George Zimmerman found not guilty

['tyleR]

Umm..........

 

Just describing him, didn't mean it like that.  lololol  Main point being, he was a kid.

 

That alone should be enough.

[Steve The Bug]

I hate people who talk about this without knowing anything about the case.  Here are a few key points that people don't seem to know:

 

1. The police didn't want to charge Zimmerman because they didn't have enough evidence.  They only ultimately did it because of pressure.
2. A witness saw one man on top of another and the man on the bottom was wearing a red shirt.  That night, Zimmerman had a red shirt on.
3. Injuries on the back of Zimmermans head were consitant with hitting the ground.
4. It was only a race issue because the media made it out to be one.  Zimmerman was a hispanic and 1/8th black.
5. Police dispatchers have no authority to tell someone what to do.  Just because they told Zimmerman not to pursue Martin doesn't mean he had to listen to them. 

Point 4 isn't too important for the trial, just for public reaction. 

 

On another point, people are calling him sending him death threats.  Sure.  Ok.  People are miss dialing his number and yelling death threats at a completely uninvolved women.  Not okay.

 

Just my thoughts on the matter.

[Captain Murphy ☆]

 Fawking race card, its bullshit. Like, black people think they're entitled to things just cause they're black. No fuck you, you're not entitled to shit. 

 

....What the fuck.

 

Anyway I feel like Zimmerman was guilty he didn't listen to the police officer and shot and killed Trayvon. Who cares if he smoked weed and did a bunch of "bad" things before then. Would it be okay If I started following a white kid while I had a gun and shot him after I got beat up? I don't even think they even fought personally.

[Steve The Bug]

....What the fuck.

 

Anyway I feel like Zimmerman was guilty he didn't listen to the police officer and shot and killed Trayvon. Who cares if he smoked weed and did a bunch of "bad" things before then. Would it be okay If I started following a white kid while I had a gun and shot him after I got beat up? I don't even think they even fought personally.

 

A witness SAW them fighting with Zimmerman below Martin on the ground.  Dispatchers do not have the authority to tell Zimmerman not to follow him. 

 

To flip the whole thing around think about this:  you are walking down a street behind someone.  They turn around and start beating you up.  They are bigger and stronger than you and you hit the ground.  Your only way to defend yourself is to shoot them.  The bullet kills them.  How would you feel if you got charged with murder?  It wasn't your fault.  You needed to defend yourself. 

[Captain Murphy ☆]

A witness SAW them fighting with Zimmerman below Martin on the ground.  Dispatchers do not have the authority to tell Zimmerman not to follow him. 

 

To flip the whole thing around think about this:  you are walking down a street behind someone.  They turn around and start beating you up.  They are bigger and stronger than you and you hit the ground.  Your only way to defend yourself is to shoot them.  The bullet kills them.  How would you feel if you got charged with murder?  It wasn't your fault.  You needed to defend yourself. 

 

I had a choice not to follow that person right? Could've walked on the other side of the street. Or how about NOT following them at all and letting him go where he was gonna go.

[Miror B]

I had a choice not to follow that person right?

Who said you were following him?

[Steve The Bug]

In my example you weren't following him, you just happened to be walking in the same direction as him.

[TrickyPooBoy]

politics is shit

[Dark]

"Injuries on the back of Zimmermans head were consitant with hitting the ground."

 

Injuries on the back of Zimmerman's head were also more or less minor and do not support that Zimmerman was afraid for his life.

 

"It was only a race issue because the media made it out to be one.  Zimmerman was a hispanic and 1/8th black."

 

That's about as irrational as saying Hitler killing Jewish people (Godwin's Law, by the way) was not a religious/discrimination issue just because Hitler had some distant Jewish relative. You can be black and racially profile another black person. You can be Hispanic, white, brown, yellow, blue and racially profile another person of any of those colors.

 

"Police dispatchers have no authority to tell someone what to do."

 

No, and Ann Coulter would say that it's not illegal for someone to follow someone else and it's not illegal to racially profile someone. And that's fine - nothing Zimmerman did up until the point of shooting Trayvon was necessarily illegal, just idiotic. The point is that if we're going to apply the self-defense argument to Zimmerman, why are we so hesitant to apply it to Trayvon? If I were being followed in the dead of night while it was raining in a neighborhood which has had a lot of robberies, I'd be a bit afraid, too. And I might feel the need to stand my ground, fearing for my life because my pursuer has a gun!

 

"To flip the whole thing around think about this:  you are walking down a street behind someone.  They turn around and start beating you up.  They are bigger and stronger than you and you hit the ground.  Your only way to defend yourself is to shoot them.  The bullet kills them.  How would you feel if you got charged with murder?  It wasn't your fault.  You needed to defend yourself."

 

Implying that Trayvon had a reason to start the fight in the first place? I mean, in your imaginary scenario, I could have kept enough space between me and the person in front of me, so I could run if they turned around and tried to attack me. If my only form of sense-defense was a gun, I could attempt to shoot them in the leg, not in a place which looks like an intent to kill, as in Zimmerman's case.

 

The prosecution's main witness is dead, and the only side of the story we get is Zimmerman's side, and he sort of has a bit of self-interest in saying that Trayvon started the fight. So we don't know. But by the jury ruling him not guilty, they've opened the way for anyone to shoot someone while there are no witnesses and claim self-defense. Because, hey, who will dispute it? The only person who can is dead.

[Steve The Bug]

Your Hitler comparisson is inherently flawed because Zimmerman didn't kill millions of jews.  It would be like Hitler killed one jew and without having shown previous racism.  (Also Godwin's law lol)

 

You cannot defend your life against someone who was following you down a street who may or may not have had a gun.  If I was on a jury, I would find you guilty.

 

Who has time to think logically when they are being beat up by someone much bigger than them.  Zimmerman, even if he hadn't suffered serious injury yet, could easily have been afraid for his life.  Martin was a young man who was much much MUCH bigger than Zimmerman.  It would have been scary regardless of race.  He did what he thought he had to to protect himself. 

 

Finally, no.  You would need to jump someone, have them beat you up, then shoot them, for it to be considered self-defense. 

 

My most basic point is that justice was served.  If you don't like it, if you think we should be allowed to lynch people based on public opinion, move somewhere else.

[Dark]

"Your Hitler comparisson is inherently flawed because Zimmerman didn't kill millions of jews.  It would be like Hitler killed one jew and without having shown previous racism."

I'm not saying the fact that Zimmerman killed a black teen makes him racist, I'm saying your logic that he's not racist because he's one-eighth black is false. Or that he's Hispanic - you can be part of the group you're discriminating against or racially profiling, is my inherent point. Whether or not this was a race case isn't a huge concern of mine - I'd find Zimmerman guilty of manslaughter regardless of the races of the attacker and the victim.

"You would need to jump someone, have them beat you up, then shoot them, for it to be considered self-defense."

No, you would just need to go into a dark alley and shoot someone with intent, give yourself a few bruises, and say it was in self-defense. You know why? Because there are no witnesses - the main witness is dead.

I'm not saying this is what Zimmerman did - in fact, I'm willing to almost certainly say that this was not the case in this instance. I'm saying that the jury saying that Zimmerman isn't even guilty of manslaughter proves a point - as long as the witness is dead, you can claim self-defense and the onus will always rest with the prosecution. Self-defense, at least in my eyes, is an active position, not a passive one - the burden of proof rests with the defense to say that Zimmerman did shoot in self-defense. The law, obviously, disagrees with me on that, or maybe the jury found some semblance of self-defense in the defense case, but if I were on that jury I would have convicted him of manslaughter. He didn't prove, to me, that he was justified in shooting Trayvon.

"if you think we should be allowed to lynch people based on public opinion"

No need to be feisty, sweetie. I'm not saying we should lynch people on public opinion - in fact, I hate the sensationalization (most definitely not a word) that the media brought to this case. I'm not saying Zimmerman is guilty because the public thinks so - the public thought Casey Anthony was guilty and I agreed with the lack of conviction in that case because of lack of evidence (and because the law was flawed). I'm saying Zimmerman is guilty because of the evidence provided, or really the lack thereof. The prosecution shouldn't have to fumble with the fact that their main witness is dead and that the defense can claim an active argument without providing active evidence.

[a bad post]

[quote=]If I were being followed in the dead of night while it was raining in a neighborhood which has had a lot of robberies, I'd be a bit afraid, too. And I might feel the need to stand my ground, fearing for my life because my pursuer has a gun![/quote]

If you turned around to fight someone in this situation then its not self-defense its (I believe, though I could be wrong) Assault, which is a crime. To be honest I'm so tired of people making a big deal out of this, maybe Zimmerman was guilty. Mayber he was a racist @ss, but we'll never know, because we weren't there. 

 

Though lets look at this from Zimmerman's view point. A young person in a hoodie is walking around late at night out in the rain, that to me no matter what color, age, gender you are looks suspicious, especially if there's been a lot of robberies lately. Do we even know why Trayvon was out that night in the first place? Also I could have sworn I heard somewhere that Trayvon had some sort of drug in his system that night, but I could be wrong. 

 

In my opinion Zimmerman acted like an idiot, had he not followed Trayvon, like the dispatcher told him to, Trayvon would still be alive right now. Just because he could follow Trayvon doesn't mean he should've. 

 

You know what sickens me the most about this though, is the huge deal people are making out of it. Casey Anothony, George Zimmerman, and people like them have all had there lives, and reputations ruined. Domino said he hope Zimmerman gets killed, and honestly that makes me sick, his death is not going to bring Trayvon back. I'm sorry, but who are to judge who is a pathetic piece flesh, he's a human just like you are and deserves to be treated like one. The case is over and the man has been punished enough just leave him alone, so he can live out the rest life. 

[~ P O L A R I S ~]

[quote]

Domino said he hope Zimmerman gets killed, and honestly that makes me sick, his death is not going to bring Trayvon back.[/quote]

 

The rationale isn't about bringing Trayvon back. It's about saving others like Trayvon in the future by discouraging would-be killers. Part of the reason that this case is so highly profiled is due to the precedent it sets. This verdict effectively sends the message that it's okay by the court to murder black kids. Can you see why that might be a problem?

[Miror B]

The rationale isn't about bringing Trayvon back. It's about saving others like Trayvon in the future by discouraging would-be killers. Part of the reason that this case is so highly profiled is due to the precedent it sets. This verdict effectively sends the message that it's okay by the court to murder black kids. Can you see why that might be a problem?

Except he wasn't found guilty of murder? 

[Wizarus]

More like it's ok to act completely retarded, pretend to be a cop, and be the main cause of a teen's death, because you won't be held accountable for it.

[TheComposer]

The rationale isn't about bringing Trayvon back. It's about saving others like Trayvon in the future by discouraging would-be killers. Part of the reason that this case is so highly profiled is due to the precedent it sets. This verdict effectively sends the message that it's okay by the court to murder black kids. Can you see why that might be a problem?

 

Would you look at that sensationalization? You sir, may have a future in the mainstream media if you can keep it up.

 

In any case, you don't beat someone's head into the ground unless you have intent to do serious harm to someone. In what world are you living in do you think pounding someone's head into cement is an appropriate response to someone who is following you? Zimmerman may have overreacted, but at the end of the day I don't see how Zimmerman could have been put away.

 

And at the end of the day, his not guilty verdict has caused him more harm than the guilty verdict ever would have.