George Zimmerman Found Not Guilty

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

LetalisK:
The sad part is that apparently understanding what reasonable doubt is = defending Zimmerman. Correct me if I'm wrong, but there has been very few "I know Zimmerman didn't do it" posts in relation to how many "There's not enough evidence". But I guess we shouldn't let those little details get in the way of our righteous indignation, yes?

This is actually a little more complicated by the nature of the case. If you're pleading self defense, by necessity, you also have to plead 3/4ths of the elements of murder and manslaughter, with intent (malace) being the only one really up in the air. This, in turn, is what makes self-defense more difficult to argue, as you effectively hand the hardest parts of the case to prove and rest much of the remainder on the ability of a defendant to be empathetic with a jury.

Case in point: there was no dispute over whether Zimmerman killed Martin. That was pretty much admitted on day one. The key issue was whether there were the elements of malice (Murder) or some mitigation (manslaughter) or justified (self defense).

I would also like to point out what, in my opinion, was the real problem that irked a lot of people when this first happened: he wasn't arrested. He killed an unarmed kid and wasn't even arrested. It looked as if there was barely a investigation and the police only took his word for what happened, although some investigators did want to arrest him and investigate further. Given the history of racial injustice in the US, it seemed like a blatant miscarriage of justice that they wouldn't even arrest, let alone charge and take to trial, someone who just handed them several key elements of a crime through admission. In a country with a very ugly history of racially tinged prosecutorial decisions (see the Central Park Five and Bernie Goetz in NY to the Scottsboro boys, Rodney King; incidents like the BART shooting do not help even when there is a prosecution), the notion that someone white got away with killing an unarmed black kid without even an arrest brought up a lot of ugly parallels to

Pretty much after that arrest, the case became a Rorschach test for what people wanted to see on a host of issues ranging from gun culture to race relations to urban planning (no joke on that last one either). Circulating false photos of the victim certainly didn't help.

So J Tyran, How many punches was George Zimmer man supposed to take before you thought was ok for him to use his gun? 7, 10, 100? What's the magic number before he could pulled the trigger and you'd signed off on? If the answer is never then you basically were ok with TM killing him if it went that route. Being stuck in the head is potentially lethal and a person has the right to decide they don't wish to be stuck and fight back if they have the means. That isn't man slaughter...that's literally self defense.

I don't get your deal, like GZ picked on you personally in high school for way you talk about him. I mean these are really childish remarks...Zimmertoad...you really typed that? If you're going be making up names, atleast be funny so it's a fail on you all around.

So let me get this straight since you articulate yourself about as well 5 year old flailing on the floor at walmart.... GZ is a punk and started the fight for sure in your head? He's a violent nutjob who had to have done it....WHO CALLLED THE POLICE BEFORE STARTING A FIGHT....REPEAT AFTER ME ...Who called the police before starting a fight. They could show up in 5 mins, or 2 hours you don't know so last thing you want to do is start a fight and get caught with your pants down. What dimension or alternate reality does this madness make sense?

I probably shouldn't even dignify anything else you typed but I'm feeling sporting so shall we continue. Trayvon was winning the fight...So he was somehow justified in beating crap out of George Zimmerman. So GZ isn't a man cause he couldn't win a fight and even bigger b**ch because he decided to use a weapon when was horribly outmatched? So by your logical anyone who's bigger tougher than anyone else should be able to bash hell out of anyone they want and it's cool. They followed you, they disrespected you. Somehow that's good enough grounds beat another man's ass but getting your ass beat isn't good enough ground to defend yourself? This isn't the playground , people get hurt and die quite easily.

Ultimately if there was any REAL PROOF of anything you're suggesting the state would been all over it. They were running a witchhunt and needed to hang someone for this "crime." If the government is trying hang a man out to dry for his "wrong doings with more resources than you or I have to do so, I think they'd found something if there was a chink in his armor that was so easily exploitable. They went as far to alter evidence ...doesn't that scream desperation? May be there really was nothing on this guy regardless if you like him as human being? Just show you how inept the state was at getting a case on him let show you a metaphor... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FLN3dPMyXeg The state took tons of shots, but they could not pierce the truth of "Zimmerman" heh.

So quit arm chair quarterbacking a man you never met or events you never saw. Life happens fast. People live and die in decisions that happens in seconds. I've been in life and death situations and it's easy to be overwhelmed and panic. I happen to be really brave, but I know earlier in my life I'd probably freaked out had I faced same situations. I remember standing close to a fire and feeling it on my skin and thinking man this tractor I'm trying put out could blow up in my face right now. I just laughed to myself and continued anyways. I am not a trained professional, and just did what I thought was right at the time and it could have ended fatally.

GZ was a man doing something similar. He did what thought was right at the time, and situation got out of hand quickly. What else do you want from the man? He answered for his actions to the law. I think that is enough.

I'm curious to understand the thought process of people who are upset by this verdict. How exactly is it you think the jury came back with a not guilty verdict. Was there some sort of white conspiracy that bribed or manipulated the jurors, or do you claim that the jurors themselves are part of the white conspiracy?

Also, there are white people in jail, along with people who are in jail for killing a black man. Why didn't the white conspiracy keep these people out of prison? Do they allow a few sacrificial white men to take the fall to put up the illusion that the system is fair?

J Tyran:

LetalisK:

J Tyran:

There is ample evidence for every single thing I have claimed, although I am not claiming the same as what other people are claiming.

Your fanfiction doesn't count as evidence. No one is taking it seriously anymore.

Thank for you conceding, at least you know when you have lost.

Everything you've said has been asked and answered multiple times in this thread, so if not wanting to join in on this merry-go-round means I'm "conceding", I'll happily concede as I watch it all break down from the outside.

