Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

Thanks for the offer NC Skns. No need. Saden1, I am not collecting on the bet.

While I am convinced the verdict was legally and ethically correct, it does not change the underlying fact that an avoidable tragedy occurred. Rather than gloating or raging over the verdict, let's move forward - black, white, Hispanic, green with purple polka dots - and try to increase awareness and understanding so that our differences can become our strengths not our weaknesses.

<cue unicorns>

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[B] Roddy White @roddywhiteTV

All them jurors should go home tonight and kill themselves for letting a grown man get away with killing a kid[/B]



Then you have dumbasses like this. Not the first time Roddy White has said something incredibly stupid. I think the Falcons need to have a talk with this moron.

In fact, athletes should really shut up about it unless they've watched the proceedings. My guess is the only one that has is Stephen Curry.

[url=http://espn.go.com/espn/story/_/id/9476243/athletes-react-george-zimmerman-found-not-guilty-trayvon-martin-case]Athletes react after George Zimmerman found not guilty in Trayvon Martin case - ESPN[/url]

[QUOTE=SolidSnake84;1015469]what will happen to George Zimmerman now?

The NAACP says they are going to appeal the ruling, and also introduce measures to remove the stand your ground law from every state.

Does that constitute double jeopardy? Can they try him again for maybe a lesser crime??[/QUOTE]

Stand Your Ground wasn't argued or introduced as far as I know so why does the NAACP introduce it?

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[B]Bryan Petersen @Peteypipes

If you trusted the justice system to find a man guilty, you must trust it when it finds a man not guilty, or it's just partiality you seek[/B]

One of the more rational tweets.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;1015478][B]Bryan Petersen @Peteypipes

If you trusted the justice system to find a man guilty, you must trust it when it finds a man not guilty, or it's just partiality you seek[/B]

One of the more rational tweets.[/quote]

Individuals trust whatever works for them at the expense and disposal of others.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=RGIII;1015483]Individuals trust whatever works for them at the expense and disposal of others.[/quote]Sounds like a crappy way to live.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[url=http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/news/zimmerman-civil-rights-charges-142917019.html]DOJ urged to press civil rights charges against Zimmerman[/url]

I think I abhor Jessie Jackson with a passion.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=HailGreen28;1015484]Sounds like a crappy way to live.[/quote]

Not when you're insensitive to others or blind or in denial.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=RGIII;1015487]Not when you're insensitive to others or blind or in denial.[/quote]No, that's even crappier.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

Zimmerman wanted to play out his fantasy and be a tough guy cop. He engaged Martin, then got his ass beat by a 17 year and shot him. The kid was doing nothing wrong. If Zimmerman saw him breaking into a house then fine, but that simply was not the case. He got away with murder. Plain and simple. The jury should be ashamed of themselves.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

Didn't watch trial. Sounds and reads like defense attorneys did an excellent job of taking what seemed to be an open and shut manslaughter (or 2nd degree murder) case, and bringing reasonable doubt. Thought, based on what I've read, the jurors ruled properly.

I don't really know what the burden of proof a self-defense case is, but the statistical evidence on conviction rates would suggest that Trayvon Martin being black was probably the difference here. Weird to live in a world where killing a un-armed teen can be at least argued as self defense. Feels like the law was fairly subjective: you CAN kill, so long as you fear (for your life, for your health, safety). Fear of course, is an abstraction. The defense painted a dead, unarmed teenager as something that someone in Zimmerman's position could be fearful of and kill.

Council of the defendant needs to work on their jokes. It's just wasn't happening for them.

I did not see any actual reason to believe that the defendant was ever in any real danger prior to the physical altercation with Martin. During the altercation, maybe I can buy that. It does take two parties to brawl. To me, I think the law should error on the side of the person who didn't own/possess a weapon, but that's just my opinion and some see justice in killing an unarmed person.

This was a weird case, to be sure. Police didn't want to press charges at all, and the prosecution's star witness (Trayvon Martin) was killed by the defendant. That's always going to skew a case, I think. I've always said that history gets written by the winners, and since Martin lost the altercation, that also gives a lot of credibility to Zimmerman's story when no one is around to contradict it (the eye-witnesses did not seem to have any role in the case except to add doses of reasonable doubt).

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=skinsfan69;1015495]Zimmerman wanted to play out his fantasy and be a tough guy cop. He engaged Martin, then got his ass beat by a 17 year and shot him. The kid was doing nothing wrong. If Zimmerman saw him breaking into a house then fine, but that simply was not the case. He got away with murder. Plain and simple. The jury should be ashamed of themselves.[/quote]Your statement is so "plain and simple" on practically everything except "engaged". What does "engaged" mean in your statement?

Who started the fight is one of the key issues. Again, if someone here actually knows what happened, they should call CNN immediately.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=NC_Skins;1015486][url=http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/news/zimmerman-civil-rights-charges-142917019.html]DOJ urged to press civil rights charges against Zimmerman[/url]

I think I abhor Jessie Jackson with a passion.[/quote]

Why, because he wants the feds to charge Zimmerman?

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=RedskinRat;1015448]Prediction: Zimmerman murdered within 3 months.[/quote]

Your prediction record is .....shall we say 0 And 10.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=skinsfan69;1015495]Zimmerman wanted to play out his fantasy and be a tough guy cop. He engaged Martin, then got his ass beat by a 17 year and shot him. The kid was doing nothing wrong. If Zimmerman saw him breaking into a house then fine, but that simply was not the case. He got away with murder. Plain and simple. The jury should be ashamed of themselves.[/quote]

There was never, ever a showing beyond a reasonable doubt who turned an aggressive verbal confrontation into a physical altercation. Also, because of the presumption of innocence, every assumption and presumption not countered by direct evidence or circumstantial evidence must be found assumed or presumed in Zimmerman's favor. The jury clearly took the charges of "presumption of innocence" and "proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt" very seriously. They should in be commended.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=HailGreen28;1015498]Your statement is so "plain and simple" on practically everything except "engaged". What does "engaged" mean in your statement?

[B]Who started the fight is one of the key issues.[/B] Again, if someone here actually knows what happened, they should call CNN immediately.[/quote]If the prosecution had made a better case, it shouldn't have mattered who started the fight. The open/shut nature of the case is because of the way the fight ended. How the fight began is simply not a newsworthy national event. It's semantics. You can just say "they fought" and the facts of the case are unchanged.

GZ was acquitted because his team of lawyers was able to make Trayvon Martin's death a footnote in a series of semantics. They decided a 17 year old's life was collateral damage to Zimmerman's perception of the events.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;1015501][B]There was never, ever a showing beyond a reasonable doubt who turned an aggressive verbal confrontation into a physical altercation.[/B] Also, because of the presumption of innocence, every assumption and presumption not countered by direct evidence or circumstantial evidence must be found assumed or presumed in Zimmerman's favor. The jury clearly took the charges of "presumption of innocence" and "proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt" very seriously. They should in be commended.[/quote]Seems like semantics, which I think is the fault of the prosecution.

The whole thing reminds me of the "[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Han_shot_first"]Han Solo shot Greedo first[/URL]" contention.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;1015471]The HO Assoc. has already settled for an undisclosed amount thought to be in excess of $1M.

[url=http://atlantablackstar.com/2013/04/06/trayvon-martin-family-settles-with-homeowners-assoc-for-more-than-1-mil/]Trayvon Martin Family Settles with Homeowners Assn. For Over $1M - Atlanta Black Star[/url][/quote]

Well they win, because no verdict could bring Trayvonn back. Hahahah Home Owners Association getting soaked because of a self appointed Neighborhood watchman. I bet they cuss his name every time they get the bill. Not like they live in a well to do area.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=GTripp0012;1015496]Didn't watch trial. Sounds and reads like defense attorneys did an excellent job of taking what seemed to be an open and shut manslaughter (or 2nd degree murder) case, and bringing reasonable doubt. Thought, based on what I've read, the jurors ruled properly.

I don't really know what the burden of proof a self-defense case is, but the statistical evidence on conviction rates would suggest that Trayvon Martin being black was probably the difference here. Weird to live in a world where killing a un-armed teen can be at least argued as self defense. Feels like the law was fairly subjective: you CAN kill, so long as you fear (for your life, for your health, safety). Fear of course, is an abstraction. The defense painted a dead, unarmed teenager as something that someone in Zimmerman's position could be fearful of and kill.

Council of the defendant needs to work on their jokes. It's just wasn't happening for them.

I did not see any actual reason to believe that the defendant was ever in any real danger prior to the physical altercation with Martin. During the altercation, maybe I can buy that. It does take two parties to brawl. To me, I think the law should error on the side of the person who didn't own/possess a weapon, but that's just my opinion and some see justice in killing an unarmed person.

This was a weird case, to be sure. Police didn't want to press charges at all, and the prosecution's star witness (Trayvon Martin) was killed by the defendant. That's always going to skew a case, I think. I've always said that history gets written by the winners, and since Martin lost the altercation, that also gives a lot of credibility to Zimmerman's story when no one is around to contradict it (the eye-witnesses did not seem to have any role in the case except to add doses of reasonable doubt).[/quote]

I agree with you on this.

[QUOTE=GTripp0012;1015502]If the prosecution had made a better case, it shouldn't have mattered who started the fight. The open/shut nature of the case is because of the way the fight ended. How the fight began is simply not a newsworthy national event. It's semantics. You can just say "they fought" and the facts of the case are unchanged.

GZ was acquitted because his team of lawyers was able to make Trayvon Martin's death a footnote in a series of semantics. They decided a 17 year old's life was collateral damage to Zimmerman's perception of the events.[/QUOTE]

It is not semantics to say you cannot be the first to throw a punch.

What you and others call "semantics", I call law and burden of proof.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;1015507]It is not semantics to say you cannot be the first to throw a punch.

What you and others call "semantics", I call law and burden of proof.[/quote]Zimmerman/Han Solo's presumed innocence re: the first punch/shot is solely a function of obstruction of justice (non-capitalized) because there's no credible witness around to dispute his contention. Greedo is dead, and cannot dispute any accounts of the events, because of the circumstances of the events.

It's the prosecution's duty to frame an easy case in a way so that it is semantics. They cannot prove beyond reasonable doubt that Han shot first, so they need to point out what should be obvious to everyone: that it is non applicable to the case.

If the prosecution cannot do that, they are incompetent (and their case is in trouble).

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=GTripp0012;1015502]If the prosecution had made a better case, it shouldn't have mattered who started the fight. The open/shut nature of the case is because of the way the fight ended. How the fight began is simply not a newsworthy national event. It's semantics. You can just say "they fought" and the facts of the case are unchanged.[/quote]The evidence is what it is, including gaps, and including just enough to know that Zimmerman *might* have feared for his life. How the fight started, how it ended, both are important in a self-defence case.

[quote=GTripp0012;1015502]GZ was acquitted because his team of lawyers was able to make Trayvon Martin's death a footnote in a series of semantics. They decided a 17 year old's life was collateral damage to Zimmerman's perception of the events.[/quote]C'mon, you've been fairly reasonable compared to others in this thread. "Engaged" is semantics, too.

IMO, Zimmerman was acquitted because nobody could prove beyond a reasonable doubt what we're talking about. That's probably why Zimmerman's lawyers didn't even try a Stand Your Ground claim, to avoid a civil trial. Because they would have lost the SYG case for the same reason. (JoeR if you read this please feel free to correct me if you want.)

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=GTripp0012;1015510]Zimmerman/Han Solo's presumed innocence re: the first punch/shot is solely a function of obstruction of justice (non-capitalized) because there's no credible witness around to dispute his contention. Greedo is dead, and cannot dispute any accounts of the events, because of the circumstances of the events.[/quote][IMG]http://cdn3.sbnation.com/imported_assets/1427383/han_shot_first_medium.jpg[/IMG]

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=skinsfan69;1015495]Zimmerman wanted to play out his fantasy and be a tough guy cop. [U]He engaged Martin, then got his ass beat by a 17 year and shot him. The kid was doing nothing wrong[/U]. If Zimmerman saw him breaking into a house then fine, but that simply was not the case. He got away with murder. Plain and simple. The jury should be ashamed of themselves.[/quote]

Oh...so you were there eh? You saw it happen exactly like this? Well, judging by much of the evidence (from prosecutors and defense) is that it was Martin who engaged Zimmerman physically.

It's not against the law to profile somebody. It's not against the law to follow somebody. It is against the law to punch somebody in the nose and slam their head against a concrete sidewalk.

Is Zimmerman a douche bag? Of course. Did Martin's assault deserve being shot with a gun? I'm in no place to say because I simply wasn't there or in that situation. Maybe that place should put up some cameras around the neighborhood if they are having issues with break-ins.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=Gary84Clark;1015504]Well they win, because no verdict could bring Trayvonn back. Hahahah Home Owners Association getting soaked because of a self appointed Neighborhood watchman. I bet they cuss his name every time they get the bill. Not like they live in a well to do area.[/quote]

I imagine they have insurance for this sort of thing. Also, why didn't they just install cameras around the neighborhood if the area needed a "night watchman"?

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=NC_Skins;1015521]I imagine they have insurance for this sort of thing. Also, why didn't they just install cameras around the neighborhood if the area needed a "night watchman"?[/quote]

They probably couldn't afford it. Besides, that's not as romantic as strapping up and regulating the punks who always seem to get away. Maybe they always got away because they were figments? Who knows?

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

Question time.

Let's say for the sake of argument that the bulk of GZ's story is true:

- he followed him because he thought he was suspicious for whatever reason
- he lost track of him visually so he got out of the car to confirm the address
- TM did somehow circle back and confront him
- a physical altercation ensued (let's ignore who specifically initiated the physical aspect for a moment)
- TM was kicking his ass

So the question is, given all of these speculative "facts", how does this change or not change anyone's opinion?

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=FRPLG;1015537]Question time.

Let's say for the sake of argument that the bulk of GZ's story is true:

- he followed him because he thought he was suspicious for whatever reason
- he lost track of him visually so he got out of the car to confirm the address
- TM did somehow circle back and confront him
- a physical altercation ensued (let's ignore who specifically initiated the physical aspect for a moment)
- TM was kicking his ass

So the question is, given all of these speculative "facts", how does this change or not change anyone's opinion?[/quote]Well, knowing that GZ's story is valid would give his account of the events a credibility he would have not otherwise earned.

Ultimately though, it doesn't really change the case at all. GZ's story could be 100% accurate, and the self defense case is still incredibly weak. Even given the above, he's not in life threatening danger. He is the victim of battery.

I don't know if Zimmerman shot Martin with the intent to kill, but if that was his way of protecting himself, it's the equivalent of detonating a nuclear missile to protect oneself from a gunman. Effective, but with serious consequences. Until acquittal.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=HailGreen28;1015517]The evidence is what it is, including gaps, and including just enough to know that Zimmerman *might* have feared for his life. How the fight started, how it ended, both are important in a self-defence case.

C'mon, you've been fairly reasonable compared to others in this thread. "Engaged" is semantics, too.

IMO, Zimmerman was acquitted because nobody could prove beyond a reasonable doubt what we're talking about. That's probably why Zimmerman's lawyers didn't even try a Stand Your Ground claim, to avoid a civil trial. Because they would have lost the SYG case for the same reason. (JoeR if you read this please feel free to correct me if you want.)[/quote]I'm trying to call attention to the impact of the court ruling, without actually criticizing the ruling based on the cases made in court. It's a fine line to walk and I realize that I might appear both reasonable and unreasonable at different points in a post based on what you believe. I'm not trying to be anything other than truthful.

I am not doubting that Zimmerman might have legitimately feared for his life at some point during the altercation (though that can be questioned by a skeptic), but:

1) the ability to construct a situation in ones mind where they overstate the immediate threat is not to be confused with self-defense, a situation that necessarily requires a [B]credible[/B] threat.

2) the mental construct for Zimmerman of immediate danger would have to be linked more tightly to "black thug guy" than "unarmed teenager" in order to justify lethal force. The problem is that the former construct is based heavily on either a poor understanding of race relations at best, or blatant racism at worst. When we deal with facts, we know that Martin was both unarmed, and a teenager, and to go beyond that in terms of character requires a breach of respect for mankind I am not willing to make.

George Zimmerman is likely not an expert on anything. He's probably a racist. He probably didn't intend to kill someone, but he WAS willing to shoot someone who he saw as different/less than human. He made a mistake. I don't think he was defending himself from immediate danger, and I don't think the evidence suggests that was in very much danger.

I do think it's very questionable reasoning to so much as suggest that Zimmerman acted lawfully. Obviously, a criminal trial is not trying to argue that he acted lawfully, but rather, that he did not act unlawfully beyond reasonable doubt. Also: he shot and killed someone. The state of Florida is likely going to want to be very careful about how they apply the law in similar cases, after ruling that someone can shoot and kill, without acting unlawfully (beyond a reasonable doubt).

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=GTripp0012;1015538]Well, knowing that GZ's story is valid would give his account of the events a credibility he would have not otherwise earned.

Ultimately though, it doesn't really change the case at all. GZ's story could be 100% accurate, and the self defense case is still incredibly weak. Even given the above, he's not in life threatening danger. He is the victim of battery.

I don't know if Zimmerman shot Martin with the intent to kill, but if that was his way of protecting himself, it's the equivalent of detonating a nuclear missile to protect oneself from a gunman. Effective, but with serious consequences. Until acquittal.[/quote]

The flaw in your argument is that is ASSUMES a great deal. I think there is a valid question to be asked regarding GZ's state of mind as he was engaged in the fight. Absolutely one of the most key questions. The only problem is that no one can ever know what his state of mind was. Even TM didn't know. In fact in every self-defense claim no one can know so it has to be up to the prosecution to show via evidence and common-sense that the threat didn't reach the level necessary to fire a gun in self-defense. What evidence did the prosecution provide? Not much in my opinion.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=GTripp0012;1015539]He's probably a racist. [/quote]

This is one issue that is driving me nuts. There really is no evidence of this at all. In fact the prosecution never brought it up because there is so little evidence. The fact that TM was black meant one thing... it was a defining characteristic that made him look, to GZ, similar to other assailants who had perpetrated some crimes in the neighborhood. It would be really easy to process this whole situation collectively if in fact we could make a reasonable assumption of his racism but I just don't see it. I think if the case could have been made, even weakly, the prosecution would have done so. The racist aspect has been laid out there from the beginning by grand-standing politicians, ne'er-do-well media, and folks with specific agendas. To me, focusing on TM's race and insinuating GZ's racism only seeks to further impair race-relations.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

Zimmerman might as well denied shooting Martin. He lied about everything else and the jury went with it.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=RGIII;1015545]Zimmerman might as well denied shooting Martin. He lied about everything else and the jury went with it.[/quote]



Time for people to move on.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=Giantone;1015548]Time for people to move on.[/quote]

Unfortunately this type of thing happens everyday. No, it doesn't always have a deadly ending but, your ignorance is what fuels or frustration.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

What happens every day?

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

Lets talk about unethical behavior from practicing prosecutors.


[YT]YsksOY0pQRM[/YT]


I agree here. She should be disbarred and never allowed to practice law again.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=GTripp0012;1015539]I'm trying to call attention to the impact of the court ruling, without actually criticizing the ruling based on the cases made in court. It's a fine line to walk and I realize that I might appear both reasonable and unreasonable at different points in a post based on what you believe. I'm not trying to be anything other than truthful.

I am not doubting that Zimmerman might have legitimately feared for his life at some point during the altercation (though that can be questioned by a skeptic), but:

1) the ability to construct a situation in ones mind where they overstate the immediate threat is not to be confused with self-defense, a situation that necessarily requires a [B]credible[/B] threat.[/quote]

The crux of your denial that there was no credible threat to GZ is based, it seems to me, entirely on the "just losing a fight is not excuse for use of deadly force" argument coupled with the "unarmed teen cannot pose reasonable fear of great bodily to an adult". Both of these have been discussed [I]ad nausem [/I]throughout this thread.

As to the first, I heartily agree - merely losing a fight is not enough to justify deadly force. The evidence presented in this case, however, is that there was a very real and reasonable inference that GZ was not "just losing a fight" but was, in fact, suffering a vicious, unrelenting beat down with no help in sight.

As to the assumption that an unarmed teen could never pose a threat of serious bodily injury to an adult, even w/out examining the evidence presented I take issue with this assumption and assert that I can think of numerous scenarios in which an unarmed teen posed a credible threat of death or serious injury to an adult. I firmly believe that, based on the evidence presented [I]in this case[/I], it was reasonable to believe such a scenario existed. If you assert it could not, see my post #1016 and refute with direct evidence the scenario described.

[quote=GTripp0012;1015539]2) the mental construct for Zimmerman of immediate danger would have to be linked more tightly to "black thug guy" than "unarmed teenager" in order to justify lethal force. The problem is that the former construct is based heavily on either a poor understanding of race relations at best, or blatant racism at worst. [I]When we deal with facts, we know that Martin was both unarmed, and a teenager[/I], and to go beyond that in terms of character requires a breach of respect for mankind I am not willing to make.[/quote]

So, as GZ is lying on his back, pinned to the ground with his head being slammed to the concrete, blood running down his throat, blows raining down on him and screaming for help - GZ thinks, "Hmmmm, b/c of my poor understanding of race relations, I shall reach for my gun to shoot this black thug guy. Of course, if it is was just an unarmed teen, I would let him pound me into a concussive stupor."

[I]"When we deal with facts"[/I], we look beyond the simplistic conclusions and, instead, take in and examine the totality of the circumstances presented that evening and not just the headlines.

[quote=GTripp0012;1015539]George Zimmerman is likely not an expert on anything. He's probably a racist. He probably didn't intend to kill someone, but he WAS willing to shoot someone who he saw as different/less than human. He made a mistake. I don't think he was defending himself from immediate danger, and I don't think the evidence suggests that was in very much danger. [/quote]

"He's probably a racist"; he saw Martin as "as different/less than human." That's a whole lot of 'suming going on there Lucy.

The lead investigator said GZ had a hero complex but did not believe he was a racist. When the FBI originally looked into this, in April of last year, they interviewed over 30 witnesses (neighbors and coworkers) of GZ. None accused him of being a racist. In 2010, GZ asked the local chapter of the NAACP to assist a homeless black man who had been assaulted by the (white) son of a Sanford police lieutenant but was rebuffed. Clearly, GZ was a blantat race baiting, n***** hating white hispanic.

[I]OR[/I] -- As the investigator determined, GZ "profiled" Martin based on his clothes and circumstances. The circumstances being that, in the last 15 months, several homes in the neighborhood had been broken into by black youths including a home invasion involving a single mother and her child. The clothes being a black hoodie also warn by a local gang of black youths who had perpetrated these crimes. As a black woman in the neighborhood stated - the recent crimes had been committed by black teens and "that was why George was suspicios of Trayvon."

As I have said before, GZ was incorrect in his characterization of TM as one of "those **** [that] always get away." However, to assert this incorrrect characterization was based motivated by racial animus or was irrational is a reverse discrimination of the most insidius kind.

[quote=GTripp0012;1015539]I do think it's very questionable reasoning to so much as suggest that Zimmerman acted lawfully. Obviously, a criminal trial is not trying to argue that he acted lawfully, but rather, that he did not act unlawfully beyond reasonable doubt. Also: he shot and killed someone. The state of Florida is likely going to want to be very careful about how they apply the law in similar cases, after ruling that someone can shoot and kill, without acting unlawfully (beyond a reasonable doubt).[/quote]

You are entitled to your opinion, many on this board agree with you and, in fact, would go beyond saying "it was questionable" that GZ acted lawfully. As you so accurately pointed out, however, we have only one version of the events and the question is not "do we have enough reasonable assumptions to convict GZ?" but, rather, "Is there reasonable doubt to acquit GZ?"

In Florida, and every other state in the union, it is legal to shoot and kill in self-defense when there is credible evidence that you were in fear of great bodily harm. You, I and every citizen of every State, are entitled to use deadly force to defend themselves or others from imminent death or great bodily harm. When we do, we will be - as GZ was - presumed innocent unless the State can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that we did not act in self-defense as defined through "semantics". Pray that is always thus.

This case set no precedents, changed no laws, but was a consistent application of the right of self-defense as it exists in all States.

Again, nothing of that changes the underlying tragedy.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=FRPLG;1015543]This is one issue that is driving me nuts. There really is no evidence of this at all. In fact the prosecution never brought it up because there is so little evidence. The fact that TM was black meant one thing... it was a defining characteristic that made him look, to GZ, similar to other assailants who had perpetrated some crimes in the neighborhood. It would be really easy to process this whole situation collectively if in fact we could make a reasonable assumption of his racism but I just don't see it. I think if the case could have been made, even weakly, the prosecution would have done so. The racist aspect has been laid out there from the beginning by grand-standing politicians, ne'er-do-well media, and folks with specific agendas. [B]To me, focusing on TM's race and insinuating GZ's racism only seeks to further impair race-relations[/B].[/quote]

... and undercuts the credibility those so insinuating.

As for the rest, agree 100%.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=RGIII;1015467]Hispanics "claim" themselves to be white when it's convenient. He's biracial, his dad is white. Zimmerman isn't a Hispanic name. Many biracial people flip-flop on their race as convenient. Check with your human resources manager.[/quote]

this comment really pisses me off . . . you are basically painting an entire group of people in a negative light with one broad brush ... this kinda of seemingly innocious comment on the internet really shows that some people brains can only think in 1 second increments.

some people want everything explained in one nice simple elementary thought so that their own superficial paper-thin view of the world to which they rely and find comfort in doesnt get destroyed. god forbid you should take people on a case by case basis.

i wanted to come in here and just say, jury verdict is what the jury verdict is. i dont agree with it, i found the explanatory note sent back to the jury as very confusing and compound. the feds shouldnt try and do double jeopardy on him and let this fade away .. .

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=Gary84Clark;1015529]They probably couldn't afford it. Besides, that's not as romantic as strapping up and regulating the punks who always seem to get away. [B]Maybe they always got away because they were figments[/B]? Who knows?[/quote]

Really? It pretty much verifiable they were not.

Cling to your racism, I am sure your anger keeps you warm at night.