Even reading through the wiki page on the case makes it very clear Zimmerman was not the aggressor and in the right according to Florida law.
Anyway, Zimmerman was legally in the right and the jury believed so as well. None of the prosecutions witnesses or attempts at pulling at heart strings helped their case. This is a good thing because knee-jerk reactionary bullshit has no place in a court of law. They had to prove that George Zimmerman was guilty and they failed to do so. It was a weak case to begin with. Unfortunately Zimmerman is still viewed as guilty and as some racist, cold blooded murderer to many people thanks to the nonsense they’ve been fed by people who’ve made a career out of being outraged. So, his life is fucking over regardless of him being found innocent.
THANKYOU!!
As mentioned before, I’m glad “COMMON SENSE” and the right to a fair unbiased trial won out in the end based on the “FACTS” and not some knee jerk, liberal PC bullshit idealism.
“Racist Racist!! You anti black white middle class self centred Bush worshipper!! Damn you and your kind!!”
I have found it amusing in recent years that people who have read a few online articles or seen a few so-called news shows can be so fiercely judgmental about jurors that don’t find guilt or innocence in the manner expected.
I mean, sure, my initial reactions to the case (based primarily on news programs and a few preliminary articles) was “Hmmm, seems like the dude kind of murdered that kid”. But I didn’t have all the information given to me. I didn’t have instructions from a judge. I didn’t listen to the arguments from both sides.
The defense OR prosecution doesn’t go out of their way to put idiots on the jury. And these people in such cases do, believe it or not, take their responsibilities VERY seriously. Whether or not they made the “right” decision in one’s eyes, I can assure you that they will at this point in time be much more familiar with the case and all the evidence available than any of us on this board. Just saying.
Also . . . the trial was over whether or not Zimmerman MURDERED the kid, not whether he acted like a boob or whether people having guns is a bad idea anyway.
To say that Trayvon is dead because Zimmerman had a gun holds a certain amount of cred. But to equate that as guilty of murder is just insane. Such arguments can quickly lead to speculative what if’s and we one could posture that Zimmerman might be a dead or coma’d bloody mess on a sidewalk were it not for his gun.
I honestly did not follow this case very closely. I was actually disappointed that it was such a high profile controversy. I really don’t think it should have had anything to do with race, but because buttmunches like Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and so forth jump into the circus it turns into some divisive case for all of America. The trial, by the time it came, was pretty irrelevant as a large portion of the country had already convicted him. The evidence, by this point, isn’t going to change any minds outside of the courtroom.
none of you have obviously ever been in a jury for a murder trial (i have), the jury instuctions are what governs the trial, after that, its who has the best attourny wins, if your case isnt presented properly guilty or not…you will lose.
As mentioned before, I’m glad “COMMON SENSE” and the right to a fair unbiased trial won out in the end based on the “FACTS” and not some knee jerk, liberal PC bullshit idealism.
“Racist Racist!! You anti black white middle class self centred Bush worshipper!! Damn you and your kind!!”
Yeah, yeah…I’m ready for the backlash.
It’s very clear you’ve been watching fox.
Zimmerman was completely the aggressor… THE DISPATCHER SAID DO NOT FOLLOW HIM. but he did anyway. You don’t accost a kid for minding his own business and then get to shoot him because you’re scared of him.
So Zimmerman not guilty of murder or manslaughter means Treyvon is guilty of aggravated assault. Wonderful outcome for a dead kid.
none of you have obviously ever been in a jury for a murder trial (i have), the jury instuctions are what governs the trial, after that, its who has the best attourny wins, if your case isnt presented properly guilty or not…you will lose.
I don’t think anyone is arguing process. We’re arguing justice and process and justice are not the same.
unfortunately treyvon’s parents found a court of law rather than a court of justice.
I’d like to think that if it were my son, I’d call up marcelous wallace so he could “call up a couple of hard pipe hittin’ niggas to go to work on the homes here with a pair of pliers and a blow torch.”
thankfully I’m not in that situation to be forced to react.
Late,
grmpysmrf
one could posture that Zimmerman might be a dead or coma’d bloody mess on a sidewalk were it not for his gun.
Which is why you don’t accost people. He dialed 911 on the scary kid in his neighborhood, his duty is over but instead he went after the kid and got himself in a situation that was completely avoidable. he murdered that kid pure and simple.
Late,
grmpysmrf
my point is that if you use the race card. it can go either way actually. Trevon called Zimmerman a “Creepy cracker”. So you have to be careful when using the race card.
Should be an easy indicator when he ignored the dispatcher and followed the kid, that he was obviously looking for trouble. That doesn’t meam he had an intent to kill him. But it means thaf he was profiling and was a dumb ass trying to pretend he’s a hero. And because of that, he ended up killing a kid. He called the cops. That should’ve been the end of it. What he did was technically not illegal by ignoring a dispatcher’s request, but it should be null the second someone from that altercation ends up dead.
