George Zimmerman Found Not Guilty

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

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

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

Like a switch was clicked off in me.

Why do people have this reaction?

I also think Zimmermans actions were dodgy as fuck but I barely care that he was let off. To me it's just *oh well, I guess the case couldn't be proven*.

I mean I could understand this reaction if you were Martins family, but you're probably not.

I personally just think it cheapens it for the people involved.

OT: Personally I can't wait for all the cases of people just following other people, waiting for them to react in any way that could slightly be portrayed as hostile, provoking them into hitting you then shooting them. Apparently that's all it takes these days.

Also inb4 speculation. I was just saying what other people will be able to do it because after all, It's one persons word against the person they just killed. Guess who ain't talkin.

Ultratwinkie:

Not G. Ivingname:
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_NEIGHBORHOOD_WATCH_CALIFORNIA_PROTESTS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2013-07-14-06-36-06

There were riots because of this verdict, or at least a riot.

It wasn't a repeat of the LA riots, but some windows were broken, fires set, and a police car was damaged. People, no matter what you feel about Zimmerman, this trial, self defense, or guns, it is time to let this go. The only opinions that mattered are the twelve jurors. Nothing you say or do, besides radically amending (or redoing) the constitution to allow retrials even after a verdict has been reached by Zimmerman's twelve peers, your not going to change the verdict.

Even going out to lynch Zimmerman will only put more blood on everyones hand.

If there is something to be learned from this trial, take it to heart, whatever it may be, and move on.

Violence will not bring back the dead.

Actually, it was a group of anarchists that wanted to start a riot but got stomped by the police before it can spread.

You don't fuck with the LAPD anymore, this isn't 1992. I don't know what those kids were thinking. Especially when they are on a tactical alert, what made them think they could even stand a chance?

I believe that was actually Oakland. Its a city near San Fransisco, not a part of LA.

Gold:

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

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

Like a switch was clicked off in me.

Why do people have this reaction?

I also think Zimmermans actions were dodgy as fuck but I barely care that he was let off. To me it's just *oh well, I guess the case couldn't be proven*.

I mean I could understand this reaction if you were Martins family, but you're probably not.

I personally just think it cheapens it for the people involved.

OT: Personally I can't wait for all the cases of people just following other people, waiting for them to react in any way that could slightly be portrayed as hostile, provoking them into hitting you then shooting them. Apparently that's all it takes these days.

Also inb4 speculation. I was just saying what other people will be able to do it because after all, It's one persons word against the person they just killed. Guess who ain't talkin.

My mom says as a parent it hurts her the most that way. She can't believe he didn't get ANY time. She wasn't sure she expected him to get a lot but NONE? Also, she and a lot of people we mutually know believe this has set us back 200 years with regards to race relations.

How so many of us in the young generation say things are better now than they were then. But that it's not true and this just proves it. Plus, she has suspicions that first stem from the fact that the jury had only 6 people instead of 12.

I just feel bad for her. I can't stand when she cries but I don't know how to feel. I was one of the people adamant about Zimmerman needing to be fucking charged. So it's good that he was and the results of the case are fine. But especially after reading debates like on this thread... I'm at a loss. Which is why I'm mostly empty.

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.

[citation needed]
Please show me evidence indicating that Zimmerman picked a fight. Following someone is not picking a fight, no matter how much you might want it to be.

Shock and Awe:

TheStatutoryApe:

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

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

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

Unless you live in Ohio. Currently the only US state in which the burden of proof remains with the defendant for self defense.

As for the case itself, there was never any actual evidence that disproved Zimmerman's self defense claim as I and several others had pointed out from the beginning and the best witness substantiated quite well Zimmerman's version of the final part of the fight which would have been the most pertinent to any murder/manslaughter charge. Moreover, the only real witnesses that were pro-Martin when called at trial had been obviously quite heavily coached. So basically a man's life was ripped into pieces to placate an irrational populist mob. Gratz.

game-lover:
Plus, she has suspicions that first stem from the fact that the jury had only 6 people instead of 12.

A jury of six favors the prosecution. The more people you add to the jury, the more likely you're going to have one of them that causes a hung jury. The prosecution has to convince every single juror. The defense only has to convince one.

game-lover:
My mom says as a parent it hurts her the most that way. She can't believe he didn't get ANY time. She wasn't sure she expected him to get a lot but NONE? Also, she and a lot of people we mutually know believe this has set us back 200 years with regards to race relations.

How so many of us in the young generation say things are better now than they were then. But that it's not true and this just proves it. Plus, she has suspicions that first stem from the fact that the jury had only 6 people instead of 12.

I just feel bad for her. I can't stand when she cries but I don't know how to feel. I was one of the people adamant about Zimmerman needing to be fucking charged. So it's good that he was and the results of the case are fine. But especially after reading debates like on this thread... I'm at a loss. Which is why I'm mostly empty.

"Set us back 200 years?" I'm pretty sure nobody was trying to enslave Trayvon Martin and force him to pick cotton. I'm also fairly certain that a white man in the South killing a black man in 1813 wouldn't even go to trial. Hyperbole is unnecessary. In my estimation, this case had nothing to do with race - the media tried to make it be about race, but that was just for the ratings.

The facts are this: A Hispanic man called the police as he followed a black teenager who he thought looked suspicious. After getting off the phone with the officer and requesting a car to come to his location, the man and the teenager were entangled in a confrontation. It is unclear who initiated that confrontation, but it ended with the man shooting the teenager. The jury in the consequent trial decided that there was not enough evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the man was guilty of second-degree murder.

Race has nothing to do with the jury's decision so far as I can tell. The only reason anybody is talking about race being a factor and screaming about this case being the End of Days for race relations is because the media wants to create a narrative that will get them more views. It was never about a "white" man shooting a black kid and getting away with it. That's just spin.

Race didn't play a role in George Zimmerman's profiling of Travon Martin, the police decision not to arrest him, and certainly not in the Jury's verdict. This race problem exists solely in people minds, they created it, and that's why its still an issue half a century after the civil rights act.

Any efforts we take to solve race relations will fail the same way any medicine/treatment a doctor prescribes will fail on a patient whose illness is psychosomatic. Such a patient needs a psychiatrist, not a doctor. The "justice for Trayvon" crowd would not have found solace in a guilty verdict. It would be less than a week before something else set them into another frenzy. Their problem is in their mind and they need to be reeducated.

game-lover:

Gold:

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

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

Like a switch was clicked off in me.

Why do people have this reaction?

I also think Zimmermans actions were dodgy as fuck but I barely care that he was let off. To me it's just *oh well, I guess the case couldn't be proven*.

I mean I could understand this reaction if you were Martins family, but you're probably not.

I personally just think it cheapens it for the people involved.

OT: Personally I can't wait for all the cases of people just following other people, waiting for them to react in any way that could slightly be portrayed as hostile, provoking them into hitting you then shooting them. Apparently that's all it takes these days.

Also inb4 speculation. I was just saying what other people will be able to do it because after all, It's one persons word against the person they just killed. Guess who ain't talkin.

My mom says as a parent it hurts her the most that way. She can't believe he didn't get ANY time. She wasn't sure she expected him to get a lot but NONE? Also, she and a lot of people we mutually know believe this has set us back 200 years with regards to race relations.

How so many of us in the young generation say things are better now than they were then. But that it's not true and this just proves it. Plus, she has suspicions that first stem from the fact that the jury had only 6 people instead of 12.

I just feel bad for her. I can't stand when she cries but I don't know how to feel. I was one of the people adamant about Zimmerman needing to be fucking charged. So it's good that he was and the results of the case are fine. But especially after reading debates like on this thread... I'm at a loss. Which is why I'm mostly empty.

That you consider this is doing more damage to racial relations than the LA race riots is kinda weird. Especially since this was a case that involved an African American and a Hispanic, two groups that are equally shat on by the justice system.

Im glad that there is no widespread riots right now (little flareup in California not withstanding), as that would really cause damage to racial relations for decades. Ask the Asian communities how they feel about the black community to this day...

Still, I think I will stay off the streets at night for awhile as revenge killings/assaults are still a possibility.

Godavari:

"Set us back 200 years?" I'm pretty sure nobody was trying to enslave Trayvon Martin and force him to pick cotton. I'm also fairly certain that a white man in the South killing a black man in 1813 wouldn't even go to trial. Hyperbole is unnecessary. In my estimation, this case had nothing to do with race - the media tried to make it be about race, but that was just for the ratings.

The facts are this: A Hispanic man called the police as he followed a black teenager who he thought looked suspicious. After getting off the phone with the officer and requesting a car to come to his location, the man and the teenager were entangled in a confrontation. It is unclear who initiated that confrontation, but it ended with the man shooting the teenager. The jury in the consequent trial decided that there was not enough evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the man was guilty of second-degree murder.

Race has nothing to do with the jury's decision so far as I can tell. The only reason anybody is talking about race being a factor and screaming about this case being the End of Days for race relations is because the media wants to create a narrative that will get them more views. It was never about a "white" man shooting a black kid and getting away with it. That's just spin.

Oops, I didn't mean to say 200. I actually meant 20. It should also be said it's not my thoughts but the thoughts of my mother and some of her friends really. Everyone has been talking about it.

Ryotknife:

That you consider this is doing more damage to racial relations than the LA race riots is kinda weird. Especially since this was a case that involved an African American and a Hispanic, two groups that are equally shat on by the justice system.

Im glad that there is no widespread riots right now (little flareup in California not withstanding), as that would really cause damage to racial relations for decades. Ask the Asian communities how they feel about the black community to this day...

Still, I think I will stay off the streets at night for awhile as revenge killings are still a possibility.

Well, I don't personally think so. But my mom does and so do a lot of other people she has chatted with and whatnot. Friends and associates. Like I said before, I'm not sure where I stand.

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.

He didn't pick the fight. He was walking. Look at the evidence. None of it, and I do mean none, points to anything but an assault by Martin.

I don't know if anyone has posted this yet or not, but I'm going to post this. It's about 30 minutes long and if you believe the media only and didn't do any research please watch this. It's simple logic and clarification of some issues that were overlooked or diluted by the MSM.

EDIT: The video is not working for some reason. Here is the full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bF-Ax5E8EJc

game-lover:
snip

ah, okay 20 years makes sense. Personally I would think the Dorner incident in LA would be more deserving as that brought up specters of the past but that is merely a different opinion.

That you are not sure where you stand is understandable as well. Considering the fervor this trial has caused, being on the fence alone could cause you considerable grief. considering your situation, I would advise keeping that close to the vest in real life (on here/internet go nuts).

Glad to know that the Justice department has found the time in between not investigating Fast and Furious, the IRS or Benghazi, to further investigate the already settled criminal case against George Zimmerman.

cthulhuspawn82:
Race didn't play a role in George Zimmerman's profiling of Travon Martin, the police decision not to arrest him, and certainly not in the Jury's verdict. This race problem exists solely in people minds, they created it, and that's why its still an issue half a century after the civil rights act.

Any efforts we take to solve race relations will fail the same way any medicine/treatment a doctor prescribes will fail on a patient whose illness is psychosomatic. Such a patient needs a psychiatrist, not a doctor. The "justice for Trayvon" crowd would not have found solace in a guilty verdict. It would be less than a week before something else set them into another frenzy. Their problem is in their mind and they need to be reeducated.

This.

I know things are "bad" now, but they are by no means as bad as they were before. Sure we have to deal with old geezers like arpaio invading our civil rights, but before civil rights and everything else Hispanics weren't even considered fit for burial, they needed their own cemetery. Even the ones who served in World War II didn't get the standard burial of other soldiers. The same goes for every non white in the era. Things are better now and that's indisputable.

Yet somehow that crowd doesn't see it.

And who is the most adamant that this is a race issue? The old geezers in the NAACP who rather try to look cool than solving actual race issues. I don't see the the national council of la raza go on about every little thing trying to look cool. Most of what I hear from them are immigration reform updates and how we should use our rights and vote, that's it.

One kid died? In a gated community? That's noteworthy? How does that even hold a candle to institutionalized racism that makes minorities lose hope and go to gangs? How does it hold a candle to how bad things are in some ghettos?

Do these people know how many people die in the black ghetto of Compton alone? It would blow people's minds.

http://projects.latimes.com/mapping-la/neighborhoods/neighborhood/compton/crime/

We turned a case of mistaken identity and turned it into a giant circus, and yet the racist concentration camp in Arizona still runs and institutionalized racism still exists. How can we even lie to ourselves and say we are fighting racism?

I have a feeling the people taking this case to the next level are the people who want to "help" but can't be bothered to actually help other than liking each others statuses and patting each other on the back. Certainly if they can't see the difference between white and Hispanic.

LetalisK:

ShiningAmber:
I say justice was served. The Criminal Justice system doesn't run on assumptions. If Zimmerman did it, they sure as hell didn't prove it to me.

Why should the prosecutor have to prove anything? It just feels like Zimmerman killed Trayvon in cold blood, doesn't it? I mean, there's a significant gap in time at the critical stage where we know nothing about what happened, but I'd like to think my gut feeling is enough to surmount reasonable doubt.

I'm not disagreeing with you that he may have done it. But, the prosecution (to me) didn't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he did murder Martin. It doesn't sit well with me to assume that he did it and convict him on my assumptions on something he may not have done.

One of my first professors for Criminal Justice during my freshman year started out by saying something that will always stick with me. 'The Criminal Justice System cannot run on assumptions. The second we start assuming what people may or may not have done and convict them on that basis is the second what rights you have walk out the door.'

kyuzo3567:

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.

Thank you, nice know someone actually read my rant. I've been just watching everything from the beginning have ask myself how are these people so insistent on GZ being a criminal when all proof says everything else? Even on tweeter all these professional athletes are slamming the verdict and I have to ask did any of them actually watch the trial at all? If you're going to be a spoke person to young people regardless of if you should be or not...get your facts straight and have an educated opinion. I just have shake my head collectively at the people who are up in arms about this. You only want to hear parts that work in your head and completely ignore the parts that destroy your entire argument. Logic need not apply.

ShiningAmber:
[Snips]

Read the further posts, LetalisK was being sarcastic.
Though, I can see this mistake as understandable since he didn't use Poe's Pink.

ravenshrike:
Unless you live in Ohio. Currently the only US state in which the burden of proof remains with the defendant for self defense.

Well shit. Of all the state laws I manage to find, I find the one that is different from every other one....amazing.

madwarper:

ShiningAmber:
[Snips]

Read the further posts, LetalisK was being sarcastic.
Though, I can see this mistake as understandable since he didn't use Poe's Pink.

Poe's Pink is for the weak, I tell you! Though I did used to leave a white "Poe's Law" in my sarcastic posts, but I really didn't think it was necessary for that one. That has been rectified. :/

J Tyran:

-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

It would take far too long to explain how wrong you are in both legal and technical terms. Instead, watch this video as it covers a lot of what you are talking about. For some reason it won't embed but here is the full link. I heartily recommend it to anyone who has a problem with the verdict. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bF-Ax5E8EJc

Shock and Awe:
I found the Florida law. Look to the second paragraph of the section covering immunity from prosecution. It states that individuals may only be prosecuted if it is suspected that their use of force was unlawful. It is the prosecution making the claim that the use was unlawful and the burden of proof is upon the prosecution. The law varies from state to state, this is Florida's law. As for Castle Doctrine Florida and many other states actually take it to the next level by giving a sweeping statute for individuals to be able to stand their ground anywhere.

What you are saying may be correct for where you are(and apparently Ohio as my reading comprehension was out to lunch) but it is not Florida law.

You seem to be ignoring the qualifications in that statute.

A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other's imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:

(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or

(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.

History.-s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1188, ch. 97-102; s. 2, ch. 2005-27.

Which are the standard burdens of proof upon the defendant in a claim of self defense. If you read the article linked there regarding "no duty to retreat" you will find a discussion of how that works and you will see that it was not found to apply to Zimmerman as, if it had, no criminal trial would have occurred. "Prosecutorial Immunity" is based on a pretrial finding of fact that would bar the State from proceeding with a trial. Take note of the author's early comment....

Discussions of Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law tend to oversimplify the subject or leave out critical analysis of the procedures for asserting prosecutorial immunity under Florida law.

Most of what you have heard about this law is probably incomplete if not flat out wrong.

cthulhuspawn82:
Race didn't play a role in George Zimmerman's profiling of Travon Martin...

We don't know that. I'd be unsurprised if it did, but that would only really matter if Zimmerman was found guilty.

Which he wasn't, so... eh.

crazyarms33:

J Tyran:

-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

It would take far too long to explain how wrong you are in both legal and technical terms. Instead, watch this video as it covers a lot of what you are talking about. For some reason it won't embed but here is the full link. I heartily recommend it to anyone who has a problem with the verdict. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bF-Ax5E8EJc

Well as thats an opinion piece by a man that fully admits he is no legal expert either I don't particularly feel the need to watch something you find valuable as confirmation bias.

TheKasp:
If we look at both persons, gather information about them you have Zimmerman, someone who openly criticised the Police who tried to cover up the beating of a homeless black, who tutors black children for free and who cares enough for his neighborhood that, after an epidemia of burgalries he participated in the watch and on the other side we have a black teen with known tends to agression and confrontation, drug use and somewhat sadistic behaviour. I quote him after he beat up someone twice:

MARTIN: Nay im not done with fool..... he gone hav 2 see me again

MARTIN: Naw but he aint breed nuff 4 me, only his nose

Zimmerman does not look like someone who would go vigilante and go out of his way to confront someone instead of letting the authorities do that. Information about Martin on the other hand show that it is not that far fetched that he would ambush his pursuer because 'he followed him'.

What about Zimmertools history of violence? If you want to try and make a character assassination out of it, he has a criminal record and assaulted a police officer, the exact offences where "resisting officer with violence" and "battery of law enforcement officer." After agreeing to go on a alcohol counselling and education program the charges where dropped. He is also accused of being domestically violent.

Thats exactly the kind of man that starts fights.

Not only that he has a documented record of following people around the streets for no reason and being a nuisance by making constant unnecessary emergency calls. So Zimmerturd is a violent and paranoid drunkard thats being accused of being domestically violent.

J Tyran:

Well as thats an opinion piece by a man that fully admits he is no legal expert either I don't particularly feel the need to watch something you find valuable as confirmation bias.

How about you do me a solid, and go back and intelligently counterpoint my post on page 3 then? I'd love for someone to try and take my words apart and if you're that sharp surely you can. Explain to me Why a person calls the cops before they blow someone away or allows another man to beat their face several times as a means of enabling murder. (some eye witness from the TM describe the scene as something like this. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZzTY2VmXMPQ ) I think that would be great. I am dying to see someone fire back logic about all this. I'd love to see it happen.

I'm glad. Ballistics put Martin on top of Zimmerman when the shots were fired. This shouldn't have even gone to court. Clear cut self-defense.

While I believe with my heart that Zimmerman is most certainly guilty of murder of the highest degree... with my mind, I cannot come close to convicting him. With the evidence the Prosecution presented, it was clear they were trying to use the race issue to sway the jury. That was the only way they could even reasonably concieve of a manslaughter charge.

What the case should have been was not did Zimmerman murder Martin - that much was already known, but all this case has done now is make a lot of people incredibly angry and anguished, and accomplished nothing - , no, the question of the day should have been, if Zimmerman was attacked, did he have the right to respond with such overwhelming force?

One of the interesting parts of the case was that Zimmerman was apparantly training for MMA (Mixed Martial Arts) fighting. To be blunt, he was worse at that than every Assassins Creed protagonist is at stealth... or subtlty in general, for that matter. But even someone who is bad at MMA at the very least knows the tactics, and should therefore stand to be more than able to defend himself against a kid who, by Zimmerman's description, would have had almost no experience in a fight, and was probably high on controlled substances and/or household cleaners.

tl;dr:

Everyone involved in this case was a deplorable arse, and all this has managed to do is throw yet another huge racial rift in the American people.

Spartan448:

One of the interesting parts of the case was that Zimmerman was apparantly training for MMA (Mixed Martial Arts) fighting.

Martin was training for MMA (as well).

http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/05/new_evidence_shows_trayvons_life_unraveling.html#ixzz2YZ4CiwCt

ShiningAmber:

LetalisK:

ShiningAmber:
I say justice was served. The Criminal Justice system doesn't run on assumptions. If Zimmerman did it, they sure as hell didn't prove it to me.

Why should the prosecutor have to prove anything? It just feels like Zimmerman killed Trayvon in cold blood, doesn't it? I mean, there's a significant gap in time at the critical stage where we know nothing about what happened, but I'd like to think my gut feeling is enough to surmount reasonable doubt.

I'm not disagreeing with you that he may have done it. But, the prosecution (to me) didn't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he did murder Martin. It doesn't sit well with me to assume that he did it and convict him on my assumptions on something he may not have done.

One of my first professors for Criminal Justice during my freshman year started out by saying something that will always stick with me. 'The Criminal Justice System cannot run on assumptions. The second we start assuming what people may or may not have done and convict them on that basis is the second what rights you have walk out the door.'

I don't know if Letalisk knew this when he wrote the post, he probably did from what I've seen of his posts, but those were the EXACT arguments that the prosecutors made in their closing. Not once did they refer to any evidence proving guilt during the closing, instead it was all about feeling and heart. Instead, it was the defense who clearly and concisely pointed out that none of the evidence pointed to Zimmerman deserving a murder/manslaughter sentence.

J Tyran:

TheKasp:
If we look at both persons, gather information about them you have Zimmerman, someone who openly criticised the Police who tried to cover up the beating of a homeless black, who tutors black children for free and who cares enough for his neighborhood that, after an epidemia of burgalries he participated in the watch and on the other side we have a black teen with known tends to agression and confrontation, drug use and somewhat sadistic behaviour. I quote him after he beat up someone twice:

MARTIN: Nay im not done with fool..... he gone hav 2 see me again

MARTIN: Naw but he aint breed nuff 4 me, only his nose

Zimmerman does not look like someone who would go vigilante and go out of his way to confront someone instead of letting the authorities do that. Information about Martin on the other hand show that it is not that far fetched that he would ambush his pursuer because 'he followed him'.

What about Zimmertools history of violence? If you want to try and make a character assassination out of it, he has a criminal record and assaulted a police officer, the exact offences where "resisting officer with violence" and "battery of law enforcement officer." After agreeing to go on a alcohol counselling and education program the charges where dropped. He is also accused of being domestically violent.

Undercover cop at a bar assaulting his friend without showing his badge. Which is why the charges ended up being dropped. The cops knew they didn't have a real case. And the restraining order was reciprocal. Relationships get nasty.

Truest thing I've read about this case, "A Hispanic man shoots a black man, and is acquitted by a jury of women, but it's still all the white man's fault."

cthulhuspawn82:
Race didn't play a role in George Zimmerman's profiling of Travon Martin, the police decision not to arrest him, and certainly not in the Jury's verdict. This race problem exists solely in people minds, they created it, and that's why its still an issue half a century after the civil rights act.

Any efforts we take to solve race relations will fail the same way any medicine/treatment a doctor prescribes will fail on a patient whose illness is psychosomatic. Such a patient needs a psychiatrist, not a doctor. The "justice for Trayvon" crowd would not have found solace in a guilty verdict. It would be less than a week before something else set them into another frenzy. Their problem is in their mind and they need to be reeducated.

Ultratwinkie:
This.

[snip]

Utter bollocks.

We'll never know for sure, but it is very likely indeed that Zimmerman's gut reaction to Martin as a probable ne'er-do-well was at least in part racial. The fact that race affects how people react towards each other is a key underpinning factor in how these sorts of messes occur. This is a legacy of centuries-old, ingrained prejudice.

Pretending it is the fault of people who are discontented that these attitudes still persist in society (even in a diminished form from yesteryear) who perpetuate racial friction is the worst sort of blindness. There is something particularly sick when it involves protecting the prejudiced and externalising blame - particularly to victims for being upset and speaking out about it.

Agema:

cthulhuspawn82:
Race didn't play a role in George Zimmerman's profiling of Travon Martin, the police decision not to arrest him, and certainly not in the Jury's verdict. This race problem exists solely in people minds, they created it, and that's why its still an issue half a century after the civil rights act.

Any efforts we take to solve race relations will fail the same way any medicine/treatment a doctor prescribes will fail on a patient whose illness is psychosomatic. Such a patient needs a psychiatrist, not a doctor. The "justice for Trayvon" crowd would not have found solace in a guilty verdict. It would be less than a week before something else set them into another frenzy. Their problem is in their mind and they need to be reeducated.

Ultratwinkie:
This.

[snip]

Utter bollocks.

We'll never know for sure, but it is very likely indeed that Zimmerman's gut reaction to Martin as a probable ne'er-do-well was at least in part racial. The fact that race affects how people react towards each other is a key underpinning factor in how these sorts of messes occur. This is a legacy of centuries-old, ingrained prejudice.

Pretending it is the fault of people who are discontented that these attitudes still persist in society (even in a diminished form from yesteryear) who perpetuate racial friction is the worst sort of blindness. There is something particularly sick when it involves protecting the prejudiced and externalising blame - particularly to victims for being upset and speaking out about it.

Really? Do you think these people actually care? Do you think that all this twitter feed and facebook circlejerks are a symptom of people caring?

No, they don't. If people cared, Hispanics wouldn't be hauled off by Arpaio just on race. Compton's problems wouldn't be that bad.Hell, I'd think Little devil would agree with me, that native americans wouldn't have the issues they have now if their troubles got the same coverage as trayvon.

These people are "helping" the same way people "helped" capture Kony. They are just there because its "trendy" and "hip." Most of them didn't even bother to watch the trial and even more forgot he even existed after a month.

The only blindness here is believing the hollow words of "helpers."

A kid dies in the streets of Compton, no one cares. Not even a footnote.

A kid dies in a gated neighborhood, everyone loses their shit.

Its a well known fact that people only seem to "care" when someone dies in the good part of town. Past the little quips and past the stupid arguments people don't actually care. Its a fact of life. They will forget all of this in a week at least, and at most a month.

That's why I haven't really argued in this thread, no matter how much the people in this thread get facts wrong. Its a meaningless, wasted effort on a subject no one will remember a month from now. The only reason people even noticed is because the media turned this into a race issue to garner ratings, even going as far as editing videos and recordings.

Protecting prejudice? No need to "protect" anything when 99% of the population didn't give a rats ass in the first place.

Ultratwinkie:

Protecting prejudice? No need to "protect" anything when 99% of the population didn't give a rats ass in the first place.

You have no idea about the facts of what these people care about or how much, though, do you? You don't know them. What you are really just doing is making unverifiable assumptions conveniently designed to enable you to ignore them when they say they care.

In many cases, people don't do much, of course. But that's got a lot to do with the fact that people feel there's virtually sod all they can do about the injustices they care about rather than that they don't care about injustice.

TheStatutoryApe:

Shock and Awe:
I found the Florida law. Look to the second paragraph of the section covering immunity from prosecution. It states that individuals may only be prosecuted if it is suspected that their use of force was unlawful. It is the prosecution making the claim that the use was unlawful and the burden of proof is upon the prosecution. The law varies from state to state, this is Florida's law. As for Castle Doctrine Florida and many other states actually take it to the next level by giving a sweeping statute for individuals to be able to stand their ground anywhere.

What you are saying may be correct for where you are(and apparently Ohio as my reading comprehension was out to lunch) but it is not Florida law.

You seem to be ignoring the qualifications in that statute.

A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other's imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:

(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or

(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.

History.-s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1188, ch. 97-102; s. 2, ch. 2005-27.

Which are the standard burdens of proof upon the defendant in a claim of self defense. If you read the article linked there regarding "no duty to retreat" you will find a discussion of how that works and you will see that it was not found to apply to Zimmerman as, if it had, no criminal trial would have occurred. "Prosecutorial Immunity" is based on a pretrial finding of fact that would bar the State from proceeding with a trial. Take note of the author's early comment....

Discussions of Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law tend to oversimplify the subject or leave out critical analysis of the procedures for asserting prosecutorial immunity under Florida law.

Most of what you have heard about this law is probably incomplete if not flat out wrong.

Those are the standards the prosecution has to disprove if the Defense makes the claim. Usually it would be in a special hearing but the defense opted for a jury trial if I remember correctly.

Agema:

Ultratwinkie:

Protecting prejudice? No need to "protect" anything when 99% of the population didn't give a rats ass in the first place.

You have no idea about the facts of what these people care about or how much, though, do you? You don't know them. What you are really just doing is making unverifiable assumptions conveniently designed to enable you to ignore them when they say they care.

In many cases, people don't do much, of course. But that's got a lot to do with the fact that people feel there's virtually sod all they can do about the injustices they care about rather than that they don't care about injustice.

Oh so they couldn't catch Kony and gave up, but they can somehow get "justice for trayvon" AFTER the courts have all decided and its all over? With double jeopardy and the law making that impossible?

Yeah, real "caring" people. Didn't even care enough to watch the trial either from what I am gathering from a lot of posts.

So where is all the actual "world changing care" these people exude? Because as far as the eye can see its cheap slogans, and like-mining status updates. the entire issue reeks of overblown media hype meant for rating than any actual debate.

Shock and Awe:
Those are the standards the prosecution has to disprove if the Defense makes the claim. Usually it would be in a special hearing but the defense opted for a jury trial if I remember correctly.

The special hearing would have been a pretrial motion for dismissal based on a "Stand Your Ground" defense assuming that the court could make the factual finding that Zimmerman had indeed followed the law to the letter.

And no the Prosecution does not have to disprove those elements. The Prosecution only has a duty to refute the claim made by the defense but the defense must make a substantive claim to begin with. Either way the prosecution has no burden of proof. If, for instance, the Boston Marathon bomber made a self defense claim no prosecutor in their right mind would indulge it. At the most the prosecutor would point out that the defendant has essentially admitted to having killed those people and then rest their case.

Its quite logical. Just a quick example to see if you understand where I am coming from.

You're a Commander. One of your troops, PFC Alpha, has been killed. Your Lieutenant brings you PFC Bravo and says that this is the person who killed PFC Alpha. You look to PFC Bravo and ask if this is true (i.e. what is your plea?). Bravo states that Alpha was killed in self defense. What do you do at this point? Do you look to your Lieutenant and ask if this can be refuted? Or do you ask Bravo to explain how and why this occurred (give proof of this defense) and then, assuming the defense possessed merit, ask your Lieutenant if that can be refuted? Seems like there is a fairly logical choice in procedure right?

If you feel that the Prosecution was unable to refute Zimmerman's claim of self defense, that's fine. If you feel that the evidence collected by the police including the police interview with Zimmerman, etc, was enough to meet the Defense's burden, that's fine too. But you are confusing the Prosecution's attempt to refute that claim with "the burden of proof" which actually lay with Zimmerman. It is an error which far too many people in this thread are making.

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

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked