Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: The people are with him (continued)
Next Post: Show me the names
Posted in:
* From a Bill Daley press release…
“The Zimmerman case underscores my concerns about the new Illinois concealed carry law. Local communities have to have a say in how we keep more people from walking around with guns, creating situations that can easily lead to tragedies like this.”
* From Gov. Pat Quinn’s Sunday appearance on CNN’s “State of the Union”
CROWLEY: Thank you. Governor Quinn let me — I’m going to give you a chance to respond to Governor Perry on trying to get jobs out of Illinois and into Texas. But first, I do want to talk to you about the Zimmerman verdict. You have seen that in your state there are demonstrations in Chicago and perhaps elsewhere. This is also a city that’s no stranger to gun violence. Is there a national implication to this verdict?
QUINN: Well, I think there is. It’s a tragic episode. I agree with Trayvon Martin’s father that his heart is broken. My heart is broken. And our faith is not broken, as Mr. Martin said. It’s important that we really look at this stand your ground law. I don’t think that’s a good law. We don’t have it in Illinois, and we don’t want it. And I think also the idea of individuals with guns that are concealed that are told by the police not to do something, violating that police order, there’s something really wrong when that happens. And I think lots and lots of people across our country feel that way.
CROWLEY: And a lot has been said, though, about the justice system and that it seems to many people sort of innately racially divided from whether someone is charged all the way through the verdict. Do you think that the American justice system is innately racist?
QUINN: Well, I sure hope not. The American way is colorblind. And you know, Dr. King 50 years ago on August 28th of 1963 talked about that goal of all of us to have a colorblind society and if our justice system needs improvement we must together, all of us, Americans, work together to straighten that out.
[Durbin react deleted because I didn’t realize the story was a year old.]
I didn’t see any major local GOP react. I’ll post if/when that happens.
* Stateline…
The case centered around whether Zimmerman acted in self defense and drew national attention to Florida’s law, which allows people to defend themselves with force if they feel threatened in their home, business, car, or a place where they “have a legal right to be.” At least 21 states have a similar law, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.
While Zimmerman did not ultimately use the “stand your ground” defense in his case, Sanford police did not arrest him until almost two months after the shooting because of the Florida stand your ground rules that require police to have specific evidence to refute a self defense claim in order to arrest someone claiming self defense.
* From a 2012 study of state “Stand Your Ground” laws cited in that Stateline story…
Despite the implications that these laws may have for public safety, there has been little empirical investigation of their impact on crime and victimization. In this paper, we use monthly data from the U.S. Vital Statistics to examine how Stand Your Ground laws affect homicides and firearm injuries. We identify the impact of these laws by exploiting variation in the effective date of these laws across states over time.
Our results indicate that Stand Your Ground laws are associated with a significant increase in the number of homicides among whites, especially white males. According to our estimates, between 28 and 33 additional white males are killed each month as a result of these laws. We find no consistent evidence to suggest that these laws increase homicides among blacks.
* Eric Zorn…
It’s pretty clear jurors didn’t buy the idea suggested by prosecutors that Zimmerman actively pursued Martin, confronted him, provoked the fight that he was winning at the time the fatal shot was fired and then made up a bunch of lies to justify what he did.
Please take a deep breath before commenting. No drive-by sloganeering. Hold your tempers in check. Thanks.
posted by Rich Miller
Monday, Jul 15, 13 @ 10:40 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: The people are with him (continued)
Next Post: Show me the names
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
This case IS all about the Stand Your Ground Law. People need to get educated about it, and how it came about. ALEC had a lot to do with it and pushed it around the country.
Comment by b Monday, Jul 15, 13 @ 10:43 am
A non-gun related note: It’s pretty incredible the detailed (and often esoteric) information that Quinn can recall on command. Say what you want about his leadership/politics/performance/etc, the guy has a steel trap for a brain. Whether it’s an organized trap is another question.
Comment by Empty Chair Monday, Jul 15, 13 @ 10:44 am
“Stand your ground” had nothing to do with the case. The case was a self defense case, and I’ve heard the defense didn’t use “stand your ground” so they can use it in the possible upcoming civil defense.
Durbins comments are not helpful at all.
Comment by Jaded Monday, Jul 15, 13 @ 10:47 am
I am a little baffled by Bill Daley’s one line response. Sounds like he is being awfully careful and I am not sure quite why. I suppose he doesn’t want to say the wrong thing.
Comment by MrGrassroots Monday, Jul 15, 13 @ 10:47 am
Though it wasn’t really part of the trial, I agree it’s credible that SYG might have had at least some impact on Zimmerman’s decision to follow Martin with a loaded gun.
I will not judge a jury verdict from 10,000 feet, but based on reports about SYG from FL, yes, I’m no fan of bringing that particular “reform” to Illinois. It seems to lead to every outcome under the sun, sometimes the way it was intentioned and other times helping drug dealers avoid prosecution for murders. Tampa Bay Times also has an interesting analysis worth reading: http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/crime/florida-stand-your-ground-law-yields-some-shocking-outcomes-depending-on/1233133
Comment by ZC Monday, Jul 15, 13 @ 10:48 am
A truly innocent 8yo girl was violently murdered in her home in Chicago on Friday. Daley, Quinn, Durbin, msnbc,CNN, Fox all have ignored. It’s funny how we pick and choose what crimes get AirPlay and others get ignored.
Comment by Fed up Monday, Jul 15, 13 @ 10:50 am
amen Fed up
Comment by c Monday, Jul 15, 13 @ 10:52 am
it hard with such limited eye witness infromation to know exactly what happened. This was not an easy case, which means with a beyound a reasonable doubt standard it was unlikelt the prosecution would have prevailed.
I have to say the broken nose and back of the head wound support the description that Martin was the aggressor, and leave a good basis to find that the prosecution failed to meet the beyound reasonable doubt standard.
Quinn and Durbin appear to be creatively editing the facts to highlite only what they wanted, and not what happened.
I am not sure what I would do if somone punched me in the nose, and then straddeled me and knocked my head into the ground.
Is the failure here gun control laws? or is it perhaps a society which has done little to deal with actual problems of violence by scape goating the problem as tied to guns and video games.
it is such a complicated issue on a social scale, we need to stop trying to dumb it down to quick fix concepts like elminate guns and violent vidoe games and instead look towards the mental health issues, dehumnaization process of the electronic age, and providing better acces to mental health care and awareness to these issues.
Comment by Ghost Monday, Jul 15, 13 @ 10:53 am
A 911 dispatcher cannot give a police order.
Comment by Denny Savard Monday, Jul 15, 13 @ 10:53 am
Zimmerman’s defense attorneys DID NOT utilize the “stand your ground” defense allowed under Florida law. The defense opted for a straight forward “self defense” strategy.
The prosecution wholly failed to persuade the jurors that Zimmerman was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Alan Dershowitz has stated that the Florida prosecutor should be sanctioned for bringing this case. It is alleged that the prosecutor withheld possible exculpatory evidence that favored Zimmerman.
I followed this trial fairly closely and took some hits from regular posters last week when I opined that the prosecution did not meet its burden of proof.
The trial court judge correctly barred the admission of evidence about Travon Martin’s previously troubled personal history (the potential prejudice outweighed any probative value of the information). Sadly, he had a history of petty criminality and drug use. The items that he bought at the convenience story (Skittles candy and a soft drink) can be combined with codeine based cough syrup to produce a cheap high. The jury did not have this information — nor should they have had it — but Zimmerman may have been correct when he spotted Martin acting as if he were on drugs. The toxicology reports confirmed Martin’s marijuana usage, but THC does remain in the system for long periods so it is unclear when he last used marijuana.
I was somewhat surprised at how quickly the verdict was returned.
Comment by Esquire Monday, Jul 15, 13 @ 10:56 am
First off, this has nothing to do with Stand Your Ground laws. If it did, the defense would have had a SYG hearing before the case. As the evidence in the case showed, Martin jumped Zimmerman and attacked him. Zimmerman thought his life was in danger, or at the very least he was in danger of suffering serious bodily harm (which is not surprising when you have just suffered a broken nose and a football player three or four inches taller than you is on top and pummeling your face mixed martial arts style).
This was purely self-defense. Everything else people think about this trial comes from the twisted and inaccurate coverage given to it by the media and race hustlers who care nothing for the truth.
Illinois needs a Stand Your Ground law. Currently we have the right of self defense in our house, but if confronted outside we are supposed to run if we can. Stand Your Ground removes that requirement.
Stateline is also wrong in its analysis as to why police didn’t arrest Zimmerman. Police knew he was beat up. They saw him bloodied. They knew the eyewitness testimony of the only neighbor who saw the fight. There was no reason for him to be arrested.
Comment by Downstate Illinois Monday, Jul 15, 13 @ 11:00 am
I don’t see how the jury could have done anything else. I also don’t believe Zimmerman’s version of events, it’s just his is the only version we have.
Comment by Chavez-respecting Obamist Monday, Jul 15, 13 @ 11:03 am
Zimmerman’s attorney said it the best, had this been a black on black crime, you would have never heard anything about it nor would there have been prosecution.
Comment by He Makes Ryan Look Like a Saint Monday, Jul 15, 13 @ 11:04 am
There are no words to express the sorry for the loss of one’s child. However, Governor Scott, President Obama, Reverend Jackson, the media and others essentially victimized the Martin family twice by politicizing this case and inserting a racial element.
As you recall, the police and prosecutors who originally investigated found no reason to press charges. Only when it became politicized, did Governor Scott assign a special prosecutor to the case and the media focused on it.
During the case, the prosecution NEVER stipulated that Martin was profiled because he was black. Zimmerman followed him (not a smart move) because of recent break ins and a person in a hoodie was walking close to houses in a gated community.
In a report issued by the FBI on Thursday (and reported in the Christian Science Monitor), the FBI “found no evidence that the shooting was driven by racial bias or animus.” So the separate FBI investigation found the same result as the original police investigation.
I grieve for the Martin and Zimmerman families because they were both forced to endure additional victimization by the press and politicians eager to score quick political points or press headlines.
Comment by 1776 Monday, Jul 15, 13 @ 11:07 am
@Downstate - “purely self defense”? come on. You have an aggressor, armed with a gun, pursuing a kid who he thought was up to no good. Martin knew he was being pursued by Zimmerman. How about the possibility that Martin was scarred out of his wits and, assuming he attacked Zimmerman, did so out of fear for his life?
