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.

 Alfndrate wrote:

 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...

skyfi wrote:

it's like they collect evidence for nothing!

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.

 Alfndrate wrote:

or that warning shots are basically never legal

 Crimson wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:

or that warning shots are basically never legal

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.)

 cincydooley wrote:
Basically, if you're able to fire a "warning shot" you weren't in imminent danger in the first place.

 Crimson wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:

or that warning shots are basically never legal

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.)

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

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. :/

 Crimson wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:

or that warning shots are basically never legal

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.)

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.

 LordofHats wrote:


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?

 Jihadin wrote:
People though so emotionally want it to go both ways.

 whembly wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:

or that warning shots are basically never legal

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.

 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?

 cincydooley wrote:


The reason lots of people were surprised when that asian kid shot up Virginia Tech? Asian people don't typically commit mass murders.

 Sigvatr wrote:
Thanks Raptor.

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.

 cincydooley wrote:

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.

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.

Yes, when there is absolutely no other choice, fleeing included.