79 replies to this topic

[Orenji]

Do I agree with the verdit? Absolutely. As Nate said, the prosecution did not do a close enough job to prove anything and unfortunately Trayvon was not there to plead his case.

 

Do I agree with Zimmerman's actions? Absolutely not. From my own personal judgement and beliefs, regardless of what really happened and who instigated what, Zimmerman was NOT a police officer and should not have tried to act like one.  It's very rare when vigilante justice doesn't hurt or murder someone, in my experience.

[sushi.]

Did he need to frickin' kill him?

 

Couldn't he overpower the guy without pulling out a gun and shooting him in the chest? (Not saying Zimmerman could've won a fight, just saying he took it too far)

 

He could've just fired some warning shoots or avoided a fatal area.

[Strangelove]

Did he need to frickin' kill him?

 

Couldn't he overpower the guy without pulling out a gun and shooting him in the chest? (Not saying Zimmerman could've won a fight, just saying he took it too far)

 

He could've just fired some warning shoots or avoided a fatal area.

 

I thought so too, till I learned Zimmerman is overweight, and Martin was 17 and had the physique of a grown man.

 

Also he was just doing his job as a neighborhood watch or whatever. Maybe instead of a gun, he should have been given a taser...this way instead of this becoming a criminal media shamble case, it would have become a civil case in which we would only hear it 2 years ago, and just forgotten about it by now.

 

The irony of the whole thing, is this takes civil rights back 20 year whichever way you look at it. If he was found guilty, it would have been because of race, innocent because of race, screw the evidence. There is a reason why Lady Justice is blindfolded and holding two scales. And not giving you a wink and a thumbs up.

Edited by Strangelove, 16 July 2013 - 04:11 PM.

[Beastbomb]

Did he need to frickin' kill him?
 
Couldn't he overpower the guy without pulling out a gun and shooting him in the chest? (Not saying Zimmerman could've won a fight, just saying he took it too far)
 
He could've just fired some warning shoots or avoided a fatal area.

Warning shots are effective when scaring someone and forcing them into submission. But how are warning shots effect when Treyvon was already on top of Zimmerman and bashing hi head into the ground. If anything, warning shots would probably drive Treyvon into a frenzy instead of fear since Treyvon already had the advantage of having Zimmerman pinned to the ground. Let me ask u this if your life was in danger and the only option was to kill the person that was trying to kill you, would you do it? I would defenatly say yes.

Edited by Beastbomb, 16 July 2013 - 05:50 PM.

[Nate River]

Did he need to frickin' kill him?
 
Couldn't he overpower the guy without pulling out a gun and shooting him in the chest? (Not saying Zimmerman could've won a fight, just saying he took it too far)
 
He could've just fired some warning shoots or avoided a fatal area.

I don't know. Could he have done that? How would you know if could have done any of that? That's the reason the State lost.

As I told Striker: Never forget that the burden is the State's to overcome. Zimmeran did not need to prove he needed to kill him. The State needed to prove Zimmerman's belief that Martin was about to seriously injury or kill him was not reasonable. And they simply do not have the evidence to do it.

[sushi.]

Warning shots are effective when scaring someone and forcing them into submission. But how are warning shots effect when Treyvon was already on top of Zimmerman and bashing hi head into the ground. If anything, warning shots would probably drive Treyvon into a frenzy instead of fear since Treyvon already had the advantage of having Zimmerman pinned to the ground. Let me ask u this if your life was in danger and the only option was to kill the person that was trying to kill you, would you do it? I would defenatly say yes.

I didn't say he had to do warning shots exactly. I said "-or avoided a fatal area". Why aim at the chest? Why not the leg, shoulder or whatever?

 

I don't know. Could he have done that? How would you know if could have done any of that? That's the reason the State lost.

As I told Striker: Never forget that the burden is the State's to overcome. Zimmeran did not need to prove he needed to kill him. The State needed to prove Zimmerman's belief that Martin was about to seriously injury or kill him was not reasonable. And they simply do not have the evidence to do it.

Yes, I think I'm talking more about what Zimmerman did wrong than what the court did wrong. I still think he deserves some kind of punishment, but not the one a murder usually gets.

Edited by sushi., 16 July 2013 - 07:30 PM.

[Slextrem]

Zimmerman did not have the firearm in hand it was in his hip holster and based on what I understand when Zimmerman got out of his Truck he was still on the phone and he had a flashlight in hand.

 

Third, according to Zimmerman Trayvon was reaching for the firearm and had actually grabbed the holster when he drew the weapon.

 

Prior to the incident there was a rash of burglaries in the neighborhood perpetrated by young black men, and while there is no evidence to prove it, it is possible that Travon was one them, and could have been casing the area.

 

Martin would have been arrested and charged with Assault and Battery, possibly Assault with Intent to Kill since according to Zimmerman's claim Trayvon said to him that he (Zimmerman) was going to die that night.

 

It's too bad we'll never get to hear the other side of the story...

Edited by Slextrem, 16 July 2013 - 07:46 PM.

[Konohakitten]

Do I agree with the verdit? Absolutely. As Nate said, the prosecution did not do a close enough job to prove anything and unfortunately Trayvon was not there to plead his case.

 

Do I agree with Zimmerman's actions? Absolutely not. From my own personal judgement and beliefs, regardless of what really happened and who instigated what, Zimmerman was NOT a police officer and should not have tried to act like one.  It's very rare when vigilante justice doesn't hurt or murder someone, in my experience.

 

This right here basically sums it up for me. If only Tayvon was able to share his side of the story. From what I understand Trayvon knew that Zimmerman was following him because Zimmerman said Tayvon was approaching him when he was on the phone with a dispatcher right? If that's so Taryvon would already be on guard if someone in a vehicle was following him. Then Zimmerman starts to approach him in the dark with a flash light pointed at him at night. Now If he was just part of neighborhood watch would he have clear indication that he was an official of some sort? Personally I would be ready to defend myself. I'd be asking myself "Who the hell is this guy following me, what the hell does he want??" I get spooked at how many ppl pretend to be cops and when you let your guard down they strike because they were never cops to begin with, instead they end up being some psycho killer.I grew up in a very shady neighborhood so it's hard for me to trust strangers I get confronted with on the streets. If some body would have come at me like that I would have probably acted aggressive too because in my eyes this persons intentions are unknown and I need to stay on my toes. I'd expect the worse so that I could be prepared for anything. 

Edited by Konohakitten, 16 July 2013 - 08:01 PM.

[Jake]

Did he need to frickin' kill him?

 

Couldn't he overpower the guy without pulling out a gun and shooting him in the chest? (Not saying Zimmerman could've won a fight, just saying he took it too far)

 

He could've just fired some warning shoots or avoided a fatal area.

I didn't say he had to do warning shots exactly. I said "-or avoided a fatal area". Why aim at the chest? Why not the leg, shoulder or whatever?

 

Yes, I think I'm talking more about what Zimmerman did wrong than what the court did wrong. I still think he deserves some kind of punishment, but not the one a murder usually gets.

 

Except given the Forensics Zimmerman did not have the chance to properly aim the weapon, It was largely luck that the bullet hit Martin in the Heart. Also when my dad was growing up he lived next door to a City of Atalanta Police officer, and the officer told my dad if he ever had to use deadly force on someone, to be sure you kill them especially if they are a minority, and the Officer who told him this was black, the reason he told my dad this was if you do not kill the person, if they are a minority they will sue you for denying them their civil rights, even you shot them because they pulled a knife on you and tried to mug you.

 

And about warning shots, that would actually be considered reckless discharge of a firearm, because Zimmerman had no way of knowing were or who those bullets would've hit.

 

So you think that Zimmerman should be punished because he defended his own life?

 

 

It's too bad we'll never get to hear the other side of the story...

 

Based on what I understand there was in fact a flashlight found laying on the ground at the scene of the incident, and I'm pretty sure the 911 tape has him still on the phone when he left his truck.

 

There is no evidence that contradicts Zimmerman's claim, and the state never checked for fingerprints on the holster. But given the fact the most of the prosecution's witnesses backed up more of Zimmerman's story then the prosecution's, and the fact the Zimmerman claimed that he was screaming for help before he even know there was a recoding of someone screaming for help. All of this put together gives no reason to believe that Zimmerman was being anything but truthful.

 

In the third part of that quote yes there is no evidence to support that but my purpose to adress merryGOflava claim that all of us could agree that Martin wasn't doing anything at the time.

 

About the fourth part, Had it happened that way, Zimmerman would not have been the defendant, Martin would have, and the Prosecution who would have been going by Zimmerman's claims could've easily charged Martin with Assault with intent to kill. of course then it would be their burden to prove it, but assault and battery they would've had plenty of evidence.

 

EDIT: I was wrong about something they did check Zimmerman's holster and they did find Trayvon's DNA on it.

Edited by Jake, 16 July 2013 - 09:18 PM.

[Nate River]

He could have taken the beating, knowing the cops were on the way.

This statement bothers me. He should not be required to sit there and hope law enforcement arrives before Martin causes permanent damage.

In much of the commentary I have seen, there seems to be this implicit assumption that the law begins and ends with this case; the implicit belief that no one them will ever find themselves in need of this statute should they ever find themselves having have their ass pummeled; and that if they do they are certain enough in their own situation that they not only believe the police will arrive in time to save them, but they will do so it before serious harm is done.

I don't think anyone she have to sit there an endure a beating hoping that someone else will save them in time or that the offender will quit before they do permanent harm or worse.

[Phantom_999]

Yikes!! That is disturbing. But Nate grasped the entire gist of it. the court is not saying he is innocent, the verdict reflects that the court did not Prove beyond reasonable doubt that the Zimmerman was guilty of First degree murder. If you accuse someone of something then it must be proven completely to the point of no doubts, and can't be iffy. the facts must be as concrete as possible to be believed by most if not all.  Otherwise, the accusation is not justified. I believe the main problem is that it makes everyone feel unsafe because they feel that because the Law did nothing to deter the accused of further behaviour, they themselves may be victimized. And I would not say that thought is false. It's funny, the Law may protect you and may save your live, but it doesn't always make you happy.  

Edited by Phantom_999, 16 July 2013 - 09:26 PM.

[Greed-Sama]

I didn't say he had to do warning shots exactly. I said "-or avoided a fatal area". Why aim at the chest? Why not the leg, shoulder or whatever?

 

It's not that simple. Fights aren't like what you see in an anime. A fight lasts usually no more than thirty seconds. That's a lot of information for anyone to assess in that situation especially for someone like Zimmerman, who is overweight and not at his physical best. There aren't a lot of places on the body that aren't fatal and those that are wouldn't be enough to stop a full grown man because the adrenaline would keep from feeling pain. 

 

You are asking someone to precisely aim while they are having their head bashed in. That's completely unreasonable. 

 

A leg shot can be fatal if you nick the femal artery. 

 

Shoot in the gut and you can hit the pancreas, which results in death most of the time. 

 

There really aren't a lot of places that Zimmerman could have aimed while he was on the ground that would have came out with a happy ending.

[Beastbomb]

I didn't say he had to do warning shots exactly. I said "-or avoided a fatal area". Why aim at the chest? Why not the leg, shoulder or whatever

Which is a point I would normally agree with. But in an life or death situation, there is no time to think about accuracy. It's pull the trigger or be severely injured or killed. Second, a bullet to the leg or arm won't necessarily stop someone from attacking in some circumstances depending on a persons pain tolerance. Aiming for center mass is always a sure way to take an attacker down, unfortunately, it's also has a greater chance at killing the attacker as well due to the major organs.

Edit:
@Tricksie

You know the average response time to a police call is about 7 mins. It would take less than that to kill a person if your slamming their head into the ground, an even less time to cause brain damage. Taking the beating was not an option. Police aren't reliable, and that's why I believe in self-defense with a weapon.

Edited by Beastbomb, 16 July 2013 - 09:55 PM.

[Strangelove]

http://www.slate.com...rreactions.html

 

Here, I truly believe this is the most reasonable article, and the best example people can get of the whole thing.

[Jake]

@Tricksie

You know the average response time to a police call is about 7 mins. It would take less than that to kill a person if your slamming their head into the ground, an even less time to cause brain damage. Taking the beating was not an option. Police aren't reliable, and that's why I believe in self-defense with a weapon.

 

Not to mention that Zimmerman had no way of knowing that police were even on their way, remember Trayvon attacked Zimmerman while he was going back to his truck to get the address so 911 could tell the police where to go, It was one of the neighbors who called the police and told them where the fight was happening.

 

The claim that Zimmerman was going back to his truck is supported by the fact that Zimmerman's (non-working) flashlight was found closer to the truck then to where the fight took place.

[sushi.]

I think this is the best video.

 

Very objective, neutral and informative and not clouded by racism thoughts.

 

I do not think Zimmerman is a racist. The court might be racist because apparently a woman got 20 years for firing warning shots to her abusive husband, that too was self-defense.

 

To all of those who did not share my opinion about Zimmerman's self defense, I can't defend this any further. Because we know too little, and as Slex said we only know one side of the story+some witnesses. Maybe or maybe not this could've had a happy ending.

[tricksie]

@Nate: Sorry, I guess I wasn't clear enough. The point of what I was saying is that Zimmerman had a choice. Even down to the least savory of those choices, which was to lie there and take it. (Without a gun, that's what would have happened. And then Trayvon would have been charged with assualt.)

 

He had multiple choices, opportunities to err on the side of safety, at many different stages. He even set the parameters for the scenario by confronting Martin when he was instructed not to. He superceded any law enforcement agents, people who are trained to handle just these situations. 

 

Did I imply that the law begins and ends with this case? If so, then my comment was poorly worded. I think no such thing. It is a tragic scenario outside of any trial, criminal or civil. This case will inform future ones through precedent, and perhaps it will cause Floridians to re-examine the "stand your ground" law. Or perhaps there will be some legislature standardizing neighborhood watch groups. Or even about liability of an individual working in conjunction with 911 at the time of a crime. (I'm just throwing all these points out there.) Ultimately, this case is one in a spectrum. And the best outcome I can hope for, being an optimist, is that it will eventually influence laws to be refined to protect a greater amount of people.

 

@Beastbomb: sorry you think that way about cops. They are trained professionals who deal with scary, unhinged people on a daily basis. Their sole job is to enter into critical situations and defuse it with the best possible outcome. In a confrontation, I am much more afraid armed citizen — one with limited training and absolutely no coaching on how to handle a weapon in an adrenaline-fuled situation — than I am of a cop. I tend to think cops are much more reliable than vigilantes.

 

I know that we all have a right to bear arms, but I wish it were treated more as a privilege. Then maybe people would be more keenly aware of the damage that they can do, instead of cavalierly factoring a gun into a situation and automatically assuming there is going to be a positive outcome.

 

Chances are, if Zimmerman had left that gun in the car, Martin would still be alive, and two families' lives would not have been destroyed. That's what I meant by choices. Zimmerman made the choice to carry the gun, at a time when he was not under any threat at all. But it had tragic consequences.

 

On another board topic that's been mentioned about the media, one of my favorite WashPost columnists said that our media is clouded by "profit-driven divisiveness." Thought that was such an appropriate term for what goes on in these "if it bleeds, it leads" stories. It's in a news outlets best interest to put the most salacious thing out there. No matter if the veracity is questionable. It's good for business. Which makes it even harder for the end consumer to trust the facts in the story. It's pervasive, and it seems to be just getting worse unfortunately.

Edited by tricksie, 16 July 2013 - 11:56 PM.
thanks sushi ;)

[Beastbomb]

@Nate: Sorry, I guess I wasn't clear enough. The point of what I was saying is that Zimmerman had a choice. Even down to the least savory of those choices, which was to lie there and take it. (Without a gun, that's what would have happened. And then Trayvon would have been charged with assualt.)
 
He had multiple choices, opportunities to err on the side of safety, at many different stages. He even set the parameters for the scenario by confronting Martin when he was instructed not to. He superceded any law enforcement agents, people who are trained to handle just these situations. 
 
Did I imply that the law begins and ends with this case? If so, then my comment was poorly worded. I think no such thing. It is a tragic scenario outside of any trial, criminal or civil. This case will inform future ones through precedent, and perhaps it will cause Floridians to re-examine the "stand your ground" law. Or perhaps there will be some legislature standardizing neighborhood watch groups. Or even about liability of an individual working in conjunction with 911 at the time of a crime. (I'm just throwing all these points out there.) Ultimately, this case is one in a spectrum. And the best outcome I can hope for, being an optimist, is that it will eventually influence laws to be refined to protect a greater amount of people.
 
@Beastbomb: sorry you think that way about cops. They are trained professionals who deal with scary, unhinged people on a daily basis. Their sole job is to enter into critical situations and defuse it with the best possible outcome. In a confrontation, I am much more afraid armed citizen one with limited training and absolutely no coaching on how to handle a weapon in an adrenaline-fuled situation than I am of a cop. I tend to think cops are much more reliable than vigilantes.
 
I know that we all have a right to bear arms, but I wish it were treated more as a privilege. Then maybe people would be more keenly aware of the damage that they can do, instead of cavalierly factoring a gun into a situation and automatically assuming there is going to be a positive outcome.
 
Chances are, if Zimmerman had left that gun in the car, Martin would still be alive, and two families' lives would not have been destroyed. That's what I meant by choices. Zimmerman made the choice to carry the gun, at a time when he was not under any threat at all. But it had tragic consequences.
 
On another board topic that's been mentioned about the media, one of my favorite WashPost columnists said that our media is clouded by "profit-driven divisiveness." Thought that was such an appropriate term for what goes on in these "if it bleeds, it leads" stories. It's in a news outlets best interest to put the most salacious thing out there. No matter if the veracity is questionable. It's good for business. Which makes it even harder for the end consumer to trust the facts in the story. It's pervasive, and it seems to be just getting worse unfortunately.

Don't get me wrong, because I don't mean to if I did, but I love the oppurtunity to have a well trained police force to handle more drastic situations. They are need and are a vital part of this country for sure. But there are situations were the police just can't be relied upon and that's when a citizen needs to protect themselves. A lot of terrible things can happen in the seven minutes it takes for a dispatch unit to make it on site. There are differences to when a police should be relied upon. A bank robbery should be left to the police, a gun barrel being pointed at your head needs to be taken care of by the individual.

Now guns. Guns are a privilege to obtain. That's why you have to go through a background check ( I agree that background checks need to be improved.) the problem I is that there are at least 30 million guns in America that aren't even registered and are constantly being sold on the black market. These are were gun enforcement fails and makes the possibility of guns being a privilege nearly obsolete. I personally hate the idea of gun control. But I do agree that a weapon needs to be treatedmore like a privilege as long as the govt. stays out of it.

Edit: I apologize, I made a mistake. I meant to say that there are 300 million guns in the United States that are registered like The post jake made, and probably just as much that aren't.
There is no way we can make all gun a privilege to own. That's is why those who are privileges to own a gun must know when the situations arises and when it is appropriate to protect themselves with a dangerous weapon.

Edited by Beastbomb, 17 July 2013 - 12:59 AM.

[Jake]

@Beastbomb: sorry you think that way about cops. They are trained professionals who deal with scary, unhinged people on a daily basis. Their sole job is to enter into critical situations and defuse it with the best possible outcome. In a confrontation, I am much more afraid armed citizen — one with limited training and absolutely no coaching on how to handle a weapon in an adrenaline-fuled situation — than I am of a cop. I tend to think cops are much more reliable than vigilantes.

 

Zimmerman had a concealed carry permit which required that Zimmerman was trained in how to properly use a firearm to the same standards as the Police.

 

I know that we all have a right to bear arms, but I wish it were treated more as a privilege. Then maybe people would be more keenly aware of the damage that they can do, instead of cavalierly factoring a gun into a situation and automatically assuming there is going to be a positive outcome.

 

In 1994 there were 192 million firearms owned by private citizens according to the National Institute of Justice and the Per-Capita Firearm Murder Victims was 6.3

 

In 1996 there were 242 million firearms owned by private citizens according to the ATF and the Per-Capita Firearm Murder Rate was 5.0

 

In 2000 there were 259 million firearms owned by private citizens according to the ATF and the Per-Capita Firearm Murder Rate was 3.6

 

And in 2009 there were 301 million firearms owned by private citizens according to the ATF and the Per-Capita Firearm Murder Rate was 3.4

 

This is the reason that the Second Amendment is a Right the more firearms owned by private citizens the lower the murder rate and the crime rate.

 

Chances are, if Zimmerman had left that gun in the car, Martin would still be alive, and two families' lives would not have been destroyed. That's what I meant by choices. Zimmerman made the choice to carry the gun, at a time when he was not under any threat at all. But it had tragic consequences.

 

No there is en equal chance that Martin could have killed Zimmerman that night if Zimmerman had no had his firearm on him at the time.

[Nate River]

@Nate: Sorry, I guess I wasn't clear enough. The point of what I was saying is that Zimmerman had a choice. Even down to the least savory of those choices, which was to lie there and take it. (Without a gun, that's what would have happened. And then Trayvon would have been charged with assualt.)
 
He had multiple choices, opportunities to err on the side of safety, at many different stages. He even set the parameters for the scenario by confronting Martin when he was instructed not to. He superceded any law enforcement agents, people who are trained to handle just these situations. 
 
Did I imply that the law begins and ends with this case? If so, then my comment was poorly worded. I think no such thing. It is a tragic scenario outside of any trial, criminal or civil. This case will inform future ones through precedent, and perhaps it will cause Floridians to re-examine the "stand your ground" law. Or perhaps there will be some legislature standardizing neighborhood watch groups. Or even about liability of an individual working in conjunction with 911 at the time of a crime. (I'm just throwing all these points out there.) Ultimately, this case is one in a spectrum. And the best outcome I can hope for, being an optimist, is that it will eventually influence laws to be refined to protect a greater amount of people.

No, you didn't. It's something I've added then removed from multiple posts, and at that point included. It's one of the things that has genuinely been pissing me off (media malfeasance is the other), but I shouldn't have used your post. That one sentence just rubbed me the wrong way, and that particular complaint was related. I included the preface "commentator" because I meant it to be broader because I have so many erroneous complaints about the law from people without any thought that they may find themselves on the other side of it. I think this would be a poor case in which form them to review Stand Your Ground. It wasn't used here, but all the passions from this trial would influence the making of a law that was not even a part of it. Seems like a poor mix.

The law here was Self-Defense Deadly Force or whatever specific term they use, but all state's have a similar law and have had one for sometime. It's not a new legal concept. There isn't anything unusual about Flordia's version, except for it's application to civil cases as it relates to damages.
 

On another board topic that's been mentioned about the media, one of my favorite WashPost columnists said that our media is clouded by "profit-driven divisiveness." Thought that was such an appropriate term for what goes on in these "if it bleeds, it leads" stories. It's in a news outlets best interest to put the most salacious thing out there. No matter if the veracity is questionable. It's good for business. Which makes it even harder for the end consumer to trust the facts in the story. It's pervasive, and it seems to be just getting worse unfortunately.

There is always an elements of this and they do it, but I think this is too generous in this particular case. It kept happening over and over and every single screw-up went against Zimmerman. If this was it, then why ignore the Kermit Gosnell trial? The facts of that case are just ghastly and they had to be shamed into covering it. The excuse was local crime story, but what the heck was this?

I do not think Zimmerman is a racist. The court might be racist because apparently a woman got 20 years for firing warning shots to her abusive husband, that too was self-defense

You might want to do heavy research on that case before deciding that. The facts aren't the same and what is being passed around is a very incomplete version.

You know prosecuted that case?

Supposedly it was.....Angela Corey, the special prosecutor in this one.