OT: Zimmerman Not Guilty

[Crimsoncrew]

He wasn't arrested because all evidence pointed to self defense. You can't just go around arresting and charging people without having evidence. The only reason he was on trial was because of politics. The only reason people felt white guys can kill black teens is because of the media and al sharpton. That's what they wanted the Narative to be. A white conservative killed a black teen and the cops are helping him get away with it. To bad after somebody actually did their job they found out he was a Hispanic democrat. Ohh and the fact he isn't racist.

Two things. First, I was stating why people were particularly upset in this case, I was not weighing in on whether or not they were right in being upset. Second, they were right in being upset. No evidence? Zimmerman admitted he shot and killed an unarmed teenager. There was a 911 call in which he stated he was following that teenager as he ran away. And he admitted the gun was his. Some of the evidence pointed to self-defense, some of the evidence did not. Not nearly enough was known at the outset to justify releasing Zimmerman when they only needed probable cause to arrest him. He absolutely should have been arrested based on the facts that were known that night. Whether he should have been convicted is a completely different issue, and we don't have to re-hash it at this point.

 

[Crimsoncrew]

I agree the difference between the initial arrest vs. release in the case was a major factor for why it got national attention. The other key factor is that TM wasn't committing any crime. Yet another factor was the media got ahold of it early while it was still developing and it wasn't a case that had been dragging through the courts for years.

My contention is that if there was a brutal white on black r*pe/murder case I'd be very surprised if Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, etal didn't elevate it through the national media. I don't think the issue is under reported black on white crime. The issue is white on black crime is over reported and sensationalized.

Here's an interesting article on the stats:

Black America's real problem isn't white racism

There may very well be some truth to that. I can understand - to some extent - where Sharpton, Jackson, etc. are coming from given the history of crimes against blacks going unreported or underreported or unprosecuted (I think at least one of those is a real word...). But I agree they often jump to conclusions without all the facts and can obscure the real issues that almost always surround cases like this.

 

[NinerSickness]

There may very well be some truth to that. I can understand - to some extent - where Sharpton, Jackson, etc. are coming from given the history of crimes against blacks going unreported or underreported or unprosecuted

That's exactly what it is now though: history. The pendulum has fully swung the other way in that area by now. Sharpton & Jackson are trying to convince people it's still like that when it's not.

 

[MHSL82]

Two things. First, I was stating why people were particularly upset in this case, I was not weighing in on whether or not they were right in being upset. Second, they were right in being upset. No evidence? Zimmerman admitted he shot and killed an unarmed teenager. There was a 911 call in which he stated he was following that teenager as he ran away. And he admitted the gun was his. Some of the evidence pointed to self-defense, some of the evidence did not. Not nearly enough was known at the outset to justify releasing Zimmerman when they only needed probable cause to arrest him. He absolutely should have been arrested based on the facts that were known that night. Whether he should have been convicted is a completely different issue, and we don't have to re-hash it at this point.

Just want to clarify importance of the word unarmed. Is this because an unarmed person would not present an adequate level of fear in order to invoke self-defense? Or are you referring to the fact that he couldn't fight back? Because I feel in some issues being unarmed was irrelevant where in other issues, it might be more relevant. But in both situations, people use that as an argument. It's like an emotional thing.

Zimmerman followed him without any thought of him being armed or unarmed. I think that one can be suspicious and or guilty of something (and noticed) with or without a weapon and with or without a weapon, they shouldn't be followed. Just reported. If he was in fact beaten and afraid of his life, the fact that he wasn't armed wasn't relevant. At that point, he could not use the weapon as a deterrent to further beating.

I believe he should not have followed him, but that would've been true if he were armed or unarmed. He should only report to the police in either case. Now if he had a gun, and Zimmerman saw it, that would strengthen the self-defense but not change the fact that he should've left it to the police.

I understand that we cannot take Zimmerman for his word, but if it is true that both went for the gun, then him being unarmed was irrelevant. However, I don't necessarily believe him and I hated the musical Chicago.

As for the repeated fact that he was 17 years old, that is irrelevant to me. Not saying it's irrelevant to the case, just to me. The sad part was that he was someone's son and that regardless of whether he was a good person, the way it was supposed to be handled, by the police, didn't happen because Zimmerman felt it fit to follow him instead. And that would've been true regardless of age. 17-year-olds can be a threat or they could be not a threat. Doesn't matter the age. Police are supposed to handle that, doesn't matter whether he's 17 years old or whether he's armed or whether Zimmermann really really really thought he was about person. Now all the evidence that we have is that Zimmerman was wrong. But that wasn't really relevant to the age. I think Zimmerman would've gone after him if you did older too.

But the 17-year-old is an emotional thing. If I had to lose a kid, I'd want him to be much older than that. No matter the age it would be the hardest thing in the world. But that's not relevant to the case - except when determining the appropriateness of his reaction to Zimmerman and what he must've felt. An older person could handle it better than a younger person.

Please don't jump on me, I will explain anything that you have wrong with this when I get home.

 

[MHSL82]

Upon second thought, I want to delete the whole post above. But I can't so disregard if you can. If not, I'll handle it. I didn't mean spout off or anything. I don't think what I think is relevant or can be adequately explained in a way that doesn't sound too rash. Apologies if I sounded like that.

 

[Kinzu]

Kinzu are you now racist for searching out and posting a black on white crime in this forum?

I didn't really search it out. One of my friends on Facebook shared the story after someone on theirs had shared it a couple of weeks ago. I only posted it after seeing this thread was some how still alive and made me think of this story.

So the Facebook post talked about his penis being cutoff and her boobs being chopped off, but after looking into the facts those parts of the story seem to be embellished for shock value. He was raped though and then shot execution style before they poured gasoline on him and set him a fire. She was raped over the course of several days in all ways you could have sex with a living body. Her throat was damaged from oral and her lower region badly damage from being beating. They also made her swallow bleach either to try and destroy evidence or just because the torture she endured was not enough. They finally put her in a trash bag and she suffocated to death.

When you read up on the case it's just mind boggling how little attention it got. I mean the story is like straight out of a horror movie.

I mean if what happened with Zimmerman and Martin is worth of a 24/7 media circus how was this story mostly kept off national news? I think in today's social setting the term racism gets overused a lot. Things today are no where near what they were 40+ years ago. There is a lot more equality between races today than ever, but we let things like Zimmerman obscure our view and bring up old feelings that will still take many more decades to completely abolish.

Hate crimes will always exist because sadly psychotic people will always walk the earth. I don't think they commit these horrible acts just because they hate the color of someone's skin anymore though as much as they do just because the color of your skin makes it easier for them to justify their actions. The fact is your skin color had little to do with the fact that they were messed up and prone to such a violent act anyway. They simple believe their actions to be ok because they did it to someone not of their race. It's like the kid in the neighborhood that tortures bugs or even worst small animals. Their is not a lot different between that kid and someone who commits a hate crime. The kid is able to justify what he does because well they are just bugs or it was just the neighbors stupid dog that barks to much. A person that commits a hate crime will look at it as your skin color put your beneath them, and that makes what they are doing ok.

If we woke up tomorrow and were all the same race it would not change the people walking around full of hate and ideas of harming others. They would still find a way to justify their hatred be it the color of someone's hair or eyes or the clothes you wear.

I do think it's pretty lousy of the media and these civil right groups to keep throwing fuel on the fire though to remind society we are different any chance they get. We're not going back to the days of flaming crosses in the front yard no matter how much the media seems to love the idea of it.

 

[Crimsoncrew]

Upon second thought, I want to delete the whole post above. But I can't so disregard if you can. If not, I'll handle it. I didn't mean spout off or anything. I don't think what I think is relevant or can be adequately explained in a way that doesn't sound too rash. Apologies if I sounded like that.

Kind of skimmed it anyway. I'm just listing the facts that were indisputable that night. The fact that Martin was unarmed doesn't void a self-defense claim, but it is relevant to one IMO. The fact that he was 17 doesn't have all that much bearing as that could go either way (more or less likely to run vs. fight).

 

[spacedoodoopistol]

Because I feel in some issues being unarmed was irrelevant where in other issues, it might be more relevant. But in both situations, people use that as an argument. It's like an emotional thing.

To most people, both "unarmed" and "17 years old" are relevant tangible factors, rather than emotional irrationality. Martin being armed would have given Zimmerman's perception of a threat some credibility, and would have made his claim of fearing for his life somewhat less of a joke. Martin being a kid reflects on a bunch of aspects of the case, including the mental, physical and emotional states of the respective parties. There are legitimate, tangible reasons laws usually treat 17 year olds as minors, rather than adults.

 

[NinerSickness]

There are legitimate, tangible reasons laws usually treat 17 year olds as minors, rather than adults.

Assault is not one of them.

 

[MHSL82]

To most people, both "unarmed" and "17 years old" are relevant tangible factors, rather than emotional irrationality. Martin being armed would have given Zimmerman's perception of a threat some credibility, and would have made his claim of fearing for his life somewhat less of a joke. Martin being a kid reflects on a bunch of aspects of the case, including the mental, physical and emotional states of the respective parties. There are legitimate, tangible reasons laws usually treat 17 year olds as minors, rather than adults.

In my novel, I did say that very thing. I know that if he had seen a weapon that would make it stronger but the claims in this case did not have much to do with him being armed or unarmed. Zimmerman didn't know that he was armed or unarmed, necessarily. So he's claiming that he was attacked by an (later known) unarmed person and he defended himself by using a gun.

Those who claim that being unarmed was relevant sound like they are making it out as if Zimmerman knew he didn't have a weapon and shot him without mercy without being attacked and the only way to fear ones life or be killed is with a weapon or everyone without a weapon is innocent. We don't know if he was attacked or whether it happened another way, because we don't have Martin's testimony unfortunately. I mean, to say, if he were armed Zimmerman would have a better case. True, if Zimmerman knew he had a gun. He didn't know he had a gun in either case. But also that's like saying well if the facts were entirely different than they were (a brandishing by Martin)… There's enough under the current facts to tell that Zimmerman was wrong. Saying unarmed under the current facts to me doesn't add anything. That's just my opinion. Being 17 doesn't affect the victim as far as the law concerned for him as a victim. Being shot is being shot. Doesn't matter the age. It would matter if he would've the offender. It does affect whether we feel bad for him.

 

[Rvnight18]

Two things. First, I was stating why people were particularly upset in this case, I was not weighing in on whether or not they were right in being upset. Second, they were right in being upset. No evidence? Zimmerman admitted he shot and killed an unarmed teenager. There was a 911 call in which he stated he was following that teenager as he ran away. And he admitted the gun was his. Some of the evidence pointed to self-defense, some of the evidence did not. Not nearly enough was known at the outset to justify releasing Zimmerman when they only needed probable cause to arrest him. He absolutely should have been arrested based on the facts that were known that night. Whether he should have been convicted is a completely different issue, and we don't have to re-hash it at this point.

What evidence? The fact he admitted he shot TM? Yea, he said in self defense. And the only eye witness said the same thing. Yes he said it was his gun, a registered gun that he has the right to use if he feels his life is in danger.

Look I am not happy with how that night turned out. I wish GZ never got out of his GD car. But he didn't break any laws doing that. He can follow, as can you, somebody you find suspicious. But the physical evidence backs up GZ and the eye witness' claim that he was attacked by TM and that is when the physical confrontation started. And if he felt his life was in danger, then he has the right to make that choice. You might not agree with the laws, but until they get changed, they are what they are.

 

[MHSL82]

In other words, self-defense only applies to when he fears his life. Not whether he should've been there in the first place. The stand your ground law does not apply either to whether he should've followed him or not. If he is on the ground being beat, at that point, it doesn't matter if he's armed or not, if he believes that he's going to die. Whether or not he was going to die is not relevant. Again, this doesn't apply to following him.

 

[EaseUrStorm]

I didn't really search it out. One of my friends on Facebook shared the story after someone on theirs had shared it a couple of weeks ago. I only posted it after seeing this thread was some how still alive and made me think of this story.

So the Facebook post talked about his penis being cutoff and her boobs being chopped off, but after looking into the facts those parts of the story seem to be embellished for shock value. He was raped though and then shot execution style before they poured gasoline on him and set him a fire. She was raped over the course of several days in all ways you could have sex with a living body. Her throat was damaged from oral and her lower region badly damage from being beating. They also made her swallow bleach either to try and destroy evidence or just because the torture she endured was not enough. They finally put her in a trash bag and she suffocated to death.

When you read up on the case it's just mind boggling how little attention it got. I mean the story is like straight out of a horror movie.

I mean if what happened with Zimmerman and Martin is worth of a 24/7 media circus how was this story mostly kept off national news? I think in today's social setting the term racism gets overused a lot. Things today are no where near what they were 40+ years ago. There is a lot more equality between races today than ever, but we let things like Zimmerman obscure our view and bring up old feelings that will still take many more decades to completely abolish.

Hate crimes will always exist because sadly psychotic people will always walk the earth. I don't think they commit these horrible acts just because they hate the color of someone's skin anymore though as much as they do just because the color of your skin makes it easier for them to justify their actions. The fact is your skin color had little to do with the fact that they were messed up and prone to such a violent act anyway. They simple believe their actions to be ok because they did it to someone not of their race. It's like the kid in the neighborhood that tortures bugs or even worst small animals. Their is not a lot different between that kid and someone who commits a hate crime. The kid is able to justify what he does because well they are just bugs or it was just the neighbors stupid dog that barks to much. A person that commits a hate crime will look at it as your skin color put your beneath them, and that makes what they are doing ok.

If we woke up tomorrow and were all the same race it would not change the people walking around full of hate and ideas of harming others. They would still find a way to justify their hatred be it the color of someone's hair or eyes or the clothes you wear.

I do think it's pretty lousy of the media and these civil right groups to keep throwing fuel on the fire though to remind society we are different any chance they get. We're not going back to the days of flaming crosses in the front yard no matter how much the media seems to love the idea of it.

Good post. When I posed that question it was to point out the absurdity. When the race card is played, the logical response is to find similar cases the other way around and see the result. But now because you did that suddenly you are racist. Absurd.

That got me on the tangent of thinking how so many shocking cases don't get national attention. The case was so disturbing but someone said in the comment section well this case bad, but it's nothing compared to so and so case. I didn't bother looking into that other one because it's just too much for a Monday, but very few probably heard of that other case either.

So that got me thinking that the shock value cases aren't good for mainstream national attention. They're like cult horror movies that don't get a wide audience. The best mainstream cases either have to be like a school/batman shooting with lots of people dead that can't be ignored, or a "PG-13" vs. an "R" rated case that borders the edge of political lines. If you watch news in other counties they will show close-up frames of wars with crazy stuff going on, but you get a broader detached distanced view of wars through the US media.

 

[geneh_33]

You guys are still talking about this case? Sheesh.

 

[Rvnight18]

Pure comedy. Politics.....and well, the fact that he shot an unarmed 17 year old a few doors from his house. Other than that, they had nothing! LOL.

Anyway, along those lines I'd say another big factor in the hype and circus that enveloped this shooting and trial is that it was basically a Rorschach Test, there were enough unknowns and disputed details that people could generally fill in the blank with whatever assumptions they work with. So for some people that meant an angry black thug was obviously responsible, and for others it meant a casually-racist nincompoop made a bunch of bad decisions and someone ended up dead. Enough mystery for both sides - and a variety of intermediate theories - to justify their worldview.

How is it funny? A 16 moth investigation was held to find out if there was racism involved. None was found. Yet political people kept saying it was racial. With no evidence to support it. Just like you wrote in your last paragraph. "So for some people that meant an angry black thug was obviously responsible" meaning you are racist and you thought he had it coming, or this "for others it meant a casually-racist nincompoop made a bunch of bad decisions and someone ended up dead". Either way you are inserting racism when the FBI found none in 16 moths worth of investigation. Actually found the exact opposite.
Yet you sit here and discard the facts and call what I wrote "pure comedy"?

 

[Crimsoncrew]

What evidence? The fact he admitted he shot TM? Yea, he said in self defense. And the only eye witness said the same thing. Yes he said it was his gun, a registered gun that he has the right to use if he feels his life is in danger.

Look I am not happy with how that night turned out. I wish GZ never got out of his GD car. But he didn't break any laws doing that. He can follow, as can you, somebody you find suspicious. But the physical evidence backs up GZ and the eye witness' claim that he was attacked by TM and that is when the physical confrontation started. And if he felt his life was in danger, then he has the right to make that choice. You might not agree with the laws, but until they get changed, they are what they are.

Do you understand the standard that is required for arrest? It is very low. This is not even debatable. Zimmerman followed someone on a public walkway, while carrying a gun, and shot and killed him. Unless there were 20 people standing there for the entire encounter who all said, "He was just defending himself, the other guy is 100% to blame," he absolutely should have been arrested. The evidence that night was, AT BEST, muddled. There was not and is not a single witness to how Martin and Zimmerman ultimately came face-to-face, or who threw the first punch. Even the eyewitness testimony that Martin was on top of Zimmerman is circumstantial without a great ID. There is not a judge in this country who would find, given those circumstances, that the police lacked probable cause to arrest. Given that someone lost his life, it is inconceivable Zimmerman was not arrested.

Under the laws of Florida, he may not have committed a crime. It took a long trial and lengthy jury deliberation to establish that by a FAR higher standard than the standard required for arrest.

 

[EaseUrStorm]

What evidence? The fact he admitted he shot TM? Yea, he said in self defense. And the only eye witness said the same thing. Yes he said it was his gun, a registered gun that he has the right to use if he feels his life is in danger.

Look I am not happy with how that night turned out. I wish GZ never got out of his GD car. But he didn't break any laws doing that. He can follow, as can you, somebody you find suspicious. But the physical evidence backs up GZ and the eye witness' claim that he was attacked by TM and that is when the physical confrontation started. And if he felt his life was in danger, then he has the right to make that choice. You might not agree with the laws, but until they get changed, they are what they are.

This will inevitably go around in circles again, but the key factors that got him off of the charge is that 1. he was on the phone with a police dispatcher right before it happened 2. the physical evidence supported his story that he got attacked 3. he had an eye witness supporting his story. Without these pieces to the puzzle he gets charged.

This case was an anomaly that bordered political lines, and got blown up into something that it shouldn't have been.

 

[Crimsoncrew]

What evidence? The fact he admitted he shot TM? Yea, he said in self defense. And the only eye witness said the same thing. Yes he said it was his gun, a registered gun that he has the right to use if he feels his life is in danger.

Look I am not happy with how that night turned out. I wish GZ never got out of his GD car. But he didn't break any laws doing that. He can follow, as can you, somebody you find suspicious. But the physical evidence backs up GZ and the eye witness' claim that he was attacked by TM and that is when the physical confrontation started. And if he felt his life was in danger, then he has the right to make that choice. You might not agree with the laws, but until they get changed, they are what they are.

Sorry, I've just got to return to this. Who gives one shit what he said? I'm going to throw something out here: criminals lie. Is George Zimmerman a criminal? Perhaps not. But the police damn well better have entered the situation assuming that he was, and being distrustful of everything he said. It is the job of the police to investigate crimes, not to determine ultimate guilt or innocence. There was staggering evidence that a crime had been committed, and some evidence suggesting a defense might apply. Any police officer worth his salt would have arrested Zimmerman.

 

[Crimsoncrew]

How is it funny? A 16 moth investigation was held to find out if there was racism involved. None was found. Yet political people kept saying it was racial. With no evidence to support it. Just like you wrote in your last paragraph. "So for some people that meant an angry black thug was obviously responsible" meaning you are racist and you thought he had it coming, or this "for others it meant a casually-racist nincompoop made a bunch of bad decisions and someone ended up dead". Either way you are inserting racism when the FBI found none in 16 moths worth of investigation. Actually found the exact opposite.
Yet you sit here and discard the facts and call what I wrote "pure comedy"?

The FBI determined that Zimmerman was not a racist who killed Martin because he was black. The perhaps more troubling aspect is that Zimmerman is biased - as pretty much everyone is - and may have assumed a black kid was up to no good when he possibly/likely would have believed a white kid was just walking home. I don't know that many people believe that George Zimmerman set out to kill a black kid that night. The racial component is that he might not have set out at all if it weren't a black kid. We'll never know, and it doesn't go toward the crime. But it's difficult if not impossible to ignore.

 

[TobyTyler]

Sorry, I've just got to return to this. Who gives one shit what he said? I'm going to throw something out here: criminals lie. Is George Zimmerman a criminal? Perhaps not. But the police damn well better have entered the situation assuming that he was, and being distrustful of everything he said. It is the job of the police to investigate crimes, not to determine ultimate guilt or innocence. There was staggering evidence that a crime had been committed, and some evidence suggesting a defense might apply. Any police officer worth his salt would have arrested Zimmerman.

LOL!