Forums

ForumsWorld Events, Politics, Religion, Etc.

George Zimmermann Found Not Guilty

Posted Jul 16, '13 at 1:05am

EmperorPalpatine

EmperorPalpatine

9,477 posts

But as you noted, eye-witness testimony is staggeringly innacurate.

This was well put by the pathologist during the trial.

There was also no evidence (that I saw) that Martin called zimmerman a cracker (which would indicate he was being aggressive or provocative.) He texted that to his friend, to express concern the a man (who later killed him) was following him.

Ah, you mean in the sense that he didn't say it to his face confrontationally, but merely as a referential statement? In that case, "****ing punks. These ***holes, they always get away" ought to be excused as well because GZ was simply expressing concern to the operator that other individuals had committed crimes in the area and nothing was done.

The problem I see is that Trayvon had the same right to self-defense that Zimmerman had.

Repeatedly slamming someone's head on concrete is not a defensive action, but assault. And it was affirmed by one of the cops who was called as a witness during the trial (I think it was Serino, but I'm not sure) that simply approaching an individual does not give that individual the right to react violently.
 

Posted Jul 16, '13 at 1:22am

Maverick4

Maverick4

6,891 posts

^"It all started when he hit me back." XD

 

Posted Jul 16, '13 at 1:40am

pangtongshu

pangtongshu

9,761 posts

Those links you provided do not prove who started the fight,


Nope, but we therefore shouldn't assume that Zimmerman did so. The lack of evidence on this matter opens the door to reasonable doubt for the jurors.

But as you noted, eye-witness testimony is staggeringly innacurate.


Very much so..which is why I don't like it. But, it still has power in court..though, any lawyer worth his salt should be able to have it dismissed by the jurors.

The problem I see is that Trayvon had the same right to self-defense that Zimmerman had.


Being followed does not give one the "right to defend ones-self".

There was also no evidence (that I saw) that Martin called zimmerman a cracker (which would indicate he was being aggressive or provocative.) He texted that to his friend, to express concern the a man (who later killed him) was following him.


He was on the phone with a girl, and spoke it verbally.
And...what Emp said

the only white people who are mad about the word "cracker" are the white people who don't think its fair that they can't say the N-word in public anymore.


Wow, generalization much? I don't like the word "cracker" because it is a racially charged word that furthers racism. Same with the N-word, which I absolutely detest.
 

Posted Jul 16, '13 at 1:43am

Xzeno

Xzeno

2,354 posts

So am I to conclude that your gut reaction is pleased that something racist happened?
No, those intuitions are separate.
 

Posted Jul 16, '13 at 2:21am

Sonatavarius

Sonatavarius

1,375 posts

If a 17 year old youth assaults me without provocation with deadly force and I kill that individual, then I'm not responsible for that youth's death. I am responsible for me.That youth was responsible for his/herself, and that's all there is to it. An appeal to anything else is nothing but a frivolous appeal to emotion in hopes of getting your way without the use of facts.

I have a problem seeing Zimmerman as a malicious aggressor that intended to do harm when a perfectly healthy ~130-150lb 17 year old black kid couldn't have continued to outrun a 275lb fat Hispanic man until he made it home. I also have a hard time seeing how he couldn't have just said "My daddy is with the lady that lives over there--->... Let me prove it to you! "

You have to prove to the jury that Martin didn't say "f--- you, cracka! Quit following me!" ...and then proceeded to beat his face in without letting him talk. They didn't do that. The obese Hispanic man totally ran him down and and threw the kid half his weight onto his face. There is no evidence. For him to go to jail over this would almost be akin to the Salem witch trials. You would hang/burn at the stake/ruin a man's life with no evidence that he initiated the violent part of the encounter? He could've shot the kid from the very beginning!

Zimmerman grew up living with, mentoring, and housing black people. An adamant racist is not going to do any of that. If there have been break ins and you see someone suspicious walking around in the middle of the night alone who avoids you, then it might call for investigation.

Anyone demanding otherwise is either emotionally compromised, confused about how things should work, or a racist hate monger. (Or on the least likely side you might have a legitimate opinion... But if you weren't there, then your case is going to be hard to prove)

 

Posted Jul 16, '13 at 5:13am

MageGrayWolf

MageGrayWolf

9,782 posts

Knight

suggest that Zimmerman was at least partially responsible for the fight happening in the first place, which places doubt on the self-defense claim. And unless I am mistaken (which happens, cuz i know squat about the law) the defense has somewhat of a burden of proof if they are pursuing a legal defense of 'self-defense.'


"776.041âUse of force by aggressor.â"The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1)âIs attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2)âInitially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a)âSuch force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b)âIn good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.
"

CHAPTER 776 JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE (a.k.a. Stand Your Ground Law)

Then your "opinion" is wrong, because a court of law has allready found him to be innocent.


No, they found him not guilty. That doesn't mean he isn't actually guilty. It means there wasn't enough evidence for the jury to convict him as guilty.
 

Posted Jul 16, '13 at 6:17am

MageGrayWolf

MageGrayWolf

9,782 posts

Knight

Zimmerman grew up living with, mentoring, and housing black people. An adamant racist is not going to do any of that.


I was thinking what if it was age profiling instead of racial profiling. Perhaps Zimmerman thought Martin was up to something just because he was a young man out at night?
 

Posted Jul 16, '13 at 8:49am

MacII

MacII

1,369 posts

Just given as "one of those thoughts," see what you make of it, and no, I haven't read all of the above. I'll not quote this, as I think it tends to break hyperlinks here; and I am omitting a call to share or to sign a petion, that is up to everyone themselves. I came across this through a partner link at Salon.com, the original piece is here: http://www.upworthy.com/in-case-you-missed-it-heres-what-you-may-not-realize-about-the-whole-trayvon-martin-thing-2?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+upworthy+%28Upworthy%29 .

**************

In Case You Missed It, Here's What You May Not Realize About The Whole Trayvon Martin Thing, by Adam Mordecai, for Upworthy.

Say what you will about Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman. Get it out of your system. Feel better? Now it's time for some serious talk about what this is really about.

It's about the awful laws that helped make this something Zimmerman could get away with. It's about how the awful "Stand Your Ground" laws really help white people, yet really hurt people of color. It's about the awful thing this famous dad has to tell his son to make sure he doesn't get shot. It's about the woman who got 20 years for shooting her gun in the air to protect her children. It's about the awful turning point we had in protecting voters rights in 2013. It's about the insane and awful stuff we forget happened decades ago. It's about the awful state of our priorities. It's about the awful racial profiling that people of all colors do. It's about all the awful misperceptions that some people have about entire races of people.

Trayvon was a kid, like a lot of kids, with his own issues. He wasn't a saint. He was your average teenager. But it wouldn't have mattered if he wasn't. Martin Luther King Jr. accomplished much more in his life, but to many people in this country, he could have been just another black guy in a hoodie. Things have to change.

[...] Ask your community: "How the hell do we fix the underlying problems that made this all happen?" I really would love a tangible answer that can move us toward making things actually better.

 

Posted Jul 16, '13 at 9:42am

Moegreche

Moegreche

3,095 posts

Moderator

No, they found him not guilty. That doesn't mean he isn't actually guilty. It means there wasn't enough evidence for the jury to convict him as guilty.


This is a point that absolute fascinates me regarding the criminal justice system in the US. Obviously the notions of 'guilty of crime X' and 'committed crime X' can come apart, at least in a legal sense. I think that your above statement equivocates on the word 'guilty'. In your first sentence, you're using guilty in a legal sense. Then in the second, it sound like more of a moral/ethical usage.

But this brings me to my main point: we should equivocate like this. In other words, there are people who are morally guilty of a crime (i.e. they did, in fact, commit the crime) but who should not be found guilty in a court of law. Another way of putting this is that they did, in fact, break the law but they shouldn't be punished for this act.

A straightforward example of this would be a person who is caught selling drugs by the police. But the police lacked the requisite search warrant (or what have you) thus any evidence they found would be inadmissible in court. In this case, we have someone who did commit a crime. But because of shoddy police work they should not be found guilty.

At the end of the day, there just doesn't appear to be enough evidence to convict Zimmermann of either count (certainly not 2nd degree murder). But this is a separate question entirely from whether he actually intended to kill that kid. There is also a separate (but related) question of whether the jury reached the proper decision.

I wonder, though. Would the verdict be more palatable if it were tried in the UK where the additional verdict of 'Not Proven' is available? Perhaps it could help separate the natural equivocation between moral guilt and legal guilt?
 

Posted Jul 16, '13 at 10:53am

KnightDeclan

KnightDeclan

487 posts

It was self-defense. People have many ways of telling the story, but only one story meets reality.

-Only an opinion, by Declan

 
Reply to George Zimmermann Found Not Guilty

You must be logged in to post a reply!