I understand that, I'm saying aside from this he could've been say mugged or something like that at any point in time he's on the street
That's when a gun would serve a purpose
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Verdict reached in George Zimmerman case - Not Guilty
- Thread starter Zep
- Start date
- Status
That's when a gun would serve a purpose
curlyfriski
Banned
Man fuck Florida and fuck a country where this shit happens in the first place
He followed a kid in an unmarked vehicle then walked up on him in the dark.
If he doesn't do that, none of this happens. Doesn't matter who swung on who first. What does matter is that the guy without training didn't listen to the people with training and someone is dead because of it.
If you want to protect yourself, you do it - but don't do it trying to be a wannabe cop and walking up on anyone you think looks funny.
RiccochetJ
Gold Member
According to CNN, the dude's rocking a vest and only goes out in public in disguise. I also imagine that he's going to get sued for wrongful death in civil court because what he did directly caused the death.
The guy's life is severely fucked. I guess it's going to depend on how long the public's memory is.
computers putin'
Member
Sticking up for any minority is considered a liberal position to alot of people for some reason, and it's fucking bizarre.
Devolution
Member
Except he stalked someone else. I don't know why we keep going in circles. NW is basically "hey keep more vigilant" not an excuse to be the neighborhood's patrol officer.
b-but Conservatism = gun rights and standing your ground!
My gut would tell me that Zimmerman would be 100% responsible for the death of the kid. Martin certainly did not do anything wrong until Zimmerman approached him so the approach of Zimmerman is what caused everything. Had he not acted for whatever reason and just done what he was told then none of this would have happened.
I'm certainly no lawyer and have a very limited knowledge about the laws in this case, but how can he not be fully responsible when nothing at all would have happened to either one of them had he just minded his own business as he was told? How can you claim any kind of self defense if you're the one approaching and if the other option (not self defense) would have been both people being in perfectly good health and alive? The laws seem really screwed here when you can be the sole cause of something like this and are then legally in a position where you can do whatever you want if the other person reacts to your actions. I don't get it.
I'm certainly no lawyer and have a very limited knowledge about the laws in this case, but how can he not be fully responsible when nothing at all would have happened to either one of them had he just minded his own business as he was told? How can you claim any kind of self defense if you're the one approaching and if the other option (not self defense) would have been both people being in perfectly good health and alive? The laws seem really screwed here when you can be the sole cause of something like this and are then legally in a position where you can do whatever you want if the other person reacts to your actions. I don't get it.
SRTtoZ
Member
It should also teach you to tell your kids that you never know what some stranger is thinking or going to do. Just look at road rage situations that turn into murder. Violence is not the answer.
I'm not actually telling you to tell your kids this obviously I'm just making a point that there are more things to learn from this case than just "people get away with crimes".
Maninthemirror
Banned
The Approach did not involve intent to kill. Unfortunately in Florida unlike other states when you convict for manslaughter it means either self defense or murder not something in the middle. As he had no initial intention to kill, the onus fell on the fight, The defense proved to the jury that it was self defense during the fight. Thats what happened
Sorry but the jury made the correct choice here. You can't judge someone based on your moral instincts, you need to follow the law and in this case there was simply not enough evidence to convict Zimmerman. You can argue against the law - rightfully so - and I understand the emotional sentiment but it does not help your cause when you make sweeping statements such as "if this was a white person", at that point you are attacking the jury with just your gut feeling.
Well I've learned one very good lesson over the course of this trial, Florida Law allows you to claim self defense if you say you had reasonable fear for your life and assuming there aren't any clear witnesses, you can just sit tight and have the prosecution try and disprove your claim.
Its sad but true.
Maninthemirror
Banned
insufficient evidence he intended to Murder so it had to be labelled as self-defense according to Florida Manslaughter law where either you prove there was MURDER or SELF-DEFENSE. They had no full evidence of Murder so it fell on self-defense and thus acquittal
jakonovski
Member
Floridan (it's just Florida, right?) murder laws are fucked up. You were alone with your victim --> jury must acquit? Hannibal Lecter should've set up shop in Florida.
Megalosaro
Banned
Why do you think Dexter lives in Florida
How and why are you mending manslaughter to murder?
Even in Florida, there is a difference. The SYG stuff didn't really even come into play that much in this particular case. There was simply nothing brought forth by the prosecution - and that is because of a gross management of the case in its early stages by the police department and a massive gamble of 2nd degree murder by the prosecution.
Jest Chillin
Member
The lesson isn't that "people get away with crimes" at all as much as "the law is fucked up" because it makes no sense that my kid, in this hypothetical situation, could find himself in a situation where he feels threatened enough to defend himself physically and as a result the other party feels threatened enough to kill and the killer's feelings trump my kids.
Should all people who feel threatened look around for eye witnesses first before attempting to defend themselves through non-lethal means out of fear that the person they're threatened by might use lethal means and have the law on their side?
I understand you're not telling me how to raise my kids (or suggesting how anyone should raise their kids) however life isn't black and white but rather shades of gray.
Clockwork5
Member
I loosely followed the trial and I must say, I am not at all surprised. My heart goes out to the Martin family; however, the eye witness closed this case the moment he testified that he saw Trayvon on top of George beating him. Also when the lead detective testified that Trayvon's father initially stated that the call for help in the 911 call was not Trayvon. It is a tragedy but there was just zero evidence for murder 2 and the manslaughter charge was not argued for over the course of the trial. The jury had no other choice.
IrishNinja
Member
jimcareywhoareyoutalkingto.gif
Just be sure to kill the only person who could dispute it.
All the more reason to aim for manslaughter through gross negligence
SRTtoZ
Member
Pretty sure you have it backwards. Following someone and approaching them is not illegal In any way. What EXACTLY mattered is who attacked who first. I agree that the following was stupid and creepy but there's nothing illegal about it....and the case came down to who hit who and did he defend himself justifiably.
Hindsight is hindsight. All of our lives would be completely different if we did things in life differently. This was the worst outcome in the world but I don't think either of them knew this was going to happen.
Then he shouldn't be a watchman. It's that simple.
Maninthemirror
Banned
But they had no evidence of 2nd degree so that was out of the window
They were left with 2 choices. Manslaughter or Acquittal
With Manslaughter they had to see if during the altercation, if Zimmerman shot him with intent to kill or no. The defense convinced Jurors that he did not shoot him with the intent to kill and through floridian manslaughter law, it was thus labelled self defense and the verdict as such was not guilty
Clockwork5
Member
except that the jury heard the testimony of an eye witness.
I understand that, but it just doesn't make any sense. The important thing to me is that there's no reason to assume anything would have happened at all had Zimmerman not followed Martin even after he was told he shouldn't. Zimmerman himself only got into this situation because he followed and approached someone who was doing nothing wrong. It seems to me like Zimmerman was the attacker from the very beginning and it's very weird to me that he can now claim self defense.
With laws like that you can basically kill countless random people every night if you follow a certain pattern. Follow them around in the dark until they feel threatened and react to your behavior, scream self defense and shoot.
If I recall the eye witness didn't see the whole altercation. So one can still make their claim regardless.
Metallix87
Member
I think that bit is always interesting. A lot of people seem to imply that Trayvon would've been justified in going so far as to kill Zimmerman for following and approaching him under Florida law, but realistically, wouldn't that mean that it would be legal to kill private investigators or even someone following you because you dropped, say, a watch? Where do we draw the line on that? Anyone following you can make you feel a bit frightened, but realistically, Trayvon could've either gone home or simply asked Zimmerman what he was doing, and explain away why he was there and where he was going, to avoid conflict.
I'm not excusing what Zimmerman did, but I don't think Trayvon was 100% innocent, either. Both made mistakes, and unfortunately, it ended with a young man losing his life. It's a shame, but I disagree with everyone making this about race, and I disagree even more with everyone saying "talk shit, get hit".
There's nothing illegal about it all.
I get to feel threatened, in danger, stalked, etc. Put in an exceedingly uncomfortable situation at all for no fault of my own. I'm already in self-defense mode right then and there. Many are.
And it doesn't matter who swings first at all because that stage is already set to end badly. The one doing the stalking is the one who set it though.
Maninthemirror
Banned
unfortunately for the prosecution, the eye witness who saw TM on top of GZ put a slight wrench in that and allowed the defense to argue that TM was the aggressor during the fight even though GZ was the one who persued him.
I wish peoples top saying they "both" made mistakes its nonsense.
Metallix87
Member
It's not. They were both at fault.
Yep. The teen who was unarmed, minding his own business, and ended up shot, was somehow at fault.
Get the fuck out with this asinine neutrality shit.
computers putin'
Member
Then how should've Trayvon reacted to someone following him?
That's bullshit.
Someone gets stalked/followed in the dark and they're at fault for fighting back against the potential aggressor who gets out of an unmarked car and approaches them in a confrontational tone.
SRTtoZ
Member
Of course you get to feel all of those things but once you decide to take action based on your instincts you understand the consequences that come with it. No I don't mean you're supposed to think the guy is gonna pull a gun on you but you never know where the physical violence is going to go. I've felt threatened before and I remember telling myself if I hit this guy I am probably going to jail for throwing the first punch and I asked myself is this worth the risk?
curlyfriski
Banned
Trayvon should have known better than to be born black
Metallix87
Member
If you don't like it, tough shit. People have differing opinions, and sadly, if you can't handle that, you'll have a tough time in the real world.
Trayvon ended up shot, yes, but he had no right to attack Zimmerman. He could've very easily used his words to avoid such an altercation. It's a damn shame the kid died, but let's not pretend that physically assaulting someone who is following you is the only option. It certainly wouldn't be my first option, nor my second.
Also not identifying themselves. Which is always forgotten.
Jest Chillin
Member
If you shoot someone, the intent is to kill. This is a fact. Guns are not made to wound, they're made to kill. Every class you take on care and handling of a Gun teaches you this as well. Hell most classes teach you that IF you do shoot, you SHOULD attempt to kill.
None of the "eye-witnesses" actually witnessed the shot themselves. So Eye-witness is a misnomer in regards to the facts of this case.
The bolded is incorrect as far as Florida Law is concerned and it was explained many times in the trial thread. Legally... Zimmerman could have started the fight and still be found Not Guilty of Murder 2 if at the moment he shot, he felt that his life was in danger.
Hopefully now you see why so many of us are saying the law is jacked up.
travisbickle
Member
Dig a communal garden, and plant some flowers.
How is shooting black relatives of people in the community keeping the neighborhood "nice"?
The Faceless Master
Member
pretty sure that his first option was running away. it didn't work.
Metallix87
Member
Yes, that's exactly what I said. Congratulations on your reading comprehension.
I love how everyone in this thread insists that anyone who doesn't agree that Trayvon was an innocent saint and Zimmerman was a murderous clansman is instantly branded as a racist.
Some people aren't worried about jail time when they're confronted like that. They're worried about not getting robbed, raped, jumped, etc - and throwing the first punch instead of waiting around for that person that followed you from the store in the night is a lot better than hoping that they pull a handful of Jolly Ranchers out of their coat pocket.
The threatening situation was absolutely created by a vigilante here. Its really just saddening that you can do that to someone and suffer no consequences.
Again, Martin could've been walking back from selling cocaine to babies and Zimmerman still would've had no business doing what he did that night. He knew nothing about the kid at all. Dude is a vigilante who killed a kid. Not in coldblood, but as an idiot with a gun.
Like I said: You can take out a dozen people every night arguing that way.
And it wasn't Martins either.
Martin started walking on the lawn of houses to avoid walking near the car, and then he tried to run away.
- Status