George Zimmerman (killer of unarmed Florida teen Trayvon Martin) found not guilty
- Thread starter Dude Abides
- Start date
- Status
DragonSworne
Banned
Buttermilk
Member
So anytime there is a dead body somebody has to go to prison?
$50k for a murder trial would be the result of either a really, really REALLY cheap attorney or a decently priced attorney putting almost no work into the case.
Particle Physicist
between a quark and a baryon
He admitted to killing the kid. I was talking about making wild claims and forcing the prosecution to prove it wrong without you having to prove it right. The Dude answered that question already so I am not sure why you are digging this back up.
User 100115
Banned
There is self defense and there is 'self defense'.
This case? The simple fact that if Zimmerman had done nothing, no one would have died makes me believe that he is guilty of murder. He should be punished for his actions. If he'd not 'cowboy'd up' and 'took matters into his own hands', Martin would be alive. Even if he had just called the police and waited in his car, there would have been no death. His actions directly led to the death of a teenager. At this point, it doesn't matter to me who threw the first punch, or what have you. He caused the situation by stalking a teenager late at night. He caused the situation by confronting him. No one else.
If it were up to me, he'd be in jail. But sadly, it's not up to me.
vas_a_morir
Banned
What if Zimmerman had done nothing illegal up to the point he shot. Should he still be in prison?
Buttermilk
Member
Doing nothing is part of what's wrong with this country. He might be guilty of murder but unlike most people I will wait until we have all the evidence to decide.
User 100115
Banned
If not, then anyone can follow and harass anyone without their consent and scare the shit out of them without repercussions. If a fight breaks out, they can kill them and claim self defense, which is stupid as hell.
Suikoguy
I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
Yeah, this is the part that bothers me.
Edit: I can't see any other way it could have went down given the 911 call.
Killing_Joke
Member
I assume the jury is leaning towards not guilty. Which is a fucking shame. I do think they are doing a good job at least. They are hitting all the key points. GZ followed TM, witnesses that go against GZ's words, and connecting all the timelines together. Unfortunately the defense is doing a great job at spinning. They completely fuckied up on Rachael though. They tried HARD to make her collapse but she didn't budge or fall for any of their tricks.
Ummm... Yeah you were. In both cases there was a litany of things listed and your response was cherry picking one thing and implying that was the line. And I don't know why you're interpreting me calling your vapid attempts to reduce people's reasoning into a single one liner as anger but whatever floats your boat.
vas_a_morir
Banned
The law is the law. If you want to make it illegal to follow someone on a public street, you make that law. However, if Zimmerman's following, harassment, and scary antics were legal, they were legal. And if he was attacked, felt threatened, and shot Trayvon... well, if the law says that's legal, that's legal. I'm not for putting someone in prison when they haven't committed a crime. I don't want him to be innocent, I don't want him to be guilty... I just want the truth. And if we don't know the truth, I want him to walk, because that's fair. Let's see if the prosecution can prove he broke the law, and then we can talk about putting him prison.
So, I hear Rachel Jeantel doesn't speak English as a native language. Is this true?
PotatoeMasher
Member
Wait, Rachel Jeantel? You think she was an effective witness?
User 100115
Banned
As someone pointed out before, if the victim in this case had been a woman, we wouldn't even be having this conversation. If it's not against the law in this country to stalk and harass innocent people and terrorize them, then I don't want to live in this country anymore.
vas_a_morir
Banned
I don't think it's illegal. If it bothers a lot of people, then they should work to make it illegal. But, throwing Zimmerman in the slammer for doing something legal would be the wrong way to tackle the problem. Even if it's all his fault.
I think a civil case might do better for this reason. It's a much easier case to win. MRE or Dude can answer better than I can, but I believe in a Civil case, you just gotta prove it's more likely your fault than not.
What testimony has gone against statements Zimmerman made? I haven't been able to watch the proceedings during the day.
Dude Abides
Banned
This is disingenuous.
The defense's claim isn't that "a fight broke out." It's that Martin was on top of Zimmerman, having broken his nose and slamming his head into the concrete.
And all that the evidence shows is that Zimmerman followed Martin for several minutes. That isn't stalking or harassing in any legal sense.
No, I was trying to see if we could figure out precisely where following someone crosses the line where it becomes a reasonable threat of bodily harm, which justifies the use of force to prevent, by asking questions based on his posts. First I asked if the line was at point A, he said no, then I asked if it was at point B. that's called analysis.
Please try harder to keep up, or if you won't, let me know so I can ignore any posts you might make on this topic in the future.
Joel Was Right
Member
Aren't the points who threw the first punch and wherever or not Zimmerman was under mortal danger separate? I'm working on the [perhaps naive] assumption that a physical confrontation isn't itself a justification to use lethal force. Shouldn't the narrative be focused on whether the firing of the weapon was a reasonable course of action during that moment?
Also, what is the predominant line of thinking amongst people here?
Also, what is the predominant line of thinking amongst people here?
- Zimmerman wanted to harm Martin from the get go because of prejudice
- Zimmerman was overly-enthusiastic in confronting Martin
- Zimmerman was overly-enthusiastic in using his weapon
- Martin reacted physically to Zimmerman's pestering
mercenar1e
Member
she was absolutely horrible on the stand i can't believe anyone would think otherwise lol
DrForester
Kills Photobucket
I don't think Zimmerman wanted to hurt Martin. I think more think it was a combination of your 2nd and 4th ones. Zimmerman wanted to catch someone doing something, and Martin could have reacted by confronting some nut job that's stalking/chasing him. I think if anyone was entitled to "stand your ground" it was Martin.
I'm still surprised that without an eye witness, the prosecution is going for second degree murder. I hope the jury has a manslaughter option open to them.
Mammoth Jones
Member
This mirrors how I feel.
How do you continually escalate a situation then once it's reached the threshold of violence say "Oh, self defense!". So in Florida I can approach a dude and antagonize him until he feels threatened/angry enough to swing then shoot and say whoops, self defense"? That's cray cray.
Foxy Fox 39
Banned
And of course you have a gun, and the other person does not.
IcyBlueStrawberry
Member
Seriously.
Zimmerman was armed with a gun - a weapon which exists for the sole purpose of injuring or killing - and started pursuing an unarmed person who hadn't done anything wrong. Everything beyond that is irrelevant.
Legally it would depend on what you do to provoke that reaction. Is the swing a reasonable response? That's what it comes down to. And it isn't simply a "swing" either, since the person shooting would need to fear death or serious bodily harm.
So no, given the circumstances you describe you wouldn't be meeting the requirements to claim self defense.
Joel Was Right
Member
I'm not sure confronting someone you find suspicious qualifies as escalation. Escalation would be what happened in the moments following that confrontation e.g. how did it get from "Why are you following me" to "Get off me".
vas_a_morir
Banned
Harv, I can't remember, but I think you are also an attorney, correct? For some reason, I've thought this for YEARS.
User 100115
Banned
I have never claimed to be an expert, which is why I said its not up to me. If Zimmerman scared him enough that he felt he needed to defend himself, and began to win that fight, Zimmerman then killing him would still be viewed as self defense?
.
Dude Abides
Banned
What you're missing is that "began to win" is not the same as "straddling and beating his head into the concrete." If they were both standing and Martin was getting more shots in, that would be different. Shooting someone under those circumstances is almost certainly murder or at least manslaughter. But the defense's claim - and it's just a claim that they have yet to provide evidence for - is that Martin was on top of Zimmerman smacking his head onto concrete.
The way the fight was going down matters. It also matters what happened that led to the fight once the two started talking to each other. Even if Martin was scared, being scared doesn't mean you can smack someone's head into the sidewalk. Physical violence is justified only if you think someone is imminently about to do harm to you.
I don't think anyone disputes that Zimmerman is an asshole who should have been minding his own business (well some people do but their views are unworthy of consideration), but that in and of itself doesn't make him a murderer.
User 100115
Banned
I know it's very complicated, but I guess I am not understanding why Martin wasn't 'standing his ground' you know? If using deadly force against Zimmerman because he felt his life was in danger (the man had a gun and all) just doesn't count?
Joel Was Right
Member
True. And as we don't have any strong indication/evidence as to the nature of that fight, it confuses me as to why some here are convinced of Zimmerman's guilt. Presumably, this is because they feel Zimmerman to be the personification of racial prejudice and so should be made an example of.
PotatoeMasher
Member
If Martin had killed Zimmerman he might well be using the same defense if charged with second-degree murder.
Nope, I see Zimmerman as the aggressor. He put himself in that situation. Nothing to do with race for me. He's solely responsible for what happened.
Dude Abides
Banned
As far as we know, he didn't know Zimmerman had a gun. And, sadly, Florida is one of those states where any old douche can carry a gun around legally if he fills out some paperwork. But to stand your ground you have to think that this guy is just about to attack me and try to kill me or seriously wound me. If Zimmerman just walked up to him and said "what are you doing here," then it wouldn't be reasonable to think Zimmerman is about to try to get physical, and Martin wouldn't have been justified in punching him in the nose.
Personally, I think what happened is there was some kind of altercation and struggle, and Martin got the better of Zimmerman at first, hence the broken nose, but it at some point Martin was the one screaming for help, and Zimmerman got freaked out or angry or something and shot Martin. The most compelling evidence in my view is the screaming on the 911 call and how it stops immediately after the gunshot. That makes Zimmerman a murderer. But we haven't heard strong evidence of that yet.
Mammoth Jones
Member
Confronting a random black dude you find suspicious because he was black qualifies as escalation. Doubly so when said black dude wasn't doing anything to justify such suspicious besides...well....being black.
It got from "Why are you following me" to "dead unarmed dude" precisely because Zimmerman was following him.
Now in regards to the legalities of how the jury is going to handle it: I'm under no illusions that they're not going to view things the way I do and will follow the law.
Mammoth Jones
Member
Legally, would following Martin be a factor in that? Like, I get a random person walking up to me and asking what I'm doing isn't cause for alarm. But when said person is staring at me in a car. Then following me on foot? Legally is that cause to fear harm? Not sure if I'm asking this correctly....
I could definitely see this being the course of events.
Portugeezer
Member
Does Zimmerman even say that he was the one screaming?
vas_a_morir
Banned
His defense did in the opening statements, and they claim they have an eye-witness who will testify to this. So, I'm almost positive he will at least be claiming it was him.
Dude Abides
Banned
Maybe. But the law takes a dim view of physical violence generally, and it should be used as a last resort. My guess is you'd have to be making verbal threats or brandishing - not merely possessing - a weapon to be an aggressor within the meaning of Fl. law.
If Zimmerman's account that he got jumped is accurate, I just don't see how there could be 30+ seconds of screaming. If he got popped in the face, straddled, and beaten near to death, would he really be screaming at the top of his lungs consistently during that? I would think he'd be stunned, out of breath, and devoting all his efforts to fighting off his attacker, not screaming hysterically. I really hope he takes the stand.
User 100115
Banned
Oh, that's another thing I wanted to ask you: Why can't the prosecution force Zimmerman to take the stand? Is that a 5th amendment thing? I know the can force pretty much everyone else to testify and such, but why not the defendant?
The Abominable Snowman
Member
So Jeantels testimony somehow erases the forensic officer's evidence that no DNA, be it Martins or Zimmerman's, was found on the concrete?
The defense whose sole argument was that his head was being banged on the concrete at least once? The whole "Trayvon was armed as well, with concrete" was pretty much demolished right then and there.
That and the dirt and grass stains on both of their clothing pretty much seals that, does it not?
So then, had Zimmerman not been armed, the possibility that both would have at least been able to walk away is much greater. If that is proven, then yes the prosecution would win the case. Deadly force is to be used when your life is in danger or private property being invaded with hostility with nowhere to go.
The defense whose sole argument was that his head was being banged on the concrete at least once? The whole "Trayvon was armed as well, with concrete" was pretty much demolished right then and there.
That and the dirt and grass stains on both of their clothing pretty much seals that, does it not?
So then, had Zimmerman not been armed, the possibility that both would have at least been able to walk away is much greater. If that is proven, then yes the prosecution would win the case. Deadly force is to be used when your life is in danger or private property being invaded with hostility with nowhere to go.
How the fuck was he ambushed when he's on record telling the authorities he's pursuing Martin? Also, they found no blood on Martin's hands.
Dude Abides
Banned
Yep, the 5th. Or Fif if you're a Chappelle fan. A criminal defendant cannot be compelled to testify.
If someone is following you do you lead them to your home? When I thought someone was following me home from school as a child I took several detours to see if they followed.
User 100115
Banned
- Status