A tale of two jurisdictions

Madd Finn · 15-07-2013 10:13am #1

We know by now that George Zimmerman, the man in Florida who shot dead a teenager he suspected, wrongly, of being a burglar has been acquitted of all charges related to the killing.

The jury, as always, had to derive the likely version of the facts most beneficial to the accused and concluded that it might have been true that Trayvon Martin, the dead teenager, had struck the first blow at Zimmerman who under US law had the right to kill him in "self defence".

Notwithstanding the fact that there was incontrovertible evidence that Zimmerman was following Martin, that Martin had noticed this and mentioned it to the girlfriend to whom he was talking on his mobile phone and clearly felt threatened by Zimmerman, and that Zimmerman had been advised by the police dispatcher, to whom he had telephoned his suspicions of Martin, not to follow the teenager. A fight started and the unarmed teenager was killed.

Now compare that with the case of Finn Colclough in Dublin five years ago. (Read it here.)

A bunch of drunk teenagers accosted Colclough, another drunk teenager (it was the last day of the Leaving Cert), on his home street of Waterloo Road in the early hours of a morning. They were looking for a party at a certain girl's house. Colclough told them the girl no longer lived there. He was nervous and suspicious of them. He then went home. The others followed him to his home and hung around outside.

Colclough told them to go away. They wouldn't. He ran out with a couple of kitchen knives and told them forcefully to leave his house. One of the other teenagers, not the sort to back down, squared up to him. A bit of jostling started and the other teenager was stabbed. He died shortly afterwards.

Colclough was charged and convicted of manslaughter. He was sentenced to 10 years, with the final two later suspended on appeal.

He was demonised in the press with journalists heaping opprobium on his "privileged" background (he lived in Dublin 4) compared with the background of his victim (a Northsider).

If he was American, he would probably have walked free.

everdead.ie · 15-07-2013 10:25am

Madd Finn wrote: »

We know by now that George Zimmerman, the man in Florida who shot dead a teenager he suspected, wrongly, of being a burglar has been acquitted of all charges related to the killing.

The jury, as always, had to derive the likely version of the facts most beneficial to the accused and concluded that it might have been true that Trayvon Martin, the dead teenager, had struck the first blow at Zimmerman who under US law had the right to kill him in "self defence".

Notwithstanding the fact that there was incontrovertible evidence that Zimmerman was following Martin, that Martin had noticed this and mentioned it to the girlfriend to whom he was talking on his mobile phone and clearly felt threatened by Zimmerman, and that Zimmerman had been advised by the police dispatcher, to whom he had telephoned his suspicions of Martin, not to follow the teenager. A fight started and the unarmed teenager was killed.

Now compare that with the case of Finn Colclough in Dublin five years ago. (Read it here.)

A bunch of drunk teenagers accosted Colclough, another drunk teenager (it was the last day of the Leaving Cert), on his home street of Waterloo Road in the early hours of a morning. They were looking for a party at a certain girl's house. Colclough told them the girl no longer lived there. He was nervous and suspicious of them. He then went home. The others followed him to his home and hung around outside.

Colclough told them to go away. They wouldn't. He ran out with a couple of kitchen knives and told them forcefully to leave his house. One of the other teenagers, not the sort to back down, squared up to him. A bit of jostling started and the other teenager was stabbed. He died shortly afterwards.

Colclough was charged and convicted of manslaughter. He was sentenced to 10 years, with the final two later suspended on appeal.

He was demonised in the press with journalists heaping opprobium on his "privileged" background (he lived in Dublin 4) compared with the background of his victim (a Northsider).

If he was American, he would probably have walked free.

The facts in the American case were really insubstantial, I'm not aware of the case in Ireland but if there were numerous witnesses it was probably pretty clear cut compared to the American case.

There was also a lot of issues with how the case was reported in the states which I think could of created a lot of sympathy for Zimmerman from the Jury.

For instance a major news network played the tapes made available from the police, except they played only certain bits making it sound like he had racially profiled the victim because he was black when he was actually asked by the operator to give a description.

bmaxi · 15-07-2013 10:53am

I'm not sure of the purpose of this thread, is the OP critical of one decision or the other?

