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

[LemonMelon]

Originally Posted by Jive Turkey

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?

Yeah, you're right, it was on the table until the 11th hour:

George Zimmerman Jury Asks for Manslaughter Clarification - ABC News

EDIT: Why do I read comment sections? Ugh, this one is horrible.

[Danny Boy]

Originally Posted by Jive Turkey

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?

It was and the jury even asked for clarification on the definition of manslaughter before rendering their verdict.

[Danny Boy]

Well, damn.

[The_Pac_Mule]

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.

Which is why I find it annoying that so many people are out protesting his acquittal, saying it's a travesty of justice, racist jury, etc etc. I just keep thinking, did you even watch the trial at all? Or just stand outside the courthouse for two months waiting for a guilty verdict? I saw the local news covering what some of the protesters had to say, and there are some seriously dumb motherfuckers (of all races) who either don't understand the legal process or simply don't care about it. A lot of facebook comments Ive read are even worse, but that's the age we live with online keyboard warriors and such.

I guess now Al Sharpton and co are pushing the federal fucking government to get involved. Holy shit

[LemonMelon]

Originally Posted by The_Pac_Mule

racist jury

Anyone who tries to dismiss the verdict this way is letting their emotions get the better of them. It makes illogical assumptions instead of considering hard truths about the laws themselves. Second degree murder was an unrealistic charge from the jump.

[iron yuppie]

Originally Posted by Jive Turkey

If someone says "you're going to die tonight" in the process, does that expedite the decision making?

My question would be: why should we believe Zimmerman that these words were spoken? It's rather convenient for him in this case - and several others - that the only witness to the whole thing is dead. He was getting his ass kicked, but does that warrant deadly retaliation? And was his life really in peril from a few cuts on his head and a broken nose? It seems highly unlikely that Martin, a kid with no violent history, is going to snap so completely that he beats someone to death. I say all this understanding that the legal process is not built on likelihood, but I do want to reiterate that Zimmerman benefited in many ways from being the only one left standing.

[The_Pac_Mule]

Anyone who tries to dismiss the verdict this way is letting their emotions get the better of them. It makes illogical assumptions instead of considering hard truths about the laws themselves. Second degree murder was an unrealistic charge from the jump.

A few people on my facebook news feed were railing how he should have been convicted of FIRST DEGREE murder. I feel like the vast majority of the people who are protesting and pissed off about the verdict is based off of emotion. The whole reason the state felt the need to prosecute him in the first place. Those who watched the trial and still felt like the verdict was wrong I think viewed the trial through a very biased lense.

Martin, a kid with no violent history,

That's actually not completely true

[Jive Turkey]

Originally Posted by iron yuppie

My question would be: why should we believe Zimmerman that these words were spoken?

But why shouldn't we believe it? I completely get what you're saying, but both situations are equally plausible. Do I think Martin meant it? No, it's a phrase or figure of speech people sometimes use. But it's still threatening.

It's rather convenient for him in this case - and several others - that the only witness to the whole thing is dead. He was getting his ass kicked, but does that warrant deadly retaliation? And was his life really in peril from a few cuts on his head and a broken nose?

Again, it's hard to say and it's hard to say when you're supposed to take action. A broken nose is insignificant to being shot, but it takes more than some pitter patter on the face. You need to use significant force to break someone's nose.

It seems highly unlikely that Martin, a kid with no violent history, is going to snap so completely that he beats someone to death.

Zimmerman knew nothing about Martin, so he wouldn't have the benefit of this information.

I say all this understanding that the legal process is not built on likelihood, but I do want to reiterate that Zimmerman benefited in many ways from being the only one left standing.

absolutely

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by nbcrusader

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.

Because Zimmerman had been stalking him for no reason. Zimmerman presented the threat at the outset.

[maycocksean]

Zimmerman had every reason to modify the story to his own advantage; he had just killed a man! I understand that nobody could prove otherwise but apart from the legal decision I think it's incredibly naive to assume that Zimmerman told the unvarnished truth. It makes more sense to assume he didn't even if that makes no difference in the legal outcome.

[KhanadaRhodes]

Originally Posted by LuckyNumber7

We're the misunderstood drama state confused of whether or not we are a product of the North or South.

definitely. i will say i'm not in the "fuck florida" camp or anything; there's no denying the cases reported happen in florida. but there are lots of incidents that happen in other states that go unreported by the national media. i don't want to go off on some tangent or seem like i'm defending any of these very fucked up cases that have happened in florida.

Originally Posted by nbcrusader

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.

my feelings on the matter are just this: we'll only ever know one side of the story, so i know we'll never know what really happened. all i can do is assume and speculate. i'm not going to deny zimmerman's injuries, but i don't think bloody nose and some cuts justifies killing another human being under any circumstances. it's got nothing to do with race, age, anything, just one person killing another, which i'm against. i wouldn't care if it were martin who killed zimmerman, i'd still think it were wrong.

[maycocksean]

Originally Posted by Jive Turkey

Here's the thing though; at what point do you decide you're either in danger of death or grievous bodily harm?

I think this is a good point. I get why Zimmerman fired. I probably would have too. But it doesn't change my belief that when you kill someone there should be some consequence.

Originally Posted by The_Pac_Mule

I guess now Al Sharpton and co are pushing the federal fucking government to get involved. Holy shit

I've heard that. I hope that doesn't happen. I don't see anybody benefiting from that.

Originally Posted by LuckyNumber7

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.

Crime Hills I don't remember it being that bad back when I lived there as a kid in the mid-eighties although I concede when we moved to Longwood in 1988, I did notice there was a real difference in the "vibe" of the neighborhood. I remember South OBT had a bad rep even then.

[ntalwar]

Originally Posted by Jive Turkey

But why shouldn't we believe it?

Maybe because of his criminal past (domestic violence and an arrest for “battery of law enforcement officer").

[iron yuppie]

Originally Posted by Jive Turkey

But why shouldn't we believe it?

Because it has enormous benefits for portraying Martin as a deadly menace, which Zimmerman had to have known was critical to his self-defense story from the beginning. I thought you were more cynical than this, Jive.

[The_Pac_Mule]

Zimmerman had every reason to modify the story to his own advantage; he had just killed a man! I understand that nobody could prove otherwise but apart from the legal decision I think it's incredibly naive to assume that Zimmerman told the unvarnished truth. It makes more sense to assume he didn't even if that makes no difference in the legal outcome.

This is how I feel. Before the trial, I had merely tuned in a little bit to certain bits the media got a hold of, sometimes damning Zimmerman, sometimes Martin. So when the trial began I started following it with a pretty open mind. I am in no way convinced by Zimmerman's version of what happened. But neither am I by the prosecutions version. The only thing I'm certain of is that there is no certainty to be found in either version of what took place. There's too many "fill in the blanks," which we can all certainly speculate about, but there's no place for that in a court of law.

[Jive Turkey]

Originally Posted by iron yuppie

Because it has enormous benefits for portraying Martin as a deadly menace, which Zimmerman had to have known was critical to his self-defense story from the beginning. I thought you were more cynical than this, Jive.

Not cynical, rational

Sure, it benefited him, but it could also have led to him taking such a drastic measure. Either Martin said it or he didn't and both are equally plausible. It's not unthinkable that someone might say that before a fight; it's a fairly common phrase that is rarely used literally. Zimmerman hasn't given any reason not to believe it. I don't believe he's been caught in any other lies. Simply dismissing it outright as a lie is placing your own preconceptions on the situation. There's simply no evidence to suggest that it wasn't truthful.

[Jive Turkey]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

Because Zimmerman had been stalking him for no reason. Zimmerman presented the threat at the outset.

But is someone following you ever a reason to attack them physically?

[iron yuppie]

Originally Posted by Jive Turkey

Simply dismissing it outright as a lie is placing your own preconceptions on the situation.

As is accepting it at face value. Maybe it's not even a "lie," but rather an invention due to him trying to rationalize the trauma he had just been through. But, yes, neither of us have any way of gaining an upper-hand here in terms of demonstrable evidence.

[anitram]

Originally Posted by Jive Turkey

But is someone following you ever a reason to attack them physically?

There are cases I remember from my criminal law classes where women walking home late at night pepper sprayed men who they thought was following them in a suspicious or stalking manner and were acquitted and what's more weren't even found liable in civil court.

[Vlad n U 2]

Apparently Zimmerman is asking African Americans to apologise to him.

Funny guy.