As for SYG in Illinois, no. Never. That would be a very black day.
Comment by Peoria Pete Monday, Jul 15, 13 @ 11:08 am
Chavez: yep cause a 17 year old young man is dead because of CCW and SYG enacted in the state of Florida. If Zimmerman did not have a gun, there would have been a scuffle, but probably not one involving a fatality…guns don’t kill people, people kill people…this type of senseless loss and pain may wll only be experienced by more families as CCW and SYG legislation becomes the law of the land…
Comment by Loop Lady Monday, Jul 15, 13 @ 11:13 am
If it did, the defense would have had a SYG hearing before the case
There is an analysis that shows that doing so might have given away the defense strategy, so they did not do so on purpose.
Comment by Pat C Monday, Jul 15, 13 @ 11:14 am
My belief is that Zimmermann did target Trayvon, and followed him for the sole reason that he was black. There was also some evidence that Zimmerman has a history of overreacting to situations. There was no evidence that Trayvon was a danger or was armed.
However, if I was on the jury I would have voted to acquit. The evidence was inconsistent as to what occurred that lead to the shooting The witnesses contridicted each other regarding who was on top & who was screaming. There was reasonable doubt about what happened. Under the law that should result in an acquittal, and it did.
The civil rights case now being looked at will be difficult to prove. I predict it will go nowhere.
The real issue here is why a black kid, just going to the store for snacks, unarmed, was confronted by an armed white man. We may never know exactly what happened, since we will only ever hear one side of the story. It is apparent that Mr. Zimmerman was a cop wantabe and had been told by the police to let them handle it. His unwillingness to allow the police to handle the situation was definately a contributing factor. But the bigger issue is why Trayvon was targeted in the first place. Was it just because he was a black kid in a white neighborhood ? We as a society need to take a look at what happened here and examine our values. I don’t see this as a CC issue. I see this as a kid being assumed to be a criminal, and up to no good, solely because of his race. This assumption lead to a confrontation that resulted in the kid being shot dead. We have to learn from what happened and take measures to ensure it doesn’t happen again.
Comment by AFSCME Steward Monday, Jul 15, 13 @ 11:18 am
Given the law in Florida, and the legal jury instructions, I cannot second guess the jury’s finding.
I have no doubt, however, that had Zimmerman been black, and Martin been white, this case would have been handled differently from day 1, and could easily have resulted in a conviction, (right or wrong). It would start with a general reaction of: “How dare that young black man walk around with a gun, following people, and pretending to be a cop?”
If you think I’m wrong, you don’t know Florida, or gated communities.
Racism goes deep and wide in this country, and is usually denied by people, or honestly not seen by them. We are making progress, but it will take many more years to be rid of most of it.
Comment by walkinfool Monday, Jul 15, 13 @ 11:20 am
@Loop lady, et al
I have no idea what happened that night. Whatever it was it was a tragedy.
But invoking Stand Your Ground as part of this is silly, as all that law means is you have no duty to retreat. Make your argument on something else. Stand your ground wasnt even part of his defense or invoked by him/his team.
Comment by RonOglesby Monday, Jul 15, 13 @ 11:20 am
FBI already said GZ did not act with racial bias.
So why is Dick Durbin fanning racial flames?
Comment by Crypto Monday, Jul 15, 13 @ 11:21 am
=== How about the possibility that Martin was scarred out of his wits and, assuming he attacked Zimmerman, did so out of fear for his life? ===
I am open to the possibility, BUT there would need to have been something more from Zimmerman to cause such great fear in Martin.
If just being followed by somone created such resonable fear that it is ok to premptively hide in bushes and ambush the follower, we would set the stage for a lot more violence. I would hope we would look at this case and seek ways to emphasize the need for less violence and agression, not more.
Under this theory, you are supporting a stand your Ground idea for Mr. Martin, he was fearful that somone had followed him, so this triggered his right to ambush and attack somone who had not threatened him, brandished a weapon or taken a violent action.
On the other side it would sure give media people with cameras pause…..
Comment by Ghost Monday, Jul 15, 13 @ 11:22 am
Of course they did it on purpose. Some have said they didn’t use it because they didn’t think they’d get the SYG immunity defense from this judge. That’s what defense attorney’s do. They figure out the best defense for their client.
As far as the SYG law causing this, if Martin had run and not “stood his ground” he would either still be alive, or he would have been shot in the back and Zimmerman would be in prison. My recommendation is run first and attack only when cornered, because you don’t know what kind of weapon the other person may be carrying.
Comment by Jaded Monday, Jul 15, 13 @ 11:31 am
No one knows exactly what happened out there that night. But nothing would have happened if Zimmerman didn’t take it upon himself to stalk this kid carrying a loaded gun. He may not be legally guilty of murder, but to handed back his GUN and get off scott free? That’s really wrong.
Comment by kimocat Monday, Jul 15, 13 @ 11:33 am
My only comments are (1)it never ceases to amaze me how much so many people know about what was going on in the heads of the parties to a case and the jurors, and even of other people commenting on a case and (2) may God’s love shine on Martin and Zimmerman, and their familes and friends.
Comment by Anon. Monday, Jul 15, 13 @ 11:35 am
I wasn’t there and don’t know what happened. Have to assume the jurors reached the right decision, given the laws in place.
What I have found most interesting is the reporting. Every bit of it seems to be heavily biased in one direction or the other. Even the supposedly straight reporting news stories drop into using slanted adjectives by the second paragraph and you are left with no doubt as to the writer’s position.
Too bad Sgt. Friday isn’t writing the reports …
Comment by RNUG Monday, Jul 15, 13 @ 11:41 am
amen to Fed Up. there are plenty of kids, tiny kids, getting murdered and that seems to be less of a tragedy to the civilrightsarattis.
broken nose, head badly wounded from bashing on concrete equals self defense. yes, Zimmerman had a gun. he defended himself and he used that to do it after he could not defend himself otherwise.
props to defense attorney O’Mara for starting his after remarks by reading the letter he sent to the Sheriff days before the verdict. it was one of most intelligent and classy interactions I’ve seen between folks in the public arena. that letter should be copied and posted in the offices of folks who want to know how to truly thank people for doing a good job that goes without notice.
Comment by Amalia Monday, Jul 15, 13 @ 11:44 am
The justice system worked. If you don’t like it work to fix it.
Comment by Come on man! Monday, Jul 15, 13 @ 11:47 am
This is tough case with very important implications regarding the rules of engagement when it comes to the public use of concealed firearms. What if everything happend exactly the same as they did, but Zimmerman was never able to get his gun out of his holster. Consequently, Martin, fearing Zimmerman was intent on causing him bodily harm or kidnapping him, beat him to death. What’s the result of the trial then? Does everyone who believes Zimmerman was not guilty also believe Martin would be not guilty in that scenario? We would only have Martin’s side of the story.
Comment by Johnny Monday, Jul 15, 13 @ 11:49 am
==AFSCME Steward - Monday, Jul 15, 13 @ 11:18 am:==
I agree with every point made in this comment.
Comment by Wensicia Monday, Jul 15, 13 @ 11:49 am
- If Zimmerman did not have a gun, there would have been a scuffle, but probably not one involving a fatality -
If he didn’t have a gun the coward wouldn’t have gotten out of his car.
Comment by Small Town Liberal Monday, Jul 15, 13 @ 11:51 am
Ron: Zimmerman did not retreat…he shot Trayvon in self defense instead…because he so threatened by an unarmed 17 year old…yeah right…Zimmerman is one lucky loser of a human being. I hear he wants to go to law school..he’ll make a great lawyer, the truth is already so irrelevant to him…
Comment by Loop Lady Monday, Jul 15, 13 @ 11:54 am
I agree with Fed Up 10:50
All this political grandstanding by politicians like Durbin, Quinn etc, and no questions from reporters about innocent kids killed every week in Chicago. Certainly the eight year old killed Friday was truly innocent compared to Mr. Martin. Where is at least token moral outrage?
Comment by downstate hack Monday, Jul 15, 13 @ 12:00 pm
Wow, I am amzed that for all the “informed” people webave here, so few actually know the Illinois law on deadly force.
First off, so called stand your ground laws or shoot first laws are terms coined by the anti-gunners. They were in response to legislative changes that required a person BEING attacked to FIRST attempt to retreat before resorting to the use of deadly force to fend off an attacker. Some of these laws required that you do so even in your own home.
So these laws seemed to give attackers the upper hand in that you would have to prove you attempted to flee or retreat from BEING atatcked or were incapable of doing so. It had the result pf putting the thumb on the scale in favor of a person doing the attack, as you would have to attempt to leave, flee or retreat from the unlawful attack before you could employ deadly force.
And retreating may not alwys be practical based upon phsyical limitations, or location or the circumstances. What is an adult with two small children suppose to do when confronted by an attacker?
And so many say that a jury would never convict someone like that, but many people have been brought to trial over the issue especially in some hostile jurisdictions and with overzelous prosecutors.
Illinois law: you’ve never seen the idea pushed here in Illinois, because we NEVER have been are rtreat state. You have the rightto employ deadly force anywhere you happen to be, in your home, on your land or in public if certain conditions are met:
(720 ILCS 5/7-1) (from Ch. 38, par. 7-1)
Sec. 7-1. Use of force in defense of person.
(a) A person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or another against such other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, he is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or another, or the commission of a forcible felony.
(b) In no case shall any act involving the use of force justified under this Section give rise to any claim or liability brought by or on behalf of any person acting within the definition of “aggressor” set forth in Section 7-4 of this Article, or the estate, spouse, or other family member of such a person, against the person or estate of the person using such justified force, unless the use of force involves willful or wanton misconduct.
(Source: P.A. 93-832, eff. 7-28-04.)
the 2004 change was the civil immunity that arose out fo the Willmette case of Hale Demar where he was being threatened with prosecution for using a handgun in self defense in his own home in violation of the towns handgun ban.
It seemed unfair that you could use a firearm in lawful self defense and still face a civil suit by the attacker. But the basic part of the statute, para a, has remained unchanged for as long as I can remember. And I don’t think the legislature is going to change that anytime soon.
So for those who claimed it would be a some sort of dark day if it were to pass, you’ve been living under it all your life.
It also points to Quinn’s ignorance of what the law is. The 2004 modification was passed when he was Lt Gov and when the legislature overrode Blagos veto of the Willmette bill for an affirmative defense to their handgun ban.
Comment by Todd Monday, Jul 15, 13 @ 12:00 pm
For those of you that say Stand Your Ground had nothing to do with this case you are smoking something. They may not have used it explicitly as the defense but SYG definitely was a side theme of this case. Stop being dishonest.
Comment by Demoralized Monday, Jul 15, 13 @ 12:01 pm
== was truly innocent compared to Mr. Martin==
Yes, because Trayvon Martin deserved to die. You may not have meant that but that’s what the implication is of your statement. Come on people. STOP BLAMING MARTIN. Nobody deserves to be shot and killed like he was. I have no idea what happened and I would probably have come to the same verdict given the evidence but I saw absolutely nothing over the course of the reporting and the evidence that justified killing Martin. None.
Comment by Demoralized Monday, Jul 15, 13 @ 12:03 pm
Martin had a cell phone. If he was scared, he could have called 911 and asked for help.
Comment by Jack Monday, Jul 15, 13 @ 12:05 pm
I feel so sorry and angry that in this day and age, a 17 yo black kid cannot go to the store to buy candy without being seen as a criminal. Perhaps if Mr. Zimmerman made more of an effort to become acquainted with the neighbors in his gated community, he would deepen his humanity.
Comment by Emily Booth Monday, Jul 15, 13 @ 12:10 pm
@Todd:
Is anybody allowed to have a viewpoint on the law that is different from yours and not be labeled an “anti-gunner.” I’m so sick of people throwing people into these categories just because they might disagree with certain aspects of things like this. That would be like me calling you a “gun nut” because of your beliefs. That isn’t any more true than you calling anybody that disagrees with you “anti-gunners.”
Comment by Demoralized Monday, Jul 15, 13 @ 12:10 pm
Kudos to Eric Zorn, Andrew Branca, and Jeralyn Merritt who were almost the only members of the commentariat who apparently watched the whole of the trial, looked at all aspects of the case and evidence critically and objectively, and wrote about it with passion but through the clear eyes of the law rather than from a purely political or “ratings” angle.
There are enough conflicting (including many false) narratives and assumptions out there to sink a battleship. This case is not “symbolic” or “representative” of anything. There is no reason for it to have been made the trial of the century. Neither Trayvon or Zimmerman should be made the poster boy for anything. That night there was a tragic intersection of two somewhat flawed human beings both of whom, while fueled with adrenaline, made obvious mistakes and miscalculations that left one of them dead and one injured. He survived– but his life is effectively ruined, anyway.
Comment by Responsa Monday, Jul 15, 13 @ 12:12 pm
By the way, I don’t like laws like you described (whatever you want to call it). I think there is far too much ambiguity in them. But I also support gun rights.
Comment by Demoralized Monday, Jul 15, 13 @ 12:13 pm
Jack:
If Zimmermann was black & Treyvon was white, would this still be your opinion ?
“Martin had a cell phone. If he was scared, he could have called 911 and asked for help.”
Comment by AFSCME Steward Monday, Jul 15, 13 @ 12:18 pm
I suspect few commentators who are critical of Zimmerman have been a neighborhood watch in a high crime area.
Comment by Jack Monday, Jul 15, 13 @ 12:27 pm
@demoralized–
You can have any veiw you want. I simply gave a review of how these laws and terms came to be. The pergoritive terms were coind by anti-gun organizations in their campaigns to defeat them. Just like the term assualt weapon, saturday night special, pocket rockets and others.
I made no judgement about your position or anything you said. Call it what you want. On a technical side they are not “stand your ground” laws they are no duty to retreat laws. Law that say you dont have to give the advantage to your attacker or face criminal penalties.
A lot of people seemed a bit confused on what the laws were, where they came from and the current state of Illinois law.
All I did was attempt to clear up some missconceptions. None of it was aimed at you persanally
Comment by Todd Monday, Jul 15, 13 @ 12:32 pm
Trayvon’s luck finally ran out. Good luck with that wrongful death lawsuit. It appears Tryvon might not be ready yet for Mount Rushmoore.
http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2013/07/trayvon-martin-burglary-tools-and-pcp.html
Comment by Steve Monday, Jul 15, 13 @ 12:53 pm
I’m concerned with the constant use of the term profiling. is a victim not entitled to describe an attacker? are we not able to look for an attacker based on the description of those attacked? how do detectives do it then? I do understand that witness identification is under attack now. there are some instances where there is misidentification. but describing an attacker is a basic form of information if available. would detectives ignore persons fitting the description? Is it profiling if they put out a description of an attacker?
Comment by Amalia Monday, Jul 15, 13 @ 1:00 pm
The only people who truly know what happened are Trayvon and George. That said I wonder what we would be all saying if this scenario played out under stand your ground:
Trayvon is alive and being tried for killing George. Trayvon says he was walking home in the rain after having run to the store to pick up skittles and a pop. Someone he doesn’t know begins to follow him and he gets scared. He can’t see who it is because it is dark and rainy. He tries different strategies to try and shake the person who is following. Suddenly he spots the man coming from his car and he begins to approach him. He is scared he will be robbed or attacked, but thanks to Florida concealed carry Trayvon says he has a gun. The man approaches him and a conversation ensues which results in the punches being thrown. Trayvon is scared for his life since he notices the man is also carrying a gun so Trayvon shoots.
Since Trayvon is standing his ground one would think he would be acquitted just like George was, but unfortunately the data would not support this since black persons are convicted at a higher rate than white persons who commit the same offense. http://www.sentencingproject.org/doc/publications/rd_sentencing_review.pdf
Comment by illinifan Monday, Jul 15, 13 @ 1:00 pm
Nobody in this discussion group was there to witness what happened and all of you are doing nothing more than making assumptions based upon your world views. Given the evidence presented in the trial, I believe the jury was correct to acquit.
Comment by the unknown poster Monday, Jul 15, 13 @ 1:08 pm
Demoralized:
The jury believed that George Zimmerman acted in self defense. Sounds like you don’t believe in self defense . It’s an old British Common Law concept. Who weeps for all the recent murder victims in Chicago who might have been saved if they had a handgun to defend themselves?
Comment by Steve Monday, Jul 15, 13 @ 1:12 pm
@ AFSCME Steward and Wensica
*** There was also some evidence that Zimmerman has a history of overreacting to situations. There was no evidence that Trayvon was a danger or was armed. ***
How can you use GZ’s “history” to condemn his actions, but ignore TM’s history and paint him as a victim?
How does one ascertain race when TM was wearing the “hoodie”. Note that in the 911 transcript, GZ did not know TM was black until he turned to confront GZ for following him. Only then did he confirm TM’s race.
Is there anything wrong with following someone in your neighborhood that is acting suspicious? You make it sound like GZ pulled the pistol and ran him down because he was black. Not sure when GZ pulled the pistol, but I would think it reasonable that if GZ had a pistol out TM would likely have not jumped him and started beating his head into the sidewalk. GZ’s mistake was getting close enough to TM to allow a confrontation to occur. He should have shadowed him and waited for the fuzz.
Comment by Slick Willy Monday, Jul 15, 13 @ 1:15 pm
Steve @12:53, that is one questionable web site.
Comment by Ggal Monday, Jul 15, 13 @ 1:20 pm
I look at this in the perspective that I learned in a Use Of Force Instructors Class years ago. What is Legal isnt always Prudent. In my opinion you can see things by both partys that while legal may not have been the most prudent thing to do. Was it Legal for Zimmerman to follow Martin and see what he was up to? Yes. Was it Prudent? Probably not. Was it Legal for Martin to confront Zimmerman about being followed? Yes. Was it the most prudent thing to do? Obviously not. Was it Legal for Zimmerman to use his firearm to defend himself while on the ground? According to the jury, yes. Was it the most prudent thing for him to do at that moment? We dont know.
The other tragedy is the groups pushing their own agenda and distorting the facts at the expense of both families.
Comment by SO IL M Monday, Jul 15, 13 @ 1:39 pm
It looked to me that almost all the evidence broke Zimmermn’s way.
As to why he was following a black teenager meandering through the neighborhood in the rain…he was doing neighborhood watch and there had been a series of burglaries by black teenagers.
It was certainly a terrible result. But vilifying either of them shows more about the commentors preconceived notions than their special knowledge of the facts
Comment by titan Monday, Jul 15, 13 @ 1:45 pm
Steve: how do you defend yourself from an errant gang banger’s bullet when you are 8 years old and playing on your front porch in a gang infested area of a large city? Should we arm said 8 year old? That would make it safer for that child?C’mon man, you obviously don’t live in an urban area with gangs and illegal guns…really poor argument…
Comment by Loop Lady Monday, Jul 15, 13 @ 1:48 pm
==As you recall, the police and prosecutors who originally investigated found no reason to press charges. Only when it became politicized, did Governor Scott assign a special prosecutor to the case and the media focused on it.==
Lies, the investigating detective recommended manslaughter.
http://www.wtsp.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=323169
Comment by Precinct Captain Monday, Jul 15, 13 @ 1:52 pm
“(a) A person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or another against such other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, he is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or another, or the commission of a forcible felony.”
That means lock your door, George…stay in the pick-up…perhaps even drive hom….fortunately the IL carry law will screen nearly all of the Zimmerman like whack jobs during the application process.
BankerBilly should have taken a pass on issuing a statement
Comment by CircularFiringSquad Monday, Jul 15, 13 @ 1:54 pm
Curious what was so inflamatory about my post to cause it to get yanked?
Can I at least say that Durbin shows once again that he is out of touch with reality?
Comment by Slick Willy Monday, Jul 15, 13 @ 1:54 pm
Whoops! My apologies Rich. It is there. Either my computer is acting up or I need to start drinking decaf…
Comment by Slick Willy Monday, Jul 15, 13 @ 1:56 pm
“Reasonable Doubt” should be a very powerful thing. Not “could he have done it”, or”did he have a motive to do it”, or “did he benefit from the outcome” or “he certainly could have done it” or even, “yeah he probably did it” A powerful thing.
Comment by steve schnorf Monday, Jul 15, 13 @ 1:57 pm
==First off, so called stand your ground laws or shoot first laws are terms coined by the anti-gunners.==
Yes, that’s why anti-gunner Jeb Bush used the term. He’s only the man who signed the measure in Florida right into law.
http://www.inquisitr.com/209978/florida-gov-jeb-bush-says-stand-your-ground-law-doesnt-apply-to-trayvon-martin-shooting/
Comment by Precinct Captain Monday, Jul 15, 13 @ 1:58 pm
@Precinct: Stupid facts…
– MrJM
Comment by MrJM Monday, Jul 15, 13 @ 2:02 pm
So IL M - yep.
Comment by Ghost Monday, Jul 15, 13 @ 2:05 pm
Titan
You’re ignoring one fact, he had already called the police, and the police told him to stay in his van. The police arrived a short time after Treyvan was shot. Like I said before, the evidence was not there to convict him, however, the evidence is clear that he should have let the police handle the situation. If he had, none of us would ever have heard of Treyvan.
“It looked to me that almost all the evidence broke Zimmermn’s way.
As to why he was following a black teenager meandering through the neighborhood in the rain…he was doing neighborhood watch and there had been a series of burglaries by black teenagers.
It was certainly a terrible result. But vilifying either of them shows more about the commentors preconceived notions than their special knowledge of the facts”
Comment by AFSCME Steward Monday, Jul 15, 13 @ 2:16 pm
“Florida’s law, which allows people to defend themselves with force if they feel threatened in their home, business, car, or a place where they “have a legal right to be.””
So Trayvon Martin somehow didn’t have a legal right to walk home after buying some Skittles?
Florida’s Stand Your Ground law should work both ways.
I’d certainly feel threatened if some guy slowed down his car to follow me and then parked his car in a weird spot so he could followme on foot … all while I was walking home after buying some candy.
Comment by A. Nonymous Monday, Jul 15, 13 @ 2:28 pm
==Martin jumped Zimmerman and attacked him==
“officers arrived less than a minute after Zimmerman shot Trayvon and began administering CPR.” Why didn’t GZ just stay in his car? The cops were there quickly.
http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-08-17/news/os-trayvon-martin-autopsy-20120817_1_trayvon-martin-george-zimmerman-blood-loss
==STOP BLAMING MARTIN==
The blame Trayvon Martin won’t quit. It is just part of a pattern dehumanization and racism.
==So why is Dick Durbin fanning racial flames?==
I do not believe Durbin is fanning any racial flames. Those fanny racial flames are the dehumanizing racists and those who pretend racial prejudice does not exist and then make ignorant an uninformed comments because of it. Cord Jefferson at Gawker explained some basic dehumanizing effects of racism in an enlightening essay. I’d encourage everyone to give it a read.”
Comment by Precinct Captain Monday, Jul 15, 13 @ 2:44 pm
“….guns don’t kill people, people kill people…this type of senseless loss and pain may wll only be experienced by more families as CCW and SYG legislation becomes the law of the land…”
I don’t know about SYG but the proliferation of CCW legislation has not resulted in increased gun homicide or suicide death rates. Per 100,000 people, gun homicides have declined from 5.9 in 1989 to 3.6 in 2010 while firearm suicides declined from 7.36 to 6.28. This decline occurred while the number of CCW states increased from 21 to 49.
Comment by capncrunch Monday, Jul 15, 13 @ 2:47 pm
The story in this link apparently is the scenario many opposed to Stand your Ground or even self-defense believe is a proper outcome when a person is openly attacked and assaulted. This country is in deep trouble if that’s so.
http://www.ajc.com/news/news/local/police-mableton-fatal-assault-not-racially-motivat/nYpGG/
Comment by Rufus D Doofus Monday, Jul 15, 13 @ 3:07 pm
“fortunately the IL carry law will screen nearly all of the Zimmerman like whack jobs during the application process.”
I do not believe there is any hard evidence to support the assertion that Zimmerman is a whack job. Nor do I think there was anything in his background that would prevent him from legally obtaining a CC permit as long as he met the conditions. I could be wrong but I doubt it.
Comment by the unknown poster Monday, Jul 15, 13 @ 3:17 pm
Rufus, if you honestly believe that people who are troubled by some of the implications of this case really want to see people beaten to death, I doubt anything that anyone could say would reach you. I’m sorry that you have such a low opinion of your fellow human beings.
If you don’t believe it, I suggest you quit trolling and engage honestly.
Comment by TooManyJens Monday, Jul 15, 13 @ 3:29 pm
As the US Supreme Court ruled back in the 1920s self defense is in no way determined only by whether or not an individual retreats or attempts to flee an assault. As long as Zimmerman did not verbally or physically attack Martin his position of self defense stands. No evidence was presented at the trial indicating Zimmerman in way threatened Martin or even attempted to execute a citizen’s arrest.
All the evidence indicates that Martin turned and yelled at Zimmerman who was following him and later directly attacked him. When does following some one become stalking? Stalking refers to repeated harassing or threatening behavior by an individual, such as following a person several times. There was no evidence introduced that in any way indicated that Zimmerman and Martin ever had contact prior to the now legally justified homicide.
Comment by Rod Monday, Jul 15, 13 @ 3:30 pm
==Whoops! My apologies Rich. It is there. Either my computer is acting up or I need to start drinking decaf==
You got rickrolled.
Comment by Rich Astley Monday, Jul 15, 13 @ 3:44 pm
toomanyJens:You may have missed my point. People can’t have it both ways. You either have the right to defend yourself or you do not. The Illinois statute is clear to me. When physically attacked the attacker assumes certain risk of consequences that may happen. This all seems so obvious to me, but perhaps not to others. I may not have made myself clear though. Sorry you feel the need to stereotype someone you may disagree with philosophically.
Comment by Rufus D Doofus Monday, Jul 15, 13 @ 3:45 pm
Responding to the actual words a person writes is not stereotyping. If you don’t want to be called on your ridiculous claim that your opponents think a fatal beating is a “proper outcome,” don’t write that.
Comment by TooManyJens Monday, Jul 15, 13 @ 3:52 pm
*** You got rickrolled. ***
Guess so, as now it is gone…
Comment by Anonymous Monday, Jul 15, 13 @ 3:56 pm
A police dispatcher’s advice to stay in the car is just that advice, not a legal command, as if given by a police officer. Zimmerman was a neighborhood watch/cop wannabe, he saw Martin walking in the neighborhood, which had been victim to numerous burglaries with the suspects being young black males. Martin matched the description of the burglary suspects. Zimmerman called the police and followed (not illegal to follow) Martin to keep the police informed of his whereabouts. What happened after that is not clear, but both Martin and Zimmerman made bad decisions. If Martin was fearful of Zimmerman he could have stopped his conversation with Jeantel and called 911, he could have just run home to his dads home and called 911. Zimmerman could have just put his blinders on and continued to the Target store or he could have listened to the dispatcher and waited for the police. Coulda, woulda, shoulda!!! Hindsight is 20/20. Tragic event for ALL involved. Zimmerman may not go to jail, but he will be haunted the rest of his life because of this.
Comment by Pacman Monday, Jul 15, 13 @ 4:16 pm
Quite a few comments are twisting facts as Quinn did on CNN. Zimmerman was not given an order by the police. He was advised by a dispatcher (not a sworn officer) “we don’t need you to follow him (Martin)”. No order given. None disobeyed.
Comment by BehindTheScenes Monday, Jul 15, 13 @ 4:20 pm
None of know all the facts, what we know is media reports and what parts of the trial we watched.
I heard some interesting tidbits on the radio on my drive today, I do not know if they are true, but if they are true may shed some light. Mr Zimmerman had mentored at risk youths, helped a few kids by giving the a place to stay in his home, and many were black. If true, the race card seems out of place. Does anyone know the validity of these claims? I heard these things driving thru St Louis today.
Comment by FormerParatrooper Monday, Jul 15, 13 @ 4:34 pm
There have been some great statements here by AFSCME Steward and Pacman. It’s a great tragedy all around. You can’t convict someone of a crime when there’s reasonable doubt. You also have to be very careful whom you profile. It could turn out like this case did, where a youth who was doing nothing wrong winds up killed after a series of events that began just because he looked a certain way.
I feel like Trayvon’s story was not adequately told. He too may have been standing his ground and felt threatened and outraged when he was doing nothing wrong. He also had no idea who Zimmerman was or what he intended to do and so may have eventually felt the need to defend himself. Zimmerman said he ran away toward the other side of the community. In this stand your ground situation, one person was most obviously the loser, the unarmed person, and that really hurts.
I feel very sad for Trayvon Martin and his family, and for people who are targeted because of their skin color, white, brown or black.
Comment by Grandson of Man Monday, Jul 15, 13 @ 4:44 pm
@Steve:
I said absolutely nothing about the jury so I have no idea where that comment came from. I would likely have come to the same conclusion that they did based on what I saw at the trial. Neither you or I have any idea what really happened. And we likely never will know what really happened. The case is over now (or at least in my opinion should be). And I never said I don’t believe in self defense. Again, you are making things up. I said I don’t like they SYG type laws because I think they are too vague. Try responding to actual comments instead of making things up. And you seem to be a little too emotionally involved given your “blame Martin” attitude and your sickening Mt Rushmore comment. Some people have absolutely no shame.
Comment by Demoralized Monday, Jul 15, 13 @ 5:11 pm
Thanks for the enlightenment (Todd @ 12:00). I found it very informative. Zimmerman’s life is ruined. Martin’s life is over. Both of their families have been devastated. It was “a perfect storm” (unfortunately)that day down in Florida. The male ego (a fragile thing) and an over-abundance of male testosterone that day overwhelmed the good judgement and common-sense of two guys who would have both been better off simply calling the cops to say that they each had concerns. Then, they both should have either walked off into the sunset or run the other way. Obviously, poor choices were made by both Martin and Zimmerman and they both lost their lives (literally and figuratively).
Comment by A Casual Observer Monday, Jul 15, 13 @ 7:45 pm
This Zimmerman case was NOT about “Stand Your Ground” and the fact that Quinn says it is, is … typical of him. Can’t get anything right, can’t make any kind of positive contribution to anything, even a debate on an issue.
Comment by Harry Tuesday, Jul 16, 13 @ 1:00 am
Here’s something that everyone with an opinion should be aware of:
Once Martin confronted Zimmerman, he wasn’t the “victim” of stalking or assault or profiling or whatever. And once he placed hands on Zimmerman, he became an assailant. And the rules for dealing with assailants are very different, not only for cops, but for non-law enforcement persons, too. Sure we’ll get the usual, “Zimmerman swung first,” or “Zimmerman provoked…” or other suppositions. The fact is, no one knows. And if no one knows, Reasonable Doubt is present and a conviction is technically impossible.
Comment by What is to be done? Tuesday, Jul 16, 13 @ 8:03 am