An acquittal usually means that there was not enough evidence to convict the defendant which is the prosecutor's duty to ensure. That being said, was Zimmerman put on trial for racial politics or was it a legitimate case?
Just because race was an issue, that doesn't mean it wouldn't've been a legitimate case anyway.
A little of both. He was tried for the right reasons. It was aired on tv 24/7 for racial reasons.
RACE. NAACP urging the DOJ to press civil charges.
The NAACP needs to go away already. They've outlived their usefulness.
Natl assc for advancement of CERTAIN people
Political types and the media were behind the sensationalization of this case from the get-go.
Isn't the race based attack on a Hispanic racial?
He was overcharged. I've said since the beginning they would never win a 2nd degree charge. Had they started with manslaughter or reckless homicide I believe there would have been a different outcome.
The jury considered the charge of manslaughter, and found him not guilty.
This was a case of excusable homicide, under FL State law.
Not really. They asked for the manslaughter charge to be defined, and when the judge asked them to be more specific they never answered back. Plus the prosecutors didn't try to prove manslaughter because they were going for a higher charge.
The legal definition of manslaughter in FL is a catch-all. It can't really get all that specific. Further more as a catch-all, there's nothing special required for proof, over and above murder 2.
It was excusable homicide; that's why he's not guilty.
To prove manslaughter all they had to do was prove that there was a death and that GZ's actions were what lead to that death. GZ's actions constituted manslaughter to me, I'm not saying TM did not share blame, I'm saying GZ was more to blame IMO.
If that's the case Cane then every cop who shoots someone in FL should be charged
That's not what manslaughter is, especially in Florida. Have you even read the definition of manslaughter in FL? For the third time, this was a case of excusable homicide. Zim acted in self defense.
Of they had charged him based on evidence, they would have charged him months before they really did.
Agreed. He was charged because of political pressure, nothing more.
Are you aware the the original investigator recommended a charge and arrest for manslaughter?
Yes and I disagree
There's a reason he wasn't originally charged.
Yes, that reason is that at the time they had no probable cause to arrest him for any crime
Race and politics.
The grand jury found his actions justified and he was never originally set to stand trial. The trial was a racially motivated cluster fvck.
I don't believe it ever went to a grand jury
Shelly is correct, this case was never presented to a grand jury, which was a miscarriage of justice by itself.
Correct. The case was determined justifiable homicide by the investigating officers and the grand jury was side tracked. articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-04-09/national/35453166_1_angela-corey-trayvon-martin-case-george-zimmerman
In Florida only Murder 1 requires, by law, that a grand jury is convened. In all other cases its the discretion of the prosecutors and amidst all of the political pressure from on high I have no doubt they were ordered to skip the jury and charge him
Almost right Nostromo - the actual lead investigating officer wanted to charge - his superiors chose not to
It wasn't just about race, but it was also a chance to blame a gun, and attack the right to self-defense in the first place.
That's true. If one could be found guilty of a crime for defending one's self in spite of being within their rights to self-defense, then a terrible precedent would be set in the anti-self-defense folks' favor.
Certainly it's become a racially charged case, but c'mon, when someone is dead on the street, it needs to be investigated. No matter what the circumstances are.
They did investigate. You dont have to arrest someone to investigate.
It was a racially charged case from the very beginning. That's the only reason Zimmerman was ever put on trial. He wasn't arrested after the investigation cause there was no grounds to arrest him on.
Investigated, yes but an arrest requires reasonable suspicion of having committed a crime and in states with stand your ground rights its tough to presume guilt and arrest someone.
The fact that there was no arrest at first....RACE
Wrong, according to stand your ground laws that was lawful and to be expected. An arrest at first implies guilty of a crime, or at least suspected of one, which a self defense incident has no business being considered.
The fact that people arent usually arrested for cases of self defense mean this trial was taken way out of proportion.
The media made it a race war.