The Zimmerman Saga Isn't Over

[Jim147]

Left out four.

4. Made Obama look bad.

[HankB]

^ "...I did -- and I then wrote her a letter citing the case and the exact words. I never received a reply..."

That's because your letter was deemed a living document and didn't really mean what it said.

 

In the auras and penumbras apparent only to a trained jurist she determined that you saw the error of your ways and in fact were agreeing with her completely.

[230RN]

      ^ ✔

[Jamisjockey]

I forgot where I recently read it, but some legal commentator for someplace like MSNBC or CNN, who was a long time federal prosecutor, said some outrageously unconstitutional thing in his legal opinion (can't remember what that was either), but what most resonated with me was one of the comments regarding his statement about, "Maybe it's a good idea to go back and review all his old cases."

When you see how outrageously anti-freedom some of these guys are after the fact, it really makes you wonder how many innocent people that couldn't outspend the federal/state/local government in legal fees are sitting behind bars or otherwise have ruined lives. I'm on an "under the radar" kick right now, and it really seems that's the only place to be safe.

"I got pinched too!"

"Which is what happens when you call the Feds."

This right here.  The system is so powerful, that when used incorrectly you cannot beat it.  Overcharging to get plea deals, rewarding police departments with high arrest rates, the list goes on.
Florida seems to be a hot spot for that sort of misbehavior.

[kgbsquirrel]

"Innocent" is the correct term. He was charged with murder. Homicide (the taking of a human life) in self-defense is not murder. It's not even a crime.

Acquitted.

[Hawkmoon]

Acquitted.

Well, technically, "Not guilty."

But he wasn't changed with homicide, he was charged with murder, and he was found after a lengthy trial to be not guilty or murder. He was not tried for homicide, and homicide is not a crime in Florida (or anywhere in the United States) when committed in self-defense. The cort record doesn't say that he was acquitted, the court record says that he was adjudicated and found to be "Not guilty."

But I was responding to this statement:

Clarification: Innocent was probably the wrong term.  He did kill Martin, but that doesn't mean the state should sanction fabricating evidence in an attempt to crush his self defense claim.

That implies that Zimmerman was guilty of killing Martin. Using the term "guilty" implies that the killing was either a sin or a crime. It was neither, therefore I think it is entirely appropriate to say that Zimmerman was innocent.

[kgbsquirrel]

Well, technically, "Not guilty."

But he wasn't changed with homicide, he was charged with murder, and he was found after a lengthy trial to be not guilty or murder. He was not tried for homicide, and homicide is not a crime in Florida (or anywhere in the United States) when committed in self-defense. The cort record doesn't say that he was acquitted, the court record says that he was adjudicated and found to be "Not guilty."

But I was responding to this statement:

That implies that Zimmerman was guilty of killing Martin. Using the term "guilty" implies that the killing was either a sin or a crime. It was neither, therefore I think it is entirely appropriate to say that Zimmerman was innocent.

And when a person is charged with a crime and found not guilty by an impartial jury it is called acquittal.

[Hawkmoon]

And when a person is charged with a crime and found not guilty by an impartial jury it is called acquittal.

Yes. By the press.

The jury does not announce that they found the accused to be "acquitted," they announce that they found the accused "not guilty." And that's what the court record says.

But ... the trail and the verdict only apply to what the defendant is charged with. Zimmerman was not charged with killing Martin. That was a given. Zimmerman was charged with "murder." He was found not guilty of murder.

We're getting deep into semantics here. Zimmerman did kill Martin, and he acknowledged having done so. His defense was that it was a justifiable act of self-defense. So, was he "guilty" of killing Martin, even though he was NOT guilty of murder? Under Florida law, the trial established that Zimmerman was justified in having killed Martin. So ... not guilty on that charge. I admit that "not guilty" may not be the same as "innocent." Casey Anthony was found not guilty of killing her daughter, yet it is widely believed that she did it. So there's one example where "not guilty" may not equate to "innocent." I respectfully submit that the Zimmerman trial verdict was not the same. It was a given that Zimmerman killed Martin. The question wasn't "Did he do it?" but "Was it murder?"

In my view, Zimmerman was a case where "Not guilty" equates to "innocent."

But that comes back to what are we discussing? If killing Martin was not a criminal act ("homicide" is simply the taking of a human life -- it becomes criminal only in certain circumstances), then Zimmerman was legally innocent even though the official court finding was "Not guilty." So was Zimmerman guilty morally? Even the Roman Catholic catechism teaches that the taking of a human life is not a sin when the intent is simpkly to prevent the other person from taking your life or that of an innocent third party. So the killing wasn't a moral sin, either ==> "innocent."