|
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. |
On July 15 2013 00:30 Darksamus6 wrote:I pretty much agree with everything MOM said right about how the media handled this whole thing. + Show Spoiler +
Wow, this is really well said. Completely agree.
On July 15 2013 00:15 Cheerio wrote:
I agree with Don West, GZ's attorney, that it's sad that it took this long under these circumstances to finally get justice. After all police figured out he wasn't guilty right away. This should never had gone to court.
Do you think that race was a reason why it went to court? I know that it was pretty well established that GZ wasn't racist, but the fact that it *ended up being* a black "kid", etc. etc. ...do you think that gave a greater push towards the trial?
Also, gonna bump the polls:
Poll: Just looking at the arguments and facts presented in the trial...I agree with the acquittal- the prosecution failed at establishing guilt. (131) 90% Should be manslaughter- the prosecution demonstrated he was guilty of at least this. (7) 5% Should be murder- the prosecution demonstrated he was guilty of this. (4) 3% Other (3) 2% 145 total votes Your vote: Just looking at the arguments and facts presented in the trial... (Vote): I agree with the acquittal- the prosecution failed at establishing guilt.
(Vote): Should be manslaughter- the prosecution demonstrated he was guilty of at least this.
(Vote): Should be murder- the prosecution demonstrated he was guilty of this.
(Vote): Other
and
Poll: Regardless of the verdict, which do you feel is most accurate?GZ is truly innocent. (89) 70% GZ truly committed manslaughter. (19) 15% Other (13) 10% GZ truly committed murder. (7) 5% 128 total votes Your vote: Regardless of the verdict, which do you feel is most accurate? (Vote): GZ is truly innocent.
(Vote): GZ truly committed manslaughter.
(Vote): GZ truly committed murder.
(Vote): Other
|
On July 15 2013 00:57 slyboogie wrote:
Huffpo writer Syreeta McFadden writes: "Only in America can a dead black boy go on trial for his own murder."
Disappointing verdict, but not unexpected.
Only disappointing if you ignore any and all evidence presented in this case.
And that quote is fucking retarded. Sensationalist journalism at its finest.
|
I am not even sure it was not manslaughter, but that is exactly the point why I am glad the jury decided not guilty.
|
On July 15 2013 01:01 ZasZ. wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2013 00:57 slyboogie wrote:
Huffpo writer Syreeta McFadden writes: "Only in America can a dead black boy go on trial for his own murder."
Disappointing verdict, but not unexpected. Only disappointing if you ignore any and all evidence presented in this case. And that quote is fucking retarded. Sensationalist journalism at its finest.
Yeah that quote is horrible. Sounds like something Al Sharpton would say.
|
On July 15 2013 01:01 ZasZ. wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2013 00:57 slyboogie wrote:
Huffpo writer Syreeta McFadden writes: "Only in America can a dead black boy go on trial for his own murder."
Disappointing verdict, but not unexpected. Only disappointing if you ignore any and all evidence presented in this case. And that quote is fucking retarded. Sensationalist journalism at its finest.
The evidence is clear - they were involved in a scuffle. During that scuffle, Trayvon Martin was shot and killed. That's about it.
The defense then proceeded to attack Trayvon Martin character - why? To insinuate that he's the type to beat someone up? That George Zimmerman was right to feel threatened? Travon Martin was as much on trial as George Zimmerman. It isn't sensationalist, especially compared to some stuff on this thread.
I've punched someone for walking too close to me after repeated requests that they back offs I was young and immature and stupid. I was a little intoxicated. I was also "winning" the fight. If that guy shot and killed me then, would that be justified? Justified because I was a bad kid? Because I "won" a fist fight by knocking someone down?
I suspect, that in a court of law, there was insufficient evidence to disprove self-defense. It's okay, that's why our justice system exists. But it's disappointing. We can wait for the civil rights trial.
|
On July 15 2013 01:16 slyboogie wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2013 01:01 ZasZ. wrote:On July 15 2013 00:57 slyboogie wrote:
Huffpo writer Syreeta McFadden writes: "Only in America can a dead black boy go on trial for his own murder."
Disappointing verdict, but not unexpected. Only disappointing if you ignore any and all evidence presented in this case. And that quote is fucking retarded. Sensationalist journalism at its finest. The evidence is clear - they were involved in a scuffle. During that scuffle, Trayvon Martin was shot and killed. That's about it. The defense then proceeded to attack Trayvon Martin character - why? To insinuate that he's the type to beat someone up? That George Zimmerman was right to feel threatened? Travon Martin was as much on trial as George Zimmerman. It isn't sensationalist, especially compared to some stuff on this thread. I've punched someone for walking too close to me after repeated requests that they back offs I was young and immature and stupid. I was a little intoxicated. I was also "winning" the fight. If that guy shot and killed me then, would that be justified? Justified because I was a bad kid? Because I "won" a fist fight by knocking someone down? I suspect, that in a court of law, there was insufficient evidence to disprove self-defense. It's okay, that's why our justice system exists. But it's disappointing. We can wait for the civil rights trial.
But did you after punching him, mount him and continue punching him in the face and smash his head into concrete.
Was you clearly stronger and winning the fight, despite the guy screaming for help, you continued to beat him?
Then yes he could have defended himself.
|
Happy to see that the right outcome prevailed. I don't know if Zimmerman should have been guilty of second degree murder or manslaughter had all information been out, but based on the evidence available, there's no way he should have been found guilty of anything.
The trial was a joke... there should have never been a trial in the first place, not necessarily because GZ is innocent, but because there is almost no evidence to suggest he should be guilty of either of the charges.
Hoping for reconciliation and recovery for both the Martin and Zimmerman families, as both have suffered enough. Shame on those who are inciting anger over mediums such as twitter, especially since many of these people seem to lack understanding of the legal system or of the case itself.
|
ANDREW WK @AndrewWK 55m
GEORGE ZIMMERMAN = NOT PARTY.
The only real truth of this ordeal. Innocent or guilty, self-defence or manslaughter, in absolutely no way was this party.
And isn't that all that matters?
|
On July 15 2013 01:16 slyboogie wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2013 01:01 ZasZ. wrote:On July 15 2013 00:57 slyboogie wrote:
Huffpo writer Syreeta McFadden writes: "Only in America can a dead black boy go on trial for his own murder."
Disappointing verdict, but not unexpected. Only disappointing if you ignore any and all evidence presented in this case. And that quote is fucking retarded. Sensationalist journalism at its finest. The evidence is clear - they were involved in a scuffle. During that scuffle, Trayvon Martin was shot and killed. That's about it. The defense then proceeded to attack Trayvon Martin character - why? To insinuate that he's the type to beat someone up? That George Zimmerman was right to feel threatened? Travon Martin was as much on trial as George Zimmerman. It isn't sensationalist, especially compared to some stuff on this thread. I've punched someone for walking too close to me after repeated requests that they back offs I was young and immature and stupid. I was a little intoxicated. I was also "winning" the fight. If that guy shot and killed me then, would that be justified? Justified because I was a bad kid? Because I "won" a fist fight by knocking someone down? I suspect, that in a court of law, there was insufficient evidence to disprove self-defense. It's okay, that's why our justice system exists. But it's disappointing. We can wait for the civil rights trial.
You're ignorant and wanting to claim it was based on rights if you think a civil rights trial is going to happen. The federal government has already determined there is nothing substantial enough to warrant a civil rights trial. All of Al Sharptons crying won't change that. He might've cried hard enough to get a criminal case, but not a civil rights one.
|
On July 15 2013 01:16 slyboogie wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2013 01:01 ZasZ. wrote:On July 15 2013 00:57 slyboogie wrote:
Huffpo writer Syreeta McFadden writes: "Only in America can a dead black boy go on trial for his own murder."
Disappointing verdict, but not unexpected. Only disappointing if you ignore any and all evidence presented in this case. And that quote is fucking retarded. Sensationalist journalism at its finest. The evidence is clear - they were involved in a scuffle. During that scuffle, Trayvon Martin was shot and killed. That's about it. The defense then proceeded to attack Trayvon Martin character - why? To insinuate that he's the type to beat someone up? That George Zimmerman was right to feel threatened? Travon Martin was as much on trial as George Zimmerman. It isn't sensationalist, especially compared to some stuff on this thread. I've punched someone for walking too close to me after repeated requests that they back offs I was young and immature and stupid. I was a little intoxicated. I was also "winning" the fight. If that guy shot and killed me then, would that be justified? Justified because I was a bad kid? Because I "won" a fist fight by knocking someone down? I suspect, that in a court of law, there was insufficient evidence to disprove self-defense. It's okay, that's why our justice system exists. But it's disappointing. We can wait for the civil rights trial.
What if when you were "winning" you jumped on top of him saying "I'm going to kill you" and continued to punch him? What if you saw that he had some kind of weapon and you decided to reach out to grab it? What if someone told you to stop and you still kept going? Then yes, it would be justified...
|
On July 15 2013 01:16 slyboogie wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2013 01:01 ZasZ. wrote:On July 15 2013 00:57 slyboogie wrote:
Huffpo writer Syreeta McFadden writes: "Only in America can a dead black boy go on trial for his own murder."
Disappointing verdict, but not unexpected. Only disappointing if you ignore any and all evidence presented in this case. And that quote is fucking retarded. Sensationalist journalism at its finest. The evidence is clear - they were involved in a scuffle. During that scuffle, Trayvon Martin was shot and killed. That's about it. The defense then proceeded to attack Trayvon Martin character - why? To insinuate that he's the type to beat someone up? That George Zimmerman was right to feel threatened? Travon Martin was as much on trial as George Zimmerman. It isn't sensationalist, especially compared to some stuff on this thread. I've punched someone for walking too close to me after repeated requests that they back offs I was young and immature and stupid. I was a little intoxicated. I was also "winning" the fight. If that guy shot and killed me then, would that be justified? Justified because I was a bad kid? Because I "won" a fist fight by knocking someone down? I suspect, that in a court of law, there was insufficient evidence to disprove self-defense. It's okay, that's why our justice system exists. But it's disappointing. We can wait for the civil rights trial.
Here we go again...
The evidence shows Trayvon was on top. Eyewitness accounts show Trayvon was on top punching Zimmerman repeatedly. Trayvon did not stop when the witness called out. If Trayvon was assaulted by Zimmerman he got his help when the neighbor arrived.
By not stopping he becomes the aggressor and yes that means Zimmerman has reason to fear for his life which makes self defense plausible enough.
|
On July 15 2013 01:16 slyboogie wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2013 01:01 ZasZ. wrote:On July 15 2013 00:57 slyboogie wrote:
Huffpo writer Syreeta McFadden writes: "Only in America can a dead black boy go on trial for his own murder."
Disappointing verdict, but not unexpected. Only disappointing if you ignore any and all evidence presented in this case. And that quote is fucking retarded. Sensationalist journalism at its finest. The evidence is clear - they were involved in a scuffle. During that scuffle, Trayvon Martin was shot and killed. That's about it. The defense then proceeded to attack Trayvon Martin character - why? To insinuate that he's the type to beat someone up? That George Zimmerman was right to feel threatened? Travon Martin was as much on trial as George Zimmerman. It isn't sensationalist, especially compared to some stuff on this thread. I've punched someone for walking too close to me after repeated requests that they back offs I was young and immature and stupid. I was a little intoxicated. I was also "winning" the fight. If that guy shot and killed me then, would that be justified? Justified because I was a bad kid? Because I "won" a fist fight by knocking someone down? I suspect, that in a court of law, there was insufficient evidence to disprove self-defense. It's okay, that's why our justice system exists. But it's disappointing. We can wait for the civil rights trial.
How convenient of you to leave out the key argument of Zimmerman's self-defense. We know for a fact that Martin was pummeling Zimmerman into the ground for forty seconds. That was his claim to self-defense, not the fact that he got into a fight.
|
On July 15 2013 00:15 Cheerio wrote:
I agree with Don West, GZ's attorney, that it's sad that it took this long under these circumstances to finally get justice. After all police figured out he wasn't guilty right away. This should never had gone to court.
It's actually kind of worse than that. There were two fairly specific reasons why this case went "big". The first is that it could be cast as "white man kills black kid" and the second is the run up to 2012 General Election. There is a groups of people that work very hard to gin up "racial tension" when it suits their ends. Florida was going to "swing state" during that cycle, so anything that could push up black votes would be useful to a lot of people with certain agendas. (This happens every election cycle, so it's not even a unique event. See the Duke Lacrosse Case for another example of it, though a local election that time.)
So the race baiters were out in force because of the election and a very rare event: a "white" killing a "black" is actually quite rare. Half of all homicide victims are black, in the USA, but the vast majority of the murderers are also black. So "black man kills black man" or "black man kills white man" simply isn't much of a headline. Same with "missing non-white girl that doesn't have a cute photo". (Seriously, ever notice that the kidnapping/disappearance cases that go "national" are young girls or women with pretty faces and/or blonde hair? The media are kind of terrible about this sort of thing) This situation simply allowed for a more "useful" storyline to certain parties and the media.
But, that's exactly why the media had to start inventing a storyline. (Which will cost NBC millions) The actual case was quite straight forward and never should have gone to trial: Hispanic man with "white-sounding last name" gets into altercation with black young man; Hispanic man gets ass beaten, defends self with a 1 shot from a legally carried weapon.
