OT: Zimmerman Not Guilty

[Dodub]

Do you think they would have an easier time convicting Zimmerman of stalking, or Martin of burglary?

Lol ouch

Also by definition GZ did stalk TM, Robotic doesn't read definitions or he would see that. He saw that he was wrong about the whole thing so he tried to divert the conversation with his idiotic statement of them trying to get a stalking conviction on GZ.

Same weak tactic that Cazic attempted to use time and again on the ESPN board.

 

[imac_21]

I'm sorry but if robberies are happening in my neighborhood, and they are believed to be caused by certain looking people be it a description or race, sex, height, or weight, and I see someone fitting the bill wandering around I'm certainly going to be suspicious. Now then is that profiling or common sense? If crimes were occurring in the area and believed to be caused by black men why shouldn't Zimmerman be suspicious after spotting one walking around at night? Robberies happening in the area gives him a clear reason to suspect anyone wandering around at night.

He wasn't suspicious of Trayvon because of a stereotype on being black. He was suspicious because of prior events that had been occurring in the area.

I have no problem with Zimmerman being suspicious. My issues are with how he went about his actions as a result of his suspicions.

Those (I'm not singling anyone out, including Kinzu who I quoted) trying to justify Zimmerman's actions that night are extremely flawed. He played a greater role in creating the situation that resulted in Martin's death than Martin did. The only way to argue otherwise is to state that Martin should not have been walking in that neighbourhood at night.

I think a solid case could be made that Zimmerman did more things wrong that he did right. Frankly, based on his actions in this event I think he can safely be labeled an idiot. From the moment it was SUGGESTED (or, he was told) not to pursue, I don't think you can say any decision he made was the right decision.

Martin shouldn't have gone back to confront him.

Zimmerman should never have gotten out of his vehicle, and everything he chose to do or not do after that was the wrong decision. It's like he lost 20 coin tosses in a row.

 

[RoboticDreams]

Do you think they would have an easier time convicting Zimmerman of stalking, or Martin of burglary?

Obviously stalking. Martin wasn't proved of committing burglary. That's the debate though, isn't it. It was suspicion not proof. If that were the case then Zimmerman would never have been brought to trial.

 

[Dodub]

Man I haven't beaten up on someone like that in a long time, I almost feel bad about it. But it is 12:30 and I'm gonna head to bed.

Nice to talk Mac, Crims, Sick, Tall and the other regulars that were in on this; it has been a while but I'm gonna try and start getting on more often.

For Robotic, you have a lot to learn about debating and how these boards work. Watch Mac, Crims, Sick, etc. and watch how they do it. They address the points of their opponent with facts and not opinions. They also aren't afraid to admit when they are wrong. Watch and learn, we've all been doing this for a long long time.

 

[RoboticDreams]

Lol ouch

Also by definition GZ did stalk TM, Robotic doesn't read definitions or he would see that. He saw that he was wrong about the whole thing so he tried to divert the conversation with his idiotic statement of them trying to get a stalking conviction on GZ.

Same weak tactic that Cazic attempted to use time and again on the ESPN board.

I'm merely trying to make a point. You are claiming Trayvon was stalked and you're using definitions to back your claim. There are actually laws that prohibit stalking and none were invoked in this case.

 

[imac_21]

Again, fair point. The problem is, we have no way of knowing what Martin would've done had Zimmerman questioned him. We do know that if Trayvon had stayed at his dads he wouldn't be dead.

That's true. But I find it hard to accept that if Zimmerman, without ever getting out of the vehicle, pulled up next to Martin, introduced himself as a member of the neighbourhood watch, and asked what Martin was doing that Martin would be alive.

I see no reason for Martin to attack him in that situation. He can feel discriminated against, disheartened at the state of the community/city/state/country because he may feel that he was questioned solely because of his race, he may be angry. But it's very difficult to attack someone when you're on foot and they're in a running vehicle.

However, he would be experiencing any of those (or other) feelings, and I'm sure his family (and probably the Zimmermans too) would love to have Trayvon feeling that he was discriminated against because he's a black teenager this summer.

If the above situation did occur and Martin attacked Zimmerman anyway, then I would feel much better about a justified/Stand your Ground defense claim for Zimmerman.

 

[Kinzu]

Do you think they would have an easier time convicting Zimmerman of stalking, or Martin of burglary?

Neither. Clearly Martin was not robbing the neighborhood otherwise you would think evidence would have come up by now. At the same time getting a juror to convict Zimmerman of stalking Martin for simply being suspicious of him as one of the potential robbers is probably more of a long shot than the manslaughter charges.

Both Martin and Zimmerman had a right to what they were doing. Martin had a right to be outside after sunset in the neighborhood. Zimmerman had a right to be suspicious of a lone person wandering said neighborhood after sunset. You can't really fault either part for how the whole thing started. The troubling part is how did they end up face to face? How did the gun become involved in all of this? Did Zimmerman chase Martin down? Did Martin circle around and confront Zimmerman? Did Zimmerman at any point know Martin was not up to any wrong doing? Did the two of them even get a chance to explain themselves? Did Martin know that Zimmerman was not really a threat to him? Sadly these are all questions we will probably never know the answers to.

 

[imac_21]

I think he's referring to me saying that a middle class white guy saying a black man is worsening race relations by calling attention to race is kind of thoughtless. To be clear, I'm not calling anyone racist under these circumstances, just thoughtless about the context of making such a statement. I think that given the racial history of this country, particularly in the criminal justice system, calling attention to racial aspects of a criminal case should be looked at thoughtfully, even if it turns out to be wrong, without people getting so offended that they think it's "worsening race relations."

Possibly, but here's the first sentence of Sick's quote:

The issue isn't whether racism exists or not. The issue is calling something or someone racist when it or he / she is nothing of the sort.

 

[RoboticDreams]

Man I haven't beaten up on someone like that in a long time, I almost feel bad about it. But it is 12:30 and I'm gonna head to bed.

Nice to talk Mac, Crims, Sick, Tall and the other regulars that were in on this; it has been a while but I'm gonna try and start getting on more often.

For Robotic, you have a lot to learn about debating and how these boards work. Watch Mac, Crims, Sick, etc. and watch how they do it. They address the points of their opponent with facts and not opinions. They also aren't afraid to admit when they are wrong. Watch and learn, we've all been doing this for a long long time.

I'm asking that you provide evidence and not personal opinion. You can post definitions all you want, that means nothing if there were no charges of stalking. You're injecting opinion instead of fact. I'm assuming that went over your head.

 

[imac_21]

Obviously stalking. Martin wasn't proved of committing burglary. That's the debate though, isn't it. It was suspicion not proof. If that were the case then Zimmerman would never have been brought to trial.

So Zimmerman acted out of the belief that Martin may be a burglar?

I want everyone reading this to put yourself in Zimmerman's shoes.

You are driving through a neighbourhood (upper middle class or better) as a member (captain?) of the Neighbourhood Watch.

It's fairly late at night and there has been a series of burglaries, all of which have been committed by a person or people that fit the same description.

You see someone you don't recognize walking down the street that fits the description of the burglar(s). I don't really care what races you want to apply to the neighbourhood or the burglars.

You are 5'7, 185 pounds. The person you see is 5'11. You can't accurately gauge his weight because of his clothing.

You follow him briefly in your vehicle and call 911. The 911 operators tells you not to get out and pursue.
______________________

Now it's your turn. What do you do from there?

Zimmerman, apparently, is not guilty of any crimes. However, he's clearly an absolute idiot and a killer.

 

[dredinis21]

Neither. Clearly Martin was not robbing the neighborhood otherwise you would think evidence would have come up by now. At the same time getting a juror to convict Zimmerman of stalking Martin for simply being suspicious of him as one of the potential robbers is probably more of a long shot than the manslaughter charges.

Both Martin and Zimmerman had a right to what they were doing. Martin had a right to be outside after sunset in the neighborhood. Zimmerman had a right to be suspicious of a lone person wandering said neighborhood after sunset. You can't really fault either part for how the whole thing started. The troubling part is how did they end up face to face? How did the gun become involved in all of this? Did Zimmerman chase Martin down? Did Martin circle around and confront Zimmerman? Did Zimmerman at any point know Martin was not up to any wrong doing? Did the two of them even get a chance to explain themselves? Did Martin know that Zimmerman was not really a threat to him? Sadly these are all questions we will probably never know the answers to.

I totally disagree with your assessment of the bolded. GZ was on the phone with police, obviously following TM. He was told by dispatch to cease following TM. He had a decision and he made a poor one. He decided that following TM by car was not enough. He decided to follow him on foot. The insistence to follow TM after being told by authorities not to can be proven to be stalking much easier to prove then manslaughter, although not by much IMO.

 

[dredinis21]

So Zimmerman acted out of the belief that Martin may be a burglar?

I want everyone reading this to put yourself in Zimmerman's shoes.

You are driving through a neighbourhood (upper middle class or better) as a member (captain?) of the Neighbourhood Watch.

It's fairly late at night and there has been a series of burglaries, all of which have been committed by a person or people that fit the same description.

You see someone you don't recognize walking down the street that fits the description of the burglar(s). I don't really care what races you want to apply to the neighbourhood or the burglars.

You are 5'7, 185 pounds. The person you see is 5'11. You can't accurately gauge his weight because of his clothing.

You follow him briefly in your vehicle and call 911. The 911 operators tells you not to get out and pursue.
______________________

Now it's your turn. What do you do from there?

Zimmerman, apparently, is not guilty of any crimes. However, he's clearly an absolute idiot and a killer.

GREAT POST Mac!

 

[yossarian]

Possibly, but here's the first sentence of Sick's quote:

Quote:
The issue isn't whether racism exists or not. The issue is calling something or someone racist when it or he / she is nothing of the sort.


Yeah, that was a little out of left field. I haven't seen that in 36 and counting pages of posts.

 

[imac_21]

I'm merely trying to make a point. You are claiming Trayvon was stalked and you're using definitions to back your claim. There are actually laws that prohibit stalking and none were invoked in this case.

Here's the core of this issue. You are using "stalking" in the legal sense. DoDub is using it in the general sense. Zimmerman was very much stalking Martin in the same way that a lion stalks a zebra. The general definition of stalking cannot be used as the legal definition.

It would be nice if the law used a different term for "stalking" to make this more clear. Much like Zimmerman killed Martin, but did not murder him. Murder has a legal aspect to it. Stalking does, but also does not, have a legal component.

 

[RoboticDreams]

So Zimmerman acted out of the belief that Martin may be a burglar?

I want everyone reading this to put yourself in Zimmerman's shoes.

You are driving through a neighbourhood (upper middle class or better) as a member (captain?) of the Neighbourhood Watch.

It's fairly late at night and there has been a series of burglaries, all of which have been committed by a person or people that fit the same description.

You see someone you don't recognize walking down the street that fits the description of the burglar(s). I don't really care what races you want to apply to the neighbourhood or the burglars.

You are 5'7, 185 pounds. The person you see is 5'11. You can't accurately gauge his weight because of his clothing.

You follow him briefly in your vehicle and call 911. The 911 operators tells you not to get out and pursue.
______________________

Now it's your turn. What do you do from there?

Zimmerman, apparently, is not guilty of any crimes. However, he's clearly an absolute idiot and a killer.

Not true. Dispatch asked him if he was following Martin and he said yes. They then suggested that they didn't need him to do that. They also continued to ask him about Trayvons whereabouts. As I've stated previously, how can he know Trayvons whereabouts without seeing him?

 

[yossarian]

I think what really bothers me in reading this thread is not that people think he should have been acquitted (which is not the same as saying he's innocent by the way), it's that people think it's an outrage he was even charged with a crime and brought to trial. Yes, this may have been a difficult case to win -- but for those who don't work in the criminal justice system here's a bit of information -- prosecutors try "difficult" cases all the time, sometimes they even know they are difficult cases. Those cases get tried because there is a question and it should be up to a jury to decide the issue, not just the prosecuting attorney. People are acting like a prosecuting attorney should only try slam dunk cases and officers should't arrest someone unless they guarantee there will be a conviction and that just isn't the case. I've had prosecutors admit to me that their case was not as strong as they would like, but they felt that there was enough evidence there to convict and if my client was going to get a get out of jail free card it would be from the jury, not the prosecuting attorney. That's the way it works, it's not all that unusual.

 

[imac_21]

Neither. Clearly Martin was not robbing the neighborhood otherwise you would think evidence would have come up by now. At the same time getting a juror to convict Zimmerman of stalking Martin for simply being suspicious of him as one of the potential robbers is probably more of a long shot than the manslaughter charges.

Both Martin and Zimmerman had a right to what they were doing. Martin had a right to be outside after sunset in the neighborhood. Zimmerman had a right to be suspicious of a lone person wandering said neighborhood after sunset. You can't really fault either part for how the whole thing started. The troubling part is how did they end up face to face? How did the gun become involved in all of this? Did Zimmerman chase Martin down? Did Martin circle around and confront Zimmerman? Did Zimmerman at any point know Martin was not up to any wrong doing? Did the two of them even get a chance to explain themselves? Did Martin know that Zimmerman was not really a threat to him? Sadly these are all questions we will probably never know the answers to.

They did both have a right to do what they were doing. I haven't disputed that.

How did they come face to face? My understanding is that Martin eluded Zimmerman and came back to confront him. That's the easy answer that ignores the fact that Martin was a human and not a robot or character in a video game. He had emotions and would at times act on them. I think we can all acknowledge that in tense situation we can all get emotional and make poor decisions.

An alternative answer is that Zimmerman caused the face by face through a series of poor decisions:
1. Ignoring the advice of the 911 operator and continuing to pursue Martin.
2. Getting out of his vehicle to conduct a foot pursuit.
3. At no point while following Martin did he choose to speak to him.

To me, the 3rd poor decision on Zimmerman's part is the biggest. The first two are both results of suspicion. I can understand that. I might even do the same thing in his shoes. However, I would absolutely address Martin and ask what he is doing. Now, it may come down to how comfortable one is in the situation. I'm a high school teacher in an area with a (relatively) high crime rate with significant drug issues and low socio-economic standing. I interact with "thugs" that I know have committed various crimes on a daily basis and am comfortable doing so. I know how to talk to them.Zimmerman may not.

However, by not speaking to Martin (if he was uncomfortable talking to a kid who fit the description of a burglar and had 4 inches on him face to face, he could have done it from his car), he created a situation where Martin was uncomfortable, and very possibly (probably?) worried about his own safety.

To expound on that a bit, earlier in the thread it someone (jarrod I believe) was posting some things that go to the character of Trayvon Martin (tweets, facebook messages etc) that suggest he was into drugs and looking to get a gun. This indicates that Martin may have been hanging out, or at least interacting, with some shady people. As he walks down the street, alone, late at night he is followed by a man in a vehicle. The man gets out of the vehicle to continue the pursuit while talking on the phone (about Martin, though he likely couldn't hear the conversation). This man continues to follow him, but at no point says anything.

I think this justifies a fear for his safety on Martin's part. To this point Martin has done nothing wrong. He, from what I understand, though most of my knowledge on the case comes from this thread so I'm being purposefully vague, eludes Zimmerman and returns to confront him. There's Martin's only mistake.

Unless you consider being a black teenager out at night in a somewhat affluent neighbourhood to be a mistake.

 

[RoboticDreams]

I think what really bothers me in reading this thread is not that people think he should have been acquitted (which is not the same as saying he's innocent by the way), it's that people think it's an outrage he was even charged with a crime and brought to trial. Yes, this may have been a difficult case to win -- but for those who don't work in the criminal justice system here's a bit of information -- prosecutors try "difficult" cases all the time, sometimes they even know they are difficult cases. Those cases get tried because there is a question and it should be up to a jury to decide the issue, not just the prosecuting attorney. People are acting like a prosecuting attorney should only try slam dunk cases and officers should't arrest someone unless they guarantee there will be a conviction and that just isn't the case. I've had prosecutors admit to me that their case was not as strong as they would like, but they felt that there was enough evidence there to convict and if my client was going to get a get out of jail free card it would be from the jury, not the prosecuting attorney. That's the way it works, it's not all that unusual.

They knew they had no case. They were made to prosecute this strictly off media bias. There was never a case but not litigating against Zimmerman would have showed racism because of the media driven hyperbole.

 

[yossarian]

They knew they had no case. They were made to prosecute this strictly off media bias. There was never a case but not litigating against Zimmerman would have showed racism because of the media driven hyperbole.

The fact that there is such a debate going on, both here and across the country shows that there was a "case", maybe weak, but a case nonetheless. If you got a different set of jurors who knows, he might have been convicted.

 

[erckm510]

I think what really bothers me in reading this thread is not that people think he should have been acquitted (which is not the same as saying he's innocent by the way), it's that people think it's an outrage he was even charged with a crime and brought to trial. Yes, this may have been a difficult case to win -- but for those who don't work in the criminal justice system here's a bit of information -- prosecutors try "difficult" cases all the time, sometimes they even know they are difficult cases. Those cases get tried because there is a question and it should be up to a jury to decide the issue, not just the prosecuting attorney. People are acting like a prosecuting attorney should only try slam dunk cases and officers should't arrest someone unless they guarantee there will be a conviction and that just isn't the case. I've had prosecutors admit to me that their case was not as strong as they would like, but they felt that there was enough evidence there to convict and if my client was going to get a get out of jail free card it would be from the jury, not the prosecuting attorney. That's the way it works, it's not all that unusual.

I agree. The murder charge was a very difficult thing to prove. A manslaughter charge however? That would have been quite easier.