George Zimmerman Found Not Guilty

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

Dragonbums:

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

But Zimmerman did not beat Trayvon or injure him in any way. Other than the gunshot, Trayvon was completely uninjured. Regardless of how much a better a fighter Trayvon was, the only explanation is that Zimmerman didn't offer any sort of offensive throughout the whole fight. This didn't count as a fight, a fight is a mutual arrangement where both guys throw punches, this was an assault.

Owyn_Merrilin:
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.

You can't watch someone after they leave your field of view.

And, leaving one's car is neither illegal, nor provocative.

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'm not saying Zimmerman had to do anything. However, when you consider the events that transpired that can be authenticated by evidence and the eye witness, the shooting was justified.

undeadsuitor:
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

And yet also a black football player murders two white people and gets away with it?

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.

cthulhuspawn82:

Dragonbums:

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

But Zimmerman did not beat Trayvon or injure him in any way. Other than the gunshot, Trayvon was completely uninjured. Regardless of how much a better a fighter Trayvon was, the only explanation is that Zimmerman didn't offer any sort of offensive throughout the whole fight. This didn't count as a fight, a fight is a mutual arrangement where both guys throw punches, this was an assault.

A gunshot that resulted in Trayvon being dead.
How in the world is a dead kid less than a guy with a couple of bruises is beyond me.

BQE:

undeadsuitor:
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

And yet also a black football player murders two white people and gets away with it?

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.

Since when am I saying anyone should get away with anything?

My post was about a woman who got more time in jail for firing a warning shot than a man did for shooting someone.

undeadsuitor:
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.

There are a number of reasons why it's illegal to fire warning shots. You're not truly fearing for your life if you fire a warning shot, it's extremely dangerous to do so (There are many instances where a stray bullet ends up hitting a completely innocent bystander), etc.

If you draw a firearm, then you should be ready to kill- otherwise you shouldn't have taken out the weapon. You either shoot your aggressor or you don't pull the trigger at all. This is gun safety/self-defense 101.

In any case, I'm pleased with the outcome. The prosecution failed to prove that the crime Zimmerman was accused of and he was released as a result. Because of our system's presumption of innocence, it means that everyone needs to get over themselves and drop it. Evidence to indict Zimmerman did not exist, or if it did, was not uncovered. Anyone who claims that he was guilty, despite the total lack of evidence, needs to reconsider their thought process. Especially considering that most of this forum is atheist/agnostic on the basis that 'evidence for a higher power does not exist'.

EcksTeaSea:
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.

But couldn't the counter-argument be made that there was no proof that it actually was self-defense.

One side claims "self-defense" was a lie, the other side claims "self-defense" was the truth.

Which side was supposed to have the burden of proof here?

Kopikatsu:

undeadsuitor:
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.

There are a number of reasons why it's illegal to fire warning shots. You're not truly fearing for your life if you fire a warning shot, it's extremely dangerous to do so (There are many instances where a stray bullet ends up hitting a completely innocent bystander), etc.

If you draw a firearm, then you should be ready to kill- otherwise you shouldn't have taken out the weapon. You either shoot your aggressor or you don't shoot at all. This is gun safety/self-defense 101.

oh okay so not following gun safety laws is a 20 year prison sentence, but shooting someone and killing them is okay if you prove the other guy started it.

basically "she might have killed someone, put her in jail!" vs "he totally killed someone, but the other guy fought back so ehhhh hes innocent so who cares about the dead body laying on the ground"

woman gets 20 years for not killing someone

guy gets off for killing someone

madwarper:

Owyn_Merrilin:
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.

You can't watch someone after they leave your field of view.

And, leaving one's car is neither illegal, nor provocative.

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'm not saying Zimmerman had to do anything. However, when you consider the events that transpired that can be authenticated by evidence and the eye witness, the shooting was justified.

So you're saying it's okay to follow someone around in the middle of the night? That on its own is stalking. Once again, even if Trayvon threw the first punch, Zimmerman provoked it.

Olrod:

EcksTeaSea:
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.

But couldn't the counter-argument be made that there was no proof that it actually was self-defense.

One side claims "self-defense" was a lie, the other side claims "self-defense" was the truth.

Which side was supposed to have the burden of proof here?

