OT: Zimmerman Not Guilty

[geneh_33]

No, you are the one making assumptions. I provided you with the facts: precisely what they are except Zimmerman ended up dead. Based on that hypo, we don't know what happened with the gun. You are making the assumption that Martin got it entirely. You are viewing the evidence - or absence of evidence in this case - in such a way as to favor the version of the story that satisfies your view of it. It's a natural reaction, and folks on both sides are doing it.

You have no idea what the jury believed, other than that they weren't convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman was guilty. You are simply convincing yourself that your view is the correct one.

Sorry, but that isn't possible. You can't change reality so easily and then make a judgement based on that.

Once again and for the final time I will tell you this:

1. I accept the fact that Zimmerman admitted that he ended up with the gun and fired it. If you don't then that's your problem. Surely the judge and jury accepted that as well, or we wouldn't be arguing about this at all. If we accept that Zimmerman never had control of the gun then this case changes dramatically because Martin's death could have been an accident. Zimmerman stated that it was no accident, that he shot Martin and he intended to shoot him. Thus, we have a clear cut second degree murder/manslaughter case.

In your scenario, did Martin admit that he shot Zimmerman and intended to do so? If so then I would vote guilty on Manslaughter. But I am sure you will tell me that Martin wouldn't have said that and so on. I will not discuss this assumption with you anymore because you are just basically trying to call me a racist and establish that I make my decisions based only on racism. Well, sir, that is not the case.

2. I have every right to state what I think the jury believed. Obviously they believe that Zimmerman did shoot Martin in self defense. If they didn't believe that then Zimmerman would have been easily convicted of Manslaughter - at least.

I will discuss what actually happened in this case with anyone who wishes to discuss it intelligently. But I will no longer discuss your scenario of "What if Martin had shot and killed Zimmerman?" because that is not what happened.

 

[BINGO]

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion with the verdict. The prosecution argued that Zimmerman shot an unarmed Teen. Not a person that has not committed any sin. If text messages, smoking weed and fighting have a death penalty as a punishment there are a lot of people in trouble and a lot of people in prison that need to be released immediately for doing the system a favor and taking care of this punishment. I'm sure you don't agree but the things you mentioned I don't think had anything to do with the case. Was Zimmerman briefed of these things before or after he murdered him?

What on earth are you talking about?! He was carrying a deadly weapon!

 

[Crimsoncrew]

If he had been found guilty the majority of reports, tweets, and facebook post would be about how defending yourself is now a crime. This is just like the OJ and Anthony trial in that no matter the outcome no one wins.

I can't stand how this trial turned into a race issue though. According to Zimmerman's father George prom date was an African-American girl. What black hating racist takes a colored girl to a date in a very public setting among their peers? (and yes I know that whole sentence sounds racist, but I'm not going to sugar coat it) Then again it could not be true, but why make that statement when there had to be at least 100 witnesses that could debunk it.

I barely followed the case at all, but I read he called the cops supposedly before approaching Trayvon. Why call the cops if the intent was to stalk the boy down and kill him?

Also read a forensic expert backed up Zimmermans claim that Trayvon was standing over him when he was shot based on the gun powder.

Like others have said you can't simply convict people because you don't like them or think they are guilty. The burden of proof is always on the prosecution and not up to public opinion. The only thing the jury could know for sure was that Trayvon and Zimmerman met face to face and Trayvon was shot. Zimmerman gave his side of the story and the prosecution was unable to disprove it beyond a reasonable doubt.

As for Plaxico and Vick it's so dumb and really racist to bring them up. Plaxico was carrying a gun without a permit in a very public place. Vick had people testify against him and eventually admitted to fighting dogs on his property and training them for such. There was actual evidence to convict them not including the fact they both admitted to their wrong doing.

In any case right or wrong Zimmermans life will never be the same again. He is guilty as sin in the court of public opinion, and unfortunately for him in that court proof and evidence don't mean shit.

I'm going to focus on this. That is not expressly true. There are many defenses in which the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the elements of the crime were met. The burden then shifts to the defense to prove that the defense applies. That is what I believe should have occurred in this case. The indisputable facts are that George Zimmerman was armed, followed someone who had every right to be where he was and to do what he was doing, confronted that person, and shot and killed that person. Virtually everything else about the confrontation itself is speculation. That is enough to establish manslaughter. Given that the crucial witness is now dead, the burden should have shifted to Zimmerman to establish self-defense. That's not the FL law, and I believe that law is flawed, for reasons I have addressed at length throughout this thread.

 

[Crimsoncrew]

Sorry, but that isn't possible. You can't change reality so easily and then make a judgement based on that.

Once again and for the final time I will tell you this:

1. I accept the fact that Zimmerman admitted that he ended up with the gun and fired it. If you don't then that's your problem. Surely the judge and jury accepted that as well, or we wouldn't be arguing about this at all. If we accept that Zimmerman never had control of the gun then this case changes dramatically because Martin's death could have been an accident. Zimmerman stated that it was no accident, that he shot Martin and he intended to shoot him. Thus, we have a clear cut second degree murder/manslaughter case.

In your scenario, did Martin admit that he shot Zimmerman and intended to do so? If so then I would vote guilty on Manslaughter. But I am sure you will tell me that Martin wouldn't have said that and so on. I will not discuss this assumption with you anymore because you are just basically trying to call me a racist and establish that I make my decisions based only on racism. Well, sir, that is not the case.

2. I have every right to state what I think the jury believed. Obviously they believe that Zimmerman did shoot Martin in self defense. If they didn't believe that then Zimmerman would have been easily convicted of Manslaughter - at least.

I will discuss what actually happened in this case with anyone who wishes to discuss it intelligently. But I will no longer discuss your scenario of "What if Martin had shot and killed Zimmerman?" because that is not what happened.

1. Zimmerman never testified. He didn't say anything under oath, in the courtroom about what happened that night. Beyond that, you keep assuming the jury believed the defense's story. If they were confused about what happened, as seems likely, then the defense wins.

2. And again, you are making assumptions about what the jury concluded. The state bears the burden of proving - beyond a reasonable doubt - that Zimmerman did not act in self-defense. In this case, that was effectively impossible to prove because Martin is dead and there were no witnesses to the initial encounter.

 

[yossarian]

I'm going to focus on this. That is not expressly true. There are many defenses in which the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the elements of the crime were met. The burden then shifts to the defense to prove that the defense applies. That is what I believe should have occurred in this case. The indisputable facts are that George Zimmerman was armed, followed someone who had every right to be where he was and to do what he was doing, confronted that person, and shot and killed that person. Virtually everything else about the confrontation itself is speculation. That is enough to establish manslaughter. Given that the crucial witness is now dead, the burden should have shifted to Zimmerman to establish self-defense. That's not the FL law, and I believe that law is flawed, for reasons I have addressed at length throughout this thread.

There are, they are called "affirmative defenses", like diminished capacity and others. Self Defense is usually not an affirmative defense in any state, the state always has the burden of disproving it.

 

[dubabay]

Some people will bash me for this but it's simple, as long as anyone can be armed, driving anywhere with his gun because he has a permit, then all of us depend on his judgement on when and how he decides to use it.

This guy had his permit to carry a gun to protect his neighborhood, so the gorvernment gave him permission to use it at his will if he thought something was threatening his peace or the peace of the neighborhood.

He kills a boy and he will even get his gun back, how great.

 

[BINGO]

Why do we have to be Trayvon defenders? I question why a guy follows another guy, calls the police, then decides to confront him for whatever reason and shoots him. I understand why he was found not guilty. Please stop using the word innocent. Do you really think Zimmerman is innocent of his role in the death of a person?

Again there's a difference between not guilty and innocent.

In addition to that, you left one pivotal fact. The 911 dispatcher advised GZ not to follow the suspicious person. He disregarded that advise, and for what...? The dispatcher's next step was to send a squad car there to investigate, why be a vigilante?

Anyway, after reading people's comments here on this thread, I can tell clearly the vast majority of the posters here are unware of certain things about this case. Thus, people here are totally clueless to the actual facts on this case and as a result spouting nonesense.

 

[TobyTyler]

There is a bit of a difference between following an unarmed teenager, having a fight, and then shooting him. Compared to being worried about someone ambushing you... wouldn't you say? The difference between being the hunter and the hunted.

The one tweet threat I saw was a guy holding a semi-automatic rifle. Quite a big step up from an unarmed kid. Obviously, I think most of these threats are just angry reactions... but, it only takes one serious person to follow through.

The kid attacked him and paid for it with his life. If Zimmerman followed a suspicious character who had no business being in that neighborhood, so be it. That "poor child who just wanted some skittles" as the D.A. tried to paint him messed with the wrong guy and paid the ultimate price.

 

[jonvi]

Some people will bash me for this but it's simple, as long as anyone can be armed, driving anywhere with his gun because he has a permit, then all of us depend on his judgement on when and how he decides to use it.

This guy had his permit to carry a gun to protect his neighborhood, so the gorvernment gave him permission to use it at his will if he thought something was threatening his peace or the peace of the neighborhood.

He kills a boy and he will even get his gun back, how great.

If he was shot in the back trying to run away...you would be right. Face off with a guy who has a gun and end up dead. Nothing to be shocked about.

 

[tallglassofwater007]

Some people will bash me for this but it's simple, as long as anyone can be armed, driving anywhere with his gun because he has a permit, then all of us depend on his judgement on when and how he decides to use it.

This guy had his permit to carry a gun to protect his neighborhood, so the gorvernment gave him permission to use it at his will if he thought something was threatening his peace or the peace of the neighborhood.

He kills a boy and he will even get his gun back, how great.

The government let him have a gun, but they did not appoint him neighborhood watch. Neighborhood watch isn't something you need a gun for or any training or any process to go through. You just join. They have no power to do anything, but spot suspicious activity and report it to the police.

The fact that he had a gun leads me to believe he would eventually use it. The fact that he pursued this boy, leads me to believe he was looking for trouble. I don't think he intended to murder anybody, but that is what he did. If he needed a gun to protect his community (gated if I am not mistaken) then he should not have been doing it in the first place.

If more people learned how to defend themselves with their hands (and I just mean self defense, not become Van Damme) they wouldn't feel the need to walk around with a gun.

 

[tallglassofwater007]

The kid attacked him and paid for it with his life. If Zimmerman followed a suspicious character who had no business being in that neighborhood, so be it. That "poor child who just wanted some skittles" as the D.A. tried to paint him messed with the wrong guy and paid the ultimate price.

That is bullshit. If I walk into the wrong neighborhood down here in LA I might just get shot. Does that make it right? What if I was just stopping for gas? This isn't Dirty Hairy. Martin might be in the wrong for starting a fight, but if someone was following me around I would question them too. And who knows what was said at that point, or if he was being harassed. You shouldn't lose your life because you get in a fist fight. This will never be justified to me. By him being not guilty they are basically saying (to me anyway) that Martin was trying to murder Zimmerman and that was the only thing he could do to save his own life.

 

[jonvi]

That is bullshit. If I walk into the wrong neighborhood down here in LA I might just get shot. Does that make it right? What if I was just stopping for gas? This isn't Dirty Hairy. Martin might be in the wrong for starting a fight, but if someone was following me around I would question them too. And who knows what was said at that point, or if he was being harassed. You shouldn't lose your life because you get in a fist fight. This will never be justified to me. By him being not guilty they are basically saying (to me anyway) that Martin was trying to murder Zimmerman and that was the only thing he could do to save his own life.

I suggest you rethink that part about if someone is following you around. I suggest you leave them alone. They may have a gun.

2nd bold statement.....That's exactly what they are saying. Martin got in Zimmerman's face. A person that thinks they are that bad that they can get in someone's face.....may end up dead.

 

[BINGO]

That is bullshit. If I walk into the wrong neighborhood down here in LA I might just get shot. Does that make it right? What if I was just stopping for gas? This isn't Dirty Hairy. Martin might be in the wrong for starting a fight, but if someone was following me around I would question them too. And who knows what was said at that point, or if he was being harassed. You shouldn't lose your life because you get in a fist fight. This will never be justified to me. By him being not guilty they are basically saying (to me anyway) that Martin was trying to murder Zimmerman and that was the only thing he could do to save his own life.

I'm not going to be that cynical about the (jurors) line of thinking here, but I agree with the rest of your assessment of the situation.

I would hate to be followed in my own neigborhood. If that were to happen, I would say something. Depending on what the pursuer's response is, I may end up getting in his face for him to back down. If he stands his grown I would then most likely strike him.

 

[Runeman]

That is bullshit. If I walk into the wrong neighborhood down here in LA I might just get shot. Does that make it right? What if I was just stopping for gas? This isn't Dirty Hairy. Martin might be in the wrong for starting a fight, but if someone was following me around I would question them too. And who knows what was said at that point, or if he was being harassed. You shouldn't lose your life because you get in a fist fight. This will never be justified to me. By him being not guilty they are basically saying (to me anyway) that Martin was trying to murder Zimmerman and that was the only thing he could do to save his own life.

I agree that Zimmerman was not found innocent. He was found not guilty. Big difference. That said, His defense is in fact he felt that his life was in danger when Martin was on top of him giving him a beating. Zimmerman should not have followed Martin and Martin should not have jumped a man with a gun. Both rather stupid act, IMO. In addition, all these riots are ridiculous. Lots of race bating "so called" religious types and the liberal media fueling this fire. The "stand your ground" law was never intended for this situation; it was intended for folks minding their own business, being in a place where they are supposed to be, and having a reasonable fear for their life.

 

[jonvi]

I agree that Zimmerman was not found innocent. He was found not guilty. Big difference. That said, His defense is in fact he felt that his life was in danger when Martin was on top of him giving him a beating. Zimmerman should not have followed Martin and Martin should not have jumped a man with a gun. Both rather stupid act, IMO. In addition, all these riots are ridiculous. Lots of race bating "so called" religious types and the liberal media fueling this fire. The "stand your ground" law was never intended for this situation; it was intended for folks minding their own business, being in a place where they are supposed to be, and having a reasonable fear for their life.

Smart statement. Zimmerman's bad days are not behind him.

 

[EaseUrStorm]

In addition to that, you left one pivotal fact. The 911 dispatcher advised GZ not to follow the suspicious person. He disregarded that advise, and for what...? The dispatcher's next step was to send a squad car there to investigate, why be a vigilante?

Anyway, after reading people's comments here on this thread, I can tell clearly the vast majority of the posters here are unware of certain things about this case. Thus, people here are totally clueless to the actual facts on this case and as a result spouting nonesense.

I am just skimming through this thread, but did want to add something to this that I heard in a recent discussion. I don't know all the legalities behind this - just passing on the refutation.

The refutation to this is the dispatcher will make that generic type of statement to avoid liability. If they had advised him to follow the guy they could have been liable. There have been instances where people have asked the dispatcher if/how they can help someone who needed immediate emergency which could not wait for a minute, but were still advised to sit tight and wait for help to arrive because of the liability. Just because the dispatcher told him not to follow the person doesn't mean he was legally obligated to follow those orders. Especially as his role in the community. Hope this adds to the discussion.

 

[SomeGuy]

So what is he? I see a lot of people saying he's not white. Well, then he's not Hispanic, either. I guess he's just "other"?

Why does his race matter?

 

[SomeGuy]

Some people will bash me for this but it's simple, as long as anyone can be armed, driving anywhere with his gun because he has a permit, then all of us depend on his judgement on when and how he decides to use it.

This guy had his permit to carry a gun to protect his neighborhood, so the gorvernment gave him permission to use it at his will if he thought something was threatening his peace or the peace of the neighborhood.

He kills a boy and he will even get his gun back, how great.

I am confused. Is that why he got his permit to carry from? I have long wondered when he got his CCW.

 

[SomeGuy]

The government let him have a gun, but they did not appoint him neighborhood watch. Neighborhood watch isn't something you need a gun for or any training or any process to go through. You just join. They have no power to do anything, but spot suspicious activity and report it to the police.

The fact that he had a gun leads me to believe he would eventually use it. The fact that he pursued this boy, leads me to believe he was looking for trouble. I don't think he intended to murder anybody, but that is what he did. If he needed a gun to protect his community (gated if I am not mistaken) then he should not have been doing it in the first place.

If more people learned how to defend themselves with their hands (and I just mean self defense, not become Van Damme) they wouldn't feel the need to walk around with a gun.

Interesting, do you have any statistically information to back that up?

 

[SomeGuy]

I suggest you rethink that part about if someone is following you around. I suggest you leave them alone. They may have a gun.

2nd bold statement.....That's exactly what they are saying. Martin got in Zimmerman's face. A person that thinks they are that bad that they can get in someone's face.....may end up dead.

Technically, Martion would have gotten down in Zimms face since there was a considerable size advantage.