Zimmerman found innocent despite media/govt bias! :)

[purple_drank]

George Zimmermans attorney smokes the medias mistreatment and bias during the entire ordeal.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/07/13/zimmerman-defense-attorney-chastises-media-during-press-conference-you-guys-went-after-him-like-a-mad-scientist/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=story&utm_campaign=Share+Buttons

Also our so-called 'Department of Justice' was financially supporting the new black panther party and other anti-zimmerman protestors

http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2013/07/10/newly-released-documents-detail-the-department-of-justices-role-in-organizing-trayvon-martin-protests/

Thank God he still recieved true America justice
Now let's just pray he is able to survive the upcoming onslaught against his life!

[LotsaBadKarma]

Sorry about this but I gotta throw a little different light on this topic. I have more than a little bit of experience with neighborhood watch as a retired police officer with 20+ years on the street. There are always one or two boneheads in the group that will come up and ask when they can begin armed patrol. The actual answer to this question, by law and NW regulations mind you, is never.

First off being in a neighborhood watch group does not grant nor does it even imply power to arrest or detain someone. The job of people in a N.W. group is to see something and call the police. The only difference would come in in the event that you call the police when your home is being invaded and are then called upon to act in defense of yourself or another.

The question that I had pretty early on was whether Zimmerman had a CCW and the fact is that he did. The part of the permit law that he apparently did not understand was that the CCW, just like neighborhood watch, does not bestow police powers on the individual. Zimmerman is not and never has been a sworn officer although there are theories that he was kind of a station groupie in that he yearned for the badge but he had no authority in this case to follow Martin or to try to detain him. In point of fact he was advised by the police dispatcher to back off and let the cops handle it.

The other thing I found helpful when making up my mind about this case was viewing the events from the point of view of the dead man. See, if I'm Trayvon Martin and I'm walking to my dad's house and some guy with a gun starts to follow me I'm gonna assume that he's not out collecting alms for the Church of the Latter Day Dude. I'm probably thinking that he's either going to rob me or kill me or maybe both. So first off I'm looking to evade and secondly I'm looking to defend when evasion attempts have proven fruitless. So maybe when I see that I'm not going to get away from this guy I hide in some bushes and jump him when he gets close enough and try to bash his brains into the sidewalk.

So in spite of the fact that the liberal media was trying to put the noose around George's neck and the DoJ was funding the Panthers the thing that I fall back on here is who committed the original criminal offense. When I think about what Martin was doing prior to and at the time of his death he was either walking to his old man's house with some candy and pop or he was acting in what I, as a former cop, would interpret as an act of self defense. For self defense to function as an explanation of one's actions the concern needs only to be based on the person feeling a "reasonable apprehension" of being attacked in some way. And as far as I know it's still legal to wear a hoodie.

The other side of this coin, however, is Zimmerman violating the terms of his CCW by going out on armed patrol when that is clearly not the intent of the permit. As I said before that is a personal protection thing, not a permit for wanna-be cops. And my guess is that if not for the gun that Zimmerman was carrying we would not be writing about this case. I don't think that Zimmie would have even set foot out his front door without that fucking piece.

All that being said the picture painted of Martin conjures up the image of a thug. Not knowing the young man I can't make even an educated guess. Am I all freaked out by his death? No. I only have so much compassion and I reserve it for people I know and love. The thing that does, however, concern me is the fact that I have family in Orlando, about 20 miles from Sanford. I would hate like fucking hell to think that they would be victimized because of the actions of a nobody like Zimmerman and his subsequent acquittal in this case. My concern is that the area for miles around Sanford is gonna light up like a fucking xmas tree just like South Central not so long ago. There's no fucking reason for it, of course, but my money rides on that very thing happening.

And George Zimmerman skated. Am I happy about it? Fuck no. Do I care if the Panthers or some other group of sick fucks chops this punk into fish chum? As I said earlier, I only have so much compassion.

[Masked Dude]

I've been in law school, so I've never trusted the media portrayal of any court case.

A few things bothered me early on. Zimmerman should have backed off and Martin should have, too. From the evidence I've seen and the testimony, I feel that both let their macho attitudes get in the way.

What bothered me, too, was the judge allowed all of George's past but not Trayvon's. George had a history of not being that good at law enforcement but Trayvon had theft & drug charges. His Facebook and Twitter had many references to drugs, assault, and "reparations by all means." The photos you saw on TV were from years ago.

Neither of them were innocent. There's a difference between innocent and not guilty. Both let their attitudes get in the way and neither wanted to back down.

If I prayed, I'd pray for both of them and their families. This to me is another case of what my martial arts teachers taught me: never start a fight and never go farther than you must.

[roystonoboogie]

History shouldn't come into it. The trial was about the events of the night of 26th February 2012, and it shouldn't have been about anything else.


Not about race, not about 'standing your ground', not about Walter Mitty clones pretending to be cops.


Zimmerman shot and killed an unarmed man. He should have called the cops rather than trying to do anything himself, he should have backed off instead of following Trayvon Martin, he should not have drawn his weapon and he should not have discharged his weapon.


Zimmerman did everything wrong on the night, and a man is dead as a result. And the state of Florida decides that he's innocent? Florida hasn't made the USA look so bad since it helped Dubya fix the election in 2000.

[wuliheron]

The difference between a democracy and a lynch mob is in a democracy minorities have certain rights such as right to trial and to speak their peace in court. Florida has now proven that the 87% Lilly white and overwhelmingly rural evangelical reactionary republican party members can run around with guns accosting anyone on the streets they don't like and it has become a battle of who is the fastest draw in the west. When minorities of any kind can no longer turn their backs on the majority for fear of being shot there is no way democracy can survive.

[Masked Dude]

History shouldn't come into it. The trial was about the events of the night of 26th February 2012...

Exactly. I agree. They shouldn't have brought up either one's.

[LotsaBadKarma]

History shouldn't come into it. The trial was about the events of the night of 26th February 2012...

Exactly. I agree. They shouldn't have brought up either one's.

+1. Very well put.

[Rev. Jell E. Rawlins]

History shouldn't come into it. The trial was about the events of the night of 26th February 2012, and it shouldn't have been about anything else.

It's an interesting sentiment and there is something to it, but our legal system is replete with historical benchmarks. The distinction of 1st degree murder, for instance, depends on intention that precedes the actual crime. Furthermore, challenges are rooted in historical precedent and penalty phases use past behavior to assess present and future threat.

The more important measure is supposed to be relevance. Sometimes determining relevance depends on looking at the past. If a woman turns up dead after years of threats and domestic abuse from her suspect husband, history is bound to be relevant.

[Rev. Jell E. Rawlins]

George Zimmermans attorney smokes the medias mistreatment and bias during the entire ordeal.


Also our so-called 'Department of Justice' was financially supporting the new black panther party and other anti-zimmerman protestors

Thank God he still recieved true America justice
Now let's just pray he is able to survive the upcoming onslaught against his life!

Bias is a bitch. So is irony.

[roystonoboogie]

History shouldn't come into it. The trial was about the events of the night of 26th February 2012, and it shouldn't have been about anything else.

It's an interesting sentiment and there is something to it, but our legal system is replete with historical benchmarks. The distinction of 1st degree murder, for instance, depends on intention that precedes the actual crime. Furthermore, challenges are rooted in historical precedent and penalties use past behavior to assess present and future threat.

The more important measure is supposed to be relevance. Sometimes determining relevance depends on looking at the past. If a woman turns up dead after years of threats and domestic abuse from her suspected husband, history is bound to be relevant.

I see what you're saying there. Perhaps I could have worded it better...


There was no history between Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman before the night in question. That is why I don't think history was relevant in this case.


Had there been a history where they had encountered each other, there had been some confrontation, then history could have been relevant to the case.


But all that baloney about what Trayvon Martin posted on Facebook? It's Facebook! People lie on Facebook! How can that possibly be admissable as evidence? Unless what he said on Facebook had some direct relevance to the case, which it did not.


As to the distinction between 1st and 2nd degree murder (which we don't have in the UK), I'm not too bothered about that: it's still a verdict of guilty of murder. What I am bothered about is the verdict of innocence.

[Masked Dude]

I feel bad for their families. I can't say I feel bad for GZ or TM, since I don't know what happened. None of us do, despite so many who somehow magically know exactly what transpired.

Their families are suffering. One lost a son; it's unnatural for a parent to bury a child. The other will live in fear and be hated for someone else's actions.

Neither of those is fair.

[Masked Dude]

The distinction of 1st degree murder, for instance, depends on intention that precedes the actual crime.

In some states (such as mine) also count it if a murder is committed during the commission of a felony, such as rape or certain assaults. I know, law can be confusing. I had a perfect GPA in it and it still gets me sometimes.

[Rev. Jell E. Rawlins]

I see what you're saying there. Perhaps I could have worded it better...

There was no history between Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman before the night in question. That is why I don't think history was relevant in this case.

Had there been a history where they had encountered each other, there had been some confrontation, then history could have been relevant to the case.

But all that baloney about what Trayvon Martin posted on Facebook? It's Facebook! People lie on Facebook! How can that possibly be admissable as evidence? Unless what he said on Facebook had some direct relevance to the case, which it did not.

As to the distinction between 1st and 2nd degree murder (which we don't have in the UK), I'm not too bothered about that: it's still a verdict of guilty of murder. What I am bothered about is the verdict of innocence.

I definitely get what you're saying and, while I do have my own biases about the case, I'm not really challenging many specifics on either "side" yet. Currently, we are a country with a nearly complete inability to have a reasonable discussion about race. I'm not really ready to jump into the deep end of the pool to discuss at length how polarization has led to oversimplification of the events & circumstances.

I'll be honest that my sentiments lie with Martin but I think this is a legitimately complex case and, ultimately, there is no verdict of innocence. I don't think there is any reasonable claim to Zimmerman being innocent. However, that doesn't mean there is legal justification for finding him guilty of the crime he's accused of. I don't feel like I have enough information to take a side on that yet. I kind of hope he get's his ass sued into the next millennium, though, and I think there's plenty of evidence to justify that.

[Rev. Jell E. Rawlins]

The distinction of 1st degree murder, for instance, depends on intention that precedes the actual crime.

In some states (such as mine) also count it if a murder is committed during the commission of a felony, such as rape or certain assaults. I know, law can be confusing. I had a perfect GPA in it and it still gets me sometimes.

I didn't say it depended solely on "intention that precedes the actual crime." So, I object on the grounds that your argument is immaterial and your reference to an alleged "perfect GPA" is prejudicial. If that is overruled, I will argue that "intention" in my original statement was not limited to intent to murder and it's self-evident that intent to commit a felony is covered therein. Use "confusing" to your advantage.

[Masked Dude]

I shall 4-color brief you! I shall Shepardize you! When you're down, I shall toss confusing Latin terms at you!

Haha! In media res! Habeas my corpus, will ya?!