Trending Content
| +34 | Non-Competes Banned | 43 | 6h | |
| +34 | ADHD ! | 19 | 3h | |
| +30 | Being Christian in investment banking | 14 | 4d | |
| +20 | Moelis has the cutest Analysts? | 4 | 4d | |
| How do I become Sigma | 15 | 2d | ||
| +17 | Secretive vs Universal Prestige? | 8 | 38m | |
| +16 | Underage intern, drinking? | 7 | 4d | |
| +15 | Can someone justify why is million written mm or MM? | 13 | 9h | |
| +9 | Anyone else get super de-motivated / dis-illusioned after trying to leave a job in tough market? | 4 | 4d | |
| +9 | Breaking: Apple Unveils Official Dates for Highly-Anticipated 2024 Event! | 0 | 3d |
Career Resources
I agree 100% with the jury, but not guilty does not mean innocent. Zimmerman's poor judgment resulted in someone's death. However, he was rightly found not guilty of 2nd degree murder and manslaughter. The prosecution should have started with voluntary or involuntary manslaughter, not 2nd degree murder. They could have plead it down from there and got some form of justice. But the state's attorney was up for re-election and she was re-elected on the back of this case. They should not make attorneys and prosecutors elected positions.
Never shoulda gone to trial.
I hope this serves as a lesson to the mainstream media and the rest of the low information voter crowd.
There just wasn't enough for 2nd degree murder. He deserves a lot of blame, however; he could have easily avoided the situation.
2nd degree murder was to high...however, it leaves a sour taste that an unarmed person is killed by someone else who is armed and engaged a confrontation. It just doesn't seem right. For the first time, I feel why blacks in America feel this way
Strongly disagree. OJ Simpson--a black man who was clearly guilty of a double homicide of 2 whites beyond a reasonable doubt--was found not guilty. Simpson's lawyer was the famous Johnnie Cochran. Zimmerman's lawyer is the same lawyer that got off Stacy Anthony on murder charges, a murder that she clearly committed. There are 2 lessons here: 1) high priced, highly skilled defense lawyers can get virtually anyone off; and 2) prosecutors and state attorneys should not be elected positions. Prosecutorial misconduct by an elected prosecutor is the same thing that happened with the railroading of the Duke lacrosse players in 2006.
I disagree. Martin was followed and tracked down like an animal before being killed for a baseless reason. If he had been white, no crime likely would have occurred because Zimmerman would not have had a reason to follow him. The police force’s subsequent indifference and incompetence toward investigating the case was disgusting. The whole thing reminds me of a 20th century lynching.
From a legal standpoint, the correct decision was made. Zimmerman was acting in self-defense and had justification to discharge his weapon. From a moral standpoint, however, Zimmerman is just fucking stupid. Who the hell follows a troublemaker around? If you have a permit for a weapon, you should know better than to go around looking for trouble.
Two lives ruined. The take away is that the main stream media is garbage.
The media portrays Zimmerman as "white".....and Obama as "black"...when in reality, they have exactly the same amount of white DNA in their genes. Say what you will, but the media is the biggest promoters of race baiting on the planet.
This.
Justice
This is exactly why the prosecution lost and why you're wrong. Your position is based on conjecture and opinion, not on provable fact. Hence, the jury was correct and your disagreement is, well, baseless, at least legally.
Nope. I'm sticking to my guns here. Zimmerman could have listened to the 911 operator and walked away. His behavior directly influenced a situation into becoming a violent one. Just because he was acquitted because of FL law's broad interpretation of self defense doesn't mean that his behavior wasn't deplorable.
Great to see that 12 page thread wasn't enough and this has been revived. At least Brady and Abdel aren't here to spout more racist, bigotted, extreme right wing rhetoric.
This. Honestly I don't have an opinion on this case one way or the other, but the one thing I know for sure is that Zimmerman is NOT white...just look at him...
I didn't follow this trial at all. All I know is people are always upset when these highly publicized cases go not-guilty or no contest due to the media garbage. The legal system is working. It is innocent until proven guilty and it is always better to let a guilty man go free than to send an innocent man to jail.
Agreed. The skinny version of George Zimmerman looks like an MS-13 gang banger. Hardly a WASP.
If I had a kid...he wouldn't look like Zimmerman!
I'm pretty much on board with this. I don't believe Zimmerman intentionally stalked Martin with the intention of harm. But I believe Zimmerman was negligent, exercised poor judgement, and is ultimately guilty of SOMETHING, but I'm not sure exactly what. My grasp of the law isn't great. He certainly has blood on his hands. I would feel a lot better if there were at least some form of justice. You can't ignore a police order and start following unarmed people around for no good reason just because they looked suspicious.
Kind of semantics, but it wasn't a police order--the 911 call operator said it wasn't necessary to follow Trayvon Martin.
For those that can spare the half hour, this video will spell out the facts of the case. Agree that the key takeaway here is how the media sensationalizes and racializes everything. This video really opened my eyes.
//www.youtube.com/embed/bF-Ax5E8EJc
in most cases, the police are self entitled bullies who,think they should be the only ones with guns, so you are WRONG. Zimmerman had every right to approach trayvon irregardless of what some 911 operator said. He would have been found guilty if it was shown that after he got beat up and the fight was over, he shot Trayvon out of vengance. there was no evidence to support that. However, there was ample evidence supporting Zimmerman's account. I think it says a lot about a group of people who mark him as "guilty" simply because they have been lead around, like the sheep they are, by the media and people like crook Al Sharpton & Jesse Jackson simply based on race. What a bunch of hypocrits. Most racist people I know are NOT white.
It doesn't matter what he "could" have done. It's LEGAL to follow someone. It's even LEGAL to approach them. It doesn't matter if it is poor judgment. It's poor judgment to drink heavily the night before a big job interview. Bad judgment does not equal criminal liability. So your personal opinions about Zimmerman's judgment are entirely irrelevant since it's not illegal to follow someone, to approach someone and to ignore the instructions of a 911 operator. The question at hand isn't, did Zimmerman operate with good judgment? He clearly did not. The question is, did Zimmerman approach Martin with the intent to kill Martin? Clearly the prosecution didn't even remotely have enough evidence to prove that beyond a reasonable doubt.
So I'm sticking to my guns and saying that your position is based on opinion and conjecture and not fact.
This
And even if a police offer orders you to stop, you don't have to do that. Not sure if people are aware but police can't just tell you to stop walking around your neighborhood.
They should lock that pos up 17 yr old died for a mans ignorants he followed this kid after racial profiled him ... Wat evidence did Zimmerman have on this child being a criminal? he didn't run when he saw Zimmerman stalking him , he wasn't peeking thru ppl backyards , he wasn't armed in any way.. He was racialy profiled for his black skin and that Ignorants should be enough to send that pos to jail
What's really messed up is that a state law basically allowed Mr. Zimmerman to play pretend cop on a random kid he saw walking across the neighborhood. It's frustrating to know that he was wrong but not in the sense of 2nd degree murder, since (much like Casey Anthony) we don't know exactly how it went down between the end of the police call and the murder.
What I've been hearing from my friends is a lot less anger and reserve racism, but more of this feeling of helplessness. The takeaway for many is that it's okay for someone to come up to you based on your 'appearance' and the burden is on you to handle it properly a midst your anger and frustration.
I've been stopped by police 3 times this past year just for walking down the street with a hoodie on and a backpack. It's not a good feeling at all, and I almost cussed out the 3rd pair of officers (and you guys might have been arguing over my court case lol) so please be a little more sympathetic to those who have had different experiences than you. Some people will say some ignorant shit of course, and feel free to shut them down, but don't assume every show of anger or disappointment is a result of media brainwashing and reverse racism, because its not.
Spot on as usual
I knew the murder charges were out of the picture, but I thought he was going to be hit with manslaughter though. It's pretty tough to watch. Zimmerman guilty or not, for him or against him, this outcome is certainly riveting to witness. As I am sure was the OJ Simpson verdict for the folks who were watching then.
It is definitely interesting seeing the Facebook posts from my white friends and black friends.
so many misguided opinions here. the verdict was reached based off of a bastardized concept of 'self defense'. All we know is that Zimmerman CLAIMS that Treyvon assaulted him and sadly a dead kid can't dispute that CLAIM. I still question why zimmerman would allow what he deemed to be a potential criminal to get within his personal space in order to be sucker punched. I don't buy for a minute he was assaulted by TM. I think TM was the one defending himself from a man intent on pursuing him and he lost.
Didn't the dispatcher tell Zimmerman not to follow the kid. You give up self-defense once you start to follow someone.
Can you imagine being 17 and you see some guy in a van following you around, wouldn't you be scared? Wouldn't your guard be up and ready to fight when you see someone following you around? That is exactly what Zimmerman did.
Interesting enough:
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/06/05/2108171/florida-judge-rejected-stand-your-ground-defense-for-black-woman-who-fired-warning-shot-during-domestic-violence/?mobile=nc
No you don't. You clearly don't understand the law. You can follow anyone you like, but when someone assaults you, that's a crime and warrants self-defense. This case is as clear as crystal.
uhhmm, that is not accurate. Try following your ex gf/bf and see if u don't get slapped with a restraining order if you are considered to be a threat. Establish a pattern of following a child that s not your own to and from their school or around a playground and see if u don't get picked up and charged with endangerment of a cilds welfare. I think what the previous poster meant was once you stalk someone it can be interpreted as an act of aggression or predatory and thus that person has a reason to fear for their safety. Self defense is interpretation clearly the jury believed zimmermans tale that he was not the aggessor and was assaulted FIRST. I think the prosecution should have emphasized to the jury that TM was acting in self defence and discredited Zimmermans claim he was suddenly "sucker punched"
"You give up self defense when you start following someone." This is simply wrong, and it's totally illogical. Following someone isn't illegal.
Again, many of you are trying to make bad judgment = criminal liability. I agree that if I were Martin I wouldn't know exactly how to act, but if I were legitimately scared I'd have run away. After all, he's a 17-year-old who can probably run pretty fast...
Zimmerman can eat a d ! C k
Go back to Reddit
this, I love to post outrageous comments on Reddit to make them rage lol
Spot on.
So no one is confused about my opinion. I think Treyvon Martin stood his ground, acted in self defense and died. I think Zimmerman told a good enough tale about what happened between the 911 call and the police arriving to the scene to legally get away with killing a teenage boy.
You can say, "That's not accurate" all you want. You typing it out doesn't make it so. If you have a restraining order then you have a restraining order--it's ENTIRELY irrelevant to this case. There was no restraining order and it was public property. If you have a legal right to be somewhere and you are physically attacked then you are not the aggressor. It's as simple as that. Your opinions are irrelevant.
Why do you hold such a strong stance in this.
"If you have a legal right to be somewhere and you are physically attacked then you are not the aggressor. It's as simple as that. Your opinions are irrelevant"
That could just as easily have applied to trayvon martin. I have nothing to add, I just think it's funny how strongly you're defending zimmerman and I find it intriguing. Why are you so quick to believe Zimmerman. I understand just backing the legal system, but nobody really knows what happened. All anyone knows is that a little kid is dead and a old dude instigated it.
uhhm u say said it is "legal" to follow anyone you want, I pointed out situations where it was't, in other words I am demonstrating to you that your premise is not an absolute truth. Also if it can be established one is demonstrating predatory/aggressive behavior then the debate changes to who was actually utilizing self defence. You are are arguing assault as if you were there and knew exactly what occurred. The fact is Zmmerman claimed he was assaulted by Treyvon without provocation. I don't find his claim credible. Open your mind chum. The law and court cases are not 0's and 1's, it's about interpretation. Stop being so angry fella, this is nothing but a discussion on our parts.
Pursuing someone is not self defense.
I don't want to participate in the impossible to win argument from either side, but just want to comment on the justice system's performance in this case...
Think about the Casey Anthony case. Virtually everyone was against her and we were convinced that she killed her kid. Hell, she probably did. Just because a jury of 12 stupid people (if we assume the average American is stupid, something few will argue with) decided she wasn't guilty doesn't make it so. But, under our laws and the importance of the burden being on the prosecution, there just wasn't the definitive Aaron-Hernandez-like evidence to say this lady, beyond a reasonable doubt, murdered her baby. The case is pretty parallel to what we saw with GZ. On the highest level, all we know is that GZ and TM were out at night with nobody else around, there was a struggle, Zimmerman's face got fucked up a lil bit, TM got shot, and TM is now dead. We can bring as many experts up to the podium as we want to talk about the way a body falls or who was on top or what the person on the 911 call sounded like (the fuck does this have to do with anything?), but at the end of the day we won't know beyond a reasonable doubt what happened because the only witness is dead.
So my position on it has always just been that we don't really know what happened, and unfortunately (or fortunately) that is enough to not sentence a guy effectively to death. And I'm pretty glad for that, because the last thing I want is my fate being decided in the court of public opinion....... whoops.
We say GZ was able to walk away a free man, but courtesy of the media and reverse-racist America, he's actually already been sentenced to death. Nobody wins.
I understand your points, however I'm of the opinion that jurors on highly publicized cases already are biased/prejudiced prior to the trial. I think the trial basically affirms what they think they know and rarely does it change their view. That is a primary reason why lawyers spend so much effort in jury selection. The attorney who does the better job of selecting jurors predisposed to their position has a higher probability of winning the case. So basically you are already subject to the court of public opinion, u just hope ur team does their job in legal court.
BH swoops in with the best comment of the post.
And I reiterate. This is why is have nothing to do with mainstream news. All trash and do nothing but seek ratings.
versus which other news sources, twitter or word of mouth for example? I think all news sources are editorialize or have a slant to some extent; thus all should be interpreted with a grain of salt. The who, what , when, where always seems to get influenced when people try to determine why
His defense was "self-defense" under stand your ground. Now we don't know who made the first attack, Zimmerman says it was trevyon but hes dead to testify such a claim.
Bad judgement does = criminal liability. Me drinking and driving is considered bad judgement and I can be held liable for any damages. Zimmerman should be held for his bad judgement. The jury found him not guilty on murder 2 and manslaughter. I'll let murder 2 slide, but manslaughter is something he should of be convicted for.
Zimmerman may have beaten the legal charges but in no way do I think he is an innocent man and in no way do I think justice was served. A 17y old kid minding his business is dead and he killed him. I don't find Zimmerman nor his story to be credible in any capacity. There was no justice for a dead kid. Law may have prevailed but justice has been denied.
Who cares. He's fat, he wanted those skittles. Case solved.
The CEO of the NAACP is named "Ben Jealous."
That is all.
You just made my point. I'm not quick to back Zimmerman--I'm quick to point out that reasonable doubt exists because the state has no evidence. People spouting this and that about what Zimmerman did or didn't do are not basing their opinions on FACTS. The FACTS of the case created reasonable doubt in the jury's mind, which everyone knew from the very beginning.
I'm most curious to hear from anyone who changed their mind because of the evidence presented during the trial and why they changed their mind.
I don't disagree that there is reasonable doubt about what exactly happened, but the FACT is that Zimmy pursued Mr. Martin, and the FACT is that chasing someone down is not self defense in any sense of the word. I don't know what would be the fairest amount of time for Zimmy to spend behind bars, but walking away scott free is just ridiculous.
It's like arguing with a moron who doesn't even know the basic facts of the case. You aren't intelligent and you pointing out that someone who has a restraining order can't follow someone is like me pointing out that you can't lose weight by eating more calories than you burn--it's entirely and utterly irrelevant to what occurred in Sanford, FL in February 2012.
You saying that Zimmerman's story is not credible is absurd--you literally don't even have a basic grasp on the facts of the case. You aren't even spelling the victim's name correctly.
You're not describing the case factually. According to Zimmerman, he had quit his pursuit and he was heading back to his car when he was sucker punched by Trayvon Martin. This story has not changed from the moment he first spoke with the police until the defense rested its case 19 months later. It's been almost entirely consistent. You have no reason to believe anything else occurred other than your prejudiced opinions. There were no eye witnesses and nothing at all in the forensics to contradict this story.
My question to you is, why are you so quick to say that a juvenile delinquent and known law breaker is the innocent one in this case without having any evidence to support your claim? You have ZERO evidence to back up your claim.
You just gave one example of how bad judgment = criminal liability. That' s not necessarily the case. People use bad judgment every single day without being criminally liable. I can give you 10 examples of bad judgment not being criminal for every example you can give to the contrary. So a single example about drunk driving is not relevant to the Zimmerman-Martin case.
As per the facts, Zimmy was pursuing Mr. Martin for some length of time, saying that "these assholes always get away". This much is certain. Obviously angry and biased individual.
It's not relevant. His story was that he was sucker punched as he was returning to his car. He had a broken nose and grass stains on the back of his shirt indicating that he was being attacked. There is no eye witness or forensic evidence to contradict this account, hence reasonable doubt of the claims of the prosecution.
Zimmerman's bad judgment to pursue Martin in the first place does not constitute criminal liability since it wasn't illegal. It's really not that complicated. Drinking and driving is illegal AND bad judgment. Pursuing someone in the rain, darkness and cloudiness who you don't recognize is LEGAL AND bad judgment. This is fundamental to the case.
While I get exactly the point you're trying to make and to me it's a good one, what I'd say is more fucked up about the whole thing is that people actually made up their minds before even hearing (!) the evidence presented during the trial. I imagine that's a majority of people, and think it immediately renders their opinions baseless.
Glad to see we have a bunch of lawyers on the site. With people would have spoken up about their secret JDs when I was fighting a parking ticket haha
I vote to lock this thread.
"Angry" and "biased" is an opinion, not a fact. Zimmerman's "character" is no more relevant than Martin's, and Martin's character was nothing to praise. Kid's twitter feed reads like a misogynist's paradise. He was cutting class and apparently was smoking pot illegally.
But, yes, their respective characters are not relevant to the case. A priest cannot murder a serial killer on trial for 20 homicides.
LOL! My you are such a forceful lil bugger and quite dismissive of any view that does not align with yours. Sir I applaud you for your valiant efforts to wage battle against any and all opposition! Bravo sir! Huzzah!
For the record, I have not thrown any poo or bananas here, and I am departing this thread before it gets out of control and is covered in many layers of poo. Farewell.
Thank you for beating me to the punch on this one TNA. No one here's a lawyer. More importantly, no one here is a lawyer practicing Criminal Law in Florida. That's gotta be worth something because the fact is that none of us are legal experts. While some of us seem to have a better sense of whats going than others, leave the actually important stuff to the people who spent 3 years in Law School to get a J.D. and passed Florida's version of a nationally given exam called "The Bar".
That said, I'm surprised that no one here has tried to make the argument that the case needed to be appealed. IF someone did, I'd really need to start drinking heavily at the sight of all the idiots.
I accidently gave shoetrip a silver banana, so I tried to counter it with throwing monkey shit at him, but I wound up clicking the pile of shit under DCP's comment.
Feel free to shit on me.
Is anyone else witnessing the protests in the streets here in Manhattan? Third Avenue is gridlocked for blocks. Union Square was a shitshow when I came out of the subway. Gave up on running errands. There are so many police out. Visibly-marked counterterrorism units too, which is a little thought-provoking. How can a (so-far) entirely peaceful protest be considered terrorism?
.
I think you're giving people too much credit, especially given the violence of protests last night. They're probably just being careful.
I just meant as in, the extra security is probably there for a good reason, not because a threat has already occurred or something. Put another way, when a crowd gets together to protest (peacefully or not), there's a pretty decent chance that something is going to go wrong.
I will only make 1 comment, George Zimmerman is guilty of something but he isn't guilty of second degree-murder and that is all. Unfortunately though I don't like the idea that you can kill someone in a street fight that is something I have a large issue with.
That's exactly my view on the whole issue.
I don't think most of the outrage is over the trial itself, as much as it is over the system. People had opinions before the case because they knew an armed adult followed an unarmed child when advised not to, and ended up killing him.
Not saying bring out the pitchforks, but that's pretty appalling. I don't think people who formed some kind of opinion before the trial have baseless opinions at all. That's why people say things like 'the court of public opinion.' Should I be forming my opinions off of how much money someone has and what lawyer the can afford. But ya, I do understand the premise of what you're saying though.
Just because you can, doesn't mean you should.
Again though, the reason people feel the way they do (or believe the situation went) is largely due to the way the media reported it. Given their track record, I'm not willing to take it at face value, so the best I can come up with to base my take on the situation off of is what people say in court where there are actual legal repercussions to what they testify happened (and even then...)
If I'm an 18 year old senior in high school and some goon and his buddy start a fight with me in the parking lot after school and I punch him once and he dies, should I go to prison for 20 years?
This happened to me, fortunately he didn't die (coma for 16 days), but also fortunately nothing happened to me.
If I'm a black guy in Florida, my first reaction is to buy a bullet proof vest and a gun. Moral of the story is to be the guy alive at the end so you can shape the story for the legal proceedings afterwards.
I mean, from a "stand your ground" perspective, can't every black guy be justified in claiming a white / half white guy following you is a legitimate threat?
I think the really telling thing is going to be the civil case, there have been sources saying the Martin family might not pursue a civil case because the discovery would reveal that Mr. Martin was a much less media friendly "innocent" child than he is currently made out to be. To me the fact that his family is questioning if they will bring a wrongful death case against Mr. Zimmerman is very telling.
Actually I can follow you all day, I can confront you, I can even harass you with questions. However if you turn around and punch me I can then shoot you can claim self defense. Your understanding about self defense is flawed. Self defense becomes self defense when one party preforms an act that crosses the legally defined laws for that given situation. In the case of this discussion it was when according to the facts presented when Mr. Martin struck Mr. Zimmerman. In the case of a restraining order it would be when that legally binding ruling is violated. Just like the police have to have defined warrant to search a property, the law has limitations as to when it is violated.
The way the media covered the story is what really gets me heated about this case...it also doesn't help that my UG has a top 5 J-School, and I got into a lot of arguments with my friends who are J Students over the way the media was reporting it.
I just hate most journalists in general, though.
Shit, don't fuck with BH
BH, there is a big difference between punching someone in the face in a fight, and shooting a minor in the chest in "self defence". While it is hard to quantify what is appropriate self defence, I cannot bare that people even consider shooting an unarmed person (kid in this case) from point blank in the chest as a justified action of self defence.
Fucking disgrace that a grown man can get away with shooting what was essentially a kid, in the chest in the name of self defence.
If you're 5'8 and I'm 6'2 I'm going to rock you, especially if you're probably out of shape and in your late-20s/early 30s and I'm a 17 year old.
The fact that TM was legally a minor, in my opinion, holds zero weight when he (according to multiple testimonies under oath) jumped GZ, got on top of him, bashed his head into the concrete multiple times, and then tried to grab his gun.
Honestly, this is such a cut and dry self-defense case the ONLY reason why people care about it so much is due to the spin the media has put on it. I can go into my local paper almost any day and read about a murder case that would probably be harder to solve than this one.
I honestly have not read the media or followed this case at all, so perhaps my words should be taken with a heavy dose of salt.
It just seems apparent to me that Zimmerman put himself in that situation.
But more to a point, being a minor absolutely carrys huge weight in the court of law. Has nothing to do with size or strength differential, its mental. Look up some of the crazy shit that kids get off with compared to adults.
Also, from what I know, Zimmerman wasn't even hurt that bad (as you are making it sound). The confrontation, IMO, does not justify the actions he took, regardless if he had the legal capacity to do so.
In my opinion Zimmerman shouldn't have put himself in that situation, but that's besides the point and he wasn't on trial for being stupid and following TM.
With regards to his injuries, I can tell you that if I were in that situation - jumped, bloody nose, and getting my head slammed into concrete - I ABSOLUTELY would be fearing for my life. If someone jumps you on the street they're going to beat you until your dead or near dead. What what GZ supposed to do?
But, now that we're post-case you probably should take the time to catch up on the evidence, testimony and trial before arguing it.
I'm not arguing on the basis of this case anymore. Perhaps I am too sympathetic, but it is just strange to me that someone can shoot and kill a kid in "self defense" and essentially get away with it.
I'd argue that the damage done to GZ's reputation, name and life has been FAR worse than if the case had been kept in Florida, and he was convicted for manslaughter or something.
This position is utterly absurd. We just had 6 stay-at-home moms hear the case and render a verdict. The case was tried on live TV, so pretty much the public has the exact facts (in fact, MORE of the facts than the jury) had. Or are you saying that no jury in the nation has the right to render a verdict without a law degree?
i changed my mind once i learned about the specifics of the injuries both parties sustained. for zimmerman it was a busted face and more importantly BACK OF THE HEAD. for martin it was the gunshot wound and a bruise on his hand. this fits the account that trayvon was on top of the scuffle leading me to believe zimmerman could have feared for his life (if he was a pussy).
the fact that he let a scrawny teen beat him up probably means he was a pussy and also an idiot for following him. but being a pussy and being an idiot are not illegal and its was impossible to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that zimmerman did not fear for his life when he pulled the trigger.
could this have been avoided if zimmerman had stayed in the car? yes. it also could have been avoided if martin hadn't wailed on the guy
An earlier comment in this thread put it best. Zimmerman isn't guilty of second degree murder, but he's far from innocent.
the media is a circus and I want to delete all of my social media accounts. will I? no, but I'll fantasize about every informed idiot making a status/tweeting with no knowledge of the case other then the bs spewed by mainstream media dying in some sort of final destination esque fashion. thats the justice i want to see
One thing to add - people are WAY too quick to just believe everything that Zimmerman had to say about the night. It makes a ton of sense for him to say that he was sucker punched whether or not he was. Because, end of the day, it's his word against a dead kid's.
I'd be pretty spooked if some random dude was following me in his truck and then on foot at night when it's pouring rain and I was walking back to my dad's house. Who wouldn't feel a little threatened in that position? If he attacked Zimmerman, that's obviously dumb. But, it's not a black and white situation at all. Lots of gray area here.
But that's the point. There is a ton of gray area here with no real evidence to contradict Zimmerman's account--and his account has been almost entirely consistent, from the night of when discussing with police all the way until closing arguments 19 months later. Without evidence contradicting his account, then he is not guilty due to self defense. The MORALITY is not cut and dry--the case, however, is and has always been from the very beginning. Alan Dershowitz, from the moment the 2nd degree murder charge was levied, basically guaranteed an acquittal.
Everything u cited as cut and dry self defense is based on Zimmermans statement. Who saw TM attempt to grab zimmermans gun? who saw TM sucker punch zimmerman? who heard TM say he was going to kill zimm? Come on fella you sound a bit daft calling this a "cut and dry self-defense case". It's dark and Zimms gun according to him was in his waist band how in the world did TM who was allegedly beating and choking Zimm know he had a concealed weapon on him?
Right, but I mean, again...unless there is video tape of the attack, it's his word against a dead kid. If you were facing potential life in prison, you might make up a story like that as well. I'm not calling him a liar so much as saying there is no reason to immediately take him at his word even though he followed the kid in his car and then on foot. Shit would be nerve wracking.
The biggest thing that I hate, out of this whole thing, is the people on the far right who defended Zimmerman with such glee and dug up as much dirt on Trayvon as they could to make it seem as though he deserved to be killed. People pulling up his tweets and talking about how he smoked weed and did drugs as though this means he should be killed. That shit is the worst. This case gave so much cover to racists on both sides, it's insane.
People confuse the differences between law and justice. Laws are created to determine and dispense justice but many wrongly view laws as absolute and in a vacuum. Usually the same types that like to cite The Constitution but probably never read it. They miss the point that the Constitution can be altered by it's citizens and it is not a holy irrevocable document. Zimmerman won his case due to the law but TM received no justice. Wait a second. . .am I at Speakers corner? Continuing. .
Those who view this case as a standard of justifiable homicide need to get their values examined.
The media's rush to persecute Zimmerman as a racist is why the Right came to Zimmerman's defense. The persecution began when NBC news (which is going to be sued by Zimmerman) edited the 911 video to make Zimmerman out to be a racist.
Whenever a liberal Democrat accuses someone of racism it has to make one stop and pause. It's like in the Texas dragging death of James Byrd where then-Governor George W. Bush was accused of racism for not supporting hate crimes legislation in the crimes' wake while he actually supported the death penalty for the perpetrators.
Let's look at things backwards.
Why did TM die? Because GZ shot him. Why did GZ shoot him? Because it was an act of self-defense. Why was it an act of self-defense? Because TM was beating him up and GZ was losing. Why was TM beating GZ up? Because GZ was stalking him. Why was GZ stalking him? Because TM looked "suspicious" to ZM. Why did TM look suspicious to GZ? No idea. Could be his attire, his race, the way he was walking. No one knows.
Conclusion: TM would have never died if GZ wasn't stalking him.
Put yourself in TM's shoes. You're (supposedly) walking home and you see someone following you. Do you really want to lead him to your home where you have family and valuables?
The bigger question is, why didn't the police arrest GZ on the spot when they saw a hispanic man holding a gun, standing above a dead, black teenager's body? What kind of police asks the KILLER what happened, before deciding whether they should arrest him or not? It could be that they saw a black teenager on the ground and a whitish looking hispanic on top of him, so they're thinking oh, the threat is on the ground, so we don't need to immediately arrest the white looking guy. What other POSSIBLE explanation could there be for the police not immediately arresting someone who just KILLED another person? That's my question.
If you would read what I wrote correctly then you would not have anything to post at all.
I said the exact same amount of white DNA in their genes-- meaning they both are half white ( Obama- white/black Zimmerman- white/hispanic )...and your "just look at him" legally makes zero conclusion.
Martin died, at the hands of a man with a gun who took on a fight with a kid he wasn't able to beat up. Nothing GZ did was illegal..before the shooting, following someone isn't illegal HELL if it was my neighborhood and I felt someone looked out of place I'd follow them. The point about the 911 operator is largely ridiculous so the 911 operator tells you stop investigating something you are going to listen 100% of the time? Yeah no. We know the following facts, a fight between GZ and TM occurred and TM died GZ lived... So somewhere inbetween that something happened a court isn't around to convict someone on what they THINK happened but what the facts are. The facts in this case are GZ and TM got into a fight TM died GZ lived, two witnesses and one is dead..who are you going to believe. This issue isn't a race issue but an issue of law...unless you change the circumstances this result will play out over and over. It happens everyday but our ridiculous media just choose this one case to make an example of...but hey the stupid Americans will buy into whatever they are told. Our culture needs to change before things like this stop happening until then, it'll happen over and over..and the same result will occur.
@BH about your point about the street fight..it's a very slippery slope, I see where you're coming from but is that the precedent you want to set? It's up to you.
Gotta love all these people who think kicking the shit out of someone is justified because they follow them. Enjoy reality when you get assault charges for practicing this lol.
If someone menacing is following you the appropriate course of action is to a) run away, b) call the police
It is not c) smash someones head into the concrete.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_to_retreat
Not in Florida. You are supposed to stand your ground.
Slippery slope arguments never make sense to me because nobody highlights what the slippery slope is. Do I want to set a precedent that you can do the exact same thing that someone else is doing to you and end up hurting that person way more? Fuck ya. As my mom put it when my brother got suspended from school for getting pelted with snowballs and returning fire once and obliterating some little fucker, "don't penalize my son for being a good shot."
Does this apply to the Zimmerman case? Absolutely positively not. Someone made the argument that it rubs them the wrong way that someone can die in a street fight and the person who "did it" can walk away from it. That's not to say I don't believe it's possible to use excessive force, but on an all-else-equal basis, I think that if Macho Man Randy Savage is attacked by 9 midgets and after a few repeated warnings to stop, he happens to kill one by sneezing, he shouldn't be convicted of manslaughter. He probably would, but I sure wouldn't like it if it was me.
LOL
Sure man. Good luck selling that. Beating the shit out of someone who follows you is called assault and battery.
If someone attacks you and you injure them and not kill them oh well but once you kill them that is totally different... If you are skilled enough to be able to kill someone by striking them just once you either are very lucky or somewhat trained in combat, if that is the case then you knew what you were doing and therefore should suffer the consequence of your actions. Now I'm not saying you should not be able to protect yourself because I think you should be able to protect yourself but at the same time I, not the law or whatever by my personal belief is one that you must make an attempt to escape...
Agree on first point.
Disagree on second point. If someone makes a confrontation with me physical, regardless of who did the confronting, I'll defend myself as best I can. And for me, that's inflicting as much damage as possible as quickly as possible. If a guy gets on top of me while I'm on the ground and is throwing fists, if I have a gun I'm shooting.
To be fair, if I had a gun and someone got physical with me, I'd take the gun out immediately.
Nice attempt at hiding your obvious racism. Wait I meant not hiding at all.
Thoughts? You opened up a nasty can of worms my friend.
Gotta love those that assume the guy who survived is telling the truth. Did it ever occur to you that a 17yr old kid being followed/stalked/shadowed by a stranger at night and then accosted by this stranger didn't feel that his life was threatened and thus tried to defend himself?
Did it ever occur to you that Zim physically accosted Treyvon(not hard to imagine given Zim got out of his car) and Treyvon exercised his right to stand his ground and then self defense? Obviously Treyvon lost that fight and the only version of the story you are hearing is by the guy who killed him.
Also, I am no lawyer, but I would think following someone COULD be illegal in certain instances/circumstances. Just remember this from my law classes regarding assault vs battery and had to wikipedia it. First sentence says it all to me, but I guess would be hard to justify.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault
"At Common Law, an intentional act by one person that creates an apprehension in another of an imminent harmful or offensive contact."
Seems like if TM wanted to, an assault charge wouldn't have been out of the question (had things turned out differently).
Following someone has never been a reason to charge someone with assault. An assault charge comes when you say something like, "I'm going to beat the shit out of you" or by acting aggressively towards a person. Following someone isn't an aggressive act.
So by this comment I'm assuming you believe when one person kills another and nobody witnesses it, the killer should be thrown in jail. And who do you think is more likely to escalate a situation, a teenager or a grown man with a gun? Common sense points toward Trayvon Martin. In reality, it doesn't matter who escalated the confrontation SOLELY BECAUSE we will never know what happened, other than what Zimmerman tells us.
Based on the EVIDENCE, based on the case the prosecution is ABLE TO MAKE, the proper verdict was reached.
To each his own I guess, but thankfully this is not how the law works. If your head was made of glass from some hardcore surgery that nobody else knows about and I pushed you over in a scuffle and you hit your head, it shattered, and you died... I would not be up for murder or manslaughter or much of anything really. Reasonable person standard. Thank god.
Given, if I'm trained in MMA or something and I go above and beyond to obliterate some fool who poked me in the shoulder, that's definitely cause for getting the book thrown at me. But I'm referring more to the marginal case here where sometimes one guy is just getting punished way more than the other because the antagonist had it coming to him. See:
What racism? Im suggesting that the police officers are the racist ones. I dont know what their race is. Who am i being racist to? I didnt say Zimmerman was racist either.
I am not assuming or suggesting anything. Following a person isn't an excuse to kick their ass. You can project and imagine all the possibilities you want.
I'm not interested in commenting on this case because I don't have a law degree or I wasn't on the jury.
uhmm no, stop blaming the media, people were upset about the situation before it made the mainstream news. It became a race relations case for several reasons a non black man with a gun pursued and killed an unarmed black kid. the police did not charge the man because they viewed his story as a stand your ground issue with minimal investigation effort and evidence gathering. Zimm pursued Treyvon because he profiled him based on what he was wearing and what he looked like(his ethnicity). As I heard one person say, if he looked like a mark zuckerberg type wearing a hoodie he would be a nerd but because he was a black kid in a hoodie he was percieved to be a possible criminal.
You're such an unbelievable dumbass. You've proven throughout this entire thread that you don't even know the basic facts about this case, as demonstrated by your repeated and CONTINUED misspelling of TRAYVON Martin's name! This demonstrates that you've hardly even read an article on this situation, let alone absorbed the facts.
Nobody in the country knew about this case until Martin's parents hired a black lawyer to reach out to "civil rights activists" who took it to the media, who then portrayed to the masses a complete mischaracterization of what happened as demonstrated by NBC News' blatant edits of the 911 call. If not for the media this case would have never been brought to trial. Not a single educated person believed the state prosecutor had a Hail Mary's chance of winning this case on 2nd degree murder, but since she was up for re-election she ran with the race theme that the media had portrayed. This is entirely media driven.
Zimmerman should sue the state of Florida, the DOJ, NBC, and any other media outlet that flamed him by calling him a racist. When a study is done asking Americans which race is the most racist and every race names blacks as the most racist, including blacks themselves (around 40%). But with the way the media reports it you would think African Americans were being strung up on light poles on a daily basis.
My my u are such an angry lil poofter. What exactly are u attempting to WIN my friend? What are u so angry about? I understand the elation of faux power, being a keyboard warrior which allows you to display your lack of class and obvious poor breeding but please do calm down and behave yourself or I shall have to place u over my knee and give your bum a paddle. and if you continue to act like an ill mannered cur I just may have to give you a royal rogering and i care not for your manly pride nor mine . I shall roger you until you beg for quarter good sir!
For the record, he already has a pending lawsuit against NBC for defamation.
No, I'm not saying either of those thing. The decision (and all processes tied to the rendering of a verdict) is not the issue nor did I say it is - it's the fact that everyone is now coming out to analyze the law like they know it better than the attorneys do. Even the idiots... er... actual lawyers... that are brought onto CNN/Fox News/CNBC/Etc. are fucking this up because they don't actually know the law at hand despite practicing law. A Lawyer who practices criminal law in New York has no standing to talk about criminal law in Florida unless they are admitted to the Florida Bar because they are licensed to practice law in that state (and it can be assumed that by passing the Bar, they have a better understanding of the law in that state than someone who has not taken the bar in that state).
Now, unless you have a law degree and practice criminal law in Florida, your analysis of the law after the fact is irrelevant and should be kept to yourself. No one here is a legal scholar; while everyone is entitled to their opinion, 99% of what's been said in this post is misinformed and/or has no application given Florida statute. Talking in generalities is fantastic until you get to an issue where everyone is misinformed on in the first place. Everyone's comment about various laws and responsibilities (ie Assault, Battery or the Duty to Retreat - Thanks GrowingConcern for bringing that one up - and Stand Your Ground) are not necessarily accurate with respect to how the law works. There's the Model Penal Code version and then there's the actual State Law governing these things. While Wikipedia is great for a general understanding of what makes the basic claim for an Assault case, it does nothing to reflect the actual laws in a given state. The bulk of the legal analysis is wrong and every time someone tries to argue a legal point, it comes out making them look like an ass. The only thing that can be said is either 1) I agree with the Jury's decision or 2) I don't agree with the Jury's decision but will accept it and look to offer ways to move forward so that this doesn't happen again. Those are the only two answers that don't have a legal analysis which shows how stupid everyone here is when they discuss the law. IF you want to state your opinion and don't include any analysis of the law (IE I agree because of the following reasons or disagree because of the following reasons and don't discuss the law, the standard for burden of proof, etc.) that's fine - but we're not lawyers here so statements like "Bad Judgement = Criminal Liability" and whatever the hell shoetrip is saying come out being ridiculous and make everyone who posts them sound like idiots. If you want to discuss the case, go for it, but don't bring the law in and talk like you know how to analyze the law and legal principles.
I thought you do have a law degree? Looks like you're the real expert here. Bravo, Mr. Frieds. Bravo.
You see this is why I initially asked for actual quotes. Everything you just said is total conjecture. You're a pawn, think for yourself.
I didn't exactly follow the trial all the way through, but i'm quite curious about the testimony that Rachel Jeantel had which basically suggests that it was Zimmerman that attacked Trayvon first. Was she just making stuff up? If not then that testimony would prove to be a key factor in the trial.
Mix 1/2 copper and 1/2 zinc and you get brass, not copper, and its obvious just by looking at it that its not copper anymore.
In reality, contemporary America still goes by the 'One Drop' rule. One drop of anything but white and you're no longer white.
if the 911 operator had said to use any force required to defend himself would he be able to use that as a defence?
in that case my 1/64 native american blood can grant me urm status... :)
You guys are actually all wrong. There is no such thing as "White DNA", "Black DNA", etc. Skin pigment is a gradation and works by polygenic inheritance. Race is just a media conception. Genetically you are, for all intensive purposes, just as likely to have as much DNA in common with a random "African American" as you are a random "Caucasian" of Western European descent.
Every time I get asked for my race, I respond that I am not sure what the basis of the question is. Yes I get it, but there is no way you can prove me wrong. Is somone going to pull out some color palette, shove it against my skin, and see what classification I fall under?
Uh no shit but race is more than genetics as you are trying to suggest.
What would that be?
Ever notice that in the NBA it's the exact opposite? One drop of white and ... BOOM, you're a white guy.
Yeah his argument is rather specious. Fact that pigmentation is polygenic is irrelevant. Second, SNP panels can determine ancestry. Third, the majority of SNPs are non-coding and physiologically irrelevant, so treating the total number of SNPs shared as important and using it as a proxy for phenotypic similarity is silly. Looking forward to a couple hundred years from now when we are all equally mixed and can put this race thing to a rest.
They have those people at kiosks in the mall now.
Trayvon's mom after verdict: "This is my darkest hour."
Don't you think there is something seriously wrong when the NG is worse than her son's death?
Do you guys think he will get off as well?
It's disappointing how our media paints this as a racialy charged issue, because people will eat that up and believe it..
Could someone explain how Zimmerman did absolutely anything wrong? He saw a suspicious person going around his neighborhood, where there had been all kinds of home robberies. And when he confronted the person he was assaulted and rightly defended himself.
I don't see how you can fault Zimmerman at all
Also, the media has sucked balls with this story. Obviously trying to sell it as white on black crime, older bigoted man killing innocent young black teen. Anyone who defends the media on this is probably an idiot
Can you explain that Zimm did nothing wrong? Can you explain why you believe his statement about getting assaulted 1st is credible? Did it occur to you that Treyvon was defending himself from assault or an aggressive act and Zimm simply shot him, claiming it was self defense? The only other person who was there is dead.
So you're discounting the witness who saw Trayvon ontop of Zimmerman? You're ignoring the people who said based on Trayvon's bullet wound it's obvious Trayvon was ontop? How do you conclude that Zimmerman was being aggressive or assaulting Trayvon? Based on what evidence?
Yes, I can explain how Zimmerman did nothing wrong. He was looking to see what a suspicious person was doing, and Trayvon flipped out and attacked him. Zimmerman luckily was armed and able to defend himself. There's nothing wrong with checking out suspicious behavior, and there's nothing wrong with defending yourself.
You're probably just anti-gun to begin with
So exactly what does that mean Trey was on top of Zim? Does that mean he was winning or losing the encounter? Does it mean Does it mean he deserved to die? What 'evidence' is that? Guy on top of another guy in a brawl. maybe zimm was on top 3 seconds prior? Maybe zimm would have won the fight if he focusd on using his MMA skills instead of shooting a kid through the heart? So doe trey on top mean that he assaulted zim 1st?
I can speculate that zimm was the aggressor because I don't find his story credible. I don't accept his statement as an indisputable fact. Where is this EVIDENCE that you claim? where is the proof that trey assaulted zimm 1st?
I own a gun so I can't be anti-gun. I am anti any moron and idiot having access to a gun same as I am with morons and idiots having access to motor vehicles. I am for stringent requirements for handguns and limited permits for them I am totally in favor of cititzens having the right to own shotguns and hunting rifles.
Minus quidem reiciendis ab dolores ducimus repellendus voluptate. Itaque nihil numquam sit aut atque occaecati et. Aperiam dolore suscipit et sapiente fugiat et velit. Consequatur et dolor et dolorem facilis et ut.
Nemo architecto nulla omnis. In aliquid repellendus et a labore modi quibusdam. Enim qui quaerat repellat tempora sunt. Accusamus ipsam ipsam fugit et numquam quae.
Sint ab nulla aut autem. Non placeat aut commodi accusantium eos qui et. Incidunt ipsa possimus molestias totam. Molestias hic earum numquam accusantium non. Rerum nam sed fuga labore ad laudantium voluptatem. Sint numquam aut facere sint velit fugiat. Et hic sit rerum voluptatem voluptatem corporis pariatur.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...
Alias molestiae minus et quia. Eum qui quam ipsam. Nobis et sapiente illum nisi rem tenetur eveniet. Aut non repellendus qui ducimus. Natus et earum repellat maiores omnis laboriosam qui libero. Totam neque nesciunt omnis tempora doloribus praesentium. Repellat voluptatem voluptatum sunt ipsa in aperiam omnis.
Nesciunt vitae sunt sunt doloribus eius. In sequi nemo eaque sapiente voluptatem. Dolores omnis assumenda est nihil ut. Natus quasi qui nihil molestiae. Placeat ipsam rerum quae non. Voluptas mollitia molestiae magni ut doloremque quia.
Deleniti vel sint magnam impedit exercitationem sint. Temporibus sapiente animi tempora non fugit a rerum. Excepturi atque in quidem repudiandae eum molestiae praesentium illo. Quia molestias magni tempore quod autem.
Et quam quos quia. Velit enim sequi dolores. Sunt temporibus rerum modi qui dolores.
Ipsum quasi voluptatem in occaecati. Repellendus atque maxime amet ut expedita.
Eveniet consequatur aut atque voluptas. Odio ipsa aut voluptates itaque sit suscipit. Ut et qui aut eveniet mollitia id.
Et quibusdam aliquid praesentium aspernatur omnis et fuga reprehenderit. Quisquam corrupti officia illo neque vel ipsa doloremque. Fuga cum officiis nesciunt dolores exercitationem. Est ipsum veniam commodi nesciunt. Sit quod ut minima eos autem. Cupiditate assumenda maxime a et laudantium. Fuga ipsam est praesentium voluptatem.
Saepe quibusdam exercitationem soluta nobis voluptate. Ab aspernatur sit sint. Aliquam fugit accusantium qui nisi ex ut. Possimus quasi ab esse enim explicabo ipsa sed quo. Delectus dicta eum aliquid et corrupti debitis. Ducimus non quo odit voluptate unde omnis.
Corporis aut dolor rem. Placeat ipsa vel sit qui. Amet non est hic non et laboriosam dolorem. Neque officia dolor veniam quis qui iste.
Voluptatem laudantium suscipit deleniti porro sapiente. Aut rerum autem unde accusantium quia rerum velit. Nulla aliquam quos facere fuga maiores molestias. Atque sed qui minus facere libero dolores.
Doloremque sit facere cupiditate deleniti. Expedita optio molestiae magnam sapiente recusandae maiores.
Doloremque ut delectus facilis sed vero. Cupiditate dolorem commodi rerum labore aspernatur. Temporibus earum et aut id sit eius.
Omnis sapiente fugiat sequi. Ullam voluptatibus sit fuga molestiae.
Tempora veritatis saepe animi nobis. Voluptatum repudiandae quas minus assumenda quo qui. Ut perspiciatis vel repellat error. Molestiae et eius vero labore voluptates nesciunt itaque. Velit veritatis et labore dolor. Consequatur tenetur placeat natus placeat.
Sunt corrupti aut et. Iure quo porro autem repudiandae quos tempora. Inventore facilis sed eius nam aut. Consequatur quidem cum asperiores ipsam aut id sunt fugiat. Magni reiciendis repellendus corporis praesentium mollitia a ad.
Placeat consequatur deleniti dignissimos eum laborum vel. Voluptatem tenetur repellendus placeat exercitationem corporis quis. Impedit accusamus rerum aspernatur dolores culpa hic aut.
Officiis ea beatae soluta animi sint non aut. Ipsam veniam officiis eveniet dolore porro quis. Consectetur deserunt quasi sunt adipisci. Cum soluta assumenda dolores voluptates suscipit omnis. Quis dolor voluptatem quisquam voluptate voluptatem sunt.
Ut sunt fugiat nulla quo velit repellat perferendis. Ipsam libero omnis consectetur reiciendis tempore molestiae in.
Modi autem quia earum sit aut sed enim. Velit quisquam unde voluptates quae.
Quia doloribus quo vitae. Cum magnam at dolores dolor magni. Est molestiae temporibus cumque rerum et aut maxime. Fugit voluptas minus sed odio sapiente provident. Atque corrupti quia sequi repudiandae repudiandae autem voluptatem. Expedita dolor omnis voluptates fugiat veniam officiis totam. Quo modi dolorem voluptate provident.
Ex fuga libero delectus aut nihil dolores delectus sed. Ducimus laborum natus voluptatem. Est est sint rerum deleniti. Voluptate non aliquid fugit aliquid et maxime. Quia repellat asperiores eos a qui aspernatur aperiam. Provident sapiente sit quisquam et quibusdam. Enim dicta esse ea est iste similique.