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

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Ultimately, ya, I can agree with this. But in this case, we'll never know for certain which was the right side

I disagree, Zimmerman as an adult, made several bad, reckless choices he did not have to make that put him in a position to kill an unarmed 17 year old kid.

The jails are full of people that made bad choices, if they all had Zimmerman's legal defense team many would not have been convicted. And I am not of a general opinion that people that kill other unarmed people should not be in jail.

A claim of self defense on one's own property against an intruder could be more credible.
 
You're not thinking straight. He was suspicious. Nobody knows what happened after that.

Just wondering why LuckyNumber, why don't you come to my south side to protest all the black on black crime?

About 450 black men killed 450 black men in Chicago. Bring you're people to me. Come to me and protest. Are you afraid? Why focus on one white person who killed s black man? Why not follow all the black men who are killed by black men? Oh you don't care about them. You're only interested if a white man kills a black man. Meet me today at 67th and Ashland to protest.

That's because thinking straight isn't fun!

Sure, I'll come to 'your' south side and uhh... 'protest all the black on black crime.' What relevance does this have to do with anything at all? Who are 'my people?' What the devil are you talking about? I'm not focusing on shit, and George Zimmerman wasn't even white.

If anything, you're a racist pig for dragging race into this. Where does anything I've said imply that I don't care about so called 'black on black' violence? What the hell are you talking about? You totally just wrote up a bunch of nonsense and quoted whoever you wanted to and directed nonsensical words towards them. Good job.

P.S. OBT & Pine Hills, yo.
 
The two camps are balanced and reasonable, and unbalanced and hysterical. There are both kinds on either side of the argument

Define hysterical. Be specific about the quoted post. Because I don't see it. (I am assuming that you were referring to the post that you called inventing imaginary thoughts and that deep complimented as the quote above followed deep's compliment on the thoughtfulness of the post)

FYM does allow us to present our observations and impressions. We are not in a court of law here. The post was thoughtful and took a side. And someone else can take another. I saw passion and anger and a sense of justice denied in that post. I didn't see hysteria.

One can differentiate between the law and what they believe is just. Not always the same thing. I thought the correct legal verdict may have been reached--or not. But I think that George Zimmerman likely provoked an incident with a young man who by all accounts at least initially was doing nothing to warrant a provocation and ended up killing that unarmed young man. That young man is dead because he was in the wrong place, at the wrong time, in the company of a man with really bad judgment. One can say that without being irrational.

I do know hysterical is a big word for you. It's a vague word.

I think you'd make your argument better if you dealt with the specific points as many of the people have done with you, going over points rather than a presentation they may or may not have found to their liking, assuming of course that you want to engage in discussion instead of belittling.

Arguers like you and me, JT, we use reason (unless a trigger has been unlocked) but we often lack fire. It does the soul good to see a little passion.
 
Define hysterical. Be specific about the quoted post. Because I don't see it.

FYM does allow us to present our observations and impressions. We are not in a court of law here. The post was thoughtful and took a side. And someone else can take another. I saw passion and anger and a sense of justice denied in that post. I didn't see hysteria.

One can differentiate between the law and what they believe is just. Not always the same thing. I thought the correct legal verdict may have been reached--or not. But I think that George Zimmerman likely provoked an incident with a young man who by all accounts at least initially was doing nothing to warrant a provocation and ended up killing that unarmed young man. That young man is dead because he was in the wrong place, at the wrong time, in the company of a man with really bad judgment. One can say that without being irrational.

I do know hysterical is a big word for you. It's a vague word.

I think you'd make your argument better if you dealt with the specific points as many of the people have done with you, going over points rather than a presentation they may or may not have found to their liking, assuming of course that you want to engage in discussion instead of belittling.

Arguers like you and me, JT, we use reason (unless a trigger has been unlocked) but we often lack fire. It does the soul good to see a little passion.

I won't quote anything specific because said poster is notorious for flying off the handle.
But there were posts about how the Medical Examiner should be fired (for what exactly? I asked several times. Tried to address specific points. got nothing). Conspiracy theories about neighbours having inside information. Knowing 100% that Zimmerman was lying. There were more. I can go back and look if you like. All of this points to someone who has spent way too much time tied to the case. 40 plus hours watching a televised court case... not healthy. go outside. Stop obsessing over it. I know the type. She's just an example of a lot of what I've seen.
Not saying there aren't reasonable arguments from that side. I think - I'm pretty sure I did. I meant to - I took back what I said about showing your true colours if you think the prosecution bumbled the case. Both Sean and BVS showed how that isn't necessarily true. But they're at least arguing from the facts. Not taking the facts, saying "nope, don't like 'em" and forming some opinion to fit into a prejudice.

Not sure what you mean by hysterical being a big word for me. This might be the first time I've used it in fym. Can you explain that a bit?

As far as not having passion, in the case, yes, I honestly couldn't give a shit how the trial went. I was always more interested in the public reaction. But don't take my sometimes cold style as a lack of passion. On the issues I care about, I engage in because I'm very passionate about them. I'm sure that has come bubbling to the surface here on more than one occasion ;) and I usually like when someone gets all fired up in debates (Ashleeeeeyyyyyy)
 
Ultimately, ya, I can agree with this. But in this case, we'll never know for certain which was the right side

Gotta go with deep on this one:

I disagree, Zimmerman as an adult, made several bad, reckless choices he did not have to make that put him in a position to kill an unarmed 17 year old kid.

The jails are full of people that made bad choices, if they all had Zimmerman's legal defense team many would not have been convicted. And I am not of a general opinion that people that kill other unarmed people should not be in jail.

A claim of self defense on one's own property against an intruder could be more credible.

To me, it really is that simple--race and all the other drama aside--it really should have been that simple.
 
Not sure why the defense team is getting such praise. This didn't seem like a difficult case to defend
 
Hey! I used to live there!

I'm very sorry. Crime Hills/OBT/Orange Bowl is probably the scariest place in Orlando.

Although over the last few years they've done a great job at cleaning it up a bit.

I guess to put us back on topic, yes, Sanford, FL is a shithole and an incredibly racist town.
 
But what laws did he break? You can't be sent to jail for being an asshole

This is exactly the problem, Jive: he didn't break any laws. That is the part that should give us pause about the US legal system as it stands. If we take the letter of the law out of the equation for a moment and look at the case from an ethical standpoint, are you willing to say that Zimmerman is justified in what he did on that night? I don't think the sense of frustration and outrage is coming from the verdict's propriety or impropriety under the law, but rather at what the law protects and facilitates: that being any asshole with a gun thinking that they have a mission to cleanse their neighborhood of "dangerous" elements.

I also wanted to call some attention to this quote from Zimmerman's brother: “There are factions, there are groups, there are people that would want to take the law into their own hands as they perceive it or be vigilantes in some sense. They will always present a threat to George and to his family.”

Oh, the irony.
 
This is exactly the problem, Jive: he didn't break any laws. That is the part that should give us pause about the US legal system as it stands. If we take the letter of the law out of the equation for a moment and look at the case from an ethical standpoint, are you willing to say that Zimmerman is justified in what he did on that night? I don't think the sense of frustration and outrage is coming from the verdict's propriety or impropriety under the law, but rather at what the law protects and facilitates: that being any asshole with a gun thinking that they have a mission to cleanse their neighborhood of "dangerous" elements.

Well I think this it totally reasonable. But when I read things on facebook etc that say "Oh, so I guess it's legal to kill black people in Florida now?" (I read that exact thing) it does nothing to further the discussion. It's a twisted bastardization of what happened. The laws, as they are now, say Zimmerman probably should have been found not guilty. There's no law against carrying a gun around (which is probably fucked up), there's no law against leaving your house to follow someone you think is suspicious (a poor judgement?...maybe... but not illegal). There are questions as to what happened after that, but we can only go by what was presented. If I leave my house to follow someone that looks suspicious and get the shit kicked out of me, is it my fault? Legally, no (and if we're being consistent with victim blaming, also no). Did he fear for his life? I don't know. Nobody does but Zimmerman. The only issue to discuss really is the gun laws
 
JT

It’s bad enough how often journalists attribute their scoops to unnamed “sources,” but as cable networks fill time tonight waiting for a verdict in the George Zimmerman trial, Zimmerman’s neighbor Frank Taaffe let slip that his inside sources have told him the jury is deadlocked at the moment, with five of the six jurors moving to acquit.

Too soon: George Zimmerman neighbor Frank Taaffe kicks off 5-1 acquittal buzz | Twitchy

While I haven't watched much of this trial, I did watch it last night when I knew they were close to a verdict and I heard the neighbor say the above before the verdict and it raised my eyebrows a little. I heard him with my own lying ears. Mrs.S gave the option of guy just making it up or having some knowledge he shouldn't have had. Seems she gave both sides. (Or maybe it was something he overheard speculated and passed along).

I will retract and apologize. Appears I was wrong on your repeated use of hysterical (another person, another place). You use "hyperbole", "ridiculous", "unbalanced", "unreasonable" and "kneejerk" :D (Belittling and insulting a common denominator. Not my modus operandi even at my most pompously rational or flagrantly flighty or pissed) but I believe I slandered you (libeled you? Is an internet forum a published vehicle) with "hysterical". My apologies.
 
But what laws did he break? You can't be sent to jail for being an asshole


there is a verdict and one side seems to be satisfied with the verdict
and one side seems to believe there was a miscarriage of justice

what laws did he break?
with this verdict one can say none

and the same can be said of O J Simpson with the killings of Ron Goldman and Nicole Simpson, O J broke no laws he is innocent

the same can be said of Officer Laurence Powell and Sergeant Stacey Koon in the near death beating they gave to Rodney King, they broke no laws, based on the verdict
 
there is a verdict and one side seems to be satisfied with the verdict
and one side seems to believe there was a miscarriage of justice

what laws did he break?
with this verdict one can say none

and the same can be said of O J Simpson and the killings of Ron Goldman and Nicole Simpson, O J broke no laws he is innocent

the same can be said of Officer Laurence Powell and Sergeant Stacey Koon in the near death beating they gave to Rodney King, they broke no laws, based on the verdict

You know none of the are analogous. Zimmerman freely admits he shot and killed Martin. We "know" the event as it unfolded.

The King thing is a little different. We've got video of several cops beating the shit out of a man lying on the ground.
 
You use "hyperbole", "ridiculous", "unbalanced", "unreasonable" and "kneejerk" :D

Guilty!! ;)

But I rarely don't back those up with anything

but I believe I slandered you (libeled you? Is an internet forum a published vehicle) with "hysterical". My apologies.

No need to apologize, even if it was a little tongue in cheek
 
they are, the police admit they beat King, they just got the right jury and defense team for an acquittal of going beyond the legal limit

And there's a video of them apparently going beyond the legal limit. To be honest, I was pretty young at the time, so I'm not all that knowledgeable about the case
 
tim, i live in memphis, a city with very high crime and an over 50% african american population. does that mean i'm qualified to give an opinion?

at no point do i think martin posed a threat to zimmerman. i think he should have been found guilty of something at least. i loved living in florida, but what is it about that state? sheesh.
 
tim, i live in memphis, a city with very high crime and an over 50% african american population. does that mean i'm qualified to give an opinion?

at no point do i think martin posed a threat to zimmerman. i think he should have been found guilty of something at least. i loved living in florida, but what is it about that state? sheesh.

We're the misunderstood drama state confused of whether or not we are a product of the North or South.
 
Well I think this it totally reasonable. But when I read things on facebook etc that say "Oh, so I guess it's legal to kill black people in Florida now?" (I read that exact thing) it does nothing to further the discussion. It's a twisted bastardization of what happened. The laws, as they are now, say Zimmerman probably should have been found not guilty. There's no law against carrying a gun around (which is probably fucked up), there's no law against leaving your house to follow someone you think is suspicious (a poor judgement?...maybe... but not illegal). There are questions as to what happened after that, but we can only go by what was presented. If I leave my house to follow someone that looks suspicious and get the shit kicked out of me, is it my fault? Legally, no (and if we're being consistent with victim blaming, also no). Did he fear for his life? I don't know. Nobody does but Zimmerman. The only issue to discuss really is the gun laws

This times 10 million.

The state did a horrific job not in that they did a bad job presenting their case... they had no case to begin with. It never should have been brought to trial as a murder case, and only was brought as a murder case after public pressure. The Sanford police had it pegged the entire time. There was zero evidence to discount Zimmerman's account. There was evidence to back it. His story never changed. It was remarkably consistent from start to finish.

In the end, its still about the guns. If he had no gun, we're not having this conversation.
 
at no point do i think martin posed a threat to zimmerman. i think he should have been found guilty of something at least.

Are we forgetting the bloody nose, cuts to the back of the head, and a description of Martin on top of Zimmerman delivering the blows? I think at that point Martin posed a threat.
 
The precedent this case sets is unfortunate. The laws in Florida are ass-backwards and this would have been a great impetus to change them, but I'm not surprised by the verdict at all. The prosecution never had the evidence to hold up a second degree murder charge. Manslaughter, maybe. But the law as it stands was in Zimmerman's favor.
 
tim, i live in memphis, a city with very high crime and an over 50% african american population. does that mean i'm qualified to give an opinion?

at no point do i think martin posed a threat to zimmerman. i think he should have been found guilty of something at least. i loved living in florida, but what is it about that state? sheesh.

Are we forgetting the bloody nose, cuts to the back of the head, and a description of Martin on top of Zimmerman delivering the blows? I think at that point Martin posed a threat.

Well then it depends what you're interpreting a threat to be.


Here's the thing though; at what point do you decide you're either in danger of death or grievous bodily harm? If someone is on top of me, punching and hitting my head against the ground, do I wait until I nearly lose consciousness? If someone says "you're going to die tonight" in the process, does that expedite the decision making? It doesn't take much trauma to the back of the head for permanent injury. There was a guy in high school who got sucker punched while watching a fight, fell back and hit his head on the curb. He was never the same afterward. Would you risk that? I'm not saying he made the right decision. I'm saying there's a lot to think about in a short time.
Did Zimmerman pose a physical threat to Martin before the altercation? Something had to happen for the fight to start in the first place
 
The prosecution never had the evidence to hold up a second degree murder charge. Manslaughter, maybe.

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?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom