Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

It sounds to me like Zimmerman was being over-zealous in his assumed duties as a neighbourhood watchman, and when he sought the support of law enforcement, he made the somewhat inexplicable decision to ignore their directions i.e. to stop following Martin. Of course, Martin had every right to be on the estate - but Zimmerman apparently just assumed that he didn't - but he was quite wrong about that.

He didn't make a decision that Martin didn't belong there, where did you get that from? He found him suspicious and wanted to see what he'd do.

Zimmerman may have thought he was doing the clever thing by following someone who he perceived to be up to no good, but he had neither the authority or anything beyond pure suspicion to 'justify' his behaviour.

What authority does one need to follow another person? Overzealous? I'd say paranoid and far too attentive are better, but to say that Zimmerman is over joyed in following these people I would like to see something that proves it.

Even if his suspicions were well founded and Martin was up to no good (and that is by no means certain)-Neither is certain since Zimmerman didn't know Martin, he still should not have ignored the police advice to back off.

I simply have to ask since I already addressed this why should he have backed off? I'm just legitimately interested in your perception.

The question is, how on Earth was Martin, whose presence on the estate was justified, supposed to know who Zimmerman was or why he was following him - and not being a police officer, it would not be apparent from his appearance that Zimmerman himself was not up to no good. Being followed or approached by a complete stranger in a hostile manner is frightening and intimidating, and this is most likely why the police advised Zimmerman not to do it.

How can you say with objectivity that Martin was followed in a hostile nature, this is evidence to all of us that are here. Also from your view - just working from what you said- the image of Zimmerman being so menacing caused Martin to fight back? I mean from what you seem to be saying both parties found the other one as potential criminals or dangers? Yet somehow Martin is justifiable in attacking Zimmerman? Also in no way shape or form does disregarding a suggestion from a dispatch operator (not a cop) break any laws. You seem to keep returning to that line of rhetoric in your post, just thought I'd address even though others on here (e.g. Foolkiller) have made this point clear early in the thread.

 

[Dmarc_Atl]

No offense, but it's way out of line to compare racisim with following a suspicious character you suspect is up to no good. As I stated in my last post, I've been followed or approached by nosy people before. This isn't some isolated case, it happens all the time in this world. And as I noted in that post, I wasn't always flattered by it, but I never attacked anyone over it either. It's always been: 1) They ask 2) I explain 3) We both walk away

I wasn't comparing, I was making an example, that people are free to do what ever they want, but if its wrong its wrong.Following a suspicious looking person is wrong, and essentially chasing them when that person run is even wronger.Neither are the right ways of dealing with a suspicious looking person.He should've greeted him from the beginning like the people that followed,instead of scoping him out, because then he becomes the suspicious looking person and when a suspicious looking person is following you,you run, and if you feel brave you confront that person , im not saying this is right, but its as justified as stalking a person you think is doing something wrong.Which bring me back to the point of both of them being in the wrong.

 

[playnthru]

How am I speculating? We have Zimmerman's account that's it, that's what he said happened.

Sure Trayvon had a right to defend himself, but show me where he was ever in danger(until he was shot in self defense). By every single account he was beating Zimmerman badly. That does not make him 'defending himself' that makes him the aggressor.

 

[a6m5]

I wasn't comparing, I was making an example, that people are free to do what ever they want, but if its wrong its wrong.Following a suspicious looking person is wrong, and essentially chasing them when that person run is even wronger.Neither are the right ways of dealing with a suspicious looking person.He should've greeted him from the beginning like the people that followed,instead of scoping him out, because then he becomes the suspicious looking person and when a suspicious looking person is following you,you run, and if you feel brave you confront that person , im not saying this is right, but its as justified as stalking a person you think is doing something wrong.Which bring me back to the point of both of them being in the wrong.

Again, for me personally, I think we have two men here who went out of their way to screw up the situation. IMO, if one of them acted rationally, it could've been all avoided. Just one of them.

If you see a suspicious person, I don't see anything wrong with someone watching him or even following him. I grew up in a country that has one of the lowest crime rate in the world, and people watched & followed suspicious characters, so I don't really understand this 'don't bother the suspicious man' angle. I really don't.

Edit: I just wanted to clarify what I said. I would actually encourage people to watch the suspicious character more actively. Where I disagree with what Zimmerman did(and I said this million times before) is when he already spoke with the 911 & police was already on the way, at that point, unless someone, or someone's property was in danger at that moment, IMO, he should have backed off.

 

[Keef]

He was also assigned to the neighborhood watch so it's his job to keep an eye out for suspicious activity and report it to the police.

I've been in a situation before where I called the police on a guy who was being verbally abusive in the middle of the night, on the sidewalk, but because I didn't follow him he eventually went inside a house and I wasn't able to tell the cops his location because I didn't know.

 

[Dmarc_Atl]

I've seen it happen too.When some one calls the cop on a person and the person leaves.It happens often, however its not worth putting your self in harms way ( depending on what the person is doing ofcourse, and person walking around a neighborhood certainly isn't a situation to do so) to catch a potential criminal, and police advise you not to so.In this case, george thought it was necessary to follow him because apparently the ones who actually break in houses tend to get away.Which in that case police should make the neighborhood a daily route if it was as bad as he made it seem.

Again, for me personally, I think we have two men here who went out of their way to screw up the situation. IMO, if one of them acted rationally, it could've been all avoided. Just one of them.

If you see a suspicious person, I don't see anything wrong with someone watching him or even following him. I grew up in a country that has one of the lowest crime rate in the world, and people watched & followed suspicious characters, so I don't really understand this 'don't bother the suspicious man' angle. I really don't.

Edit: I just wanted to clarify what I said. I would actually encourage people to watch the suspicious character more actively. Where I disagree with what Zimmerman did(and I said this million times before) is when he already spoke with the 911 & police was already on the way, at that point, unless someone, or someone's property was in danger at that moment, IMO, he should have backed off.

I never said dont bother the suspicious man, I said don't follow.You simply call the authority and or make it known who you are and what you are doing to the suspicious looking person.I don't see how your country having the lowest crime rate has anything to do with following suspicious looking people.Are you saying you have the lowest crime rate because of this? Im guessing your in japan, theres a huge difference between america's culture and laws and japan's culture and laws..Yes it could have been avoided if trayvon didn't attack him (how often does some one run away and turn around to fight the person who he's running from lol im just saying, doesn't make sense).How ever THAT could have been avoided if george didnt follow him.I understand that you dont see a problem with some one following a suspicious looking person, but I think it is wrong, and this entire situation shows precisely why its wrong.

 

[FoolKiller]

Lets look at a few events leading up to this.

• The event happens and police do not press charges.
• The media gets hold of it and screams of white on black murder going unpunished are raised.
• Zimmerman and Martin's photos are released.
• The media then calls Zimmerman white-Hispanic.
• The false white on black claims are already out of the bag and screams of no charges are raised, including in this thread. No one seems to care about investigations and proper charges being filed.
• The prosecution presses charges.
• And I say

  I don't know exactly how Florida defines second degree murder, but generally it requires an act such as assault, rape, or armed robbery, which is known to possibly result in death, being the cause of the murder. I hope they have evidence to justify that charge over something like unintentional manslaughter. If not then Florida may be developing a reputation as over-reaching in high-profile homicides, like in the Casey Anthony case. And considering the racial tensions involved I would hate to see the reaction to Zimmerman being found not guilty.

• Near the end of the trial the prosecution urges the judge to allow the jury to consider manslaughter - a sure sign that they know they screwed up.
• Zimmerman walks and the jury refuses to consider manslaughter.

This is the second time in as many years that Florida has had a high-profile media case that didn't result in any form of conviction. Part of me wonders how much this has to do with Florida allowing full media access to courtrooms. Is the prosecution under media, and thus political, pressure to make it look good? Are they trying to make a case for their own career? Or does media access equal a pure influence by public opinion?

I've even heard Mark Geragos say that he thought the prosecution was throwing the case. That would indicate they pressed charges they didn't believe in. And Geragos wasn't the only expert saying the prosecution was doing a horrible job.

If you don't think justice was served here then blame the prosecution. No matter what actually happened, they didn't have evidence to prove 2nd degree murder, and in a system where you are innocent until proven guilty the burden of proof is 100% on the prosecution.

And if we blame the prosecution for failing to achieve justice we have to ask why. For the people who were screaming for action when this all began, the answer is in your mirror.

Unless the entire investigation is closed don't try to use public outcry and the media to force their hand. That might very well be why justice doesn't get served.

 

[a6m5]

I never said dont bother the suspicious man, I said don't follow.You simply call the authority and or make it known who you are and what you are doing to the suspicious looking person.

I'm confused. At the point you are introducing yourself to the suspicious person, aren't you already confronting him? And you can't always call 911, that's just unrealistic. Man is walking around on the parking lot, is he looking for his car, or cars to break into? I honestly don't see anything wrong with approaching the man to ask what his situation is.

I don't see how your country having the lowest crime rate has anything to do with following suspicious looking people.

It is one of the safest place, and people still routinely engaged suspicious characters. In America, odds of that suspicious character actually being a criminal is much higher. That is the point I was making.

Are you saying you have the lowest crime rate because of this?

It can only help, but absolutely not what I was saying.

Im guessing your in japan, theres a huge difference between america's culture and laws and japan's culture and laws...

Grew up in Japan, but have lived in the States for over 25 years.

Yes it could have been avoided if trayvon didn't attack him (how often does some one run away and turn around to fight the person who he's running from lol im just saying, doesn't make sense).How ever THAT could have been avoided if george didnt follow him.I understand that you dont see a problem with some one following a suspicious looking person, but I think it is wrong, and this entire situation shows precisely why its wrong.

I disagree, but I respect your opinion. While I don't think you should get in the way of the police or anything, countless crimes are prevented by people looking out for others.

 

[Dmarc_Atl]

Lets look at a few events leading up to this.

• The event happens and police do not press charges.
• The media gets hold of it and screams of white on black murder going unpunished are raised.
• Zimmerman and Martin's photos are released.
• The media then calls Zimmerman white-Hispanic.
• The false white on black claims are already out of the bag and screams of no charges are raised, including in this thread. No one seems to care about investigations and proper charges being filed.
• The prosecution presses charges.
• And I say
• Near the end of the trial the prosecution urges the judge to allow the jury to consider manslaughter - a sure sign that they know they screwed up.
• Zimmerman walks and the jury refuses to consider manslaughter.

This is the second time in as many years that Florida has had a high-profile media case that didn't result in any form of conviction. Part of me wonders how much this has to do with Florida allowing full media access to courtrooms. Is the prosecution under media, and thus political, pressure to make it look good? Are they trying to make a case for their own career? Or does media access equal a pure influence by public opinion?

I've even heard Mark Geragos say that he thought the prosecution was throwing the case. That would indicate they pressed charges they didn't believe in. And Geragos wasn't the only expert saying the prosecution was doing a horrible job.

If you don't think justice was served here then blame the prosecution. No matter what actually happened, they didn't have evidence to prove 2nd degree murder, and in a system where you are innocent until proven guilty the burden of proof is 100% on the prosecution.

And if we blame the prosecution for failing to achieve justice we have to ask why. For the people who were screaming for action when this all began, the answer is in your mirror.

Unless the entire investigation is closed don't try to use public outcry and the media to force their hand. That might very well be why justice doesn't get served.

👍 I was trying to figure out what was the deal with the manslaughter thing.

I'm confused. At the point you are introducing yourself to the suspicious person, aren't you already confronting him? And you can't always call 911, that's just unrealistic. Man is walking around on the parking lot, is he looking for his car, or cars to break into? I honestly don't see anything wrong with approaching the man to ask what his situation is.

I'm speaking on the situation with zimmerman and martin when I say introduce yourself.In other words if your close enough you should introduce yourself and ask whats up.Other than that just call the cops.How is it unrealistic to call 911? I dont get that,are you saying you will approach a suspicious looking person even without access to calling 911?
What do you expect the person to say if he is indeed stealing cars? lol. A criminal wont say, hey im doing criminal activities.Asking what he's doing will accomplish nothing but make you a target if he is a criminal.

I disagree, but I respect your opinion. While I don't think you should get in the way of the police or anything, countless crimes are prevented by people looking out for others.

Yes thats true but thats very vague.Each situation is different.Those crimes could be prevented by people simply calling 911 and not intervening at all.

 

[XS]

Yes thats true but thats very vague.Each situation is different.Those crimes could be prevented by people simply calling 911 and not intervening at all.

That's a difficult stance to make. It's also part of the by-stander effect. It would be interesting to see a comparison of how many crimes were stopped from citizen intervention vs only calling the police. Where I live the police response is dangerously, embarrassingly poor. It's even worse when I used to work in a nearby downtown. I found out very quickly, my first day on the job as a matter of fact, that in order to protect yourself and others you have to take the law into your own hands. A man in my store was caught stealing and started threatening me and my co-workers when we approached him. I was already dialing 911 as soon as I saw him pocket the first item. Well, it took them 20 minutes, no joke, 20 minutes to answer the phone - the 911 line! I actually had to look at my phone to make sure I had dialed 911 and not 411 on accident or something. During that time he became violent and irate even though I said he could leave and we wouldn't stop him. The police dispatcher could hear him screaming on the phone and the dispatcher literally told me that they didn't have a unit in the area (we were five blocks from the frickin police station and I had seen a squad car two blocks away at McDonalds 15 minutes prior to the incident). So basically we were told that the police couldn't do anything for a local business that was dealing with a violent shop-lifter.... After that each business on our block looked out for the other because crime was high in our area. We actually got robbed one morning, at gunpoint, and the business next to us saw what was going on and called the police. Same exact situation, the phone rang and rang and rang. The situation deteriorated quickly when the gunman demanded I open the office safe, which is on a time lock, and when I told him it couldn't be opened again until noon he began threatening my life and my co-workers lives. The manager of the business next to us snuck in our back door and managed to pepper spray the would-be robber, scaring him and prompting him to run out of the store. I don't ever care if I end up like Zimmerman - the focus of hate from an entire community - for as long as I live where I do, I will always watch out for my neighbors and myself, regardless of the consequences.

 

[Zenith]

At this point many of the discussions are rehashing what was decided in the trial. The facts are out there and the justice system has spoken. If people are still clinging to misinformation or have a strange illusion of how the justice system works, cool.

~~~~

And yet people suggest that if you're carrying a firearm, you can pre-emtpively shoot off a warning shot. If you're not carrying a firearm and believe someone is a threat to you, what are you supposed to do? What is the equivalent of firing a warning shot?

I believe warning shots that endanger innocent bystanders are gross negligence that could be considered illegal.

To answer your question, I believe that announcing your perception of aggressive behavior and willingness to defend yourself are appropriate. However, attacking is only justified after they attack you.

Self defense is a good topic for the Human Rights thread.

Zimmerman's actions might have been in self defence, but they were still unnecessary. He was explicitly advised not to follow Martin, and chose to ignore that instruction. He presented himself in a manner that appeared to be threatening enough to provoke an assault. He may not be guilty of murder, but he certainly bears responsibility for Martin's death. There were half a dozen points in the timeline leading up to the confrontation where Zimmerman could have chosen an alternative course of action an the shooting would have been avoided.

All true. 👍

 

[arora]

Calling 911 does not prevent crime.

 

[niky]

If you don't think justice was served here then blame the prosecution. No matter what actually happened, they didn't have evidence to prove 2nd degree murder, and in a system where you are innocent until proven guilty the burden of proof is 100% on the prosecution.

The prosecution really mucked up. Whether or not Zimmerman was culpable, to charge him with second degree murder was more than just silly. The jury and judge were right to refuse the manslaughter charges. At that point, they would be viewing the whole thing as a witch hunt.

-

I'm still of the mind that Zimmerman did wrong, mind you. But not murder wrong.

-

In the end, this court win isn't a victory for him. He's still going to be one of the most hated men in America. Even if he wins his case against the media, he's going to lose a lot more before this is over.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Calling 911 does not prevent crime.

Yeah most people seem to not get that sadly.

My issue is the same as suggested by FK. This seems more political and just padding SA of Florida's record but also trying to show that Florida is on the side of blacks. I mean let's look at the gremlin that keeps popping up (race), you have a state that has had many issues. Then you have this city which is claimed to be racist against blacks and the pleas of blacks for justice unheard. Also let's not forget how florida tried to pull that whole voting thing with blacks during elections. You have a state who gets this national image of being anti-black at times, so is it really any surprise they prosecutor went for it.

I don't think it's right at all but it seems that is the reason for all this, not because they conclusively thought Zimmerman was guilty.

any opinions on this?

I thought stand your ground wasn't being used in this case and that was just misinformation used by the media to keep perpetuating their opposition to guns. Also taken Joe Biden's advice and using warning shots in a city is stupid and should be grounds for a conviction, especially if you accidentally kill an innocent bystander due to your negligence.

 

[Sanji Himura]

Lets look at a few events leading up to this.

• The event happens and police do not press charges.
• The media gets hold of it and screams of white on black murder going unpunished are raised.
• Zimmerman and Martin's photos are released.
• The media then calls Zimmerman white-Hispanic.
• The false white on black claims are already out of the bag and screams of no charges are raised, including in this thread. No one seems to care about investigations and proper charges being filed.
• The prosecution presses charges.
• And I say
• Near the end of the trial the prosecution urges the judge to allow the jury to consider manslaughter - a sure sign that they know they screwed up.
• Zimmerman walks and the jury refuses to consider manslaughter.

This is the second time in as many years that Florida has had a high-profile media case that didn't result in any form of conviction. Part of me wonders how much this has to do with Florida allowing full media access to courtrooms. Is the prosecution under media, and thus political, pressure to make it look good? Are they trying to make a case for their own career? Or does media access equal a pure influence by public opinion?

I've even heard Mark Geragos say that he thought the prosecution was throwing the case. That would indicate they pressed charges they didn't believe in. And Geragos wasn't the only expert saying the prosecution was doing a horrible job.

If you don't think justice was served here then blame the prosecution. No matter what actually happened, they didn't have evidence to prove 2nd degree murder, and in a system where you are innocent until proven guilty the burden of proof is 100% on the prosecution.

And if we blame the prosecution for failing to achieve justice we have to ask why. For the people who were screaming for action when this all began, the answer is in your mirror.

Unless the entire investigation is closed don't try to use public outcry and the media to force their hand. That might very well be why justice doesn't get served.

All of this AND Eric Holder is considering charging Zimmerman with civil rights violations when the FBI recently came out and said that there is nothing to be charging him with. If Holder proceeds with this, it is politically motivated, pure and simple.

 

[a6m5]

I'm speaking on the situation with zimmerman and martin when I say introduce yourself.In other words if your close enough you should introduce yourself and ask whats up.Other than that just call the cops.

I couldn't agree with you more. I never said otherwise.

How is it unrealistic to call 911?

I told you that I've been watched, followed, approached many times. Not one time it was by a cop. Nobody calls 911 just because they are curious of what you are up to. Do you not believe that there are degrees to how suspicion someone may look?

I dont get that,are you saying you will approach a suspicious looking person even without access to calling 911?

Uh.... yeah? By my experience, most of these suspicious characters either turn out to be just some dude walking by, or they will run, and you will never see them again.

What do you expect the person to say if he is indeed stealing cars? lol. A criminal wont say, hey im doing criminal activities.Asking what he's doing will accomplish nothing but make you a target if he is a criminal.

In Steven Seagal movies? Of course they will lie, they always do. BUT THEY ALSO DITCH WHATEVER CRIMINAL ACTIVITY THEY HAD IN MIND. All you are trying to do is get them to walk away, not bust out your side window, steal your car stereo, etc. Most people are not George Zimmerman, and I've never seen a criminal attack someone, risk getting arrested, when you are giving them a choice to walk away. Never.

Yes thats true but thats very vague.Each situation is different.Those crimes could be prevented by people simply calling 911 and not intervening at all.

Again, I think we should agree to disagree.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

All of this AND Eric Holder is considering charging Zimmerman with civil rights violations when the FBI recently came out and said that there is nothing to be charging him with. If Holder proceeds with this, it is politically motivated, pure and simple.

Ah, the same person that most media watchers want out of office, but also want to see Zimmerman in jail. The populous scares me with it uncertainty that rivals a teenage girl. I would hope the Obama admin would be smart enough to realize this isn't something to get their hands on when they have much bigger things going on.

 

[dxld]

It sucks the country is being further divided and crimes are continuing to be committed because of the outcome.

 

[MisterWhiskers]

That's beside the point though.

1) Zimmerman had the right to follow a suspicious character. 2) 911(reportedly) did not have the authority to order Zimmerman to back off. 3) Martin did not have the right to attack Zimmerman, unless in self-defense(which they failed to prove).

People do watch & approach suspicious character all the time, especially when these characters are kids. It's not like it happened often, but I remember it happening to me as a young kid in Japan, and as a young man in America. It could be at some neighborhood, apartment, property, or some facility, I've been stalked and/or approached by nosy characters before. My reply always was that I was visiting somebody, or taking a shortcut. I never got in any trouble, and even if I was thinking "you are an 🤬", I never engaged these people with hostility.

I'm not even going to reply to this comment, because it's just nonsensical & total disrespect to the case & everyone involved, but it sets up what I wanted to bring up perfectly: My local news channel commented on viewers posting their reaction to the verdict on their website, and most were in disbelief how Zimmerman got away with murder. Most of the comments they shared depicted the incident as a armed madman stalking a child, then murdering him.

Obviously, they have very little to ZERO knowledge about the case outside one guy shooting another guy. I mean, not many people are happy with the outcome, myself included. But again, the media has done a great job of selling this story, getting so many people worked up about a case they don't even understand.

How is that disrespectful? So just because I said something it automatically means I barely watched the case? I have listened to the case almost every day! I have seen most of the analysts battle it out, witnesses. Of the things I've seen, the defense has shown too much remorse for Zimmerman. The prosecution was acting more professional in the case compared to the defense. Although some of the pictures of Martin were showing guns and drugs, you should consider common sense. As I previously mentioned in another post, imagine yourself as Trayvon. You were just walking by on a rainy day with some food, and you would intend to kill somebody? I don't think so. And, you're talking to your friend, but someone suspicious is following you. Zimmerman could have thought you were one of the two black males walking around the area, the other caught already. Zimmerman could have jumped on you and? as I said previously on another post, try to punch, but you were stronger, so he pulled out his gun and killed you.

 

[marxlien]

Trayvon Martin vs George Zimmerman

I think it is clear that Trayvon Martin's Human Rights were violated by George Zimmerman.
However what I do not understand is that everyone now wants to violate George Zimmerman's rights. I do not believe he is a danger to the public, but he should answer for his acts.

this is crucial, a person with a gun in the street IT IS a danger to the public.

 

[FoolKiller]

Of the things I've seen, the defense has shown too much remorse for Zimmerman.

You act like the defense, the guys who are working for Zimmerman and are bound at risk of their professional license to present the best defense possible, should have acted differently. How do you think they should have presented the defense?

They are the defense, they can't do too much of anything, within the constraints of the law, to defend their client.

You think the attorneys worked too hard to make the jury feel sorry for Zimmerman? That's their job.

The prosecution was acting more professional in the case compared to the defense.

Doesn't matter. I don't agree, as I think both sides did and said some pretty boneheaded stuff. The opening statements, one full of horrible language and the other a horrible joke presented only in the way a lawyer could, set the entire tone. But in the end it doesn't matter how professional the defense is. They just have to poke holes in the prosecution's story. Instead, the prosecution's story had enough of its own holes and the defense mostly had to point a finger at them.

But hey, multiple legal analysts throughout the trial didn't think the prosecution did a good job. Maybe you should consider how well you understand the legal system if you think a clear cut case was made for murder.

As I previously mentioned in another post, imagine yourself as Trayvon. You were just walking by on a rainy day with some food, and you would intend to kill somebody? I don't think so.

Not even the story presented by the defense. That aside, image yourself as Zimmerman. You're worried about recent home burglaries and are taking part in your shift on neighborhood watch, and you would intend to kill somebody? I don't think so.

See, that works both ways. Neither man had reason to kill. Neither had intent to get violent and attack someone. And that is all it takes to make 2nd degree murder a not guilty verdict.

Zimmerman could have thought you were one of the two black males walking around the area, the other caught already. Zimmerman could have jumped on you and? as I said previously on another post, try to punch, but you were stronger, so he pulled out his gun and killed you.

Speculation. That's all I see your opinion being based on.

Speculation is inadmissible in court.


EDIT:

this is crucial, a person with a gun in the street IT IS a danger to the public.

No, they aren't.

Florida alone has over 800,000 citizens with a license to carry a concealed gun. Are they all dangerous?

Or the eight million in the US as a whole?
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_carry_in_the_United_States

There is a gun thread if you wish to continue this.

 

[a6m5]

How is that disrespectful? So just because I said something it automatically means I barely watched the case? I have listened to the case almost every day! I have seen most of the analysts battle it out, witnesses. Of the things I've seen, the defense has shown too much remorse for Zimmerman. The prosecution was acting more professional in the case compared to the defense. Although some of the pictures of Martin were showing guns and drugs, you should consider common sense. As I previously mentioned in another post, imagine yourself as Trayvon. You were just walking by on a rainy day with some food, and you would intend to kill somebody? I don't think so. And, you're talking to your friend, but someone suspicious is following you. Zimmerman could have thought you were one of the two black males walking around the area, the other caught already. Zimmerman could have jumped on you and? as I said previously on another post, try to punch, but you were stronger, so he pulled out his gun and killed you.

I refuse to get into it with you, because I find your post genuinely nuts. Not just this quote that I noted in my post.....

A kid with a food and a drink is suspicious? He does not have the right to kill him!

.....but also the one you just replied me with. Put myself in Trayvon's shoes, and see that I wasn't intending to murder someone?

I've already said my piece, and it's actually not that far from where you are coming from. If you don't believe me, check them out, but I won't repeat them again for something like third, fourth time. Where I find your take just impossible is that, in your head, evidence & law carry very little weight. My perspective, as incomplete as those evidences & as unfair as the law may seem, that's all we have to go by.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

this is crucial, a person with a gun in the street IT IS a danger to the public.

I'm a danger?

 

[Nicksfix]

Well, you can't say we did not see this coming. Riots are breaking out across the U.S.. Just how bad might this get ?

LINK

 

[Tornado]

Is the thing in Oakland actually related to this? I've heard conflicting info about it.

 

[Nicksfix]

Is the thing in Oakland actually related to this? I've heard conflicting info about it.

Look on down into the article. It shows a vandalized police car.

From the article as well :

In Oakland, Calif., some angry demonstrators broke windows, burned U.S. flags and started street fires. Some marchers also vandalized a police squad car and used spray paint to scrawl anti-police graffiti on roads and Alameda County's Davidson courthouse. In Los Angeles, police said a crowd of about 100 protesters surrounded an officer and eventually had to be dispersed by officers firing beanbag rounds.

It's getting ugly.

 

[Tornado]

I know what that article says, but I've also seen a couple that have said the Oakland riots are just Occupy people acting out, with the Zimmerman case being almost a coincidence it was so tenuous.

 

[Mikeybc]

Well its nothing like what happened after the Rodney King verdict....thankfully.

 

[Conza]

Should've been atleast manslaughter, I mean really, the way it was framed is unfortunately why it wasn't selected.

It was murder, I can't believe anyone not agreeing with that, justification? None really, under a stupid law, which is farfetched at a minimum, this guy was allowed to shoot someone that posed him no threat.

Here's the thing; circumstancially, the law is completely stupid, and should've been virtually ignored, BUT, in other scenarios where real danger actually exists, then it might be a reasonable thing to apply, its basically just an interpretation of self defense, pre-emptive, but possibly reasonable.

Should be in jail, he was wrong, a man died unnecessarily, isn't that just the end of the story?

 

[McLaren]

Well, you can't say we did not see this coming. Riots are breaking out across the U.S.. Just how bad might this get ?

LINK

Riots are not the same thing as protests.

The last 2 aren't all that surprising; Californians tend to turn anything regarding a country-wide case into an excuse for vandalism. But, they're still not really riots.