Trayvon Martin's murderer George Zimmerman is still a free man

[U2DMfan]

I don't think you really believe this. Are you implying that Zimmerman, assuming he thought he might die, should just give up knowing he had a gun and could possibly save his life? Would the thought ever occur to you in that situation "well, this guy is physically stronger than me... I have a gun... but I'll just let him beat me to death"?

If I am beating you up - with the full intention just to beat you up - and the thought of KILLING you never even crossing my mind - why should I have to pay with my life because you are such a weak baby that punches to your head constitute a threat to your life?

At what point does someone being physically stronger than you amount to a threat to your life? At the point where you begin to get scared? So now that is the justification? It's just tough to pin that down.

I just think it's totally unreasonable that he thought he was going to be killed. Not that he DIDN'T believe that, but it's like...those morons who believe 9/11 was an inside job. It's not that they don't believe it, it's that it's ridiculous to believe it. And so, Zimmerman is fine and dandy as far as the law is concerned because he was scared enough? This might be consistent with the law but it doesn't feel right. Shouldn't there be an objective measure w/r/t this? I know it's probably impossible.

 

[The_Pac_Mule]

Not if I saw that he had a gun and he wasn't identifying himself.

I don't think Trayvon could have seen that he had a gun tucked away in the dark.

Excuse me? When did Zimmerman use his words? Apparently he's a lousy follower, so did he ever ID himself?

According to him, he didn't get a chance to explain himself. Was he supposed to while he was getting beaten? He did call for help.

 

[AEON]

If I am beating you up - with the full intention just to beat you up - and the thought of KILLING you never even crossing my mind - why should I have to pay with my life because you are such a weak baby that punches to your head constitute a threat to your life?

At what point does someone being physically stronger than you amount to a threat to your life? At the point where you begin to get scared? So now that is the justification?

Legally speaking:

A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

Zimmerman had already had his nose shattered, the back of his head beat into concrete, and was still pinned beneath Martin. Legally, he was entitled to shoot Martin.

Now - a case can be made to repeal this law, but this was the law of the land at the time the Zimmerman/Martin fight started.

 

[iron yuppie]

You can come to quite a number of different results in a case when you invent facts.

Maybe I'm not making my point well. My issue is not with verdict, but rather with the law. The precedent would seem to be that in any altercation without witnesses, the last person standing is innocent.

 

[AEON]

My issue is not with verdict, but rather with the law.

I wish more people would get out there and say exactly this. Thank you.

 

[The_Pac_Mule]

Maybe I'm not making my point well. My issue is not with verdict, but rather with the law. The precedent would seem to be that in any altercation without witnesses, the last person standing is innocent.

But doesn't that go back to "innocent until proven guilty?" If you can't prove guilt how can you convict?

 

[U2girl]

Maybe I've been reading things wrong, but isn't this point moot now? Wasn't the lesser charge of manslaughter always an option for the jury?

The six woman jury finds George Zimmerman not guilty. They had three choices: to find Zimmerman guilty of second-degree murder; to find him guilty of the lesser charge of manslaughter; or to find him not guilty. The jurors deliberated for more than 16 hours total, including 13 on Saturday alone.

I thought the only option was 2nd degree murder/not guilty ?

 

[The_Pac_Mule]

If I am beating you up - with the full intention just to beat you up - and the thought of KILLING you never even crossing my mind - why should I have to pay with my life because you are such a weak baby that punches to your head constitute a threat to your life?

If you play in traffic you might get hit by a car. I think that's the chance someone takes when they willingly choose to assault someone. I know that sounds cold but why should the burden be taken off the attacker and placed on someone who wasn't doing anything wrong?

I just think it's totally unreasonable that he thought he was going to be killed. Not that he DIDN'T believe that, but it's like...those morons who believe 9/11 was an inside job. It's not that they don't believe it, it's that it's ridiculous to believe it. And so, Zimmerman is fine and dandy as far as the law is concerned because he was scared enough? This might be consistent with the law but it doesn't feel right. Shouldn't there be an objective measure w/r/t this?

You have much a much different thought process going during a fight than sitting at your computer reading about 9/11. I totally understand how while reading and hearing about it that is seems unreasonable Zimmerman felt it necessary to shoot Trayvon. But it's not unreasonable when you're in the moment and you feel trapped and helpless. Most people would feel terrified. Especially when the blows are coming to your face and the back of your head is being beaten against the sidewalk. You're not going to think much about the possible consequences, you're just going to want to escape any way possible.

 

[U2DMfan]

Zimmerman had already had his nose shattered, the back of his head beat into concrete, and was still pinned beneath Martin. Legally, he was entitled to shoot Martin.

Now - a case can be made to repeal this law, but this was the law of the land at the time the Zimmerman/Martin fight started.

This was not a Stand Your Grand case. It was a self-defense case.
The difference is that in standard self-defense cases you are required to make an attempt to flee the threat. SYG says you don't have to try to flee.

I am not discussing the verdict. They made the decision they had to make.
I am just talking about a clearer version of truth. But also the general idea of these types of laws.

But your description of the wounds are your embellishment. His nose wasn't "shattered". It was a partial break, likely set at the scene. And he had TWO cuts on the back of his head, one an inch long, the other one much smaller. "Great bodily harm"? You guys must not have ever been in any fights or maybe you grew up without a brother or something. I've seen worse from backyard football. I mean, fuck. Again, I'm not saying GZ didn't (personally) feel threatened (even though objectively, it strains the credulity of my own perspective). I'm saying apparently Trayvon Martin is dead, effectively, because GZ was a pussy.

If GZ doesn't have a gun, does ANYONE here believe Trayvon kills him?
ANYONE? Why? Explain to me what Trayvon Martin's motivation for attempting to kill him wold have been.

 

[The_Pac_Mule]

But your description of the wounds are your embellishment. His nose wasn't "shattered". It was a partial break, likely set at the scene. And he had TWO cuts on the back of his head, one an inch long, the other one much smaller. "Great bodily harm"? You guys must not have ever been in any fights or maybe you grew up without a brother or something.

Was GZ able to look at and analyze his wounds and determine they weren't life threatening while Martin was on top of him? For all he knew he could have been bleeding out the back of his head all over. That being said he was definitely a pussy who'd never been in a fight, but should he be held responsible for that?

If GZ doesn't have a gun, does ANYONE here believe Trayvon kills him?
ANYONE? Why? Explain to me what Trayvon Martin's motivation for attempting to kill him wold have been.

If he continued to bash his head against the concrete he probably could have eventually. I cant imagine Trayvon would actually do that, although he probably would have left GZ with much worse injuries than what he had. But again, this goes back to the whole fight/flight thought process that would have been going through Zimmerman's mind. He's not thinking "okay I'll just let him keep beating me like this I'll be okay."

 

[U2DMfan]

You're not going to think much about the possible consequences, you're just going to want to escape any way possible.

And therefore, you shouldn't be accountable to those consequences because you didn't choose to think about them?

Look, I think they got the verdict right. And I get the arguments for GZ being acquitted but I don't care about the legal case. That is settled. And I might bring my own biases to the table, in terms of how I see this beating...but morally, it's all pretty troubling.

Also, I do believe people have a firm right to defend themselves and I am certainly not a gun control nut (aside from semi-automatics). I just don't think the entire truth was shared here. And if that was the case, then how can I trust the only first-hand witness? That's all.

 

[BVS]

I don't think Trayvon could have seen that he had a gun tucked away in the dark.




According to him, he didn't get a chance to explain himself. Was he supposed to while he was getting beaten? He did call for help.

Like I said, this is the part of the story that we don't know. Legally I can presume Zimmerman as innocent while not trusting a known liar.

 

[AEON]

You guys must not have ever been in any fights or maybe you grew up without a brother or something. I've seen worse from backyard football.

Well - I've had my nose broke in a fight and you almost blackout. You certainly can't see straight for several minutes and you really lose the ability to comprehend the situation.

I've seen some brutal fights in my life - and is some of those instances, if the fight was not broken up by someone else - there would have been permanent injury or even death. Simply put - how much of a beating was Zimmerman expected to take before he could decide if he was being threatened with more bodily harm? If Martin had simply stopped with one or two punches - perhaps the gun never comes out - and if it did, manslaughter seems like a reasonable charge against Zimmerman. But Martin kept at it - he not only punched Zimmerman, he pinned him down and kept punching him.

In my opinion - that was the single most tragic mistake by either person - Martin pinning Zimmerman to the ground and pummeling him. It was not until then that the gun is pulled out.

 

[nbcrusader]

Maybe I'm not making my point well. My issue is not with verdict, but rather with the law. The precedent would seem to be that in any altercation without witnesses, the last person standing is innocent.

No legal precedent was establish in this case. The factual determination of the jury carries no weight with any other legal case.

And, as always, we start with the presumption of innocence. The prosecution failed to prove otherwise.

 

[U2DMfan]

Was GZ able to look at and analyze his wounds and determine they weren't life threatening while Martin was on top of him? For all he knew he could have been bleeding out the back of his head all over. That being said he was definitely a pussy who'd never been in a fight, but should he be held responsible for that?

He wasn't reacting due to wounds anyway, like you said he wouldn't have known. He was probably reacting because he still thought this was a criminal that he had caught in the act and this criminal was now going to kill him. And if so, should he be responsible for making that poor initial assumption?

And let me be clear. There's nothing wrong with having never been in a fight and there's nothing wrong with not being able to defend yourself in that manner. But when you decide to go out and 'pick fights' and then end them with a gun, I'm going to call you a pussy.

 

[nbcrusader]

The six woman jury finds George Zimmerman not guilty. They had three choices: to find Zimmerman guilty of second-degree murder; to find him guilty of the lesser charge of manslaughter; or to find him not guilty. The jurors deliberated for more than 16 hours total, including 13 on Saturday alone.

I thought the only option was 2nd degree murder/not guilty ?

At the end of the trial, the Prosecution requested and the judge agreed to give jury instructions that included the manslaughter option.

It was a questionable move by the judge as the last minute change would give the defense another grounds for appeal.

 

[The_Pac_Mule]

Like I said, this is the part of the story that we don't know. Legally I can presume Zimmerman as innocent while not trusting a known liar.

I agree with this. But the prosecution was grasping at straws trying to create an alternate scenario that had nothing to back it up with. So, like the jury, I'm left with nothing to believe except Zimmerman's word, or the gist of it at least.

And let me be clear. There's nothing wrong with having never been in a fight and there's nothing wrong with not being able to defend yourself in that manner. But when you decide to go out and 'pick fights' and then end them with a gun, I'm going to call you a pussy.

I also agree with this.

And if so, should he be responsible for making that poor initial assumption?

It was a poor assumption, but I think the decision Trayvon made was just as bad. Like I said, it's like playing in traffic. If you want to start a fight with someone, there's always the chance they may feel threatened enough to kill you with any means they may have available to them. So then the question becomes who do you put the burden of responsibility on? Everyone seems to want to put it on GZ because he was acting like an idiot, but he wasn't doing anything illegal so I'm more inclined to put it on whoever started the fight.

 

[U2DMfan]

I've seen some brutal fights in my life - and is some of those instances, if the fight was not broken up by someone else - there would have been permanent injury or even death. Simply put - how much of a beating was Zimmerman expected to take before he could decide if he was being threatened with more bodily harm? If Martin had simply stopped with one or two punches - perhaps the gun never comes out - and if it did, manslaughter seems like a reasonable charge against Zimmerman. But Martin kept at it - he not only punched Zimmerman, he pinned him down and kept punching him.

In my opinion - that was the single most tragic mistake by either person - Martin pinning Zimmerman to the ground and pummeling him. It was not until then that the gun is pulled out.

I agree with all of this. This is reasonable. The one thing that can't be easily explained away is that Trayvon didn't simply go home. In other words, he was hiding out to beat him up. Right? I haven't heard a different story about those 4 mins. But beating him up and intending on killing him aren't the same thing.

And I too have seen (and been in) some brutal fights in my life.
Lots of blood, people sent to the hospital, etc. But those beatings were always relative to all parties involved. If one is a weakling, then chances are someone is not just going to keep hammering on them. Especially if neither party is drunk and out of control.

But anyway, I've said my piece on it for today.
Unfortunate, sad even all around.

But I do believe (because I am always open to the objective truth) I have become more empathetic towards Zimmerman since a week or so ago. Once I got over the 'emotional outrage'. It's unfortunate that people want to make this into a political football to be kicked around.

 

[The_Pac_Mule]

It's unfortunate that people want to make this into a political football to be kicked around.

Agreed.

 

[tim722]

Did you hear this from Fox News? There has been no mention from the DOJ about a civil right case yet. The right just wants to stir up something.

Ummm do you watch the news? I said Still Looking by the way. In fact they are now aggressively investigating this case. The right has nothing to do with the DOJ. It's all about them pandering to the race baiting left. Wow.

From a news article not from Fox...
On Monday afternoon, the US Department of Justice appealed to civil rights groups and the general public across the country for “tips” on George Zimmerman in their pursuit of potential federal civil rights charges against the just-acquitted defendant in the Trayvon Martin killing. The DOJ actually went so far as to set up an e-mail address to allow such tips: Sanford.florida@usdoj.gov. The email address is slated to go operational by the end of the week.
Barbara Arnwine, president and executive director of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law told the Orlando Sentinel that the DOJ had held a Monday conference call “calling on us to actively refer anyone who had any information” that would help build a case against Zimmerman. "They said they would very aggressively investigate this case,” Arnwine stated.

