George Zimmerman found Not Guilty.

Not being able to follow someone becomes a slippery slope. Havent you ever been places where the same people show up again and again? This just happened to me and my kid the other day. Went to KFC for buffet then to walmart. I saw several men there who were also at KFC. A paranoid person might have thought 'following me'. A reasonable person knows its best to food shop on a full stomach or people eat first then shop (depending on whether your buying milk or canned goods).

And how many times a week do you see news casts where Police are asking for help in solving a crime because they cant be everywhere? You know what a neighborhood watch is right? It is six of one, half dozen of another so we have to base our actions on what works best for us. And for Martin, he screwed up big time by taking a swing at Zimmerman. Flee or fight. You dont confront a predator. I always taught my kid (in relationship to child molesters) to run from strangers, especially if they have a gun.

Do you really think Martins parents taught him to confront people in such situations? Typically, parents teach their kids to come to them for help with bullies, gangsters, a$$holes, etc.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You make some extremely good points. I guess my thought is this. What does "neighborhood watch" REALLY mean? To me...it means that should I see someone acting suspiciously (not merely someone I don't know walking through my neighborhood with a hoodie on) I should notify the police. If I see a crime being committed...I should notify the police. To me, Zimmerman went way beyond what a reasonable person would do as the "neighborhood watch" guy.

Once it got to the point it did...then we know the rest of the story.

So perhaps I need a true definition of " neighborhood watch."

On another note...I'm not anti gun but I'm not pro gun either. I think if someone wants to carry a gun for protection, he/she has that right to do so. But ...Zimmerman took the chance to follow Trayvon KNOWING if he had to use his gun, he would. If a kid whom you don't know is walking through your neighborhood with a hoodie on... is grounds for assuming suspicious behavior...God help us.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I don't disagree with this in theory, but for this case at hand...Zimmerman, was the 'paranoid' one.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Right, I'm not an attorney either, I'm just a guy who watched a news story about a guy who shot another guy who was breaking into his car. It said he wasn't charged because the state law extends self defense to include the right to defend your property with deadly force from burglary. It was a long time ago, that specific case could have happened in St. Louis. However, I remember a more recent story about a guy who shot a guy through the door as he heard him banging on the door. Since its more recent, I can find it. http://www.wftv.com/news/news/local/police-homeowner-shot-killed-would-be-intruder/nGLT9/ In both cases, we don't even know what the buglars were going to steal.

 

Where were the goddamn neighbors who were willing to call 911 but not willing to go out and help someone screaming for help? Why did the media misrepresent the facts in the very beginning?

I am a woman, but if I hear someone screaming for help I would find a way to help knowing that they are probably hurt or in immediate danger. Intellectually I know that this might be dangerous but I also know it will take at least 10 minutes for law enforcement to arrive and by then someone might be dead. Is it because of the Stand Your Ground law that no one did help? Did they think it too dangerous because guns could be involved? I would like to think if I were screaming for help someone would help me at that very moment. This probably would not have happened if just one of the neighbors had the balls to intervene.


Regarding the media and how they portrayed George Zimmerman from the very beginning with no injuries and then playing an edited version of tape is inexcusable. What was their motive for doing this? Was it to get the Stand Your Ground changed, but in the process of doing this ratcheting up racial tensions?

All the prosecutors could prove beyond a reasonable doubt was that Zimmerman made terrible decisions and is a fool!

 

Quote from different article:

But whatever his [zimmermans] motives and potentially questionable actions, Zimmerman was a legal gun owner who had the right to get out of his car in his own neighborhood and poke around. The jury also said he had a full right, under Florida law, to defend himself with deadly force if he felt in fear of his life.

“Death is unfortunate, a byproduct of returning force with appropriate force,” said Robert Zimmerman, Jr., George Zimmerman’s brother, to CNN’s Piers Morgan. “The jury saw the blood, they saw what Trayvon Martin did to my brother.”

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justic...ilty-Victory-for-new-kind-of-civil-rights-era

Zimmerman didnt punch out Martin. Martin was the one who resorted to violence. Zimmermans instincts about Martin were correct. Martin did not respond in a reasonable manner to being followed. He chose to fight rather than flee. Martin wasnt defending his property. He was not on his or his dads girlfriends property when he attacked Zimmerman. Everything would have been fine if Trayvon Martin had acted in a reasonable manner and retreated to his own home. If Zimmerman continued the pursuit onto the girlfriends property/into the home then Zimmerman would have been the aggressor. But Trayvon did not follow the rules of engagement.

 

How do you know? How do you know it wasn't Zimmerman who provoked Martin? He was the one following him with a gun. Don't mistake the fact that Zimmerman got his ass kicked with him not trying to resort to violence.

Zimmerman's "instincts" about Martin were that he was a thief. What did Martin steal? Oh, right: Nothing.

Why is choosing to fight when being stalked by someone an unreasonable response? How do you know it wasn't Trayvon who feared for his life, and not the other way around? Zimmerman was the one with the gun, after all.

Neither was Zimmerman.

Irrelevant.

Again, why is fighting an unreasonable response to Zimmerman's antagonizing? And if that's so, why isn't shooting someone an unreasonable response to being punched? At least be consistent about it. Ah, but that's the problem, isn't it? You're not concerned with consistency, you're concerned with villifying the youth who had the nerve to be black at night in the wrong neighborhood.

I don't know why you're so hung up on the issue of property. Zimmerman followed Trayvon well beyond the limits of his own property, and Trayvon in fact was never on Zimmerman's land. And someone being on your property doesn't give you the right to shoot them.

 

so zimmerman provoking an incident and killing him is ok and him not do anything wrong but Martin be scared cause he is being stalked and trying to protect himself is doing something wrong?

 

I agree, that Martin acted in the wrong way. But...we don't know what happened. We suppose that Zimmerman is telling 100% the truth? I don't believe for example, that Trayvon threatened Zimmerman's life, as he purports. Honestly, we will never know what really happened that night. If Zimmerman never followed Martin, nothing would have happened. Martin for all we know, might have felt threatened and that is how he was taught to defend ...by fighting back. Who knows...but, to take Zimmerman's word for it that everything he recanted is truth...I can't do that. Two sides to every story, and somewhere in the middle is the truth.

I'm not suggesting that Martin was right in punching Zimmerman. But, to take the leap and say Zimmerman was 'right' about him. No...Zimmerman stalked the kid, frankly. Maybe this kid was tired of being 'profiled.' Zimmerman didn't profile him, but Martin might have felt that way is all I'm saying.

I presume maybe too much.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I'm grateful that there are people who will post my thoughts for me here.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Excellent points; well said!

 

Martin had NO Right to PUNCH Zimmerman. No Right. He became violent and Zimmerman defended himself. There is ~zero~ evidence Zimmerman put a finger on Martin. ~ZERO Evidence~

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:George_Zimmerman_front_of_head.jpg

Pic of Zimmerman at scene with broken nose.

Autopsy report on Martin:
http://embed.docstoc.com/docs/document-preview.aspx?doc_id=120687039

Zimmerman took punches to the face before pulling his gun. He was a legal gun owner in his gated community. Martin was not shot in the back. Martin was the aggressor and he paid with his life.

Jury didnt get to see this:

http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/05/23/3413343/weed-fights-and-guns-trayvon-text.html

In florida, being on your own property is a factor when you punch someone in the face as to whether a jury will find your killer guilty or not guilty.

If my boyfriends kid comes to my neighborhood and starts punching out the neighbors, that kid aint gonna be allowed back. Neither the dad or Martin lived there. Lil wannabe gansta messed with the wrong dude.

 

The american gov will know for a fact what happened as they can take all that geezers memories, and see if it happened like he said it did. Then they apply what happened to the laws in that state.

What ever went down, the american gov does know what happened, and they applied the law to the circumstances.

All you debating are just arguing, while you can be sure that the american gov does know what happened. Today they have techs to take your whole memories, and you can be sure they took that guys memories, and saw what happened.

Thats why i never talked about this case, as all you lot are just debating, and know nout about it. Today the gov has the techs to find out for sure in these cases, and i assume they did.

Nothing to do with racism, its your laws, and they applied what happened to those laws.

All you people are just speculating with all your own hatreds.

 

Why is the black kid a "child" in your lexicon and the white kid a "teen"? Both were 17.

 

"Shouldn't be"? Maybe not, but "isn't, so far as I can tell" is just plain wrong...

The 2012 Florida Statutes
776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—

Spoiler

(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:

(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and
(b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.
(2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or
(b) The person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or
(c) The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or
(d) The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.

(3) 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.

Spoiler

(4) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person’s dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.
(5) As used in this section, the term:
(a) “Dwelling” means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night.
(b) “Residence” means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest.
(c) “Vehicle” means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property.

Emphasis mine.

I included the irrelevant parts of the statute in spoilers in case someone would like to peruse. It would seem that FS Title XLVI 776.013 (3) is pretty clear about meeting force with force, including deadly force if he believes it necessary to prevent "bodily harm". Whether morally justified or not, the jury believed that Zimmerman was legitimately trying to prevent great bodily harm. Ergo, not guilty.

 

It's OK andy, just go back home and put your tinfoil hat on. Easy there...

 

Gotta get the right spin. Was it a responsible man protecting his neighborhood from a suspected thief and drug dealer who was casing the area? Or was it a violent criminal, with a record of assaulting cops and women, who went overboard with his cop fantasies and shot and killed an unarmed child for no good reason? Depends on which political party you're in and what your issues are.

 

Why did not one of you address the issue of not helping beyond calling 911? Is it because none of you would have helped beyond calling 911 because of how violent our society is?

 

According to one witness (i dont feel like looking it up again), he heard the fighting, told them to knock it off, went in and called 911, heard the shot and went back outside. Another heard the fight, called 911 and went out after the shot was fired. My impression is there was little time between the start of the fight and the shot fired.

The few times I have called 911, it takes a minute to get all the info through as you describe the emergency. It is not uncommon for a call to be made to 911 to get police on the move and then go offer help, especially when you believe it to be a fight (violence). When my neighbors barn was on fire, a different neighbor pounded on my door to call the fire dept, then went back to try to help. You dont want to be holding a severed artery and no ambulance coming. You dont want to be getting beaten (in the case of breaking up a fight) and no cops on the way. And just as a point of reference, I do not own a cell phone.

As far as the media portrayal, I really cant comment. It seems MSNBC may have a bit of a problem, but I have to admit I laughed when Fox failed with the fake pilot names.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=W4aQqSxlb4g

 

The bottom line I see in the case is that Zimmerman is guilty of manslaughter, which should have been an easy conviction if the murder charge had been omitted. After all, Zimmerman set the incident in motion and then killed someone.

 

I'm surprised Fraggle. Surprised that you're spinning of the story with emotional words like "stalking" and "child". Seriously? According to what definition was Zimmerman "stalking" Martin? To the other, Trayvon may have legally been a "child" but how do we demonstrate that Zimmerman was aware of the fact that Martin was shy of majority by a few months? Is it even relevant? What if (yes "if") Zimmerman suspected that Trayvon was also armed? Would he then be justified in fearing for his life? How should it have played out here in trigger-happy Florida in gun-loving USA?

Why not focus on fixing the system rather than expressing outrage over an isolated case? There is a systemic problem that needs to be addressed by the legislature but let's not use Zimmerman as a convenient scapegoat. You weren't there and neither was I. OTH, I followed the case on HLN very closely, and from what I could see there simply wasn't enough evidence presented to bolster the incendiary claims that you put forth. Let's stick with the facts, eh?