for breaking the law. A panel of Zimmerman's peers will determine whether or not he really is guilty. If he is guilty, I hope the trial is the least of his discomforts. If he is innocent, the trial will probably not be any worse than how the media and race baiters have already ruined his life, but having to battle false charges certainly wouldn't make things any easier. Whether he is guilty or innocent, let justice prevail.
Re:This is out of control (Score:4, Insightful)
I still have a twinge (only a twinge) of hope that by putting this in the court's lap we'll get to have actual facts during discovery and a real investigation by detectives, not the media.
But at this point it's been worked into such a frenzy that so many sides have put their hand in the pot that there's almost no soup left. Each group will be approaching both defense and prosecutors with all sorts of conflicting information, promises, leads, and threats. Then you have the political pressure you brought up, where I'm sure there's a DA or ADA who wants to look good for elections and will sweep tidbits under the rug to "prove" Zimmerman guilty. Or whatever lawyer announces to do it pro-bono to get his own high horse and sweep a different set of tidbits under the rug to "prove" him innocent, all until the rug resembles a mattress. Then the hard part will be to find 12 people who can't/won't get out of jury duty and at the same time either have not heard of the case or haven't let the media frenzy tell them what to think.
Still, a twinge.
Re: (Score:3)
The amount of media coverage. International press. 24/7 news cycle. The constant lies. "Zimmerman is white". Showing images of Trayvon Martin when he was only 12 and not 17 (and 6'3"). Editing the 911 call from Zimmerman to make him seem racist. The media wants a circus. A race riot. They want another OJ trial, or Rodney King riot, or Casey Anthony or Amanda Knox level ratings. Who cares if the guy is innocent or guilty or whatever. What's most important is getting ratings and possibly causing a race riot.
I used to watch MSNBC until this blitz. I wouldn't believe anything they say now.
I would get the most amusement if he's found innocent, sues all the news companies for defamation of character, wins all their profits made while covering him, and uses the money to start an institution to monitor the media for this kind of deceptive practice.
Re: (Score:3)
Funny how liberals pick the ethnicity that suits their argument.
Obama is from mixed race parents, but is referred to as black because he looks black.
Zimmerman doesn't look Euro white, but it is convenient to emphasize his white parent when picking sides in this story.
How does Obama typically refer to himself? How about Zimmerman?
Re:This is out of control (Score:5, Insightful)
His innocence or guilt is in the hands of the court, which is where it belonged all along.
Nope, it is where it belongs (in court) if the prosecutor decides to bring charges, and not before that time. It's easy to sit in your armchair and pretend to know facts that can really only come out of a thorough investigation, but there may be a time, if you ever happen to just be in the wrong place at the wrong time, that you are grateful that such things are investigated before arrests and charges are made. False charges have ruined the lives of innocent people before. The system may have flaws, but the fact that crimes (which may not be crimes) are investigated before charges are filed is not one of those flaws.
In this case--unless the prosecutor is simply bowing to pressure from the uninformed masses, which would be disgusting--the prosecutor was not convinced of George Zimmerman's story or believes his actions were not sanctioned by the current laws on the books. In that case, a trial is perfectly reasonable. If Zimmerman is found guilty by a panel of his peers, he will be punished. If not, he will walk. This is the way it should be, but only after a proper police investigation and review of the facts by the prosecutor--not the supposed "facts" you get from your nightly news anchor, but the real facts insofar as they can be determined.
Re:This is out of control (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:This is out of control (Score:5, Informative)
Zimmerman is an asshole (Score:3, Insightful)
He's an asshole because he ignored the 911 operator's instructions to wait for the cops, and got out of his car with a gun to confront somebody.
(Didn't he think it out? What did he intend to do after he confronted Martin? It had to turn out bad.)
It seems harsh to send somebody to jail for a big part of his life because he's an asshole. I feel sorry for him.
But somebody is dead because he's an asshole. I feel even more sorry for Martin, and Martin's friends and family.
In America we do give people long prison sentences for killing somebody in a street fight.
A lot of black people in Florida go to jail for less.
What else can you do with Zimmerman?
Yes, you do go to jail for being stupid.
where is the evidence? (Score:5, Insightful)
The 911 operator told him that he didn't "need to" follow Martin and Zimmerman said "OK" and was going to wait by his car for police. Zimmerman testified that he was returning to his car and it was Martin who confronted him and then punched him. Witnesses saw Zimmerman on the ground, with Martin on top, and Zimmerman's injuries and dirty clothing support that.
I don't know of any actual evidence that support the idea that Zimmerman ignored the 911 operator's suggestion and followed and attacked Martin. Maybe you can share what evidence you think there is?
There is no evidence that Zimmerman confronted Martin.
I don't know whether that's true or not, but if racism causes the justice system to be unreasonably harsh towards black people, then we need to fix that, instead of destroying our justice system for everybody.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't know of any actual evidence that support the idea that Zimmerman ignored the 911 operator's suggestion and followed and attacked Martin. Maybe you can share what evidence you think there is?
