Zimmerman found not guilty

I think, based on the facts presented, that for (seemingly) once the jury got it right.

Like you said, Laura, we don't know all the facts but based on, what appear to me, as irrefutable evidence it was self defense.

I feel sorry for everyone all around; Zimmerman, Martin's family, the Jurors.. This was a no win case for everyone based on him already being "guilty" well before anything even started. :/

 

It turns my stomach that some have gone so low to state this verdict was "revenge" for OJ Simpson being found not guilty and at least one NFL star Tweeted that Zimmerman may not last a year until he is murdered.

The prosecution had to convince the jury that Zimmerman was guilt beyond a "reasonable doubt". Based on witness testimony and evidence presented by both sides, this burden of proof was not met to the jury's standards.

For those who disagree with the verdict and want to engage in peaceful protest, it's a free country. It's just important for everyone to remember that, in a free country with a jury system, there will never be a case where 100% of the population agrees with a jury's decision and the punishment (or lack of it) given.

 

i heard something that i thought was interesting "zimmerman may now more then ever need his gun"

 

It's a fair verdict, just like Casey Anthony.

 

all I can say is everything here seems right on the money:cool
cept what I bolded:

Never is a long time; universals are rare:cool

 

You seriously can't compare the two.

Anthony premeditatedly murdered her own child and then hid it. Zimmerman was simply defending himself (yes, there is evidence to this). Murder involves malice and forethought, neither of which was present in Zimmerman's trial (considering the facts in evidence) despite what the media says.

 

you seem very clear on what happened with anthony; were you there? why are you so clear on what anthony did, yet she was found not guilty?

 

There is this little thing called evidence... which jury didn't rule on properly. It's not rocket science.

 

apparently it is rocket science:-D
simple math is not rocket science, IE what's 2+2?
you would answer,"its not rocket science! use something called, "addition":-D"

anyone else would answer, " 2+2, using the powers of addition, gives the answer 4

so without further deflection, what mistakes did the jury make that could get them past the "reasonable doubt" they had to cause the verdict they handed down?

 

This is on the news a lot on this side of the pond as well.

Without all the evidence that was produced we have a problem to arrive at a verdict,on the surface it seems he was a bit pre-emptive with the shooting but again the press have made it a very nasty episode in this mans life.

 

The stupid thing is, it is only a high profile case because of the civil rights activists getting involved and trying to throw the race card.

If Zimmerman was black, this would have made absolutely zero headlines. It is ridiculous.

 

I have posted this other places as well...Here's the thing...unless you are one of the six people who actually sat on the jury for the Zimmerman trial, you don't know a damn thing about what evidence was presented or what evidence was not allowed to be presented. You don't know what their deliberations entailed. You don't know what arguments they had, or how they reached their verdict. You don't know anything except what you read in the news. In other words, you don't know jack, so shut your pie hole and stop acting like you have some great insight into why he wasn't found guilty. Seriously.

I understand we're all entitled to our own opinions. I have one as well. But what I cannot stomach is people stating unequivocally that they know for certain how or why the verdict was reached. Unless you have actually seen complete video footage of the trial (which will not include jury deliberations) or read a complete trial transcript (which I believe also will not include jury deliberations), the fact is you cannot possibly know anything for certain. We can all do all the armchair quarterbacking we want, but it doesn't change the fact that those are all our opinions...not necessarily reality.

 

It is a Civil case and never should have been a criminal case. Why? In any shooting, even by the Police, law suites can be filed where less evidence is needed to win (beyond a reasonable doubt is not required). Anyone remember the OJ case? The criminal case flopped but in the Civil case OJ LOST! He was found responsible for the woman's death.
With Zimmerman there was an initial investigation that found that the statutory requirements for criminal charges were not met, so there were no initial charges. It was Mob Rule and Political pressure that changed this. But it never should have changed. Zimmerman can rightfully sued for liable just as a Police officer can, with the primary difference being that Zimmerman will be responsible for his own defense and a Police Officer would have defense provided by the insurance of their city, state or federal employer.
We have a right to defend ourselves but the family members of the deceased have a right to take it to Civil Court. This is how our system is designed...not Mob rule.

 

I can. Both trials were lost by overreaching prosecutors who underestimated the defense.

Ironically, though Zimmerman was acquitted, he will never be free again.

 

Actually, if you sat on the jury, you don't know a damn thing about the evidence that was not presented.

The jury only sees the evidence the prosecutor, defense, and judge (and mainly the judge) deem viable.

 

If I may take a bit of latitude on this, I will give some thoughts on this. My 'tactical' or whatever you want to call it mindset is to avoid confrontation. The easiest gunfight to win is the one you avoid. Now, I am not a coward, but conflict avoidance with either Martin or Zimmerman would probably made this not a court case.

I think Zimmerman should have stayed in his car. I would have. Stayed in there and talked to the police. Honestly, if he saw someone perhaps participating in the thug lifestyle, why approach if you don't need to?

Now, for Martin. If he saw a 'creepy (insert racial remark here)' someone following him, why not run, call the cops, or heck say "hey man, can I help you?" At that point, perhaps Zimmerman and Martin could have had a simple conversation, Martin could say he was staying at 112 Anystreet, and Zimmerman could have said he was with the neighborhood watch.

Who was right, who was wrong, I don't know. But if either or both had practiced some conflict avoidance, this would never had happened.

What gets me is the media wrongly doing so many things to inflame this into a racial thing.

From: http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/06/nbc-fires-producer-of-misleading-zimmerman-tape/

I don't see this as a racial thing except on Martin's part. But heck, he was 17, who here did nothing stupid at that age?

To me it is like 2 cars on a narrow 2 lane road. One driver is texting and swerves 2 feet to the left, the other is adjusting their radio and swerves 2 feet to their left. If either had looked up, the wreck would not have happened.

Stay safe, protect yourself, but avoid conflict.

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_...teen-was-shot-gunshot-wound-expert-testifies/

Did Zimmerman continue following him after the police told him not to? was he on his way back to his car like he said he was when Martin jumped him? That's something we'll never know but what we do know is there was an altercation and at some point Martin was shot, however, based on these facts above, it seems like self defense whether Zimmerman initiated it or not. I also agree that if Martin had been Asian, Hispanic or Caucasian would there have been all this... this.. outrage? I'd bet $100 that there wouldn't have been.

Look, I'm not trying to argue with anyone here. I just think a shame that so many people (I'm not talking about anyone specifically) are giving knee-jerk reactions based on the media reports which spun this way out of control before anything even got started.

 

Did anyone listen to one of the jurors speaking out on CNN? I did. Why did she not ask for testimony to be read back? She also showed she had no understanding of the cultural differences in Rachel Jeantel and herself, stating that most of the time she could not understand what she was saying. Again, if this juror wanted to be fair why did she not ask to read what the court reporter wrote?

Zimmerman juror speaks out: http://www.cnn.com/ She was on Anderson Cooper's 360. http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/15/justice/zimmerman-juror-book/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

Rachel Chantel was also on CNN on Piers Morgan. She was totally different than when she was in court.

 

There is a saying that goes something like,"alone people are intelligent,in groups people are stupid"

I remember when martin had first been shot. groups of blacks were out protesting about the racial killing/black hate/etc. this was before ANY facts of the case were out. the only fact that was out was a BLACK person had been killed.

I knew this was a going to a huge deal as the blacks were already going crazy when they could NOT know what the heck happened.

reminds of me of a book I read
Wizard's First Rule:
which said:
"People are stupid; given proper motivation, almost anyone will believe almost anything. Because people are stupid, they will believe a lie because they want to believe it's true, or because they are afraid it might be true. People's heads are full of knowledge, facts, and beliefs, and most of it is false, yet they think it all true. People are stupid; they can only rarely tell the difference between a lie and the truth, and yet they are confident they can, and so are all the easier to fool.

 

... deleted, not worth responding to. My blood is boiling though!!!

 

I saw part of the interview with Rachel when it aired.
She was asked to comment on some things that the juror said and Piers Morgan immediately misquoted and misrepresented what the
juror had just said.

I have seen and heard him do things like that before. He likes to stir things up and create controversy where none yet exists.

As for the trial and the search for justice, it seems to me that there are (at least) two major aspects to the case -
what happened before the physical struggle and what happened during the struggle.
Since the later part resulted in a human fatality and arguably also because it involved the use of a firearm, that is the
part that is viewed as an unlawful act and therefore is the part that the justice system must rule on.

In my opinion, Zimmerman behaved inappropriately and made a series of mistakes.
It was Zimmerman's lack of good judgement, insufficient training and intimidating behavior that ultimately led to the physical
struggle.
If Zimmerman had acted properly, that type of confrontation would not have occurred.

The justice system has not evolved to a point where it can adequately deal with multiple aspects of 'an incident' where
there are different and/or conflicting moral assessments of the discrete aspects.

 

Could you not say the same thing about martin mjnc? If he had acted different, or stopped and said hey man i live over here, im just going to get such and such {skittles or something) would that not have helped defuse the situation? i pretty much agree with Tibbs though.

 

Justice for Allen Goins! (hope I got his name right, Google is nor helpful) Where are the racial protesters for this hate crime?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/05/teenagers-set-boy-on-fire_n_1320993.html

Back on topic, Martin's friend testified that Martin called Zimmerman a racially offensive word before he and Z met. So, if there was a hate crime, evidence shows it might have been Martin.

I am sure the NAACP will be all over this one. rolleyes

 

Fair point. The rest of my statement still stands, however. None of us were there. None of us know. We can have all the opinions in the world, but none of them matter. Getting mad at people who think differently about facts we know nothing about is, quite simply, stupid.

 

Terrible tragedy.

It's incredible how much something like this polarises people and it's their own preconceived notions that leads them there. After first finding out I've read up on it and switched from self defence to murder multiple times, now I just think it's a tragedy and don't want to think about it any more.

Big fat toy cop shoots unarmed gangster kid feet from his lodgings in self defence:confused If there isn't something that gets you worked up in that you can definitely find something if you read both of their biographys and throw race in and that's what the media is doing now, it's a frenzy :tired

Pick your poison-

 

Why can't we just let things go? Seriously.

 

I still don't see how it was racist.

 

Why No Riots??

http://rochester.ynn.com/content/top_stories/490926/jury-finds-roderick-scott-not-guilty/

Here, this linky has pitchers... http://joeforamerica.com/2013/07/white-people-rioting/

Where is the NAACP? The president? The white folk threatening to riot? Makes me wonder what many mean when they say they want 'justice'. :confused

 

Re: Why No Riots??

Perhaps the NAACP and the President felt that justice was being served in this case? Perhaps those white people decided that rioting is passé in this day and age? Who knows? Do you feel justice was not served in this case?

 

Re: Why No Riots??

I think this mirrors the Martin/Zimmerman case almost exactly. 2 wanna be cops get a little to aggressive, and 2 kids did stupid things. Was Zimmerman 'profiling' Martin, was the shooter in Rochester 'profiling' the white kids? I don't think so.

I think justice was served in both cases, although I don't like shootings like that. I practice conflict avoidance myself, which would have kept 2 people alive in both of these incidents.

The media ignoring it is interesting. I suspect Ben Jealous has never heard of the Christopher shooting. Can't prove it. OT, but Ben Jealous, is just a funny name.

In both cases, the jury ruled. Our system is not perfect, but it is pretty good.

Sir William Blackstone, ironically, an English dude. But, many of our laws are based on the olde English laws.

I don't want to get too HBT, but are you aware of NBC doctoring the tapes of Zimmerman's call to the police?

 

"It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer"

1innoccent and 10 guilty people escape jail/death because the law/jury tries to be careful.
The 1 innocent person, Pat, goes on to a job/pays taxes/raise family/etc

10 guilty people that the law/jury allowed freedom because it was unsure of finding guilt
4 of those people kill 3 people. maim 1
4 families are now torn apart

not to worry, Pat ended up having a child who killed 1 person via drunk driving

cliches/plattitudes are overused and generally just tossed out as if they are the answer, but they require thinking
Americans dont think, likely because thinking doesnt happen when eating or watching TV:-D

 

Well, compare our justice system to say, the middle east, where they still stone people, and get back to me. Is it perfect? No. But I think (besides all the dang stupid lawsuits) it is the best in the world.

If you look at the evidence in the Zimmerman trial, the jury did the right thing. Note, I said evidence in the trial, not what was in the media.

As far as platitudes and quotes, this one seems very applicable to today, from a civil rights leader a few years ago.

This was written in non PC form, cause it was a long time ago. I wonder if sharpton and jackson ever read it.

 

Zimmerman Not Guilty, proven in court....
The Case that should have never been...

Trayvon will Rot in Hell





http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ebu6Yvzs4Ls

 

That is so racist.




That video is a bit over the top, in my opinion, on why he bought the drink and candy.

This one might be HBT. But I think he makes good points.

Not for the young.

http://gnli.christianpost.com/video/trayvon-martin-pot-smoking-gives-munchies-and-makes-parano-12760

Yep, this might be going to far for this forum.

 

I saw this as well but it works for both sides, like the preacher and I said people who believe in guns and self defence such as NRA members/conservative Christians have already decided Zimmerman is innocent, lefty liberals who believe in gun control think Zimmerman is satan 'A hypothetical satan that conforms to an atheist world view' hehe . I wanted to leave race out but it's also true of Race simply for the fact it's easier to empathise with someone who looks and acts like you.

I have no such Bias, I'm not Latino or black, I don't live in the US, I don't care about gun control, I'm not liberal or conservative and that's why I have to trust the law and the jury who are the only people who can look Zimmerman in the eye.

The video that ASUS posted is ridiculous, it does the same thing that all other media outlets do which is cherry pick examples from each persons past to invoke a specific world view, a world view that is skewed by preconceived notions of who both men were, it's BS don't fall for it, in fact the only reason people do fall for it is they've already decided due to their preconceived notions.

 

Zimmerman is a Hero
Eariler today he helped rescue family from car wreck

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/07/22/sanford-zimmerman-rescue/2575217/

 

Maybe you were smart enough not to repeatedly slam an armed man's head on the sidewalk... If Martin had killed Zimmerman, how bright would his future be? People younger than 17 have committed murder. I am sure all of us did things in the past that could have gotten us killed, or other bad things could have happened. The stupidity of youth does not have a safety net, where nobody gets hurt or killed.

Glad you made it. :cool

 

He would have argued self defense from the armed man chasing him.
It's the winner that writes history, after all.

 

I am trying to keep my posts in the confines of the evidence that was introduced in the trial. There is no evidence that Zimmerman was 'chasing' anyone.

Hmm, kinda fat 29 year old vs 17 year old, my money is on the 17 year old being able to outrun said creepy saltine. Are you suggesting that Zimmerman overtook the young Martin...? Was Martin fleeing, or... If Zimmerman had not been armed, kinda hard to argue self defense from the armed man that was not armed.

 

Mr. Zimmerman he was recorded PURSUING the suspect via a 911 call. Running and panting. Even after he was instructed by the operator to STOP, he was recorded running and panting for a full six to eight seconds and defying the order. The recording of the 911 call alone pegs him in "hot pursuit". Here's a direct quote from the 911 call which speaks VOLUMES about Mr. Zimmerman's mindset that night:

"These a******s, they always get away."
~ George Zimmerman

Less than two minutes after the end of that call, a shot had been fired. Logic would tend to dictate this man was hell bent on collaring an "a*****e". The only real witness to Martin's actions other than his conduct on the 911 call is dead. The witness who saw them on the ground was VERY "late to the party"...

It also bears mentioning that if you actually EVER looked at a map of the crime scene, Zimmerman PURSUED Trayvon Martin from the street to the grassy area between the buildings where he was shot and killed. They were easily 300 yards from Zimmerman's truck, "as the crow flies". Also: "Sanford Police Department civilian employee Wendy Dorival testified that she helped Zimmerman set up a neighborhood watch after a rash of crimes in his development. Under questioning by prosecutors, Dorival said watch volunteers were intended to be the “eyes and ears” of law enforcement and were instructed not to follow or confront anyone suspicious."

Trayvon's body was not in the street. Most likely he was running for his father's house through the communal lawn area which has a sidewalk. Had George Zimmerman only surveilled his quarry from a safe distance there would not have been a confrontation. Instead he pursued his suspect, most likely igniting fear in the deceased and ignoring a directive of the police. IMHO, Trayvon was murdered by a zealotous vigilante who got away with it.

 

Another way of looking at this, from the evidence from the trial, is that Martin had no injuries except the bullet wound. If he had killed someone who had not even landed a punch, would that not be manslaughter at the least? Zimmerman had no defensive wounds, or offensive wounds, which kinda goes with his testimony.

 

OK, let's again look at the info from the trial. First off, he did not call 911, he called the non emergency number for the police. "Hot pusuit" is interjection on your part.

I am not sure what you meant by this:

Again, not 911.

So you have a direct quote, from someone he did not call. Interesting.

Conjecture on your part. The evidence in the trial does not support this.

I do agree, if Zimmerman had just stayed in his truck, this would have ended differently. If Martin had gone to the house he was staying at, this would have ended differently.

Me, I see someone I think is a potential criminal, I don't get close to them, call the law and let the cops deal with it. If I am being chased, I don't confront, if I can get away.

Again, I practice conflict avoidance. IMHO, this thing is full of fail on both parties. But legally, following the laws and jury instructions, they found him not guilty.

Some video for you. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PX1sxARNq_c

 

Sorry, my link above has language. Sorry.

 

Lets just leave it at this:

The prosecution could not prove that he was a murderer beyond reasonable doubt.

Our justice system goes by innocent until proven guilty.

http://piloseo.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/beating_a_dead_horse2.jpg


I want to thank everyone in this thread by remaining level headed and civil. Remember, if it gets out of hand, we gotta close it.

 

My point is it sounds worse than it is when you type all those things in one paragraph, I argued with cops once and won, they tried to get me off a wall and I said no:-D I smoked weed a couple of times then didn't care for it after about my 17th birthday, I listened to rap music and thought 2pac biggie and the east west thing was awesome, after I left high school at 16 and didn't have to conform anymore I went and got ear rings and shaved all my hair off with a bic razor, I also trained with weights every day.

I made for a frightening photo haha... Burning Monkey without tattoo's.

But I was still a nice guy, I've never been in trouble with police but I didn't take any shit from anyone,

Serial killers are on the PTA, Rapists work at charities. A couple of brothers near to where I live I describe as wouldn't hurt a fly, one night tried to stab each other to death, one succeeded.

I wouldn't say I was that smart, if a quote 'strange guy, Trayvon call to his girlfrend' was chasing me through the street and behind the houses where I was staying, an area that I didn't know too well eventually I would have confronted him and I would have been right to, in few minutes the guy would have shot me dead.

---------

Zimmerman was wrong he wasn't a burglar. Only one person was was right and that was Trayton, an armed man was chasing him and in a few minutes he would shoot him dead. Maybe if Trayvon had hit him a little harder and knocked him unconscious he could have made it the 60 yards to his dads house? It's easy to throw out what ifs.

If I'm Zimmerman I've caught a burglar in act, I've chased him and now he's attacked me so I defend myself, this could have been me right now if I hear a noise in the street I go out and investigate.

The sad thing is even if Zimmerman is 100% telling the truth it's case of self defence in both cases just like a friendly fire incident.

Wish I could express myself in less words, sorry.:cool

 

I could have wrote this article.

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2013/07/the-facts-in-the-george-zimmerman-trial.html

I also want to mention my omittance of Zimmermans background which also could be taken as having question marks, this isn't because I'm arguing for Trayvon or on his side but because I only need one example to show the futility of doing so.