It's Watch!... Neighborhood Watch. Not shoot.

Probably nothing.

But, being followed also doesn't give you permission to assault someone. (If that's what happened, and I don't know if it is, or is not, what happened.)

 

He was walking slowly (even in the rain!!) while wearing a hoodie (either to conceal his identity or because it was raining) and talking on his cell phone (to gang members or maybe his girlfriend) and was acting like he was on drugs, which is a perfectly logical conclusion now that we know he was a) eating Skittles and b) suspended from school for possessing a baggy that once held traceable amounts of marijuana.

 

Actually, if Zimmerman is charged, it's the other way around: prosecutors will have to provide the evidence, or did you forget that little technicality of which side has the burden of proof?
Don't get me wrong here. I think Zimmerman is guilty of something that should result in jail time, if for nothing else but for being an obvious prick on wheels who took a chance encounter and escalated it in grotesque fashion. But I do believe in fair trials and right now I don't think he'd ever get one. It's not a fair trial if one side of the issue has already convicted him in their minds and will not hold with any other outcome.

 

Oy.

Did you miss this?

 

Yeah. Jacksonville is so racist that the city elected a black mayor last year.
Don't let the facts interfere with your preconceived notions.

 

Pardon me if multiple people concluded that you were getting the Constitution wrong.

 

Since Drip wondered aloud a few pages ago ...

http://articles.nydailynews.com/2012-03-04/news/31122324_1_white-boy-fire-tv-station

TV and Poo should track developments in case they feel need to update their online messages.

On a related note, Az, I should not have called you out the other day. I can appreciate posters like you and Zeke who take the time to explain where you're coming from, even if I rarely agree.

 

Noted. Thanks.

 

This is not about the right of the accused, this is getting way ahead of ourselves.

This is about the failure of the criminal justice system in Sanford, Fla.

The first step is supposed to be a determination by the police as to whether there is "probable cause" that a crime was committed, not guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The problem is that the way the Sanford PD has acted, when held up to what African-Americans have been arrested for throughout history and to this day, shows that they have failed to apply the "probable cause" standard that is and has been applied elsewhere. Under that historical standard, people are appalled that the Sanford PD concluded that there was not probable cause to arrest Zimmerman.

That is the failure that is being brought to light.

 

As you point out yourself, burden of proof is on the state.

Once someone is charged.

 

Not that this makes everything all right, but I would also guess that since Zimmerman is the self-appointed chief of the neighborhood watch, he's probably out "patrolling" a lot, and is familiar with most of the residents of his "gated community".

So, Martin was probably a stranger to him. Not that this alone should make him "suspicious".

I will point out that in my own case, when my laptop was nearly stolen, I did notice the "perp" earlier. I was working from home on my laptop, and had my front door open. this guy walked by. I know everyone in the building, and not only did I not recognize him, but he since my neighbors are artists, a photographer, and (at the time) an architect, there aren't a lot of "customers" walking my hallway. He was headed towards the artists spaces, and they rarely get visitors.

So, he did look kind of out of place or "suspicious". But, he was relatively well dressed -- gray slacks and a black button down shirt, so i put it out of my mind.

Now, when I went downstairs/outside, I made the mistake of not locking my front door, since I was going back up.

When this fell later almost literally bumped into me on the sidewalk carrying a laptop under his arm, my first thought was, "hey, that's the same kind of laptop I have."

My second thought was, "Hey..."

Now, I obviously didn't follow this dude, or accost him -- until he stole my computer.

But, when you know your surroundings and neighbors well, any stranger might arouse your suspicions.

 

Regarding presumption of innocence and burden of proof, this is a very good column by an ethics director at Emory University:

http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/28/opinion/ethics-stand-your-ground-laws/index.html

Florida's law in particular remade the very nature of self-defense, turning what had been an "affirmative defense" into a presumption of innocence.

Before the passage of these "stand your ground laws," most jurisdictions in the United States required one to demonstrate that one was acting in self-defense, that one had been attacked, that one reasonably feared for one's life and that it was reasonable to use deadly force to protect oneself.

Unfortunately, Florida's law expressly presumes that the individual using deadly force in self-defense had a reasonable fear of death or serious bodily injury. It also immunizes the individual from arrest or even being detained in custody, hence the failure of the police to arrest George Zimmerman, the neighborhood watch volunteer who has acknowledged shooting Martin.

That whole column ... scary, scary stuff.