Zimmerman juror calls for change in self-defence laws

I could not find this gem in the search engine, either search engine sucks or people tend to look over certain article that don't match their perspective.

A juror in the George Zimmerman trial on Wednesday called for changes in the self-defence law that she said gave her no option but to find Mr. Zimmerman not guilty in the shooting death of unarmed black teenager Trayvon Martin.

“I wanted to find him guilty of not using his senses but ... you can’t charge him with anything because he didn’t do anything unlawful,” said juror B-37, who also said she believed Mr. Martin attacked Mr. Zimmerman.

According to the instructions given to the jury, Mr. Zimmerman had “no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force” if he reasonably feared for his life or great bodily harm.

What do you guys feel about the loop holes in the law? where such outcomes can be identified as "legal"? Do you think it needs to rewritten? looked over? adjusted?


I also found this interesting.... haha

he jury of five white women and one of mixed race acquitted Mr. Zimmerman

Four other jurors responded with a statement distancing themselves from B-37.

I really think the outcomes would have been different if the jury were more "mixed"...


where are my manners.. Link!The Globe and Mail

Man, they really can't let it go can they?

So now Jurors are the experts on law in the US and what needs to be changed?

Seriously, the media need to stop milking this coverage. I'm sure they have another scandal they can just pull out of a type writer or something..

IMO, you need to change like 95$ of all the laws .

~Tenth

reply to post by luciddream


I'm kind of surprised that juror B-37 wanted to find him guilty. She sounded so sympathetic to him, I assumed she was one of the three who found him not guilty right away.

In any case, I agree with her. The fact that Zimmerman followed Martin should have negated his self-defense charge. You don't go looking for a fight and then, when you start losing, kill the guy and get away with it... Well, I guess you do in Florida.

The self-defense law is adequate in itself. A SYG law is unnecessary and gives control and protection to vigilantes.

reply to post by tothetenthpower

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
IMO, you need to change like 95$ of all the laws

.

I hate those 95 dollar laws!

I can understand the jurors speaking out. They're probably getting crap from every side and want to get their opinions out instead of just hearing how everyone hates them.

Jury, if you're reading, I appreciate what you did and understand your verdict, even though it wasn't what I was hoping for.

What's the loophole, that people cant assault assholes and get away with it?

Why are so many people totally okay with fist fights breaking out left and right? Is this really a normal part of everyday life for so many people?

It doesnt matter if I'm being followed, shouted at, made fun of, whatever, I'm not going to cock back and throw a punch for such a petty reason.

Just as you keep your gun holstered until you feel your life is in danger you should keep your fists holstered as well.

Say Zimmerman a hate filled bigot following and watching that kid for any reason you want to, because Martin was black, because he dressed ina way Zimmerman didnt like, because Zimmerman was what Martins friend described as a "homo rapist" whatever... it doesnt matter what Zimmermans reasons were, Martin was never justified in jumping him.

I suppose the simplest change to laws would be to just require total omniscience for everyone all the time. Let's just do that then, okay? What? Impossible? Then get over it.

reply to post by thisguyrighthere

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
Martin was never justified in jumping him.

You only have Zimmerman's word that that's what actually happened. Only one man's word. One side of the story...

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by thisguyrighthere

 

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
Martin was never justified in jumping him.

You only have Zimmerman's word that that's what actually happened. Only one man's word. One side of the story...

Right. Which brings me back to mandatory omniscience. When all there is one mans word then that's what happened. We can make up whatever we want to fill in the gaps but our made up scenarios dont trump the word of the man on the scene even if that man is lying through his teeth.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

I'm kind of surprised that juror B-37 wanted to find him guilty

Who wouldn't have doubt about the outcome... ?i mean, im sure unless someone is hardened R-word and hated certain people.. they would think "hmm it is not right..".. not be like "hmm perfect that what everyone should do!"

reply to post by thisguyrighthere

dont trump the word of the man on the scene even if that man is lying through his teeth.

Ah interesting, you found another example of how law should change when there is fatality involved. Ok keep going!

reply to post by tothetenthpower

IMO, you need to change like 95% of all the laws

OMG man! don't take away my guns!(might as well expect this from someone!).

The thing is people allow criminals to abuse the law(by having many loop holes), but then cry about it after.

reply to post by thisguyrighthere

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
When all there is one mans word then that's what happened.

I disagree. We don't really know what happened. And I'm not suggesting we make things up, especially in a court of law. Like I said, I understand the verdict. But the fact is Zimmerman DID follow Martin and then, when a scuffle took place, Z had the legal right to kill him. I disagree with that legal right and think the SYG laws should be evaluated and changed or repealed.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


So you disagree with self preservation? I dont get how you can believe one human being doesnt have the right to stop another human being from attacking by whatever means.

“I wanted to find him guilty of not using his senses but ... you can’t charge him with anything because he didn’t do anything unlawful,” said juror B-37, who also said she believed Mr. Martin attacked Mr. Zimmerman.

So this juror believes that it was Martin who attacked Zimmerman, but thinks that the self defense laws should change? I don't understand why she thinks that self defense laws should change based on that statement alone. If you are being attacked, you should be able to defend yourself, and I don't even see how the stand your ground law applies here since Martin was on top of Zimmerman beating the hell out of him. Stand your ground applies to having an option to flee, but remaining in place. If you are pinned on the ground, what exactly are your options to flee?

And wanting to find him guilty of not using his senses? What the hell is that? Now I understand why the prosecution picked these jurors, and they were correct, it was an emotionally charged panel of jurors, but it still didn't work in their favor.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Hmm..typo eh?

I like the $ sign better actually

I can understand them speaking out as well. I just don't think it's important. Changing self defense laws isn't going to curb violence in cities like Chicago or Detroit.

Covering this story still, while there is so much more going on of substance, is almost criminal.

~Tenth

reply to post by SpaDe_


Self defense law does not include profile, following, and interacting ENOUGH have the attention of the other person and engaging in a fight you will probably win due to the weapon in possession.


That's why the laws need more definite meaning. Im pretty sure when they brought up this law, it was more of a self defense if engaged, not cause reason for the person to engage you so you can "abuse" the law to kill them.

African Americans benefit from Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” self-defense law at a rate far out of proportion to their presence in the state’s population, despite an assertion by Attorney General Eric Holder that repealing “Stand Your Ground” would help African Americans.

Black Floridians have made about a third of the state’s total “Stand Your Ground” claims in homicide cases, a rate nearly double the black percentage of Florida’s population. The majority of those claims have been successful, a success rate that exceeds that for Florida whites.

Read more: dailycaller.com...

But approximately one third of Florida “Stand Your Ground” claims in fatal cases have been made by black defendants, and they have used the defense successfully 55 percent of the time, at the same rate as the population at large and at a higher rate than white defendants, according to a Daily Caller analysis of a database maintained by the Tampa Bay Times. Additionally, the majority of victims in Florida “Stand Your Ground” cases have been white.

African Americans used “Stand Your Ground” defenses at nearly twice the rate of their presence in the Florida population, which was listed at 16.6 percent in 2012.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


But it wasn't a SYG law, it was a self-defense law. The whole SYG thing is just a distraction. Zimmerman was defending himself not standing his ground. This inconsistency is getting pretty old.

People learn a new term 'Stand your ground', and now it is repeated constantly and is cited as the reason for all kinds of injustice. I pretty sure many in this country crying for removing it don't even know much about it and self defense laws.

We saw that here in some of the GZ thread posts.

reply to post by luciddream


It's nice of the article to reiterate that the criminal Trayvon was black. So we don't forget how evil a man Zimmerman is.

There's nothing wrong with the law. If criminals don't want to get shot by those protecting their communities, then they shouldn't be out committing the crimes that can result in death. I mean seriously people, have you all lost your minds? The law wasn't put in place to protect criminals!

reply to post by luciddream


There is no law against following someone, especially if it is within a gated community that you are watch captain of. The FBI said there was no profiling of any kind involved in this case so your point there is moot. Also it was Martin who engaged in the fight not Zimmerman, according to the evidence presented he was simply following Martin to keep track of him until the police arrived to handle the matter. It was during this course of action that Martin chose to take matters into his own hands and assault Zimmerman.

There is much evidence to support this, and much of the interaction is even caught on the 911 recording. What if's and maybes don't apply to law, facts and reasonable doubt are all that matters. If the facts proved otherwise just based on this jurors statements alone they would have found him guilty, but they did not because of the evidence put forward.