The State's own testimony proved these points, which added to the terrible evidence collection job of the Sanford police, meant there simply wasn't ever going to be a case that got past a standard self-defense argument. This is why non-hack DAs wouldn't have attempted to push this case. It's also why this case is going to cost careers and is years from over. The State had an agenda and it wasn't about properly executing the law.
The end result is a bunch of lives will be ruined needlessly. Some property damage, a whole lot of internet bluster and this will be completely forgotten by all of the people making ill-informed comments in 6 months. But at least we'll get media figures got to pound their desks like idiots for a few weeks. Which is all this ever was to the people driving this story.
|
Good to see people finally understand that Hispanic people are not white. Glad to see the end of this shit trial too. Gl to everyone involved.
|
On July 15 2013 00:57 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2013 00:39 tomatriedes wrote:
The ridiculous thing is if the races were reversed all the people outraged at the verdict would not care at all and the case would not even have got national attention. All of this outrage has been created solely by the media's race-baiting and successful stereotyping of Zimmerman as a card-carrying KKK psychopath. What a disgusting double-standard. I think the point is people feel (although it's obviously speculative) that if the roles were reversed, the verdict and the police response would have been different. And in that case, yeah, it wouldn't get much media attention, i t'd be another black kid in prison.
Not necessarily. A similar case took place with the killing of Christopher Cervini, in which the black defendant was acquitted for self-defense.
Race forced the big, public trial, but it had no bearing on the outcome.
|
im hispanic and white. just sayin
not that race fucking matters at all.
I for one respect the jury's decision. They heard the facts, they saw the evidence, heard arguments and made a judgement. I respect the system (most of the time) and respect their decision. Zimmerman is still a fucking idiot in my mind. At the end of the day his stupid decision legal or not got a kid killed. Living with that knowledge for the rest of his life and the fact that this will follow him wherever he goes is punishment enough.
|
One side point, but it's a great rule of thumb for criminal cases that get lots of media attention: ALWAYS pay attention to the local DA in charge of the case. If they're grand standing for the media, they're likely to lose the case. If they're not grand standing, they will probably get a conviction.
This was a view I developed a number of years ago, but it's always been eerily accurate. If the local DA can keep their own pride out of the proceedings, they're far less likely to make stupid mistakes for the cameras. Which means the case is significantly better.
|
On July 15 2013 01:23 nam nam wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2013 01:16 slyboogie wrote:On July 15 2013 01:01 ZasZ. wrote:On July 15 2013 00:57 slyboogie wrote:
Huffpo writer Syreeta McFadden writes: "Only in America can a dead black boy go on trial for his own murder."
Disappointing verdict, but not unexpected. Only disappointing if you ignore any and all evidence presented in this case. And that quote is fucking retarded. Sensationalist journalism at its finest. The evidence is clear - they were involved in a scuffle. During that scuffle, Trayvon Martin was shot and killed. That's about it. The defense then proceeded to attack Trayvon Martin character - why? To insinuate that he's the type to beat someone up? That George Zimmerman was right to feel threatened? Travon Martin was as much on trial as George Zimmerman. It isn't sensationalist, especially compared to some stuff on this thread. I've punched someone for walking too close to me after repeated requests that they back offs I was young and immature and stupid. I was a little intoxicated. I was also "winning" the fight. If that guy shot and killed me then, would that be justified? Justified because I was a bad kid? Because I "won" a fist fight by knocking someone down? I suspect, that in a court of law, there was insufficient evidence to disprove self-defense. It's okay, that's why our justice system exists. But it's disappointing. We can wait for the civil rights trial. What if when you were "winning" you jumped on top of him saying "I'm going to kill you" and continued to punch him? What if you saw that he had some kind of weapon and you decided to reach out to grab it? What if someone told you to stop and you still kept going? Then yes, it would be justified...
Mmm, it's convenient that he killed the only person who could refute that Trayvon Martin said "I'm going to kill you." Or that he "reached for the gun." How lucky we are to have George Zimmerman's eyewitness account though.
On July 15 2013 01:23 Infernal_dream wrote:
You're ignorant and wanting to claim it was based on rights if you think a civil rights trial is going to happen. The federal government has already determined there is nothing substantial enough to warrant a civil rights trial. All of Al Sharptons crying won't change that. He might've cried hard enough to get a criminal case, but not a civil rights one.
There will almost certainly be a civil rights trial, or a civil trial expecting that. I'd be surprised if there wasn't. I did not see the federal government's statement on the trial though.
On July 15 2013 01:23 Gorsameth wrote:
Here we go again...
The evidence shows Trayvon was on top. Eyewitness accounts show Trayvon was on top punching Zimmerman repeatedly. Trayvon did not stop when the witness called out. If Trayvon was assaulted by Zimmerman he got his help when the neighbor arrived.
By not stopping he becomes the aggressor and yes that means Zimmerman has reason to fear for his life which makes self defense plausible enough.
Look, I get it. George Zimmerman was getting his ass beat. I get it. But let's perform a though experiment. Let's say George Zimmerman was beaten to death by Trayvon Martin. Would you buy the defense that Martin saw Zimmerman reach for his gun? Is that not enough to make him fear for his own life? Are you saying, whoever arose out of that titanic struggle between overweight gun toting neighborhood watchman and 17 year old black teenager, would be found innocent in a court of law?
|
Maybe this says something about the college I went to and the people I consort with, but where I come from, "getting your ass beat" looks way worse than what happened to Zimmerman, which looks more like, "got his nose broken and a few scrapes.". Oh well.
Perhaps we can all move on soon enough.
|
On July 15 2013 01:46 slyboogie wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2013 01:23 nam nam wrote:On July 15 2013 01:16 slyboogie wrote:On July 15 2013 01:01 ZasZ. wrote:On July 15 2013 00:57 slyboogie wrote:
Huffpo writer Syreeta McFadden writes: "Only in America can a dead black boy go on trial for his own murder."
Disappointing verdict, but not unexpected. Only disappointing if you ignore any and all evidence presented in this case. And that quote is fucking retarded. Sensationalist journalism at its finest. The evidence is clear - they were involved in a scuffle. During that scuffle, Trayvon Martin was shot and killed. That's about it. The defense then proceeded to attack Trayvon Martin character - why? To insinuate that he's the type to beat someone up? That George Zimmerman was right to feel threatened? Travon Martin was as much on trial as George Zimmerman. It isn't sensationalist, especially compared to some stuff on this thread. I've punched someone for walking too close to me after repeated requests that they back offs I was young and immature and stupid. I was a little intoxicated. I was also "winning" the fight. If that guy shot and killed me then, would that be justified? Justified because I was a bad kid? Because I "won" a fist fight by knocking someone down? I suspect, that in a court of law, there was insufficient evidence to disprove self-defense. It's okay, that's why our justice system exists. But it's disappointing. We can wait for the civil rights trial. What if when you were "winning" you jumped on top of him saying "I'm going to kill you" and continued to punch him? What if you saw that he had some kind of weapon and you decided to reach out to grab it? What if someone told you to stop and you still kept going? Then yes, it would be justified... Mmm, it's convenient that he killed the only person who could refute that Trayvon Martin said "I'm going to kill you." Or that he "reached for the gun." How lucky we are to have George Zimmerman's eyewitness account though. Show nested quote +On July 15 2013 01:23 Infernal_dream wrote:
You're ignorant and wanting to claim it was based on rights if you think a civil rights trial is going to happen. The federal government has already determined there is nothing substantial enough to warrant a civil rights trial. All of Al Sharptons crying won't change that. He might've cried hard enough to get a criminal case, but not a civil rights one. There will almost certainly be a civil rights trial, or a civil trial expecting that. I'd be surprised if there wasn't. I did not see the federal government's statement on the trial though. Show nested quote +On July 15 2013 01:23 Gorsameth wrote:
Here we go again...
The evidence shows Trayvon was on top. Eyewitness accounts show Trayvon was on top punching Zimmerman repeatedly. Trayvon did not stop when the witness called out. If Trayvon was assaulted by Zimmerman he got his help when the neighbor arrived.
By not stopping he becomes the aggressor and yes that means Zimmerman has reason to fear for his life which makes self defense plausible enough.
Look, I get it. George Zimmerman was getting his ass beat. I get it. But let's perform a though experiment. Let's say George Zimmerman was beaten to death by Trayvon Martin. Would you buy the defense that Martin saw Zimmerman reach for his gun? Is that not enough to make him fear for his own life? Are you saying, whoever arose out of that titanic struggle between overweight gun toting neighborhood watchman and 17 year old black teenager, would be found innocent in a court of law?
You're beating someones ass. He has the right to defend himself. If he pulls a gun he has the right to because I'm beating his ass. It goes to the saying "don't bring a knife to a gun fight." If you're willing to engage in a fight then you're willing to accept he may have a weapon. I guarantee you it wasn't more than 2 seconds between him pulling the gun out and shooting TM. TM probably had no time to react.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
