Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 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.

 Seaward wrote:

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.

Someone has just been called a fan boy in this thread.

I'd just like to point that out and wonder where the rather sensible discussion got off to.

#lurking

 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.

 CptJake wrote:

 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.

The fether was obviously asking for it.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 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.

You left out an important part.

There is no evidence to support your statement.

 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.

 frgsinwntr wrote:
honestly... i agree with the verdict from a legal stand point...

BUT from a moral stand point i think zimmerman is to blame.

I mostly agree. The jury came to the right conclusion for the facts and the charge presented. But I think the wrong charge was presented.

That said, I think both victim and shooter carry blame in this, but obviously only the shooter is around now to take any responsibility.

 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

Good verdict, had no business going to trial. Let's move on.

 Palindrome wrote:

 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

 CptJake wrote:

Again, the actual evidence presented supports Zimmerman's story.

There is a wide gulf between supporting and confirming.

 Palindrome wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

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.

 Palindrome wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

Again, the actual evidence presented supports Zimmerman's story.

There is a wide gulf between supporting and confirming.

Absolutely. And the burden of proof lies on the prosecution, not the defense.

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 Raider an 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.


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/07/14/whistle-blowing-state-official-fired-after-testimony-in-zimmerman-trial/?intcmp=obinsite#ixzz2Z3ypNcNY

edit
I can see a wrongful termination lawsuit against the DA.

The ripples just keep spreading

 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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kanluwen wrote:

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.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/07/14/naacp-asking-obama-administration-to-pursue-zimmerman-civil-case/

I'm not sure I can trust the DoJ with a water gun.........

 Jihadin wrote:
I'm not sure I can trust the DoJ with a water gun.........

There are those times when they can't find their own butt with both hands and a map.

 Jihadin wrote:
I'm not sure I can trust the DoJ with a water gun.........

Maybe the ATF will confiscate it and claim that it could be turned into a working firearm

A working... firearm you say?

The DoJ investigation may be dead in the water already.

The FBI has said after 3 dozen interviews, they have found no evidence of any racial bias on Zimmerman's part.

When the FBI is saying there is nothing to go after, I don't know what grounds any AG is going to have to stand on.

 MrDwhitey wrote:
A working... firearm you say?

His Holy Emperor's Inquisition thanks you for your suggestion at this time of economic prudence

Whitey....at times to make me worry....Where the Hell were you on my last deployment dangit

edit
Wife says we are so "damage"