Big_Willie_Styles:

Owyn_Merrilin:

Right, and movies and such weren't covered under the original copyright law, they were added in later versions. That's changing with the times. Extending the term is just greedy corporations being greedy corporations.

I mean, we all want things we can't or even shouldn't have. That doesn't mean we're entitled to them.

That's not greed. That's people wishing to own their creations and profit off their creations longer. Because it's theirs.

We're entitled to the profits of things we create. Because we created them. They are ours. We own them.

No, it's greed. Intellectual property is a misnomer, you can't own an idea. You can have a monopoly on the right to profit from it, but in a just society, that monopoly eventually runs out. It's not even supposed to be for the life of the author, let alone the life of the author + 70 years as it is today. That's not holding onto your creation, that's preventing future generations from building on it, which is the exact opposite of what copyright exists to do. The idea that copyright exists in order to allow creators to hold onto their creation is a falsehood, it was created in order to encourage people to create and then keep creating, because the monopoly on their idea is so short. But like I said earlier, people got greedy and lazy, and decided to lobby congress to let them keep their copyright longer, so they wouldn't have to keep creating new things in order to keep that exclusive money flowing.

Magenera:

Probably because No Limit Nigga is dead. Besides, it is only the perceived threat of death, not be beating till damn near death. There was a joke about that. "Liberals want you to the point of death before one defend themselves." You're close to that notion.

Indeed, that's a joke. A more truthful statement would be "People who understand what excessive force is want you to the point of death before you defend yourself with lethal force."

So, not to the point of death? OK, go ahead and defend yourself with appropriate force.

Want to defend yourself with lethal force because for some reason you want to kill the other guy? Unless your life is actually in danger, use of lethal force is unlafwul and you're committing a crime by doing so.

Now, that's where I live.

Vegosiux:

Magenera:

Probably because No Limit Nigga is dead. Besides, it is only the perceived threat of death, not be beating till damn near death. There was a joke about that. "Liberals want you to the point of death before one defend themselves." You're close to that notion.

Indeed, that's a joke. A more truthful statement would be "People who understand what excessive force is want you to the point of death before you defend yourself with lethal force."

So, not to the point of death? OK, go ahead and defend yourself with appropriate force.

Want to defend yourself with lethal force because for some reason you want to kill the other guy? Unless your life is actually in danger, use of lethal force is unlafwul and you're committing a crime by doing so.

Now, that's where I live.

Yes, because when being beaten across the head which can cause death hours later with no external symptoms until loss of consciousness one knows EXACTLY where the point of death is.

ravenshrike:
Yes, because when being beaten across the head which can cause death hours later with no external symptoms until loss of consciousness one knows EXACTLY where the point of death is.

Which has nothing to do with the rather smug blanket remark about how "liberals think people should not be allowed to defend themselves at all until they're half dead" (and the poster I was replying to has made derisive blanket remarks about "liberals" several times before, so I'm not giving him the benefit of doubt that it indeed is a joke to him) that I was actually replying to.

I've said what I had to say about this trial already; glad that's over with, there'd be an outrage no matter which way the verdict went, I do not envy those jurors at all, but I do hope it does not set a precedent along the lines of "if two people walk into a fight but only one gets out alive, we'll just go with whatever the living one has to say".

The Gentleman:
snip

I apologize, but you're going to have to break out the crayons for me, because I don't understand what you said has to do with what I said. I'm assuming your main point was your last one, that this case is a Rorschach test. But what does that mean to what I said? Just because someone sees a lack of evidence against Zimmerman does not mean they are necessarily defending him. There are those like myself that find it possible or maybe even probable that Zimmerman is the one at fault here but don't see the evidence as quite reaching the threshold to convincingly prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.

J Tyran:
Mr Martin had never been arrested or ever charged for anything

Meaningless. I know people who commit minor crimes so casually it comes across like force of habit, and yet they have never been arrested or charged.

troubled young man

I hate that phrase. its manipulative wording used to make people with a history of criminal behavior sound innocent while shifting the blame off them.

Zimmerman had assaulted a police officer

"assaulted" here meaning "shoved" so whoop-de-do.

and was under a restraining order for domestic violence

Based off of the word of one person and with no charges filed. So exactly as relevant as Martin's crimes.

Why should my contempt for his killer make me the target of insults?

Because you are literally acting like you are twelve years old in a discussion that should have more maturity than that.

You have admitted why, you feel that because I do not respect him

I don't demand you respect him, I just stated that if you speak like a child I will assume you have the mindset of one and thus find it hard to take you seriously.

but respect the dead man whose reputation was mostly a bunch of hearsay and the fact he smoked weed and had some fights.

"how dare you assume this guy was a criminal with a history of violence! all he did was commit crimes and attack people."

The Gentleman:
someone white got away with killing an unarmed black kid without even an arrest

Zimmerman isn't white.

Circulating false photos of the victim certainly didn't help.

The bias coming out of that article is staggering.

major_chaos:

J Tyran:
Mr Martin had never been arrested or ever charged for anything

Meaningless. I know people who commit minor crimes so casually it comes across like force of habit, and yet they have never been arrested or charged.

The thing here is that charges and arrest show that a person has come to the attention of the police with enough evidence to prompt an investigation, to prove someone is a criminal you ideally need convictions or other action by the authorities.

There is no proof that Mr Martin broke any law, ever.

troubled young man

I hate that phrase. its manipulative wording used to make people with a history of criminal behavior sound innocent while shifting the blame off them.

In this case with someone that was repeatedly suspended from school but never, ever been arrested, charged or convicted of a crime its an apt term.

