A Historical Zimmerman Comparison

I've been getting a little upset at the race-baiters and anti-gun folk who have been trying to paint the Zimmerman case to Jim Crow era cases like Emmitt Till and Medger Evers since they are polar opposite cases from a legal standpoint--in Till and the original Evers case, the law was not applied, in Zimmerman, the law was applied in court, but it never should have gotten to that point.



Here's a better comparison--in 1770 much of America was incensed by the "Boston Massacre" which colonial newspapers presented as a British captain ordering his men to fire into a crowd of peaceful demonstrators to disperse them. Paul Revere even carved silver scenes showing the captain giving the order to fire. The revolutionaries were demanding blood.



There was one problem though--the Captain never gave an order to fire--a soldier was brained with a rock and knocked to the ground, at which time he decided his life was in peril so he fired his musket. When he fired his musket, his fellow soldiers acted on their training and did the same.



The demand for the captain's blood was so fierce that three distinguished attorneys refused to represent the soldiers before John Adams took up their extremely unpopular cause. The truth came out at trial, and Captain Preston and 6 of the soldiers were acquitted--he never gave the order, and the 6 acted only in self defense believing their lives in peril. Two soldiers were convicted of manslaughter for firing into the crowd once the crowd began to retreat. One citizen was later convicted of perjury and expelled from the province. Many citizens refused to recognize the verdict and continued to call for Preston's head.



So it is with Zimmerman--a trial that only came about because of rabid fever in the masses induced by omissions, biases, and outright lies in the media. A trial that never should have been, but a trial that ultimately vindicated the defendant, but nevertheless failed to overcome the faulty narrative of the press.

Thoughtful. I disagree that a trial should not have been had. An unarmed youth was killed. I think a trial to assess culpability or the lack of it was the right call.

BoiseBYU wrote:
Thoughtful. I disagree that a trial should not have been had. An unarmed youth was killed. I think a trial to assess culpability or the lack of it was the right call.

So the police investigation determining that it was self defense and that there was no evidence to support any criminal activity wasn't enough? Interesting.

BoiseBYU wrote:
Thoughtful. I disagree that a trial should not have been had. An unarmed youth was killed. I think a trial to assess culpability or the lack of it was the right call.

At best, a grand jury would have been the right call, but the general consensus from those in the criminal bar I have talked to or read from indicates that a grand jury had almost no chance of returning any charge greater than manslaughter, so the only way to bring 2nd degree murder was to bypass the grand jury.

snoscythe wrote:

Thoughtful. I disagree that a trial should not have been had. An unarmed youth was killed. I think a trial to assess culpability or the lack of it was the right call.

At best, a grand jury would have been the right call, but the general consensus from those in the criminal bar I have talked to or read from indicates that a grand jury had almost no chance of returning any charge greater than manslaughter, so the only way to bring 2nd degree murder was to bypass the grand jury.

I'm no expert, but I guess the judge thought there was enough evidence for the jury to consider manslaughter, yes? Otherwise wouldn't she dismiss? I do not understand the murder charges the prosecutors seemed hellbent to pursue. A grand jury would've been a good way to go I guess. Grand juries decided if there's enough to indict, right?

Mars wrote:


I'm convinced- Sno is smart.



I also wonder what the lightest charge would have been to level against Zimmerman- manslaughter? It seems that there would have been a chance to prove that.

I still don't see how the evidence would support manslaughter, but I think there'd be a lot better chance of a (wrong) conviction had they gone after it instead.

I could see Reckless Endangerment or something along those lines.

What is negligent homicide?

BoiseBYU wrote:

BoiseBYU wrote:
Thoughtful. I disagree that a trial should not have been had. An unarmed youth was killed. I think a trial to assess culpability or the lack of it was the right call.

At best, a grand jury would have been the right call, but the general consensus from those in the criminal bar I have talked to or read from indicates that a grand jury had almost no chance of returning any charge greater than manslaughter, so the only way to bring 2nd degree murder was to bypass the grand jury.

I'm no expert, but I guess the judge thought there was enough evidence for the jury to consider manslaughter, yes? Otherwise wouldn't she dismiss? I do not understand the murder charges the prosecutors seemed hellbent to pursue. A grand jury would've been a good way to go I guess. Grand juries decided if there's enough to indict, right?

The prosecutor was so hellbent on charges that she forwent the grand jury that was already scheduled to hear the case and either choose to indict or dismiss. The prosecutor (Angela Cory) then filed a false affidavit that left out important evidence and led to the overcharging of Zimmerman.

SpiffCoug wrote:

snoscythe wrote:

Thoughtful. I disagree that a trial should not have been had. An unarmed youth was killed. I think a trial to assess culpability or the lack of it was the right call.

At best, a grand jury would have been the right call, but the general consensus from those in the criminal bar I have talked to or read from indicates that a grand jury had almost no chance of returning any charge greater than manslaughter, so the only way to bring 2nd degree murder was to bypass the grand jury.

I'm no expert, but I guess the judge thought there was enough evidence for the jury to consider manslaughter, yes? Otherwise wouldn't she dismiss? I do not understand the murder charges the prosecutors seemed hellbent to pursue. A grand jury would've been a good way to go I guess. Grand juries decided if there's enough to indict, right?

The prosecutor was so hellbent on charges that she forwent the grand jury that was already scheduled to hear the case and either choose to indict or dismiss. The prosecutor (Angela Cory) then filed a false affidavit that left out important evidence and led to the overcharging of Zimmerman.

Sounds likes grounds to vote her out of office, assuming they are elected in Florida. But my main and not very important point is I can see the validity of having a jury consider if crimes were committed in the killing of an unarmed person....

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/353633/angela-coreys-checkered-past-ian-tuttle" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This is the prosecutor. Talk about a piece of legal work.

BoiseBYU wrote:
What is negligent homicide?

generally, manslaughter. But in manslaughter they would have the burden to disprove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt. In 2d degree murder the state does not bear a burden of proof in re: self defense. To me, with TM having no injuries other than the GSW and GZ with a broken nose and other significant cuts/bruises, there's no way the state can make that case without eyewitnesses or something other than Zimmerman's account, which is all they had here. It's closer then 2nd degree murder, but still either should not have been brought or should have been investigated confidentially by the grand jury.

Sounds like a good reason to throw away a lot of taxpayer money on something that the professionals who examined it determined was not a crime.