Serious Zimmerman Acquitted

[Shiruba]

^ Personally, I wasn't addressing DK's behaviour in this thread in particular, just DK in general.

I agree with your sentiment, however. The people who say Zimmerman is white... lol. Maybe partially, but he's a visible minority. You could argue that he's just "more white" but he's definitely Hispanic.

 

[Aldaron]

Have the courts released _all_ the evidence regarding the case to the public? Does the public know _everything_ the jury does?

No?

Funny how people jump to extreme conclusions (on either side) with incomplete information.

There is a very specific reason why I haven't moderated the shit out of this thread, from off topic irrelevant politicking, to unnecessary references to race, to straight ad homimem: I'll let you think about it for a second.



You don't have to read the rest of my post, it's just justifying what I said above. I mean, who cares about justification right?

Just to emphasize what I mean by complete evidence, and to underscore why the majority of extreme reactions are seriously laughable...let's look at another racially charged case: the OJ Simpson trial.

Outrage to the OJ Simpson trial was justified because OJ's DNA was on the glove, yet OJ's lawyers managed to make the federal agents look like buffoons (couldn't answer what pi was), and managed to use sensationalized and irrational fears of DNA testing to throw that relevant evidence out. This was a case that justified an outraged response because relevant evidence was released that strongly pointed the opposite to the decision.

Where is the strong, "DNA on the glove but not used" evidence for this case? You can attempt to throw some weak examples of tangential and circumstantial "evidence" at me, but in the end it will be circumstantial.

This is our juctice system...when evidence doesn't absolutely support a guilty verdict, you default to innocent. This is a _good_ justice system philosophy. Our justice system in practice CERTAINLY has some significant issues...but the idea of innocent until proven absolutely guilty is ABSOLUTELY a great tenet.

Stop acting like spoiled children who didn't get what they wanted for Hanukah; yes, it's a travesty a young man lost his life. No, it isn't a travesty that a jury of people who felt there was insufficient evidence followed the proper course of action and let a man go. All these calls for vigilante justice are honestly pathetic and based on what I started this post on...incomplete evidence promoted by media sensationalism.

 

[Leafshield]

omg Aldaron your signature goes hand in hand with your post.

 

[Bull of Heaven]

Seeing as my posts so far have basically amounted to calling Zimmerman racist, I'm not sure whether I'm one of the people WaterBomb and Aldaron are talking about. So just to be clear, I'm no fan of Zimmerman, but I believe that the acquittal was probably the right decision. Whether we like the outcome or not, the jury seems to have done its job correctly, though of course I can't be completely certain of that. Zimmerman has his rights and they exist for good reason. What's more important is what this story says about society, as well as any flaws in Florida law. Regardless of who first invoked race, the fact that it was invoked, and so quickly, shows that there is still significant progress to be made on that front. What I've been wondering lately is why so many people, especially the media, only manage to empathise with Martin or Zimmerman, but not both. Even a juror has been surprisingly transparent about that recently, and honestly, I think Deck Knight has done better at understanding both sides than most of the media I've listened to. Race obviously has something to do with all this, and people need to be asking what can be learned from it.

Nastyjungle and kd24 have been making good posts. Read them if you haven't yet.

And while I'm talking about the media, I'd like to bring up a couple of things in the coverage of this case that have irritated me lately. The first is the way anti-Zimmerman media are talking about his interaction with the 911 dispatcher. I actually heard one host (worse, a host I like) say that the dispatcher had told him to "go back in your car". I hope we all know that didn't happen. "We don't need you to do that" is advice that should have been followed, and I would say it was reckless to ignore it, but it's a weakly implied command at most.

What's even more frustrating is the coverage of Martin's clothing. Pro-Zimmerman media are seriously trying to claim that a hoodie is some kind of "thug uniform". Bullshit. All kinds of people wear hoodies. My brother wears hoodies, but like me he's one of the whitest people ever and to my knowledge has never been called a thug. Meanwhile anti-Zimmerman media repeat "He was wearing khakis! He was wearing khakis" as if that means anything at all. Martin wasn't wearing the "thug uniform" some people are describing, but he wasn't wearing some kind of pacifist uniform either. His clothing represented absolutely nothing.

God, sometimes one forgets just how terrible American media mostly are. [/vent]

 

[Chou Toshio]

I don't really give a shit about the race issue.

But an armed man, following some incredibly idiotic self-serving vigilante attitude, while in contact with 911 representatives telling him to STAND DOWN, went looking for trouble where he didn't need to-- and the result is he killed a young boy in cold blood.

Like I said, Trayvon could have been purple and Zimmerman zebra-striped for all I care-- that's just so sick. The idiocy, negligence, and arrogance that led to this incidence is absolutely sickening.

While I'm not saying it's a travesty that Zimmerman wasn't found guilty in a criminal court, I hope he gets what's coming to him in a civil court-- and in life. If life as a "free man" is impoverished hell for Zimmerman for the rest, than great.
(if he gets rich writing a book about this or some such shit, I will lose--more--faith in humanity. lol)

 

[Outlaw]

while in contact with law enforcement officers telling him to STAND DOWN, went looking for trouble where he didn't need to-- and the result is he killed a young boy in cold blood.

911 dispatch people are not law enforcement officers.

 

[Layell]

911 dispatch people are not law enforcement officers.

Do you make it a habit of ignoring dispatch when you dial 911?

 

[Oglemi]

For the record many (if not all) dispatchers and 911 operators are trained in law enforcement, emergency, suicide prevention, and EMT procedures the same as police, EMT, and firemen are (not quite to the extent (obviously physically) but close) so that they can assure callers what to do in critical situations. That's kind of the point of their position; they know how to handle stressful, life-threatening situations, they know the law, and they can instruct many live-saving techniques over the phone. The training is extensive and the operators here in Wisconsin at least are required to be re-certified every two years.

My mom worked as a dispatcher and jailer for the county for quite a few years and the cops would be pissed in many situations if the caller did not follow her instructions; she knew the procedures that would be followed if a police officer were on the scene at the time. And the cops all have a straight feed to the dispatcher at the same time the call is happening; if a 911 operator doesn't know really what to do in a certain situation they'll talk to the police officer while they're on the line with the caller. This creates stress for the caller but hey, better safe than sorry.

They aren't technically police officers but they're damn close.

And police and 911 operators aren't foolproof, there have been incidents in the past of poor conduct (it doesn't happen often), that's just the kind of position they're in though.

 

[elcheeso]

Yes, the media was incredibly irresponsible with it's reporting on the case. It's not a surprise to anyone that sensationalism is preferred because people react more strongly to it, regardless of what "side" the media in question resides in. Zimmerman doesn't (as far as I'm aware) identify as white, he probably didn't refer to Martin as a (BAN ME PLEASE) while on the phone to 911 (though it's worth pointing out that even if you did hear the word punk or anything else, people hear what they want to hear... you only need to look back at the dolls from a few years back supposedly saying Islam is the light and other bogus bullshit like that), all that sort of shit.

However, those of you who are using Martin's past to paint him as some sort of violent "thug" (a word that DOES, in fact, have some pretty strong racial connotations)... ask yourselves this. Why does being a drug user who took a few stupid looking selfies, who MAY have been a drug dealer, who MAY have been a thief... make him more likely to have been the primary aggressor and/or the violent one when Zimmerman himself has been charged with/accused of multiple accounts of violence against others? He had been charged with battery on a police officer (http://myclerk.myorangeclerk.com/CaseDetail.aspx?CaseID=5782626) and domestic violence (http://myclerk.myorangeclerk.com/CaseDetail.aspx?CaseID=1021230) against at least one ex-girlfriend (I've heard there may have been a second who accused him of it without going to the police but I'm having trouble finding a reference for it, so eh). How could you assume that a kid with no obvious history of violence was the one who started it, against a guy who has a history of engaging in violence against people who had done nothing to him? Is there perhaps a habit for people to assume that darker skinned people are innately more violent or more likely to be violent? Or were his selfies just so awful that they constituted violence against good taste and therefore he must've been violent in other ways too?

Incidentally, claiming Zimmerman is cowardly and meek does not add up either, the guy chased after someone who was running away with his gun in his pocket. Meek people would stay in their cars, especially after the suggestion that they don't need to chase the person down. Cowardly people do not attack police officers questioning their friends about underage drinking, and meek people do not attack their exes.

