Black Teen Shot, Killed By Neighborhood Watch

Knoell said:
Why do you continue to argue that Zimmerman hated black people and was gunning for one to shoot, but he didn't shoot him, he decided he wanted to wrestle first? Does that honestly make sense to you? You can't have it both ways.

This Zimmerman guy is one brilliant strategist.
Click to expand...
What are you talking about....

Who here said Zimmerman planned to murder a kid that night? It just so happened he did, he might not have planned it, but he sure didn't hesitate to do it... MANSLAUGHTER

What people have said, was that he was REALLY prepared that night ( carrying a LOADED firearm ) to try to confront a "black" teen.

He had a GUN so like most gun nut, he felt like GOD and had BIG HUGE balls that night, that normally unarmed people don't have, so he decided to confront someone, because he can SHOOT anyone he felt threaten him because he had a GUN!!!!

 
Finger_Shocker said:
What are you talking about....

Who here said Zimmerman planned to murder a kid that night? It just so happened he did, he might not have planned it, but he sure didn't hesitate to do it... MANSLAUGHTER

What people have said, was that he was REALLY prepared that night ( carrying a LOADED firearm ) to try to confront a "black" teen.
Click to expand...
So he was REALLY prepared to go out and randomly run into a black teen? Or was he REALLY prepared to defend himself? Why do you keep trying to pair the two.

He carried a gun. Yes.

He carried a gun to try to confront a black teen. No.

You also tote manslaughter as if you didn't just recently suggest he should have gotten "at the very least manslaughter". Do you think it would be wrong to convict him of murder 2?

The rest of your assumptions are baseless arguments against gun owners.

 
Knoell said:
So he was REALLY prepared to go out and randomly run into a black teen? Or was he REALLY prepared to defend himself? Why do you keep trying to pair the two.

He carried a gun. Yes.

He carried a gun to try to confront a black teen. No.

You also tote manslaughter as if you didn't just recently suggest he should have gotten "at the very least manslaughter". Do you think it would be wrong to convict him of murder 2?

The rest of your assumptions are baseless arguments against gun owners.
Click to expand...
We all know he was over-charge so that it would placate those "blacks" when in reality the charge was made to benefit Zimmerman to make sure he gets off

 
kill3r7 said:
Ok since everyone is posting their opinion on the verdict I might as well put in my two cents. I don't much care for how the media filters everything by race. Everything is either black or white literally. For example, how come no one talks about how GZ is as white as our President. He is after all half white just like Obama, but when was the last time you ever heard the media refer to Obama as white, even though he was raised by his white mother. The media focuses on color to draw passionate responses from people and in turn sell more newspapers and get better ratings.
Click to expand...
The funny thing about the Obama stuff you're saying is that (although most all of the Black community won't admit this since he became the democratic candidate) Black people widely didn't consider Obama as Black specifically because of the reasons you named and the Blackest thing about him was Michelle. Black people view race and ethnicity generally as more than just color, but also culture. So someone raised by White people in a non-Black culture wouldn't be considered Black. By these standards, Black people also consider Zimmerman to be White, and assume that's how he views himself. Once Obama's chances of success began to look real, Blacks were all too eager to claim him.

 
renique46 said:
Sounds a lot like some white people in regards to GZ
Click to expand...
The protection from the get-go tells me that they claimed him from the beginning. Talking about him being half Hispanic was only to pretend he wasn't racially motivated. The fact that the case gained and kept national attention is enough to demonstrate that everyone really thinks of Zimmerman as White, despite his mother's ethnicity. When has anyone cared about Blacks and Hispanics killing themselves or each other?

 
i was thinking the same thing, it was kinda ironic that it seemed it was so quick to point out that GZ was hispanic now that hes a free man some people want to claim him as white.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
atreyue said:
The protection from the get-go tells me that they claimed him from the beginning. Talking about him being half Hispanic was only to pretend he wasn't racially motivated. The fact that the case gained and kept national attention is enough to demonstrate that everyone really thinks of Zimmerman as White, despite his mother's ethnicity. When has anyone cared about Blacks and Hispanics killing themselves or each other?
Click to expand...
If his name was George Sanchez I can almost guarantee things would be different.

 
Finger_Shocker said:
By the way how many times have Zimmerman called the cops or 911 about "black" kids..
Click to expand...
How many times can you call 911 on black "kids" before you're not allowed to call anymore? I've done it twice. Both times they hopped my patio and were trying to look into my apartment while I was home. How many more calls do I have left?

Does it matter what the demographics of your city are? My town is 1% black per the Census. Does it scale accordingly?

Edit: Three times actually. There were a ton of blacks who fought on my street after getting out of a limo. Best I can tell is that it was prom night because it was teenagers all dressed up around graduation time. At least one girl was arrested after she resisted police.

I can't remember calling 911 about anything else.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sigh...to think that we can be so diametrically opposed on the views we have on this case and verdict is mind boggling. Accepting the possibility that Trayvon attacked George (like the facts support) makes me a racist? There are a lot of accusations being made on here about people(GZ, TM, and other posters) that the posters have never met. Generalizing groups versus taking people as individuals who should be held responsible for their actions seems very illogical to me. Bad, stupid, worthless people exist in all races. All this talk of "claiming" GZ or TM is ridiculous. This is not a case of the white race killing a black person, its a case of misunderstanding between two individuals on a rainy night. Inflating it to racial hatred is irresponsible, reckless, and intellectually disingenuous. Its a shame that most agendas need to spin facts to emotionally inspire people.

 
egofed said:
Sigh...to think that we can be so diametrically opposed on the views we have on this case and verdict is mind boggling. Accepting the possibility that Trayvon attacked George (like the facts support) makes me a racist? There are a lot of accusations being made on here about people(GZ, TM, and other posters) that the posters have never met. Generalizing groups versus taking people as individuals who should be held responsible for their actions seems very illogical to me. Bad, stupid, worthless people exist in all races. All this talk of "claiming" GZ or TM is ridiculous. This is not a case of the white race killing a black person, its a case of misunderstanding between two individuals on a rainy night. Inflating it to racial hatred is irresponsible, reckless, and intellectually disingenuous. Its a shame that most agendas need to spin facts to emotionally inspire people.
Click to expand...
Well said. It's pretty shocking the state our society is in that people act like this.

 
egofed said:
Sigh...to think that we can be so diametrically opposed on the views we have on this case and verdict is mind boggling. Accepting the possibility that Trayvon attacked George (like the facts support) makes me a racist? There are a lot of accusations being made on here about people(GZ, TM, and other posters) that the posters have never met. Generalizing groups versus taking people as individuals who should be held responsible for their actions seems very illogical to me. Bad, stupid, worthless people exist in all races. All this talk of "claiming" GZ or TM is ridiculous. This is not a case of the white race killing a black person, its a case of misunderstanding between two individuals on a rainy night. Inflating it to racial hatred is irresponsible, reckless, and intellectually disingenuous. Its a shame that most agendas need to spin facts to emotionally inspire people.
Click to expand...
I'm so tired of this pitiful need to try to cover for this murderer. The most intellectually disingenuous thing that you so many others claim is the idea that what happened was a "case of misunderstanding between two individuals", calling it an unfortunate incident. Martin has no misunderstandings. A man was following him FOR NO REASON!!!!!! Martin was doing nothing wrong. He wasn't, as multiple posters here have tried to claim (either because they were misinformed or because they wanted to misinform to strengthen their arguments), walking up to houses and looking in windows. Zimmerman says in his own 911 call that Martin was just looking around as he walked. There's nothing crazy or suspicious about that. You can't case a house from the street. He was only walking home from the store. Zimmerman talks repeatedly during his 911 call about something being wrong with Martin, he's got something in his hands, he has something in his waistband. Martin says on the phone with his friend that he's being followed by a creepy ass cracker. Which of them was correct? Yet people on here claim that Martin was the paranoid one. Zimmerman armed himself and pursued a boy on foot after trailing him in his car and calling the police on him for walking. Which of the two was suspicious again? Zimmerman clearly says on his call either "f-cking goons" or "fucking coons", but someone here has the nerve to try to claim he said "It's f-cking cold"? There is absolutely no way you could listen to the recording and really believe that he said "cold". None. On top of that, you claim that the altercation started with Martin confronting Zimmerman when it obviously started with Zimmerman following Martin. Why? Because it's the only way you could even begin to claim that the agressor was actually acting in self-defense. Yet you have the gall to call anyone else intellectually disingenuous?!?

The law found him not guilty, so now we know he didn't do anything wrong. Bullshit. Criminals get off all the time. Multiple people here have brought up OJ Simpson, as if to suggest that somehow the cosmic racial scales are balanced because two guilty people managed to get off because of shitty jobs done by the prosecution. Yet, while insinuating this, still claim that Zimmerman really didn't do anything wrong, just something 'unfortunate'. Pretend that he's some hero just trying to keep the streets safe. Last I checked, killing innocent people isn't the way to do that. Last I checked, the neighborhood watch is only supposed to do two things: watch and report. Not kill innocent high school children.

 
dilemna said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=01nSGb6waE8&NR=1&feature=endscreen To further egofeds point a great video on this whole issue.
Click to expand...
You post this link and fail to even recognize that you are yourself just regurgitating a mainstream media viewpoint. What could possibly be more mainstream than the most popular news channel by far? Both "sides" of the political spectrum are playing the same game. Telling you to pick one of these two - and only these two - sides and then you need to identify yourself the way that they decide and only root for your team to win. You should consider applying that video to this whole liberal/republican thing eating at you. The government isn't divided, despite all appearances to the contrary. It's wholly invested in one thing: dividing Americans so that they can consolidate more and more power at the cost of your freedoms.

 
Finger_Shocker said:
We all know he was over-charge so that it would placate those "blacks" when in reality the charge was made to benefit Zimmerman to make sure he gets off
Click to expand...
Then what was throwing the manslaughter charge in there for? To cover up the plan of the obvious cover up to make sure Zimmerman gets off?

Hmmm not a very effective plan.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
atreyue said:
I'm so tired of this pitiful need to try to cover for this murderer. The most intellectually disingenuous thing that you so many others claim is the idea that what happened was a "case of misunderstanding between two individuals", calling it an unfortunate incident. Martin has no misunderstandings. A man was following him FOR NO REASON!!!!!! Martin was doing nothing wrong. He wasn't, as multiple posters here have tried to claim (either because they were misinformed or because they wanted to misinform to strengthen their arguments), walking up to houses and looking in windows. Zimmerman says in his own 911 call that Martin was just looking around as he walked. There's nothing crazy or suspicious about that. You can't case a house from the street. He was only walking home from the store. Zimmerman talks repeatedly during his 911 call about something being wrong with Martin, he's got something in his hands, he has something in his waistband. Martin says on the phone with his friend that he's being followed by a creepy ass cracker. Which of them was correct? Yet people on here claim that Martin was the paranoid one. Zimmerman armed himself and pursued a boy on foot after trailing him in his car and calling the police on him for walking. Which of the two was suspicious again? Zimmerman clearly says on his call either "f-cking goons" or "fucking coons", but someone here has the nerve to try to claim he said "It's f-cking cold"? There is absolutely no way you could listen to the recording and really believe that he said "cold". None. On top of that, you claim that the altercation started with Martin confronting Zimmerman when it obviously started with Zimmerman following Martin. Why? Because it's the only way you could even begin to claim that the agressor was actually acting in self-defense. Yet you have the gall to call anyone else intellectually disingenuous?!?

The law found him not guilty, so now we know he didn't do anything wrong. Bullshit. Criminals get off all the time. Multiple people here have brought up OJ Simpson, as if to suggest that somehow the cosmic racial scales are balanced because two guilty people managed to get off because of shitty jobs done by the prosecution. Yet, while insinuating this, still claim that Zimmerman really didn't do anything wrong, just something 'unfortunate'. Pretend that he's some hero just trying to keep the streets safe. Last I checked, killing innocent people isn't the way to do that. Last I checked, the neighborhood watch is only supposed to do two things: watch and report. Not kill innocent high school children.
Click to expand...
There is NO evidence that GZ broke any laws that night. Eye witness testimony, ballistics evidence, injury evidence, forensic evidence, hell, an orgy of evidence puts TM on top of GZ. You are truly being intellectually dishonest if you can not reasonably believe that TM possibly attacked GZ, making him fear for his life. You have nothing but speculation that GZ started the fight, or did ANYTHING illegal. Provide some evidence or accept that reasonable doubt exists and self defense was a reasonable action. What should GZ have done once TM was on top of him?

 
Knoell said:
Seriously? You guys are definitely the media's target market. Jesus Christ.
Click to expand...
i don't think there was enough evidence pointing to self-defense for the cops to not charge him with something. You don't even need to factor in race for me to reach that conclusion. The police don't have to prove reasonable doubt before they charge someone. No matter what people want to claim, it wasn't cut and dry and should surely have warranted at least more of an investigation that was given. Instead of trying to downplay anything that doesn't fit your narrative and need to avoid this having anything to do with race, consider that at the very least Zimmerman was the son of a retired judge and certainly seemed to receive preferential treatment as a result.

To examine Zimmerman himself from a racial and ethnic component, as far as American standards on these things go, I believe that it's safe to say that to identify Zimmerman himself as White is probable. The dominant parent is white and held a high position and power within the community. I don't think the community he was raised in has a strong Peruvian presence. Zimmerman himself can 'pass' for White, although not as well as his brother. I'm actually curious to hear what other people think about that, particularly White people. I know that the 'rules' can seem byzantine to someone who is caucasian. For example, even though Obama looks Black, since he was raised by his White mother in non-Black environments and locales American Black people will indentified him as White prior to his becoming a serious Presidential candidate. I assume White people always considered him to be Black. Conversely, if his father had even been present, Blacks would consider Obama Black as well.

 
egofed said:
Hehehehehhee...thanks for the new favorite.
Click to expand...
This one is my favorite

''Larry Elder ‏@larryelder 14 Jul

After GZ's acquittal, @msnbc today begins a new national search for the next Great White Bigot. Apply online or in person.


Expand ''



  1. Larry Elder ‏@larryelder 27 Jun
    Apparently Zimmerman is to report only non-black suspicious persons. Or maybe alternate between a black suspicious person and a white one.


    Expand



  2. Larry Elder ‏@larryelder 27 Jun
    About the (apparently) handpicked-by-prosecution non- emergency calls made Zimmerman. He's a bigot because all five persons were black?



 
Last edited by a moderator:
egofed said:
There is NO evidence that GZ broke any laws that night. Eye witness testimony, ballistics evidence, injury evidence, forensic evidence, hell, an orgy of evidence puts TM on top of GZ. You are truly being intellectually dishonest if you can not reasonably believe that TM possibly attacked GZ, making him fear for his life. You have nothing but speculation that GZ started the fight, or did ANYTHING illegal. Provide some evidence or accept that reasonable doubt exists and self defense was a reasonable action. What should GZ have done once TM was on top of him?
Click to expand...
There is also no evidence that he didn't break any laws. We only have his word for it, and he wouldn't even give that on the stand. My main issue with your entire premiseis that you choose to start the clock, as it were, with Martin hitting Zimmerman (presumably first), repeatedly talking about how Zimmerman had done nothing illegal up to that point. Ignoring all of Zimmerman's actions is disingenuous because it makes it impossible to examine the intent behind either of their actions. I personally think that Martin was definding hismelf when and if he struck Zimmerman. If striking Zimmerman is assault, surely stalking Martin is harrassment or something on the books. At this point, I want to be convinced on something other than technicalities. One of the most annoying things about trying to discuss or debate things with people online or in person these days is that no one feels like they need a substantive argument. They just want to make claims. I'd like to try to have an actual intellectual discussion with you and anyone else who would like to participate where we don't just isolate the parts of the incident that are most favorable to the stance that we have already taken and toss out everything else.Where you make a point and I make a counterpoint and you respond. I like that you did respond to what i said with something other than a one-liner. I've made direct responses to people that post here often before and they have simply ignored what I said and it gives the appearance that they just don't have a ready-made response that they read somewhere else to regurgitate at me.

 
The niece of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. says she is not a fan of the viral image of her uncle wearing a hoodie in support of Trayvon Martin. The image, created by artist Nikkolas Smith and spread widely by activist Van Jones on Twitter, shows a contemplative King wearing the garment, which has become a symbol of support for the slain 17-year-old.

“I can almost promise you Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. would not wear a hoodie,” said Alveda King on the Andrea Tantaros radio show Tuesday when asked about the image. Alveda King is a former state representative in Georgia and a right-wing anti-abortion activist and minister.

King said she and two of her cousins are calling on Americans not to “fight or debate” about the case, which she thinks did not raise any significant racial issues. The 29-year-old neighborhood watchman who shot the unarmed Martin, George Zimmerman, was acquitted of all charges against him on Saturday. Zimmerman is half Hispanic, Martin was black. “You've got two grieving and hurting families,” King said, before quoting her uncle. “We all need to live together as brothers.”

Tantaros asked King if she had seen the hoodie photo. “What do you think of this image? And what would your uncle think?” she asked.

“Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. would very likely not wear a hoodie,” she said. “I can assure you he would not wear sagging pants. I don't even think I’ve ever even seen his sons with sagging pants.” King then said the verdict had been reached and that Americans must accept it, before adding again, seemingly agitated, “I can almost promise you Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. would not wear a hoodie.“

 
atreyue said:
There is also no evidence that he didn't break any laws. We only have his word for it, and he wouldn't even give that on the stand. My main issue with your entire premiseis that you choose to start the clock, as it were, with Martin hitting Zimmerman (presumably first), repeatedly talking about how Zimmerman had done nothing illegal up to that point. Ignoring all of Zimmerman's actions is disingenuous because it makes it impossible to examine the intent behind either of their actions. I personally think that Martin was definding hismelf when and if he struck Zimmerman. If striking Zimmerman is assault, surely stalking Martin is harrassment or something on the books. At this point, I want to be convinced on something other than technicalities. One of the most annoying things about trying to discuss or debate things with people online or in person these days is that no one feels like they need a substantive argument. They just want to make claims. I'd like to try to have an actual intellectual discussion with you and anyone else who would like to participate where we don't just isolate the parts of the incident that are most favorable to the stance that we have already taken and toss out everything else.Where you make a point and I make a counterpoint and you respond. I like that you did respond to what i said with something other than a one-liner. I've made direct responses to people that post here often before and they have simply ignored what I said and it gives the appearance that they just don't have a ready-made response that they read somewhere else to regurgitate at me.
Click to expand...
I agree that it is incredibly difficult to have an intelligent discussion online or in person because people often times have made up their mind and are not willing to listen to your argument. I think we are all guilty of this. It has become second nature for me to actively try to find holes in ones argument as I'm reading it, instead of taking it all in and thinking about it. Anyhow, I digress.

As I stated in my original post, I do think that GZ could/should have been found guilty of a lesser charge. I don't think anyone could deny that the entire series of events was set in motion by GZ but where opinions differ is what happened after that initial encounter. IMO there wasn't sufficient/conclusive evidence (in a court of law) for Murder 2. The prosecution's witnesses did them no favors. The detective corroborated GZ's story which was a big blow to the prosecution. Maybe a more gifted prosecutor could have told a more compelling story and established a picture in which GZ remained the aggressor throughout the altercation but I doubt it. There just wasn't enough evidence. Ultimately, in failing to prove Murder 2 the prosecution hurt their chances at a manslaughter because ultimately their theory of the case was disjointed.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
A former employee at the Florida State Attorney office is preparing a whistleblower lawsuit against Zimmerman’s prosecutors after testifying that they failed to turn over evidence he obtained from Martin’s cell phone to the defense, his attorney told Reuters.

^ What the hell is this all about?

 

 
GBAstar said:
A former employee at the Florida State Attorney office is preparing a whistleblower lawsuit against Zimmerman’s prosecutors after testifying that they failed to turn over evidence he obtained from Martin’s cell phone to the defense, his attorney told Reuters.

^ What the hell is this all about?
Click to expand...
I think the sentence above sums it up pretty well. It is the person who told the defense that the prosecution had not turned over all the evidence. He/she was let go(fired) a couple of days ago by the FSA for violating their code of conduct. He is trying to get protection under the whistleblower act so he can either get his job back or make some MONEY.

 
kill3r7 said:
I agree that it is incredibly difficult to have an intelligent discussion online or in person because people often times have made up their mind and are not willing to listen to your argument. I think we are all guilty of this. It has become second nature for me to actively try to find holes in ones argument as I'm reading it, instead of taking it all in and thinking about it. Anyhow, I digress.

As I stated in my original post, I do think that GZ could/should have been found guilty of a lesser charge. I don't think anyone could deny that the entire series of events was set in motion by GZ but where opinions differ is what happened after that initial encounter. IMO there wasn't sufficient/conclusive evidence (in a court of law) for Murder 2. The prosecution's witnesses did them no favors. The detective corroborated GZ's story which was a big blow to the prosecution. Maybe a more gifted prosecutor could have told a more compelling story and established a picture in which GZ remained the aggressor throughout the altercation but I doubt it. There just wasn't enough evidence. Ultimately, in failing to prove Murder 2 the prosecution hurt their chances at a manslaughter because their ultimately their theory of the case felt disjointed.
Click to expand...
I can't disagree with anything about the court case itself that you've put forth. There are things that I've heard but will probably not bother to dig up myself, like the instruction not to use the phrase "racial profiling" that point mostly to the ineptitude of the prosecution. But I do want to find the instruction that the jury received regarding murder 2 and manslaughter that should shed a lot of light on how the verdict was reached. Someone posted a link to it somehwere in my facebook; I'll have to track it down and post it here.

 
atreyue said:
I can't disagree with anything about the court case itself that you've put forth. There are things that I've heard but will probably not bother to dig up myself, like the instruction not to use the phrase "racial profiling" that point mostly to the ineptitude of the prosecution. But I do want to find the instruction that the jury received regarding murder 2 and manslaughter that should shed a lot of light on how the verdict was reached. Someone posted a link to it somehwere in my facebook; I'll have to track it down and post it here.
Click to expand...
They are the standard jury instructions in the State of FL with some slight modifications. I was having a discussion with speedracer so I have them handy but be forewarned they are 27 pages long.

Jury Instructions

 
atreyue said:
There is also no evidence that he didn't break any laws. We only have his word for it, and he wouldn't even give that on the stand. My main issue with your entire premiseis that you choose to start the clock, as it were, with Martin hitting Zimmerman (presumably first), repeatedly talking about how Zimmerman had done nothing illegal up to that point. Ignoring all of Zimmerman's actions is disingenuous because it makes it impossible to examine the intent behind either of their actions. I personally think that Martin was definding hismelf when and if he struck Zimmerman. If striking Zimmerman is assault, surely stalking Martin is harrassment or something on the books. At this point, I want to be convinced on something other than technicalities. One of the most annoying things about trying to discuss or debate things with people online or in person these days is that no one feels like they need a substantive argument. They just want to make claims. I'd like to try to have an actual intellectual discussion with you and anyone else who would like to participate where we don't just isolate the parts of the incident that are most favorable to the stance that we have already taken and toss out everything else.Where you make a point and I make a counterpoint and you respond. I like that you did respond to what i said with something other than a one-liner. I've made direct responses to people that post here often before and they have simply ignored what I said and it gives the appearance that they just don't have a ready-made response that they read somewhere else to regurgitate at me.
Click to expand...
I appreciate the "friendly" discussions much more myself also. I totally agree that forum debates are much weaker than face to face discussions.

I also agree that we have zero evidence that GZ DIDN'T break any laws, but that is meaningless against actual presented facts. Would you be comfortable sentencing a possibly innocent man to 30 years in jail based on assumptions of things he might have done(without any evidence)?Reasonable doubt covers this. We can't be sure either way, so we are forced to make our decision based on the actual evidence that places TM on top of GZ, etc. Better to let 1000 guilty men go than imprison 1 innocent man, right? I ask you again, what should GZ have done once TM mounted him?

As far as ignoring GZ's actions, none of his CONFIRMED actions were illegal. Hypothetical actions are and should be meaningless in court. It should come down to "What can you prove." I think isolating the facts from conjecture is definitelty the way to go. I also don't think that GZ's actions meet the legal standard for stalking. I'll have to check on that definition.

 
egofed said:
I appreciate the "friendly" discussions much more myself also. I totally agree that forum debates are much weaker than face to face discussions.

I also agree that we have zero evidence that GZ DIDN'T break any laws, but that is meaningless against actual presented facts. Would you be comfortable sentencing a possibly innocent man to 30 years in jail based on assumptions of things he might have done(without any evidence)?Reasonable doubt covers this. We can't be sure either way, so we are forced to make our decision based on the actual evidence that places TM on top of GZ, etc. Better to let 1000 guilty men go than imprison 1 innocent man, right? I ask you again, what should GZ have done once TM mounted him?

As far as ignoring GZ's actions, none of his CONFIRMED actions were illegal. Hypothetical actions are and should be meaningless in court. It should come down to "What can you prove." I think isolating the facts from conjecture is definitelty the way to go. I also don't think that GZ's actions meet the legal standard for stalking. I'll have to check on that definition.
Click to expand...

Florida Stalking Law

Section 784.048 Stalking; Definitions; Penalties

(1) As used in this section, the term:

(a) "Harass" means to engage in a course of conduct directed at a specific person that causes substantial emotional distress in such person and serves no legitimate purpose.

(b) "Course of conduct" means a pattern a conduct composed of series of acts over a period of time, however short, evidencing a continuity of purpose. Constitutionally protected activity is not included within the meaning of "corse of conduct". Such constitutionally protected activity includes picketing or other organized protests.

(c)"Credible threat" means a threat made with the intent to cause the person who is the target of the threat to reasonably fear for his or her safety. The threat must be against the life of, or a threat to cause bodily injury to, a person.

(2) Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows or harasses another person commits the offense of stalking, a misdemeanor of the first degree.

(3) Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows or harasses another person, and makes a credible threat with the intent to place that person in reasonable fear of death or bodily injury, commits the offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third degree.

(4) Any person who, after an injunction fro protection against violence pursuant to s. 784.046, or an injunction for protection against domestic violence pursuant to s. 741.30, or after any other court-imposed prohibition of conduct toward the subject person that person's property, knowingly, willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows or harasses another person commits the offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third degree.

(5) Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows or harasses a minor under 16 years of age commits the offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third degree.

(6) Any law enforcement officer may arrest, without a warrant, any person he or she has probable cause to believe has violated the provisions of this section.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
atreyue said:
i don't think there was enough evidence pointing to self-defense for the cops to not charge him with something. You don't even need to factor in race for me to reach that conclusion. The police don't have to prove reasonable doubt before they charge someone. No matter what people want to claim, it wasn't cut and dry and should surely have warranted at least more of an investigation that was given. Instead of trying to downplay anything that doesn't fit your narrative and need to avoid this having anything to do with race, consider that at the very least Zimmerman was the son of a retired judge and certainly seemed to receive preferential treatment as a result.

To examine Zimmerman himself from a racial and ethnic component, as far as American standards on these things go, I believe that it's safe to say that to identify Zimmerman himself as White is probable. The dominant parent is white and held a high position and power within the community. I don't think the community he was raised in has a strong Peruvian presence. Zimmerman himself can 'pass' for White, although not as well as his brother. I'm actually curious to hear what other people think about that, particularly White people. I know that the 'rules' can seem byzantine to someone who is caucasian. For example, even though Obama looks Black, since he was raised by his White mother in non-Black environments and locales American Black people will indentified him as White prior to his becoming a serious Presidential candidate. I assume White people always considered him to be Black. Conversely, if his father had even been present, Blacks would consider Obama Black as well.
Click to expand...
Plain and simple normal people do not think like this. I mean you can use hindsight to take all the evidence and evaluate just what shade someone is but again normal people don't do that.

As for police "being able to charge someone without sufficient evidence" that is simply not true.

Investigator Chris Serino of the Sanford, Fla. Police Department wanted the 28-year-old Zimmerman behind bars, but the state Attorney's Office said there was not enough evidence to lead to a conviction, sources told ABC.
Click to expand...
Let me ask you something.

If the system can screw up for a white on white crime and a white person either get away with something or be convicted unjustly doesn't that lead to the potential for something similar to happen on a white on black crime that doesn't involve racism?

 
Thanks , Killer7. I definitely think TM felt stressed about being followed, but the word repeatedly makes it not fit. Plus it has to be "substantial emotional distress in such person and serves no legitimate purpose." Trayvon probably would have run home if he was truly afraid.(Conjecture ;) ) There was a legitimate purpose, I know many will blast me for this, in GZ's mind. The dispatcher also asked where he was and where TM went. I think if this would have fit the scenario, then the prosecution would have stressed it.

 
GBAstar said:
A former employee at the Florida State Attorney office is preparing a whistleblower lawsuit against Zimmerman’s prosecutors after testifying that they failed to turn over evidence he obtained from Martin’s cell phone to the defense, his attorney told Reuters.

^ What the hell is this all about?
Click to expand...
The prosecution were witholding information from the defense. This guy knew about it and thought it wasn't right. So he told people and they fired him for it.

 
kill3r7 said:
Florida Stalking Law

Section 784.048 Stalking; Definitions; Penalties

(1) As used in this section, the term:

(a) "Harass" means to engage in a course of conduct directed at a specific person that causes substantial emotional distress in such person and serves no legitimate purpose.

(b) "Course of conduct" means a pattern a conduct composed of series of acts over a period of time, however short, evidencing a continuity of purpose. Constitutionally protected activity is not included within the meaning of "corse of conduct". Such constitutionally protected activity includes picketing or other organized protests.

(c)"Credible threat" means a threat made with the intent to cause the person who is the target of the threat to reasonably fear for his or her safety. The threat must be against the life of, or a threat to cause bodily injury to, a person.

(2) Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows or harasses another person commits the offense of stalking, a misdemeanor of the first degree.

(3) Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows or harasses another person, and makes a credible threat with the intent to place that person in reasonable fear of death or bodily injury, commits the offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third degree.

(4) Any person who, after an injunction fro protection against violence pursuant to s. 784.046, or an injunction for protection against domestic violence pursuant to s. 741.30, or after any other court-imposed prohibition of conduct toward the subject person that person's property, knowingly, willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows or harasses another person commits the offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third degree.

(5) Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows or harasses a minor under 16 years of age commits the offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third degree.

(6) Any law enforcement officer may arrest, without a warrant, any person he or she has probable cause to believe has violated the provisions of this section.
Click to expand...
Willfully

Said or done on purpose; deliberate

Maliciously

having or showing a desire to cause harm to someone : given to, marked by, or arising from malice <malicious gossip

Repeatedly

More than once; again and again

makes a credible threat with the intent to place that person in reasonable fear of death or bodily injury

Doubt he could be charged with stalking when what he did doesn't fit 90% of the definition of the law.

Do we think that if Martin had a gun and turned around and shot Zimmerman, he should be charged with manslaughter or murder 2?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Knoell said:
Willfully

Said or done on purpose; deliberate

Maliciously

having or showing a desire to cause harm to someone : given to, marked by, or arising from malice <malicious gossip

Repeatedly

More than once; again and again

makes a credible threat with the intent to place that person in reasonable fear of death or bodily injury

Doubt he could be charged with stalking when what he did doesn't fit 90% of the definition of the law.

Do we think that if Martin had a gun and turned around and shot Zimmerman, he should be charged with manslaughter or murder 2?
Click to expand...
Thx for the definitions, I always had a hard time interpreting statutes in law school. Unfortunately, I don't have the time right now, got a meeting in a few, but I'll come back with a plausible scenario to show stalking.

As to the manslaughter/murder 2 question... the answer is yes. TM could claim SD (but would need to show that he saw the gun) but I think he would have a better case of SYG especially when you consider that his home was a few hundred away.

 
kill3r7 said:
Thx for the definitions, I always had a hard time interpreting statutes in law school. Unfortunately, I don't have the time right now, got a meeting in a few, but I'll come back with a plausible scenario to show stalking.

As to the manslaughter/murder 2 question... the answer is yes. TM could claim SD (but would need to show that he saw the gun) but I think he would have a better case of SYG especially when you consider that his home was a few hundred away.
Click to expand...
A plausible scenario? Wouldn't that put us back into the realm of hypothetical? I think you would need a strong jury bias to get them to buy into this stalking scenario. Do most stalkers converse with the police while stalking???

 
GBAstar said:
I gathered that much... BUT what information were they withholding?
Click to expand...
This obviously angry termination followed his extraction of photos from the cell phone of shooting victim Trayvon Martin that showed a gun, a marijuana plant and jewelry, as well as a text message referring to a gun transaction.

 
renique46 said:
lol @ 1 of the jurors wanting to use this opportunity to write a goddamn book. Once again just bugs bunny Florida already
Click to expand...
Have you guys heard the horseshit that came out of this juror's mouth? Listening to this juror you can see why the verdict turned out the way it did. It's the embodiment of the racist underpinnings of America. Not the post-racial fairy tale the cons want to believe.

Is Juror B37 Racist?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GS-V-cjsIjM&feature=share&list=SPTpcK80irdQi4QBHYn5StEpbz51o4jccu

 
Last edited by a moderator:
egofed said:
Sigh...to think that we can be so diametrically opposed on the views we have on this case and verdict is mind boggling. Accepting the possibility that Trayvon attacked George (like the facts support) makes me a racist? There are a lot of accusations being made on here about people(GZ, TM, and other posters) that the posters have never met. Generalizing groups versus taking people as individuals who should be held responsible for their actions seems very illogical to me. Bad, stupid, worthless people exist in all races. All this talk of "claiming" GZ or TM is ridiculous. This is not a case of the white race killing a black person, its a case of misunderstanding between two individuals on a rainy night. Inflating it to racial hatred is irresponsible, reckless, and intellectually disingenuous. Its a shame that most agendas need to spin facts to emotionally inspire people.
Click to expand...
Why do I keep hearing the word "rainy" by right-wing fucktards? Oh that's right, the right-wing noise machine keeps telling me this and I have to hear it and it is used subtly and not so subtly to question TM's presence in his own neighborhood. How dare you rainwalkers scare pussy gun-toting racists! How dare thee! All those terrible deaths and confusion due to rain! And those hoodies (AKA sweatshirts)!!! How dare people wear those and wear those in rain! GUILTY!

And yes, how could race and racism factor in?!?!?! HOW COULD IT?!?!?! OH MY!!!! Especially when the defendant was racist (per his cousin (and a sexual molester))?!?!?!? He must have just turned it all off when he profiled Martin. Did I mention this strapping citizen beat women? He had a restraining order per an ex. Now, that doesn't mean that he's aggressive at all.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
egofed said:
A plausible scenario? Wouldn't that put us back into the realm of hypothetical? I think you would need a strong jury bias to get them to buy into this stalking scenario. Do most stalkers converse with the police while stalking???
Click to expand...
The case for stalking was never brought forth in a court of law, as such I don't have access to all the facts/evidence. Thus, speculation is all that's left.

Here's my hypo if you want to read it:

Let's tart off with the premise that both parties had a right to be there. GZ had a right to be where he was because he was part of the neighborhood watch and TM had a right to be where he was because he lived there among a slew of other reasons.

GZ approaches TM the first time. This act is okay in and of itself because GZ is only doing his job (I won't address the issue of whether or not he was violating neighborhood watch regulations by carrying a loaded weapon). However, based on what I know GZ never identified himself as part of neighborhood watch nor did he have on a vest or some form of identification to notify others that he was part of neighborhood watch.

TM on the other hand was suspicious of GZ (a total stranger who was following him in a car) corroborated by Jeantel's testimony. He was afraid of him. This fear of GZ was displayed in his decision to run towards safety, his home.

GZ interpreted TM's decision to run as a sign of guilt. In his mind TM was already guilty. So following protocol GZ notified the police. While talking to them he identified the suspect as black and that he's tired of these "punks" getting away with it. At this point he decides to ignore the dispatchers advice and pursued TM. He has now stopped acting within the confines of neighborhood watch or the law. GZ has now left his vehicle and is in pursuit of TM. He is armed (this in itself is sufficient to establish malicious intent) and in pursuit of TM with the intent to stop that punk from getting away with it (as he told the dispatcher).

TM realizes that GZ is now following him. He panics and instead of running home decides to confront GZ. We know what happens next.

And that could be sufficient to bring prove aggravated stalking.

 
So, here are some responses from right-wing supporters of Zimmerman I got on facebook. Talk about letting it all out... This is what's stewing in the conservative mind. Now, if you can't see how these are racist, you are shaqfu'd!

***, I am certain that you will now liquidate all assets and sell any and all belongings and split EVENLY between Bill, myself and barry. Bill will most likely use it to support his family, barry will go on a golfing holiday, myself...well I can now buy crack, spinner rims, a LV bag and matching shoes. You in return will receive nothing but the pure satisfaction of helping out your fellow man. Just in case, please thank G.W. Bush for the free phones as he is the one who started the program.....NO WATCH OUT WORLD MOMMA NEEDS A NEW PAIR OF SHOES! Pssstt! ***, MLK was a registered Republican.
Click to expand...
"is there a return policy to Africa?"
Click to expand...
as stated above, there will ALWAYS be class distinction....tell me how motivating it is to a person to rise above their circumstances, when Section 8 housing isn't available where houses cost 150k or more, what incentive is there for a person to work when they have rent, food, heat, cable, medical, future subsidized cars paid for. Jobs, given because they are 1) a person of color 2) an ex-con 3) disabled 4) a person out of rehab. Does the White, heterosexual, wealthy FORCE people to live in areas that are crime and drug ridden OR is there a choice that people can make and rise above their station in life. Can they go to school or trade school? Yes. Can they learn to read and write? Yes. Can they choose to not do drugs? Yes. Can a person of color do that here in the USA? Yes. Do they? Sometimes. How fair is it to a person black, white, yellow, brown, male, female, to be chosen over for a job, seat in a class because the organization MUST meet a quota of blacks, white, latino, ex-cons, recovering addicts, females, males, when some of them can't read, do math above a 3rd grade level. Who do we see about that? There is no incentive rise due to the rewards they are given. I judge on a person by person basis, if, however, a person displays a mentality of the mob, they have earned the racist, bigoted opinion of them.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
kill3r7 said:
The case for stalking was never brought forth in a court of law, as such I don't have access to all the facts/evidence. Thus, speculation is all that's left.

Here's my hypo if you want to read it:

Let's tart off with the premise that both parties had a right to be there. GZ had a right to be where he was because he was part of the neighborhood watch and TM had a right to be where he was because he lived there among a slew of other reasons.

GZ approaches TM the first time. This act is okay in and of itself because GZ is only doing his job (I won't address the issue of whether or not he was violating neighborhood watch regulations by carrying a loaded weapon). However, based on what I know GZ never identified himself as part of neighborhood watch nor did he have on a vest or some form of identification to notify others that he was part of neighborhood watch.

TM on the other hand was suspicious of GZ (a total stranger who was following him in a car) corroborated by Jeantel's testimony. He was afraid of him. This fear of GZ was displayed in his decision to run towards safety, his home.

GZ interpreted TM's decision to run as a sign of guilt. In his mind TM was already guilty. So following protocol GZ notified the police. While talking to them he identified the suspect as black and that he's tired of these "punks" getting away with it. At this point he decides to ignore the dispatchers advice and pursued TM. He has now stopped acting within the confines of neighborhood watch or the law. GZ has now left his vehicle and is in pursuit of TM. He is armed (this in itself is sufficient to establish malicious intent) and in pursuit of TM with the intent to stop that punk from getting away with it (as he told the dispatcher).

TM realizes that GZ is now following him. He panics and instead of running home decides to confront GZ. We know what happens next.

And that could be sufficient to bring prove aggravated stalking.
Click to expand...
Trayvon had a phone right? He could have called the police after he spotted GZ, continued to walk home where he would be safe (from where he was found to where he lived was about a 30 second walk) and had the best of both worlds by going to safety and getting the other guy in trouble. Why would you ever confront a stranger in the dark and pouring rain unless you thought you could take them or were incredibly brave? Also as some would believe, if GZ had a gun trained on TM from a distance impossible for TM to close without getting shot than wouldn't you take off, you are screwed if you believe you are being killed because of your skin color, and its hard to prove self defense when you get shot in the back.

 
joeboosauce said:
Why do I keep hearing the word "rainy" by right-wing fucktards? Oh that's right, the right-wing noise machine keeps telling me this and I have to hear it and it is used subtly and not so subtly to question TM's presence in his own neighborhood. How dare you rainwalkers scare pussy gun-toting racists! How dare thee! All those terrible deaths and confusion due to rain! And those hoodies (AKA sweatshirts)!!! How dare people wear those and wear those in rain! GUILTY!

And yes, how could race and racism factor in?!?!?! HOW COULD IT?!?!?! OH MY!!!! Especially when the defendant was racist (per his cousin (and a sexual molester))?!?!?!? He must have just turned it all off when he profiled Martin. Did I mention this strapping citizen beat women? He had a restraining order per an ex. Now, that doesn't mean that he's aggressive at all.
Click to expand...
HAHAHAHAHHHHAHAHAHA...are you for real, dude? So the word "rainy" is now a dog whistle(Hi,doh!) for "thuggish black guy"? I didn't imply anything by using that word other than the state of weather that was present that night. Your over active mind ran Forrest Gump style to make any racial connections. Please keep up the mental gymnastics and proclaiming to know my thoughts....I've never questioned TM's right to be there, I do question the possibility that he attacked GZ. It's not even possible to you? GZ is probably just as racist as you. Here's the quick racist things he did: raised with black girls in his home, took a black girl to prom, had a black business partner, mentored minority kids, spoke out against police treatment of a black homeless guy....shit, he's probably less racist than most people on here. As far as a woman beater, he and his ex both had restraining orders against each other. Please show me the evidence where he beat her. I haven't seen it yet. I ask you to produce it sincerely, as I haven't researched much about it. I also like how you declaratively state that he was a racist and "sexual molester." Proof? How come TM can't be labelled as violent as shown by his texts, yet any accusation about GZ sticks in your mind as the straight gospel? GZ might be a violent nutcase, but the evidence did not match that. Please open your mind to other possibilities.

 
jputahraptor said:
Trayvon had a phone right? He could have called the police after he spotted GZ, continued to walk home where he would be safe (from where he was found to where he lived was about a 30 second walk) and had the best of both worlds by going to safety and getting the other guy in trouble. Why would you ever confront a stranger in the dark and pouring rain unless you thought you could take them or were incredibly brave?
Click to expand...
No where does it say that one has to act rationally or inform the police while being "stalked". Furthermore, TM did in fact mention to Jeantel that he was being followed and was scared. He ran after she suggested it. That's sufficient to establish his state of mind.

I won't address the rest of your response because it doesn't deal with stalking which was the point of the hypothetical.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top