The George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin Trial Verdict!!

I agree that it's better for an innocent person to go free than for a guilty one to go to prison, but there's got to be a better solution to this particular situation. 

While it may not be illegal, I'd be uncomfortable living in a neighborhood where a civilian like George Zimmerman was patrolling around with a gun and following neighbors he didn't recognize.  And while it may not be illegal, it's wrong that Zimmerman is free to go after killing someone in a fight that his own actions instigated. 

If Zimmerman had just stopped following Martin when the dispatcher told him to stop, the cops would've arrived, found out Martin lived in the neighborhood, and that would've been the end of it.  Alternatively, the cops would've showed up and not found Martin, which would also be no big deal because all Martin was doing was going home with his candy and his Coke.

The only other way to make it possible to convict Zimmerman on the evidence presented would be to remove any legal right to self-defence. That is also pretty abhorrent - it's basically a license for the predators in society to do as they will, confident that their victims won't resist for fear of judicial punishment.

I am a little concerned with this leap. The bigger question concerns gun laws. One can defend themselves, or at least they should be able to if they are going to put themselves in confrontational situations, without a handgun.

While it may not be illegal, I'd be uncomfortable living in a neighborhood where a civilian like George Zimmerman was patrolling around with a gun and following neighbors he didn't recognize.

Agreed - creepy actions by someone with far too much time on their hands.

And while it may not be illegal, it's wrong that Zimmerman is free to go after killing someone in a fight that his own actions instigated.

Unclear who instigated the fight - Zimmerman's case was that he had turned around to return to his car when he blundered into Martin, who then assaulted him. While we may find that explanation dubious, we can't say that Zimmerman's actions started the fight.

If Zimmerman had just stopped following Martin when the dispatcher told him to stop, the cops would've arrived, found out Martin lived in the neighborhood, and that would've been the end of it.  Alternatively, the cops would've showed up and not found Martin, which would also be no big deal because all Martin was doing was going home with his candy and his Coke.

Zimmerman's case is that he did stop following Martin when told he didn't need to do so (note: the dispatcher is a civilian who doesn't have the authority to tell people what to do - hence the advice of "we don't need you do to that") and was returning to his car when he blundered into Martin, who then assaulted him. If Zimmerman's evidence is accurate, then he didn't actually do anything legally wrong (and note that the implication in Zimmerman's evidence is that Martin went home, then came out again looking for him).

The problem for the prosecution was that there wasn't any reliable evidence to contradict this - the best they could manage was some very unimpressive evidence that a recorded scream was Martin rather than Zimmerman (their witnesses for this fell apart under cross-examination). The correct course for this would have been to refer it to the US equivalent of a Magistrates court (Grand Jury?), at which point I suspect that it would have emerged there was insufficient evidence and the case would have been dropped.

The law is clear that if you believe your life is in danger it is legal to use lethal force to defend yourself. That is as true in the UK as it is in the US. This means the prosecution have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that you DID NOT believe your life to be in danger at the time you killed the other person, which is a very difficult task, or that you were the one to start the fight - similarly difficult where the accused is the only living witness!
The only similar cases I can think of in the UK which have resulted in conviction are where homeowners have chased a burglar down the street and knifed them while the burglar was running away, then tried to claim "self-defence".

I am a little concerned with this leap. The bigger question concerns gun laws. One can defend themselves, or at least they should be able to if they are going to put themselves in confrontational situations, without a handgun.

Oh, I don't particularly like the US gun laws (I was in the TA for a while, and from my experience of handguns I know that should I personally be close to someone while I was armed with a handgun the most effective use I could make of it would be to whack them over the head with it!), but they are what they are and won't be changing soon.
But the wider point stands - to get a conviction with the available evidence, you either need to introduce a presumption of guilt or remove any legal right to use force in self-defence. The latter has some fairly nasty effects - I don't buy into a lot of the rhetoric about an armed populace deterring crime, but I do think if the law made any form of self-defence illegal there would be more opportunist/violent crime. In any case most people would regard that as being against natural law, and you'd never get a jury to convict.

but they are what they are and won't be changing soon.

And that is the problem with the US.

Unclear who instigated the fight - Zimmerman's case was that he had turned around to return to his car when he blundered into Martin, who then assaulted him. 

Yeah, and that's what I'd say, too, if there were no other witnesses and the guy I shot was dead. 

While we may find that explanation dubious, we can't say that Zimmerman's actions started the fight.

I understand what you mean; only Zimmerman knows how the actual physical fight started.  What I meant was Zimmerman's actions - following Martin around - led to the physical fight.  I realize those actions aren't provocative enough to find him guilty of anything regarding Martin's death, but it's still true that if Zimmerman had just waited for the police to arrive none of this would've happened.

Zimmerman's case is that he did stop following Martin when told he didn't need to do so (note: the dispatcher is a civilian who doesn't have the authority to tell people what to do - hence the advice of "we don't need you do to that") and was returning to his car when he blundered into Martin, who then assaulted him.

The dispatcher is a civilian, and so is Zimmerman.  Had Zimmerman caught up with Martin and asked him who he was and what he was doing, Martin would've been well within his rights to tell Zimmerman to fcuk off.

The problem for the prosecution was that there wasn't any reliable evidence to contradict this - the best they could manage was some very unimpressive evidence that a recorded scream was Martin rather than Zimmerman (their witnesses for this fell apart under cross-examination). The correct course for this would have been to refer it to the US equivalent of a Magistrates court (Grand Jury?), at which point I suspect that it would have emerged there was insufficient evidence and the case would have been dropped.

I agree, and I think they went ahead and went to trial because going to trial and losing was a better option than not going at all, politically-speaking.

The law is clear that if you believe your life is in danger it is legal to use lethal force to defend yourself. That is as true in the UK as it is in the US. This means the prosecution have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that you DID NOT believe your life to be in danger at the time you killed the other person, which is a very difficult task, or that you were the one to start the fight - similarly difficult where the accused is the only living witness!

But the wider point stands - to get a conviction with the available evidence, you either need to introduce a presumption of guilt or remove any legal right to use force in self-defence.

I don't think those are the only choices.

As I understand UK law, I think the defendant has to prove they were acting reasonably as opposed to the prosecution having to prove the defendant's state of mind.  (I'm not a lawyer, though, so I may be missing some important element of it.)

In some US jurisdictions a person must attempt to avoid the fight before killing the other person, but Florida isn't one of them.

In either case, while I don't want too much judging after the fact, I'm ok with a standard other than "I felt like I was going to be killed so I killed the other guy first."

Had Zimmerman caught up with Martin and asked him who he was and what he was doing, Martin would've been well within his rights to tell Zimmerman to fcuk off.

That's what I personally suspect happened - the two blundered into each other, a verbal spat started, which rapidly turned into fisticuffs which Zimmerman was losing. At which point he thought he was in danger of dying, panicked and fired. I suspect it would be pretty hard to tell who started the fight even if they had both survived, and in the circumstances I genuinely doubt if Zimmerman could give an accurate account of what actually happened (I don't think he's lying, simply that in situations like that memories become jumbled up and inaccurate).

There is evidence that Martin liked to get into fistfights, and that Zimmerman is a self-important busybody (i.e. exactly the sort of person to unintentionally escalate a conflict). There is evidence that Martin may have doubled back looking for Zimmerman. There is clear evidence that a fight started which Zimmerman was losing. Unfortunately, none of it is relevant to guilt or innocence - and most people's views on that seem to be based on their ethnic background and position on whether an armed society is a good thing or not .

That's what I personally suspect happened - the two blundered into each other, a verbal spat started, which rapidly turned into fisticuffs which Zimmerman was losing. At which point he thought he was in danger of dying, panicked and fired. I suspect it would be pretty hard to tell who started the fight even if they had both survived, and in the circumstances I genuinely doubt if Zimmerman could give an accurate account of what actually happened (I don't think he's lying, simply that in situations like that memories become jumbled up and inaccurate).

There is evidence that Martin liked to get into fistfights, and that Zimmerman is a self-important busybody (i.e. exactly the sort of person to unintentionally escalate a conflict). There is evidence that Martin may have doubled back looking for Zimmerman. There is clear evidence that a fight started which Zimmerman was losing. Unfortunately, none of it is relevant to guilt or innocence - and most people's views on that seem to be based on their ethnic background and position on whether an armed society is a good thing or not .

That's very well put, and I agree with you completely.

I agree that it's better for an innocent person to go free than for a guilty one to go to prison, but there's got to be a better solution to this particular situation. 

I think both scenarios are equally as desirable!

I don't like handguns, in fact I am scared of them. They give to a person a level of power they might not be able to handle, and in many cases (most?) don't deserve. So  I am a bit biased about this whole thing.

But that being said, I don't think we are in a zero sum game. Has anyone been talking about possible remedies? For instance, police and soldiers are highly trained. Too, they have other options such as batons and tasers. The very fact that they usually have uniforms on (in the case of soldiers, a very important distinction) is part of the mix in subduing a possible bad guy.

Should there be some heightened burden of responsibility/further training for those who wish to carry a handgun? 

Should there be some heightened burden of responsibility/further training for those who wish to carry a handgun?  

I think so. I think one of the reasons people carry handguns is that they believe they will have a clear/calm mind when 'trouble arises'. Speaking from experience, in one high stress situation, I could barely comprehend what was even happening. I could barely lift my arms and close my hands into fists, let alone have the dexterity to pull out a weapon, aim and fire. After that experience, I ran into a lot of confident people who imagined they would 'rise' to the occasion and strike back. I think people grossly underestimate how flight/fight affects their thinking and movement.

I think if you showed those people that they're not as mentally invincible to stress as they think, they'd realize guns would make their situation worse. As far as I know, people can be trained to handle high stress situations with weapons, like what the police receive but I don't think it would be considered practical...

I agree that it's better for an innocent person to go free than for a guilty one to go to prison, but there's got to be a better solution to this particular situation. 

I think both scenarios are equally as desirable!

No way.  If a guilty person goes free, the result is nobody is punished for the crime and the criminal is free.

If an innocent person goes to prison, the wrong person is punished for the crime and deprived of their liberty, and the criminal who actually committed the crime is free.  That's worse.

No way.  If a guilty person goes free, the result is nobody is punished for the crime and the criminal is free.

If an innocent person goes to prison, the wrong person is punished for the crime and deprived of their liberty, and the criminal who actually committed the crime is free.  That's worse.

I think you need to reread what you originally wrote!

I think you need to reread what you originally wrote!

Ha!  Now I see what you mean.  For the record, I think it's better for a guilty person to go free than for an innocent one to go to prison.

Ha!  Now I see what you mean.  For the record, I think it's better for a guilty person to go free than for an innocent one to go to prison.

That's what I thought you must have meant!