Zimmerman Trial for Trayvon Martin

[CaptJodan]

Not guilty.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Yep, it's not guilty on all charges.

[Jub]

Source, or is this just speculation?

[General Zod]

Source, or is this just speculation?

Look at any major news website.

[TimothyC]

(CNN) -- George Zimmerman is not guilty of murder in the death of Trayvon Martin, a Florida jury decided late Saturday.

The fact that Zimmerman fired the bullet that killed Martin was never in question, but the verdict means the six-person jury had reasonable doubt that the shooting amounted to a criminal act.

The verdict caps a case that has inflamed passions for well over a year, much of it focused on race and gun rights.

The six-person jury -- all women -- had three choices: to find Zimmerman guilty of second-degree murder; to find him guilty of the lesser charge of manslaughter; or to find him not guilty.

The jurors deliberated for 16½ hours total, including 13 on Saturday alone, before delivering their verdict.

When he learned his fate, a subdued Zimmerman had little visible reaction. His face was mostly expressionless. He turned and shook one of his attorney's hand before sitting back down. His parents, Robert and Gladys Zimmerman, were seated nearby, but Martin's parents were not in the courtroom.

Earlier in the day, the jury had asked the court for clarification on its instructions regarding manslaughter. The jury couldn't have even posed such a query a few days ago: Judge Debra Nelson ruled Thursday, over the defense's vehement objection, to include manslaughter as an option for jurors, in addition to a second-degree murder charge.

To convict Zimmerman of manslaughter, the jurors would have had to believe that 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.

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."

Ultimately, they believed neither. And that means Zimmerman can walk free.

How long other juries deliberated for in other high-profile cases

The fateful night

The story starts the night of February 26, 2012, as Martin walked back to his father's fiancee's house through the rain from a Sanford convenience store, where he'd bought Skittles and a drink.

Zimmerman, a neighborhood watch volunteer, spotted him and called police. A 911 dispatcher told Zimmerman that officers were on the way and not to follow the allegedly suspicious person.

Nonetheless, Zimmerman got out of his car, later telling police he just wanted to get a definitive address to relay to authorities.

Sometime after that, Zimmerman and Martin got into a physical altercation. Some neighbors took notice: On one 911 call, anguished cries for help can be heard.

Who was yelling? Martin's mother testified she's "absolutely" sure it was her son; Zimmerman's parents said, with as much conviction, that it was their own child.

There are also disputes about who was the aggressor, about whether or not Martin may have seen or reached for Zimmerman's gun, about whether Zimmerman should have had more injuries if he was pummeled, as he claims.

And some accused Zimmerman -- who identifies himself as Hispanic -- of racially profiling the black teenager, a claim the defense camp flatly denies.

About the only thing not in dispute is that the now 29-year-old Zimmerman shot and killed Martin.

Nelson acknowledged this week that jurors have a lot of evidence, and competing arguments, to consider. She told them that, even as they pay close attention to the law and the facts, they should also "use your common sense."

All of us are depending on you to make a wise and legal decision," she said.

Prosecution: 'He shot him because he wanted to'

In his closing argument, Assistant State Attorney Bernie de la Rionda noted that -- for all the evidence presented -- the case boils down to two men. One of them, Martin, is dead and can't give his side of the story. The other, according to the prosecutor, cannot be trusted.

De la Rionda asked: Why would a scared man get out of his car and walk around after being told not to? Shouldn't Zimmerman have had more than a bloody nose and scratches on his head given the beating he allegedly took? And did he have an agenda -- to do whatever necessary to stop one of those "f***ing punks," as he's heard saying under his breath in his call to police, from getting away?

Get caught up: The Zimmerman trial in 3 minutes

Assistant State Attorney John Guy made the prosecution's final pitch, during the rebuttal phase of closing arguments Friday. He echoed many points de la Rionda had made earlier, portraying Zimmerman as a frustrated wannabe police officer who took the law into his own hands. He had decided Martin was one of the criminals who had been victimizing his neighborhood, he said, then trailed him against the advice of police dispatchers.

"The defendant didn't shoot Trayvon Martin because he had to," Guy said. "He shot him because he wanted to. That's the bottom line."

Zimmerman, the prosecution said, had a powerful determination not to allow someone he had already decided was a criminal to escape.

"What is that when a grown man, frustrated, angry, with hate in his heart, gets out of his car with a loaded gun and follows a child? A stranger? In the dark? And shoots him through his heart? What is that?" Guy asked.

Defense: Zimmerman deserves benefit of the doubt

In the opinion of defense attorney Mark O'Mara, what George Zimmerman did was simple: he defended himself.

Zimmerman was looking out for those in his neighborhood when he saw someone he felt was suspicious and called police, O'Mara said in his closing argument. The defendant got out of his car, but briefly, and was walking back to it when things got physical.

Did investigators blow the Zimmerman case?

Martin jumped out of some bushes and pounced, the defense contends. And, O'Mara added, the teen didn't just hold Zimmerman down, but punched and slammed his head repeatedly into the sidewalk.

"That was somebody who used the availability of dangerous items, from his fist to the concrete, to cause great bodily injury against George Zimmerman," said O'Mara.

The lead defense attorney also criticized the prosecution's case, saying it was full of "coulda beens. How many 'what ifs' have you heard from the state in this case?" There's no merit, he claimed, to the depiction of Zimmerman as a frustrated, spiteful man seeking vengeance.

"Do not give anybody the benefit of the doubt except for George Zimmerman," O'Mara said.

Tensions high ahead of verdict

There was a buzz outside the Sanford courtroom Saturday even before the verdict was announced, punctuated by occasional speeches, songs and impassioned words -- at times directed against those on the other side of the debate.

There were those calling for a guilty verdict who held up a large banner reading "End racial oppression" and who yelled in unison, "We want justice." On the other side, Zimmerman backers toted signs saying "Self-defense is a basic human right," "Not enough evidence," and plainly "Not guilty."

'Raise your voice, not your hands,' cops urge as Zimmerman verdict looms

Many of these themes have been echoing since the weeks after Martin's death, when tens of thousands attended rallies led by civil rights activists demanding Zimmerman's arrest and chastising authorities for their handling of the case.

Zimmerman surmised Martin was a criminal like those who'd struck in his neighborhood before -- at least one of whom was black -- a lawyer for the late teen's family said Friday. But Martin was not a criminal, which Daryl Parks said contributes to the racial tensions that still surround this case.

While he wouldn't call Zimmerman a racist, "this case in its totality has a racial undertone to it," Parks told CNN's Anderson Cooper.

The defense strongly rejected accusations Zimmerman is racist, with O'Mara citing his client's work as a mentor to black children and his taking a black girl to his prom as evidence of his non-racist beliefs.

His defenders have been passionate as well, especially about a person's right to defend himself with a gun when attacked. Debate swirled over Florida's "stand your ground" law, which allows those who believe they are in imminent danger to use deadly force to protect themselves.

In light of this ongoing fervor, authorities asked for calm while setting up contingency plans to respond to incidents tied to a verdict. The Rev. Jesse Jackson Jr. was among those appealing for peace Friday, while Zimmerman's family urged people to "respect the rule of law, which begins with respecting the verdict."

"Freedom of expression is a constitutional right," said the sheriff's office in Broward County, in the Miami area. "While raising your voice is encouraged, using your hands is not."

But O'Mara said that, whatever the outcome, his client will not feel safe.

"There are a percentage of the population who are angry, they're upset, and they may well take it out on him," he said.

Murder trial jurors can be overwhelmed, traumatized

Now we get to see if Zimmerman sues the state's attorney's office for withholding evidence.

[Agent Fisher]

Not guilty of murder. But guilty of being dumb as shit.

[Gaidin]

I'm pretty sure the world would collapse if that were a crime.

[Elfdart]

If you ever want to stalk a teenager, Florida is the place for you. If your quarry should resist in any way, just shoot them and claim self-defense!

