Crimson wrote: So this basically means that it is legal to kill anyone in Florida as long as there are not witnesses. You can corner an unarmed person with a gun, shoot them, and claim it was self defence. And there is no way for prosecutor for prove beyond shadow of a doubt that it wasn't.
I cannot know what what happened that night, but what is clear that Florida's laws on self defence are absolutely insane.
So you really have no idea what you are talking about do you?
Trayvon Martin brutally attacked Zimmerman. Zimmerman defended his life. The facts back it up.
The Casey ANthony case is quite similar to this one actually. In that case too, didn't the prosecution completely fail to provide compelling evidence of a case that was already shaky to begin with?
Crimson wrote: So this basically means that it is legal to kill anyone in Florida as long as there are not witnesses. You can corner an unarmed person with a gun, shoot them, and claim it was self defence. And there is no way for prosecutor for prove beyond shadow of a doubt that it wasn't.
I cannot know what what happened that night, but what is clear that Florida's laws on self defence are absolutely insane.
So you really have no idea what you are talking about do you?
Trayvon Martin brutally attacked Zimmerman. Zimmerman defended his life. The facts back it up.
The only reason Travyon was shot, is he went for Zimmerman gun, so it was kill or be killed. A police officer in the same situation would have done the same.
I don't have to agree with a verdict. I have a hard time with a not-guilty (for manslaughter) here and the guilty verdict for "attempted murder" after firing a warning shot in the same state.
But I will still respect a verdict that was issued.
If you think a law is fether up and needs changing, then now is the time to try to change the law. You can't change past circumstances caused by it, but you can prevent further instances. I'm not saying that Stand Your Ground is a stupid law though, just using it as an example.
LordofHats wrote: The Casey ANthony case is quite similar to this one actually. In that case too, didn't the prosecution completely fail to provide compelling evidence of a case that was already shaky to begin with?
I think both cases also suffered from an maximized charge for a minimal case.
If both cases would have opened, and focused on, manslaughter we might have had different outcomes. But who knows.
The only reason Travyon was shot, is he went for Zimmerman gun, so it was kill or be killed. A police officer in the same situation would have done the same.
Travyon got shot because Zimmerman on shaky logic decided a random individual must be up to no good and with no reasonable basis decided to pursue him, inciting a confrontation that resulted in a death. Zimmerman can claim Martin went for the gun just as he can claim he was viciously attacked out of the blue (even though witnesses seem to confirm a preceding verbal confrontation), but there's no evidence to support that. Zimmerman should probably be counting lucky stars because an already shaky case was ruined by terrible prosecution.
I'm watching MSNBC/FoxNews right now and some of the commentary is just despicable. I had to turn off MSNBC because I couldn't listen to Sharpton anymore.
Honestly, anyone familiar with the presented facts of the case couldn't have found anything but not guilty. Sadly, now, the prevailing opinions I'm seeing/hearing is that the prosecutors are racist and blew the case on purpose.
Additionally, all the references to the 6'2", 17 year old Martin as "boy" or "young child" are insulting and irresponsible.
Sadly, now, the prevailing opinions I'm seeing/hearing is that the prosecutors are racist and blew the case on purpose.
Wow. I think the prosecution failed miserably but that's just absurd.
Agreed. I think the prosecution did a poor job, but I think they had a hard burden of proof to meet in the first place. Remember the local courts didn't find that there was enough evidence to initially prosecute it. That played out pretty consistently in the trial.
Yes, I think so, considering if the 200M + guns in the United States legally registered, crime is committed with less than 1 % of them. I think you'll find that the statistics bear out that those with legally obtained guns and legally obtained CCW permits aren't the ones committing crimes and are the ones more responsible with their firearms.
I actually think the case was going half decently until Jeantel testified. She completely blew any chance the case had and the defense just needed to say "where's you're evidence." The prosecution attacked this from the wrong angle. They needed to call into question Zimmerman's judgement leading to the shooting, not the shooting itself (but I guess that method would mean a manslaughter charge rather than a murder charge).
The only reason Travyon was shot, is he went for Zimmerman gun, so it was kill or be killed.
We don't know that.
A police officer in the same situation would have done the same.
Zimmerman was not a police officer, he never should have been there with that gun in the first place.
Jeeze man, we get that the laws in Finland are a little different, but honestly you really need to read up on America's gun laws. It was perfectly legal for him to carry that gun, a right provided to him by the State of Florida, just as I am afforded the same right by the State of Washington. This will be my only post about this as I do not wish to start a gun debate. Seriously, your argument sounds like somebody that has absolutely no idea what they are talking about when you say stuff like:
"So this basically means that it is legal to kill anyone in Florida as long as there are not witnesses. You can corner an unarmed person with a gun, shoot them, and claim it was self defence. And there is no way for prosecutor for prove beyond shadow of a doubt that it wasn't.
I cannot know what what happened that night, but what is clear that Florida's laws on self defence are absolutely insane."
On topic:
This was the only verdict that made sense. This whole dog and pony show was a giant waste of time for the State of Florida as it should of really never happened. Now Florida will have to foot the bill for all these court costs, and potentially foot the bill to clean up the city if there are indeed riots..
I go to shady areas of town sometimes. There are often robberies and hold-ups in the downtown area. Every time I go there into a potentially volatile situation. That is why I carry, to defend myself in a potentially volatile situation.
I don't agree with the verdict, but there are some face-palm causing arguments from other people that also don't agree with the verdict.
Respectfully, you have no idea what you're talking about. In the United States it is absolutely legal for a citizen to carry a firearm.
It is one thing to carry a firearm and quite other to intentionally go to a possibly explosive situation with that firearm.
So it was the onus of Zimmerman to assume that Martin would attack him? While we don't know exactly what happened, the testimony indicates that Zimmerman "lost" Martin in his pursuit and Martin initiated the assault. Whether or not Zimmerman should have been following Martin is a different matter, but for all we know Zimmerman would have initiated contact with Martin by stating, "hey kid, what are you doing?" Or was planning on simply following him to his destination.
It is one thing to carry a firearm and quite other to intentionally go to a possibly explosive situation with that firearm
Alright Crimson....there was 4 min between Z hanging up with the 911 operator and the confrontation. Basically Martin came back and became aggressive with Zimmerman. That could have been avoided if Martin had gone straight to the place he was staying. Mind you because it seems you forgot. Zimmerman is Neighborhood Watch for the area he lived in. Which is the same area Martin was staying at. Facts Crimson....straight up Facts
LordofHats wrote: I actually think the case was going half decently until Jeantel testified. She completely blew any chance the case had and the defense just needed to say "where's you're evidence." The prosecution attacked this from the wrong angle. They needed to call into question Zimmerman's judgement leading to the shooting, not the shooting itself (but I guess that method would mean a manslaughter charge rather than a murder charge).
Completely agree. I honestly thought the manslaughter charge would be appropriate.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: I go to shady areas of town sometimes. There are often robberies and hold-ups in the downtown area. Every time I go there into a potentially volatile situation. That is why I carry, to defend myself in a potentially volatile situation.
I don't agree with the verdict, but there are some face-palm causing arguments from other people that also don't agree with the verdict.
Can I ask what you don't agree with in regards to the verdict? Feel free to take to PM.
Automatically Appended Next Post: IMO criminally negligent homocide seems like it would have been the most appropriate here. I sincerely believe Zimmerman had no intent to kill Martin. I also think Zimmermans actions could be considered reckless. However. I also don't think he expected Martin to attack him.
I hate to blame the victim here, but if Martin doesn't initiate the altercation and instead goes straight to where he's staying, there's not even a case.
I think he should have been found guilty of manslaughter, and possibly would have been if the prosecution wouldn't have focused in a murder conviction. I am disappointed that he wasn't, but I respect that.
I am sure that some of it is also influenced by emotion for me considering the woman in Florida that got 20 years for firing a warning shot and claimed a stand your ground defense but was found guilty of attempted murder.
I don't really have a big legal argument for why I am disappointed, I will admit that. But the case is done, the jury has spoken, and not guilty it is.
Jeeze man, we get that the laws in Finland are a little different, but honestly you really need to read up on America's gun laws. It was perfectly legal for him to carry that gun, a right provided to him by the State of Florida, just as I am afforded the same right by the State of Washington. This will be my only post about this as I do not wish to start a gun debate.
I know the gun laws and the self defence laws involved. That's why I criticised those laws.
hate to blame the victim here, but if Martin doesn't initiate the altercation and instead goes straight to where he's staying, there's not even a case.
You can blame Martin for attacking Zimmerman, but you can also blame Zimmerman for chasing Martin. "Don't blame the victim" is a stupid way of looking at a lot of situations. So don't feel bad
I go to shady areas of town sometimes. There are often robberies and hold-ups in the downtown area. Every time I go there into a potentially volatile situation. That is why I carry, to defend myself in a potentially volatile situation.
I don't agree with the verdict, but there are some face-palm causing arguments from other people that also don't agree with the verdict.
D-USA...I want to be very clear on this. You might get into a situation where you have to draw your weapon and shoot someone in self defense. Would it be fair for you to charged "Guilty" on Manslaughter?
If that's what actually happened the analogy might have relevance. The Zimmerman case presents an unusual series of events that set it apart from other self defense cases. Most people don't chase other people randomly and then in a following fight kill them. The Martin shooting is about as far from a clear cut case of self-defense as you can get, and the 'raging emotions' of a lot of people would probably be quelled if Zimmerman's defenders stopped saying otherwise.
hate to blame the victim here, but if Martin doesn't initiate the altercation and instead goes straight to where he's staying, there's not even a case.
You can blame Martin for attacking Zimmerman, but you can also blame Zimmerman for chasing Martin. "Don't blame the victim" is a stupid way of looking at a lot of situations. So don't feel bad
Completely agree. Which is why I said it made sense for me for Zimmerman to be convicted of involuntary manslaughter/ criminally negligent homicide. His "recklessness" in continuing to follow Martin after being instructed not to potentially led to the altercation. Note I say led to and not caused. Martins actions, based on testimony, caused the altercation.
Jeeze man, we get that the laws in Finland are a little different, but honestly you really need to read up on America's gun laws. It was perfectly legal for him to carry that gun, a right provided to him by the State of Florida, just as I am afforded the same right by the State of Washington. This will be my only post about this as I do not wish to start a gun debate.
I know the gun laws and the self defence laws involved. That's why I criticised those laws.
No. I don't think you do. We get it. Everyone in socialized, homogenous, European countries are better than us filthy heathen Americans.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LordofHats wrote: If that's what actually happened the analogy might have relevance. The Zimmerman case presents an unusual series of events that set it apart from other self defense cases. Most people don't chase other people randomly and then in a following fight kill them. The Martin shooting is about as far from a clear cut case of self-defense as you can get, and the 'raging emotions' of a lot of people would probably be quelled if Zimmerman's defenders stopped saying otherwise.
Is anyone saying the case itself was clear cut? I think most here are saying that any rational person that followed the court case (and not the media case) would have found similarly given the evidence.
Completely agree. Which is why I said it made sense for me for Zimmerman to be convicted of involuntary manslaughter/ criminally negligent homicide. His "recklessness" in continuing to follow Martin after being instructed not to potentially led to the altercation. Note I say led to and not caused. Martins actions, based on testimony, caused the altercation.
I can see the involuntary manslaughter and/or negligent homicide if there were no injuries to Zimmerman
LordofHats wrote: If that's what actually happened the analogy might have relevance. The Zimmerman case presents an unusual series of events that set it apart from other self defense cases. Most people don't chase other people randomly and then in a following fight kill them. The Martin shooting is about as far from a clear cut case of self-defense as you can get, and the 'raging emotions' of a lot of people would probably be quelled if Zimmerman's defenders stopped saying otherwise.
Indeed, that's exactly what I meant by implications. It is troubling that it seems to be legal to more or less intentionally put yourself in a conflict situation with another person and then kill them.
LordofHats wrote: If that's what actually happened the analogy might have relevance. The Zimmerman case presents an unusual series of events that set it apart from other self defense cases. Most people don't chase other people randomly and then in a following fight kill them. The Martin shooting is about as far from a clear cut case of self-defense as you can get, and the 'raging emotions' of a lot of people would probably be quelled if Zimmerman's defenders stopped saying otherwise.
Indeed, that's exactly what I meant by implications. It is troubling that it seems to be legal to more or less intentionally put yourself in a conflict situation with another person and then kill them.
LordofHats wrote: If that's what actually happened the analogy might have relevance. The Zimmerman case presents an unusual series of events that set it apart from other self defense cases. Most people don't chase other people randomly and then in a following fight kill them. The Martin shooting is about as far from a clear cut case of self-defense as you can get...
The officers on the scene, the chief of police, and the DA disagree.
Luckily marching, chanting, and a presidential comment will only get you arrested. Not found guilty.
LordofHats wrote: If that's what actually happened the analogy might have relevance. The Zimmerman case presents an unusual series of events that set it apart from other self defense cases. Most people don't chase other people randomly and then in a following fight kill them. The Martin shooting is about as far from a clear cut case of self-defense as you can get, and the 'raging emotions' of a lot of people would probably be quelled if Zimmerman's defenders stopped saying otherwise.
Indeed, that's exactly what I meant by implications. It is troubling that it seems to be legal to more or less intentionally put yourself in a conflict situation with another person and then kill them.
Completely agree. Which is why I said it made sense for me for Zimmerman to be convicted of involuntary manslaughter/ criminally negligent homicide. His "recklessness" in continuing to follow Martin after being instructed not to potentially led to the altercation. Note I say led to and not caused. Martins actions, based on testimony, caused the altercation.
I can see the involuntary manslaughter and/or negligent homicide if there were no injuries to Zimmerman
That's the part I have trouble with too. Like I said, as far as anyone not named George Zimmerman knows, he would have never actually confronted Martin. Maybe he would have simply followed him to a residence. Maybe he would have walked up to him and simply asked where he was going.
Personally, I think the involuntary manslaughter would have been a stretch too, because that would be predicated on a pretty long string or causality, with the ultimate expectation being that following a stranger in your neighborhood would result in him attacking you and you having to shoot him in a struggle.
Personally, I think the involuntary manslaughter would have been a stretch too, because that would be predicated on a pretty long string or causality, with the ultimate expectation being that following a stranger in your neighborhood would result in him attacking you and you having to shoot him in a struggle.
I would prefer a Neighborhood Watch individual to be active in my area. Not passive sit in the car/truck and just call 911 and stays in the vehicle. Neighborhood watch is there as a deterrent. Not a false sense of security for everyone living in the area.
LordofHats wrote: If that's what actually happened the analogy might have relevance. The Zimmerman case presents an unusual series of events that set it apart from other self defense cases. Most people don't chase other people randomly and then in a following fight kill them. The Martin shooting is about as far from a clear cut case of self-defense as you can get, and the 'raging emotions' of a lot of people would probably be quelled if Zimmerman's defenders stopped saying otherwise.
Indeed, that's exactly what I meant by implications. It is troubling that it seems to be legal to more or less intentionally put yourself in a conflict situation with another person and then kill them.
Following people and questioning them is in no way a "conflict situation". If it were the aisles of my local mall would be littered with the broken bodies of pushy salespersons.
I am sure that some of it is also influenced by emotion for me considering the woman in Florida that got 20 years for firing a warning shot and claimed a stand your ground defense but was found guilty of attempted murder.
From what I read of her case, she left the confrontation with her husband, went to the garage, retrieved the gun from her car and then went back inside and fired. In this case, I can see why self-defense would not apply. She seems to have escalated the conflict. If you have some more in depth sources though, I would like to read them; the case hasn't received much attention.
Completely agree. Which is why I said it made sense for me for Zimmerman to be convicted of involuntary manslaughter/ criminally negligent homicide. His "recklessness" in continuing to follow Martin after being instructed not to potentially led to the altercation. Note I say led to and not caused. Martins actions, based on testimony, caused the altercation.
I can see the involuntary manslaughter and/or negligent homicide if there were no injuries to Zimmerman
Zimmerman being injured is irrelevant to the manslaughter charge. What happened can fit pretty cleanly into the general definition of involuntary manslaughter.
Following people and questioning them is in no way a "conflict situation". If it were the aisles of my local mall would be littered with the broken bodies of pushy salespersons.
I suspect you've never walked down a street in the middle of the night and been pursued. Anyone who has can tell you how threatening that situation feels. It isn't being followed and questioned because shocker, most people don't chase other people in the middle of the night. it's pretty bizarre behavior and it's not very comfortable to look over your shoulder and see someone ominously following you with no clear reason. Zimmerman is not even a mall cop. He's some random guy who decided on a whim wearing a hoodie = guilt and that he was qualified against advisement from law enforcement to pursue a suspect on complete subjective bias.
Someone died as a result. I don't want to think of America really being so polarized over the gun debates that this is seen as perfectly acceptable. Even if it isn't against the law it should give all of us pause about whether or not that should be allowed to happen.
The officers on the scene, the chief of police, and the DA disagree.
Luckily marching, chanting, and a presidential comment will only get you arrested. Not found guilty.
Touché. Freaking touché. Geraldo was KILLING the media for the copious yellow journalism that led to this even being brought to trial.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
I suspect you've never walked down a street in the middle of the night and been pursued. Anyone who has can tell you how threatening that situation feels. It isn't being followed and questioned because shocker, most people don't chase other people in the middle of the night. it's pretty bizarre behavior.
Maybe it's just because I'm a giant pussy (though i don't think I am) but my first instinct would be to either quicken pace and get the feth out of there. Not lose the guy, hide, and then assault him.
To be fair, Zimmerman was the head of their neighborhood watch. The heads of the neighborhood watch in my parents neighborhood patrol. In Cincinnati there is also a citizens on Patrol program that has helped to decrease crime in the areas it exists.
The officers on the scene, the chief of police, and the DA disagree.
Luckily marching, chanting, and a presidential comment will only get you arrested. Not found guilty.
Touché. Freaking touché. Geraldo was KILLING the media for the copious yellow journalism that led to this even being brought to trial.
He is?
I'd figured he'd be pushing the yellow journalism crap.... o.O
I was surprised myself. I realize FoxNews isn't everyone's cup of tea, but he and the other chick were killing the media for overly politicizing this trial. I just had to stop watching MSNBC because they had Al "Reverend Racism" Sharpton as one of their primary commentators.
Its the case that people from different environments have differing mindsets on certain things I suppose. If you live in a town where say its normal for everyone to turn out for church on a Sunday you'll probably not be able to get behind the viewpoint of a person who's a stringent atheist. In this case the American's mindset is that it is their right (not just on a legal level but on a cultural one) that they should be able to use their guns to whatever degree they see fit to defend themselves. However the extent of their use, if at all, and the situation that they may be used in are of course going to viewed upon differently from someone living in a country where the national opinion is against the public carrying of firearms.
For those of us who aren't Americans your mindset can come across as being a tad unethical. I mean I can understand why people think as they do, but that's not the same as agreeing with them. That being said being this is an American dominated forum, these types of discussions, about which Americans are quite patriotic about, do tend to delve into tit for tat arguments over what winds up being an issue over national identity (ie good old "you lot are mental for carrying guns" threads).
Still, we're all of course just no good commie liberals, but its nice to acknowledge the trend. =P
I suspect you've never walked down a street in the middle of the night and been pursued. Anyone who has can tell you how threatening that situation feels. It isn't being followed and questioned because shocker, most people don't chase other people in the middle of the night. it's pretty bizarre behavior and it's not very comfortable to look over your shoulder and see someone ominously following you with no clear reason.
Then your supposition would be wrong. Ive been there, I'd head for a safe area (in my case my nearby car), especially if I were as close to home as TM was.
Confronting them and slinging racial slurs like your heros in rap videos will end badly apparently.
It's good to see that in the United States of America, your right given to you by birth as a living creature, to protect yourself against violent aggression, is upheld and supported by our law.
Wyrmalla wrote: Its the case that people from different environments have differing mindsets on certain things I suppose. If you live in a town where say its normal for everyone to turn out for church on a Sunday you'll probably not be able to get behind the viewpoint of a person who's a stringent atheist. In this case the American's mindset is that it is their right (not just on a legal level but on a cultural one) that they should be able to use their guns to whatever degree they see fit to defend themselves. However the extent of their use, if at all, and the situation that they may be used in are of course going to viewed upon differently from someone living in a country where the national opinion is against the public carrying of firearms.
For those of us who aren't Americans your mindset can come across as being a tad unethical. I mean I can understand why people think as they do, but that's not the same as agreeing with them. That being said being this is an American dominated forum, these types of discussions, about which Americans are quite patriotic about, do tend to delve into tit for tat arguments over what winds up being an issue over national identity (ie good old "you lot are mental for carrying guns" threads).
Still, we're all of course just no good commie liberals, but its nice to acknowledge the trend. =P
cincydooley wrote: To be fair, Zimmerman was the head of their neighborhood watch. The heads of the neighborhood watch in my parents neighborhood patrol. In Cincinnati there is also a citizens on Patrol program that has helped to decrease crime in the areas it exists.
Zimmerman was the head of the neighborhood watch only under his own authority. The head of the Home Owners Association testified the HOA didn't give him permission to form a neighborhood watch (contrary to what Zimmerman told police). Likewise, the head of the Citizens on Patrol Progam testified that Zimmerman's actions are the exact opposite of what citizens are supposed to do.
People talk about evidence but they constantly throughout the story Zimmerman offers as though its complete truth even though the only thing that can be proven about it is that Martin hit him and he shot him. We don't know that Martin threw the first punch and can't. Zimmerman is a bizarre guy who did some really questionable things. Our system decided it couldn't convict him and that's all well and good but we shouldn't stop asking ourselves if what happened was okay or just blindly accept that we shouldn't think critically about what happened because it could happen again.
Then your supposition would be wrong. Ive been there, I'd head for a safe area (in my case my nearby car), especially if I were as close to home as TM was.
Confronting them and slinging racial slurs like your heros in rap videos will end badly apparently.
70 feet is a long way to run from a guy in a truck.
We have no evidence for that either (unless Jeantel is now a reliable witness) but I guess I should just take that people will accept hersay when it suits their point of view.
cincydooley wrote: I was being a bit facetious, but I see what you're saying.
Bear in mind this hasn't ever been a gun issue in my mind. The situation could have just as easily happened with a knife.
Hey what this guy did was totally legal and I'll argue you to a standstill defending him in court. We get rather patriotic over our knife crime over here...
hate to blame the victim here, but if Martin doesn't initiate the altercation and instead goes straight to where he's staying, there's not even a case.
You can blame Martin for attacking Zimmerman, but you can also blame Zimmerman for chasing Martin. "Don't blame the victim" is a stupid way of looking at a lot of situations. So don't feel bad
I know what you're saying, but the big issue with this is that Martin attacking Zimmerman is illegal, but Zimmerman following Martin is not.
I think Zimmerman is probably a coward and a wanna be cop. I also think he probably had no intent to kill Martin. I'd go a step further and say that Zimmerman did some irresponsible and reckless things. But I think the verdict in this case was the correct one.
And now that you bring it up, I think Jenteal may be the most inept witness since Kato Kaelin. The fact that the prosecution put her on the stand is a testament to how weak a case they had.
I know what you're saying, but the big issue with this is that Martin attacking Zimmerman is illegal, but Zimmerman following Martin is not.
And as I said several times in this thread reverse the situation. Zimmerman follows Martin, Martin kills Zimmerman. Stand Your Ground defense is claimed, which only requires that Martin fear for his life. Funny how the case just isn't simple.
Presumably its the founder's surname, though shall we not take this off topic looking up inappropriate surnames, or discussion the origins of said surname? =P
That's an ironically unfortunate name XD OT, I saw a similar name on my way to Kansas earlier this month: Rapist Attorney at Law. It's bad enough you're named 'Rapist' by your family but really, don't use it to name you're business
I know what you're saying, but the big issue with this is that Martin attacking Zimmerman is illegal, but Zimmerman following Martin is not.
And as I said several times in this thread reverse the situation. Zimmerman follows Martin, Martin kills Zimmerman. Stand Your Ground defense is claimed, which only requires that Martin fear for his life. Funny how the case just isn't simple.
But he didn't claim stand your ground did he? I thought they didn't?
Testifying to what she heard him say is not "hearsay". Just in case the definition escapes you as we'll as its correct spelling.
So we'll believe her on the parts that make Martin look bad but not on the parts where she makes Zimmerman look bad? She was all over the place in her testimony. nothing she says can really be taken as useful to determining what happened.
I know what you're saying, but the big issue with this is that Martin attacking Zimmerman is illegal, but Zimmerman following Martin is not.
And as I said several times in this thread reverse the situation. Zimmerman follows Martin, Martin kills Zimmerman. Stand Your Ground defense is claimed, which only requires that Martin fear for his life. Funny how the case just isn't simple.
But he didn't claim stand your ground did he? I thought they didn't?
I checked back on it; Basically, Zimmerman first filed for a SYG defense (before he had a lawyer) but media commentators talked in depth about how that was a bad decision as his pursuit of Martin made SYG illegitimate. His lawyer upon being hired promptly withdrew the filing and simply had him plead not guilty.
I mean Martin though. The completely absurd part of this case is how willfully people ignore that Zimmerman's actions were threatening. It's not unreasonable to suspect Martin feared for his life, and had this situation turned out differently and Zimmerman died I wonder what the reaction would have been.
But it begs the question if Martin "feared for his life" then why did he stop and confront Zimmerman? Plus, his cracker stalker comment doesn't really support that.
Mark O’Mara took time of his post-verdict press conference to chastise the media for its handling of this case.
“Two systems went against George Zimmerman that he can’t understand: you guys, the media. He was like a patient in an operating table where a mad scientists were committing experiments on him and he he had no anesthesia,” an agitated O’Mara said after a reporter asked if Zimmerman ever showed emotion. “He didn’t know why he was turned into this monster, but quite honestly you guys had a lot to do with it. You just did. Because you took a story that was fed to you and you ran with it, and you ran right over him. And that was horrid to him.
“Then he comes into a system that he trusts — let’s not forget, six voluntary statements, voluntary surrender — and he believes in a system that he really wanted to be a part of, right? And then he gets prosecutors that charge him with a crime that they could never, ever, prove. … So those two systems failed him.”
cincydooley wrote: But it begs the question if Martin "feared for his life" then why did he stop and confront Zimmerman? Plus, his cracker stalker comment doesn't really support that.
We don't know that he died. It's equally plausible he made a snap decision to hide thinking Zimmerman (who was in a truck at the time) would just drive by the alley, not see him, and keep going. When that didn't happen who knows what he thought.
I mean Martin though. The completely absurd part of this case is how willfully people ignore that Zimmerman's actions were threatening. It's not unreasonable to suspect Martin feared for his life, and had this situation turned out differently and Zimmerman died I wonder what the reaction would have been.
Lordo... TM had four minutes to get away...
To me, that was the most powerful part of the case when the defense elaborated on that part...
I know what you're saying, but the big issue with this is that Martin attacking Zimmerman is illegal, but Zimmerman following Martin is not.
And as I said several times in this thread reverse the situation. Zimmerman follows Martin, Martin kills Zimmerman. Stand Your Ground defense is claimed, which only requires that Martin fear for his life. Funny how the case just isn't simple.
That's not how self-defense works. There has to be an immediate threat of death or grievous bodily injury, and the act of following someone does not justify deadly force. If Martin killed Zimmerman and claimed that he feared for his life because Zimmerman was following him, he would have been convicted. If Zimmerman had approached Martin with a drawn weapon, then there would potentially be a case for self-defense on the part of Martin. You can't kill or attack someone just for following you and then claim self-defense, no matter if you say "I feared for my life" afterwards.
I mean Martin though. The completely absurd part of this case is how willfully people ignore that Zimmerman's actions were threatening. It's not unreasonable to suspect Martin feared for his life, and had this situation turned out differently and Zimmerman died I wonder what the reaction would have been.
Lordo... TM had four minutes to get away...
To me, that was the most powerful part of the case when the defense elaborated on that part...
Four minutes.
So? I don't expect everyone under duress to respond with complete cool and objective reasoning. He could have been sitting there praying to god, or he could have been sitting there hoping to beat some guy's butt for chasing him around. We don't know. It has no bearing on whether Zimmerman behaved recklessly.
I mean Martin though. The completely absurd part of this case is how willfully people ignore that Zimmerman's actions were threatening. It's not unreasonable to suspect Martin feared for his life, and had this situation turned out differently and Zimmerman died I wonder what the reaction would have been.
Lordo... TM had four minutes to get away...
To me, that was the most powerful part of the case when the defense elaborated on that part...
Four minutes.
So? I don't expect everyone under duress to respond with complete cool and objective reasoning. He could have been sitting there praying to god, or he could have been sitting there hoping to beat some guy's butt for chasing him around. We don't know. It has no bearing on whether Zimmerman behaved recklessly.
And we truly don't know if GZ behaved recklessly... none of us were there and no witness could truly attest to that.
There has to be an immediate threat of death or grievous bodily injury, and the act of following someone does not justify deadly force.
A man chasing you in the middle of the night in a truck and then leaving that truck to continue pursuit doesn't bode well for anyone's safety. Unless we're being willfully dense, it's absurd to act as though Martin wasn't in a situation where he could rightfully fear for his life.
Also see that only the living party can tell they're story; I.E. Zimmerman had a gun on him. Martin can easily claim after the fact Zimmerman threatened him. For all we know he did threaten Martin (especially since its hard for Martin to go for a gun he doesn't know is there).
It's almost like the case isn't simpl] no matter how much people try to weasel around it.
And we truly don't know if GZ behaved recklessly... none of us were there and no witness could truly attest to that.
Do you automatically assume everyone in a hoodie must be up to no good, call the cops, and after supposedly taking instructional courses to be a watch captain that say not to follow suspects follow the suspect? Everything Zimmerman did that night was reckless and ironically people love ignoring that.
There has to be an immediate threat of death or grievous bodily injury, and the act of following someone does not justify deadly force.
A man chasing you in the middle of the night in a truck and then leaving that truck to continue pursuit doesn't bode well for anyone's safety. Unless we're being willfully dense, it's absurd to act as though Martin wasn't in a situation where he could rightfully fear for his life.
Also see that only the living party can tell they're story; I.E. Zimmerman had a gun on him. Martin can easily claim after the fact Zimmerman threatened him. For all we know he did threaten Martin (especially since its hard for Martin to go for a gun he doesn't know is there).
It's almost like the case isn't simpl] no matter how much people try to weasel around it.
And we truly don't know if GZ behaved recklessly... none of us were there and no witness could truly attest to that.
Do you automatically assume everyone in a hoodie must be up to no good, call the cops, and after supposedly taking instructional courses to be a watch captain that say not to follow suspects follow the suspect? Everything Zimmerman did that night was reckless and ironically people love ignoring that.
No matter how many people like or dislike the verdict, it's done and twisting the story to how you see fit isn't going to do anything.
Rented Tritium wrote: At this point, I don't really care what happens. My complaints stopped when he went to actual trial. I'll be fine with whatever result a fair trial produces.
Read my previous posts where I accept the verdict and as I stated even before the virdict, not illegal != right and I admitted my own uncertainly as to whether Martin committed a crime at the same time I voiced my distaste with his actions.
I object to people willfully ignoring how mess up the situation really is. I'm twisting the story? How do you know Zimmerman isn't twisting the story? The only other person who knew for certain what happened is dead and rather than questioning what happened because we really should be, people just go 'murica and guns self defense hur!' It's ridiculous. People should really be asking if society should accept this scenario as acceptable and we should be asking how someone can be killed like this. It's a pointless meaningless death spawned by an unusual series of events, but for whatever reason no one seems to give a damn.
There has to be an immediate threat of death or grievous bodily injury, and the act of following someone does not justify deadly force.
A man chasing you in the middle of the night in a truck and then leaving that truck to continue pursuit doesn't bode well for anyone's safety. Unless we're being willfully dense, it's absurd to act as though Martin wasn't in a situation where he could rightfully fear for his life.
There is no way that deadly force would be justified just on the basis of Zimmerman following Martin. If Martin had a gun, he could not just turn and shoot Zimmerman for following him.
I am not saying there is no possibility that could stem from Zimmerman following Martin in which Martin might justifiably be able to defend himself, but I don't think there is any point in which deadly force would just justified simply for the act of following someone.
I mean Martin though. The completely absurd part of this case is how willfully people ignore that Zimmerman's actions were threatening. It's not unreasonable to suspect Martin feared for his life, and had this situation turned out differently and Zimmerman died I wonder what the reaction would have been.
Lordo... TM had four minutes to get away...
To me, that was the most powerful part of the case when the defense elaborated on that part...
Four minutes.
The autopsy report about Martin's brain and liver showng signs of deterioration consistant with lean consumption, and the information about the violence a partaker is prone to were interesting. I never even heard of lean before this, much less knew it was made mixing skittles, a drink such as iced tea, and codine together. That information possibly makes the skittles and iced tea take on a bit of a different meaning considering he walked more than a mile either way in the rain just to get them.
All that being said, it was a messed up situation that could have been possibly avoided if both parties had their heads out of their butts.
LordofHats wrote: Read my previous posts where I accept the verdict and as I stated even before the virdict, not illegal != right and I admitted my own uncertainly as to whether Martin committed a crime at the same time I voiced my distaste with his actions.
I object to people willfully ignoring how mess up the situation really is. I'm twisting the story? How do you know Zimmerman isn't twisting the story? The only other person who knew for certain what happened is dead and rather than questioning what happened because we really should be, people just go 'murica and guns self defense hur!' It's ridiculous. People should really be asking if society should accept this scenario as acceptable and we should be asking how someone can be killed like this. It's a pointless meaningless death spawned by an unusual series of events, but for whatever reason no one seems to give a damn.
I've noticed that since the verdict no one has mentioned how Martin was high as a kite? Drugs are bad mmmkay
i've never smoked weed but I was under the impression it can make a person very paranoid?
Hordini wrote: I am not saying there is no possibility that could stem from Zimmerman following Martin in which Martin might justifiably be able to defend himself, but I don't think there is any point in which deadly force would just justified simply for the act of following someone.
That's not my point. My point is flip the situation. The stupid part of this case is that it can so easily be reversed. Imagine the cops showing up at the scene and Martin telling them "he chased me and pulled a gun on me and I defended myself." What's our natural reaction to that? We'd only have Martin's word that's what happened.
And of course I suspect that once the 'drug' and 'school trouble' bit hit the news no one would believe him even though the quality of the evidence is exactly the same.
Do you automatically assume everyone in a hoodie must be up to no good, call the cops, and after supposedly taking instructional courses to be a watch captain that say not to follow suspects follow the suspect? Everything Zimmerman did that night was reckless and ironically people love ignoring that.
No, but I don't think it's unreasonable to think someone you don't recognize in your neighborhood with a hood up at night might be up to no good. I don't think following Martin was reckless. I think getting out of his car was.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And WTF is lean?
Do you automatically assume everyone in a hoodie must be up to no good, call the cops, and after supposedly taking instructional courses to be a watch captain that say not to follow suspects follow the suspect? Everything Zimmerman did that night was reckless and ironically people love ignoring that.
No, but I don't think it's unreasonable to think someone you don't recognize in your neighborhood with a hood up at night might be up to no good. I don't think following Martin was reckless. I think getting out of his car was.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And WTF is lean?
not sure what lean is, but this circus has turned into a parade, so I'm going to bed. =)
Its profiling to consider everyone wearing a hoodie is "up to no good". I think there was a law passed here actually to just that effect. Wearing the hood up is a style choice I would imagine. I know enough people that wear outfits that would be considered thuggish to know that inherently they aren't as bad as their appearance makes them out to be. However, of course they may still infer that hostility amidst those that profile them as such. =/
Oh, but saying that you still look like a right tool going out dressed like that. Pull up your trousers already.
Hordini wrote: I am not saying there is no possibility that could stem from Zimmerman following Martin in which Martin might justifiably be able to defend himself, but I don't think there is any point in which deadly force would just justified simply for the act of following someone.
That's not my point. My point is flip the situation. The stupid part of this case is that it can so easily be reversed. Imagine the cops showing up at the scene and Martin telling them "he chased me and pulled a gun on me and I defended myself." What's our natural reaction to that? We'd only have Martin's word that's what happened.
And in that case, Martin should also not have been charged, or if charged, been acquitted, because there wouldn't be enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt he committed murder or manslaughter.
Either way, there wouldn't be enough evidence to convict either party, and I doubt there would have been enough evidence to suggest that Martin committed something a harsh as second degree murder if he had accidentally killed Zimmerman. It might have depended on how many times it took for Martin to beat Zimmerman's head into the concrete before Zimmerman died, but probably only if it was a rather high number.
I think part of the problem is, a lot of people seem to approach the situation with the idea that someone was killed, so that means a crime must have been committed, and that isn't necessarily the case.
Do you automatically assume everyone in a hoodie must be up to no good, call the cops, and after supposedly taking instructional courses to be a watch captain that say not to follow suspects follow the suspect? Everything Zimmerman did that night was reckless and ironically people love ignoring that.
No, but I don't think it's unreasonable to think someone you don't recognize in your neighborhood with a hood up at night might be up to no good. I don't think following Martin was reckless. I think getting out of his car was.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And WTF is lean?
I am just glad its over. Enough with all sorts of trials happening in Florida. The prosecution failed with their case and should have done better with their witnesses.
The good news is, between Casey Anthony and Zimmerman it seems prosecutors in Florida are so bad you can get away with murder.
Hordini wrote: I think part of the problem is, a lot of people seem to approach the situation with the idea that someone was killed, so that means a crime must have been committed, and that isn't necessarily the case.
So I guess no one reads my posts where I directly state my problem isn't the 'was a crime committed' question? From what I stand a lot of people seem to approach the situation with Zimmerman couldn't possibly lie therefore we shouldn't question his behavior leading to the shooting or at the shooting itself at all. It's not just about whether or not he committed a crime or whether it can be proven under the current law but if we should amend our laws to address this kind of situation in the future.
As unusual as the events in this case seem, it could happen again which means another person could die a meaningless death because someone subjectively decides they look suspicious sparking a dangerous situation where a person can die. Should society allow private citizens to act like Zimmerman did? Is it a stituation so unusual that we probably don't have to worry about repeats?
No. Those questions don't get asked by a lot of people. They're too busy drinking at the 'Zimmerman Goes Free' party to ask if something should be done to keep this from happening again.
Several legal commercial products loosely based on "purple drank" are marketed in the United States. In June 2008 Innovative Beverage Group, a Houston, Texas-based company, released a beverage called "Drank." The commercial product contains no codeine or promethazine, but claims to "Slow Your Roll" with a combination of herbal ingredients such as valerian root and rose hips as well as the hormone melatonin.[37][38] Similar "relaxation" or "anti-energy" drinks on the commercial market use the names "Purple Stuff", "Sippin Syrup", and "Lean".[39][40][41]
thehod wrote: I am just glad its over. Enough with all sorts of trials happening in Florida. The prosecution failed with their case and should have done better with their witnesses.
The good news is, between Casey Anthony and Zimmerman it seems prosecutors in Florida are so bad you can get away with murder.
I guess that's good news for Aaron Hernandez and the charges that may be brought against him in Florida.
Hordini wrote: I think part of the problem is, a lot of people seem to approach the situation with the idea that someone was killed, so that means a crime must have been committed, and that isn't necessarily the case.
So I guess no one reads my posts where I directly state my problem isn't the 'was a crime committed' question? From what I stand a lot of people seem to approach the situation with Zimmerman couldn't possibly lie therefore we shouldn't question his behavior leading to the shooting or at the shooting itself at all. It's not just about whether or not he committed a crime or whether it can be proven under the current law but if we should amend our laws to address this kind of situation in the future.
As unusual as the events in this case seem, it could happen again which means another person could die a meaningless death because someone subjectively decides they look suspicious sparking a dangerous situation where a person can die. Should society allow private citizens to act like Zimmerman did? Is it a stituation so unusual that we probably don't have to worry about repeats?
No. Those questions don't get asked by a lot of people. They're too busy drinking at the 'Zimmerman Goes Free' party to ask if something should be done to keep this from happening again.
I'm listening and reading. And quite frankly, you'd have to criminalize "following". Zimmerman didn't break any laws following Martin. Not a single one....
And again, missing the point. The point now isn't did he break the law. That's a moot question with his acquittal. The question now should be whether or not his behavior constitutes recklessness, a depraved indifference, so forth. Should a private citizen get to subjectively determine guilt, spark a dangerous situation, and then after the fact claim self-defense? That seems very wrong to me. If someone were following me down a street I don't want to have to worry about confronting them and being shot just for him to then tell the cops I didn't look familiar and attacked him. That's not a very pleasant thought at all.
Zimmerman's behavior was irrational and someone died. This should call into question how we handle neighborhood watch organizations, citizen arrests, and 911 calls. But no. Some kid with troubles died and maybe he threw the first punch, so we don't give a gak.
Hordini wrote: I think part of the problem is, a lot of people seem to approach the situation with the idea that someone was killed, so that means a crime must have been committed, and that isn't necessarily the case.
So I guess no one reads my posts where I directly state my problem isn't the 'was a crime committed' question? From what I stand a lot of people seem to approach the situation with Zimmerman couldn't possibly lie therefore we shouldn't question his behavior leading to the shooting or at the shooting itself at all. It's not just about whether or not he committed a crime or whether it can be proven under the current law but if we should amend our laws to address this kind of situation in the future.
As unusual as the events in this case seem, it could happen again which means another person could die a meaningless death because someone subjectively decides they look suspicious sparking a dangerous situation where a person can die. Should society allow private citizens to act like Zimmerman did? Is it a stituation so unusual that we probably don't have to worry about repeats?
No. Those questions don't get asked by a lot of people. They're too busy drinking at the 'Zimmerman Goes Free' party to ask if something should be done to keep this from happening again.
I think Zimmerman's fully capable of lying, I just don't think he's Anthony Hopkins in a crime film - to wit, I don't think he's capable of ginning up a story that covers both all the physical evidence, and accounts for everything that people he didn't even know about saw and heard.
Martin had no wounds on him beyond the gunshot. There was zero evidence that Zimmerman ever assaulted him, or even hit back. There is overwhelming evidence that Martin hit Zimmerman.
Should society allow private citizens to act like Zimmerman did? Absolutely. He called the cops over someone he thought was suspicious. For all the talk of him "stalking" Martin, the evidence actually suggests it was the other way around.
Hordini wrote: I think part of the problem is, a lot of people seem to approach the situation with the idea that someone was killed, so that means a crime must have been committed, and that isn't necessarily the case.
So I guess no one reads my posts where I directly state my problem isn't the 'was a crime committed' question? From what I stand a lot of people seem to approach the situation with Zimmerman couldn't possibly lie therefore we shouldn't question his behavior leading to the shooting or at the shooting itself at all. It's not just about whether or not he committed a crime or whether it can be proven under the current law but if we should amend our laws to address this kind of situation in the future.
As unusual as the events in this case seem, it could happen again which means another person could die a meaningless death because someone subjectively decides they look suspicious sparking a dangerous situation where a person can die. Should society allow private citizens to act like Zimmerman did? Is it a stituation so unusual that we probably don't have to worry about repeats?
No. Those questions don't get asked by a lot of people. They're too busy drinking at the 'Zimmerman Goes Free' party to ask if something should be done to keep this from happening again.
I'm listening and reading. And quite frankly, you'd have to criminalize "following". Zimmerman didn't break any laws following Martin. Not a single one....
Yeah. I think it's an unusual enough situation that we shouldn't be expending a large amount of effort trying to pass laws trying to make sure that it doesn't happen again. My concern would be that any legal effort to prevent something like this in the future would neuter self-defense laws quite a bit (the burden for self-defense is already pretty high), or like cincydooly said, you would have to criminalize following, which would be absolutely ridiculous.
LordofHats wrote: If someone were following me down a street I don't want to have to worry about confronting them and being shot just for him to then tell the cops I didn't look familiar and attacked him.
Given my own experience in this exact scenario 'keep on walking' is crappy advice. Just cause I'm willing to keep on walking, doesn't mean the other guy(s) will keep their distance and I don't live in a suburb where there's a building every ten feet. For all the talk about self defense in here, apparently the running advice is not to start a confrontation. Maybe if that were our standard logic Zimmerman wouldn't have shot anyone cause its hard for a confrontation to happen when you don't randomly chase people around which is exactly what Zimmerman was supposed to do. Not give chase. But we don't bother examining that evidence I guess or asking ourselves if giving chase constitutes wrongful conduct.
So does this guy get the gun back or does it remain as evidence? Does this guy still get to own a firearm in general? Is he still allowed to drive around gated communities in the rain?
Given my own experience in this exact scenario 'keep on walking' is crappy advice. Just cause I'm willing to keep on walking, doesn't mean the other guy(s) will keep their distance and I don't live in a suburb where there's a building every ten feet. For all the talk about self defense in here, apparently the running advice is not to start a confrontation. Maybe if that were our standard logic Zimmerman wouldn't have shot anyone cause its hard for a confrontation to happen when you don't randomly chase people around which is exactly what Zimmerman was supposed to do. Not give chase. But we don't bother examining that evidence I guess or asking ourselves if giving chase constitutes wrongful conduct.
I think we have examined that evidence and determined that "giving chase," as you have termed it, is not illegal, nor should it be. What would constitutes "giving chase" would also seem to be pretty subjective.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Crablezworth wrote: So does this guy get the gun back or does it remain as evidence? Does this guy still get to own a firearm in general? Is he still allowed to drive around gated communities in the rain?
I'm not sure if he would get that specific gun back, but why wouldn't he be able to own a firearm or drive around in the rain? The jury determined he did not commit a crime.
I'd assume police don't get to keep alleged murder weapons once someone is acquitted but then maybe they'd keep it for the file (maybe he has to go to court to get it back from the evidence locker)? At the least I'd expect they should reimburse him the cost.
I've been in one....ONE...fire fight at night. That is not fun. So yes I've been followed at night and yes we followed an individual at night. My incident involved 40+ of us and what we had on NVG's was one individual. Eastern Afghanistan outside of Jallabad FoB. That one individual turned into 14 shooters and three RPGer's in the middle of a good size town. Tracer coming down the road......RPG's coming down the road...couple dried crap thrown down the road.....possible kitchen sink....manhole cover....just a lot of lead going back and forth.
This is where I got shot in the chest the very first time wearing a IBA. Cracked sternum later. Stumble. dragged my self behind a nice little BMW. Plate stopped it but it went through magazine that was fully loaded. So the first five rounds shot out the top of the mag and "punched" me in the chin. Wind knocked out of me...couple of my buds all over me looking for blood. I'm giving thumbs up....medic running over accidently kneed me in my nuts when he crashed beside me...someone stepped on my fingers as they shifted position.. Medic frisking me for blood. Again I give the thumbs up and somewhat able to breath say "I'm....alright..."
Medic "You sure?!"
me "Yes...dam...mit..."
Medic "How many fingers I'm holding?!"
me "Lean..closer"
Medic "Okay....."
Punched him as hard as I could for cracking my nuts saying "That's for my boys Jonsie!!" (medic was name Jones)
Medic "Gawddammit Wilk WTF was that for?!?!"
Leaning to the side on the ground nursing my nuts....
LT "If you two on the ground will stop making kissy faces and get back into the fight I might ignore the gay moment that passed between the two of you" Over the net
Edged closer the BMW wheel leaning out far enough and having my magazine support my weapon I engaged a mud wall with possible two insurgents behind it.
RPG round goes "BOOM" down on our end
"Damn we got a smart one up there" Insurgent remembers to pull the pin to the RPG to arm it.
Swap mags...feeling better..started to seriously get into mode "Do unto others as they do unto you"
"WHOOSH" BOOM"......I cannot see out my right eye and barely out my left because some Chucklehead decided to lean out behind me and fire a AT4 over me.
Started to squad leap towards the insurgent.....240 and 249's started talking to each other. (they're all behind a mud wall that seems to made of armor from a M1)
"Everyone HOLD!!!! Apache engaging" over the net (thinking now I should have replace my glitter tape on my ACH)
Gunner proceeded to shoot the base of the wall. Puts two Hellfire at the top of the wall...wall falls over trapping six insurgents
Frag5 Uparmor HUMVEE comes tearing up the road and slams into the remainder of the wall...which turns into the locals latrine.....
Needless to say...threat removed....all 14 are accounted for....three wounded on our side...
Given my own experience in this exact scenario 'keep on walking' is crappy advice. Just cause I'm willing to keep on walking, doesn't mean the other guy(s) will keep their distance and I don't live in a suburb where there's a building every ten feet. For all the talk about self defense in here, apparently the running advice is not to start a confrontation. Maybe if that were our standard logic Zimmerman wouldn't have shot anyone cause its hard for a confrontation to happen when you don't randomly chase people around which is exactly what Zimmerman was supposed to do. Not give chase. But we don't bother examining that evidence I guess or asking ourselves if giving chase constitutes wrongful conduct.
If the other guys don't keep their distance and actually start a physical altercation with you - note: asking, "Who are you?" or "What are you doing here?" or any other variation, with however much profanity you like, is not starting a physical altercation - then you're more than welcome to hulk out.
I find your deep conviction that you should be free to assault anyone who's making you uncomfortable to be pretty wild. Because that's ultimately what it boils down to.
Seaward wrote: He gets the gun back. Already has it, in fact. Huffington Post is outraged over this, I just noticed.
There's no probation, because he was not found guilty of a crime.
Having his gun back seems reasonable since he wasn't convicted and thus didn't commit a crime.
It would be outrageous if he started trying to sell it...
You would get good money for it though because people are fething weird.
I find your deep conviction that you should be free to assault anyone who's making you uncomfortable to be pretty wild. Because that's ultimately what it boils down to.
I find the deep conviction that a private citizen can determine guilt and not be held accountable for the a death resulting from their reckless actions pretty wild. Because ultimately that's what has happened here. Private citizens now get to decide if someone is guilty, they get to play cop, and if someone dies as a result, it's okay as long as they didn't punch first. Do I really need to explain how horribly that can be abused?
LordofHats wrote: I find the deep conviction that a private citizen can determine guilt and not be held accountable for the a death resulting from their reckless actions pretty wild. Because ultimately that's what has happened here. Private citizens now get to decide if someone is guilty, they get to play cop, and if someone dies as a result, it's okay as long as they didn't punch first. Do I really need to explain how horribly that can be abused?
You'll need to clarify what you believe was reckless about Zimmerman's actions.
A question, though: do you believe you have the right to assault anyone who follows you in public? Or anyone who asks you a question you don't like?
whembly wrote: Lordo... TM had four minutes to get away...
To me, that was the most powerful part of the case when the defense elaborated on that part...
Four minutes.
Why does TM have to "get away" at all? Stand Your Ground is pretty clear you have the right to defend yourself with deadly force if you feel that you are in imminent threat of grievous bodily harm; with no duty to retreat at all if you're in someplace you have a lawful right to be. A big problem with this law is that well, there is a lot of wiggle room and grey area for what constitutes a reasonable opinion this is the situation you are in. I posted this earlier in the thread, but it's possible that no one at all was technically, or legally, "wrong".
Zimmerman follows TM. No problem.
TM feels that he is in danger for his life, that he is being stalked by a dangerous, possibly armed, stranger. There are no witnesses and no evidence to what sparked the confrontation so we don't know what triggered the physicality. He decides under SYG to defend himself. He is technically and legally right - in fact, he could beat Zimmerman to death under this law and be legally OK in my opinion, under SYG, so long as he can later prove he had "reasonable" cause to fear for his safety - which again, is pretty damn nebulous.
Zimmerman is being beaten and is now also in fear for his life and employs deadly force. He is, again, legally OK.
So, we have a young man dead, but no actual crime was comitted - just a serious of really unfortunate events.
Ultimately in my opinion, under the evidence that we have and the facts that we have - justice was served. I think the prosecution overreached; and my only concern was that it appeared he would never be charged at all initially when I think there was ample evidence a crime may have been committed. Once he was charged, tried, and found not guilty - out system worked.
Morally, of course, he should probably have listened to the damn dispatcher and let the police handle it. He doesn't have to listen to the dispatcher, but he sure should have. Bad judgement in this case was not a crime, though.
Ouze wrote: Morally, of course, he should probably have listened to the damn dispatcher and let the police handle it. He doesn't have to listen to the dispatcher, but he sure should have. Bad judgement in this case was not a crime, though.
He says he did, of course. The assumption that he continued to follow Trayvon - while lying about no longer being able to see him and going to get a street address to give to the dispatcher - is merely that: an assumption.
Nothing new. Most everyone want Z convicted over something due to emotions while ignoring facts and basically all the witness's were matching what Z gave of an account. Mostly people wanted Z charged with manslaughter at least. Which I'm lucky because I would knee cap the individual trying to opt me out since it concerns me or my family. If I see an altercation where I see someone getting beat down MMA style I'm going to keep walking. For I do not want to get charged "Man Slaughter" also probably getting sued because the individual I just saved now has PTSD due to me knee capping someone or possibly killing the aggressor
"Why I didn't help Officer? Well I wasn't wearing my glasses and it looked to me at the time two grown up jerking around playing WWF."
"I'm also partially deaf and have constant ringing in my ears due from combat in Afghanistan. So if he was screaming for help it'll be muffled again thinking they're screwing around playing WWF."
"Well Officer if I had notice something really bad was going to happen I would have called 911. Informed the dispatcher what's going on. Take pictures and audio. Inform the aggressor I am armed but quite willing to take my chances with court with Manslaughter if he makes me the next target."
"Sorry Officer. I have over time of four deployments see one of my soldiers die from heat stroke, another from arterial bleed at the carotid, and one burned alive inside a Stryker. So yes I am harden mentally watching an individual die. I will risk the Manslaughter charge if the aggressor comes at me. I will though inform the aggressor he is about to kill the bloody victim and I have the pics and audio to send his butt away for a very long time. Again I will only draw my weapon if the aggressor comes at me."
"Yes Officer I saw the individual get his weapon taking from and was shot by his own weapon while on his back. Yes Officer I did see the aggressor pull the trigger and opt the guy out. I just moved away still facing him with my hand on my weapon. No Officer I won't draw the weapon yet unless he makes the attempt to engage me. Then I will duck, dodge, hop, low crawl, high crawl, catapult, sprint, and try everything to put distance and obstacles between me and the shooter. I'm not going to draw my weapon and attempt to engage him back in a residential area. One I do not want to get a Manslaughter charge on me for opting out the shooter or a round from my sidearm hitting anyone in one of the housing unit around here or both.
Trust me. I had an asshat of neighbor who didn't like the fact I own weapons due I might go crazy and start killing people. So I pretty much ignored him. Got bad enough he was telling his kids and all their friends kids not to play with my daughter when she comes over to visit. I've no idea what he did nor did I care since I put him in my "No issue" column. I do know his wife was a gentle soul. So one Saturday morning he was in his front yard getting his ass kicked by two of her brothers. I just kept walking to get my newspaper and morning mail. Cocked my head at the older brother and said "Morning". Slowed my walk a bit and informed them I was going to call the cops when I get back in the house. Grabbed the paper and the mail. Slowed walk back to the house looking at mail and seeing the headlines of the paper. So a min walk took three min. Yelled out "Calling the cops soon as I find my cell" which I saw suddenly become uninvisible which took like another two minutes. Picked it up an stepped back the door and announce I'm calling the cops. They stopped, walked to their car and left. Heard one mention never to touch their sister again and off they went. I in turn just flipped the switch to turn on the lawn sprinklers since it was going to be a hot sunny day. Chuklehead still on the ground bleeding but moving slowly. Later I gave the cops as much info as I know. Was asked why didn't I help to try to stop it. My reply "I did not want to get involve in what seems to be a family matter. They're not family to me."
Huh, what's that? Not-guilty? Rentedtritium was right count: 1.
No riots in florida? Rentedtritium was right count: 2.
Apparently there was a small riot in oakland, but it appears to have just gone a few blocks and dispersed. Barely even anything for oakland. The whole "there will be riots" thing was just racebaiting from the right wing blogs.
Respectfully, you have no idea what you're talking about. In the United States it is absolutely legal for a citizen to carry a firearm.
It is one thing to carry a firearm and quite other to intentionally go to a possibly explosive situation with that firearm.
I think 'possibly explosive situation' is exactly when I want the gun.
That may be the case, but half of the arguments in Dakka are based around being at home and being burgled, or walking along minding your own business and being mugged. Not taking yourself from a position of complete and utter safety into a position where you are almost certain to need to draw the gun at the very least.
I think what Cincycooley is trying to say is that You have the right to own a gun, you don't necessarily have the right to go around acting like a vigilante and causing events where the use of that gun is required for your own safety.
Not sure what you're supposed to do if an armed man pursues and confronts you at night in the US. You should just let them do what ever they want I guess, because if you try to tackle them then they can shoot you dead and it's apparently self defence.
Howard A Treesong wrote: Not sure what you're supposed to do if an armed man pursues and confronts you at night in the US. You should just let them do what ever they want I guess, because if you try to tackle them then they can shoot you dead and it's apparently self defence.
Great post! Care to try to apply any of the known facts in the Zimmerman case to it though? Or is there some other situation we haven't heard about which you think your hypothetical situation may apply to?
Howard A Treesong wrote: Not sure what you're supposed to do if an armed man pursues and confronts you at night in the US. You should just let them do what ever they want I guess, because if you try to tackle them then they can shoot you dead and it's apparently self defence.
This has what to do with anything about this?
None of what you just said was at all in line with any of the known facts.
Zimmermans weapon was concealed, Martin did not know he was armed. So right away your entire point is baseless.
Maybe Zimmerman should have stayed in the car, or stayed at home. Instead of playing policeman and creeping around the neighbourhood at night with a loaded gun. He had to defend himself from a confrontation he provoked. What a needless death.
Howard A Treesong wrote: Maybe Zimmerman should have stayed in the car, or stayed at home. Instead of playing policeman and creeping around the neighbourhood at night with a loaded gun. He had to defend himself from a confrontation he provoked. What a needless death.
And maybe Martin should have gone home, not left his home, not assaulted a guy he didn't know... It works both ways. Again, the prosecution showed NO evidence Zimmerman 'provoked' a confrontation. You insisting he did based on emotion seems a weak argument at this point.
I have personally approached suspicious people more than once (most recently a couple weeks ago). That does not justify assault.
Howard A Treesong wrote: Maybe Zimmerman should have stayed in the car, or stayed at home. Instead of playing policeman and creeping around the neighbourhood at night with a loaded gun. He had to defend himself from a confrontation he provoked. What a needless death.
There was only one person who provoked the confrontation, as the facts showed, and the basis by which Zimmerman was acquitted. That person was Martin.
Keep yourself willfully ignorant of all the facts surrounding the matter all you want, it won't change that.
This thread should probably be shut down now. Everything has been discussed about it already, all of the evidence has been analyzed, there is no point in rehashing it over another 15 pages and keep walking this same circle again and again.
Howard A Treesong wrote: Maybe Zimmerman should have stayed in the car, or stayed at home. Instead of playing policeman and creeping around the neighbourhood at night with a loaded gun. He had to defend himself from a confrontation he provoked. What a needless death.
I blame you, frankly. You appear to know exactly what happened, yet it's obvious you did not make yourself available to be deposed by the prosecution.
It's clear there are different perspectives regarding the outcome of the case. Regardless, lets try to follow d usas example of disagreeing objectively and politely. Thanks.
I just don't understand how people are saying the prosecution 'blew' the case.
WHAT CASE?
The evidence spoke for itself. Zimmerman may not be genius, but guess what folks, thats NOT A CRIME. What is a crime is assault, and the evidence showed that Trayvon Martin did not flee when he could have, but instead confronted and attacked Zimmerman.
Why is TM somehow not responsible for his part in this?
There was no case to blow for the prosecution. They did their best to paint Zimmerman as a malicious bastard and convict him on pure emotion.
This only even made it to trial because a police chief was fired due to political and social pressure and the lead investigator was demoted and removed from the case (both of which should sue the crap out of the PD/city).
You'll need to clarify what you believe was reckless about Zimmerman's actions.
I only imagine it will be ignored again as I've done so multiple times in this thread. At this point its apparent people are just being willfully dense.
A question, though: do you believe you have the right to assault anyone who follows you in public? Or anyone who asks you a question you don't like?
You know that's not what I'm trying to say. My purpose in arguing that Martin had a justifiable fear for his life is to point out the reality of the situation. My problem is that he shouldn't be allowed to follow Martin, escalating a situation to the point where arguably Martin could fear for his life. It's stupid to look at this situation and say "Martin punched first so Zimmerman is a okay. Following isn't a crime." People need to be willfully ignorant to ignore that had Zimmerman died, Martin could have gotten off as well on the same evidence. I don't like the idea of this situation repeating itself, both because its an insane way to handle citizen watch groups and is horribly open to be abused intentionally or unintentionally.
Martin committed no crimes prior to Zimmerman's assumption he must be up to no good. While I have no problem with calling the police because you think someone is suspicious, I do have a problem with Zimmerman's apparent certainty that Martin was up to wrong and his pursuit. I have that problem because its reckless behavior. It's reckless because it created a situation that was extremely dangerous both for himself and Martin (obviously seeing as someone was beaten and the other is dead). Had Zimmerman simply called the cops and not pursued, which is what he was supposed to do, no one would be bruised, bloody, or dead. I feel that should spark questions about how we handle citizen action and whether a citizen should be held responsible for reckless behavior that ends in death (but I've said all this before).
Zimmerman had no legitimate reason to think Martin was doing something wrong. Having a hoodie on is not evidence of anything. Zimmerman wasting the polices time isn't my problem. He can go ahead and waste it. His decision that he can be the police, creating a situation where a person died, and people being so caught up in other polarized political debates happily ignoring the implications of his actions is my problem.
LordofHats wrote: You know that's not what I'm trying to say. My purpose in arguing that Martin had a justifiable fear for his life is to point out the reality of the situation.
And that's where you're wrong. The standard for self defense is never so low as to encompass, "The other guy was walking in the same direction as me."
My problem is that he shouldn't be allowed to follow Martin, escalating a situation to the point where arguably Martin could fear for his life.
And he says he didn't. There's no evidence to dispute that.
But for the sake of argument, let's say he did follow him. I have no problem with that. It's not illegal. It's not even immoral. It certainly doesn't justify an assault in response.
It's stupid to look at this situation and say "Martin punched first so Zimmerman is a okay. Following isn't a crime." People need to be willfully ignorant to ignore that had Zimmerman died, Martin could have gotten off as well on the same evidence. I don't like the idea of this situation repeating itself, both because its an insane way to handle citizen watch groups and is horribly open to be abused intentionally or unintentionally.
Well, no. Had Zimmerman died, and we had the same evidence we have now, Martin'd likely wind up with a manslaughter conviction at the least. You have several eye witnesses who saw him pounding Zimmerman, for example. We know perfectly well who was kicking whose ass.
Martin committed no crimes prior to Zimmerman's assumption he must be up to no good. While I have no problem with calling the police because you think someone is suspicious, I do have a problem with Zimmerman's apparent certainty that Martin was up to wrong and his pursuit. I have that problem because its reckless behavior. It's reckless because it created a situation that was extremely dangerous both for himself and Martin (obviously seeing as someone was beaten and the other is dead). Had Zimmerman simply called the cops and not pursued, which is what he was supposed to do, no one would be bruised, bloody, or dead. I feel that should spark questions about how we handle citizen action and whether a citizen should be held responsible for reckless behavior that ends in death (but I've said all this before).
Again, you are simply giving far too much credence to the notion that "someone is walking in the same vicinity as me, and I'm pretty sure they're following me," is justification for assaulting them.
I don't know how to make this more clear. At no point in the "someone is stalking me" chain of events do you get to a threshold where assault is acceptable.
The Neighbourhood Watch is an important role. It makes up for the failings of police to respond timely to disturbances. There is nothing wrong with a man being suspicious of a stranger in a GATED community.
If this was the UK, you'd be mugged, beaten to a pulp, stabbed, raped and any host of things...then...in maybe half an hour, the police would arrive. Florida proves to have a system that is far more efficient at dealing with thug scum.
*sigh* I just broke my facebook truce. I am sick to death of this "crusade" of white on black death, when it's the smallest segment of murder when examined by race.
Of course, now I'm going to be labelled a racist by pointing the facts out, but such is life.
djones520 wrote: *sigh* I just broke my facebook truce. I am sick to death of this "crusade" of white on black death, when it's the smallest segment of murder when examined by race.
Of course, now I'm going to be labelled a racist by pointing the facts out, but such is life.
Yeah, silly black people, won't they get their gak together and realize that it is never about race? I mean, look at all the white people trying to tell them it isn't about race, you'd think they would get a clue.
Well, no. Had Zimmerman died, and we had the same evidence we have now, Martin'd likely wind up with a manslaughter conviction at the least. You have several eye witnesses who saw him pounding Zimmerman, for example. We know perfectly well who was kicking whose ass.
Now we pass in to the realm of the hilarious. Martin on the stand "he chased me into the alley and pulled a gun on me so I hit him and he kept trying to shoot me." Unless we pull out the race card there's no way I can see Martin being convicted with the exact same evidence. It's clear from the evidence Zimmerman's intent was to pursue Martin but then I'm used to people taking and leaving 'evidence' in this case. Kicking someone's ass is also not a sole basis to believe Martin started the fight. For all we know Zimmerman throws a lousy punch and Martin knows how to side step. The joys of being the only person still alive who knows exactly what happened is that you can tell whatever version of events you want.
Zimmerman didn't get off because his version of events is true. He got off because his version of events is the only version of events that can be attested to and there was no evidence to counter it. That's fine for Zimmerman's case, but If that's our standard for dealing with this kind of situation, we have a problem (but I'm the only one who seems to care). It's a big open door for vigilantism in the future.
Again, you are simply giving far too much credence to the notion that "someone is walking in the same vicinity as me, and I'm pretty sure they're following me," is justification for assaulting them.
You're standard for following is equally hilarious. Its the middle of the night and Martin disappeared down an alley, to which a guy who had previously been following him in a truck got out and went down the same alley. Martin may not have been a model student but it's pretty evident from fact that he wasn't so stupid that he couldn't tell he was being followed.
But of course ZImmerman is the hero of the story simply by chance that he lived and the other guy didn't so we're all apparently okay with this chain of events. So now we have accepted a standard where citizens can play cop, decide someone's guilt, pursue them, and if someone dies, either party can tell whatever version of events suits them, and we're just okay with that scenario right now. I'm not just talking about Zimmerman. There are citizen watch groups all over the country and it seems now that they can play cop and have none of the oversight or accountability for doing so. That's dangerous both for citizen watch members and whoever they arbitrary decide is suspicious.
Florida proves to have a system that is far more efficient at dealing with thug scum.
Oh yeah. That's totally what happened. I mean, if ZImmerman hadn't been there to get assaulted, who knows what horrible crimes Martin would have commit- Wait, what kind of logic are you using here?
djones520 wrote: *sigh* I just broke my facebook truce. I am sick to death of this "crusade" of white on black death, when it's the smallest segment of murder when examined by race.
Of course, now I'm going to be labelled a racist by pointing the facts out, but such is life.
Yeah, silly black people, won't they get their gak together and realize that it is never about race? I mean, look at all the white people trying to tell them it isn't about race, you'd think they would get a clue.
The NAACP, the Rev. Jesse Jackson and other civil rights activists are calling on the U.S. Department of Justice and Attorney Gen. Eric Holder to press federal civil rights charges against George Zimmerman, the former neighborhood watchman who was acquitted by a Sanford, Fla., jury Saturday in the shooting death of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin.
“The most fundamental of civil rights — the right to life — was violated the night George Zimmerman stalked and then took the life of Trayvon Martin," NAACP President Ben Jealous wrote in a letter to Holder shortly after the verdict was announced. "We ask that the Department of Justice file civil rights charges against Mr. Zimmerman for this egregious violation. Please address the travesties of the tragic death of Trayvon Martin by acting today.”
“This verdict represents a tragic miscarriage of justice," Barbara Arnwine, president of the Washington, D.C.-based Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, said in a statement. "Yet, there is still the potential for justice to be served through a civil suit brought about by Trayvon Martin’s surviving family members, and also through civil rights charges being brought against Mr. Zimmerman by the Department of Justice."
The Justice Dept. launched a probe of the Zimmerman case earlier this year, but has yet to comment on Zimmerman's acquittal.
“If we find evidence of a potential federal criminal civil rights crime, we will take appropriate action," Holder said in April during a keynote speech to Al Sharpton's National Action Network convention. "And at every step, the facts and law will guide us forward.”
But Holder, the nation's first African-American attorney general, cautioned in subsequent comments that there is a “very high barrier” when seeking to bring federal criminal charges in such cases, TheHill.com noted.
A Justice Department official told CNN late Saturday night that it "continues to evaluate the evidence generated during the federal investigation, as well as the evidence and testimony from the state trial."
On Sunday, Jackson called on the Justice Department to "intervene" and “take this to another level.”
"I remain stunned at the decision," Jackson said on CNN's "New Day." "That the grown man, armed, murdered the unarmed boy going home."
"I think that we clearly must move on to the next step in terms of the federal government and in terms of the civil courts," Sharpton said on MSNBC Saturday. "Clearly, we want people to be disciplined, strategic. This is a slap in the face to those that believe in justice in this country."
If a civil suit is allowed, that's the Martin's right to bring one, but the state already blew it's chance to convict Zimmerman. It shouldn't get to throw another rule book at him after a court says he isn't guilty. I can't imagine any new evidence could be produced at this point to warrant more charges.
Facepalm all you want but I am not the one pretending that there isn't a history of issues between the black community and the US justice system. If you can't understand why a large proportion of African-Americans are upset you might want to read a few books on American history, or even just watch TV on occasion.
I don't think a federal investigation or trial would be appropriate. I do think that it was appropriate to have a trial because there was a good deal of evidence a crime may have been committed, but now that we have had that trial there is no set of facts, no fumble by the jury, no real reason to try a civil rights investigation.
I do think there is almost certainly going to be a civil lawsuit, unless it's precluded by statute in Florida, and I can't imagine Mr. Zimmerman winning that since he did contribute substantially to inflaming the situation by any version of what happened, even if it didn't rise to the level of murder or even manslaughter.
Frankly the whole thing is just sad; there is no cause for rejoicing regardless.
This whole case really came down on who took the first punch.
It doesn't matter if M turned aroun and followed Z, since everybody already admitted that it is no crime to follow people.
It doesn't matter if M confronted Z and asked him why he was following him, since everybody already admitted that it is crime to do that.
So it really came down to "who started the physical fight". And this verdict really does not mean that the jury thought that Z told the truth. All it means is that the state was unable to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Z lied.
The state tried, they failed, the case is over, the national guard is not needed to restore order in Florida. Some people are pissed, some are happy, the cities are not burning.
It's not even a black-white issue. Zimmerman is pretty clearly Hispanic. The media did a great job of hiding his very Hispanic mother during the circus they called a trial.
LordofHats wrote: Now we pass in to the realm of the hilarious. Martin on the stand "he chased me into the alley and pulled a gun on me so I hit him and he kept trying to shoot me." Unless we pull out the race card there's no way I can see Martin being convicted with the exact same evidence. It's clear from the evidence Zimmerman's intent was to pursue Martin but then I'm used to people taking and leaving 'evidence' in this case. Kicking someone's ass is also not a sole basis to believe Martin started the fight. For all we know Zimmerman throws a lousy punch and Martin knows how to side step. The joys of being the only person still alive who knows exactly what happened is that you can tell whatever version of events you want.
I have to ask if you even watched any of the testimony, or at least read summaries of it from non-MSNBC sources. All of this stuff was covered, dude, especially the bit about who started the fight and how it's completely irrelevant under Florida law - who has the right to utilize lethal force in self-defense can shift like a game of musical chairs, regardless of who threw the first punch. If it was Zimmerman, incidentally, he's terrible, because other than the gunshot, and the finger abrasions from punching Zimmerman, Martin didn't have a mark on him.
Zimmerman didn't get off because his version of events is true. He got off because his version of events is the only version of events that can be attested to and there was no evidence to counter it.
And let's not forget lots of evidence to support it.
That's fine for Zimmerman's case, but If that's our standard for dealing with this kind of situation, we have a problem (but I'm the only one who seems to care). It's a big open door for vigilantism in the future.
If by "vigilantism" you mean "people going around and deliberately goading someone else into beating the hell out of them so that they'll have a justifiable use of force defense," then...no, actually. That door's already been open for a long, long time. Fortunately, it's extraordinarily far-fetched, so I don't think we need to worry about it.
You're standard for following is equally hilarious. Its the middle of the night and Martin disappeared down an alley, to which a guy who had previously been following him in a truck got out and went down the same alley. Martin may not have been a model student but it's pretty evident from fact that he wasn't so stupid that he couldn't tell he was being followed.
Which is completely irrelevant.
I'm not sure how many times I need to say this, but I'm getting tired of doing so, so this will be the last: you do not have the right to assault someone simply because they're following you. You don't even have the right to assault someone because you're certain they're about to make a move on you. A credible threat needs to occur before you're justified in the use of force to defend yourself. You can argue all day long that being followed at night represents that threat, but no law anywhere in this country agrees with you.
But of course ZImmerman is the hero of the story simply by chance that he lived and the other guy didn't so we're all apparently okay with this chain of events. So now we have accepted a standard where citizens can play cop, decide someone's guilt, pursue them, and if someone dies, either party can tell whatever version of events suits them, and we're just okay with that scenario right now. I'm not just talking about Zimmerman. There are citizen watch groups all over the country and it seems now that they can play cop and have none of the oversight or accountability for doing so. That's dangerous both for citizen watch members and whoever they arbitrary decide is suspicious.
So you think the verdict would have been exactly the same had Zimmerman no visible injuries? Are you leaving out massive portions of the chain of events, and the evidence used to determine whether or not Zimmerman had a credible, immediate fear for his life or grievous bodily injury on purpose?
You're boiling this down to, "Well, Zimmerman's the only one alive, so it's his word we have to take!" I don't really know what else to say. You're ignoring massive swathes of the case because they don't play into your fears that people will just be allowed to shoot people and make up any old story they like regardless of the evidence and witness accounts. Zimmerman told the same story countless times, the physical evidence and the statements of people who witnessed various parts of the encounter did not bring any significant aspect of his account into dispute, and matched it in almost all cases. He was not acquitted because his was the only story heard; he was acquitted because weeks' worth of testimony and evidence before a jury backed his story up.
I have to ask if you even watched any of the testimony, or at least read summaries of it from non-MSNBC sources.
Did you? One witness actually testified that she thought Zimmerman was on top of Martin. Two of them testified to there being a verbal altercation prior to the fight. Any of them could be mistaken, or maybe just one, or two. The only thing testimony in the case revealed is only one person knows exactly what happened; Zimmerman and he can tell whatever story he wants and while his word is enough to give reasonable doubt when no one exists to say otherwise it doesn't make him the messiah of self-defense law and it doesn't mean his actions weren't questionable leading to the shooting.
And let's not forget lots of evidence to support it.
Really? What evidence? I can think of dozens of scenarios with the evidence, all of them plausible. Zimmerman doesn't have evidence to support his story so much as lack of evidence to contradict it. His story fits, and others can fit too but there's no witnesses to say Zimmerman is lying.
It by "vigilantism" you mean "people going around and creating dangerous situations that can lead to a violent confrontation"
Is what I mean. Martin died, but it could easily have been Zimmerman and I'd be asking the same questions. Why should Citizen Watch membership be a free pass to play cowboy? It's dangerous for everyone involved.
I'm not sure how many times I need to say this, but I'm getting tired of doing so, so this will be the last: you do not have the right to assault someone simply because they're following you. You don't even have the right to assault someone because you're certain they're about to make a move on you. A credible threat needs to occur before you're justified in the use of force to defend yourself. You can argue all day long that being followed at night represents that threat, but no law anywhere in this country agrees with you.
And the point continues to be missed.
So you think the verdict would have been exactly the same had Zimmerman no visible injuries?
Honestly? Yes. Especially when witness testimony showed now reason to doubt Zimmerman's version of events. Just because someone doesn't have bruises on them doesn't mean they weren't attacked anymore than Zimmerman getting his ask kicked doesn't mean he didn't start the fight or pull a gun first or any other number of plausible things that could have happened in that alley.
Are you leaving out massive portions of the chain of events, and the evidence used to determine whether or not Zimmerman had a credible, immediate fear for his life or grievous bodily injury on purpose?
People seem to love using hersay as evidence. Zimmerman's word isn't evidence. A dead body, bruises, phone calls, and gunshot forensics are evidence. Zimmerman's word is just a plausible narrative to explain all of it coupled with no strong evidence to the contrary. It's not the same thing as the evidence matching up with his version of events.
You're ignoring massive swathes of the case because they don't play into your fears that people will just be allowed to shoot people and make up any old story they like regardless of the evidence and witness accounts.
You're ignoring that if Zimmerman hadn't decided he needed to pursue someone just for wearing a hoodie no one would be dead. Zimmerman created a dangerous situation. He didn't ask to get assaulted, and maybe Martin had no reason to fear for his life (or maybe he did), but that's not what I'm asking now. I'm asking if we should allow private citizen to play cop and create situations where someone can lose their life. If Zimmerman had just waited for the cops no crimes would have been committed and no one would have died but Zimmerman's proponents love ignoring that part of the case.
He was not acquitted because his was the only story heard; he was acquitted because weeks' worth of testimony and evidence before a jury backed his story up.
Except when it doesn't (but that's okay I know Zimmerman fan boys love cherry picking witness testimony). Zimmerman's account doesn't take into consideration a verbal altercation that 4 out of 3 witnesses claim happened. Jeantel was a terrible witness and can probably be tossed out as having anything useful to say, but that just leaves 2 out of 3 claiming there was an argument before the fight. That's not evidence to really say Zimmerman is lying (especially when 1 witness seems to have become really biased by media coverage of the case imo), but there was a lot of testimony that contradicts Zimmerman's own narrative of things. It's just not big enough to prove Zimmerman is outright lying or get past reasonable doubt.
LordofHats wrote: Did you? One witness actually testified that she thought Zimmerman was on top of Martin.
Indeed. That was the witness who said it was the bigger guy on top, and she thought that to be Zimmerman based on the photos shown on the news. Zimmerman, of course, was actually substantially smaller. The defense didn't waste any time in pointing that out.
Two of them testified to there being a verbal altercation prior to the fight.
So if we get in a verbal altercation, the law allows you to assault me? Man, I've been doing it wrong.
Really? What evidence? I can think of dozens of scenarios with the evidence, all of them plausible. Zimmerman doesn't have evidence to support his story so much as lack of evidence to contradict it. His story fits, and others can fit too but there's no witnesses to say Zimmerman is lying.
Well, lessee:
Roughly six eye witnesses, the injuries sustained by Zimmerman and the lack of fight-related injuries sustained by Martin, the ME's report, the ballistics analysis, etc.
Is what I mean. Martin died, but it could easily have been Zimmerman and I'd be asking the same questions. Why should Citizen Watch membership be a free pass to play cowboy? It's dangerous for everyone involved.
Because it's not illegal to follow someone. It's not illegal to ask them what they're doing in your neighborhood. It's not even illegal to do all of that based on the fact that you don't like the way they look.
I'm honestly not sure what your argument is here. You seem to be suggesting that Zimmerman's at fault for not anticipating that Martin would unlawfully attack him - and that's going with your favored version of events, the one wherein Zimmerman had the amazing foresight to lie to the dispatcher and tell him he lost sight of Martin so he was instead moving to determine his own personal location, but in actuality he was still hot on Martin's heels.
Honestly? Yes. Especially when witness testimony showed now reason to doubt Zimmerman's version of events. Just because someone doesn't have bruises on them doesn't mean they weren't attacked anymore than Zimmerman getting his ask kicked doesn't mean he didn't start the fight or pull a gun first or any other number of plausible things that could have happened in that alley.
And this, at least, shows me why you're having such a hard time understanding the simple concepts at play here.
In order to use lethal force in self-defense, you need to demonstrate a credible belief that your life is in danger. It's not simply, "Oh, you swung at me, so I can now lawfully shoot you."
You're ignoring that if Zimmerman hadn't decided he needed to pursue someone just for wearing a hoodie no one would be dead. Zimmerman created a dangerous situation. He didn't ask to get assaulted, and maybe Martin had no reason to fear for his life (or maybe he did), but that's not what I'm asking now. I'm asking if we should allow private citizen to play cop and create situations where someone can lose their life. If Zimmerman had just waited for the cops no crimes would have been committed and no one would have died but Zimmerman's proponents love ignoring that part of the case.
And we're back to your proposal to create a law against following people.
Thankfully, nobody's crazy enough to pass that legislation.
Except when it doesn't (but that's okay I know Zimmerman fan boys love cherry picking witness testimony). Zimmerman's account doesn't take into consideration a verbal altercation that 4 out of 3 witnesses claim happened. Jeantel was a terrible witness and can probably be tossed out as having anything useful to say, but that just leaves 2 out of 3 claiming there was an argument before the fight. That's not evidence to really say Zimmerman is lying (especially when 1 witness seems to have become really biased by media coverage of the case imo), but there was a lot of testimony that contradicts Zimmerman's own narrative of things. It's just not big enough to prove Zimmerman is outright lying or get past reasonable doubt.
If I give you the witness list and link you to YouTube clips of all the testimony, think you could tell me which two claimed to have heard the verbal confrontation before the fight without managing to pick up what was said? Because I think we're back to you misinterpreting summaries you heard.
Either way, I'm done. We're in "You shouldn't be allowed to follow people!" and "Sure, there was evidence and eyewitness testimony consistent with Zimmerman's account that he couldn't possibly have known of when making his many voluntary statements, but it's still JUST HIS WORD!" territory, and it's clear we're just going to head deeper.
You seem to be suggesting that Zimmerman's at fault for not anticipating that Martin would unlawfully attack him
I'm suggesting he's at fault for pursing someone with no credible reason that sparked Martin's violent reaction. That's not a statement of criminal wrong doing but of a reckless disregard both for his own safety and Martin's. That's apparently not criminal, but that's a standard that's wide open for abuse and can lead to more people being killed in the future pointlessly.
And we're back to your proposal to create a law against following people.
Totally. Following people is my problem. Not citizen watch taking on the power of police sparking a situation where someone died. I mean it's almost like I keep saying 'had Zimmerman not followed Martin no one would have been assaulted or killed' and like other people keep saying 'following people isn't a crime' while not addressing the actual fact that the former is a true statement that in no way contests the truth of the later and then jumping to some erroneous conclusion that the former necessitates the rejection of the later.
Because I think we're back to you misinterpreting summaries you heard.
Go for it. If I'm wrong then I'm just wrong. But I'm also fairly certain that if I'm right the weaseling will just continue so the outcome ultimately means nothing. No matter what Zimmerman remains the man who can do no wrong, private citizens get to have all the power of the police with no oversight, and a teenager gets to stay dead while everyone just forgets he ever existed.
We're in "You shouldn't be allowed to follow people!" and "Sure, there was evidence and eyewitness testimony consistent with Zimmerman's account that he couldn't possibly have known of when making his many voluntary statements, but it's still JUST HIS WORD!" territory, and it's clear we're just going to head deeper.
It must be nice living in some fantasy reality where you can reinterpret other people's posts into some twisted mess.
Howard A Treesong wrote: Maybe Zimmerman should have stayed in the car, or stayed at home. Instead of playing policeman and creeping around the neighbourhood at night with a loaded gun. He had to defend himself from a confrontation he provoked. What a needless death.
And maybe Martin should have gone home, not left his home, not assaulted a guy he didn't know... It works both ways. Again, the prosecution showed NO evidence Zimmerman 'provoked' a confrontation. You insisting he did based on emotion seems a weak argument at this point.
I have personally approached suspicious people more than once (most recently a couple weeks ago). That does not justify assault.
Yes, it is pretty shocking behaviour to go out to the corner shop for a pack of sweets and a can of coke and take a short cut.
Howard A Treesong wrote: Maybe Zimmerman should have stayed in the car, or stayed at home. Instead of playing policeman and creeping around the neighbourhood at night with a loaded gun. He had to defend himself from a confrontation he provoked. What a needless death.
And maybe Martin should have gone home, not left his home, not assaulted a guy he didn't know... It works both ways. Again, the prosecution showed NO evidence Zimmerman 'provoked' a confrontation. You insisting he did based on emotion seems a weak argument at this point.
I have personally approached suspicious people more than once (most recently a couple weeks ago). That does not justify assault.
Yes, it is pretty shocking behaviour to go out to the corner shop for a pack of sweets and a can of coke and take a short cut, and assault someone who asks what you are doing.The fether was obviously asking for it.
Kilkrazy wrote: There is no evidence to support your statement.
Well, except Trayvon had scratched/bruised knuckles, Zimmerman had a mashed nose and bashed head, Trayvon had NO other injuries except the bullet hole. So unless you are proposing Zimmerman hit Trayvon first and did no damage at all, and then Trayvon did the rest of the hitting until he got capped, yes, there is evidence to support my statement.
CptJake wrote: So unless you are proposing Zimmerman hit Trayvon first and did no damage at all, and then Trayvon did the rest of the hitting until he got capped,
That is well within the bounds of possibility. ZImmerman could have simply missed or only landed a weak bodyshot and then got pummelled.
in the end a grown man performing a night watch in his neighborhood shot and killed a 17 year old young adult
the whole situation would have been different if the gun was not there in the first place. Who knows what would happen, but for sure as hell a gun would not be involved if it were not there, sincerely captain obvious
sometimes the system works, the other 99% of the time, meh
CptJake wrote: So unless you are proposing Zimmerman hit Trayvon first and did no damage at all, and then Trayvon did the rest of the hitting until he got capped,
That is well within the bounds of possibility. ZImmerman could have simply missed or only landed a weak bodyshot and then got pummelled.
And yet, even the prosecution didn't try to go that route.
Again, the actual evidence presented supports Zimmerman's story. The detective that interviewed him believed Zimmerman and believed the what evidence there was supported Zimmerman's story. It does not mean his story is 100% true, but the evidence does support it, and no evidence to contradict it was presented. The way the system works, the prosecution has to prove guilt, not just present alternate possible theories of events. They failed to prove guilt, because frankly, they didn't have evidence to prove the charges they went with (to include the lesser included charge of manslaughter).
whembly wrote: Mark O’Mara took time of his post-verdict press conference to chastise the media for its handling of this case.
“Two systems went against George Zimmerman that he can’t understand: you guys, the media. He was like a patient in an operating table where a mad scientists were committing experiments on him and he he had no anesthesia,” an agitated O’Mara said after a reporter asked if Zimmerman ever showed emotion. “He didn’t know why he was turned into this monster, but quite honestly you guys had a lot to do with it. You just did. Because you took a story that was fed to you and you ran with it, and you ran right over him. And that was horrid to him.
“Then he comes into a system that he trusts — let’s not forget, six voluntary statements, voluntary surrender — and he believes in a system that he really wanted to be a part of, right? And then he gets prosecutors that charge him with a crime that they could never, ever, prove. … So those two systems failed him.”
ZING! Dayum!
I agree, how certain elements of the media conducted themselves was shameful.
djones520 wrote: *sigh* I just broke my facebook truce. I am sick to death of this "crusade" of white on black death, when it's the smallest segment of murder when examined by race.
I had one person go on a tirade about the case. I read it. It was full of "unarmed child", "defenseless minor", and various other complaints that bore no relation to the facts. So I hid the post so I wouldn't have to interact with that person over the issue. I know that person is going to argue from an ideological stand point and ignore the facts and I have better things to do than engage in that sort of discussion
kronk wrote: Good verdict, had no business going to trial. Let's move on.
People just want him convicted of Manslaughter regardless of evidence and facts. Then again we are starting to lose the fact we are a nation of laws that's being replaced by emotions, what if's, and finger pointing guilt.
Wonder what if Zimmerman was black and Trayvon a white Hispanic....how this would go down
Again, the actual evidence presented supports Zimmerman's story.
There is a wide gulf between supporting and confirming.
But it's the prosecutions job to present evidence confirming (to use your word) their case - not Zimmerman's. His side only had to provide reasonable doubt, and when you strip away the emotional side of the case, there's enough of that to drive a Land Raider through.
SavageRobby wrote: But it's the prosecutions job to present evidence confirming (to use your word) their case - not Zimmerman's. His side only had to provide reasonable doubt, and when you strip away the emotional side of the case, there's enough of that to drive a Land Raideran Emperor Class Battleship through.
The special prosecutor appointed to the George Zimmerman case has sacked a whistle-blowing colleague who testified at the trial that the state attorney’s office failed to comply with the rules of discovery.
Ben Kruidbos, the state attorney’s office IT director, was reportedly fired in the wake of rendering testimony during a June 6 hearing that was potentially damaging to the prosecution regarding cell phone photos and text messages discovered on Trayvon Martin’s phone that were not furnished to defense attorneys.
The Orlando Sentinel reports Kruidbos received a scathing letter from State Attorney Angela Corey's office Friday morning, calling him untrustworthy and adding he "can never again be trusted to step foot in this office."
However, the Associated Press reports that Kruidbos received the pink slip Thursday, which accused him of misconduct and “violating numerous state attorney’s office policies and procedures.” Specifically, the letter reportedly accused him of disclosing confidential information, sabotage of property or equipment, and misuse of equipment.
The cell phone photos reportedly depict, among other things, a clump of jewelry on a bed, underage nude females, marijuana plants, as well as a hand menacingly holding a semiautomatic pistol.
Zimmerman's attorneys were reportedly seeking sanctions against the state for not properly turning over the evidence from Martin's phone. Judge Debra Nelson said she would revisit the matter at the trial's end.
And now DoJ looking into Civil RIghts violation to possibly use against Zimmerman. Jebus.....we're about to open a whole new can of worms now.
Rented Tritium wrote: Huh, what's that? Not-guilty? Rentedtritium was right count: 1.
No riots in florida? Rentedtritium was right count: 2.
Apparently there was a small riot in oakland, but it appears to have just gone a few blocks and dispersed. Barely even anything for oakland. The whole "there will be riots" thing was just racebaiting from the right wing blogs.
The only reason there were no riots according to people that lived in Oakland was that the riot police were there and waiting.
Relapse wrote: Now we shall see if Zimmerman get nailed for violating civil rights the way the LA cops were after they were acquitted.
Why would he?
"Violating civil rights" is something that, effectively, only an agency or other government entity can do to you.
So unless his "neighborhood watch" was funded with tax dollars and actually part of the local police department and not an initiative that he and the other neighbors came up with very little oversight/collaboration with local law enforcement, there is very little room for a "violation of civil rights".
Here's your answer. The government is already looking into it because the mob needs appeasing.
Mod alert.......screen has eye's....At times Al Sharton just seems to want to stir things up...more so with a White-African American (Obama mother is white and a play on Z being a White Hispanic) and Eric Holder being a African American (Both parents are African American). Its like Al expects those two to be at his beck and call when he screams racism and profiling. The bad part about it is the perception that if Obama and Holder goes after Z then we have reverse racism...being not so educated in this field....is that also covered under Civil Rights? Oxy and Antivan kicking....and under 48 hrs to get the final results if I'm cancer free or I go another round of chemo...
If there's one thing I've learned from post-verdict discussion in this thread, it's that this guy's clearly going to get away with it. After all, he made up a story, and as long as a vigilante makes up a story, I'm told, there's nothing to stop them from walking.
Where the hell was Sharpton and the race baiting media over this? Jesus, this sounds like a perfect instance for them to pounce on.
Well, they did actually arrest the guy right away and kept him on jail, so it's hard for them to argue that the system failed the victim by letting him walk.
You know, one of the more despicable comments I heard on MSNBC last night was the whole race mumbo jumbo and how whites were happy Casey Anthony got off. I did a double take. I don't know a single person that doesn't think that hoe deserves to burn in hell.
cincydooley wrote: You know, one of the more despicable comments I heard on MSNBC last night was the whole race mumbo jumbo and how whites were happy Casey Anthony got off. I did a double take. I don't know a single person that doesn't think that hoe deserves to burn in hell.
Wow. This makes me glad I get my news from Dakka instead of Places like Fox and MSNBC.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: Discharging a firearm 8 or 9 times at a gas station? Then his attorney claims that is how a responsible gun owner behaves?
The guy sounds as intelligent as the guy I saw at a filling station one time who was multiple times setting his arm on fire and then eqtinguishing the flames, to the amusement of equaly brilliant looking girls.
cincydooley wrote: You know, one of the more despicable comments I heard on MSNBC last night was the whole race mumbo jumbo and how whites were happy Casey Anthony got off. I did a double take. I don't know a single person that doesn't think that hoe deserves to burn in hell.
Responsible gun owner.....you see...its goat nuts like these who give law abiding weapon owners a hard time on the gun threads here on Dakka. The fact its right after the Z trial is bad enough but throwing lead and then driving off.....Al Sharpton better be all over this
Jihadin wrote: Responsible gun owner.....you see...its goat nuts like these who give law abiding weapon owners a hard time on the gun threads here on Dakka. The fact its right after the Z trial is bad enough but throwing lead and then driving off.....Al Sharpton better be all over this
Yet this happens all the time between black kids because someone is wearing the wrong color shirt or some such crap. If there was as much news given about this kind of event as there was with white on black violence, there'd be no reporters left to cover the royal baby watch.
cincydooley wrote: You know, one of the more despicable comments I heard on MSNBC last night was the whole race mumbo jumbo and how whites were happy Casey Anthony got off. I did a double take. I don't know a single person that doesn't think that hoe deserves to burn in hell.
Wow. This makes me glad I get my news from Dakka instead of Places like Fox and MSNBC.
Surprisingly, Fox News was incredibly even in their post verdict discussion. Geraldo and Jaun Williams did a great job. They were destroying the media more than anything. It was actually pretty refreshing.
On the darkside of humor...I protect the Constitution of the US of A. You all freaking owe me a beer which you all better be drinking tonight or tomorrow night dangit. I protect your right to watch issues like these get televised....be it dry cow pies to goat roping to outright monkey raping....only in America
Jihadin wrote: On the darkside of humor...I protect the Constitution of the US of A. You all freaking owe me a beer which you all better be drinking tonight or tomorrow night dangit. I protect your right to watch issues like these get televised....be it dry cow pies to goat roping to outright monkey raping....only in America
WTH Purple...I thought you were old enough to drink...I just gave you an excuse to drink a pint due to the Constitution of the US of A that provided you across the "pond" some entertainment and debates
Oh we drink because of that already No one needs and excuse to drink, which is why i am up at twenty past 5 in the morning drinking vodka and... something...
cincydooley wrote: You know, one of the more despicable comments I heard on MSNBC last night was the whole race mumbo jumbo and how whites were happy Casey Anthony got off. I did a double take. I don't know a single person that doesn't think that hoe deserves to burn in hell.
I don't know a single person who knows who Casey Anthony is, including myself. Nor will I be arsed enough to google it.
cincydooley wrote: You know, one of the more despicable comments I heard on MSNBC last night was the whole race mumbo jumbo and how whites were happy Casey Anthony got off. I did a double take. I don't know a single person that doesn't think that hoe deserves to burn in hell.
I don't know a single person who knows who Casey Anthony is, including myself. Nor will I be arsed enough to google it.
I'm assuming because it's another case where everyone and their aunt immediately decided that she had to be guilty based on the media's portrayal of her, and was furious when they were found not guilty.
Though from what I've seen of this thread (I may be wrong) some of the people who are insisting that Zimmerman did nothing wrong because he was found not guilty are the same people saying Anthony should have been thrown away to rot.
I'm assuming because it's another case where everyone and their aunt immediately decided that she had to be guilty based on the media's portrayal of her, and was furious when they were found not guilty.
Though from what I've seen of this thread (I may be wrong) some of the people who are insisting that Zimmerman did nothing wrong because he was found not guilty are the same people saying Anthony should have been thrown away to rot.
I'm assuming because it's another case where everyone and their aunt immediately decided that she had to be guilty based on the media's portrayal of her, and was furious when they were found not guilty.
Though from what I've seen of this thread (I may be wrong) some of the people who are insisting that Zimmerman did nothing wrong because he was found not guilty are the same people saying Anthony should have been thrown away to rot.
Wait, your equating folks who are saying Zimmermans guilt was not proven due to lack of any evidence, are the same people who think that someone should have been thrown away due to lack of evidence? That's totally ass backwards.
Yeah the whole "there will be riots" thing was just hysteria to keep you watching the news after the verdict. There was never enough anger down there for anything to happen and it's way too hot in florida right now to riot.
Rented Tritium wrote: Yeah the whole "there will be riots" thing was just hysteria to keep you watching the news after the verdict. There was never enough anger down there for anything to happen and it's way too hot in florida right now to riot.
I'd say it has a lot more to do with a heavy police presence preventing the ball from really getting rolling. Florida has been pretty quiet, but out in L.A. they've certainly been trying.
Rented Tritium wrote: Yeah the whole "there will be riots" thing was just hysteria to keep you watching the news after the verdict. There was never enough anger down there for anything to happen and it's way too hot in florida right now to riot.
I'd say it has a lot more to do with a heavy police presence preventing the ball from really getting rolling. Florida has been pretty quiet, but out in L.A. they've certainly been trying.
The police presense didn't prevent anything. The right wing blogs said the minorities would be rioting, the police said "ok sure lets prepare just in case" then it didn't happen. It wasn't because the police were there. That's never stopped riots in the past.
Oakland riots all the time, so that's not really worth anything.
Rented Tritium wrote: Yeah the whole "there will be riots" thing was just hysteria to keep you watching the news after the verdict. There was never enough anger down there for anything to happen and it's way too hot in florida right now to riot.
I'd say it has a lot more to do with a heavy police presence preventing the ball from really getting rolling. Florida has been pretty quiet, but out in L.A. they've certainly been trying.
The police presense didn't prevent anything. The right wing blogs said the minorities would be rioting, the police said "ok sure lets prepare just in case" then it didn't happen. It wasn't because the police were there. That's never stopped riots in the past.
Oakland riots all the time, so that's not really worth anything.
Most riots that the police fail to prevent are because they are reacting, instead of being prepared before hand. Most people are not going to charge a police line when they haven't been completely fired up yet. Seeing that force there ready to react does a very good job at keeping tempers under control.
As you said, Oakland riots all the time, but the police were prepared for it this time, and they've kept it to a minimum. Police fired (rubber bullets) on a near flashpoint in L.A., and there were some issues in New York last night that they were able to shut down before it got going as well.
Had local governments just said "it's nothing but right wing hype" and done nothing, things would have gotten a lot worse at those locations, and most likely others.
Could someone tell me why they didn't go for an easier-to-convict manslaughter charge instead of murder 2? Sorry if it's been covered already, feel free to link me to it.
RiTides wrote: Could someone tell me why they didn't go for an easier-to-convict manslaughter charge instead of murder 2? Sorry if it's been covered already, feel free to link me to it.
They did, Manslaughter was something he'd been charged with as well, and was found not-guilty on.
Wouldn't have mattered if they dropped the 2nd Degree charge, they still didn't even prove manslaughter.
Jihadin wrote: On the darkside of humor...I protect the Constitution of the US of A. You all freaking owe me a beer which you all better be drinking tonight or tomorrow night dangit. I protect your right to watch issues like these get televised....be it dry cow pies to goat roping to outright monkey raping....only in America
I don't think the Police would be thrilled with me drink driving between here and Chicago to collect my family, but we'll be doing some damage to our stock of liquor later
Roddy also apologized with this gem: I understand my tweet last nite was extreme. I never meant for the people to do that. I was shocked and upset about the verdict. I am sorry.
So much like Cruz, his agent probably said, "Are you an idiot?!"
Z never uttered those words. It's clear where the real "undeniable hatred" is coming from.
Ok... umm... Dakka won't let the link work.
Yeah Nancy Grace is an abomination of lies of the propaganda media.
Remember when the Media was about the truth and getting to the bottom of the story? Now it's just one side vs the other all the time as a panel to express there motives.
Rented Tritium wrote: Yeah the whole "there will be riots" thing was just hysteria to keep you watching the news after the verdict. There was never enough anger down there for anything to happen and it's way too hot in florida right now to riot.
I'd say it has a lot more to do with a heavy police presence preventing the ball from really getting rolling. Florida has been pretty quiet, but out in L.A. they've certainly been trying.
The right wing blogs said the minorities would be rioting, the police said "ok sure lets prepare just in case" then it didn't happen.
Ah yes, the Right Wing Blogs, that explains the posts about rioting on Twitter.
Oh. People have tried to riot. The police have just been prepared. The police presence last night in Cincys riot neighborhood (OTR) was substantial last night. Substantial.
And the majority of those athlete tweets were just what you'd expect: moronic drivel from undereducated millionaires. Those were no surprise. The one from Jonathan Vilma really impressed me. "Be constructive not destructive".
Rented Tritium wrote: Yeah the whole "there will be riots" thing was just hysteria to keep you watching the news after the verdict. There was never enough anger down there for anything to happen and it's way too hot in florida right now to riot.
I'd say it has a lot more to do with a heavy police presence preventing the ball from really getting rolling. Florida has been pretty quiet, but out in L.A. they've certainly been trying.
The right wing blogs said the minorities would be rioting, the police said "ok sure lets prepare just in case" then it didn't happen.
Ah yes, the Right Wing Blogs, that explains the posts about rioting on Twitter.
Again, no. People TRIED to and were unable to because police were prepared.
It isn't the magic of the police that stop a riot or civil disobedience, it is a combination of things, including police presence, that do that. You also have people within the groups calling for calmer heads to prevail and the fact that while angry and upset, most people don't want to harm others and just lose control. We just had a thread about how the DoJ was there to help keep these groups peaceful and focused and already we want to dismiss any other influence that isn't a night stick.
For the life of me. I cannot remember ever saying anything positive or negative of Casey Anthony........was hoping she take the porn deal though....put up their with Amy Fisher......
At 17 you can join the military with parent consent. You just cannot go into a combat zone due to the Child Soldier Law...
Why we still referring TM as a child and he's a teen? Almost grown adult.
Never mind. Emotions I remember rules over laws in the US of A
Ahtman wrote: It isn't the magic of the police that stop a riot or civil disobedience, it is a combination of things, including police presence, that do that. You also have people within the groups calling for calmer heads to prevail and the fact that while angry and upset, most people don't want to harm others and just lose control. We just had a thread about how the DoJ was there to help keep these groups peaceful and focused and already we want to dismiss any other influence that isn't a night stick.
Actually if there are 20 people who want to riot and 10 cops with shotguns, there won't be a riot. There may be a large number of shootings and hospital visits, but no riot.
Sigh, Swedish media reporting on the case have all gone with the "horrible racism frees evil scumbag murderer" line. Considering the rise of some, in my opinion, unpleasant chaps into the Swedish Parliament and their obsession with how people who call them racists are overreacting I'd really like if the media didn't play straight into their hands, but alas...
Ahtman wrote: It isn't the magic of the police that stop a riot or civil disobedience, it is a combination of things, including police presence, that do that. You also have people within the groups calling for calmer heads to prevail and the fact that while angry and upset, most people don't want to harm others and just lose control. We just had a thread about how the DoJ was there to help keep these groups peaceful and focused and already we want to dismiss any other influence that isn't a night stick.
Actually if there are 20 people who want to riot and 10 cops with shotguns, there won't be a riot. There may be a large number of shootings and hospital visits, but no riot.
Most of the protests were peaceful, but some of the most dramatic scenes occurred in Los Angeles, where protesters clashed with police Sunday night and Monday morning, with one group of protesters blocking a major freeway.
Police in Los Angeles said they arrested six people on Monday, mostly for failure to disperse.
The Los Angeles Times reported that a splinter group from a larger protest walked down an on-ramp to the Interstate 10 freeway in the Mid-City section of Los Angeles and stood in the eastbound lanes, closing portions of the traffic artery for approximately 25 minutes, which prompted a Los Angeles Police Department citywide tactical alert.
The Times also quoted an LAPD spokesman who said that at least one arrest was made after rocks and D-cell batteries were thrown at officers at the corner of Washington Boulevard and 10th Avenue. Police also fired non-lethal rounds at the demonstrators. No injuries were immediately reported.
The city's mayor, Eric Garcetti, took to Twitter to ask city residents to "Exercise [the] 1st Amendment and practice peace in City of Angels tonight."
Early Monday, the Times reported that more than 100 officers in riot gear converged on around 80 protesters in front of the CNN building on Sunset Boulevard in Hollywood and made arrests. The protesters had marched to the CNN building from the intersection of Hollywood Boulevard and Highland Avenue.
In New York City, more than a thousand people marched into Times Square on Sunday night, zigzagging through Manhattan's streets to avoid police lines. Sign-carrying marchers thronged the busy intersection, chanting "Justice for! Trayvon Martin!" as they made their way from Union Square, blocking traffic for more than an hour before moving on.
Some tempered their anger, saying they didn't contest the jury's decision based on the legal issues involved.
But "while the verdict may be legal, a system that doesn't take into account what happened is a broken legal system," said Jennifer Lue, 24, an Asian-American resident of Harlem.
The New York Police Department said it arrested at least a dozen in the Times Square protest.
At a march and rally in downtown Chicago attended by about 200 people, some said the verdict was symbolic of lingering racism in the United States. Seventy-three-year-old Maya Miller said the case reminded her of the 1955 slaying of Emmitt Till, a 14-year-old from Chicago who was murdered by a group of white men while visiting Mississippi. Till's killing galvanized the civil rights movement.
"Fifty-eight years and nothing's changed," Miller said, pausing to join a chant for "Justice for Trayvon, not one more."
Protesters also gathered in Atlanta, Miami, Milwaukee, Philadelphia, and Washington, D.C., along with a host of other cities.
In Miami, more than 200 people gathered for a vigil. "You can't justify murder," read one poster. Another read "Don't worry about more riots. Worry about more Zimmermans."
Carol Reitner, 76, of Miami, said she heard about the vigil through an announcement at her church Sunday morning. "I was really devastated. It's really hard to believe that someone can take the life of someone else and walk out of court free," she said.
Fears of mass and violent protests proved unfounded Sunday in South Florida the face of a highly-visible police presence.
"I haven’t seen any evidence of problems yet, and hopefully there won’t be any," Ed Shohat, a Miami-Dade’s Community Relations Board member, told The Miami Herald. "We do not believe (violence) will happen. Frankly, Miami is a … more mature community than … 25, 30 years ago when we had violent reactions to criminal court verdicts."
In Philadelphia, about 700 protesters marched from LOVE Park to the Liberty Bell, alternating between chanting Trayvon Martin's name and "No justice, no peace!"
"We hope this will begin a movement to end discrimination against young black men," said Johnathan Cooper, one of the protest's organizers. "And also to empower black people and get them involved in the system."
In Atlanta, a crowd of about 75 protesters chanted and carried signs near Centennial Olympic Park.
"I came out today because a great deal of injustice has been done and I'm very disappointed at our justice system; I'm just disappointed in America," Tabatha Holley, 19, of Atlanta said.
Civil rights leaders, including the Revs. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, urged peace in the wake of the verdict. Jackson said the legal system "failed justice," but violence isn't the answer.
But not all the protesters heeded those calls immediately after the verdict.
In Oakland, Calif., during protests that began late Saturday night some angry demonstrators broke windows, burned U.S. flags and started street fires. Some marchers also vandalized a police squad car and used spray paint to scrawl anti-police graffiti on roads and Alameda County's Davidson courthouse.
Oakland Mayor Jean Quan said Martin's death "raised powerful, incredibly difficult issues" surrounding racial profiling, but she criticized vandals who "dishonored the memory of Trayvon by engaging in violent activities that hurt our growing economy and endangered people."
"We will not tolerate violence in our city," Quan said.
The Oakland demonstration followed a raucous but largely peaceful rally in San Francisco. Police say officers escorted demonstrators as they marched on the city's Mission District. The group was dispersed by 10 p.m.
Meanwhile, Mark O'Mara, who defended Zimmerman at trial, suggested his client’s safety was at risk. "There still is a fringe element that wants revenge," O'Mara said. "They won't listen to a verdict of not guilty."
O'Mara told ABC News that Zimmerman will be entitled to get his Kel Tec 9 pistol back, and his client would likely arm himself again.
"[There's] even more reason now, isn't there? There are a lot of people out there who actually hate him, though they shouldn't," he said.
O'Mara said Zimmerman wears a protective vest when he goes out in public, but he did not wear it in court.
Wonder what will happen when Eric Holder/DoJ goes public that there is no "smoking gun" civil right violation on Zimmerman. Good money someone with a hefty public support going to label him something stupid like being a "sell out" or worse a "Uncle Tom". That would actually piss me off.
Ahtman wrote: It isn't the magic of the police that stop a riot or civil disobedience, it is a combination of things, including police presence, that do that. You also have people within the groups calling for calmer heads to prevail and the fact that while angry and upset, most people don't want to harm others and just lose control. We just had a thread about how the DoJ was there to help keep these groups peaceful and focused and already we want to dismiss any other influence that isn't a night stick.
Actually if there are 20 people who want to riot and 10 cops with shotguns, there won't be a riot. There may be a large number of shootings and hospital visits, but no riot.
Houston doesn't have riots. See above.
I have a stone that keeps tigers away as well.
I have .44 mag that keeps the Polar Bears away. Without me Texas would be overrun by 'em. Darn Polar Bears, trying to take our jobs!
You two Chuckleheads....I have the gang bangers down the road from me telling the opposite side of gang bangers that I own the blocks around my block including the park because I apparently have a bigger arsenal then them. On the plus side they do a lawn care business of all things and for $45 a month they keep my lawn cut and clean
Well, let's see how many of these riots actually were riots (red) and not riots (green)
Jihadin wrote: Quick little run down so far on the "riots"
Most of the protests were peaceful, but some of the most dramatic scenes occurred in Los Angeles, where protesters clashed with police Sunday night and Monday morning, with one group of protesters blocking a major freeway.
Police in Los Angeles said they arrested six people on Monday, mostly for failure to disperse.
The Los Angeles Times reported that a splinter group from a larger protest walked down an on-ramp to the Interstate 10 freeway in the Mid-City section of Los Angeles and stood in the eastbound lanes, closing portions of the traffic artery for approximately 25 minutes, which prompted a Los Angeles Police Department citywide tactical alert.
The Times also quoted an LAPD spokesman who said that at least one arrest was made after rocks and D-cell batteries were thrown at officers at the corner of Washington Boulevard and 10th Avenue. Police also fired non-lethal rounds at the demonstrators. No injuries were immediately reported.
The city's mayor, Eric Garcetti, took to Twitter to ask city residents to "Exercise [the] 1st Amendment and practice peace in City of Angels tonight."
Early Monday, the Times reported that more than 100 officers in riot gear converged on around 80 protesters in front of the CNN building on Sunset Boulevard in Hollywood and made arrests. The protesters had marched to the CNN building from the intersection of Hollywood Boulevard and Highland Avenue.
In New York City, more than a thousand people marched into Times Square on Sunday night, zigzagging through Manhattan's streets to avoid police lines. Sign-carrying marchers thronged the busy intersection, chanting "Justice for! Trayvon Martin!" as they made their way from Union Square, blocking traffic for more than an hour before moving on.
Some tempered their anger, saying they didn't contest the jury's decision based on the legal issues involved.
But "while the verdict may be legal, a system that doesn't take into account what happened is a broken legal system," said Jennifer Lue, 24, an Asian-American resident of Harlem.
The New York Police Department said it arrested at least a dozen in the Times Square protest.
At a march and rally in downtown Chicago attended by about 200 people, some said the verdict was symbolic of lingering racism in the United States. Seventy-three-year-old Maya Miller said the case reminded her of the 1955 slaying of Emmitt Till, a 14-year-old from Chicago who was murdered by a group of white men while visiting Mississippi. Till's killing galvanized the civil rights movement.
"Fifty-eight years and nothing's changed," Miller said, pausing to join a chant for "Justice for Trayvon, not one more."
Protesters also gathered in Atlanta, Miami, Milwaukee, Philadelphia, and Washington, D.C., along with a host of other cities.
In Miami, more than 200 people gathered for a vigil. "You can't justify murder," read one poster. Another read "Don't worry about more riots. Worry about more Zimmermans."
Carol Reitner, 76, of Miami, said she heard about the vigil through an announcement at her church Sunday morning. "I was really devastated. It's really hard to believe that someone can take the life of someone else and walk out of court free," she said.
Fears of mass and violent protests proved unfounded Sunday in South Florida the face of a highly-visible police presence.
"I haven’t seen any evidence of problems yet, and hopefully there won’t be any," Ed Shohat, a Miami-Dade’s Community Relations Board member, told The Miami Herald. "We do not believe (violence) will happen. Frankly, Miami is a … more mature community than … 25, 30 years ago when we had violent reactions to criminal court verdicts."
In Philadelphia, about 700 protesters marched from LOVE Park to the Liberty Bell, alternating between chanting Trayvon Martin's name and "No justice, no peace!"
"We hope this will begin a movement to end discrimination against young black men," said Johnathan Cooper, one of the protest's organizers. "And also to empower black people and get them involved in the system."
In Atlanta, a crowd of about 75 protesters chanted and carried signs near Centennial Olympic Park.
"I came out today because a great deal of injustice has been done and I'm very disappointed at our justice system; I'm just disappointed in America," Tabatha Holley, 19, of Atlanta said.
Civil rights leaders, including the Revs. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, urged peace in the wake of the verdict. Jackson said the legal system "failed justice," but violence isn't the answer.
But not all the protesters heeded those calls immediately after the verdict.
In Oakland, Calif., during protests that began late Saturday night some angry demonstrators broke windows, burned U.S. flags and started street fires. Some marchers also vandalized a police squad car and used spray paint to scrawl anti-police graffiti on roads and Alameda County's Davidson courthouse.
Oakland Mayor Jean Quan said Martin's death "raised powerful, incredibly difficult issues" surrounding racial profiling, but she criticized vandals who "dishonored the memory of Trayvon by engaging in violent activities that hurt our growing economy and endangered people."
"We will not tolerate violence in our city," Quan said.
The Oakland demonstration followed a raucous but largely peaceful rally in San Francisco. Police say officers escorted demonstrators as they marched on the city's Mission District. The group was dispersed by 10 p.m.
Meanwhile, Mark O'Mara, who defended Zimmerman at trial, suggested his client’s safety was at risk. "There still is a fringe element that wants revenge," O'Mara said. "They won't listen to a verdict of not guilty."
O'Mara told ABC News that Zimmerman will be entitled to get his Kel Tec 9 pistol back, and his client would likely arm himself again.
"[There's] even more reason now, isn't there? There are a lot of people out there who actually hate him, though they shouldn't," he said.
O'Mara said Zimmerman wears a protective vest when he goes out in public, but he did not wear it in court.
So the predicted mass-rioting that will leave cities burn that was announced via Twitter (that I have yet to see any evidence for in this thread) turned out to be some donkey-caves throwing batteries and the city that always riots whenever anybody sneezes having a small riot.
I have seen worse riots following hockey matches in Canada than these race riots that were predicted.
Of course it is interesting that the news station that accused all the other news stations of race baiting was the biggest promoter of "angry black men" rioting.
Wonder what media stations going to be listed on the lawsuit by Zimmerman.....They had a rollercoaster ride with him for a good while....I do believe its his turn to ride
I'm just sick of all this... this was nothing more than to force fit a narrative, which was all about keeping black voters — and white-guilt liberal voters — in the fold for 2012 and 2014.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Sigh, Swedish media reporting on the case have all gone with the "horrible racism frees evil scumbag murderer" line. Considering the rise of some, in my opinion, unpleasant chaps into the Swedish Parliament and their obsession with how people who call them racists are overreacting I'd really like if the media didn't play straight into their hands, but alas...
The degree to which the media went out of its way to manipulate public perception of this case is pretty astonishing, all told. I understand people being angry; if I'd only ever heard the prosecution's evidence, I'd assume this was a miscarriage of justice, too.
Jihadin wrote: Wonder what media stations going to be listed on the lawsuit by Zimmerman.....They had a rollercoaster ride with him for a good while....I do believe its his turn to ride
The FBI reports that showed Z acted with no racial malice will go along way to prove their case against NBC. They defamed his character on a national level, and a federal investigation pretty much cleared him on it. He'll be rich enough to buy everything he needs to make sure no one ever bothers him again.
Frazzled wrote: I have .44 mag that keeps the Polar Bears away. Without me Texas would be overrun by 'em. Darn Polar Bears, trying to take our jobs!
*shakes fist angrily at the skies, outraged over the polar bear invasion*
"And now before giving you the details of the battle, I bring you a warning: Everyone of you listening to my voice, tell the world, tell this to everybody wherever they are. Watch the skies. Everywhere. Keep looking. Keep watching the skies. "
I particularly liked the comparisons going on between this case, and a woman that got 20 years in prison for firing "warning shots" in a stand your ground case. Prosecuted by good friend to George Zimmerman, Special Prosecutor Angela Corey.
Alfndrate wrote: I particularly liked the comparisons going on between this case, and a woman that got 20 years in prison for firing "warning shots" in a stand your ground case. Prosecuted by good friend to George Zimmerman, Special Prosecutor Angela Corey.
a friend of mine posted a link to that as if it had some meaning
he has been through conceal carry classes the same as me, and he should know better.
Alfndrate wrote: I particularly liked the comparisons going on between this case, and a woman that got 20 years in prison for firing "warning shots" in a stand your ground case. Prosecuted by good friend to George Zimmerman, Special Prosecutor Angela Corey.
a friend of mine posted a link to that as if it had some meaning
he has been through conceal carry classes the same as me, and he should know better.
"warning shots"
should of took the plea.
Should have done what George's lawyers suggested and not gone the Stand Your Ground hearing instead should have gone to trial, I bet she'd be a free woman today..
Alfndrate wrote: I particularly liked the comparisons going on between this case, and a woman that got 20 years in prison for firing "warning shots" in a stand your ground case. Prosecuted by good friend to George Zimmerman, Special Prosecutor Angela Corey.
a friend of mine posted a link to that as if it had some meaning
he has been through conceal carry classes the same as me, and he should know better.
"warning shots"
should of took the plea.
Should have done what George's lawyers suggested and not gone the Stand Your Ground hearing instead should have gone to trial, I bet she'd be a free woman today..
But didn't she like, leave the area and then come back? Anytime you return to the scene of anything, you immediately lose any "empassioned" defense. To return requires planning.....
Alfndrate wrote: I particularly liked the comparisons going on between this case, and a woman that got 20 years in prison for firing "warning shots" in a stand your ground case. Prosecuted by good friend to George Zimmerman, Special Prosecutor Angela Corey.
Besides the fact that warning shots are basically never legal, part of the problem in that case is that she retreated, retrieved a firearm, and then came back to fire the warning shots.
The biggest problem in that case are the horrendous mandatory minimum sentencing laws, though, which are the reason why she got 20 years for a situation in which nobody was actually hurt (except for her).
The comparisons and arguments that some people are making about the cases on Facebook are weird too. Just because there that woman absolutely should not have gotten a 20 year sentence doesn't mean that Zimmerman should go to prison.
Alfndrate wrote: I particularly liked the comparisons going on between this case, and a woman that got 20 years in prison for firing "warning shots" in a stand your ground case. Prosecuted by good friend to George Zimmerman, Special Prosecutor Angela Corey.
Besides the fact that warning shots are basically never legal, part of the problem in that case is that she retreated, retrieved a firearm, and then came back to fire the warning shots.
The biggest problem in that case are the horrendous mandatory minimum sentencing laws, though, which are the reason why she got 20 years for a situation in which nobody was actually hurt (except for her).
The comparisons and arguments that some people are making about the cases on Facebook are weird too. Just because there that woman absolutely should not have gotten a 20 year sentence doesn't mean that Zimmerman should go to prison.
No no, didn't they tell you! It's not because of mandatory minimum sentences, or that warning shots are basically never legal, it's because the system is rigged because she's black and Zimmerman is a White Hispanic
Alfndrate wrote: I particularly liked the comparisons going on between this case, and a woman that got 20 years in prison for firing "warning shots" in a stand your ground case. Prosecuted by good friend to George Zimmerman, Special Prosecutor Angela Corey.
a friend of mine posted a link to that as if it had some meaning
he has been through conceal carry classes the same as me, and he should know better.
"warning shots"
should of took the plea.
Should have done what George's lawyers suggested and not gone the Stand Your Ground hearing instead should have gone to trial, I bet she'd be a free woman today..
Well, maybe I didn't read the story enough but, if she described them as warning shots, than her case would of failed from the get-go I think.
I'm unaware of any right to anyone, to fire warning shots. Am I wrong on that?
I would also argue that if she felt the threat wasn't so immediate, that she was able to decide to "warn" away husband/boyfriend, as opposed to shooting him dead... than it wasn't much of a threat.. if you thing bodily harm is coming your way, pull the trigger honey, ask for forgiveness, not permission... but if the fella starts yelling and throwing stuff around house, you can't just pop off a few rounds into the ceiling and tell your spouse to cool their crap, that you can get loud too...
The stand your ground defense was just, a bad idea. I think she must of had a bad lawyer?
And quite frankly, I don't get all the "justice" claims here. Justice was served. It went to trial (even though it shouldn't have). A jury of Americans found acquitted him. I mean, you really cant get it both ways.
cincydooley wrote: And quite frankly, I don't get all the "justice" claims here. Justice was served. It went to trial (even though it shouldn't have). A jury of Americans found acquitted him. I mean, you really cant get it both ways.
"justice" in this case means "punishment for a guy that killed a kid"
Edit: The local sports radio I listen to was talking about it this morning and one of the guys says he would have gone in there, and no matter what happened would have voted to charge Zimmerman with manslaughter at the very least...
Further, I think the comparisons of Martin to Emmitt Till are appaling. Just appaling. Till was violently lynched for doing absolutely nothing. If I were Till's family, I'd call out every one of the people making that comparison and let them know how offensive it is.
cincydooley wrote: And quite frankly, I don't get all the "justice" claims here. Justice was served. It went to trial (even though it shouldn't have). A jury of Americans found acquitted him. I mean, you really cant get it both ways.
"justice" in this case means "punishment for a guy that killed a kid"
Edit: The local sports radio I listen to was talking about it this morning and one of the guys says he would have gone in there, and no matter what happened would have voted to charge Zimmerman with manslaughter at the very least...
You know, the interesting thing about the Casey Anthony comparisons are the fact that they're predicated on "white people" being happy she was acquitted.
Do any of you know a single white person that was happy about that?
His opinion was because Martin was shot, someone died, and thus the shooter should be punished. He said, "I don't think they should lock him up forever, but he should spend some time in jail."
cincydooley wrote:You know, the interesting thing about the Casey Anthony comparisons are the fact that they're predicated on "white people" being happy she was acquitted.
Do any of you know a single white person that was happy about that?
kronk wrote:I don't know anyone that was happy about the Casey Anthony verdict.
Casey Anthony was happy, but other than her... I don't know anyone that was happy.
Wait what? So warning shot in a threatening situation is not legal but shooting at people is? (Yes,I know in this specific case she shouldn't have gone back to the house anyway.)
There was an article released yesterday written by a guy who worked on the OJ Simpson trial. He was African American and you can probably guess how he hoped the case to turn out, but the other parts of the article were an interesting read. He spent the first half talking about the division the case caused in society and the second half (though he doesn't say it explicitly) talking about how African American's perceive the case.
I'm trying to find it right now. It was an interesting piece about perspectives.
In funnier news just saw an interview with the prosecution team where they said they thought they were going to win until the jury's verdict was read. Seriously want to know what trial they were watching.
Wait what? So warning shot in a threatening situation is not legal but shooting at people is? (Yes,I know in this specific case she shouldn't have gone back to the house anyway.)
Depends on the situation.
When training in self-defense... they almost ALWAYS instruct you to NEVER, EVER fire warning shots.
The only time I'd do it (and have done), is out in the bush to scare some bears away... (protip: Never fire at bears unless you're armed appropriately, ie, rockets/cannons .44 magnum ain't doing gak to these bears. )
Wait what? So warning shot in a threatening situation is not legal but shooting at people is? (Yes,I know in this specific case she shouldn't have gone back to the house anyway.)
Warning shots go places, like into your neighbors house, killing his kid. :/
Shots specifically aimed with intent of killing an aggressor, probably less likely.
If someone is "coming at you" you don't know what their intent is, only the possibilities. If you honestly feel like you are in fear of losing your life to them, than you are legally allowed to use deadly force...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
cincydooley wrote:Basically, if you're able to fire a "warning shot" you weren't in imminent danger in the first place.
whembly wrote:
cincydooley wrote: Basically, if you're able to fire a "warning shot" you weren't in imminent danger in the first place.
^ this.
I don't see what this comparison keeps coming up... o.O
Welp can't find it. Fortunately though I found this one which basically covers the first half of the article I wanted to find in similar fashion with a different conclusion:
The jury’s “not guilty” verdict in the George Zimmerman case sent a strong message: that we expect too much of jury verdicts. In high-profile trials like this one, in which the public is sharply divided over whether the defendant is a hero or a villain, we look to jurors to be modern-day oracles — settling the debate definitively, and leaving us enlightened as a nation. Instead, all we got was the jury’s terse decision that the prosecutors had not proved Zimmerman guilty of murder or manslaughter beyond a reasonable doubt.
Zimmerman’s family greeted the jury’s verdict as a full-on vindication. His brother insisted in a CNN interview that it meant that Zimmerman was “innocent,” not merely “not guilty.” The NAACP, for its part, said the acquittal meant that “justice failed.” That is not a debate that is likely to resolve itself anytime soon. In the end, however, the Zimmerman verdict offers up two important lessons: that criminal trials are not very good at deciding whether a defendant is actually innocent; and that they are equally bad at helping us to resolve the larger issues raised by a case.
(MORE: Preparing for Riots After Zimmerman Verdict Is Racial Fearmongering)
From the moment Zimmerman shot Trayvon Martin, an unarmed 17-year-old, in a gated community in Sanford, Fla., the encounter has been a lightning rod. The first big battle was over whether Zimmerman, a neighborhood-watch volunteer, should stand trial at all. The authorities did not arrest him until 45 days after the shooting — after the Martin family applied pressure and hundreds of thousands of people signed a Change.org petition.
Two warring narratives quickly emerged. To Martin’s sympathizers, the shooting represented everything that is wrong with race relations in 21st century America. They saw an innocent young man who was simply going out for an evening snack run. In their view, the case reflected the racial profiling and risk of violence that young black men face every day in America.
To Zimmerman’s supporters, it was a clear-cut case of self-defense. They said Zimmerman had every right to approach someone who appeared to be acting suspiciously near his home. And they pointed to the fact that Martin had been suspended from school three times, among other demerits, as evidence that he needed watching. They insisted that Zimmerman reasonably believed he was at risk of serious bodily harm — which, under Florida law, gave him the right to use deadly force in self-defense.
(MORE: Just Because Zimmerman Started It Doesn’t Mean He’s Guilty)
Both sides hoped the case would definitively resolve this debate, but as the trial went on, it became clear that it could not. Criminal trials are not journalism, which seeks to construct a who-what-when-where-why account. They are set up to answer a narrow question: whether the prosecution has proved a specific charge “beyond a reasonable doubt.”
The trouble is, that is not a question anyone outside of the legal system wants answered. The debate raging across the country since last year — in schools, workplaces and bars — has not been, “Do you think the prosecution will be able to prove Zimmerman guilty beyond a reasonable doubt?” It has been, “Do you think Zimmerman murdered Martin?” There is a wide chasm between saying Zimmerman is not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, as the jury did, and saying he is innocent.
If the jury could not tell us what to think of Zimmerman, it had even less to say about the larger issues embedded in the case. Martin’s killing has served as a morality tale, wrapping in it questions of racial profiling, self-defense and gun ownership. But the fact that Zimmerman was found not guilty does not mean young black men are not being racially profiled in large numbers — any more than a conviction would have meant that they are. It does not mean we need more guns — or fewer guns. It does not mean self-defense laws need to be changed — or that they do not.
And therein lies the real takeaway of the Zimmerman case: it is telling us as clearly as it can that for all these months, we have been paying too much attention to it. Like a badly prepared teacher who is overly reliant on in-class movies, we use glitzy trials to raise obliquely things that we should be talking about directly.
Are young black men being racially profiled? Are there too many guns in the hands of private citizens? Does the law give people too much leeway in using deadly force in self-defense? The Zimmerman trial was never going to answer any of those questions. But now that it is over, we should be able to find the time — and the right forum — to tackle them head-on.
Warning shots go places, like into your neighbors house, killing his kid. :/
Now that you say that I think that actually happened in my last neighborhood. Some kid snuck out of his house and went to a party, and then snuck back in through a window. His dad thought he was a burglar, fired a warning shot, killed his other son when the bullet went through the wall.
Wait what? So warning shot in a threatening situation is not legal but shooting at people is? (Yes,I know in this specific case she shouldn't have gone back to the house anyway.)
It boils down to the fact that the bullet, regardless of what direction you shoot it, could injure someone not involved in the situation. There was a story about a 61 yr old man who had his house broken into, saw the criminal breaking into his neighbor's yard, grabbed his .38 pistol and yelled freeze. When the guy didn't comply, the 61 yr old shot his gun into the ground. Police arrived, arrested the burglar and then arrested the 61 yr old for "reckless conduct"
According to a sworn deposition taken in November 2010, Marissa Alexander's husband, Rico Gray, 36, said that on August 1, 2010, he and Alexander began fighting after he found text messages to Alexander's first husband on her phone. The two were already estranged - according to her father, Alexander had been living at her mother's since the birth of the couple's daughter nine days earlier, and Gray, a long-haul trucker, said he spent the night before in his tractor-trailer. Gray began calling her names, saying "If I can't have you, nobody going to have you," and blocking her from exiting the bathroom.
Alexander pushed past Gray and went into the garage where she got her gun from her car's glove compartment. Gray didn't follow
Gray told prosecutors in the deposition that Alexander came back into the house holding the weapon and told him to leave. He refused, and what happened next is somewhat unclear. In his deposition, Gray said "she shot in the air one time," prompting him and the children to run out the front door. But when Gray called 911 the day of the incident, he said "she aimed the gun at us and she shot."
Gray was not a threat to justify a warning shot
In August 2011, a judge rejected a motion by Alexander's attorney to grant her immunity under the "Stand your Ground" law. According to the judge's order, "there is insufficient evidence that the Defendant reasonably believed deadly force was needed to prevent death or great bodily harm to herself," and that the fact that she came back into the home, instead of leaving out the front or back door "is inconsistent with a person who is in genuine fear for her life."
Judge is quite correct
Alexander's case was prosecuted by Angela Corey, the Florida State's Attorney who is also prosecuting George Zimmerman. Alexander was charged with aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, and because she discharged a firearm during the incident, the case fell under Florida's "10-20-life" law, enacted in 1999, which mandates a 20-year sentence for use of a gun during the commission of certain crimes.
Corey initially offered Alexander a three year deal if she pleaded guilty to aggravated assault, but according to CBS affiliate WTEV, Alexander did not believe she had done anything wrong, and rejected the plea. Her bet did not pay off: the jury in the case returned a guilty verdict in less than 15 minutes.
Yes. So are white people in black neighborhoods. So are people with lots of tattoos (I guess this isn't racially profiled).
The reason lots of people were surprised when that asian kid shot up Virginia Tech? Asian people don't typically commit mass murders.
If a school shooting happened today and I didn't see a thing and someone asked me what the shooter looked like, I'd say, "skinny pale white kid." Why? Because that who typically commits school shootings (hell, nearly all serial killers are white, too).
So why are young black men "profiled" as violent? Because the statistic tell us they are.
Are there too many guns in the hands of private citizens?
Depends how you phrase that question. Too many illegally in the hands of private citizens? Yes. Too many legally in the hands of responsible gun owners? Nope. In fact, if there were more in those hands in Chicago and DC, there would be less crime. Chances are if they were allowed in those private hands in Colorado the theatre shooting doesn't happen to the degree that it did.
Does the law give people too much leeway in using deadly force in self-defense?
I don't think so. You should absolutely be able to defend yourself with deadly force if necessary.
Depends on what you mean by warning shots. In texas we are always advised to fire five to six warning shots to upper center mass until the BG leaves or stops twitching.
The only time I'd do it (and have done), is out in the bush to scare some bears away... (protip: Never fire at bears unless you're armed appropriately, ie, rockets/cannons .44 magnum ain't doing gak to these bears. )
California black bears yes, big grizzlies no way Jose.
Can anyone give me a quick summary (1 sentence or sth.) on the matter? As far as I am informed, it's just another "Someone broke in and got shot" case, why was the racial slur brought up?
Sigvatr wrote: Can anyone give me a quick summary (1 sentence or sth.) on the matter? As far as I am informed, it's just another "Someone broke in and got shot" case, why was the racial slur brought up?
My post a few posts above will probably suffice as a quick run down of what happened and how it's played out since then. Alternatively, there's Wikipedia.
To me, as it stands right now, I don't see why there was so much hate about this case - the dude clearly trespassed. On top of that, it really seems like he attacked Zimmermann as he was injured at that point. I don't see any racist input here so I assume that's your average leftists going HERP DERP RACISM TROLOLOL whenever such events occur.
The verdict doesn't surprise me at all. If he wanted to murder the dude, why would have Zimmermann called the police beforehand? I don't get it.
Warning shots don't count as self defense because the fact that you thought you were safe enough to fire warning shots inherently means you were not up to deadly force yet.
She would never have qualified for stand your ground because of this. She would have had it denied at the hearing and gone to trial.
To me, as it stands right now, I don't see why there was so much hate about this case - the dude clearly trespassed. On top of that, it really seems like he attacked Zimmermann as he was injured at that point. I don't see any racist input here so I assume that's your average leftists going HERP DERP RACISM TROLOLOL whenever such events occur.
The verdict doesn't surprise me at all. If he wanted to murder the dude, why would have Zimmermann called the police beforehand? I don't get it.
Good thing this got sorted out.
because the media made it about race. I agree with you 100% sig, if zimmerman wanted to kill him in cold blood, why not just shoot him from 10 yards away a few times and leave the scene?
So why are young black men "profiled" as violent? Because the statistic tell us they are.
Which is still bs. No one should be treated as criminal only because some other people that had vaguely similar melatonin level as him or her were criminals.
Depends how you phrase that question. Too many illegally in the hands of private citizens? Yes. Too many legally in the hands of responsible gun owners? Nope.
Every gun owner thinks they're 'responsible gun owner," as long as there is no actual required training courses, tests and evaluations to determine which people actually are responsible, the term is meaningless.
I don't think so. You should absolutely be able to defend yourself with deadly force if necessary.
Yes, when there is absolutely no other choice, fleeing included.
Which is still bs. No one should be treated as criminal only because some other people that had vaguely similar melatonin level as him or her were criminals.
Were talking about being profiled. Not being treated as a criminal. Zimmerman followed him. That's it. Regardless of how much bs you think it is, it's easy to say that when you live in a homogenous country. Profiling happens anywhere people are different. Perhaps all the bars in the urban areas Down here should start allowing hats and bandanas again despite their clear and present connections with gang affiliation in the name of being more PC?
Every gun owner thinks they're 'responsible gun owner," as long as there is no actual required training courses, tests and evaluations to determine which people actually are responsible, the term is meaningless.
.
I'm sorry, but you're wrong. You can absolutely be responsible without it being required. Texting while driving isn't illegal in many places in the United States, so by your metric text away while you drive. Just because it isn't regulated or tested doesn't mean it is responsible. I use my firearms regularly. I know how to shoot safely. I've shown my wife how to properly use and maintain our firearms. People that ACTIVEY use their firearms are typically very responsible.
Yes, when there is absolutely no other choice, fleeing included.
Why should you have to flee? Which, by the way, doesn't appear to have been an option in this instance as Zimmerman shot Martin in the middle of an assault where he was pinned to the ground.
