Stop and Frisk: High School Senior Video
For your first blog for English 103,
The Research Paper, please google the Trayvon Martin case and respond in the blog here in class, September 10. We will screen the Stop and Frisk Video and discuss it to give you ideas. Your blogs for The Research Paper may be expanded and included in your essay, so think of each blog as a possible draft of what may become an essay :).
1. Research one of the issues or questions or laws we discussed today: at beginning of your blog state what issue you are researching.
2. Summarize important points the article or video presents (put link in your blog and include brief quotations).
3. Describe your personal response to the issue and identify what we should consider or question in this case. For example, what laws, policies, behaviors, attitudes need to change? For what reasons was Zimmerman found not guilty? How did Stand Your Ground policy affect what happened in this case?
IMPORTANT:make sure your name appears above your blog (so you are signed in).
No comments:
1. Research one of the issues or questions or laws we discussed today: at beginning of your blog state what issue you are researching.
2. Summarize important points the article or video presents (put link in your blog and include brief quotations).
3. Describe your personal response to the issue and identify what we should consider or question in this case. For example, what laws, policies, behaviors, attitudes need to change? For what reasons was Zimmerman found not guilty? How did Stand Your Ground policy affect what happened in this case?
IMPORTANT:make sure your name appears above your blog (so you are signed in).
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteStand your Ground Law: (What is it, is it state by state, when was this law passed)
ReplyDeleteIssue: Does this law protect or murder the innocent?
The Stand your Ground law basically allows one to shoot/use deadly force if they feel their life is at risk or if they are in a dangerous situation. This law not only applies to someone that is inside their home, but also on the street. This law was passed in 2005 in Florida and similar laws like this one have been passed in several other states. It is a state by state law. This law can be an issue because it has made Florida much more dangerous. "The rate of justified homicides have tripled" in the state. This shows that thousands of people have been killed, and the shooters were "not guilty" due to the Stand your ground law. Were these killings really to protect people with guns? Or were innocent lives taken away due to a lack of judgement such as the Travon Martin case? This is the main issue with the Stand your ground law. Although in Zimmerman's case, he did not get off with this law, however he still did get off the hook and was found "not guilty."
My feelings on this is that although this was not exactly the law that "helped" Zimmerman be free, I am sure that there have been plenty of cases where innocent people have been killed in Florida due to the Stand your Ground Law. Anybody can claim in court that their life was at risk and the law states that they are allowed to shoot as self defense. When innocent lives are taken away from their families, it becomes an issue.
Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/07/15/everything-you-need-to-know-about-stand-your-ground-laws/
Excellent start Anastasia--if you decide you want to work on Stand Your Ground and argue that it does more harm than good, next step is to investigate other cases that prove your claim that innocent people have been killed!
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.miamiherald.com/2013/07/16/3502481/juror-we-talked-stand-your-ground.html
ReplyDeleteI'm interested in how much the Stand Your Ground Law played a part in Zimmerman's freedom. This post ultimately proves that Zimmerman got off because of the Stand Your Ground Law. The Stand Your Ground Law is basically an eye for an eye, "Stand Your Ground allows a law-abiding citizen to “meet force with force, including deadly force” as written in the aforementioned article. The main focus of this article is the insight of one of the Jurors (referred to as B37). Although the degree of which the Stand Your Ground Law effected the verdict is still disputed, Juror B37 has made it clear that it definitely played a huge role in the Jurors' decisions. It is repeated over and over that although it was Zimmerman that followed Trayvon and instigated this melee, because of the Stand Your Ground Law and self defense , it boils down to Zimmerman was not wrong for standing his ground after Trayvon acknowledged him and made contact.
The big question is, WHY does it only boil down to the last minutes of the situation where Zimmerman was "forced" to defend himself? I put "forced" in quotations because I feel as though Zimmerman put HIMSELF in that situation. The big deal is over Zimmerman feeling as though his life was threatened, and he needed (and allowed, under Stand Your Ground) to inflict deadly force to defend himself. However, there was no real threat nor issue present UNTIL Zimmerman took it upon himself to follow Trayvon. The article states that prosecution argued that Zimmerman HUNTED Trayvon, and I one-hundred percent agree with that. The fact that Trayvon was unarmed and Zimmerman wielded a 9mm handgun does create a feeling of a hunter stalking prey.