"assaulted" here meaning "shoved" so whoop-de-do. and was under a restraining order for domestic violence
Based off of the word of one person and with no charges filed. So exactly as relevant as Martin's crimes.

Still a lot more proof he was a criminal than Mr Martin, most people do not go around and get into physical confrontations with police. The restraining order was a matter of public record and the Judge obviously believed the witness had merit or they would not have applied it, again proof, evidence. Everything said about Mr Martin was hearsay.

"how dare you assume this guy was a criminal with a history of violence! all he did was commit crimes and attack people."

Fights =/= going around and attacking people, he may not have started them to begin with and noone made a complaint of assault. If two people want to settle their differences with a fight and do it at a time and place that do not upset or frighten the public (noone made a disturbance complaint, so this must be true here) they should have the right to do so. As noone made any complaint to the police, either for assault or about a disturbance the only conclusion must be that any participants where willing and noone was frightened or upset by whatever happened.

Prove with evidence that Mr Martin went around attacking people, then prove with evidence that he started those fights.

Smoking weed is technically a crime but considering millions of Americans do it and that it should not really be a crime in the first place I don't think it should be relevant at all, not for people that don't believe that "Reefer madness" was true anyway.

J Tyran:

There is no proof that Mr Martin broke any law, ever.

congratulations on restating your point without addressing my point that it doesn't matter. You are clinging to this whole "he was never arrested thus he isn't a criminal" idea.

In this case with someone that was repeatedly suspended from school but never, ever been arrested, charged or convicted of a crime its an apt term.

I would use delinquent.

Still a lot more proof he was a criminal than Mr Martin, most people do not go around and get into physical confrontations with police. The restraining order was a matter of public record and the Judge obviously believed the witness had merit or they would not have applied it, again proof, evidence. Everything said about Mr Martin was hearsay.

Shoving someone in the heat of the moment is hardly out of the ordinary, and if there was anything significant behind the restraining order I would think there would have been more to that story. Also, using # of crimes charged with as a metric for the quality of a person is asinine. I would be far more trusting of someone who shoved a cop and has a restraining order with no associated criminal charges who is by all appearances a contributing member of society over a pot smoking, violent, vandal dropout, who most likely is also a thief any day.

If two people want to settle their differences with a fight and do it at a time and place that do not upset or frighten the public they should have the right to do so.

No one. its no one, not noone. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume English is your second language. On topic: the desire to "settle their differences" with physical violence does not say good things about a person

(noone made a disturbance complaint, so this must be true here)

It doesn't work that way. How do you know that the people who were disturbed just didn't bother to call the cops, or maybe they did but the fight broke up before police arrived and Martin was never connected with it?

Prove with evidence that Mr Martin went around attacking people, then prove with evidence that he started those fights.

Prove that he didn't. And whether he started them or not is only part of the issue.

major_chaos:
snipped for size

Well considering you have no proof of anything at all and think hearsay trumps evidence and prefer your own speculation in place of facts you should go an apologise to anyone in this thread you have accused of doing the same, or at least admit to yourself that have acted like a massive hypocrite all the way through this thread.

major_chaos:
No one. its no one, not noone. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume English is your second language.

Lame, very, very lame. Considering you had to actually go back and fix all the busted quoting you got wrong in edits and edit out all your own spelling mistakes before editing this in its actually beyond lame.

I don't know why there are two threads on this subject and think that they should be merged so I'm linking to this (admittedly amateur) vid that really clears things up about why Zimmerman was probably right to found not guilty on this thread too.

Images:
I don't know why there are two threads on this subject and think that they should be merged so I'm linking to this (admittedly amateur) vid that really clears things up about why Zimmerman was probably right to found not guilty on this thread too.

If this video presents the truth, then Zimmerman is much more not guilty than I originally thought.

cthulhuspawn82:

What does it mean when you say that Zimmerman racially profiled Martin? It means that Martins race was the reason, or at least a reason, for Zimmerman to find him suspicious. But Zimmerman had called the police on "suspicious persons" multiple times. Many of them white. How do you explain that? If Zimmerman suspected Trayvon because he was black, it stands to reason that he wouldn't suspect him if he was white, but he had reported many white suspects in the past.

Obviously, someone more likely to think others suspicious for being black can also have reasons to be suspicious of non-blacks. It just means they will tend to find blacks suspicious more easily than non-blacks.

There was an American Television show...

However, now consider the following (amidst the vast reams of material that could be accessed):
http://www.thesociologicalcinema.com/1/post/2013/06/racial-profiling-the-bike-thief.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-201_162-575685.html
Or consider police "stop and search" tactics, which have frequently been done by racial profiling.

I think it's very understandable blacks may be very sensitive and defensive about being treated as suspicious or dangerous. I'd also argue it is a natural consequence of being repeatedly being treated as suspicious or dangerous: not only by non-blacks, but the authorities, and even other blacks too. Sure as hell I'd learn to feel people thought the worse of me if they treated me that way.

It's perfectly okay for you to note where blacks may be (over-)sensitive. It's not okay when you use it to pretend that no discrimination or racial profiling occurs, or fail to consider that perhaps they're so sensitive to it because they and their peers are victims of it.

LetalisK:

The Gentleman:
snip

I apologize, but you're going to have to break out the crayons for me, because I don't understand what you said has to do with what I said. I'm assuming your main point was your last one, that this case is a Rorschach test. But what does that mean to what I said? Just because someone sees a lack of evidence against Zimmerman does not mean they are necessarily defending him. There are those like myself that find it possible or maybe even probable that Zimmerman is the one at fault here but don't see the evidence as quite reaching the threshold to convincingly prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.