[Grandmaster Jogurt]

Not guilty of murder. But guilty of being dumb as shit.

A person was killed. This is more than just "being dumb as shit".

[Agent Fisher]

Yeah, and if Zimmerman hadnt been dumb as shit he wouldn't have gotten out of the vehicle, he wouldn't have gotten into a situation where he felt he needed to use deadly force to preserve his life.

[aerius]

Now we get to see if Zimmerman sues the state's attorney's office for withholding evidence.

The mainstream media also needs to get the shit sued out of them for doctoring photos and interview transcripts then presenting them as "fact".

[bobalot]

Yeah, and if Zimmerman hadnt been dumb as shit he wouldn't have gotten out of the vehicle, he wouldn't have gotten into a situation where he felt he needed to use deadly force to preserve his life.

Apparently, he regrets nothing as it was "God's plan" (On Hannity).

[TimothyC]

I'm just going to post this here:

State Attorney Angela Corey fires information techonology director who raised concerns in Trayvon Martin case
Posted: July 13, 2013 - 12:16am | Updated: July 13, 2013 - 12:42pm

State Attorney Angela Corey fired her office’s information technology director Friday after he testified last month about being concerned prosecutors did not turn over information to George Zimmerman’s defense team in the shooting death of Trayvon Martin.

On the same day attorneys finished their closing arguments in that nationally watched trial, a state attorney investigator went to Ben Kruidbos’ home about 7:30 a.m. to hand-deliver a letter stating Kruidbos “can never again be trusted to step foot in this office.”

The letter contended Kruibos did a poor job overseeing the information technology department, violated public records law for retaining documents, and noted he was questioned in March when the office was trying to determine who had leaked personnel information obtained through a computer breach.

In an interview Friday, Kruidbos denied the allegations in the letter, which was written by Cheryl Peek, the managing director of the State Attorney’s Office.

He said he had acted in good faith about “genuine concerns.” He said he had been proud to work at the State Attorney’s Office and feared the letter would cripple his chances at finding another job to support his family, including a 4-month-old son.

“I don’t have any regrets,” he said, “but I am terrified about the future and what that will end up being.”

His attorney Wesley White — who resigned from the State Attorney’s Office in December and is a critic of Corey — said the firing was aimed at sending a message to office employees “that if they feel like there is wrongdoing,” they should not disclose it or seek legal guidance from a private attorney.

“If they do speak to an attorney, then they are dead,” he said. “The State Attorney’s Office will do whatever is necessary to not only terminate them, but destroy their reputations in the process.”

Jackelyn Barnard, spokeswoman for Corey and the State Attorney's Office, did not return phone calls or emails for comment.

Kruidbos, 42, had been on paid administrative leave since May 28 from his $80,892 job.

In January, he used computer software technology to extract photographs and text messages from the source file in Martin’s cellphone. Kruidbos was able to recover more information than the Florida Department of Law Enforcement obtained previously.

GETTING LEGAL ADVICE

Kruidbos said he became concerned that lead prosecutor Bernie de la Rionda might not have turned over Kruidbos’ report to defense attorneys. Kruidbos asked White in April for legal advice and described some contents of his report such as a photo of an African-American hand holding a gun, a photo of a plant resembling marijuana and a text message referring to a gun transaction.

White then contacted one of Zimmerman’s attorneys and learned the defense had not received the report generated by Kruidbos. The defense did receive the source file from the cellphone and used its own experts to extract data.

Last month, Zimmerman’s attorneys subpoenaed both White and Kruidbos during a pretrial hearing on their motion seeking sanctions against prosecutors. Circuit Judge Debra Nelson deferred a ruling until after the trial.

Before Kruidbos’ name surfaced in the Martin trial proceedings, he received a pay raise for “meritorious performance,” according to a document dated May 16 in his personnel file.

But the dismissal letter written by Peek contends he did his job poorly as information technology director and said he should have asked someone in the office about his concerns regarding the Martin case.

“Your egregious lack of regard for the sensitive nature of the information handled by this office is completely abhorrent,” Peek wrote. “You have proven to be completely untrustworthy. Because of your deliberate, wilful and unscrupulous actions, you can never again be trusted to step foot in this office.”

The letter said Kruidbos “apparently questioned the ethics” of de la Rionda, who has been an assistant state attorney since 1983. “His record as an honorable and respected attorney is unblemished and beyond reproach,” Peek wrote.

Kruidbos said the question of de la Rionda’s ethics “is not really my place to decide.”

He said he asked White for legal advice because he was concerned he could face “legal exposure” if the cellphone report wasn’t turned over to the defense before the trial started.

He said he did not feel comfortable posing that question to anyone within the office because the State Attorney’s Office had just conducted an in-house probe of whether someone was leaking personnel information.

OFFICE ‘PARANOIA’

“It felt like everyone was on heightened sensitivity,” Kruidbos said. “It felt like the paranoia in the office had gotten worse.”

In March, the office investigated a security breach involving someone hacking computers to obtain disciplinary matters and personal health information about employees, according to Peek’s letter. That investigation followed news reports in February that Corey approved using about $342,000 in taxpayer dollars to upgrade pensions for herself and de la Rionda. Kruidbos said the investigation might have stemmed from the stories about the pensions.

Kruidbos said office administrators told him that he and Richard Komando, who was executive director of the office, were suspected of improperly obtaining the information. Komando resigned April 4. Kruidbos said he does not believe Komando was involved because “it makes no sense. He worked very hard to get to where he was. He had nothing to gain from that.”

Kruidbos had his job duties changed on April 3, removing eight employees from his supervision and curtailing his access to the computer system. But the investigation did not find he was involved in the computer breach or leaking any information. He has denied any involvement and testified last month to that effect.

As for why he did not approach Corey about his concerns in the Martin case, Kruidbos said Corey has a close relationship with de la Rionda and “any attempt by me to go to them and say I think something wrong has happened would not have been taken seriously, and then ultimately held against me.”

“I consulted an attorney, which is my right,” he said. “I had concerns about what I had seen at work, and this was just how it ended up playing out.”

Corey and others learned Kruidbos had hired White as his attorney when White, subpoenaed by the defense, identified Kruidbos by name at a May 28 hearing. Corey put Kruidbos on paid leave that same day.

Peek’s letter contends that on May 24, Kruidbos wiped clean the information on a computer assigned to him, thereby violating public records law. Kruidbos said he does not know what computer is referred to by the letter.

He said the computer network stores information on a number of backup systems in addition to personal computers.

White has a contentious relationship with Corey, but Kruidbos said that wasn’t a factor in him hiring White, whom he described as a “good lawyer who does the right thing.”

White said he and Kruidbos are reviewing their legal options in response to the dismissal.

White said he wants an outside review by a state attorney from another circuit.

I so wouldn't want to be Mrs. Angela Corey come Monday morning.

[bobalot]

Could an American answer for this me? I really haven't been following the case.

In Florida, lets say you were simply follow somebody around, start an altercation, start losing the fight and then shoot the guy in "self-defence". If there are no witnesses around, it's going to be very difficult for the prosecution, isn't it?

[mr friendly guy]

Actually I would like to do one better than Bobalot. Could I claim self defence if the guy supposedly had hands in his pocket and I claim I was afraid he was reaching for a gun? In which case can't I just shoot anyone and say he looked like he was reaching for a weapon?

[Elfdart]

Actually I would like to do one better than Bobalot. Could I claim self defence if the guy supposedly had hands in his pocket and I claim I was afraid he was reaching for a gun? In which case can't I just shoot anyone and say he looked like he was reaching for a weapon?

If he's black you can.

[Flagg]

I'm just going to post this here:

State Attorney Angela Corey fires information techonology director who raised concerns in Trayvon Martin case
Posted: July 13, 2013 - 12:16am | Updated: July 13, 2013 - 12:42pm

State Attorney Angela Corey fired her office’s information technology director Friday after he testified last month about being concerned prosecutors did not turn over information to George Zimmerman’s defense team in the shooting death of Trayvon Martin.