Also, about the claims of brutally bashing Zimmerman's head against the pavement... the injuries sure as fuck do not stack up against that sort of claim. Look at the picture of his injuries:

While they're certainly nothing to sneeze at, they are pretty minor compared to the injuries on his face. It seems pretty clear to me that he was not having his head bashed against the pavement, but Martin was punching him in the face while he was on the ground, and the scratches on the back of his head are just a side effect of, you know, being knocked backwards. Certainly a pretty shitty thing to do, but far less malicious than actively trying to crush his skull against concrete, which seems to be the suggestion by some people here.

So the final question is this... should someone getting punched in the face be considered justified in using lethal force against the person doing it? I say fuck no, and I consider it pretty god damn disgusting that he wasn't even charged with manslaughter (which, to my understanding, can be done even if the person was "provoked" into killing by other person... so even if Martin WAS the one who started it, it wouldn't matter). Self-defence as a defence here was a crock of shit, speaking as someone who has been on both ends of a violent beating before, I would never feel justified in shooting or killing someone who was punching me in the face, and I sure as hell haven't punched people in the face with the intent of killing them. Zimmerman's judgement fucking sucked, his injuries do not strike me as someone who was at REAL RISK of dying, and the jury should have realised that he wasn't justified in what he did. It wasn't a hate crime (unfortunately, racial profiling is not and will probably never be considered a hate crime considering it's the bread and butter of the police), and it wasn't cold-blooded murder... but it sure as hell was manslaughter.

As for those of you blaming racial issues on Al Sharpton or just those uppity blacks who need to stop talking about race because OMG RACISM IS OVER IF YOU JUST STOP TALKING ABOUT IT... lol. Get a clue. Look up some studies on racial bias in the media/justice system/employment/whatever. It should be an eye opener. Also, why is it inciting riots when Sharpton says to speak up, specifically, in a non-violent way, but it's a rally when Glenn Beck or any other white person encourages a demonstration? There have been exactly ZERO riots in response to the trial, despite what some idiots have been afraid of, so let's not act like there have been.

On that note, did any of you guys see the video of the 2011 Vancouver riots being passed through social media lately with people suggesting that they're in response to the Zimmerman trial? Despite the fact that the Canadian-accented person was talking about Harper and a few other Canada-specific things over a city riot with mountains in the background? Yeah. Fucking disgusting what depths people will go to to get the "result" they wanted.

Edit: Also wanted to point out this is nothing like the OJ case. Zimmerman DID kill Martin, he doesn't deny that. The question isn't whether he killed him, it's whether he was justified in doing so or not according to Florida law.

 

[Aldaron]

I like your posts normally elcheeso, so I'll try to keep this as civil as possible. However, I really take issue with your absolutist conclusions based on a hugely flawed premise and incomplete information.

I'll start with your reference to my OJ part of my post and go on from there to the rest of your post.

Edit: Also wanted to point out this is nothing like the OJ case. Zimmerman DID kill Martin, he doesn't deny that. The question isn't whether he killed him, it's whether he was justified in doing so or not according to Florida law.

You didn't clarify who you were referring to in regards to the OJ analogy, so I'm hoping you weren't referring to my post and if you weren't, you can skip this block. If you were, read on.

I really hate when people see something, don't bother actually reading it, and respond in an irrelevant manner. I don't mean to be mean...but that's basically what happened here.

What does the nature of the crime have to do with my analogy?

The analogy isn't based on the crime, but whether or not "screwed up trial" reaction is justified. People reacting with outrage to the OJ trial were justifid in their reactions because of how certain evidence was thrown out due to sensationalism and irrational fear. It's really hard to justufy the same reaction to this trial based on what we know...what we actually know. That is where the analogy is made...nothing to do with the crime.

Now on to the rest of your post.

Yes, the media was incredibly irresponsible with it's reporting on the case. It's not a surprise to anyone that sensationalism is preferred because people react more strongly to it, regardless of what "side" the media in question resides in. Zimmerman doesn't (as far as I'm aware) identify as white, he probably didn't refer to Martin as a (BAN ME PLEASE) while on the phone to 911 (though it's worth pointing out that even if you did hear the word punk or anything else, people hear what they want to hear... you only need to look back at the dolls from a few years back supposedly saying Islam is the light and other bogus bullshit like that), all that sort of shit.

OK, glad you agree.

However, those of you who are using Martin's past to paint him as some sort of violent "thug" (a word that DOES, in fact, have some pretty strong racial connotations)... ask yourselves this. Why does being a drug user who took a few stupid looking selfies, who MAY have been a drug dealer, who MAY have been a thief... make him more likely to have been the primary aggressor and/or the violent one when Zimmerman himself has been charged with/accused of multiple accounts of violence against others? He had been charged with battery on a police officer (http://myclerk.myorangeclerk.com/CaseDetail.aspx?CaseID=5782626) and domestic violence (http://myclerk.myorangeclerk.com/CaseDetail.aspx?CaseID=1021230) against at least one ex-girlfriend (I've heard there may have been a second who accused him of it without going to the police but I'm having trouble finding a reference for it, so eh). How could you assume that a kid with no obvious history of violence was the one who started it, against a guy who has a history of engaging in violence against people who had done nothing to him? Is there perhaps a habit for people to assume that darker skinned people are innately more violent or more likely to be violent? Or were his selfies just so awful that they constituted violence against good taste and therefore he must've been violent in other ways too?

The only part of this block that is important is the "how can you assume" part...because none of us have all the evidence, and the evidence we have is very limited in scope. We, as individuals without access to complete information, cannot assume that Trayvon or Zimmerman started it. Perhaps the jury had access to some evidence that pointed strongly towards Trayvon starting it, but we don't, for either side, and anyone absolutely claiming either is silly.

Incidentally, claiming Zimmerman is cowardly and meek does not add up either, the guy chased after someone who was running away with his gun in his pocket. Meek people would stay in their cars, especially after the suggestion that they don't need to chase the person down. Cowardly people do not attack police officers questioning their friends about underage drinking, and meek people do not attack their exes.

I assume you're just saying that psychological analyses of Zimmerman's flight or fight reaction are irrelevant? I hope so, because they are.

Also, about the claims of brutally bashing Zimmerman's head against the pavement... the injuries sure as fuck do not stack up against that sort of claim. Look at the picture of his injuries:

While they're certainly nothing to sneeze at, they are pretty minor compared to the injuries on his face. It seems pretty clear to me that he was not having his head bashed against the pavement, but Martin was punching him in the face while he was on the ground, and the scratches on the back of his head are just a side effect of, you know, being knocked backwards. Certainly a pretty shitty thing to do, but far less malicious than actively trying to crush his skull against concrete, which seems to be the suggestion by some people here.

THIS is where the hugely flawed premise you base your conclusions on is established...and I can't emphasize how much I disagree with it. Ignoring how some pictures are barely acceptable to even judge the extent of injuries (internal injuries?), I love how you are trying to assume the injury always relates causally to attempted action. If someone brandishes a gun at you, shoots, but misses, would his defense lawyer be justified in pointing to your lack of injuries as a case? Obviously not.

The injury does not tell us anythign about the potential danger of the situation...it just informs us of the minimum danger of the situation. Zimmerman was clearly getting hit...minimally. There might have been more that you cannot possibly absolutely deny without full access to everything and a complete understanding of the actual situation.

So the final question is this... should someone getting punched in the face be considered justified in using lethal force against the person doing it?

No. This is FAR from the final question. This is only the final question if you assume something silly like the injury sustained corresponds causally to the level of danger experienced...which it obviously does not.

I say fuck no, and I consider it pretty god damn disgusting that he wasn't even charged with manslaughter (which, to my understanding, can be done even if the person was "provoked" into killing by other person... so even if Martin WAS the one who started it, it wouldn't matter). Self-defence as a defence here was a crock of shit, speaking as someone who has been on both ends of a violent beating before, I would never feel justified in shooting or killing someone who was punching me in the face, and I sure as hell haven't punched people in the face with the intent of killing them.

In context of your argument, this is based on a flawed premise,but I'll agree with it in a vaccuum. If it was be proved that Trayvon was _only_ punching Zimmerman, and didn't have any weapons on hand, and wasn't punching Zimmerman into concrete / brick wall / lamppost / corner...then yes, using lethal force to respond is poor judgment.

However, you cannot make that assumption based on the information that has been released to us.

Zimmerman's judgement fucking sucked, his injuries do not strike me as someone who was at REAL RISK of dying, and the jury should have realised that he wasn't justified in what he did.

Again...lol...injuries sustained DO NOT have a causal relationship with danger experienced...there might be a correlation, but it is weak at best. And juries cannot condemn a man based on weak correlative evidence (also known as circumstantial evidence).

It wasn't a hate crime (unfortunately, racial profiling is not and will probably never be considered a hate crime considering it's the bread and butter of the police), and it wasn't cold-blooded murder... but it sure as hell was manslaughter.

You're not exactly qualified to state any of that based on what we know lol. How do you guys make such absolutist type statements based on incomplete information...it's crazy. Again, not trying to be mean...but you're basing your judgments on such a flawed premise, and you don't even have access to enough information to justify it.

As for those of you blaming racial issues on Al Sharpton or just those uppity blacks who need to stop talking about race because OMG RACISM IS OVER IF YOU JUST STOP TALKING ABOUT IT... lol. Get a clue. Look up some studies on racial bias in the media/justice system/employment/whatever. It should be an eye opener. Also, why is it inciting riots when Sharpton says to speak up, specifically, in a non-violent way, but it's a rally when Glenn Beck or any other white person encourages a demonstration? There have been exactly ZERO riots in response to the trial, despite what some idiots have been afraid of, so let's not act like there have been.

Irrelevant to the topic. Those people claiming that are just throwing strawmen to detract from the main issue.

On that note, did any of you guys see the video of the 2011 Vancouver riots being passed through social media lately with people suggesting that they're in response to the Zimmerman trial? Despite the fact that the Canadian-accented person was talking about Harper and a few other Canada-specific things over a city riot with mountains in the background? Yeah. Fucking disgusting what depths people will go to to get the "result" they wanted.

Didn't see that, agree it is disgusting. Pretty standard for this day and age though :p

anyway, tl;dr: OJ analogy was based on justification for outraged reaction to trial, nothing to do with the actual crime. Your absolutist conclusions are based on the premise that injury sustained relates directly to maximum danger of situations...which is flawed both because you can't possibly use a few pictures to determine the extent of an individuals injuries (again, internal injuries), and you can't possibly know what a person could have sustained.

 

[Mack the Knife]

After following case since February 2012, and after collecting as much evidence that I had access to, I think Zimmerman is not guilty. I feel like Trayvon Martin was the first to attack and Zimmerman shot in self defense. Besides, the jury has way information more than any of us. I have some trust in legal system (although OJ was almost definitely guilty).Now, I'll get to what really bothers me. People are ranting and destroying things, because of this case. So why are people smashing windows and hurting others when those things have absolutely nothing to with the case? I'm afraid this another example of humanity's willing to use anything as an excuse for irrational behavior and violence. You guys are allowed to think whatever you want about the trial, but don't destroy things. It doesn't help.

 

[Chou Toshio]

The only part of this block that is important is the "how can you assume" part...because none of us have all the evidence, and the evidence we have is very limited in scope. We, as individuals without access to complete information, cannot assume that Trayvon or Zimmerman started it. Perhaps the jury had access to some evidence that pointed strongly towards Trayvon starting it, but we don't, for either side, and anyone absolutely claiming either is silly.

Honestly dude, I'm just not buying it. To me, the party that started the violence doesn't really matter in responsibility-- because this event "started" when Zimmerman left his car to confront Trayvon. Moreover, Zimmerman was told not to leave his car by authorities. Zimmerman is the adult in the situation. Zimmerman was the armed man.

To me, it's clear as day where the responsibility is.

I guess the big question is if Zimmerman's negligence, defiance, and ultimate responsibility for the situation here add up to him deserving a criminal sentence. Maybe not.

But if you just ask the simple question of "who's fault" this is-- well it's just plain obvious where the responsibility lies.

 

[Shiruba]

why is this board still unlocked when it is just going 'round in circles. there is nothing more to discuss.

 

[Stratos]

Honestly dude, I'm just not buying it. To me, the party that started the violence doesn't really matter in responsibility-- because this event "started" when Zimmerman left his car to confront Trayvon. Moreover, Zimmerman was told not to leave his car by authorities. Zimmerman is the adult in the situation. Zimmerman was the armed man.

To me, it's clear as day where the responsibility is.

I guess the big question is if Zimmerman's negligence, defiance, and ultimate responsibility for the situation here add up to him deserving a criminal sentence. Maybe not.

But if you just ask the simple question of "who's fault" this is-- well it's just plain obvious where the responsibility lies.

for the last goddamn time, chou, "we don't need you to do that" is not a cease and desist.

imagine this exchange:

A: "You in the mood for pulled pork sandwiches tonight?"
B: "Ok, I'll start up the grill right now."
A: "Nah, I don't need you to do that."

The implication here is that the person who volunteered to start up the grill is doing more than they are expected, but not that they are doing anything wrong—in fact, they are being especially helpful. While this is not what the 911 operator meant, the very ambiguous language could have easily been interpreted as such by Zimmerman.

tl;dr: research your facts jesus fuck

e: echoing shiruba

 

[Codraroll]

Question, for those of you who know the laws over there:

If the events had played out a little differently, and Martin had killed Zimmermann instead of the other way around when it came to a fight, would he, according to laws, have been cleared of his guilt like Zimmermann was here? From how Norwegian media portrays it, it looks like Florida's laws state that you can kill in self-defense if you feel sufficiently threatened, and Zimmermann actually did end up following Martin with a weapon, which I sure as heck would have considered threatening if I were Martin.

In other words, if two people both feel legitimately threatened by the other, and it came to a lethal fight, would the "winner" be declared innocent?

 

[kd24]

i guess you're trying to make that a racial thing and maybe in a different scenario it would be, but in this case, martin was ontop and was the one inflicting damage on zimmerman, if we're assuming he just kept hitting him until he died (which is completely stupid) then i'd say that's not self defense, its assault.

if race plays a case in the role, its not that zimmerman got off because he isnt black. if you're asking legitimately, besides it being a dumb question, there are a lot of variables as to what self defense is. if you're the aggressor, you should be trying to get away from the person who you're fearful of.

 

[Daenym]

Question, for those of you who know the laws over there:

If the events had played out a little differently, and Martin had killed Zimmermann instead of the other way around when it came to a fight, would he, according to laws, have been cleared of his guilt like Zimmermann was here? From how Norwegian media portrays it, it looks like Florida's laws state that you can kill in self-defense if you feel sufficiently threatened, and Zimmermann actually did end up following Martin with a weapon, which I sure as heck would have considered threatening if I were Martin.

In other words, if two people both feel legitimately threatened by the other, and it came to a lethal fight, would the "winner" be declared innocent?

The law isn't about the "winner", but the aggressor. In this case, Zimmerman was found not guilty because his defense cast Martin as the one who initiated the fight, even though Zimmerman certainly incited the whole thing by approaching him and any number of other stupid acts.

 

[Nastyjungle]

pwnemon are you really suggesting that your asinine backyard barbeque scenario is anything like what occurred?


nobody is saying dispatchers are the law, but they are an authority- they certainly know more about the law than most civilians and are of a neutral and calm mindset when speaking to people

when zimmerman decided to not follow the advice of dispatchers, he did not break the law- but he certainly shifted responsibility of the resulting situation onto himself, which in turn made him the aggressor, which is the basis of the entire stupid law that is protecting this man



also the idea that we dont know enough about the case to have opinions is amazingly silly, this was a very public trail and the circle jerking over the supposedly superior idea of being completely neutral is just about the same as saying everybody should close their eyes and pretend nothing happened at all

a final note: im not saying that i condone rioting or violence of any kind, but people who think the rioting is about the outcome of this case alone are so sorely mistaken it hurts and clearly do not understand how deep and complex the race relations of the united states are

 

[Stratos]

pwnemon are you really suggesting that your asinine backyard barbeque scenario is anything like what occurred?


nobody is saying dispatchers are the law, but they are an authority- they certainly know more about the law than most civilians and are of a neutral and calm mindset when speaking to people

when zimmerman decided to not follow the advice of dispatchers, he did not break the law- but he certainly shifted responsibility of the resulting situation onto himself, which in turn made him the aggressor, which is the basis of the entire stupid law that is protecting this man

No i was trying to give an example of the 911 dispatcher's exact words in a different scenario to show how it can be easily misconstrued as something other than the command chou seems to think it was. when someone tells me "you don't need to do that" i usually see it as something where i'd be doing them a favor if i did decide to do it anyway.

 

[Nastyjungle]

you are horribly misguided if you think doing the exact opposite of what a 911 dispatcher says would be doing them a favor

 

[Matthew]

It was the right call to have him called not guilty. As the famous quote goes, "It is better that ten guilty men go free than that one innocent man be convicted," while Deck's opinion may be wrong I'd rather have a system like this. I believe that Zimmer is guilty, I truly do, however I like the fact that people believe that innocent until proven guilty still exist. I could not have the power of that jury to have a non-guilty verdict.

In that same regard the loss of a life is the loss of a life. I think that the fact this is so publicized where there are so many amazing people that die everyday that don't get news is saddening. But this is just what I think. My thoughts go out to Martin's family, Zimmer already received a worse punishment than death (he's outcasted from everyone in the US basically) so you can say the end justifies the means.

 

[elcheeso]

You didn't clarify who you were referring to in regards to the OJ analogy, so I'm hoping you weren't referring to my post and if you weren't, you can skip this block. If you were, read on.

I really hate when people see something, don't bother actually reading it, and respond in an irrelevant manner. I don't mean to be mean...but that's basically what happened here.

What does the nature of the crime have to do with my analogy?

The analogy isn't based on the crime, but whether or not "screwed up trial" reaction is justified. People reacting with outrage to the OJ trial were justified in their reactions because of how certain evidence was thrown out due to sensationalism and irrational fear. It's really hard to justufy the same reaction to this trial based on what we know...what we actually know. That is where the analogy is made...nothing to do with the crime.

I understand that, but my point was that I don't think they can be compared simply because of the nature of the crime. Some people are just naturally going to feel that killing an unarmed teenager, no matter what the circumstances, is both deeply immoral and something that should be illegal, regardless of the circumstances leading up to it. Just speaking in my opinion, there are only a couple of options that would justify what Zimmerman did, and neither of them are borne out by the evidence we do have... and additional evidence "confirming" it would just be contradictory to what we have. OJ's trial was just a farce in general. It is important to note that the reason we know so much about the OJ trial and the bullshit the defence used is because of the media circus surrounding it, so the suggestion that we don't know enough about this trial because information is hidden to us seems a bit disingenuous.

The only part of this block that is important is the "how can you assume" part...because none of us have all the evidence, and the evidence we have is very limited in scope. We, as individuals without access to complete information, cannot assume that Trayvon or Zimmerman started it. Perhaps the jury had access to some evidence that pointed strongly towards Trayvon starting it, but we don't, for either side, and anyone absolutely claiming either is silly.

I mentioned this later on in my post, but whether Martin or Zimmerman started it is irrelevant for the purposes of manslaughter. That whole block was more about asking the motivations for people assuming Martin was the initial aggressor based on his history, when Zimmerman's history makes a more compelling point for him starting violence.

I assume you're just saying that psychological analyses of Zimmerman's flight or fight reaction are irrelevant? I hope so, because they are.

They absolutely are, but the problem is that, from what I understand, this was part of the defence's defence. They tried their best to paint Zimmerman as a cowardly mouse who would never start a fight and therefore Martin was obviously the one who started it.

THIS is where the hugely flawed premise you base your conclusions on is established...and I can't emphasize how much I disagree with it. Ignoring how some pictures are barely acceptable to even judge the extent of injuries (internal injuries?), I love how you are trying to assume the injury always relates causally to attempted action. If someone brandishes a gun at you, shoots, but misses, would his defense lawyer be justified in pointing to your lack of injuries as a case? Obviously not.

The injury does not tell us anythign about the potential danger of the situation...it just informs us of the minimum danger of the situation. Zimmerman was clearly getting hit...minimally. There might have been more that you cannot possibly absolutely deny without full access to everything and a complete understanding of the actual situation.

I have to admit, I don't really understand what you're going for here. I can't agree that a trial that has basically been a huge media circus would have information that is critical for the defence's case that hasn't been reported on. Minor details, sure (though I have a hard time even believing that considering the extent of the frenzy surrounding this trial), but... stuff that would basically "prove" that Martin was trying to kill or grievously harm Zimmerman and the guy is therefore justified in killing him? What was said during the trial is pretty widely available/reported on, so while some of us might not know everything that was said, that's almost purely due to ignorance and not actually doing the research more than 'oh it's just impossible to know.' There were livestreams for the trial, videos of it still exist on youtube. Link for people who are interested: http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLg8uli-f8WHJgIMmITeKPrYeYvlORyOTP.

Zimmerman is the only one who truly knows what happened that night, but considering he already pretty blatantly lied to the police ("yeah officers I was just getting out to check a street sign, I wasn't chasing the kid, HONEST") and, you know, the fact that the dead can't speak for themselves, you can only take his testimony so far. You need to have it make sense in terms of the evidence, including injuries and all that good shit.

No. This is FAR from the final question. This is only the final question if you assume something silly like the injury sustained corresponds causally to the level of danger experienced...which it obviously does not.

In context of your argument, this is based on a flawed premise,but I'll agree with it in a vaccuum. If it was be proved that Trayvon was _only_ punching Zimmerman, and didn't have any weapons on hand, and wasn't punching Zimmerman into concrete / brick wall / lamppost / corner...then yes, using lethal force to respond is poor judgment.

However, you cannot make that assumption based on the information that has been released to us.

What information contradicts what I've said? You can compare the injuries to the front and back of his head easily enough, it seems obvious that any attack that was happening was coming from the front just due to the difference. Are you suggesting that it's possible that Martin was punching him in the face, then switched to beating his head against the concrete but somehow left no injuries suggesting it happened (there were no internal injuries, btw)? He smashed his head against the sidewalk but MISSED, to use your comparison from before? Also yes, Martin was completely unarmed. The only weapon at the scene was Zimmerman's gun, which was covered in Zimmerman's DNA but none of Martin's. That doesn't mean he was defenceless, of course, but it's far harder to kill or maim someone with your fists only compared to a weapon. It's why I don't like your gun comparison from earlier. You can't miss the sidewalk if you're bashing someone's brains in unless you're truly fucking incompetent. That's also why I can't see Zimmerman being justified in claiming justified self-defence, the evidence points towards Martin being unarmed and punching him while he was on the ground, while surrounded by occupied houses while knowing the police were on their way. I could see imperfect self-defence, sure, but that wasn't even part of the trial.

Again...lol...injuries sustained DO NOT have a causal relationship with danger experienced...there might be a correlation, but it is weak at best. And juries cannot condemn a man based on weak correlative evidence (also known as circumstantial evidence).

You're not exactly qualified to state any of that based on what we know lol. How do you guys make such absolutist type statements based on incomplete information...it's crazy. Again, not trying to be mean...but you're basing your judgments on such a flawed premise, and you don't even have access to enough information to justify it.

You're right, injuries do not necessarily equal how much danger the accused feels they were in, but how fearful someone is for their life is largely irrelevant in the law. The law takes into account how a "reasonable person" would react to the situation. This prevents people who shoot kids who come rushing at them with a toy gun getting away with murder, no matter how genuinely afraid for their life they were (aka it doesn't give a shit about someone's shitty judgement). Obviously the jury felt a reasonable person would be legitimately fearful for their life in this situation, but that's something I just can't agree with based on my experiences with being beaten by unarmed people. Manslaughter probably should've been the verdict based on the evidence I've seen, possibly with imperfect self-defence as a mitigating factor to reduce the sentence.

Edit: Coming to terms with how fucking shittily I write. Ugh.

 

[shmogi]

Read here

I try not to oppose court decisions when I feel a trail was fair, but I can't help but feel there was a serious miscarriage of justice here. I honestly thought there was no chance of a man who shot down an unarmed teenager after 911 dispatchers told him to leave the kid alone would be found not guilty. To me this just reaffirms to me that racism is alive and well in the US, to be honest I'm pretty sickened

Racism huh
in the US
http://www.vice.com/vice-news/triple-hate-full-length

 

[Mack the Knife]

OK, just because someone walks up to another person doesn't mean they initiated the fight. If you were to get out of your car, walk up to another person, and then suddenly get punched by the same person, who initiated the fight? It has nothing to do with getting out of a car, just who started attacking the other one, and from what I have gathered, I believe that Trayvon was the first to attack.

 

[Trax]

OK, just because someone walks up to another person doesn't mean they initiated the fight. If you were to get out of your car, walk up to another person, and then suddenly get punched by the same person, who initiated the fight? It has nothing to do with getting out of a car, just who started attacking the other one, and from what I have gathered, I believe that Trayvon was the first to attack.

Someone follows you, at night, in a car, then gets out and makes a move towards you (and I'm guessing some words were said too). Anyone who assumes they have good intentions is probably well on their way to getting raped.

If Trayvon had beaten Zimmerman into a coma, it would've been richly and rightfully deserved.