George Zimmerman Found Not Guilty

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

I would like to point out that discussion about the stupid things Zimmerman did is being held in hindsight. "It was stupid for Zimmerman to follow Martin and to get out of the car." Well DUH. It's really easy to say that after the fact, but at the time, I don't believe for a moment that there was a reasonable expectation on Zimmerman's part that he could be attacked.

Police, and neighborhood watch, follow "suspicious" people all the time. They often even confront them and ask what they are doing out, of course there is no proof Zimmerman did that. It doesn't usually result in the individual knocking them to the ground and beating the crap out of them.

undeadsuitor:

woman gets 20 years for not killing someone

She got 20 years because that was the minimum mandated sentence under Florida law. Minimum sentences are bullshit, but that's beside the point.

The reason she got declared guilty is because, well, she was. She tried to invoke the "Stand Your Ground" law, and failed.

Why did she fail?

It's incredibly obvious if you've read anything about the case. Which, obviously, you haven't beyond some blurb you probably read on Twitter.

She and her husband were estranged, and she'd taken out a restraining order against him, that much is true. She went to their house assuming he was not present in order to pick up her clothes. As it turned out, he was home, and an altercation ensued.

She went out to her car, got a gun, and went back into the house and fired the weapon, striking a wall.

The first part is why her "Stand Your Ground" defense flopped. Had she brought the gun with her into the house, and found herself in mortal peril, she could have used it and theoretically the law would have protected her. Had her husband followed her out to the car and continued the argument, and she found herself in mortal peril there, the law would have protected her.

Once she decided to return to the confrontation with a weapon, she could no longer claim self-defense or "Stand Your Ground". She becomes the aggressor in that situation.

Now, the other reason she's going to jail is because, well, firing warning shots is a fool's game. Had she fired it into the air, maybe she would have walked with some sort of criminal negligence charge, but she fired it into the wall.

The wall behind her husband.

At which point, it's fairly easy for the prosecution to assert that she shot at him, rather than firing a warning shot as she contends.

The jury believed the prosecution over her. End of story, go directly to Jail, do not pass Go, do not collect $200.

Dragonbums:
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

What? A rational person wouldn't pick fights with a stranger(especially a stranger with a gun). A rational person would run like hell to get away from that person.

OP: I hope that people can be level headed and there are no riots.

What's crazy to me about this case is how many different narratives exist, and how strongly people cling to those artificial truths. This entire case has been manufactured by the media to generate page clicks yet people are absolutely convinced that by following a blogger, they really know what's going. Someone on my facebook literally said "everyone get your hoods on." What the fuck does she know about the case?

10 people spent weeks trying to be persuaded that Zimmerman acted maliciously and the prosectuion failed to do so. Did Zimmerman make a series of poor decisions because he felt safe behind a gun? Probably. Is it a crime to confont someone you dont recognize in your neighborhood? Of course not.

I'm really disappointed in "armchair lawyers" where people pick sides like a sports team. If you want to delve into all the evidence, that's one thing. If you get your talking points from SoccerMom22's blog or 24h crime tv, that makes you judgemental and dare I say prejucided.

Owyn_Merrilin:

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

The thing that you and your friend seem to have missed is fairly simple:

Trayvon Martin got away.

The assertion that Zimmerman got out of his car and followed Martin once he started running is accurate. The problem is that Zimmerman followed Martin for less than 100 feet. Because within that 100 feet, he lost him. Didn't know where he went, didn't know where he was, and he stopped chasing him when the 911 operator told him that the police didn't need him to do that.

It's one of those oft-quoted bits of drama from the trial, that Trayvon Martin died less than 100 yards from his home.

In the time between Zimmerman allegedly losing sight of Martin, and Zimmerman hanging up the 911 call, Trayvon would have had about two minutes to cover those 100 yards.

When I was Trayvon's age, and a nearly identical build, I could have covered those 100 yards in less than fourteen seconds. Maybe twenty if I wanted to set a leisurely pace.

The evidence in the case supports Zimmerman's assertion that it was Martin who initiated the confrontation.

Because Zimmerman getting out of his car to follow a fleeing Martin is not confrontation. Attempting to catch him could be argued to be so, but that would be difficult to prove. Zimmerman, after all, had had quite some time to "catch" Trayvon Martin had that been his intent, prior to Trayvon making a break for it.

It was a shitty judgment call to get out of the car, for certain, but that doesn't make George Zimmerman a murderer.

Well, so much for that, then. Sure, doubt will always remain. And I've stated before that I'm not a fan of the Jury system in any case. That said, if he's been found not guilty, then that's that. Now, I'm more worried about possible implications for SYG-laws.
I know of at least one case where SYG-laws were used in an attempt to justify a murder, but failed to do so (a case with an ex-firefighter murdering a guy over loud music or something, the details escape me right now but I'm sure you could find it). So it's not an automatic free for all.
Still, I worry that it at least grants more and more support to vigilantee behaviour. Just because a case of murder exists that SYG-laws didn't work to protect the murderer on, doesn't mean that those laws cannot/will not/have not already been abused in such a fashion.
And no, I'm not even necessarily talking about this particular case. But the USA have a precedent-system which might have some problematic/dire implications based on this. I dunno.
You folks know I'm opposed to the sort and extent of gun ownership legal in the USA anyway, so it shouldn't come as a surprise that I'm also opposed to SYG-laws. *shrug*

Raesvelg:

Owyn_Merrilin:

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

The thing that you and your friend seem to have missed is fairly simple:

Trayvon Martin got away.

The assertion that Zimmerman got out of his car and followed Martin once he started running is accurate. The problem is that Zimmerman followed Martin for less than 100 feet. Because within that 100 feet, he lost him. Didn't know where he went, didn't know where he was, and he stopped chasing him when the 911 operator told him that the police didn't need him to do that.

It's one of those oft-quoted bits of drama from the trial, that Trayvon Martin died less than 100 yards from his home.

In the time between Zimmerman allegedly losing sight of Martin, and Zimmerman hanging up the 911 call, Trayvon would have had about two minutes to cover those 100 yards.

When I was Trayvon's age, and a nearly identical build, I could have covered those 100 yards in less than fourteen seconds. Maybe twenty if I wanted to set a leisurely pace.

The evidence in the case supports Zimmerman's assertion that it was Martin who initiated the confrontation.

Because Zimmerman getting out of his car to follow a fleeing Martin is not confrontation. Attempting to catch him could be argued to be so, but that would be difficult to prove. Zimmerman, after all, had had quite some time to "catch" Trayvon Martin had that been his intent, prior to Trayvon making a break for it.

It was a shitty judgment call to get out of the car, for certain, but that doesn't make George Zimmerman a murderer.

Murderer? Maybe not. Manslaughter-er? Not so clear.

Besides, ironically enough, Florida's stand your ground law would have backed Trayvon if that was actually what happened.

Owyn_Merrilin:

Murderer? Maybe not. Manslaughter-er? Not so clear.

Besides, ironically enough, Florida's stand your ground law would have backed Trayvon if that was actually what happened.

Trayvon would have been protected had he been attacked and believed himself to be in mortal peril. The problem with that scenario, and why I expect the jury decided against the prosecution on that matter, is that it's hard to believe.

As for the manslaughter part of the equation, self-defense trumps that too.

The thing is, even if George Zimmerman verbally confronted Trayvon Martin, so long as he did so without the threat of violence, then it doesn't have any bearing on the case. In order for him to be guilty of manslaughter, he'd have had to initiate the physical confrontation. And there's functionally zero evidence that he did.

I am surprised that people are surprised. This is America were talking about here.

Not to be rude, but common guys. You live in a society which values money over people, I mean they cut food stamps! People are murdered every single day in your country. Why is this case so important? Well because you allowed the "news" to make it so. Just like casey anthony and all those celebrities. It's just for ratings, none of those "news casters" actually care. All this is to me is another sad statistic that no one cares to fix. So glad my grand parents made the best decision of their lives when they immigrated to Canada. Sure we have problems, but you are so much worse. All the other westernized countries probably look at you and say:"Well this country sucks, but at least it's not America!"

mattttherman3:
I am surprised that people are surprised. This is America were talking about here.

Not to be rude, but common guys. You live in a society which values money over people, I mean they cut food stamps!

Have you seen how fat middle to lower income Americans are? There are obviously people starving in America but blindly throwing out food stamp money is causing more problems (diabetus/healthcare) than it fixes

evilneko:

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.

yeah, in the case where the shooter didn't get any jail time, somebody actually died

whether it was self defense, stand your ground, or a complete accident, whether he was innocent or guilty Zimmerman took someone's life. And that deserves something.

psijac:

mattttherman3:
I am surprised that people are surprised. This is America were talking about here.

Not to be rude, but common guys. You live in a society which values money over people, I mean they cut food stamps!

Have you seen how fat middle to lower income Americans are? There are obviously people starving in America but blindly throwing out food stamp money is causing more problems (diabetus/healthcare) than it fixes

Yes, that is the only reason that poor people are fat. Not that shitty, incredibly unhealthy food is crazy-cheap and widely available, no, it is just those damn poors are all greedy slobs. -_-

Just saying to those who believed getting smacked around on the ground doesn't justify lethal force, I'd like to tell you a little bit about how a blow to the head is deadly. Private Steven Murray, a soldier in the British army was killed on June 3rd while just goofing around with fellow squaddies and drinking. A friend just grabbed his legs and pulled him down, which resulted in a massive welt in his head and died by a "bleed to the brain." Now if someone got on me, and starting slamming my head into the ground (Yes yes I know, just speculation, though eye witness accounts say Martin was over Zimmerman when the gunshot went off) I would always take a shot if I had a ready weapon at hand.

I don't even need a gun, a pencil, toothpick even, set of keys, soda can, etc.. and I can inflict a mortal blow on someone in less than a second with the correct placement.

It's also why I'd like to move to have women defense classes keep from teaching them to give a shot to the nuts. People can die that way with a single kick, and I've been kicked in the groin because I said something that wasn't liked. Some people have too little knowledge in how easy it is to kill a human being with the correct application of minimal force.

Not to be rude, but common guys.

It's so depressing to me that I have to read this fragment in the age of internet.

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.

WARNING SHOTS ARE ILLEGAL. They are classified as reckless use of a fire arm. You are taught within th first few minutes that you never fire wildly because you may hit someone. That is why you are taught to NEVER do "warning shots" under any circumstance, PERIOD.

BBC:
George Zimmerman, the Florida neighbourhood watchman who shot dead an unarmed black 17-year-old male last year, has been found not guilty.

Lawyers for Mr Zimmerman, 29, argued he acted in self-defence and with justifiable use of deadly force in the death of Trayvon Martin.

The jury retired on Friday to consider its verdict on charges of either second-degree murder or manslaughter.

The case sparked a fierce debate about racial profiling in the US.

Protesters are gathering, reports the BBC's David Willis, in Sanford, the Florida town where the shooting took place.

Police and community leaders have appealed for calm.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23304198

I'm actually a bit surprised by this. I figured with all the pressure he'd be found guilty. Seems not.

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

Apparently, the "Zimmerman started the fight" is something most people would say the facts do not show. No amount of Al Sharpton in front of a camera will change that.

So in Amurrica it is now legal to stalk a black kid through the streets with a gun, and kill him when he fights back. Good to know.

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.

I'm guessing that most people would, either by choice or out of panic, make a desperate attempt to stay alive rather than let their murderers murder them at leisure in the hope that the murderer will at least get a few years in prison.

Dragonbums:
That's cool

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

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

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

I don't know where you live, but that can still happen even without the race aspect. You can get shot, stabbed, or beaten walking down the wrong street with the wrong clothing. I thought that was a fact of life that shit happens.

In my area, I can't wear certain snap backs, wife beaters, shorts with long socks (especially exposed long socks from what I heard), Bandanas, doo rags, hoodies, possibly certain brands of shoes, and possibly flannel shirts without some danger. I think some upper class clothing is a no-no for some obvious reasons. The above can get you trouble for one reason or another. I think ear gauges also count, but not entirely sure. I heard it gets you beaten up for "looking like a white boy pussy" or "looking gay." Actual quotes by the way, not sure how common those mentalities are.

I thought "watch what you wear" was the first rule in street smarts regardless of where you go or what you are doing.

Owyn_Merrilin:
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.

This is an example of someone who has lost the argument. I'm just gonna let this point sink in.

OK...

If the law doesn't matter anymore, then why put a man on trial for a potential violation of it?

You clearly wanted the verdict to go the other way, so your whole argument boils down to "My position is right, screw you guys. I'm goin' home."

Zimmerman has been found not guilty. He's probably getting million dollar book deals already. Just try and live with that.

Big_Willie_Styles:

Owyn_Merrilin:
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.

This is an example of someone who has lost the argument. I'm just gonna let this point sink in.

OK...

If the law doesn't matter anymore, then why put a man on trial for a potential violation of it?

You clearly wanted the verdict to go the other way, so your whole argument boils down to "My position is right, screw you guys. I'm goin' home."

Zimmerman has been found not guilty. He's probably getting million dollar book deals already. Just try and live with that.

What I want is changes in the law, for so much more than this. The death penalty should be illegal. In fact, executioners, judges, and juries who take part in it should be considered murderers in the first degree, because the murder they commit is the coldest blooded of all. Marijuana should be legal. Copyright should be for a limited term -- say 15 to 25 years. And that's just scratching the surface. We're about due for a reset of the statutes.

undeadsuitor:

evilneko:

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.

yeah, in the case where the shooter didn't get any jail time, somebody actually died

whether it was self defense, stand your ground, or a complete accident, whether he was innocent or guilty Zimmerman took someone's life. And that deserves something.

You fire a warning shot. That bullet might not be stopped by the wood and plaster of your wall.

It can easily continue to fly, slamming into somebody walking down the street. Or driving in their car. Or in their own home several blocks away.

The warning shot puts everyone but the person your trying to stop in danger.

An aimed shot, one that even just grazes your attacker, is FAR less likely to have the energy to harm somebody else.

If shooting the gun is necessary, only fire at the person you want to stop. You shouldn't shoot at ANYTHING else.

Also, if a gun pointed directly at you, would you only stop when somebody fires a random warning shot?

Now, as for Zimmerman getting "something?" That statement is so broad, your saying anyone who kills in self defense should get "something."

The victim who kills their rapist, the child who stabs the strangler. Like it or not, their are situations where violence is the ONLY opition. Should we really punish everyone, without considering the facts of the case?

madwarper:

Owyn_Merrilin:
Zimmerman got out of his car

Which is not illegal.

and confronted Martin.

Again... Proof?

So how did he get out of his car? Unless Martin dragged him out of the car Zimmerman must have started the confrontation, or at the very least he removed himself from a place of relative safety and placed himself in danger. How can that be "self defense" or "standing your ground".

Unless Martin dragged zimmerfail out of his car he could not have started the confrontation, so unless you can prove Martin dragged him out you cannot claim that he did not create the situation. Well I hope someone goes and finds him and starts a fight and the shoots him up a bit and is able to claim self defense, not enough to kill him but he deserves a bit of pain for this. As the justice system failed it will have to be left to the "neighbourhood watch".

I do not see cause for celebration here because it shows an absolute failure in your criminal justice system, criminals will take advantage of this and other killers will walk free.

Owyn_Merrilin:
What I want is changes in the law, for so much more than this. The death penalty should be illegal. In fact, executioners, judges, and juries who take part in it should be considered murderers in the first degree, because the murder they commit is the coldest blooded of all. Marijuana should be legal. Copyright should be for a limited term -- say 15 to 25 years. And that's just scratching the surface. We're about due for a reset of the statutes.

I agree with you on pot. In fact, all drugs should be legal. And prostitution.

I like the death penalty. Those who take the right to life of others lose theirs. That's basic liberty right there.

Copyrights last as long as they do due to the fact that people own their own ideas. Intellectual property was even important enough to be included in the Constitution.

"Reset of the statutes"? Perhaps. But I care far more about the Byzantine regulation on the federal and state level. Hell, I live in PA where liquor is still controlled by the state. Because, unions. Unions control every facet of my state, both parties. And those state-controlled liquor stores are all staffed with public employee union workers.

Big_Willie_Styles:

Owyn_Merrilin:
What I want is changes in the law, for so much more than this. The death penalty should be illegal. In fact, executioners, judges, and juries who take part in it should be considered murderers in the first degree, because the murder they commit is the coldest blooded of all. Marijuana should be legal. Copyright should be for a limited term -- say 15 to 25 years. And that's just scratching the surface. We're about due for a reset of the statutes.

I agree with you on pot. In fact, all drugs should be legal. And prostitution.

I like the death penalty. Those who take the right to life of others lose theirs. That's basic liberty right there.

Copyrights last as long as they do due to the fact that people own their own ideas. Intellectual property was even important enough to be included in the Constitution.

"Reset of the statutes"? Perhaps. But I care far more about the Byzantine regulation on the federal and state level. Hell, I live in PA where liquor is still controlled by the state. Because, unions. Unions control every facet of my state, both parties. And those state-controlled liquor stores are all staffed with public employee union workers.

Most of this I either agree with or disagree with in a way that boils down to personal opinion, but I will say this about copyright: it has nothing to do with people owning their own ideas, and everything to do with large corporations (namely Disney) having enough money to basically buy legislation in their favor. The constitution does mention copyright, but it mentions a limited copyright of 25 years, and only because such a copyright would encourage innovation by allowing innovators to profit off of their work for a reasonable amount of time, while needing to continue to create if they want to make a permanent living off of innovation. Copyright as it stands ends, in theory, 75 years after the author's death, and in practice, never as long as they died after Walt Disney.

And that, in a nutshell, is what's wrong with the legal system today: bad legislation.

Owyn_Merrilin:

Most of this I either agree with or disagree with in a way that boils down to personal opinion, but I will say this about copyright: it has nothing to do with people owning their own ideas, and everything to do with large corporations (namely Disney) having enough money to basically buy legislation in their favor. The constitution does mention copyright, but it mentions a limited copyright of 25 years, and only because such a copyright would encourage innovation by allowing innovators to profit off of their work for a reasonable amount of time, while needing to continue to create if they want to make a permanent living off of innovation. Copyright as it stands ends, in theory, 75 years after the author's death, and in practice, never as long as they died after Walt Disney.

And that, in a nutshell, is what's wrong with the legal system today: bad legislation.

You're misconstruing patents and copyrights.

Not bad legislation, bad legislators. Lobbyists get nowhere if the legislators didn't listen to them. Integrity is nearly extinct in politics.

Big_Willie_Styles:

Owyn_Merrilin:

Most of this I either agree with or disagree with in a way that boils down to personal opinion, but I will say this about copyright: it has nothing to do with people owning their own ideas, and everything to do with large corporations (namely Disney) having enough money to basically buy legislation in their favor. The constitution does mention copyright, but it mentions a limited copyright of 25 years, and only because such a copyright would encourage innovation by allowing innovators to profit off of their work for a reasonable amount of time, while needing to continue to create if they want to make a permanent living off of innovation. Copyright as it stands ends, in theory, 75 years after the author's death, and in practice, never as long as they died after Walt Disney.

And that, in a nutshell, is what's wrong with the legal system today: bad legislation.

You're misconstruing patents and copyrights.

Not bad legislation, bad legislators. Lobbyists get nowhere if the legislators didn't listen to them. Integrity is nearly extinct in politics.

Please tell me how I'm misconstruing copyright, or where I even mentioned patents (which are horrible in their own way for their own reasons.)

And bad legislators make for bad legislation. Personally I think public officials should either be chosen by lottery, or the pool which can be voted on should be chosen that way. Make it like jury duty, instead of a place for rich people to play aristocrat.

Owyn_Merrilin:
Please tell me how I'm misconstruing copyright, or where I even mentioned patents (which are horrible in their own way for their own reasons.)

And bad legislators make for bad legislation. Personally I think public officials should either be chosen by lottery, or the pool which can be voted on should be chosen that way. Make it like jury duty, instead of a place for rich people to play aristocrat.

Copyrights are over works, like books and things. Patents are inventions. Patents last about 20 years (depending on the type of invention.) Copyrights last a long time because works of art and entertainment do not really aid scientific advancement but enrichment of the culture.

For instance, 20 or more years since they ended, "Cheers," "The Cosby Show," and "The Golden Girls" are still in heavy syndication. If copyrights lasted only 25 years, they'd be public domain soon or already. How does that make sense?

Big_Willie_Styles:

Owyn_Merrilin:
Please tell me how I'm misconstruing copyright, or where I even mentioned patents (which are horrible in their own way for their own reasons.)

And bad legislators make for bad legislation. Personally I think public officials should either be chosen by lottery, or the pool which can be voted on should be chosen that way. Make it like jury duty, instead of a place for rich people to play aristocrat.

Copyrights are over works, like books and things. Patents are inventions. Patents last about 20 years (depending on the type of invention.) Copyrights last a long time because works of art and entertainment do not really aid scientific advancement but enrichment of the culture.

For instance, 20 or more years since they ended, "Cheers," "The Cosby Show," and "The Golden Girls" are still in heavy syndication. If copyrights lasted only 25 years, they'd be public domain soon or already. How does that make sense?

Ah, turns out you don't know the history. Copyrights were originally for 25 years. It's thanks to copyright holders using all that money they made to pay lobbyists that they last as long as they do today.

The Mickey Mouse law is the most recent such extension, but there's a long history going back at least to the 19th century.

edit: In fact, the first term was only 14 years. Not sure where 25 came from, unless it was a step along the way:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_law_of_the_United_States

Edit Edit: Wait, yeah I do, I had 25 mistaken for 28, which was the maximum length you could get under the 1790 law if you renewed on time.

Ok let's get this this straight from the minds of someone who actually believes Zimmerman is guilty. George Zimmerman is the real life doctor doom! I finally understand now. He managed to track down someone he has never met, have them make various criminal texts and calls earlier that day (which was withheld because it's hard make people feel bad about this kid was based off all easily acceptable details that he was not a good person by any stretch. ) because he knew through his cosmic awareness. The he pretended to loss him in the dark, then allowed himself to get struck several times and appear to be in mortal danger just so he could murder TM freely. Is that what's being suggested?

If you're planning kill someone you don't call the cops first, and you don't let them potentially beat you to death.(you can die from a single blow to face. Some guy dared a girl at a party to hit him and he dropped dead several mins later. He probably had some existing injury neither were aware of. She got off but no one felt good about the whole thing. Dude was an idiot for daring people hit him.) If GZ was wanting kill TM wholesale, he'd probably never gotten with in 5 feet of him. He shot once, not a couple be certain his target was dead. Where is the logic in operating like this if you goal was murder? If GZ was just looking pick a fight....wouldn't he started one with someone smaller than him. TM was stated to be 6-6'3" and GZ is 5'7" and seems like couldn't fight very well. Even if GZ followed him , and was seeing what someone is up to doesn't give TM the right to smash his skull against the ground which he very clearly did. Even if he provoked him it doesn't give the right to do it either.

If we've established GZ is smaller and probably a lousy fighter why would be picked a fight? If Tm was truly scared he should just gone home into his house instead of engaging GZ. If he wasn't set on going back and fighting GZ, why would he hang up the phone on the girl who pleaded for him to just go home? All sounds like the signs of someone who felt like they had something to prove and went back to fight. Being dark and GZ didn't know where TM , he could have easily gotten the drop on GZ. We ultimately have no idea how it started, only how it ended so having him on top and being shot makes a clear case for him being the attacker and aggressor. Being a 17 year old male (which I was one once, and an angry teenager at that.) is far more likely to been the aggressor in my mind. (if he was really that scared he should been calling the cops too. If that had happened nothing would happened that night if we're going arm chair quarter back people here. I don't doubt for a second that TM could probably out ran GZ if he was deadest on escaping as a taller lighter guy.) I can't blame a man who happen to have a gun for using it in times of danger. (I don't carry a gun myself as I believe my two hands are all protection I need, and run fast enough if needed heh. I also have enough wits and sense of self preservation to not pick needless battles.)

If TM picked a fight with a bear and got mauled would you feel sad about it? That's in reality how foolish of a choice he made that night. It's a well known fact that FL has concealed carry, and has for years. Anyone you physically attack could be potentially armed. The moment you enter a battle you are taking your life into your own hands. As my father said, How wrong can you be? Dead Wrong! (and TM definitely was.)

If you followed the case at all, it would be very clear that this outcome was extremely likely. I get someone died, and you need go through the paces to be clear of how it went down, and I'm cool with that but the whole whirlwind of BS that has followed has made this all into a much bigger deal than it is.

If you're outraged by this, you need to redirect your anger to much more relevant current events. Tons of Black young men die every day in Chicago. I live here and it's like clockwork. I's Obama's hometown and yet the man seems not give a damn about it. This should be a huge issue if death and random violence is what makes your blood boil. yet the media just brushes it under the rug while one potentially huge scumbag is somehow being made into a saint and yet the media never once shows any current photos of TM. (you see pics of a 12 yr him, not current ones where he's giving the camera the finger and doing all things thug.)

The person I blame most for TM's death is his parents. Not GZ, as he just had the unfortunate experience of being final person to touch his ball before it went out of bounds. His parents clearly weren't involved and that is why their son is dead. He had a long road of mistakes leading to this moment that they didn't head off. No parent wants say that screwed up or their kid wasn't doing dumb stuff on camera, but the truth is the truth.

I'm sure I expect get comments like oh you're a heartless bastard because a innocent child is dead. I have yet to see a response dealing with this that hasn't pure emotional dribble. May justice and logic prevail over the sentiment of people who don't care to analyze the facts and rule by their feelings. (likely what TM did before he got shot. Some irony there.)I hope someone learned something from all this mess. What lessons indeed.

Owyn_Merrilin:
Ah, turns out you don't know the history. Copyrights were originally for 25 years. It's thanks to copyright holders using all that money they made to pay lobbyists that they last as long as they do today.

The Mickey Mouse law is the most recent such extension, but there's a long history going back at least to the 19th century.

edit: In fact, the first term was only 14 years. Not sure where 25 came from, unless it was a step along the way:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_law_of_the_United_States

And movies didn't exist until the last century. Neither did television. Certain things need to change as the times change.

As I writer, I understand this. Content creators like myself like that our works are protected for a long time.

mavkiel:
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.

The media incorrectly called him white. After realizing their error they used the largely made up term "white hispanic".
It's shameful how they are inciting a race war just for ratings.

Big_Willie_Styles:

Owyn_Merrilin:
Ah, turns out you don't know the history. Copyrights were originally for 25 years. It's thanks to copyright holders using all that money they made to pay lobbyists that they last as long as they do today.

The Mickey Mouse law is the most recent such extension, but there's a long history going back at least to the 19th century.

edit: In fact, the first term was only 14 years. Not sure where 25 came from, unless it was a step along the way:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_law_of_the_United_States

And movies didn't exist until the last century. Neither did television. Certain things need to change as the times change.

As I writer, I understand this. Content creators like myself like that our works are protected for a long time.

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.

J Tyran:
So how did he get out of his car?

He voluntarily exited his own vehicle.

Unless Martin dragged him out of the car Zimmerman must have started the confrontation, or at the very least he removed himself from a place of relative safety and placed himself in danger. How can that be "self defense" or "standing your ground"

a) No one is mentioning SYG, but you.

b) Zimmerman went looking for Martin. [Something happened.] Martin is seen straddling Zimmerman, raining down blows. [Something happens, Zimmerman shoots Martin.]
The exact details of what happened in between the [Brackets] is speculation. It can not be proven.

The state contended that Zimmerman attacked Martin first. The defense contended that Martin attacked Zimmerman first.
Neither is provable. All we have is the eye witness testimony, and the injuries on both parties; Zimmerman's broken nose and lacerated scalp and Martin's scrapped knuckles.

Unless Martin dragged zimmerfail

Actually, his name is spelled Zimmerm... Wait, I see what you did there.

That's rather juvenile to deliberately misspell someone's name simply because you don't like the legal actions they had taken.

out of his car he could not have started the confrontation, so unless you can prove Martin dragged him out you cannot claim that he did not create the situation.

You are quite wrong.

There was no confrontation until they confronted each other. Who initiated it? We don't know, there is no eye witness and no video tape.

Well I hope someone goes and finds him and starts a fight and the shoots him up a bit and is able to claim self defense, not enough to kill him but he deserves a bit of pain for this. As the justice system failed it will have to be left to the "neighbourhood watch".

Well, if you go out and do start a fight with someone, which you alleged but can not prove that Zimmerman did, you can not claim self defense.

Unless, of course, you disengaged from the fight and the other party kept coming at you. As evidenced by the eye witness, Zimmerman plead help from the neighbor who came out to investigate, and Martin continued to rain down blows upon Zimmerman.

I do not see cause for celebration here because it shows an absolute failure in your criminal justice system,

I completely agree, what we have here is a travesty.

Instead of making all evidence public and explaining that the state had no evidence to convict Zimmerman and thus the shooting was justified under self defense, we had a farce of case brought forward only to appease a mob under the guise of "social justice".

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

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked