This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

The Public Responds To Zimmerman Verdict

Tyler Durden's picture





 

A jury of six women found neighborhood watch volunteer George Zimmerman not guilty of all charges on Saturday in the shooting of Trayvon Martin. Here are some quotes from key figures involved in the case. From the AP:

"We're ecstatic with the results. George Zimmerman was never guilty of anything except protecting himself in self-defense."

      — Mark O'Mara, one of George Zimmerman's attorneys, said at a news conference after the verdict.

"Even though I am broken hearted my faith is unshattered. I WILL ALWAYS LOVE MY BABY TRAY"

      — Trayvon Martin's father, Tracy Martin, via Twitter

"The acquittal of George Zimmerman is a slap in the face to the American people but it is only the first round in the pursuit of justice. We intend to ask the Department of Justice to move forward as they did in the Rodney King case and we will closely monitor the civil case against Mr. Zimmerman. I will convene an emergency call with preachers tonight to discuss next steps and I intend to head to Florida in the next few days."

      — the Rev. Al Sharpton

"Message from Dad: "Our whole family is relieved". Today... I'm proud to be an American. God Bless America! Thank you for your prayers!

      — George Zimmerman's brother, Robert, said in Twitter

"I don't think this is a time for high-fiving."

     — Robert Zimmerman Jr., George's brother, on CNN after the verdict.

In photos from ABC:

And then there is this:

 


- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Sat, 07/13/2013 - 23:58 | Link to Comment All Out Of Bubblegum
All Out Of Bubblegum's picture

So in America, an armed adult male can legally approach and shoot an unarmed kid and it's ok.

Fuck this country.

Sun, 07/14/2013 - 00:00 | Link to Comment Almost Solvent
Almost Solvent's picture

My riot over under looks low @ 1

Sun, 07/14/2013 - 00:02 | Link to Comment THX 1178
THX 1178's picture

3...2...1...

Sun, 07/14/2013 - 00:13 | Link to Comment american eyedol
american eyedol's picture

this is a perfect time to change the monetary system tomorrow it will be on page 17-d of newspapers on monday, and people won't understand for a year what the hell hit them

Sun, 07/14/2013 - 00:22 | Link to Comment LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

Can we riot against the Bernanke yet?

Sun, 07/14/2013 - 00:32 | Link to Comment CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

I'm disappointed that the Stand Your Ground Law, which is a good law, was effectively nullified:

 

BAXLEY: Well, simply because if you carefully read the statute, which most of the critics have not, and read the legislative analysis, there's nothing in this statute that authorizes you to pursue or confront other people. If anything, this law would have protected the victim in this case; it could have. -- Representitive Baxley, author of the Stand Your Ground Law,

Sun, 07/14/2013 - 00:58 | Link to Comment LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

Jury of your peers.  Constitution.  Get over it or have it gotten over on you.

Sun, 07/14/2013 - 01:07 | Link to Comment CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

I'm over it. But the truth is still the truth.

For what it's worth, I'll stand my ground if some fat assed Jewish Pervian chases me down the street and looks like he's going to draw down on me.

Sun, 07/14/2013 - 01:15 | Link to Comment James_Cole
James_Cole's picture

Apparently this case is the biggest thing to happen in the US since what's her name.

Anyway, the jury seems to have gotten it correct from what I glean having not followed the thing. 

The main take away from this is it's an example of what happens when you combine stupid people with lethal weapons, I can believe Zimmerman had been scared for his life but that doesn't mean he actually was in any serious danger. He shouldn't of chased Martin but that's not necessarily criminal. 

Anyway, the riots probably have a lot more to do with the multi-tiered justice system than this particular case. Black people are treated much worse in the justice system than white people, basic FACT. This racially charged media circus only exaggerates all that. 

Sun, 07/14/2013 - 01:18 | Link to Comment LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

Justice is blind, and she's also dumb.  Made enough money to buy Miami but she pissed it away so fast.

Sun, 07/14/2013 - 01:42 | Link to Comment iDealMeat
iDealMeat's picture

Shame on you ZH..  This bullshit is zero sum. 

 

Stick with the financials please.

 

Sun, 07/14/2013 - 01:51 | Link to Comment LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

Guy's gotta make a living.  This thread is well read, comrade.  And you're here.  So there's that.

Sun, 07/14/2013 - 01:56 | Link to Comment iDealMeat
iDealMeat's picture

Fuck you.

Sun, 07/14/2013 - 02:00 | Link to Comment LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

Nobody puts baby in a corner.  Ditto.

Sun, 07/14/2013 - 02:16 | Link to Comment iDealMeat
iDealMeat's picture

Really? You actually give a shit about this case?

Seriously? 

MSM Distraction of the most glorious form.. 

EDIT: LTER, I'd love to word fight you. However, I've read you. Soo..  Can't pick a fight w/ you..

I guess that the bummer of F.C.  We all basically agree here.  So there is no contrarian.

Hence, ZH creates - Robot Trader, math man, MDB, Krugman, etc.. 

Same Shit.. Same blog.

 

 

Sun, 07/14/2013 - 02:20 | Link to Comment LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

Jury verdict.  Constitution.

Sun, 07/14/2013 - 02:35 | Link to Comment iDealMeat
iDealMeat's picture

Disclaimer: I up-voted my "Fuck You"..  comment..

 

Feels good. ;)

Sun, 07/14/2013 - 02:57 | Link to Comment iDealMeat
iDealMeat's picture

I up voted that too.. 

 

Pass the Popcorn..

Sun, 07/14/2013 - 03:13 | Link to Comment 12ToothAssassin
12ToothAssassin's picture

And the racial division deepens thusly

Sun, 07/14/2013 - 03:49 | Link to Comment MisterMousePotato
MisterMousePotato's picture

@Crockett the moron ...

"... there's nothing in this statute that authorizes you to pursue or confront other people."

Similarly, there's nothing in this statute that authorizes [me] to have sex with my wife or to crack a bottle of champagne in celebration of some increasingly rare good news. By your brilliant legal analysis; therefore, I can do neither.

You are a very sad little man.

Sun, 07/14/2013 - 04:06 | Link to Comment CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

I was quoting the author of the Stand Your Ground Law. Apparently you think he is a moron. Why do you hate white Republicans?

Sun, 07/14/2013 - 04:19 | Link to Comment Harlequin001
Harlequin001's picture

'"We're ecstatic with the results. George Zimmerman was never guilty of anything except protecting himself in self-defense."'

Everybody should have the right to hunt somebody down with a gun and then plead self defence, yeah?

fact is that when the justice system fails you you have the right to revenge.

Sun, 07/14/2013 - 04:30 | Link to Comment CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

 

fact is that when the justice system fails you you have the right to revenge.

 

I'll have to disagree with that. Revenge is a dish best served cold but I can't abide cold blooded killing. That's one reason I oppose the death penalty. There's something horrific about supposedly reasonable people plotting the death of another human being once any actual emergency has passed.

Sun, 07/14/2013 - 04:51 | Link to Comment All Risk No Reward
All Risk No Reward's picture

This case is very straightforward.

If a person is having their head pounded into the pavement, they have the right to defend themselves with deadly force.

Period.

This isn't rocket science.  If some dude what bashing Sharpton's sell out head against trhe pavement and his body guard was armed, he'd expect him to shoot him if that was his only reasonable option to prevent his head from being smashed.

Period.

The only argument for murder must, therefore, come before Trayvon was going MMA on Zimmerman.

But there is no evidence Zimmerman committed a crime prior to being assaulted.

That isn't to say Zimmerman did or did not actually do something, but it is to say there is no evidence of it.

Getting out of his car and following someone is not a crime.

Trayvon should have known this and respected it...  if Trayvon felt threatend he should have told Zimmerman, "I don't know why your following me, but I feel threatened and you should stop following me."

Being followed by someone is no more reason to beat someone down than having a drunk guy call you a name.

This situation should be used to explain liberty to people and how to properly deal with similar situations, but you'll notice that the constructive is avoided.

The mega banks are bankrupting us through Debt Money Tyranny

http://www.keepandshare.com/doc/4768883/debtmoneytyranny-6-1-pdf-60k?tr=77

Sun, 07/14/2013 - 05:32 | Link to Comment Gazooks
Gazooks's picture

Really, why should anyone, particularly a young black man in Georgia, get nervous or upset by a stranger, fat, white stranger at that, following with a gun?

 

 

"I work for a government I dispise for ends I think criminal."

 

"In the long run, we're all dead." - JM Keynes

 

 

 

Sun, 07/14/2013 - 05:56 | Link to Comment Harlequin001
Harlequin001's picture

Ok let's try this one a different way. I have the right to self defence, so does everyone else. If I choose to go down to my local bar and start a fight I pretty much forego my right to self defence. I do not have, or should not have the right to pull a knife and kill someone should I start to lose and claim self defence simply because I started the fight and misjudged the opposition. The option for self defence went when I started the fight.

I do not have the right to start a bar fight and win. I do have the right to start a bar fight and suffer the consequence of loss though I know I can be prosecuted and sued if I win, but that's a different matter.

When you follow someone in a vehicle and then hunt them down with a gun, and more so when the poor bastard doesn't have one you forego the right to self defence, or should do.

This is murder or manslaughter and requires vengeance either personally or through the courts, pure and simple. Zimmerman should rightly live in fear for his life for as long as it lasts, which should not be very long at all.

Period.

Sun, 07/14/2013 - 06:42 | Link to Comment 338
338's picture

H001

 

Finally someone gets it.

 

Start a fist fight or a verbal confrontation while carrying a concealed firearm, ( in my mind anyway) precludes you from using that option when someone starts beating your ass, MMA or any other style.

 

Your lack of fighting ability cannot be used as a defense when you have to pull a gun to stop something that your were so fucking stupid to start anyway.

 

It seems so simple to me, but somehow I guess it's white/black or left/right anymore in this country, and I blame it all on the media.

 

People have been breed into letting the TV, or more dangerously, the talk radio think for them, otherwise we'd have a decent fucking government.

Sun, 07/14/2013 - 08:43 | Link to Comment HardAssets
HardAssets's picture

Your barfight analogy is wrong when applied to this case (given the information released to the public). Mr Martin sat on Mr Zimmerman and proceeded to beat his head into the pavement. Such actions can kill an individual and Zimmerman felt his life threatened at that poiint. This is far different from a situation where two guys are standing up trading blows in a fight and they may retreat from one another. Similiarly in the example you gave above, even if you started a fight that does not mean your opponent would have a free pass and be able to choke you to death because you started it. You would be able to use whatever manner available to defend yourself from dying or from serious bodily injury.

Of course, this analysis is based on the limited information given to the public by a media that has been extremely biased. Federal authorities have involved themselves in the case to the point of sponsoring protest groups and the US POS saying that Martin would have been like his son. This is outrageous. Their possible agenda may be anti-2nd Amendment & self defense and/or further destablility through increased tension among those from different racial groups. (Divide & conquer.)  In any case, the ladies on the jury - - having reviewed all the facts of the case in far greater depth than we have - - - found Mr Zimmerman not guilty. 

Sun, 07/14/2013 - 09:05 | Link to Comment nmewn
nmewn's picture

Correct.

It was not the opinion of the jury that Zimmerman ever sought to have a confrontation with Trayvon. The judge made it plain what the jury should consider regarding justifiable homicide:

"In deciding whether George Zimmerman was justified in the use of deadly force, you must judge him by the circumstances by which he was surrounded at the time the force was used. The danger facing George Zimmerman need not have been actual; however, to justify the use of deadly force, the appearance of danger must have been so real that a reasonably cautious and prudent person under the same circumstances would have believed that the danger could be avoided only through the use of that force. Based upon appearances, George Zimmerman must have actually believed that the danger was real.

If George Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in any place where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony."

?http://www.flcourts18.org/PDF/Press_Releases/Zimmerman_Final_Jury_Instructions.pdf

?

 

 

 

Sun, 07/14/2013 - 09:31 | Link to Comment Uncle Remus
Uncle Remus's picture

That quote is the Crux of the Biscuit. I've been through multiple training/continuing education courses for my various licenses that include carrying firearms, and "danger must have been so real that a reasonably cautious and prudent person under the same circumstances would have believed that the danger could be avoided only through the use of that force" is absolutely the money quote.

Sun, 07/14/2013 - 10:29 | Link to Comment Harlequin001
Harlequin001's picture

It seems a pity that Mr Trayvon didn't have a gun, or that Zimmerman did, because when confronted by a gun totting Zimmerman, Trayvon being now dead would have had every right to shoot him.

Pity he didn't have a gun.

Pity Zimmerman did.

Fact is that '"danger must have been so real that a reasonably cautious and prudent person under the same circumstances would have believed that the danger could be avoided only through the use of that force"' would be exactly the case the moment you realised that your opponent you picked a fight with was stronger and that you were going to lose, every time. It's still murder or manslaughter, whichever way you look at it.

Zimmerman picked a fight he lost, and killed the guy who was winning with a handgun. Let me be clear, if you attacked or confronted me with a handgun I wouldn't want you wounded or hurt, I would want you dead or unconscious because that's the only way I can know I will be safe. That is self defence. That's not the case if you are unarmed, in which case I would be compelled to stop when you are unconscious or you concede. When you are armed with a weapon the situation is absolute, which Zimmerman was. Unconscious or dead is how you need to be, and if I have no gun I will bang your head on the floor because its the easiest and fastest way to make you unconscious or dead. Since Zimmerman was the cause of these circumstances he should not have that as a defence and he should hang.

Hardassets, the 'Mr Martin sat on Mr Zimmerman and proceeded to beat his head into the pavement.' clearly didn't kill him, which makes his judgement wrong and the other guy very dead. An acquital is wrong in this case.

Sun, 07/14/2013 - 10:32 | Link to Comment nmewn
nmewn's picture

Trayvon was a minor...can't legally carry.

Sun, 07/14/2013 - 10:41 | Link to Comment Harlequin001
Harlequin001's picture

Not the point really, point is that Zimmerman was, and at any time could have pulled his gun and forced Trayvon to stand aside while got back in his car and left. He didn't.

There is no possible way I can see this as self defence.

Sun, 07/14/2013 - 10:42 | Link to Comment nmewn
nmewn's picture

He may not have had an opportunity to pull his gun while standing. An eyewitness has Trayvon on top beating the crap out of him.

We have to go with what we know, he's on the phone with the cops (recorded) saying he's lost sight of Trayvon.

Sun, 07/14/2013 - 10:49 | Link to Comment Harlequin001
Harlequin001's picture

No, but he would have had an opportunity whilst driving in his vehicle. At what point did he notify Treyvon that he was armed?

I'm still not seeing self defence here. You cannot pick a fight and complain when you lose. At no point was he (Zimmerman) not in control because he was armed, unless he chose to pick a fight knowing he had a fall back if he lost, and used it.

The white guy with the concealed weapon confronted an unarmed black minor and shot him. He should hang.

Sun, 07/14/2013 - 11:01 | Link to Comment Uncle Remus
Uncle Remus's picture

Don't confuse a legally armed civilian with a cop. I don't know about FL, but I am not required to notify anyone I am armed and carrying concealed - if your a cop it's a given. In fact, it's frowned upon, some view it as just this side of brandishing.

So now Zimmerman is a "white guy", not the documented Heinz 57 of non-white that he is, but yet Obama gets to call himself "black".

Your blindness is political at best.

Sun, 07/14/2013 - 11:02 | Link to Comment Harlequin001
Harlequin001's picture

I am not blind, I am a father. It's as simple as that.

It is not acceptable to have my children shot by armed vigilantes of whatever creed or colour. Period.

Sun, 07/14/2013 - 11:15 | Link to Comment Uncle Remus
Uncle Remus's picture

Wait - we're talking about DHS now?

Sun, 07/14/2013 - 11:27 | Link to Comment THX 1178
THX 1178's picture

 

 

S

K

I

N

N

Y

A

S

F

U

C

K

Sun, 07/14/2013 - 11:31 | Link to Comment Harlequin001
Harlequin001's picture

What?