 

[tim722]

Help me out here, I haven't seen Holder say anything specifically about a civil rights charge, just that they will continue the investigation they opened back when this first occurred.

I heard speculation about a civil rights charge as early as Friday from some on the right. So would a civil rights charge be the only way the DOJ can go, is that why there's this speculation?

I just haven't seen anything about a charge like Tim has suggested

BVS. You agree that the DOJ is continuing their investigation. When it's concluded, they either suspend their case or charge a civil rights charge. Only two outcomes. So yes they are still looking to charge him with a civil rights violation. They can't charge him with anything else. And i got that from Sharpton on MSNBC as well as Fox as well as CNN.

 

[tim722]

Let me trace a hypothetical situation here. Person A is looking to cause a fight for whatever reason. Person A begins to hassle Person B, eventually throwing a punch at Person B. The punch misses. B swings back and connects, breaking A's nose. A pulls out a gun and shoots B in the head. A then claims self-defense, citing the broken nose and a fear of being killed. As far as I can tell, based on the verdict of the Zimmerman case, A has broken no laws. Does this not sound insane?

Person A is at fault as he threw the first punch. Person B has a right to defend himself. However in the Zimmerman case, there was no evidence or witnesses to say he threw the first punch. So it is not insane. If a witness looked out his window or their was video to support your scenario, Zimmerman would have been convicted of murder in my opinion.

 

[Diemen]

That being said he was definitely a pussy who'd never been in a fight, but should he be held responsible for that?

If he ends up killing another person because of said inexperience? Absolutely he should be held responsible.

 

[LuckyNumber7]

I would say that's true only because he decided itd be a good idea to play police officer while armed even though the police told him not to.

 

[iron yuppie]

But those beatings were always relative to all parties involved. If one is a weakling, then chances are someone is not just going to keep hammering on them. Especially if neither party is drunk and out of control.

Agreed. I think in general this thread is underestimating the difference between getting one's head swatted around and getting shot in the bloody chest at point-blank range.

But I think the most salient point thus far is what Headache said however many pages back: if you take the gun out of the equation, both Martin and Zimmerman would have walked away with their lives intact. I just don't buy that Martin was going to beat Z to death over being followed. If Martin were that enraged, Z must have threatened him in some way.

 

[PhilsFan]

The prosecution failed to prove otherwise.

Because the laws don't make any sense?

 

[AEON]

... if you take the gun out of the equation, both Martin and Zimmerman would have walked away with their lives intact. .

Perhaps. But how much of a beating is Zimmerman obliged to take? His nose was already broken and his head was getting pounded against the concrete - and he was pinned.

He can't tap out - there's no ref to step in and stop it (even though he did cry out for help - which none came).

Since there is a legally carried gun in the equation (Zimmerman's) - and both men are legally allowed to be where they were at that moment before the fight (proven by law) - Once Martin started punching and pinned Zimmerman - Zimmerman only has two legal choices:

1) Trust that Martin will eventually, voluntarily stop beating him. Maybe he stops with the broken nose, maybe he doesn't stop until Zimmerman's brains are pouring onto sidewalk - how is he to know? He can't - he has to trust that the same man that just jumped him would have the civility to simply stop fighting once he inflicted light damage. Oh - and hope that after beating him he does not find/grab the gun and use it (which Zimmerman claims was happening - but let's say that has not happened yet).

2) Shoot him

A third option may have been a non-lethal shot, but it seems that controlling the aim of the weapon while getting your arse kicked and with a broken nose is bit much to expect.

The forensics seem to point out that Martin not only started the physical confrontation, but he was certainly winning the confrontation. Once someone is pinned and effectively beaten (Zimmerman) - he is then at the mercy of the winner (Martin). I believe that was the heart of the case - at least the legal portion of it - that Zimmerman had the legal right to use his legally carried weapon to stop Martin from continuing to cause further bodily harm.

Also - punching someone and breaking their nose may get you charged with a misdemeanor assault. Straddling someone and punching them ferociously after breaking their nose will get you charged with a felony.

Martin had already stepped across the line into felony assault/battery charges.

 

[nbcrusader]

Because the laws don't make any sense?

NO.

We are not talking about some unique law that Florida recently enacted. The laws governing this case all are rooted in common law. This type of case has been heard hundreds, if not thousands, of times.

A desire for a different outcome does not equal "the laws don't make sense".

 

[PhilsFan]

I know it's not a Stand Your Ground case. I mean the gun laws.

 

[AEON]

A broken nose is considered Great Bodily Injury.

I'm guessing if the fight had ended at the moment just before the shooting - Trayvon Martin would have probably been charged with felony assault - based solely on the forensics.