George Zimmerman Found Not Guilty

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

J Tyran:
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".

For fuck sake.

He doesn't deserve anything. Wanna know why?

BECAUSE A JURY FOUND HIM NOT GUILTY OF ALL CHARGES AGAINST HIM!

You can't just decide for yourself that the system failed, because that isn't for you to decide. You also wanna know why? Prejudice!

I can tell from your post the amount of prejudice that was in it, and that is why you, or anyone else who has some sort of emotional investment in the case doesn't decide the fate of anyone.

For god sake, let me get this straight.

When someone you HATE goes to jail, "man, it is the Justice system doing it's job".

But when someone you hate is found innocent, suddenly "the justice system has failed!".

For god sake, it is people like you, with these beliefs that cause vengeance killings, which gets us nowhere.

The courts have spoken. You asked that he be taken to trial, and that a jury of his peers decide his fate based on the evidence provided for, and against him. They have found for him; so unless you've got the tapes that prove he started it, there is nothing else to do.

J Tyran:
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".

Actually, no. Getting out of a car does not start a confrontation. Walking down a dark alley towards someone does not start a confrontation. Even yelling at someone (so long as the content of that communication does not involve a threat) does not start a confrontation. Both Martin and Zimmerman were perfectly within their rights to be in the same area at the same time - confrontation involves, plainly and simply, who hits (or threatens to hit) whom first.

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".

"Zimmerfail?" Well, you sure aren't biased at all. *rolls eyes* FYI, in America there's this concept of "innocent until proven guilty," so your assertion that the defense has to prove that Martin dragged Zimmerman out of the car is bullshit. All the defense has to do is prove that there is a reasonable doubt as to who hit (or threatened to hit) whom first. Zimmerman was doing nothing wrong getting out of the car. He was doing nothing wrong walking down the alley. You will be in agreement with the law once you can prove that he actually hit Martin first.

Oh, and before you go off on me, know this: I totally think the guy did it. His cover story reeks of him grasping at straws to justify his actions. But where you and I differ is that I am perfectly willing to admit that, despite my personal feelings, the law does not see enough solid evidence for a conviction.

Ryotknife:
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.

It would only add to the racial tensions in society and vindicate people like Sharpton and Jesse Jackson who exploit racism for their own agendas.

An innocent man going to jail just because the other man was black is sickening.

I find it infinitely fascinating how the trial seemed to become more about condemning the dead boy rather than determining the aggressor's guilt.
But I'm not surprised. This is yet another example of how little the so-called justice system values the lives of black people.

There are really people here that are arguing against an official, jury-decided decision? Unless you watched the entire case and have more law skills than any of the prosecutors or defenders there then you really can't say it was a stupid decision. The entire case was around whether Zimmerman acted out of malice or out of self-defense, it wasn't a simple murder case. Quite frankly, the prosecution's side was terrible, with over-lapping stories that actually helped Zimmerman's case, so maybe they should have gotten better people to help prosecute Zimmerman rather than people who say words like "cracka" in court (and get applauded for it). However, if the media hadn't blown this up into the equivalent of the civil-rights movement the whole thing would have been much quieter, giving the prosecution a chance to win. The court made their decision, sure Zimmerman shouldn't have followed him but what matters was who started the fight and whether it was out of self-defense or malice, nothing more.

Seriously, it's like most of you are this guy:

LiquidGrape:
I find it infinitely fascinating how the trial seemed to become more about condemning the dead boy rather than determining the aggressor's guilt.
But I'm not surprised. This is yet another example of how little the so-called justice system values the lives of black people.

You see, thats the problem here. Why does it matter that Martin was black in a Jury trial? The mixed race jury found Zimmerman innocent because there was never enough evidence to convict him of anything. The Police department headed by a black man didn't want to pursue the case, but it was the media that raised Cain over it. Blaming it on race is frankly ridiculous and intellectually dishonest.

LiquidGrape:
I find it infinitely fascinating how the trial seemed to become more about condemning the dead boy rather than determining the aggressor's guilt.
But I'm not surprised. This is yet another example of how little the so-called justice system values the lives of black people.

Any Defense attorney makes two villains if possible: the prosecution system itself (Dershowitz has said that the prosecution in this case should be sanctioned for misconduct) and the victim him/herself. That's one of the reasons that, for instance, making a rape complaint can be so trying.

From what I'm reading, the Prosecution made a terrible decision to put on their prime witness, the lady the victim was speaking to on the phone at the time of death. She seemed angry and hostile just to be there. A columnist I read explained how white people don't understand a young lady like that but should. She has a right to be angry.

I think Trayvon had a right to be angry too. This "cracker" was unjustly following him. Because of her testimony, I think the jury found it more likely that Trayvon was angry too, and that a claim that he acted on that anger became a reasonable possibility.

Zimmerman isn't necessarily innocent, but there is now reasonable doubt as to his guilt.

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 illegal. It is considered reckless endangerment, and you are not ocnsidered endanger if you are firing warning shots. When it comes to self-defense with a firearm, you shoot to kill, anything else you either missed, or you weren't in danger. USA operates on dead men tell no tales, when it comes to self-defense.

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.

Stalking require's multiple case's of one encountering said person following them. Outside of that, following isn't illegal, assault is though.

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.

Yes they did. When evidence started showing up that Zimmerman story was sound, they ignored it. When the trial started, they ignored it, and from what I am seeing, some didn't even pay attention to the trial. The rest I gathered followed the media, besides Fox News. Fox News reported the truth, the rest of the MSM lied their asses off. It shows to. Ignorance and corruption was beaten today, and I for one have a tune to my voice.

The amount of corruption in this case is staggering.
http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2...y-director-who

I might be one of the few black's who is glad justice was done. Then again, I do have a tendency to observe the situation before I make call. In this case, I have no clue how one did not see this coming based on the media itself. Did anyone not notice the lies, the editing, the picture of Zimmerman face being beaten. That should have been a clue, a rather BIG clue.

MatsVS:
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.

Wrong. In Amurrica, assault is illegal, and one of the consequences is getting killed by your victim using self-defense. That's right,one can be as offensive and bigoted as hell, but they can't commit assault and if they are victims of assault, then they have the right to exercise self-defense. Also it is apparent that you didn't pay attention to the trial also.

LiquidGrape:
I find it infinitely fascinating how the trial seemed to become more about condemning the dead boy rather than determining the aggressor's guilt.
But I'm not surprised. This is yet another example of how little the so-called justice system values the lives of black people.

The entire case painted Zimmerman as a demon, to the point of making him lighter, falsifying and editing 911 tape's, creating a term called "white hispanic", blaming white people (racist by the way). Any truth to Trayvon character was hidden, meanwhile Zimmerman was demonized to hell and back. This case was full of shit, and people had to watch a innocent man go on trial for political reasons, to quell one racial group, and to make money by creating a bunch of bullshit. The so called aggressor ended up being the hero, facing off against horde who wanted him dead, and to be place as a sacrifice for what ever goal they had.

Gorfias:

Any Defense attorney makes two villains if possible: the prosecution system itself (Dershowitz has said that the prosecution in this case should be sanctioned for misconduct) and the victim him/herself. That's one of the reasons that, for instance, making a rape complaint can be so trying.

From what I'm reading, the Prosecution made a terrible decision to put on their prime witness, the lady the victim was speaking to on the phone at the time of death. She seemed angry and hostile just to be there. A columnist I read explained how white people don't understand a young lady like that but should. She has a right to be angry.

I think Trayvon had a right to be angry too. This "cracker" was unjustly following him. Because of her testimony, I think the jury found it more likely that Trayvon was angry too, and that a claim that he acted on that anger became a reasonable possibility.

Zimmerman isn't necessarily innocent, but there is now reasonable doubt as to his guilt.

Actually Jeantel admitted to falsifying part's of her testimony to get Zimmerman arrested, couple up with several more of her lies, and astoundingly dumb decision making. The attitude was just icing on the cake, she ended up being a asshole of the highest order. Funny thing is that her false testimony ended up being of the reason's why Zimmerman was charged.

BQE:

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.

That was my thought as well.

Little racist thug gets killed after attacking someone, lots of people condem person defending himself.

Wut?

As for the OT: Glad the jury found him not guilty, would have been a shame if he had gone to jail for defending himself.

Edit: Derped on quoting.

Predictable. It was an embarrassingly weak case against him and had no place going to trial in the first place.

Edit: Also, justice was served. Like it or not, this is just and it is right. Sending Zimmerman to prison even though we have nothing better than our feelings to go on would have been the miscarriage of justice. Bitch about it all you want, but don't pretend you're doing it for the sake of justice. You're doing it for the sake of blind revenge. These are probably the same people that rightfully lose their minds when a black person gets railroaded into prison. Strange how our opinions and feelings change when it's someone else in the defendant's chair.

madwarper:
Just goes to show, the burden of proving their case beyond the shadow of a doubt lies on that of the state, not the defense.
The prosecution utterly failed in proving Zimmerman acted out of malice and not of self defense.

Reasonable doubt. Shadow of a doubt is higher than necessary for a conviction.

madwarper:

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

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

And it was lapped up by the media because "Hispanic kills black guy" doesn't sell ad space. Race wars? Fuck yeah. I hope the fuckers that pushed the race narrative in the media, going so far as to doctor shit, squeal like stuck pigs for weeks over this.

Phone posting so cannot quote properly so I will reply to everyone in one answer.

I do not doubt that under the law he was found innocent and I do not doubt that a bunch of semantics and technicalities went in his favour, that was the failure of the justice system here. Zimmerknob[1] created the situation, he will no doubt continue to lie through his teeth about what really happened but there are some indisputable facts here.

-Zimmertwat chose to be a vigilante that happens to have an offical title
-Zimmercock chose to arm himself and roam the streets to arbitrarily decide who was a criminal and who was not
-Zimmerarse chose to harass a young man based on his arbitrary decision
-Zimmerfail chose to ignore the advice of the emergency services
-Zimmerturd chose to get out of his car
-Zimmertool chose to use deadly force

He was entirely responsible for creating that situation, a situation that caused the death of a young man who was doing nothing wrong and he should have been convicted of manslaughter on that basis alone. He also provoked the fight, whoever swung the first blow. Following someone and harassing them and then getting out the car and approaching them is provocation, Mr Martin was undoubtedly scared and thought he was going to the victim of a crime.

No, getting out of a car isn't a crime but context for crying out loud. If he had just pulled up at home and got out of his car that argument would hold water but that wasn't the case, it was part of a series of events. Events which should be considered as provocation. I would agree he did not murder him, he just recklessly set in motion a chain of events that resulted him shooting and killing Mr Martin.

But no, a young man had his life arbitrarily taken away and the killer walks away.

[1] Yes I am misspelling his name, label me as immature if you want but I have nothing but contempt for the man and he doesn't deserve even simple the respect from me to spell his name properly

Magenera:

MatsVS:
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.

Wrong. In Amurrica, assault is illegal, and one of the consequences is getting killed by your victim using self-defense. That's right,one can be as offensive and bigoted as hell, but they can't commit assault and if they are victims of assault, then they have the right to exercise self-defense. Also it is apparent that you didn't pay attention to the trial also.

I did actually, and I saw there what I see here: a whole bunch white folks trying to rationalize the simple truth that a black kid was shit shot down in the streets because some pathetic mouth-breather decided he was "suspicious". The whole system is sick.

J Tyran:
I do not doubt that under the law he was found innocent

The law, and the people of the state of Florida, as represented by a cross section of its population.

Zimmerman was found not guilty by a jury of his peers.

and I do not doubt that a bunch of semantics and technicalities went in his favour, that was the failure of the justice system here. Zimmerknob (Yes I am misspelling his name, label me as immature if you want but I have nothing but contempt for the man and he doesn't deserve even simple the respect from me to spell his name properly) created the situation, he will no doubt continue to lie through his teeth about what really happened but there are some indisputable facts here.

/Sigh.

I was hoping to have an adult conversation with you, but if this is all the maturity you can muster, I am truly disappointed.

-Zimmerman chose to be a vigilante that happens to have an offical title

Nothing illegal about forming a neighborhood watch.

-Zimmerman chose to arm himself and roam the streets

Nothing illegal about arming himself, he had gun and concealed carry permits.

to arbitrarily decide who was a criminal and who was not

Nothing illegal about being suspicious of someone.

-Zimmerman chose to harass a young man based on his arbitrary decision

Proof? What proof do you have that Zimmerman harassed anyone?

-Zimmerman chose to ignore the advice of the emergency services

Proof? According to his testimony, he was already out of his vehicle following after Martin when Zimmerman was told that wasn't necessary. What proof do you have that he ignored it?

-Zimmerman chose to get out of his car

Nothing illegal about exiting a vehicle.

-Zimmerman chose to use deadly force

After being assaulted, which is supported by the eye witness and physical evidence. You know, self defense.

Perhaps you might want to look up the definition of the word 'indisputable', because 2 of your facts are very much in dispute as you have zero proof to back up your assertion.

He was entirely responsible for creating that situation, a situation that caused the death of a young man who was doing nothing wrong and he should have been convicted of manslaughter on that basis alone. He also provoked the fight, whoever swung the first blow. Following someone and harassing them and then getting out the car and approaching them is provocation, Mr Martin was undoubtedly scared and thought he was going to the victim of a crime.

Ok, add 'provoke' and 'harass' to the list of words you need to look up.

It is very much dependent on who actually threw the first punch. They are the instigator. And, I await your proof that it was Zimmerman.

No, getting out of a car isn't a crime but context for crying out loud. If he had just pulled up at home and got out of his car that argument would hold water but that wasn't the case, it was part of a series of events. Events which should be considered as provocation. I would agree he did not murder him, he just recklessly set in motion a chain of events that resulted him shooting and killing into Mr Martin.

If Martin hadn't attacked Zimmerman, Zimmerman wouldn't have felt the need to defend himself by shooting Martin and Martin would be alive right now.

See? I can play what if games too. Only my version is actually supported by reality... So, thanks for playing.

But no, a young man had his life arbitrarily taken away and the killer walks away.

A young man arbitrary attacks a man, the man defends for himself and is acquitted of any wrong doing.

J Tyran:
Phone posting so cannot quote properly so I will reply to everyone in one answer.

I do not doubt that under the law he was found innocent and I do not doubt that a bunch of semantics and technicalities went in his favour, that was the failure of the justice system here. Zimmerknob[1] created the situation, he will no doubt continue to lie through his teeth about what really happened but there are some indisputable facts here.

-Zimmertwat chose to be a vigilante that happens to have an offical title
-Zimmercock chose to arm himself and roam the streets to arbitrarily decide who was a criminal and who was not
-Zimmerarse chose to harass a young man based on his arbitrary decision
-Zimmerfail chose to ignore the advice of the emergency services
-Zimmerturd chose to get out of his car
-Zimmertool chose to use deadly force

He was entirely responsible for creating that situation, a situation that caused the death of a young man who was doing nothing wrong and he should have been convicted of manslaughter on that basis alone. He also provoked the fight, whoever swung the first blow. Following someone and harassing them and then getting out the car and approaching them is provocation, Mr Martin was undoubtedly scared and thought he was going to the victim of a crime.

No, getting out of a car isn't a crime but context for crying out loud. If he had just pulled up at home and got out of his car that argument would hold water but that wasn't the case, it was part of a series of events. Events which should be considered as provocation. I would agree he did not murder him, he just recklessly set in motion a chain of events that resulted him shooting and killing Mr Martin.

But no, a young man had his life arbitrarily taken away and the killer walks away.

Trayvon chose to go back and engage Zimmerman, and the jury has made the decision that was what happened, it is that decision that caused Trayvon to die and Zimmerman to walk free. The jury decided based on the evidence provided. Also

"I do not doubt that under the law"
and
"He should be convicted of manslaughter on that alone"

are two sentences which do not work together. Many people who believe the decision was unjust are thinking that because of their feelings, not the evidence which was shown in the trial. I remember all of you shouting for a court-trial, and now that a court trial has happened you're unhappy because it's not what you personally wanted. That's not the way the law works, buddy.

[1] Yes I am misspelling his name, label me as immature if you want but I have nothing but contempt for the man and he doesn't deserve even simple the respect from me to spell his name properly

MatsVS:

Magenera:

MatsVS:
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.

Wrong. In Amurrica, assault is illegal, and one of the consequences is getting killed by your victim using self-defense. That's right,one can be as offensive and bigoted as hell, but they can't commit assault and if they are victims of assault, then they have the right to exercise self-defense. Also it is apparent that you didn't pay attention to the trial also.

I did actually, and I saw there what I see here: a whole bunch white folks trying to rationalize the simple truth that a black kid was shit shot down in the streets because some pathetic mouth-breather decided he was "suspicious". The whole system is sick.

No, the reason Trayvon was shot was because he started the fight and beat Zimmerman to a pulp, and that is what the jury decided. Stop trying to make yourself better than the court, and calling the defense a "pathetic mouth-breather" would most likely get you kicked out of a trial. The simple truth is that the evidence given by both the prosecution and the defense lead the jury to come to the decision that Zimmerman acted upon self-defense.

MatsVS:

Magenera:

MatsVS:
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.

Wrong. In Amurrica, assault is illegal, and one of the consequences is getting killed by your victim using self-defense. That's right,one can be as offensive and bigoted as hell, but they can't commit assault and if they are victims of assault, then they have the right to exercise self-defense. Also it is apparent that you didn't pay attention to the trial also.

I did actually, and I saw there what I see here: a whole bunch white folks trying to rationalize the simple truth that a black kid was shit shot down in the streets because some pathetic mouth-breather decided he was "suspicious". The whole system is sick.

Oh look, a complete lack of understanding of what actually happened and how burden of proof works. If you want to actually convince someone you'd have to say something beyond a string of sound bites.

MatsVS:

ToastiestZombie:
No, the reason Trayvon was shot was because he started the fight and beat Zimmerman to a pulp, and that is what the jury decided. Stop trying to make yourself better than the court, and calling the defense a "pathetic mouth-breather" would most likely get you kicked out of a trial. The simple truth is that the evidence given by both the prosecution and the defense lead the jury to come to the decision that Zimmerman acted upon self-defense.

Shock and Awe:
Oh look, a complete lack of understanding of what actually happened and how burden of proof works. If you want to actually convince someone you'd have to say something beyond a string of sound bites.

Oh, look, two more white guys (one of whom is a gun nut, of course) rushing to exclaim how a black kid getting shot in the streets "appearing threatening" isn't racist and sick. Not really. Because of law and stuff. Glad I live in a civilized country.

Wow, racism much? We never said anything about Trayvon being black, yet the first thing you say is about is being white. You're clearly not looking at any of the evidence and blindly defending the side that lost, so I'm not going to speak to you any further.

Shock and Awe:

MatsVS:

Magenera:

Wrong. In Amurrica, assault is illegal, and one of the consequences is getting killed by your victim using self-defense. That's right,one can be as offensive and bigoted as hell, but they can't commit assault and if they are victims of assault, then they have the right to exercise self-defense. Also it is apparent that you didn't pay attention to the trial also.

I did actually, and I saw there what I see here: a whole bunch white folks trying to rationalize the simple truth that a black kid was shit shot down in the streets because some pathetic mouth-breather decided he was "suspicious". The whole system is sick.

Oh look, a complete lack of understanding of what actually happened and how burden of proof works. If you want to actually convince someone you'd have to say something beyond a string of sound bites.

Now if only the U.S justice system could be consistent with the whole 'Innocent till Proven Guilty' routine... There are a lot of retarded cases currently going on that could use the same treatment as this one.

Including (But not exclusively thinking of) the case with the kid that's looking at up to 10 years for bad humor on Facebook.

Oh, whats that police? You found no weapon? that means the case is dropped right?

no?

Fuckin' A-....

Not to mention putting bail at 500.000$ for a kid whose family couldn't even cough up 25.

MatsVS:
Oh, look, two more white guys (one of whom is a gun nut, of course) rushing to exclaim how a black kid getting shot in the streets "appearing threatening" isn't racist and sick. Not really. Because of law and stuff. Glad I live in a civilized country.

What's truly 'sick' is that you're willing to ignore of the fact of the case.

Martin was not shot for being "threatening", it was for the beating Martin gave to Zimmerman. Martin >>>attacked<<< Zimmerman.

I think this thread should be locked. When threads are locked for people attacking each other, I feel it is only fair that they be locked when attacking another person's country. As it is this thread devolved quickly which we all knew it would. The discussion (the good part) has been had and is now over. Everything else is just going to get people suspended or banned.

OT: While it is sad that a person lost their life in this situation I feel that the trial had the correct outcome. If either person would have done one thing differently there wouldn't have been a death or a trial.

madwarper:
Martin was not shot for being "threatening", it was for the beating Martin gave to Zimmerman. Martin >>>attacked<<< Zimmerman.

And in a country that doesn't wear its institutionalized racism like a badge of fucking honour, we don't actually throw the concept of reasonable force out the window just because black people are involved.

I really wonder, if the media is trying to incite a riot shouldn't that be a crime? Not "oh look Ted Turner is making some ratings how cute."

Shouldn't there be a law against media twisting words and trying to incite violence? There should be.

Why the hell isn't the media being federally slapped to hell and back for obviously trying to incite a riot? Last I checked inciting riots was a huge crime with huge punishment. The legal wording I was reading isn't that specific as well. Inciting a riot was described as words or actions that could lead to violence.

madwarper:
Nothing illegal about forming a neighborhood watch.

Never claimed there was.

madwarper:
Nothing illegal about arming himself, he had gun and concealed carry permits.

Never claimed this was illegal either.

madwarper:
Nothing illegal about being suspicious of someone.

Never claimed this against the law either

Would you actually please go back and read what I posted instead of trying to claim that a made a bunch of claims, I was describing the series of events not making any statement about their legality.

madwarper:
Proof? What proof do you have that Zimmerman harassed anyone?

The proof is obvious, these events actually happened. He closely followed Mr Martin around, now there maybe some mis-communication here so to be clear I am using the British term "harassment" here so the definition might be different over there but I will expand my statement, by harassment in this situation that Zimmertool placed Mr Martin in a state of fear believing he was going to be a victim of crime. That might be called something differant in the US but thats essentially what I mean.

Testimony in court detailed Mr Martins concern over being followed, that's my basis for the claim he felt harassed.

madwarper:
Proof? According to his testimony, he was already out of his vehicle following after Martin when Zimmerman was told that wasn't necessary. What proof do you have that he ignored it?

The tapes are the proof, they told him not to follow him. They told he should wait and meet the officers, the fact he did follow Mr Martin is the proof he ignored advice. The call was around five minutes long, he had plenty of opportunity to follow that advice. He also told the emergency services that Mr Martin was "running away" and he could be heard chasing him against advice.

madwarper:
Nothing illegal about exiting a vehicle.

Never said that it was, again please actually read my post and not simply just interpreting it based on your preconceptions.

madwarper:
After being assaulted, which is supported by the eye witness and physical evidence. You know, self defense.

I do not dispute that legally it was deemed that he acted in self defense, I was stating that in my opinion that creating the situation in the first place should not qualify as self defense. Or to clarify further creating a situation where someone is provoked into believing they need to act in self defense should not be a basis for a self defense claim.

madwarper:
Perhaps you might want to look up the definition of the word 'indisputable', because 2 of your facts are very much in dispute as you have zero proof to back up your assertion.

Ok then dispute with proof that,

A, Mr Martin was concerned about being followed

and

B, That Zimmerturd continued to follow Mr Martin for several minutes after being advised to discontinue following Mr Martin.

As the evidence was presented in court good luck with that, I.E. the phone records showing Mr Martins repeated phone calls along with testimony detailing his concern and the recording of Zimmerturds call to emergency services backs up my claims that he had opportunity to break off pursuit.

madwarper:
Ok, add 'provoke' and 'harass' to the list of words you need to look up.

Like I said there may be some mis-communication but once again I will clarify, by harrass I mean follow someone and place them in a position where they fear that they may become a victim of crime. By provoke I mean instigate the situation in the first place. If Zimmertwat hadn't been doing the things he had been doing the situation would never have happened, he made the choices that led to the series of events therefore he instigated it.

madwarper:
It is very much dependent on who actually threw the first punch. They are the instigator. And, I await your proof that it was Zimmerman.

Well I never claimed who did or did not throw the first punch, Mr Martin should have had a viable claim to self defense if he indeed throw the first punch. Being followed around and then chased for no reason (from his perspective) is reasonable cause to believe he was going to be the victim of a crime and should have had the right to defend himself.

madwarper:
If Martin hadn't attacked Zimmerman, Zimmerman wouldn't have felt the need to defend himself by shooting Martin and Martin would be alive right now.

Zimmercock placed himself in the situation and like I already said Mr Martin should have had the right to defend himself if he was one that did indeed throw the first punch.

Thats why I said Zimmerknob shouldn't have been charged with murder, both men believed they where acting in self defense. The reason Zimmertool should face manslaughter charges is because he was one that created the situation that caused both men to believe that, he was also the one that chased Mr Martin against advice which was reckless. That recklessness caused a death and that is another reason why he should be punished.

madwarper:
Only my version is actually supported by reality... So, thanks for playing.

I think your ability to discern reality might be questionable considering you repeatedly demonstrated that you cannot even read something without immediately colouring it with your own preconceptions. Thanks for being such an easy player for me to demolish.

J Tyran:
The proof is obvious, these events actually happened.

I love how you seem to think things are so obvious that you don't feel the need to provide any evidence to support them.

He closely followed Mr Martin around,

Obviously not, because Zimmerman lost sight of Martin.

by harassment in this situation that Zimmertool placed Mr Martin in a state of fear believing he was going to be a victim of crime. That might be called something differant in the US but thats essentially what I mean.

Yes, must have been so afraid that the only course of action was to ambush Zimmerman and beat him into the ground.

Testimony in court detailed Mr Martins concern over being followed, that's my basis for the claim he felt harassed.

Merely being afraid because someone is following you is not enough, being afraid because someone violently attacked you is.

The tapes are the proof, they told him not to follow him. They told he should wait and meet the officers, the fact he did follow Mr Martin is the proof he ignored advice. The call was around five minutes long, he had plenty of opportunity to follow that advice. He also told the emergency services that Mr Martin was "running away" and he could be heard chasing him against advice.

You need to recheck your timeline. Zimmerman was already on foot when the dispatcher told him that, which is when he broke pursuit, tried to find his bearings and was ambushed.

I was stating that in my opinion that creating the situation in the first place should not qualify as self defense. Or to clarify further creating a situation where someone is provoked into believing they need to act in self defense should not be a basis for a self defense claim.

Who follows who is not relevant. It's about who attacked who. That's what self defense is about.

A, Mr Martin was concerned about being followed

and

B, That Zimmerturd continued to follow Mr Martin for several minutes after being advised to discontinue following Mr Martin.

a) Irrelevant, b) Inaccurate.

As the evidence was presented in court good luck with that, I.E. the phone records showing Mr Martins repeated phone calls along with testimony detailing his concern and the recording of Zimmerturds call to emergency services backs up my claims that he had opportunity to break off pursuit.

Again, your timeline is incorrect.

by harrass I mean follow someone and place them in a position where they fear that they may become a victim of crime. By provoke I mean instigate the situation in the first place. If Zimmertwat hadn't been doing the things he had been doing the situation would never have happened, he made the choices that led to the series of events therefore he instigated it.

What Zimmerman did is not illegal. It is not harassment, nor is it provocation.

Both Zimmerman and Martin were in a public place where both of them had a right to be. What was not in the right was when one attacked the other.

Well I never claimed who did or did not throw the first punch, Mr Martin should have had a viable claim to self defense if he indeed throw the first punch. Being followed around and then chased for no reason (from his perspective) is reasonable cause to believe he was going to be the victim of a crime and should have had the right to defend himself.

No, Martin can't claim self defense when he went out of his way and ambush Zimmerman instead of going into his home.

Zimmercock placed himself in the situation and like I already said Mr Martin should have had the right to defend himself if he was one that did indeed throw the first punch.

Zimmerman didn't force Martin to attack him. Martin choose to do that all on his own accord.

The reason Zimmertool should face manslaughter charges is because he was one that created the situation that caused both men to believe that, he was also the one that chased Mr Martin against advice which was reckless. That recklessness caused a death and that is another reason why he should be punished.

Self defense is the answer to both murder and manslaughter.

I think your ability to discern reality might be questionable considering you repeatedly demonstrated that you cannot even read something without immediately colouring it with your own preconceptions.

You need to refresh yourself on the facts.

Ultratwinkie:
I really wonder, if the media is trying to incite a riot shouldn't that be a crime? Not "oh look Ted Turner is making some ratings how cute."

Shouldn't there be a law against media twisting words and trying to incite violence? There should be.

Why the hell isn't the media being federally slapped to hell and back for obviously trying to incite a riot? Last I checked inciting riots was a huge crime with huge punishment. The legal wording I was reading isn't that specific as well. Inciting a riot was described as words or actions that could lead to violence.

Honestly, since the courts ruled (retardedly) that corporations are people too they should be brought up on charges. This area of legality isnt my strong suite but I am sure there are charges to be brought to bear on people who are inciting violence..

Or charge the media corporations as accessories to any violence that is a result of their inciting.

J Tyran:
[quote="madwarper" post="528.821937.19868954"]both men believed they where acting in self defense.

What twisted country do you live in that lets you assault someone in self defence just because they are following you?

Martin died less than 100 meters from his father's fiance's town house. You honestly think that it was self defence when he turns to attack someone instead of just, say, running for about 5 seconds to the house where people he knows are to help him?

J Tyran:

madwarper:
Nothing illegal about forming a neighborhood watch.

Never claimed there was.

Then why bring it up?

J Tyran:

madwarper:
Nothing illegal about arming himself, he had gun and concealed carry permits.

Never claimed this was illegal either.

Then why bring it up?

J Tyran:

madwarper:
Nothing illegal about being suspicious of someone.

Never claimed this against the law either

Would you actually please go back and read what I posted instead of trying to claim that a made a bunch of claims, I was describing the series of events not making any statement about their legality.

Then why bring it up?

J Tyran:

madwarper:
Proof? What proof do you have that Zimmerman harassed anyone?

The proof is obvious, these events actually happened. He closely followed Mr Martin around, now there maybe some mis-communication here so to be clear I am using the British term "harassment" here so the definition might be different over there but I will expand my statement, by harassment in this situation that Zimmertool placed Mr Martin in a state of fear believing he was going to be a victim of crime. That might be called something differant in the US but thats essentially what I mean.

Testimony in court detailed Mr Martins concern over being followed, that's my basis for the claim he felt harassed.

Simply being followed is not considered sufficient reason to initiate an assault in any court I have ever heard of, including British law. Martin had a right to be concerned, but not to turn around and physically attack, especially since Z broke off the pursuit a fair bit prior.

J Tyran:

madwarper:
Proof? According to his testimony, he was already out of his vehicle following after Martin when Zimmerman was told that wasn't necessary. What proof do you have that he ignored it?

The tapes are the proof, they told him not to follow him. They told he should wait and meet the officers, the fact he did follow Mr Martin is the proof he ignored advice. The call was around five minutes long, he had plenty of opportunity to follow that advice. He also told the emergency services that Mr Martin was "running away" and he could be heard chasing him against advice.

Actually, if you listen, you can indeed hear Zimmerman running after Martin. EMS tells him he doesn't have to do that, Z says ok, and miracle of miracles, YOU CANNOT HEAR HIM RUNNING ANYMORE. Z then states that Martin got away, has a discussion about where to meet the police, and the call ends. No verified evidence has ever been submitted that he continued to follow Martin at any place, pace, or time after this point.

J Tyran:

madwarper:
Nothing illegal about exiting a vehicle.

Never said that it was, again please actually read my post and not simply just interpreting it based on your preconceptions.

Then why bring it up?

J Tyran:

madwarper:
After being assaulted, which is supported by the eye witness and physical evidence. You know, self defense.

I do not dispute that legally it was deemed that he acted in self defense, I was stating that in my opinion that creating the situation in the first place should not qualify as self defense. Or to clarify further creating a situation where someone is provoked into believing they need to act in self defense should not be a basis for a self defense claim.

Martin chose to attack Zimmerman in a brutal manner, AFTER Z stopped any behavior that might have been considered provocative.

J Tyran:

madwarper:
Perhaps you might want to look up the definition of the word 'indisputable', because 2 of your facts are very much in dispute as you have zero proof to back up your assertion.

Ok then dispute with proof that,

A, Mr Martin was concerned about being followed

and

B, That Zimmerturd continued to follow Mr Martin for several minutes after being advised to discontinue following Mr Martin.

As the evidence was presented in court good luck with that, I.E. the phone records showing Mr Martins repeated phone calls along with testimony detailing his concern and the recording of Zimmerturds call to emergency services backs up my claims that he had opportunity to break off pursuit.

Check said evidence again. The first point is indeed valid, though irrelevant as mentioned, the second was disproved, at least so far as the court was concerned.

J Tyran:

madwarper:
Ok, add 'provoke' and 'harass' to the list of words you need to look up.

Like I said there may be some mis-communication but once again I will clarify, by harrass I mean follow someone and place them in a position where they fear that they may become a victim of crime. By provoke I mean instigate the situation in the first place. If Zimmertwat hadn't been doing the things he had been doing the situation would never have happened, he made the choices that led to the series of events therefore he instigated it.

The incident was over, the attack took place several minutes after Zimmerman lost sight of Martin and shortly after he began returning to his vehicle. Even if Martin felt afraid, he CHOSE to turn around, find Zimmerman, and start a new confrontation, instead of simply staying where he was, going home, or continuing on his way.

J Tyran:

madwarper:
It is very much dependent on who actually threw the first punch. They are the instigator. And, I await your proof that it was Zimmerman.

Well I never claimed who did or did not throw the first punch, Mr Martin should have had a viable claim to self defense if he indeed throw the first punch. Being followed around and then chased for no reason (from his perspective) is reasonable cause to believe he was going to be the victim of a crime and should have had the right to defend himself.

Again, simply being followed is not sufficient reason alone to start a physical fight. Even if it was, the incident occurred several minutes after the chase was over. If Martin was truly scared by the incident, all he had to do was stay where he was, or simply continue on his way, he probably never would have seen Z again. But no, instead, he went back, and started following Z himself.

J Tyran:

madwarper:
If Martin hadn't attacked Zimmerman, Zimmerman wouldn't have felt the need to defend himself by shooting Martin and Martin would be alive right now.

Zimmercock placed himself in the situation and like I already said Mr Martin should have had the right to defend himself if he was one that did indeed throw the first punch.

Thats why I said Zimmerknob shouldn't have been charged with murder, both men believed they where acting in self defense. The reason Zimmertool should face manslaughter charges is because he was one that created the situation that caused both men to believe that, he was also the one that chased Mr Martin against advice which was reckless. That recklessness caused a death and that is another reason why he should be punished.

Defend himself against what? The sight of Zimmerman's ugly backside? Once again, Z stopped following M and turned back, his part in this was over.

Manslaughter is highly questionable based on what we know, but it might have been a little more easy to prove. If the media and public had not pushed for a murder trial, that is probably what Z would have been charged with when the state was done collecting evidence. Irrelevant at this point I'm afraid, he's been declared not guilty, which makes him under US law immune to retrial.

lastjustice:
Snip

I just wanted to quote this to say this was one of the most articulate and well-thought out explanation of what happened.

I don't really agree with the right to shoot someone in self defense (unless in your home), but it seems to me that Zimmerman acted entirely within the law here.

I usually assume with these sort of cases that the jury has seen far more evidence than I have, so they are probably far more likely to have come to the correct conclusion than any old Tom, Dick, or Harry.

I find it a stretch to suggest that this is the result of institutional racism, considering how institutionally racist the US legal system seems to be towards Hispanics as well.

Zimmerman decided to follow Martin. Simple as that. Any reasonable person should know tha following someone you think is "suspicious" can be dangerous. When you buy a gun and get your conceal and carry liscense you're required to take a class. In that class you are taught that when you are carrying a firearm you need to be responsible and NOT escalate situations. You should have the sense to back out and leave any situation that may lead to you requiring to use your weapon. While Zimmerman may have feared for his life when he got attacked, he clearly knew the potential dangers that arise from following someone he thought was suspicious and decided to proceed even against the advice of law enforcement. While I don't believe Zimmerman was some evil guy trying to kill a kid for being black, he acted incredicbly irresponsible and has shown that he doesn't have the capacity to own a gun for C&C. Regardless of your opionion you still need to realize that Martin died because Zimmerman wanted to play police officer without any training.

Also this post is horribly written due to having The SUB covering half of the text im trying to work with.

I'm very happy he didn't go to jail actually. Did Trayvon deserve to die? Of course not! But does that mean George had to go to jail? No. Really, this whole thing was a stupid mistake on both parties. Both sides felt their life threatened by each other, and they both reacted accordingly. No one is to really be blamed here.

In this thread: armchair commentators who understand the law and the facts of the case more comprehensively and lucidly than the jury, prosecutors or the judge.

Why are you guys not earning $100,000+ a year as judges? Your talents are wasted here on the Escapist!

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

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked