George Zimmerman Found Not Guilty

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 NEXT
 

Title says it all

ABC News

Associated Press

BBC

CNN

Fox News

Reuters

Watching some of the coverage, and some of the reports, I'm just going to say, if people are tempted to blame the jury, you should blame a terrible prosecutor instead. Just because all 6 of them were women doesn't mean diddly squat.

To be honest, I don't think race should be the biggest thing to come out of this; more focus should be put on the Stand Your Ground Law. Like for instance, a woman in Florida received 20 years in prison for attempted murder, after firing warning shots against her husband as he was allegedly trying to beat her. She had already taken out a protective order against him and resorted to firing a gun in her home to stop him. She applied for a retrial under the Stand Your Ground Law, and was denied Link

Just goes to show, the burden of proving their case beyond the shadow of a doubt lies on that of the state, not the defense.

The prosecution utterly failed in proving Zimmerman acted out of malice and not of self defense.

I've heard speculation of violent riots breaking out if Zimmerman was found not guilty.
http://thegrio.com/2013/07/12/should-there-be-talk-of-riots-in-the-wake-of-a-zimmerman-verdict/

Let's hope they're wrong.

I just spent a few minutes holding my mother as she cried tears of rage.

Myself? I'm... well, unhappy, for sure but also... dead inside.

Like a switch was clicked off in me.

I just hate how the race card is being thrown around. It wasn't a race issue until the media made it one.

I'm pleased with this decision. All the evidence showed that Zimmerman is not guilty and that Trayvon was the attacker and on top of him. The photos, texts, and records used also show that he wasn't some "good kid" that the defense kept trying to claim. The law was upheld and order restored. Now, is it ethical what happened that night? No, both were idiots, but Trayvon was the one who commited the assault and Zimmerman exercised his rights.

Good court decision.
Sad situation for all, however.

I'm pissed off that the man who picked the fight got off. I really don't care what happened after that, if you pick the fight, you're the one responsible for the results. If you're losing a fist fight /that you started/ and you pull a gun, that's not self defense. It's just cowardice.

The earth is a terrible place. I've learned this long ago. It helps to lessen the impact of stupid outcomes like this.

This won't be good. The massive protests London had 2 years ago (before the riots started) are going to be nothing compared to the shitstorm that'll come from this. Its been built as a massive race issue, doesn't matter that this is a result of the prosecution failing to meet the burden of proof, it'll be seen by many in the black community as another 'white man' (though he's not really) getting away with killing a black kid. Police relations are going to bomb hard and tensions in that area will skyrocket, it's not gonna be pretty.

Kenbo Slice:
I just hate how the race card is being thrown around. It wasn't a race issue until the media made it one.

Not quite... Race was injected into the story by the "civil rights" lawyer representing the Martins, Crump. It was deliberate to make the story more sensational so the media would pick it and run with it, since the media had largely ignored it up to that point.

Owyn_Merrilin:
I'm pissed off that the man who picked the fight got off.

Can you prove that? I mean, the prosecution failed to do so. So, I'm wandering what proof you have that Zimmerman picked a fight with Martin.

game-lover:
I just spent a few minutes holding my mother as she cried tears of rage.

Myself? I'm... well, unhappy, for sure but also... dead inside.

Like a switch was clicked off in me.

I think we all knew on some level he was going to get off, regardless of what we wanted to happen. That's why I felt the same way, just nothingness.

This sets a terrible precedent. Now you can officially follow someone, start a fight and if they try defend themselves just shoot them dead. Tell police you thought your life was in danger and walk off scot-free.
I think they're looking at other charges they can file against Zimmerman so this probably won't be the last we hear.

madwarper:

Kenbo Slice:
I just hate how the race card is being thrown around. It wasn't a race issue until the media made it one.

Not quite... Race was injected into the story by the "civil rights" lawyer representing the Martins, Crump. It was deliberate to make the story more sensational so the media would pick it and run with it, since the media had largely ignored it up to that point.

Owyn_Merrilin:
I'm pissed off that the man who picked the fight got off.

Can you prove that? I mean, the prosecution failed to do so. So, I'm wandering what proof you have that Zimmerman picked a fight with Martin.

They still ran with it and it got turned into this big thing. The case can't be talked about without race being involved which is fucking stupid.

madwarper:

Kenbo Slice:
I just hate how the race card is being thrown around. It wasn't a race issue until the media made it one.

Not quite... Race was injected into the story by the "civil rights" lawyer representing the Martins, Crump. It was deliberate to make the story more sensational so the media would pick it and run with it, since the media had largely ignored it up to that point.

Owyn_Merrilin:
I'm pissed off that the man who picked the fight got off.

Can you prove that? I mean, the prosecution failed to do so. So, I'm wandering what proof you have that Zimmerman picked a fight with Martin.

Zimmerman got out of his car and confronted Martin. He was a neighborhood watch member (read: vigilante), and he racially and age-based profiled someone. If he was really worried about it, he could have called the cops, there was no need for him to get out of his car.

Not to minimize the loss of a human life or anything. Well actually yes, I pretty much am.

It seems that only in America can the the country come to a screeching halt over the predicament of two poor decision makers. Countless lives are lost everyday to crimes worse than this in the US alone, let alone the rest of the planet. People are being butchered in Mexico by cartel members, there is chaos in Syria and Egypt and the US economy is in a tragic state while we deal with a current war and the aftermath of another. The fact that people get up in arms over this is pretty jarring frankly.

I'm reminded of a certain quote from Stalin..

And spare the "If it was your family, you would feel differently!"

I've thought since the beginning this has been a generally shitty situation, no matter who is at fault for the encounter or whether or not what the verdict is. That being said, It does not seem that there was anything even close to "beyond a reasonable" doubt in this case so I believe the verdict was correct and the jury did a good job. Lets hope that no problems come of this, but with social media and other factors I can't help but worry.

BQE:
Not to minimize the loss of a human life or anything. Well actually yes, I pretty much am.

It seems that only in America can the the country come to a screeching halt over the predicament of two poor decision makers. Countless lives are lost everyday to crimes worse than this in the US alone, let alone the rest of the planet. People are being butchered in Mexico by cartel members, there is chaos in Syria and Egypt and the US economy is in a tragic state while we deal with a current war and the aftermath of another. The fact that people get up in arms over this is pretty jarring frankly.

I'm reminded of a certain quote from Stalin..

And spare the "If it was your family, you would feel differently!"

I more or less agree, but to a lot of people this seems to represent a lot of issues such as gun rights, racial relations, and other real issue. Will this have much effect on those issues? Almost certainly not, at least not directly. Symbols can sometimes have effects though. Though compared to things like Syria and Economic issues this is little shit.

Owyn_Merrilin:
Zimmerman got out of his car

Which is not illegal.

and confronted Martin.

Again... Proof?

Can you prove that Zimmerman began the physical altercation? I don't recall there being any eye witnesses or video tape of the fight.

The only eye witness we do have was the one who observed Martin straddling Zimmerman, raining down blows as Zimmerman plead for help.

He was a neighborhood watch member

Which is not illegal.

(read: vigilante),

Read: Speculation.

and he racially and age-based profiled someone.

Which is not illegal.

If he was really worried about it, he could have called the cops,

He did.

there was no need for him to get out of his car.

Whether there was a need to or not, exiting ones vehicle is not illegal.

madwarper:
Just goes to show, the burden of proving their case beyond the shadow of a doubt lies on that of the state, not the defense.

The prosecution utterly failed in proving Zimmerman acted out of malice and not of self defense.

Self defense is a positive defense, meaning it must be proved by the defense. The prosecution only needs to respond to the defense as the burden, that someone killed someone else, is already established.

madwarper:

Owyn_Merrilin:
Zimmerman got out of his car

Which is not illegal.

and confronted Martin.

Again... Proof?

Can you prove that Zimmerman began the physical altercation? I don't recall there being any eye witnesses or video tape of the fight.

The only eye witness we do have was the one who observed Martin straddling Zimmerman, raining down blows as Zimmerman plead for help.

He was a neighborhood watch member

Which is not illegal.

(read: vigilante),

Read: Speculation.

and he racially and age-based profiled someone.

Which is not illegal.

If he was really worried about it, he could have called the cops,

He did.

there was no need for him to get out of his car.

Whether there was a need to or not, exiting ones vehicle is not illegal.

A neighborhood watch is supposed to /watch/ and call the cops if they notice something suspicious. Zimmerman decided to directly confront the person he was suspicious of. Whether he threw the first punch or not, you can guarantee he provoked it -- and it's really unlikely, given the circumstances, that Martin would have had a reason to actually attack Zimmerman /unless he personally felt threatened./ If anyone has a self defense case, it's the dead teenager.

Edit: and it's not speculation to say a neighborhood watch member is a vigilante, especially if he personally tries to enforce the law. A neighborhood watch is just a vigilante group with police approval.

I am laughing so hard at the people who think that their will be a riot because of this. Maybe their should be a riot, who knows. But watch, at most there will be a protest, and if there is fighting it will be because the police started it.

The big lesson people should take from this, although it seems they never learn, is to not commit violent acts. If Trayvon Martin had not attacked Zimmerman he would still be alive. But if not, then Zimmerman would be spending the rest of his life in prison. Inflicting those injuries on Zimmerman pretty much guaranteed he was going to walk. I think that had Zimmerman been completely uninjured, it would have been a slam dunk case for the prosecution.

Shock and Awe:
I've thought since the beginning this has been a generally shitty situation, no matter who is at fault for the encounter or whether or not what the verdict is. That being said, It does not seem that there was anything even close to "beyond a reasonable" doubt in this case so I believe the verdict was correct and the jury did a good job. Lets hope that no problems come of this, but with social media and other factors I can't help but worry.

It is established that Zimmerman killed Martin. That being illegal unless done in self defense requires Zimmerman to have proved that it was the case. If nothing was established beyond a resonable doubt except that Zimmerman killed Martin then he should be in prison right now.

TheStatutoryApe:

madwarper:
Just goes to show, the burden of proving their case beyond the shadow of a doubt lies on that of the state, not the defense.

The prosecution utterly failed in proving Zimmerman acted out of malice and not of self defense.

Self defense is a positive defense, meaning it must be proved by the defense. The prosecution only needs to respond to the defense as the burden, that someone killed someone else, is already established.

The prosecution still needs to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it wasn't self defense. If I kill someone who attacked me the, onus is not on me to prove that I was attacked, it is on the prosecution to prove that I wasn't.

TheStatutoryApe:

It is established that Zimmerman killed Martin. That being illegal unless done in self defense requires Zimmerman to have proved that it was the case. If nothing was established beyond a resonable doubt except that Zimmerman killed Martin then he should be in prison right now.

Maybe It is different in florida, but I am pretty sure you are wrong. This seemingly contradicts both "stand your ground" law, as well as the presumption of innocence

That's cool

Nice to know that all I have to do to get a hole in my chest is wear a hoodie and walk around at night.
Doesn't matter what I was doing.

This is one of those days where I'm reminded the my skin color does have meaning in society.

And to think my day couldn't get any worse when I found out that the stupid Texas bill was passed.

Champthrax:

TheStatutoryApe:

madwarper:
Just goes to show, the burden of proving their case beyond the shadow of a doubt lies on that of the state, not the defense.

The prosecution utterly failed in proving Zimmerman acted out of malice and not of self defense.

Self defense is a positive defense, meaning it must be proved by the defense. The prosecution only needs to respond to the defense as the burden, that someone killed someone else, is already established.

The prosecution still needs to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it wasn't self defense. If I kill someone who attacked me the, onus is not on me to prove that I was attacked, it is on the prosecution to prove that I wasn't.

Well shoot, let me go buy a gun and go around murdering people, then. As long as there's no witnesses, I'll legally be fine.

I agree that the legal system did what it does. The problem is the laws surrounding self defense are fucked up.

TheStatutoryApe:

Shock and Awe:
I've thought since the beginning this has been a generally shitty situation, no matter who is at fault for the encounter or whether or not what the verdict is. That being said, It does not seem that there was anything even close to "beyond a reasonable" doubt in this case so I believe the verdict was correct and the jury did a good job. Lets hope that no problems come of this, but with social media and other factors I can't help but worry.

It is established that Zimmerman killed Martin. That being illegal unless done in self defense requires Zimmerman to have proved that it was the case. If nothing was established beyond a resonable doubt except that Zimmerman killed Martin then he should be in prison right now.

I'm sorry but you misunderstand the law. The burden of proof was on the prosecution to prove that it was not in self defense. Our justice system is based on "innocent until proven guilty" by any means. We always assume a factor like self defense would deem someone innocent of a crime.

Owyn_Merrilin:
Zimmerman decided to directly confront the person he was suspicious of.

You keep saying that, can you prove it? What proof do you have that Zimmerman's intent was to confront and not to observe?

Whether he threw the first punch or not, you can guarantee he provoked it

I can guarantee you that I have a bridge in New York city to sell you, and if you only took my word for it, you'd be a rube.

So, what proof do you have that Zimmerman provoked anything?

-- and it's really unlikely, given the circumstances, that Martin would have had a reason to actually attack Zimmerman /unless he personally felt threatened./ If anyone has a self defense case, it's the dead teenager.

Speculation.

That's what the prosecution brought to the trial, that's why they lost.

As a few people have said

1.There was no evidence to truly prove it was anything but self-defense. The guy had sustained some serious injuries.
2. George should not have followed him. He should have left him alone, like the 911 operator told him. Maybe he shouldn't have, but it wasn't against the law to do so.

Good verdict. The system worked.

cthulhuspawn82:
The big lesson people should take from this, although it seems they never learn, is to not commit violent acts. If Trayvon Martin had not attacked Zimmerman he would still be alive. But if not, then Zimmerman would be spending the rest of his life in prison. Inflicting those injuries on Zimmerman pretty much guaranteed he was going to walk. I think that had Zimmerman been completely uninjured, it would have been a slam dunk case for the prosecution.

But the end result is a dead kid.
If someone is walking down the street alone in the middle of the night, and someone behind you is basically coming up to you what would you honestly do?
Sit there and let the person beat you? Or fight in self defense.
In this scenario Trayvon is dead.
You cannot Zimmerman isn't guilty because he had bruises.
Of course he had fucking bruises.
He confronted someone in the dead of night who was probably more afraid of Zim than Zim was of him. As any other rational person would do Trayvon acted in self defense and attacked the guy for basically going after him.
Trayvon is dead.
Zimmerman has a couple of boo boos

Champthrax:

TheStatutoryApe:

madwarper:
Just goes to show, the burden of proving their case beyond the shadow of a doubt lies on that of the state, not the defense.

The prosecution utterly failed in proving Zimmerman acted out of malice and not of self defense.

Self defense is a positive defense, meaning it must be proved by the defense. The prosecution only needs to respond to the defense as the burden, that someone killed someone else, is already established.

The prosecution still needs to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it wasn't self defense. If I kill someone who attacked me the, onus is not on me to prove that I was attacked, it is on the prosecution to prove that I wasn't.

That is incorrect. It is only necessary to respond to the claim that it was self defense but that claim must be established by fact and testimony in the first place. If the defendant fails to establish their defense, in a positive defense case, there is nothing for the prosecution to do. Under your definition one merely must say it was self defense and the prosecution must refute that assertion without anything to base a refutation on. You can easily look up the standard for self defense if you like. It requires much more than merely claiming it to be the case. Of course if you get the right jury it apparently doesn't matter.

madwarper:

Owyn_Merrilin:
Zimmerman decided to directly confront the person he was suspicious of.

