George Zimmerman Found Not Guilty

[Lord Raven]

It was definitely a grand misunderstanding at best, because what was Zimmerman to do in that situation? Martin was doing exactly what the burglars throughout the neighborhood were doing (peeking into windows and all that). Dude running only catered to Zimmerman's suspicions. That's Zimmerman's perception; Martin's perception has him being victimized. It's a really weird thing to think about in that sense, but it's hard to call the whole thing racist and it's hard to say Zimmerman was guilty. I wouldn't find it hard to imagine that Martin thought he was doing some weird social justice against a guy who may or may not have been trying to do something to him (concealed weapon or not it's not hard to assume he has one or something similar considering the situation is fishy on both ends anyway).

Edited July 18, 2013 by Lord Raven

[Randa]

You(Rehab) are being very biased about this. Considered from a logical point and not an emotional one it is clear that the one who initated the fight was Martin. Wether it was agravated assault or not doesnt matter. You haven't considered that what Zimmerman said could be remotely true. He followed him and then as was returning to his car was attacked. That is what was said. Don't know if its true. However if we look at the facts and not the speculation we can see that Martin was suspended for a physical altercation with another student. Not the first time it happened. Obviously not a pacifist, but we can tell that from the text messages that show his interest in guns. Nothing to gain from his personality except it completely discredits the media's portrayal of him that he was a harmless dedicated student. He smoked weed. He was speaking of mister Zimmerman in the only racist instance of this whole thing, referring to him as "a creepy ass cracker". I wonder what he thought of this man. I wonder if he jumped to a conclusion and he might share part of the responsibility for what happened.

Edited July 18, 2013 by Randa

[Lord Raven]

And I don't think you're getting his point either. Rehab probably doesn't believe Zimmerman was guilty, he probably believes that the situation could've unraveled differently. Woulda coulda shoulda. Very easy to say justice was served because it was.

The main thing that could be considered racist here is that Martin probably has the "white man tryna get me down" mentality. Not hard to feel that way when you have a white man accusing you of shit (even though he's not intending to be racist- interesting enough, it's probably the fact that he's black that makes him more suspicious simply because the previous burglars that weren't caught were black). Martin was definitely far too aggressive so obviously he is not in the right in this situation, but it's not like a situation like this is unfounded.

[Rehab]

You(Rehab) are being very biased about this. Considered from a logical point and not an emotional one it is clear that the one who initated the fight was Martin. Wether it was agravated assault or not doesnt matter. You haven't considered that what Zimmerman said could be remotely true. He followed him and then as was returning to his car was attacked. That is what was said. Don't know if its true. However if we look at the facts and not the speculation we can see that Martin was suspended for a physical altercation with another student. Not the first time it happened. Obviously not a pacifist, but we can tell that from the text messages that show his interest in guns. Nothing to gain from his personality except it completely discredits the media's portrayal of him that he was a harmless dedicated student. He smoked weed. He was speaking of mister Zimmerman in the only racist instance of this whole thing, referring to him as "a creepy ass cracker". I wonder what he thought of this man. I wonder if he jumped to a conclusion and he might share part of the responsibility for what happened.

I am not saying Martin is blameless. You may want to go back and look.

What I am saying that there is no actual evidence that Martin did anything illegal that night, no proof that he was was any more violent than "got into a fight at school one time" (big fucking deal, I hate violence and I got close to it in high school a couple of times), no actual proof that he started that fight, and certainly no proof that smoking marijuana had anything to do with his character, or that of anybody else's. Part of what makes this whole case so frustrating is that on both sides, there's so little conclusive evidence of anything.

[NICKT™]

People are really racking my head when it comes to this entire case.
I haven't paid much attention to it, just putting that out there, cause I live in Australia and I give little care to what happens outside our borders that doesn't really effect us in any way as a nation. However, due to me being on the internet, I have come across this case several times, due it's nature and media attention.

So with that, I wonder.
As far as my knowledge goes, the young man was walking through a gate community with his head slightly down and a hoodie pulled over, right? Now, I know if I was walking through a town, at night, and came across a hooded person I'd be incredibly startled and begin panicking. The nature of anonymity is more scarier than knowing that which you're facing. So alas, if I was approached by anyone who was not visually obscured, then I would approach them with a lot more rationale. So I can understand from that perspective as to why Zimmerman followed this man, if he did, because suspicions were aroused, more so with previous burglary incidents, putting him on lookout for previously said suspicions.

So tell me, as a person I'm lead to believe was apart of the neighbourhood watch(?), how was he in any wrong to follow someone that seemed suspicious? (Also if what I've read is true, following someone isn't against the law either..)

Not sure where I read this either, it wasn't a stated fact of the case, but it's mentioned in conversations about this case, in that the young man entered into the psychological state of "Fight or flight". Now this I have more or less trouble actually believing. From what I've heard of the young man's character, it paints the idea that the boy loved to fight, or at least partook in the activity on multiple occasions. This alone gives me the impression that his man could have been aggressive and have essentially what I consider to be a light trigger, or to be a loose cannon, in other words, those sort of people who you say one wrong thing and they're all up in your face, puffing out their chests and threatening to bash you. So because of that, the idea of him being scared doesn't really hold ground with me, that his attack wasn't in retaliation, but more so in aggression.

But then again, what do I know. *shrug*

[Blademaster!]

But then again, what do I know. *shrug*

Here's an essential rundown of what happened:

Zimmerman is captain of his neighborhood watch. He was off duty that night and on his way home, when he saw someone acting suspiciously in his gated community. Since there had been a lot of crimes in that community, and the suspect was just walking in the rain, staring into houses, and acting like he was in no rush to get anywhere, Zimmerman called a non emergency line (something he had already done over 50 times that year alone, so typical behavior for him). While on the phone, the "suspect", Trayvon, ran and Zimmerman followed him. Zimmerman was told, after he had already exited his car, that he doesn't need to follow him, and as he had already lost him, he then said he was about to go meet up with the police. According to one of Trayvon's friends who he was on the phone with, Trayvon was hiding near the place where he was staying at this point. What then happens there are no pure 100% facts of but it goes like this:

Procescution:

Zimmerman and Trayvon somehow meet up near Zimmerman's car (away from Trayvon's residence), Zimmerman attacks Trayvon, gets on top of him, Trayvon starts screaming for help, and then Zimmerman shoots him. Or Trayvon attacks him after a slight altercation caused by Zimmerman, gets on top of him beating him up and screaming for help, and gets shot.

Defense

According to Zimmerman, he was walking back to his car, Trayvon approached him, they had a small dialogue, Trayvon attacked him, started beating him MMA style and bashing his head against the concrete, Zimmerman was screaming for help, no one came, so he shot him once and this apparently killed him. Zimmerman also said Trayvon saw his gun, reached for it, and threatened to kill him, but Trayvon had none of his DNA on the gun. However, since it was raining, it was speculated it could have been washed off somehow.

More concrete facts continue here:

There are more witnesses that agreed Zimmerman was on the ground being beaten by Trayvon, and one of the witnesses for the procescution arguing the other way got caught lying on the stand/discredited since they signed an arrest Zimmerman petition on Facebook and then approached the police about info for the case. As far as who was screaming, not enough data is available to be admissable in court, and it was just both sides saying it was the person I support screaming. However, Trayvon's father admited at one point that he didn't recognize the screaming voice, so that might be why the prosecution lost some points there as well. Trayvon only had two noticable injuries on his body, cuts on his knuckles matching that he had attacked someone and the gun shot wound received from very close range, while Zimmerman had injuries matching having been beaten up.

What pretty much caused the case to get thrown out was that:

The intial charge was complete crap and criticized by the legal community, there was much more witness support for Zimmerman (including the police officers at the scene), the prosecution was a shit show where some of their own witnesses ended up helping the defense more than the state, and the prosecution's star witness, Racheal Jeantal (who was on the phone with Trayvon), essentially came across as an idiot seen as not a reliable source of information, said Trayvon described Zimmerman as a "creepy ass cracka" (which also isn't racist to do according to her), and she had been found lying about information about herself twice (her age and why she wasn't at Trayvon's funeral as she was in the hospital). Following someone isn't a crime, let alone grounds for you to attack someone, so if Trayvon was really outside his home and had the chance to just go inside and really did follow back after Zimmerman and attack him first, then it was a case of self defense.

Stupid decisions were made on both sides, but based on the evidence presented at the case, everything Zimmerman did was in line with the law, and a lot of the reason why this case became so big is because there was a lot of disinformation thrown out about the case in the beginning and no charges were filed against Zimmerman (but the police claim they had no evidence to charge him with anything at the time anyway after 5 hours of questioning). People still think Stand Your Ground was a factor in the case which also, but that wasn't used at the trial.

If you want more info, watch the trial (or at least find summaries of key points since it is very long), since you would likely have the qualifications to be a juror in this trial.

[Constable Reggie]

From a personal or objective standpoint. I'd argue that in both cases, but stronger in the former, a moral justice is innately superior but obviously more difficult to reliably define in any given situation.

What makes moral justice innately superior? Take the OJ case, for example. The dude was obviously guilty but due to a shitload of prosecution missteps, he was able to get acquitted. Legal justice and moral justice are clearly at odds here, yet legal justice clearly won. If you could, would you sentence OJ/hypothetical scenario Zimmerman to prison, regardless of the jury verdicts?

I'm not trying to start an argument or anything, I'm just curious what your take on our whole sense of justice in the US is.

[Esau of Isaac]

Martin literally ran from Zimmerman. Zimmerman followed him by both car and foot, and even after Zimmerman lost Martin, their altercation ended up 70 yards from the rear entrance of Martin's house. Though it might've worked out differently if Martin didn't run, and had spoke to Zimmerman earlier, it's understandable that he was spooked, and he was under no obligation to listen to Zimmerman's orders.

I'm not seeing your point. He ran from Zimmerman, and thus Zimmerman stopped following him. He thought that Martin was behaving suspiciously. Martin had no right not to be followed on a public street,. He didn't have any obligation to listen to anything Zimmerman said but he had absolutely no right at any point to engage in hostilities.

Saying Zimmerman was in no way the aggressor is disingenuous. Not the legal aggressor, sure, but if he had just realized he had nothing to pin on Martin and fucked off, Martin wouldn't be dead. That's why it matters that Zimmerman followed him.

What are you even talking about? He wasn't looking to pin anything on Martin. He thought the young man looked suspicious and may have been a burglar. This is weeks after the same neighborhood had been hit and gotten away with it.

What I am saying that there is no actual evidence that Martin did anything illegal that night, no proof that he was was any more violent than "got into a fight at school one time" (big fucking deal, I hate violence and I got close to it in high school a couple of times), no actual proof that he started that fight, and certainly no proof that smoking marijuana had anything to do with his character, or that of anybody else's. Part of what makes this whole case so frustrating is that on both sides, there's so little conclusive evidence of anything.

I suppose it's true that we don't know who really threw the first fight. We do have evidence that substantiates Zimmerman's testimony that he initiated hostilities however. It doesn't prove it but it certainly makes sense given preceding and following events both.

What makes moral justice innately superior? Take the OJ case, for example. The dude was obviously guilty but due to a shitload of prosecution missteps, he was able to get acquitted. Legal justice and moral justice are clearly at odds here, yet legal justice clearly won. If you could, would you sentence OJ/hypothetical scenario Zimmerman to prison, regardless of the jury verdicts?

I'm not trying to start an argument or anything, I'm just curious what your take on our whole sense of justice in the US is.

I don't know enough about the OJ Simpson case to reliably argue based on that event alone, but if a criminal is guilty of a crime and is acquitted through faults of the legal system then I obviously believe they deserve punishment for what they have done. The legal system is in my mind a machine which derives from the ultimate will of the people.

[Rehab]

That Zimmerman ended up so close to Martin's house casts severe doubt on the idea that he stopped following Martin altogether.

Zimmerman's having called Martin a "fucking punk," who "got away," implies that he thought Martin had actually done something worth being caught for. We have nothing to go on in the department of what Martin was doing, other than Zimmerman's opinion, what he has told us of his opinion after the fact, and the conversation he had with the police dispatcher while following Martin. Except, of course, that Martin was caught on camera buying skittles and iced tea from a 7-11, then walked in the direction of his house.

Again, the only evidence that Martin did anything was one person's opinion, and the person to whom it belongs happens to be the one trying to justify why he thought an unarmed teenager, who he ended up killing, was worth following. Zimmerman cannot prove that in so following Martin, he was doing anything but profiling Martin.

Martin would probably have had his own opinion to argue. Since I'm never going to hear his opinion, I don't see why I should care about Zimmerman's.

To my knowledge, I can't prove Zimmerman assaulted Martin once he came within 70 yards of Martin's house. I am not saying I can, though I'll be sure to note nobody can prove Martin assaulted Zimmerman, either. I'm not even saying Zimmerman should have been a slam dunk criminal conviction (much though I'd like to, I'll admit). I'm saying that that night, Zimmerman drove over the full retard line with the Dukes of Hazzard theme playing, and somebody died for it, and personally I hope he gets slapped so hard with a wrongful death suit the Earth fucking moves.

Edited July 18, 2013 by Rehab

[Life]

I really hated Zimmerman for being a cold hearted racist piece of shit who followed around that young "black looking guy" and who gunned him down in cold blood.

Yes, he gunned down a man who gave him a concussion and a broken nose in cold blood.

Zimmerman's injuries are proof of self-defense. His phone call to emergency response was before the incident. I'm still not seeing murder here. Manslaughter is possible IF Zimmerman started the fight (nobody knows) but second degree murder can and will never stick.

Edited July 18, 2013 by Tricky Dick

[Blademaster!]

Zimmerman's having called Martin a "fucking punk," who "got away," implies that he thought Martin had actually done something worth being caught for. We have nothing to go on in the department of what Martin was doing, other than Zimmerman's opinion, what he has told us of his opinion after the fact, and the conversation he had with the police dispatcher while following Martin.

Again, the only evidence that Martin did anything was one person's opinion, and the person to whom it belongs happens to be the one trying to justify why he thought an unarmed teenager, who he ended up killing, was worth following. Zimmerman cannot prove that in so following Martin, he was doing anything but profiling Martin.

Martin would probably have had his own opinion to argue. Since I'm never going to hear his opinion, I don't see why I should care about Zimmerman's.

To my knowledge, I can't prove Zimmerman assaulted Martin once he came within 70 yards of Martin's house. I am not saying I can, though I'll be sure to note nobody can prove Martin assaulted Zimmerman, either.

We don't know that Zimmerman called anyone a "fucking punk" since the later is considered inaudible and we can't tell what he said. His comment about people getting away wasn't about Martin in particular, and was made before Martin ran. Considering he was on the phone with a dispatcher trying to get this guy checked out, Martin noticed he was on the phone, and then ran, I would consider that suspicious behavior too. Would I say following him outside of his car was the best decsion to make? No. Would I say Trayvon is equally at fault for just not going home after Zimmerman went back to his car and following him? Yes.

As for having "nothing to go on" for what Martin was doing, we have his phone call with Rachael, and her testimony is just as reliable as George Zimmerman, except not since she was already found lying twice during this investigation while Zimmerman passed multiple lie detector tests about the case.

And Zimmerman following Martin being "anything but profiling" is nonsense, and the FBI investigation came up with the same results. Also, Zimmerman following Trayvon is frankly irrelavent to the trial . As for why you should care about Zimmerman's opinion/story, it's because it's the most important thing about the trial, and disproving it is the only way to convict him.

Yes, we will never know who really started the fight, but picking sides based on that doesn't work like it or not. The fact of the matter is that at the end of the day, Zimmerman has injuries matching having been assualted, Trayvon has injuries only matching those of someone who attacked someone and one gun shot wound taken at very close range, and loads of witness testimony arguing that Zimmerman was getting beat up. There's a reason they never charged Zimmerman when he was arrested, and that's because there was litterally no evidence to charge him with anything after over 5 hours of questioning, and the prosecution proved as much as well.

[Klokinator]

Yes, he gunned down a man who gave him a concussion and a broken nose in cold blood.

I like how you ignored the past tense.

[Esau of Isaac]

That Zimmerman ended up so close to Martin's house casts severe doubt on the idea that he stopped following Martin altogether.

Why?

Zimmerman's having called Martin a "fucking punk," who "got away," implies that he thought Martin had actually done something worth being caught for. We have nothing to go on in the department of what Martin was doing, other than Zimmerman's opinion,

He didn't call Martin a "fucking punck" who "got away". Stop making shit up to support your personal interpretation. He said "they always get away," in reference to the event that occurred only weeks earlier in which thieves did get away despite his similar earlier behavior.

Again, the only evidence that Martin did anything was one person's opinion, and the person to whom it belongs happens to be the one trying to justify why he thought an unarmed teenager, who he ended up killing, was worth following. Zimmerman cannot prove that in so following Martin, he was doing anything but profiling Martin.

Zimmerman had absolutely no way of knowing whether Martin was armed or not. Using this as ammo against him is moronic. In addition, he doesn't have to prove he wasn't profiling Martin, you have to prove he was. Unless in absence of evidence we are to instantly assume that everyone is racist or some shit. It wasn't unusual for him to think that Martin was suspicious since it was pouring fucking raining and he appeared to be behaving suspiciously to him.

To my knowledge, I can't prove Zimmerman assaulted Martin once he came within 70 yards of Martin's house. I am not saying I can, though I'll be sure to note nobody can prove Martin assaulted Zimmerman, either. I'm not even saying Zimmerman should have been a slam dunk criminal conviction (much though I'd like to, I'll admit). I'm saying that that night, Zimmerman drove over the full retard line with the Dukes of Hazzard theme playing, and somebody died for it, and personally I hope he gets slapped so hard with a wrongful death suit the Earth fucking moves.

Okay. I personally think that if the story relayed was correct that Zimmerman didn't do anything wrong. Like I have to go to some lengths to really see Zimmerman as having made serious errors of judgment, so long as the testimony given was fair.

I like how you ignored the past tense.

To be fair, that was worded kinda badly Klok. The first time I read it I did a double take, so it's easy to see how he could have missed that.

Or maybe Life was just arguing against the opinion that you previously held (which several hundred thousand hold even now) rather than you yourself.

Edited July 18, 2013 by Esau of Isaac

[Life]

To be fair, that was worded kinda badly Klok. The first time I read it I did a double take, so it's easy to see how he could have missed that.

Or maybe Life was just arguing against the opinion that you previously held (which several hundred thousand hold even now) rather than you yourself.

Both. Completely missed the fact that Klok did a 180* but it's also not implied properly until the last paragraph.

[Klokinator]

That's all right, it was an honest mistake.