There is no evidence that Zimmerman confronted Martin.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/11/opinion/hostin-trayvon-martin-jury/index.html [cnn.com]
Zimmerman sees Martin, deems him "suspicious" and calls the police. Zimmerman tells the dispatcher he is following Martin. The dispatcher tells Zimmerman "we don't need you to do that." Martin notices Zimmerman is following him and tells his girlfriend, Dee Dee, with whom he is on the phone. She tells him to run, and he agrees to walk quickly.
Re:where is the evidence? (Score:4, Insightful)
In the dispatcher's tape, Zimmerman said he was following Martin. In Martin's girlfriend's account, Martin was worried and quickly walking away, when the phone went dead and she couldn't call him back. I would call that a confrontation.
In Zimmerman's story, he was returning to the car. when Martin attacked him. We don't know whether that's true or not. It's not consistent with the girlfriend's story, which sounds like Martin was running away when Zimmerman caught up to him. According to the girlfriend, Martin said, "Why are you following me?" Zimmerman said, "What are you doing here?" They each repeated those lines. Then the phone went dead. Martin might have attacked Zimmerman at that point. Zimmerman might have threatened or pushed Martin first. We don't know. (Under Florida law, Martin only had to reasonably believe he was in danger. He didn't have to back down.)
We don't know what all the physical evidence and witness statements are, because the DA hasn't released that information. One of the witnesses said she gave an account to the police, and the police changed her account.
I'd like to see an investigation in which all the witnesses are subpoenaed to testify under oath. I'd like to see them cross-examined by lawyers. We'll never know what happened with certainty, but that's the way to get as close to the truth as possible.
There's a very thin difference in a case like this between justifiable homicide and a barroom-brawl type murder. I don't think Zimmerman's life was in danger when he was getting beaten up. When I was a kid in Brooklyn, it was fairly standard practice in a street fight to pound the other kid's head against the pavement. It happened to me, and I lived. In hindsight, it doesn't look to me like a justified killing. Zimmerman's life wasn't in danger. Nobody wants to get their head bashed against the sidewalk, but you don't kill somebody for that.
It would have been best if Zimmerman hadn't gotten into that situation in the first place. If Zimmerman thought Martin was a dangerous intruder, he should never have gotten out of his car. He never should have tried to follow Martin on foot. After all, Martin might have been legally carrying a gun. Even cops wouldn't approach a potentially dangerous suspect alone. The rules for neighborhood watches tell you not to do that. 911 told him not to do that. That's why, based on the facts that have been made public, Zimmerman is an asshole.
Whether he's guilty of murder, whether he gets convicted of murder, and whether he loses a civil suit, are separate questions.
Re:where is the evidence? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:where is the evidence? (Score:5, Insightful)
And doubtlessly, carrying a weapon gave Zimmerman a false sense of security.
I don't think his sense of security was false. Of course -- and this is a point I make strongly and repeatedly to my concealed carry students -- if you're carrying a gun you really should try even harder than when you're not to avoid situations where you might feel you have to use it, because by being armed you've raised the stakes, and may have to deal with the legal, financial, emotional and social effects of shooting someone.
But there isn't any falsity about the sense of increased security you have when you're armed. The gun does give you significantly greater ability to protect yourself or others.
Re:Zimmerman is an asshole (Score:5, Insightful)
If Zimmerman was following the dispatcher's instructions, then how did he wind up on the sidewalk with Martin?
You left out Martin's girlfriend's account that Zimmerman caught up to him and Martin asked Zimmerman why he was following him.
Why shouldn't Martin have believed that Zimmerman was a threat? If I was coming home at night from the store, and somebody was following me with a car, and then came out to follow me on the ground, I'd be worried. Especially if there were break-ins in the neighborhood.
Zimmerman never should have left the car. There are rules for neighborhood watch groups, and he violated them. Now he's in a lot of trouble. Yeah, the prosecutor is under political pressure. Yeah, the newspapers are having a field day. Welcome to reality. Why shouldn't the White House put political pressure if they think the DA is going to drop the case (as they were going to)? There was a pattern of black people getting killed and cops doing nothing.
The bottom line is that Zimmerman killed a guy who was going about his own law-abiding business. If you kill somebody, you're likely to get into a lot of trouble.
News for People (Score:5, Funny)
Cue the folks who don't want the outside world intruding into their mothers' basements shrieking "This isn't news for nerds!"
It took long enough (Score:5, Insightful)
In Canada, the first thing the courts would do would call for a media black out until the judgement is rendered, and then likely another black out until sentencing. The idea is to prevent bias in the potential jury pool.