The first part was what was mostly responding to the post (i.e. reasonable doubt and the supposed lack of evidence), after which I started to more generally address issues raised in the thread and discussed the main reason why there was more of an outrage a year ago (the lack of arrest) and why people seem to be so emotionally involved with the case (Rorschach).

major_chaos:

The Gentleman:
someone white got away with killing an unarmed black kid without even an arrest

Zimmerman isn't white.

A fact that only came out later.

Circulating false photos of the victim certainly didn't help.

The bias coming out of that article is staggering.

Lovely. Can you at least dispute the point it makes with the photo being wrong?

cthulhuspawn82:
I'm curious to understand the thought process of people who are upset by this verdict. How exactly is it you think the jury came back with a not guilty verdict. Was there some sort of white conspiracy that bribed or manipulated the jurors, or do you claim that the jurors themselves are part of the white conspiracy?

If you believe what this associate professor does, it's not a white conspiracy but a racist, gun-toting God, and the same kind of "racism" is present in Christianity and right-wing America that allows white privilege is currently denying rights to women and minorities... if you've heard one person like her you've heard them all.

Still her job title is worth repeating: this woman teaches at a major American university. Along with the state of journalism, media and politics, it becomes clear why ignorance and hate keeps breeding. It's on full display with protests, hateful reactions and violence in spite of the verdict.

As for the legal matters, it's still not over. The defense is going after the prosecution for withholding evidence that could have helped exonerate Zimmerman and Zimmerman, himself, last I heard is pursuing a lawsuit against NBC for fraudulent audio editing long before the case was brought to trial.

Meanwhile, people are howling for the DoJ to come through and continue to harass George with a civil rights case. Remarkably that might be thwarted by something bigger than any legal defense: no less than the FBI has concluded race had no motivating factor in the incident with Martin.

This isn't like the defense was weak and barely had anything going for it. Almost unanimously, from the evidence, testimony and jury to the freaking federal government concludes George did nothing wrong. It's time for people to stop profiling George Zimmerman for being something he is not.

I'm posting here because I cannot remember if I posted in one of the original topics from ages ago or not, and in case I did I felt it would be remiss to not post now the trial has been concluded.

I think the circumstances around the event itself and the handling of it immediately prior are somewhat suspicious, and I believe that a case could have been made for manslaughter (as the only charge and not appended as an alternative later in the trial). I think that Zimmerman's actions led to the confrontation and that even if Martin initiated a physical altercation he would have been in the right to do so under self-defence laws, given it is very likely he felt threatened as he was being followed by a strange man in a car who then got out to chase him on foot - even doubling-back is fair enough as that is common advice given to people who think they are being followed so as to not reveal their address. That is my personal opinion. Are there things Martin could, and should, have done instead (such as phoning the police)? Yes. But there is also an awful lot that Zimmerman could have done differently that would have not resulted in this tragic scenario, thus I believe he should have held some culpability for the shooting (ergo manslaughter).

However:

Hopefully the emphasis above is enough to prevent me being misquoted/drawn into the arguments raging here; there was a distinct lack of evidence regarding what really happened, I feel the police handled it very poorly which may have resulted in lost evidence too, and the prosecution seemed to be trying to defeat themselves throughout the trial; thus the only just solution was to declare Zimmerman not guilty.

I still hold my personal suspicions, but he's been found not guilty so that is the end of it - and I feel that anyone advocating any sort of revenge or "vigilante justice" is just as bad, if not worse, than what they perceive Zimmerman to be.

I am aware that I am not typing very coherently (it's scorching here and hard to think), but in essence I agree with this post that is far better written (and I have my own personal views which are now irrelevant as the trial has been concluded):

The Gentleman:
This is actually a little more complicated by the nature of the case. If you're pleading self defense, by necessity, you also have to plead 3/4ths of the elements of murder and manslaughter, with intent (malace) being the only one really up in the air. This, in turn, is what makes self-defense more difficult to argue, as you effectively hand the hardest parts of the case to prove and rest much of the remainder on the ability of a defendant to be empathetic with a jury.

Case in point: there was no dispute over whether Zimmerman killed Martin. That was pretty much admitted on day one. The key issue was whether there were the elements of malice (Murder) or some mitigation (manslaughter) or justified (self defense).

I would also like to point out what, in my opinion, was the real problem that irked a lot of people when this first happened: he wasn't arrested. He killed an unarmed kid and wasn't even arrested. It looked as if there was barely a investigation and the police only took his word for what happened, although some investigators did want to arrest him and investigate further. Given the history of racial injustice in the US, it seemed like a blatant miscarriage of justice that they wouldn't even arrest, let alone charge and take to trial, someone who just handed them several key elements of a crime through admission. In a country with a very ugly history of racially tinged prosecutorial decisions (see the Central Park Five and Bernie Goetz in NY to the Scottsboro boys, Rodney King; incidents like the BART shooting do not help even when there is a prosecution), the notion that someone white got away with killing an unarmed black kid without even an arrest brought up a lot of ugly parallels to

Pretty much after that arrest, the case became a Rorschach test for what people wanted to see on a host of issues ranging from gun culture to race relations to urban planning (no joke on that last one either). Circulating false photos of the victim certainly didn't help.

J Tyran:

major_chaos:
snipped for size

Well considering you have no proof of anything at all and think hearsay trumps evidence and prefer your own speculation in place of facts you should go an apologise to anyone in this thread you have accused of doing the same, or at least admit to yourself that have acted like a massive hypocrite all the way through this thread.

major_chaos:
No one. its no one, not noone. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume English is your second language.

Lame, very, very lame. Considering you had to actually go back and fix all the busted quoting you got wrong in edits and edit out all your own spelling mistakes before editing this in its actually beyond lame.

