Triggering: Trayvon Martin-George Zimmerman

[Corrupted]

Originally Posted by Vagina

whats with all the race questions ?

Unfortunately, many people believe the jury was not impartial due to race. Rodney King deja vu.

[Brandon]

I'm glad that the justice system could come up with a conclusion. I hope that it's enough for people to be convinced even if they don't necessarily agree with the verdict. The justice system consists of highly qualified professionals, and it would be ridiculous for me to assume that I know more than the people who had to look at the evidence know. Verdicts don't just come out of nowhere...they are very thought out using very thorough arguments with all the possible evidence given. I hope that it can bring closure, and I'm glad that it's dragged on for a long time. If I was in a situation where I relied on the justice system, I would want to make sure that everyone is doing their part to ensure that I am given fair treatment regardless of outside emotions. I hope this can bring closure.

[dani99]

I honestly am very disappointed in the verdict. I don't think the shooting was justified whatsoever. Even if Trayvon "attacked" Zimmerman it all could have been avoided. Zimmerman was told NOT to pursue Trayvon but he did anyway because he felt like he needed to play cop. Zimmerman should have stayed in his car and went home. Then maybe Trayvon would be alive still and this case wouldn't have happened. Evidence or not - the truth of the matter was that it could have been avoided if Zimmerman would have listened and not tried to act as a cop for he is not one so it was not his place!

[TigerTank77]

Originally Posted by Maverick.

What race are you?

Why do you think it was self defense?

Do you think the fact that six white women were in the jury affected the decision?

Did you watch the trial? Because one of the jurors was actually Hispanic.

Which has actually been a re-occuring theme for the mob rule mentality that sparked this case. Zimmerman is half Peruvian and identifies as hispanic. Yet for about 90% of the people currently furious at the ruling, they think he's a white man.

Ignoring that whole fucking issue, if you've been following the presentation of evidence in the court case, and the manner in which the State handled the prosecution, it was obvious that this case wasn't based on anything even remotely solid.

An IT director was recently fired after revealing that the State had been withholding evidence from the defense, which is a major legal violation of a person's right to a fair trial. The media got ahold of the evidence, text messages from Trayvon's phone. The images show recent images of Trayvon, (as opposed to that one you're using as an avatar), who was larger and in better physical shape than Zimmerman physically. As well as a picture of him holding an illegal .380 handgun. The media also threw in pictures of him smoking weed, which I didn't like because I find the fact that he smoked weed irrelevant to the matter at hand, but they needed to make that "War on Drugs" plug.

The judge ended up throwing out the text messages because "any seven year old could have gotten through the dual passwords and sent the messages". She was referring to Trayvon's phone, which took the FBI some time to get into. I'm calling attention to all of this not to attack Martin's character, because who he is as a person is completely irrelevant. But there's blatant corruption and bias here at the hands of the Florida State Government, and it's not because they were trying to cover up Trayvon's wrongful death.

The accepted theory by police and forensic scientists is that after Z had gotten off the phone with giving his location to the 911 dispatcher, he was headed back to his vehicle when Trayvon confronted him. This, coupled with the fact that an eye witness reported seeing Trayvon on top of Zimmerman, raining blows down him; along with the grass stains on Trayvon's knees; the bullet wound suggesting that the pistol was away from his body but pointing upward during firing; and lack of defensive wounds, means that he was in control for most of, if not all of the fight, until Zimmerman got his gun out and shot him. If Zimmerman was hunting the kid down, he most likely would've had his pistol drawn instead of holstered, and the physical confrontation never would have happened.

If someone is following you, you have a right to confront them. If someone was following you, but starts to walk away, you have a legal obligation to retreat as well. "Shooting a man in the back" doesn't count as self defense, and neither does starting a fight with someone who was no longer a threat to you.

Which is what the jury believed happened.The prosecution couldn't convince them otherwise, even while withholding fucking evidence from the defense and giving the man an unfair trial.

However, a jury of his peers acquitted him. For a crime, I should also mention, that cannot constitutionally be prosecuted by the Federal government, in-case Eric Holder is "persuaded" into filing federal charges. The exception would be if he had commited a hate crime, but since the FBI's own investigation found no motive of a racial bias, they have empirically and legally blocked themselves from that option.

Knowing all of this, (and I encourage you to look up anything you're questioning) how exactly do you think things should have gone down?

[Maverick.]

Don't give me that FBI polygraph racial shit.

Everyone is a little bit racist/predicted in the world including myself.

This trial and verdict has confused me from day 1.

For example this woman
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1510113.html

Sad world. Ashamed to be American and I seriously want to get out of this country. I'm almost at the point to hoping that Romney won the last election.

And I want to hear your feelings of that verdict. Don't give me your fucking semantics.