Sun, 07/14/2013 - 12:44 | Link to Comment Uncle Remus
Uncle Remus's picture

My thought exactly.

Oh wait, he's right. On both counts.

Sun, 07/14/2013 - 11:03 | Link to Comment nmewn
nmewn's picture

"At what point did he notify Treyvon that he was armed?"

Not sure that ever came out at trial but I would imagine Trayvon realized it when he was shot. Zimmerman isn't a racist if thats what you're driving at.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/05/24/George-Zimmerman-Black-Homeless-Man-Sanford-Police

Sun, 07/14/2013 - 11:06 | Link to Comment Harlequin001
Harlequin001's picture

Never said or implied that he was.

Sun, 07/14/2013 - 12:14 | Link to Comment Miffed Microbio...
Miffed Microbiologist's picture

Tx Nmewn, the banter " what he should of done during the heat of the moment" is frankly making me ill. We have become a nation of armchair quarterbacks, divorced from the real world. Having sat on 4 juries, one was attempted murder with a gang of perpetrators, I listened to this for hours. The only way to come to resolution is to review facts as best as possible ( multiple witnesses giving similar testimony and physical evidence) weed out arguement and emotional appeal and try to keep personal prejudices at bay ( we ALL have them). One jury I was on drew lines and ended up practically yelling at one another for days. All I could do was just say after an emotional outburst was " please let's just review the facts and see how the law applies". It was horrible and I never wish to do it again.

Miffed;-)

Sun, 07/14/2013 - 10:53 | Link to Comment overmedicatedun...
overmedicatedundersexed's picture

harlequinyy, "he should have pulled his gun sooner"..pal you have never trained with weapons have you..the last resort is to pull a deadly- weapon that is the first rule they teach you. the second rule is if you pull your weapon you are committed to use it for many very good reasons. gun ignorance is no excuse harly for stupid statements.

Sun, 07/14/2013 - 10:59 | Link to Comment Harlequin001
Harlequin001's picture

er yes I have a lot of training with deadly weapons, and more than just hand guns and rifles.

and if you think the army and the police walk around hiding their weapons so as not to upset you then you're more stupid than you sound.

Let's dispense with the stupid statements shall we. Weapons when deployed correctly are a deterrent first, and offense second, unless you have a different motive.

and your second rule is bullshit. I don't know who taught you that, I suspect you've been watching too many movies.

Sun, 07/14/2013 - 11:04 | Link to Comment Uncle Remus
Uncle Remus's picture

Jeebus, I should've worn my waders. I suspect you've been watching too much MSM.

Sun, 07/14/2013 - 11:15 | Link to Comment Harlequin001
Harlequin001's picture

ok we'll treat that comment with the contempt it deserves.

Sun, 07/14/2013 - 12:20 | Link to Comment Uncle Remus
Uncle Remus's picture

As is your right.

Sun, 07/14/2013 - 11:06 | Link to Comment overmedicatedun...
overmedicatedundersexed's picture

harly ex police, ex 101abn, you don't like the rules go see those who use them every day, ask how many cops have pulled a gun and how often , many go their whole life never having to do it. (those that serve in mostly white middle class cities rarely pull weapons) it's you who have seen too many movies.

Sun, 07/14/2013 - 11:09 | Link to Comment Harlequin001
Harlequin001's picture

Somehow I think not.

Sun, 07/14/2013 - 12:18 | Link to Comment Miffed Microbio...
Miffed Microbiologist's picture

Absolutely overmed. I have 3 cop neighbors, all with 25 yr + years experience in San Diego. ALL of them have not used their guns once! Frankly I was shocked when they told me this.

Miffed;-)

Sun, 07/14/2013 - 10:48 | Link to Comment Uncle Remus
Uncle Remus's picture

." if I have no gun I will bang your head on the floor because its the easiest and fastest way to make you unconscious or dead."

The defense rests.

Sun, 07/14/2013 - 10:49 | Link to Comment Harlequin001
Harlequin001's picture

not much of a defence.

Sun, 07/14/2013 - 11:00 | Link to Comment Uncle Remus
Uncle Remus's picture

Sure it is. In your own words you spoke of deadly force.

Sun, 07/14/2013 - 11:04 | Link to Comment Harlequin001
Harlequin001's picture

I think you should go read it again, all of it.

Sun, 07/14/2013 - 11:13 | Link to Comment Uncle Remus
Uncle Remus's picture

Don't need too. I've had so many civilian self-defense scenarios pounded into my head in training, this is just one of them. Read the money quote upstream. This is how the law is interpreted in just about every court in the country. That is what matters, not what you think (which BTW would likely put you on a defense attorneys "keep off the jury" list).

Life and death, especially your own, requires objectivity, not the influence of Kool-Aid.

Sun, 07/14/2013 - 17:36 | Link to Comment Abaco
Abaco's picture

There was no evidence whatsoever presented that Zimmerman picked a fight. That is your fantasy. Seems you really want a "white hispanic" punished because he killed his attacker. Are you equally passionate about putting away the thousands of black men that murder thousands of black men every year? Do you suffer the same indifference that race baiters like Jackson, Sharpton, and Obama have to black on black crime?

Sun, 07/14/2013 - 10:29 | Link to Comment nmewn
nmewn's picture

That really is all it is.

I hate it that he's dead but no one will ever convince me that he couldn't have outrun Zimmerman if he really wanted to. I believe his "machismo" forced him to turn on Zimmerman and confront him, making Trayvon the aggressor.

Not to say you or I wouldn't have done the same thing or that Trayvon didn't have his own right to "stand his ground" but we're putting our ass on the line when we do it and we consciously know it.

Plus he had a cell phone just like Zimmerman did. He could have called 911 too and said some "creepy ass cracka" was following him. The dispatcher would have undoubtedly said "Yes...lol...we know. We've got him on the other line. Give me your location and stay there, we've got a patrolman enroute."

And that would have been the end of it, he didn't.

Sun, 07/14/2013 - 15:35 | Link to Comment HardAssets
HardAssets's picture

I didnt follow the case closely, but it seemed to be a straight forward one of determining whether there was a self defense justification for the use of deadly force. What was more 'interesting' were the attempts to use propaganda and other techniques for a broader nefarious agenda:

Jon Rappoport addresses this on his July 13 blog entry and others from before that on this casde --

http://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/

 

 

Sun, 07/14/2013 - 09:34 | Link to Comment Uncle Remus
Uncle Remus's picture

Well, historically, hasn't it been the opposite?

Sun, 07/14/2013 - 09:42 | Link to Comment TWSceptic
TWSceptic's picture

Really, why should anyone, particularly a young black man in Georgia, get nervous or upset by a stranger, fat, white stranger at that, following with a gun?

 

Except the black man never knew the white stranger had a gun until he attacked the white stranger. There goes your whole argument. The black man just behaved like the gangster that he is and wanted a fight. Agressor = source of the problem. He could have just asked why the white stranger was following him, or he could have run away. The white fat stranger would've never been able to keep up.

Sun, 07/14/2013 - 12:25 | Link to Comment Uncle Remus
Uncle Remus's picture

. "Except the [...] man never knew the [...] stranger had a gun until he attacked the [...] stranger."

Kind of the whole point of concealed carry. Similar to locks and the time factor for criminals, armed civilians throw in an unknown risk factor for the bad guys. Gun-free zones pretty much quantify said risk.

Sun, 07/14/2013 - 15:14 | Link to Comment webspin
webspin's picture

If the roles were reversed and the "fat, white" guy were in Detroit, he'd watch all his P's and Q's. Never would I wander around in the dark of confront a Detroiter because that's where the real racists are.

Sun, 07/14/2013 - 08:24 | Link to Comment asscannon101
asscannon101's picture

"Everybody should have the right to hunt somebody down with a gun and then plead self defence, yeah?

fact is that when the justice system fails you you have the right to revenge."

I just knew that the idiots would come out of the woodwork babbling ignorant, self-serving bullshit. And I wasn't dissappointed.