On the same day attorneys finished their closing arguments in that nationally watched trial, a state attorney investigator went to Ben Kruidbos’ home about 7:30 a.m. to hand-deliver a letter stating Kruidbos “can never again be trusted to step foot in this office.”

The letter contended Kruibos did a poor job overseeing the information technology department, violated public records law for retaining documents, and noted he was questioned in March when the office was trying to determine who had leaked personnel information obtained through a computer breach.

In an interview Friday, Kruidbos denied the allegations in the letter, which was written by Cheryl Peek, the managing director of the State Attorney’s Office.

He said he had acted in good faith about “genuine concerns.” He said he had been proud to work at the State Attorney’s Office and feared the letter would cripple his chances at finding another job to support his family, including a 4-month-old son.

“I don’t have any regrets,” he said, “but I am terrified about the future and what that will end up being.”

His attorney Wesley White — who resigned from the State Attorney’s Office in December and is a critic of Corey — said the firing was aimed at sending a message to office employees “that if they feel like there is wrongdoing,” they should not disclose it or seek legal guidance from a private attorney.

“If they do speak to an attorney, then they are dead,” he said. “The State Attorney’s Office will do whatever is necessary to not only terminate them, but destroy their reputations in the process.”

Jackelyn Barnard, spokeswoman for Corey and the State Attorney's Office, did not return phone calls or emails for comment.

Kruidbos, 42, had been on paid administrative leave since May 28 from his $80,892 job.

In January, he used computer software technology to extract photographs and text messages from the source file in Martin’s cellphone. Kruidbos was able to recover more information than the Florida Department of Law Enforcement obtained previously.

GETTING LEGAL ADVICE

Kruidbos said he became concerned that lead prosecutor Bernie de la Rionda might not have turned over Kruidbos’ report to defense attorneys. Kruidbos asked White in April for legal advice and described some contents of his report such as a photo of an African-American hand holding a gun, a photo of a plant resembling marijuana and a text message referring to a gun transaction.

White then contacted one of Zimmerman’s attorneys and learned the defense had not received the report generated by Kruidbos. The defense did receive the source file from the cellphone and used its own experts to extract data.

Last month, Zimmerman’s attorneys subpoenaed both White and Kruidbos during a pretrial hearing on their motion seeking sanctions against prosecutors. Circuit Judge Debra Nelson deferred a ruling until after the trial.

Before Kruidbos’ name surfaced in the Martin trial proceedings, he received a pay raise for “meritorious performance,” according to a document dated May 16 in his personnel file.

But the dismissal letter written by Peek contends he did his job poorly as information technology director and said he should have asked someone in the office about his concerns regarding the Martin case.

“Your egregious lack of regard for the sensitive nature of the information handled by this office is completely abhorrent,” Peek wrote. “You have proven to be completely untrustworthy. Because of your deliberate, wilful and unscrupulous actions, you can never again be trusted to step foot in this office.”

The letter said Kruidbos “apparently questioned the ethics” of de la Rionda, who has been an assistant state attorney since 1983. “His record as an honorable and respected attorney is unblemished and beyond reproach,” Peek wrote.

Kruidbos said the question of de la Rionda’s ethics “is not really my place to decide.”

He said he asked White for legal advice because he was concerned he could face “legal exposure” if the cellphone report wasn’t turned over to the defense before the trial started.

He said he did not feel comfortable posing that question to anyone within the office because the State Attorney’s Office had just conducted an in-house probe of whether someone was leaking personnel information.

OFFICE ‘PARANOIA’

“It felt like everyone was on heightened sensitivity,” Kruidbos said. “It felt like the paranoia in the office had gotten worse.”

In March, the office investigated a security breach involving someone hacking computers to obtain disciplinary matters and personal health information about employees, according to Peek’s letter. That investigation followed news reports in February that Corey approved using about $342,000 in taxpayer dollars to upgrade pensions for herself and de la Rionda. Kruidbos said the investigation might have stemmed from the stories about the pensions.

Kruidbos said office administrators told him that he and Richard Komando, who was executive director of the office, were suspected of improperly obtaining the information. Komando resigned April 4. Kruidbos said he does not believe Komando was involved because “it makes no sense. He worked very hard to get to where he was. He had nothing to gain from that.”

Kruidbos had his job duties changed on April 3, removing eight employees from his supervision and curtailing his access to the computer system. But the investigation did not find he was involved in the computer breach or leaking any information. He has denied any involvement and testified last month to that effect.

As for why he did not approach Corey about his concerns in the Martin case, Kruidbos said Corey has a close relationship with de la Rionda and “any attempt by me to go to them and say I think something wrong has happened would not have been taken seriously, and then ultimately held against me.”

“I consulted an attorney, which is my right,” he said. “I had concerns about what I had seen at work, and this was just how it ended up playing out.”

Corey and others learned Kruidbos had hired White as his attorney when White, subpoenaed by the defense, identified Kruidbos by name at a May 28 hearing. Corey put Kruidbos on paid leave that same day.

Peek’s letter contends that on May 24, Kruidbos wiped clean the information on a computer assigned to him, thereby violating public records law. Kruidbos said he does not know what computer is referred to by the letter.

He said the computer network stores information on a number of backup systems in addition to personal computers.

White has a contentious relationship with Corey, but Kruidbos said that wasn’t a factor in him hiring White, whom he described as a “good lawyer who does the right thing.”

White said he and Kruidbos are reviewing their legal options in response to the dismissal.

White said he wants an outside review by a state attorney from another circuit.

I so wouldn't want to be Mrs. Angela Corey come Monday morning.

God you're a fucking idiot. The state turned over the evidence they were under no obligation to decrypt it for the defense. This IT guy was a slightly bigger idiot than you are and luckily he's now unemployable.

[Flagg]

Actually I would like to do one better than Bobalot. Could I claim self defence if the guy supposedly had hands in his pocket and I claim I was afraid he was reaching for a gun? In which case can't I just shoot anyone and say he looked like he was reaching for a weapon?

If he's black you can.

But be non-black. Because if you are black you'll do some time.

[Elfdart]

How right you are:

December 23, 2007
Man Convicted for Shooting Teenager
By COREY KILGANNON

A Suffolk County jury on Saturday night found a black man guilty of manslaughter for shooting of an unarmed white teenager outside the man’s house last year, ending a racially charged trial.

The jury began deliberating on Wednesday, and on Friday indicated that it was deadlocked and racked with discord. But late Saturday night, it delivered its verdict: The man, John H. White, 54, was guilty of the second-degree manslaughter charge that prosecutors had sought, and of criminal possession of a weapon. Mr. White was allowed to remain free until sentencing, when he will face a maximum term of 5 to 15 years in prison.

Mr. White was convicted of shooting Daniel Cicciaro, 17, point-blank in the face on Aug. 9, 2006. Daniel and several friends had left a party and showed up Mr. White’s house just after 11 p.m. to challenge his son Aaron, then 19, to a fight, and had used threats, profanities and racial epithets. Mr. White awoke and grabbed a loaded Beretta pistol he kept in the garage of his house in Miller Place, a predominantly white hamlet on Long Island.

“We are elated and relieved and feel that Daniel has been vindicated and that justice has been served,” said Gregg Sarra, a longtime friend of the Cicciaro family and Daniel’s godfather.

“This situation was never about race, and we hope this verdict finally dispels the notion that any racism was involved,” he said. “The defense wanted to play the race card, and there was nothing there and the jury saw through that.”

After the verdict was delivered, the victim’s parents, Daniel and Joanne Cicciaro, hugged friends and relatives and walked out of the courtroom. Mr. Cicciaro raised his fist in the air and said, “Yeah, go Dano,” and Ms. Cicciaro said, “I love you, Daniel.”

The trial’s racial overtones were obvious from the start, suggesting that the tension associated with the Deep South was alive in a New York suburb with good schools, high property values and privileged children.

The courtroom gallery during the four-week trial was often clearly divided, with blacks seated on one side and whites on the other. Each family was buffered by intimidating groups: the White family by members of the Nation of Islam and the Cicciaros by burly men with shaved heads and biker clothing.

Mr. White testified that Aaron woke him from a deep sleep the night of the shooting, yelling that that “some kids are coming here to kill me.” Mr. White said he considered the angry teenagers a “lynch mob.”

He said their racist language recalled the hatred he saw as a child visiting the segregated Deep South and stories of his grandfather’s being chased out of Alabama in the 1920s by the Ku Klux Klan.

Mr. White testified that his grandfather taught him how to shoot and bequeathed him the pistol he used.

A lawyer for Mr. White, Frederick K. Brewington, insisted in his summation that this was a “modern-day lynch mob” and that Mr. White considered it “history replaying itself.”

“Race has so much to do with this case, ladies and gentlemen, that it is painful,” Mr. Brewington said. He told the jury that to convict Mr. White would betray advances in civil rights.

Mr. Brewington said the verdict “indicates a mindset that says, ‘We’re O.K. with what happened.’” He said the jury failed to take into account that “John White and his family were scared to death.”

The lead prosecutor, James Chalifoux, said the trial did not hinge on race, but rather on the rash actions of a quick-tempered man who kept an arsenal in his house in preparation for such a situation. Mr. White admitted in court that he had not hunted in years and that the Beretta was unlicensed.

Instead of trying to calm the unarmed teenagers, or simply locking his doors and waiting for the police, Mr. White grabbed an unlicensed pistol and stormed out of his house to confront the teenagers, Mr. Chalifoux said.

The prosecutor acknowledged that the teenagers used epithets, but called Mr. White and his lawyers disingenuous in invoking a racial defense, noting that they missed few chances to embellish testimony with inflammatory references, and he said they used the “lynch mob” strategy to distract the jury from the charges.

He cited trial testimony that indicated that Mr. White fanned the gun menacingly at each teenager and that Daniel did not lunge, but rather defiantly slapped the gun away, with Mr. White retraining it on him, then shooting him point-blank in the face.

But Mr. White said the shooting happened accidentally after he began turning to retreat and Daniel lunged at the gun. He testified that he told his wife to call 911.

On Saturday jurors asked for a rereading of the trial testimony of Mr. White, his wife, Sonia, and Aaron. The jurors did not comment after the verdict was read.

Testimony throughout the trial suggested two decent lives colliding in a suburban driveway that night because of an Internet hoax.

Daniel was described as a hard-working, popular teenager who ran his own thriving car repair business. His parents adamantly insisted outside court that their son was not a racist, noting that Ms. Cicciaro is of Puerto Rican heritage, and that he had black friends, including Aaron White.

Daniel apparently believed a false rumor that Aaron was responsible for a message on an Internet chat room that threatened the rape of a girl they all knew. He showed up at the Whites’ house that night to defend the girl’s honor, his parents said, and he crossed paths with Mr. White, a hard-working father of three who had spent a lifetime striving to better his family’s lot by continually moving to better neighborhoods. Mr. White had finally bought his “dream house” in Miller Place in 2005, he testified, where his son could attend a good high school. It was there that Aaron White met Daniel Cicciaro and his friends.

Angela Macropoulos contributed reporting from Riverhead, N.Y.

Granted this is New York and not Florida, but it's still damning.

[Flagg]

Sundown Town

[Kon_El]

Mr. White grabbed an unlicensed pistol and stormed out of his house to confront the teenagers,

I suspect this would be the legal difference. Going to get a gun shows a level of intent that already having one on you doesn't.

[MrDakka]

Zimmerman found not guilty:http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/13/justice/z ... ?hpt=hp_t1

[energiewende]

Mr. White grabbed an unlicensed pistol and stormed out of his house to confront the teenagers,

I suspect this would be the legal difference. Going to get a gun shows a level of intent that already having one on you doesn't.

I think you would be completely wrong.

If the article is to be taken at face value he shot someone without any imminent threat of death or injury to himself. No one was attacking him and the gun was still in his hand. There is therefore no self-defence justification here.

This has no relevance to the Zimmerman case. If the state had been able to prove that Zimmerman had not been in any danger when he shot Martin, Zimmerman would have been convicted too. Their inability to do this - which was obvious from very shortly after Zimmerman was arrested - is why the whole trial was such an absurd waste of time.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Actually I would like to do one better than Bobalot. Could I claim self defence if the guy supposedly had hands in his pocket and I claim I was afraid he was reaching for a gun? In which case can't I just shoot anyone and say he looked like he was reaching for a weapon?

Do you reasonably believe this person to be a serial rapist?

Keep in mind the fact that those four officers were indicted by a grand jury for charges of second-degree murder and reckless endangerment but were later acquitted of all charges by a mixed race jury.

EDIT

Elfdart example makes me laugh. So, apparently it is OK for a black man to confront an unarmed white teenager and then shoot him in the face while both are still standing. However, if you're a shade of white and was knocked down and still being attacked by an unarmed black teenager then shooting him is not OK.

Racism indeed.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Since apparently some of you seem to think that only white people are found innocent by a jury I submit this to you.

http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?sectio ... id=8339076

September 1, 2011 (CHICAGO) (WLS) -- A South Side Chicago man who admitted shooting and wounding two Chicago Police officers has been found not guilty and released from custody. In this Intelligence Report: How did the shooter's lawyer manage to win such a case?

Twenty-one-year-old Kenneth Green was asleep in his Roseland apartment two years ago when a Chicago Police team showed up with a search warrant for drugs.

Cops used a battering ram to get in.

When police kicked through the bottom of Green's bedroom door, he shot through the door wounding two of the officers. Despite admitting all that, Green got off claiming self-defense.

The early morning raid by police on Green's Roseland apartment building ended in almost three dozen shots fired, mostly by police, after veteran officers Scott McKenna and Danny O'Toole were wounded through the door. The officers would survive, but that day in 2009, Chicago Police Superintendent Jody Weis used the incident to take a stand.

"People are trying to murder police officers left and right," Weis said.

After he shot two policeman, Green was arrested on the spot and charged with attempted murder, aggravated battery with a gun and held without bond.

Last week, after a several day trial, Green was found not guilty. His attorney, Marcus Schantz, told the I-Team that he convinced the jury that Green didn't know they were police outside his door executing a legal search warrant.

"There was testimony that my client had been threatened by some guys from the neighborhood," Schantz said. "He had a real reasonable fear that some people might try to enter his home and harm him or his family. Based on that fear he purchased the handgun and only had it two or three days before this incident."

Schantz disputed police records indicating Green is a gang member and says he has no felony convictions.

"It was my initial assessment of Mr. Green that he was a very good young man who was caught in an unfortunate circumstance and acted within seconds in a way that I probably would have as well," said Schantz.

After the verdict, a police union spokesman said, "Somebody dropped the ball here. It is the fault of the state's attorney. I understand the jury system but what kind of a case did they present? How the hell did a defense attorney convince a jury it was self-defense?"

"He took an act to defend himself, his home and his family, and nothing he did was unreasonable," said Schantz.

A spokesperson for the state's attorney said, "Prosecutors are extremely disappointed with this verdict. The case was charged and prosecuted based on significant and credible evidence. It is unclear what led the jurors to this decision given the fact that there were inconsistencies in (Green's) testimony."

Green's lawyer said, since the verdict, there has been racist reaction on some unofficial police websites. "There's been Ku Klux Klan references. There's been references to my client being killed," said Schantz.

Because of the threats, Schantz said he has concerns for Green's safety and has advised him to leave Chicago.

A black man shoots two officers serving a properly obtained search warrant on his house and is found innocent by a jury. In Chicago of all places.