Should be an easy indicator when he ignored the dispatcher and followed the kid, that he was obviously looking for trouble. That doesn’t meam he had an intent to kill him. But it means thaf he was profiling and was a dumb ass trying to pretend he’s a hero. And because of that, he ended up killing a kid. He called the cops. That should’ve been the end of it. What he did was technically not illegal by ignoring a dispatcher’s request, but it should be null the second someone from that altercation ends up dead.
Not true at all. He actually listened to the dispatcher when the dispatcher told him he didn’t need to follow Martin. In fact, the dispatcher told Zimmerman “Just let me know if he does anything okay?” and before telling Zimmerman he didn’t need to follow Martin the dispatcher continued to ask questions about Martin’s appearance and location - which is encouraging to follow or keep a close eye on someone.
Here’s a transcript of the conversation between Zimmerman and the dispatcher: [url “http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/326700-full-transcript-zimmerman.html”]http://www.documentcloud.org/...cript-zimmerman.html
It’s a short read but an important one since people are still claiming Zimmerman disobeyed the dispatcher when he actually did not. [#ffffff]
[/#ffffff] [#ffffff]
[/#ffffff][font “Arial Black”][#000000][size 4][#ffffff]EVERYONE ON HERE WHO KEEPS STATING THAT ZIMMERMAN DISOBEYED THE DISPATCHER WHEN HE ASKED HIM TO STOP FOLLOWING MARTIN IS INCORRECT. READ THE TRANSCRIPT I LINKED TO AND STOP MAKING BULLSHIT STATEMENTS.[/#ffffff] [/size][/#000000][/font]
my point is that if you use the race card. it can go either way actually. Trevon called Zimmerman a “Creepy cracker”…[/reply]
Not until that creepy cracker started following him… too which zimmerman started spouting off about “coons.”
Late,
grmpysmrf
Wow, hey, come on, now! Let’s not confuse this case with EVIDENCE.
The problem here is (much to the delight of the media that stirred it all up to begin with) everyone is distracted by a bunch of stuff that does not have anything to do with whether or not Zimmerman committed murder.
Was Zimmerman a knucklehead? — Probably.
Was he a RACIST? — Maybe.
Should he have been carrying a gun? — Debatable (yet within his rights).
Does Florida have a “Stand Your Ground” law which allows for deadly force if the situation is supposedly justified (i.e. life threatening and in need of self-defense)? — Yes.
Did Zimmerman’s actions and decisions on that night contribute to the death of Trayvon — Most Certainly.
But the above questions do not answer whether he MURDERED Trayvon Martin. And that is why we have long coutroom trials and long careful deliberations of juries. No one likes that a boy is dead from the events of that evening. Also, no one likes putting someone away for MURDER if they are not guilty of MURDER. To say that the jury let Zimmerman off because they were “racist” makes about as much sense as saying Casey Anthony was found not guilty of First-degree murder because the jury hates babies.
If you want to argue gun laws, do it in another conversation.
If you want to argue racial injustice in the so-called justice system, do it in another conversation.
If you want to argue the idiocy of a man following someone he thinks is dangerous, do it in another conversation.
I think people are needlessly wrapping up way too many ideas and topics into one very important question . . . Did Zimmerman MURDER Trayvon Martin (not “kill”, but “murder”)?. At this point it really doesn’t matter what any of us think, because a jury has already CAREFULLY decided the answer to this question.
I don’t like Zimmerman. I think he’s a tool. And if I were Trayvon’s parents I would want that tool to rot in a jail cell or fry in a chair with the hot burning intensity of a million suns. Well . . . I’m glad I’m not them.
To say that the jury let Zimmerman off because they were “racist” makes about as much sense as saying Casey Anthony was found not guilty of First-degree murder because the jury hates babies.
Does Florida have a “Stand Your Ground” law which allows for deadly force if the situation is supposedly justified (i.e. life threatening and in need of self-defense)? — Yes.
I can’t see how the stand your ground law is justified when you are the reason for the situation. it reminds me of this gag from the simpsons…
Chief Wiggum: …And once a man is in your home, anything you do to him is nice and [winks] legal. Homer: Is that so? [yells out kitchen window] Oh, Flanders? Won’t you join me in my kitchen? [Ned turns off the hose. Homer stands on the wall next to the kitchen arch, preparing to strike Flanders] Heh-heh-heh-heh… Chief Wiggum: Uh, it doesn’t work when you invite 'em. Ned: Hidilly-hey! Homer: Go home. Ned: Toodledy-do!
Only, wiggum never said it doesn’t work if you invite them in and so homer was cleared of killing flanders off the show. see what I mean?
Also, no one likes putting someone away for MURDER if they are not guilty of MURDER
what else do you call…
a man following someone he thinks is dangerous
and then killing him?
Did Zimmerman MURDER Trayvon Martin (not “kill”, but “murder”)?
To say that the jury let Zimmerman off because they were “racist” makes about as much sense as saying Casey Anthony was found not guilty of First-degree murder because the jury hates babies.
I think more people are saying zimmerman is racist and the jury let a racist off for killing a black man which makes the jury de-facto racist not specifically racist… but now I’m splitting hairs.
There has been some misinformation on the board so this should clear up the dispatcher’s directions to Zimms.
911 dispatcher:
Are you following him? [2:24]
Zimmerman:
Yeah. [2:25]
911 dispatcher:
[u][size 4]OK.
We don’t need you to do that.[/u][/size] [2:26]
here’s a little more for the “poor george” crowd…
Zimmerman:
Yeah. You go in straight through the entrance and then you would go left. You go straight in, don’t turn and make a left.
He’s running. [2:08]
trayvon clearly tried to leave the situation but zimms wouldn’t let it happen
911 dispatcher:
OK, what’s your apartment number?
Zimmerman:
It’s a home. It’s 1950 – oh, crap, I don’t want to give it out – I don’t know where this kid is [inaudible] [3:40]:
So he knew it was a kid. Also, he just got done telling the dispatcher that martin ran away and yet he doesn’t want to give out his home address? wtf is that all about?
911 dispatcher:
Alright, George, I’ll let them know you’ll meet them at …
Zimmerman:
Could you have them call me and I’ll tell them where I’m at? [3:49]
911 dispatcher:
OK, that’s no problem.
yeah call me cause I’m going after this kid and won’t be by my truck like I said I would be. the guy is a fuckin killer plain and simple.
There has been some misinformation on the board so this should clear up the dispatcher’s directions to Zimms.
911 dispatcher:
Are you following him? [2:24]
Zimmerman:
Yeah. [2:25]
911 dispatcher:
[u][size 4]OK.
We don’t need you to do that.[/u][/size] [2:26]
Late,
grmpysmrf
No, shit genius. But you conveniently left out the part where Zimmerman says “Ok.” and complies. Oh, and the part where the dispatcher tells Zimmerman, “Just let me know if he does anything okay?”. Which I’d already mentioned earlier.
You know your opinion is flawed when you have to leave stuff out to fit your own narrative. Do you even read the posts you disagree with or just look for any opportunity to post a disagreement even when there actually isn’t one?
You really don’t seem to know a thing about this case and what actually happened and yet you have such a strong opinion about it.
[reply]Did Zimmerman MURDER Trayvon Martin (not “kill”, but “murder”)?
sounds like you’re splitting hairs
[/reply]
These are hardly HAIRS being split (though when it comes to whether to put someone in a jail cell for his life or not, I would hope that even “hairs” be very carefully split).
Your response above is EXACTLY the kind of thing I was referring to. In your mind, Zimmerman killed the kid, so he’s a murderer . . . end of story. That’s not the way MURDER is determined. I think we had a similar discussion during the Casey Anthony trial and you might want to familiarize yourself with a few key terms before taking such dogmatic positions.
At the very least I would hope that someone knows the legal definition of MURDER before determining someone’s guilt of such a crime.
[reply]There has been some misinformation on the board so this should clear up the dispatcher’s directions to Zimms.
911 dispatcher:
Are you following him? [2:24]
Zimmerman:
Yeah. [2:25]
911 dispatcher:
[u][size 4]OK.
We don’t need you to do that.[/u][/size] [2:26]
Late,
grmpysmrf
No, shit genius. But you conveniently left out the part where Zimmerman says “Ok.” and complies.
You know your opinion is flawed when you have to leave stuff out to fit your own narrative.[/reply]
Forget omissions.
In my world (and in the world of most English-speaking humans) saying “We don’t need you to do X” is VERY different than a DIRECTIVE or ORDER of “Do not do X”.
[reply][reply]There has been some misinformation on the board so this should clear up the dispatcher’s directions to Zimms.
911 dispatcher:
Are you following him? [2:24]
Zimmerman:
Yeah. [2:25]
911 dispatcher:
[u][size 4]OK.
We don’t need you to do that.[/u][/size] [2:26]
Late,
grmpysmrf
No, shit genius. But you conveniently left out the part where Zimmerman says “Ok.” and complies.
You know your opinion is flawed when you have to leave stuff out to fit your own narrative.[/reply]
Forget omissions.
In my world (and in the world of most English-speaking humans) saying “We don’t need you to do X” is VERY different than a DIRECTIVE or ORDER of “Do not do X”.[/reply]
It’s the intent. everyone knows what that “suggestion” was. semantics are bullshit when it comes to killing that.