-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Verdict reached in George Zimmerman case - Not Guilty
- Thread starter Zep
- Start date
- Status
Really? Zimmerman was told by the Police not to follow him, he was in a situation he shouldn't have been in. He created the whole scenario, starting the fight, killing the kid. He should be in jail.
Had it been a white kid, asian kid or hispanic kid you'd never have heard of this story. Same if Zimmerman was also black.
CrushDance
Banned
Protect himself from what? Is it not clear who started following who? Kind of reminds me of how Europeans dragged Africans to the America's. Put them to work as sex slaves and manual labourers. Then had to gall to say "We freed you" and "it wasn't that bad". And when black people complained or fought back, they got lynched and the narrative went from "God said we can enslave them", to "They're savages and naturally violent".
Glad to see that narrative hasn't changed. You create a problem, you solve it. Not attack the people you layed hands on for fighting back, destroy them mentally(Or in this case, physically) and then play the victim.
You people are really good at that though.
Am I the only one who thinks it's a little absurd to just attack someone that has been following you without discretion? Just because someone is following you does not give you carte blanche to beat someone. This isn't a difficult concept.
Devolution
Member
Another person who hasn't been followed, tried to flee and still stalked.
Metallix87
Member
Incorrect. He was told by the dispatcher that they didn't need him to follow Trayvon. That's not the same as being told not to do something, and dispatchers are not police officers.
Vermillion
Banned
So, I went to sleep before the verdict came back; didn't find out until this morning.
I've gotta say, I'm really, really surprised.
Wait, no, I think I missed a "not" somewhere in there.
I've gotta say, I'm really, really surprised.
Wait, no, I think I missed a "not" somewhere in there.
He was told not to follow him and yet he did. Stupid decision. Not illegal. He created the scenario but he still has the right to defend himself when his head is on the concrete.
According to Zimmerman, Martin was walking casually.
Apparently, there's something about Martin that makes him look suspicious and on drugs when he's walking casually.
Green Slime, the problem is that we know for a fact that Zimmerman did things wrong. He's admitted to many of them. We do not know for a fact that Martin did anything wrong.
Disregarding Zimmerman's version of events, since Martin isn't alive to give his, it's perfectly plausible that Martin ran from Zimmerman, Zimmerman caught up to him, Zimmerman attempted to physically detain him and Martin fought back. In that scenario, Martin does everything right, unless you think kids should just surrender and go away with people who follow and try to take them.
It's also certainly possible that Martin struck first, but we do not know this. I think it's quite unfair to assume that happened and smear a dead kid's name as being partially responsible for the situation.
Disregarding Zimmerman's version of events, since Martin isn't alive to give his, it's perfectly plausible that Martin ran from Zimmerman, Zimmerman caught up to him, Zimmerman attempted to physically detain him and Martin fought back. In that scenario, Martin does everything right, unless you think kids should just surrender and go away with people who follow and try to take them.
It's also certainly possible that Martin struck first, but we do not know this. I think it's quite unfair to assume that happened and smear a dead kid's name as being partially responsible for the situation.
Why would we believe this young kid just attacked Zimmerman for no reason? I certainly don't. This guy pursued Martin and was armed with a weapon, I have more reason to think he was the aggressor.
CrushDance
Banned
Why was he following him?
Ploid 3.0
Member
Oh I'll try to run first, but I was taught to not get in a situation where I need to be arrested, or seem suspicious (though I did walk from my grandmother's house to my house at 2am once). Heck we were trained in school that we may be targets and we have to be extra careful to avoid bad situations. The principle even said black males were going extinct lol. I kinda do feel like I better not resist anything, I was exaggerating though. I would try to run first, or if I could be blamed for something because I ran (fleeing after a car alarm goes off) I'll stick around and probably hope that someone saw that it wasn't me. In stores I pretend people watching me are trying to steal from me to make things interesting. I figure I could be blamed for just about anything if I'm close enough to it, but I don't do bad stuff, I don't even drink because that's another way to get in trouble, and it's bad for you (currently I don't drink soda, menace to society here). I'm just very cautious about everything, and I try not to scare white people, my house is surrounded by old white people (Mississippi).
Joel Was Right
Member
JACKSONVILLE, Fla. - A Florida woman who fired warning shots against her allegedly abusive husband has been sentenced to 20 years in prison.
Marissa Alexander of Jacksonville had said the state's "Stand Your Ground" law should apply to her because she was defending herself against her allegedly abusive husband when she fired warning shots inside her home in August 2010. She told police it was to escape a brutal beating by her husband, against whom she had already taken out a protective order.
CBS Affiliate WETV reports that Circuit Court Judge James Daniel handed down the sentence Friday.
Under Florida's mandatory minimum sentencing requirements Alexander could receive a lesser sentence, even though she has never been in trouble with the law before. Judge Daniel said the law did not allow for extenuating or mitigating circumstances to reduce the sentence below the 20-year minimum.
"I really was crying in there," Marissa's 11-year-old daughter told WETV. "I didn't want to cry in court, but I just really feel hurt. I don't think this should have been happening."
Alexander was convicted of attempted murder after she rejected a plea deal for a three-year prison sentence. She said she did not believe she did anything wrong.
She was recently denied a new trial after appealing to the judge to reconsider her case based on Florida's controversial "Stand Your Ground" law. The law states that the victim of a crime does not have to attempt to run for safety and can immediately retaliate in self-defense.
Alexander's attorney said she was clearly defending herself and should not have to spend the next two decades behind bars.
Alexander's case has drawn support from domestic abuse advocates - and comparison to the case of neighborhood watch volunteer George Zimmerman, who has claimed a "Stand Your Ground" defense in his fatal shooting of Florida teenager Trayvon Martin.
Marissa Alexander of Jacksonville had said the state's "Stand Your Ground" law should apply to her because she was defending herself against her allegedly abusive husband when she fired warning shots inside her home in August 2010. She told police it was to escape a brutal beating by her husband, against whom she had already taken out a protective order.
CBS Affiliate WETV reports that Circuit Court Judge James Daniel handed down the sentence Friday.
Under Florida's mandatory minimum sentencing requirements Alexander could receive a lesser sentence, even though she has never been in trouble with the law before. Judge Daniel said the law did not allow for extenuating or mitigating circumstances to reduce the sentence below the 20-year minimum.
"I really was crying in there," Marissa's 11-year-old daughter told WETV. "I didn't want to cry in court, but I just really feel hurt. I don't think this should have been happening."
Alexander was convicted of attempted murder after she rejected a plea deal for a three-year prison sentence. She said she did not believe she did anything wrong.
She was recently denied a new trial after appealing to the judge to reconsider her case based on Florida's controversial "Stand Your Ground" law. The law states that the victim of a crime does not have to attempt to run for safety and can immediately retaliate in self-defense.
Alexander's attorney said she was clearly defending herself and should not have to spend the next two decades behind bars.
Alexander's case has drawn support from domestic abuse advocates - and comparison to the case of neighborhood watch volunteer George Zimmerman, who has claimed a "Stand Your Ground" defense in his fatal shooting of Florida teenager Trayvon Martin.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57433184/fla-mom-gets-20-years-for-firing-warning-shots/
Zimmerman had a far amount of weight on Trayvon, calling that undersized is an overstatment.
You're also assuming that Trayvon was attacking Zimmerman to within an inch of his life, yet Zimmermans injuries were mostly superficial.
Zimmerman overreacted during the struggle after creating the situation in the first place in his prior actions.
The verdict came about due to the nature of Florida law in these cases. Not due to some omniscient insight that acquitted Zimmetmam.
lol
See, if this were Troy Davis or Megan Williams you'd be on to something. Those are purely racial and I make it a point to be more aware of that kind of thing. Same with the Jena 6, etc. This is a case of vigilantism when it comes to Zimmerman. When it comes to that police department, gross negligence and simple disdain for their work when it came to a minority that they didn't have to immediately care about.
I'm not upset about the outcome because of how it effects social/race stances. I'm upset because you can start a fight and kill someone in Florida and walk away.
eBay Huckster
Member
it's too bad his head was on the grass
Can Crusher
Banned
Ridiculous.
Absolutely ridiculous. Racism is real folks, it's as real as it gets.
Absolutely ridiculous. Racism is real folks, it's as real as it gets.
This shit again dude? goddamnit
I just don't buy how someone is allowed to beat someone to death if they think they are being followed by someone. At what point is there a legal line that is crossed where it's suddenly okay to kill someone with your bare hands? Someone clue me in on what I'm missing.
What I don't believe is that you'd have tried to talk it out. We're hardwired to do certain things and one of those things is flight or fight. When you're in a situation where you do one of this (as Martin did) then everything your body does is to make either thing more successful. Hormone levels, muscles, heart rate etc. change and that doesn't happen so you're prepared for a nice chit-chat. I highly doubt your reaction would have been as you said.
General susceptibility to a stupid decision does not justify the stupid decision.
eBay Huckster
Member
and i don't buy how martin was somehow "beating zimmerman to death" when the only injuries on him prior to Gunshot to Chest were a busted nose and two superficial lacerations on the back of his head
Devolution
Member
Where are you getting this from?
Sure, it's a stupid decision for someone to defend themselves against a predator. Love this line of thinking.
When you're fighting someone who's followed you from the store and you discover they have a gun, it becomes a life or death struggle.
And its not like Z grossly exaggerated his injuries leading up to this trial as well lol. Dude was really trying to base his defense around shaken baby syndrome before it got laughed out of the courthouse.
That's not how the justice system works. There wasn't enough evidence to prove that Zimmerman was the aggressor. Thus, he remains innocent.
eBay Huckster
Member
just gonna fix that for you right quick
iamshadowlark
Banned
Facts. Or the lack thereof.
There was more that said he was the aggressor than there was evidence that TM was.
Doesn't matter. You can't beat someone to death because you think someone may be following you for the wrong reason. Paranoid people don't get a legal extension for leeway.
eBay Huckster
Member
you also can't beat someone to death if you aren't beating someone to death
would you like to actually start discussing anything close to what actually happened, or should we leave you to your own devices
would you like to actually start discussing anything close to what actually happened, or should we leave you to your own devices
That's pretty depressing. Although I'd say young males of any ethnicity are viewed with suspicion in general. The extinct part I believe statistically people are much more likely to be attacked by someone of their own race.
Beat someone to death is just lol
You're making it sound like Zimmerman fought the Predator that night
There wasn't enough evidence to make that call either way of who was the aggressor largely because the other person that would have testified to that is dead. He killed a 17 year old kid after creating the situation. He's not innocent of shit, whether he was found guilty of murder or not.
Steve Youngblood
Member
I think the problem here is that you are overplaying the extent of Zimmerman's injuries. Mind you, there's not much of a legal distinction to be made here, as the letter of the law allows you to defend yourself regardless. But having said that, it doesn't help the argument when you seem to be operating under the assumption that this was a text book case of self defense as he was facing imminent death if he didn't pull the trigger when he did.
However your narrative never happened and judging from the superficial injuries and expert testimony, likely was never going to be the conclusion.
You're not doing yourself any favours with this "beating to death" narrative.
BruiserBear
Banned
I think it has to be noted how the defendant acted from the moment the whole incident started. He called the police to report someone suspicious. When he ultimately shot the guy after a fight, the first thing he said when the cops showed up was about him yelling for help. He offered to sit down with the cops repeatedly, without a lawyer, even though he could have demanded one.
In other words, he never acted like someone who had something to hide. So what I'm getting at is that while on it's face it would seem this case has set a dangerous precedent, the details are always what matters, and in this case I think it's those unique details that helped Zimmerman a lot.
CrushDance
Banned
Edit: Blargh. Forget it. This is not solving anything.
Like I've said time and time again and have learned myself. Seeking acceptance from white people or anyone really, is the dumbest thing one can do. The only way for someone to be free, is for that person to be able to defend their body and spirit. Black people are incapable of that in the racial game. And until they are, don't expect to be treated any differently.
That pathetic civil rights acts was passed just recently in history. A "here, now stop whining" legislation. Obama got elected and again the same thing "Stop whining". And it's sad how these tokens often work to placate people in the present. Wake up people, there is a 400+ year gap here psychologically and socially.
Instead of arguing on the internet or at all even. People should crack open some books and study, do for yourself. And become strong. You think that when little Timmy won't eat his vegetables and his parents say "There's starving children in Africa" and then Timmy goes to school and learns about "African Americans", that he doesn't make the connection? You think that when a white comedian cracks a joke about black people being unable to travel back in time or uses "I'm white" and people laugh, they don't make a connection?
Saying you're white is saying "I'm the boss!". That is why people destroy their natural features to try and match that. That's why people hate themselves for not being white, and are relegated to third class. Third world. Everyone is playing by the rules that one person has put up. That's not a fair game.
Stop and pay attention to the wording and words that swirl around you.
What?
But didn't Trayvon have that right to defend himself too? Trayvon didn't have the comfort of a gun at his side and the police on the way like Zimmerman did. Zimmerman could have been a deranged killer who had stalked him for who knows how long. It was life or death for Trayvon, who was initially threatened by GZ. Regardless of who hit who first, and regardless of whether the weapon was out or not, listening to the 311 call you can hear animosity in GZ voice, I doubt he approached with pleasantries.
According to your train of thought its almost as if it doesn't matter who started anything in self defense cases. Whoever has the better weapon at the end was the one who was defending themselves.
Trayvon was an all-star football player with at least 5 inches on an undersized and physically unfit Zimmerman.
When being pummeled against concrete, you don't risk waiting until you're at the waning stages of your life to see if you can muster the strength to shoot someone. Zimmerman would've died fighting bare handed going by physical prowess alone.
Florida law nor a jury of Zimmerman's peers who sat through hours of testimony and deliberation thought Zimmerman overreacted.
such loaded language.
Lets put it this way, do you think someone with a history of physically assaulting someone for following them would have been allowed as a juror in this trial or that such a history might colour their perception of events?
Clockwork5
Member
In the case of self defense it is. The prosecution failed to prove that zimmerman was the "aggressor," which is clearly defined in the law and most states have similar requirements which nullify a self defense claim. Getting out of your car to follow someone is not, in the eyes of the law, sufficient to identify zimmerman as the aggressor. This would hold true in any state. The events after are unclear at best and prove nothing.
Yeah. It's pretty fucked up when your kid lays dead on a slab for over 24 hours, and no one in the police department attempts to contact the next of kin.
ambientmystic
Member
Was expecting this thread to be a graveyard, with lines drawn in the sand.
So many juniors crawling out of the woodwork spouting the most incredibly offensive and insensitive things just to get rise out of all of you, and quite a number fell for it. Some of them didn't even bother to pretend to be contrarian for contrarian's sake lol.
On topic:-
GZ may have escaped this time, but the civil suit will get him. For everything he's worth, and then some.
I'm shocked that the all-female jury made up of mothers with sons and daughters of their own couldn't even get him on manslaughter. Shocked.
So many juniors crawling out of the woodwork spouting the most incredibly offensive and insensitive things just to get rise out of all of you, and quite a number fell for it. Some of them didn't even bother to pretend to be contrarian for contrarian's sake lol.
On topic:-
GZ may have escaped this time, but the civil suit will get him. For everything he's worth, and then some.
I'm shocked that the all-female jury made up of mothers with sons and daughters of their own couldn't even get him on manslaughter. Shocked.
Devolution
Member
Someone with a history of physically assaulting people, talk about straw men. He followed him, he tried to lose him, he kept following him. He admitted to following him. What the fuck do some of you think that means to someone out on the street at night alone? That the person just wants to talk over some tea?
eBay Huckster
Member
i notice you're outright refusing to quote me, i wonder why:
- Status