| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/13/2013 10:15:11 PM · #1 |
|
|
|
07/13/2013 10:27:01 PM · #2 |
|
|
|
07/13/2013 10:28:03 PM · #3 |
| You know Bear, it really doesn't surprise me. Look at OJ and Casey Anthony. |
|
|
|
07/13/2013 10:35:01 PM · #4 |
| Zimmerman had a right to defend himself. Unfortunately, Travon Martin wasn't allowed that same right, according to this jury. A shame. |
|
|
|
07/13/2013 10:38:23 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by fldave:
Zimmerman had a right to defend himself. Unfortunately, Travon Martin wasn't allowed that same right, according to this jury. A shame. |
Defend himself?
Against someone following him?
I agree, they're both jerks, but I assume both that Martin did actually attack Zimmerman (the evidence certainly indicated this to be the case), and that Zimmerman did not attack Martin.
Honestly, if Martin wasn't looking for a confrontation, then why did he turn around once he reached his Dad's house and go back to Zimmerman?
With all of that being said - I think the jury probably had a much better picture of all of this than any of us did, so to assume that they found incorrectly isn't really justified.
...
Now, the real question - what time do the riots start? |
|
|
|
07/13/2013 10:40:54 PM · #6 |
| Our justice system is imperfect. However, a superior replacement does not seem to be available. If I am to cheer wholeheartedly verdicts with which I agree, then I feel I must also accept those verdicts that cause me to question... |
|
|
|
07/13/2013 10:45:25 PM · #7 |
From the jury instruction form (I would have been surprised had he been found guilty).
In deciding whether George Zimmerman was justified in the use of deadly force, you must judge him by the circumstances by which he was surrounded at the time the force was used. The danger facing George Zimmerman need not have been actual; however, to justify the use of deadly force, the appearance of danger must have been so real that a reasonably cautious and prudent person under the same circumstances would have believed that the danger could be avoided only through the use of that force. Based upon appearances, George Zimmerman must have actually believed that the danger was real.
If George Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in any place where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
In considering the issue of self-defense, you may take into account the relative physical abilities and capacities of George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin.
|
|
|
|
07/13/2013 10:49:50 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by MarkB:
From the jury instruction form (I would have been surprised had he been found guilty).
In deciding whether George Zimmerman was justified in the use of deadly force, you must judge him by the circumstances by which he was surrounded at the time the force was used. The danger facing George Zimmerman need not have been actual; however, to justify the use of deadly force, the appearance of danger must have been so real that a reasonably cautious and prudent person under the same circumstances would have believed that the danger could be avoided only through the use of that force. Based upon appearances, George Zimmerman must have actually believed that the danger was real.
If George Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in any place where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
In considering the issue of self-defense, you may take into account the relative physical abilities and capacities of George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin. |
I agree. And I don't see why so many are taking umbrage with the wording of those instructions, and the letter of the law itself.
Do they feel that we should have a duty to run from those who would chase us? Or is it that they feel Zimmerman had no right to be there? I'm afraid I just don't get it, what else in the above would anyone wish to change?
Message edited by author 2013-07-13 22:50:14. |
|
|
|
07/13/2013 10:52:20 PM · #9 |
Cory, I agree that the jury certainly has more information and facts than any lay person watching the trial. However, Travon had NO duty to retreat under FL castle doctrine. He was a 17 year old boy, being followed by a grown man in a crime-ridden area. The man followed him in his car, then followed him on foot, but never said "Hey, I'm with the neighborhood watch, do you live here?" No, Zimmerman just pursued him like a cop would, with a gun no less. When Travon tried to stand up for himself, he was shot dead.
I guess it depends on how you see this case, whether a stand your ground case, gun rights, civil rights... there will always be differing opinions and I probably should not be standing on this soapbox, but I wonder if the result would be different if the roles were reversed: If Travon defended himself for fear of his life and shot Zimmerman, what would the jury decision be? |
|
|
|
07/13/2013 11:04:37 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by fldave:
Cory, I agree that the jury certainly has more information and facts than any lay person watching the trial. However, Travon had NO duty to retreat under FL castle doctrine. He was a 17 year old boy, being followed by a grown man in a crime-ridden area. The man followed him in his car, then followed him on foot, but never said "Hey, I'm with the neighborhood watch, do you live here?" No, Zimmerman just pursued him like a cop would, with a gun no less. When Travon tried to stand up for himself, he was shot dead.
I guess it depends on how you see this case, whether a stand your ground case, gun rights, civil rights... there will always be differing opinions and I probably should not be standing on this soapbox, but I wonder if the result would be different if the roles were reversed: If Travon defended himself for fear of his life and shot Zimmerman, what would the jury decision be? |
I agree 100%, Trayvon had no duty to retreat. But he did make the mistake of physically assaulting Zimmerman, and that's not standing up for yourself, that's attempted murder once you start beating someone's head into the concrete. I really do think if he had politely greeted Zimmerman and civilly asked what was going on, everything could have been avoided, and two men wouldn't have had their lives ruined on that night. Again though, Trayvon does seem to be the one who first engaged in a violent physical encounter.
Also, this wasn't a crime ridden area, there had been a few break-ins, but in fact, it was a nice neighborhood - which was why Trayvon was there in the first place.
If Trayvon had been beaten, then I would feel quite differently - but in the end, the wounds on his body consisted of bruised knuckles and a gunshot wound - doesn't particularly sound like he was defending himself at all to me.
I would honestly hope that the verdict would be absolutely the same if the roles were reversed - but do remind yourself that Trayvon was there because he was in trouble, and it was hoped that a change of venue might help him get his life straightened out, even if the roles were reversed he would be due at least a slightly higher level of scrutiny based upon that fact.
Message edited by author 2013-07-13 23:05:49. |
|
|
|
07/13/2013 11:26:20 PM · #11 |
This is probably not the correct forum for this kind of discussion...but here is my point of view on it. A kid was killed for some reason, police found there to be no reason to arrest the shooter. It was turned into a race issue, Zimmerman was arrested, he was found not guilty by a jury of his peers, his life will never be the same because people feel he killed the kid because he was black and he will probably always have to fear for his life as well as his wife's.
I don't think the jury would have found Trayvon guilty if the same evidence would have been presented in his defense. If Zimmerman was on top of Trayvon punching him in the face and threatened to kill him, Trayvon would have every right to put a bullet in him.
We will never know what truly happened and we should be ok with the verdict that was handed down. That is why we have a legal system...though sometimes it is flawed. |
|
|
|
07/13/2013 11:28:41 PM · #12 |
NOT GUILTY!!!!
I am glad to see the system worked in this case. I do not condone that anyone that sees a stranger walking around suspiciously through their neighborhood to follow that person, but to say Zimmerman intentionally went out looking for this person or shot this person out of hatred or for any other reason than self defense is absurd. I agree, Zimmerman should have just let the police handle it, but then again, you do need to protect yourself when being attacked, as I would should that ever happen. It was just unfortunate it had to end with one dead. Anyone who says that not guilty was the wrong decision is an "IDIOT". You were not in the courtroom. You did not hear the testimony. You were not sitting on the jury. You read what the media wants you to see and you assume its all true. The media looks to incite people so they can make the money without taking into consideration what they are doing to the people actually involved. You want to see how the media incites racial tensions into America? Look at this article. This is worse and more of a mindless killing than zimmerman/martin. Yet, because of the race of the perp, you hardly heard about it. Shame.
In addition to all of this, it was turned into a black/white racial issue. Where was the white person? Zimmerman is hispanic. Just because his skin color is white does not make him a caucasian.
//www.wrno.com/pages/johnosterlind.html?article=11474540
Man vomits on dog, commits triple shooting
Message edited by author 2013-07-13 23:31:01. |
|
|
|
07/14/2013 12:08:25 AM · #13 |
A study found - Most black murder victims — 93 percent — were killed by other black people, About 85 percent of white victims were slain by other white people.
The media will do just about anything to incite racial wars!! |
|
|
|
07/14/2013 12:38:10 AM · #14 |
Originally posted by rugman1969:
NOT GUILTY!!!!
I am glad to see the system worked in this case. I do not condone that anyone that sees a stranger walking around suspiciously through their neighborhood to follow that person, but to say Zimmerman intentionally went out looking for this person or shot this person out of hatred or for any other reason than self defense is absurd. I agree, Zimmerman should have just let the police handle it, but then again, you do need to protect yourself when being attacked, as I would should that ever happen. |
I do disagree with this premise.
One of the world's biggest problems today is that it's always someone else's problem. I think you can say you don't support someone checking Martin out, until it's your house that's been broken into, and your home that was ransacked. Once you've experienced that feeling of violation, I suspect you'd be very glad that someone was watching out for you and your home. Besides, it's not like Zimmerman attempted to arrest Martin - he simply was keeping track of him, and was in fact allowing the police to 'deal' with it - up to the point that the physical altercation was ostensibly initiated by Martin, at which point ... to borrow a phrase... shit got real.
|
|
|
|
07/14/2013 05:12:48 AM · #15 |
Just polishing up the constitution. Can't have an ammendment that says it's ok to be tooled up for slaughter if you're going to turn round and give people grief for using the tools.
Justifiable use of deadly force is way too abstract to apply. |
|
|
|
07/14/2013 07:23:44 AM · #16 |
we all know that evidence and proof and charges is often much different than what we actually see to be the facts of a case.
the big picture can often times be obscured, changed, skewed...
This is truly one instance where police work should have been left up to police.
In what perverse world can some paranoid vigilante with a gun antagonize a teenager with a bag of Skittles, provoke a fight, and the claim self defense against an unarmed boy?
Not about race? If that is the lesson you took from this, you need to think a bit more about this case. |
|
|
|
07/14/2013 07:50:22 AM · #17 |
Check to scoreboard: Not Guilty.
None of us were there, none of us actually saw anything. All of us were fed what the media deemed adequate for us to absorb. We made the law, we approved the weapon, a situation arose in which the weapon is used in accordance with the law. Cold, clinical facts. Whatever we say or do now, he is innocent.
Just wondering, would you risk two wrongs to make one right? Would you take a persons life, incarceration does just that too, just because you believe him to be guilty? I had little hope for him when I saw the jury; but they came through and I bet a men-jury would not have deliberated as thoroughly as these brave ladies. Am I now a sexist?
make peace, the verdict is out and more fair than not. That is what the most advanced legal system in the world says. Not Guilty.
Watch the space when the Blade Runner's case in South Africa comes up. A shark pool full of racism (High Crime rate), class ism (and hate for winners) and above all, the gender divide. That man has already been found guilty. And his life will depend on the words of one man, not a jury, the judge. And a judge of questionable ability and experience due to the affirmative action push for dark numbers. Zimmerman's case will in time become a guppy against the whale of injustice in Africa. |
|
|
|
07/14/2013 08:20:37 AM · #18 |
Originally posted by docpjv:
Check to scoreboard: Not Guilty.
None of us were there, none of us actually saw anything. All of us were fed what the media deemed adequate for us to absorb. We made the law, we approved the weapon, a situation arose in which the weapon is used in accordance with the law. Cold, clinical facts. Whatever we say or do now, he is innocent.
Just wondering, would you risk two wrongs to make one right? Would you take a persons life, incarceration does just that too, just because you believe him to be guilty? I had little hope for him when I saw the jury; but they came through and I bet a men-jury would not have deliberated as thoroughly as these brave ladies. Am I now a sexist?
make peace, the verdict is out and more fair than not. That is what the most advanced legal system in the world says. Not Guilty.
Watch the space when the Blade Runner's case in South Africa comes up. A shark pool full of racism (High Crime rate), class ism (and hate for winners) and above all, the gender divide. That man has already been found guilty. And his life will depend on the words of one man, not a jury, the judge. And a judge of questionable ability and experience due to the affirmative action push for dark numbers. Zimmerman's case will in time become a guppy against the whale of injustice in Africa. |
good points, however, no one is ever found "innocent" - just "not guilty." Still civil suits to come in this case, lesser standard of proof- (except, unlike OJ, Zimmerman is most likely judgment proof after that expensive defense)
|
|
|
|
07/14/2013 10:02:34 AM · #19 |
Originally posted by blindjustice:
we all know that evidence and proof and charges is often much different than what we actually see to be the facts of a case.
the big picture can often times be obscured, changed, skewed...
This is truly one instance where police work should have been left up to police.
In what perverse world can some paranoid vigilante with a gun antagonize a teenager with a bag of Skittles, provoke a fight, and the claim self defense against an unarmed boy?
Not about race? If that is the lesson you took from this, you need to think a bit more about this case. |
That's the problem that I have with this verdict. He did act as a vigilante. He did take matters into his own hands when he was specifically told not to. His attitude and his actions led to the death of a 17 year old kid. How is he not seen as the instigator of this fight?
|
|
|
|
07/14/2013 10:41:59 AM · #20 |
Originally posted by vawendy:
That's the problem that I have with this verdict. He did act as a vigilante. He did take matters into his own hands when he was specifically told not to. His attitude and his actions led to the death of a 17 year old kid. How is he not seen as the instigator of this fight? |
That's the point I was leading to with my "unbelievable" comment at the very beginning, but then a tournament started and I couldn't wade in further (we won). Yeah, the "incredible" part to me is not that he was acquitted of murder, but it was clear that was gonna happen based on the evidence. No, what bothers me is that he was, as Wendy put it, the "instigator" of this entire encounter. He was STALKING the kid. He DIDN'T heed police advice, and the encounter escalated.
Look at it from this perspective; are we now approaching understanding of the law where self-styled vigilante protectors-of-the-neighborhood essentially fell empowered to draw down on the people they're stalking? It's getting closer. Of course, this is all tied up in "stand your ground" doctrine, which is a relatively localized phenomenon as far as I know, but still... My problem with "stand your ground" is that you can more-or-less PROVOKE people into attacking you, and then shoot 'em in cold blood. I know I'm exaggerating, but....
It just seems weird to me, but I'm no expert on all this. I was hoping for/expecting a manslaughter verdict at some level.
Message edited by author 2013-07-14 10:42:45. |
|
|
|
07/14/2013 11:01:56 AM · #21 |
So, if Trayvon had had a gun he would have been perfectly justified in shooting Zimmerman, since being followed to your own house by someone with a gun would seem to fit the definition in the stand-your-ground of having a reasonable fear for your own life. Why would he not be allowed the use of any other form of deadly force? Does the law say you can ONLY use a gun for self-defense?
If the police specifically told Zimmerman to stay away and to let them investigate he should at least be guilty of obstruction of the police in the course of their duties. If he had followed instructions the whole incident would never have occured, so it seems clear that he is "responsible" for Martin's death. |
|
|
|
07/14/2013 11:14:56 AM · #22 |
gotta weigh in
among the multiple errors made by the special prosecutor/prosecution team, the most egregious is that they chose to "swing for the fences" with a 2nd degree murder charge that the evidence didn't support. if they had pursued the multiple other choices (manslaughter, assault, obstruction of justice) they'd have zimmerman behind bars, where he rightly belongs. |
|
|
|
07/14/2013 11:28:32 AM · #23 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
He was STALKING the kid. He DIDN'T heed police advice, and the encounter escalated. |
He may have been stalking the kid but it was in his neighborhood. He wasn't stalking him at a playground or a beach or a mall. He was following him because of a rash of break-ins and his neighborhood eas fed up with it. Please explain to me what stopped this "thug",yes I said it, "thug" kid from saying, "there is a man asking me questions about why I am in his neighborhood so I'm just going to go home?" Martin attacked a member of the neighborhood watch. Let's not pretend that Martin was an innocent straight A student minding his own business in a neighborhood he didn't belong in. The media constantly showed images of Martin when he was 12. I would have loved to seen the Facebook images of Martin shown instead of the poor innocent 12 year old kid images. I don't believe that anyone, especially a 17 year old kid with his whole life ahead of him should be killed but Martin messed with the wrong adult thinking he was a tough guy and unfortunately messed with a law abiding citizen that felt his life was in danger. Let's also not forget about the fact that Zimmerman looked like he was in a war after the altercation and besides a bullet hole Martin was unharmed. So who was the aggressor according to medical evidence. Provoked or not, stalked or not, given the choice I would have done the legal thing and walked away (probably ran) from this man and went home when asked what I was doing in his neighborhood.
The second part of your statement, "DIDN'T heed police advice" is also way off base. He did not heed police dispatch advice. People seem to be confused that police dispatcher's are not the police and can merely give suggestions to what the person on the other end of the call should do. If they don't tell every caller to leave the scene they themselves could be in court with charges against them. Same reason they tell people in there homes to find a safe place to hide when they have a weapon to protect themselves. If I have a weapon and you are in my house uninvited I will not find a safe place to hide. I will protect my family.
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Look at it from this perspective; are we now approaching understanding of the law where self-styled vigilante protectors-of-the-neighborhood essentially fell empowered to draw down on the people they're stalking? It's getting closer. Of course, this is all tied up in "stand your ground" doctrine, which is a relatively localized phenomenon as far as I know, but still... My problem with "stand your ground" is that you can more-or-less PROVOKE people into attacking you, and then shoot 'em in cold blood. I know I'm exaggerating, but....
It just seems weird to me, but I'm no expert on all this. I was hoping for/expecting a manslaughter verdict at some level. |
You cannot provoke a person into beating you if you are not that type of person. So what you are saying is that if I see you in my neighborhood walking around in the middle of the night and I asked you what the hell are you doing here. Or lets get a little more real and say it how it probably happened, "what the ***k are you doing in my neighborhood" you would turn around and give me lip? Would you circle around as Martin had done and confronted me a second time? Would you say, "sorry I was just passing through and I'm headed home"? Bear, I believe you would have a civilized conversation with me and we would go about our way and if I "stalked" you would be nervous, I agree, but I don't think you would bloody my face over it and escalate it to the point that I felt I no needed to pull my weapon. Martin did!
Make sure that you are looking at the facts. Not what you personally and morally believe to be the truth. I don't think this trial comes down to racial issues as much as gun laws. Many are viewing this as a, I believe / dont believe in gun laws case. |
|
|
|
07/14/2013 11:30:05 AM · #24 |
Originally posted by fldave:
Cory, I agree that the jury certainly has more information and facts than any lay person watching the trial. However, Travon had NO duty to retreat under FL castle doctrine. He was a 17 year old boy, being followed by a grown man in a crime-ridden area. The man followed him in his car, then followed him on foot, but never said "Hey, I'm with the neighborhood watch, do you live here?" No, Zimmerman just pursued him like a cop would, with a gun no less. When Travon tried to stand up for himself, he was shot dead.
I guess it depends on how you see this case, whether a stand your ground case, gun rights, civil rights... there will always be differing opinions and I probably should not be standing on this soapbox, but I wonder if the result would be different if the roles were reversed: If Travon defended himself for fear of his life and shot Zimmerman, what would the jury decision be? |
If Trayvon had instead beaten Zimmerman to death on that sidewalk, none of you would be the least bit outraged. |
|
|
|
07/14/2013 11:33:38 AM · #25 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
If Trayvon had instead beaten Zimmerman to death on that sidewalk, none of you would be the least bit outraged. |
I hope someday you'll share your gift of mind-reading with the rest of the world. |
|