Since there seems to be a bit of a recursive loop going...

Here's some visual evidence that makes your version of events a little... unlikely.

image

Simply put, unless you're claiming Zimmerman was the worst stalker in the entire world, and Martin the dumbest terrified stalkee, Zimmerman broke off pursuit as requested, and Martin reengaged.

The Gentleman:

Circulating false photos of the victim certainly didn't help.

The bias coming out of that article is staggering.

Lovely. Can you at least dispute the point it makes with the photo being wrong?

Of course, the actual photos pulled off his cell phone don't exactly help.
http://www.wesh.com/news/central-florida/trayvon-martin-extended-coverage/texts-photos-from-trayvon-martins-phone-released-by-george-zimmermans-defense/-/14266478/20271978/-/jbculhz/-/index.html

But people don't like it when you point out he was a wannabe druggie thug as it interferes with their RAAAAACCCCIIISSTT! narrative.

J Tyran:

LetalisK:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but there has been very few "I know Zimmerman didn't do it" posts in relation to how many "There's not enough evidence".

There is ample evidence for every single thing I have claimed, although I am not claiming the same as what other people are claiming.

-fact, Zimmerturd was a violent man with a history of of crime related paranoia

Zimmerman shoved an undercover police officer for questioning his friend about underage drinking. The police officer did not identify himself. Though still he shouldn't have shoved the man. But far from a violent sociopath. The charged was reduced to resisting an officer without violence. Most likely because of the officer failing to properly identify himself.

Second count was his ex-fiancee filling a restraining order against him which in turn he filed against her. Most likely domestic dispute. Both parties alleged domestic violence and were granted the restraining orders.

Third count was Zimmerman charged with speeding. Case was dismissed when the officer failed to show up for court.

Did he have a criminal background? Yes. Was he some violent vigilante, far from. I've seen upstanding citizens and pillars in the community with more than this. At most you have a count of a man getting drunk and acting drunkenly, a spat between couples that was elevated, and a speeding ticket. This is definitely you twisting it to make him look like a violent sociopath.

J Tyran:

-fact, he was following Mr Martin for no tangible or logical reason and then chased him through the back streets against advice

He was following Martin but he was suspicious of his activities. This compounded by the string of robberies that had happened in the past. I lived in a neighborhood when I was younger where numerous robberies started happening. Know what the reaction was? Elevated suspicion of any person a neighbor did not recognize.

http://youtu.be/zj7qEcD8R-8

- He called police claiming suspicion of Martin
- Police ask questions clarifying what Martin looks like
- Zimmerman states Martin is looking at him and then approaching him
- Zimmerman states Martin looks to be up to no good and possibly on drugs and that "something" is in his hand
- Police ask a little more information concerning the area and what Martin is doing
- Martin runs (this was most likely out of fear because he did not know who Zimmerman was)
- Zimmerman gets out of his vehicle and chases (you can hear Zimmerman breathing heavily because of running)
- The police ask if Zimmerman is chasing him, he replies yes, the police tell him he can stop following him
- Zimmerman says okay and shortly after slows down, his breathing becomes less labored and eventually even
- Police gain more information on where to find him when they come
- Zimmerman can't clarify where he ended up parking and tells them to call him and he'll tell them where to meet him

Ok while yes Zimmerman did initially chase him, it is obvious that he stopped when the dispatcher instructed him to. It is also obvious that Zimmerman had no intent to confront Martin after the dispatcher told him to stop chasing him. At this point Zimmerman was planning to meet police and help them locate Martin.

While it is true Zimmerman should not have followed/chased Martin he did have valid reason to and was perfectly within his rights.

J Tyran:

-fact, he had made is intent clear several times, both to not let the situation slide and through his frustration at Mr Martins temporary escape

Only once during the entirety of the dispatcher conversation does Zimmerman show frustration in Martin getting away.

"These assholes, they always get away."

Beyond that he states once that Martin ran. That cannot be taken as frustration but rather stating the fact Martin had run. It also lends to the idea that Zimmerman top chasing him. When you are chasing someone you state "He's running". When someone runs and you don't chase or are unable to chase him you state "He ran".

J Tyran:

-fact, Mr Martin was in fear for his safety

This is very well possible.

J Tyran:

-fact, Mr Martin should have had a viable self defense claim and was not obligated to leave and by choosing to turn back did nothing wrong

Wrong. Fear of an action before the action happens is not cause for self defense. I.E. I cannot kill a man and then claim self defense because I perceived him to be threatening. He actually has to create a situation in which a threat actually happens. Also in the police call Martin runs before Zimmerman gives chase. If Zimmerman ran at him AND THEN Martin ran or punched him then he could claim self defense.

J Tyran:

-fact, there is no evidence behind Mr Martins intent to turn back or any room for reasonble speculation

While it can be consider hard to find evidence Martin confronted Zimmerman the content of the last call in which the first exchange between Zimmerman and Martin were heard suggests that Martin confronted Zimmerman.

The reasoning? Martin first engaged Zimmerman.

Martin: "Why are you following me?"
Zimmerman: "What are you doing around here?"

Martin was the first to speak suggesting he started the confrontation. When someone approached someone the person approaching them tends to start the coversation. I.E. I see a friend and need to tell him something. I approach him and say "Hey ________". If I see someone who looks lost or otherwise out of place I say "Can I help you?". If I'm following someone suspicious (say at work) I approach them and say "Is there anything I can help you with?"

The aggressor creates the situation and usually starts of any verbal exchange. By Martin starting the verbal exchange between him and Zimmerman it would suggest he was the instigator as it were.

