Zimmerman not guilty

by truthbetold Sat Jul 13, 2013 10:52 pm

I disagree. He pushed himself into the situation and caused a life to be lost.

by Hellsangel Sat Jul 13, 2013 11:01 pm

A PC witch hunt?

by Kris Sun Jul 14, 2013 12:22 am

truthbetold wrote:I disagree. He pushed himself into the situation and caused a life to be lost.

>>>> There was an altercation and it got out of hand. It is possible that Zimmerman feared for his life and shot the kid. That's the basis for the self-defense angle, which the jury bought off on. Technically, the jury cannot be faulted for it as they are required to look at this in a fairly narrow way. The issue that is not addressed here is who started it. The 'neighborhood watch' captain following a kid pretty much because he was black and not staying in his car, even when advised not to raises a lot of questions. I don't blame civil rights activists for being pissed at the way this has turned out. I don't buy off on the idea that Zimmerman acted without malice, although that can't be proven in a legal sense.

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Sun Jul 14, 2013 1:17 am

Hellsangel wrote:NT

I think the black kids family should file a civil law suit agasint the Neighborhood watch and the county for culpability for allowing such neighborhood watch to "act" it is a "watch" group and not a police group.

by Kris Sun Jul 14, 2013 3:43 am

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
Hellsangel wrote:NT

I think the black kids family should file a civil law suit agasint the Neighborhood watch and the county for culpability for allowing such neighborhood watch to "act" it is a "watch" group and not a police group.

>>> A civil suit is pretty much inevitable.

by Hellsangel Sun Jul 14, 2013 10:11 am

Trial by media?
http://video.foxnews.com/v/2542566523001/did-media-bring-zimmerman-case-to-trial/

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/07/11/white-hispanics-crackers-teenage-mammies-no-winners-in-martin-zimmerman-case/

by southindian Sun Jul 14, 2013 11:20 am

Yes, Zimmerman is not guilty and the jury gave the right verdict.

The jury was not not deciding what let to Martin's death, but whether Zimmerman took that shot in defense and yes he did.

The jury made the right decision after seeing head injuries and broken nose. Anybody would have done the same.

by Jebediah Mburuburu Sun Jul 14, 2013 11:29 am

southindian wrote:Yes, Zimmerman is not guilty and the jury gave the right verdict.

The jury was not not deciding what let to Martin's death, but whether Zimmerman took that shot in defense and yes he did.

The jury made the right decision after seeing head injuries and broken nose. Anybody would have done the same.

"no, zimmerman is not guilty," not "yes, zimmerman is not guilty."

by southindian Sun Jul 14, 2013 11:57 am

I was following this case whenever I got the opportunity and am happy race did not overshadow justice, which makes US different from India. I would not have expected a fair trial for a Zimmerman like case in India.

by Rishi Sun Jul 14, 2013 12:03 pm

Jebediah Mburuburu wrote:
southindian wrote:Yes, Zimmerman is not guilty and the jury gave the right verdict.

The jury was not not deciding what let to Martin's death, but whether Zimmerman took that shot in defense and yes he did.

The jury made the right decision after seeing head injuries and broken nose. Anybody would have done the same.
"no, zimmerman is not guilty," not "yes, zimmerman is not guilty."

JM,

Have you ever corrected your American coworkers when they made mistakes in their writings or speech?

Have you ever participated in non-desi forums and informed posters the mistakes they made in their posta?

by truthbetold Sun Jul 14, 2013 12:39 pm

Here is a more realistic way to see the incident. a black kid walking on a street. a guy with a concealed weapon follows him and taunts. as any self respecting person would the black kid stood up to defend himself.
Follower initiates physical contact knowing he has the gun.
(a) scene one: follower pulls gun and shoots the black kid dead. follower not guilty because he shot in self defence.
(b) scene two: in the physical duel black kids gets the gun and shoots follower. black kid is guilty since he murdered a watch volunteer.
(c) scene three: black kid runs away out of fear after killing follower. black kid is stamped as murderer since he ran away.
what about the black kids rights?

by truthbetold Sun Jul 14, 2013 12:43 pm

A case can be made that prosecution's ineffective presentation allowed zimmerman to escape. it may even be an intentional act. it happened during 60s. we thought we are past those days. may be there are few leftovers there.
A civil case should follow and bankrupt the guilty.

by goodcitizn Sun Jul 14, 2013 12:45 pm

Kris wrote:
I don't buy off on the idea that Zimmerman acted without malice, although that can't be proven in a legal sense.

Let us say Zimmerman didn't have a gun. Would he have left the truck when told by the 911 operator not to follow him but wait in his car for the police to arrive in minutes? If he suspected Martin to be a burglar (a fu**g punk as he called him), especially if he had circled his truck once, would he have followed him in the rain, in semi-darkness with a flashlight that was not working? So it was the gun that gave him the security to act like a wannabe cop when he was simply supposed to watch and report any suspicious activity to the police. Had he followed him without a gun and got beaten up it is a stretch to say that Martin was trying to kill Zimmerman. So I am not so sure how the self-defense claim works if there hadn't been a gun.

Secondly, from Martin's perspective, as a seventeen year old, he saw Zimmerman following him (as he mentioned to his female friend on the cell phone calling him a creepy ass cracker). What was a kid to assume? He didn't notice a cop or a uniformed officer with a badge that would have given him some indication that he was being considered a tresspasser when he truly belonged there (and could have proven it). All he saw was some white dude stalking him in semi-darkness in the rain who could be some sexual deviant so he attacked him first, perhaps. This was precisely the reason why Zimmerman was told not to follow or approach the suspect and wait for the police.

I didn't think the Prosecution did an effective job of convincing the jury that Zimmerman was at least guilty of involuntary manslaughter. Not that any of this will matter. Gun-toting vigilantes are protected by the 2nd amendment.

by Rishi Sun Jul 14, 2013 12:45 pm

truthbetold wrote:Here is a more realistic way to see the incident. a black kid walking on a street. a guy with a concealed weapon follows him and taunts. as any self respecting person would the black kid stood up to defend himself.
Follower initiates physical contact knowing he has the gun.
(a) scene one: follower pulls gun and shoots the black kid dead. follower not guilty because he shot in self defence.
(b) scene two: in the physical duel black kids gets the gun and shoots follower. black kid is guilty since he murdered a watch volunteer.
(c) scene three: black kid runs away out of fear after killing follower. black kid is stamped as murderer since he ran away.
what about the black kids rights?

TBT,

Only scenario one took place. Then what is the point of talking about the other two scenarios?

by truthbetold Sun Jul 14, 2013 12:54 pm

Rishi,
the point is to discuss how perception taints ones view of the events.
if scene one was legal, shoot outs in all dark alleys are selfdefence and suspicious black kids can be killed with impunity.

by southindian Sun Jul 14, 2013 12:55 pm

truthbetold wrote:Here is a more realistic way to see the incident. a black kid walking on a street. a guy with a concealed weapon follows him and taunts. as any self respecting person would the black kid stood up to defend himself.
Follower initiates physical contact knowing he has the gun.
(a) scene one: follower pulls gun and shoots the black kid dead. follower not guilty because he shot in self defence.
(b) scene two: in the physical duel black kids gets the gun and shoots follower. black kid is guilty since he murdered a watch volunteer.
(c) scene three: black kid runs away out of fear after killing follower. black kid is stamped as murderer since he ran away.
what about the black kids rights?

All 3 scenes not real or realistic. You are assuming things here (bolded) which were also assumed by prosecution (not proven). Remember, Zimmerman called 911 and reported the trespassing.

There are always individual rights, not black, not white, not hispanic, not asian or brown rights.

In this case the boy (who happens to be black) was bigger, taller, beat the crap out of Zimmerman, broke his nose and hit constantly. The boy was always on top hitting (eyewitness). Read some transcripts please from the case.

I would have defended myself the same way as Zimmerman did.

by Kris Sun Jul 14, 2013 12:57 pm

goodcitizn wrote:
Kris wrote:
I don't buy off on the idea that Zimmerman acted without malice, although that can't be proven in a legal sense.

Let us say Zimmerman didn't have a gun. Would he have left the truck when told by the 911 operator not to follow him but wait in his car for the police to arrive in minutes? If he suspected Martin to be a burglar (a fu**g punk as he called him), especially if he had circled his truck once, would he have followed him in the rain, in semi-darkness with a flashlight that was not working? So it was the gun that gave him the security to act like a wannabe cop when he was simply supposed to watch and report any suspicious activity to the police. Had he followed him without a gun and got beaten up it is a stretch to say that Martin was trying to kill Zimmerman. So I am not so sure how the self-defense claim works if there hadn't been a gun.

Secondly, from Martin's perspective, as a seventeen year old, he saw Zimmerman following him (as he mentioned to his female friend on the cell phone calling him a creepy ass cracker). What was a kid to assume? He didn't notice a cop or a uniformed officer with a badge that would have given him some indication that he was being considered a tresspasser when he truly belonged there (and could have proven it). All he saw was some white dude stalking him in semi-darkness in the rain who could be some sexual deviant so he attacked him first, perhaps. This was precisely the reason why Zimmerman was told not to follow or approach the suspect and wait for the police.

I didn't think the Prosecution did an effective job of convincing the jury that Zimmerman was at least guilty of involuntary manslaughter. Not that any of this will matter. Gun-toting vigilantes are protected by the 2nd amendment.

>>>>I think this is the probably what this comes close to in a legal sense. Something about Zimmerman walking away from this seems very wrong. If that is the result of a legal technicality, Florida needs to revisit this aspect of the law. There are several things not know here. What created the altercation between the two? In addition to being creeped out by Zimmerman following him, was Treyvon also provoked by him in some other fashion? Even if this didn't happen, what happened Treyvon acting in his self-defense? Since he is dead, we don't know the answers to these. We are left with the narrow time window when a fight took place and Zimmerman got beaten up. The jury had to focus on this and Zimmerman got a free pass. It seems to be a legal 'oops!'.

by goodcitizn Sun Jul 14, 2013 1:08 pm

Kris wrote:
goodcitizn wrote:
Kris wrote:
I don't buy off on the idea that Zimmerman acted without malice, although that can't be proven in a legal sense.

Let us say Zimmerman didn't have a gun. Would he have left the truck when told by the 911 operator not to follow him but wait in his car for the police to arrive in minutes? If he suspected Martin to be a burglar (a fu**g punk as he called him), especially if he had circled his truck once, would he have followed him in the rain, in semi-darkness with a flashlight that was not working? So it was the gun that gave him the security to act like a wannabe cop when he was simply supposed to watch and report any suspicious activity to the police. Had he followed him without a gun and got beaten up it is a stretch to say that Martin was trying to kill Zimmerman. So I am not so sure how the self-defense claim works if there hadn't been a gun.

Secondly, from Martin's perspective, as a seventeen year old, he saw Zimmerman following him (as he mentioned to his female friend on the cell phone calling him a creepy ass cracker). What was a kid to assume? He didn't notice a cop or a uniformed officer with a badge that would have given him some indication that he was being considered a tresspasser when he truly belonged there (and could have proven it). All he saw was some white dude stalking him in semi-darkness in the rain who could be some sexual deviant so he attacked him first, perhaps. This was precisely the reason why Zimmerman was told not to follow or approach the suspect and wait for the police.

I didn't think the Prosecution did an effective job of convincing the jury that Zimmerman was at least guilty of involuntary manslaughter. Not that any of this will matter. Gun-toting vigilantes are protected by the 2nd amendment.

>>>>I think this is the probably what this comes close to in a legal sense. Something about Zimmerman walking away from this seems very wrong. If that is the result of a legal technicality, Florida needs to revisit this aspect of the law. There are several things not know here. What created the altercation between the two? In addition to being creeped out by Zimmerman following him, was Treyvon also provoked by him in some other fashion? Even if this didn't happen, what happened Treyvon acting in his self-defense? Since he is dead, we don't know the answers to these. We are left with the narrow time window when a fight took place and Zimmerman got beaten up. The jury had to focus on this and Zimmerman got a free pass. It seems to be a legal 'oops!'.

I agree that Zimmerman got off scot free. It doesn't matter who started the fight although the chances are Zimmerman instigated it by stalking him in his car and later on by foot. If the kid came back and attacked him, so be it. My point is simple: Nobody is talking about the gun being the culprit here. It is highly unlikely that Zimmerman would have followed a thieving suspect bigger than him in semi-darkness with a non-working flashlight without having the gun in his holster. The kid was a victim because of it. That is why we don't have as many murders in other countries that have strong gun control laws.

by truthbetold Sun Jul 14, 2013 1:08 pm

Southindian ,
the boy did not go looking for zimmerman. z followed him and black kid has the right to worry about unfamiliar people following him.
No one has proof of what happened in the dark. z could have created some of the damage himself.
once z starts the following act, it can only lead to bad things.
This kind of excuse for murder could repeat itself many times and z types can concoct stories and evidence to get away. add weakwilled state organs to the mix and we are back to the future of 1960s.

by Kris Sun Jul 14, 2013 2:38 pm

truthbetold wrote:Southindian ,
the boy did not go looking for zimmerman. z followed him and black kid has the right to worry about unfamiliar people following him.
No one has proof of what happened in the dark. z could have created some of the damage himself.
once z starts the following act, it can only lead to bad things.
This kind of excuse for murder could repeat itself many times and z types can concoct stories and evidence to get away. add weakwilled state organs to the mix and we are back to the future of 1960s.

>>>> Yep, and claim self-defense. Since the other party is dead, you have no way of checking out the story. My problem with this is Zimmerman being the initiator of the chain of events is not even being considered here. The law seems to allow for this. Even going by Zimmerman's broad outline, what provoked Treyvon to turn around and hit him? It is unusual for someone to do this, unless there was some provocation. If Z is not a cop and did not identify himself as a 'neighborhood watch' guy, what was Treyvon to make of some dude following him? There are many unanswered questions here.

by confuzzled dude Sun Jul 14, 2013 2:59 pm

Kris wrote:
>>>> Yep, and claim self-defense. Since the other party is dead, you have no way of checking out the story. My problem with this is Zimmerman being the initiator of the chain of events is not even being considered here. The law seems to allow for this. Even going by Zimmerman's broad outline, what provoked Treyvon to turn around and hit him? It is unusual for someone to do this, unless there was some provocation. If Z is not a cop and did not identify himself as a 'neighborhood watch' guy, what was Treyvon to make of some dude following him? There are many unanswered questions here.

This is akin to what occurs on a football field, almost always the instigator gets away and the player that reacted is penalized by the referee.

by confuzzled dude Sun Jul 14, 2013 3:08 pm

goodcitizn wrote:
I agree that Zimmerman got off scot free. It doesn't matter who started the fight although the chances are Zimmerman instigated it by stalking him in his car and later on by foot. If the kid came back and attacked him, so be it. My point is simple: Nobody is talking about the gun being the culprit here. It is highly unlikely that Zimmerman would have followed a thieving suspect bigger than him in semi-darkness with a non-working flashlight without having the gun in his holster. The kid was a victim because of it. That is why we don't have as many murders in other countries that have strong gun control laws.

Why would they, Gun to Americans is what Kavach is to Karna.

by southindian Sun Jul 14, 2013 3:43 pm

truthbetold wrote:Southindian ,
the boy did not go looking for zimmerman. z followed him and black kid has the right to worry about unfamiliar people following him.
No one has proof of what happened in the dark. z could have created some of the damage himself.
once z starts the following act, it can only lead to bad things.
This kind of excuse for murder could repeat itself many times and z types can concoct stories and evidence to get away. add weakwilled state organs to the mix and we are back to the future of 1960s.

You missed Zimmerman's broken nose and head injury (all documented by the police).

What would you do if someone bigger breaks you nose, and continuously bangs your head to the concrete. Say you have a gun. Would you use it?

by truthbetold Sun Jul 14, 2013 5:14 pm

Si,
your focus is on jury verdict. My disagreement is with the system that allowed this z to escape punishment. I could dispute z's injuries. But neither of us are in a position to verify details in this case.

Focusing on system:
Facts: Trevor Martin lost his life. He did not have a weapon. Facts as we know.today tell us that he was going back to his house.
Why did he lose his life? Because z got the notion that t is upto no good. He steps into t's path and a physical altercation took place. No one really knows how it started, how it went but z kills t and claims self defence.
This story can be repeated several times unless system stops supporting self injecting vigilantes. Self defence is a reasonable argument if used in real danger. But when the instigator of trouble claims self defence, it must be looked at carefully.

by southindian Sun Jul 14, 2013 5:53 pm

This is what the jury voted for

Did Zimmerman shot the gun in self-defense. Yes. The jury said. And I agree.

Injuries to Zimmerman were fake? If you think yes, then EOD... because those pictures of Zimmerman's injury were taken by police when he was taken in custody after the incident.

Do you think ALL cases brought forward by the police are botched cases?

Trevor Martin repeatedly banged Zimmerman's head and you think he needed a weapon to kill Zimmerman?

Have you heard of someone stoned to death (without a weapon)?

by truthbetold Sun Jul 14, 2013 6:18 pm

Si,
if physical altercation is justification for killing then the origins of such physical altercation are relevant to understanding z's motivation.
not all cases have the circumstances that this case have. Here an innocent life is lost due to the overzealousness of z.

by Idéfix Sun Jul 14, 2013 9:45 pm

I agree with Kris, GC, and TBT. There is something very wrong with the legal system when the person who chooses to ignore the advice of the 911 responder and follows the teenager, ends up killing him, and then walks away from it without so much as an involuntary manslaughter conviction.

by confuzzled dude Sun Jul 14, 2013 10:43 pm

Idéfix wrote:I agree with Kris, GC, and TBT. There is something very wrong with the legal system when the person who chooses to ignore the advice of the 911 responder and follows the teenager, ends up killing him, and then walks away from it without so much as an involuntary manslaughter conviction.

Wonder what the verdict would've been had Trayvon been a white boy.

by Kris Mon Jul 15, 2013 12:42 am

confuzzled dude wrote:
Idéfix wrote:I agree with Kris, GC, and TBT. There is something very wrong with the legal system when the person who chooses to ignore the advice of the 911 responder and follows the teenager, ends up killing him, and then walks away from it without so much as an involuntary manslaughter conviction.

Wonder what the verdict would've been had Trayvon been a white boy.

>>>>Zimmerman would not have followed him. That is pretty much it. No matter how many people cry from the rooftops this was not about race, it was about that. I normally don't buy off on the 'victim' game that is played by quite a few groups and individuals, but in the case of blacks, they have every right to be disturbed by these kinds of incidents.

by Merlot Daruwala Mon Jul 15, 2013 12:50 am

southindian wrote:In this case the boy (who happens to be black) was bigger, taller, beat the crap out of Zimmerman, broke his nose and hit constantly. The boy was always on top hitting (eyewitness). Read some transcripts please from the case.

I would have defended myself the same way as Zimmerman did.

Avivek, the need for the gun would not have arisen and the boy's size would have been immaterial if only Zimmerman had taken the very sensible advice of the 911 responder and stayed in his vehicle instead of taking it upon himself to follow him in the dark. How can it be self-defence when a person knowingly gets into a physical altercation??

by Kris Mon Jul 15, 2013 1:15 am

Merlot Daruwala wrote:
southindian wrote:In this case the boy (who happens to be black) was bigger, taller, beat the crap out of Zimmerman, broke his nose and hit constantly. The boy was always on top hitting (eyewitness). Read some transcripts please from the case.

I would have defended myself the same way as Zimmerman did.

Avivek, the need for the gun would not have arisen and the boy's size would have been immaterial if only Zimmerman had taken the very sensible advice of the 911 responder and stayed in his vehicle instead of taking it upon himself to follow him in the dark. How can it be self-defence when a person knowingly gets into a physical altercation??

>>>Zimmerman is a wannabe cop. This probably played into his overstepping the bounds, maybe to make a point about his policing abilities to someone.

by Impedimenta Mon Jul 15, 2013 7:54 am

Kris wrote:
Merlot Daruwala wrote:
southindian wrote:In this case the boy (who happens to be black) was bigger, taller, beat the crap out of Zimmerman, broke his nose and hit constantly. The boy was always on top hitting (eyewitness). Read some transcripts please from the case.

I would have defended myself the same way as Zimmerman did.

Avivek, the need for the gun would not have arisen and the boy's size would have been immaterial if only Zimmerman had taken the very sensible advice of the 911 responder and stayed in his vehicle instead of taking it upon himself to follow him in the dark. How can it be self-defence when a person knowingly gets into a physical altercation??

>>>Zimmerman is a wannabe cop. This probably played into his overstepping the bounds, maybe to make a point about his policing abilities to someone.

I'm not against self-defence when one faces physical danger. However, in this case, Martin was legitimately visiting his father's fiancee, which also means he was NOT trespassing on the property.

Zimmerman was being a smart-ass, who racially profiled him because he was black. I am inclined to believe that Zimmerman confronted Martin in a threatening manner, which actually put Martin in the risk of physical harm, and quite understandably Martin must have retaliated to the threat in a not-so-pleasant manner (a perfect excuse for Zimmerman to shoot him).

The real question is: If Martin had used a gun to shoot Zimmerman on the SAME grounds (he was at risk of physical harm), would he have been acquitted?

by Maria S Mon Jul 15, 2013 8:43 am

confuzzled dude wrote:
Idéfix wrote:I agree with Kris, GC, and TBT. There is something very wrong with the legal system when the person who chooses to ignore the advice of the 911 responder and follows the teenager, ends up killing him, and then walks away from it without so much as an involuntary manslaughter conviction.

Wonder what the verdict would've been had Trayvon been a white boy.

Let's be honest..even more than the "what if Travon was white scenario" (which is kind of obvious).. everyone knows what the verdict would have been if "the jury was made up of six African-American Mothers with sons"..(or even a few AA fathers)

Anyone who has any experience with the American Judicial System knows- two important factors determine the outcome in almost all cases..a) Money b) Race *(with historical undertones).

*Diversity has value (imo) and becomes even more important in jury selections (esp. *if the killer does not confess, and there is any question about who attacked who first). We often "overestimate"- common understanding and empathy, even common sense..when it comes to how we see others when they are different from us race, religion, caste, socio-economic status) after all.. we see life as we are, not often "as they are"..it's only a matter of "how much?"

Of course the Prosecution agreed to this jury..so they share part of the credit/blame. so much for their brilliance and picking the jury of "one's peers"- who was Travon's peer or this jury? No Man, no Black or Teenager *(mean age of course). I deliberately did not follow the case..once I knew the jury selection and the "excellent Defense attorney" (a lot poor people just can't afford-even for misdemeanor charges and go to jail for years and years- for even "attempted " charges)..to me there was at least 90% chance Zimmerman would not be found not guilty..no matter how what the charges were, how the case was presented..so, why even bother!

by southindian Mon Jul 15, 2013 9:29 am

Merlot Daruwala wrote:
southindian wrote:In this case the boy (who happens to be black) was bigger, taller, beat the crap out of Zimmerman, broke his nose and hit constantly. The boy was always on top hitting (eyewitness). Read some transcripts please from the case.

I would have defended myself the same way as Zimmerman did.

Avivek, the need for the gun would not have arisen and the boy's size would have been immaterial if only Zimmerman had taken the very sensible advice of the 911 responder and stayed in his vehicle instead of taking it upon himself to follow him in the dark. How can it be self-defence when a person knowingly gets into a physical altercation??

Avivek, fortunately the jury in USA do not provide verdict on Couldas, Shouldas. The jury was not voting on intentions. The jury in this case rightly answerd the question asked.

An understanding of how US jury system works, should help you in future. Good luck.

by Hellsangel Mon Jul 15, 2013 10:47 am

Property damage in Oakland, CA? Don't see it on CNN.

by Kris Mon Jul 15, 2013 11:11 am

southindian wrote:
Merlot Daruwala wrote:
southindian wrote:In this case the boy (who happens to be black) was bigger, taller, beat the crap out of Zimmerman, broke his nose and hit constantly. The boy was always on top hitting (eyewitness). Read some transcripts please from the case.

I would have defended myself the same way as Zimmerman did.

Avivek, the need for the gun would not have arisen and the boy's size would have been immaterial if only Zimmerman had taken the very sensible advice of the 911 responder and stayed in his vehicle instead of taking it upon himself to follow him in the dark. How can it be self-defence when a person knowingly gets into a physical altercation??
Avivek, fortunately the jury in USA do not provide verdict on Couldas, Shouldas. The jury was not voting on intentions. The jury in this case rightly answerd the question asked.

An understanding of how US jury system works, should help you in future. Good luck.

>>>Correct. The problem is not with the jury. The question being posed by many (including me) is if there is something wrong with the system when a kid who was minding his business was drawn into a fight, gets killed and the killer walks away scot free. There are other implications to this in terms of setting a precedent. Anyone can be killed and self-defense can be invoked and since the dead person is not around, we have to go with the killer's version of the event. As I have said before in another post, are we expected to believe that Trayvon Martin started attacking Zimmerman with no provocation? Could there have been fear in him when he was followed by a stranger in the dark, who did not identify himself? Was Trayvon's intent to knock Z senseless only to get the gun away from him? Was he not entitled to self-defense? We will never know.

by goodcitizn Mon Jul 15, 2013 12:02 pm

southindian wrote:
Merlot Daruwala wrote:
southindian wrote:In this case the boy (who happens to be black) was bigger, taller, beat the crap out of Zimmerman, broke his nose and hit constantly. The boy was always on top hitting (eyewitness). Read some transcripts please from the case.

I would have defended myself the same way as Zimmerman did.

Avivek, the need for the gun would not have arisen and the boy's size would have been immaterial if only Zimmerman had taken the very sensible advice of the 911 responder and stayed in his vehicle instead of taking it upon himself to follow him in the dark. How can it be self-defence when a person knowingly gets into a physical altercation??
Avivek, fortunately the jury in USA do not provide verdict on Couldas, Shouldas. The jury was not voting on intentions. The jury in this case rightly answerd the question asked.

An understanding of how US jury system works, should help you in future. Good luck.

Not so. Many times the jury makes its verdict on circumstantial evidence based on suppositions. But in this case I tend not to blame the jury but the Prosecution.

It makes no sense to go after second degree murder when the facts don't support such a verdict. At best it was a voluntary manslaughter. Involuntary manslaughter was more like it. Zimmerman ought to have faced some legal consequence for provoking a confrontation by getting out of his car when told not to do and using self-defense as an excuse for executing a kid who was assaulting him.

Given that Martin was bigger in size and a bad dude in the eyes of Zimmerman, the only reason he followed him was due to the concealed weapon he was carrying. Martin didn't have a clue as to who he was or what weapon he had hidden. For example, if Zimmerman had held his gun up and introduced himself as a neighborhood patrol captain, the chances are the kid wouldn't have resorted to any physical violence. That scenario was never brought up by the Prosecution.

Since the Defense brought a block of concrete into the court room to demonstate that it was a weapon that the kid used and could have easily killed Martin, the Prosecution should have argued, "Fine. So the kid was against a guy who had a gun so he used the concrete as a weapon. What if the kid had killed the guy, not vice versa, and called it self-defense? Would the jury buy it and set him free?

It took just a few minutes between the end of Raphel's phone call with Martin and the first 911 call by a neighbor. Within that time the killing took place. The police got there a minute after that. Why couldn't Zimmerman have waited for the extra few minutes for the police than taking law into his own hands, putting himself in the middle of an altercation and calling it neither murder nor manslaughter but an accidental death from self-defense? And he goes scot free?

I think the Defense did a great job. The Prosecution had no business bringing it as a second degree murder case and then blow it, rather than presenting it as a voluntary or involuntary manslaughter to bring some semblance of justice so that Zimmerman serves some jail time for it. They failed on that score. All they did was to set an unfortunate precedence.

by southindian Mon Jul 15, 2013 12:26 pm

Exactly! We'll never know who was more at fault, but the gun changed the balance of power in this case, more over another weapon... concrete cement.

Provocations could have been ignored by walking away, but in this case it was equally responded. The flareups happened from both sides. TM's Texts messages indicate, TM was in a bad mood that day and who knows, a simple question by Zimmerman may have been nastly responded and then there was no going back.

In the end a life was lost since the gun made the difference.

by Merlot Daruwala Mon Jul 15, 2013 11:49 pm

southindian wrote:
Merlot Daruwala wrote:
southindian wrote:In this case the boy (who happens to be black) was bigger, taller, beat the crap out of Zimmerman, broke his nose and hit constantly. The boy was always on top hitting (eyewitness). Read some transcripts please from the case.

I would have defended myself the same way as Zimmerman did.

Avivek, the need for the gun would not have arisen and the boy's size would have been immaterial if only Zimmerman had taken the very sensible advice of the 911 responder and stayed in his vehicle instead of taking it upon himself to follow him in the dark. How can it be self-defence when a person knowingly gets into a physical altercation??
Avivek, fortunately the jury in USA do not provide verdict on Couldas, Shouldas. The jury was not voting on intentions. The jury in this case rightly answerd the question asked.

An understanding of how US jury system works, should help you in future. Good luck.

Haha..Avivek, don't change the subject. We were not discussing how the jury system works (or doesn't) but how you believe Zimmerman did the right thing pulling the trigger, given that he was being pounded by a bigger adversary. And I was trying to educate you (futilely, some may say) that it doesnt count as self-defence when someone deliberately puts himself in harm's way.[/quote]

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Mon Jul 15, 2013 11:56 pm

Una Pergunta:

How can an all-women jury be a jury of peers to Zimmerman or Treyvon - both men? How can the women understand what goes on in the minds of M E N ? a white man and an African American Man?

This case should be retried.

by Nila Tue Jul 16, 2013 12:32 am

Crime watchers should be properly trained...well, that's not gonna happen. Whenever you see a crime watch sign just be careful and don't bring unwanted attention.

by Nila Tue Jul 16, 2013 12:40 am

Logically - the crime watch signs states clearly that you are being watched and any suspicious activities will be reported. I can't believe that the watchers can kill a person and get away with that. CRAP.

That is the reason we have our planet Saturn - he will give Zimmerman the deserving justice.

Also, if you don't know your neighbors please don't crime watch.

by Impedimenta Tue Jul 16, 2013 7:42 am

the best part of this drama is what mr obama right o rama had to say about this. Rolling Eyes

what a load of crap!

by southindian Tue Jul 16, 2013 7:50 am

Merlot Daruwala wrote:
southindian wrote:
Merlot Daruwala wrote:
southindian wrote:In this case the boy (who happens to be black) was bigger, taller, beat the crap out of Zimmerman, broke his nose and hit constantly. The boy was always on top hitting (eyewitness). Read some transcripts please from the case.

I would have defended myself the same way as Zimmerman did.

Avivek, the need for the gun would not have arisen and the boy's size would have been immaterial if only Zimmerman had taken the very sensible advice of the 911 responder and stayed in his vehicle instead of taking it upon himself to follow him in the dark. How can it be self-defence when a person knowingly gets into a physical altercation??
Avivek, fortunately the jury in USA do not provide verdict on Couldas, Shouldas. The jury was not voting on intentions. The jury in this case rightly answerd the question asked.

An understanding of how US jury system works, should help you in future. Good luck.
Haha..Avivek, don't change the subject. We were not discussing how the jury system works (or doesn't) but how you believe Zimmerman did the right thing pulling the trigger, given that he was being pounded by a bigger adversary. And I was trying to educate you (futilely, some may say) that it doesnt count as self-defence when someone deliberately puts himself in harm's way.

Avivek, you were/are not the jury in this case so your education or lack of it is irrelevant. Go file a petition or something, but the US jury disagrees with what you wrote.

by Merlot Daruwala Tue Jul 16, 2013 8:08 am

southindian wrote:
Merlot Daruwala wrote:
southindian wrote:
Merlot Daruwala wrote:
southindian wrote:In this case the boy (who happens to be black) was bigger, taller, beat the crap out of Zimmerman, broke his nose and hit constantly. The boy was always on top hitting (eyewitness). Read some transcripts please from the case.

I would have defended myself the same way as Zimmerman did.

Avivek, the need for the gun would not have arisen and the boy's size would have been immaterial if only Zimmerman had taken the very sensible advice of the 911 responder and stayed in his vehicle instead of taking it upon himself to follow him in the dark. How can it be self-defence when a person knowingly gets into a physical altercation??
Avivek, fortunately the jury in USA do not provide verdict on Couldas, Shouldas. The jury was not voting on intentions. The jury in this case rightly answerd the question asked.

An understanding of how US jury system works, should help you in future. Good luck.
Haha..Avivek, don't change the subject. We were not discussing how the jury system works (or doesn't) but how you believe Zimmerman did the right thing pulling the trigger, given that he was being pounded by a bigger adversary. And I was trying to educate you (futilely, some may say) that it doesnt count as self-defence when someone deliberately puts himself in harm's way.
Avivek, you were/are not the jury in this case so your education or lack of it is irrelevant. Go file a petition or something, but the US jury disagrees with what you wrote.

Avivek, you are being lily-livered. From your original stance of asserting what you thought was right, you are now hiding behind some hypothetical jury. Tsk. Tsk.

Anyway, here's Wikipedia on the topic: "A homicide may be considered justified if it is done to prevent a very serious crime, such as rape, armed robbery, manslaughter or murder. The assailant's intent to commit a serious crime must be clear at the time. ...In many states, given a case of self-defense, the defendant is expected to obey a duty to retreat if it is possible to do so. ...... Preemptive self-defense, cases in which one kills another on suspicion that the victim might eventually become dangerous, is considered criminal, no matter how likely it is that one was right."

In this case, the victim had not shown any intent to commit a serious crime so if the killer had obeyed the 911 responder and not physically stalked the victim, the secondary issue of "suspiction" that the victim "might eventually become dangerous" would not have arisen at all. EOD.

by southindian Tue Jul 16, 2013 8:28 am

Merlot Daruwala wrote:
southindian wrote:
Merlot Daruwala wrote:
southindian wrote:
Merlot Daruwala wrote:

Avivek, the need for the gun would not have arisen and the boy's size would have been immaterial if only Zimmerman had taken the very sensible advice of the 911 responder and stayed in his vehicle instead of taking it upon himself to follow him in the dark. How can it be self-defence when a person knowingly gets into a physical altercation??
Avivek, fortunately the jury in USA do not provide verdict on Couldas, Shouldas. The jury was not voting on intentions. The jury in this case rightly answerd the question asked.

An understanding of how US jury system works, should help you in future. Good luck.
Haha..Avivek, don't change the subject. We were not discussing how the jury system works (or doesn't) but how you believe Zimmerman did the right thing pulling the trigger, given that he was being pounded by a bigger adversary. And I was trying to educate you (futilely, some may say) that it doesnt count as self-defence when someone deliberately puts himself in harm's way.
Avivek, you were/are not the jury in this case so your education or lack of it is irrelevant. Go file a petition or something, but the US jury disagrees with what you wrote.

Avivek, you are being lily-livered. From your original stance of asserting what you thought was right, you are now hiding behind some hypothetical jury. Tsk. Tsk.

Anyway, here's Wikipedia on the topic: "A homicide may be considered justified if it is done to prevent a very serious crime, such as rape, armed robbery, manslaughter or murder. The assailant's intent to commit a serious crime must be clear at the time. ...In many states, given a case of self-defense, the defendant is expected to obey a duty to retreat if it is possible to do so. ...... Preemptive self-defense, cases in which one kills another on suspicion that the victim might eventually become dangerous, is considered criminal, no matter how likely it is that one was right."

In this case, the victim had not shown any intent to commit a serious crime so if the killer had obeyed the 911 responder and not physically stalked the victim, the secondary issue of "suspiction" that the victim "might eventually become dangerous" would not have arisen at all. EOD.

Sorry Avivek, you are going nowhere with this. You can continue with Wikipedia and your Avivekpedia quotes but unfortunately nothings helps.

The jury reached to the right verdict that Zimmerman killed in self-defense while voting on the question, if in the struggle with Trevor M, Zimmerman shot the gun in self-defense. Jury said yes and I agree.

Intent was never in question in voting and that's not how US jury voted in this case. Go to CNN.com, NYT.com, WSJ.com and educate yourself. It should help. Good luck.

by Hellsangel Tue Jul 16, 2013 11:24 am

What one juror said:

http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/15/justice/zimmerman-juror-book/index.html

by southindian Tue Jul 16, 2013 11:58 am

Hellsangel wrote:What one juror said:

http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/15/justice/zimmerman-juror-book/index.html

There are 3 more videos following this one and I watched all 4. It's unfortunate 1 person died though I guess neither of them was less at fault in starting the fight. Once it got going Zimmerman saved his life by using the gun. If there were no gun then Zimmerman would be badly beaten, but may have lived. What can I say to the gun.

by Sponsored content

Hitskin.com