Shooting of Trayvon Martin - Page 457

On July 15 2013 03:42 DemigodcelpH wrote:


Do you not understand?

On July 15 2013 03:29 Leporello wrote:
We can look at this case and say the verdict was just -- what I don't think people in this thread are understanding, when it comes to people's displeasure at the verdict, is that it's about more than this verdict. It's about how easily we lock up black people for violent crimes, at shocking percentages, but GZ is given every benefit of the doubt, despite being an obviously foolish and bitter person, who made a mistake that night.


If GZ were black -- nevermind Trayvon's race -- just if GZ was black -- would he have been given all this benefit of the doubt by Florida's justice system? If you think so, I think you're naive.

On July 14 2013 19:25 Zorkmid wrote:
Hey DaPhreak, in your opinion, did the prosecution team fail here? Was going for murder 2 a big mistake?

On July 15 2013 03:23 DemigodcelpH wrote:


The dispatcher recommended Zimmerman not to pursue on transcript, however this was definitely a polite order in casual form saying "Do not do this as you're overstepping your bounds" and not a "We don't need you to do that, but if you really want to I think it would be okay". An order, implied or not, does not have to be legally admissible for it to still carry the connotation of "do not do X".

Know that playing word games won't conceal the dispatcher's obvious intention with the statement.

Trayvon was defending himself, as the person who was pursuing him made no signs of stopping, even directly disobeying police orders, and had a dangerous weapon.

On July 15 2013 03:42 SKC wrote:


"There is a second before GZ pulled the trigger that no one but GZ saw. It's disturbing that eye-witness testimony -- really supposed to be the most unreliable form of evidence -- means so much in cases like these. We have a body, we have a deadly weapon, but since there was a fight those things don't matter anymore -- GZ is allowed any narrative that gives him the benefit of the doubt over TM, who isn't given the luxury of narrative and can't make claims of self-defense. I understand the verdict, but I just as easily understand people's frustration that GZ acted so foolishly, and is yet able to walk away from shooting an unarmed kid based on no more than his own word."

You are saying that it's disturbing that he is allowed to use the kind of defense he used. Which ussually means you think there is something wrong in that. It's basically complaining about innocent before proven guilty. Everyone can use his own word as evidence if there is nothing that contradicts it. And it was not GZ's own word alone that allowed him to get away. Eye witness and expert testimony added to that.

On July 15 2013 03:47 tomatriedes wrote:


If GZ were black, do you think the media/special interest groups would have character assassinated him as a racist lunatic out for blood and ignored/distorted all the evidence in his favor? If you think so, I think you're the naive one.

On July 15 2013 03:44 Leporello wrote:


Look, if you have the pleasure of not understanding why people are disillusioned and upset with our justice system, sincerely, good for you, and I'm going to leave it at that. I'd love to have many of France's police and legal procedures implemented here. What GZ did was an undeniable crime in your country the moment he left his car with a gun in his pants.

The police did not treat GZ like it treats many black criminals who're currently sitting in jail. It's just a fact that not every case is handled with the same amount of diligence, integrity, or lack thereofs, and that those differences often do fall along a racial divide.

On July 15 2013 03:47 tomatriedes wrote:


If GZ were black, do you think the media/special interest groups would have character assassinated him as a racist lunatic out for blood and ignored/distorted all the evidence in his favor? If you think so, I think you're the naive one.

On July 15 2013 03:29 Leporello wrote:
We can look at this case and say the verdict was just -- what I don't think people in this thread are understanding, when it comes to people's displeasure at the verdict, is that it's about more than this verdict. It's about how easily we lock up black people for violent crimes, at shocking percentages, but GZ is given every benefit of the doubt, despite being an obviously foolish and bitter person, who made a mistake that night.


If GZ were black -- nevermind Trayvon's race -- just if GZ was black -- would he have been given all this benefit of the doubt by Florida's justice system? If you think so, I think you're naive.

On July 15 2013 03:13 DemigodcelpH wrote:



Dispatchers, just like anyone else, can issue orders; in this situation it was a personal one as Zimmerman was overstepping his bounds. If I order my girlfriend to get off my computer it doesn't mean I have legal authority over her.

As I said earlier: intention is what matters, and the dispatchers intention was for Zimmerman to cease following — considering this it's a polite order, and not "We don't need you to do that, but if you really want to I think it would be okay". Legally admissible is completely irrelevant as the dispatcher was just reciting his employment rules because he doesn't want to lose his position or be held responsible on some kind of technicality.

On July 15 2013 03:50 GreyKnight wrote:


Thats not even addressing the same issue.

On July 15 2013 03:50 Leporello wrote:


Correct. This is a case where police and the justice system, with less oversight, scrutiny, and attention, might have handled things differently, resulting in a conviction. If GZ were black, he may have had a much harder time getting the verdict he got.

That's not at all saying I disagree with the verdict. I hate to have this semantic argument, but I'm not the one putting words in people's mouths.

On July 15 2013 03:50 Leporello wrote:


Correct. This is a case where police and the justice system, with less oversight, scrutiny, and attention, might have handled things differently, resulting in a conviction. If GZ were black, he may have had a much harder time getting the verdict he got.

That's not at all saying I disagree with the verdict. I hate to have this semantic argument, but I'm not the one putting words in people's mouths.

On July 14 2013 20:51 Leporello wrote:


This has been repeated all thread, and it irritates me. It's half a lie, really, or half a truth -- it's people talking about reasonable doubt when it comes to the verdict, but then using that verdict to make statements of a much more absolute nature...

I got banned earlier arguing about this, and I can see people are just going to keep repeating it, even the lawyers...

It was not proven to be self-defense -- rather nothing was proven at all. There is simply enough reasonable doubt to suggest it may have been self-defense. It is reasonable doubt that gave Zimmerman a "Not Guilty" verdict. It wasn't proof or evidence that let Zimmerman shoot an unarmed teenager without being convicted of a crime, it was the lack thereof -- and that is what disturbs people.

Several times in this thread, more than I could care to count really, people have said that self-defense has somehow been "proven", or in this case, that "the jury found it was self-defense".

That's not really true, though, is it? We don't know if this was self-defense, and the jury's decision does not say anything with certainty -- there is a reason they call it "not guilty" instead of "innocent". It's just a matter of not knowing. What this verdict says is that it simply MAY have been self-defense. That's enough to avoid murder, as well manslaughter charges to my surprise, but I still feel that Zimmerman's irresponsible behavior in pursuing somebody by himself, with a weapon, should carry at least some charge of negligence. Shooting an unarmed man under pretenses of self-defense is one thing, but when you admittedly were following this person, by yourself, and had all the time to wait for police or even a friend but didn't, then you're being reckless with people's lives.


A lot of half-truths in this thread from all sides.

On July 15 2013 03:50 Geiko wrote:


Why are you talking about France in a topic about the Trayvon Martin shooting ? We don't have the same moral rules here, nor the same laws. The fact is that this was a fair trial in accordance with the laws of florida.

If you're unhappy with your country's set of laws, not much I can do for you.

If Zimmerman had been black, odds are that there wouldn't even have been a trial. The police didn't even want to arrest him in the first place remember. This trial was caused by all the media hype over the headline "white man kills black kid".

On July 15 2013 03:53 rezoacken wrote:
Really all this comes down to is this.

We will never know what REALLY happened. And therefore speculating on it is irrelevant when it comes to a verdict. The verdict is based on what is exposed because that's the only thing you can work with. Not heart feelings and imaginary scenarios that fits sentiments. Based on this, after hours, the Jury decided that there is no proof of murder. Therefore, at the best of our knowledge, there is no murder.

Maybe this is a false negative. I don't know. I wasn't there. Nobody on TL was, nor CNN, nor rioting peoples. More so, we weren't even at the trial nor discussed the outcome for 15 hours with other people that were.

Any system will have false positives (being innocently sent to jail) or false negatives (being wrongly acquitted). And it sucks. But what you can do about it ? Start sending people in prison with a diminished required evidence ? In that case you also increase the risk of false positives.
To me all this comes down to what I do day and night in statistics. There is probability that I'm wrong in my conclusion, I cannot avoid it but I certainly cannot start playing with the levels of confidence just for the conclusion to work in my favor or the client's favor (or at least I'm not one of those...).

On July 15 2013 03:59 slyboogie wrote:


But we do know 1 thing. George Zimmerman shot and killed Trayvon Martin after following him through the neighborhood. Even George Zimmerman would agree with that. That stand alone fact is what makes this so aggravating.

On July 15 2013 03:40 phoenix`down wrote:


I don't agree with your characterization of George Zimmerman at all. I view him as someone that was donating his time to make his neighborhood safer and ended up in an unfortunate series of events that ended tragically for all parties.

I understand where the people that have a problem with this verdict are coming from; Trayvon's death is sad. He died young because he made a few poor choices just like every other teenager does at some point, and unlike other teenagers he will never have a chance to mature past it; that doesn't mean George Zimmerman didn't need to protect himself though.