Unfortunately, due to incompetence and delays in deciding to file charges and make an arrest, they're going to have one hell of a time finding a "jury of peers" that isn't tainted by public opinion and forced to recuse themselves from participating.
no other choice at this point (Score:4, Insightful)
At this point, the only way to settle this is for it to go to trial. The facts need to be laid out in court, experts need to testify, and a jury needs to decide.
I think there's a good chance that a jury will find Zimmerman "not guilty". The DA's original assessment was that there wasn't even enough evidence to win a conviction, and that's consistent with the evidence that has come out since.
Z fscked up (Score:5, Insightful)
He went into hiding, probably depressed. Didn't stay in touch with his lawyers.
Then, worst mistake, he called the DA and talked to them without a lawyer present.
He's screwed.
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Stand Your Ground (Score:3, Interesting)
So some people have made reference to Trayvon assaulting Zimmerman, then Zimmerman "stood his ground" justifying the act under Florida law.
Yet I've seen no one say that Trayvon was standing HIS ground under that same law when Zimmerman shot him.
After all, Zimmerman stalked Trayvon. Whether Trayvon took a swing at him first is not relevant if he felt threatened, at least by the above reasoning.
Re:Stand Your Ground (Score:4, Insightful)
barring the brandishing of a weapon
Considering Martin was shot by Zimmerman, this condition may have been met before any altercation started. But we can only speculate.
Overall, I think the entire thing has been badly mishandled by the police, the prosecutors, the media, and the public. It has been blown out of proportion by the media, the public reacted with mob justice in mind as a result, and the police/prosecutors appear to have not done anything resembling due diligence in investigating the death of a teenager (as, whether or not it would have led to an arrest, it seems there was essentially no investigation to begin with).
I read "Zimmerman" as "Zuckerberg". (Score:3)
Needs to be stated again (Score:5, Insightful)
What made this case national news is NOT because a light-skinned guy killed a black guy, or that he was 17 years old, or that he was only holding candy. What made this story news is that the local police dropped the investigation like a hot potato (possibly because of Zimmerman's parents job titles), held onto the body without informing the parents when they had ID and his phone (which family and friends called BTW), then announced that there wouldn't be charges based on spurious coverage under their stand-your-ground law.
All of the false equivalence citations to coverage of other cases where a black guy killed a white guy, how black kids dress, or how Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson are "uppity troublemakers" is totally IRRELEVANT!
Re: (Score:3)
Unless people perjure themselves, that is. Which is a dick move with the exception of being a fully informed juror.
Re:Good luck with that fair trial thing (Score:5, Informative)
It's not about whether you have "heard of the case". It's whether what you've heard has made you lean one way or the other.
There have been plenty of high-profile cases that went to jury just fine.
Re:Good luck with that fair trial thing (Score:5, Interesting)
There have been plenty of high-profile cases that went to jury just fine.
The O.J. Simpson case for instance.
There was some doubt as to motive and the excessive violence used which normally calls for a crime of passion or a psychopath, a profile that doesn't fit OJ Simpson.
But the core issue that caused the acquittal was the bumbling efforts of the LAPD in this matter, possibly related to the truly bad actions by self-proclaimed racist Mark Fuhrman that wanted to force a conviction and managed to do the exact opposite. But not only did Mark Fuhrman mess things up, the LAPD failed to follow procedure again and again, both at the crime scene and in the lab, losing and contaminating evidence in the process. There was so much doubt that reasonable doubt was inevitable and he was acquitted, exactly as intended to protect the innocent from being railroaded.
Basically we still don't know if he did it. There was countless stab wounds and blood everywhere (the LAPD managed to both step in it and make bloody footprints all over the house and grounds), yet no blood was ever found on OJ Simpson and only two pinhead-sized drops on the white Bronco which could have been deposited a long time prior to the murders. No blood stained clothes were ever found, nor the murder weapon. OJ had no time to wash and dispose of the bloody clothing as he was at the airport only hours later (and transport time from Brentwood to LAX was at least an hour due to congestion). Everything was searched and rewards offered but still nothing. This makes sense if the murderer was someone else as claimed, as only locations relevant to the possible paths OJ could have taken was searched.
No, I personally don't think he did it. Too much doesn't fit or make sense.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I have zero faith that any jury would deliberate for more than 15 minutes before declaring Zimmerman guilty.
Seriously? Have you not seen the vitriol spewing forth from both sides of this issue? Do you honestly think that Zimmerman's lawyers will be so completely incompetent that the prosecution will be able to completely stack the jury?
--Jeremy
Re:Good luck with that fair trial thing (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually, I've pretty much only have seen the vitriol [wtsp.com] spewing [humanevents.com] forth [pjmedia.com] with idiocy [politico.com] from the usual race baiting crowd. Most reasonable, thinking people have remained silent on the issue, waiting for the wheels to turn.
Re:Good luck with that fair trial thing (Score:4, Informative)
Zimmerman's Hispanic. Why would a white supremacist cause a hung jury?
Re:Good luck with that fair trial thing (Score:4, Interesting)
The "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" sort of thinking?
Re:Good luck with that fair trial thing (Score:4, Informative)
The facts of the case as I understand them are that Martin was walking along, Zimmerman thought Martin was up to no good, called 911, pursued Martin against the 911 operator's advice with a gun, and stupidly created a situation where one person attacked the other (conflicting reports on who attacked who), and felt he had to use his gun. Does that match your understanding / what you expect an honest jury to find?
Assuming so, I think the jury will just say he's not guilty of second-degree murder. (Presumably the hypothetical white supremacist would go along with that.) They would have been a lot more likely to find him guilty of voluntary manslaughter [wikipedia.org] due to "imperfect self-defense":
"An honest but unreasonable belief that deadly force was necessary" is as good a description of the situation as any. It seems like the prosecutor was overcorrecting the lack of action until now and overreached in going for second-degree murder instead of voluntary manslaughter.
Re:Good luck with that fair trial thing (Score:5, Interesting)
White supremacist?
This implies that we're talking about something premeditated and primarily racially motivated. This is not the case. As far as we know, it's a matter of someone (Zimmerman) feeling threatened on 'his' property, engaging the intruder and ends up using deadly force which he feels authorized by the "Stand Your Ground" legislation.
The case has the following important issues that needs both a public debate and court evaluation:
1) The "Stand Your Ground" law. It was meant to remove any concerns relating to the defense of your home or property. If there's an intruder and you feel threatened you should be able to use any means, including deadly force without fearing the legal consequences. Does the necessary threat need to be more clearly defined?
2) The signals that appearance sends. Many people from non-ghetto environments feels uneasy or threatened by youths wearing 'gangsta-wear', i.e. hoodies, reversed or askew baseball caps and similar. If you dress like that in areas where it might cause concern, are you essentially 'asking for it'?
3) The behaviour and actions of the intruder. Did he act in ways to make him more suspicious or threatening?
4) The race angle. Would Zimmerman have acted differently if the intruder has been hispanic or white? Does a black youth in a hoodie appear more scary than a similary dressed white or hispanic youth?
5) The possible abuse of the racism angle. Closely connected to 4 but still a separate issue. Every single time someone from one ethnic group harms someone from another ethnic group, racism is immediately claimed. If a hispanic man shoots a black youth, it's without doubt racism it seems. This abuse completely destroys any relevant racism angle by flooding the issue. It doesn't mean it wasn't racially motivated or aggravated but playing the race card all the time not only clouds the real motivation and cause, it also invalidates relevant racism claims because if you always hide behind (and possible is protected by) a claim of racism, people stop taking it seriously. Already, a racist white cop can get away with targeting black drivers simply because black drivers immediately claim racism when they are pulled over (even when the cop is black!), no matter how obvious it is that the cop had plenty of reasons to do so without any knowledge of the occupants of the car.
Re:Good luck with that fair trial thing (Score:5, Insightful)
Why don't we all calm down, let justice get served legally, and not have any more people wind up dead.
It took time to work out that he could be convicted, this is normal procedure, liek the prosecutor said "we don't prosecute by petition" and that's hwo we want it.
He stayed in touch with authorities and now they are going to prosecute with a 2nd degree murder charge, if convicted he will be in protective custody, which means 23 hours a day in a cell one hour out for the rest of his life.
That's a lot more brutal than you might imagine, and maybe a lot less than his family might want.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Good luck with that fair trial thing (Score:5, Insightful)
I suggest you review the way Florida handles other shootings. Specifically, look up the incident involving Trevor Dooley and David James. It has many similarities.
Dooley confronted James. Dooley had a gun, but did not pull it out. James initiated a physical altercation to take the gun away from Dooley. James was shot in the process.
Dooley was 69, with fused discs in his neck. James was 41, six inches taller, seventy pounds heavier, and had been in the Air Force. Dooley claims he feared for his life - a claim I find reasonable, given the disparity between the two (much more reasonable than a 28-year old man armed with a gun fearing for his life at the hands of a teenager armed with skittles and iced tea). Eye witnesses saw James go for Dooley's gun, while acknowledging that Dooley initiated the verbal confrontation.
There are, however, two significant differences. The first is that Trevor Dooley was arrested merely two days after the shooting. The second is that Dooley is black and his victim, James, was white.
So yes...declining to file charges that the lead investigator recommended is unusual. The state attorney driving 50 miles on a Sunday night to discuss the incident is unusual. Taking the shooter's word for it that his record was clean is unusual. Making no attempt to notify the parents of a dead teenager and instead waiting for them to file a missing person's report is unusual.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There are a lot of angry people on both sides of the issue that's why, should give you insight into how the media effects issues and how stupid people can be.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Personally I don't care how it ends. I will be amused by the obligatory screaming and outrage either way. Another famous instance of an Al Sharpton lead 'protest' resulted, intentionally, some would say to the murder of Yankel Rosenbaum. And this was precisely the result Sharpton was looking for. Hell, people rioted at the Conrad Murray trial. They're going nuclear over this. It should be interesting to watch the flames.
panem et circenses (Score:4, Insightful)
Bread and circuses. Don't discuss anything important, especially if it's complex. Go after something visceral like this case or Kim Kardishiam's bra / toenail / latest sex change operation.