I believe the Stand Your Ground Law needs to change. I believe this not only because Zimmerman, who killed an innocent young boy, got off. I also believe so because if this law is removed and we leave the justice, defense and safety to those who are trained for such - the police - not only would he guilty be found so and get the sentence they deserve, but it would prevent the controversy that come along with cases such as this. Without Stand Your Ground, there would be no question as to whether or not Zimmerman was right or wrong, because ultimately it should have been left up to the Police's discretion to decide whether or not Trayvon did anything wrong or posed a threat & to bring justice. Stand Your Ground allowed Zimmerman to take the law into his own hands, despite the police telling him to stand DOWN, he took justice into his own hands and a young man lost his life.
Very good start Rebecca--next step is to integrate direct quotes from this Miami Herald article and others like it so that you can strengthen your proof that this law is the key to the jurors acquitting Zimmerman!
DeleteRichy Luis
ReplyDeletehttp://www.cnn.com/2013/07/13/justice/zimmerman-trial/index.html
The jury had three choices: to find Zimmerman guilty of second-degree murder; to find him guilty of a lesser charge of manslaughter; or to find him not guilty.
For second-degree murder, the jurors would have had to believe that Martin's unlawful killing was "done from ill will, hatred, spite or an evil intent" and would be "of such a nature that the act itself indicates an indifference to human life."
To convict Zimmerman of manslaughter, the jurors would have had to believe he "intentionally committed an act or acts that caused the death of Trayvon Martin." That charge could have carried a sentence of up to 30 years in prison, though the jury was not told of that possible sentence.
Ultimately, they believed Zimmerman wasn't guilty of either charge. None of the jurors wanted to speak to the media after the verdict.
The concern i have with what i read in the summary i have read was the fact that the jury had only three choices to have Zimmerman convicted but yet he wasn't. As you can see it was on trail for second degree murder and for manslaughter. What seems to bother me is the fact that he was not convicted for neither, when in his case he clearly killed a boy and what concerns me is that if this is not murder or better yet mansluaghter then now ask what is?. What i think that needs to change is the way the laws are made that lets a guilty men run free and overall i think its important to discuss this situation just because its a crime that could be either debated as not a crime or that it is.
Richy--your first paragraph is very strong because you explain precisely (from the CNN article) what the jurors had to believe in order to convict Zimmerman. Your second paragraph is a little to general: what laws need to change? what should Zimmerman have been charged with--go back to this article and find others on same topic and extend your thinking--we will work on thesis development in class Wednesday.
Deletehttp://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/stop_and_frisk
ReplyDeleteI am researching the stop and frisk policy and have found information about it and what the latest news have said towards it. It gives police officers the right to stop anyone that looks suspicious, seems to be angry, a search of someone's outer clothing or an individuals actions on the streets to detect if any weapons are being carried. Police officers have the right to question and search the pedestrian if their appearance shows that they're about to commit, are committing or have committed a felony.
Stop and frisk seems to be a huge racial issue, due to the fact that police officers think it's a relevant situation as to where they stop anyone by the looks of that individual. It get's critical because the majority that do get stopped are hispanics and blacks. From my perspective, stop and frisk is a stereotype situation and very observing as to what someone is doing in the streets or even what they look like. This policy gets me highly upset because I do not think it's right for someone to be randomly searched as they walk the streets. Someone can just be walking home and suddenly gets searched but are innocent and have nothing suspicious on them such as a fire arm, or any other weapon. It's not right that the innocent ones have to go through such thing and police officers do it in a violating way thinking they're just doing their job.
Joellie--good focus--remember to refer to law by state and in paragraph one state where you got info. You are right to feel passionately about unjust racial profiling--now you need to find the evidence to back up your argument against it!
Deletehttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/13/george-zimmerman-not-guilty_n_3588743.html
ReplyDeletei have chosen to research how and why zimmerman was not convicted
zimmerman was found not guilty based on his ability to prove his scenario with martin initiating assault with himself. additionally the testimonies given appeared to be flaky at best.
i strongly disagree with the verdict of not guilty. from beginning to end zimmerman's defense was based on assumptions and profiling. additionally zimmerman has a history of personality flaws that is reflected by his rap sheet. he has domestic violence charges, rape charges and assaulting a police officer. i believe that in the many encounters that people have in court where there past is used against them, clearly the DA forgot all about that tactic.
the fact that it took the florida police 44 days to even arrest him shows that there is a serious flaw in the judical system in regards to outright murder. zimmermans lawyer was very good at burying the facts under "technicalities". there is no justice in the courts.how could the zimmerman testimony been accepted as fact is beyond me. it doesnt add up at all. for an individual who killed somebody based on his profiling abilities, he should have profiled and shot himself.
