Zimmerman Not Guilty

[tednlou2]

Perhaps he and Casey Anthony can get a place together.

[OneTampa]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/07/13/george-zimmerman-found-not-guilty/2514163/

[tednlou2]

How does one reconcile this case (see link below), with the verdict that came tonight?  This is the case of a black, Florida resident.  She fired a warning shot into the wall, after being threatened by her husband.  She was sentenced to 20 (20!) years in prison.  The Stand Your Ground law didn't help her.  She didn't kill anyone.  Her bullet didn't hit anyone. 

For those who say race played no part in the Zimmerman case, how do they explain this?  Is it merely that she probably had a public defender, while Zimmerman had a very good legal team?  Would she have been found not guilty, if she had star legal representation?  Of course, we don't know.  It would be hard to find a case (except for O.J.), where an accused black person got a star legal team wanting to handle their case.  The same is true for poor, white people.  Well, unless you're attractive and get a lot of media attention.  I suspect Casey Anthony would have been found guilty, if she had a public defender.  Having said that, I still think white jurors would have had more trouble convicting her, then they would a black Casey.  If this case had not gotten so much attention, which I am actually surprised a black shooting victim got all this attention, I suppose Zimmerman would have had to settle for a public defender.  But, again, I think jurors would have wanted to side with him, even if subconsciously.

I have no doubt if Treyvon was white "Trevor Martin" (remember, it helps for a white person to also be attractive), we would have seen a guilty verdict.  FOX News would have a totally different take.  They would be the ones saying we need justice for little "Trevor."  Zimmerman wouldn't have been following little "Trevor" in the first place.  The evidence, that 100% of the police calls Zimmerman made were about black men, was not allowed to be entered in the trial.  He was instructed to stay in his car and wait for police.  He was not in danger.  He is now a free man, while this woman has a 20 year sentence for firing a warning shot.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57434757-504083/fla-woman-marissa-alexander-gets-20-years-for-warning-shot-did-she-stand-her-ground/

[poz91]

Just a little food for thought...

Moments before Trayvon punched Zimmerman, knocked him to the ground, and began repeatedly beating his skull into the concrete sidewalk, he was on the phone with his friend Rachel Jeantel (who testified at trial) making homophobic slurs and jokes about Zimmerman... calling him an ass cracker, a pervert, a gay rapist. He was not scared of Zimmerman.

When he confronted Zimmerman, Zimmerman thought he said, "Do you have a f%$#ing problem, homie." Given the nature of the comments Rachel acknowledged Trayvon used, Zimmerman may have mistaken 'homo' for 'homie.'

The prosecution even subtly used the 'gay panic' defense in its closing arguments... stating that Zimmerman (aka the ass cracker gay rapist pervert) was every child's worst fear, and essentially argued that Trayvon had every right to beat him.

Interestingly, Zimmerman shares many characteristics with his brother Robert... who is an openly gay man.

George Zimmerman was found not guilty because he was the victim of an assault.

[BT65]

I was surprised.  I thought when the jury asked for a definition of "manslaughter" that Zimmerman may have been found guilty of that. 

The poor and minorities do not do well in court.  That's not news.  I read that Sharpton is going to Florida tomorrow and am sure this will not be the end of the situation. 

I really think Zimmerman should have been found guilty of at least manslaughter.  He didn't listen to police (staying in his car), and Martin was not armed. 

[skeebo1969]

Just a little food for thought...

Moments before Trayvon punched Zimmerman, knocked him to the ground, and began repeatedly beating his skull into the concrete sidewalk, he was on the phone with his friend Rachel Jeantel (who testified at trial) making homophobic slurs and jokes about Zimmerman... calling him an ass cracker, a pervert, a gay rapist. He was not scared of Zimmerman.

When he confronted Zimmerman, Zimmerman thought he said, "Do you have a f%$#ing problem, homie." Given the nature of the comments Rachel acknowledged Trayvon used, Zimmerman may have mistaken 'homo' for 'homie.'

The prosecution even subtly used the 'gay panic' defense in its closing arguments... stating that Zimmerman (aka the ass cracker gay rapist pervert) was every child's worst fear, and essentially argued that Trayvon had every right to beat him.

Interestingly, Zimmerman shares many characteristics with his brother Robert... who is an openly gay man.

George Zimmerman was found not guilty because he was the victim of an assault.

I had the luxury of listening to the testimony from day one.  You conveniently added a little bit there, and that's fine.  Rachal Jeantel said she told Trayvon "that he probably wants to rape you" and his reply was, "girl don't be playing with me like that".

The guy was watching him from his vehicle, and then followed him.  I would also wonder why someone was following me.  As an adult, if someone was following me, I would probably think they were going to rob me.  As a kid, I might think something worse.

Trayvon was guilty of no crime when Zimmerman chose to follow him.  Video time stamp from the 7-11 (convenience store) proved he was in route to his father's house. 

Today, I have to admit, it's pretty apparent that Trayvon started beating Zimmerman down once they reached the middle courtyard.  Truth to how exactly that transpired is only known by those two people.  One witness said he saw Trayvon on top of Zimmerman hitting him, and even he said he didn't know what started it. 

Like I said, I have no doubt Trayvon got the upper hand in the physical altercation that ensued.  You can clearly see that in the photos of George Zimmerman after the incident had occurred.  At that point, and under the stand your ground law, one is allowed to use deadly force.

When I look at this though I see a bigger problem.  Why was Zimmerman following him in the first place?  It's true the area had suffered recent burglaries, stolen property, etc... which had nothing to do with Trayvon.  Why was he targeted as being a "suspicious male"?  Is it safe to assume that Trayvon might have felt he was in danger?   Where is his right to stand his ground and take actions to defend himself from a perceived threat?

Guess what, the guy with the gun wins.

After I learned more about this situation, I kept thinking to myself how just a little communication from one or both parties could have kept one from getting killed.  But in my opinion, that's where the mistrust from both kept this from happening.

It's tragic when a 17 year old is killed when initially he was doing nothing wrong.   

[mikeyb39]

I wasn't shocked by the verdict .  The prosecution was not able to prove beyond reasonable doubt.  Legally they had no choice but to rule the way they did.

[weasel]

I wasn't shocked by the verdict .  The prosecution was not able to prove beyond reasonable doubt.  Legally they had no choice but to rule the way they did.

   I agree !

    As the law states ,   Zimmerman  was within the law !   

         Nothing to do with   Race   if we look at the law they made the right choice !

                                                                               Weasel


    P.S.   Now is the time for people to change laws they dis-like ! 
             I believe Missouri has the same law as Florida ...

[leatherman]

began repeatedly beating his skull into the concrete sidewalk

Zimmerman's wounds did not corrobarate that verison of the events. The wounds (to the back of his head and to his nose) only give evidence that there was a physical altercation. Witnesses only testified to punches thrown. The wounds to the back of Zimmerman's head were few, mild and required no treatment, bandages or stitches.

[mikeyb39]

George zimmerman's brother is quite sexy, he's annoying listening to him talk, but sexy nonetheless.

[Hellraiser]

George zimmerman's brother is quite sexy, he's annoying listening to him talk, but sexy nonetheless.

I'd hit it.

[Dachshund]

Stay classy.

[idee]

Perhaps he and Casey Anthony can get a place together.

Did you hear that Obama is pressing charges on Zimmerman?

I think if Obama does continues it proves he is racist. Why? He did not press charges on Casey.

[Ann]

I'm going to go ahead and warn people now - this thread has the potential to be a powder-keg, like gun control threads end up being.

Any nasty comments, racist comments, personal attacks or other unacceptable behaviour will be dealt with - by time outs if necessary - and this thread locked.

Please feel free to discuss the case, but keep it civil and within the bounds of our posting rules.

I won't give this warning out again.

Thank you everyone for your cooperation.

Ann

[Joe K]

Did you hear that Obama is pressing charges on Zimmerman?

I think if Obama does continues it proves he is racist. Why? He did not press charges on Casey.

Obama doesn't press charges, the DOJ does.  The Casey Anthony case did not involve any racial overtones, so how does that even compare to the Zimmerman case?  It is also not racist to charge someone, when it is believed they violated another persons civil rights.  What IS racist, is accusing Obama of being racist, simply for doing his job.

Joe

[tednlou2]

I have found it very interesting how most come down on this case, depending on our political persuasions.  MSNBC hosts were almost crying, but also discussing the case in an intelligent way.  I turned over to FOX and they were so happy.  They were ecstatic. They had Geraldo live from Sanford.  Lord, he is a joke.  He was skirting on sounding racist, imho.  He said how Trayvon's parents were so articulate.  Would he have said that about a white family?  He asked the black people standing behind their live shot, whether they would get violent over this verdict.  He referred to Trayvon as a thug, while not qualifying whether that's how some viewed him.  It sounded like he was saying that about Trayvon. 

We had a family pool party at my partner's parents' house today.  Except for the younger family members (18-22), everyone else is a republican.  Well, his mother voted for Obama.  I hoped they wouldn't discuss the case, because discussing politics often turns bad.  So, this would be the same.  Well, everyone kept their cool, but they were all happy about the verdict.  They all admit that they rarely watch or read news.  I have noticed that with repub friends.  The ones I know aren't intellectually curious, and just get info from FOX.  For any repub members here, I am talking about people I know.  The race issue really eats at them.  None of them even knew much about the case, but automatically sided with Zimmerman.  You can't avoid the fact that all the republicans saw this as a just verdict, while we liberals had issues with it.   

I am not saying everyone, who thought the verdict was right, is a racist.  There were problems with the case.  I think they probably overcharged the case.  The people I know, who were happy with the case, have made comments that verged on racist, in the past.  And, many of them circulated a bogus story about Trayvon.  I have included that link below.  They posted how the media was showing pics of Trayvon as a 12 year-old.  They posted this bogus story, showing Trayvon with a very muscular physique and looking "thuggish."  As soon as I saw it, I immediately knew it was bull.  The man in the photo was obviously much older.  What would be the motivation of this bogus story and photo?  I have to believe it was out of racism.  The media photos showed a cute, young, black boy.  They needed to depict him scarier.  And, would it make it more acceptable to kill the rapper in the photo?  Trayvon was too cute, so you need a black man, who looked like he deserved it?  I can't figure out any other motivation.

I just don't think they would have been so willing to believe the story about a white kid.  As I've said, I think if Trayvon was white, the people I know would be on the opposite side.  They would be questioning whether Zimmerman was here legally.  If this was their kid, they would want justice.  They would not care about the complexities of the case.  So for them, I do think racism was at play.  I think it is perfectly acceptable to debate the case.  Thinking the verdict was right does not make one racist.  But, for those who are obviously viewing this from a racist prism, I just can't take them seriously that race has zero to do with their views.  They wouldn't have been so willing to believe the photo was real and wouldn't have been circulating it. 

Here is the story about the bogus story and photo.  There is a link to view the pic.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2013/07/02/fake-photo-of-trayvon-martin-still-making-the-rounds/

[bocker3]

While I am sure that racism is a huge part of the reaction to this verdict, I'm not convinced it was part of the verdict.  I think 2 things went "wrong":

1.  The prosecution was, basically, inept.  They overcharged when you consider Florida's self-defense laws and they did a horrible job during the trial (at least the little bits I read about in the press).

2.  From what I read, the judge instructed the jury that they needed to consider whether Zimmerman's life was in danger OR IF HE THOUGHT IT WAS.  If those instructions were, in fact, given to the jury, it would have been difficult to find him guilty.

While I do think that Zimmerman deserved some punishment for getting out of his car and following Trayvon, despite being told not to do so, apparently, Florida's law made convicting him of murder or manslaughter a bridge to far.

The whole mess is a fine example of how where you live in the U.S. determines so many things.........


M

[poz91]

If you didn't catch Rachel Jeantel on Piers Morgan last night, she repeated the 'gay panic' excuse... she admits that Trayvon beat George Zimmerman because he thought he was gay.

"Yes... definitely I say he thought he might be a rapist. For every boy, for every man... every... who's not that kinda way, see a grown man following them, would they not be creep out."

[skeebo1969]

   

    So Rachel Jeantel's testimony is discredited concerning George Zimmerman, but she is  a reliable witness against Trayvon?   Let's be honest, it was Trayvon who was on trial all along. 

   Oh by the way, I saw the interview with Morgan.... you're still adding.

[skeebo1969]

    I saw this the other day.  I thought it was pretty interesting.

    http://youtu.be/ge7i60GuNRg

[skeebo1969]

If you didn't catch Rachel Jeantel on Piers Morgan last night, she repeated the 'gay panic' excuse... she admits that Trayvon beat George Zimmerman because he thought he was gay.

"Yes... definitely I say he thought he might be a rapist. For every boy, for every man... every... who's not that kinda way, see a grown man following them, would they not be creep out."

Here is an article reporting on what poz91 states.

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2013/07/new-talking-point-trayvon-martin-was-real-bigot-because-he-thought-zimmerman-was-gay/67235/

I admit this topic is something I feel pretty passionate about.  I use to argue with my own family about these issues and it was never a win situation.  It's a view held as deeply as a person's religious beliefs, and it won't be swayed. 

I'm not saying this is the case on the forums, but I acknowledge from my past experiences that my own feelings on this matter may be clouded as well.   I should stay out of this discussion.

[tednlou2]

    I saw this the other day.  I thought it was pretty interesting.

    http://youtu.be/ge7i60GuNRg

I remember seeing this, when it originally aired.  They've had other scenarios, where a black man or woman was treated differently.  I remember one was about retail stores.  They hired black actors, dressed in business attire, to shop in stores.  The black shoppers were followed, and even accused of being up to something.  And, these were black shoppers dressed in business attire.  Whenever you discuss this, many always say how whites are profiled, too.  And, that is true.  I've been followed in stores by security.  But, always when I was dressed down.  Black people are profiled much, much more.  You just can't compare the two.   

I was watching the interview with the juror, who has come forward (in shadow).  She referred to Zimmerman as George, but referred to Trayvon as "that boy."  It could be the jury just could not find him guilty, based on the evidence and instructions.  The juror said the jury was initially split, with some wanting to convict on 2nd degree and some on manslaughter.  She said it was listening to the 911 call that changed things.  The jury of 5 whites and one Hispanic was questionable.  I still can't figure out why the prosecution went along with that.  I think it was the initial investigation that needs scrutiny.  He just killed a teen, and they weren't going to arrest him.  They didn't talk to witnesses for a few months. 

The bottom line is Zimmerman had no authority to ask what Trayvon was doing.  He was a self-appointed neighborhood watchman.  It was not his business to confront someone walking through a neighborhood.  Trayvon was definitely profiled.  The gay comments are ridiculous.  Kids are taught about "stranger danger" from a young age.  They are taught to be concerned about strange men following them.  I would be worried about a stranger following me-- mostly to rob me, especially at night.   

[tednlou2]

Certain folks are now circulating this on Facebook.  They bring up the case of a young, white 17 year-old, who was murdered.  They complain he didn't get media attention, outside local media.

This article explains the key differences.

http://www.charlestoncitypaper.com/TheBattery/archives/2013/07/16/naacp-leaders-respond-to-marley-liontrayvon-martin-comparison

[J.R.E.]

President Obama, just gave a very powerful speech ( about 40 minutes ago) in regards to the Zimmerman acquittal  and Trayvon Martin :

Video and transcript:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/president-obamas-remarks-on-trayvon-martin-full-transcript/2013/07/19/5e33ebea-f09a-11e2-a1f9-ea873b7e0424_story.html

[mecch]

I had the luxury of listening to the testimony from day one.  You conveniently added a little bit there, and that's fine.  Rachal Jeantel said she told Trayvon "that he probably wants to rape you" and his reply was, "girl don't be playing with me like that".

The guy was watching him from his vehicle, and then followed him.  I would also wonder why someone was following me.  As an adult, if someone was following me, I would probably think they were going to rob me.  As a kid, I might think something worse.

Trayvon was guilty of no crime when Zimmerman chose to follow him.  Video time stamp from the 7-11 (convenience store) proved he was in route to his father's house. 

Today, I have to admit, it's pretty apparent that Trayvon started beating Zimmerman down once they reached the middle courtyard.  Truth to how exactly that transpired is only known by those two people.  One witness said he saw Trayvon on top of Zimmerman hitting him, and even he said he didn't know what started it. 

Like I said, I have no doubt Trayvon got the upper hand in the physical altercation that ensued.  You can clearly see that in the photos of George Zimmerman after the incident had occurred.  At that point, and under the stand your ground law, one is allowed to use deadly force.

When I look at this though I see a bigger problem.  Why was Zimmerman following him in the first place?  It's true the area had suffered recent burglaries, stolen property, etc... which had nothing to do with Trayvon.  Why was he targeted as being a "suspicious male"?  Is it safe to assume that Trayvon might have felt he was in danger?   Where is his right to stand his ground and take actions to defend himself from a perceived threat?

Guess what, the guy with the gun wins.

After I learned more about this situation, I kept thinking to myself how just a little communication from one or both parties could have kept one from getting killed.  But in my opinion, that's where the mistrust from both kept this from happening.

It's tragic when a 17 year old is killed when initially he was doing nothing wrong.

Great analysis.  Why do we let loser dudes carry guns and "play" cop, and reward them for it!!!  The mind boggles.   

What a pathetic emasculated dumbass this Zimmerman, bullying a teenager when asked not to, on false libido emanating from a cold gun in his pocket.  What immoral stupid racist schmuck.  I hope his life is RUINED... 

And bad kharma on all Americans who don't understand how this was an individual's racial profiling and bad and probably racist law conspiring to bring a black teenager down. 

[wolfter]

And bad kharma on all Americans who don't understand how this was an individual's racial profiling and bad and probably racist law conspiring to bring a black teenager down.

REALLY?  I thought we were all warned about how this thread would go.  I've stood silent with my own opinions here and elsewhere but to wish bad karma if people don't feel this is a racist issue?

[leatherman]

Like I said, I have no doubt Trayvon got the upper hand in the physical altercation that ensued.  You can clearly see that in the photos of George Zimmerman after the incident had occurred.  At that point, and under the stand your ground law, one is allowed to use deadly force.

a bloody nose? a couple scratches on the back of his head? no blood on the "assailant's" hands? no medical attention required? Not much of an "upper hand" and surely, one would think, not reaching the heights of needing deadly force as Zimmerman was no where near being killed or receiving great bodily harm.

This "stand your ground" law (which the defense did NOT invoke; although the judge did erroneously use the phrase in the jury instructions about basic self defense claim) definitely needs some correcting

[mecch]

I think it makes sense under Florida law and the way Zimmerman was charged, that he was acquitted. 
I also think, IMO, that Zimmerman racially profiled the young man, teenager, and foolishly got involved when he was explicitly told to back off. Zimmerman didn't follow with the intent to kill.  Martin didn't know what was happening to him or why, but clearly felt threatened by Zimmerman, NOT A COP, following him.  Zimmerman could have waited in his car, with his gun, and felt no threat whatsoever. 

Instead, it was a perfect storm of a very bad decision by Zimmerman and a very bad law, that if I read this thread correctly, didn't even need to be cited in Zimmerman's defense (!!!), to still cast it's immoral vigilante shadow over the injustice that has just been delivered to Martin and his family. 

Obama, the POTUS, says there's a racist element to this whole hideous perfect storm of sadness.  I agree.

It's hardly vulgar or aggressive to members in this forum for me to wish bad karma on Americans who can't see how race played a role in this event and very unsatisfying judicial result.

If the majority of black americans are telling us there was a race element to this affair, who are we, non-blacks, to disagree?  Please. 

[mitch777]

I think it makes sense under Florida law and the way Zimmerman was charged, that he was acquitted. 
I also think, IMO, that Zimmerman racially profiled the young man, teenager, and foolishly got involved when he was explicitly told to back off. Zimmerman didn't follow with the intent to kill.  Martin didn't know what was happening to him or why, but clearly felt threatened by Zimmerman, NOT A COP, following him.  Zimmerman could have waited in his car, with his gun, and felt no threat whatsoever. 

Instead, it was a perfect storm of a very bad decision by Zimmerman and a very bad law, that if I read this thread correctly, didn't even need to be cited in Zimmerman's defense (!!!), to still cast it's immoral vigilante shadow over the injustice that has just been delivered to Martin and his family. 

Obama, the POTUS, says there's a racist element to this whole hideous perfect storm of sadness.  I agree.

It's hardly vulgar or aggressive to members in this forum for me to wish bad karma on Americans who can't see how race played a role in this event and very unsatisfying judicial result.

If the majority of black americans are telling us there was a race element to this affair, who are we, non-blacks, to disagree?  Please.

One person's viewpoint of someone wishing another bad karma is up for debate but I do agree with the rest of your post entirely.

[bocker3]

If the majority of black americans are telling us there was a race element to this affair, who are we, non-blacks, to disagree?  Please.

Really??  so we, "as non-blacks" can agree on something being racist, but we can't disagree??  Sounds a bit racist, doesn't it?  Oh wait, am I allowed to have that opinion??

For the record -- I DO agree that racism was in the Zimmerman / Martin altercation from the get-go, but I simply hate when someone says that one can't have a different opinion on something, like racism, because of --- wait for it --- your RACE.

Seems like some stupid logic, doesn't it??

M

[mecch]

As soon as public opinion took up the affair as having a racial element, it had one. Whether or not your and my opinion (which we share) is correct about the motivations of those two people involved.

And i did not wish bad karma on "white" Americans, I wished it on Americans. 

Then i said I'm not comfortable with white Americans denying the race factor. Its delusional, considering American history.  Counter productive and not forward looking.  Bad karma is a cheap bastardized sentiment which I used to express the wish of cause and effect, that what goes around, comes around, and eventually there could be an effect that wakes people out of what I consider a delusional view of American culture.

Two different pronouncements. 

[Dachshund]

Does anyone think for a second that Trayvon Martin would have been able to use the "stand your ground" defense if he had killed Zimmerman?

Oh and it's rich when white Europeans and ex-pats lecture Americans on race relations. People of color in Europe might have a different opinion.

[Ann]

Does anyone think for a second that Trayvon Martin would have been able to use the "stand your ground" defense if he had killed Zimmerman?

Not in a million years, IMO. Trayvon felt threatened and look what happened when he "stood his ground".

Zimmerman should have stayed in his car as instructed by the police. I'm flabbergasted that he got away with this.

[bocker3]

Then i said I'm not comfortable with white Americans denying the race factor. Its delusional, considering American history. 

You really think that all blacks or "non-whites" are in agreement?  I know that they are not.
While I am of the opinion that race DID matter here -- in the altercation and in the trial, you continue to spread racism by USING RACE as a separator of what one should or should not think.  It is an asinine and counter-productive bit of "logic".

[pozniceguy]

almost  every  mention of the  situation  from day one was  " young black man  shot  by overeager white guy"        instead of " young  man  shot by  neighborhood patrol  volunteer"   presumption of  race issue was  inserted from the  first  report...  but  the  court proceedings/Jury   didnt see it that way  and  found him innocent...not  a just  verdict???/  maybe..... but if you prefer  trial by newspaper/TV  coverage/and  upset other persons...be  careful  what you wish for

Nick

[buginme2]

almost  every  mention of the  situation  from day one was  " young black man  shot  by overeager white guy"        instead of " young  man  shot by  neighborhood patrol  volunteer"   presumption of  race issue was  inserted from the  first  report...  but  the  court proceedings/Jury   didnt see it that way  and  found him innocent...not  a just  verdict???/  maybe..... but if you prefer  trial by newspaper/TV  coverage/and  upset other persons...be  careful  what you wish for

Nick

Not to be a stickler but the US justice system does not find anyone "innocent."  We find people either guilty or not guilty.  Not guilty does not equal innocent.  It's a rather important part of the justice system.

[WillyWump]

  Not guilty does not equal innocent. 

Mmmmkay.

[bocker3]

Not to be a stickler but the US justice system does not find anyone "innocent."  We find people either guilty or not guilty.  Not guilty does not equal innocent.  It's a rather important part of the justice system.

Ummmm, that is because you are PRESUMED innocent, until found guilty.  Not sure how you think your "point" means anything at all.  If you are found not guilty, then, in the court's eyes, you were and are innocent.

M

[leatherman]

If you are found not guilty, then, in the court's eyes, you were and are innocent.

not really. a civil court found OJ guilty of murder even though the criminal court did not.
(I think we may see a similar outcome when/if the Martin family sues G Zimmerman in civil court.)

"Not Guilty" is a judicial term meaning "not proven" - as in the state has not proven it "beyond a reasonable doubt". Innocent, which is not a verdict used in a criminal case, however means a person did absolutely nothing. Not guilty may mean that you aren't guilty of the specific crime you are being charged with, but you may not be innocent.

a simple google of "not guilty vs. innocent" will get you all sorts of legal gobbledygook explaining the difference and how "not guilty" is the judicial term and that it does not mean "innocent"

[bocker3]

not really. a civil court found OJ guilty of murder even though the criminal court did not.
(I think we may see a similar outcome when/if the Martin family sues G Zimmerman in civil court.)

"Not Guilty" is a judicial term meaning "not proven" - as in the state has not proven it "beyond a reasonable doubt". Innocent, which is not a verdict used in a criminal case, however means a person did absolutely nothing. Not guilty may mean that you aren't guilty of the specific crime you are being charged with, but you may not be innocent.

a simple google of "not guilty vs. innocent" will get you all sorts of legal gobbledygook explaining the difference and how "not guilty" is the judicial term and that it does not mean "innocent"

A.  We are not talking about a SUBSEQUENT civil trial.

B.  Courts do not find people innocent.  You are presumed innocent until found guilty.  So....  simple logic dictates that if you are not found guilty, you RETAIN your presumption of innocence.  A court's job is to find guilt -- not to find innocence.  At least not in this country.  The media and the public may have "found" him guilty, but that don't matter.  The jury did not find him guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt. 

C.  You can parse the terms anyway you want -- and you end up in the same place.  Zimmerman is a free man, legally anyway. (and Trayvon Martin is still dead).

[bill33]

How many murders occur in America each year and how many begin with a physical beating? Unfortunately neither Zimmerman or Martin knew what the other was thinking. Each had to act according to personal perception of the situation. Zimmerman should not of followed Martin and Martin should not of attacked Zimmerman but, both did. There was nothing racial about this situation and only stupid mistakes were made by both people. Sadly one is dead and the other will live in constant fear of the next attack. I am happy Zimmerman was found not guilty.

[tednlou2]

How many murders occur in America each year and how many begin with a physical beating? Unfortunately neither Zimmerman or Martin knew what the other was thinking. Each had to act according to personal perception of the situation. Zimmerman should not of followed Martin and Martin should not of attacked Zimmerman but, both did. There was nothing racial about this situation and only stupid mistakes were made by both people. Sadly one is dead and the other will live in constant fear of the next attack. I am happy Zimmerman was found not guilty.

Zimmerman will live in fear of the next attack?  We don't know what exactly happened.  We don't know whether he grabbed Trayvon or got in his way, so he couldn't keep walking where he was walking.  We do know Zimmerman stalked him, even when told not to do that.  By saying it that way (and maybe you phrased it wrong), it makes Trayvon the stalker and criminal, imho.  It makes it sound like he was the original aggressor. 

This reminds me of Zimmerman's brother's thinking.  He said George will now have to worry about people taking the law into their own hands.  It is so odd that he doesn't think that's what his brother did that night.  I don't understand that thinking that you can pursue someone, having zero authority to do so, and when you get into a fight with that person, you can kill them.

http://youtu.be/-ePcLS5f7jw

[bill33]

The next attack on Zimmerman will be from someone wanting to take the law into their own hands. Zimmerman will have to be vigilant and aware of his surroundings for some time because, he now has a target on his back. This is unfortunate for him but, we should all constantly be aware of what is going on around us anyway. Criminals are opportunistic and will pounce on an unsuspecting person in a heart beat.

I don't know for sure but, I don't think following someone is a crime. If I am correct then the only crime committed was when Martin attacked Zimmerman. Zimmerman never made contact with Martin but, Martin did attack Zimmerman. This was a tragic outcome for sure and could of been avoided but, the end results sends a clear message to violent people and criminals.

[mecch]

I was a juror on a murder trial in Brooklyn. The murder happened at a drug deal gone wrong and there were at least 6 thugs there. There were many guns at the scene, several shots fired.

If I remember correctly, the only person we heard from the scene of the crime was the accused. Other witnesses weren't exactly there or weren't there at all. 

The way the judge charged us, we acquitted the accused because it hadn't been proven he was the one who fired the shot that killed the victim. I remember when we were discussing the case it took awhile for one or two jurors to get over the fact that such a bad guy was going free.  Because it was clear from the trial that he was a gangster up to no good in life, several alias, known drug dealer, accused of murder previously, was at the scene of the crime, maybe fired shots, and so on and so on.

It didn't take all that long to deliberate, after all, but we did need to have that conversation. That people can make bad choices or actions, or be what someone considers a good for nothing, or dangerous, or a gangster or whatever, generally, but finally he/she is being tried for something specific.  Thats the way it works and its a pretty good justice system.

I'm sure a lot of the controversy in this case is that people (myself included) can't reconcile general impressions - and much of that based on speculation - with a very specific accusation and trial and judge instruction.... 

When I was on that jury I had already been mugged 2 times at gunpoint, and after the acquittal which seemed straightforward to me intellectually, I did have dissonance, but that's just the way the cookie crumbles. 

I think a lot of people can't tolerate any dissonance and thats why politics, public opinion, etc, can so easily collapse into shrill binary shouting matches...

One time when I was at school in a college town, I got beat up by a group of black teenagers, while walking at dusk on the main drag for the college students with the restaurants and coffee houses, etc.  They came up from behind and it was over pretty quickly. Punched me, kicked me, and bashed my face in with huge plastic water rifles, while they were laughing. Never saw them before, and they said nothing to me, and got in a car and drove away.  I went to the hospital and was treated over night, then was home in bed for quite awhile. My face looked like a meatball grinder!

When I could move I was disappointed with the lack of police followup so went to the police station to see what was happening.  I had the car's plate no. after all.

I had already been discouraged because the cop who took me to the hospital was a campus police officer (but a real police officer with a gun) but then I had to go to the city police to pursue it. The campus police officer was black and driving me to the hospital, he was asking questions pretty casually and he said "Oh, I think I know one of those kids from a youth center where I volunteer. I'm going to have a talk with him."   I was like "A talk with him???"  but was too out of it really.

Anyway, days later, at the downtown police center, the case had gone nowhere, and nobody gave a shit, basically...

Well about a month later a professor invited us all down to NY to her brooklyn art studio.  It was in a sketchy neighborhood and I know all my NY neighborhoods, but I had been out of Brooklyn for a few years.  Well as soon as I got out of the subway i was surprised to discover that my back was up, and that I was extremely nervous whenever a few black teenagers were walking behind me.  Unfortunately, I had turned into a race profiler. I soon moved back to NY and this continued for about a year or two until finally, thank God, it faded away...  Previous to the crime, I had never been scared in any neighborhood or of any "type" of person.

I say all this because as regards Zimmerman and whether or not he is "racist", we know that he is ethnically mixed himself, white european and peruvian and the peruvian has been reported to be mixed Indian and African...  And that he spoke out against a white cop having committed brutality on a black victim...   So rather than seeing things in binaries, the psychology can be more complex. I don't think he was "a racist" in life but his myspace page was racist about mexicans and his calls about his neighborhood watch activities were tinged with profiling against young blacks... 

We don't need to make him into a living breathing KKK card carrying racist in general, to say that in some situations he could have been doing "racial" profiling. 
I know how that might happen....

[mitch777]

A.  We are not talking about a SUBSEQUENT civil trial.

B.  Courts do not find people innocent.  You are presumed innocent until found guilty.  So....  simple logic dictates that if you are not found guilty, you RETAIN your presumption of innocence.  A court's job is to find guilt -- not to find innocence.  At least not in this country.  The media and the public may have "found" him guilty, but that don't matter.  The jury did not find him guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt. 

C.  You can parse the terms anyway you want -- and you end up in the same place.  Zimmerman is a free man, legally anyway. (and Trayvon Martin is still dead).

I see things a bit different on point "A".
Bugs initial comment did not exclude the bigger picture of a subsequent trial. Maybe your interpretation was different than mine.
I agree with points B and C.
The bottom line here is that one can be found not guilty in the eyes of the law for many reasons. It does NOT mean the person is innocent in reality.
In this case, lack of proof of the charges against Zimmerman set him free. Lack of proof doesn't make him an innocent human being.

[mecch]

I pretty much agree with Bocker, and think Zimmerman is innocent of murder. I think we are debating the whole affair generally, between those two, Zimmerman and Martin, and society generally as well. Then it gets really contentious. 

[mitch777]

I pretty much agree with Bocker, and think Zimmerman is innocent of murder. I think we are debating the whole affair generally, between those two, Zimmerman and Martin, and society generally as well. Then it gets really contentious.

I pretty much agree with both of you too. My post was about the part of this thread dealing with innocent vs. not guilty. There is a difference.

[bocker3]

I pretty much agree with both of you too. My post was about the part of this thread dealing with innocent vs. not guilty. There is a difference.

I think I get that you are pointing out that there is a "legalese" difference -- certainly a "not guilty" verdict does not, in actuality, state that the person didn't do it -- it simply points out that the evidence did not lead to a guilty finding, beyond a reasonable doubt (for a criminal trial). 

However, from a practical standpoint -- there is no difference.  They can not be retried in a criminal court for that charge (double jeopardy) and if they are brought up on subsequent charges (like a Federal civil rights charge), they start that trial with a presumption of innocence (not a presumption of "not guilty).

Even a civil trial that might follow -- the defendant starts that with a presumption of innocence.  Of course, the burden to prove guilt here is lower, because we aren't looking at taking away their freedom.  So, instead of beyond a reasonable doubt, guilt is decided on a "more likely than not" sort of basis.

So - one can split hairs between the meaning of innocent vs. not guilty from a legal standpoint, but from a practical POV, there is no difference.  If you are "innocent until proven guilty", and you are not proven guilty, logic dictates you still retain your "innocent" standing.

Mike

[mitch777]

I think I get that you are pointing out that there is a "legalese" difference -- certainly a "not guilty" verdict does not, in actuality, state that the person didn't do it -- it simply points out that the evidence did not lead to a guilty finding, beyond a reasonable doubt (for a criminal trial). 

However, from a practical standpoint -- there is no difference.  They can not be retried in a criminal court for that charge (double jeopardy) and if they are brought up on subsequent charges (like a Federal civil rights charge), they start that trial with a presumption of innocence (not a presumption of "not guilty).

Even a civil trial that might follow -- the defendant starts that with a presumption of innocence.  Of course, the burden to prove guilt here is lower, because we aren't looking at taking away their freedom.  So, instead of beyond a reasonable doubt, guilt is decided on a "more likely than not" sort of basis.

So - one can split hairs between the meaning of innocent vs. not guilty from a legal standpoint, but from a practical POV, there is no difference.  If you are "innocent until proven guilty", and you are not proven guilty, logic dictates you still retain your "innocent" standing.

Mike

I get where you are coming from and agree with your last post. I'm just going further than the legal system on the definition of innocence.
Even if he sails through any further trials and comes out without punishment or damages, in my eyes he is not guilty through the eyes of the law but is not innocent.
Example:
Let's say a guy really did commit 1st degree murder and got away with it in the legal system for one reason or another. Does that make him innocent? I think not. Therefor, one CAN be found "not guilty" AND "not innocent" at the same time.
I believe this relates back to what Bugs said. The legal system uses the specific words "not guilty" instead of "innocent" when a verdict is read for a reason.

http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/32989/is-there-a-difference-between-innocent-and-not-guilty

[bocker3]

I get where you are coming from and agree with your last post. I'm just going further than the legal system on the definition of innocence.
Even if he sails through any further trials and comes out without punishment or damages, in my eyes he is not guilty through the eyes of the law but is not innocent.
Example:
Let's say a guy really did commit 1st degree murder and got away with it in the legal system for one reason or another. Does that make him innocent? I think not. Therefor, one CAN be found "not guilty" AND "not innocent" at the same time.
I believe this relates back to what Bugs said. The legal system uses the specific words "not guilty" instead of "innocent" when a verdict is read for a reason.

http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/32989/is-there-a-difference-between-innocent-and-not-guilty

I agree.  Although we are talking about legality here, so what is the practical difference here, from a legal POV?  Whether "innocent" or "not guilty" -- he has no legal penalty to pay.

If our system were reversed and the burden of proof was on the defendant (i.e. prove your innocence, beyond a reasonable doubt) - would one still be pointing out that a verdict of "not innocent" does not equal "guilty"?  Either wording produces the same result -- you go to jail.

The only time I see folks bring up the "not guilty" does not mean "innocent" line is when they disagree with a verdict.  If you want to get real picky -- a "guilty" verdict doesn't mean one is NOT innocent - we read about people being released from prison because they, in fact, were NOT guilty.

So -- bottomline (and I'm not doing this to change anyone's mind -- just to ensure clarity of my point) -- there is no practical difference in this legal hair-splitting.  Hell, there really isn't any real "legal" difference when you get right down to it.

M

[Dachshund]

 


Even a civil trial that might follow -- the defendant starts that with a presumption of innocence.  Of course, the burden to prove guilt here is lower, because we aren't looking at taking away their freedom.  So, instead of beyond a reasonable doubt, guilt is decided on a "more likely than not" sort of basis.

Also, Zimmerman would be forced to testify in a civil trial.

[skeebo1969]

a bloody nose? a couple scratches on the back of his head? no blood on the "assailant's" hands? no medical attention required? Not much of an "upper hand" and surely, one would think, not reaching the heights of needing deadly force as Zimmerman was no where near being killed or receiving great bodily harm.

This "stand your ground" law (which the defense did NOT invoke; although the judge did erroneously use the phrase in the jury instructions about basic self defense claim) definitely needs some correcting

Zimmerman invoked it the night of the incident.

I think you have mistakenly took what I was saying as agreeing that Zimmerman had a right to take Trayvon's life.  That's not so.   I was simply stating that once Zimmerman felt his life was in danger, under Florida law (stand your ground), he had a right to use deadly force.  This is why he was found not guilty.  I mean how is one to theorize, let alone disprove, what Zimmerman felt that night?

As I mentioned earlier and others have also, I feel Trayvon should have had just as much right to stand his ground too.  But, once again, the one with the gun wins. 

Years ago when I took a concealed weapons course in Florida, which was a prerequisite for carrying a weapon, the instructor told us if you shoot someone shoot to kill.  It was not necessarily just to stop a imminent threat either, it was also to prevent the main witness (the person you killed) from testifying against you.   I found this odd and it left me rather conflicted.  I no longer have guns in my house.

With what I mentioned above, I don't necessarily think Zimmerman had this in mind when he shot his weapon, however, it was made known during the trial that Zimmerman was well versed on the stand your ground law.  His teacher testified to this fact.

I'll also go as far as to say he's not even a racist, however, I feel that his calculations and behaviors that night were racially motivated.  This is essentially why a 17 year old, minding his own business, was "justifiably killed".... 
edited to add... Which is murder in my book.

[mitch777]

I agree.  Although we are talking about legality here, so what is the practical difference here, from a legal POV?  Whether "innocent" or "not guilty" -- he has no legal penalty to pay.

If our system were reversed and the burden of proof was on the defendant (i.e. prove your innocence, beyond a reasonable doubt) - would one still be pointing out that a verdict of "not innocent" does not equal "guilty"?  Either wording produces the same result -- you go to jail.

The only time I see folks bring up the "not guilty" does not mean "innocent" line is when they disagree with a verdict.  If you want to get real picky -- a "guilty" verdict doesn't mean one is NOT innocent - we read about people being released from prison because they, in fact, were NOT guilty.

So -- bottomline (and I'm not doing this to change anyone's mind -- just to ensure clarity of my point) -- there is no practical difference in this legal hair-splitting.  Hell, there really isn't any real "legal" difference when you get right down to it.

M

Mike,
I think you and I are in agreement on this case. There are tangents in this discussion. I was simply addressing the subject that Bugs brought up.
When you get to know me better in Chicago I think you will see that I do that often. Probably much too often. 
Bring up the topic of a hang nail and I'll eventually get around to hang gliding or hang up.

 
Years ago when I took a concealed weapons course in Florida, which was a prerequisite for carrying a weapon, the instructor told us if you shoot someone shoot to kill.  It was not necessarily just to stop a imminent threat either, it was also to prevent the main witness (the person you killed) from testifying against you. 

This is scary! Wonder if Zimmerman was taught the same thing.

I'll also go as far as to say he's not even a racist, however, I feel that his calculations and behaviors that night were racially motivated.  This is essentially why a 17 year old, minding his own business, was "justifiably killed".... 
edited to add... Which is murder in my book.

Yup.
Not innocent.

[leatherman]

I think you have mistakenly took what I was saying as agreeing that Zimmerman had a right to take Trayvon's life.  That's not so.   I was simply stating that once Zimmerman felt his life was in danger, under Florida law (stand your ground), he had a right to use deadly force.  This is why he was found not guilty.  I mean how is one to theorize, let alone disprove, what Zimmerman felt that night?

ah, that's good. I had misunderstood you.

However, as an armchair quarterback, and something the prosecution should have brought up, IMHO a few cuts on the back of a head and a bloody nose does not equate to "life in danger". Obviously the wording of that law leaves a lot to desire. some might say that a black boy turning on a person and asking why them they were following might make them feel their life was in danger. Really?? where does the line get drawn? as I've said before clearly these laws need a lot more correcting to make them applicable to real world situations. As they are all someone has to do is say they felt their life was in danger - with no real proof - and viola! murder is legal.

Luckily the laws in SC say that I can only "stand my ground" in my house, on my property, inside a car, or in my place of business. I think that covers the "castle doctrine" quiet well without allowing vigilantes to roam the streets.

[skeebo1969]

  Zimmerman comes out of hiding to rescue either someone, a family of four, or both.


  http://gma.yahoo.com/george-zimmerman-emerged-hiding-truck-crash-rescue-163123990--abc-news-topstories.html

 
  http://gma.yahoo.com/george-zimmerman-emerged-hiding-truck-crash-rescue-174553647--abc-news-topstories.html

 

[poz91]

"... IMHO a few cuts on the back of a head and a bloody nose does not equate to "life in danger". ..."

The three EMTs who treated his wounds at the scene, the PA who treated him at his physician's office the following day, and Dr. Di Maio who is one of the country's leading forensic pathologists all corroborated that his nose was in fact broken, not merely bloodied... Di Maio even pointed out during the trial that you can see the broken cartilage actually protruding out of the left side of his nose in the picture taken at the scene.

Also, they were not merely cuts (incisions) on the back of his head... there were two distinct lacerations which were caused by having his head slammed into the sidewalk with great enough force to rip open the skin.... twice. All total, Dr. Di Maio estimated no fewer than six separate prominent injuries to George's head and a myriad of other scrapes and punctate wounds.

He was being beaten, and even the state seemingly conceded that point... ASA John Guy gave a memorable demonstration of the beating by straddling a mannequin on the courtroom floor. 

Now... put yourself in his shoes. You're Neighborhood Watch and you've just witnessed a young man entering the private gated community through the bushes rather than through the secure resident entrance. He doesn't live there, he's not accompanied by a resident, he appears to be high on something, you call 311 to report the individual, and four minutes after he had disappeared off into the darkness, he's suddenly back and has you pinned to the ground and is viciously beating you. Unlike the armchair online jurists, he didn't have the luxury of sixteen months and the benefit of hindsight to identify and mull over all of his available options from the comfort and safety of home...  he literally had only seconds to decide whether this stranger who was beating him meant to do him further harm.

And all of the talk about how he shouldn't have gotten out of the car in the first place... that amounts to rationalizing that by leaving the safety of his vehicle he provided his assailant with the opportunity to attack him. Would folks also rationalize that if a woman were to get into a car with a stranger, she has somehow consented to being raped. No, of course not. A momentary lapse in judgement doesn't negate a person's innate right to defend him or herself.

[leatherman]

John Guy gave a memorable demonstration of the beating by straddling a mannequin on the courtroom floor.

I really thought the state should have responded better to that demonstration. Shaking a 5lb mannequin around looks great but isn't anything like reality

He doesn't live there, ... he appears to be high on something, you call 311 to report the individual, and four minutes after he had disappeared off into the darkness, he's suddenly back and has you pinned to the ground and is viciously beating you.

what a load or malarky!!
how can one tell just by looking that someone didn't live there... or was high. You are making some terrible assumptions there, that simply can't be known. And Trayvon didn't "disappear into the darkness", he took another path in the complex to avoid someone following him. Please remember he was just barely a 4-day 17 yr old kid being "stalked" by a guy in a truck that was now following on foot. Zimmerman went around the building and came up Trayvon, not the other way around.

Would folks also rationalize that if a woman were to get into a car with a stranger, she has somehow consented to being raped.

bad analogy.  Trayvon didn't get into any vehicle. The better comparison would be, does a young girl walking down a sidewalk, being stalked/followed by a stranger, consent to being raped? I would imagine that most of us would say an emphatic NO.

And all of the talk about how he shouldn't have gotten out of the car in the first place... that amounts to rationalizing that by leaving the safety of his vehicle he provided his assailant with the opportunity to attack him.

assailant?!? you cannot PRE-judge a teenager walking in his own neighbor as an assailant. Once again you like others are trying to re-write history so the murdered person is a criminal - without that person committing any crimes.

btwthough I will grant you that Zimmerman had a fractured nose, "lacerations" and "cuts" mean the same thing.

[mecch]

Now... put yourself in his shoes. You're Neighborhood Watch and you've just witnessed a young man entering the private gated community through the bushes rather than through the secure resident entrance. He doesn't live there, he's not accompanied by a resident, he appears to be high on something, you call 311 to report the individual, and four minutes after he had disappeared off into the darkness, he's suddenly back and has you pinned to the ground and is viciously beating you.

All right Mickey Spillane.... Though the first line sounds more like Miss Manners.

Meanwhile I just watched that slap-dash and rather gripping Sharknado filled with campy lines like those above....

[poz91]

"I really thought the state should have responded better to that demonstration."

ASA John Guy was the hunky little prosecutor and it was the state's demonstration.

And frankly, McDreamy Funsize mounting a doll for an audience of all female jurors came across as being more arousing than threatening, and I'm guessing that may have been their intent. It was a Jerry Seinfeld making out at Schindler's List moment of guilt... half the people watching probably wished they were the doll.

But the mere fact that the state was even finally conceding at this point that Trayvon was on top of George and beating him represented an extreme departure from the state's originally claiming that it was a 90 degree angle shot fired straight front to back from a standing position. The evidence simply didn't bear that theory out.

And there was no way going forward from that point that a jury was ever going to find it unreasonable for a person in that position having received the injuries that he had to not be in fear of further injury...

[poz91]

"All right Mickey Spillane...."

...lol, but it in fact was a dark and stormy night.

Cliche, maybe, but not an inaccurate description of the heavy precipitation and low visibility conditions.

[mecch]

Yeah.  But the defense had this narrative of Zimmerman being justifiably suspicious because a teenage boy was wandering around in the rain and how that could easily be construed as a thief on the prowl...   

When I was a teenager in suburbia I was out in the rain all the time. 

Back in the innocent times before "neighbourhood patrols" and everyone and their mother with a gun, the dangers were dogs and their poop. 

[skeebo1969]

And there was no way going forward from that point that a jury was ever going to find it unreasonable for a person in that position having received the injuries that he had to not be in fear of further injury...

Especially if you consider how one juror has come forward and during interviews refers to Zimmerman as "George" and Trayvon as "that boy".   You and I see very different scenarios.

I see a young, unarmed teenager who was going home.  You see an assailant who was sneaking through the bushes.  I see a man with a gun, who probably would not have followed someone if he did not have it.  You see a victim who was ambushed, and luckily had his 9 at his side. 

I would like to think the "stand your ground" law was the real reason the verdict was another pile of shit slapped on two grieving parents' face.  I don't know how I would take it if someone told me a loved one died simply because someone else thought something.  But, when you break it down, that was the true nature of what occurred before the fatal interaction took place.  People happy with the verdict conveniently ignore how Trayvon must have felt that night.  He must have possessed some superhuman  powers, unlike most 17 year olds, to be so fearless while being followed by a stranger.  I guess he was simply a "thug" doing what "thugs" do.  It's this line of thinking that makes it ok, and will be the main reason something like this happens again.

[mecch]

"The Retreat at Twin Lakes" may be a gated community but its hardly a leafy verdant community filled with dark and mysterious places to hide and get up to mischief. 
Looks to me like a rather spartan and dreary complex twisting upon itself, of identical townhouses and lanes where one could easily pass a moment trying to figure out which way to go to get "home".  Which is where Martin was going....

[Ann]

But the mere fact that the state was even finally conceding at this point that Trayvon was on top of George and beating him represented an extreme departure from the state's originally claiming that it was a 90 degree angle shot fired straight front to back from a standing position. The evidence simply didn't bear that theory out.

Here's something I haven't been able to understand.

If Zimmerman fired the shot while Trayvon was on top of him, why wasn't Zimmerman covered in Trayvon's blood?

And if Trayvon was no longer on top of him, that means he had gotten off him and stopped hitting him so Zimmerman was no longer in immediate danger. Couldn't Zimmerman, at that point, have simply waved the gun and only threatened to shoot if Trayvon came at him again? If he did that, surely Trayvon would have run away?

He must have possessed some superhuman  powers, unlike most 17 year olds, to be so fearless while being followed by a stranger.

Adrenalin will give a person extra strength when in fear of their safety, or the safety of a loved one. We've all heard stories of how a small person can suddenly lift a car off a toddler, for example.

The whole thing sucks from beginning to the end. I do believe Zimmerman got away with murder. Not premeditated murder, but definitely the wholly unnecessary - and not accidental - killing of another human being. 

[bill33]

I thought Zimmerman had Martin's blood on his shirt. Still, when someone is shot bleeding depends on the caliber of the bullet. Also was Martin's shirt and hoody in the way of the blood flow. Zimmerman's lawyer also showed the powder pattern on the shirt and on the body was consistent with someone being shot while leaning over the victim. The victim is Zimmerman, the attacker was Martin.

I also agree with you that if Zimmerman could simply wave his firearm at Martin and frighten Martin away that should end the situation. I've been in a few of those myself. So, once the threat is removed the shot should not be taken. Unfortunately Zimmerman shot Martin while Martin was over him pummeling his face with his fists. Zimmerman was correct shooting Martin in self defense.

[poz91]

"If Zimmerman fired the shot while Trayvon was on top of him, why wasn't Zimmerman covered in Trayvon's blood?"

The bleeding was internal, into the chest cavity.

George would not have been covered in his assailant's blood.

[bocker3]

Unfortunately Zimmerman shot Martin while Martin was over him pummeling his face with his fists. Zimmerman was correct shooting Martin in self defense.

OMG -- if you witnessed this, why didn't you come forward to the police after it happened???  You CLEARLY could have saved the state of Florida a lot of money from avoiding this trial.

 

[tednlou2]

Interesting article and interesting stats about stand your ground.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/25/opinion/blow-standing-our-ground.html?hpw&_r=0

[tednlou2]

And, there's this.  A juror comes forward on Good Morning America, and she says Zimmerman got away with murder.  She shows her face.  You can listen/read what she has to say about what the jury thought and why they found him not guilty.

http://www.whas11.com/news/national/George-Zimmerman-juror-says-he-got-away-with-murder-216989021.html

[mecch]

Neither video clip on that link includes the actual interview.

[tednlou2]

Neither video clip on that link includes the actual interview.

Ok, here's what happened.  I didn't watch the video from their web story.  I watched a one minute clip on their newscast.  I assumed it was the same.  Although, there is the article.  The clip was detailed and gave her explanation and views.  I'm trying to find that clip.  The interview was taped for Friday's Good Morning America, with portions shown tonight on Thursday's Nightline. 

She says she wanted to find him guilty of 2nd degree murder and would have caused a hung jury.  However, she said while she believed he was guilty, she said under the jury instructions, she couldn't say whether he meant to kill him.  I don't understand that.  If you shoot someone, you have the expectation they could die.  She said Zimmerman will have to answer to God.  Oh, I loathe when people say that. 

Modified:  here is the clip

http://youtu.be/de44h81nszg

[skeebo1969]

Adrenalin will give a person extra strength when in fear of their safety, or the safety of a loved one. We've all heard stories of how a small person can suddenly lift a car off a toddler, for example.

That is a good point and something I never really thought about..  I was being sarcastic with the superhuman description and the thug part.   

Something that was never really touched during the trial was the fact that Zimmerman said the reason he shot Trayvon is because the teen grabbed his gun.  During the trial the DNA expert said none of Trayvon's DNA was found on the weapon and that only Zimmerman's was on it.  The prosecution never really jumped on this.  On the other hand, the defense questioned the expert as to whether the rain could have washed Trayvon's DNA off the weapon. 

This is something Zimmerman always contended-- that he shot Trayvon because he was about to take the weapon from him.  However, this fact was merely glanced over during the trial and it focused primarily on the beating Zimmerman took. 

The gun was holstered on the inner thigh.  If Trayvon had mounted him as Zimmerman claimed how could he see the gun?  He's raining down blows and reaching back for the gun at the same time?  This is one incredibly strong 156 pound, just turned 17 year old boy.  He was one inch taller than me, and when I was 160 lbs. I bordered on being too thin.  Hell I'm even thin at 180.

http://news.yahoo.com/gun-grab-no-trayvon-martin-dna-george-zimmerman-222517715.html

Another point I found interesting, that is also unimportant at this time, is that Trayvon had one small mark on his fourth finger.  Having been in a few fights in grade school my knuckles always opened up and my hands were always a mess afterwards.

Anywho, I guess that's the end of my rant on this subject. 

I also want to show how contradictory and biased I can be on this topic.  My oldest daughter's boyfriend was shot and killed in April.  He wasn't a good guy and if you google his name you'll see he was charged with homicide-willful kill during a felony in 2006.  He actually beat my daughter when she was pregnant with his child.  I found out later that he had beat her on numerous occasions.  She lost the child to miscarriage and he never once came to the hospital.  I never felt so helpless as a father watching her cry in a way that I never want to see one of my girls do again.

 How this guy was even free to do this is beyond any explanation.  He had a criminal record a mile long.  My daughter, who was 19 at the time, was going to school at USF and in love with him. 

Her brothers and I wanted to get our hands on him so bad, but she protected him.  She wouldn't even file a police report after her mother and I begged her to.  She finally came to her senses and broke up with him in February.

I'll admit, I wished very bad things on him.  And, when I found out he had been killed I was content in a strange way.  I've never told my daughter about that aspect while consoling her.  She was devastated.  I was thankful....  It's one of those bittersweet moments that I feel ashamed of.

http://highlandstoday.com/hi/local-news/avon-park-man-charged-with-murder-b82484831z1

[poz91]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4EKnS_1RHA

Start watching Mr. Connor's testimony around the 23:15 mark.

In addition to the stolen property, drugs, burglary tools, vandalism, and other issues that the Miami-Dade Schools Police Department reported, in addition to the fighting and beating up classmates for snitching, and in addition to the field contact report with the Miami Gardens Police Department, Martin was also actively looking to purchase an illegal gun after being suspended from school.

This was a dangerous and violent young man.

[leatherman]

This was a dangerous and violent young man.

none of which Zimmerman knew when he shot Trayvon. Besides Zimmerman was no saint either.

Regardless of that information, we have a judicial system that is supposed to handle these issues. It's not up to a vigilante to mete out "justice" on the streets like it's the wild west - especially since nothing in that laundry list you posted is deserving of the death penalty. Many a 16/17 year old has been a "troubled youth", had a run in with the law, and gone on to become a better person/citizen - an option not afforded to this child because of an over-zealous citizen who had no business/authority stalking this youth.

[bocker3]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4EKnS_1RHA

Start watching Mr. Connor's testimony around the 23:15 mark.

In addition to the stolen property, drugs, burglary tools, vandalism, and other issues that the Miami-Dade Schools Police Department reported, in addition to the fighting and beating up classmates for snitching, and in addition to the field contact report with the Miami Gardens Police Department, Martin was also actively looking to purchase an illegal gun after being suspended from school.

This was a dangerous and violent young man.

I don't quite get your zealous need to portray Trayvon in such an evil light. 

The undisputed facts are that he WAS unarmed, he WAS walking someplace that he had every right to be, Mr. Zimmerman DID kill Trayvon and the had Mr. Zimmerman followed the instructions of the 911 operator there would have been NO ALTERCATION OF ANY KIND (and aside from some cuts and bruises, there are no FACTS around exactly what happened in said altercation).

Now -- based on my understanding of Florida law (admittedly limited) and what I've heard of the trial -- I think the jurors got it right.  I'm not happy about that fact -- but there you have it.

Mike

[mecch]

Constructing Martin as a thug is necessary in the stories that make sense to poz91 and others who think Zimmerman did nothing wrong.  Zimmerman himself constructed such a thug story.  Obama explained how this operates. 

Of course its possible Martin was a thug but its difficult to tell if he was, or if he was a teenager "playing at" thug.  I doubt many white people discussing this have much ability or interest to understand the difference.

A lot of people are not alarmed that Martin was "playing" at cop, because a lot of people believe in guns to "protect" themselves. They believe this to their core.

What the libtards like me are saying is that it doesn't matter if he was a thug or not when the topic is:  he was an unarmed minor walking home and zimmerman was playing at cop, had a gun, and profiled him as dangerous and suspicious and shot him dead.

People aren't going to rest easy with a story that doesn't sum up easily, has a judicial result that seems unsatisfactory even when its "correct application of the law."  So, people simplify, simplify.  Zimmerman the good samaritan, in an act of self protection, killed a thug.  Or Zimmerman is a racist who hunted and murdered an angelic black boy.

Happily, the discourse in Forums.poz.com isn't so stupid. 

[Dachshund]

*

[leatherman]

So, people simplify, simplify.  Zimmerman the good samaritan, in an act of self protection, killed a thug.  Or Zimmerman is a racist who hunted and murdered an angelic black boy.

if you take out the modifers that you even added (neither racist or angelic are known/proveable factors), it can be simplified further to it's core - and I think this is what disturbs many people : "Zimmerman hunted and murdered a boy"

I'll never understand why the prosecutor did not dwell on that version of the situation. What were the motives/intent of an armed grown-up stalking/pursuing a teenager in the dark? It has always seemed to me that the "crime" started there and ended with the undisputed situation of Zimmerman shooting and killing an unarmed teenager - a situation that in most any other venue, would have been generally known as murder.

[J.R.E.]

I wonder why I am not surprised by this:

Zimmerman's wife files for divorce/ wants the life insurance policy:

http://www.baynews9.com/content/news/baynews9/news/article.html/content/news/articles/cfn/2013/9/6/Zimmerman_s_wife_seeks_life_insurance_policy.html


SANFORD --

George Zimmerman's wife wants him to pay for a permanent life insurance policy with her named as the beneficiary.

Shellie Zimmerman asked in the divorce petition released Friday that a judge order George Zimmerman to pay the premiums on the policy.

She also is seeking an equal distribution of their checking accounts, trusts, partnerships and any unknown assets.

She asked that a judge prevent him from selling off any property.

“They really only have debt, they don’t have any substantial assets, but the biggest issue and the thing that’s going to be fought over is whether she has any future rights or any negotiating issues going on concerning a possible book or movie, or some sort of publicity deal, that could actually be considered an asset,” said legal analyst Mark NeJame.

In an interview on "Good Morning America," Zimmerman said George Zimmerman was verbally and emotionally abusive.

"It’s just time," Zimmerman said. "I have supported him for so long and neglected myself for too long and I feel like I’m finally starting to feel empowered again.”

The petition says the couple separated a month after George Zimmerman was acquitted in July of any crime for fatally shooting 17-year-old Trayvon Martin.

Shellie Zimmerman said her husband was very selfish, and she thought he was making some reckless decisions since his acquittal.

Shellie Zimmerman pleaded guilty Aug. 28 to perjury charges. A judge sentenced her to one year of probation and 100 hours of community service for lying about the couple's finances during her husband's original bond hearing after his first arrest on second-degree murder charges.

She recently told ABC she believes George's version of the events leading to the shooting of Trayvon Martin.



He also likes to speed:



http://www.baynews9.com/content/news/baynews9/news/article.html/content/news/articles/cfn/2013/9/4/george_zimmerman_pul.html

Short video:

http://www.baynews9.com/content/news/baynews9/video.html?clip=http://static.cfnews13.com/newsvideo/cfn/ZIMMERMAN-PULLED-OVER-WEB.f4v&vtitle=Police%20Camera%3A%20George%20Zimmerman%20pulled%20over




http://mynews13.com/content/news/cfnews13/news/article.html/content/news/articles/cfn/2013/7/31/report_george_zimmer.html

Another short video of him speeding in Texas, a little while back:


http://mynews13.com/content/news/cfnews13/video.html?clip=http://static.baynews9.com/newsvideo/bn9/web_video/Zimmerman_speeding_73113.f4v&vtitle=George%20Zimmerman%20pulled%20over%20in%20Texas%20for%20speeding

[WillyWump]

He also likes to speed:



http://www.baynews9.com/content/news/baynews9/news/article.html/content/news/articles/cfn/2013/9/4/george_zimmerman_pul.html

Short video:

http://www.baynews9.com/content/news/baynews9/video.html?clip=http://static.cfnews13.com/newsvideo/cfn/ZIMMERMAN-PULLED-OVER-WEB.f4v&vtitle=Police%20Camera%3A%20George%20Zimmerman%20pulled%20over




http://mynews13.com/content/news/cfnews13/news/article.html/content/news/articles/cfn/2013/7/31/report_george_zimmer.html

Another short video of him speeding in Texas, a little while back:


http://mynews13.com/content/news/cfnews13/video.html?clip=http://static.baynews9.com/newsvideo/bn9/web_video/Zimmerman_speeding_73113.f4v&vtitle=George%20Zimmerman%20pulled%20over%20in%20Texas%20for%20speeding

OMG! he's a speeder! No say it isnt so

[J.R.E.]

OMG! he's a speeder! No say it isnt so

   That's why the  ( ex) wife wants to be beneficiary of his life insurance policy. Maybe she's thinking he'll kill himself on the road, unless someone else does him in first.

Ray

[J.R.E.]

And the saga continues, it's just a matter of time...


http://www.baynews9.com/content/news/baynews9/news/article.html/content/news/articles/cfn/2013/9/9/police_questioning_g.html


LAKE MARY --

George Zimmerman is being questioned by Lake Mary Police following a domestic incident.

Lake Mary Police said George's estranged wife Shellie called officers to her father's home on Sprucewood Road after threatening her and her father with a gun....


Ray

[mitch777]

I wonder if he will go the route of AJ Simpson. Creepy.

[drewm]

Zimmerman is a fat P.O.S.

[J.R.E.]

And the saga continues, it's just a matter of time...


http://www.baynews9.com/content/news/baynews9/news/article.html/content/news/articles/cfn/2013/9/9/police_questioning_g.html


LAKE MARY --


George Zimmerman is being questioned by Lake Mary Police following a domestic incident.

Lake Mary Police said George's estranged wife Shellie called officers to her father's home on Sprucewood Road after threatening her and her father with a gun....


Ray

I wonder if he will go the route of AJ Simpson. Creepy.

And again, here we go... Zimmerman arrested in Florida, and in Jail.:


http://www.baynews9.com/content/news/baynews9/news/article.html/content/news/articles/cfn/2013/11/18/zimmerman_arrested.html





Ray

[mecch]

Zimmerman is a fat P.O.S.

what has weight got to do with his worthlessness?

[WillyWump]

Zimmermann is starting to creep me out.

[Jeff G]

Zimmermann is starting to creep me out.

LOL ... just started ?