Oh, we just invaded another country? Look! Over there! A breast!
Re:Good luck with that fair trial thing (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Good luck with that fair trial thing (Score:5, Insightful)
When you have a son and he starts thinking that gangsta thug culture is GREAT, that all the rap and hip-hop about how awesome it is to be a career criminal is something more than entertainment, that's your cue to ACT LIKE A PARENT and straighten his ass out before he gets either jailed or shot in the streets.
You know, "acting like a parent" isn't just some magic thing you do and instantly your kid is wearing polo shirts and khakis and has perfect grammar.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
DId you forgive the man that shot your son? If so you get a pass on your comment.
If my son got shot because he started beating him and slamming his head into the pavement (a potentially lethal move) then there would be nothing to forgive. I would say the other guy acted reasonably. I would then feel ashamed to have raised a son like that and all the waste it represents.
If you are asking me whether I am committed to my principles even in the face of a great deal of emotion, yes I am. It's called being an adult.
This situation is just another young violent black thug-wannabe who f
Re:Good luck with that fair trial thing (Score:5, Insightful)
Stand your Ground laws need to be appended a bit. Here's why. Suppose you get in a random fight at a bar. Most bar fights end pretty quickly when the two realize that getting punched sucks, or when they get ejected. However, with Stand your Ground laws the way they are, you have no duty to retreat and can simply pull out your gun and shoot them as soon as they get the upper hand over you, saying that you fear for your life. Similarly, when you pull your gun, they'll pull their gun, saying they fear for their life. So what you have is both combatants standing their ground and the fight won't end until someone (or both of them) is dead.
It also leads to situations where you could go pick a fight with someone and then shoot them before they even get to you because you feared for your life because you thought they had a weapon.
There's going to be a lot of people using Stand your Ground laws as an excuse to escalate a run of the mill fight into a deadly situation that wouldn't otherwise have turned deadly. Some things might be justified, like if someone is car jacking you or trying to force their way into your home, but other things wouldn't..like someone catching you in bed with their wife and ending up dead because you feared for your life and had no duty to retreat from their home.
Re:Good luck with that fair trial thing (Score:4, Insightful)
With that fair and balanced recitation of events you won't make it into the jury pool.
Re:Good luck with that fair trial thing (Score:5, Informative)
The 911 dispatcher told him the back off and let the real professionals handle it.
That is an established fact.
I think you have just established you aren't competent using many of the words in your statements. Lets review what was said [youtube.com],
So, is that a command to "back off" and "let the real professionals handle it" by the civilian dispatcher who has no authority? No
So, is it an "established fact"? No
These "stand your ground" laws work both ways.
Snark masquerading as "established fact." Something that is more interesting:
More on the Irrelevance of 'Stand Your Ground' to the Trayvon Martin Case [reason.com]
Zimmerman saw Trayvon as a perp and Trayvon probably saw Zimmerman as a sexual predator.
Interesting take. If that is so, why didn't Marin call the police for help? Maybe some hints in the bottom half of this?
Trayvon Martin case heading towards the political abyss [legalinsurrection.com]
Re:Good luck with that fair trial thing (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, it is an established fact. You're being way too literal and are misinterpreting the intent and meaning behind the dispatcher's sentence.
In standard English there is a kind of understatement which is very common and universally understood. For example, I encountered a friendly but unintelligent young woman earlier today and mentioned to a friend that "she's not the smartest person in the world". This did not mean that she had an IQ of 215 which would place her just shy of the smartest person. It meant she was dumb. It was a kind of understatement which is understood by everyone.
Similarly, the statement "we don't need you to do that" is a friendly way of saying "don't do it." For example, if my boss observes someone at work doing something pointless or a waste of time, he might say "we don't need you to do that" because it's more polite than outright commanding them to stop. The meaning would be understood by everyone because that kind of understatement is part of standard conversational English.
lol (Score:4, Insightful)
911 dispatchers are trained to give orders. They are trained to deal with people in various excited emotional states, and their job is to convey instructions as clearly and loudly as is necessary. "Sir, STOP DOING THAT. DO YOU UNDERSTAND? STOP FOLLOWING THE SUSPECT AND WAIT FOR THE ARRIVAL OF THE POLICE".
See how much more effective that is? If you listen to various recordings of 911 calls, you will know that's the language they know how to use and are trained for. This "you don't need to do that" does not convey a directive.
P.S. I'm responding to your comment, not the entire case, by the way.
Re:Good luck with that fair trial thing (Score:5, Informative)
And this is relevant how? Zimmerman was on the phone with 911 well BEFORE the confrontation. He was told to stop stalking Martin. He continued to do so anyway.
Re:Good luck with that fair trial thing (Score:4, Insightful)
LOL what exactly do you think "Neighborhood watch" is?
Let's see first you need a neighborhood. Check. Next you need to roll around and look for trouble. Check. The gun was just a bonus.
Of course if he hadn't had it all we would have heard about some teenager asaulting a neighborhood watch captain, and really wouldn't have put much thought to him spending time in jail.
Re:Good luck with that fair trial thing (Score:5, Informative)
Of course if he hadn't had it all we would have heard about some teenager asaulting a neighborhood watch captain, and really wouldn't have put much thought to him spending time in jail.
Assuming, of course, that Martin attacked Zimmerman. We only have Zimmerman's word that that's what happened. That's why arrests are generally made in these situations.
Re:Racism (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Racism (Score:5, Informative)
You have a pointer for "what first degree murder is"? I don't readily see a mismatch.
I'm going to presume this is a serious question...
First degree murder requires that you:
1) Wanted to kill someone
2) Planned to do it
3) Executed the plan
If you didn't mean to kill someone and planned to do it, it isn't first degree murder. Even if Zimmerman followed Martin around for a month, it wouldn't be first degree murder if *something* happens and Martin ends up dead. That planning it bit is pretty damned important.
Re: (Score:3)
Self defense? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Oh, easily. Look for the guy, walk up to him and say, "Excuse me, sir. Hi, my name is George. I'm captain of the neighborhood watch and like to introduce myself to people I haven't met." Somewhere between that exchange happening and the phone call we've all heard, Martin jumps you and commences to beat the ever loving crap out of you. In fear of your life, you shoot him.
I'm not saying that's what happened. As I'm not a witness (or Zimmerman), I have no idea what happened. It's definitely possible, th
Re:Talk about media bias (Score:5, Insightful)
There's 43 murders every day. Do you recall reading 43 stories? No. When things go normal, they are not national stories.
So anyway, since you don't seem to have figured it out, the difference in the two cases is the police response. And that is the racial issue! When the situations are reversed, a black will be charged right away. A white will not always be. (Google Brandon Gotwalt. Almost the same situation, no charge. Now google Daniel Adkins. Big difference.)
The black kids who set the white kid on fire were found right away and charged. Things are working as they should be. There are 100s of hate crimes every year, and only the most egregious situations make national news. What was egregious here was the government not applying the law evenly, and not even charging the guy. It's basically the same thing (not charging) that happened with the Danziger cops in New Orleans during Katrina: Kill a minority, no charge. Plus the cops do it all the time too -- but that's so [sadly] normal it doesn't rise to to the same volume as the Zimmerman case.
Re: (Score:3)
OJ sure as fuck got charged with murder. Wanna try again? Or are you just listing all the black people you can think of?
Also, Zimmerman didn't get charged with a hate crime, so nobody knows what the fuck you're talking about.
Re:Talk about media bias (Score:4, Insightful)
Wow. Can't help but feed the troll here. Where to start? Let's see... your link to a story that 'hardly gets a column in the local news' is a link to the NY Daily Post about an event in Kansas City. A simple google search shows various other coverage of the case. And a big difference in that case: the police were *actually looking to arrest the perpetrators* (whether they've caught them or not is not clear).
The Trayvon Davis story blew up because of how it was mishandled between the police and the DA. If they had arrested Zimmerman from the start, even if he ended getting off on a self-defense claim, it wouldn't have been as big. It would be a footnote in the list of reasons why an overbroad "Stand Your Ground" law is a bad idea.
And, even if the attack in KC was mishandled similarly, what's that have to do with the Davis case? Outrage would be warranted in both cases.
But yeah, your recent photos of Trayvon (including one fake one) convince me. He flipped the bird at a web cam! And he's black! Death for the hoodlum! Wait, you know what? I need to see a photo of the suspect in a suit. If you can produce one of those, then I'll really be convinced.
I'll give you this though: you really have provided clear support for that Einstein quote in your sig.
Re:Talk about media bias (Score:5, Insightful)
Recent photos of Trayvon: http://i39.tinypic.com/1yvg5h.jpg [tinypic.com]
So what's your point? If somebody looks like this, he somehow deserves to get shot?
Re: (Score:3)
Well if he's hispanic, then I don't know why it's a news story.
Oh wait, it's because he shot a kid and got away with it.
It became a news story after the 911 recordings were released, and it was revealed the dispatcher told him not to follow the kid; once journalists (presumably liberal) looked into it, they discovered that the police didn't canvass the neighborhood or collect Zimmerman's clothing, or really investigate at all. Zimmerman shot a kid, said "He attacked me first," and the police thought that so
Re:News for nerds? (Score:4, Insightful)
Too much politics here creeping on this site.
Preach brother.
Re:News for nerds? (Score:5, Funny)
Too much politics here creeping on this site.
Preach brother.
Hey! We don't want any religion either!
Re:News for nerds? (Score:5, Interesting)
Perhaps but I'm very interested, and I'm a law nerd.
Re:News for nerds? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:News for nerds? (Score:4, Interesting)
No. I spend a day coding, I look up at the screen, and I depend on Slashdot to tell me what's going on in the world.
Re: (Score:3)
No. I spend a day coding, I look up at the screen, and I depend on Slashdot to tell me what's going on in the world.
Man are you gonna be confused.
Re:News for nerds? (Score:5, Insightful)
Confusion is the first step on the road to knowledge.
Re:News for nerds? (Score:5, Interesting)
Agreed. Someone commented on the post about Santorum dropping out of the race as being offtopic for this site; I was preparing a rebutal about how politics is nerdy, too, but in the same breath I said you can also get nerdy about cars and sports, neither of which should get reported on day-to-day news here (unless they're car analogies). As I typed that, I realized that the Santorum article indeed had no place on /., even if /. has a politics section; it wasn't nerdy, there were no great debates to lead from it or nitpicking/research to do, just people commenting on how he should have dropped sooner or theorizing on "real" reasons he dropped.
This story, while of great national interest, is not about politics; government, sure, but not politics in the sense of wide-reaching leaders doing this or that, and, similarly to the Santorum article, doesn't appear on the face of it to have any "nerdy" qualities. So it doesn't belong on /. Then again, we've had articles regarding tech [slashdot.org] use [slashdot.org] in this case previously, so maybe this could be understood as followup/closure to issues raised in those articles.
But then I begin to wonder: /. has changed much over the years, adding sections like that, perhaps we need to seriously re-evaluate the purpose of /. is. Either it's expanded to be a more inclusive big-news discussion site with extra emphasis on tech/science, in which case we should drop the "News for Nerds" moniker; or, it's still a site just for tech/science-related stories, in which case the "politics" section needs to go unless we limit it to just politics story expressly about tech/science being used or abused by the government (which, yes, happens quite often.)
Consider various postings about the TSA. TSA gained relevance on /. due to their use of body scanners and so forth; however, at least a few of the more recent posts is about the gross ineptitude of the TSA, tech being merely one outlet for set ineptitude. Yet no one complains about TSA articles (that I've seen, anyway). How often do we get posts about censorship in general? Not even blocking the web/text messages, but just about laws regarding arresting people for speaking out by any means. These certainly don't deal with tech/science, but, once again, no outcry against them (again, AFAIK). In fact, those are often the most discussed posts on the site (both the tech and non-tech kind). Certainly, there are important matters outside of tech/science that require long, deep debates, and I've yet to find anywhere on the internet that can facilitate that as well as Slashdot does (take that as you will). The moderating system works well, though it has a serious bias from users.
So I think that we, as a collective site, need to ask ourselves what we want Slashdot to be: A place for news--science, tech, or otherwise--that begs, nay, requires deep discussion and insight? Or a site dedicated explicitly to tech/science (which can still have said discussion about just those issues)? And, if the latter, where do we draw a line about what is a relevant news story?
While we have editors (that we often passively rebel against) that ultimately choose what appears on the front page, the site is driven almost entirely by the community, from posts to comments to moderation, and so I believe it's up to the community to decide what the site should strive for.
Re:News for nerds? (Score:5, Insightful)
I think it's very easy to see that the Slashdot community is very interested in topics like this.
Slashdot is about the only place where nerds convene on a regular basic to discuss politics. The editors simply need to look at the comments to see that the majority of people posting here are very interested in political and, especially, topics regarding society in general.
I don't care if I get modded flamebait, people rarely take this much time to argue against political news on Slashdot these days. People (not me) are simply sick of hearing about the case and don't feel that it warrants the attention it's gotten. So they bitch about the relevence here, and on every other news site.
Personally, I find it very disturbing and absurd that self defense laws can be used to justify deadly force against someone you were chasing at 7pm.
Re:News for nerds? (Score:5, Insightful)
So add my vote to those saying that this _is_ the sort of thing I want to see on Slashdot (within reason, buyer beware, etc.)
Re:News for nerds? (Score:4, Informative)
I'm not from the US. A lot of my understanding of current political issues within the US come from this site. I find considerable value in reading the comments of nerds to issues that may not, in themselves, be News _for_ Nerds.
I am from the United States and I would like to second that. Between Fox and Huffington Post, I really don't trust many news sources I can find. Everybody has their bias and their axes to grind. At /., I can look at a wide selection of opinions, and while as a group the readers here certainly have their bias, a well written post that provides informative or insightful information that goes against that bias, still gets modded Informative or Insightful despite that. When there is something I don't know much about, I often look forward to an article about it here as, while not perfect, the modding system here is better than any other one I've seen and the same goes for the people who post. Even our Anonymous Coward trolls are more well spoken and seem more intelligent than honest posters over on the Wall Street Journal. I've learned a lot about various issues from both people who show personal knowledge about something as well as just some decent logic.
Re: (Score:3)
More to the point, too much IRRELEVANT politics which are AMPLY covered ELSEWHERE polluting this site.
If it's MAINSTREAM, non-computer, non-science, non-nerd news it DOESN'T NEED to be here because posting it here is REDUNDANT.
Re: (Score:3)
How about http://politics.slashdot.org/ [slashdot.org]
Re:News for nerds? (Score:5, Informative)
I agree, this is not news for nerds.
Maybe it is, maybe it isn't (this nerd finds it interesting), but it could certainly be "stuff that matters".
...in the hopes of influencing the "editors" who select these stories.
Your ~162K userid suggests you've been here for a while, so I, with my ~566K userid shouldn't have to tell you that there's this thing called the Firehose. But, well, here we are.
Re:Slashdot: Please fire samzenpus! (Score:5, Funny)
Well, they both had a cell phone. Maybe this was the first casualty in the Android - iPhone war.
Shit just got real.
Re: (Score:3)
TFS isn't tied up well because it's missing a "not". "Second-degree murder is typically brought in cases when there is a fight or other confrontation that results in death and but does not involve a premeditated plan to kill."
And but you totally missed the absurd use of "and but", whether there is a "not" missing or.
Re:Not News for Nerds. (Score:5, Funny)
Holy shit am I reading this right? Anonymous Coward just left /. I was getting tired of that guy.
Re: (Score:3)
I am really curious to know what evidence they have to justify a second degree murder charge.
He clearly precipitated the confrontation, and there is no question that subsequently he killed somone. Pretty cut and dry. Whether he will be found guilty remains to be seen.
Re:Based on the (actual) 911 transcript (Score:4, Insightful)
And if he was attacked by Martin first, Martin was only exerting his right to Stand His Ground, no?
The first person to (reasonably) feel threatened with death or serious violence was justified in defending himself. The person who created that (reasonable) fear can not claim self defense, any more than a convenience store robber can shoot a clerk who pulls a revolver out of the cash drawer in "self defense".
Re:drug dealer excuses (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Not true. If they are actual drug dealers (ie convicted) they can't lawfully have a firearm. If convicted it's up to 15 years.
If possession of fire arm in commission of crime (drug dealing) minimum 10 years.
If fired in commission of crime (drug dealing) minimum 20 years.
If you hit someone in commission of crime (drug dealing) minimum 25 to life.
Re: (Score:3)
Stand your ground only protects you from charges due to injuring or killing your attacker. You're still on the hook if you hurt a bystander in any way or if you are the attacker.
The law came into existence due to overzealous prosecutors pressing charges against people who were clearly defending themselves and expecting them, in the heat of the moment with less than 1 second to make the decision, to examine each and every possible avenue of retreat with the same thoroughness that a person hearing the facts a
Re:drug dealer excuses (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Take this off of Slashdot please (Score:4, Insightful)
This does not belong on Slashdot. Please take it off.
- Nerd
My impression of you:
Whiny, whiny, whine. Whiny, whine, whine, blubber.
- Whiner
Re:"the neighborhood watch volunteer" (Score:5, Informative)
So I see:
The people at the Retreat at Twin Lakes had been missing bikes, grills and a few times thought strangers were casing their town houses.
When the homeowners association wanted to start a neighborhood watch, only one man stepped up: George Zimmerman, the 28-year-old who admitted to shooting an unarmed Miami Gardens teenager and who is now the focal point of a race-related scandal of national proportions.
Interviews with neighbors reveal a pleasant young man passionate about neighborhood security who took it upon himself to do nightly patrols while he walked his dog.
Licensed to carry a firearm and a student of criminal justice, Zimmerman went door-to-door asking residents to be on the lookout, specifically referring to young black men who appeared to be outsiders, and warned that some were caught lurking, neighbors said. The self-appointed captain of the neighborhood watch program is credited with cracking some crimes, and thwarting others.
Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/17/2700249/trayvon-martin-shooter-a-habitual.html#storylink=cpy [miamiherald.com]
Re:Stand your ground, kill a black guy, get a coup (Score:5, Insightful)
"Meant only to protect white people"? What an inflammatory and completely unsupported thing to say. Like so many other people, when you can't actually find evidence for racism, you just fabricate claims of racism.
In the case you cite, the shooter, a black male, was not arrested and was not charged for an entire year. Eventually, under public pressure, the DA did charge the shooter and he was found guilty by a jury.
I don't see how the cases are analogous either. Zimmerman claims to have been attacked by Martin from behind, while walking back to his car, and that's consistent with physical evidence. McNeil seems to have provoked a confrontation. Even if McNeil should have been found innocent, how does one injustice justify another one? Would racially based injustice against black men mean that we need to dismantle our legal system altogether, just to justify the mob?