methane47
Member
Umm the thread title states the fact. Zimmerman DID kill an unarmed Trayvon Martin.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
George Zimmerman (killer of unarmed Florida teen Trayvon Martin) found not guilty
- Thread starter Dude Abides
- Start date
- Status
Umm the thread title states the fact. Zimmerman DID kill an unarmed Trayvon Martin.
The title of the thread says "killer of unarmed teen".
Which part of that implies he is guilty?
Zimmerman confessed to the killing.
Martin was unarmed.
Martin was a teen.
What's the biased part.
Zimmerman is guilty of killing Trayvon who was unarmed, that's not in dispute... The title implies nothing.
What is in dispute is his account if what happened.
BronsonLee
Member
If she didn't think the charges would be able to be proven in court, she wouldn't have gone that route. Most people expected a manslaughter charge, and were surprised she didn't play it safe to placate people.
You are obviously correct, though. But I'd put more stock in them than I would anyone in here, myself included.
Also hey look it's more people playing devil's advocate in a thread about this situation! Wanna know how this goes? Because it's been played out like 23545854455 times before
... Well that's what he did, by literally all indicators, including Zimmerman himself
He admitted to killing him. So....
This is an argument on whether it was a crime or not, not whether he factually killed him.
Dude Abides
Banned
No it isn't. The title is factual. In fact, in the last thread everyone was angry with me for claiming Zimmerman might well get off. Take your whiny hivemind bullshit to FreeRepublic.
Zoe
Member
Hopefully there are forensics that can show one way or the other.
TangoAlphaLima
Member
But Zimmerman is guilty of shooting Trayvon. The issue is whether it was a justifiable shooting in light of Florida's Stand Your Ground law, thus giving him a defense to the shooting.
Valkyr Junkie
Member
They are not arguing this is a Stand Your Ground case.
How are those points irrelevant?
DragonSworne
Banned
I thought this was the case?
There is evidence to suggest he inflicted injury to himself at least from what I remembered when the news broke last year.
BronsonLee
Member
Stating that he lived in Florida is also irrelevant. But he lived there. The title lists the facts and is not implying anything.
DragonSworne
Banned
Dude Abides
Banned
The "commonality of language?" What is that even supposed to mean? He killed an unarmed teen. That is not in dispute. I included those words so people who looked at the thread title and might not recall Zimmerman's name would remember the basics of the case. Fucking christ.
I'd prefer this thread be for discussing the trial. If you want a thread for farcical linguistic analysis of thread titles, I suggest you create your own.
Nope. The trial is not about whether or not Zimmerman killed Trayvon or not, but whether he did it in self defense or not. Nobody doubts that Zimmerman is the killer, not even the defense so there's no guiltiness implied here.
Stand your ground is still relevant, since it was the reason the case came to such notoriety, the fact that Zimmerman was not arrested for like a month after the shooting.
I am still baffled that the defense choose not to follow the syg defense.
Please stop trying to pretend like you don't want Zimmerman to walk because there is NOTHING misleading about the thread title.
Fact: George Zimmerman killed Trayvon Martin.
Fact: Trayvon Martin was not armed:
Fact: This case takes place in Sanford, Florida.
killing =/= murder
The thread title isn't misleading at all. It's a factual statement.
faceless007
Member
Wait, what? I missed that, I thought that was going to be the lynchpin of his whole defense! The law is worded so damn broadly that it would have been really hard for the killing not to qualify under SYG. What are they doing instead, just trying to impeach everyone's credibility so Z wins by default?
Well, I wouldn't, but then again, i'm smart enough to understand the difference between killer and murderer.
Words are hard.
That should be your first thought. He has to justify the fact that the killed someone.
The fact that he was unarmed is probably one of the most relevant details of the entire case.
If you knew zero about the case you'd assume the trial is about the killing, not self defense, since no self defense is mentioned in the title, so you'd assume hey maybe the guy didn't actually kill trayvon.
e: from your phrasing the trial is about the shooting and the killing.
They are arguing regular self defense.
faceless007
Member
If people automatically jump to a legal conclusion of guilt just upon hearing that a suspect is on trial, that betrays their own ignorance of how the law works (innocent until proven guilty) and their own tendency to jump to unsupported conclusions.
mightynine
Member
Mine wasn't. But thanks for trying to read my mind.
You don't need to be armed to make someone feel their life as at risk.
That doesn't make it an irrelevant detail.
Dude Abides
Banned
I PMed a mod to change the thread title to "Trial of Vigilant Neighborhood Watchman Viciously Attacked By Weed-Smoking Thug Begins" to satisfy Van Owen's concerns.
This is a misapplication of the presumption of innocence. There is absolutely nothing wrong with a person not participating in the trial drawing his own conclusions based on the facts available to him. Lawyers do that all the time. The conclusions are of course often wrong and it is not reasonable to make definite conclusions if the evidence available to you is lacking.
So you are saying that Trayvon felt his life was at risk when Zimmerman started following him, and that he had the right to defend himself from Zimmerman?
If I thought a person was following me trying to kill me, I think my instinct would be to run, all the police instead of my girlfriend, or maybe ring one of the many doorbells in the neighborhood for help, not to get into an (alleged?) physical altercation with them.
And that's exactly what Trayvon did. Run.
And then he met Zimmerman again cause he was pursuing him in the car.
Hell, were Trayvon alive and Zimmerman dead he could claim he was standing his ground.
Well, Zimmerman says he was attacked while walking back to his car after telling Martin he didn't have a problem, so...
The words of a man who lied to the court to save himself some bail money.
BronsonLee
Member
#dead
This legit feels like deja vu from last year with this mess. I half expect KHarvey to show up again
Yeah Zimmerman also says he wasn't following Trayvon, so...
Zimmerman also says Trayvon was pummeling him when he shot Trayvon, so...
Trayvon's girlfriend also says he told her someone was following him and was trying to get away, so...
Edit: A neighbor stated she saw a man on top of another when the gun went off. That same man got up and walked away, so...
I can go on all day but it doesn't matter what evidence comes forth to prove Zimmerman's account of things is fabricated but you'll continue to nit pick that evidence and say "Hmmmm, she says she could see who was who!"
Um, proof that he lied?
Zimmerman admitted to initially following him, so...
Zimmerman has facial and scalp wounds indicating he was punched, so...
Trayvon's girlfriend has also previously lied under oath, so...
Again, no definitive proof that Zimmerman is guilty of second degree murder.
DragonSworne
Banned
Pretty much. Zimmerman has already lost his credibility and given the language he used on the phone call to the 911 operator, it should be pretty easy to convict him of second degree.
Besides, self defense does not mean you have to have an honorable duel with your attacker. You can surprise attack him, which, if what Zimmerman is saying is true, does not mean Trayvon wasn't self defending himself from his pursuer.
freenudemacusers
Member
Trial seems like an awfully loaded word. Perhaps "Counsel"?
And Zimmerman has lied about the money he had to post bail, so...
Zimmerman may have had facial wouds but that doesn't prove he was attacked, so...
You never answered my question. Zimmerman's non-emergency phone call ended TWO MINUTES BEFORE Trayvon's phone call to his girlfriend ended. He was killed about a minute later. Now you tell me, if Zimmerman immediately ended his pursuit and started walking back to his car after his phone call ended, how did he end up in a confrontation with Trayvon who was still on the phone two whole minutes after Zimmerman's call ended?
CrimsonCommie
Member
Why did I start reading the comments on the stream? :/
If Zimmerman does get off, and there is a riot or other type of violance, I completely blame the media.
They are not, at all, showing any strong points from Zimmermans attorny's. They are making it seem as if this trial is over already, that Zimmerman is so obviously guilty, and as if his lawyers are losing terribly.
This isn't the case. Zimmerman's attorney's opened with a horrible joke, but since then have been dismantling and destroying the prosecution.
I just wish the audio on the tape of the person yelling out was clear. I felt it swayed the jury when Martin's mother ran out in tears, when nobody knows, including audio experts, who the hell was yelling. It should not have been allowed, and if she felt she could not take it, she should not have been let in the court room.
They are not, at all, showing any strong points from Zimmermans attorny's. They are making it seem as if this trial is over already, that Zimmerman is so obviously guilty, and as if his lawyers are losing terribly.
This isn't the case. Zimmerman's attorney's opened with a horrible joke, but since then have been dismantling and destroying the prosecution.
I just wish the audio on the tape of the person yelling out was clear. I felt it swayed the jury when Martin's mother ran out in tears, when nobody knows, including audio experts, who the hell was yelling. It should not have been allowed, and if she felt she could not take it, she should not have been let in the court room.
This comes up in every thread about this case. Look at the entire sequence of events:
1) Trayvon is walking back to the house he was visiting (a friend of his fathers).
2) Zimmerman spots Trayvon and thinks he looks suspicious, so he begins to follow him in his car, and calls the police.
3) During the phone call with the 911 dispatcher, Zimmerman notes that Trayvon notices him following him, and takes off running.
4) Zimmerman then proceeds to follow Martin on foot.
5) At some point during the ending of Zimmerman's call with the police, and Trayvon's call with his friend/girlfriend, an altercation breaks out, and Zimmerman shoots Martin.
Now, re-read event number 3. According to Zimmerman's own words, Trayvon fled. Does that sound like the actions of someone who was actively looking for trouble? Someone who was looking to get into an altercation with a stranger. He ran away. He tried to remove himself from the situation of being followed by a stranger in a vehicle, and Zimmerman pursued him.
Now, I can't speak to what anyone but myself would have done, but in a similar situation, I would have done the same thing: picked up my walking speed, and if still being followed, outright run away.
Also, contrary to popular belief, most people aren't keen on opening their doors or answering a call from a stranger, and in this country, especially a black male ringing their doorbell or knocking on their door in a panic.
As a young black man, we are taught, at an early age, to behave a certain way so as to not draw attention to ourselves in a way that will make white people uncomfortable. We are also taught not to bang on stranger's doors on a rainy night.
Martin was killed not very far from where he was staying. He probably assumed he'd lose the guy following him, and go home. No need to panic neighbors.
Unfortunately, he was followed, and more than likely, felt threatened by, well, threatening behavior, and tried to defend himself. Unfortunately, Zimmerman had a gun, and like Rock, Paper, Scissors, Gun beats Fist.
Having been on the receiving end of having a stranger follow me, I know what that adrenaline rush and uncomfortableness feels like. I'm not saying I would have started a fight, but I'd have prepared myself to fight. For my life if need be. We're taught to be wary of strangers. Strangers following you in vehicles even moreso. It's simply better to err on the side of caution, even when it turns out that that person just happened to be walking the same way as you.
And with that, I'm done with this stuff for a bit. After the previous two Zimmerman threads, I've already said everything I can possibly say about this case, and it's not really worth the headache repeating myself a few hundred more times.
- Status