http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23304198
QuoteGeorge Zimmerman, the Florida neighbourhood watchman who shot dead an unarmed black 17-year-old male last year, has been found not guilty.
Lawyers for Mr Zimmerman, 29, argued he acted in self-defence and with justifiable use of deadly force in the death of Trayvon Martin.
The jury retired on Friday to consider its verdict on charges of either second-degree murder or manslaughter.
The case sparked a fierce debate about racial profiling in the US.
Spontaneous protest marches were staged overnight in US cities including San Francisco, Philadelphia, Chicago, Washington and Atlanta, US media reported.
Police and community leaders appealed for calm in Sanford, the Florida town where the shooting took place.
So effectively Florida's laws state that if you're in an altercation you have a legal right to stand your ground and use deadly force in self defence, and with no way of proving that Martin did not start the altercation the jury's been forced to acquit. On the other hand... objectively Zimmermann, regardless of who started things, followed Martin and put himself in that situation. And furthermore it seems unreasonable to allow people to use lethal force in self defence unless they have good reason to believe that their opponent is also able and willing to do the same - Martin was, by all accounts, entirely unarmed. This verdict is, I think, an extremely worrying interpretation of the law, as it implies that in Florida if someone can provoke someone else into throwing a punch at them then they have the legal right to shoot that person dead on the spot. Which seems entirely wrong to me.
Thoughts?
He claimed that Martin had punched him and was reaching for Zimmerman's gun. But even if thats true, this still seems pretty damn disturbing. Why the hell did it take the police 6 weeks to arrest him?
I think this is terrible. It's worrying the law can be interpreted to allow for this verdict. I'm not sure about the law itself allowing the use of 'deadly force' either. Im pretty sure the similar law here (UK) says 'reasonable force.' I thought I'd heard that the post mortem also disagreed with Zimmerman's claim that he was punched...? Not sure though...
I shall post my opinions on this when I've stopped seething with anger.
^ To be honest this probably tell you my opinions for the most part anyway.
Saw another case where the same self-defence law was used by the defendant, she had fired warnings shots to scare off her violent partner. It failed and she got 20 years...
But shooting an unarmed black youth you get off scot-free
They let Zimmerman free the night of the shooting because he cited self-defence, I think this case points out more flaws in the american legal system than the legality of shooting someone with deadly intent because they might harm you
Or at least a certain part of the american legal system, florida is not necessarily representative of the rest of america in this.
I'm sure many states have a similar law in place
We're all slaves to the national government. :(
Quote from: comrade_general on July 15, 2013, 06:35:57 PM
We're all slaves to the national government. :(
In terms of jurisprudence, this is pretty clearly not the case. :P Security apparatus maybe, but that's a matter for a different thread I think.