US Politics

[TheMightyEthan]

[deanb]

See part of me is thinking there has to be some bigger picture. Especially with the second one, 20 years for discharging a gun in warning with no one harmed or killed seems really weird.

[TheMightyEthan]

From what my wife told me (from reading about it) she was convicted aggravated assault, which is a felony, and then she was also convicted of using a firearm in the commission of a felony, which severely increases the sentence.

[deanb]

Doesn't aggravated assault require...assault?

[TheMightyEthan]

You're thinking of battery.  Battery = illegal physical contact.  Assault = making someone think that you're about to make illegal physical contact.  Those are the (simplified) US definitions anyway, and I'm fairly sure they're the same as the English common law definitions.  Most people, even here, get them confused though.

[deanb]

Ah. So being threatening then? (Would probably explain it being "assault and battery", but not like legaldom is known for being succinct)

[TheMightyEthan]

Yeah, stuff like threatening to hurt someone with the present ability to do so, acting like you might be about to hurt them without explicitly saying it, trying to hurt them but missing, etc can all be assault.

[Thursday Next]

Yeah, it's pretty much the same as the UK in that respect. Assault is harming or causing someone to fear harm to their person or property, scale goes up from there ABH, GBH etc. Then using a weapon always tacks on the "aggravated" which ups the sentence a fair bit.

 

None of which explains the other guy getting off scott free.

[TheMightyEthan]

Yeah, I actually said it slightly wrong in my first post: she was convicted of aggravated assault, which is basically "assault with a deadly weapon" because she had a gun.  She was also convicted of discharging a firearm in the commission of a felony.  You could commit aggravated assault simply by pointing a gun at somebody (or any number of other ways, but this is the relevant one) and not actually firing it, so the fact that she fired it increases the sentence.

 

*Edit* - But the point of the original image is that the guy in his case was allowed to use the "stand your ground" law in his defense  (even though he followed the victim and initiated the confrontation) because he had reasonable fear for his life, but she wasn't allowed to use the same law (even thought the "victim" approached her and initiated the confrontation in violation of the restraining order) because... something...

Edited July 15, 2013 by TheMightyEthan

[TheMightyEthan]

The federal government is considering charges against Zimmerman now, so we'll see what happens with that. Edited July 15, 2013 by TheMightyEthan

[TheRevanchist]

This thing just keeps getting better:

 

"The special prosecutor appointed to the George Zimmerman case has sacked a whistle-blowing colleague who testified at the trial that the state attorney’s office failed to comply with the rules of discovery.

Ben Kruidbos, the state attorney’s office IT director, was reportedly fired in the wake of rendering testimony during a June 6 hearing that was potentially damaging to the prosecution regarding cell phone photos and text messages discovered on Trayvon Martin’s phone that were not  furnished to defense attorneys.

The Orlando Sentinel reports Kruidbos received a scathing letter from State Attorney Angela Corey's office Friday morning, calling him untrustworthy and adding he "can never again be trusted to step foot in this office.""

 

Seems like some horse play is going on.

[Mister Jack]

Wouldn't charging Zimmerman again be grossly illegal?

[TheMightyEthan]

Only if Florida did it.  The states and the federal government are all separate separate sovereign governments, and the prohibition on double jeopardy only applies to individual sovereigns.  There can sometimes be cases where multiple states and the federal government all have jurisdiction to charge a crime (though it's rare that they actually do it, usually one is enough).

 

Basically Zimmerman was tried and acquitted under Florida law, but that doesn't bar the federal government for trying him for alleged violations of federal laws.

[Mister Jack]

Oh for fuck's sake, just let it go.  Not to sound callous, but why should the federal government give a shit about one teenager who got shot in an altercation down in Florida?  Regardless of all the media coverage, it was a state matter, not a national one.  The man was put on trial and the system found him not guilty.  Don't try him a second time because you didn't get the verdict you wanted.  That just leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

[TheMightyEthan]

Because there's overtones of race discrimination (specifically in that state prosecutor's office), and one of the federal government's jobs is to make sure the states are doing their job by giving everyone equal protection of the law.

[Pojodin]

Ben Kruidbos, the state attorney’s office IT director, was reportedly fired in the wake of rendering testimony during a June 6 hearing that was potentially damaging to the prosecution regarding cell phone photos and text messages discovered on Trayvon Martin’s phone that were not  furnished to defense attorneys.

 

For clarification sake, does this mean that there are photos and text messages on the phone that would aid the defense?

[TheMightyEthan]

Maybe, maybe not.  The prosecution, upon request of the defense, has to turn over 1) all evidence that might aid the defense, and 2) all evidence the prosecution might use at trial.  Put those together and it's essentially "all evidence the prosecution has", so if the defense made a request and it wasn't turned over that is a major no-no, but it doesn't necessarily mean it would have helped the defense.

[Mister Jack]

 

Ben Kruidbos, the state attorney’s office IT director, was reportedly fired in the wake of rendering testimony during a June 6 hearing that was potentially damaging to the prosecution regarding cell phone photos and text messages discovered on Trayvon Martin’s phone that were not  furnished to defense attorneys.

 

For clarification sake, does this mean that there are photos and text messages on the phone that would aid the defense?

 

 

Isn't this alone supposed to be grounds for mistrial?

[madbassman39]

What Zimmerman did was morally wrong and grossly irresponsible. During the trial though they had been able to prove that he was within his rights to do so. I don't think that the final verdict is wrong based off of the law, although I think Zimmerman was in the wrong (especially after the police told him to leave the kid alone and he refused to do so).

 

What I don't understand though is how Zimmerman was not charged with something else, such as aggravated assault (if that is such a thing)? It was Zimmerman's choices that led to the events, how is that not a factor of some form of charge?

[TheMightyEthan]

 

 

Ben Kruidbos, the state attorney’s office IT director, was reportedly fired in the wake of rendering testimony during a June 6 hearing that was potentially damaging to the prosecution regarding cell phone photos and text messages discovered on Trayvon Martin’s phone that were not  furnished to defense attorneys.

 

For clarification sake, does this mean that there are photos and text messages on the phone that would aid the defense?

 

 

Isn't this alone supposed to be grounds for mistrial?

 

 

Could be, but since he was acquitted he's probably not going to be appealing it.

[FredEffinChopin]

"...open season on teenagers...""...half the country will cheer..."

I doubt it is open season on teenagers. And I doubt half of the country is cheering. There is always a small percent of people who have a POV other than the norm, but I'm pretty sure most people are not cheering. And no one I know, besides his lawyer, has made him out to be a saint. If anything, he was an idiot who got caught up with another idiot and made idiot soup together.

 

Whether or not it breaks down that way percentage-wise (I wasn't going for pinpoint accuracy), you can go to any news site that allows commneting on the internet, and you'll find scores of people acting like Zimmerman is a hero. It's seriously disappointing to see, and a little bit scary. It's not coming from a place of passion for the legal system. And while it may not literally be open season, it seems a precedent was certainly set.

 

Can you inform me as to why Martin was an idiot, btw? Out of all the mistakes that were made in that incident, it seems that they only one that wasn't done by the grown man with the gun who was acting under paranoid and false notions is the one that we're relying on that same grown man to account for us; the initiating of the physical altercation. Even if we're going to believe his story, that in the middle of tailing Martin, Martin somehow disappeared and got the jump on him, we're still looking at a case of someone who isn't alive to tell his side theoretically standing his own ground when being followed around by a (if I may say so) thuggish looking guy talking on the phone while he stares. Is it only a good idea with a gun, and not with fists? And is it fair to call a dead teenager an idiot for the *one* thing he could have done better in a clusterfuck situation with a grown man?

 

@MBM

I believe manslaughter is what they should have been looking at from the beginning, and what they jury was told they may consider. They decided that it didn't qualify, I suppose. My close friend who is a practicing lawyer seems to believe that it's an appropriate charge, and he tells me the guys in his firm as well as outside colleagues seem to agree. Even the ones he expected to have a bias in favor of Zimmerman's situation. From what I understand though, the mandatory sentence is pretty high, and it's likely the jurors didn't feel like he deserved that kind of prison time. Who knows what they were thinking.

 

As far as the federal case, I'm not sure how comfortable I am with it. While I disagree with the verdict, and would like to see Zimmerman bear some responsibility for his irresponsibility that lead to someone else's death, I get the feeling that this might go a little bit beyond indirect... I'll have to see how it plays out before a pass my own personal judgment. 

[TheRevanchist]

Martin, said while on the phone to his friend Jeantel, some "creepy ass cracker" was following him around.  He called his friend.  Not the cops, or someone who might be able to help him.  So, instead of doing that reasonable thing, decides to get into a fight with the other knucklehead.  His texts confirmed his love of fighting people, which is a dumb thing.  His texts also indicated he was looking to get his hands on a gun, though most likely for other purposes than to deal with this other idiot.  He was found with burglary tools at his school, as well as some women's jewelry.  He was also suspended for being high at school, where he had some drugs on his person.  To me, that all adds up to idiot.  But, most of this is not relevant to the case.  What is relevant is that they were both looking for a fight, from what it appears happened (as we will never really know the full details).

 

"I believe manslaughter is what they should have been looking at from the beginning, and what they jury was told they may consider."

 

Yes.  I think that would have been the most fitting for what happened, as I don't think anyone intended on killing someone. 

 

However, with the social pressure the prosecutor's office was under, they would have been labeled badly had they gone for anything less than murder 2.  That is where I believe some injustice was done, as well as the jury selection.  Who let's that kind of jury go up for a case like this?  Inconceivable!

[FredEffinChopin]

But, most of this is not relevant to the case.  What is relevant is that they were both looking for a fight, from what it appears happened (as we will never really know the full details)

 

I agree with that first part. If we're going to characterize someone based on their history, why not choose the history relevant to the case (since Martin wasn't likely committing burglary while carrying his Arizona and Skittles around, and Zim didn't even accuse him of doing anything beyond looking suspicious)? Why are we characterizing the person who was killed, and not the killer? Zimmerman has a record himself, one which implies a violent history (which I see as relevant), as well as a record of nearly 50 calls to police about characters in the area in the last 8 years. Unless over 40 crimes were stopped because of him, it stands to reason that he's fairly paranoid and in-people's-business, which is relevant considering his misguided assessment that he acted on. Also, he and his defense's wild exaggeration of the injuries he sustained in the altercation, as refuted by the medical examiner, doesn't help. There is more too, but not that is as relevant...  Martin's history comes somewhat into play if we believe every word of Zimmerman's account regarding the part nobody saw, which coincidentally is the only part of the story where Martin is actually being accused of doing something inadvisable (as opposed to Zimmerman, who  proudly oafed through the rest of it); standing his own ground against a perceived threat. That's a huge if, and I personally don't think that it alone is enough to negate everything Zimmerman *first* contributed to the situation, even if it is wholly true and accurate. We're then focusing on nothing but the fact that the dead kid was too easy to provoke, and we're ignoring the provocation. Proving that fact about Martin wouldn't exactly make it a wash, and that's all that Martin's records could possibly help make a case for, is his being a hothead. Anything beyond that and we're meaninglessly comparing their records like stats on a baseball card, with no context.

 

It just seems to me that there is a lot of ignoring of Zimmerman's actions and history that one has to do before to get to where we can reprimand the teen because he could have been smarter. Despite that, many are talking about how he should have been compliant with the stranger that was tailing him. Choosing to resolve the conflict head-on is not the same thing as looking for a fight in my mind, though it is definitely not the safest way of treating a situation like that. It's not an easy thing to react to though, and while many people like to think and talk of the tough situation Zim might have been in when he chose to shoot, I wish they would do the same for Martin, who was far younger and more inexperienced. I've been followed around several times throughout my life (mostly in my youth), and almost every time resulted in a robbery attempt, or something only slightly less aggressive... I had no clever response in any of the cases when the other shoe dropped. In two of those times, a gun was immediately presented and I promptly complied. In another the kid was my age, unarmed, and hoping to get by on intimidation, and it just didn't work out for him. If I was a tougher or braver type of teenager than I was though, I might have attacked the person I thought was pushing on me. Hardly wise, but understandable, and certainly not punishable by death. Not that Zimmerman is a judge or even a cop that is supposed to bring him to one.