You keep saying that, can you prove it? What proof do you have that Zimmerman's intent was to confront and not to observe?

The fact that he got out of his car? You don't need to do that to observe someone and then call the cops if you think there's a problem.

Whether he threw the first punch or not, you can guarantee he provoked it

I can guarantee you that I have a bridge in New York city to sell you, and if you only took my word for it, you'd be a rube.

So, what proof do you have that Zimmerman provoked anything?

see above

-- and it's really unlikely, given the circumstances, that Martin would have had a reason to actually attack Zimmerman /unless he personally felt threatened./ If anyone has a self defense case, it's the dead teenager.

Speculation.

That's what the prosecution brought to the trial, that's why they lost.

You keep saying it's speculation, but think if Trayvon had killed Zimmerman. If the system is truly working, it would have had the same result. Fact of the matter is, Zimmerman admitted to killing someone, then said "but he was beating me in a fist fight!". That's what got him off, and that's a problem.

I feel like the minority here, but am I the only one who actually is glad he got convicted not guilty? Not saying that I believe he didn't do it, or anything, because I didn't listen to any of the case, really. But here's my thing...

Is it REALLY justice to kill someone for killing someone?

Is it REALLY justice served if we suddenly start playing God for someone?

I don't think so. I think that what this man's going to have to face is going to be way worse than a prison would be. Not only will he be stigmatized by all of Florida (if not America) from now on, but regardless he'll have to live with the fact that he killed a man (for whatever reason that really was). If he can someone find a way to sleep at night, living with that, then he is a better person than I would be, in the same situation.

mecegirl:
I am laughing so hard at the people who think that their will be a riot because of this. Maybe their should be a riot, who knows. But watch, at most there will be a protest, and if there is fighting it will be because the police started it.

The whole riot thing is because of the deal with the Rodney King incident and the ensuing riots. Its the same kinds of issues and a similar situation so its not completely basis.

Shock and Awe:

TheStatutoryApe:

Shock and Awe:
I've thought since the beginning this has been a generally shitty situation, no matter who is at fault for the encounter or whether or not what the verdict is. That being said, It does not seem that there was anything even close to "beyond a reasonable" doubt in this case so I believe the verdict was correct and the jury did a good job. Lets hope that no problems come of this, but with social media and other factors I can't help but worry.

It is established that Zimmerman killed Martin. That being illegal unless done in self defense requires Zimmerman to have proved that it was the case. If nothing was established beyond a resonable doubt except that Zimmerman killed Martin then he should be in prison right now.

I'm sorry but you misunderstand the law. The burden of proof was on the prosecution to prove that it was not in self defense. Our justice system is based on "innocent until proven guilty" by any means. We always assume a factor like self defense would deem someone innocent of a crime.

You are incorrect. Look it up. You are not innocent until proven guilty when you admit to having killed someone.

And yet also in Florida a black woman gets 20 years in jail for firing a warning shot in the air to scare off her abusive husband.

and yet this guy gets off free after killing someone.

fuck this country

can we just start over

the whole thing

Chasing-The-Light:
I feel like the minority here, but am I the only one who actually is glad he got convicted not guilty? Not saying that I believe he didn't do it, or anything, because I didn't listen to any of the case, really. But here's my thing...

Is it REALLY justice to kill someone for killing someone?

Is it REALLY justice served if we suddenly start playing God for someone?

I don't think so. I think that what this man's going to have to face is going to be way worse than a prison would be. Not only will he be stigmatized by all of Florida (if not America) from now on, but regardless he'll have to live with the fact that he killed a man (for whatever reason that really was). If he can someone find a way to sleep at night, living with that, then he is a better person than I would be, in the same situation.

I'm actually against the death penalty, /especially/ in a case like this. I've always felt murdering a murderer just makes you a murderer, and dressing it up as justice doesn't help. That goes at least double for a case like this, where the fight started because somebody decided to take the law into his own hands.

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked