George Zimmerman found Not Guilty.

Racism isn't an illusion, race is though. Yes, racism is repugnant.

Aside from a verbal interaction, I'm of the opinion Zimmerman wouldn't have done anything had Trayvon not punched him in the nose. When told by the police someone had video captured the entire event (a lie the police office said to see his response) and Zimmerman exclaimed: 'Thank God, I was hoping somebody would videotape it.

Statistically young black men are more likely to be murdered by other black men, not some fat white dude. And visa-versa. Once one recognizes that the true enemy of the people is their own Government. As has been the case for millennium. Then the real story here is that black Americans are being smothered to death by a poisonous Annie Wilkes-like cloud of crippling Governmental "Services" - designed to do just that, dis-empower, weaken and cripple.

There are more African Americans in prison in the USA than Africans in prison in ALL OF AFRICA. The Zimmerman's of the World are just distracting side shows to keep the people's minds and eyes off the NSA spying warmongering 1% bailing disease that has become the federal government.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Seconded...

A small nit for the record: Zimmerman was not "fat" at the time of the shooting.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Why? As soon as Zimmerman fires in self defense, Martin has a 100% valid right to fire back. There is no question that firing a gun at someone gives that person a reasonable suspicion that they will be killed.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Michael; I'm very satisfied with your thoughtful reply.
Thank you. I dont disagree with your assertion that most likely Zimmerman wouldn't have shot Martin had he not struck him, but following someone...long enough...especially someone who might have at the very least "felt" profiled...could be seen as provoking a fight on zimmerman's part. Safe to say as well...Zimmerman wouldn't have followed Martin had he not had a gun on him.

To me, the greatest problem with this case isn't race/race-ism. (But I'm pointing out above as why it has become about race)

Rather, It is that the laws need to change:

Neighborhood watch is not synonymous with a volunteer police force. Nor should have the SYG law been abused in the way it was here. Self defense is self defense. I think the SYG law is open to too many interpretations.

And finally, Florida needs a 12 person jury system, not six.

 

I was assuming that once shot the person would not be able to shoot back. But if we assume they can: just because someone gets shot, it does not automatically switch the self defense back to them.

 

I agree, the more folks you involve in any decision, the better the odds you will include more diverse views. However, for anyone wanting a conviction, that's an obstacle. The other side of this is the way they pick juries -- the prosecution will try to eliminate women, minorities, men with beards, women with big earrings - that sort of thing - while the defense will try to choose them. It can get pretty ridiculous. I'm almost in favor of an automated system that reduces some of the errors in trials, but I also think the laws need to be relaxed, with less emphasis on retribution and more on rehabilitation. I also think all criminal prosecutions should be monitored by psychologists - on both sides. That is, both the perp and the complainant/prosecutor would be evaluated and given help during the process. Both should have their state of mind on trial, since that's what's largely at stake anyway. The jury, too, for that matter. I realize that this is not practical. I'm just saying that the pitfalls of arbitrary and subjective judgment need to get a lot more attention than they do -- more than when someone finally wins acquittal and makes headlines for a day or two after suffering decades in prison (or execution) for a crime they did not commit. But even larger than this is what society takes away from its perception that criminal justice is actually just. And that opinion varies whether you've been selected on Monday to dispense justice as a juror, or whether a month later you get to be on the receiving end as a defendant. Worst of all would be a drunk driving incident that stemmed from a binge the juror went on after feeling remorse for convicting someone . . . that is, in the rare case that that ever happens. In any case, there are exceptions to everything. The rule used to be "it's better that 99 guilty men go free than one should suffer a wrongful conviction." Most of us would tend to agree, but something happens to people when given the power of life over death. Who knows what they are subconsciously striking back at? It can be rather easy to justify convicting 99 innocent people to prevent one guilty one from going free. Judgement over one another simply forces good people to make bad choices. On the other hand, who knows if they're really that good? It's pretty easy to walk around pretending to be good while carrying a lot hatred bottled up inside. Prosecutors know this, and are ready to exploit it. Legislators, too, exploit it in their appeals to the "good people" of their districts, as seen in the pandering that accompanies the ever-expanding creation of laws designed to warehouse human beings in the one of the world's worst countries (next to China and Iran) for locking people up and throwing away the key.

 

As always...well said.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

The thing is that a jury can only convict based on the charges it is presented to deliberate upon. That was the prosecution's fault for presenting charges that didn't fit and/or not proving their case. We forget, the burden of proof was on them.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

So, the jury did its job so to speak with what it had to work with.

 

Colouring outside the lines

Tiassa, we're not friends. You don't get the 'limp standards' and 'dude' in the same sentence. It's a special kind of passive-aggressive for which mankind should have no name.

That sounds fine, but your response was a non-response:

Ding ding. First the topic, then the excuse. No, it isn't so, Geoff! But let me reiterate what I just said about social justice! Tiassa, there are societal differences in the findings of guilt in SYG according to the race of victim and perpetrator. There are societal and racial aspects of crime in general, along many axes. My question is whether Zimmerman is really the sacrifice you're looking for. I'm more concerned with the probability of his guilt than whether he's the goat the narrative demands. He might be, but maybe you should be concerned about that too. Are you focused on this case because of its prominence? Because of the detail involved (such as it is)? Are there no other cases that might make this argument for you?

Sweet: details. Neither you nor I know whether he acted properly or not. What is the limitation of the duties of a Neighbourhood Watchman? Does he ever confront a suspected criminal? Or should he? If you wanted to point out that he thought Martin was a suspect because of his race, okay: but then again, the neighbourhood had been robbed by several black teens before. You could complain about profiling, if you like. That might be fair, but accusations that Zimmerman was on a "[bad racial word] hunt" are unsupported, and probably unsupportable, and probably wrong.

A wonderful stance: now prove Zimmerman's intent. What's that? We don't know it? Done.

And the rest of your post is back to the generalist argument. I appreciate that you're pissed, but like I said: is Zimmerman the goat you're looking for? How do you know? You're dealing in inferential advocacy, and while that's not terribly different to the line that most "true Americans" might take (where'd I hear that phrase?), it's not necessarily coincident with fact. You're arguing for his guilt on social grounds, and you do so throughout your post.​

 

Seconded, generally. How can a jury of one's peers include the sadly uninformed (having never heard of the case), unless it was the trial of a presenter from Fox, or someone from the Daily Mail.

Or have we just accepted that humans are incapable of rendering unbiased decisions?

That reminds me: I'm available for the rendering of unbiased decisions, for a nominal fee. Call now, America.

 

So you are saying that under SYG you can shoot someone dead because you THINK they will try to harm you, but you cannot shoot someone dead who is actively trying to harm you? Seems a bit backwards.

 

No, that's not the scenario you seem to be describing: you can't kill someone who is just defending himself because you caused the need for self defense!

If you put someone in danger and they respond by putting you in danger, you're still the aggressor.

 

I don't get it. That's what happened in the TM case.

No. You can put someone in danger if you feel threatened. That's what SYG is all about.

 

Indeed, that is what happened to Martin. He was just walking home when Zimmerman threatened him by following him. And Zimmerman knew he had a 9mm trump card in his pocket, provided courtesy of SYG…Martin didn’t.

 

Zimmerman was stalking Martin in the middle of the night, in the rain, for no apparent reason. He got out of his vehicle, even, which was a direct threat of violence. Martin is allowed to defend himself from people who do that. The entire confrontation was Zimmerman's doing and responsibility, and considering he was armed he was at best negligent in the management of his weaponry and at worst intending actual assault.

If he had killed Martin with his car after similarly negligent driving, he would be in jail now.

You just described radically improper action, which you agree we know for sure Zimmerman performed. If you don't want to call his armed midnight stalking and threatening of homeward bound solitary black teens a "nigger hunt", we can find another term - but it will not be free of judgmental implications.

 

Agreed. And then Zimmerman felt threatened when the fight started. Had Martin had a gun, they would both have been justified in killing each other.

 

Zimmerman is guilty of negligence with a firearm, causing an inherently violent confrontation without either securing or managing his weapon. As soon as he got out of his vehicle to follow Martin while carrying a gun, he was responsible for that weapon and whatever consequences it brought - if the gun had gone off by accident even.

The choice of a half dozen women to evaluate the situation was defense lawyer smart.

 

How Long Must We Accommodate the "Disability" Known as Racism?

Well, then, Geoff, let's try this again:

"Yet almost alone among all the posters on this thread, you have concerned yourself with the social and racial aspects of violent crime in general, rather than the facts of the case."​

Given that the facts of this case reflect, and are predictable according to, the history of the social and racial aspects of violent crime in general, why are you asking such a racist question?

Oh, right.

Or would you like it a little more straightforward?

You don't get to be a self-righteous prig when you're being dishonest.

How's that?

Would you like another version of the accurate response?

What the fuck does that idiotic question mean?

Sure, I tried to answer, but apparently, this is like so many of your issues; it's not intended to be answered, but just to stir the pot.

I mean, we've long known that your marriage to reality is tenuous and loveless, but if you want people to continue accommodating your apparent disability, don't use it as a weapon. Kind of like those kids when I was in junior high who thought mental retardation was a fraud that their schoolmates were conducting in order to get special, luxurious treatment. Having a cousin with Down's syndrome, I always resented that sort of idiocy.

But I thank you for giving me insight to what those kids were saying. If nothing else, that tangential, semiprecious flake is one positive thing that comes from Florida's murder-advocacy laws. Sure, it has nothing to do with race or ethnicity, but it certainly has given me some insight into bigotry. Thank you.

Perhaps you might advise as to the significance you see in reminding people of the obvious that is already included in the record. I would suggest that if you wish to be taken in any credible context, you ought to start dealing with reality instead of tilting windmills.

That you would defend the racism of self-defense outcomes is beyond suggestive or indicative; it's conclusive.

Look, I know we only left y'all a nigger, but at least he shot y'all a nigger.

Zimmerman isn't the sacrificial lamb here, Geoff. The sacrifical lamb is dead, and exactly according to design.

Look, you have the right to be as racist as you want to be, but you don't have the right to demand respect for your racism. Or, well, technically, you have the First Amendment right to vocalize that demand, but people aren't obliged to pretend you're decent.

That you consider Zimmerman the sacrificial victim is not suggestive, or even indicative. It is conclusive.

Your dishonesty is not suggestive, or even indicative. It is conclusive evidence of your racism.

Now, pay attention to this part:

George Zimmerman was told by emergency responders to not pursue Trayvon Martin. He chose to pursue him anyway.​

Neither you nor I know whether he acted properly or not, when we have specific evidence of his impropriety?

That you would make this excuse is not suggestive, or even indicative. It is conclusive.

Yep, 'cause those fucking coons always get away with it. And like his lawyer said: If George Zimmerman had been black, he never would have been arrested.

That's the game they played, and it worked. But, like your racism, the dishonesty shown by Zimmerman, his family and friends, and his attorney Mark O'Mara, is not suggesteive or indicative; it is conclusive.

His intent was to stop an innocent black male from committing the crime that innocent black males are always guilty of.

When Zimmerman defied instruction from emergency responders in order to pursue a confrontation, he chose to pursue a confrontation. He did so carrying a gun that he knew he would use if he needed to.

His intent? His intent was to pursue a "suspect", in direct defiance of instruction from emergency response, and with the backup of his firearm.

All he had to do was not deliberately pursue a confrontation.

Why do you think his supporters were going around to the media telling conflicting stories that George allegedly told them that would erase from the chronology the fact that he pursued Trayvon Martin?

Zimmerman is not a scapegoat.

So let us get this straight: George Zimmerman is not the victim here.

And it astounds me how low racists will go in order to try to change that fact. Perhaps most astounding is not gutter altitude of their intellectual and moral faculties, but the idea that they expect other people to buy it.

Your attempt to portray George Zimmerman as the victim is, on balance in consideration of the evidence you've offered, neither suggestive or indicative of your overt racism, but, rather, conclusive.

No, Geoff. I suppose it's kind of a tough difference for racists to understand, but I'm arguing for his guilt on the evidence available to us, and against the verdict on the basis of the observable crime-and-punishment data in our society.

• • •​

It is nearly astounding to me how desperate some people are to justify the unjustified killing of a black man.

Think of it this way: The fact that people close to Zimmerman were going in front of the press and telling conflicting stories that they attributed to George is irrelevant to the murder trial. That is, they could not put his brother on the stand, and ask him to affirm that George told him the story about Trayvon Martin appearing out of nowhere when George was just innocently sitting in his truck talking on the phone and danced circles around him, yelling incoherently. Or the bit from one of his surrogates about how he just got out of his truck to read the street sign, since he didn't actually know where he was in his own damn neighborhood, and was viciously blindsided. Neither of these accounts supports the evidence on the 911 call.

Now you want to go with butterflies in Brazil and storms in Africa? By your standard, the fact that Trayvon Martin was ever born is a testament to his culpability.

Talk about desperate.

Uh huh. The police are going to tell you to simply sit there and die.

Please substantiate that ludicrously extraordinary circumstance.

Like I said, the desperation is nearly astounding. I say nearly, though, because after so many repetitions over the years, the effect no longer wears off; one is no longer surprised by the human depravity some folks are just desperate to show off.

 

No, that is not what the jury believed.

1. Zimmerman's lawyer never argued SYG and as such, Zimmerman was acquitted on standard self defense grounds.
2. Yes, but you have to have a legitimate reason to feel threatened, which you didn't cause.
3. That's not just SYG, that's all self defense.

 

That might be what you believe, but it isn't what the jury believed and if you want to argue that the verdict was flawed because the law was flawed (as opposed to just that the jury believed Zimmerman's lies), that's how you need to view it. That's why you guys are not grasping the logic of the law and of the jury verdict.

The jury believed that Zimmerman followed Martin, then Martin lost Zimmerman. That eliminates any SYG or basic self defense logic behind Martin's actions. The jury believed that Martin jumped Zimmerman and knocked him to the ground and beat him. That makes only Zimmerman's actions self defense.

If you guys want to argue the logic of a different hypothetical that's fine, but we need to be clear that that's not the basis for the jury's verdict here. The jury verdict makes sense IF Zimmerman's account is believed, which they did.

 

Oh, so you know what the jury believed? I take it you have ESP? The fact is you don’t know what the jury believed. You only know the jury’s verdict and what one juror, an esurient pro defense juror trying to market a book about her experiences as Zimmerman juror, had to say. So your bold comment about what the jury believed is very reflective of your strong bias or a severe inability to reason or some combination thereof.

With the exception of the defense courtroom argument, you cannot know the jury’s basis for their decision to acquit Zimmerman. If you take the word of the esurient pro Zimmerman juror, there were three jurors who thought Zimmerman was guilty – a fact you like to repeatedly ignore. And they were only brought to the decision to acquit by the SGY portion of the jury instructions.

“Since Zimmerman’s lawyers opted not to invoke Stand Your Ground as a defense, observers have characterized this case as a regular old “self-defense” case, rather than a “Stand Your Ground” case. But what these jury instructions make clear is that, in Florida, there is no longer an effective distinction. Stand Your Ground is the state’s self-defense law, whether or not a defendant opts to hold a hearing specifically on the question. In fact, this section on the “Justifiable Use of Deadly Force” is the only place in all 27 pages of jury instructions in which the phrase “self-defense” is used.”

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/20...-central-to-george-zimmermans-case-after-all/