Sun, 07/14/2013 - 10:43 | Link to Comment Harlequin001
Harlequin001's picture

and I was absolutely sure that you would have some point, so let's hear it...

Sun, 07/14/2013 - 10:50 | Link to Comment moneybots
moneybots's picture

""We're ecstatic with the results. George Zimmerman was never guilty of anything except protecting himself in self-defense."'

Everybody should have the right to hunt somebody down with a gun and then plead self defence, yeah?

fact is that when the justice system fails you you have the right to revenge."

 

Why do you think that they should have that right?  Zimmerman was being physically attacked by Travon and was defending himself against that attack.  The justice system didn't fail, your lies did.

 

 

Sun, 07/14/2013 - 03:14 | Link to Comment 12ToothAssassin
12ToothAssassin's picture

dupe

Sun, 07/14/2013 - 03:20 | Link to Comment jaap
jaap's picture

distraction from the Boston "bombing" court case, IMO

Sun, 07/14/2013 - 06:38 | Link to Comment Oracle of Kypseli
Oracle of Kypseli's picture

There are two victims here.

I say if that was a gated community and you had to prove that you live there at the gate, this would have never happened.

But nooooo! Gated communities are also racist. 

You are on a no win situation mates, because politicians are making sure that Americans are divided along racial, gender and wealth status lines. 

 

 

Sun, 07/14/2013 - 23:13 | Link to Comment LongBallsShortBrains
LongBallsShortBrains's picture

.

Sun, 07/14/2013 - 03:24 | Link to Comment Lore
Lore's picture

I find the President's comment very peculiar: "If I had a son, he'd look like Trayvon." What effect is that supposed to engender?  Is it a tactical move, a kind of damage control to offset reaction against the outcome of the trial?  As an outsider to historical American racial division, the psychology eludes me.  What would motivate such a strange statement?  It doesn't seem unplanned.

Sun, 07/14/2013 - 03:40 | Link to Comment CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

According to the authors of the Stand Your Ground Law Martin had a legitimate right to self defense while Zimmerman did not. The gun grabbers decided to play everybody for fools by pretending that Zimmerman was standing his ground but that it lead to the death of an innocent kid. That's a calculated misrepresentation. It makes self defense look questionable at best. In order to make sure that conservatives rallied for Zimmerman instead remaining on the sidelines or standing up for Martin like the white Republican authors of the Stand Your Ground Law did, Obama put his brand on Martin. That trick made sure that conservatives who claim to support the right to self defense would vilify Martin despite his lawful use of self defense. Now that Zimmerman has been found innocent despite his guilt the gun grabbers will use his image in renewed efforts to overturn right to carry and right to self defense laws.

Sun, 07/14/2013 - 04:54 | Link to Comment buyingsterling
buyingsterling's picture

It's a parade of fucknut retards here tonight, geniuses who want us all to think that your brains have to be literally leaking onto the sidewalk before you can shoot the animal who is banging your head on the cement.

Sun, 07/14/2013 - 04:58 | Link to Comment All Risk No Reward
All Risk No Reward's picture

If your daughter was having her head bashed into the pavement, would she be within her rights to shoot the person assaulting her?

Yes or no.

If you believe that Zimmerman created the initial imminent threat of bodily harm on Trayvon, thereby justifying Trayvon's self defense attack on Zimmerman, please provide the evidence.

BTW, getting out of the car to keep an eye on Trayvon was stupid, but that alone is not an imminent threat that allows one to bang your head on concrete.

I have no idea what went down that night, but I do what the jury is supposed to review to reach a verdict... THE EVIDENCE.

BTW, the jury didn't say Zimmerman was innocent.  They said he was "not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" based upon the evidence presented.

Sun, 07/14/2013 - 09:24 | Link to Comment ATM
ATM's picture

By the testimony of that Simian Rachel Jeantel we know that Zimmerman asked Martin "what you doing around here?"

She testified that she didn't hear any more conversation, just "a bump".

So,  she didn't hear Martin tell Zimmerman, "I'm coming back from the store and heading to my Dad's place a block or two over" like most reasonable people would say. Why? Did the sotned, paranoid, angry "kid" decide he was simply going to go street on the creepy ass cracker and pound his face?

Seems like it to me.

Sun, 07/14/2013 - 09:45 | Link to Comment LongBallsShortBrains
LongBallsShortBrains's picture

There had been home invasion robberies in that neighborhood. Robberies where a mother and child were home alone and suddenly, Jamal and Tyrone appear inside the home. Scaring the daylights out of the woman, and putting fear of the same type of crime in the minds of the people who lived in the neighborhood.
Knowin this, you wouldn't want to keep an eye on (by following) a person, at night, roaming the same neighborhood?

Bullshit!

What exactly is Z supposed to do?

He called the police.

In fact , Z knew the police were on their way when the shot was fired.

Seems a very long stretch to assume a man calls police, then murders a stranger for no reason.

His version of events is the only plausible explanation.

There is no consciousness of guilt. He stayed there after the shooting and cooperated with police. Something a murderer wouldn't have done

Thank god for the George Zimmermans of the world. Who take risks to their own lives and families, following strangers in his neighborhood that was under constant attack. And he did th things to protect his neighbors.

Sun, 07/14/2013 - 11:08 | Link to Comment CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

But the Sanford police said that there was no evidence that Martin committed any crime. So just what was Zimmerman protect his neighbors from? Martin was the invited house guest of one of Zimmerman's neighbors. Do you think she felt protected when Zimmerman killed her finance's son?

Sun, 07/14/2013 - 11:40 | Link to Comment buyingsterling
buyingsterling's picture

HEY ASSHAT - You don't get to pound on people because you feel 'dissed'. And what kind of animal keeps attacking someone when they are screaming for help?

Sun, 07/14/2013 - 16:04 | Link to Comment LongBallsShortBrains
LongBallsShortBrains's picture

Helloooooooo!!!!!

Did you see the nose and head of Z?

If those wounds were on treyvon, you wouldn't point to them as evidence of an assault of a poor black innocent child by an evil white racist?
Something tells me you would.

Z was protecting his neighbors from criminals, ie. people who commit burglary, home invasion robberies, and assault. Assault is a crime. So is attempted murder, which is what treyvon would have been charged with if he had survived and this had been videotaped.

Your last question is ridiculous, rhetorical nonsense.

Sun, 07/14/2013 - 12:31 | Link to Comment Uncle Remus
Uncle Remus's picture

Good enough for criminal "double jeopardy".

Now come the civil rights and civil liability band wagon(s). Is this a great country or what?

 

OMG seriously? They threw all the tea into the harbour? Why, that's terrorism!

Sun, 07/14/2013 - 23:17 | Link to Comment LongBallsShortBrains
LongBallsShortBrains's picture

"Now that Zimmerman has been found innocent despite his guilt "

Looks like GOD is in here tonight....

You have to be fucking nuts!!!!!

Sun, 07/14/2013 - 11:04 | Link to Comment jerry_theking_lawler
jerry_theking_lawler's picture

well, i could see this going both ways....if the president had a hispanic wife...then his son may actually look like george zimmerman...?? who knows....this was simple race baiting from the onset.

Sun, 07/14/2013 - 17:12 | Link to Comment Chuck Walla
Chuck Walla's picture

Hey, Isn't Tray ideal meat now?

FORWARD SOVIET!

Sun, 07/14/2013 - 03:49 | Link to Comment bunnyswanson
bunnyswanson's picture

Rather than go from site to site trying to get the latest news, ZH allows us at least to bring in links and sometimes covers top stories.  Most of us do not have the time required to read every article and a few versions (to get the whole picture) -  it would take hours a day to keep up.  You must be compelled to read this, otherwise, really, why even bother to comment?  It is not mandatory.

Sun, 07/14/2013 - 01:22 | Link to Comment CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

According to Zimmerman's own words in the 911 tapes and in his interview with police he chased Martin by vehicle, exited the vehicle, refused to answer when Martin asked him why he was being chased and then reached for something in his jacket.

What would you do if that happened to you?

Why do you believe that a jury who had to put up with bullshit race baiting testimony instead of learning the facts could understand the law better than the man who wrote it and who said that it was Martin and not Zimmerman who has a reasonable fear for his life and a right to self defense?

Now that Zimmerman with his illegitimate claim has become the public face of self defense do you think it makes it easier or harder for the gun grabbers to get their way?

Sun, 07/14/2013 - 01:37 | Link to Comment James_Cole
James_Cole's picture

Why do you believe that a jury who had to put up with bullshit race baiting testimony instead of learning the facts could understand the law better than the man who wrote it and who said that it was Martin and not Zimmerman who has a reasonable fear for his life and a right to self defense?

As far as I read the law it states simply that one has to be fearful of being in mortal danger, a * very * low threshold. Martin had every right to self-defense, but I would go along with the jury in believing Zimmerman was afraid for his life. The problem seems to be more the prosecution chasing a case of manslaughter or second degree murder combined with the fact that Zimmerman was armed (legally). 

The jury had a tough one and clearly they thought seriously about the manslaughter charge but stumbled around the 'in fear of one's life' bit.

People get scared extremely easily, I've been in many circumstances where otherwise rational people were genuinely afraid they were going to die.  Zimmerman had a gun and it's easy to think he'd thought Martin might get hold of it and shoot him.

 

Zimmerman did many stupid things and an innocent person is dead because of it but logic suggests a person like Zimmerman wouldn't of intentionally shot Martin without being in grave fear. So the manslaughter charge is a tough one to convict on. 

Now that Zimmerman with his illegitimate claim has become the public face of self defense do you think it makes it easier or harder for the gun grabbers to get their way?

Easier of course and I sympathize with that argument, but it's a totally separate issue. 

Sun, 07/14/2013 - 01:48 | Link to Comment CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

I understand what you're saying but Zimmerman is surely guilty of manslaughter if nothing else. Zimmerman instigated a series of events to no good purpose which left a young man dead. The prosecutors didn't pay nearly enough attention to the facts as race baiting was more important than justice in this case.

Sun, 07/14/2013 - 01:49 | Link to Comment James_Cole
James_Cole's picture

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&S...

It's a shit law, read that and then see if you're still certain that the jury should've gone the other way. 

Sun, 07/14/2013 - 02:24 | Link to Comment CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

I've read the law and quoted that passage elsewhere in this thread. Martin had a reasonable expectation that the guy who chased him, wouldn't say why and then reached for something in his jacket was a mugger, perv or worse. Thus he had a right to defend himself just as you or I would have done.

Sun, 07/14/2013 - 02:29 | Link to Comment DavidPierre
DavidPierre's picture

"I've read the law..."

Does not mean that you undertood the law!...

Or that you understand anything of importance!

http://www.corbettreport.com/911-a-conspiracy-theory/

Sun, 07/14/2013 - 02:52 | Link to Comment CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

And just what is the connection between George Zimmerman and 911 "truth?" I'm sure you have a colorful answer.

Sun, 07/14/2013 - 07:21 | Link to Comment francis_sawyer
francis_sawyer's picture

No matter what happens [debate wise], on this forum... In the real world, here are the [TWITTER] comments that people are going to respond to...

~~~

http://espn.go.com/espn/story/_/id/9476243/athletes-react-george-zimmerm...

~~~

Now I kindly return you to Crockett's brave efforts towards engineering society, protocol, & behavior across races, classes, tribes, genders, & sexual preferences... [BELOW]

Sun, 07/14/2013 - 08:22 | Link to Comment fonzannoon
fonzannoon's picture

Thanks Norm

Sun, 07/14/2013 - 08:34 | Link to Comment francis_sawyer
francis_sawyer's picture

Yeah baby... It's Sunday ~ I got my mellow hat on...

~~~

& what I'm convinced of is that what this world needs are just a few 'enlightened' people to tell the whole human race [cradle to grave] how they should act... & frankly ~ why stop there... Should be able to tell all the animals & fish how to behave... The plants, the bugs, bacteria, & even the heavenly bodies...

I nominate Crockett & Flakmeister... Let's engineer everything down to a molecular level [so we can enjoy our morning tea & biscuits]...

Sun, 07/14/2013 - 08:38 | Link to Comment fonzannoon
fonzannoon's picture

Francis please tell me Crude hits $115 by wednesday and the 10yr 2.8% and we finally see some screws come flying off this overheated machine. That's all I care about.

Sun, 07/14/2013 - 09:17 | Link to Comment francis_sawyer
francis_sawyer's picture

@fonz

~~~

Don't get me wrong... I think this [& even that Goldman Banker thing yesterday], is as much of a stupid circus as you do... In fact ~ that's how I characterize the whole stinkin' world at the moment... One big giant fucking circus with a daring, non-stop high wire act as the feature...

But the practical fact is... If it's all there staring you in the face, then you can't help but acknowledge it [silly as it may be to one's otherwise notions of a 'perfect world']...

Let me put it to you in a more simple way... Crockett has eaten up an entire comment page doing a theoretical debate about minute points of law & procedure... Last I heard, he wasn't the judge, the jurors, the prosecution, the defense, the accused, or the witnesses... His input amounts to exactly SQUAT... [Except if you think that debating this at cocktail parties for the next decade is going to change anything]... I got news for you... IT WON'T...

- Think anybody remembers the points of law from the Rodney King case?... No... What they DO remember are the 'riots'...

- Nobody remembers anything about OJ either... Hell ~ if you ask someone, all they'll tell you about is the Bronco chase & the glove... I've got a niece who's 22 &, quite obviously, she knows NOTHING about either 'cept the urban legends'

- Same with this... Nobody gives a fuck about courtroom procedure... What they WILL remember is that Dwayne Wade [& just about every othere NBA & NFL player with a TWITTER account ~ chimed in]... Look at that picture of the woman with her two kids in the foto caption... That is what people remember... That is what gets etched in people's mind [not Crockett's 'points of parliamentary procedure']...

- More importantly ~ You can go back as far as you want & talk about the race riots from the 60's, Rodney King, OJ, Trayvon, whatever... You can PAPER OVER the last 50 years & pretend that we've evolved & that we've overcome all hatred, bigotry, intolerance, whatever... I got news for you... It never goes away...

Whatever ~ I'm just babbling here... But I'm doing it because it loosely underscores the shit that I go nuts about every day here on ZH... That is... PEOPLE WHO IGNORE ELEPHANTS IN ROOMS NEED TO WAKE UP... The elephant is not going to go away just because you don't fancy it being there...

Sun, 07/14/2013 - 09:19 | Link to Comment fonzannoon
fonzannoon's picture

I have not followed this case at all. It's retarded. It's the most obvious media plant in history. Should be good for 200 points on the dow tomorrow while we drift further out to sea.

Sun, 07/14/2013 - 09:37 | Link to Comment francis_sawyer
francis_sawyer's picture

I totally agree it's retarded... [& I haven't followed it in any way whatsoever]...

~~~

But it means SOMETHING to a helluva lot of people, who, if & when TSHTF [like, say, if your $115 crude & 2.8% 10y scenario pans out]... TOTALLY OUTNUMBER ME... In that case, it always pays to have your finger on the pulse of the community...

Frankly ~ I think 'the community' are all a bunch of retards without 2 marbles in their heads to click together [but try standing on a soapbox & telling them that they're all a bunch of morons when things are heating up]... If you REALLY want to be a peacekeeper, you better go about understanding how to calm THEM down when they're not feeling too calm...

Sun, 07/14/2013 - 09:51 | Link to Comment i-dog
i-dog's picture

+1 to both of you. It's a fucking disgrace that the two Zimmerman threads have attracted 1,000 rabid comments*...so far! A sign of the depths to which ZH has sunk in recent months.

Only the jury has heard the full facts (whether their verdict was "fair", or not). The rest of us only know what snippets have been selected by the media and, frankly, it's none of our business. Let the appelate court/s sort it out.

 

* including 54 comments by a 9-11 truth denier ... highlighting just how able he is to judge the merits of ANY case!

Sun, 07/14/2013 - 14:34 | Link to Comment francis_sawyer
francis_sawyer's picture

@i-dog

~~~

I go back & forth on the "sunk" distinction...

That is a "subjective" POV, not an "objective" one... It's just how I 'feel' about things...

Here are the elements:

- ZH has no control over what "news" stories happen... They cannot predict a 'Snowden' emerging, or a 'Zimmerman/Martin', or some drunk ass banker stirring up shit in Manhattan...

- But those 'stories' ARE stories to a lot of people...

- 'The Market', in it's purest sense... SHOULD BE... a cocktail of the digested matter of how PEOPLE respond to world events...

- Laughably ~ ZH has proved numerous times that 'The Markets' DON'T reflect reality [due to various & ongoing attempts at manipulation]... In this sense ~ ZH has done it's job TOO WELL...

- So in a real sense, all that 'RETARDED' stuff [as listed above], is more REAL than the markets themselves...

- But then you have people saying that 'The Markets' [which are manipulated], should exist in a vacuum, and that 'RETARDED' things should be distilled out of the process because of their low grade intellectual dogshit value...

~~~

As I said above... I go back on forth on it... I DON'T FOLLOW THE STORIES, I THINK THEY'RE STUPID... OTOH ~ I think they're very much a part of how one needs to look at the world today [to survive]...

Let's look at another way... Whether you like it or not, THIS is how the world has evolved... How was it allowed to 'evolve' this way? [my theory is the corruption that comes from printed debt money & careless use of mainstream media ~ you could also group 'government' into that mix, but 'government' is really something that thrives BECAUSE of banking & MSM, not the other way around]...

But obviously it does no good... Here... to talk abnout who controls printed debt money & MSM... So in the end it's all just the Jerry Springer show while everyone gets a whack at the pinata...

 

Sun, 07/14/2013 - 14:22 | Link to Comment Miffed Microbio...
Miffed Microbiologist's picture

If Flak and Crock can convince the bacteria to do their bidding I will second the nomination. Been trying myself for 30 years with no luck. As I get older I realize control is elusive in just about everything. I guess some haven't experienced this.

Miffed;-)

Sun, 07/14/2013 - 13:29 | Link to Comment Spanky
Spanky's picture

I understand the law.

It was enacted because some folks, whom acted in self-defense against their attackers, were being tried on murder and manslaughter charges for "standing their ground". At the time, law enforcement insisted that if attacked, the victim must retreat or try get away from their attacker and had little absolute right to defend themselves outside their home. IIRC, all the law was intended to do was shield someone whom stood their ground and defended themselves when confronted by a bad actor.

It was not intended to legitimate would-be vigilantes by enabling them to confront people whom they "think" might be committing a crime (or simply walking through their neighborhood).

Zimmerman actively assumed a police role in pursuing Martin, but he was not a policeman. Zimmerman initiated his pursuit when his life was not in danger and thus engineered the resulting confrontation. Martin had every right to stand his ground but instead ran -- he tried to get away. However, Zimmerman would not simply let him leave, continuing his pursuit on foot. Martin, being pursued by an unknown actor, had no idea of the intent of his pursuer. When finally face to face, he asked his pursuer what the problem was... Zimmerman lied (said there was no problem) and reached into his pocket... 

Because he pursued Martin and initiated the confrontation, Zimmerman is clearly not covered by "stand your ground". Because he was being pursued then confronted by an unknown person for unknown reasons, Martin is clearly covered by stand your ground.

I understand the points others make, in regards to Zimmerman believing he was in danger, but he placed himself in that position by creating the circumstances in the first place...

The only way to rationalize Zimmerman's act is to assume Zimmerman was "good" and Martin "bad". Here, Zimmerman's pursuit is "justified" as a defensive act and Martin's "running away" is seen as an admission of guilt. Thus, when the face-to-face confrontation occurs, it inverts stand your ground and place's Zimmerman in the defensive role and Martin in the offensive. This is clearly at odds with the facts and law...

Sun, 07/14/2013 - 18:15 | Link to Comment Abaco
Abaco's picture

Your assumption that a person who questions an unfamiliar face in the neighborhood, who seems to be acting in a manner consistent with the recent burglaries, is assuming a "police" role is mistaken. That is thebehavior of a good citizen. We are not sheep who must sit passively back waiting for "police" to come protect our property and persons. Zimmerman had every right to observe, approach, and question Martin.

You describe Zimmerman "pursuing" Martin which, again, connotes something improper and is not supported by the facts. Following is not pursuit. There is no indication that Martin was trying to get away. All he evidence pointed to Martin confronting Zimmerman and then attacking him. There could have been a civil conversation between a concerned neighbor and an unfamiliar face. Martin could have explained he was visiting his Dad and trying to stay out of the rain. Instead he started beating Zimmerman up.

Years ago when I was young and visiting relative out of state I was confronted in a similar way. Didn't attack anyone and didn't get shot.

You think you are being logical but your premises are false.

 

 

Sun, 07/14/2013 - 23:37 | Link to Comment Spanky
Spanky's picture

I understand your point, and do not dismiss it...

But...

Considering there had been recent burglaries, that Zimmerman apparently called 911 while in his vehicle during the "chase", that if I am not mistaken, the 911 operator warned him not to get out of the vehicle... and it was dark.

The simple question I ask myself, as a reasonable man: Would I get out of my vehicle, unarmed, under those circumstances? Especially since there had been a rash of burglaries by person(s) unknown. And the "suspicious" person I was following disappeared into the darkness...

But I try to avoid violent confrontations. I understand violence, and its effective employ; thus I try to avoid it if at all possible. My respect for the police is that they take this role and burden from us to the degree they can. That is one of the "features" of "civilized society", to reduce the number of times one must defend one's self from thug or thief.

If Martin attempted to confront Zimmerman in his vehicle, Zimmerman faced relatively little danger and could have simply driven off while re-dialing 911.

I have no idea as to the character of either Zimmerman or Martin, and what little I've gleaned compliments neither. But the fact remains, Martin committed no wrong other than being on the wrong neighborhood street at the wrong time. I cannot say what he might have done previously, or would have accomplished had he lived, but his death at Zimmerman's hands was entirely avoidable, on Zimmerman's part.

Sun, 07/14/2013 - 02:33 | Link to Comment James_Cole
James_Cole's picture

Yeah, Martin was right to defend himself, if I was in the situation I would've done the exact same thing. But the law isn't about that, it's specifically written to protect the person killing based on their MINDSET..

Basically if I'm walking around with a gun and some 'scary black person' walks up to me I can kill them totally legally as long as I'm scared (or can convince a jury I was) I'm in danger of being murdered. 

It's completely idiotic, might as well be called the stupid-pants-shitting-white-person-provision, but unfortunately it is the law.

However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:

(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony;

 

Sun, 07/14/2013 - 02:46 | Link to Comment Spanky
Spanky's picture

It's a Catch-22.

Sun, 07/14/2013 - 03:00 | Link to Comment CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

 

 

Yeah, Martin was right to defend himself, if I was in the situation I would've done the exact same thing.

 

Now we're getting somewhere. Glad to see that some folks are capable of independent thought. I fault the prosecution and their mishandling of the case rather than the law itself. They should have left race out of it entirely as it played at best a minor role. But I suspect that that was the scam all along -- to make the idea of self defense as personified by George Zimmerman as repellent as possible while getting folks all ginned up over race baiting distractions.

Sun, 07/14/2013 - 03:10 | Link to Comment James_Cole
James_Cole's picture

If you look at what each side had to prove it looks like this, defence had to merely convince the jury that it was plausible that Zimmerman was fearful of losing his life whereas the prosecution had to prove without a shadow of a doubt that Zimmerman was not fearful of losing his life. 

Logically it makes sense that Zimmerman was scared of losing his life because he shows up knowing he's carrying a lethal weapon that could be used against him. It's absurd that that could be part of a defence but based on a stupid law in this case it is. 

It was actually a pretty easy case for the defence based on this law. Stupid laws lead to stupid verdicts, not the jury's fault. 

Sun, 07/14/2013 - 03:44 | Link to Comment CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

Once again I see your point but how would you word a statue on self defense? One can't be expected to wait until a probable assailant actually attacks before taking action.

Sun, 07/14/2013 - 03:54 | Link to Comment James_Cole
James_Cole's picture

However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:

(1) it is reasonable to believe that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm 

Start with that. The idea that a defence can be centred on some morons paranoia should not be acceptable - let the jury decide when lethal force is appropriate. It's totally absurd to have a jury come to a judgment based on what their guess is on the fear level of someone in a time of stress. 

If the jury was basing their judgement on whether lethal force was appropriate rather than what Zimmerman was thinking I bet the outcome would've been different. 

Sun, 07/14/2013 - 04:10 | Link to Comment CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

 

If the jury was basing their judgement on whether lethal force was appropriate rather than what Zimmerman was thinking I bet the outcome would've been different.

 

It would have helped if the prosecution had presented such a case clearly and concisely. But they had an agenda other than justice for the Martin family. The gun grabbers wanted Zimmerman to go free. The game is afoot.

Sun, 07/14/2013 - 09:24 | Link to Comment nmewn
nmewn's picture

However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:

(1) it is reasonable to believe that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm 

 

"Start with that. The idea that a defence can be centred on some morons paranoia should not be acceptable - let the jury decide when lethal force is appropriate. It's totally absurd to have a jury come to a judgment based on what their guess is on the fear level of someone in a time of stress."

Stunning.

Asking a jury to decide when lethal force is appropriate is not (and should not be) in their hands. It is within the realm of public policy and the legislature to decide when lethal force can be used.

It is up to a jury to decide if that threshold was met...in this case it was.

Sun, 07/14/2013 - 12:56 | Link to Comment James_Cole
James_Cole's picture

"Asking a jury to decide when lethal force is appropriate is not (and should not be) in their hands. It is within the realm of public policy and the legislature to decide when lethal force can be used.

It is up to a jury to decide if that threshold was met...in this case it was."

What you're saying is EXACTLY what I'm saying and * NOT * what happened in this case.

The jury ruled on whether Zimmerman THOUGHT he was in grave danger, not whether it was reasonable to believe he actually was. VERY different.

The comment you responded to above is me re-writing the law, NOT the actual law.

Sun, 07/14/2013 - 19:28 | Link to Comment nmewn
nmewn's picture

Having someone on top of you beating you in the face with his fists and slamming the back of your head into concrete doesn't require a whole lot of thoughtful contemplation...lol.

If you've never been in a fight let me explain.

The first thing that happens when your nose is broke is sharp, stabbing pain between your eyes and ringing in your ears. Its instantly recognizable that something ain't quite right and this may be the beginning of a very bad day.

Then as your head is slammed into concrete, you feel still more pain and that ringing sound in your head again every time it happens. You know instinctively if this continues you will blackout (and be defenseless) or die.

This is when fight or flight kicks into high gear. You have several options and not much time to think before the gloom sets in, run away, stand and fight (and still possibly die) or submit/concede and throw yourself on the mercy of the one who's kicking your ass.

The latter has never had much appeal to me ;-)

Sun, 07/14/2013 - 04:08 | Link to Comment gwar5
gwar5's picture

Wrong. 6' 3" Trayvon circled back to confront GZ. 

 

If Trayvon really thought GZ was a mugger he had opportunity to get away instead of circling back between the houses to confront GZ and initiate contact. TM also had opportunity to run away from GZ after he decked him with the first sucker punch. Did he do any of that? No. To remove all doubt, TM piled onto GZ for a total beat down further demonstrating his extreme malice.  

This case should never have been brought to trial. That's why it only took 16 hours, including time off for lunch, to come back not guilty.

 

Sun, 07/14/2013 - 04:15 | Link to Comment CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

Martin was in an unfamiliar neighborhood and it was dark. How does one tactically circle around between houses and around trees and bushes and fences under such circumstances? And how could Zimmerman know that Martin had circled if Zimmerman lost sight of Martin as he claimed? The whole circling story is pure imagination on the part of Zimmerman who thought he was going to be a big man for catching someone he considered to be suspicious. But as the Sanford police said that there was no evidence that Martin had committed any crime that night Zimmerman's imagination can be safely discounted. It simply isn't plausible.

Sun, 07/14/2013 - 05:05 | Link to Comment All Risk No Reward
All Risk No Reward's picture

What evidence exists that it was unreasonable that Trayvon was upset because some punk was following him and wanted to give this punk a beat down?

That has to be unreasonable in order for your point of view to be outside the realm of the irrational.

Evidence has to prove it to be unreasonable.

So, what is it?  Be precise and cite your sources, please.

Sun, 07/14/2013 - 07:15 | Link to Comment tmosley
tmosley's picture

It's impossible for someone to go around a house at night?

What planet are you living on where neighborhoods have complex 13 dimensional geometry?

How did he know Martin had circled? I'd say that the fact that he was on top of him beating the shit out of him was probably pretty good evidence.

Sorry, guy, but there was NEVER a case against GZ.

Next up--"clear failure" of the justice system means we must "reform" the jury system. Trial by jury in criminal cases can now be waived by the judge, and the judge can have the verdict dictated to her by politicians. Truly, only that could be "fair".

Sun, 07/14/2013 - 11:14 | Link to Comment CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

What does Martin being on top of Zimmerman have to do with any circling around before hand? Are you suggesting that no one can get the upper hand in a fight if they haven't circled around first? That's bizarre.

Sun, 07/14/2013 - 11:54 | Link to Comment knightowl77
knightowl77's picture

Zimmerman is guilty of nothing

 

Zimmerman had a right to follow Martin if he suspected Martin was up to no good. Zimmerman was standing on the sidewalk where he had every right to be when Martin confronted him. Lil Trayvon was 4" taller than Zimmerman and shortly after the confrontation started ended up on top of Zimmerman on the sidewalk. At that point Zimmerman could not flee or retreat, and he was still being attacked.

Was it reasonable for Zimmerman at that point to believe his life was in danger? Up till now Zimmerman has done nothing illegal and he is in fear for his life. He has the right to shoot.

That is the case, which is why the police refused to arrest and the local DA refused to charge Zimmerman. It was not until the race baiters got involved and pressure was strongly applied to get Zimmerman charged.

 

This case should never ever have been brought & Zimmerman should have his legal fees paid for by the state

 

Sun, 07/14/2013 - 16:40 | Link to Comment Spanky
Spanky's picture

Zimmerman had a right to follow Martin if he suspected Martin was up to no good. -- knightowl77

No, Zimmerman did not have a "right to follow" even if he suspected "no-goodness". He made a decision to follow. When he lost him, he made a decision to get out of his vehicle and continue pursuit. He could have, just as easily, remained in his vehicle, called the police, and the confrontation would have ended.

Would your point of view change if Zimmerman had been chasing a white teen-aged girl and it resulted in her death?

Sun, 07/14/2013 - 18:28 | Link to Comment Abaco
Abaco's picture

Zimmerman had every right to follow Martin and even to approach him and initiate a conversation. Yes, he could have stayed in his vehicle and driven home but he had no obligation to do so. Martin could have just walked home but he also had no obligation to do so. He could have gone up to Zimmerman and said something like "You seem to be following me and I don't why.  I'm visiting my father in apt xxx and that is where I am headed."  What he didn'thave the right to do was punch Zimmerman and then start beating the crap out of him. It is too bad - he was only 17 and lots of people do stupid stuff at that age. He obviously came from a broken home. He didn't have the mental maturity to handle the situation but he had the physical maturity to be a genuine threat to Zimmerman. 

This really is a tragedy. the kid is dead and maybe, if this confrontation didn't happen, he would have turned his life in a good direction. Zimmerman very likely could have handled this better and not have to carry the burden of taking a human life. Neither one of them wanted what went down.

 

Mon, 07/15/2013 - 00:01 | Link to Comment Spanky
Spanky's picture

+1

We agree...

Zimmerman very likely could have handled this better and not have to carry the burden of taking a human life. -- Abaco

But I would not be so dead surely positive the following was accurate at the time of the confrontation:

Neither one of them wanted what went down. -- Abaco

And yes, under normal neighborhood daylight circumstances, I agree that approaching an unfamiliar face and attempting to intiate a conversation is perfectly normal. But these were not those circumstances. Zimmerman wanted something from this encounter.

Martin could have just walked home... -- Abaco

He was walking home, apparently. Except for Zimmerman, he might have made it...

Sun, 07/14/2013 - 02:16 | Link to Comment olto
olto's picture

James:

 

Fuck Fear!!!!

If you are so terrified-----get your your low-amp brain washed-------------

 

Sun, 07/14/2013 - 01:58 | Link to Comment ACP
ACP's picture

If you're referring to Zimmerman's interview, because he didn't testify in court, look again:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=55l2Dj6AeFY

If you're unarmed and you suspect the person following you is armed, and has lost your position, do you confront him? Common sense says no. Anyone with common sense, who doesn't have that "I'm gonna fuck you up" gansta mentality would try to get the hell out of there. And it looks like there's a lot of room there to get away in that general area.

The funny thing is about self-defense, it doesn't matter if you're an overzealous joker like Zimmerman, completely unaware of your surroundings, and letting someone get the drop on you. If you fear for your life in a specific moment in time, you have the right to defend yourself.

Sun, 07/14/2013 - 02:24 | Link to Comment garypaul
garypaul's picture

"If you're unarmed and you suspect the person following you is armed, and has lost your position, do you confront him? Common sense says no."

How sure are you that the ARMED man has lost your position?? 

You're really being creative aren't you?

Sun, 07/14/2013 - 02:30 | Link to Comment CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

 

If you're unarmed and you suspect the person following you is armed, and has lost your position, do you confront him? Common sense says no.

 

If someone is chasing you and you are unarmed and you take cover in darkness while your pursuer exits his vehicle and comes over to where you are that can hardly be seen as confronting the pursuer.

Sun, 07/14/2013 - 07:24 | Link to Comment Go Tribe
Go Tribe's picture

I'll stand my ground if a little old Jewish woman tries to take my marble rye loaf from me.

Sun, 07/14/2013 - 18:22 | Link to Comment boogerbently
boogerbently's picture

Until blacks realize that the only reason they have made THIS death of a black youth so important, is because it involved a hispanic/white man, they haven't even STARTED on their road to equality.

Until they treat EVERY death of a black youth with THIS importance and outrage, they will keep themselves "victims". 

Until they hold EVERY black kid who kills another black kid in as much contempt as they do Zimmerman, they are the "racists".

Sun, 07/14/2013 - 19:07 | Link to Comment Jumbotron
Jumbotron's picture

I'm over it. But the truth is still the truth.

For what it's worth, I'll stand my ground if some fat assed Jewish Pervian chases me down the street and looks like he's going to draw down on me.

So tell me.....just HOW many times you've been walking down a city street and had that happen to you......or even felt a suspicion that that was going to happen to you.

LOL !!!!!

Sun, 07/14/2013 - 09:32 | Link to Comment jimbos world
jimbos world's picture

Six white women.  One young black man.  Yeah - those are his peers. /sarc

Sun, 07/14/2013 - 10:01 | Link to Comment LongBallsShortBrains
LongBallsShortBrains's picture

You do realize that the prosecution and the defense both pick the jury?

Only the accused is to be tried by a jury of his peers.

Are you implying that a black jury may have convicted?
If so, are you implying malice by this jury?
That would be conspiracy, yes?

If you are implying a different jury would have convicted, why?

Would you have been ok with the all women jury if they had convicted?

Seems like your problem is the verdict, not the jury.

Sun, 07/14/2013 - 18:24 | Link to Comment boogerbently
boogerbently's picture

What, 

Obama got like 98% of the black vote.

Racists ????

Sun, 07/14/2013 - 22:04 | Link to Comment jon dough
jon dough's picture

LTER, this is probably a million miles away from the "jury of peers. constitution" comment but I have to tell you, succinctly said.

Sun, 07/14/2013 - 01:04 | Link to Comment nmewn
nmewn's picture

No it wasn't.

Not guilty, self defense.

Sun, 07/14/2013 - 01:12 | Link to Comment CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

I believe that laws from the Constitution on down must be enforced according to the intent of the law. The author of the Stand Your Ground Law has said that the law supported Martin and not Zimmerman. The law as it was intended is dead.

If Zimmerman ever gets it in his head to chase you by vehicle, exits the vehicle, refuses to tell you why he's chasing you when asked and then reaches for something in his jacket what will you do?

Sun, 07/14/2013 - 01:15 | Link to Comment LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

Gotta go with Newman on this one.  Did you hear the evidence the jury heard?  The Constitution is often inconvenient and leads to results we don't always like.  But it beats the living shit out of every other model I know.

Sun, 07/14/2013 - 01:41 | Link to Comment CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

 

Did you hear the evidence the jury heard?

I read Zimmerman's own description of events. He said that he chased Martin, that he exited his vehicle, that Martin asked him what he was doing and Zimmerman refused to answer while reaching for something in his jacket. Would you defend yourself in such a situation or not? Forget about the trial, it's over. The question is will you defend yourself in the future now that you know that if you do and your assailant has a gun and kills you there is precedent for letting him walk free? Is it now a better strategy to just let the muggers and pervs do what they want to you?

Sun, 07/14/2013 - 01:46 | Link to Comment LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

Jury got to hear all the evidence.  

Sun, 07/14/2013 - 01:53 | Link to Comment CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

Back in 2003 I did my own research and was quite sure that Iraq had no WMD. But folks said I was stupid and that the White House surely knew more about the matter than I did. Guess who was right.

I doubt that the jury heard much evidence at all. Race was a minor factor if it was a factor at all and that was the note the prosecutors played to the exclusion of all else.

 

And I still can't get any one to say what they would do if Zimmerman chased them by vehicle, exited his vehicle, refused to say why he was doing so when asked and then reached for something in his pocket. That's what Zimmerman said he did whether the jury heard it or not.

Sun, 07/14/2013 - 01:58 | Link to Comment LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

Which jury of your peers heard the evidence on Iraq?  I recall it was all secret.  MSM  convicted Iraq, and Zimmerman.   Thus my point.

Sun, 07/14/2013 - 02:00 | Link to Comment CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

The evidence on Iraq was open for all to see just as Zimmerman's description of events is open for all to see. He was the only real witness. If Zimmerman is telling the truth then he is guilty.

And I still can't get anyone to say what they would do if Zimmerman chased them by vehicle, exited the vehicle, refuse to state his reasons for doing so when asked and then reached for something in his pocket.

Sun, 07/14/2013 - 02:02 | Link to Comment LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

So you're proposing an American Idol version of trials and war?

Sun, 07/14/2013 - 02:27 | Link to Comment garypaul
garypaul's picture

well what do you think a jury is??

Sun, 07/14/2013 - 02:33 | Link to Comment CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

 

So you're proposing an American Idol version of trials and war?

 

No, I'm proposing that you look at the facts and think about them logically. The trial is over and that's that but it doesn't change the fact that justice goes awry in this country all the time.

Sun, 07/14/2013 - 03:59 | Link to Comment Bringin It
Bringin It's picture

... I'm proposing that you look at the facts and think about them logically.

Yah but you are totally schitzo because you selectively turn a blind-eye. 

Not necessarily in this case, but in the real elephant in the living room case.

A real Dr. Jekell/ Mr. Hyde.

Sun, 07/14/2013 - 04:17 | Link to Comment CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

Once again 911 "truth" rears its ugly head. You're more obsessed with that ho-hum event than the Bush administration.

Sun, 07/14/2013 - 06:22 | Link to Comment All Risk No Reward
All Risk No Reward's picture

911 is the pretext for the dissolution of the Bill of Right and the establishment of a police state that includes 2 billion DHS bullets and "no more hesitation" targets of children, pregnant women and grand parents.

Yes, you've missed the elephant in the middle of the room - even though it is stepping on your foot.

Sun, 07/14/2013 - 11:16 | Link to Comment CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

So the answer to the question, "Is Zimmerman guilty?" is "Building 7!" It takes a special kind of crazy to come up with that one.

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!