• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Verdict reached in George Zimmerman case - Not Guilty

Status
Not open for further replies.
He was killed in self defense and you all want to crucify the man that was defending himself. So yes, more sickening than him being killed.

A grown-ass man getting his ass beat by a kid armed with candy and apparently having to pull a gun to defend himself is sickening to me.
 
I wish I had something intelligent to say about this.

There are times where I question my lack of awareness, meaningful understanding or empathy for the real struggles that people go in their lives. I wonder whether I may have some weird prejudice towards people that I unconsciously act out in my everyday life. The idea that I could be racist even a little bit horrifies me.

Then I realize that people actively embrace ignorance and never actually question the origins of their beliefs. Some often thrive off the idea that people of a certain race, sexuality or different religion are inferior and undeserving of compassion.

Pretending to have no remorse because you fear what would happen if you actually let yourself feel it is one thing. Actually having no true remorse about the fact that the path God took you on led to the death of an innocent is psychotic.

Fuck everyone that doesn't feel like shit because Travon Martin is dead and the man who killed him is content and has now has the legal justification to back up his smugness.

I feel bad that Trayvon Martin is dead. That is the worst thing to come out of this. I don't care how Zimmerman feels. He's the one who has to live with himself over this. I hope it haunts him.
 
I still don't know what side to take (probably won't take any).

I look at it like this:

Zimmerman racially profiled Trayvon and pursued him with a gun, with no intention of shooting him. Trayvon got spooked and started beating up Zimmerman. If the story goes that he was actually fearing for his life (which he may not have been), does he have the right to shoot someone? Why or why not?

But that is only one side of the story. I think both sides had bogus arguments, and it sucks we'll never know what really happened.

edit: for the record i believe the verdict was wrong
 
Defend himself from what? A man following him without provoking any kind of physical altercation? I'll tell you right now that if they were able to show proof that GZ initiated a PHYSICAL altercation, he should have been found guilty of murder 2. They couldn't so he didn't.
So you are advocating killing the only other witness to the altercation. Your defense is basically " A dead guy can't tell his story. Guess he should have stayed alive."

GZ removed a key piece of evidence by killing TM.
 
Right, so ignoring the legal side of things, we're going back to this "coward" argument. Essentially, if i'm attacked, i'm not allowed to kill unless my own life is in danger. But it is up to me to determine as such. I'm not sure how that can be broached.

It is not up to you. The standard is the "reasonable person standard". Otherwise, any fight can justifiably end in the shooting death of your opponent.
 
sorry i have not followed case but how does some one can be not guilty of killing some one when he did it. Young kid was killed by this person.

Manslaughter vs Justifiable Homicide (self defense)

A good number of people think it was the former. The jury found it to be the latter.
 
No, you are the one who said that anyone who agrees with the verdict must also necessarily believe the killing of Trayvon was justified. I didn't say that.

I didn't say that.

In other words, it means you think it's reasonable to suggest that George Zimmerman shouldn't be held responsible for shooting and killing Trayvon Martin.

That's what reasonable doubt means!

You can not believe something and still think it's reasonable to suggest it.

I think it's ridiculous to think that this is reasonable to suggest.
 
I was shocked, but was more convinced it was self defense. The more I pieced the entire trial together the more I thought to myself that a gun has no other means than to fire and potentially kill. I support someone defending themselves, so if that gun went off because he was trying to defend himself. His intentions were for himself and his own superior.

Where that comes off as murder I can't comment. We defend ourselves, just like in the wild. If you throw this in the legal system and try and make them understand how certain environments change a persons behavior. I honestly don't think you can do it. It seems like our legal system won't allow a particular mindset into a trial. Being guilty or not.

I don't get this logic. If you're engaged into a fistfight with someone it's okay to shoot them if they start beating your ass?
 
If. If. IF. As in we don't know. But many seem to just assume Trayvon is the aggressor. Why?

I asked this in the other thread and I've never received an answer: Why does Zimmerman get the benefit of the doubt but Trayvon Martin doesn't? What about Trayvon makes people assume he is the aggressor. Who noticed who as not belonging? Who followed who? Who profiled who?

"IF IF IF" is why he got off. Reasonable doubt.

I don't assume Trayvon was the aggressor, I just know they were completely incapable of making me and the jury think Zimmerman was.
 
Defend himself from what? A man following him without provoking any kind of physical altercation? I'll tell you right now that if they were able to show proof that GZ initiated a PHYSICAL altercation, he should have been found guilty of murder 2. They couldn't so he didn't.

Likewise, there's no proof Martin instigated it either. Dead kids can't defend themselves in court.
 
Alts of who? For what reasons? One-off accounts to just go "na na na boo boo"?
I don't know the answers to these questions, but I highly doubt the frequency of junior posters coming out for a thread like this is a coincidence.
 
My favorite headline of all time

katrinaracistmediacoverage.jpg

I remember this. One of the sad facts of this country is that Black people are second class citizens. A lot of laws are in place with the purpose of jailing us by the truck full.
 
I don't get this logic. If you're engaged into a fistfight with someone it's okay to shoot them if they start beating your ass?

If he pulls a knife out of his pocket or something else. You have no idea what the other guy is thinking. If you hit your head the right way, you can die. If you puncture the right vein/artery, you can die.
 
I feel bad that Trayvon Martin is dead. That is the worst thing to come out of this. I don't care how Zimmerman feels. He's the one who has to live with himself over this. I hope it haunts him.

Your feelings aren't wrong, I'm just upset so I said something that's probably controversial.
 
"IF IF IF" is why he got off. Reasonable doubt.

I don't assume Trayvon was the aggressor, I just know they were completely incapable of making me and the jury think Zimmerman was.
But then you felt no remorse that someone lost their life that night.

You seem to be full of bullshit.

I agree that the evidence was not there but then you said inflammatory stuff earlier.
 
If. If. IF. As in we don't know. But many seem to just assume Trayvon is the aggressor. Why?

The prosecution did nothing to prove otherwise and they had that burden.

Also, one guy clearly got his ass kicked and the other guy didn't.

Yes, the gunshot was the worst injury as it ended a life but all of this lined up with at least reasonable doubt.

Could Zimmerman have been the aggressor and initiated the fight???

Possibly but it doesn't look that way with the evidence.
 
If he attacked Zimmerman as he was walking away then his actions were offensive, not defensive.

And we only have the survivor's word on that. Whether Zimmerman started the physical fight or if Martin did, the result here would be the same, killer goes free.

This is why needing to disprove self defense is bullshit.
 
That is the stupidest thing I've heard in a while. You're not allowed to pick a fight, pull out a gun and kill someone and then claim it was self defense. That is moronic, and Florida should be ashamed of itself.

I wonder how these supporters (btw What the fuck, no really, what the fuck?) would feel if some fat asshole pulled this on them.
 
I never said he wasn't guilty of being an idiot. But there was no evidence that he initiated any sort of physical altercation.

I never said physical. Zimmerman stalked and engaged (approached and had his firearm ready) Martin while he was in the gated community.

I'd certainly feel threatened, and worried for my life, if someone did that to me.
 
Wow. Though I can't say that I'm surprised after hearing the witness testimonies.

Only in Florida though. Biggest piece of shit pathetic excuse of a state in the country.
 
Was Trayvon not supposed to feel threatened by a strange heavy set man stalking/following him?

Of course I would, but I am unsure of would confront him about it. I like to think I would knock on someones door and tell them someone is following me and ask them to call the police.
 
Defend himself from what? A man following him without provoking any kind of physical altercation? I'll tell you right now that if they were able to show proof that GZ initiated a PHYSICAL altercation, he should have been found guilty of murder 2. They couldn't so he didn't.

No one knows who provoked the altercation. But my money is on the man with the combat training, the size advantage, the loaded gun, and...oh yea...the history of physical confrontations....

I agree about the proof. There's no way to know for absolute certain. But manslaughter? Absolutely. Can't go stalking people and then if they dare have the temerity to defend themselves from fear of assault shoot them like dogs.

Michael Vick went to jail for killing some dogs. George Zimmerman gets to go home and go to sleep tonight. Something is wrong with America.
 
Defend himself from what? A man following him without provoking any kind of physical altercation? I'll tell you right now that if they were able to show proof that GZ initiated a PHYSICAL altercation, he should have been found guilty of murder 2. They couldn't so he didn't.

They did have proof. Rachel's testimony.

But you know, she couldn't read cursive...
 
"IF IF IF" is why he got off. Reasonable doubt.

I don't assume Trayvon was the aggressor, I just know they were completely incapable of making me and the jury think Zimmerman was.

I think that's the disconnect. It literally doesn't matter what the verdict should have been in anyone's opinion .. if the state doesn't PROVE their case to the people sitting in the box, the defendant walks.
 
I never said physical. Zimmerman stalked and engaged (approached and had his firearm ready) Martin while he was in the gated community.

I'd certainly feel threatened, and worried for my life, if someone did that to me.

Are you saying you think he approached martin w/ his pistol drawn?
 
He was under attack when he shot, which the jury found to be a reasonable course of action.


No, the jury didn't even say that much. There is no "found innocent" or "we find he was under attack when he shot."

There is only reasonable doubt. That's it. Not as satisfying maybe, but all there is.

The jury can still suspect Zimmerman did it. They can think "what if Martin was only trying to get the gun away because he was afraid that this stalker would kill him, and did not intend to use it? What if Zimmerman was lying when he claimed Martin made death threats?"

"What if the hitting was over, they had moved to the grass, and Zimmerman murdered Martin anyway?"

We know very little for sure. The jury may be haunted by this decision, with the knowledge Zimmerman likely just got away with murder. But they decided they had reasonable doubt. No surprise since the bar for a self defense claim is extremely low in Florida (didn't even have to testify and see if he could keep a straight face with his stories!) and the only other witness was dead.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom