Quote:
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?