J Tyran:

-fact, there is no evidence about who started the fight in any event

This is true. There is no evidence to suggest that either Zimmerman or Martin started the fight. So neither Zimmerman or Martin can be blamed for the cause.

J Tyran:

-fact, there was a fight and Mr Martin was winning

Martin was winning the fight and showed no damage from blunt objects such as fists. Zimmerman did show multiple contusions and cuts consistent with that of hitting concrete and receiving blunt force trauma.

J Tyran:

-fact, Zimmertoads life was not in danger when he pulled the trigger

Subjective. You cannot determine whether his life was in danger or not because the fight ended with Martin being shot. If Zimmerman did not have a pistol, and with Martin clearly winning the fight, it is impossible to say whether or not Martin would have severely injured or even killed Zimmerman. As you said Martin probably saw his life as threatened and in that instance you fight until you feel the person is incapacitated. Often adrenaline takes over and people find themselves doing more damage than they realize.

If Zimmerman perceived his life as in danger then he had every right to defend himself with lethal force. There is no telling what damage Martin could have done had Zimmerman not had a gun. The amount of damage a person can do with their fists in a matter of minutes is drastic and often overlooked.

J Tyran:

Therefore its pretty amusing to see people tubthumping about evidence when they are ignoring it themselves.

You seem to be the one avoiding and twisting evidence to fir your biased conclusions.

The sad fact is that this all could have been avoided if both parties had reacted differently.

- Did Zimmerman chase Martin? Yes.
- Did he stop after being instructed to do so? Yes.
- Could Martin have felt threatened? Absolutely.
- Did Martin confront Zimmerman? Subjective and no proper evidence to support.
- Did Zimmerman confront Martin? Subjective and no proper evidence to support.
- Was Martin and Zimmerman in a physical altercation? Yes.
- Was Martin dominating the altercation? Yes.
- Could Zimmerman have felt his life was threatened in the process of the altercation? Absolutely.
- If Zimmerman felt his life was immediately in danger due to extreme duress did he have a right to use lethal force as a response? Yes.

While ambiguity clouds the fight and who started it in the end Zimmerman felt enough duress to use lethal force as a response. In the fight Martin was obviously winning and the obligation to end said altercation falls on Martin and there was no sign he would until either Zimmerman was severely injured or dead. This case was as clear cut as could possibly be.

gun laws should have serious review untrained and unprofessional should not carry firearms especially as vigilantes, if Zimmerman was unarmed he would have had to stay put, just like the 911 operator told him to. The case verdict was correct, but the laws are fucked. I think this is the reason most people are upset, as they cannot believe how dumb and destructive self defence laws are in comparison to their own personal morality.

Boris Goodenough:

Images:
I don't know why there are two threads on this subject and think that they should be merged so I'm linking to this (admittedly amateur) vid that really clears things up about why Zimmerman was probably right to found not guilty on this thread too.

If this video presents the truth, then Zimmerman is much more not guilty than I originally thought.

Exactly! He may go off subject in the last 10 minutes about child raising but for the most part its a calm and collected piece that takes all the major facts into account and some extra stuff.

O maestre:
gun laws should have serious review untrained and unprofessional should not carry firearms especially as vigilantes, if Zimmerman was unarmed he would have had to stay put, just like the 911 operator told him to. The case verdict was correct, but the laws are fucked. I think this is the reason most people are upset, as they cannot believe how dumb and destructive self defence laws are in comparison to their own personal morality.

This has nothing to do with gun control, nor does following someone with intent to confront them about suspicious behavior qualify you as a vigilante. In fact, nothing you've said makes sense given what we've learned from the trial.

AgedGrunt:

O maestre:
gun laws should have serious review untrained and unprofessional should not carry firearms especially as vigilantes, if Zimmerman was unarmed he would have had to stay put, just like the 911 operator told him to. The case verdict was correct, but the laws are fucked. I think this is the reason most people are upset, as they cannot believe how dumb and destructive self defence laws are in comparison to their own personal morality.

This has nothing to do with gun control, nor does following someone with intent to confront them about suspicious behavior qualify you as a vigilante. In fact, nothing you've said makes sense given what we've learned from the trial.

I think he tried to point out how a gun doesn't even need to be fired to be a contributing factor to escalation. You're armed, you're more confident. Less cautious. More likely to not take a step back if it looks like it could turn ugly.

But, I'm with you on the notion that this case and gun control don't really have much in common to draw comparisons and all, yes.

J Tyran:

Well considering you have no proof of anything at all and think hearsay trumps evidence and prefer your own speculation in place of facts you should go an apologise to anyone in this thread you have accused of doing the same, or at least admit to yourself that have acted like a massive hypocrite all the way through this thread.

What exactly have you proved? That Zimmerman had a few convictions with little to no relevance in this case? just refer to to PedalTank's post.

Lame, very, very lame. Considering you had to actually go back and fix all the busted quoting you got wrong in edits and edit out all your own spelling mistakes before editing this in its actually beyond lame.

I never edited the post you quoted outside of proofreading before the initial post, so I have no idea what you are ranting about.

major_chaos:

J Tyran:

Well considering you have no proof of anything at all and think hearsay trumps evidence and prefer your own speculation in place of facts you should go an apologise to anyone in this thread you have accused of doing the same, or at least admit to yourself that have acted like a massive hypocrite all the way through this thread.

What exactly have you proved? That Zimmerman had a few convictions with little to no relevance in this case? just refer to to PedalTank's post.

Correction, Zimmerman has ZERO prior convictions. Everything that was brought up here had been dismissed for one reason or another.

Vegosiux:

AgedGrunt:

O maestre:
gun laws should have serious review untrained and unprofessional should not carry firearms especially as vigilantes, if Zimmerman was unarmed he would have had to stay put, just like the 911 operator told him to. The case verdict was correct, but the laws are fucked. I think this is the reason most people are upset, as they cannot believe how dumb and destructive self defence laws are in comparison to their own personal morality.

This has nothing to do with gun control, nor does following someone with intent to confront them about suspicious behavior qualify you as a vigilante. In fact, nothing you've said makes sense given what we've learned from the trial.

I think he tried to point out how a gun doesn't even need to be fired to be a contributing factor to escalation. You're armed, you're more confident. Less cautious. More likely to not take a step back if it looks like it could turn ugly.

But, I'm with you on the notion that this case and gun control don't really have much in common to draw comparisons and all, yes.

Since trayvon didn't know about the gun until after Zimmerman was jumped and his jacket exposed it, guns make no difference. No amount of confidence will make someone stay away, especially if they might be under the influence of purple drank like Martin was.

In fact, zimmerman said to have stopped following, its Martin that doubled back to fight.

There is something truly horrifying about the people who are upset with this verdict. They made up their minds before the trial that he was guilty and would refuse a not guilty verdict.

This is the terrifying part. A trial can lead to one of two outcomes; guilty or not guilty. If you decide beforehand that only one of those outcomes is valid and the other is a wrong verdict, then there is no reason to have a trial in the first place. There is no reason for due process or rule of law. If you are going to have a trial to determine guilt, you have to be ready to accept either a guilty or not guilty verdict. To say from the onset that only a guilty verdict is valid is to do away with the entire legal system. These guys think they are Judge Dredd.

There's a few things that I find very telling about the #JusticeForNoLimitTrayvon crowd. First being the moving of the goal posts these people are engaging in. When this story first broke Crazy Uncle Al and his race baiting pack of followers kept howling that all they wanted was for Mr Zimmerman to be arrested and have his day in court in front of a jury. Well guess what? They got it and a jury found him not guilty. Now, since they didn't get the verdict they wanted now that trial isn't good enough.

I'd respect them a lot more if they were honest enough to just come out and say what they want isn't justice, justice has already been served. No, what they want is tantamount to a lynching. They were lying from the beginning as this was never about justice. This was about getting their pound of flesh from Mr Zimmerman by whatever means necessary.

The second thing that sticks out to me is that since the verdict this most recent Saturday there have been 4 black children killed in my city of Chicago alone. Do you think that these No_Limit_Trayvon supporters know the names of any of these children? Of course they don't. Nor do they give two shits about them because the deaths of those children aren't nearly as politically beneficial. They stand to gain nothing from those deaths and because of that they simply can't be bothered to care about them.

So while Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson and their race baiting cronies are howling about it being open season on young black children because now white folk can kill them with impunity it seems incredibly disingenuous to me. Because if you take the whole race baiting lot of them from one coast to another you'd be lucky to find a dozen that give a shit about all the black children that are being slaughtered by members of their own race because they only care about dead children when they can gain from their demise.

Super Not Cosmo:
There's a few things that I find very telling about the #JusticeForNoLimitTrayvon crowd. First being the moving of the goal posts these people are engaging in. When this story first broke Crazy Uncle Al and his race baiting pack of followers kept howling that all they wanted was for Mr Zimmerman to be arrested and have his day in court in front of a jury. Well guess what? They got it and a jury found him not guilty. Now, since they didn't get the verdict they wanted now that trial isn't good enough.

To be fair, they also were constantly saying that there was no way Zimmerman could be found not guilty, so the guilty verdict was their goal all along, not getting Zimmerman in court. They were quite honest in what they wanted, in that respect.

Black advocacy groups also do care about the victims of black-on-black crime, and you see commentary on the matter coming up every now and again. The problem is that whenever white-on-black crimes happen, black advocacy groups latch onto them as possible hate crimes, blowing them up in importance to push their agendas. This has the side-effect of minimalizing their coverage of black-on-black crime.

I don't know if I can specifically blame them for this strategy: it's one that they're accustomed to. Most black advocacy groups formed during the civil rights movement where such incidents were much more common and have stuck with the strategies from that era AFAIK.

IMO, when it comes to public advocacy, this generation has DECADES of civil rights precedents to help it start shifting the public mindset - it just fails to do so because of two factors - a complete determination to alienate anyone perceived to be "on the other side" (see Occupy Wallstreet) or attempts to stir shit up for no reason (see the modern NAACP.)

As an example of said shit-stirring, comparisons to the Emmet Till case are a fucking disgrace (gee, thanks NAACP and Al Sharpton for showing how worthless you can be), because the cases are completely different from the ground up. Emmet Till was brutally tortured to death (having his eyes gouged out, for example) when he was seen flirting with a white woman. The nature of his death was so horrible that it was obvious to anyone with eyes in their skull that Till was murdered with extreme prejudice - it was just a question of who did the deed.

The Zimmerman case however, is filled with contradictory evidence supported by weak theories about "who thought what" - theories you see pop up in the various Zimmerman threads, as people claim that Zimmerman was "racially profiling/a man with a vigilante attitude," or that Trayvon Martin thought of himself as some "wannabe-gansta," or that both people just made some unfortunate choices that resulted in Martin's death. The thing is that these theories are mostly just self-affirming nonsense, as we don't know jack about what anyone was thinking that night. Hence, acquittal.

When it comes to black-on-black violence, since the public and media keeps obsessing over incidents of white-on-black violence as if the Grand Wizard himself were on trial, the problem might not be a lack of caring, but perhaps a self-inflicted lack of awareness about the bigger part of the problem.

When white-on-black murders are such a small part of black murders at large, then why do they recieve such disproportionate coverage? Why are we not having serious discussions about how to minimalize black-on-black crime instead of arguing the motives of a particular man on trial? I believe that it's because news networks exist to sell air time, and nothing sells air time like the potential of hate crimes[1] - but that might be my cynicism talking.

The lack of caring about black-on-black violence, the complete disparity in jail times for different drug uses, the slashing of programs that affect poor blacks and poor individuals at large, the squashing of black votes and votes in general thanks to gerrymandered districts: those are all topics in desperate need of discussion. But instead of talking about these important issues, the talking heads on TV are trying to convince people that juries should convict when they shouldn't, or distrust those of other races when they shouldn't.

The real threat to race relations is the fear that every white guy on the street could be the Zimmerman-vigilante, out to kill you, or that every black guy is the Trayvon-thug, out to beat you. I feel that FDR says it best when it comes to discussing social change:

"First of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is...fear itself - nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance."

Everyone knows the first half of the quote - but the second half is what gives it force.

[1] The fact that news networks coined the "white Hispanic" term to describe Zimmerman should tell you everything you need to know about how they wanted to sell air time.

J Tyran:

psijac:

J Tyran:

My own fault, I did say in an earlier post "cuts that needed stitches" not just "he didn't have cuts" and its my own fault I left it out. A swollen nose and a slight graze are nowhere near life threatening, you often see rugby players or boxers looking far worse than that.

Legally speaking life threatening injuries are not required for self defense.

That would be like telling a woman you need at least 3 inches of vagina penetration to have the crime committed against you classified as a rape otherwise its just sexual harrassment

AgedGrunt:

O maestre:
gun laws should have serious review untrained and unprofessional should not carry firearms especially as vigilantes, if Zimmerman was unarmed he would have had to stay put, just like the 911 operator told him to. The case verdict was correct, but the laws are fucked. I think this is the reason most people are upset, as they cannot believe how dumb and destructive self defence laws are in comparison to their own personal morality.

This has nothing to do with gun control, nor does following someone with intent to confront them about suspicious behavior qualify you as a vigilante. In fact, nothing you've said makes sense given what we've learned from the trial.

I sincerely do not believe Zimmerman would have gotten out of the car to follow/confront Martin without his weapon. as far as I know neighbourhood watch members are solely supposed to report crimes in progress and not involve themselves in apprehension or questioning of suspects/criminals, even if pre-emptive crime prevention. They do not receive any kind of training in fire arms or how to confront targets, there are at least no specified standard education, the only doctrine is what I mentioned above in regards to reporting crime. Zimmerman did not as far as I know have any kind of private training at all, not in fire arms, apprehension tactics or gauging intent. He should not have had a weapon.
I will reiterate that I agree with the verdict I think it was correct in accordance with the law, but I do not condone the act or agree with the law, in accordance to my own personal morality... Does it make any sense now? I do not think I can make my opinion any clearer.

Ultratwinkie:

Vegosiux:

AgedGrunt:

I think he tried to point out how a gun doesn't even need to be fired to be a contributing factor to escalation. You're armed, you're more confident. Less cautious. More likely to not take a step back if it looks like it could turn ugly.

But, I'm with you on the notion that this case and gun control don't really have much in common to draw comparisons and all, yes.

Since trayvon didn't know about the gun until after Zimmerman was jumped and his jacket exposed it, guns make no difference. No amount of confidence will make someone stay away, especially if they might be under the influence of purple drank like Martin was.

In fact, zimmerman said to have stopped following, its Martin that doubled back to fight.

Martin had nothing to do with Zimmerman stepping out of the vehicle to pursue him, my point was merely that I doubt Zimmerman would have confronted a dangerous individual without some kind of protection, like the gun he was wielding and utilized to defend himself. It is all speculation of course, but I believe that without the gun Zimmerman would have either stayed put, or minded his own business.

scotth266:

When white-on-black murders are such a small part of black murders at large, then why do they recieve such disproportionate coverage? Why are we not having serious discussions about how to minimalize black-on-black crime instead of arguing the motives of a particular man on trial? I believe that it's because news networks exist to sell air time, and nothing sells air time like the potential of hate crimes[1] - but that might be my cynicism talking.

Probably because minimizing black crime probably isn't possible without a vast amount of censorship and forced ignorance, basically. Random example, most 'famous' blacks that could be considered as role models? Either athletes or rappers, who largely sing about drugs, women, gangs, and carry a strong anti-police sentiment.

Another example, Hurricane Katrina. When New Orleans was ravaged by natural disasters, a large number of black citizens ransaked what remained of the town while others took up arms and opened fire on both police and military forces that were attempting to conduct rescue operations. Many people died in the convention center because any rescue attempt was met with hostile action. Then there was a large controversy made over the fact that people perceiving that incident as a race issue (That is, the government couldn't be assed to help because the victims were black), but...over 80% of that area's population was white. But only the black crime rate was outrageously high.

psijac:

J Tyran:

psijac:

My own fault, I did say in an earlier post "cuts that needed stitches" not just "he didn't have cuts" and its my own fault I left it out. A swollen nose and a slight graze are nowhere near life threatening, you often see rugby players or boxers looking far worse than that.

Legally speaking life threatening injuries are not required for self defense.

That would be like telling a woman you need at least 3 inches of vagina penetration to have the crime committed against you classified as a rape otherwise its just sexual harrassment

It is sort of like that. In many jurisdictions, penetration with objects (IE not human appendages) is only sexual assault, not rape.

[1] The fact that news networks coined the "white Hispanic" term to describe Zimmerman should tell you everything you need to know about how they wanted to sell air time.

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

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked