The Zimmerman Verdict

[Raesvelg]

I figured since we've been spamming the hell out of the chat box, I could open a topic for it, since there's clearly some interest there.

For the short version of my position: George Zimmerman got off, precisely as he should have. The system worked. The prosecution had no business trying for murder 2, should have focused on manslaughter, and even then would have had a very hard time proving their case.

All the hard physical evidence supports Zimmerman's story. The version set forth by the prosecution has one witness who might have seen Zimmerman on top, another who admitted to being confused about who was who since she formed her opinion about the relative sizes of the combatants after the incredibly prejudicial media coverage led her to believe that Trayvon was just a child, and the desperate imaginings of a grieving mother claiming that Trayvon was the one screaming for help on the 911 tape.

There are crucial moments where it could have been proven that Zimmerman was the aggressor in the confrontation, but the only person who witnessed those events was Zimmerman himself, and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, a jury has no choice but to accept his version as plausible.

Ultimately, I have an easier time believing that a hot-headed teenager picked a fight with a little guy that aggravated him by following him than the idea that a guy with a gun in a dark alley would have started a fist fight with a man he believed to be bigger and more dangerous than himself.

 

[Thelona]

This whole case has been a tragedy.

The tragedy of the culmination of events that led to one teenager dead, and another man who's life is ruined. I feel like BOTH party's did things they probably shouldn't have, and both party's most likely acted out of fear for their own safety.

there's also the tragedy of a hateful bloodthirsty media taking this and making it a racial shitstorm which it never should have been (calling Zimmerman a "white hispanic" w/e the hell that is, and news outlets like MSNBC blatantly cut and cropping a 911 call to try and create a racial angle where there was none, theres a special level of hell for the people that pull this shit, and theres far more hate and evil in the hearts of these people then in either Zimmerman or Martin) They have gone to great lengths to try and paint that man as some foaming at the mouth racist when his own history of charity work clearly shows he anything BUT a racist.

The media has turned our society into a society of collective racial grievances and vengeance, people wanting to see this man get hung as some sort of payback for a history of racial inequity.

The real truth is had Trayvon Martin been white, or Zimmerman black, none of us would have ever heard of this case. Because our rabid media wouldn't have had a racial angle to paint.

My prayers go out to both the Martin family and Zimmerman, and i hope they can live in peace now that it's over and they haven't got media using them as pawns to try and foment hate and animosity.

If you have a problem with the outcomes of this case then by all means lets talk about "stand your ground" laws and self defense. this is the perfect time for that discussion.

But lay off the freakin race card, the race of either party should have absolutely no bearing on the case.

Thank GOD this didn't devolve into riots and violence, our media and our own fucking Department of Justice has certainly done everything in their power to try create it.

 

[Morcheeba]

"Ultimately, I have an easier time believing that a hot-headed teenager picked a fight with a little guy that aggravated him by following him than the idea that a guy with a gun in a dark alley would have started a fist fight with a man he believed to be bigger and more dangerous than himself."

This is somewhat subjective, yes TM had 4' on Zimmerman, but Zimmerman had nearly 30lbs on TM. TM was a bean pole in comparison, hardly threatening.

I believe TM may have threw the first punch, he may also have NOT. I can easily see him confronting the 'cracker' who was stalking him, and yeah.. in the mind of a 17 yr old if some man is following you in a truck at night, you're being stalked. I don't care what the legal system depicts as stalking, it comes down to how the individual is made to feel, period. (I say period because you'll never dictate how something makes someone feel) As well, TM probably thought himself pretty intimadating, untouchable, like most 17yr olds with attitude, there are few who don't have it these days.. certainly for a long time. I don't believe Zimmerman was not offensive when confronted, I tend to think he thought he had some authority over this punk ass kid and he'd get his answers and his criminal. He was carrying a gun, he was hunting this kid once he spotted him. Who goes to the grocery store with a pistol tucked in your shorts? I know, I'm Canadian, I just happen to think he was more confident than he let on.

All that said, if someone were following me at night for ANY length of time, obviously going out of their way to watch me, I'd consider it a direct threat, and I would respond in ANY way I felt necessary. If I got slapped with an assault charge, so be it, I'd fight it, not so much the assault but try to ensure the person involved got theirs too because it's -not- okay to make anyone feel threatened, and no, I don't think it needs to happen more than once to fly as harassment.

" I feel like BOTH party's did things they probably shouldn't have, and both party's most likely acted out of fear for their own safety."

They were both in the wrong. Zimmerman for trying to play a role he had no right playing and ignoring the direction given to him by someone with more authority. Martin for not taking off to his Step-Moms to be to tell the adults that the judgmental crazy was stalking and following him around creepin in his truck. Martin paid the ultimate price for standing up for himself.

If Zimmerman was able to get his handgun out he could have slammed it against Martins head to get him off him, if he was on him.. which isn't clear. His injuries to not suggest he was getting his head violently bashed off the pavement... as I said before. His injuries suggest he was punched a couple times, and was in a tussle. Lacerations to the scalp happen when you drag your head against the ground. The skin splits quite easily against surfaces with no give.. like pavement. His head would have had massive trauma had his accounts of a vicious attack and head bashing been true. I just don't think it was. So all and all I don't think this fight was grounds for shooting. He was losing a fight and pulled a gun.

 

[Raesvelg]

This is somewhat subjective, yes TM had 4' on Zimmerman, but Zimmerman had nearly 30lbs on TM. TM was a bean pole in comparison, hardly threatening.

Most people are piss-poor at estimating weight vs height. Zimmerman, in all likelihood, would have done what most people do; perceived taller as bigger overall.

When I was Trayvon's age, we would have had almost exactly the same build. And apparently my approach terrified a burglar so badly that he jumped out of a second story window. Which is a funny story in its own way, but we'll deal with that later on lol.

Fact of the matter is that on a dark and rainy night, to George Zimmerman, Trayvon's relatively slender build was probably not especially evident, particularly in a hoodie.

I believe TM may have threw the first punch, he may also have NOT. I can easily see him confronting the 'cracker' who was stalking him, and yeah.. in the mind of a 17 yr old if some man is following you in a truck at night, you're being stalked. I don't care what the legal system depicts as stalking, it comes down to how the individual is made to feel, period.

The legal system is what matters when your responses are taken into account.

Here's a hypothetical for you: If Trayvon had come up to Zimmerman's window while Zimmerman was in the car and bodily hauled him out, would that be a justified action?

I'd wager your answer would be no. What changed between Zimmerman being in the car and Zimmerman being out of the car is the venue. That's it. For all intents and purposes legally it's the same action: Following.

I don't believe Zimmerman was not offensive when confronted, I tend to think he thought he had some authority over this punk ass kid and he'd get his answers and his criminal.

Offensive also doesn't matter, so long as he's not violent or threatening.

And ultimately, the point comes down to this: It's not what you believe, it's what you can prove. You can suspect all kinds of things, but if you can't prove any of them, well, that's just as well. I mean, I could suspect that my neighbor is a drug dealer, but I walked next door and shoot him in the face, I'd go to jail for murder.

All that said, if someone were following me at night for ANY length of time, obviously going out of their way to watch me, I'd consider it a direct threat, and I would respond in ANY way I felt necessary. If I got slapped with an assault charge, so be it, I'd fight it, not so much the assault but try to ensure the person involved got theirs too because it's -not- okay to make anyone feel threatened, and no, I don't think it needs to happen more than once to fly as harassment.

What you feel and what the law states are two different things. And that's a good thing.

" I feel like BOTH party's did things they probably shouldn't have, and both party's most likely acted out of fear for their own safety."

On this we largely agree, though I think Trayvon's decision to re-engage Zimmerman indicates a relative lack of concern for his own safety.

I have a theory myself.

I think Trayvon circled the row of houses, and went back to Zimmerman's truck to check it out. See if he was a cop. And when he didn't see any cop-related paraphernalia, continued his loop and ultimately confronted Zimmerman while Zimmerman was heading back to said vehicle. It fits the timing reasonably well, the placement of the shooting, angles, and all that.

But there's no way I could prove it, so it's irrelevant.

They were both in the wrong. Zimmerman for trying to play a role he had no right playing and ignoring the direction given to him by someone with more authority.

That's the thing, Zimmerman didn't ignore the direction. It's utterly clear from the 911 tape; when the operator says that they don't need him to follow, Zimmerman stops running. Pudgy little dude was blowing hard after 10 seconds, so it's not like he could have been carrying on the subsequent two minute conversation without it being incredibly noticeable.

By this point he'd lost sight of Trayvon. Ergo, Trayvon must have been the one to initiate the confrontation. Whether he was the one to initiate violence, we'll never know, but we cannot convict George Zimmerman on an unknown, particularly when his explanation fits the facts.

Martin paid the ultimate price for standing up for himself.

Here we disagree. Standing up for yourself is one thing; taking a swing at a total stranger is another. Verbal confrontation would have sufficed, but if I had to pick one of them to have thrown the first punch, I'd pick the riled-up teenager over the concerned 30 year old.

If Zimmerman was able to get his handgun out he could have slammed it against Martins head to get him off him, if he was on him.. which isn't clear.

It's fairly clear. Wounds to the back of the head, wounds to his face, wrenched back. Trayvon's wounds? Bruises and scrapes on his knuckles, and a single gunshot wound to the chest. Powder burns on the hoodie, no burns on the chest, indicates hoodie was falling some distance away from the body, likely from hanging down while Trayvon was straddling Zimmerman.

Like I said, Zimmerman's explanation fits all the hard evidence available.

His head would have had massive trauma had his accounts of a vicious attack and head bashing been true.

Only if he hadn't been resisting the attack. You could try to smash my head against concrete; you'd fail. My neck is probably stronger than a good chunk of your upper body strength, even with you burly Canadian chicks. If Zimmerman is resisting, that's about what I'd expect to see; some small impact cuts and bumps, but not a cracked skull.

Bear in mind that someone is screaming for help for almost a minute in all this. The mothers disagree on who, but the Occam's Razor compels us to ask one question:

Who was winning the fight?

 

[alanon]

I KNOW nothing about what happened. I have a ton of OPINIONS, but I KNOW nothing.

Am I surprised by the verdict? Nope
Would I have been surprised had it gone the other way? Not really

What really pisses me off is how the media stirred the pot continuously and is feasting on the results. I mean, is there not a picture of TM taken of him after he turned 12??? Was there any reason to come up with the term "White-Hispanic", other than to get the racial frenzy going??? Don't even get me started Obama using this to try to re-launch gun control...

 

[Thelona]

" Who goes to the grocery store with a pistol tucked in your shorts?

In America, quite alot of people actually.(be careful who you pick a fight with) I have family members that carry a handgun with them everywhere they go, and are concealed weapon permit holders. and they all pray they'll never be in a situation where they'll need to use it.

Just because he was carrying a firearm in his waste band doesn't mean he was "hunting" TM

If Zimmerman was able to get his handgun out he could have slammed it against Martins head to get him off him, if he was on him..

That would be an incredibly stupid thing to do, you don't pull a gun to use it as a club.
If you don't knock the other person out with the first hit you've then got a struggle for the possession of a firearm, and if you lose possession of that firearm, your likely going to lose you're life.



I'm sorry but what is wrong with all you people who think assaulting someone is some innocent act in defense of....... being followed? If you ever find yourself being followed by a suspicious character, I highly suggest you either call the police, or get out of dodge.

If you turn around and initiate a violent altercation with the person following you, then best case scenario you are going to jail for assault, worst case your going to get stabbed or shot. and depending on the self defense laws of the state your in, the person who shot or stabbed you is going to be completely within their legal right to do so.

Why the HELL are people acting as if assaulting someone is some casual act?! guess what, people die all the fucking time from assault, there are people SERVING HARD TIME IN JAIL, RIGHT NOW, because they got in a simple bar fight, and the guy they punched in the head DIED. this is not TV, your not in a MMA ring, you can FUCKING KILL someone with a punch to the head. and its not as rare an occurrence as many seem to think.

 

[Thelona]

I KNOW nothing about what happened. I have a ton of OPINIONS, but I KNOW nothing.

Am I surprised by the verdict? Nope
Would I have been surprised had it gone the other way? Not really

What really pisses me off is how the media stirred the pot continuously and is feasting on the results. I mean, is there not a picture of TM taken of him after he turned 12??? Was there any reason to come up with the term "White-Hispanic", other than to get the racial frenzy going??? Don't even get me started Obama using this to try to re-launch gun control...

and to think, People actually thought the election of Obama was going to improve the race issue in this country. People who didn't realize he was part of the race-baiting grievance-mongering democrat machine. The democrat party profits politically from people being convinced that everyone's out to get you because of the color of you're skin or the color of theirs, and its been plain to see they've done everything in their power to push that mentality as far and wide as they can.

Did you know our own freaking justice department paid protesters and organized protest around the Trayvon Martin case? They also setup DNC voter registration drives AT Trayvon Martin protest events. when are people going to fucking wakeup and see these people for the snakes they are? This is the party of jim crow, George Wallace and KKK Imperial Wizard himself Robert Byrd. They are doing everything in their power to tear this country apart and turn American against American and laughing all the way to the bank/political office. (not saying that the republicans are any better mind you)

 

[Ravic]

I KNOW nothing about what happened. I have a ton of OPINIONS, but I KNOW nothing.

Am I surprised by the verdict? Nope
Would I have been surprised had it gone the other way? Not really

What really pisses me off is how the media stirred the pot continuously and is feasting on the results. I mean, is there not a picture of TM taken of him after he turned 12??? Was there any reason to come up with the term "White-Hispanic", other than to get the racial frenzy going??? Don't even get me started Obama using this to try to re-launch gun control...

Well, it's right out of the Democrat playbook, "Never let a good tragedy go to waste." I honestly can't help but laugh at how much Obama has helped incite racial division in this whole event. I mean, seriously, "If I had a son, he would have looked like Trayvon Martin." Can you imagine if this had happened 6 years ago, and Bush had said anything even remotely in support, or even just non-condemning, of Zimmerman. The media would have been howling.

And now, the NAACP is pressuring the DoJ to seek Civil Rights charges against Zimmerman in a blatant attempt to circumvent double jeopardy and effectively overturn an acquittal. Too bad when this whole debacle started, the FBI investigated and found ZERO racial animus on Zimmerman's part.

Of course, I'll wager good money there will be no investigation into the sham of a trial, which started with Florida State Attorney Angela Corey apparently withholding evidence and falsifying the arrest warrant to charge Zimmerman with murder; she has since been indicted in a citizen's grand jury.

 

[Elemmire]

Well, it's right out of the Democrat playbook, "Never let a good tragedy go to waste." I honestly can't help but laugh at how much Obama has helped incite racial division in this whole event. I mean, seriously, "If I had a son, he would have looked like Trayvon Martin." Can you imagine if this had happened 6 years ago, and Bush had said anything even remotely in support, or even just non-condemning, of Zimmerman. The media would have been howling.

And now, the NAACP is pressuring the DoJ to seek Civil Rights charges against Zimmerman in a blatant attempt to circumvent double jeopardy and effectively overturn an acquittal. Too bad when this whole debacle started, the FBI investigated and found ZERO racial animus on Zimmerman's part.

Of course, I'll wager good money there will be no investigation into the sham of a trial, which started with Florida State Attorney Angela Corey apparently withholding evidence and falsifying the arrest warrant to charge Zimmerman with murder; she has since been indicted in a citizen's grand jury.

Wait wait wait wait.. Democrat playbook? That politics in general. Or did you forget ALL the shit Republicans pulled after 9/11 to push political agendas?

 

[Thelona]

Wait wait wait wait.. Democrat playbook? That politics in general. Or did you forget ALL the shit Republicans pulled after 9/11 to push political agendas?

you mean the shit that every democrat signed onto as well until political winds turned against it and they all changed their minds and called the Republicans warmongers for doing something they all agreed with a year earlier? oh yeah

You mean the shit they continue to rail against, yet continue to push and expand when they aren't infront of a camera? Yeah Obama totally scaled back the Patriot Act and NDAA and quit bombings in the middle east didn't he?.........oh wait......

Atleast the republicans are upfront and consistent about who they are.


The republicans pushed what they did after 9/11 cause they wanted to hunt down the people who attacked us and bomb them to rubble, and so did the democrats, only the democrats lie threw their teeth and try to convince you they are anti-war while they support it behind closed doors the whole time.

Just like they try and convince you its democrats who pushed threw the civil rights act, and you'd fucking believe them, even tho it was a democrat president who vetoed it 4 fucking times and democrat KKK member Robert Byrd who filibustered it for 15 hours. LOL keep drinking the kool-aid, it taste oh so sweet doesn't it?

(Oh and btw, incase you didn't know. Robert Byrd served in elected office until the day he died on June 28th 2010. but he SWORE he turned over a new leaf and regretted his racist past..... you trust he was sincere don't you? I know I sure do.)



(later edit)
sigh... breath deep... ok , sorry, I realize I went offtopic on a tangent there, and I know good and well the republicans have MORE then their fair share of zealots and total freakin nutbags as well. But atleast the republicans tend to be upfront and open with their nutbaggery. Its just something about the way the democrats put on a pretty smile and try and play both sides of the coin that really disgust me. If you ask me 98% of both party's should be drug out into the street and slapped in stockades.

Reastopia seems more appealing every day. or hell Game of thrones may have it right, in Volantis they have the Triarch system, Elections every year. and if by the end of that year the elected officials haven't done exactly what they promised to do, they are publicly executed and new elections are held. talk about keeping em honest. Reas, where does reastopia stand on public executions of elected officials for corruption and dereliction of duty?



The way politicians and race-hustlers in the media have stirred the pot on this zimmerman case and tried to create and feed off the racial animosity has gotten me worked up these past few weeks. I'm just glad its over.

 

[Elemmire]

lol at "Republicans are upfront and consistent about who they are" you're pretty damn dumb to say that. Either too damn party lined, or ignorant of the reality. All the politicians aren't upfront and consistent about who they are. Oh, they're all consistent in that they are sell outs to corporations/lobbyists, but they aren't upfront about it. Not in the slightest. As for the playing to their nutbaggery? Ya, during the primaries when they have to appeal ONLY to their base they are, but once the primaries are over and they have to get Independent voters and possibly Democratic voters to win? They switch a flip and become a different person or try to backpeddle on some shit. Look at how much we see even more sensible Republicans like Chris Christie do that. It's what Romney tried to do so many times throughout his election. Almost no politician is honest about who they are. Be the Republican or Democratic.

And no, Republicans pushed what they did after 9/11 for the same reason any politician pushes for anything. Their corporate masters wrote a bill for them to push or the politicians wanted more power. Hell, look at the bullshit of the Patriot Act. ENTIRELY passed by the Republicans. ENTIRELY unconstitutional. It's about damn time the ACLU finally filed a lawsuit against it since we have evidence it's being used to justify entirely unconstitutional programs like PRISM. Btw, that program? Lobbied for by the SAME corporations that has made billions off of it. Ya, Booz Allen.

As for the Civil Rights? It wasn't JUST Republicans who were for it, there was a need for the Democrats to be on board and there were plenty who were. And, yes, it was a Democratic President who signed it into office. A Democratic President who was from Texas and openly said that "this is the right thing to do." And if you think Democrats of today are the same of the past? Do you really think the Republicans of today are the same of the past? Hell, the Republicans today aren't even the same from 20 years ago. The parties often flip stances over time and their image changes. It's just how it's always been in our country. Like now, we have both Republicans and Democrats who are violating our civil rights on several accounts. And, ya, guess which president started the major abuse? The Republican one. Obama has basically been Bush's third and forth term (even Bush's former members of his Administration are bragging about that) and it's all been shit. It doesn't matter who does it, it doesn't matter what political party anyone is. It's still wrong.

But here's some fun stuff, which political party was it trying to hinder votes last major election? Which political party is trying to push nonsensical voting ID laws that keep those who are poor from voting? Which political party is it that has a member that openly said "Well, I'm going to be real honest with you: The Republican Party doesn't want black people to vote, if they're going to vote 9 to one for Democrats." How about ALL these fun cases of trying to block people's voting:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/06/deanna-swenson-oregon-election-worker_n_2082882.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/05/poll-watching_n_2078563.html
http://www.ukprogressive.co.uk/brea...s-gop-is-stealing-elections/article20598.html
http://thinkprogress.org/tag/voter-suppression/?mobile=nc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_mSjvLRIg8
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/23/maricopa-county-election_n_2006768.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/27/rnc-voter-fraud_n_1921223.html
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/oct/18/news/la-pn-voter-registration-gop-arrest-20121018
http://us4.campaign-archive2.com/?u=33e4ec877eed6a43863a4a92e&id=2db010b69c&e=10281073ac

Oh ya, Republicans SURE are our friends trying to help bring Democracy to our country better -_- And no, I'm not claiming Democrats are better overall as a party, but some of this shit that Republicans are doing is disgusting. And they do it all because they want to hold onto power and since the only people they keep appealing to are white? And white babies are now in the minority? Ya, they know their days are numbered if EVERYONE has a right to vote. So they gotta screw people over by making them have voter IDs that require money they might not have. Yes, even 20 bucks is hard for some people to come by. If you think it's "so easy" then you clearly have never lived such a life or even know anyone that poor. Let's ignore that the voting ID laws tend to violate the 14th, 15th, and 19th amendments eh? Let's ignore that statistically speaking voter fraud on the part of the voter is only 0.0002% likely. That's so ridiculously fucked up. Yet of the list I just gave you, any real voter fraud/suppression is on the other side. The side of those who are managing it. Should really get off the Republican dick already. It's not doing anyone any good except them. And no, I'm not saying get on the Democrat one. To hell with all parties. They should be abolished.

As for the claims of racial stuff? Who knows. There's a chance he was racial profiling, after all, his own cousin has said he and his family are a racist ( http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/07/16/us-usa-florida-shooting-idUSBRE86F0YV20120716 ) but at the same time, the FBI has supposedly investigated and said he's not. Though, if they really fully investigated, wouldn't they have had the evidence he might be racist from his own cousin (who, btw, he apparently molested). I think the claim that there's "no evidence" is a lot of bullshit. But maybe not substantial evidence, that's a different matter. In the end, I don't even care if it was race based or not, the fact is he killed a kid because he decided to pursue and cause a conflict due to his actions. He deserves whatever suffering in life he gets because of the media. I would have preferred he'd have to go to rehabilitation type courses/facilities and learn better than to take the law/security of everyone into his own hands (he was not an official member of any neighborhood watch, he was not a cop, he's not a security guard, he was nothing but a big headed fool who thought he could be a hero stopping a crime).

 

[Lucki]

BACK ON THE SUBJECT OF THE ZIMMERMAN VERDICT AND NOT ANOTHER TIRADE ON WHY POLITICAL PARTY A ARE A BUNCH OF FUCK NUTS AND POLITICAL PARTY B ARE A BUNCH OF ASSHATS

I read this article, and thought it was fairly insightful and amusing.

The Embarrassment Of The George Zimmerman Verdict (<-link)

It's more a comment on people's reaction to the verdict than the verdict itself.

 

[Elemmire]

I find it funny someone wants to appeal until it's up at the Supreme Court.

Why? Are they going to judge if the self defense laws themselves are constitutional?

Btw, also an interesting article:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/on-faith/wp/2013/07/14/for-trayvon-martin-is-there-no-justice/

Or this article

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jul/14/open-season-black-boys-verdict

I especially like this bit

For the salient facts in this case were not in dispute. On 26 February 2012 Martin was on his way home, minding his own business armed only with a can of iced tea and a bag of Skittles. Zimmerman pursued him, armed with a 9mm handgun, believing him to be a criminal. Martin resisted. They fought. Zimmerman shot him dead.

Because, really, that is all we know. Followed by

Who screamed. Who was stronger. Who called whom what and when and why are all details to warm the heart of a cable news producer with 24 hours to fill. Strip them all away and the truth remains that Martin's heart would still be beating if Zimmerman had not chased him down and shot him.

There is no doubt about who the aggressor was here. It appears that the only reason the two interacted at all, physically or otherwise, is that Zimmerman believed it was his civic duty to apprehend an innocent teenager who caused suspicion by his existence alone.

 

[Thelona]

Like that article lucki. Yeah, there a hell of alot of people out there that don't have the slightest clue what double jeopardy is.


and elemm. Now Zimmerman tried to "apprehend" trayvon? what evidence has ever been presented to that fact? None. people need to stop making shit up to fill in gaps to support their argument.

and trayvon didn't "resist" you don't "resist" being followed by turning around and beating the hell out of the person following you. that's just plain assault

The simple fact is unless zimmerman laid hands on trayvon first, then trayvon was the first to commit an illegal act. therefor he started the "conflict"

If I see you walking threw my neighborhood I can follow you all i want, there nothing illegal about that. Turning around and assaulting someone who's following you IS illegal. You need to stop trying to make the case that trayvon was within his legal rights to put hands on zimmerman. you don't answer an non violent act with a violent one.

 

[Morcheeba]

Here's a thought.

If Zimmerman only thought he was likely to be killed, but (like the lawyer in Lucki's article states) he didn't have to shoot Martin. How are we to reason what reasonable force would be?

His life wasn't going to end if he hadn't shot Martin.. or at least that's what the consensus seems to be, so really, if it was an unnecessary action but supported due to self defense, even Z not being aware of that at the time, would it not still be considered unreasonable force?

I'm getting attacked, my wounds are actually pretty minor considering the end result of the conflict and the fear in my heart at the time. I think I'm going to die, there's no way I'm walking away and I end up killing my attacker. The courts support my self defense claims but also agree that my actions after all was said and done were still not necessary due to the wounds I sustained.. is that not manslaughter. That's my understanding, and that's why I keep thinking, he should have gotten manslaughter. Shit happens, it sucks,... you kinda asked for confrontation, you got it... you killed someone even by accident because you were getting a beating... but you didn't have to.

Sorry I'm having a hard time comprising my thoughts clearly.. hope that wasn't too garbled.

 

[Elemmire]

Except last I read of the ballistic reports, he was shot not with Trayvon on top, but standing OVER Zimmerman. IF the accounts of the eyewitness are taken into account, it would seem that Trayvon was beating Zimmerman against the ground, then got up and got shot. Whether Trayvon was going to beat him more or considered the fight done? We don't know. And all we have are claims from Zimmerman he can't prove. Like that Trayvon said "you're gonna die tonight." And if you believe Zimmerman is telling nothing but the truth? I call naive bullshit. And yes, he should have gotten manslaughter.

And I never said Zimmerman was trying to apprehend Trayvon, Thelona. That's what many assume were his original intentions, they can't be sure, but it's not a baseless assumption either. Even the FBI investigation admitted Zimmerman had an authority complex. And he was following Trayvon. I still don't get why you get to follow someone that leads to the conflict in the first place and you kill the guy you're following and you EVER get to pretend it's self defense in any way. If Zimmerman stayed in his car and waited for the police it'd be another matter, but he didn't, he kept pursuing after he was told he wasn't needed to do that. No Raes, he didn't stop. Even by his own account he kept following. And even by his own account it wasn't that Trayvon jumped him and attacked him, he said there were words between the two of them (why has no one ever asked him what words/conversation there was is still beyond me) and then he claimed Trayvon attacked him first. There's a chance he's lying and he attacked first. Who knows for sure since there's only one person alive now who knows the truth.

And Thelona, why do you and so many others not understand what the definition of words are? Resist works if you're saying you're trying to resist being followed.

Resist - "To strive to fend off or offset the actions, effects, or force of."

Ya, resist, means he could resist Zimmerman's actions of following him or fend off Zimmerman's pursuit. Again, that still works. Doesn't mean that he was resisting an attack. Sure most assume "resist an attack" but resist works for other things.

And if it was Florida, if you're following me and I assume you're a threat to my life, by Florida law I would have a right to attack you. Whether you like that or not isn't my problem, it's how their laws are. It's stupid, I'd agree with that, but since when has Florida ever been sane or intelligent? -_- Even the author of the SYG law admitted that Zimmerman couldn't be protected against SYG and that Trayvon could since Zimmerman was pursuing and Trayvon wasn't.

Ah, I love the Daily Show

http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/mon-july-15-2013-aaron-sorkin

 

[Raesvelg]

Btw, also an interesting article:

Or this article

Yes, two massive appeals to emotion with no basis in evidence. I understand why you'd find those interesting.

Because, really, that is all we know.

Actually, we know a fair amount. We have a good idea of the timeline of the night's events, we know who was on the losing end of beating, we know that Trayvon chose not to go home, we know quite a bit more than that tiny inaccurate precis of events.

To be certain, there are things we don't know. And some of those things are important. But justice cannot be served by convicting someone on might-have-beens.

I'm getting attacked, my wounds are actually pretty minor considering the end result of the conflict and the fear in my heart at the time. I think I'm going to die, there's no way I'm walking away and I end up killing my attacker. The courts support my self defense claims but also agree that my actions after all was said and done were still not necessary due to the wounds I sustained.. is that not manslaughter. That's my understanding, and that's why I keep thinking, he should have gotten manslaughter.

To be blunt about it Cheebs, your understanding is flawed.

Ele brought up the exact wording of the statute earlier in chat, but I'll repost it here so it's easily accessible:

He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another

The key phrase for this particular moment is "reasonably believes". You don't have to be right. The court just has to agree that your belief was reasonable.

Now, it's possible that in this case, the court could have decided that Zimmerman's belief was not reasonable. But it's not a situation where you can turn up with minor wounds and the court just says "Nope. Manslaughter. Next case." They have to take into account the context; what was happening, what was said, what the perception of the person using the lethal force to defend themselves was.

As a hypothetical: A guy comes at me with a knife. I pull a gun and shoot him dead. I don't have a scratch on me, but I had a reasonable belief that he intended to at the very least cause great bodily harm. I walk, because my use of lethal force was justified.

In this particular case, the situation is fuzzier, but ultimately the jury decided that his fear, and as such his response, was indeed reasonable.

 

[Thelona]

Except last I read of the ballistic reports, he was shot not with Trayvon on top, but standing OVER Zimmerman.

Post that then, because that goes COMPLETELY against what every expert testified to during the trail.

And Thelona, why do you and so many others not understand what the definition of words are? Resist works if you're saying you're trying to resist being followed.

Resist - "To strive to fend off or offset the actions, effects, or force of."

To resist being followed would be to try and lose your pursuer. attacking your pursuer is bring it to a head and take it to a whole new lvl and illegal

And if it was Florida, if you're following me and I assume you're a threat to my life, by Florida law I would have a right to attack you.

You have a terrible understanding of SYG law, or your deliberately misinterpreting to support your argument. If you think being followed is an eminent threat to your life your either a paranoid schizophrenic or an idiot.

You seem to think SYG give you the right you murder anyone you perceive as a threat it doesn't

if it did, Florida would be the wild west from the movies, and even the wild west wasn't the wild west of the movies.

Anyways I'm done with that aspect of the case, you don't have the right to take the life of anyone who follows you. take a trip to Florida and beat and/or kill someone, then claim he was following you as a defense, then see how quick your ass gets locked up.

 

[Raesvelg]

Except last I read of the ballistic reports, he was shot not with Trayvon on top, but standing OVER Zimmerman.

Apparently, you never read the ballistics report. Close range. Gun in contact with hoodie. Gun several inches away from flesh.

The wound travels directly from front to back, incredibly difficult to accomplish unless the gun is perpendicular to the torso when using hollow point ammunition. If Zimmerman were on the ground and Trayvon standing, there would be no contact with the hoodie, the range would have been longer, and the wound would have traveled up through his torso.

In short: Educate yourself on the details of the case or stop claiming you know something about it.

If Zimmerman stayed in his car and waited for the police it'd be another matter, but he didn't, he kept pursuing after he was told he wasn't needed to do that. No Raes, he didn't stop. Even by his own account he kept following.

Yes Ele, he did stop. Even in his own account, he did stop. You can hear him stop running in the 911 call audio. If one person is running, and the other person is not, the person not running is not following.

And even by his own account it wasn't that Trayvon jumped him and attacked him, he said there were words between the two of them (why has no one ever asked him what words/conversation there was is still beyond me) and then he claimed Trayvon attacked him first.

Actually, people have asked what those words were. People have even purported to have heard those words, in the case of Rachel Jeantel. By Zimmerman's account, those words went something along the lines of:

Trayvon: "You got a problem homie?"
Zimmerman: "No..."
Trayvon: "Well, you got a problem now!"

Followed by violence. No lengthy conversation, no significant dialogue, just a quick verbal prelude to a physical confrontation. Rachel Jeantel's version of the conversation is somewhat different, but her version is also one half-heard through a cell phone in the rain. By both accounts, however, the conversation was not more than a few words before violence ensued.

And if it was Florida, if you're following me and I assume you're a threat to my life, by Florida law I would have a right to attack you.

No, you do not.

We've discussed this.

You must have a reasonable belief that serious danger is imminent. If I transition from following you at a distance to coming at you with my arms outstretched, you might be able to pass that particular metric, but I wouldn't guarantee it since for all you know I'm trying to save you from being crushed by a falling tree branch.

Your belief that my following you means that I intend to do you harm is not reasonable.

 

[Morcheeba]

My understanding for grounds to a manslaughter charge must be skewed. I have always thought it was accidentally killing someone and in most cases during self defense when 'unreasonable' force was used and/or in a fight where an assault charge would be place had you not managed to kill said person. Or your average run of the mill accidental killings like running over your neighbour because you can't be bothered to look in your rear view when driving in reverse.

Yes Ele, he did stop. Even in his own account, he did stop. You can hear him stop running in the 911 call audio. If one person is running, and the other person is not, the person not running is not following.

I have to disagree here. Because I cannot agree with the fact that Zimmerman was after Martin. Yes he stopped running, he was out of shape, didn't hear him panting all the much but I could tell he wasn't running anymore. He didn't turn around, he was trying to find Martin while still on the phone, he was pursuing him, trying to get his sights on him again. So whether or not he had Martin in his line of sight does not mean he wasn't following him, he was still pursuing him.