Forums → WEPR → George Zimmermann Found Not Guilty
| 112 | 48739 |
- 112 Replies
Martin started the fight...with even some racial slurs of his own
Could you link that? gracias
Zimmerman did not know Martin to be unarmed at the time.
Did I say he did? In fact, he may have assumed the black kid he (incorrectly) thought was a criminal was armed. And yes, I agree, that is indicative of racial profiling.
I do not think that word means, what you think it means.
I do appreciate the princess bride reference, but here: motive:
something that causes a person to act in a certain way, do a certain thing, etc.; incentive.
So as you astutely pointed out, he had a motive. If a cop kills a criminal to stop him from committing a crime, that is a motive. If a wannabe cop, wash-out pall blart mall cop, who was fired for aggressive behavior kills an unarmed teenager whilst "atrolling" the neighborhood in the service of an unofficial "neighborhood watch," ... that is his motive.
Both piece of information were unknowable to Zimmerman at the time of the incident.
So maybe he shouldn't have been making assumptions. Clearly he has demonstrated his low skill-level at making assumptions. Plus, You know what happens when you assume right? you make an A__ out of ...killing an unarmed teenager.
I assume the phrase "innocent until proven guilty" means nothing to you?
Other than the fact that I used it later on (or earlier, its on the previous page so i can't look) in the same post...no (sarcasm alert).
Cherry-pick much?
But seriously, i acknowledged that I am not on the jury, because then my behavior would be influenced by that context. but I am not, so it is not. We are discussing opinions here, and my opinion is that he is guilty. Also earlier on I also stated that he was acquitted due to a lack of evidence.... do you even read or are you just so desperate to make a point that you cherry-pick anything you can?
The man was the only one with a motive
something that causes a person to act in a certain way, do a certain thing, etc.; incentive.
Under that definition, how did TM not also have motive?
He directly disobayed police telling him not to follow Trayvon Martin and ended up killing him
I think this is a large misconception about the case. Police never told him "Do not follow him". Dispatch said, "we don't need you to do that".
Whoops...second one should read "Zimmerman's account backed by eye-witness accounts" as well
What does race have to do with it? Both are minorities (Martin is African, Zimmerman Peruvian), no? Show me proof that it aas a racist incident; Because the State of Florida simply must not have tried hard enough.
It's believed that Zimmerman thought Martin was looking suspicious because he was black. There is a possibility of racism from Zimmerman given there was racism against Africa Americans from others in his family.
Zimmerman was on a Neighborhood Watch -- He was supposed to look for suspicious individuals.
There has been some question as to whether this watch was authorized or just Zimmerman taking things into his own hands. Though that point I don't think is all that important. Either way Zimmerman's initial motive to go on a watch was to try and help his community after thefts occurred.
A bit of hypothesizing/speculating on what happened. After several thefts in the neighborhood Zimmerman took up a neighborhood watch, possibly looking to play hero. While on the watch he notices martin walking along and figures that a black kid walking around at night is suspicious behavior. Zimmerman calls into the dispatcher that there is someone suspicious and tells dispatch that he will follow them. Dispatch tells Zimmerman that it's not necessary. Zimmerman proceeds to follow Martin, decides to play hero and get's out of his car and begins to harass Martin about being out. This begins to get on Martins nerves to the point where he turns around and hits Zimmerman. The violence escalates with Martin getting the upper hand in the fight until Zimmerman manages to pull his gun. Martin probably tried to get the gun away from Zimmerman and Zimmerman shot and killed Martin.
I tend to agree with LiberalViewer on the verdict. We do have to treat things as innocent until proven guilty. Unfortunately that isn't always the case and unfortunately that means people who really are guilty sometimes slip through because of lack of evidence to that guilt.
Why George Zimmerman Was Found Not Guilty For Killing Trayvon Martin (LiberalViewer)
Why People Should Be Outraged at Zimmerman's 'Not Guilty' Verdict (TYT)
I would also like to make mention of the Stand your ground law. Prior to this a person would have to first try to retreat before being allowed to defend them self. Though this left situations where a person was unable to retreat and they would get in trouble for not making the attempt.
All in all this is a very disturbing and unfortunate case.
Those links you provided do not prove who started the fight, they merely repeat several times what the killer said, and what the killer's lawyer said. It does seem like Trayvon was winning the fight though, which is the only shred of validation for the self-defense claim. But as you noted, eye-witness testimony is staggeringly innacurate.
The problem I see is that Trayvon had the same right to self-defense that Zimmerman had. So the indisputable facts of the case (as opposed to 'evidence' that was presented), 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.'
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.
And on a personal note.... 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.
Did I say he did? In fact, he may have assumed the black kid he (incorrectly) thought was a criminal was armed. And yes, I agree, that is indicative of racial profiling.
Sine you're still hung up on your misconception that it was racially motivated, I'll refer you to the link I posted above where an FBI investigation concluded that Zimmerman was not motivated by race, nor was he a racist.
So as you astutely pointed out, he had a motive. If a cop kills a criminal to stop him from committing a crime, that is a motive. If a wannabe cop, wash-out pall blart mall cop, who was fired for aggressive behavior kills an unarmed teenager whilst "atrolling" the neighborhood in the service of an unofficial "neighborhood watch," ... that is his motive.
Technically, it's a stretch. And even assuming that that was his his "motive", its an incredibly weak and does nothing to establish any alintent to commit a crime.
Cherry-pick much?
Fight bias with bias, or something like that.
But seriously, i acknowledged that I am not on the jury, because then my behavior would be influenced by that context.
In the future, I'd advise you never to admit to a bias in a debate. All you're doing is delegitimizing your position, and tying a rather hefty mill stone around your ankles.
We are discussing opinions here, and my opinion is that he is guilty
Then your "opinion" is wrong, because a court of law has allready found him to be innocent.
do you even read or are you just so desperate to make a point that you cherry-pick anything you can?
lol
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.
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.
So am I to conclude that your gut reaction is pleased that something racist happened?No, those intuitions are separate.
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)
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.
You must be logged in to post a reply!