-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Verdict reached in George Zimmerman case - Not Guilty
- Thread starter Zep
- Start date
- Status
theignoramus
Member
"you can go a long way killin black folks in this country"-the WireTim Wise said:
You think there is no evidence that Zimmerman was racist and/or racially profiling? What other reason did he have to aggressively follow a kid merely walking down the street minding his own business?
There is a very long history and pattern, continuing to this very day, of people of color being struck from jury duty. This is especially true of blacks serving on juries in which blacks are involved in either side of the case. I am not surprised.
Apparently, people really are this naive. People, especially white people, don't understand the long history and the frequency with which people of color are confronted with false accusations of criminal behavior and have to prove to nobodies that they're not murdering, robbing, or drugged out of their minds.
What did Trayvon's family do, exactly?
What? What do you mean by this?
Evolution_1ne
Banned
breakfuss
Member
As facile it seems to introduce race into the equation, it's very much at the heart of this. I'm not squarely placing it on Zimmerman, though. His line of thinking was simply in congruence with what a lot of people unfortunately think. Let's just keep it real. We all possess prejudices. However, there is a serious problem when said prejudices become so embedded and institutionalized that NOTHING comes of an innocent person being gunned down. As a Black man, I probably wouldn't have been stopped had I come across Zimmerman that day. I play the game a lot better than Trayvon evidently did. I know how to disarm people's unsubstantiated fear of my skin color. But, it's not right. It's not fair. No one should have to do that. Trayvon had every right to be there. WHY was Zimmerman so scared?!
We can talk legalese until we're blue in the face, but that ignores the much larger question at hand. That question isn't easy to answer, though. And, so, we'll toil over this until the next racial lightening rod is struck. Until the next walker texas ranger decides another kid "looks up to no good". The Justice system isn't impervious to societal ills. We can't simply isolate this as a failure of the court. There is a reason Zimmerman felt emboldened enough to shoot in the first place. There is a reason most of us didn't believe he'd be convicted. There is a reason most of us can't see the roles being reversed (a Black vigilante killing a "suspicious" White man) and the outcome being the same.
perfect
Baraka in the White House
2-Terms of Kombat
Welp, time for me to walk away for awhile.
mugurumakensei
Member
Texas and Florida are the only states to my knowledge that require the prosecution to prove it's not self-defense. In other states, self-defense must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. That is, burden shifts to the defense in that scenario cause the events of the crime have already been settled (we know x killed y).
Killing_Joke
Member
Looks like we might not get any jury interviews any time soon. Shame. Wish at least one of them can provide some insight.
V
Vilix
Unconfirmed Member
Was anyone surprised? This case should've never come to trial in the first place, and the special prosecutor who brought the charges is known for over charging.
FreedomFighter
Member
as if some Hispanics aren't white?
Right.
People need to realize that a great deal of Spaniards never left Central and South America - and they usually represent the most privileged sect of those regions. Hell, Hugo Chavez and Evo Morales are the first indigenous persons to hold the presidency in their respective countries. And the further south you go, you see countries (i.e. Chile, Argentina, Uruguay) that are predominantly white.
You really thought any of them would actually do an interview after all of this
Is it frustrating? Like you didn't expect this. Everyone wants to boil it down to 3 sentences when it's more complicated than that. The law is screwy. Race will always been involved in a case like this. America allowing guns will lead to more of the same.
vas_a_morir
Banned
My fellow Hellish Demons of the Outworld...
When I first came into the Blight House.... the citizens of the Shadow Realm told me... that they didn't think Satan... could be made flesh once again. Now, I am here today... to tell you that we have consulted the Necronomicon... listened to the Elder Gods.... and I have their assurance that through a martial arts tournament supervised by Lord Shao Khan... Evil... can once again be the law of the land.
The victor lives. The defeated die. These are the values of the Shadow Realm. Khan bless you, and Khan bless the Shadow Realm.
-Baraka Abomination, Evil President of the Outworld
Snowden's Secret
Banned
I was not aware until this trial that burden of proof was still on the prosecution for self defense, which is kind of fucked up.
I mean, logically, it's up to the prosecution to prove the defendant did the actual killing, since self defense is the defense in court that should be up to the defense to prove. That the law gives the benefit of doubt to someone who has killed someone else is beyond fucked.
I mean, logically, it's up to the prosecution to prove the defendant did the actual killing, since self defense is the defense in court that should be up to the defense to prove. That the law gives the benefit of doubt to someone who has killed someone else is beyond fucked.
And why not? Why should a grown-ass man who weighed more than a 17-year-old boy who we now know for a FACT wasn't doing anything wrong not be expected to answer for instigating a series of events that led to that boy, with his deadly skittles and iced beverage, being shot dead?
mugurumakensei
Member
Except, of course, we know George Zimmerman killed Trayvon Martin beyond reasonable doubt.
The prosecution just couldn't prove it wasn't self defense which is impossible in a case involving only 2 people. All this case says is "if you want to kill someone, make sure to start a fight and be the only 2 people, or, alternatively, lure someone into your home then kill them."
I don't believe that's correct. Again, this was discussed at length in the trial thread. Beyond that, does it make sense to require the defense to prove their innocence beyond a reasonable doubt? That's entirely backwards. Once evidence is provided to show self defense it morally makes sense that the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a crime was committed, meaning they have to show it was not an excusable killing.
They will. Jurors from Casey Anthony trial eventually did and they were way more hated than these jurors.
I expected it, no doubt. But I kind of wish people would stop projecting their own views on to this case. I think based on the evidence and the charges being brought at Zimmerman, it was a weak case to begin with.
People should be more outraged over the terrible "Stand your Ground" law than trying to make this a race issue. I believe more than anything else, these kind of laws encourage situations like this to happen. Zimmerman had a gun on him, felt safe. Decided to pursue an individual thinking he was some authority (following ins't illegal). Trayvon flipped out on him and beat the living shit out this man that kept following him (I don't think his reaction ot beating him was justified tbh. That actually is illegal. But at least I understand why someone would be freaked out over someone following you).
And Zimmerman used his gun in self defense. Zimmerman didn't run at the guy and shoot him before the fight broke out. Zimmerman didn't brandish his gun or show the man the gun prior to the fight.
I think it speaks volumes that the jury had to ask for a clarification on the manslaughter charge during deliberations. If the prosecution had been on their game, there would have been no need for them to ask for that. Also, to prove Zimmerman guilty of manslaughter, all the prosecution had to do was prove:
1. George Zimmerman killed Trayvon Martin.
2. George Zimmerman intentionally committed an act or acts that caused the death of Trayvon Martin.
We all know that Zimmerman shot Trayvon, so point one is a given. Point 2 would have been easy to prove because had Zimmerman not profiled Trayvon and stayed in his car when he was told not to follow him, Trayvon would be alive. Had the prosecution told that narrative, then the result would have been completely different. Zimmerman would not be a free man today.
Something's fishy about the way the prosecution handled that case.
Stand your ground played no part in this case.
No! If the prosecution fails to disprove self defense none of that matters. It's all excused as a justifiable homicide.
mugurumakensei
Member
Yes, it does make sense to require the defense actually have to prove undeniably it was self-defense. Otherwise, you open yourself to lots of "excusable killings'.
vas_a_morir
Banned
You are leaving out the part that says that the intentional act can't be a justifiable homicide. The Jury thought what he did was justifiable, which only means one thing: They think he was the one yelling for help. The whole case, right there.
V
Vilix
Unconfirmed Member
Because there has always been reasonable doubt that GZ did not intentionally mean to kill TM. That is what the case boiled down to.
SquiddyCracker
Banned
It is pretty amazing how quickly people started to paint Trayvon in a negative light.
"thug"
Really?
Really?
Trayvon was not on trial here, but judging by some of the posts made, it's almost as if he was.
"thug"
Really?
Really?
Trayvon was not on trial here, but judging by some of the posts made, it's almost as if he was.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/13/justice/zimmerman-it-firing/index.html?hpt=hp_t2
Her office is being accussed of witholding evidence regarding the trial too. Pretty embarassing on all fronts for Angela Corey and the State of Florida. Ultimately, there just wasn't enough evidence to prove that it wasn't self defense. By law the jurors had to give Zimmerman the benefit of the doubt in self defense and assume his innocence unless shown evidence to the contrary. The prosecution never had a strong enough case or evidence to prove otherwise. If people are really upset about the outcomes of this trial, they need to address the laws of the state and not play to emotions.
Yes it did. Zimmerman had no obligation to attempt to leave because of this law. When he was being beat by Trayvon, he was NOT legally obligated to attempt to make an escape. Having this law on the books that tells citizens they can shoot when their life is in danger (without making an attempt to leave), changes the whole dynamic of an altercation like this.
Yeah but with point 2 there is a disconnect people are glossing over. The mere act of following someone isn't enough to justify the charge. You can follow someone to question what they are doing. It's entirely possible TM got pissed at being followed and went on the offensive against GZ. The problem here is the victim didn't get to tell his side of the story so it was hard to convict on the evidence we had.
In other words you believe the defense should be tasked with proving their own innocence.
Can you provide evidence to support the claim that Florida and perhaps Texas operate uniquely?
But Trayvon still died by his actions, and here we have people such as yourself implying that the case should have never gone to trial in the first place...
Dude Abides
Banned
The lesson here for you black dudes is avoid white guys you don't know at all costs, particularly in gun-wacko states like Florida, because you never know which of us might be a gun-toting vigilante.
No. This case was about self defense. Not even the defense disputes that Zimmerman intended to kill Martin, because only an idiot would think that you shoot someone in the chest without intending to kill them.
No. This case was about self defense. Not even the defense disputes that Zimmerman intended to kill Martin, because only an idiot would think that you shoot someone in the chest without intending to kill them.
Baraka in the White House
2-Terms of Kombat
WELL HERE WEREN'T NO ANJUL EITHER.
Except Zimmerman is Hispanic, Black, and white..? Race wasn't a factor here, whether or not the prosecution could prove Zimmerman did not act in self defense was.
This is wrong. Stand your ground is protection from civil and criminal penalties if you can demonstrate the defendant acted in self defense in some pre-trial hearing. If the judge rules favorably there is no trial and the person can never be sued.
There is no duty to retreat in Florida unless that person was the initial aggressor, in which case they simply have to attempt to withdraw. The jury could simultaneously believe that Zimmerman started the fight AND that he found himself underneath Trayvon unable to escape. We can't know just yet how the jury looked at this but "duty to retreat" is not a factor if they found he was unable to do so.
Killing_Joke
Member
They all usually do. They can give interviews anonymously so what's the harm? I get they are probably mentally wiped out so hopefully within a month we can have some answers.
Vermillion
Banned
*sigh* Could this have gone another way considering Florida's laws? I mean, if the choice was between self-defense and murderer, could they have done anything differently? I don't agree with the verdict, but I don't know that it could have turned out any differently being that I can understand reasonable doubt keeping the jury from listing him as a murderer... Spotty as his story was, they kinda introduced doubt that his spotty story constitutes lying because of that one expert witness.
Anyways, I was just wondering. If you prefer, shoot me a PM.
Anyways, I was just wondering. If you prefer, shoot me a PM.
breakfuss
Member
What, lol?
Edit: (Ok. Pretty sure this is parody, in which case, LOLOLx1,000).
Fair enough. But my point ultimately was, when you have laws in place like this, it changes the mentality of the people in that area where the law is in effect. But I also admit this is a big assumption. I don't even know if ZImmerman was even aware of this law prior to the trial.
EDIT: I do understand my ignorance here though. So I apologize for bringing it up. I'm making assumptions that laws in states, effect citizens who think they can do certain things based on what the laws say.
V
Vilix
Unconfirmed Member
Because there was reasonable doubt. The State could not prove that GZ did NOT kill TM in self defense. Remember: The verdict was not that GZ was innocent. He was found not guilty. There's a big difference.
Epsilon-delta
Banned
Exactly since only 2 people were involved, the state had an uphill battle of proving a negative.
FreedomFighter
Member
You can't really ignore race by sweeping it under the rug though. It's still there. And how you're treated in many circumstances has a lot to do with the subconscious biases we all have. And some people put nationality above all else, but I don't - neither do many other people.
Zimmerman still profiled Trayvon based on his race.
For fuck's sake, his own defense put a woman on the stand just to state that her house had been broken into by a group of "black teens."
People need to stop being so needlessly obtuse. You fucking bet race played a huge part in this.
- Status