Matthew--your post is full of passion and outrage at Zimmerman's acquittal--I sympathize with your position. Keep your passion but write from hard facts and remember that Zimmerman was not on trial for actions that came before--you are stirring everything into the same pot! Decide on what your really want to argue and then begin using facts (and quotes) from reliable sources to back up your position.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletewhen i was researching the "stop and frisk policy" i found out that there were a lot of people who agreed on the fact that its a scary situation being stop by a cop randomly especially when they haven't done anything. there is this one boy Kasiem Walters who was first stoped at the age of 13 and he felt that if he worn something who didn't make him seem harmful that he wouldn't have been stop. only at the age 13 he says that the cops were being rough with him and they threw all of his stuff out his bag back and kept talking to him in a way that mad him frighted and confused. Also in the video " stop and frisk ' the boy says that cops should be here to protect not harm us. that this world we live in were all diverse.
ReplyDeleteI kind of agree with him because if it was me who have been stop i would be scared also. at the same time i kind of agree with the policy because if cops were to stop people who do look harmful and looks like they might a gun then maybe there will be less death and guns on the street. i don't agree that little kids such as Kasiem Walters shouldn't be stopped because they have no type of idea what is happening and i don't believe at the age of 13 they know how to even kill another human being.
http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/08/27/african-american-teen-says-stop-and-frisk-has-made-him-fear-police/
Erika--this is a very important topic and your research can be about the numerous teenage boys who are stopped randomly, especially if they are minorities. You can use the above article and others to provide testimony about how damaging this is to inner city youth.
Deletem researching the stand your ground law because i don't know much about the law.
ReplyDeletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand-your-ground_law
The link above explains the stand your ground law.The stand your ground law is a law that gives people the right to use a deadly weapon to defend yourself in a dangerous situation.They can defend thierselves without any requirements to evade or mistreat.It explains how the murder rates had been reduced by 9 percent but the violence rates have increased by 11 percent.This law is mainly used in FLorida .Also, the law is not in every state only a few but some states are considering it .The law is very popular in florida now because of the Trayvon Martin case.
In my opinion, they shouldnt have this law because innocent people are getting killed.As for the Trayvon Martin case Zimmerman felt that Trayvon was doing something wrong so he followed him even after the cops told him to leave him ,It sound's like harassment to me.Zimmerman just felt the need to bother him cause he assumed something.So Zimmerman just used the law by saying Trayvon was removing a weapon from his pocket even though he was not.I believe that now that cops can use this law against people and get away freely with no problem.
Jaquilla--good topic--you and several others are interested in this--you should build your paper about cases that show this law does more harm than good. You will need to find other specific examples and quote directly from your sources. Perhaps you will find some that agree that police are misusing this law!
DeleteDarren Saunders
ReplyDeletehttp://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/07/12/george-zimmerman-defense-trayvon-wasn-t-injured-except-for-the-gunshot.html
I have found an interesting article about the injuries of George Zimmerman and supposedly ."Jurors were shown a video re-enactment of the fight that ended in the fatal shooting of Trayvon Martin on Friday as George Zimmerman’s lawyer blamed the teenage victim for having started the violent confrontation that led to his own death".
“The reality of what happened is very straightforward, and it proves absolute innocence, because for four minutes Trayvon Martin did something that led to his confronting George Zimmerman,” said O’Mara. Not that he was suggesting that Martin “did something bad,” he said, but “I’m not going to allow you or the state to ignore the realities of what happened that night.”
my opinion on what happened that night was that George Zimmerman tried to be someone he was not like a cop or hero of some sort when he was just a neighborhood watch, stalking a kid because he's walking in a community in which you live in is not absurd but is looking for some type of confrontation . George Zimmerman called the cops which was a good move but disobeyed there orders when they told him to stand down and stop following him which i figure he wants some type of credit of some sort for what he probably would call protecting his neighborhood, there was no need to follow Him just because he was doubting what he was doing there. George Zimmerman wouldn't like some random person following his son or daughter the way he did Trayvon so why would he.
Darren--So the idea that seems to interest you is that Zimmerman's attorneys were able to make it seem that Martin did something to provoke Zimmerman, but you want to argue that Zimmerman did the provoking--good. Now find specific evidence (and quote from it) to build the next phase of your essay!
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/07/22/zimmerman-verdict-pew-poll/2575247/
ReplyDeletei am researching the issue of race in the Trayvon Martin case.
I have found in this USA Today, the issue of race in the Trayvon Martin case. In this article the opinions of blacks and whites are separated and put into percentages. In the national poll that was conducted it was found that 86% of black people were "dissatisfied with Zimmerman's acquittal in the shooting death of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin", while only 5% of blacks were satisfied with the verdict. In the opinion of whites only 49% said they were satisfied, while 39% said they were dissatisfied. Another point made in the article was that 8 out of 10 blacks say the case brings up important issues of race that need to be addressed, while only 28% of whites say that the case raises important issues of race and 60% of whites say the subject of race is "getting more attention than it deserves".
The actual numbers and percentages given in this article points out the race issue in the opinion of black and white americans. The larger amount of dissatisfaction in blacks compared to the smaller percentage of dissatisfaction in whites brings up the issue of "White America" not caring about the "Black Issues" that are not being solved or payed attention to. In my opinion I don't think the Trayvon Martin case is mainly an issue of a white man killing a black young man, but i think it is an issue of this case becoming just another black versus white case in America. I feel like the race issue is being stuck on this case when other aspects of the case should also be focused on. Although race is still a very important issue in America i don't believe that the Trayvon Martin case should be used to bring more attention to that issue in America.
Victoria--the information you found is fascinating and seems to point to the fact that Blacks feel that race is important in this case while Whites feel it is less important (or few think it is the central issue).
DeleteIn your second paragraph you claim that you think this case should not be used to focus on race. So the evidence you provide suggests race is important--at least to Blacks--but you want to argue that this case should not make us "bring more attention" to race--I'm trying to help you think about what you can argue that is specific and concrete and related to your evidence...maybe the class can help.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteBarry--Please give more context (time frame, location) for the last piece of evidence you give--I think you are in a good position to investigate this policy as it has played out in recent years in NYC. I'm sure you can find a lot more specific information! Good luck and for next stage, quote from at least two sources.
Deletesource: http://www.naplesnews.com/blogs/guns-21st-century-america/2013/aug/14/guns/
ReplyDeleteStand your Ground Law: How if put in a situation people may have a different view weather to use a firearm or not.
Issue: should we limit the gun use in Florida?
In Florida because of the law there is a justification for the use of guns weather it be for deadly force or not. There is no requirement to register for firearm and anyone can be in charge of one.
I believe everyone should have the right to bare arms for self-defense. Its certain laws in specific states especially in Florida that cause an up roar. Its also different peoples perspectives on certain situations that may cause this law to be unfit for 'The People'. "It is these ideologies and laws imported from Texas, made worse by Florida’s legislators that are killing our Florida citizens." For example Trayvon, because of Zimmerman's ideology he believes a gun was a better way of protecting himself but if some else was in his position maybe a different device or force could have been use preventing the death of Trayvon. I'm not saying that Zimmerman is not guilty but maybe if the laws have changed and the stand your ground law was changed Trayvon might have still been alive.
Tamara--I like the fact that you quoted from the article--next time try to say "according to..." either an author or the newspaper (if no author)--we will discuss this in class. So your main idea seems to be that stand your ground is a bad law that is killing people? What should your next step be in researching this idea?
Delete
ReplyDeleteStand your ground law:is a self defense law that gives individuals the right to defend themselves without retreating from a dangerous situation. Since this is a state by state law, the states have different varieties added to the law. In certain states individuals have no duty to retreat when they are being attacked in their own home, and in other states individuals have no duty to retreat from anywhere in which they have a right to be in.
In my opinion this law can be harmful or helpful to people,depending on the situation. There are cases were people can say it was self defense but really wasn't so there should be limits to the law. For example in Florida, there's A lot of cases were the stand your ground law was invoked and defenders were not charged for it. According to critics "stand your ground turns Florida into the Wild West ." The Trayvon Martin case is a good example were the stand your ground law was invoked. Zimmerman could have retreated to avoid the conflict but decide to follow Trayvon even though he was told not to. Even though Zimmerman is legally allowed to be there and had a right to protect himself he could have avoided the whole conflict by walking away. It's not like Trayvon was planing on doing something bad cause he didnt even have a weapon on him. Now since there was no witness it's hard to say if it was really self defense or a racist act of Zimmerman. But for him not to be charged for the murder or anything is not justified. They should have at least took his weapon away for other people's safety in the future.
http://www.tampabay.com/stand-your-ground-law/fatal-cases
Emily--good start, good topic--the states would have different "conditions" attached to the law (not varieties). Instead of "according to critics" state exactly who is making this claim--an author or a newspaper editorial...to be discussed. It seems as though if we stay with the Zimmerman case, the question is whether or not he stood his ground or went in search of trouble. Do we know that that law was one of the reasons he was acquitted?
DeleteWhile I was researching examples for the law "Stand your ground" I realized how we encourage thugs and trouble makers to pull the trigger because once someone pulls a gun in Florida, even if it is just to intimidate, he has to shoot to kill unfortunately. Even just pulling it out or displaying a gun without reason will give you a mandatory 3 years or 10 years sentence if a crime is involved. So, once a gun is pulled, your opponent has only one way out and that is to shoot. If he doesn't, he can't fear for life and he is going in.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion the stand your ground law seems to be the only reason why Zimmerman got away with murder. As an example there was a case of a 70 year old man that lived in Brandon, Florida. Ralph Wald walked in on his wife and his former neighbor having sex. After fatally shooting his neighbor Ralph claimed although his neighbor lived near by he didn't recognize him and he thought it was a stranger raping his wife. After the judge deliberated 2 hours later he was acquitted. Now that was a choice of raging passion don't you think?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/16/stand-your-ground-cases_n_3606405.html
Amanda--so your first idea is that stand your ground encourages violence, right? so the "mandatory 3-10" in that same first paragraph of yours fits a different situation, right? In paragraph 2 you seem to be connecting stand your ground to the reason Zimmerman was acquitted--can you research this more specifically? For example, trial testimony...
DeleteThe stand your ground law allows a person to be able to defend themselves if they feel threatened in a deadly way. The individual does not have to retreat or involve the police. The Law also allows you to use it some place other than your own property. If the person feels like they were going to be killed or badly injured they are allowed to use force that can possibly kill.This law was passed in 2005.
ReplyDeleteAs I began researching I found one of the websites to be quite disturbing.I do not understand why there is a picture of a guy holding a gun. It looks like its coming out at the screen to me. It feels like there making light of the situation likes it a good thing to just go around shooting people. If you are the victim or the attacker its not a good law. If you feel like your going to be killed why would you not run if you can then report the attacker to the police. I don't think its right to fight violence with violence.
Sources: http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-08-02/more-americans-are-standing-up-for-stand-your-ground-laws
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/07/15/everything-you-need-to-know-about-stand-your-ground-laws
Angelica--your facts in paragraph one are right but you need to specify in what state since we have determined that it is a state by state law--what state passed it in 2005--cite your research specifically as you write.
DeleteI'm interested in the second website you are talking about--you need to name that website and together in class we will evaluate that website and attempt to answer your good questions about it!
Stand your ground is state by state. In the page that i saw it says that some states have self-defense laws either though statute or case law that are similar to stand your ground but at lease one key difference.Differences in their language and appication. Florida became the first to pass on explicit stand your ground law than more than 30 others passed some version of it. A "stand your ground" law states that a person may use deadly force in self defense without the duty to retreat when faced with reasonable perceived threat. To me I dont believe in stand your ground because it does not go to everyone. I believe that race is a major part of it becauce it could be a spanish person or a black person and the court would act different.Dont get me wrong i believe in self defense but with stand your ground there are many court cases that dont stand by stand your ground. i have an example where there was a case with Marissa Alexander. Marissa was an african american in florida and was sentenced to 20 years in prison in 2012 for shooting what she described as warning shots into a wall during a confrontation with her husband. Alexander did call 911 at the time when she was in the confrontation with her husband but he did attack her and she had a gun so she had to do what she needed to do. The whole point is that some people dont get the same outcomes when it comes to stand your ground because of there background or maybe something else.
ReplyDeletehttp://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-law-basics/states-that-have-stand-your-ground-laws.html
Emily--good information--please give us the title of the website or article you are referring to in your own paragraph. (I know you posted link).
Delete"I don't believe in stand your ground because it does not go to everyone." This sentence needs clarification--and you will also need to find evidence to support the race questions you raise--we all know you have a good point and many would agree that there seems to be racial bias in how this law is applied--you have one good example--can you find more?
http://www.cj.msu.edu/~outreach/cp/orgwatch.pdf
ReplyDeleteOk, so I decided to research how neighborhood watches are formed, what it takes to be in/start one, what their responsibilities are exactly, etc. Basically I thought this would shed some light on the issues of "Did Zimmerman have the right to follow/confront Trayvon?" and, "Was Zimmerman just doing his job as 'Neighborhood Watchman'?"
After going through it, there were a lot of key phrases and key things to this. Such as you must meet with a police sheriff inorder to start a neighborhood watch, but it doesn't say much about being trained for it. I think this alone could bring up an issue such as, is it ethical to have untrained citizens acting as a police force in their community? Should you have to undergo training to become a watchman? Perhaps if you did, an incident like this could be avoided.
A few other key phrases involving what a neighborhood watchman does were things like, acting when seeing something suspicious, identifying suspicious behavior, and being familiar with what is "normal" in your neighborhood, and who your neighbors are. I found these to be key phrases because it touches on the issue of, was it suspicious for Trayvon to be walking through that community, being as he didn't live there? And according to the neighboor hood watch guide this would be suspicious. However there are still more key bullet points, or phrases.
It clearly states that this is not a vigilante program. It states that it's about "being aware, recognizing potential problems, and (here's the biggest key phrase) acting appropriately. Was it suspicious that Trayvon was walking through a gated community where he did not live? Probably. But, the key issue is did Zimmerman act appropriately to the situation. And I believe the answer is no. There were many more options or methods that Zimmerman could've used, but he chose not to. He acted as a vigilante, towards a crime that hadn't even been committed, at least to his knowledge.
I'm not sure if these were really key points in the case because I didn't watch the whole thing. However if they weren't, I think they should've been brought up.
Elijah--I really like the tight focus on the neighborhood watch issue and the precise questions you ask. When you get to discussing suspicious behavior I couldn't help but wonder if it would be equally suspicious for a white person to walk through a gated community where he did not live!
DeleteBut I would like to see you develop an essay researching in detail how these "watches" are created and what kind of training and supervision is done--whether they have connection to police training etc.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/13/nyregion/stop-and-frisk-practice-violated-rights-judge-rules.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&
ReplyDeleteThis link talks about how the stop and frisk goes over to violating human rights. due to the fact that its a purpose of protecting people, but in my opinion its bringing more harm as done.
the NYPD say that it's actually save more lives everyday the more they stop and frisk, but truthfully it's only racial profiling people and using the excuse of them being under the 'suspicion' of being a problem.
of that's the case why is it that the Blacks and Hispanics are usually getting the one being stopped.
it relates back to the Trayvon Martin case due to the fact he was being 'suspicion' of being a problem at the wrong place and the wrong time.
Yehudit--remind me of name you use in class! So this is a debate between the police and citizens, right? How can your organize your research and writing to give first their arguments (protection) and then your rebuttal (data on unnecessary stop and frisk cases in NYC?--also racial profiling which you mention.
Deletehttp://www.cnn.com/2013/07/13/justice/zimmerman-trial
ReplyDeleteResearch Topic: Why was Zimmerman found not guilty?
I don't feel like Zimmerman deserves to be a free man. He killed a young unarmed black boy and just got away with it. It seems to be that this case is considered an act of racism but I disagree. I feel like this case has more to do with the "stand your ground law". Its as if Zimmerman knew he was going to be let off the hook due to this law. No law should make it so easy for someone to just go on with their life knowing a crime was committed. Zimmerman was found not guilty and no article, judge, video or story will ever make me feel like justice was served. Zimmerman is a free man but will forever live in fear which in a way is what he deserved.
The article is basically saying that the jury had three choices: to find Zimmerman guilty of second degree murder, a lesser charge of manslaughter or not guilty. Zimmerman was not convicted of second degree murder or manslaughter because there was no proof that Zimmerman committed this crime intentionally, out of hatred, spite or evil intent towards Martin. So unfortunately it was not guilty because Zimmerman was supposedly protecting himself. Zimmerman wasn't known as the strongest or most ready for whatever kind of guy (which was his strongest argument), he actually was said to be the complete opposite he was always a punk if you can say. The article also takes us back to the night Martin was murdered. It mentions how Zimmerman did call 911 and the police specifically told him not to get out of the car and follow him because police were on there way but Zimmerman got out of the car anyways and later said that it was because he wanted to get a definite address to relay to the authorities. This eventually led to the physical altercation Zimmerman and Martin got into. Zimmerman also used that altercation to his advantage because he did have proof of injuries that Martin gave him.
Celene.B
Celene--you have a lot of good detailed information about the actual events--and you have researched the choices the jury was faced with. So to pursue your research topic question, it seems to me you will need to get more information on the trial testimony to support the good ideas you have above.
Deletehttp://www.cnn.com/2013/07/14/us/zimmerman-why-this-verdict/index.html
ReplyDeleteMy Research topic was: legal reasons why Zimmerman was found not guilty.
On July 13th 2013, George Zimmerman was found not guilty in the 17-year-old Trayvon Martin's death. In the beginning of the case, the prosecutors were filling for a second-degree murder charge against Zimmerman. Holly Hughes a criminal defense lawyer who was not on Zimmerman's legal team)seems to believe that if the prosecutors had started with the manslaughter charge, the outcome might have been different. But Florida State Attorney Angela Corey said the allegations "fit the bill" for the second-degree murder charge. In short, this all means that Zimmerman was required to have acted with disregard for human life or intentionally committed the act that caused the death. Which was questioned to be appropriate, "because knowing a person's feeling during a killing is difficult to prove". As a result, the prosecution had to rely on the evidence, which there was no abundance of.
Personally, I believe that unfortunately the evidence was really the issue in this case. First, the conditions in which the homicide happened. It was a dark, rainy night. Which led to lack of physical evidence because it probably was all washed away. Second, Zimmerman was the only living person who witnessed the incident. So it was his word against Martin's, who obviously could not speak for himself. Last, the screaming voice that was heard during the 911 call, which was considered to prove who was responsible for the shooting, lacked to be identified.
Besides, Attorney Faith Jenkins said it doesn't matter what a prosecutor believes if he or she doesn't have adequate evidence.
"Trials are not necessarily about the truth all the time," the former prosecutor told CNN. "It's about what you can prove in court." I believe, this whole situation of lack of evidence, let to injustice.
Sarah--thank you for sharing this important information about the law, specifically the difference between second degree murder and manslaughter and the lawyer you quote has an interesting argument about how the prosecution should have gone with manslaughter.
DeleteIt also sounds like there are some interesting secondary issues that interfered with conviction such as the witness who refused to be identified.
It seems that the American public in general forgets what the former prosecutor told CNN in your final quote. So you need to begin to outline the reasons--primary and secondary--that Zimmerman got off!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/14/bill-oreilly-trayvon-martin_n_3926484.html?ir=Media
ReplyDeleteSo i decided to look up more of other peoples views on the racial standings in this case. Now i have posted a video snippet of The O'Reilly Factor where Bill basically says whether or not Zimmerman went after Trayvon because he was of African American ethnicity or because he was dressed a certain way.I feel that in this case, as he states, racial profiling is an easy thing to just accuse the entire case upon buts its more because of the uprising of gangs and stereotypical "gangta" apparel transcends. much more research is needed in this topic but i just love the new idea that is proposed. Yes, Trayvon had a hoodie on and many people wear their hoodies to pretty much commemorate him but what if it had been a Caucasian young man in a hoodie roaming the streets in a gated community would it really have had the same result.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/30/opinion/nejame-zimmerman-racial-profiling/index.html
This is another article on racial profiling but it goes a bit more in depth about whether the "racial profiling" (if any) made up Zimmerman mind about following Trayvon Martin or actually but an immediate thought that Zimmerman would have to use his fire arm. In this article it states that racial profiling proof in this case lacks complete proof but my question is, how do you prove someones mind set against one race in one distinct moment? Isn't it difficult enough as it is to prove who was the initiator of the physical events let alone the emotional and mental thoughts of Zimmerman?