I'm slightly confused.

Besides, it's up to the prosecution to prove that it wasn't self defense and there wasn't enough evidence to actually to prove it without a reasonable doubt.

undeadsuitor:

Kopikatsu:

undeadsuitor:
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.

There are a number of reasons why it's illegal to fire warning shots. You're not truly fearing for your life if you fire a warning shot, it's extremely dangerous to do so (There are many instances where a stray bullet ends up hitting a completely innocent bystander), etc.

If you draw a firearm, then you should be ready to kill- otherwise you shouldn't have taken out the weapon. You either shoot your aggressor or you don't shoot at all. This is gun safety/self-defense 101.

oh okay so not following gun safety laws is a 20 year prison sentence, but shooting someone and killing them is okay if you prove the other guy started it.

basically "she might have killed someone, put her in jail!" vs "he totally killed someone, but the other guy fought back so ehhhh hes innocent so who cares about the dead body laying on the ground"

woman gets 20 years for not killing someone

guy gets off for killing someone

It's dishonest to phrase it that way. All evidence points to the fact that Zimmerman was assaulted and offered no resistance up until the put the bullet in Trayvon. He killed someone to protect his own life.

The woman did not act to protect her own life in accordance to the law. You are not permitted to fire warning shots. When you shoot, that bullet will go somewhere- it's extremely...wow. My brain just died and my vocabulary is gone.

Well, anyway, she acted poorly. You don't fire warning shots. Period. You're risking the lives of the people around you for no conceivable reason. Unless you'd like me to list some of the many, many cases where someone is tried for murder because they accidentally shot an innocent bystander?

Owyn_Merrilin:
So you're saying it's okay to follow someone around in the middle of the night?

Yes.

That on its own is stalking.

No, it's not.

    http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Stalking

    Criminal activity consisting of the >repeated< following >and harassing< of another person.

    Stalking is a distinctive form of criminal activity composed of a series of actions that taken individually might constitute legal behavior. For example, sending flowers, writing love notes, and waiting for someone outside her place of work are actions that, on their own, are not criminal. When these actions are coupled with an intent to instill fear or injury, however, they may constitute a pattern of behavior that is illegal. Though anti-stalking laws are gender neutral, most stalkers are men and most victims are women.

Once again, even if Trayvon threw the first punch, Zimmerman provoked it.

Wrong.

If Martin threw the first punch, he and only he was the instigator of the altercation.

madwarper:

Owyn_Merrilin:
So you're saying it's okay to follow someone around in the middle of the night?

Yes.

That on its own is stalking.

No, it's not.

    http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Stalking

    Criminal activity consisting of the >repeated< following >and harassing< of another person.

    Stalking is a distinctive form of criminal activity composed of a series of actions that taken individually might constitute legal behavior. For example, sending flowers, writing love notes, and waiting for someone outside her place of work are actions that, on their own, are not criminal. When these actions are coupled with an intent to instill fear or injury, however, they may constitute a pattern of behavior that is illegal. Though anti-stalking laws are gender neutral, most stalkers are men and most victims are women.

Once again, even if Trayvon threw the first punch, Zimmerman provoked it.

Wrong.

If Martin threw the first punch, he and only he was the instigator of the altercation.

And now who's speculating? You seem just as convinced that Zimmerman /didn't/ start the fight as I am that Martin didn't. And let's say it's not technically stalking. It's still a lot more suspicious than walking alone with a bottle of soda and a bag of candy. It's predatory behavior.

Edit: A friend of mine just posted the following in a discussion on Facebook, and put it much more eloquently than I ever could have:

I sat at work while the trial played everyday. Granted I had no sound, but at one point I saw that they were exploring castle doctrine. Which had no place in the trial. And I had only recently attended a seminar on responsible civilian use and ownership of firearms, and zimmerman did almost everything he shouldn't have done to make a self defence case work he went into unnecessary danger, he did not follow the directions given by the dispatcher, and he shot an unarmed attacker. Regardless of whether it truly was self defence, he created a situation were he felt he needed to pull the gun, he wasn't randomly attacked. He escalated the encounter first when he followed the boy on his own (something stupid to do if he thought he really was dangerous), and then he paniced against an unarmed opponent and pulled a gun in a previously weapon free fight. Maybe he really needed the gun to survive the fight, maybe he panicked and didn't really need it. Either way he created the situation that made him feel threatened. He acted irresponsibly, and a teen boy is dead for it.

