Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman

[AndersonG22]

That makes no sense. If I see a suspicious man in my neighborhood, I follow him to see if he'll break into my car, that alone will be reason enough to convict me?

If you are carrying a gun and end up killing him then yes, otherwise no.

 

[FoolKiller]

If you are carrying a gun and end up killing him then yes, otherwise no.

Convict him of what though? There are legal definitions for each kind of charge, each requiring certain criteria to be met. If Zimmerman only followed Martin to keep tabs on him and Martin assaulted him without any other provocation then the criteria are met for self defense. If Zimmerman did initiate the assault or acted to elevate the confrontation to violence then you have to find the best charge to fit the case. There are many criminal forms of homicide, each based on motive, intent, and do forth.

See the legal system is not as cut and dry as you make it out to be. Never mind that you still have to prove to a jury that events happen as you claim.

 

[AndersonG22]

Convict him of what though? There are legal definitions for each kind of charge, each requiring certain criteria to be met. If Zimmerman only followed Martin to keep tabs on him and Martin assaulted him without any other provocation then the criteria are met for self defense. If Zimmerman did initiate the assault or acted to elevate the confrontation to violence then you have to find the best charge to fit the case. There are many criminal forms of homicide, each based on motive, intent, and do forth.

See the legal system is not as cut and dry as you make it out to be. Never mind that you still have to prove to a jury that events happen as you claim.

Stalking someone is an aggressive act, Zimmerman escalated the situation to violence the moment he decided to stalk martin. And he escalated the situation with a gun, he should rot in prison.

 

[a6m5]

If you are carrying a gun and end up killing him then yes, otherwise no.

Stalking someone is an aggressive act, Zimmerman escalated the situation to violence the moment he decided to stalk martin. And he escalated the situation with a gun, he should rot in prison.

OK, so my neighbor's car got broken into last week. I hear suspicious noise, I see a guy I find suspicious walking towards my car, I follow him. For the sake of it, say:

a) I am carrying a handgun I am allowed to carry by the State of Oregon.
b) As I approach the man, he attacks me unprovoked.

As I'm in process of getting my head bashed in, according to you, if I harm him, I am committing a crime? If I truly believe that I am getting killed, I should just sit on my gun and scream for help?

 

[Solid Lifters]

Zimmerman was the aggressor when he started stalking martin, that alone should be reason enough to convict him.

Complete bull:censored:!

You needs some truth in ya'. Stop being a played-for-a-fool and go find out what the truth is, for yourself.

If you are carrying a gun and end up killing him then yes, otherwise no.

Wow, such ignorance. Such asinine thinking!

How about, when you see a guy breaking into a house, he sees you, waits for you to leave, he leaves for a different house, he sees you watching him again, gets pissed, makes a pissed-off phone call to his slut saying he's gonna be late, then confronts you to scare you off, finds out you're gonna call the cops on him, he attacks you from behind, pummels your face, grabs your gun he finds underneath your jacket and threatens to murder you with it! Then what would you do?

How about, you scream for help and when nobody shows up, you shoot your attacker before he can shoot you! Sounds fair? No?

If you say no, then you think it's alright for a violent, POS of a human to just take your life away. If that's the case, you're screwed! Because there are others, just like Martin, who wont hesitate to do it without justification.

Zimmerman shot that Piece Of 🤬 Martin with justification.

Not Guilty.

Have a nice day.

 

[theotherspongey]

It's funny how you act like you saw everything that happened, when it happened...

I admit that I did too, but the way you are is pathetic...

 

[FoolKiller]

Stalking someone is an aggressive act, Zimmerman escalated the situation to violence the moment he decided to stalk martin.

Weird, in this case I thought it was called Neighborhood Watch, which is a fairly common group organized by neighborhoods all over the US, many times in cooperation with the local police.

Admittedly, he was not working a patrol shift at the time, but there is zero that is illegal about noting suspicious people and calling it in. Nor is it aggressive. Stupid to continue following, maybe but not aggressive. But then, assuming this is the first time he and Martin had met, he had no reason to believe this would become a violent situation.

And he escalated the situation with a gun,

Fortunately the justice system is far more concerned with facts than your apparent anti-gun feelings. Zimmerman had a legal right to have the gun on his person. Just having the gun on him proves absolutely nothing.

he should rot in prison.

For how long? Life? 20 years, 10 years, 5 years?

For which charge? Murder? Which degree, first, second? Or manslaughter? What kind, aggravated or unintentional? Is he as bad as the Beltway Sniper? A drunk driver? Kids playing with fire?

As I said before, the criminal justice system is not as cut and dry as you make it out to be. If you know he is guilty, as you claim, you should be able to say what he is guilty of.

 

[mr_geez]

Complete bull:censored:!

You needs some truth in ya'. Stop being a played-for-a-fool and go find out what the truth is, for yourself.






If you say no, then you think it's alright for a violent, POS of a human to just take your life away. If that's the case, you're screwed! Because there are others, just like Martin, who wont hesitate to do it without justification.

Zimmerman shot that Piece Of 🤬 Martin with justification.

Not Guilty.

Have a nice day.

LOL WUT?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

How about you tell us Sherlock Holmes how it all happened?

You sound like a really great person. Calling some dead teenager POS (had to double check you really wrote this.. yup you did). <slow clap>

Oh and by the way, I have to LOL again at "gang'banger" Martin quote from you. Because all teenagers around the world who smoke some weed (horror, oh horror!) , get into some trouble at school (non violent or crime related), listen to rap and post photos of themselves with fake gold teeth while throwing gang signs on facebook (that really must mean something, just like this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KKTDRqQtPO8 ) are true gangsters wielding AK47 in their right hand and selling crack to 12 year olds with their left hand. AT THE SAME TIME!!

And of course the killer knew everything I mentioned above about that kid before he started to stalk him.

 

[Solid Lifters]

LOL WUT?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

How about you tell us Sherlock Holmes how it all happened?

You sound like a really great person. Calling some dead teenager POS (had to double check you really wrote this.. yup you did). <slow clap>

Oh and by the way, I have to LOL again at "gang'banger" Martin quote from you. Because all teenagers around the world who smoke some weed (horror, oh horror!) , get into some trouble at school (non violent or crime related), listen to rap and post photos of themselves with fake gold teeth while throwing gang signs on facebook (that really must mean something, just like this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KKTDRqQtPO8 ) are true gangsters wielding AK47 in their right hand and selling crack to 12 year olds with their left hand. AT THE SAME TIME!!

And of course the killer knew everything I mentioned above about that kid before he started to stalk him.

EDIT: Never mind. I just read where you're from.

 

[Zenith]

You guys are going to get the thread locked at this rate.

 

[theotherspongey]

EDIT: Never mind. I just read where you're from.

Wow, learn some respect.

 

[Solid Lifters]

Wow, learn some respect.

It's simple, I don't have respect for people who don't have respect for me. Respect is earned, not demanded. By his obnoxious and condescending remarks to me, I knew several facts. One, he didn't have respect for me and two, he's another liberal who can't base his opinions on the truth but by only what the lying liberal media, who have political agendas to push, have told him. That makes him, IMO, a disrespectful liberal douchebag here to start trouble or another idiot who can't see that the liberal media is lying to him. Sorry, I also don't respect idiots or douchebag liberals, even if they do show me respect.

Again, I say to you and any other person reading this, show proof that Zimmerman is guilty of murder. Nobody here has done that. Proof has been shown that Zimmerman's story of events that night were truthful. The fact that four different police agencies interviewed over two dozen witnesses and detained Zimmerman for over 12 hours, interviewing him for over 5 hours, leads me to believe he's innocent of murder charges.

Not guilty.

You guys are going to get the thread locked at this rate.

Beginning to sound like a great idea.

 

[theotherspongey]

It's simple, I don't have respect for people who don't have respect for me. Respect is earned, not demanded. By his obnoxious and condescending remarks to me, I knew several facts. One, he didn't have respect for me and two, he's another liberal who can't base his opinions on the truth but by only what the lying liberal media, who have political agendas to push, have told him. That makes him, IMO, a disrespectful liberal douchebag here to start trouble or another idiot who can't see that the liberal media is lying to him. Sorry, I also don't respect idiots or douchebag liberals, even if they do show me respect.

Again, I say to you and any other person reading this, show proof that Zimmerman is guilty of murder. Nobody here has done that. Proof has been shown that Zimmerman's story of events that night were truthful. The fact that four different police agencies interviewed over two dozen witnesses and detained Zimmerman for over 12 hours, interviewing him for over 5 hours, leads me to believe he's innocent of murder charges.

Not guilty.






Beginning to sound like a great idea.

You have yet to show ANY proof of him being not guilty. All you do is bash people that don't have "evidence" but you have yet to provide any yourself. All you do in this thread is be disrespectful to others and you have no right to do that.

Where is said proof? I'm waiting! If it's from Fox then it's instantly debunked as fake.

 

[Solid Lifters]

You have yet to show ANY proof of him being not guilty.

I know. I'm not going to, either. You should find it on your own. I did and so did others who now know the truth.

Where is said proof? I'm waiting! If it's from Fox then it's instantly debunked as fake.

Fox only tells lies? Wow, what a norrow mind you have. I'm not surprised, though.

No, my 'proof' is not from Fox news. Actually, some of my 'proof' is from the very first news media who claimed Martin was an innocent boy murdered because of 'racial issues'. They no longer believe that because the TRUTH was learned.

 

[theotherspongey]

I know. I'm not going to, either. You should find it on your own. I did and so did others who now know the truth.




Fox only tells lies? Wow, what a norrow mind you have. I'm not surprised, though.

No, my 'proof' is not from Fox news. Actually, some of my 'proof' is from the very first news media who claimed Martin was an innocent boy murdered because of 'racial issues'. They no longer believe that because the TRUTH was learned.

So you're telling us to go find proof, while you tell me to post proof here? What?

If you're not going to post any proof then you're a hypocrite.

Yes, Fox only tells lies.

 

[Famine]

You have yet to show ANY proof of him being not guilty.

Huh. I didn't realise that was how the legal system worked.

 

[Dragonwar233]

My only issue with Zimmermans actions was that he shot to kill. I would be way more sympathetic if he shot a leg or something.

 

[a6m5]

My only issue with Zimmermans actions was that he shot to kill. I would be way more sympathetic if he shot a leg or something.

Is this factual, or another speculation? I don't know how shot placement could prove Zimmerman's intent to kill?

If I had a 9mm, if I had the intent to kill, I'd have shot him more than once, and at least one of them would have hit the head or the heart. Even then, how would anybody know if I maybe meant to shoot him elsewhere, or I was merely trying to stop him from advancing, then missed?

I feel like I'm a defense lawyer for Zimmerman, but I'm actually neutral. I just can't believe the speculation casual observer of the case comes up with, but they believe them as facts.

 

[Dragonwar233]

Ok, fine I actually think Zimmerman shouldn't of followed someone when told not. There is that enough, also why did Zimmerman call Trayvon a Coon on the call?

 

[Northstar]

also why did Zimmerman call Trayvon a Coon on the call?

He didn't...(at least that anybody can confirm)

The only confirmed racial reference in the 911 call was responding to the dispatcher asking what his race was.

 

[a6m5]

Ok, fine I actually think Zimmerman shouldn't of followed someone when told not. There is that enough, also why did Zimmerman call Trayvon a Coon on the call?

I also agree that he shouldn't have followed. I don't know what "Coon" is, or what that has to do with Zimmerman's intent to murder someone.

 

[buickgnx88]

Coon is a slang word for a black person. In any case, people keep thinking that what a 911 operator says should be followed, even though they are not considered law enforcement. Besides, do you guys that claim he kept following have proof that he kept following, or is just the fact that there was a confrontation your proof? From what I heard on his call, he complied with the operator and stopped.

 

[a6m5]

Coon is a slang word for a black person. In any case, people keep thinking that what a 911 operator says should be followed, even though they are not considered law enforcement. Besides, do you guys that claim he kept following have proof that he kept following, or is just the fact that there was a confrontation your proof? From what I heard on his call, he complied with the operator and stopped.

Good point. I came to the conclusion indeed due to the fact that confrontation took place. Hasn't that much info come out from the case yet?

 

[FoolKiller]

My only issue with Zimmermans actions was that he shot to kill. I would be way more sympathetic if he shot a leg or something.

This assumes he had time to draw and aim at specific body parts. Or that he has an accurate aim.

Ok, fine I actually think Zimmerman shouldn't of followed someone when told not. There is that enough,

Are you trying to justify a belief that Zimmerman intentionally killed Martin? No one needs "enough" from you to accept you have an issue. It was just pointed out that your issue was based on unconfirmed information.

also why did Zimmerman call Trayvon a Coon on the call?

If you can make out that part if the call you are better than some of the best sound guys CNN could find, as after they had one group clean it up and declare the garbled noise was the word "coon" they had another group do it and suggest he may have said "thugs.". So not even the media bias attempts to create their own version of the story can come up with the same answer.

 

[Conza]

I found an article here which updates my knowledge, but leaves me still believing what I did before - Zimmerman didn't need to shoot, therefore its murder, and if a change of venue were allowed, he WOULD be convicted of murder.

I'm not too liberal, I believe in a situation where someone jumps out, and tries to attack you, the stand your ground law makes sense, I'd even understand if someone shot someone robbing their house, the law caters for both those situations.

The unfortunate vagueness of this law however, allows people like Zimmerman to stalk people like Trayvon, eventually provoke them, then shoot them in a self-defence that should never have been required.

If you seperate the two events, A. Zimmerman stalking a 'suspicious' person and B. Zimmerman shooting a young boy to save his own life, you might find yourself able to say 'this law is working fine'. But if you can put those two together and think that Zimmerman is an innocent, or even a victim here, thats a set of morals so seperated from my own I can't even possibly comprehend it, to me thats the complete definition of amoral, its completely wrong.

Wow, amazing this thread is still going, are there people here who actually 'support' what Zimmerman did?

I support news sources using factual information to make claims. Instead they have been trying desperately to spin this into a racist vigilante vs. innocent child case prior to any proof whatsoever. That's my beef with this ordeal. It appears you have fallen victim to it or judged earlye.

I support Zimmerman being declared innocent if there is insufficient proof that he was not acting under the law.

I thought it was outrageous, such a stupid law 'stand your ground' being applied here,

If I'm in the middle of being beat to death, I'm going to try to defend myself. You can do whatever you want if you find the idea of not being legally obligated to run or roll over to be "stupid."

and the evidence, 'want me to follow him' 'no DON'T FOLLOW HIM' (paraphrasing here), so he does, then shoots him?

911 Operators are not law enforcement and have no more authority than my mother in a situation like this. This is not evidence.

That guy commited murder.

Bad assumption. He shot and killed Martin. The "Stand Your Ground" law and others protects him if he was acting in self defense and his life was in danger.

So far the only evidence available is that Zimmerman was beaten up and Martin had wounds on his fists. This suggests that it was, in fact, self defense.

and I am so damn glad that people realised it (and the law enforcers more importantly, finally), and he's going to be put on trial, and likely convicted, just like any other person would've been in that situation in almost any other state of the USA.

This is another bad assumption. You seem to think that the vast majority of people are on your side. Recent polls suggest otherwise.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/lifestyle/general_lifestyle/may_2012/40_now_say_trayvon_martin_shot_in_self_defense_24_say_it_was_murder

Does anyone not like how this has played out? My only 2 cents now is, should've had this outcome sooner.

I don't like how it played out either.

There are hundreds of self-righteous ignoramuses running around telling everybody their opinions on a case that they (and everybody else) know nothing about.

We have news organizations and hair-trigger race "activists" attempting to turn this into Rodney King 2 and spin the public perception of a law into something it is not.

Just to be sure; I don't like that Trayvon was murdered, and I don't like the 'Stand Your Ground' law here as a technicallity to allow people to say otherwise, and will likely allow him to get off because of that law as well.

What I do like, is that Zimmerman has been charged, even if it were under false pretenses of public outrage, they seemed fairly outraged to me, and rightfully so. Very little to like about this set of events.

EDIT: oh yeah, the article I mentioned http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...be-convicted-of-murdering-trayvon-martin.html

 

[Zenith]

IIRC, the "coon" thing was CNN's enhanced audio. Probably similar to the way they edited the dispatcher call to have Zimmerman seemingly announce that Martin was black without prompting.

Yes, Fox only tells lies.

And generalizations are famed for their accuracy.

Do you have any experience on this or are you regurgitating what Jon Stewart says?

Ok, fine I actually think Zimmerman shouldn't of followed someone when told not. There is that enough, also why did Zimmerman call Trayvon a Coon on the call?

The 911 dispatcher has no authority as the law. It would be the same as my mother telling Zimmerman not to pursue Martin. It is not evidence at all.

 

[a6m5]

What I do like, is that Zimmerman has been charged, even if it were under false pretenses of public outrage, they seemed fairly outraged to me, and rightfully so. Very little to like about this set of events.

This is the stuff that scares me. Do you not even remember this "outrage" you are referring to was based on the racial profiling faked by NBC? Rightfully so? NBC was forced to apologize for that edited audio, with actor Don Cheadle actually calling for the head of the people responsible for the story.

Edit: Looks like NBC did end up firing the producer & a reporter responsible for the story. Another reporter was also fired for deceptively editing stories for local NBC stations, on online & print.

When Zimmerman was charged, public didn't know jack. Just look at all the experts in this thread, to a degree myself included, who was going on so much assumption with no knowledge of the actual evidence, or even the details in the case.

I give myself a break, because at least I was smart enough to say "wait" & "we don't know". I'm glad nobody is being tried in front of this jury.

 

[FoolKiller]

I found an article here which updates my knowledge, but leaves me still believing what I did before - Zimmerman didn't need to shoot, therefore its murder, and if a change of venue were allowed, he WOULD be convicted of murder.

I'm not sure how you reached the conclusion it is murder. I read your article and you have a Harvard law professor explaining that it is manslaughter, based on the evidence. If you go back to the beginning of the thread you will find where I pointed out that unless we had new evidence that it is manslaughter at most.

I realize this is just mincing legal terms, but if that article is accurate (it is an opinion piece written by a non-journalist, not held to journalistic standards) then those legal terms are the difference between conviction and acquittal.

The unfortunate vagueness of this law however, allows people like Zimmerman to stalk people like Trayvon, eventually provoke them, then shoot them in a self-defence that should never have been required.

No it doesn't. Nor does the article say it does. The article says the law can lead to this situation, but not out of malice. The law provides a way to say he had no malicious intent to harm or kill in his actions, but it does not prevent a manslaughter charge. But I believe the fact that he called 911 first is evidence of that alone. If he was looking to provoke and harm someone he wouldn't be calling 911 first.

If you seperate the two events, A. Zimmerman stalking a 'suspicious' person and B. Zimmerman shooting a young boy to save his own life, you might find yourself able to say 'this law is working fine'. But if you can put those two together and think that Zimmerman is an innocent, or even a victim here, thats a set of morals so seperated from my own I can't even possibly comprehend it, to me thats the complete definition of amoral, its completely wrong.

His innocence of the charges filed has everything to do with these two events combined. Separated and you have no intent to determine if a crime was committed and what crime it was.

Just to be sure; I don't like that Trayvon was murdered, and I don't like the 'Stand Your Ground' law here as a technicallity to allow people to say otherwise, and will likely allow him to get off because of that law as well.

Read your article, the only thing letting him get off (if he does) is the prosecutor's desire to go for more than the evidence shows.

What I do like, is that Zimmerman has been charged, even if it were under false pretenses of public outrage, they seemed fairly outraged to me, and rightfully so. Very little to like about this set of events.

And this is why Casey Anthony walks free.

Do understand: Based on what I understand, I think Zimmerman should and could be convicted of a crime (unintentional manslaughter), but not the crime he is charged with (second degree murder).

And even then, I still don't know everything that happened and so I keep an open mind.

 

[Kent]

Do you have any experience on this or are you regurgitating what Jon Stewart says?

 

[ShobThaBob]

So, I'm gonna be the jerk that pops in here randomly, gives his 2 cents without reading the thread, and gets told he's a jerk for not reading the thread.

From a legal standpoint, any infinite number of small gestures, words, or imagined threats could turn this case either way for the prosecution or defense. We don't know what was said, if anything - that's enormously important. If Martin felt threatened in any way, Zim committed murder. He could've done that by demanding something, flashing his gun, saying something racist, or walking out with his gun in his hand or with his palm resting on his gun.

The simple reality is that ANY of those things could've happened. We just don't know. Unless some real piece of evidence comes out that gives Martin's side of the story - something indicating that he was afraid - Zim should walk free. I don't think this should reflect negatively on our courts or positively on Zim. My personal feeling is that he screwed up big time, and nobody should go around on the street confronting people about what they're doing somewhere. My gut tells me that if we knew everything that happened, he would get convicted. I doubt there is evidence to make that happen, so he should not get convicted. He deserves the benefit of the doubt regardless of what our gut says.

The real story here is the police investigation. The reason we know so little is because of the lack of work the police put into evidence gathering. Nobody wants to talk about that though. That scares us. We'd rather talk about the characters emotions that get stirred up when we think about guns, thugs, and vigilante action. That's what sells the papers and gets viewers, so that's what the news feeds us. It's too bad really.