Weekend open thread: "Not guilty" doesn't mean "did the right thing"

A Florida jury acquitted George Zimmerman of both second-degree murder and manslaughter today in the shooting death of Trayvon Martin. The verdict doesn’t surprise me. No one witnessed the whole encounter that led Zimmerman to shoot an unarmed teenager. Although I did not watch the trial, I gather from commentaries and coverage at Talk Left and elsewhere that the defense turned several of the prosecution witnesses and produced their own witnesses supporting parts of Zimmerman’s story. They didn’t need to prove the self-defense narrative–only create reasonable doubt in the minds of jurors.

That said, I doubt any jury would have acquitted an African-American man of shooting an unarmed white teenager under the same circumstances.

Roberto Martinez, a former U.S. attorney in Florida’s Southern District, made the case for a manslaughter conviction in the Miami Herald. I recommend reading the whole piece, but I’ve posted an excerpt after the jump. Even those who believe the jury reached the right verdict from a narrow legal perspective should acknowledge that Zimmerman’s stupid and reckless behavior caused the death of an innocent child. This verdict does not vindicate the actions of vigilante wannabe cops.

This is an open thread: all topics welcome.

UPDATE: Why am I not surprised? State Senator Kent Sorenson (contender for creepiest Iowa lawmaker) celebrated the verdict as “a victory for 2nd Amendment rights around the nation.” Hat tip to Christian Ucles, who commented, “Really Kent? The death of a child is a victory for 2nd amendment rights. […] You make me sick. I can’t believe to think that you and I both went to the same church, an considered you a Brother in Christ. You value guns and the actions of gun owners over the lives of children not your own?” In the comment thread, Sorenson responded, “Your [sic] a political hack that [sic] doesn’t care about anything other then [sic] your parties [sic] talking points!”

SECOND UPDATE: Iowa House Democrat Ako Abdul-Samad reacted to the verdict here.

THIRD UPDATE: Comments from President Barack Obama and Representative Steve King are after the jump. King really goes out of his way to stir up the pot sometimes.

Excerpt from Roberto Martinez guest column in the Miami Herald: “Man carrying loaded handgun shoots and kills unarmed teen.”

The man’s actions created a course of conduct that led to a dangerous situation: the physical confrontation and the fight. The dangerous situation subjected the man and the teen to the risk of death or injury, as the man was carrying a loaded gun.

Manslaughter is defined as: “The killing of a human being by the . . . culpable negligence of another, without lawful justification . . . ”

Does the evidence support a finding of guilty of manslaughter beyond a reasonable doubt?

I believe it does. But for the man’s negligence in carrying a loaded gun and chasing and pursuing the teen, after being told not to by the police, there would have been no physical confrontation and the teen would be alive.

No reasonably careful person would do what the man did, and that should be obvious to everyone.

UPDATE: President Obama released this statement:

“The death of Trayvon Martin was a tragedy. Not just for his family, or for any one community, but for America. I know this case has elicited strong passions. And in the wake of the verdict, I know those passions may be running even higher. But we are a nation of laws, and a jury has spoken. I now ask every American to respect the call for calm reflection from two parents who lost their young son.

“And as we do, we should ask ourselves if were doing all we can to widen the circle of compassion and understanding in our own communities. We should ask ourselves if were doing all we can to stem the tide of gun violence that claims too many lives across this country on a daily basis. We should ask ourselves, as individuals and as a society, how we can prevent future tragedies like this. As citizens, thats a job for all of us. Thats the way to honor Trayvon Martin.”

Sadly, Steve King couldn’t strike the same respectful tone.

WALLACE: Congressman King, let me start with you. Should George Zimmerman ever have been prosecuted?

KING: From what i have seen of the evidence, I would say no. My sympathy goes out also to the Martin family and the Zimmerman family for this ordeal that they’ve been through. The evidence didn’t support prosecution and the Justice Department engaged in this, the President engaged in this and turned it into a political issue that should have been handled exclusively with law and order. I regret that this all happened. I’m sorry that it was turned into a race issue by the media. Otherwise, it would have been tried or not tried depending on the laws that were there. This is unfortunate.

I don’t think there was anything wrong with the president’s comments about Trayvon Martin’s death more than a year ago.

I suspect King would have a different view if an armed man followed, fought with and eventually shot his own son to death.

About the Author(s)

desmoinesdem

  • Geraldo

    Geraldo Rivera’s anger towards Al Sharpton (much of it justified) has been transferred to Trayvon Martin.  Geraldo is patting himself on the back because he allegedly taught his kid not to wear a hoodie.

    I guess Geraldo simply has not lost his flair for the dramatic and his love of hyperbole.

    I will always wonder whether Martin had a chance to get away and/or he ended up reaching for Zimmerman’s gun.  

    • no one knows

      at what point Martin was aware Zimmerman had a gun. One of the experts talking about the testimony was saying it’s unlikely that on a dark street Martin could have seen the gun in Zimmerman’s back holster. In other words, he wouldn’t have been aware of the gun until Zimmerman pulled it after they were already fighting. At that point, he would have been in genuine fear for his life, so it’s not surprising he was trying to hit Zimmerman’s head on the sidewalk. And of course that would make Zimmerman afraid for his life, hence the self-defense narrative.

      To me the bottom line is that Zimmerman was advised not to carry a gun on neighborhood watch, and was later advised not to pursue Martin. If he had heeded that advice, the fatal encounter would never have happened. Carrying a gun can make people feel emboldened to do a lot of stupid things.

      • Agreed

        I agree with you completely.  The problem is that the jury was led to believe that Martin attempted to reach for the gun.  

        The jury was also led to believe there was a four minute time period when Martin could have run away.  The defense team led the jury to believe that Martin was hiding in a bush and planning an attack on Zimmerman instead of running away.  

        The jury completely disregarded the beginning of the incident, it was like they were fixated on the physical fighting aspect.  

Comments