If The Zimmerman Jury Was Right, Then A Lot Else Is Wrong.

[Plaid Adder]

Since the verdict, I have heard the following reasonable explanations for why the jury did the right thing (I'm going to ignore unreasonable ones):

* The jury had no choice but to acquit Zimmerman given the judge's instructions.
* The jury had no choice but to acquit Zimmerman given the content of the Stand Your Ground law.
* The jury had no choice but to acquit Zimmerman because the prosecution overreached by asking for 2nd degree murder instead of manslaughter.
* The jury had no choice but to acquit Zimmerman because the prosecution didn't make a good enough case.

And this is my response:

Let's assume for the sake of argument that any or all of the above statements are true. That does not make what happened Sunday night right. It only makes it more wrong. The more reasons we can come up with for justifying the jury's finding, the more institutions are implicated in this hideously wrong result.

* If the jury found him not guilty because of the judge's instructions, then the judge is wrong.
* If the jury found him not guilty under the terms of the Stand Your Ground law, then the Stand Your Ground Law is wrong.
* If in the context of the local justice system it is 'overreaching' to consider what happened to Trayvon Martin murder, then something is SERIOUSLY wrong with the local justice system.
* If the prosecution didn't make a case that could certainly have been made, then the prosecution is wrong.

Armchair lawyers, go ahead and have fun figuring out whether they delivered the 'right' verdict under the immediate circumstances. I don't hold it against you. But however you slice it, this verdict is a symptom of something wrong that goes far beyond the boundaries of that courtroom.

The Plaid Adder

[Little Star]

1. Exactly. k&r

[Punkingal]

2. Well said!

[naaman fletcher]

3. Or it's a symptom of something right

I am happy to know that the state has to prove your crime beyond a reasonable doubt before putting you away. Sometimes it sucks as it does here, OJ, and Casey Anthony, but I will take it any day over the seemingly preferred route of trying and convicting people over the internet.

[COLGATE4]

4. Absolutely right.

[X_Digger]

13. +1 n/t

[tkmorris]

17. Just so.

[warrior1]

5. ALEC and the republican's wrote the laws like CCW permits given to untrained civilians.

Just strictly speaking of this case. George was always heading to kill someone. He was always on the lookout for those fucking punks who always get away.

IMO

[Nye Bevan]

6. The main thing wrong is that people are allowed to carry guns.

There are always going to be arguments and fights. When one of the people in the fight has a gun, however, someone tends to end up dead, leaving only one witness. It is then very hard to prove what happened, and who is at fault, beyond a reasonable doubt.

If Zimmerman had not been allowed to carry a gun, he and Martin would probably have both been treated for cuts and bruises, end of story.

[COLGATE4]

7. Your assertion that the prosecution didn't make a case

that "certainly could have been made" only demonstrates a lack of understanding of the legal process and the whole concept of reasonable doubt which is fundamental to our criminal justice system.

[el_bryanto]

8. I guess there are two potential opinions supporting the verdict

1) - Zimmerman was innocent by reasons of self defense

2) - The system broke down someplace and because of that breakdown, the jury had to do what it did.

I don't know how many at DU believe the former; if it's the latter than of course you are right that the system is broken.

Bryant

[Blue_Tires]

9. I still contend that IF the jury was "right"

1. Prosecutors took a dive on a winnable case

and

2. Self-defense laws have way too much interpretation leeway in court...

[whathehell]

10. The "Stand your Ground" law is an insanely dangerous law written by ALEC,

so we must assume the heavy involvement of business interests.

Enacted in a country full of racial divisiveness and paranoia, anyone with a half working brain could have

predicted it to result, at some point, in a tragic death like that of Trayvon Martin.

[SwissTony]

11. Possible interesting development

The jury for the George Zimmerman delivered its verdict on Saturday evening and on Monday, a literary agent announced that Juror B37 aims to write a book about the proceedings.

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/report-juror-in-zimmerman-case-signs-book-deal

[SwissTony]

12. Nope, looks like she's a douchebag. n/t

[PufPuf23]

14. Intelligent post. Thanks. kr nt

[dsc]

15. that is a valid point

but it matters a great deal why we have the problem. If it is simply a rouge jury then that is one thing, but if it isn't, and I don't think it is, then the problem is deeper.

[Igel]

16. And my rebuttal.

Which has to be earthshakingly important in the grand scheme of things, right?

*The jury had no choice but to acquit Zimmerman given the judge's instructions.
Sure. But which? She said to ignore things--not that the jury had to. But she said what was pretty much required. Nobody knew who threw the first punch, but in any event it didn't matter because of the claims and evidence made in court. No problem there.

* The jury had no choice but to acquit Zimmerman given the content of the Stand Your Ground law.
Well, it certainly did. In fact, it acquitted Zimmerman without the SYG law. The SYG law wasn't an issue one way or the other, and this was a simple self-defense defense. People who say this was a case of SYG or has much of any bearing on SYG are either not paying attention, don't understand what they hear and read, or don't care.

* The jury had no choice but to acquit Zimmerman because the prosecution overreached by asking for 2nd degree murder instead of manslaughter.
The insturctions were clear. If you don't find 2nd murder, you can consider manslaughter. They apparently did. However, if you want to defend against a 2nd degree murder charge and claim self defense, you do the same things as if faced with a manslaughter charge. And if you're challenged with a self-defense claim, you have the exact same burden of proof, whether other parts of the case push for 2nd degree murder or just manslaughter.

If you argue for 2nd degree murder, you're essentially proving manslaughter plus.

* The jury had no choice but to acquit Zimmerman because the prosecution didn't make a good enough case.
And that's where we're left. Yeah, we could assume that because they're racists they acquitted GZ, but we then have to argue that we know they're racist because they acquitted GZ. Round and around we go.

It's possible that the system is broken, but could mean a lot of things. What it boils down to is that the prosecution couldn't prove that a reasonable person wouldn't be in fear of his life and use reasonble force if he were in GZ's position--nor that GZ had a chance to run. GZ's position wasn't at issue in the trial. There was no real discussion of his injuries, for good or for bad. What evidence there was showed that TM was on top and did something, but nobody is going to reasonably argue that he was there before he saw GZ trip and was straddling him so he could tend to his injuries . Was he culpable? Not a necessary question, and both "yes" and "no" are possible answers given what I've seen.

Should the burden of proof be switched? If you can't prove that it was self defense, even if there were no witnesses, then it has to be intentional? That could go horribly wrong--and throws the benefit of the doubt not to the defendent but to the dead person, the non-witness.

Should it be that if you throw the first punch then it's open season and you have no right to defend yourself? Strikes me a squirrelly.

As for civil rights charges, if the context that was available to GZ before that night were read, it would be obvious that they just can't fly.

[johnp3907]

18. "If the law supposes that, the law is a ass — a idiot." --Mr. Bumble

[Donald Ian Rankin]

19. The jury had no choice but to acquit Zimmerman because there is no proof he broke the law.

"Stand your ground" was not cited, I believe - the defence was common or garden self defence.

If you exercise your legal right to follow someone, for good reasons or bad, and they respond by launching a serious physical assault on you, it's legal (and, in my view, reasonable) to shoot them.

We don't know if that's actually what happened - it may be that it was Zimmerman who attacked Martin and not the other way round. Which is more likely is debatable - I think it's marginally more plausible that Martin was the attacker, but we'll probably never know for sure.

But no even remotely unbiased assessment of the evidence could possibly lead one to conclude that it's beyond reasonable doubt that Zimmerman *wasn't* acting in straightforward self defence after being attacked, and as such the jury had no choice whatsoever.

The scandal here is not that Zimmerman was acquitted, but that he was prosecuted, and it looks like he may be again, fairly clearly out of desire to appease the lynch mob rather than because assessment of the evidence could lead one to be confident he was guilty.

[lumpy]

20. Couldn't agree more. A lot of wrongs in Florida justice. Reaction to verdict proves it.

n

[Whisp]

21. K&R!