[Snufkin]

It's fairly easy to get charged with manslaughter. You can accidentally hit someone with your car and still get jail time for manslaughter. So it's odd that in this case he didn't. However, I feel that if he had shot me, a bright young white boy, then he probably would've. Hell, if he'd shot a bright young pretty white girl, Zimmerman would probably be on his way to the chair just now.

I read a black man's response last night. He said that while people were initially hopeful of the jury because they were made up of a group of people involving mothers, that their motherly instinct was overruled by their fear of the black man. That, with their children in mind, they would steer clear of the black man and find him to be a violent thug, and that played the biggest part in their decision.

Remember that Marissa Alexander, a black Flordiain woman, received 20 years imprisonment for firing warning shots at her abusive husband. "Stand Your Ground" ought to have protected her the same way it seems to've protected Zimmerman. Link.

But the common factor in both cases is that the black person lost.

[dr2005]

Been away a while, but figured I'd come back to post my thoughts on this - after, inevitably, responding to some of Ben's comments. Wouldn't be the same otherwise.

Originally Posted by TigerTank77

Ignoring that whole fucking issue, if you've been following the presentation of evidence in the court case, and the manner in which the State handled the prosecution, it was obvious that this case wasn't based on anything even remotely solid.

The judge clearly felt otherwise, or else the matter wouldn't even have reached the jury for a verdict. The defence would have suceeded when submitting no case to answer, which they did not. Likewise, the jury took 16 hours to deliberate their verdict and felt it necessary to seek further directions from the judge - again, that doesn't point to it not being based on "anything even remotely solid". While your views on this matter have been both consistent and strong from the outset, please try not to skew the facts to suit them. Those of us with a more detailed understanding of the legal process know better and you are likely to be caught out.

Originally Posted by TigerTank77

An IT director was recently fired after revealing that the State had been withholding evidence from the defense, which is a major legal violation of a person's right to a fair trial. The media got ahold of the evidence, text messages from Trayvon's phone. The images show recent images of Trayvon, (as opposed to that one you're using as an avatar), who was larger and in better physical shape than Zimmerman physically. As well as a picture of him holding an illegal .380 handgun. The media also threw in pictures of him smoking weed, which I didn't like because I find the fact that he smoked weed irrelevant to the matter at hand, but they needed to make that "War on Drugs" plug.

The judge ended up throwing out the text messages because "any seven year old could have gotten through the dual passwords and sent the messages". She was referring to Trayvon's phone, which took the FBI some time to get into. I'm calling attention to all of this not to attack Martin's character, because who he is as a person is completely irrelevant. But there's blatant corruption and bias here at the hands of the Florida State Government, and it's not because they were trying to cover up Trayvon's wrongful death.

With all due respect, it does appear that you are in fact calling attention to this to attack his character - because otherwise, there is very little reason to bring this information to light as it is of no relevance to the events of the shooting itself. Whether he owned a gun or smoked weed makes no material difference to whether the shooting was justified if neither was present at the scene (and the investigation established that pretty quickly); instead, this does appear more of an exercise in seeking to discredit the character of the deceased in order to make the self-defence argument more credible. Not an exercise from yourself, I add, but from those who sought to disclose such information in the first place.

Originally Posted by TigerTank77

The accepted theory by police and forensic scientists is that after Z had gotten off the phone with giving his location to the 911 dispatcher, he was headed back to his vehicle when Trayvon confronted him. This, coupled with the fact that an eye witness reported seeing Trayvon on top of Zimmerman, raining blows down him; along with the grass stains on Trayvon's knees; the bullet wound suggesting that the pistol was away from his body but pointing upward during firing; and lack of defensive wounds, means that he was in control for most of, if not all of the fight, until Zimmerman got his gun out and shot him. If Zimmerman was hunting the kid down, he most likely would've had his pistol drawn instead of holstered, and the physical confrontation never would have happened.

Police initially accepted that theory, true, but evidently revised it in order to justify arresting Zimmerman and subsequently passing the file on to the DA's office. Likewise, forensic evidence was inconclusive, pointing to (among other things) a comparative lack of Zimmerman's DNA on Martin's hands and the angle at which the bullet was fired seeming inconsistent with Zimmerman's account. We can speculate as to what happened and the sequence of events, but only two people know for sure and one of them is dead.

Originally Posted by TigerTank77

If someone is following you, you have a right to confront them. If someone was following you, but starts to walk away, you have a legal obligation to retreat as well. "Shooting a man in the back" doesn't count as self defense, and neither does starting a fight with someone who was no longer a threat to you.

Which is what the jury believed happened.The prosecution couldn't convince them otherwise, even while withholding fucking evidence from the defense and giving the man an unfair trial.

With all due respect, I feel you are indulging in speculation there. What the jury believed happened is something we will not be privy to unless one of them decides to go public with their thought process; all we can be certain of is that they did not believe the prosecution had proven their case on the counts of second degree murder or manslaughter beyond reasonable doubt, on the basis that they did not prove beyond reasonable doubt that Zimmerman's claim of self-defence was not true. That is all we can be certain of, because that is the burden on the prosecution where self-defence is raised. Anything further is akin to speculating on what the jury had for breakfast, and about as meaningful.

Anyway...while I will admit the verdict was something of a surprise (mainly because I felt a manslaughter verdict would have been justified on the facts), having seen some of the issues which arose with prosecution witnesses and the tactics employed by the defence I can understand how the jury would find themselves in a position where they could not reach a verdict beyond reasonable doubt. As such, their verdict makes sense and I respect it - 16 hours of deliberation suggests it was hardly a spur of the moment decision, after all, and this will not have been an easy case.

That all being said, if a claim was brought in the civil courts on the basis of wrongful death (or whatever they call it nowadays in the US - my last awareness of it was in relation to OJ Simpson...), I would suggest the opposite outcome is very much possible.

As a final thought, ultimately no one wins with this. Martin's family will still be grieving their lost son, and Zimmerman will still carry the knowledge that he shot and killed a 17-year-old. I can't say I'd particularly want to be in either's shoes.

[Snufkin]

This is doing the rounds online. I didn't realise Zimmerman had such a bad past. Just when you think things can't get much worse, they do.

[TigerTank77]

Originally Posted by dr2005

As a final thought, ultimately no one wins with this. Martin's family will still be grieving their lost son, and Zimmerman will still carry the knowledge that he shot and killed a 12-year-old. I can't say I'd particularly want to be in either's shoes.

He was 17 years old. Where did you get 12 from?

[dr2005]

Originally Posted by TigerTank77

He was 17 years old. Where did you get 12 from?

I have no idea whatsoever. Happy to hold my hands up over that one and amend accordingly.

[thebigmole]

Ok I feel like most people who are upset haven't actually listened to or watched the trial, or paid attention to the actual evidence at all. According to the transcripts of Zimmerman's call to the police, and what the girl Trayvon was talking to have said, while Zimmerman was in the wrong to get out of his car, he did return to his car when told by the police he didn't need to follow Trayvon. Trayvon knew he was being followed and instead of continuing on his way, or even running as his girlfriend suggested he went to confront Zimmerman. We know that at the moment of the shot Travyon was on top of Zimmerman, we know this because of the evidence presented that showed where the bullet entered the hoodie in reference to where it entered his body, the only way for them to line up is if Trayvon was on top of Zimmerman. I won't lie, I really thought he'd be convicted of manslaughter, but the prosecution failed to prove that Zimmerman started the physical confrontation and therefore negating his claim of self defense.


What truly bothers me is all of these people calling him a child. I'm sorry but he was 17, if he had been the one to kill Zimmerman and had been tried he would have been tried as an adult. He might legally be a child, but it gives the completely wrong visual. Also the fact that it ever became a race issue is ridiculous. Did Zimmerman become suspicious of Trayvon because he's black, yes but ONLY because the description of the person who had been breaking into houses in the neighborhood was of a black person. Also what if Trayvon had actually been the robber, what if Zimmerman did nothing and then Trayvon broke into someones house? Do you know how many people are not going to report suspicious activity now because of this case? Why risk it? I heard someone on the radio the other day who saw these black kids in his neighborhood that he thought they were suspicious but he didn't do anything because of the Zimmerman case, and those kids broke into his neighbors house. The whole damn case is ridiculous. Also just for those who didn't know the DA was ready to take the Zimmerman case to the Grand jury to see if they could even get an indictment, and then the governor feel victim to media pressure and took over, imagine what would have happened if people had just let it be, maybe he would have served some time. You can't say the justice system didn't work when the media didn't even give it a chance to work properly.

[dr2005]

Originally Posted by thebigmole

Ok I feel like most people who are upset haven't actually listened to or watched the trial, or paid attention to the actual evidence at all. According to the transcripts of Zimmerman's call to the police, and what the girl Trayvon was talking to have said, while Zimmerman was in the wrong to get out of his car, he did return to his car when told by the police he didn't need to follow Trayvon.

Again, like Ben this is pure speculation (unless there was something in the witness testimony to the effect that he was returning to his car, in which case I would be grateful for a source as thus far I haven't found it). We can assume he returned to his truck, but at the same time he admitted in the initial police interviews that he was trying to find out which direction Martin had gone in which would contradict that somewhat.

Originally Posted by thebigmole

Trayvon knew he was being followed and instead of continuing on his way, or even running as his girlfriend suggested he went to confront Zimmerman. We know that at the moment of the shot Travyon was on top of Zimmerman, we know this because of the evidence presented that showed where the bullet entered the hoodie in reference to where it entered his body, the only way for them to line up is if Trayvon was on top of Zimmerman.

True, we know he was on top - but that's about it. The distance at which the gun was fired (pressed against Martin's clothing) was estimated by the defence expert witness at between two to four inches from his body - that accounts for a wide range of positions, from leaning directly over Zimmerman and assaulting him to being further back while still pinning him down. Hence my comment about it not seeming entirely consistent with the defence's account of what happened.

Originally Posted by thebigmole

What truly bothers me is all of these people calling him a child. I'm sorry but he was 17, if he had been the one to kill Zimmerman and had been tried he would have been tried as an adult. He might legally be a child, but it gives the completely wrong visual.

Whether it gives the correct visual or not is, quite frankly, irrelevant. If he's not considered an adult under state or federal law, then he's a child - as you admit yourself by saying "he might legally be a child". That's all there is to the matter, and speculating about how he might have been charged in the event of a theoretical crime is something of a smokescreen in my view - particularly given there would be a whole range of factors to consider by both the DA and the court before such an indictment could be made.

Originally Posted by thebigmole

Also the fact that it ever became a race issue is ridiculous. Did Zimmerman become suspicious of Trayvon because he's black, yes but ONLY because the description of the person who had been breaking into houses in the neighborhood was of a black person. Also what if Trayvon had actually been the robber, what if Zimmerman did nothing and then Trayvon broke into someones house? Do you know how many people are not going to report suspicious activity now because of this case? Why risk it? I heard someone on the radio the other day who saw these black kids in his neighborhood that he thought they were suspicious but he didn't do anything because of the Zimmerman case, and those kids broke into his neighbors house. The whole damn case is ridiculous.

Not sure it's really fair to blame the prosecutors for that one. Had Zimmerman abided by his training, the suggestions of the dispatcher and the guidance provided by his manual - to say nothing of not carrying a firearm in the first place - then arguably none of this would have happened at all. The police were on their way, and arrived not longer after the call. Likewise, the person on the radio you refer to seems to have missed a key part of what happened in the case, as nothing in what happened to Zimmerman would have warranted such a course of action (even with the racial claims). Those claiming that it would put them off reporting suspicious activity would do well to educate themselves as to what actually happened - Zimmerman went wrong AFTER reporting it, not BECAUSE of reporting it. It's a clear example of the law of unintended consequences, admittedly, but one borne of irrationality rather than an actual "chilling effect" arising from the decision to charge.

Originally Posted by thebigmole

Also just for those who didn't know the DA was ready to take the Zimmerman case to the Grand jury to see if they could even get an indictment, and then the governor feel victim to media pressure and took over, imagine what would have happened if people had just let it be, maybe he would have served some time. You can't say the justice system didn't work when the media didn't even give it a chance to work properly.

Agreed - the publicity has left something to be desired at times, and it looks like it's going to rumble on for a while afterwards.

[Maverick.]

And not guilty doesn't mean not innocent. He's going to deal with the consequences and hopefully it happens sooner than later.

[Snufkin]

George Zimmerman wants African Americans to apologise to him - http://www.politicususa.com/2012/07/...apologize.html

Well, he's definitely guilty of being a grade-A wanker.

[Ghost On The Highway]

Well, I for one am glad this is over and satisfied with the verdict. Now we move on to that mother who got 20 years for discharging a firearm to scare off an abusive husband.

[CorrieUSMC]

Originally Posted by Snufkin

George Zimmerman wants African Americans to apologise to him - http://www.politicususa.com/2012/07/...apologize.html

Well, he's definitely guilty of being a grade-A wanker.

That article was written over a year ago, before the verdict. The Court has ruled that it was a "Justified" Self-Defense shoot. People where and still are making Death threats towards Zimmerman. Vigilante 'justice' is not an answer.

[Brandon]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...p_ref=politics

There seems to be some new development in the case. I'm not sure what is going on. The dude was found not guilty, but it appears the justice department is going to review the case. Here's a question...when will it end? The only end that I see happening is when George Zimmerman is all the sudden found guilty out of bumfuck nowhere.

[thebigmole]

Originally Posted by dr2005

Likewise, the person on the radio you refer to seems to have missed a key part of what happened in the case, as nothing in what happened to Zimmerman would have warranted such a course of action (even with the racial claims). Those claiming that it would put them off reporting suspicious activity would do well to educate themselves as to what actually happened - Zimmerman went wrong AFTER reporting it, not BECAUSE of reporting it. It's a clear example of the law of unintended consequences, admittedly, but one borne of irrationality rather than an actual "chilling effect" arising from the decision to charge.

I think the guy was hesitant not because Zimmerman was charged with a crime, but because the prosecution was using previous calls Zimmerman had made reporting suspicious activity against him.

