George Zimmerman found Not Guilty.

Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by Saturnine Pariah, Jul 14, 2013.

  1. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Zimmerman verdict leaves key question unanswered

    By Leonard Pitts Jr.

    "Let us give the jury the benefit of the doubt.

    Let us assume that, within the narrow constraints of the evidence at hand and Florida’s bizarre gun laws, six good women rendered the only verdict they could Saturday night in acquitting George Zimmerman of murder and manslaughter in the killing of Trayvon Martin. Even so, the problem remains. Whatever legal closure it gives, this verdict does not satisfy, any more than a guilty verdict would have, the central moral question here:


    Why did Zimmerman regard Trayvon as suspicious when all he did was wear a hooded sweatshirt while walking in the rain? Why did initial police reports designate Trayvon the suspect when he was actually the unarmed victim? Why was his assailant able to go home that same night?

    Trayvon’s parents have consistently rejected any notion that race played a role in his death. It was a smart position, reflecting a recognition that when race enters the conversation, reason often exits, compassion following close behind.

    But truth is, race has been there at every turn. If man and boy had both been black or white, we would never have heard of either. There likely would not even have been a shooting.

    For many of us as African-Americans, that night was a recurring nightmare driven to a horrific conclusion. It was the driving-while-black traffic stops, the “born suspect” joke that isn’t, the cost of being black in a nation that considers black the natural color of criminality.

    Some people — most of them white and on the furthest right of the political spectrum — will disagree. For them, Zimmerman is the victim here, a man who acted justifiably to defend himself. Race, they will say, did not enter the picture except afterward, when he was thrown to the mob because of it.

    And you wonder: What color is the sky on their world?

    A few years ago, What Would You Do?, an ABC-TV hidden-camera show, set up a situation where two actors posed as bike thieves in a public park, using bolt cutters and hack saws to cut a bike chain. The results were instructive. Over the course of an hour, a hundred people passed the white “thief” by with barely a glance. The black one had hardly gotten to work before a crowd of whites gathered around him, interrogating him, lecturing him, calling 911, even shooting cell phone video.

    Did race explain the disparity? “Not at all,” a white man who had harassed the black actor assured the cameras. “He could’ve been any color, it wouldn’t have mattered to me.” He doubtless believed what he said. For some of us, though, it has a tired, heard-before quality.

    It is, after all, the kind of thing some people always say when you complain of voter ID laws that will peel black voters off the rolls.

    Or when you condemn Republican presidential candidates for using “welfare” as a dog-whistle word of racial acrimony.

    Or when an unarmed boy is killed and the man who did the killing doesn’t even spend the night in jail.

    But the answer to the moral questions that killing raises is not mysterious to some of us. We know how America is. We know, for instance, that it regards black men as inherently criminal, jails them disproportionately because of that belief, then points to the fact that they are disproportionately jailed as proof of that belief. We know, in other words, that where people who look like Trayvon are concerned, America is a little nuts.

    So we know what stalked Trayvon down that street last year. We know what killed him. And we know why the people who were paid to give a damn about that, didn’t. You see, we have not the luxury of self-delusion. We have sons and grandsons and nephews, and we must teach them, too, how America is. They are cocky and invincible in the way boys always are.

    And they all look like Trayvon."

    Read more here:
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. birch Valued Senior Member

    well, of course, that proves it. thank you

    just like if i say i crapped out rainbows, that is true. look at your statement again, tm jumped out at gz? you know what?? let's go with that, EVEN IF HE DID, that doesn't give that man to kill someone! even if he did give him a bloody nose, that doesn't give someone a right to kill someone! if that's the case, we should give guns to everyone that ever gets into arguments, ever shoves or pushes another or gets into even fistfights.

    this is on top of the OUTRAGEOUS evidence or really the lack of evidence of major bodily harm on zimmerman so much so that HE DECLINED EVEN MEDICAL ATTENTION!!! people get more bodily injury from two friends duking it out sometimes!!! where is the sanity?????
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Stanley Registered Senior Member

    Birch, nearly all the fact of this case you are getting wrong. It makes no sense to keep repeating the same things like bloody nose over and over since there are medical records that state his nose was broken. From a psychological standpoint it sounds like you have bias issues and an inferiority complex but that is not the worlds problem. I am only saying this because it is not good to go through life with such animosity.

    You don't agree with the verdict, that is fine. But why keep repeating the same things over and over when we have been responding to these things for about two days now on this forum. Most people of even average intelligence are not disputing the facts of the case. They are disputing how the events unfolded, so there are no reasons to lie.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. milkweed Valued Senior Member

    What you dont get is up until the verdict came in, I thought for sure this jury of women was going to convict Zimmerman of something. I really hadnt paid much attention to this case since the initial week or two after Martin died. As we discussed this at work (in that first couple of weeks) I spoke of how I didnt see how Zimmerman could be justified. Until after the trial began and I would view info coming out after the testimony. I knew as soon as the jury wasnt back within 2 hours it was to Zimmermans benefit.

    I see exactly why Zimmerman was found Not Guilty. I dont see how I could have convicted him based on what I know of the evidence. Like it or not there was plenty of reasonable doubt for Zimmerman to walk.

    And plenty of the people screaming the loudest about this particular jury ascribe to the philosophy "All presumptive evidence of felony should be admitted cautiously; for the law holds it better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent party suffer."'s_formulation

    And as far as my being on a jury, you dont know me well enough to determine whether I would be good for you/bad for you as a jurist.
  8. birch Valued Senior Member

    Please, your statements are laughable and you are ridiculous enough to post it. Your post is what is called a cheap shot and a poor one veiling it with some decorum as to seem authoritative, informed and therefore legitimate. lmao

    Also, your idiotic armchair psychologist bluff is pathetic. This may go over your head but i will explain this to you once. A fact does not on it's own equal to automatic default legitimacy, it is how they meet context. A broken nose does not justify killing an unarmed teenager, let alone a man, dead. Can you comprehend that? it may be a little too sophisticated for you.

    As for "psychological" standpoint, do you have mental problems or are you just lazy or really obtuse? lmfao
  9. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Right. But when you don't even know what the facts of the case are it's difficult to take you seriously. So far you seem to be just making stuff up.
  10. birch Valued Senior Member

    your post is very clipped because you don't know much or is it you can't question the facts of a case very well? don't take potshots unless you have something valid or intelligent to back it up with, it just makes it obvious who is really the one that shouldn't be taken seriously. you can tell this by who responds to who and why. the most ridiculous or stupid posts are not replied to often simply by some because there is consensus or agreement, not whether someone should or shouldn't be taken seriously so don't play that dishonest game with me, it won't work. it's tired, it's pathetic and it's so disingenuous.

    zimmerman was also on antidepressants? do you even care or know that factors into whether this man deserved to have a licensed gun? ok, let's go with that should not be a sole basis of discrimination but his history of poor impulse control with assault? did you even mention that? does your own lack of possible negligence of zimmerman in the negative could be ground of suspicion that it's you who shouldn't be taken seriously? dont accuse another of bias or shouldn't be taken seriously when there are plenty of people who are biased or try to shut someone up because they are really thinking. it's just so pathetic.

    i'm making "stuff" up? if you having reading comprehension capabilities, you can see i'm not just shallowly and blindly stating some facts of a case but questioning it's relation to this case. so it's you who are making things up or not comprehending. it's also telling that zimmerman had no black eye, no bruises and no indication that he was being beaten within an inch of his life or even anywhere near that claim.

    don't pull that shit on me as i can do it to you. are you sheltered that you miss these 'facts'? or are you just a dishonest person?
  11. milkweed Valued Senior Member

    Maybe someone has already posted this:

    Shortcut version on the above:
  12. billvon Valued Senior Member

    No, it's very clipped because it's all I had to say to you.

    It's stuff like this that makes it difficult to take you seriously. From the medical report:

    Evidence: Trayvon Had Bruised Knuckles, Zimmerman Broken Nose

    by Ben Shapiro 15 May 2012
    The medical report from George Zimmerman’s family doctor after the Trayvon Martin shooting shows that Zimmerman’s nose was broken; he also had a pair of black eyes, two lacerations on the back of his head, a bruised upper lip, and a back injury. He was examined by the doctor the day after the shooting. The three-page medical report will likely be used as evidence for the defense.
  13. birch Valued Senior Member

    zimmerman's pictures were taken. he had blood running down from small lacerations neatly running down the back of his head. he had minor scratch marks on his face. his broken nose had minimal bleeding with with no indication of blood smears. he did not even have a concussion or any broken bones. trayvon's knuckles were not badly bruised, there is a difference. Key: zimmerman declined medical attention after this incident. one beaten to the point of fear for one's life does not decline medical attention right after. key: this means he was able to walk and felt well enough.

    a witness came up to them directly during the scuffle at which point they told zimmerman that they were going to call 911. he was adamant that they do not call 911, that he wanted help instead to hold trayvon down, neither did he ask if they would HELP him from this so-called aggressor!! anyone who is in fear for their life would ask someone to help THEM if they are in fear for their life! key: that is NOT the actions of one who is in 'fear' for their life. he bit off more than he could chew and he got beat up. that is still no grounds to shoot a man in the chest. end of story
  14. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Uh, a couple of things, first Zimmerman did not see a family doctor the day after the shooting. He saw physician’s assistant. There is a difference. Two, the physician’s assistant reported that Zimmerman told her the EMTs told him his nose was fractured. But because no x-rays were taken, a broken nose diagnosis could not be made with certainty.

    Two, a laceration can be anything from a scratch or abrasion to a deep skin penetration. Zimmerman’s “lacerations” were scratches and remedied with a band aid. A serious laceration would require sutures, sutures were not used or recommended for Zimmerman’s “lacerations.

    Three, there are many thinks that can cause one to have a bruised nose, a fall, walking into an object, to name a few. Not every bruised and bloodied nose is caused by a fist hitting it.

    And fourth, we really don’t know how Zimmerman incurred his injuries. We only have his account. And we know Zimmerman has trouble telling the truth, which is clearly borne out by Zimmerman’s every changing story (e.g. Martin emerged from the nonexistent bushes).

    Here is something else for you to think about, if some strange guy started following you around in a car and then by foot some dark rainy evening, would you feel threatened? Would you be justified in using lethal force to stop him from threatening you?
  15. billvon Valued Senior Member

    See, that's why it's hard to take you seriously.

    "he didn't even have a broken nose! Therefore he had NO EXCUSE to shoot that kid."
    "Here's a report showing a broken nose."
    "OK he had a broken nose. But he didn't even have any bruising! Therefore he had NO EXCUSE to shoot that kid."
    "Here's a medical report showing bruising."
    "He had only minor bruising! Therefore he had NO EXCUSE to shoot that kid."

    After a while it becomes a safe assumption that you will change your story regularly. Thus why take your posts seriously, if in your next post you'll just be saying something different anyway?
  16. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Agreed. However, a combination of a bloody nose and black eyes on one person, combined with bruised knuckles on the second person, means that it is very likely that the second person hit the first person.

    Yes, the first person may have fallen down, hit the back of his head, then tried to stand up and had tennis balls hit him in the face at the same time that the second person had to defend himself with his fists against an attacking dog. But that is very unlikely. In general the simplest explanation is the correct one.


    Only if I felt my life were in danger.
  17. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Well that is how Martin felt.
  18. birch Valued Senior Member

    another thing no one is paying any attention to is why would he have a "concealed" weapon? if trayvon knew or zimmerman made it known he had that weapon, do you think he would engage him? would it have got to this point as the facts are it was definitely not a fair situation. an unarmed person against a loaded armed man, the outcome is clear and especially if the unarmed person is not aware of it.

    zimmerman knew he was, that would embolden someone who had no problem using it. when someone is following you, you would be annoyed and ask 'what is your problem'? and trayvon martin did. if one starts attacking you physically, you let them know you have a weapon to deter them, either by sight or speech. in no way did he do that in order to deter, he is a sneak. that is not self-defense, no warning at all. a man emboldened by a concealed weapon in his waist and itching to get someone as the tapes clearly indicate, the evidence suggests that zimmerman was baiting him and looking for trouble himself.
  19. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Agreed; he likely did feel threatened.
  20. birch Valued Senior Member

    do you know how ridiculous your post sounds? you are mincing over a frigging broken nose and ignoring the whole picture. don't pretend that my posts are not to be taken seriously because i would be a hell of a lot better investigator scrutinizing a case, even compared to you. it's your post shouldn't be taken seriously and if broken noses incurred even by a punch from another justifies killing, then most males would be dead. maybe you are an extreme coward or just delusional or unusually sheltered, if you are male.
  21. billvon Valued Senior Member

    That's funny. You had your mind made up months ago, and it's clear that the facts of the case don't matter much to you now.

    "There was bruising on his hands."
    "Doesn't matter! You're ignoring the whole picture!"
    "The phone transcript says . . . ."
    "Doesn't matter! You're ignoring the whole picture!"
    "The medical examiner stated . . ."
    ""Doesn't matter! You're ignoring the whole picture!"

    Surely you can do better than that. I mean, if your entire argument is based on personal attacks on other posters, they should at least be decent attacks. "extreme coward or delusional . . . if you are male?" Not even very creative - and sexist to boot!
  22. Randwolf Ignorance killed the cat Valued Senior Member

    Aren't you guilty here of the same speculation here that you are deriding in others? How does anyone know that "that is how Martin felt"?
  23. Stanley Registered Senior Member

    The pictures taken at the scene show Zimmermans nose received trauma. The pictures of his nose taken at the scene are markedly different than the way his nose normally appears so it is impossible to conclude that his nose was not hit. Just compare the images and his nose is much larger than normal.

    I thought about him doing it at the scene himself, which is entirely possible, except multiple witnesses were observing the scene from before Martin was shot. Do a google search on broken noses and some don't even look as bad as Zimmermans photo at the scene. Multiple witnesses also said one person was on top straddling the other and the one on top was using his hands in a downward motion. From the trial no one disputed that. Remember the "dummy" that both the defense and prosecution straddled in the court room?

    Would someone be justified using lethal force in that circumstance? I cannot see how that would be justified. Are you saying that if someone is physically attacking you it is not justified to defend yourself and that if someone is following you then you are justified to use lethal force? Where are you getting this from? In the first instance it may not be justified to use lethal force, but it may be. In the second instance you call the police.

Share This Page