Uh...double jeopardy in spirit? So where do you draw the line? Is everyone forbidden to bring it up in the future? Is the almost-guaranteed upcoming civil case double jeopardy? What about people who get charged with multiple crimes for the same sequence of events? Double jeopardy is and always has been a legal concept defined by legal rules, and fairly flexible rules at that. Unfortunately, legal concepts can't be decided on feelings, "spirit," and results-oriented logic. What you call "double jeopardy" happens to nearly everyone who is accused of committing a serious crime.
I've already stated my rationale several times. Zimmerman put himself into the situation by following someone who he thought was suspicious and was thus reckless. Whether Martin assaulted Zimmerman is less relevant since the situation could've been avoided by Zimmerman just staying in his car. As others posters have noted two wrongs don't make it a right and the defense has essentially put Martin on trial. Regarding manslaughter Martin could be aggressive and Zimmerman still at fault. Further as have been noted Florida has at least two precedents for manslaughter convictions when the person who shot wasn't the initial aggressor and in both cases claimed self-defense and the stand your ground law. In both cases it was deemed that the shooter acted irresponsibly. There are three legal concepts here that have been blurred in this situation. Murder, self-defense and manslaughter. Most of the debate has been focused on the first two by supporters of Martin in the first case and supporters of Zimmerman in the second case. The argument has thus boiled down to either Zimmerman was a racist who was out to kill a black man or that Zimmerman was an innocent victim who was viciously beaten out of the blue by a thug. I don't see either as fitting the facts of the case. Manslaughter reflects that Zimmerman was irresponsible to put himself into that situation in the first case where he felt that he had to shoot Martin. Manslaughter isn't about intent to kill, or even instigated the aggression but about negligence on the part of the killer. I still stand by my opinion that the prosecution did a terrible job by pushing for the 2nd degree murder charge and only at the very end as an act of desperation asking for manslaughter to be considered. They framed their whole case around Zimmerman having an intent to kill rather than negligence.
I am curious but can you provide a case where someone has been prosecuted for the same murder both by a state and by the Federal government?
Are you on Trayvon's lean mixture? AT WHAT POINT DO YOU DECIDE YOU NEED TO UP YOUR RESISTANCE AGAINST THE FORCE BEING USED? I can't wrap my mind around this logic, and I like to think of myself as a rather intelligent person (without regards to my education); It's common sense. "I'm getting my ass beat. I'm fearing for my life. I don't know when the next hit is going to kill me or knock me unconscious. It's time for deadly force." I feel sorry for you liberals. It's truly a disease.
You CAN NOT assault someone for following you. By your logic, if both of them would have just stay inside and not go anywhere, they would have never crossed paths. Your logic is invalid. If you don't want to be put into a situation where you may have to use deadly force, go buy your own island. Or just never leave your house.
To follow up on my own post from what I am hearing on the news is that the DOJ could step in regarding the specific murder charge if they felt that there was some sort of misconduct and/or the rules of trial were not conducted correctly.
You are looking at this again as an either or situation. That either Zimmerman is right or that Martin is right. Both can be wrong. In one of the precedents from Florida witness testified that one person initially assaulted the other person resulting in the person being assaulted shooting the assailant. That shooter was still convicted of manslaughter. That is a ridiculous absolute that ignores things like judgment. Martin can be totally in the wrong but it doesn't mean that Zimmerman didn't show very poor judgment when he was even advised not to follow Martin.
Funny how no one has said TM could have just said, "Can I help you sir?" while George was behind him. Violence first, ask questions later.
http://tampa.cbslocal.com/2012/05/23/zimmerman-sanford-police-covered-up-beating-of-black-homeless-man-by-white-officer/ "George Zimmerman accused the Sanford police department of corruption more than a year before he shot Trayvon Martin, saying at a public forum the agency covered up the beating of a black homeless man by the son of a white officer."
The only problem was Zimmerman was not committing any felonies and it does not look like a crime of passion. Both of those are necessary for manslaughter. This was not a case of stand your ground either. The problem is we don't know exactly what was happening on the ground between Trayvon and Zimmerman. If you believe Zimmerman (and police had nothing that showed him to lie about anything) then this was a life and death struggle over a gun where he shot at Trayvon during the struggle. I mean the guy was happy when the police said they caught everything on tape. Anyhow, I can kind of see your point about him being irresponsible. I'm for damn sure not going to be carrying a deadly weapon if I'm not 100% certain that it is going to be under my full control 100% of the time. If I don't know how to keep a fight standing or at least escape full mount then I'm not carrying a gun. Second degree murder should have never been charged. Manslaughter seems to be questionable at best. It doesn't look like it was voluntary manslaughter since Zimmerman wasn't committing a felony. I don't think think this was a "heat of passion" event either. I also don't think there was any evidence that showed Zimmerman was trying to kill Trayvon. It was a single shot. I don't think involuntary manslaughter fits the case either.
To be fair, his recount of the incident is that he was basically suckerpunched by Trayvon and had his nose broken, hit again and fell to the ground. It's not easy to "know how to keep a fight standing" if you get suckerpunched.
You keep harping on this like it somehow is a mitigating factor. Let's alter the scenario a little bit. If Trayvon had won the fight and killed Martin, would you be arguing for his innocence because Zimmerman "put himself into the situation" by following Trayvon? Of course not. There'd be no legal standing. Intent matters and clearly it was not the intent of Zimmerman, a man who was talking to the police and giving them his location, to have a fight with, let alone shoot, Martin. The "reckless" angle of him following Trayvon is only worth pointing out because normally it would be Zimmerman who ended up hurt in the situation. The reason police don't want you following or the watch teams aren't supposed to confront is because the fear is THEY will get hurt, not that they'll hurt someone else.
One of the Martin family's attorneys at a news conference after the verdict said TM was a civil rights icon in the tradition of Medgar Evers. As someone who was part of the Civil Rights Movement in the 60's who actually marched when this was a dangerous thing to do, I am greatly offended by that comment. TM is not a civil rights icon, far from it. To call him one is delusional. He is an unfortunate victim of an unfortunate and clearly avoidable set of circumstances, but he is not a civil rights hero and to claim so is a distortion of the highest magnitude.
You are completely wrong and you know it. You are letting your emotions dictate your rationale. This is essentially what you are saying; Following someone is a more serious crime than physically assaulting someone. In short, you believe its excusable to assault someone who is following you. Since its impossible to know why someone is following you, it seems justifiable to punch someone who may come running out of the store to hand you your keys that you left behind. While you may find that absurd, this is exactly what you're saying.
I agree if he said that, it's not right to place him in that category. It's to rile up emotion in others, nothing more and nothing less.
I think we all need to realize that Martin "winning" the fight does not mean Zimmerman is dead. Zimmerman's life was not in danger. I'm pretty sure it's because they don't want either party getting hurt. Trained officers hurt innocent people all the time, so you can imagine how easy it would be for an untrained person to harm the wrong individual as well. Zimmerman following Martin created a dangerous situation. From there, it gets fuzzy because we don't know who started the fight. In either case, Martin made a mistake by not backing off once he had the upperhand. Zimmerman then made an even bigger mistake by introducing lethal force into a situation where his life was not in danger. A series of unfortunate events and poor choices.
He said it. It wasn't the heavy set guy, but the other one. He was articulate and some of what he said was good, but he lost me with the civil rights remarks. People need to get a grip and stop the unrestrained and irresponsible spinning and distortion of this whole situation.
You are making an assumption because you are predisposed to think so. 1) Evidence backs up the idea that Zimmerman had his head slammed on the ground 2) Witness testimony backs up that Trayvon was on top, controlling the fight 3) George Zimmerman claims that Trayvon became aware he had a weapon and went for it Now, offer me some evidence or testimony that Zimmerman's life was "not in danger." You have none. Just your theory which is based on nothing but a preference for the idea that Zimmerman is to blame. Edit: Are there any legal experts (and I mean noted experts, not message board lawyers) who support the state in this situation? Every noted legal expert I've heard or read that has no reason to be biased has said the verdict was correct and in many cases has said the charges never should have been brought.
Yep. I saw the pictures. Minor abrasions. Having your head slammed to the ground is extremely unlikely to kill you. Yep. I have no doubt Martin was in control of the fight. I also have no doubt that it is extremely unlikely a 17 year old could kill him with his bare hands. Beyond that, I have little reason to believe Martin wanted to kill him. So, you claim I am assuming things, yet you're the one offering up a one-sided piece of testimony from the most biased party imaginable? Dead men tell no tales. Since Martin is not here to offer his side, I can't give much credence to Zimmerman's. Even based on Zimmerman's account of what happened, I have little reason to believe Martin is the one who introduced lethal force into the situation. With Martin unarmed, it's not on me to convince you that Zimmerman's life wasn't in danger. You have one-sided testimony, and are assuming far more than I am in this instance. Once again, the answer to fist, in the vast majority of cases, should not be gun. If Zimmerman were much smaller or elderly, or if his wounds were much greater, or if Martin was much larger, then maybe.
