Support NeoGAF

[hydragonwarrior]

The prosecution really screwed this case up. From Jury selection to a second degree murder charge without the proof for that conviction they did pretty much everything possible to lose this case.

That's the only other way I can see it.

 

[Treefingers]

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.

I don't think you guys are in disagreement there. He said that he thinks Zimmerman's actions weren't warranted, but that his suspicion could have been.

 

[commedieu]

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:

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=47768263&postcount=257

As I said, if you cared to spell the name right, you could have. You didn't.

The dead kids name is Trayvon Martin.

 

[biggslimm]

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.

This is why this case is such a bad precedent. It states that in Florida at least, whomever got out of this fight alive was 'in the right.'

 

[Flo_Evans]

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.

This is not true, and even watching an episode of law and order would tell you this. The DA decides if the case is worth trying. They obviously didn't feel there was enough evidence to prove murder/manslaughter.

If you kill someone, and it is clearly self defense there is often no trial.

This is how it was going but public outcry pretty much forced a trial.

 

[TAJ]

Do you have proof of that?

The way I see it, either GZ was following TM, and then attempted to stop him, either by force or verbally. If he attempted to stop him by force, then TM had the right to defend himself, and GZ pulling the gun was an act of desperation to win a losing fight and he should have gotten manslaughter.

If GZ was following TM, and TM turned around, said something like "What the fuck is your problem?", got pissed at GZ, and then started beating on him, then GZ is the one who has the right to self defense.

A much more likely scenario for TM throwing the first punch is that after creeping on him across the neighborhood, GZ still refused to explain who he was and what he wanted.
TM basically told him not to come any closer and to state his purpose. GM just glared at him and kept advancing. Rinse, repeat until GM was right on top of TM.
If a scenario like that advances until the stalker is within reach, the stalker should expect to be pummeled.

 

[linsivvi]

Wow. At first I only found it strange why the state attorney sounded so cheerful after the trial, now this might put things in context:

http://video.msnbc.msn.com/all-in-/52484672#52484672

http://video.msnbc.msn.com/all-in-/52484826#52484826

"We offered her 3 years and kept that open."

WTF.....

 

[Unicorn]

Can't stuff like this lead to a retrial? Some of her comments are absolutely ridiculous

Candy Crush saga?!

 

[User 100115]

He learned a lesson? What lesson? That getting away with murder is pretty easy? That you don't have to pay for your mistakes in the end?

He's freaking proud of what he did. Calls it God's plan. Shows no remorse. What the fuck lesson did he learn?

 

[Perkel]

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=47768263&postcount=257

As I said, if you cared to spell the name right, you could have. You didn't.

The dead kids name is Trayvon Martin.

Ughh way to fucking spin things.

1st. I did not mis for purpose. So keep on going making you claim that my miss has something to do with the case.
2nd. Again. Where did i fucking type Hitler was good dude and there was nothing wrong with him ?

 

[mckmas8808]

I don’t like what George Zimmerman did, and I hate that Trayvon Martin is dead. But I also can understand why Zimmerman was suspicious and why he thought Martin was wearing a uniform we all recognize. I don’t know whether Zimmerman is a racist. But I’m tired of politicians and others who have donned hoodies in solidarity with Martin and who essentially suggest that, for recognizing the reality of urban crime in the United States, I am a racist. The hoodie blinds them as much as it did Zimmerman.

One of those who quickly donned a hoodie was Christine Quinn, the speaker of the New York City Council. Quinn was hardly a lonesome panderer. Lesser politicians joined her and, as she did, pronounced Zimmerman a criminal. “What George Zimmerman did was wrong, was a crime,” Quinn said before knowing all of the facts and before the jury uncooperatively found otherwise. She was half-right. What Zimmerman did was wrong. It was not, by verdict of his peers, a crime.

Where is the politician who will own up to the painful complexity of the problem and acknowledge the widespread fear of crime committed by young black males? This does not mean that raw racism has disappeared, and some judgments are not the product of invidious stereotyping. It does mean, though, that the public knows young black males commit a disproportionate amount of crime. In New York City, blacks make up a quarter of the population, yet they represent 78 percent of all shooting suspects — almost all of them young men. We know them from the nightly news.

Those statistics represent the justification for New York City’s controversial stop-and-frisk program, which amounts to racial profiling writ large. After all, if young black males are your shooters, then it ought to be young black males whom the police stop and frisk. Still, common sense and common decency, not to mention the law, insist on other variables such as suspicious behavior. Even still, race is a factor, without a doubt. It would be senseless for the police to be stopping Danish tourists in Times Square just to make the statistics look good.

I wish I had a solution to this problem. If I were a young black male and were stopped just on account of my appearance, I would feel violated. If the police are abusing their authority and using race as the only reason, that has got to stop. But if they ignore race, then they are fools and ought to go into another line of work.

The problems of the black underclass are hardly new. They are surely the product of slavery, the subsequent Jim Crow era and the tenacious persistence of racism. They will be solved someday, but not probably with any existing programs. For want of a better word, the problem is cultural, and it will be solved when the culture, somehow, is changed.

In the meantime, the least we can do is talk honestly about the problem. It does no one any good to merely cite the number of stop-and-frisks involving black males without citing the murder statistics as well. Citing the former and not the latter is an Orwellian exercise in political correctness. It not only censors half of the story but also suggests that racism is the sole reason for the policy. This mindlessness, like racism itself, is repugnant.

Crime where it intersects with race is given the silent treatment. Everything else is discussed — and if it isn’t, there’s a Dr. Phil or an Oprah saying that it should be. Crime, though, is different. It is, like sex in the Victorian era (or the 1950s), an unmentionable but unmistakable part of life. We all know about it and take appropriate precaution but keep our mouths shut.

At one time, I thought Barack Obama would bring the problem into the open and remove the racist stigma. Instead, he perpetuated it. In his acclaimed Philadelphia speech on race, he cited his grandmother as “a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed her by on the street.”

How about the former Barry Obama? When he was a Columbia University student living on the lip of then-dangerous Harlem, did he never have the same fear?

There’s no doubt in my mind that Zimmerman profiled Martin and, braced by a gun, set off in quest of heroism. The result was a quintessentially American tragedy — the death of a young man understandably suspected because he was black and tragically dead for the same reason.​

http://m.washingtonpost.com/opinion...419eb6-ed7a-11e2-a1f9-ea873b7e0424_story.html

This article pisses me off so much that I want that guy to get suspended. But then that wouldn't help people to have an open conversation, so his article should stay. But wow what a horrible thing to say.

So because I'm black I should be profiled, just based on my skin and my skin alone?

 

[commedieu]

This is not true, and even watching an episode of law and order would tell you this. The DA decides if the case is worth trying. They obviously didn't feel there was enough evidence to prove murder/manslaughter.

If you kill someone, and it is clearly self defense there is often no trial.

This is how it was going but public outcry pretty much forced a trial.

It wasn't clearly self defense, as the manslaughter charges were seeked by Sereno.

I'm defending someone elses post here, but the issue was that someone, in this instance, was let go.

 

[Figboy79]

I think one of the real, nearly unspoken issues that I'm getting from this entire ordeal, including the juror's statements, is that people seem to think it's totally ok that Zimmerman saw a black kid walking down the street, and, because there was a series of break ins in the neighborhood by black youth, made the connection in his head that, "Well, if one black person committed a crime in this neighborhood, all blacks that fit the profile of that one black person must be a criminal as well."

That is not cool, and that is the definition of racial profiling. If the burglars had been white males, and Zimmerman made the connection that "white male = criminal," it would still be racial profiling, and it would still be wrong.

The jurors of this case clearly didn't see anything wrong with Zimmerman suspecting Trayvon, despite Trayvon not actively doing anything to suggest he was up to no good. And, as has been pointed out, it was 7 in the evening. Who breaks into a home on a Sunday night? The day before a work week, when the family is usually at home?

Also, The 7/11 Trayvon was walking from wasn't in the gated community, and we know that Zimmerman had been following him from before Trayvon even entered the community. We know this, because, if I remember correctly, Zimmerman stated that he passed Trayvon, then waited at the clubhouse, and started following him again by vehicle when he passed him (and entered the gated community). So, Zimmerman had made a judgment call about Trayvon and what he was about, before he entered the community, and before he started "acting strange, like he was on drugs or something."

Despite the jury being pointed out time and again Zimmerman's intent to follow and detain, they brushed it aside because, "hey, Trayvon was suspicious for some reason, and it's totally ok for a 'boy of color' to be detained by a non LEO because the complete stranger following him wants to detain him."

Trayvon had no obligation to explain himself, and, Zimmerman's own recorded account, Trayvon tried to get away by running. Zimmerman didn't let him get away. He followed him, and, according to Rachel, who heard the start of the altercation, questioned what Trayvon was doing in the neighborhood, and did Trayvon swing a punch? No, he asked Zimmerman, "Why are you following me?" As as an adult, Zimmerman could have de-escalated the situation by saying he was with neighborhood watch and didn't recognize him. But instead, Zimmerman said nothing, and I feel that at this point, he tried to detain Trayvon by pulling his gun, and then the fight happened. I don't discount Rachel's observations. It doesn't matter if her testimony lacked eloquence. She reported what she heard. And it's routinely dismissed because of "reasons." But Zimmerman's account, which, I'm sorry, evidence does not corroborate, is taken as gospel truth.

Evidence shows that Zimmerman was not being pummeled. He took at least 1-3 punches to the face tops, and 1-2 blows to the concrete, which could have happened when he first hit the ground. This does not vibe with his account of being mounted MMA style and his head slammed against the ground "25+ times."

The jury seemed to ignore the physical evidence (including lack of Zimmerman's DNA on Trayvon; lack of defensive wounds on Zimmerman, as, I'd imagine, someone who is fighting for their life would have), and just took Zimmerman's account as true, despite admitting that there were "lies and exaggerations."

But hey, he only killed a 17 year old, and he's "learned his lesson." I'm sure dead Trayvon is glad to know that his death taught Zimmerman a valuable life lesson.

 

[nib95]

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.

This is not strictly true. It does not work like that here.

There is no immediate justification of deadly force if you fear for your life or fear for GBH like in the US or in Florida at least. You are only permitted to only use the reasonable amount of force needed to protect yourself or others. Reasonable force does not mean you can kill someone at the meagre threat of GBH or your life. This is absolutely not the case. Contrary to that, it could be argued most altercations from petty fights, burglaries, robberies etc lead to such fears, which is exactly why we don't have such strict rulings on permissible deadly force.

I honestly think you should read up on UK law, or cases throughout the history of our law, that set binding precedent on this before making further posts on the subject.

To make my point clear a different way, there is no way in a million years Zimmerman was ever be acquitted here in the UK, were the case the same. Even if he'd killed TM with a knife to the heart instead of a gun, his use of force would be seen as unreasonable, even if he did get a beating.

 

[TheYanger]

You realize hoodies are banned in some countries right? They ARE associated with criminals, they just also happen to be too popular to do anything about it in the US (they're associated wtih things like college athletics as well here).

 

[Liha]

I think the society should accept this judgement. The U.S. is a constitutional state and not a fascistic / racist state. This racism argument is just embarrassing.

 

[Vahagn]

This is not true, and even watching an episode of law and order would tell you this. The DA decides if the case is worth trying. They obviously didn't feel there was enough evidence to prove murder/manslaughter.

If you kill someone, and it is clearly self defense there is often no trial.

This is how it was going but public outcry pretty much forced a trial.

Unarmed teenager, 50 pounds lighter, non-serious injuries to Zimmerman, pursuit and confrontation which he started. (Unless of course you think that, for example, a woman can't use pepper spray when being pursued by an assailant in the dark who won't identify themselves until after she begins being raped).


The idea that this was a clear self-defense case is absurd and can only be claimed if all the scientific/dna evidence is ignored, Rachel Jeantel's testimony, as well as the testimony of conflicting witnesses is ignored, and the severity of the injuries and prior official records of the individuals can be ignored.

The only way this goes uncharged, is if someone somewhere believes every word out of Zimmerman's mouth and refuses to move forward. This decision was made before Rachel Jeantel was deposed, this decision was made before any of the DNA evidence or forensic evidence or any other information was found out.

I think the society should accept this judgement. The U.S. is a constitutional state and not a fascistic / racist state. This racism argument is just embarrassing.

I think denying racism, is the new racism.

 

[commedieu]

Ughh way to fucking spin things.

1st. I did not mis for purpose. So keep on going making you claim that my miss has something to do with the case.
2nd. Again. Where did i fucking type Hitler was good dude and there was nothing wrong with him ?

2nd,

Someone else, said that you can't discredit people based on highlighting the good that Hitler did. In a response to me saying "Wow" to you, (ThugWaffle, previous page)

1st, I said if you cared to get the name right, as this is a pretty significant thread/issue, you would have spelled it correctly. I don't speak many native languages in worldwide threads, but I make sure to get the names right, if I want a post to be taken seriously.

 

[KHarvey16]

This is not strictly true. It does not work like that here.

There is no immediate justification of deadly force if you fear for your life or fear for GBH like in the US or in Florida at least. You are only permitted to only use the reasonable amount of force needed to protect yourself or others. Reasonable force does not mean you can kill someone at the meagre threat of GBH or your life. Contrary to that, it could be argued most altercations from petty fights, burglaries, robberies etc lead to such fears, which is exactly why we don't have such strict rulings on permissible deadly force.

Did you even read the first link I provided to you? I will copy it for you:

Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of this Article when it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary:

(a)in defence of any person from unlawful violence;

That says you can kill someone and not be in violation of the law if it is done so in "defence of any person from unlawful violence". I've already shown that reasonableness is the measure by which self defense is judged and this also applies to the use of deadly force. How do you not understand any of this? And why have you failed at every possible occasion to provide a single source for any of the statements you are making regarding the law? All you've cited so far is a case that didn't support what you were saying because either you didn't understand it or what you were saying. Maybe both.

 

[Yoritomo]

This is not strictly true. It does not work like that here.

There is no immediate justification of deadly force if you fear for your life or fear for GBH like in the US or in Florida at least. You are only permitted to only use the reasonable amount of force needed to protect yourself or others. Reasonable force does not mean you can kill someone at the meagre threat of GBH or your life. This is absolutely not the case. Contrary to that, it could be argued most altercations from petty fights, burglaries, robberies etc lead to such fears, which is exactly why we don't have such strict rulings on permissible deadly force.

I honestly think you should read up on UK law, or cases throughout the history of our law, that set binding precedent on this before making further posts on the subject.

To make my point clear a different way, there is no way in a million years Zimmerman was ever be acquitted here in the UK, were the case the same. Even if he'd killed TM with a knife to the heart instead of a gun, his use of force would be seen as unreasonable, even if he did get a beating.

Yes and it should have been seen as unreasonable in this case.

 

[TAJ]

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.

My construction boss was a cartoonishly racist redneck.
But he hired a black guy. Guess who complained? The Mexicans. Every other word out of their mouths was 'mayate' until the guy found a better job.

 

[commedieu]

My construction boss was a cartoonishly racist redneck.
But he hired a black guy. Guess who complained? The Mexicans. Every other word out of their mouths was 'mayate' until the guy found a better job.

..wait.. My friends call me Mayate, down at the shipping dock... they said it meant great well respected king of the sea...

 

[Vahagn]

I think the society should accept this judgement. The U.S. is a constitutional state and not a fascistic / racist state. This racism argument is just embarrassing.

What's embarrassing is you not realizing the Constitution is racist. I have a hint for you, just in case you haven't read it: 3/5th.

 

[royalan]

I think one of the real, nearly unspoken issues that I'm getting from this entire ordeal, including the juror's statements, is that people seem to think it's totally ok that Zimmerman saw a black kid walking down the street, and, because there was a series of break ins in the neighborhood by black youth, made the connection in his head that, "Well, if one black person committed a crime in this neighborhood, all blacks that fit the profile of that one black person must be a criminal as well."

That is not cool, and that is the definition of racial profiling. If the burglars had been white males, and Zimmerman made the connection that "white male = criminal," it would still be racial profiling, and it would still be wrong.

The jurors of this case clearly didn't see anything wrong with Zimmerman suspecting Trayvon, despite Trayvon not actively doing anything to suggest he was up to no good. And, as has been pointed out, it was 7 in the evening. Who breaks into a home on a Sunday night? The day before a work week, when the family is usually at home?

Also, The 7/11 Trayvon was walking from wasn't in the gated community, and we know that Zimmerman had been following him from before Trayvon even entered the community. We know this, because, if I remember correctly, Zimmerman stated that he passed Trayvon, then waited at the clubhouse, and started following him again by vehicle when he passed him (and entered the gated community). So, Zimmerman had made a judgment call about Trayvon and what he was about, before he entered the community, and before he started "acting strange, like he was on drugs or something."

Despite the jury being pointed out time and again Zimmerman's intent to follow and detain, they brushed it aside because, "hey, Trayvon was suspicious for some reason, and it's totally ok for a 'boy of color' to be detained by a non LEO because the complete stranger following him wants to detain him."

Trayvon had no obligation to explain himself, and, Zimmerman's own recorded account, Trayvon tried to get away by running. Zimmerman didn't let him get away. He followed him, and, according to Rachel, who heard the start of the altercation, questioned what Trayvon was doing in the neighborhood, and did Trayvon swing a punch? No, he asked Zimmerman, "Why are you following me?" As as an adult, Zimmerman could have de-escalated the situation by saying he was with neighborhood watch and didn't recognize him. But instead, Zimmerman said nothing, and I feel that at this point, he tried to detain Trayvon by pulling his gun, and then the fight happened. I don't discount Rachel's observations. It doesn't matter if her testimony lacked eloquence. She reported what she heard. And it's routinely dismissed because of "reasons." But Zimmerman's account, which, I'm sorry, evidence does not corroborate, is taken as gospel truth.

Evidence shows that Zimmerman was not being pummeled. He took at least 1-3 punches to the face tops, and 1-2 blows to the concrete, which could have happened when he first hit the ground. This does not vibe with his account of being mounted MMA style and his head slammed against the ground "25+ times."

The jury seemed to ignore the physical evidence (including lack of Zimmerman's DNA on Trayvon; lack of defensive wounds on Zimmerman, as, I'd imagine, someone who is fighting for their life would have), and just took Zimmerman's account as true, despite admitting that there were "lies and exaggerations."

But hey, he only killed a 17 year old, and he's "learned his lesson." I'm sure dead Trayvon is glad to know that his death taught Zimmerman a valuable life lesson.

Not a goddamn lie in this post.

You realize hoodies are banned in some countries right? They ARE associated with criminals, they just also happen to be too popular to do anything about it in the US (they're associated wtih things like college athletics as well here).

That is an incredibly fucking stupid association, sorry.

Hoodies are probably more associated with fucking Holister, American Eagle, and college sports than they are with crime.

 

[nib95]

Did you even read the first link I provided to you? I will copy it for you:



That says you can kill someone and not be in violation of the law if it is done so in "defence of any person from unlawful violence". How do you not understand what that is saying? And why have you failed at every possible occasion to provide a single source for any of the statements you are making regarding the law? All you've cited so far is a case that didn't support what you were saying because either you didn't understand it or what you were saying. Maybe both.

I feel like you completely ignored my post...

Also, I never said you couldn't kill someone in self defence, on the contrary I said you could in extreme circumstances, where the use of force was seen as reasonable.

What you quoted makes no inferences to deadly force being immediately authorised or permissible in fear of GBH or death. It does not work like that. Like I said, that one literal terminology does not dictate the laws. Our laws our based on common sense understanding and binding precedent, as I highlighted in my post several responses back with quotations and historic cases.

Please refer back to my post about how your focus on only formal literature as a means to understand the law, whilst ignoring all binding precedent, past cases, past rulings and common sense understandings of the law are hindering your ability to properly understand and acknowledge it.

Anyway, we better get back on topic. I'm happy to debate this with you via PM.

 

[GQman2121]

http://news.yahoo.com/-juror-says-z...ut-that-race-was-not-an-issue--010659567.html
“I don’t think it did. If there was another person, Spanish, white, Asian; if they came in the same situation as Trayvon did, I think George would have reacted the same way,” she said.

“I think all of us thought race did not play a role. We never had that discussion. I think he just profiled him because he was the neighborhood watch and he profiled anyone that was acting strange.”

I think this is absolutely accurate. He was going to confront anyone he didn't recognize. It was bad luck for Trayvon that he's young, black, and wearing a hood because that only helped feed into the suspicions of someone who wanted to be a hero that night and was clearly blinded by his abilities because he was carrying a firearm.

Zimmerman was going to shoot someone in the neighborhood at some point. It was just a matter of time. Race or gender wouldn't change that.

And in a revealing moment, the juror said Zimmerman went “above and beyond” acceptable action by confronting Martin.

“[Zimmerman] got displaced by the vandalism in the neighborhood and wanting to catch these people so badly that he went above and beyond what he should have,” she said. “It just went terribly wrong. I think he’s guilty of not using good judgment. When he was in the car and called 911 he shouldn’t have gotten out of that car.”

Juror B37 says she wants to maintain her anonymity but she has been willing to speak out on the case. As reported earlier on Monday, juror B37 announced plans to write a tell-all book about her experiences on the jury in the Zimmerman trial .

“Nobody knew exactly what happened,” Juror B37 said when asked about the specific details of the case. “I don’t think anybody knows.”

When asked if she feels sorry for the death of Trayvon Martin, she responded, “I feel sorry for both of them.”

“I think both of them were responsible for the situation they got themselves into,” she added. “I think they each could have made the decision to walk away.”

Which is exactly why he should be behind bars.

The rest.....what a special, special kind of cunt she is. Especially the last two quotes, as they directly contradict the notion that he SHOULDN'T HAVE GOTTEN OUT OF HIS FUCKING VEHICLE!

 

[Flo_Evans]

It wasn't clearly self defense, as the manslaughter charges were seeked by Sereno.

I'm defending someone elses post here, but the issue was that someone, in this instance, was let go.

This guy?

The lead Sanford Police investigator who sought manslaughter charges against George Zimmerman told the FBI that a sergeant and two other officers tried to pressure him into making an arrest in the controversial case — even though he didn’t think there was enough evidence.

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/07/12/2892510/detective-in-zimmerman-case-said.html#storylink=cpy

 

[Vahagn]

You realize hoodies are banned in some countries right? They ARE associated with criminals, they just also happen to be too popular to do anything about it in the US (they're associated wtih things like college athletics as well here).

Wow. I have 5 or 6 hoodies. They're from H&M and Hollister though so I guess that makes it ok. And, God forbid, when it's raining and I don't have a car and want to walk to 7-11, I can't use a hoodie to protect my head. Or the electronic earbuds that are exposed without a hoodie when I'm talking to my friend.


The lengths people will go to suggest why it's ok that Trayvon Martin is dead today is crazy. His death is ok because he fought back, his death is ok cuz he had THC in the system, his death is ok because he wore hoodies, his death is ok because he was looking in windows, his death is ok because he likes fighting, his death is ok because other people who looked like him committed crimes.

 

[Xenon]

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.

Sorry I came in on the middle of the conversation and just thought the way you worded the statement misrepresented the facts.

But while people are looking for comparisons...

How many case have there been when the shooter was on the phone with the police right before the shooting, had evidence of being attacked when they arrived and no reliable witness to the event? It seems like people from both sides are trying to write this of as "Another case of.." instead of focusing the specific details of this very unique confrontation.

I don't see them releasing George that night being inexcusable, I do however agree once all the details came to light that charges should have been brought against him. The failure to that, is inexcusable.

 

[KHarvey16]

I feel like you completely ignored my post...

Also, I never said you couldn't kill someone in self defence, on the contrary I said you could in extreme circumstances, where the use of force was seen as reasonable.

What you quoted makes no inferences to deadly force being immediately authorised or permissible in fear of GBH or death. It does not work like that. Like I said, that one literal terminology does not dictate the laws. Our laws our based on common sense understanding and binding precedent, as I highlighted in my post several responses back with quotations and historic cases.

Please refer back to my post about how your focus on only formal literature as a means to understand the law, whilst ignoring all binding precedent, past cases, past rulings and common sense understandings of the law are hindering your ability to properly understand and acknowledge it.

Anyway, we better get back on topic. I'm happy to debate this with you via PM.

Please show me a link to the law. You still have no idea what you're talking about. That case did not show anything you're claiming.

 

[commedieu]

Zimmerman's account, which, I'm sorry, evidence does not corroborate, is taken as gospel truth.

Evidence shows that Zimmerman was not being pummeled. He took at least 1-3 punches to the face tops, and 1-2 blows to the concrete, which could have happened when he first hit the ground. This does not vibe with his account of being mounted MMA style and his head slammed against the ground "25+ times."

The jury seemed to ignore the physical evidence (including lack of Zimmerman's DNA on Trayvon; lack of defensive wounds on Zimmerman, as, I'd imagine, someone who is fighting for their life would have), and just took Zimmerman's account as true, despite admitting that there were "lies and exaggerations."

But hey, he only killed a 17 year old, and he's "learned his lesson." I'm sure dead Trayvon is glad to know that his death taught Zimmerman a valuable life lesson.

nothing but truth, as usual. This is what I wish we could discuss. Why people value Zimmerman's ever changing/lying to court word over evidence.

 

[Scofield94941]

I love how the juror says, They are both at fault they both should have walked away, I remember Zimmerman saying "Hes running" It seems to be that he walked 'ran" away, he continued to follow, thus fight or flight mentality was now fight.


Oh and the question she is asked "Who do you feel sorry for?" She says "I feel sorry for both." Are you fucking kidding me? One person is dead , bones in the ground never to do anything again and the other "learned a hard lesson" and is free to live a full life. FUCK YOU

 

[smerfy]

I've seen so much outcry from GAF about the outcome of this...and other places...

but really...with how the case actually went I would've been more pissed if they had convicted.

There wasn't enough evidence/the prosecution did a horrible job presenting it, the prosecution witnesses were pretty quickly turned into liabilities on the stand...you would be hardpressed to come in as an outsider, look at the evidence and testimony presented and come the the conclusion that Zimmerman was guilty BEYOND a REASONABLE doubt.

sure it sucks that a 17 year old died and the person that killed him MAY (in my opinion, he did) have initiated the confrontation...but the evidence and argument wasn't present in the courtroom to convict.

emotions don't win court cases. public outcry doesn't either. nor should it. i feel bad for the family, yes, but i'm happy with the justice system actually following the laws that we have in place.

should the laws be tweaked a bit? there's always tweaking to do, sure. but the only way zimmerman would have been convicted is if he was required to prove the claim of self defense and, based on the case, that would have led to the same murky grey area that the prosecution got stuck in.

 

[Liha]

.

 

[Flo_Evans]

nothing but truth, as usual. This is what I wish we could discuss. Why people value Zimmerman's ever changing/lying to court word over evidence.

Zimmerman never spoke in court how can he lie to the court?

 

[Vahagn]

This victim role of black people is the true joke, everybody and everything is against us.

oh my lordy

 

[Yoritomo]

I think this is absolutely accurate. He was going to confront anyone he didn't recognize. It was bad luck for Trayvon that he's young, black, and wearing a hood because that only helped feed into the suspicions of someone who wanted to be a hero that night and was clearly blinded by his abilities because he was carrying a firearm.

Zimmerman was going to shoot someone in the neighborhood at some point. It was just a matter of time. Race or gender wouldn't change that.



Which is exactly why he should be behind bars.

The rest.....what a special, special kind of cunt she is. Especially the last two quotes, as they directly contradict the notion that he SHOULDN'T HAVE GOTTEN OUT OF HIS FUCKING VEHICLE!

There's nothing wrong with asking someone questions.

Him getting out of the car allowed the situation to escalate, him having a gun allowed the situation to escalate. Him being mounted by Martin allowed the situation to escalate.

Lets boil this down to the simplest possible situation.

Ignore everything leading up to the moment.

You're in a fight. The person has you on the ground and has a large rock that they've hit you in the head with once and are about to hit you again. You're dazed.

Are you afraid for you life? What force can you use to stop this person?

Neither party should have escalated, but whether zimmerman is justified or not boils down to that moment, and under Florida law he could use deadly force to defend himself, and therefore the jury acquitted him.

 

[Perkel]

2nd,

Someone else, said that you can't discredit people based on highlighting the good that Hitler did. In a response to me saying "Wow" to you, (ThugWaffle, previous page)

1st, I said if you cared to get the name right, as this is a pretty significant thread/issue, you would have spelled it correctly.

ughhh. Nevermind. I don't care about you flamebait anymore. Think what you want i don't care. Maybe because i spelled wrong victim name i have some hidden agenda.

 

[DragonSworne]

This victim role of black people is the true joke, everybody and everything is against us.

O_O

...

O_O

...

Racist ad hominem is pretty damn low

 

[Treefingers]

I think one of the real, nearly unspoken issues that I'm getting from this entire ordeal, including the juror's statements, is that people seem to think it's totally ok that Zimmerman saw a black kid walking down the street, and, because there was a series of break ins in the neighborhood by black youth, made the connection in his head that, "Well, if one black person committed a crime in this neighborhood, all blacks that fit the profile of that one black person must be a criminal as well."

That is not cool, and that is the definition of racial profiling. If the burglars had been white males, and Zimmerman made the connection that "white male = criminal," it would still be racial profiling, and it would still be wrong.

The jurors of this case clearly didn't see anything wrong with Zimmerman suspecting Trayvon, despite Trayvon not actively doing anything to suggest he was up to no good. And, as has been pointed out, it was 7 in the evening. Who breaks into a home on a Sunday night? The day before a work week, when the family is usually at home?

Also, The 7/11 Trayvon was walking from wasn't in the gated community, and we know that Zimmerman had been following him from before Trayvon even entered the community. We know this, because, if I remember correctly, Zimmerman stated that he passed Trayvon, then waited at the clubhouse, and started following him again by vehicle when he passed him (and entered the gated community). So, Zimmerman had made a judgment call about Trayvon and what he was about, before he entered the community, and before he started "acting strange, like he was on drugs or something."

Despite the jury being pointed out time and again Zimmerman's intent to follow and detain, they brushed it aside because, "hey, Trayvon was suspicious for some reason, and it's totally ok for a 'boy of color' to be detained by a non LEO because the complete stranger following him wants to detain him."

Trayvon had no obligation to explain himself, and, Zimmerman's own recorded account, Trayvon tried to get away by running. Zimmerman didn't let him get away. He followed him, and, according to Rachel, who heard the start of the altercation, questioned what Trayvon was doing in the neighborhood, and did Trayvon swing a punch? No, he asked Zimmerman, "Why are you following me?" As as an adult, Zimmerman could have de-escalated the situation by saying he was with neighborhood watch and didn't recognize him. But instead, Zimmerman said nothing, and I feel that at this point, he tried to detain Trayvon by pulling his gun, and then the fight happened. I don't discount Rachel's observations. It doesn't matter if her testimony lacked eloquence. She reported what she heard. And it's routinely dismissed because of "reasons." But Zimmerman's account, which, I'm sorry, evidence does not corroborate, is taken as gospel truth.

Evidence shows that Zimmerman was not being pummeled. He took at least 1-3 punches to the face tops, and 1-2 blows to the concrete, which could have happened when he first hit the ground. This does not vibe with his account of being mounted MMA style and his head slammed against the ground "25+ times."

The jury seemed to ignore the physical evidence (including lack of Zimmerman's DNA on Trayvon; lack of defensive wounds on Zimmerman, as, I'd imagine, someone who is fighting for their life would have), and just took Zimmerman's account as true, despite admitting that there were "lies and exaggerations."

But hey, he only killed a 17 year old, and he's "learned his lesson." I'm sure dead Trayvon is glad to know that his death taught Zimmerman a valuable life lesson.

Great post. To me it seems it's either extremely poor judgement and/or racism on the jury's part. Otherwise I really don't see what more the jury needed to decide on manslaughter.

 

[Omegasquash]

This victim role of black people is the true joke, everybody and anything is against us, my opinion.

9/10. This has got to be a joke post, and I only docked a point because it lacks class.

 

[commedieu]

This guy?

I'm saying its not a clear case of defense, backed up by the recommendation he be charged. So that in a trial, you have evidence/depositions etc. To reach a conclusion of guilt or innocence.

Serino filed an affidavit on Feb. 26, the night that Martin was shot and killed by Zimmerman, that stated he was unconvinced Zimmerman's version of events.

With your link, what are you saying?

 

[GQman2121]

I love how the juror says, They are both at fault they both should have walked away, I remember Zimmerman saying "Hes running" It seems to be that he walked 'ran" away, he continued to follow, thus fight or flight mentality was now fight.

Exactly. Case should have gone in front of the grand jury and he would have had to take the stand and explain this. The State Attorney's Office of Florida should be shamed until the next time their judgement is brought into question.

 

[Dabanton]

..wait.. My friends call me Mayate, down at the shipping dock... they said it meant great well respected king of the sea...

Ohhh you should have a word with them. From Urban Dictionary

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=mayate

Mayate

a mostly derrogatory term used by Mexicans or Mexican-Americans referring to a dark skinned person;

that mayate needs to pull his pants up.

 

[Playsation_]

This victim role of black people is the true joke, everybody and anything is against us, my opinion.

What? As in Role-playing? RPG and stuff?.. lol

 

[Dabanton]

This victim role of black people is the true joke, everybody and anything is against us, my opinion.

Where is that?

 

[Vahagn]

There's nothing wrong with asking someone questions.

Him getting out of the car allowed the situation to escalate, him having a gun allowed the situation to escalate. Him being mounted by Martin allowed the situation to escalate.

Lets boil this down to the simplest possible situation.

Ignore everything leading up to the moment.

You're in a fight. The person has you on the ground and has a large rock that they've hit you in the head with once and are about to hit you again. You're dazed.

Are you afraid for you life? What force can you use to stop this person?

Neither party should have escalated, but whether zimmerman is justified or not boils down to that moment, and under Florida law he could use deadly force to defend himself, and therefore the jury acquitted him.

Here's why you "ignoring" everything up to that point is such a dumb/prejudiced/possibly racist thing to do.


Let's stop identifying with Zimmerman for a second, and lets stop embellishing about Trayvong having a rock and bashing your head in which isn't true.

Let's say YOU'RE Trayvon, and someone in the middle of the night is chasing you, in a car, and you see it and you run away, he gets out on foot and he chases you some more. At some point you two meet and a fight escalates. You're unarmed, this other person who is a stranger and has been chasing you has a concealed weapon which you don't know about.

Do you 1) Throw the fight or 2) Fight for your life because you have the right to defend yourself and you want to make sure that this person who has relentlessly been pursuing you is unconscious or incapacitated before you give up your winning position?


Ignoring all the events leading up to the fight is just a way for you to essentially claim that Trayvon doesn't have the right to defend himself. That he has the OBLIGATION to throw the fight, and if he decides to try to win, he can be justifiably murdered.

 

[MThanded]

This victim role of black people is the true joke, everybody and anything is against us, my opinion.

 

[Liha]

I am a normal citizen. I can judge it morally, but not legally. We have judges and lawyers for that. The world is not perfect, accept it, tomorrow is a another day. I am an opponent of manhunt and that happens at the moment. Zimmerman is not guilty, treated him like a human and don`t hunt (kill) him.

 

[nib95]

Please show me a link to the law. You still have no idea what you're talking about. That case did not show anything you're claiming.

Lol, the stuff I posted is PART of the law. The same stuff is in the two links you provided from the Crown Prosecution guidance. Read through it and take note of how past cases setting binding precedent in the UK form part of our law.

This is all that is said on reasonable force in the Criminal Law act 1967. Binding precent and court rulings fill in the gaps based on a common sense understanding of the law.

1 Amendment of the Criminal Law Act 1967

The Criminal Law Act 1967 (c. 58) is amended as follows.

In section 3 (use of force in making arrest, etc.), after subsection (1), insert—

“(1A) Where a person uses force in the prevention of crime or in the defence
of persons or property on another who is in any building or part of a 5 building having entered as a trespasser or is attempting so to enter, that person shall not be guilty of any offence in respect of the use of that
force unless—
(a) the degree of force used was grossly disproportionate, and
(b) this was or ought to have been apparent to the person using 10 such force.

Will PM you more.