Really what this all boils down to is the media in this country being able to control politics and the action officials take. They squirm their way into issues, some being none of their business and make a mess out of everything. Another great example of this is the Terri Shivlo case, another Florida one. Had the media not stuck it's nose in that woman would not have had to suffer as long as she did, not to mention that Governor Duh wouldn't have re-opened a senseless investigation of her husband concerning how she ended up in her state in the first place. Those protests got so out of control they had to cancel school at a nearby campus.


Also I find it highly amusing that OJ Simpson could slaughter his wife and people cheered when he was acquitted but when there are two races involved suddenly it's a crime against the world and justice everywhere.

[TigerTank77]

Originally Posted by Brandon

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...p_ref=politics

There seems to be some new development in the case. I'm not sure what is going on. The dude was found not guilty, but it appears the justice department is going to review the case. Here's a question...when will it end? The only end that I see happening is when George Zimmerman is all the sudden found guilty out of bumfuck nowhere.

Technically, since the incident happened solely within Florida's jurisdiction, the Federal government has no constitutional authority to file charges against Zimmerman. The Federal Government cannot supersede state sovereignty when it crimes to judiciary matters, unless the crime falls within Federal jurisdiction.

Their only "constitutional" option is an executive order signed by Obama earlier in his tenure. If a crime is considered a "hate crime", the Federal Government has the authority to file federal charges. However, they can't just throw charges to see what sticks- there has to be clear evidence of a racially based crime, which may have already been ruled out by the FBI's investigation, because they couldn't find any evidence of a racial bias.

However, Eric Holder's already on thin ice, and it sounds like Obama's already given up on it- he made his gun control plug after admitting that "a jury has spoken", and that was about it.

[Snufkin]

Originally Posted by Remorse_Angel

That article was written over a year ago, before the verdict. The Court has ruled that it was a "Justified" Self-Defense shoot. People where and still are making Death threats towards Zimmerman. Vigilante 'justice' is not an answer.

I don't think that really diminishes the fact he said it, which I was unaware of until yesterday.

And it must be tough for him to live similarly to how black men feel thanks to people like him. Always looking over his shoulder in case someone attacks him. Maybe only now he'll understand how Trayvon Martin felt.

With regards to the Marissa Alexander case, I had no idea that the same prosecutor was present in both cases. Not only that, but she is very often involved with trying black juveniles. She may've lost this case as she was prosecuting Zimmerman, but if she tries blacks often, did she actually lose?

[dr2005]

Originally Posted by thebigmole

I think the guy was hesitant not because Zimmerman was charged with a crime, but because the prosecution was using previous calls Zimmerman had made reporting suspicious activity against him.

Again, that speaks more of irrational paranoia than an understanding of the case. But I see your point, and I agree with what you said about the media's role in all this and in similar cases. Sometimes it feels like a bit more editor accountability wouldn't go amiss, or perhaps the odd contempt of court charge...

Originally Posted by TigerTank77

Technically, since the incident happened solely within Florida's jurisdiction, the Federal government has no constitutional authority to file charges against Zimmerman. The Federal Government cannot supersede state sovereignty when it crimes to judiciary matters, unless the crime falls within Federal jurisdiction.

Their only "constitutional" option is an executive order signed by Obama earlier in his tenure. If a crime is considered a "hate crime", the Federal Government has the authority to file federal charges. However, they can't just throw charges to see what sticks- there has to be clear evidence of a racially based crime, which may have already been ruled out by the FBI's investigation, because they couldn't find any evidence of a racial bias.

However, Eric Holder's already on thin ice, and it sounds like Obama's already given up on it- he made his gun control plug after admitting that "a jury has spoken", and that was about it.

I believe this review is in relation to allegations made regarding a potential civil rights offence, which were under investigation before the state prosecution went ahead. My understanding is that such offences are federal responsibility and not state, so were there a viable case to answer the Justice Department would be within its rights to begin a prosecution. I do not believe it is related to a hate crime charge, but we'll have to wait and see.

[TigerTank77]

Originally Posted by dr2005

I believe this review is in relation to allegations made regarding a potential civil rights offence, which were under investigation before the state prosecution went ahead. My understanding is that such offences are federal responsibility and not state, so were there a viable case to answer the Justice Department would be within its rights to begin a prosecution. I do not believe it is related to a hate crime charge, but we'll have to wait and see.

The thing is it would HAVE to be a hate crime charge. The Federal government can't slap federal charges on state level crimes at will. The only reason they're "looking into it" right now is that hate crimes are the only crimes that they can peruse, because hate crimes fall within their jurisdiction. It's kind of like how bank robberies, no matter how small, automatically fall within the jurisdiction of the FBI.

This incident, as it stands right now, doesn't fall under the jurisdiction of the federal government. They need clear and present evidence of racial motivation behind Zimmerman's actions, and as of right now there isn't any.

[dr2005]

Originally Posted by TigerTank77

The thing is it would HAVE to be a hate crime charge. The Federal government can't slap federal charges on state level crimes at will. The only reason they're "looking into it" right now is that hate crimes are the only crimes that they can peruse, because hate crimes fall within their jurisdiction. It's kind of like how bank robberies, no matter how small, automatically fall within the jurisdiction of the FBI.

This incident, as it stands right now, doesn't fall under the jurisdiction of the federal government. They need clear and present evidence of racial motivation behind Zimmerman's actions, and as of right now there isn't any.

My understanding (again limited by the fact I don't know US federal law inside out) is that a civil rights violation charge could be brought separately from any potential hate crime charge. Certainly, this article would suggest that to be the case. I'll need to do some more reading on the background law though.

[TigerTank77]

Originally Posted by dr2005

My understanding (again limited by the fact I don't know US federal law inside out) is that a civil rights violation charge could be brought separately from any potential hate crime charge. Certainly, this article would suggest that to be the case. I'll need to do some more reading on the background law though.

http://main.aol.com/2013/07/14/_n_35...6pLid%3D344087

""There are several factual and legal hurdles that federal prosecutors would have to overcome," Alan Vinegrad, the former US Attorney in the Eastern District of New York, told the AP. "They'd have to show not only that the attack was unjustified, but that Mr. Zimmerman attacked Mr. Martin because of his race and because he was using a public facility, the street."

That's about all I could find on the matter. Again, I'm not seeing the evidence.

[Grey Wind]

Originally Posted by Maverick.

Do you think the fact that six white women were in the jury affected the decision?

If women think with emotion, I for one am glad that these women were able to put their emotions aside and look at the evidence presented. The people who think Zimmerman should have been convicted clearly could not do that IMO.

[Amorphous.]

If you can get away with this murder than what can you go to jail for? . You can just pull the self defence card and get away with anything.

[thebigmole]

I think people calling this murder don't really understand the legal terms

1st degree murder is premeditated. The person planned the killing and intended to kill the person.

2nd degree murder is an intentional killing but with no premeditation. This is what the prosecution was trying to prove. That while Zimmerman had not gone out that night planning to kill Trayvon Martin, upon seeing him and deciding he looked suspicious he decided to follow and kill him. (See how ridiculous that sounds when you know the evidence of the case)

Then you have Involuntary Manslaughter, where you find yourself in a highly emotional situation and you perform an action that results in someone's death but you did not intend that result. Such as arguing with someone and pushing them and they fall and hit their head and die.

Finally there's Voluntary Manslaughter (the other option for the jury) It's a crime of passion, where you find yourself in a highly emotional situation and in that moment take action with the intent to kill. Such as having the crap beat out of you and getting pissed and shooting the person attacking you. In other words something that would have been easier to prove if the prosecution had actually bothered to bring the proper charge.

In short what happened, as we know from the evidence, wasn't murder. At the most it was manslaughter.

Also here's another fun tidbit, the prosecution tried to get the jury to consider a 3rd degree murder charge, which is pretty much the same as murder 2 just with child abuse thrown in. Luckily the judge saw that suggestion for the travesty that it was and said so and did not allow it.

[CorrieUSMC]

Originally Posted by EmergencyHugMaster

If you can get away with this murder than what can you go to jail for? . You can just pull the self defence card and get away with anything.

He was 'acquitted' the Prosecution wasn't able to prove beyond a 'reasonable doubt' that he was guilty. People just can't pull a "Self-defense" card. Without the evidence to back it up. Prosecution didn't have the evidence for Murder in the 2nd Degree, so the Jury didn't go with a "Guilty" verdict.

[Coffee.]

This case stresses me out. To me, it came down to manslaughter or self-defense. Although, in my personal opinion, second degree could be an option, there was not enough evidence to prove it. Now, for self-defense, they had to prove that Trayvone was a thread to Zimmerman's life, and they defense did so by saying that the concrete was the weapon. I see their point, but I disagree. First, I don't think he had the right to be following him in the first place. Neighborhood watch? That's not how it works, you call the police if you do something suspicious, not go after him. And why did he have a gun to do "neighborhood watch" in the first place? Second, I definitely think something was left out of the story. The defense basically said that Zimmerman followed Trayvone, Trayvone saw that he was being followed and he turned around and randomly decided to beat Zimmerman up. This does not sound realistic to me and that something is being left out. If you are being followed, you don't normally decide to just bust out in violence, but instead, run or yell or something. I feel that something must have triggered Trayvone to do what he did, from Zimmerman flashing the gun, saying a threat, etc. That doesn't say he should have beat up Zimmerman, but it would validate both sides' story, because it me, it sounds incredibly foggy.

I think, by evidence, it should have been manslaughter. However, the prosecution did a terrible job, and it doesn't help that my country is full of racist bigots anyway. I'm so done with this case and listening to people in my life spew racism. (Family. Oh boy.)

[thebigmole]

Originally Posted by Coexist.

This case stresses me out. To me, it came down to manslaughter or self-defense. Although, in my personal opinion, second degree could be an option, there was not enough evidence to prove it. Now, for self-defense, they had to prove that Trayvone was a thread to Zimmerman's life, and they defense did so by saying that the concrete was the weapon. I see their point, but I disagree. First, I don't think he had the right to be following him in the first place. Neighborhood watch? That's not how it works, you call the police if you do something suspicious, not go after him. And why did he have a gun to do "neighborhood watch" in the first place? Second, I definitely think something was left out of the story. The defense basically said that Zimmerman followed Trayvone, Trayvone saw that he was being followed and he turned around and randomly decided to beat Zimmerman up. This does not sound realistic to me and that something is being left out. If you are being followed, you don't normally decide to just bust out in violence, but instead, run or yell or something. I feel that something must have triggered Trayvone to do what he did, from Zimmerman flashing the gun, saying a threat, etc. That doesn't say he should have beat up Zimmerman, but it would validate both sides' story, because it me, it sounds incredibly foggy.

I think, by evidence, it should have been manslaughter. However, the prosecution did a terrible job, and it doesn't help that my country is full of racist bigots anyway. I'm so done with this case and listening to people in my life spew racism. (Family. Oh boy.)

This case stresses me out too, especially since I lived in Sanford for 6 years. And I'm not gonna lie, it wasn't a good neighborhood, there was a crack house with hookers across the street. I wasn't allowed to go trick or treating door to door (my parents took me to the mall and the stores gave out candy) and we didn't open the door at all during Halloween. That being said when a neighbors house caught on fire my parents let the woman in our house when no one else would, I don't know if no one else did because she was black or just because people were paranoid about everyone in the neighborhood regardless of skin color.

You are right that Zimmerman had no right to follow Trayvon, but as far as having a gun goes, you are allowed to carry a gun here if you have a license, and a lot of people keep their guns in their car. Now I could be wrong but I don't think that Zimmerman was actually out patrolling at that time, he was just out and probably just had his gun in his car. I mean if you lived in a neighborhood that had a lot of break-ins and you had a gun would you not bring it with you when you go out?

According to the phone calls both Zimmerman's to the police and Trayvon's to his girlfriend, Zimmerman never talked to Trayvon until Trayvon approached him. And honestly I don't find it all that odd that Trayvon would go to confront Zimmerman. A lot of teenagers now, especially boys think they are invincible, and tough guys, he was probably trying to show that he was someone not to be messed with. That being said I don't think Trayvon went to Zimmerman intending for the confrontation to become physical. That's the one part we will never know, is why the physical confrontation started, and who started it.

[dr2005]

Originally Posted by thebigmole

Also here's another fun tidbit, the prosecution tried to get the jury to consider a 3rd degree murder charge, which is pretty much the same as murder 2 just with child abuse thrown in. Luckily the judge saw that suggestion for the travesty that it was and said so and did not allow it.

I'm not sure what source gave you that definition of 3rd degree murder, because that description is incorrect. The 2012 Florida Statutes define 2nd degree murder as follows:

"(2) The unlawful killing of a human being, when perpetrated by any act imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life, although without any premeditated design to effect the death of any particular individual, is murder in the second degree and constitutes a felony of the first degree, punishable by imprisonment...

(3) When a human being is killed during the perpetration of, or during the attempt to perpetrate, any:
(a) Trafficking offense prohibited by s. 893.135(1),
(b) Arson,
(c) Sexual battery,
(d) Robbery,
(e) Burglary,
(f) Kidnapping,
(g) Escape,
(h) Aggravated child abuse,
(i) Aggravated abuse of an elderly person or disabled adult,
(j) Aircraft piracy,
(k) Unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb,
(l) Carjacking,
(m) Home-invasion robbery,
(n) Aggravated stalking,
(o) Murder of another human being,
(p) Aggravated fleeing or eluding with serious bodily injury or death,
(q) Resisting an officer with violence to his or her person, or
(r) Felony that is an act of terrorism or is in furtherance of an act of terrorism,

by a person other than the person engaged in the perpetration of or in the attempt to perpetrate such felony, the person perpetrating or attempting to perpetrate such felony commits murder in the second degree"

while 3rd degree murder is defined thus:

"(4) The unlawful killing of a human being, when perpetrated without any design to effect death, by a person engaged in the perpetration of, or in the attempt to perpetrate, any felony other than any:
(a) Trafficking offense prohibited by s. 893.135(1),
(b) Arson,
(c) Sexual battery,
(d) Robbery,
(e) Burglary,
(f) Kidnapping,
(g) Escape,
(h) Aggravated child abuse,
(i) Aggravated abuse of an elderly person or disabled adult,
(j) Aircraft piracy,
(k) Unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb,
(l) Unlawful distribution of any substance controlled under s. 893.03(1), cocaine as described in s. 893.03(2)(a)4., or opium or any synthetic or natural salt, compound, derivative, or preparation of opium by a person 18 years of age or older, when such drug is proven to be the proximate cause of the death of the user,
(m) Carjacking,
(n) Home-invasion robbery,
(o) Aggravated stalking,
(p) Murder of another human being,
(q) Aggravated fleeing or eluding with serious bodily injury or death,
(r) Resisting an officer with violence to his or her person, or
(s) Felony that is an act of terrorism or is in furtherance of an act of terrorism,

is murder in the third degree"

You will note there is quite the difference in definition. In the case of 3rd degree murder, "aggravated child abuse" is expressly excluded, which again renders that description inaccurate. If that is indeed how the prosecution sought to introduce the alternative verdict in their submissions, then that would perhaps explain a lot about why their case was not persuasive...

[Lelola]

The case represents the media turning it into a circus as far as I am concerned along with greed from the prosecutors to have a large win under their belts. Is he guilty? I don't think he was but I thought they would have convicted anyway.

Also, the race card was brought into play by the media. It started out with the tapes. Then with old mug shots of Zimmerman while using younger pictures of Martin to make him appear younger.

[Maverick.]

If Trayvon was white this thread would have never been made. Can you at least agree to that?

And I love how Ben still didn't answer my question.

[Lelola]

Originally Posted by Maverick.

If Trayvon was white this thread would have never been made. Can you at least agree to that?

And I love how Ben still didn't answer my question.

Or if Zimmerman was darker in color

[cherrypie36]

Originally Posted by Maverick.

If Trayvon was white this thread would have never been made. Can you at least agree to that?

And I love how Ben still didn't answer my question.

I fully agree to that. Statistics and demographics prove that

[Brandon]

Originally Posted by Maverick.

If Trayvon was white this thread would have never been made. Can you at least agree to that?

And I love how Ben still didn't answer my question.

If Trayvon was white, you're absolutely right about that. White on white crime doesn't exactly qualify for national news. If Zimmerman was black, it would've been the same kind of thing. Black on black crime happens too, it just doesn't reach the kind of national news. What if Trayvon was Hispanic? It'd probably reach national news. What if Zimmerman was Hispanic? Well...there'd probably be "border" and "defense" thrown around with politicians and would probably be national news as well. This thread was made because people chose to be ignorant. They pulled out the race card when it arguably had nothing to do with race, and the people got exactly what they wanted...but they just didn't get the right verdict. Now we got a whole bunch of people pissed off because they think they're more knowledge than the justice system. If it were up to them, they'd throw Zimmerman in jail just out of rage and opinion...and that's pretty fucking scary if you ask me. If I was going to put on trial, I'd want people to get their head out of their asses and think logically.

[Lelola]

Originally Posted by Brandon

If Trayvon was white, you're absolutely right about that. White on white crime doesn't exactly qualify for national news. If Zimmerman was black, it would've been the same kind of thing. Black on black crime happens too, it just doesn't reach the kind of national news. What if Trayvon was Hispanic? It'd probably reach national news. What if Zimmerman was Hispanic? Well...there'd probably be "border" and "defense" thrown around with politicians and would probably be national news as well. This thread was made because people chose to be ignorant. They pulled out the race card when it arguably had nothing to do with race, and the people got exactly what they wanted...but they just didn't get the right verdict. Now we got a whole bunch of people pissed off because they think they're more knowledge than the justice system. If it were up to them, they'd throw Zimmerman in jail just out of rage and opinion...and that's pretty fucking scary if you ask me. If I was going to put on trial, I'd want people to get their head out of their asses and think logically.

You do know that Zimmerman was Hispanic? When that was pointed out, the media chose to call him white Hispanic.

[Pelios]

[font="Arial Narrow"][color="Black"][size="3"][b]I haven't been following enough to pick a side but I would just like to throw this article I read. MUST READ.
http://www.whydontyoutrythis.com/201...zimmerman.html

[LlamaLlamaDuck]

Originally Posted by Maverick.

If Trayvon was white this thread would have never been made. Can you at least agree to that?

I'm not getting involved in a debate since I'm awful at it, just wanted to point out that you made the thread. So does that mean if Trayvon was white it wouldn't be a big deal to you that a kid died?

[Maverick.]

Originally Posted by LlamaLlamaDuck

I'm not getting involved in a debate since I'm awful at it, just wanted to point out that you made the thread. So does that mean if Trayvon was white it wouldn't be a big deal to you that a kid died?

Let me clarify.

If he were white Zimmerman wouldn't have thought anything of the child and would have assumed he was a resident.