Shooting of Trayvon Martin - Page 435

This is a sensitive and complex issue, please do not make comments without first reading the facts, which are cataloged in the OP.

If you make an uninformed post, or one that isn't relevant to the discussion, you will be moderated. If in doubt, don't post.

dAPhREAk

Nauru12397 Posts

July 14 2013 04:11 GMT

#8681

On July 14 2013 13:07 SilverLeagueElite wrote:
O'Mara said 'we will seek and we get get civil suit immunity'. Can someone expound on that? Is Zimmerman immune from civil suits?

under the stand your ground law, if you successfully are acquitted of a criminal murder charge, you cant be sued civilly. you are immune.

NEOtheONE

United States2233 Posts

July 14 2013 04:12 GMT

#8682

Man the Twitter reactions to the verdict are something else. Celebrities in particular are painfully ignorant of the details of the trial.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/ellievhall/celebrities-on-twitter-react-to-george-zimmermans-acquittal

dAPhREAk

Nauru12397 Posts

July 14 2013 04:12 GMT

#8683

On July 14 2013 13:11 docvoc wrote:

Show nested quote +

On July 14 2013 12:42 dAPhREAk wrote:

On July 14 2013 12:41 xDaunt wrote:

On July 14 2013 12:39 dAPhREAk wrote:

On July 14 2013 12:38 wei2coolman wrote:

On July 14 2013 12:37 SjPhotoGrapher wrote:

On July 14 2013 12:27 Ansinjunger wrote:

On July 14 2013 12:23 xDaunt wrote:

On July 14 2013 12:16 dAPhREAk wrote:

On July 14 2013 12:07 Ansinjunger wrote:
[quote]

That's more or less what I was thinking. I appreciate xDaunt for not being on a high horse when posting in this thread.

[quote]

His updating of the thread was indeed fantastic, and you could argue that the moderator note set him apart as kind of a moderator for this thread. However, I don't particularly feel the need to be guilt-tripped for initially thinking GZ was guilty back when the other thread was posted. I'd rather thank the informative people in this thread for helping me learn a lot, so this type of remark stings.

i have been holding my disgust in check for some of the people in this and the original thread for a long time trying to be objective. now that the case is over, i am not holding back. the ignorance of people continues to amaze me.

and before you get on your high horse, pre-trial, i thought zimmerman would be convicted of manslaughter. only after this shitty trial did i change my mind.

Yeah, I agree with this.

I was fairly skeptical of the charges from the getgo, but I kept an open mind to see what the state was going to present at trial. However, once I saw how grossly inadequate their evidence was, I turned pretty quickly and made up my mind. John Good's testimony sealed the deal. I was absolutely appalled that the State would push this case knowing that John Good was a witness who was going to say the things that he said.

Also, I have previously advocated some restraint in terms of dumping on the DA, but after seeing the entirety of the trial, closing arguments, and that post trial press conference, I really hope that someone takes a hard look what went on in this case. I'm glad O'Mara is gonna follow up with it. That's the second best news of the night after the acquittal.

It must suck for GZ to hear the state continue to say they think he's guilty. You'd expect that from the family's side and their lawyers, but GZ may encounter people that use that the state still thinks he's guilty as an excuse to harass him.

Hate to say it but GZ's life is pretty much screwed over almost as bad as that lady that was acquitted a year ago that killed her baby.

His best bet would be to move the hell out of the USA ASAP a long with a name change.

Or make millions off of book deals + interviews.

pretty much guaranteed O'Mare will write a book. has to get his money somehow.

I forget exactly what the rule is, but there's some kind of ethical prohibition on writing books about cases. Are lawyers only prohibited from getting book rights as part of their fees or is there a broader prohibition?

there are son of sam laws for defendants who are convicted. never heard of anything for attorneys or acquitted defendants. i imagine that would be unconstitutional (first amendment).

I feel like the first thing he does is run to england or australia or new zealand. After he stays quiet for a little bit, a few years later that he writes a book, sells in the U.S., makes some money, then stays really quiet again, then writes one as a memoir, sells it, makes some money, dies quietly off somewhere not in the U.S. I can't see any reason for him not to write a book and leave the U.S.

better do it fast. america has a short attention span. they will move on to the next perceived injustice soon.

Danglars

United States12133 Posts

July 14 2013 04:13 GMT

#8684

On July 14 2013 12:33 xDaunt wrote:

Show nested quote +

He's a fucking defense attorney. What kind of self-respecting defense attorney would disapprove of this verdict? You have to understand the defense attorney culture -- particularly the inherent antagonism that defense attorneys have against the State. That's why this is so shocking to me.

I'll accept that the fraternity of defense attorneys is strong. I just think that a couple will go turncoat and argue against the obvious to get public notice under the banner of "there is no such thing as bad publicity." It's a politically charged case and that could also have sway.

In other news, Breitbart gave a ridiculously good writeup on how the media charged Zimmerman before the State found a prosecutor willing to bring suit.

February 26, 2012 - George Zimmerman Shoots and Kills Trayvon Martin

Zimmerman claims self-defense. After an investigation, the police agree and decide not to press charges.

March 8, 2012 - The AP Falsely Describes Zimmerman as "White"

The story of the grieving parents of Trayvon Martin demanding Zimmerman be arrested first achieves national attention on March 8 when CBS This Morning runs a report.

Later that same day, the Associated Press throws the first log on the racial fire by inaccurately describing Zimmerman as white.

March 13, 2012 - NBC's Al Sharpton Uses MSNBC Platform to Stoke Phony Racial Narrative

Breitbart editor-in-chief Joel Pollak:

Sharpton devoted a portion of his program on MSNBC, PoliticsNation, to the Trayvon Martin case. He interviewed Martin family attorney Benjamin Crump, who reiterated the accusation that Zimmerman was “white”: “We think Trayvon Martin didn’t know who the heck this white man was who approached him before he got killed.”

Earlier that same day, Sharpton's National Action Network released a statement calling for...

...a “complete and thorough investigation” into Martin’s death. He added: “[W]e are told that racial language was used when the young man reported his suspicions to police[.]”

The story about Zimmerman's use of racial language was false.

March 13, 2012 - ABC News Reporter Claims Trayvon Shot Because "He Was Black"

About ten days before Al Sharpton and President Obama would launch the Zimmerman story into the stratosphere, Matt Gutman, an ABC News correspondent based in Miami, Florida, was already (and without a shred of evidence) laying the track for a racial narrative.

Gutman covered the case for the network, and his Twitter feed at the time was full of falsehoods, innuendo, and irresponsible speculation. In one tweet, Gutman came right out and claimed Trayvon was shot "bc [because] he was black."

Gutman would also recklessly accuse Zimmerman of "stalking" and shooting down Trayvon.

Read the timeline here
It really goes to show how public outcry was drummed up leading even to the President's involvement. Stories with fantastical assertions, audio allegations, and media misrepresentations all appeared. If he had taken his mother's maiden name, been named Jorge in a hispanic tradition, or even had a darker color of skin this all would've just been another shooting amongst the thousands.

Kaitlin

United States2958 Posts

July 14 2013 04:13 GMT

#8685

Watching a news replay of a couple remarks of that Angela Corry, or whatever her name is. Jesus, talk about lipstick on a pig. That woman is repulsive in nearly every way imaginable.

dAPhREAk

Nauru12397 Posts

July 14 2013 04:14 GMT

#8686

here is a group in new york. live.

http://www.ustream.tv/stopmotionsolo

Lockitupv2

United States496 Posts

July 14 2013 04:16 GMT

#8687

Time to load some magazines and sit and listen.

Esk23

United States447 Posts

July 14 2013 04:17 GMT

#8688

On July 14 2013 13:14 dAPhREAk wrote:
here is a group in new york. live.

http://www.ustream.tv/stopmotionsolo

We will probably be hearing a lot about attacks that have occured because of this case/verdict.

This truly is a fucked up planet we live on.

coverpunch

United States2093 Posts

July 14 2013 04:18 GMT

#8689

On July 14 2013 12:58 Tewks44 wrote:

Show nested quote +

On July 14 2013 12:49 ZapRoffo wrote:

On July 14 2013 12:41 dAPhREAk wrote:

On July 14 2013 12:41 ZapRoffo wrote:

On July 14 2013 12:36 kmillz wrote:

On July 14 2013 12:34 ZapRoffo wrote:

On July 14 2013 12:30 kmillz wrote:

On July 14 2013 12:26 ZapRoffo wrote:

On July 14 2013 12:20 Tewks44 wrote:

On July 14 2013 12:14 ZapRoffo wrote:
Anyone want to convince me (someone who didn't really follow the details of the case) that there was no racial profiling and attempt to vigilante by Zimmerman, other than it just being a matter of belief with no evidence either way--at which point I will adamantly believe there was?

I need filled in and my queries keep being ignored.

Well, the problem is these questions aren't really relevant to the case. My opinion, I think it's likely that Zimmerman profiled Martin, and I think he definitely was acting as kind of a "wanna-be-cop" to use the prosecution's term. However the relevant question is whether or not Zimmerman felt as if he was in danger of severe bodily harm because this would justify the use of self defense.

I'm not just interested in the trial, I'm interested in the full moral dimensions, and this thread is titled Shooting of Trayvon Martin, not Trial for the Shooting of Trayvon Martin so I think it's still within the scope. I asked if anyone wanted to convince me, not force you to convince me, I don't get the hostility.

On July 14 2013 12:26 kmillz wrote:

On July 14 2013 12:22 ZapRoffo wrote:
[quote]

Like I said, no concrete evidence of it being so doesn't mean anything to me, I'm not a jury or a research task force. I can act on intuition, and I just want to see if there are any clear facts flying right in the face of my intuition that can be clearly delineated. Which there doesn't seem to be.

I'm just asking for personal reasons.

Can you convince me that there are no unicorns? We have no proof of unicorns but I'm still skeptical.

No I don't care to. Does your intuition tell you there are probably unicorns, I don't really care? I just thought people might care to have an opportunity to enlighten me.

My intuition is telling me that you are overtly judgmental. Did you even read the other people's post who made some valid reasons for why it makes no sense for him to have been racially profiling?

I saw, I take it into account but it doesn't really convince me, which is fine. I'm out now, no need to argue directed at me anymore.

You're right..George probably did all of those kind acts to African Americans to get off the "racist radar". I don't really know more to say. I don't expect any "evidence" of him not being racist will convince you.

I'm not saying he's a raging racist, but people can do nice things for black people and also still have inherent attitudes about them that are negative and fearful. I believe this happens way more often than outright "I hate black people" racism.

what makes you believe that zimmerman is a racist? i am curious.

Oh I edited my previous to say part of what I'm thinking, and also that I just don't think it's natural behavior to follow someone just for walking in your neighborhood, and I just notice in my life that neighborhood watch types, especially ones that would be doing it in that a FL gated community (the whole philosophy of those places plays in--keep the "undesirables" out), have a bent toward vigilante-ism, which plays in with his whole repeated police calls and involvements in the past, and going against recommendation to follow him.

I think Zimmerman was a "wanna-be cop" and I think that's why he was following Martin. I think it's likely he profiled Zimmerman, but that doesn't mean he's racist. I'm not going to dance around the issue, a lot of suburban robberies are carried out by young black men, so it would make sense that Zimmerman sees a young black man and profiles him as a burglar (The oft repeated counter argument being it was night and Trayvon was wearing a hoodie so Zimmerman couldn't have known his race). That doesn't mean he's racist, as he has clearly shown an interest in fighting for racial equality and has even been involved in programs that benefit black people. The idea that his sincerity in these programs was questionable is absurd. Unless he had some grand scheme to murder a black child in the future, he had no purpose to participate in such activities if he wasn't sincere.

This post is a microcosm of the prosecution's case and this is why they lost. They tried to make this about what Zimmerman was thinking when he followed Martin and just drawing the conclusion that Zimmerman was therefore unjustified in killing Martin.

The problem is they never contradicted or addressed Zimmerman's side of the story, which is that Martin jumped him and was beating him up on the ground, so he felt he had to shoot him in self defense.

It's a very unfortunate situation, but if you don't address the fight directly, there's plenty of room for reasonable doubt that Zimmerman wanted to kill Martin (murder) or was unjustified in doing so (manslaughter).

dAPhREAk

Nauru12397 Posts

July 14 2013 04:18 GMT

#8690

On July 14 2013 13:17 Esk23 wrote:

Show nested quote +

We will probably be hearing a lot about attacks that have occured because of this case/verdict.

This truly is a fucked up planet we live on.

except for the "carry your gun" to the thing tomorrow morning, its pretty mild. public discourse is fine.

ShadowDrgn

United States2497 Posts

July 14 2013 04:19 GMT

#8691

On July 14 2013 12:50 dAPhREAk wrote:
unless there is an appeal and he has been retained for the appeal, he has concluded his representation. so, even if that applied, i dont know what you are getting at.

Prosecutors can't appeal not guilty verdicts due to double jeopardy rules.

publicenemies

458 Posts

July 14 2013 04:19 GMT

#8692

On July 14 2013 13:12 NEOtheONE wrote:
Man the Twitter reactions to the verdict are something else. Celebrities in particular are painfully ignorant of the details of the trial.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/ellievhall/celebrities-on-twitter-react-to-george-zimmermans-acquittal

Olivia Wilde.. WHY??

Danglars

United States12133 Posts

July 14 2013 04:19 GMT

#8693

On July 14 2013 13:14 dAPhREAk wrote:
here is a group in new york. live.

http://www.ustream.tv/stopmotionsolo

Get angry!
Vigilantes are there.
Anger is the first step. It's gonna lead to revolution!
The police are everywhere but justice is nowhere!

Don't use CNN.
Al Jazeera use alternative media!

That link's rich.