-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Juror says Zimmerman went "above and beyond" and has "learned a good lesson"
- Thread starter MThanded
- Start date
- Status
This case was fucked from the start.
You had a major news network doctoring tapes to make it look explicitly racist, a prosecution that is looking more and more incompetent as further details emerge, and truthfully a fairly easy case for the defense with what the prosecution had as evidence.
You had a major news network doctoring tapes to make it look explicitly racist, a prosecution that is looking more and more incompetent as further details emerge, and truthfully a fairly easy case for the defense with what the prosecution had as evidence.
Tbh, I'm seeing reports either way but I don't wanna derail. Though I'm not sure what rail this thread is on. At any rate carry on.
I think it's more stereotyping than racism in this case. But yea you're right. I've crossed many a street in my hood based on assuming things about shady looking dudes.
Thanks. He's going to my ignore list.
People who think there is no way to legally find him guilty of manslaughter or murder are completely misinformed.
He committed manslaughter, and if you take "these assholes" and "fucking punks" to be an indication of malice, ill will, or spite - which they clearly suggest, he was guilty of murder 2 as well.
Where he got off was on self-defense, the self-defense law states that someone must be "reasonably in fear of great bodily injury or death"
As has been said many times, that is a subjective call on behalf of the jury. Considering the DNA evidence suggest Trayvon never touched the gun (which juror B37 dismissed) and considering Geroge's injuries were minor and not life threatening, it would be perfectly reasonable for a different jury, of different sensibilities, or pre-conceived notions, or race, to come up with the idea that George wasn't reasonably in fear of his life and charge him on manslaughter or murder 2.
He committed manslaughter, and if you take "these assholes" and "fucking punks" to be an indication of malice, ill will, or spite - which they clearly suggest, he was guilty of murder 2 as well.
Where he got off was on self-defense, the self-defense law states that someone must be "reasonably in fear of great bodily injury or death"
As has been said many times, that is a subjective call on behalf of the jury. Considering the DNA evidence suggest Trayvon never touched the gun (which juror B37 dismissed) and considering Geroge's injuries were minor and not life threatening, it would be perfectly reasonable for a different jury, of different sensibilities, or pre-conceived notions, or race, to come up with the idea that George wasn't reasonably in fear of his life and charge him on manslaughter or murder 2.
Manslaughter? What are you talking about? Deadly force used properly for self defense would not result in manslaughter! Where are you getting that from? How is it you could read those links and tell me you're still right?
vas_a_morir
Banned
What's even worse is he acts as if his anti-Jewish policies were unrelated to the economic recovery in Germany. So much of their economy was funded by stolen Jewish wealth.
OpinionatedCyborg
Member
If at night I see someone slowly wandering down my back alley and occasionally stopping to check out people's yards or garages, I would consider that person suspicious, particularly if I didn't recognize that person. Whether TM was actually behaving as Zimmerman reported is another matter altogether.
e: oops. I opened this thread when it was on its first page and came back to read it hours later. Now it's on page 7. I shouldn't have bothered replying to such an early post.
I like that you're thinking that this is the problem here.
And, yea, the dude was explicitly racist. The idea that he may or may not have volunteered that information to the dispatch caller before or after he was asked is irrelevant because he called the dispatch caller in the first place after he had already observed Trayvon Martin as a young black male.
If the dispatch caller would have said "do you know what race he is" and George would have said "honestly I have no clue whatsoever, let me get in for a closer look", we could assume he wasn't racially profiling if he was being honest. But that's not what happened. Volunteering the information isn't what makes you a racist.
It speaks volumes of the posters that think otherwise. Its like they have no concept of racism, or how it works.
I'm sure they are the same people that ignore minority issues by claiming "They see no color!"
Its a thing. You had self hating jews, self hating anything. People don't want to be seen as associated with certain branches of their culture. In the west, this means migrating more towards the white culture.
Which is why you have people calling others, of their own culture. Banana, or Oreo.
Black on outside, white inside. etc.
Spirit of Jazz
Banned
Also I wouldn't discount Zimerman's lies to both the call opperator (agreeing to not pursue then pursuing) and the lies in his testimony. Even the juror who publicly spoke acknowledge them but saw no problem at all in him lying to the court. The same juror who said he learnt his lesson on the same day Zimmerman was interviewed saying he had no regrets and would do the same thing again.
As long as you would do the same for an older white woman as you would for a middle aged black man, or a white kid in button ups and nice jeans the same way you would do for a young black man in a hoodie, than that's fine.
That's just your level of what you find a threat. But if you would allow that behavior from some sorts of people and not for other sorts of people, whether or not it's illegal behavior, you're in the wrong.
Thug Waffle
Member
The only "wow" to give is at those who think talking about the small bits of good that Hitler did makes the speaker a bad person or something. Pretty asinine.
That's not much different than ignoring that some of the Founding Fathers owned slaves.
Broseybrose
Member
I knew from the beginning this Zimmerman fuck would walk. Just like OJ. You bring cameras into the courtroom on a SUPER DUPER high profile case... it turns into a circus. And that means exponentially more chances to raise reasonable doubt for the defense.
While I normally like this 'burden of proof', that doesnt mean that you throw away common sense in the process!
While I normally like this 'burden of proof', that doesnt mean that you throw away common sense in the process!
A lack of DNA evidence should not be used as confirmation or exculpation of a theory.
I think this should be part of the screening process. A dozen blind scenarios with a handful being the case but race and or genders being swapped. Just to try and filter some racial profiling.
yes it absolutely should. You're taking the word of a murderer who has shown he has lied and changed his story on the subject and has every intention of embellishing a story for self-preservation over DNA evidence that doesn't support his claims.
Absence of Evidence is not Evidence of Absence does not mean you can take someone's word, Evidence be damned. I mean you can, but you can't expect to be taken seriously.
What this has to do with jury decision ?
Jury was there to find proof he was guilty of murder. There is no evidence that directly points that Zimmerman was guilty.
What you said is true shitty but this has nothing to do what jury decided.
Well then he just acted like one. He did call police so it wasn't case of "I see black man = shoot him" Is NW law construct ? (i am not from US)
Then why if there is no proof we assume man is guilty of murder ? Why is it so hard to believe this was just tragic accident. Why people assume certain unfold of events based on skin color ?
Trevor being dead IS tragic but that should not blind people and stop looking at evidence and decide who is guilty by skin color.
All i am saying there should be no skin color involved where decisions based on evidence are given.
Poster above said dude was not arrested and was let go by police after he confirmed he did kill trevor. That should be protested. That may have racism involved.
DNA collection and testing is fickle shit. Real life isn't a CSI tv show.
Please re-read my post.
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=70868416&postcount=537
Also stop using the term deadly force. The term we use in our legal system, and the only thing viable or regarded is the use of "reasonable force". In the post I made above, and in hundreds of cases where death has been the result of self defence, the verdict of manslaughter has been given to defendants. The general notion and common sense understanding is that taking a life is not necessary to self defence except in EXTREME circumstances.
Again, read the post above, where killing one of three armed robbers with a sword was still regarded as a loss of self control and lead to a manslaughter verdict.
I think your problem here, and an issue you've repeatedly exemplified, is that you have a knack of interpreting certain details in only a ridged and informal way. I think that's partly the issue here. You're pointing to elements of written formal law and ignoring the common sense value and binding legal precedent that attribute them. Here in the UK courts don't necessarily work like that, which is why we don't get as many ridiculous and stupid headline cases as America. Common sense reasoning of the law and an ultimate desire for justice is given priority over strict legal jargon and literature.
This is also partly where your understanding and dissection of this Zimmerman case is also highly flawed. You keep judging everything based on ridged law, when the reality is that there is a massive amount of leeway offered based on emotional persuasion, personal bias, comprehension, opinion, legal misunderstanding and more. That is, with respect to the jurors alone.
His video walkthrough of events contradicts this.
And there are sidewalk paths behind the town houses.
Yeah you're right. Good post.
You do realize, that there is NO DOUBT that Zimmerman killed Trayvon Martin right? Zimmerman ADMITTED to killing Trayvon Martin. There is no chance that Zimmerman is the wrong guy, and someone else killed him and framed Zimmerman.
The reason for the outrage was that the cops believed his story of self defense, and let him go home without any charges, after he admitted to shooting and killing an unarmed teenager.
There was PLENTY of evidence to find him guilty, it wasn't a slam dunk case that self-defense was unreasonable, but with a different jury with different sensibilities, and a member who maybe perhaps didn't want George Zimmerman to serve on her neighborhood watch program because thats how highly she thought of him, he could have been found guilty of murder or manslaughter.
We get it. You're mad that Zimmerman was labeled a racist, and you find this an injustice and an affront to American values. So, rather than accept scientific evidence, you accept every word out of Zimmerman's mouth. And as for all the contradictions, you ignore the ones that line up with the DNA evidence like "Trayvon Martin didn't grab the gun but he was reaching for it" in favor of the "he grabbed the gun" despite all evidence to the contrary.
You sir,are a clown with an axe to grind. I don't dismiss everything Zimmerman says, I, like most rational people, look at the evidence and see what may or may not have been true. You, ignore all the evidence that contradicts Zimmerman's account that you choose to believe, and think the real injustice of this case was that NBC edited a tape.
You just gave OpinionatedCyborg, someone you don't know (I assume) the benefit of the doubt that you refuse to give to another person you don't know, George Zimmerman.
Who is Trevor?
mugurumakensei
Member
Dog was Trevor.
Xenon
Member
If the difference between being let go at the scene of the crime and being interrogated by the police then having the case reviewed by someone from the State Attorneys office is just a typo to you then I don't know what to say. I think details like that are important.
As far as the whole no case in the history of America being comparable, I can't comment on that because I havent review them all.
Omegasquash
Member
The first bit is a different topic for a different thread. The second bit is actually part and parcel to this thread, since racism in the US is ingrained in ways that are deceptive and easy to ignore. Which we're not doing.
Oh don't worry. You can't make any assumptions about his character.
He spelled the dead kids name wrong, several times. Doesn't have the temerity to even make sure its spelled right, and is the same guy who thought people needed to be educated on the good Hitler did.
I thought I could make that connection, but I was corrected. As there is nothing wrong with pointing out the good Hitler has done, and a person shouldn't be discounted because of their relationship with the third reich.
Come on, you said it yourself. Do what I did because it's a game you cannot win. Not worth it.
Seems to me if you plan to chime in on a case you would at least know how to spell the victims name close to correct. It has been all over the place it's other places in this thread and on this forum. And you think the kid that died is name Trevor?
Thug Waffle
Member
Word. Pretty sure that you're being sarcastic, but it doesn't matter much since I'm right. I was just saying it's generally not fair to discredit that poster's position based on something like the post about Hitler. I don't really have any context with the thread it was posted in, so I don't know if he was consistently glorifying Hitler or anything like that (that would probably change some things lol).
I haven't educated myself about the Trayvon Martin case enough to really have a good opinion on it, so I probably shouldn't be posting in the thread anyway.
The point is that an objective and reasonable person should not wholly dismiss the good things a bad person has done, just as they should not wholly dismiss the bad things a good person has done.
Yea, same story different day. I'm done with it and him. Back on topic lol.
What the fuck are you talking about ? Sorry but that is simply lie.
And it is Trayvon not Trevor i misspelled name. Nothing unheardof for non nat eng speaker
edit:
~Devil Trigger~
In favor of setting Muslim women on fire
lol, wow at this juror
White people can be so oblivious so times
White people can be so oblivious so times
who the hell said he was let go at the scene of the crime? Because I didn't. I specifically said this is different from cases where people HAVEN'T BEEN APPREHENDED. Clearly pointing out that Zimmerman was apprehended. He however wasn't charged, he was allowed to let go.
We're not all misinformed, stop pretending we are to cloud away from the main point. Zimmerman was apprehended, admitted to the shooting, was released and not charged the same night. Comparing this to black on black crime is retarded because the issue wasn't race, the issue was the "not charged and allowed to go home" part. The race of Zimmerman, as well as his family being involved in the justice and law enforcement mechanism of Florida made it even more suspicious. This is not comparable to a black on black shooting where the person isn't apprehended, or is apprehended or charged.
I even pointed out the Michael Dunn case to point out that it's not just a focus on race, but a focus on the not being charged that drew the ire of people.
There is a big difference between believing someone is a criminal based on skin color alone, and believing someone is suspicious because the fit the description of a suspect.
What would Zimmerman have done if Wayne Brady was walking down the street? What would Zimmerman have done if a group of young white kids were breaking into homes and he saw a young white kid that fit the description.
The fact is that break-ins were taking place and the perpetrators were young black males with urban style clothes. Trayvon fit the description and he was not a familiar face in the gated community. For that, I believe GZ's initial suspicion cannot completely be faulted. I believe everything he did after that initial suspicion was stupid and worthy of a manslaughter charge.
Treefingers
Member
do you have some kind of clown fetish?
The case you're citing was an unreasonable use of force. You took that to mean that all instances of the use of deadly force(that's just a descriptor of the type of force, why it bothers you is baffling) meant the person was guilty of manslaughter? The guy was convicted because he slashed repeatedly after having neutralized the threat to himself.
Your problem is that you don't have a clue what you're talking about.
I never said he wasn't racist; I bet he is. I just disagree that he was explicitly racist as could be determined in that phone call.
And like it or not, a major news outlet doctoring tapes surely didn't help this situation in any fashion.
No I didn't, at all. I subtly pointed out that I don't think that is the case at all, I don't think he'd treat 45 year old middle aged white woman the same as 17 year old black men in hoodies.
The obvious other disparity, is that Zimmerman called Trayvon an asshole and a fucking punk and admitted to the fact that he made his decision, in part, because other criminals that looked like Trayvon had been there. He admitted to racial profiling by giving his justification for why he profiled Trayvon Martin by using the other cases as evidence that he was taking into consideration those other cases instead of saying "I would have called on ANYONE of any skin color of any age, of any gender who was walking that way"
Future PhaZe
Member
Really?! Really? Where is the evidence?
fuck
No I did not. I quite clearly and repeatedly stated that a death resulting from self defence was a no go in all but the most extreme of circumstances. That it was on a case by case basis, based on a common sense understanding of reasonable force. And that's exactly what it is in law. Only in exceptional circumstances where it is deemed the death was as a result of reasonable force does it stand, but this is an extreme rarity in practise.
Anyway, like I said, I'm done with you.
KHarvey16
hopelessly misguided
Stopping your car, to observe Trayvon Martin is one thing. Calling the cops on an innocent person because they resemble how you view criminals is an entirely different thing. There are simply far too many studies done that suggest that people in affluent or middle class neighborhoods, mainly white people, are far more likely to call the cops on black people than white people, even when they witness them doing a crime.
I have no problem with Zimmerman stopping his car to look, I do have a problem with him calling cops because Trayvon's liberty and rights to avoid a random search and seizure at the behest of some racist over eager neighborhood watch captain shouldn't be violated because some other black guys did stuff.
What are you talking about? The use of deadly force is only authorized in response to the reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm in BOTH THE US AND THE UK. You have consistently been wrong, you have consistently claimed I am the one who doesn't understand and you have consistently shown yourself to be unable to have a mature conversation. It's just as well you finish now since you've continued on just long enough to expose your complete and utter ignorance of the topic.
Not sure about Florida, but in some states following/pursuing/stalking can be considered as assault. I think he had every right to punch GZ in the face if GZ had been stalking him in his vehicle, and then later on foot. If when TM said "get off me" as Jenteal claims, it sounds to me as though GZ was trying to apprehend TM (which sounds like a no brainier considering he was a want to be cop, carrying) - if that's not grounds for self defense, I don't know what is.
Perhaps if their first interaction was "Hi I'm George, I'm with the neighborhood watch" we would have never learned either of their names.
When the outcome is that of Zimmerman being let go, without trial or charges, thats the point that was being made. Those detail's don't change the point being made. You can't claim stand your ground, or self defense, you have to be charged and go to court. He wasn't charged with anything, nor was a trial even in the works.
You can't kill american citizens without a trial in the way zimmerman killed trayvon. And again, you have to be found guilty/innocent in a court of law. Stand your ground is a defense against a death. Same as self defense. that is what is charged/acquitted. Not the state department. Which is why we fought and got a trial.
So yes, if those details, to you, are significant in any way to alter or change the point of Zimmerman being released without charges, well thats that. But it definitely shows that you're focusing on that, which has no difference on the end outcome of Zimmerman being released, without charges. Which the point was. We had a trial, because that is what you're supposed to do. That is what we all deserve. We didn't have a trial, because Sanford PD bungled an investigation. And for some reason the state department didn't care to pursuit it, to find if he is guilty or innocent.
Also, if you're not aware of cases in this country, even recent history, again, you're correcting the insignificant parts of his post, and ignoring the main issue, just to furnish more irrelevant(to Zimmerman not having a trial) points.
Luckily the Justice Department is going over this case, as its not so cut and dry. thank god this woman said what she said today.
- Status