It may legally be self defense, but he only had to defend himself because he escalated things.

Lionsfan:
snip

Just for the record, Stand Your Ground was not invoked in this case. Zimmerman's lawyers opted out of SYG trial (knowing they couldn't win it, since SYG requires that the shooter have no part in actually starting the attack) and just argued basic Self Defense (which can have the "victim" provoking the attacking to some extent).

Now... for the result itself.

It isn't that surprising. Half the state's witnesses helped the defense. The biggest threat Zimmerman had to being convicted was by the judge, who "Are you or are you not going to take stand" fiasco and her allowing of manslaughter really leaned in the prosecutions favor.

Do I support the result? Well... I think, by the law, Zimmerman was innocent of the crimes he was charged with. Now, I do believe he could have handled the Martin situation far differently, but I would take the shot if somebody was trying to slam my head into concrete.

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.

Well, several people were actually threatening to riot (including one teenager who said commit a mass homicide if Zimmerman got off: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/tensions-run-high-awaiting-zimmerman-verdict-article-1.1398008 ), and race riots caused by court cases has happened before. It is unlikely to happen (I doubt those people have the guts to do it), but still it isn't that far fetched.

On an unrelated note, I HATE THIS MILLER 64 AD. >_<

Everyone posting in this thread already had their mind made up before the jury did. Being pro-gun I automatically thought Zimmerman was innocent. Then I saw the self-defense pistol he used

image
Kel-tec P9 is a piece of shit

So I know Zimmerman is already an idiot for buying/carrying that cheap gun.

Someone with a cooler head could have, would have, should have avoid that confrontation. The most important part of carrying lethal force is threat de-escalation.

Trayvon Martin was already on a downward path if Zimmerman had not shot him the police or a drug dealer would have. If Trayvon Martin had a cooler head he could have, would have, should have, avoided that confrontation. He could have ran home and locked the door behind him. or he could have hung up his cell phone on his girlfriend and called the police

TheStatutoryApe:

Shock and Awe:

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.

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.

No it is not. Honestly I have not been able to find the specific Florida law on the subject, but under Ohio law(the only one I could find) the defense is presumed to have acted in self defense and burden of proof is upon the Prosecution and the State to prove otherwise. If the state cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was not in self defense to the jury then it must find a defendant not guilty; as we saw today.

psijac:
Everyone posting in this thread already had their mind made up before the jury did. Being pro-gun I automatically thought Zimmerman was innocent. Then I saw the self-defense pistol he used

image
Kel-tec P9 is a piece of shit and he was lucky to end the fight in one shot because it might not have given him a second

So I know Zimmerman is already an idiot for buying/carrying that cheap gun.

I thought the same thing, of all the crap pistols to get only a high point or derringer could be much worse. Its pretty obvious the guy wasn't exactly self defense and firearms guru.

Owyn_Merrilin:
And now who's speculating?

Me. I am. Right here.

I'm speculating as to what happened because there is no proof one way or the other. And, when that happens it favors the defense.

You seem just as convinced that Zimmerman /didn't/ start the fight as I am that Martin didn't.

The prosecution stated they could prove that Zimmerman instigated the fight. They failed.

So, I ask if you can. If you can admit that all you have is mere speculation and feelings, then I have no qualms with that.
But, if you're trying to pass those speculations and feelings off as fact, I'm going to ask for proof.

And let's say it's not technically stalking.

No. It's legally not stalking.

It's still a lot more suspicious than walking alone with a bottle of soda and a bag of candy.

Suspicion is not guilt.

psijac:

Trayvon Martin was already on a downward path if Zimmerman had not shot him the police or a drug dealer would have. If Trayvon Martin had a cooler head he could have, would have, should have, avoided that confrontation. He could have ran home and locked the door behind him. or he could have hung up his cell phone on his girlfriend and called the police

I'll take 'What everyone's thinking but not saying' for 500 Alex. This boy was not exactly on the road to success with the choices he's made until now.

undeadsuitor:

Kopikatsu:

undeadsuitor:
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.

There are a number of reasons why it's illegal to fire warning shots. You're not truly fearing for your life if you fire a warning shot, it's extremely dangerous to do so (There are many instances where a stray bullet ends up hitting a completely innocent bystander), etc.

If you draw a firearm, then you should be ready to kill- otherwise you shouldn't have taken out the weapon. You either shoot your aggressor or you don't shoot at all. This is gun safety/self-defense 101.

oh okay so not following gun safety laws is a 20 year prison sentence, but shooting someone and killing them is okay if you prove the other guy started it.

basically "she might have killed someone, put her in jail!" vs "he totally killed someone, but the other guy fought back so ehhhh hes innocent so who cares about the dead body laying on the ground"

woman gets 20 years for not killing someone

guy gets off for killing someone

(shrugs)

having 8 bullets in your clip instead of 7 has a harsher penalty than your third offense of child molestation in my state

There is a very LONG list of punishments that do not fit the crime in this country.

OT: As for the trial itself, the whole thing was a massive perversion of justice to begin with. It was politically motivated trial. It was never about justice, one has to only look at the jury to prove this.

Now don't get me wrong, when this debacle first came to light I thought Zimmerman did it for racial reasons. Course, this was before it came to light that the media altered his phone call to make him sound guilty and before all of the evidence which favored Zimmerman.

Still, the trial was in good hands (more or less). While the prosecution screwed up, the judge was clearly favoring the prosecution.

Now personally, I am not really rooting for either team. While the evidence is clearly on Zimmerman's side, it would probably be in society's best interest if he was found guilty regardless if he was innocent or not for no other reason than to prevent a race riot.

madwarper:
Suspicion is not guilt.

Tell that to poor Trayvon.

As for the stalking thing: I'm arguing justice, you're arguing the law. They're two totally separate concepts, and one of the biggest problems in modern society is the assumption that because they often line up, they must always line up. If that were the case, the death penalty would be illegal, but you could buy pot just as easily as tobacco. If not easier, since it's much less of a health hazard.

Christ, liberals went off the deep end with this case. Sure, lets claim the police are taking the Hispanics side over a black. Because we all know how often, the police overlook Hispanic crimes.

Owyn_Merrilin:
Tell that to poor Trayvon.

Sure, let me grab my Ouija board.

As for the stalking thing: I'm arguing justice, you're arguing the law.

No, you're describing the events using loaded and inappropriate verbiage (Confront, Provoke, Stalk, etc.) that can not be verified by the evidence.

madwarper:

Owyn_Merrilin:
Tell that to poor Trayvon.

Sure, let me grab my Ouija board.

Way to re-state my point while totally missing it.

As for the stalking thing: I'm arguing justice, you're arguing the law.

No, you're describing the events using loaded and inappropriate verbiage (Confront, Provoke, Stalk, etc.) that can not be verified by the evidence.

That's a matter of opinion. We know at the bare minimum that he got out of the car and followed Martin, thereby escalating the situation. You call the other words loaded and inappropriate, I call the way I said it in the previous sentence sterile and minimizing.

My thoughts on all this?

"Glad that's over with" pretty much. I'll be even gladder after people quit making such a deal out of it and treating it as a personal achievement/offense either way >.>

Kopikatsu:

undeadsuitor:

Kopikatsu:

There are a number of reasons why it's illegal to fire warning shots. You're not truly fearing for your life if you fire a warning shot, it's extremely dangerous to do so (There are many instances where a stray bullet ends up hitting a completely innocent bystander), etc.

If you draw a firearm, then you should be ready to kill- otherwise you shouldn't have taken out the weapon. You either shoot your aggressor or you don't shoot at all. This is gun safety/self-defense 101.

oh okay so not following gun safety laws is a 20 year prison sentence, but shooting someone and killing them is okay if you prove the other guy started it.

basically "she might have killed someone, put her in jail!" vs "he totally killed someone, but the other guy fought back so ehhhh hes innocent so who cares about the dead body laying on the ground"

woman gets 20 years for not killing someone

guy gets off for killing someone

It's dishonest to phrase it that way. All evidence points to the fact that Zimmerman was assaulted and offered no resistance up until the put the bullet in Trayvon. He killed someone to protect his own life.

The woman did not act to protect her own life in accordance to the law. You are not permitted to fire warning shots. When you shoot, that bullet will go somewhere- it's extremely...wow. My brain just died and my vocabulary is gone.

Well, anyway, she acted poorly. You don't fire warning shots. Period. You're risking the lives of the people around you for no conceivable reason. Unless you'd like me to list some of the many, many cases where someone is tried for murder because they accidentally shot an innocent bystander?

then why not 1 year or 5 years? why twenty years in prison for that? I could rape someone and serve less time than that.

undeadsuitor:
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

Warning shots are, at a minimum, reckless endangerment, possibly going on up to negligent homicide. Anyone who fires a warning shot, IMO, deserves to at the very least have their firearm(s) confiscated and be banned from ever owning one again (as they've proven they are irresponsible with them).

The Zimmerman case was a case of self defense with no compelling evidence to prove otherwise.

These are very different things.

undeadsuitor:

Kopikatsu:

undeadsuitor:

oh okay so not following gun safety laws is a 20 year prison sentence, but shooting someone and killing them is okay if you prove the other guy started it.

basically "she might have killed someone, put her in jail!" vs "he totally killed someone, but the other guy fought back so ehhhh hes innocent so who cares about the dead body laying on the ground"

woman gets 20 years for not killing someone

guy gets off for killing someone

It's dishonest to phrase it that way. All evidence points to the fact that Zimmerman was assaulted and offered no resistance up until the put the bullet in Trayvon. He killed someone to protect his own life.

The woman did not act to protect her own life in accordance to the law. You are not permitted to fire warning shots. When you shoot, that bullet will go somewhere- it's extremely...wow. My brain just died and my vocabulary is gone.

Well, anyway, she acted poorly. You don't fire warning shots. Period. You're risking the lives of the people around you for no conceivable reason. Unless you'd like me to list some of the many, many cases where someone is tried for murder because they accidentally shot an innocent bystander?

then why not 1 year or 5 years? why twenty years in prison for that? I could rape someone and serve less time than that.

Florida has mandatory minimum sentences for crimes committed with a firearm. Our laws are schizophrenic.

Ryotknife:

Still, the trial was in good hands (more or less). While the prosecution screwed up, the judge was clearly favoring the prosecution.

I wouldn't say that, the Judge was really on point and kept things moving. If she was for the prosecution she would have probably allowed the Felony Murder for child abuse. She was just doing her job and keeping things moving.

Kopikatsu:

undeadsuitor:
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.

There are a number of reasons why it's illegal to fire warning shots. You're not truly fearing for your life if you fire a warning shot, it's extremely dangerous to do so (There are many instances where a stray bullet ends up hitting a completely innocent bystander), etc.

If you draw a firearm, then you should be ready to kill- otherwise you shouldn't have taken out the weapon. You either shoot your aggressor or you don't pull the trigger at all. This is gun safety/self-defense 101.

In any case, I'm pleased with the outcome. The prosecution failed to prove that the crime Zimmerman was accused of and he was released as a result. Because of our system's presumption of innocence, it means that everyone needs to get over themselves and drop it. Evidence to indict Zimmerman did not exist, or if it did, was not uncovered. Anyone who claims that he was guilty, despite the total lack of evidence, needs to reconsider their thought process. Especially considering that most of this forum is atheist/agnostic on the basis that 'evidence for a higher power does not exist'.

True and powerful words. Agree 100%

OT: Situation sucks but the jurors made the right call. Zimmerman now has to deal with this situation for the rest of his life which is a punishment unto itself.

Owyn_Merrilin:
Way to re-state my point while totally missing it.

That's a matter of opinion. We know at the bare minimum that he got out of the car and followed Martin, thereby escalating the situation. You call the other words loaded and inappropriate, I call the way I said it in the previous sentence sterile and minimizing.

No, I get that Zimmerman was suspicious of Martin with no evidence to justify such suspicion. I was also trying to be flippant to prove a point.

    Being suspicious of someone is not a crime.
    Getting out of your car is not a crime.
    Following someone is not a crime.

Zimmerman did those things, they are not in dispute. They are not crimes.

Everything after that, up until the eye witness observes Martin straddling Zimmerman, raining down blows, is speculation.
And, everything after that eye witness returned to his home until after the gun shot is speculation.

When you're only left with speculation and not proof, you've got nothing.
There were no grounds for this to come to trial. A not guilty verdict IS justice.

madwarper:

Owyn_Merrilin:
Way to re-state my point while totally missing it.

That's a matter of opinion. We know at the bare minimum that he got out of the car and followed Martin, thereby escalating the situation. You call the other words loaded and inappropriate, I call the way I said it in the previous sentence sterile and minimizing.

No, I get that Zimmerman was suspicious of Martin with no evidence to justify such suspicion. I was also trying to be flippant to prove a point.

    Being suspicious of someone is not a crime.
    Getting out of your car is not a crime.
    Following someone is not a crime.

Zimmerman did those things, they are not in dispute. They are not crimes.

Everything after that, up until the eye witness observes Martin straddling Zimmerman, raining down blows, is speculation.
And, everything after that eye witness returned to his home until after the gun shot is speculation.

But just because it's legal, doesn't mean it's right. The older I get, the less respect I have for the law. A lot of people live by the fantasy that "we are not a nation of men, but a nation of laws," while forgetting that men write the laws.

Critical lack of evidence (some stricken or denied) and testimony strongly in favor of the defense. The prosecution made a weak case and relied upon characterization and emotion. What other verdict could six rational jurors reach while considering a murder charge?

Owyn_Merrilin:
So you're saying it's okay to follow someone around in the middle of the night? That on its own is stalking. Once again, even if Trayvon threw the first punch, Zimmerman provoked it.

No. You do not have the right to "defend" yourself against someone who hasn't actually done anything to you.

There were two allegations the prosecution had to deliver to the jury: 1) Zimmerman started the fight and 2) He had no cause to draw his gun in order to save his life. #1 could not be proven and #2 actually went to the defense. The prosecution could have won an intent, possibly prove a motive existed, but by itself doesn't a conviction make.

We can't use the assumption strategy, that Zimmerman wrongfully assumed Martin was doing something wrong and pursued him (implying an intent to do ill), because police officers stop suspicious people and talk to them all the time. Even when you are stopped for a minor offense a police officer will be profiling you the entire time. You would never have the right to attack them because you feel the stop is unwarranted and provocative; you will go to jail.

Either way it would of went they're not gona shut up about it for a month.

AgedGrunt:
Critical lack of evidence (some stricken or denied) and testimony strongly in favor of the defense. The prosecution made a weak case and relied upon characterization and emotion. What other verdict could six rational jurors reach while considering a murder charge?

Owyn_Merrilin:
So you're saying it's okay to follow someone around in the middle of the night? That on its own is stalking. Once again, even if Trayvon threw the first punch, Zimmerman provoked it.

No. You do not have the right to "defend" yourself against someone who hasn't actually done anything to you.

There were two allegations the prosecution had to deliver to the jury: 1) Zimmerman started the fight and 2) He had no cause to draw his gun in order to save his life. #1 could not be proven and #2 actually went to the defense. The prosecution could have won an intent, possibly prove a motive existed, but by itself doesn't a conviction make.

We can't use the assumption strategy, that Zimmerman wrongfully assumed Martin was doing something wrong and pursued him (implying an intent to do ill), because police officers stop suspicious people and talk to them all the time. Even when you are stopped for a minor offense a police officer will be profiling you the entire time. You would never have the right to attack them because you feel the stop is unwarranted and provocative; you will go to jail.

Except Zimmerman isn't a cop. You know what the word is for a civilian who tries to do a cop's job? Vigilante.

undeadsuitor:

then why not 1 year or 5 years? why twenty years in prison for that? I could rape someone and serve less time than that.

Because a firearm (and threat of deadly force) was used. Despite the depiction of the US being you can buy handguns out of a vending machine at any ol' super market, law enforcement takes crimes committed with a deadly weapon very seriously.

Just holding a gun while committing a crime has a fairly harsh minimum sentence. Firing it without injuring anyone or causing significant damage immediately doubles that sentence. God forbid you actually hit someone with the bullet, then you're just plain done.

And before you bring up Zimmerman, justified killings obviously aren't criminalized, so no, there is no punishment for just the act of killing itself. Context matters.

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

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked