Personally, I believe the proper verdict was handed down, according to the piece of law that was in front of the jury. The thing is, what this case represented to the jury and what this case represented to the masses are two entirely different things.
Also, "not guilty" is a far cry from "innocent." I believe George Zimmerman was an idiot for doing what he did that night; unfortunately (most of the time), however, it is impossible to convict someone of felony stupid. What the jury found was that, according to the self-defense laws of the state of Florida, he was not guilty of murder.
Those looking for justice for Trayvon Martin will not find it in this trial; the law and justice are two different things here. Maybe a civil suit for wrongful death?
Dunno if justice for Trayvon is what people really want.
I think they would like for him to be alive.
However, had he survived the gunshot, he probably would have been tried for aggrivated assault at the very least, if not attempted murder.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is...deeply depressing. The kid had a cut on his hands. Just one. No real wounds from defence or attack. He had no blood on them, either, despite Zimmerman claiming that he sat up again after being shot (apparently he carefully avoided the gaping chest wound). Which is a medical impossibility, I understand.
In other words, the guy decided a kid was doing something wrong (he wasn't) that it was OK for him to chase the kid down (it wasn't) and when the kid either begged for his life or tried to defend himself against the lunatic chasing him with a gun, it was OK to shoot him (it really wasn't). And, from the evidence, lied about it.
And somehow we should all feel sympathetic to the guy who shot him, for how bad he now feels...even though the entire situation was his fault.
The Stand Your Ground Law is crap. It was somehow an excuse for a lunatic to follow, attack and kill a child guilty only of being black and daring to want skittles. On the other hand, it's apparently not OK to fire a warning shot against someone who you have a restraining order against for repeatedly assaulting you. That carries a 20 year penalty.
So, there you have it. Murder a black kid? You're fine. Try not to get assaulted but don't hurt anyone? Nope, jail time. This is the most messed up thing I've seen since the tale of a monkey being put on trial (they thought it was a French sailor) and hanged. Frankly, I'm glad I'm not in the States and outright terrified of going near Florida.
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I normally avoid discussing things like this on the boards as they tend to degenerate rather quickly, but here goes. The truth(As I see it) of it is only two people know exactly what happened. One of them is not around to say, that said even *if* Zimmerman's story is true, *he* created the situation that led to him shooting that kid. For him to walk under those circumstances is a crock. My 2cp for whatever it's worth.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is disappointing. I had thought him guilty of manslaughter at the very least.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I really, really dislike that a number of people (thankfully not here) are trying to get sympathy for Zimmerman. He played judge and jury when he decided to follow the poor kid, and finally executioner. Hell, the only reasons he's in Florida is because he fled rape charges in Virginia.
...but somehow this was self defence against a boy with a 3.7 school average who was armed with a bag of skittles and an iced tea. Who he was following.
With a gun.
|
|
I really, really dislike that a number of people (thankfully not here) are trying to get sympathy for Zimmerman. He played judge and jury when he decided to follow the poor kid, and finally executioner. Hell, the only reasons he's in Florida is because he fled rape charges in Virginia.
...but somehow this was self defence against a boy with a 3.7 school average who was armed with a bag of skittles and an iced tea. Who he was following.
With a gun.
No he was try to be neighborhood watch. And i love your bringing up martin's great grades but it would be wrong to bring up his less than praiseworthy attributes eh?
The moment he started stalking Trayvon is the moment he became the aggressor.
Obviously, the mothers thought the darkie was more of a danger to society than the failure cop. Now their precious snowflakes won't have to be scared of the evil darkie-thug-hoodie-wearer!
There aren't enough words in the English language to convey my disgust at the verdict and hate of the circumstances. I'd lapse into some Spanish for good measure but someone might shoot me for speaking in tongues/'PLOTTIN' IN BEANER SPEAK 'GAINST AMURRKINS'.
|
|
I normally avoid discussing things like this on the boards as they tend to degenerate rather quickly, but here goes. The truth(As I see it) of it is only two people know exactly what happened. One of them is not around to say, that said even *if* Zimmerman's story is true, *he* created the situation that led to him shooting that kid. For him to walk under those circumstances is a crock. My 2cp for whatever it's worth.
But to say he created it by looking into a suspicious person as a neighborhood watch is little different than saying a rape victim created it by being in a park at night if martin indeed started the violence.
|
|
The moment he started stalking Trayvon is the moment he became the aggressor.
Obviously, the mothers thought the darkie was more of a danger to society than the failure cop. Now their precious snowflakes won't have to be scared of the evil darkie-thug-hoodie-wearer!
There aren't enough words in the English language to convey my disgust at the verdict and hate of the circumstances. I'd lapse into some Spanish for good measure but someone might shoot me for speaking in tongues/'PLOTTIN' IN BEANER SPEAK 'GAINST AMURRKINS'.
Except it had nothing to do with race, other than martin telling his friend on the phone a "cracker" was following him. The racism is on the other side here bud. It had to do with someone of a race he did not even know wearing a hood walking across lawns and seemed to be looking in windows to a neighborhood watcher
And your own racism is telling
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And which less than praise worthy attributes are those, exactly? As far as I've seen he was a normal kid with good grades who just happened to be on the wrong end of a man who was fleeing another state for assault and rape charges. A man who is getting back the gun he used to murder the boy, by the way.,
Neighbourhood watch reports to the cops...and then listens when they tell him to back the hell off. They do not go forth, attack a child, and execute him.
The moment he started stalking Trayvon is the moment he became the aggressor.
Obviously, the mothers thought the darkie was more of a danger to society than the failure cop. Now their precious snowflakes won't have to be scared of the evil darkie-thug-hoodie-wearer!
There aren't enough words in the English language to convey my disgust at the verdict and hate of the circumstances. I'd lapse into some Spanish for good measure but someone might shoot me for speaking in tongues/'PLOTTIN' IN BEANER SPEAK 'GAINST AMURRKINS'.
I thought he would be convicted of manslaughter but I am confident the jury made the right decision. I consider Zimmerman responsible but ultimately the prosecution simply didn't have enough evidence to fill in the blanks and create a narrative. There's a blank between the time Zimmerman got out of the car and time he killed Trayvon, and we have no way of knowing what happened during it. Did he shoot him in cold blood? Maybe. Did Trayvon attack him? Maybe. It's clear that there were inconsistencies in Zimmerman's story, even outright lies. But still there wasn't enough evidence to put him away.
|
|
And which less than praise worthy attributes are those, exactly? As far as I've seen he was a normal kid with good grades who just happened to be on the wrong end of a man who was fleeing another state for assault and rape charges. A man who is getting back the gun he used to murder the boy, by the way.,
Neighbourhood watch reports to the cops...and then listens when they tell him to back the hell off. They do not go forth, attack a child, and execute him.
first prove Z was fleeing, second he was found not guilty so wrong to say murder.
What of martin's possible drug use? his internet handles? Any news that brought those up or showed a recent picture of what he ACTUALLY looked like was called racist.| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The entirety of the evidence presented in the court doesn't support your version of the story as complete and accurate.
The testimony, including prosecution witnesses, stated that Travon was on top pounding Zimmerman. At that point it is a clear cut case of self defense. Anything that led up to that moment is meaningless. Any wounds received by either party up to that moment are meaningless. Self defense is completely reasonable and justified.
At the end of the day neither you nor I know what happened. But your version of the story has no basis in testimony whatsoever. I know what I believe happened and I realize that what I believe is based soley on what I've been told and may be wrong.
But I also know that the court system here is the US requires proof beyond any reasonable doubt. And that standard of proof was not approached by the prosecutions with regard to any wrong-doing on the part of Zimmerman.
I feel deeply sorry for a guy how wanted to help reduce crime that was on-going in his neighborhood, ended up jumped, thrown to the ground, and having his head pounded into the street and nose broken. Then he is told "you are going to die" and is forced to choose to kill to defend himself.
I believe that version of the story based on the physical evidence shown and the testimony provided by both sides. But even if there is information I don't have, that is a failure of the prosecution and a success of the justice system to stick to proven facts.
This is...deeply depressing. The kid had a cut on his hands. Just one. No real wounds from defence or attack. He had no blood on them, either, despite Zimmerman claiming that he sat up again after being shot (apparently he carefully avoided the gaping chest wound). Which is a medical impossibility, I understand.
In other words, the guy decided a kid was doing something wrong (he wasn't) that it was OK for him to chase the kid down (it wasn't) and when the kid either begged for his life or tried to defend himself against the lunatic chasing him with a gun, it was OK to shoot him (it really wasn't). And, from the evidence, lied about it.
And somehow we should all feel sympathetic to the guy who shot him, for how bad he now feels...even though the entire situation was his fault.
The Stand Your Ground Law is crap. It was somehow an excuse for a lunatic to follow, attack and kill a child guilty only of being black and daring to want skittles. On the other hand, it's apparently not OK to fire a warning shot against someone who you have a restraining order against for repeatedly assaulting you. That carries a 20 year penalty.
So, there you have it. Murder a black kid? You're fine. Try not to get assaulted but don't hurt anyone? Nope, jail time. This is the most messed up thing I've seen since the tale of a monkey being put on trial (they thought it was a French sailor) and hanged. Frankly, I'm glad I'm not in the States and outright terrified of going near Florida.
Well, gee, a warrant was placed for his arrest in Virginia and he just happened to leave at the same time, as I understand it. I suppose it could have been a badly timed move that just happens to make him look guilty as hell?
So Trayvor might have used drugs? Well, I know lots of hard core junkies who keep there grades up, and the skittles sure do taste kinda crak-ish, but I'm pretty sure there would have been a mention if there was any trace of drugs in his system.
And I assume his user names were somehow iffy? That certainly justifies shooting him then.
There is no evidence that Martin started following Zimmerman. In fact, quite the opposite. There is no evidence that Martin had a gun. In fact, quite the opposite. Medically, the evidence does not suggest that Martin attacked Zimmerman. There is no evidence that Martin was doing anything other than walking home from the shops.
And yet Zimmerman followed him, ignored the police's instructions because 'they always get away with it' and ended up with minor scrapes. Trayvor Martin ended up with a bullet hole through the heart that, medically, would have instantly incapacitated him...although he may have lived several minutes, unable to move, if he didn't die of shock. The fault for this death is squarely placed on Zimmerman.
|
|
Well, gee, a warrant was placed for his arrest in Virginia and he just happened to leave at the same time, as I understand it. I suppose it could have been a badly timed move that just happens to make him look guilty as hell?
So Trayvor might have used drugs? Well, I know lots of hard core junkies who keep there grades up, and the skittles sure do taste kinda crak-ish, but I'm pretty sure there would have been a mention if there was any trace of drugs in his system.
And I assume his user names were somehow iffy? That certainly justifies shooting him then.
There is no evidence that Martin started following Zimmerman. In fact, quite the opposite. There is no evidence that Martin had a gun. In fact, quite the opposite. Medically, the evidence does not suggest that Martin attacked Zimmerman. There is no evidence that Martin was doing anything other than walking home from the shops.
And yet Zimmerman followed him, ignored the police's instructions because 'they always get away with it' and ended up with minor scrapes. Trayvor Martin ended up with a bullet hole through the heart that, medically, would have instantly incapacitated him...although he may have lived several minutes, unable to move, if he didn't die of shock. The fault for this death is squarely placed on Zimmerman.
Unless Zimmermans side was true that he was following a hooded individual walking across lawns and seemed to be looking into houses and when he confronted the guy(with words) he was jumped and felt the need to defend himself. Medically it doesn't look like Z was hit? really?
When did i say that the bad things about martin made any difference? Other than media bias and smear campaign for the other guy being sickly one sided. YOU however have made a big stink about a possible alleged crime with no proof Z did any wrong.
The medical part was my mistake. I was misinformed.
THAT is my only real issue here, the media as a whole is all about misinformation on this.The medical part was my mistake. I was misinformed.
The media is/are profit-seeking corporate capitalists. They will say whatever they think will make money. The idea that they push a liberal agenda is bunk.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not entirely. Frankly, I still blame Zimmerman. He followed, then chased down, a young man. Zimmerman was carrying a gun. He ignored police instructions.
It is possible that Trayvon turned and fought back. But I suspect quite a few people would do that. I believe it's called [self defence when being chased down by an unknown assailant for unknown reasons. Zimmerman created the situation. If his life was in danger, then it was due to his actions. He had no right to follow Trayvon Martin. He had no right chase him.
|
|
The media is/are profit-seeking corporate capitalists. They will say whatever they think will make money. The idea that they push a liberal agenda is bunk.THAT is my only real issue here, the media as a whole is all about misinformation on this.The medical part was my mistake. I was misinformed.
Yeah right and fox isn't bias the other way either, right? Or is it only when it agree with you that it is not?
|
|
Not entirely. Frankly, I still blame Zimmerman. He followed, then chased down, a young man. Zimmerman was carrying a gun. He ignored police instructions.
It is possible that Trayvon turned and fought back. But I suspect quite a few people would do that. I believe it's called [self defence when being chased down by an unknown assailant for unknown reasons. Zimmerman created the situation. If his life was in danger, then it was due to his actions. He had no right to follow Trayvon Martin. He had no right chase him.
Unless someone says "hey im on the watch, what are you doing out here" and the first thing he does is attack. that is not self defense.The watch, security etc follow people, it is what they do. watch and question suspicious behavior. How was he not in his rights to follow someone he thinks might be doing wrong? How is he not within his rights to ask what a hooded man is up to walking near houses?
It's getting to where we can't even have a proper show trial in this country.
|
|
The entirety of the evidence presented in the court doesn't support your version of the story as complete and accurate.
The testimony, including prosecution witnesses, stated that Travon was on top pounding Zimmerman. At that point it is a clear cut case of self defense. Anything that led up to that moment is meaningless. Any wounds received by either party up to that moment are meaningless. Self defense is completely reasonable and justified.
It's absolutely not true that "Anything that led up to that moment is meaningless." If Zimmerman attacked Martin first, then he does not have a right to self-defense. You can't start the fight, then claim self-defense when you're losing.
The difficulty for the prosecution is that Zimmerman was the only surviving witness to the start of the incident. Apparently, in the minds of the jury they did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman provoked the fight.
True, and that is really the worst part. we do NOT know who started it, not by words but by violence.
Unless someone says "hey im on the watch, what are you doing out here" and the first thing he does is attack. that is not self defense.The watch, security etc follow people, it is what they do. watch and question suspicious behavior. How was he not in his rights to follow someone he thinks might be doing wrong? How is he not within his rights to ask what a hooded man is up to walking near houses?Not entirely. Frankly, I still blame Zimmerman. He followed, then chased down, a young man. Zimmerman was carrying a gun. He ignored police instructions.
It is possible that Trayvon turned and fought back. But I suspect quite a few people would do that. I believe it's called [self defence when being chased down by an unknown assailant for unknown reasons. Zimmerman created the situation. If his life was in danger, then it was due to his actions. He had no right to follow Trayvon Martin. He had no right chase him.
Because we know, from his own phone call, that he didn't do that. He started following him. The police told him to back off. He decided, instead, to chase Trayvor down when Trayvor, realizing he was being followed, decided to run. We have no evidence of suspicious behaviour on Trayvor's part other than Zimmerman's word, and Zimmerman had contacted the police several times before in the period leading up to the death about suspicious persons - always black men. None, to my knowledge, were found to be guilty of any wrong doing.
|
|
Because we know, from his own phone call, that he didn't do that. He started following him. The police told him to back off. He decided, instead, to chase Trayvor down when Trayvor, realizing he was being followed, decided to run. We have no evidence of suspicious behaviour on Trayvor's part other than Zimmerman's word, and Zimmerman had contacted the police several times before in the period leading up to the death about suspicious persons - always black men. None, to my knowledge, were found to be guilty of any wrong doing.Unless someone says "hey im on the watch, what are you doing out here" and the first thing he does is attack. that is not self defense.The watch, security etc follow people, it is what they do. watch and question suspicious behavior. How was he not in his rights to follow someone he thinks might be doing wrong? How is he not within his rights to ask what a hooded man is up to walking near houses?Not entirely. Frankly, I still blame Zimmerman. He followed, then chased down, a young man. Zimmerman was carrying a gun. He ignored police instructions.
It is possible that Trayvon turned and fought back. But I suspect quite a few people would do that. I believe it's called [self defence when being chased down by an unknown assailant for unknown reasons. Zimmerman created the situation. If his life was in danger, then it was due to his actions. He had no right to follow Trayvon Martin. He had no right chase him.
Link to his connection to any other dead black men?
Yes he chased, that is a fact. It is not a known fact of if he did anything to identify himself or do anything but follow until the violence startedAgain the big issue here is lack of known facts
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The moment he started stalking Trayvon is the moment he became the aggressor.
Obviously, the mothers thought the darkie was more of a danger to society than the failure cop. Now their precious snowflakes won't have to be scared of the evil darkie-thug-hoodie-wearer!
There aren't enough words in the English language to convey my disgust at the verdict and hate of the circumstances. I'd lapse into some Spanish for good measure but someone might shoot me for speaking in tongues/'PLOTTIN' IN BEANER SPEAK 'GAINST AMURRKINS'.
Did you listen to all three weeks of the trial to come to your conclusion, or are you basing your opinion off of what you heard from the media and your own personal bias?
|
|
Unless someone says "hey im on the watch, what are you doing out here" and the first thing he does is attack. that is not self defense.The watch, security etc follow people, it is what they do. watch and question suspicious behavior. How was he not in his rights to follow someone he thinks might be doing wrong? How is he not within his rights to ask what a hooded man is up to walking near houses?Not entirely. Frankly, I still blame Zimmerman. He followed, then chased down, a young man. Zimmerman was carrying a gun. He ignored police instructions.
It is possible that Trayvon turned and fought back. But I suspect quite a few people would do that. I believe it's called [self defence when being chased down by an unknown assailant for unknown reasons. Zimmerman created the situation. If his life was in danger, then it was due to his actions. He had no right to follow Trayvon Martin. He had no right chase him.
Actually, all the neighborhood watch groups are taught to call the police, not to follow, not to confront and not to go armed.
And there is no evidence, even from Zimmerman, that he identified himself as neighborhood watch.
My point is that none of us where there, none of us know what really went down. We do not know what was said or who turned it violent. All we can do it speculate and jump to conclusions or trust the jury and move on
Mark your calendar folks, I'm agreeing with andrew on something. A LOT of this case is heavily dependent on zimmermans story and he wisely decided not to take the stand. There is a lot of time missing here and without someone to fill in the blanks, things get murky.
But we do know that he began his pursuit without identifying himself, and had not done so when the police instructed him to back off. That is not in doubt. We know that from his phone transcript. He was following based solely on his own suspicions, and was told by the police operator to back off.
He did no identify himself when he saw Trayvor, he followed him. When he decided that Taryvor was acting suspiciously by looking at houses, as the he puts it in the transcript, he calls the police. The police order him to back off. He agrees, but keeps following anyway. This is stuff that is proven. The transcript is out there, if people wish to read it.
The police did not instruct him to keep following. They told him to back off. they did not tell him to stop him. They told him to back off. They did not tell him to question Trayvor. They told him to back off. None of this is in question.
|
|
While certainly not legal advice, this does provide some interesting points of discussion. More specifically, the video attached to the blog.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But we do know that he began his pursuit without identifying himself, and had not done so when the police instructed him to back off. That is not in doubt. We know that from his phone transcript. He was following based solely on his own suspicions, and was told by the police operator to back off.
He did no identify himself when he saw Trayvor, he followed him. When he decided that Taryvor was acting suspiciously by looking at houses, as the he puts it in the transcript, he calls the police. The police order him to back off. He agrees, but keeps following anyway. This is stuff that is proven. The transcript is out there, if people wish to read it.
The police did not instruct him to keep following. They told him to back off. they did not tell him to stop him. They told him to back off. They did not tell him to question Trayvor. They told him to back off. None of this is in question.
First of all, it wasn't the police, it was a 911 operator. Second, it isn't illegal to not obey a 911 operator. Stupid, yes. Illegal, no.
First of all, it wasn't the police, it was a 911 operator. Second, it isn't illegal to not obey a 911 operator. Stupid, yes. Illegal, no.
It's not illegal, but it certainly doesn't portray Zimmerman in a good light. he decided, against a 911 operator's instructions and his own agreement, to continue pursuing a young man he had no identified himself to, while armed, and after complaining about several other black gentleman to police, none of whom, to my knowledge, were found to be guilty of any crime. These are all facts, and it doesn't paint George Zimmerman in a good light.
|
|
First of all, it wasn't the police, it was a 911 operator. Second, it isn't illegal to not obey a 911 operator. Stupid, yes. Illegal, no.It's not illegal, but it certainly doesn't portray Zimmerman in a good light. he decided, against a 911 operator's instructions and his own agreement, to continue pursuing a young man he had no identified himself to, while armed, and after complaining about several other black gentleman to police, none of whom, to my knowledge, were found to be guilty of any crime. These are all facts, and it doesn't paint George Zimmerman in a good light.
To your knowledge. Which means all could have been, but you are speculating the way that suits you. And we do not know what was said when. All you can do is speculate and and play "my team".
Congratulations, he took a stupid photo. Clearly he deserved to be stalked and shot?
To your knowledge. Which means all could have been, but you are speculating the way that suits you. And we do not know what was said when. All you can do is speculate and and play "my team".
I can't find a single piece of evidence to suggest any of them were. However, it's not impossible, and despite you opinions I do try to put as little bias and as much accuracy into my thoughts as possible. Hence statements such as that, and admitting I'm wrong when evidence to the contrary shows up.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't know where or what happened but it has been stated that Z was following the 17 year old, which he shouldn't have been but I understand being frustrated with the cops coming 10-15 minutes later and missing a mischief complaint so....then Trayvon disappeared, Z-man went behind a building to look and didn't see him, then while returning to his vehicle Trayvon supposedly jumped him from some bushes and began wrestling.
I don't know who did what and who is right or wrong. Zman is an idiotic moron for allowing it to get that far. Trayvon is an a-hole punk who made some dumb-assed mistakes.
What I don't like is that Zman is being referred to as a man of "White and Hispanic" descent. I want Barak to be referred to as "White and Black" descent along with Halle Berry and numerous others from here on out. Using that descriptor was only for the purpose of stirring up black/white dissent and I find it disgusting.
Referring to a 6' tall 17 year old as a child is also ridiculous. He was far from an innocent child. He was a wannabe dangerous thug trying to be "hard".
I hate that this whole thing became a white vs black thing instead of an overzealous vigilante vs punk thug thing.