George Zimmerman Not Guilty

[DrSmokes]

I grew up one street over from the ghetto in my hometown in West TN. Heard gun shots, screams, police sirens, you name it. These same people would walk past my house everyday to get downtown. Zimmerman is a very brave man for following someone he found to be suspicious. I learned very quickly growing up you avoid people who you think may be dangerous. In a way, he was asking for trouble by following/looking at Martin. Martin, while he may or may not have been a good kid (I don't know him personally obviously), probably felt threatened as well by Zimmerman's actions. What happened exactly we will likely never know, because all we have is the 911 call and Zimmerman's account of what happened. I don't fully believe Zimmerman's story, however, because he hasn't been consistent when telling it to various media outlets. Either way we can all agree that this was a tragedy that very well could have been avoided.

Whoa!  This is the first I'm hearing Zimmerman's story being inconsistent.  From everything I'm seeing, it is Martin's "witnesses" that have been flip flopping and have had 0 consistency through any of the trial...not just to the media.  They changed their stories multiple times...on the stand...under oath...I don't think they know what that means!!  Please show me the inconsistencies as I have yet to see them.

 

While you may avoid such people, the crime rate was going up in that area and Zimmerman wanted to make sure this suspicious guy was caught.

[DrSmokes]

One person dying isnt a tragedy, its an unfortunate event. Whether it was racism that caused him to follow the kid or not doesnt matter cause in the end if theres proof it was self defense then it doesnt matter. What led up to the events is all circumstantial evidence and one possibly totally false story. Neighborhood Watch is a stupid concept cause it leads to people that are a bit too brave and nosy for their own good to out themselves and lets them enter situations they shouldnt be in.

 

Also seriously much worse stuff happens globally and also just in the US or just in any one of your major Cities worse things happen daily (or at least once per week). Just cause some media outlet decided to make this into a major story on racism (which it may not have been a case of anyways) the entire US public shouldnt be alarmed like this... Youz need to get your media under control :P

He had no idea what color Martin's skin was until a couple minutes into the call while he got closer...

[Chreees]

Just google it, Smokes. I'm on my phone right now so it's not as easy to find links for you, but if you Google it tons of links will appear about how one time he said Trayvon reached for his gun, but then he didn't. He pushed him over, but then he fell. Details like that. It was not Zimmerman's job to make sure he didn't get away. It was the police who were responsible for confronting Martin. Zimmerman was acting as a vigilante and now he's paying for it, despite his non-guilty verdict. As for Martin having any "witnesses," they aren't credible either. This whole case is pretty much a huge clusterfuck just because of a flawed "stand your ground" law in the state of Florida.

[DrSmokes]

Fell down and being pushed down can mean two different things, as well as meaning the same thing...being as I'm sure he was nervous during such questioning.  I know I've said stupid things during "interrogations" (that didn't involve police of course) due to the fact I was nervous.  In either case, the forsenics show he was getting his ass beat before he pulled his gun and shot.  It was unlucky that the one shot he took was the actual kill shot.  Had it just injured him, then we would have had a whole different case and still based on hearsay.

[Chreees]

Some of the inconsistencies came from news interviews he did, not just interrogations. We will never know the truth, because as you said, it's all just hearsay. And as I said, I have no doubt Martin was on top and beating him. Can't argue with the forensic evidence. But still, I believe Zimmerman should have walked away. Some of the things I'm seeing online seem like folks think he did the right thing by following him and was justified in killing him. I just don't get how people can think that way...

[joytron]

​

[Rani]

Honestly, the transcript makes Zimmerman look more guilty.

 

1)  He knew he was a teenager.

2)  He saw potential for a gun saying the kid had his hands in his waistband.

3)  He said the kid was running away.

4)  A trained dispatcher told him they didn't need him to follow him.  For all those who said it wasn't a cop telling him, I'm calling bullshit.  Dispatchers are professionals who are trained and also have a book right in front of them on what to tell callers on specific situations.  The fact that the dispatcher isn't wearing a badge doesn't mean they aren't giving you the correct information.

5)  The police were in route to handle it and Zimmerman didn't need to follow.

6)  The kid was looking around.  He didn't have a television in his hands, he didn't have drug packages, etc.  He was looking around.  Period.  The police couldn't have arrested him anyway, he hadn't committed a crime.

 

This is the is the first time I've read the transcript because I've always felt not being there, I shouldn't have an opinion or get involved in it in any way unlike everyone else on seems to be insisting on.   However, I would suggest that you all hope that a George Zimmerman is never on your neighborhood watch when your teenager is out in the early evening doing nothing criminal.  Just looking around.

 

'Rani

You need to actually LISTEN to the call.  The words on paper make it sound much worse.  His tone of voice and the way he says everything changes the whole atmosphere of what was actually said.

 

And yes, dispatchers are not police officers...they can recommend things but that's about it.  You can choose to listen or not listen, he chose not to as he didn't want "another punk to get away".

 

This alone tends to condemn him.  Martin was not in the process of executing a crime at all.  Nothing.  Nada.  Zip.  He was walking around, looking around.  We don't arrest and harass people for what we THINK they might be up to, they have to actually DO something before we can consider them criminals.  

 

'Rani

[Rani]

Have any of you lived in a "rough" area? With lots of vandalism and theft? I'm sure if you've experience either you would be tired of "punks getting away with it". Not saying what his intentions were as far as killing or scaring off but eventually you get sick and tired of the city crime bullshit thug wannabes. I grew up by Oak Park in San Diego and had my fare share with this type of demographic and noticed an EXTREME difference when moving to Tennessee. Granted that was his neighborhood and not his property but have you ever had a sense of community where people look after each other? Should he have pursued him? Probably not but his intentions were that of preserving his community though no one can know "how" he was intending to do it. Zimmerman won when trayvon pounce and gave Zimmerman the RIGHT to protect himself. And before you say he didn't have to shoot because he didn't have a gun let me tell you this, if someone is significantly bigger and stronger is on top of me and slamming my head into the ground ill be glad I'm a gun totting American.

 

Didn't Trayvon have the right to pounce?  Didn't Zimmerman clearly say Martin was running away?  If you're running away and are being pursued are you not going to turn and defend yourself?  I'm not saying Martin is a totally innocent party, but it's clear from Zimmerman's own words Martin was trying to leave before trouble began.

 

'Rani

[Rani]

A couple things........

 

First, no, he doesn't get a pass on tone of voice.  Not everyone excitability, etc. comes through in their tone of voice.  In Zimmerman's case I would say he's doubly suspect.  Have you actually watched and looked at him?  His affect is very, very flat.  Unusually so.  

 

Secondly, are you aware Zimmerman was expelled from his college campus, which is why he didn't finish his degree in criminal science/investigation?  The college said it was because they believed he posed a danger to the campus.  Huh?  A danger to the campus?  This is not a typical normal guy doing his best to protect his neighborhood, this is somebody with some problems.

 

And lastly, I honestly don't think it's a case of racism.  I think it was entirely a case about Zimmerman's ego.  I don't think he could have cared less about the color of Martins skin.  I do believe however that had Martin been white, Zimmerman would have more likely ended up with a guilty verdict.  That's just the way our court system works anymore and anyone who doesn't believe that is generally white.

 

'Rani

[Fatalshizot]

The only difference Martin being white would have made is that the case wouldn't have been publicized. If you can bring up zimmermans past you also have to bring up martins. Kicked outta school for having drugs in his backpack on campus, numerous accounts of fighting to the point where his friends are asking him why he fights so much. I'm not saying Zimmerman is an angel but out of what could be determined, he was in the right.

[Rani]

The only difference Martin being white would have made is that the case wouldn't have been publicized. If you can bring up zimmermans past you also have to bring up martins. Kicked outta school for having drugs in his backpack on campus, numerous accounts of fighting to the point where his friends are asking him why he fights so much. I'm not saying Zimmerman is an angel but out of what could be determined, he was in the right.

 

 

How?  Zimmerman said himself.... "he's running away".  How does that put him in the right?  

 

Don't get me wrong, I think there was more than enough bad judgment to go around that night.  And nobody is suggesting Martin was an angel either.  But there is no way Zimmerman can be "right".  I think his bad judgment far outweighs that of Martin's.

 

'Rani

[Tyler]

Zimmerman sueing for defamation of chatacter, and there still has to be the civil case too, this isn't even over yet. Also N.B. "Not guilty" and "innocent" are two different verdicts.

[Chreees]

I don't want to live in an America where a citizen can legally follow and provoke me, then shoot me when I start fighting because I feel threatened. Florida's "stand you ground" law should include "run away if possible," and this whole case would be a lot less vague.

[Bawhee]

if there was any legal ground for starting fighting when feeling threatened the world would be in chaos. fighting back yes, but starting a fight on the basis of feeling threatened would let people start fights all over.

[ChicagoRSX]

if there was any legal ground for starting fighting when feeling threatened the world would be in chaos. fighting back yes, but starting a fight on the basis of feeling threatened would let people start fights all over.

 

 

This is the entire hitching point for me. Trayvon was running away. If Trayvon was so concerned for his safety. Why didn't he call the cops and say, "I think someone if following me and going to hurt me!" But no, he decided to start a fight or at least confront the "creepy ass cracka" that was following him. Yet it's Zimmerman that's racist.  I'm going to go with totality of the circumstances. In the past 2 months Z was responsible for 6 people being arrested on burglary charges.  T on the other hand had punched a bus driver in the face(a bus he had no business being on). Trayvon was on suspension for possession of drugs and drug paraphernalia. And he was suspended for various reason from graffiti to fighting previously.  Facebook page was full of pot references and his friends looking to buy "product" from him. Also photo's of him holding stacks of large denomination bills. Sure sounds like a minor gang-banger/drug dealer to me. 

 

Not to mention the media only putting photos of Martin up with him being a little 12 year old boy instead of his photo's from the time of the offense. Picture of the 6'4 "child " with a gold tooth grill being my favorite.  The media treated the american public like it was viewers during sweeps week. "LET'S SENSATIONALIZE THIS AND RUN WITH IT!"

[Rani]

First of all, nobody is defending Martin as some kind of angel.  He was not, not by any means.  Nor do I remotely think Zimmerman was being racist in following Martin.  I think Zimmerman was high on his own testosterone and from his history needed to be the hotshot "lawman" in them there parts.  I think Martin needed to fight and show he was boss of the situation.  I think frankly they were both morons.  What I have a problem with, is where is it preventable?  

 

I worked for a full service city years ago and worked closely with the police department.   I remember talking to an officer about an accident and I asked him how they determined who got the blame.  He told me it was always based on the preventable moment.  If you'd zigged instead of zagged.  If you were going under the speed limit.  If you'd signaled, etc.  Whatever would have prevented the accident determines who was at fault.  Zimmerman had two clear moments when he was entirely 100% in the preventable moment.  Those two moments being when he was told NOT to follow Martin, and when as he himself reported, Martin was running away.  Remember that Martin had not committed any crime that Zimmerman was aware of, and he knew nothing of his history.  He was just a guy walking around. He wasn't climbing in a window, breaking into a car, selling drugs.  He wasn't doing anything.  And the police were on their way.  Zimmerman had zero reason to continue to follow him.  Yet in both preventable moments, Zimmerman pursued.  

 

Now, Martin had a PIVOTAL moment when he choose to turn and fight which he certainly should not have done.  However, I don't call it a PREVENTABLE moment, because it followed upon Zimmermans failure to accede to  either of his preventable moment.  In other words, Martin wouldn't have had a pivotal moment at all if Zimmerman hadn't pursued him.  And I'm pretty sure we both know Zimmerman would NOT have pursued him had he not been armed.  

 

I'm also going to say something only someone who's black or another minority would understand....... There is little or no faith that the police will protect you.  They aren't the first thing most people who are not white think of.  They aren't trusted and they aren't requested.  The first reaction of almost every single minority is that they're on their own.  Should Martin have called the cops?  Absolutely.  No question.  However, saying why didn't he comes from the mindset of someone who trusts the police.  You can't put that mindset on someone who by his very culture and upbringing has no reason to call them.  I agree the mindset is wrong, but it's also a fact.  Most black men would have never thought to call the police.  They would have assumed they had no choice but to protect themselves.  Remember, there isn't a history of black men in white sheets hanging white men in the South.  But there's plenty of history of the opposite, and if you think it's not part of their cultural awareness, you're mistaken.

 

I'm not saying Martin was innocent, however, I still contend there is substantial reason to believe that Zimmerman was actively looking for trouble.  I also think considering his life is pretty much over for all intents and purposes, he bit off much more than he can chew.  Nothing will change the fact that Zimmerman was out looking for "bad guys" and Martin was out walking home.  Nothing.

 

'Rani

[ChicagoRSX]

I'm also going to say something only someone who's black or another minority would understand....... There is little or no faith that the police will protect you.  They aren't the first thing most people who are not white think of.  They aren't trusted and they aren't requested.  The first reaction of almost every single minority is that they're on their own.    However, saying why didn't he comes from the mindset of someone who trusts the police.  You can't put that mindset on someone who by his very culture and upbringing has no reason to call them.  I agree the mindset is wrong, but it's also a fact.  Most black men would have never thought to call the police.  They would have assumed they had no choice but to protect themselves.  Remember, there isn't a history of black men in white sheets hanging white men in the South.  But there's plenty of history of the opposite, and if you think it's not part of their cultural awareness, you're mistaken.

 

'Rani

 

So the fact that it's built into their culture makes it acceptable and they don't have to be accountable for it? Should we allow Arab familes to perform honor killings on US soil( I am aware not all arab people/cultures practice, only a few). Cause hey, that has long been a part of their culture for a long time.  

 

Yes, blacks were persecuted in the south, it happened, it sucks. But I'm sorry, how long do we have to dwell on it. Martin Luther King Jr wanted people to stand as equals. If you continue to dwell on past wrongs will humanity ever progress forward? I'm of polish decent, should I be distrustful of every person of German heritage?  I live outside Chicago, where the deadliest neighborhoods are the black neighborhoods. The flash mobs that were in the news last summer were large groups of young black males. So when I see a substantial group of young black males out at late times of night(anytime after say 1130 on a weeknight, I'm going to be suspicious. But, I would also be suspicious of a large group of white males/hispanic males out late at night, cause, hell let's face it, us guys as a sex make some damn questionable decisions late at night.

 

Laws are laws, and should be enforced across the board. Regardless of what your culture is. You live in the US you obey US laws.  I have a friend of palestinian decent, who's female cousin broke with tradition and went out on her own and got into a relationship with a guy that is non-muslim. Her own mother now carry's a machete in her purse and has said that if she ever she's her on the street, she will hack her in the neck to restore her families honor. We can't permit this kind of mentality.

[ChicagoRSX]

There needs to be understanding on both sides. Parents need to step up and start raising their kids.

[Fatalshizot]

Over 40,000 people die a year in the US die from car accidents and yet THIS of all things has become such an issue... This really saddens me as Americans don't care about life's taken, they care about the fucking story behind it. A plane full of people can crash and die but that's not quite "exciting" enough, not something you can argue to your co-workers about. People need to get their fucking heads on straight.

[ChicagoRSX]

Over 40,000 people die a year in the US die from car accidents and yet THIS of all things has become such an issue... This really saddens me as Americans don't care about life's taken, they care about the fucking story behind it. A plane full of people can crash and die but that's not quite "exciting" enough, not something you can argue to your co-workers about. People need to get their fucking heads on straight.

 

 

The news won't report on good things people do for one another, only negative to sensationalize and attract advertisers.  This kind of story will be ignored by the media, why? Cause it restores some of your hope in humanity.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/16/temar-boggs-video_n_3604547.html

[Rani]

I'm also going to say something only someone who's black or another minority would understand....... There is little or no faith that the police will protect you.  They aren't the first thing most people who are not white think of.  They aren't trusted and they aren't requested.  The first reaction of almost every single minority is that they're on their own.    However, saying why didn't he comes from the mindset of someone who trusts the police.  You can't put that mindset on someone who by his very culture and upbringing has no reason to call them.  I agree the mindset is wrong, but it's also a fact.  Most black men would have never thought to call the police.  They would have assumed they had no choice but to protect themselves.  Remember, there isn't a history of black men in white sheets hanging white men in the South.  But there's plenty of history of the opposite, and if you think it's not part of their cultural awareness, you're mistaken.

 

'Rani

 

So the fact that it's built into their culture makes it acceptable and they don't have to be accountable for it? Should we allow Arab familes to perform honor killings on US soil( I am aware not all arab people/cultures practice, only a few). Cause hey, that has long been a part of their culture for a long time.  

 

Yes, blacks were persecuted in the south, it happened, it sucks. But I'm sorry, how long do we have to dwell on it. Martin Luther King Jr wanted people to stand as equals. If you continue to dwell on past wrongs will humanity ever progress forward? I'm of polish decent, should I be distrustful of every person of German heritage?  I live outside Chicago, where the deadliest neighborhoods are the black neighborhoods. The flash mobs that were in the news last summer were large groups of young black males. So when I see a substantial group of young black males out at late times of night(anytime after say 1130 on a weeknight, I'm going to be suspicious. But, I would also be suspicious of a large group of white males/hispanic males out late at night, cause, hell let's face it, us guys as a sex make some damn questionable decisions late at night.

 

Laws are laws, and should be enforced across the board. Regardless of what your culture is. You live in the US you obey US laws.  I have a friend of palestinian decent, who's female cousin broke with tradition and went out on her own and got into a relationship with a guy that is non-muslim. Her own mother now carry's a machete in her purse and has said that if she ever she's her on the street, she will hack her in the neck to restore her families honor. We can't permit this kind of mentality.

 

Where, WHERE did I say it was acceptable?????  It isn't acceptable, but it's a fact of life.  So long as racism exists, there will be those who live at least part of their lives in fear.  Fear of authority, fear of attack, fear of vulnerability.  Sometimes that fear goes inwards, and sometimes it goes outward.  Martin didn't call the cops because it simply didn't occur to him to do so.  Was he right?  No, of course not, but how do you punish someone for not following up on thought they didn't have?  Oh, that's right..... Apparently you follow him and when the fight goes against you, you shoot him.

 

I'm native american.  Am I supposed to get over it?  Am I supposed to not tighten  up when the census comes around because last time my people got counted we ended up on a feakin' reservation with genocide on a daily basis.  You know, the people who always say "get over it", are always white.

 

'Rani

[ChicagoRSX]

 So...all my post you quoted, and that is what you choose to continue this discussion/debate with? That I implied for you to "suck it up, and get over it." No, but I did ask you if we can't forgive past wrongs, how are we as a species going to move forward. You did say " Should Martin have called the cops?  Absolutely.  No question.  However, saying why didn't he comes from the mindset of someone who trusts the police.  You can't put that mindset on someone who by his very culture and upbringing has no reason to call them."

 

By saying "you can't put that mindset on...(them)" that does seem to imply that we have to accept their mindset. Maybe I read too far into your statement.  

 

And yeah, on a side note I totally believe your people got the shaft in our history.

[Rani]

 So...all my post you quoted, and that is what you choose to continue this discussion/debate with? That I implied for you to "suck it up, and get over it." No, but I did ask you if we can't forgive past wrongs, how are we as a species going to move forward. You did say " Should Martin have called the cops?  Absolutely.  No question.  However, saying why didn't he comes from the mindset of someone who trusts the police.  You can't put that mindset on someone who by his very culture and upbringing has no reason to call them."

 

By saying "you can't put that mindset on...(them)" that does seem to imply that we have to accept their mindset. Maybe I read too far into your statement.  

 

And yeah, on a side note I totally believe your people got the shaft in our history.

 

You did read too much into it, and yeah, I'm sensitive on the subject of what you might call cultural indoctrination, so I apologize.  However, I think it's a valid question to ask "If Martin was so concerned for his safety, why didn't he just call the cops?"  My point is that it would simply never have occurred to him to call the cops.  In his mind, they weren't on his side, they weren't going to protect him.  That doesn't make him right, but it makes his actions a bit more understandable.  Not excusable, but understandable. 

 

I think as Chris said, the Stand Your Ground law was a HUGE contributor to the tragedy.  People have interpreted it as almost a blessing to violence.  I think when it was drafted, it was certainly meant as empowerment to potential victims, but it doesn't appear to be used that way, certainly not in this case.  It gave a man reason to pursue someone who had to his knowledge done nothing.  But why does no one consider that Martin was standing his ground?  He was the one being followed and in his mind probably threatened, so why is Zimmerman granted a pass to stand his ground, but Martin is not?

 

'Rani

[Chreees]

Plus, who's to say who threw the first punch?? We will never know...

[judgeposer]

I've been lurking, waiting for a topic about which to comment; here one is...  And for whatever opinions are worth, here's mine...

 

Although many were shocked by the outcome of the trial, a full acquittal was the inevitable outcome, I believe, for a few reasons.  First, the prosecution overcharged Zimmerman.  In FL, second degree murder requires that the defendant act with "depraved mind, hatred, malice, evil intent or ill will."  This is say, different from first degree murder in that state (and most others), which requires a(n) premeditated intent to kill.  Perhaps, as a matter of public concern this charge seemed wise or applicable, but as a matter of legal tactics, it was the first consideration that doomed the prosecution. 

 

Also, I don't think leading with a charge for manslaughter would've resulted in a different outcome, legally speaking.  Although a jury might've "halved-the-baby," so to speak, if given an option for a lesser charge, Zimmerman would've still plead self-defense.  I think this would've still spoiled a chance for a guilty verdict because (and as the jury was instructed) a Floridian can resort to deadly self defense if they fear death or "great bodily harm." 

 

Here, we have a matter in which a prosecutor, who is after all an elected official, must charge the offender, given the perverse nature of the facts of the case, but where most or all possible charges actually fall short of describing the defendant's behavior to the legal standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt."  Put another way, although there might've been probable cause to indict Zimmerman, which is the legal and ethical obligation for a prosecutor to bring charges against a defendant (i.e., there's probable cause to believe that the defendant committed said against against said victim), given the evidence and the defendant's self-defense defense, the same prosecutor is unlikely to be able to meet the legal standard of proof of guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt" at trial.  Remember, the FL prosecutors in this case also had the burden of disproving Zimmerman's self-defense defense by the same standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt."  In other words, the prosecutors in this case had the dual burden of proving that no reasonable doubt exists on the matter that Zimmerman killed Martin with "depraved mind, hatred, malice, evil intent or ill will," and that no reasonable doubt exists that Zimmerman did not fear death or "great bodily harm" from Martin.

 

As a legal matter, it hardly matters who was the initial aggressor because the dynamics of an altercation can change and the right to self-defense remains absolute, regardless of whether a defendant was an initial aggressor.

 

Last, regarding "stand your ground" laws...  All these sorts of laws really say is that someone who believes that he has a reason to defend himself does not have to retreat from the altercation before doing so.  Here, in NY, someone who choses to defend himself must first attempt to retreat; NY has a "retreat requirement."  So-called "stand your ground laws" only dispense with the retreat requirement.  Again, the label of "initial aggressor" doesn't matter really.