 

I too don't believe that Zimmerman set out to kill. I think he is not trained to patrol a neighborhood with a gun, and he hit the wall of his expertise that night. Yes, it's totally possible that Martin made things worse, but the bottom line for me is that he would have gotten to his father's house without a problem if not for Zimmerman getting making several confrontational gestures to and pursuing a perfect stranger. I'm not saying it wouldn't be the most difficult decision of my life to have to put a person in jail for any reason, regardless of whether or not they are guilty of the given charges, but it would also kill me to look at the face of the father, who waited longer than he expected for his son to get there, having to walk out of the courtroom beside the handsomely (in terms of legal resources) funded man who shot his son. I can't say I'm not sympathetic to the jurors... Still though, it doesn't stop me from being pretty outraged. Plus I absolutely can't stand seeing these people who seem to get so excited over the verdict. I know they probably look far greater in numbers than they are, due to how vocal they are, but it still leaves an awful taste in my mouth, and gets me pretty angry. I guess I'm easily baited as well. 

 

As far as the prosecution, I get the impression that they botched it big-time, though I can't say that from any concrete knowledge or experience. The little I saw of the closing statements sent chills (of the douche variety) along my spine. I'm not sure why they would have pursued murder first either... I guess I can't discount social pressure, but I wonder if the acquittal makes them feel more like they came through...I need to go bug my buddy with more trade questions. 

 

I guess the jury choice could have went either way... It must of seemed favorable in some light or other, to both sides. I can't imagine what light that was, but then again I don't know what an ideal jury would look like for either side of this anyway... While race and gender are potentially relevant, the case has a lot to do with gun ownership and usage in a state where it's been pretty controversial, and sympathies don't seem easily detectable to me by such broad categorizations. It just seems like a bizarre group to me no matter what though, but I understand it's a high profile case, and prone to anomalies. 

 

*deflates*

 

Anyway. I know it's not this simple at all, but this writer/professor tweeted something that does tap into a portion of how I feel.

 

"Only in America can a dead black boy go on trial for his own murder."

 

I think it's important to note that this is just how this comes off to many people, whether or not anyone believes there is real accuracy to it, or agrees with the wording. We've got an ugly history we're not done coping with. Even before any verdicts, this situation didn't help at all.

[Saturnine Tenshi]

I think some people are forgetting this is (was) a court case about alleged murder, not a social case or venue of social reform. It's an issue of law. If anything, we should be lamenting the (possible) inadequacy of the system of the law.

 

On one hand you have brown- and black-skinned people who are flailing their arms over how their bodies are now inherently unsafe in the United States. That it's now legal to shoot black teens or something.

 

On the other, you have the white-skinned crew who see Zimmerman's freedom as a victory.

 

Both are equally deluded.

 

Really, the whole issue of race (on both sides) in the States is frustrating, and I wish I could move farther away.

[Thursday Next]

With regard to Zimmerman one of the key considerations (and I'm assuming that we are all agreed that Martin death was wrongful morally if not legally) in my opinion is this: Is there a real risk that this will happen again?

 

From what I've read for the safety of other people in the neighbourhood Zimmerman should have been locked up. As it stands he has been vindicated for stalking someone which resulted in a altercation leading him to kill someone. What's to stop Zimmerman from doing the exact same thing again? I'm assuming he still has his gun license and now anyone who sees him following is going to be even more likely to react extremely given that they are probably in a life or death situation. For the sake of public safety the guy should have been locked up and psychologically evaluated. He's gonna end up killing again in similar circumstances or get himself killed one of these days.