George Zimmerman Found Not Guilty

[Esau of Isaac]

ITT: We are legal experts. Since the prosecution failed to prove their case, then I'd say that justice was served. Whether moralistic justice was served is another matter entirely, and I have no idea if we'll ever know the answer to that.

What are you saying? You cannot on one hand say that justice was served and then the sentence after it say that justice may not have been served. Either justice is served or it is not.

[Constable Reggie]

Initially, when the report first made it to television it was highly sensationalized by the media. Pictures of Zimmerman were white-washed, making him appear to be a white man, while those of Martin were usually of him as a child. Several facts of the case were emphasized or misrepresented by the public and then repeated from one mouth to another. For example, it was often made clear that Martin had a bag of Skittles and an Arizona tea on him when he was shot, and that Zimmerman pursued Martin. This gave the appearance ultimately that a white man killed a black child walking down the street simply because he was black. It has been over two decades but many in the African American community remember the LA riots and the events leading up to them. Many and more of them at the least feel disenfranchised within the American community, and this serves as a grim reminder to them of a violent past and a tool to create reform that benefits them.

iirc the worst thing the media did was to take several of the 911 quotes out of context to make it seem as though Zimmerman was targeting Martin purely because of his race and what he wore. When all you hear from NBC news is Zimmerman saying "He looks black", without including the question beforehand, you instantly think it's a race issue.

What are you saying? You cannot on one hand say that justice was served and then the sentence after it say that justice may not have been served. Either justice is served or it is not.

What is delivering justice based on from your viewpoint?

He would have been convicted were he not in a state with a "Stand your Ground" law in effect. He's certainly guilty of manslaughter.

Stand your ground wasn't an issue in this case. You can't exactly run away if (according to Zimmerman's claim) you're being slammed into the concrete.

Edited July 17, 2013 by Constable Reggie

[Life]

Second degree murder is murder without planning. The prosecution was doomed to fail because of one simple fact.

George Zimmerman alerted authorities before the fight. No sane man would do that whatsoever.

[Esau of Isaac]

iirc the worst thing the media did was to take several of the 911 quotes out of context to make it seem as though Zimmerman was targeting Martin purely because of his race and what he wore. When all you hear from NBC news is Zimmerman saying "He looks black", without including the question beforehand, you instantly think it's a race issue.

This too.

What is delivering justice based on from your viewpoint?

Justice is nebulously defined. The answer to that question, along with most revolving around law, is "it depends."

[Constable Reggie]

Justice is nebulously defined. The answer to that question, along with most revolving around law, is "it depends."

Let's say in a few years, magical technology technobabble allows us to accurately tell who is yelling "help" in the phone calls, it being Martin (which would prove manslaughter). In accordance with the jury decision and double jeopardy, is justice still delivered?

Edited July 17, 2013 by Constable Reggie

[Esau of Isaac]

Let's say in a few years, magical technology technobabble allows us to accurately tell who is yelling "help" in the phone calls, it being Martin (which would prove manslaughter). In accordance with the jury decision and double jeopardy, is justice still delivered?

I never said whether or not justice was delivered. But yes and no. I would believe that justice was served in the past. In light of new evidence that pointed to him having actually murdered Martin I would then believe that justice would be most served by Zimmerman facing punishment for his crimes.

[Constable Reggie]

Is justice then not served in light of the new evidence? In this case, are legalistic justice and moral justice mutually exclusive, or should they be/are they connected?

[eclipse]

What are you saying? You cannot on one hand say that justice was served and then the sentence after it say that justice may not have been served. Either justice is served or it is not.

Justice by definition of the law was served. Justice by morals may or may not have been.

[Esau of Isaac]

Is justice then not served in light of the new evidence? In this case, are legalistic justice and moral justice mutually exclusive, or should they be/are they connected?

This is like asking whether seawater and freshwater are at all connected to one another or mutually exclusive.

Justice by definition of the law was served. Justice by morals may or may not have been

Okay, but that's true of literally every case in the history of mankind.

Edited July 17, 2013 by Esau of Isaac

[Phoenix Wright]

Stand your ground wasn't an issue in this case. You can't exactly run away if (according to Zimmerman's claim) you're being slammed into the concrete.

It was my understanding that "Stand your Ground" was essentially the reason Zimmerman was acquitted.

This issue is still factually up to debate, but I think Zimmerman was the provoker in this case. The fact that he got beat in the fight shouldn't mean much at that point (though, legally speaking, I'm not sure if that's true).

But I'd just be one juror of twelve.

[Anouleth]

It was my understanding that "Stand your Ground" was essentially the reason Zimmerman was acquitted.

This issue is still factually up to debate, but I think Zimmerman was the provoker in this case. The fact that he got beat in the fight shouldn't mean much at that point (though, legally speaking, I'm not sure if that's true).

But I'd just be one juror of twelve.

Is it that important whether Zimmerman "provoked" Martin? Surely the only thing that matters is whether Zimmerman had a reasonable fear for his life when he shot and killed Martin.

[Klokinator]

I have to say, for over a year now, I've been on Trayvon's side. 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. I really thought that's how it went down because that's how the media played it up, but it really isn't even close.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=bF-Ax5E8EJc&noredirect=1

I think this guy has been the most reasonable on the subject up to this point. He seemed biased at first, but everything I've googled pointed to his points being correct. It's really a must-watch for those like me who thought of Zimmerman being the bad guy.

[Lord Raven]

EDIT (at top of post to respond to above video): I personally found it quite annoying that he was referring to the kid possibly doing drugs or whatever. That's fucking morbid, in my opinion. I skipped over it but I find it dishonest to accuse the dead guy of being a druggie or buying that shit to do drugs.

I don't think it's hard to get defensive when someone is following you when you're walking around, although in all honesty he probably was thinking in terms of self-defense. "he looks black" could mean anything but effectively you see a dark skinned dude walking around and you assume he's the hoodrat burglar that's been making the neighborhood paranoid. Not a hard thing to believe, but I don't think he killed him because he was black, I think he could've jumped the gun a tiny bit for that reason. Self-defense sounds just about right because I would just keep walking if someone were following me like that, maybe call the police on my cell phone or something. Probably in Trayvon Martin's mind he was also committing an act of self-defense and it was just a complete misunderstanding.

So yes the verdict was probably right and this whole thing about blown out of control. Whether or not this case condones racism is up to the viewer, I'm not sure it necessarily does at all considering the history of the neighborhood. But considering the fact that witnesses said that the two were arguing before one pinned the other to the ground or started beating up on him is an interesting thing to think about... Argument could've gone sour pretty fast for whatever reason. I'm too lazy to google the transcript so I don't know what exactly Zimmerman said in the courtroom, so I'm not going to assume that there was a threat somewhere in that conversation or whatever.

I still do believe racism is alive in America but this is definitely not the case to prove it.

Edited July 17, 2013 by Lord Raven

[Klokinator]

"he looks black" could mean anything but effectively you see a dark skinned dude walking around and you assume he's the hoodrat burglar that's been making the neighborhood paranoid.

You didn't even watch the video. It was explained that Zimmerman didn't even mention Trayvon's race until the dispatcher asked what Trayvon looked like. It was pouring rain, Trayvon was wearing a hoodie and walking with his head hunched down and Zimmerman stated that he "looked black" because he probably couldn't get a clear look at his face.

[Lord Raven]

I skimmed through the video, I have better things to do than listen to someone talk for 30 minutes, especially since around half the video had nothing to do with the trial and instead accused of him of buying shit to drink some purple drank and a whoooooooole bunch of racial statistics that frankly have little to do with this case (I'm not sure if he covered it in the video but black-on-black violence doesn't necessarily mean racism isn't alive in America, because you don't have to be a white man killing a black man to prove it exists).

At any rate I'm fully aware. I know I removed part of that sentence (I was in a rush at work and change some points around, I do that) but my point was that "he looks black" could be taken in many different ways regardless of the question. But once again, this entire case is a really dumb way to prove racism is alive in America (or it's really good because it may or may not show a black person being perceived as victimized by a white man).

[Constable Reggie]

This is like asking whether seawater and freshwater are at all connected to one another or mutually exclusive.

So you would forego legalistic justice in this case for favor of moral justice? Again, I'm just talking about this case specifically.

It was my understanding that "Stand your Ground" was essentially the reason Zimmerman was acquitted.

Zimmerman claimed self defense, the prosecution couldn't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it wasn't self defense, I'm positive that stand your ground wasn't an issue in the case, other than being mentioned in the jury instructions. Of course, that doesn't stop people from directly connecting stand your ground to the Zimmerman case (lol eric holder), but oh well.

Edited July 17, 2013 by Constable Reggie

[Phoenix Wright]

Is it that important whether Zimmerman "provoked" Martin? Surely the only thing that matters is whether Zimmerman had a reasonable fear for his life when he shot and killed Martin.

Well, it was much more important to me until Reggie cleared something up for me:

Zimmerman claimed self defense, the prosecution couldn't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it wasn't self defense, I'm positive that stand your ground wasn't an issue in the case, other than being mentioned in the jury instructions. Of course, that doesn't stop people from directly connecting stand your ground to the Zimmerman case (lol eric holder), but oh well.

[Esau of Isaac]

It was my understanding that "Stand your Ground" was essentially the reason Zimmerman was acquitted.

It was not. It was widely televised as such but the jury other than hearing it mentioned at a few points never deliberated over the case as a Stand Your Ground case.

This issue is still factually up to debate, but I think Zimmerman was the provoker in this case. The fact that he got beat in the fight shouldn't mean much at that point (though, legally speaking, I'm not sure if that's true).

How was Zimmerman "the provoker"? You never have any legal right to assault someone, nothing Zimmerman had done was of worthiness for serious bodily harm in the first place.

So you would forego legalistic justice in this case for favor of moral justice? Again, I'm just talking about this case specifically.

Yes and no. Legal justice stems from moral justice. The reason a justice system exists to carry out moral rightness through a more rigid legal system. I would value the case that was brought in the past and now believe that he should receive punishment for his actions presently. Evidence brought to light later does not retroactively invalidate the justice that had been given.

[Blademaster!]

Is it that important whether Zimmerman "provoked" Martin?

If Zimmerman initiated some kind of physical contact with him like touching his shoulder to talk to him or grabbing his arm it might, but there is no evidence to support anything like this happening obviously.

Also, Rachel Jeantel needs to stop going on all these interviews. Both this and her Pier's Morgan interview essentially imply that Trayvon likely attacked first (she outright says he did in the HuffPost interview), and she just keeps changing up her story...

[Constable Reggie]

Yes and no. Legal justice stems from moral justice. The reason a justice system exists to carry out moral rightness through a more rigid legal system. I would value the case that was brought in the past and now believe that he should receive punishment for his actions presently. Evidence brought to light later does not retroactively invalidate the justice that had been given.

So what is legal and moral justice in this case, then? Legally, we know that Zimmerman had his trial and was judged fairly by a jury of his peers. Justice was served in that sense. Is that legal justice (for a lack of a better term) wrong if it turns out Zimmerman was at fault? Is Martin and his supporters' sense of moral justice (punish zimmerman because he was guilty) more important than the legal justice (zimmerman is innocent according to trial standards)?

After all, our system is set up so that once you're judged innocent, you can't be punished, even if it's found out that you actually were guilty.

[Lord Raven]

How was Zimmerman "the provoker"? You never have any legal right to assault someone, nothing Zimmerman had done was of worthiness for serious bodily harm in the first place.

From a legal point of view, you're correct. Throwing the legal crap out (so judging it more from an emotional standpoint), from Trayvon's point of view, it's not hard to see how. At the same time, what Trayvon did was incredibly dumb and should not have happened, because it's possible he was feeling threatened but lacked the evidence and wanted to pre-emptively set this shit straight. Upon knowing Zimmerman had a gun, well, it's not hard to see why he would've threatened to kill him. I feel like if there was any argument then it was the feeling of being watched, threatened or followed that set him off, but Zimmerman also should not have been guilty regardless of what happened simply because the intent was damage control should something have happened (resulting from the paranoia of the community). I would personally feel uncomfortable if Zimmerman followed me and I'd call the police about it- other people just don't have the mentality of taking it to the authorities if you feel creeped on like that.

It's a pretty obvious self-defense case but morally I don't think one side was completely in the wrong. I just don't think the Martin side has an argument.

Edited July 17, 2013 by Lord Raven

[Esau of Isaac]

So what is legal and moral justice in this case, then? Legally, we know that Zimmerman had his trial and was judged fairly by a jury of his peers. Justice was served in that sense. Is that legal justice (for a lack of a better term) wrong if it turns out Zimmerman was at fault? Is Martin and his supporters' sense of moral justice (punish zimmerman because he was guilty) more important than the legal justice (zimmerman is innocent according to trial standards)?

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.

After all, our system is set up so that once you're judged innocent, you can't be punished, even if it's found out that you actually were guilty.

I am aware. I am arguing that despite this a man guilty of a crime would be justly sentenced if punished by peers regardless were evidence to arise after the fact.

From a legal point of view, you're correct. Throwing the legal crap out (so judging it more from an emotional standpoint), from Trayvon's point of view, it's not hard to see how.

What are you talking about? Trayvon not only threw the first punch, he also doubled back and initiated hostilities. Zimmerman initially kept track of Martin and asked him what he was doing at which point Martin left until Zimmerman lost sight of him and returned to his car. Keep in mind that Zimmerman was the neighborhood watch. It's his job to watch over that area. That same place had been burgled recently and the perps gotten away after calling 911.

At the same time, what Trayvon did was incredibly dumb and should not have happened, because it's possible he was feeling threatened but lacked the evidence and wanted to pre-emptively set this shit straight. Upon knowing Zimmerman had a gun, well, it's not hard to see why he would've threatened to kill him.

Martin didn't even know that Zimmerman had a gun until he had mounted Zimmerman and punching him in the face on the grass. There is no way you can argue that Martin, a 6'2" 160 pound 17-year-old felt threatened enough by a 5'9" 170 pound 28-year-old that he felt he needed to pre-emptively strike him.

Edited July 17, 2013 by Esau of Isaac

[Lord Raven]

It's not supposed to make sense. That's why it was stupid. W hether or not he felt threatened was irrelevant to the fact that he probably still felt followed. Doesn't matter the logic cause hindsight is 20/20. Doesn't matter that he's neighborhood watch, doubt that Martin knew that. I'm just saying the mentality is understandable, not the action. (With the gun part, I actually was referring to after he was wailing on him, because he threatened to kill him after the revelation about the gun)

Threatened was more along the lines of being followed. But whatever. It's an irrelevant detail anyway to a case that's almost not a discussion.

Edited July 17, 2013 by Lord Raven

[Sunwoo]

I originally wasn't going to say anything, but I just keep coming back to this thread so I might as well just say something.

What happened in this situation was a tragedy, there's no doubt about it. I think that Zimmerman made some bad choices. But I don't think this is a case about racism, or that he meant to kill Trayvon Martin out of malicious intent or over race. I think that this case has spiraled into a media circus and that people aren't getting the facts or letting their emotion overlook the facts. And I think that's a big thing: people are thinking with their emotions and not their heads. That'll always cause problems.

[Rehab]

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.

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.