George Zimmerman Verdict: NOT GUILTY

[Falvlun]

To the best of my recollection, that is precisely what was claimed and, presumably, what the jury believed. What is your evidence to the contrary?

The fact that Zimmerman was following this kid around with a truck calling 911 on him. Pro-Z's all seem to think this night began with a broken nose, and yet, so much happened before.

As for the jury, I don't know what they believed. They likely acquitted based upon lack of concrete evidence of guilt, rather than proof of innocence.

 

[LuisDantas]

Your evidence that Zimmerman 'stalked' Martin?

Granted, I am going by early reports and I am not an eyewitness.

Then again, neither are the jurors. One has to wonder about the quality of the evidence that was presented them.

 

[Revoltingest]

Neither. Between us, you're the only one talking about these things.

No, you specifically mentioned "racial profiling".
And since there is so much of it going on by so many different people, it makes sense to ask you to be more specific. Or do you imply that only "white" people & "white Hispanics" profile? Do you believe that "cracker" is a term of respect & endearment that black folk have for white folk?

 

[LuisDantas]

If you were a black man who liked to patrol his crime ridden neighborhood to report suspicious activity, & you found yourself lying upon the ground being assaulted by a young white buck, would you have the right to defend yourself?

To defend? Yes. To kill him? Hardly, unless I truly had no choice.

Is there any evidence that Zimmerman lacked such a choice? Or, for that matter, that he did not stalk Martin?

The verdict may be lawful, and perhaps even fair. But it sure isn't convincing, and I would not dare to say that justice was made.

Basically, it only looks an awful like manslaughter or worse, but there is no conclusive proof.

Hardly something to celebrate, even if it turns out that Zimmerman isn't a stalker and a racist murderer (which I stand quite unconvinced of).

 

[Revoltingest]

Granted, I am going by early reports and I am not an eyewitness.
Then again, neither are the jurors. One has to wonder about the quality of the evidence that was presented them.

You could've watched the trial, or read about it.
But lacking full info, how did you decide to come down on the side of the black kid, but not the Hispanic...er, white Hispanic? Hispanics are often looked down upon as "wetbacks", "beaners", "illegal aliens", etc. Some feel threatened that they're becoming the largest US minority, with increasing political power, & a reputation for being hard workers. One cannot discount prejudice against them. Zimmerman had the double whammy of being both "white" & "Hispanic", making him easier to blame, hate, demonize, & prosecute.

 

[Falvlun]

No, you specifically mentioned "racial profiling".
And since there is so much of it going on by so many different people, it makes sense to ask you to be more specific. Or do you imply that only "white" people & "white Hispanics" profile? Do you believe that "cracker" is a term of respect & endearment that black folk have for white folk?

Before post #123 in this thread, I never once mentioned race in regards to this case. You brought it up out of the blue a couple posts later in a reply to me. It seems you are rather obsessed with the whole thing.

As for racial profiling in this context, I'm specifically talking about the tendency of people of any color to classify black people or minorities as being people more likely to commit a crime.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Really? Zimmerman feared for his life despite being the one who stalked the other and the one with the firearm?

Your evidence that Zimmerman 'stalked' Martin?

Granted, I am going by early reports and I am not an eyewitness.

That is not evidence. That is a contested claim that you've simply promoted to the status of indisputable fact.

Do you not find that irresponsible?

One has to wonder about the quality of the evidence that was presented them.

One has to wonder about the evidence because it's not what you want?

 

[LuisDantas]

You could've watched the trial, or read about it.
But lacking full info, how did you decide to come down on the side of the black kid, but not the Hispanic...er, white Hispanic? Hispanics are often looked down upon as "wetbacks", "beaners", "illegal aliens", etc. Some feel threatened that they're becoming the largest US minority, with increasing political power, & a reputation for being hard workers. One cannot discount prejudice against them. Zimmerman had the double whammy of being both "white" & "Hispanic", making him easier to blame, hate, demonize, & prosecute.

Lacking other evidence, I usually assume that the one who shot the other to death was the aggressor.

I am funny that way.

 

[LuisDantas]

That is not evidence. That is a contested claim that you've simply promoted to the status of indisputable fact.

Do you not find that irresponsible?

Letting a known killer walk away completely unpunished looks irresponsible as well.

One has to wonder about the evidence because it's not what you want?

If you mean that I do not want self-defense to be interpreted that broadly, then sure.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Lacking other evidence, I usually assume that the one who shot the other to death was the aggressor.

I am funny that way.

Do you usually denigrate others base on your assumptions?

 

[Revoltingest]

To defend? Yes. To kill him? Hardly, unless I truly had no choice.

So if you were being attacked, & felt you had no self defense choice but to kill your attacker, you agree that this is acceptable?

Is there any evidence that Zimmerman lacked such a choice? Or, for that matter, that he did not stalk Martin?

There was testimony that Zimmerman was a very poorly skilled fighter.
To convict Zimmerman, our legal system requires that the prosecution prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty. It does not require that the accused prove his innocence.
How does this work in Brazil?

The verdict may be lawful, and perhaps even fair. But it sure isn't convincing, and I would not dare to say that justice was made.

Again, it's always the prosecution's job to be convincing. The accused need only create reasonable doubt.

Basically, it only looks an awful like manslaughter or worse, but there is no conclusive proof.
Hardly something to celebrate, even if it turns out that Zimmerman isn't a stalker and a racist murderer (which I stand quite unconvinced of).

I celebrate the rule of law being carried out, not the death of a teenager who might've matured into a productive citizen had this event not occurred.

 

[dawny0826]

I'm personally glad that the justice system still works the way it's supposed to sometimes. There was insufficient evidence for a guilty verdict, and that was clear from the beginning of the trial. Good job, jury.

Thank you. Exactly.

The entire situation is horribly unfortunate. There's no doubt in my mind that Zimmerman was in the wrong, but, a jury's job is to examine evidence and to utilize that evidence to determine a verdict. If there isn't substantial enough evidence...the right thing to do is to acquit.

I wouldn't feel comfortable putting anyone behind bars, unless I was confident, per the evidence provided, that the indivudal was guilty of said crime.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Letting a known killer walk away completely unpunished looks irresponsible as well.

I find your arrogant certainty disgusting ...

 

[Revoltingest]

Lacking other evidence, I usually assume that the one who shot the other to death was the aggressor.

I am funny that way.

To usually assume a harsh judgement without giving it due consideration is very unfunny.
People's rights & safety are at stake. The attitude you display, when widely held, can result
in further violence to innocent people if reactions to the verdict inflame people.

 

[LuisDantas]

I find your arrogant certainty disgusting ...

Your opinions about my person ceased to carry a lot of weight quite a while ago, though. So deal with it.

 

[LuisDantas]

To usually assume a harsh judgement without giving it due consideration is very unfunny.
People's rights & safety are at stake. The attitude you display, when widely held, can result
in further violence to innocent people if reactions to the verdict inflame people.

I actually agree, and I wonder if you don't realize the implications of what you say. It applies in several senses that should make us worry about this decision.

For one, we are all basically having to guess what happened in full and how much evidence there is or can be found. What we do know is that there was a conflict between the two and that it escalated into manslaughter, which by current understanding of the law is over-ruled as self-defense despite the lack of a reasonable need to kill.

One of the lessons coming from that is that killing an assailant is safer than letting him run away. Worse, you do not even have to prove that he is an assailant; one only needs to establish reasonable doubt.

Which, by its turn, pretty much means that racial minorities and others who either are or could be mistaken as assailants had better learn to shoot - and to shoot first at that.

If you do not see that as leading to further violence, I really do not know what to tell you.

 

[Revoltingest]

I actually agree, and I wonder if you don't realize the implications of what you say. It applies in several senses that should make us worry about this decision.

You know me....I don't give much thought to what I say.
Oh, if only I had your wisdom & power of reflection....sigh....
But I try to make do with my limited brain power.

For one, we are all basically having to guess what happened in full and how much evidence there is or can be found. What we do know is that there was a conflict between the two and that it escalated into manslaughter, which by current understanding of the law is over-ruled as self-defense despite the lack of a reasonable need to kill.

There is also much which is objectively verifiable. I base my opinions upon that.

One of the lessons coming from that is that killing an assailant is safer than letting him run away. Worse, you do not even have to prove that he is an assailant; one only needs to establish reasonable doubt.

You might prefer a system where the accused must prove his innocence to the state's satisfaction, but I prefer our system. What standard of guilt does Brazil apply?

Which, by its turn, pretty much means that racial minorities and others who either are or could be mistaken as assailants had better learn to shoot - and to shoot first at that.

If you propose that shooting people whom you believe might be a threat, you'd find that your court case wouldn't go as well as Zimmerman's did. Yours is a very irresponsible & illegal suggestion.

If you do not see that as leading to further violence, I really do not know what to tell you.

It's your bone headed suggestion, bub....don't blame its ill consequences on me.

 

[LuisDantas]

Maybe my understanding of how the case ran is flawed enough to make that opinion misguided. I truly don't know. I wasn't there at the trial, and I don't think I will ever satisfy myself in that respect.

I will however wonder how many other people hold similar or contrasting opinions, and based on what.

 

[Revoltingest]

Maybe my understanding of how the case ran is flawed enough to make that opinion misguided. I truly don't know. I wasn't there at the trial, and I don't think I will ever satisfy myself in that respect.

I will however wonder how many other people hold similar or contrasting opinions, and based on what.

Well, I'm not entirely satisfied either.
I'd love to have film footage of the several minutes leading up to the shooting.
Then we could talk more of what happened, instead of what wasn't proven to have happened.

Btw, we're sure building our post counts, eh?

 

[Revoltingest]

Does this breaking news portend "Here we go again!"?
dailycaller.com/2013/07/13/naacp-calls-on-obama-admin-to-pursue-civil-rights-charges-against-zimmerman/