Sir Humphrey Appleby · 15-07-2013 11:21am

Madd Finn wrote: »

We know by now that George Zimmerman, the man in Florida who shot dead a teenager he suspected, wrongly, of being a burglar has been acquitted of all charges related to the killing.

The jury, as always, had to derive the likely version of the facts most beneficial to the accused and concluded that it might have been true that Trayvon Martin, the dead teenager, had struck the first blow at Zimmerman who under US law had the right to kill him in "self defence".

Notwithstanding the fact that there was incontrovertible evidence that Zimmerman was following Martin, that Martin had noticed this and mentioned it to the girlfriend to whom he was talking on his mobile phone and clearly felt threatened by Zimmerman, and that Zimmerman had been advised by the police dispatcher, to whom he had telephoned his suspicions of Martin, not to follow the teenager. A fight started and the unarmed teenager was killed.

Now compare that with the case of Finn Colclough in Dublin five years ago. (Read it here.)

A bunch of drunk teenagers accosted Colclough, another drunk teenager (it was the last day of the Leaving Cert), on his home street of Waterloo Road in the early hours of a morning. They were looking for a party at a certain girl's house. Colclough told them the girl no longer lived there. He was nervous and suspicious of them. He then went home. The others followed him to his home and hung around outside.

Colclough told them to go away. They wouldn't. He ran out with a couple of kitchen knives and told them forcefully to leave his house. One of the other teenagers, not the sort to back down, squared up to him. A bit of jostling started and the other teenager was stabbed. He died shortly afterwards.

Colclough was charged and convicted of manslaughter. He was sentenced to 10 years, with the final two later suspended on appeal.

He was demonised in the press with journalists heaping opprobium on his "privileged" background (he lived in Dublin 4) compared with the background of his victim (a Northsider).

If he was American, he would probably have walked free.

You have done an excellent job of misrepresenting the facts in the Colclough case OP. By the way he was charged with murder but convicted of manslaughter.
Are you related to him?

Madd Finn · 15-07-2013 11:25am

bmaxi wrote: »

I'm not sure of the purpose of this thread, is the OP critical of one decision or the other?

Do I have to come down on one side or the other? I thought it was an interesting topic to ponder, that's all.

If I must state a preference, let's just say I'm glad I live in Ireland. Not the US of A. It has much to recommend it but its gun laws are f***ed up.

Madd Finn · 15-07-2013 11:28am

Old and grey wrote: »

You have done an excellent job of misrepresenting the facts in the Colclough case OP. By the way he was charged with murder but convicted of manslaughter.
Are you related to him?

I'm not related to anyone in that case at all. Nor do I know any of them personally. And my only knowledge of the facts comes from the newspaper reports which I remember reading at the time. Especially from the Sunday Tribune, which is of course no longer with us.

I don't think I've "misrepresented" the facts as they were reported. I think I have summarised the report to which I linked accurately and fairly. What's your beef?

JRant · 15-07-2013 11:51am

Madd Finn wrote: »

I'm not related to anyone in that case at all. Nor do I know any of them personally. And my only knowledge of the facts comes from the newspaper reports which I remember reading at the time. Especially from the Sunday Tribune, which is of course no longer with us.

I don't think I've "misrepresented" the facts as they were reported. I think I have summarised the report to which I linked accurately and fairly. What's your beef?

I think it's fair to say the your version of events and those in the link you provided are at odds with each other.

Crooked Jack · 15-07-2013 11:58am

JRant wrote: »

I think it's fair to say the your version of events and those in the link you provided are at odds with each other.

Yup, just read the link and they're massively different.

Madd Finn · 15-07-2013 1:24pm

Are you guys being sarcastic?

From the link.

Mr Colclough told gardaí that the three decided to take a walk down the street shortly before 4am.
...
When they had walked a few feet away from the house they encountered Mr Nolan and his friends who crossed the road to meet them. Mr Nolan asked for directions to Sarah’s house.
Mr Colclough told him that they did know Sarah but she had moved away. He gave them directions in the opposite direction. He and his friends said that they felt uneasy after the meeting and returned to the house.
Mr Nolan and his friends stopped outside the house to try and open the bottle of wine. They gestured at the kitchen window in the hope of getting a bottle opener after Mr Treacy’s keys broke trying to get the bottle open.
One of Mr Colclough’s friends said that he saw the three outside and told Mr Colclough they were still there. He told the court Mr Colclough responded: “Oh s***.”
His other friend went outside to tell Mr Nolan and his friends to move on. Then Mr Colclough came running out of the house shouting to get away from his house. He was holding a knife in each hand.
Mr Nolan took several steps forward to meet him, on the street directly outside the house, and “squared up” to Mr Colclough. A brief struggle ensued. Mr Nolan was seen to raise his hand and push or strike Mr Colclough. Mr Colclough told gardaí that he tried to push Mr Nolan away from him. The knives were still in his hands.
Mr Nolan stepped back holding his chest and said “I’ve been stabbed” before falling to the ground. Mr Colclough continued to shout “Get away from my house” before returning to the house.

How have I misrepresented the facts?

The similarities between the two cases are these.

A local is apprehensive about the presence of strangers close to his house. (probably without rational cause in both cases, but perhaps understandably)

He makes his displeasure felt.

The "stranger" reacts in an unco-operative way and gets killed.

Both cases are tragedies. There was no need for the young man in either case to die. Both were caused in part by the anxiety of the "local" person.

One resulted in a manslaughter conviction (quite rightly in my view)

The other in an acquittal.

I'm just saying that if the Colclough case was in America, he would probably have been acquitted on the grounds that he was "protecting his property". How unreasonable is it to ask someone to stop hanging around your house at 4 am in the morning?

nesf · 15-07-2013 1:31pm

They're not being sarcastic, your tale and the link's story are so at odds that you either can't read well or you're pulling the piss, so which is it?

Madd Finn · 15-07-2013 6:21pm

nesf wrote: »

They're not being sarcastic, your tale and the link's story are so at odds that you either can't read well or you're pulling the piss, so which is it?

I believe I have received infractions for more substantiated and less insulting comments than that in the past.

I guess what I was trying to do with the original post was tease out the difference in attitudes in Ireland and America to people taking the lives of others by whom they feel threatened, however unjustifiable or irrational may be their fear.

In the US, opinion seems to be divided on the Martin/Zimmerman case, and there are any number of reasons for that.

Here there seems to be little sympathy for a kid who gets spooked by a group standing around outside his house at about 4am in the morning and who won't leave when asked. That's a perfectly fair attitude too, IMHO, but the sentiments expressed here bother me.

The consensus is that I have misrepresented or distorted in my summary, the longer report to which I linked. I utterly reject that. I have compared the two carefully and I find two small discrepancies between my summary and the report, which to my memory is a pretty faithful account of reports carried in several papers at the time.

1) I said that Colclough was "tried and convicted of manslaughter". It appears he was tried for murder but only convicted for manslaughter. I am not a legal expert. It seemed apparent to me that one could not be convicted of a crime without being charged with it first. I would have thought that he would have been charged with both crimes, acquitted of murder and convicted of manslaughter. If it is the case that one can be charged only with murder but nevertheless convicted of the lesser charge of manslaughter, then I accept that minor inconsistency in my account and am happy to acknowledge it.

2) I said that Colclough had asked the others to leave before he emerged carrying the knives. In fact it was one of his companions who asked them to leave. Again, a minor inconsistency that does not greatly distort the overall narrative but which I am pleased to acknowledge.

How these minor discrepancies amount to a distortion of the report carried in the papers is beyond me, as is the notion that I am "pulling the piss".

For what it's worth, I think a conviction for manslaughter in the case of Colclough was a fair verdict inasmuch as I know the facts of what happened.

And I think Zimmerman should have been banged up for a long time too.

I can only speculate as to why people think I am being economical, or maybe profligate, with the facts. But I prefer not to do that.

There's been enough of that around here already. :mad:

nesf · 15-07-2013 6:40pm

Read what you wrote. You:

1) Appear to make it seem like he was going home alone, he wasn't he was in a group.

2) He didn't just tell them she didn't live there, he lied to them and sent him in the other direction.

3) They didn't follow him home, the article says nothing like this.

4) They asked for a bottle opener, they weren't meanacingly gathered outside of his home.

5) He did not go out, confront them and then go back in and get a knife. His friend went out to tell them to move on and then he came running out of the house with two knifes shouting at the group. There is an enormous difference between these two.

Can you now see why I'm treating your OP with such contempt? Either you didn't read the story or you're trying to spin things a very particular way despite linking to contradictory evidence.

Sir Humphrey Appleby · 15-07-2013 7:33pm

nesf wrote: »

Read what you wrote. You:

1) Appear to make it seem like he was going home alone, he wasn't he was in a group.

2) He didn't just tell them she didn't live there, he lied to them and sent him in the other direction.

3) They didn't follow him home, the article says nothing like this.

4) They asked for a bottle opener, they weren't meanacingly gathered outside of his home.

5) He did not go out, confront them and then go back in and get a knife. His friend went out to tell them to move on and then he came running out of the house with two knifes shouting at the group. There is an enormous difference between these two.

Can you now see why I'm treating your OP with such contempt? Either you didn't read the story or you're trying to spin things a very particular way despite linking to contradictory evidence.

Nor has the OP provided any shred of evidence to substansiate his assertion that Colclough "He was demonised in the press with journalists heaping opprobium on his "privileged" background (he lived in Dublin 4) compared with the background of his victim (a Northsider)". Which is another reason i asked about what, in my opinion, is his obvious personal agenda. I am presuming that the OP's board name is just a co-incidence.

Madd Finn · 15-07-2013 11:09pm

nesf wrote: »

Read what you wrote. You:

1) Appear to make it seem like he was going home alone, he wasn't he was in a group.

2) He didn't just tell them she didn't live there, he lied to them and sent him in the other direction.

3) They didn't follow him home, the article says nothing like this.

4) They asked for a bottle opener, they weren't meanacingly gathered outside of his home.

5) He did not go out, confront them and then go back in and get a knife. His friend went out to tell them to move on and then he came running out of the house with two knifes shouting at the group. There is an enormous difference between these two.

Can you now see why I'm treating your OP with such contempt? Either you didn't read the story or you're trying to spin things a very particular way despite linking to contradictory evidence.

And YOU quipped that I couldn't read well?

For point 2: where does anyone say that he lied to them and sent them in the other direction? Other direction to where? I think it means the other direction to the path in which they were travelling. It's your inference, for which there is NO evidence (unless you know something extra that I don't) that he was lying.

To take points 1, 3 and 4 together. I NEVER said that they were behaving in a menacing or threatening manner. I said they "accosted" him in the street. (Look up the meaning if you think that's a pejorative term; it isn't), that they "followed" him back to his house, which given that they met him just a few feet away and clearly would have seen him entering the house is a justifiable word to use, and that they were "hanging around" outside.

Which they were.

Looking for a bottle opener, apparently.

At four o'clock in the morning!!!

Now I said that Colclough was "nervous and suspicious" The report linked to uses the word "uneasy" to describe not just Colclough's attitude to the newcomers but his friends as well.

Clearly they were. That does NOT imply that their suspicion or "uneasiness" was well founded. But it does suggest that there was something about the outside group that made them less than welcome guests at Colclough's house, to say the least.

Even given all that, it does NOT justify a lethal assault on them. I thought I made that clear, repeatedly.

In a way my question has been answered. I was pondering the difference in attitudes between the US and Ireland. In America, some people clearly think that Zimmerman, who similarly formed an unfounded suspicion that a young man was a threat to his neighbourhood and treated him as a suspected criminal, is a stand-your=ground hero for taking him on in a fight and killing him, apparently on the ludicrous grounds that his own gun might have been used to kill him.

In Ireland, nobody thinks Colclough was justified in doing what he did. Not even he himself, as he tried to plead guilty to manslaughter,, which led to his sentence being partially suspended on appeal.

But it's interesting that a bald restatement of the basic facts of the case should provoke such outrage.

I think both these incidents were overreactions based on misunderstandings. Fateful errors of judgement by two very different people. One ends up in jail; one gets lauded, by some, as a stand-your-ground hero.

Madd Finn · 15-07-2013 11:13pm

Old and grey wrote: »

Nor has the OP provided any shred of evidence to substansiate his assertion that Colclough "He was demonised in the press with journalists heaping opprobium on his "privileged" background (he lived in Dublin 4) compared with the background of his victim (a Northsider)".

Well you're just going to have to take my word for it that such an article DID appear in the Sunday Tribune round about the time of the trial. I believe it was written by Michael Clifford. I would link to it but the Tribune, as you may know, is no longer with us.

Unless of course you want to head down to your local library and look up the back issue yourself. Maybe life's too short.

old and grey wrote:

I am presuming that the OP's board name is just a co-incidence.

Ha ha. We can all play that sort of game.

Old and grey, maybe; old and wise? Hmmm.

nesf · 15-07-2013 11:35pm

Madd Finn wrote: »

And YOU quipped that I couldn't read well?

For point 2: where does anyone say that he lied to them and sent them in the other direction? Other direction to where? I think it means the other direction to the path in which they were travelling. It's your inference, for which there is NO evidence (unless you know something extra that I don't) that he was lying.

To take points 1, 3 and 4 together. I NEVER said that they were behaving in a menacing or threatening manner. I said they "accosted" him in the street. (Look up the meaning if you think that's a pejorative term; it isn't), that they "followed" him back to his house, which given that they met him just a few feet away and clearly would have seen him entering the house is a justifiable word to use, and that they were "hanging around" outside.

Which they were.

Looking for a bottle opener, apparently.

At four o'clock in the morning!!!

Now I said that Colclough was "nervous and suspicious" The report linked to uses the word "uneasy" to describe not just Colclough's attitude to the newcomers but his friends as well.

Clearly they were. That does NOT imply that their suspicion or "uneasiness" was well founded. But it does suggest that there was something about the outside group that made them less than welcome guests at Colclough's house, to say the least.

Even given all that, it does NOT justify a lethal assault on them. I thought I made that clear, repeatedly.

In a way my question has been answered. I was pondering the difference in attitudes between the US and Ireland. In America, some people clearly think that Zimmerman, who similarly formed an unfounded suspicion that a young man was a threat to his neighbourhood and treated him as a suspected criminal, is a stand-your=ground hero for taking him on in a fight and killing him, apparently on the ludicrous grounds that his own gun might have been used to kill him.

In Ireland, nobody thinks Colclough was justified in doing what he did. Not even he himself, as he tried to plead guilty to manslaughter,, which led to his sentence being partially suspended on appeal.

But it's interesting that a bald restatement of the basic facts of the case should provoke such outrage.

I think both these incidents were overreactions based on misunderstandings. Fateful errors of judgement by two very different people. One ends up in jail; one gets lauded, by some, as a stand-your-ground hero.

On 2, yes I misread "gave them directions in the opposite direction," it's ambiguous. This doesn't change a very particular view you're presenting here that is at odds with reality. On point 5, the extremely important one you are silent.

Looking for a bottle opener at 4am isn't actually that strange. I've seen a lot weirder at that time of the morning.

Look, the two are not even remotely comparable. In one we have a security guard doing their job (personally I think the decision in his case is a joke), in the other a teen, who when drunk attacked someone without reasonable provocation. I have no trouble believing there was no murder in this boy's mind but it's just not the same situation at all. I really fail to see why you are comparing them.

oscarBravo · 16-07-2013 9:11am

George Zimmerman wasn't a security guard, but a busybody. He picked a fight with an unarmed teenager, shot the teenager dead during the course of the fight, and - most tragic of all - apparently had the right to do so under Florida law.

It's beyond me how you can claim self-defence when you're the one who started the fight.

nesf · 16-07-2013 1:13pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

George Zimmerman wasn't a security guard, but a busybody. He picked a fight with an unarmed teenager, shot the teenager dead during the course of the fight, and - most tragic of all - apparently had the right to do so under Florida law.

It's beyond me how you can claim self-defence when you're the one who started the fight.

Like I said, I consider the decision a joke. It'd have been manslaughter at a minimum here.

Valmont · 17-07-2013 12:48pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

It's beyond me how you can claim self-defence when you're the one who started the fight.

An eye-witness, the police, and the jury would disagree with you on that one; Confronting somebody is not the same thing as starting the fight. Zimmerman is only guilty of being stupid.

oscarBravo · 17-07-2013 2:55pm

Valmont wrote: »

An eye-witness, the police, and the jury would disagree with you on that one; Confronting somebody is not the same thing as starting the fight. Zimmerman is only guilty of being stupid.

The police told him not to approach Martin. He did. An altercation ensued, which ended in Zimmerman shooting Martin.

I stand by what I said: George Zimmerman picked a fight with Trayvon Martin, at the end of which he shot him dead. I'll agree that he's probably not guilty of murder under Florida law, but that's because Florida law is at least as stupid as George Zimmerman is.

Valmont · 17-07-2013 3:56pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

The police told him not to approach Martin. He did.

This doesn't mean he started the fight. And it's curious you will appeal to the police only when it suits your argument; you seem to ignore that the officers didn't see any reason to arrest Zimmerman at the scene as the defensive nature of the attack was clear-cut.

oscarBravo wrote: »

An altercation ensued, which ended in Zimmerman shooting Martin.

You skipped over a crucial point: an altercation ensued which resulted in Martin sitting on top of Zimmerman, punching him in the face repeatedly. Only then did Zimmerman shoot Martin.

oscarBravo wrote: »

I stand by what I said: George Zimmerman picked a fight with Trayvon Martin

I stand by what the jury, the police, and the only eye-witness said: Trayvon Martin threw the first punch and put Zimmerman in fear of his life.

oscarBravo · 17-07-2013 4:11pm

Valmont wrote: »

I stand by what the jury, the police, and the only eye-witness said: Trayvon Martin threw the first punch and put Zimmerman in fear of his life.

Why did Trayvon Martin throw that punch?

Masked Man · 17-07-2013 4:31pm

The police didn't tell him not to approach Martin.

I think you can argue over whether he did or not but, based on what I know, I don't think you can argue over the fact that there's reasonable doubt. And reasonable doubt is not a stupid element of Florida Law.

Out of curiosity, why do you say this:

but that's because Florida law is at least as stupid as George Zimmerman is.

What part of the law is stupid?

kalych · 17-07-2013 4:32pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

Why did Trayvon Martin throw that punch?

I´ll follow your line of thought here and "assume" he considered himself stronger and thought he would come up on top in a fight? Your assumption, please?

oscarBravo · 17-07-2013 4:36pm

Masked Man wrote: »

The police didn't tell him not to approach Martin.

"Are you following him?"

"Yes."

"We don't need you to do that."

What part of the law is stupid?

The part that says you have a legal right to harass unarmed strangers, and if they respond with violence, to kill them.

kalych wrote: »

I´ll follow your line of thought here and "assume" he considered himself stronger and thought he would come up on top in a fight? Your assumption, please?

My assumption is that if George Zimmerman had stayed in his car, he wouldn't have put himself in a situation where he felt compelled to shoot an unarmed teenager in the chest.

Masked Man · 17-07-2013 4:40pm

"Are you following him?"

"Yes."

"We don't need you to do that."

afaik even the prosecutor admitted in his closing argument that what the 911 operator said was ambiguous.

The part that says you have a legal right to harass unarmed strangers, and if they respond with violence, to kill them.

so, no specific element. just one case where it was impossible to prove that the defendant committed a crime.

kalych · 17-07-2013 4:43pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

"Are you following him?"

"Yes."

"We don't need you to do that." The part that says you have a legal right to harass unarmed strangers, and if they respond with violence, to kill them.

My assumption is that if George Zimmerman had stayed in his car, he wouldn't have put himself in a situation where he felt compelled to shoot an unarmed teenager in the chest.

Sorry, but not everyone agrees with you that in a neighbourhood, where residents do not feel safe and protected by their local Police Department, "staying in your car and doing nothing" is the right course of action. I do believe Zimmerman acted stupidly, but do not agree that the fact that he followed the youth can be classed ( as the court rightfully agreed ) as "picking a fight" or harassment. Just my opinion.

oscarBravo · 17-07-2013 4:55pm

Masked Man wrote: »

afaik even the prosecutor admitted in his closing argument that what the 911 operator said was ambiguous.

There was nothing ambiguous about the instructions given by the police to the neighbourhood watch group when it was set up: don't approach strangers; let the police handle it.

so, no specific element. just one case where it was impossible to prove that the defendant committed a crime.

If you think it's perfectly OK for an armed adult to initiate a confrontation with an unarmed teenager (and bolloxology about "first punches" aside, Zimmerman clearly initiated the confrontation) and conclude that confrontation with a bullet to the chest... fair enough. I would rather not live in a place where that's considered socially acceptable behaviour.

kalych wrote: »

Sorry, but not everyone agrees with you that in a neighbourhood, where residents do not feel safe and protected by their local Police Department, "staying in your car and doing nothing" is the right course of action.

Is there some aspect of this case that has confirmed your opinion that picking fights with unarmed teenagers is, in fact, the correct course of action?

I do believe Zimmerman acted stupidly, but do not agree that the fact that he followed the youth can be classed ( as the court rightfully agreed ) as "picking a fight" or harassment. Just my opinion.

So you'd have no problem with being followed around by nosey neighbours carrying guns as you go about your daily business?

Madd Finn · 17-07-2013 5:00pm

Valmont wrote: »

I stand by what the jury, the police, and the only eye-witness said: Trayvon Martin threw the first punch and put Zimmerman in fear of his life.

And that's what's stupid.

The old definition of that wonderful Yiddish word "Chutzpah" was "a man convicted of murdering both his parents pleading for clemency on the grounds that he's an orphan"

And the new one would appear to be "an armed man becoming in fear of his life because of the weapon HE has brought into the situation being justified in killing somebody"

(I have a gun. I've provoked this kid into a fight. If he gets hold of it I'm dead. I'd better kill him before he even finds out I have it.)

If Zimmerman was justified by his own fear to kill Martin, then why wasn't Martin justified by HIS fear of the strange "creepy cracker" (whatever that is in Florida teenage lingo) to give him a slap? That's if you even concede that Martin threw the first punch, which is uncertain.

But in law, you have to give the benefit of the doubt to the accused. Unless you've killed him already, of course. :rolleyes:

kalych · 17-07-2013 5:07pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

Is there some aspect of this case that has confirmed your opinion that picking fights with unarmed teenagers is, in fact, the correct course of action? So you'd have no problem with being followed around by nosey neighbours carrying guns as you go about your daily business?

Please, do not misrepresent the case, at no point until the fight happened did Martin know Zimmerman had a gun. You are painting it like the reason for a fight was the fact that Zimmerman was armed. This is factually not so, as has been shown in reconstruction videos by expert witnesses.

In the answer to your question, I would not have a problem, after I would have stopped and asked the person why they had been following me and received an answer that they were a in the neighbourhood watch (even if self-appointed). Trayvon's attack on Zimmerman without any attempt to have a conversation is the reason for the incident. The attack by the youth is the reason why Zimmerman was acquitted of all charges.

You are claiming he was provoked by Zimmerman following him, I do not agree with this statement.

Masked Man · 17-07-2013 5:07pm

If you think it's perfectly OK for an armed adult to initiate a confrontation with an unarmed teenager (and bolloxology about "first punches" aside, Zimmerman clearly initiated the confrontation) and conclude that confrontation with a bullet to the chest... fair enough. I would rather not live in a place where that's considered socially acceptable behaviour.

There's quite a difference between socially acceptable and sending a guy to prison.

i don't think he what he did was morally right. I don't think the result the jury reached was wrong.

A tale of two jurisdictions

Comments