OT: Not Guilty!

I also believe the decision was correct based upon the law and the facts of the case.

And for that reason I hope the Feds stay out of it.

When did the Feds last stay out of anything?

Clubber dude... I'm all for folks being able to defend themselves. But, unless there a facts that didn't come out clearly in the reporting, I think the verdict is evidence that Florida's stand your ground law is too broad.

Zimmerman sees a young black dude and thinks he doesn't belong. Calls the cops and is told not too follow. Follows anyway. Eventually gets out of his truck to confront Martin while still on the phone with the cops. Fight ensues. Zimmerman shoots Martin. Maybe that is legal given a strict reading of stand your ground, but it sounds damn close to "I get to start a fight and if I'm getting my ass kicked I can shoot the other guy". I don't see that as protecting yourself.

Both folks probably should have used more common sense. Martin probably should have called the cops and reported somebody following him. But why did Zimmerman get out of the car? Kind of stupid. What if Martin also had a gun? Did Martin think he could quickdraw on him or something? Anybody with sense might have:

1. Let the cops do their job. After all, you called them. If you worry about response time, call 911, not the non-emergency number.

OR

2. Yell out to Martin from the car that you've called the cops. After all, you're on the phone with the cops AND you've got a gun. How does getting out help anybody?

Even if Zimmerman was totally in the right under the law, Florida should have a "don't be a dumbass law" and he should have been convicted of "first degree dumbassery resulting in death"

So Clubber, if you're ever threatened by somebody while minding your business and shoot 'em I hope you get a medal. But if you're ever in a similar situation where you see a potential criminal from your car I hope you don't do something like what Zimmerman did. If the dude you confront *is* a criminal he might have a gun too and cap you before you can shoot him.

Zipman. The points you make are valid. No argument from me that Zimmerman was a dumbass. He should have listened when told not to follow.

I learned many years ago not to try and play tough guy. When I was in college I delivered pizzas and I committed pizza delivery sin #1. I left my keys in the car when I went up to the door for a delivery. Two punk kids were hiding in the bushes and took my car. It was just a prank. They only drove it a block and left it. But I wasn't going to let it go. So I got in my car and came back to confront them It was two against one and they beat the crap out of me. I learned to let the cops do their job.

Zipman. The points you make are valid. No argument from me that Zimmerman was a dumbass. He should have listened when told not to follow.

I learned many years ago not to try and play tough guy. When I was in college I delivered pizzas and I committed pizza delivery sin #1. I left my keys in the car when I went up to the door for a delivery. Two punk kids were hiding in the bushes and took my car. It was just a prank. They only drove it a block and left it. But I wasn't going to let it go. So I got in my car and came back to confront them It was two against one and they beat the crap out of me. I learned to let the cops do their job.

I'm glad he got off. it was a clear case of self defense. The prosecutor had no case to start with. This hole case is brought on by the media. They are the ones who need to kill them selfs

I believe the correct decision was made! I guess the legal system does work from time to time

When was it acceptable for an armed man to shoot an unarmed man? Oh yeah. When the fat, old, dude with a gun, confronts a teenager, then gets his ass handed to him, yet shoots the teenager, who isn't armed, that's justice? Forget about race. When was shooting unarmed people acceptable? How is that "Stand Your Ground"?

Yes shooting people is not the crime, shooting people without a good reason to is.

Zimmerman was not told "not to follow," was not told to "stay in his car," and his conversation was with a dispatcher who has no authority other than taking information and dispatching appropriate resources in response. Correct that statement with a reference if it is wrong.

In spite of the frantic rhetoric about this case, Trayvon was not "killed for buying Skittles," or for "wearing a hoodie." Trayvon's death -- tragic without a doubt -- occurred because he attacked and beat an armed man who fired his weapon in response.

" Trayvon's death -- tragic without a doubt -- occurred because he attacked and beat an armed man who fired his weapon in response.-Since when was dumbass Trayvon the attacker? He was being followed and he was attacked.

Zipman has it right.

I guess since OJ was found innocent and so many people were butt hurt, Zimmerman is also now innocent. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Adam Carolla has a game called Germany or Florida? You do the math...

Here is what Sean Noffke, the police dispatcher, says on the 911 tapes

We hear Noffke say, "Are you following him?" Zimmerman says yes, and Noffke replies, "OK, we don't need you to do that." Noffke testified that, because of liability concerns, police dispatchers are trained to make suggestions to callers rather than issue commands.

I think the

I think the media has incorrectly reported the exact wording

Here we go again, someone playing the "race" card

If you're upset about the verdict, don't worry and don't riot. Zimmerman now has the rest of his life to live as the bitch that he is. Imagine what that schmuck had to go through, everyday from now on.

Sounds like the juror made the correct decision. Not enough evidence to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Only Zimmerman knows the truth for sure. Maybe a guilty man is walking due to lack if evidence, but our justice system is designed to be that way - better 9 guilty men walk then 1 innocent man be wrongly imprisoned.

There just ain't enough evidence to know the real truth either way.

Riddle me this how... You're being followed by a dude in a car. You don't know him. He gets out after following you for a while. You have know idea what he wants. But it might be to kick your ass or worse. Do you:

1. Raise your hands, surrender, and let the do what he wants to you.

2. Try to evade, maybe call 911 if you feel it won't endanger your safety.

3. Fight.

I don't know about you, but option 1 doesn't sound good to me.

And your reading comprehension is clearly limited. I never said that Zimmerman HAD to follow the dispatcher's suggestion. Indeed, my option #2 for a good outcome involved him NOT doing so. However, as mohead pointed out they are instructed to say that for liability reasons. Why might that be? 'Cos dumbasses following dudes who might be armed can result in said dumbass getting his ass kicked or worse. Then dumbass (or family) sue the police.

So I stand by my comment. If Zimmerman had stayed in his car it is virtually certain that Martin would be alive. Period.

And just to be clear, since how-dude doesn't appear to have good reading comprehension, I never asserted that Zimmerman was told to stay in the car. I said only a dumbass exits his car, where things are under his control, to confront somebody you BELIEVE to be a criminal.

What if Martin had been armed? Zimmerman likely would have been shot. I would have been very supportive of Martin getting off if that had happened.

The only problem is that Martin stood his ground against an armed dumbass. I feel sorry for Martin's family. Marvin's death is on Zimmerman's head and Florida needs to change the law to read "you can stand your ground, but don't be a dumbass and make things worse for everybody".

I don't think there is much evidence either way why happened after Zimmerman stepped outside the car. Who assaulted who? Only Zimmerman knows now.

With the lack of evidence all you can do is conclude "not guilty". If people think he did it or not is whole other debate.

I don't think the prosecution would have gotten even manslaughter on this one, so Fed involvement or a civil suit ain't going nowhere either.

If I had to guess I'd say 50/50 whether or not the guy is "in truth" guilty of anything.

Dougster is right, you have to be proven guilty without a shadow of a doubt, I extensively covered this as I am a criminal defense lawyer and there was no "slam dunk" evidence in this case.

As reported by the media and the little I saw of the trial, I would not have been able to vote guilty had I been on the jury.

Shit, many of the prosecution witness came off as good witnesses for the defense. Even the prosecution's closing arguments seemed sympathetic to the defendant.

Bottom line, the only witness was Zimmerman and he's says he was jumped with his head being slammed against the ground before he shot. There really is little else to go on.

Dougster, I hope you're right about no Fed involvement. Eric Holder and the Justice Dept. have been pretty aggressive in pursuing civil rights violations. But from what I've read, this case doesn't meet the necessary standard. But who can predict such things. Stranger things have happened.

There have been over 700 murders in Chicago since the death of TM - including a lot of black teenagers. Where is the media coverage of that?

Wow. A lot of well-reasoned, cogent and intelligent arguments on both sides of a controversial issue. Well done.

This is the type of discussion this board could have on a regular basis, instead of it being 99% calling each other "fags" and making fun of names, and thinking Adam Sandler fart jokes are the height of sophistication.

This thread actually makes me sad because it shows you actually can have an informative and/or entertaining discussion, but WILLINGLY choose to act like a bunch of short-bused 3rd graders. SMH.

CP

SlickSpic asked, "Since when was dumbass Trayvon the attacker? He was being followed and he was attacked."

Trayvon was the attacker since ... Trayvon attacked Zimmerman. Zimmerman never attacked Trayvon. That was kind of the central, key point of the case, and even the prosecution witnesses verified that it was Trayvon who initiated the contentious encounter, and Trayvon who punched Zimmerman, and Trayvon who took Zimmerman to the ground, pinning him and pounding him "MMA style."

You might be aware that the defense against the charge was that Zimmerman acted in self-defense? No one ever disputed the obvious fact that Zimmerman shot Trayvon and Trayvon died as a result. The whole reason that was not a criminal act was that Zimmerman was acting in self-defense.

Missing those basic facts of this tragedy might tend to make one draw conclusions that have everything to do with emotion and nothing to do with reality. Such conclusions are worse than worthless.

I think it is really stupid not to wait for the police unless you see a dire emergency. I've seen the police respond in less than 2 minutes after my brother accidentally dialed 911 on his pc before cutting it off realizing the number his pc was ringing. An officer was banging on the door so fast it could scare you.

Despite being a real dumbass, I would not say someone was guilty if I had reasonable doubt. Being a real dumbass isn't a crime by itself. The evidence I saw did not clearly convince me nor did it convince everyone on the jury apparently.

In South Carolina, we now have a case where a burglar broke into a home and shot and killed the homeowner and had the nerve to claim self defense because the homeowner was going to shoot him. I believe the burglar will likely get convicted on murder charges but I can see a flaw in the law if our stand your ground law allows you to kill someone if they put their hands up and surrender. Apparently this guy did not. I don't know, maybe the law was designed to let homeowners reduce the criminal element and the number of burglary cases.

Given the evidence this was the only appropriate outcome. Zimmerman should have done so many things differently. I wish Martin had done some things differently. The whole thing is terribly sad but I'm glad to see justice prevailed and emotion didn't.

This started as a tragedy and became a shame. The prosecutors knew they had no murder case. But professional racists stirred things up so feverishly (aided by Eric Holder's DoJ using our tax dollars to organize protests) that a murded charge had to be levied in appeasement. So wrong.

Zimmerman has been referred to as the old dude here.

and by Jesse Jackson as “How can a boy attending his business, going to his home, running from a man who is pursuing him be guilty and the killer not be?”

One was 17 and the other 28 the media characterizations are interesting.

I really hope the Feds do stay out of this. I can't stand Eric Holder. I agree with you How, that the professional racists do stir up bullshit.

Today a 16 year old black boy named Daryl was shot dead recently in Chicago. Reason? He refused to join a gang.

Have we heard "Justice for Daryl" chanting?

No. Reason? The "alleged" shooter was not of a different race, so the race-baiters could not make it about that.

When will we get past all the nonsense about race mattering? It does not matter, except to those who choose to make it matter. What those agitators (like Jackson, Sharpton) do is racism. Let us all just be people, not defined by intrinsic attributes and placed in categories thus.

In previous post, first sentence should read: "16 year old black boy named Daryl was shot dead recently in Chicago."

Sorry for the error.

@How-I brought up your similar points to a co-worker last year. He didn't wanna hear facts.

@Dougster: "I don't think the prosecution would have gotten even manslaughter on this one, so Fed involvement or a civil suit ain't going nowhere either."

Don't be so sure. The "standard" for a civil finding is much lower than that for a criminal one. And even if ultimately found not liable by a civil court, Zimmerman's life will be fucked up anyway, since lawyer's fees, with little hope for any help from any but family, will eat him alive.

"When will we get past all the nonsense about race mattering?"

When men like Sharpton and Jackson quit making nice livings from it.

As far as I know, if you give provocation and a fight results, and the other person dies, minimally that's manslaughter. Stalking someone for being Black and wearing a hood is giving provocation. Zimmerman exercised his right not to testify, but that means any exculpatory statements he made to the police are not to be considered. Can't have your cake and eat it too.

Only decent people should have the right to carry a gun. So, indecent behavior while carrying a gun should be a crime. Indecent like, say, following a teenager around at night (on public streets) and scaring him for no good reason.

How scared was he? Not scared enough to hang up the phone and call the police or the people he was staying with. According to Zimmerman not scared enough to keep him from confronting him.

The response to fear/threat is called the "fight or flight" response. That is why the law does not automatically exonerate you even if you didn't throw the first punch. If you do something that can be expected to be seen as threatening, leading to violence, and someone ends up dead, that's minimally manslaughter.

The jurors disagree with you.

Yup, a jury with no Black members exonerates someone for killing a Black teenager in the South. No reason to question that.

Here we go again with the "race" card. I am a lawyer and I am telling you right now, there was no slam dunk evidence and you cannot convict someone of being guilty without it. If it were the other way around, than that is different. It is innocent until proven guilty. Now civil lawsuits are not as tough as criminal cases regarding this.

Cannot back up the claim that GZ was "stalking [TM] for being black and wearing a hood."

GZ was captain of his neighborhood watch. That neighborhood had been burglarized repeatedly in the time leading up to this incident. Any unknown person wandering that neighborhood at night could reasonably be cause for enough suspicion to observe their movements.

This did not get violent until TM punched GZ. GZ did not use force until TM had pounded him while pinning him to the ground. That the jury considered the self-defense claim enough for reasonable doubt of Murder Two or Manslaughter should surprise no one.

Regarding "scaring Trayvon": there was no evidence presented that credibly demonstrated Trayvon was scared of GZ. The prosecution continually speculated about it, but TM's actions were not consistent with such speculation, and the jury was correct to discount such speculation.

Actually one of the jurors was identified as black OR hispanic. I also saw her identified as black AND hispanic.

Setting that aside are you saying that 6 non-black people are impossible of impartially deciding the guilt of anyone who killed a black person?

You're working on emotion and ignoring facts.

Great points jester. We need to look at this case and all others without including race unless it is a hate crime. Unfortunately, the media portrayed this early on for what it would be and others jumped on that. If Mr. Zimmerman was guilty, it would be justice for Mr. Martin. If he was innocent, racism and profiling is allowed and tolerated. Something I think that is more alarming is comments like Roddy White that is listed on the first thread. Violence does not solve violence and will not be tolerated in the justice system either.

I know very little about this case but if my memory serves me correctly this happened when I was in Florida.

I have enjoyed reading this thread, you guys can debate well.

I have a question though, why was there only one Hispanic/black person on the jury. Shouldn't there be a cross section that reflects the community in which the 'crime' was committed? Is that not an actual requirement of your jury system? I am not saying it should be so, just inquisitive.

This is how it has been reported over here

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canad…

@Londonguy: Jurors are genrally selected from a pool that is more or less randomly selected from the population of whatever entities are covered by the court holding the trial. There is no requirement that any given jury contain any particular makeup of racial, age, social or economic representatives.

A specific jury is chosen from that pool jointly by the defense and prosecution teams. Both teams have to agree to every juror's presence. Up to a point, each side can pretty much arbitrarily reject any given person for any reason, or no reason, though the pool *is* limited, so they can't reject everybody.

An American jury is a compromise between the two sides, and most of the time, until the verdict is actually delivered, neither side is particularly pleased with the results. :)

As others have pointed out the prosecutor had a very weak case.

If memory serves correctly, the original Seminole County DA, the Sanford Police Chief, and I think the detectives all felt there was not sufficient cause to arrest GZ. it was only after the media got involved that the state appointed a special prosecutor and charges were filed - something like 45 days later.

TM attempted to solve a problem by violent means. Probably "taught" that was how ya handle such problems when dealing with a "cracker." Apparently his fighting ways, gun showing off, and dope smoking methods didn't work.

The justice system worked, the jury felt the matter not proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

It's crazy seeing some people in this thread trying to defend Zimmerman's actions. Unbelievable.

seeing the stand your ground can apply to a man shooting a minor but not stand for a woman shooting at a man in a domestic voiloence situation i think that law is complete bullshit mind you the woman did not shoot that man let alone kill him and got 20 years

txtittyfag- THAT WAS HILARIOUS!!!

Ranukam- Let me guess...you thought OJ was innocent too?!?!

who gives a fuck what Roddy White said. Professional athletes are about the least informed individuals on the planet. HE may have a lot of twitter followers, that doesn't mean he knows shit. This is more about my disdain for famous people than the actual case. Neither side was innocent in my opinion. Zimmerman definitely overstepped his bounds and Martin was not just some innocent kid based on what I have read.

Cambyass- Let me guess... you dream about sucking Juice's dick?!?!

Jumping in on a very long thread that clearly reflects the diverse backgrounds of TUSCL members. Travon Martin (TM) is dead. George Zimmerman (GZ) shot him. Both had valid, legal reasons to be where they were. Those are about the only facts everyone can agree upon. Since the State of Florida was unable to prove that GZ did not act in self defense, he is not guilty of a crime. Like it, or not, that, too, is now a fact.

"STAND YOUR GROUND" WAS NOT USED IN THIS CASE:
I read some misinformation in the comments above, and want to clear up a few things. First, the Florida "Stand your Ground" law was NOT a factor in this case. That law specifies a different procedure before a judge and GZ chose instead a jury trial. However, Stand Your Ground does include some affirmative protections in civil court that GZ may use to prevent TM's family from successfully suing.

DOJ DID HELP ORGANIZE "TRAVON" RALLIES LAST YEAR
Part of the reason this death is a big deal and over 500 murders in Chicago are not is the national attention caused by the big crowds in Sanford protesting last year. It turns out, that the Federal Government helped make those crowds big and found the media to cover it. (see: www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/ look for recent press releases) Between March 25 and April 12 last year DOJ people were sent to Sanford to in their words, "deployed to Sanford, FL, to work marches, demonstrations, and rallies related to the shooting and death of an African-American teen by a neighborhood watch captain."

TRIAL TRANSCRIPTS SHOW PROSECUTORS DID NOT DISPUTE ASSERTION THAT GZ WAS RETURNING TO CAR AFTER RECOMMENDATION BY DISPATCHER.
A portion of the GZ self defense claim is that after hearing from a dispatcher, "We don't need you to do that." ("that" being follow the suspect) GZ actually began to return to his pick-up. The prosecutors never disputed that assertion. In fact, they ended up accepting that TM and GZ encountered each other while GZ was moving in the direction of his vehicle in their positioning of the two during closing remarks.

Nice to see this thread degenerating into juvenile insults. Perhaps those pushing most loudly for more "adult" behavior should refrain from engaging in said behavior, and speak out against said behavior both from those they agree with and those they disagree with.

Much as it pains me, I have to agree with Camby that there was not sufficient evidence to convict beyond a reasonable doubt. Personally, I had hoped the case for manslaughter could be made. But, alas, it could not.

For those defending Zimmerman, think about who you're defending and why you're defending him. The evidence to convict may not have been sufficient, but there should be no doubt that Zimmerman was a dumbass and Martin is dead because of it. This case isn't a simple self defense case. It is an indictment of a system that allows a self-appointed wannabe cop to be a dumbass that causes the death of another with just enough ambiguity to get off.

I notice that "how" did not answer how he would have react if, while walking home, you noticed a strange car following you. Then the guy gets out. Do you:

1. Raise your hands and surrender?
2. Try to run?
3. Call 911?
4. Fight?
5. Assume the creepy dude following you is giving away free puppies?

According to Zimmerman #1 would have worked. Maybe. But Zimmerman might have been psycho (correction, more psycho than he actually is). So #1 probably not a good move

Maybe #2 would have worked. But who knows? Martin might have gotten shot in the back while fleeing. After all, did Martin know what Zimmerman was up to?

Maybe #3 would have worked. Maybe... Do you think Martin deserved to die because he made that mistake?

Well... #4 is a problem. We can't know if Martin was defending himself or just attacking. Why? Well, because Zimmerman killed him. But do you really think Martin posed any danger to Zimmerman if Zimmerman had stayed in his fucking car? If you do, why do you believe that? Seems like Zimmerman could have avoide this whole episode with a little common sense!

No, I bet "how" would assume #5. Not sure how that would have played out here. Zimmerman might have gotten all scared when Martin ran at him with outstretched arms crying out "show me the cuuuute puppies!!!" Could have ended up with Martin dead, just like the real scenario.

Seriously, Zimmerman defenders... Assume you're followed by somebody. What do you do?

I don't think any of us has carefully studied the trial transcript, so no one should be 100% convinced of any opinion. What scares me is people who don't think people who are permitted to carry a gun have to be held a very, very high standard of treating others with respect and consideration. And that George Zimmerman clearly falls very, very short of that standard.

You know what I don't do zipman? I don't stay on the phone talking to a girl and then go out to confront the guy (I personally believe Martin confronted Zimmerman). I call the police, I go to my house, I call people at my house, maybe I even knock on a nearby door.

I also get tired of the "wanna-be cop". He started a neighborhood watch because his neighborhood was having some pretty bad crime issues. Apparently his next door neighbor had quite an ordeal. I think that's commendable, it's sad that trying to do good for your neighborhood has been turned into such a bad thing.

Was Zimmerman an idiot to get out of the car? Absolutely.
Was Martin an idiot to confront him? Absolutely.

Now I'll admit that I'm bias to a guy who I think was trying to do good for his neighborhood, a guy who apparently was a fairly decent fellow. I'm also bias against a kid who bragged/talked about fighting, drugs and buying/selling guns.

I never even said there was enough evidence to convict Zimmerman, I was just condemning the ignorant statements in this thread (mainly Deogol), and then Camby has to jump in with the OJ thing. Judging by Camby's history it seems like he likes starting arguments with people. I shouldn't have fed that troll.

HAHA ranukam! Judging from your history you are not clean like some people portray Mr. Martin to be. You have had plenty of brush ins with several people in this forum about your Wilt Chamberlin like game. All I asked was a question, and you flipped out. Grow up!

The original D.A on this case did not want to press charges. The Govenor replaced him with one who did. What does that tell?

My statements are not ignorant. You are just denying the reality Zimmerman found himself in. TM is dead? Lets see what kind of kid he is to get both sides of the story. Hmmm. Some one who did drugs, suspected of stealing (in Miami), does weapons, and does fighting. Hmmm. Lets see, who attacked who? I got my odds on TM attacking GZ and so did the court.

Oh so Rankyass is stirring up a few feathers NOT SURPRISED!! I am surprised you are not in a strip club getting girls that are a 9 or 10 to come home with you right now for free...after all you look like matt kemp and have money like him too!

I just saw that motorhead already mentioned the same, way up there in the posts.

Fair enough Deogol, I agree to disagree. I just didn't get where you were going with that how to handle problems when dealing with a cracker thing.

If the defense were interested in facts, they would have looked for evidence Trayvon was a heavy drinker, since alcohol is known to often trigger aggressive behavior. Only ignorant rednecks think pot triggers aggressive behavior. So we know what the defense thought of the majority of the jury poll, and they may have been right.

NukeyBoy's brain comes up with some pretty far-fetched stuff. Like his supposed 9 and 10 game. Or that me and tittyfag are the same person. Yeah, Nukey I was/am really scared of flaming you from my own account so had to make up a new one to do it. Makes lots of sense you fuckin' moron.

@ilbb, I bet you would think it was pertinent if Zimmerman had been high.

Re: zipman's possible scenarios. Had TM chosen #2, run, and GZ had shot him in the back, killing him, GZ would have probably been charged with murder 1 and would've taken a plea deal of life.
Of course, as any one who has ever shot a short barrelled semi-auto, it is not very inaccurate from more than 50 feet. When GM confronted TM, I believe he was not right at him and in running away would have been at a distance that would have made hitting him very difficult.
Besides, as the prosecution brought up through testimony of the college prof, GZ knew all about the stand you ground concept and thus would have known that it doesn't apply to someone who is fleeing!

"When was it acceptable for an armed man to shoot an unarmed man? Oh yeah. When the fat, old, dude with a gun, confronts a teenager, then gets his ass handed to him, yet shoots the teenager, who isn't armed, that's justice? Forget about race. When was shooting unarmed people acceptable? How is that "Stand Your Ground"? "

When you have "biased" & "scared" people making stupid laws in the State of Florida.

Zipman, I answer as I choose, do not take personal offense that I ignored your query. I think your scenarios are based on false assumptions and present bogus choices. Trayvon was the attacker.

My sexual relations with txtittyfan's daughter. She's a pretty ugly little thing, and the only reason I did it was to piss off her father.

Sorry folks, wrong thread.

HAHA dougster...this topic might hit the record as the thread with the most discussions, and juicecarton hasn't even commented once on it lol

Damn far too deep for me to give input. I'll just say this. Cambyman, if your a lawyer you sure are shitty because you have too mucb time on your hands to be here. You internet lawyer. Their the worst.

estafador- I think everyone in this forum will be having a hard time sleeping tonight because you did not give your two cents. Then again, probably not. There is something called vacation...and there is also something called the in-laws which is the BORING part.

Well this topic has certainly been rip-roaring and has only had a few instances of degenerating into juvenile name calling. I'm going to ignore them and address two comments from Jester and how.

Jester made the point that Zimmerman was not a self-appointed wannabe cop but was instead a concerned citizen. And that Martin was involved in drugs and stealing. As with everything, it is a matter of spin and perspective. There were also plenty of disturbing reports about Zimmerman:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post…

It seems like Zimmerman's supporters give him every benefit of the doubt and expect Martin's behavior to be perfect. My favorite post of this type emphasized that Zimmerman was ONLY 28 whereas Martin was 17. Since - of course - we don't hold 17 and 28 year olds to different standards. I mean, 17 year olds can vote, drink beer legally, and rent cars - right?

At the end of the day, Martin is dead because of bad judgement. Most of that bad judgement is on Zimmerman's head.

And how, I don't think you understand my point. I understand my point. It is probably pointless to debate, but I'll try one more time. Simple question - WOULD YOU FIND BEING FOLLOWED AROUND BY AN UNKNOWN PERSON WHO THEN GETS OUT OF HIS CAR LOOKING FOR YOU THREATENING? If not, why not?

I'm not arguing that Martin made the best move. I'm not saying Martin didn't attack Zimmerman. I think the evidence suggests he did - after Zimmerman engaged in the threatening behavior of following him. Martin's move clearly wasn't the best - didn't really work out for him, did it?

I'm just saying that Zimmerman - if he were really was a neighborhood protector and not a punk wannabe cop - had a moral responsibility to handle things better. Like calling the cops and letting them handle it OR staying in the car and watching OR staying in the car and yelling "Hey, I'm neighborhood watch and I'm asking people where they're going if I don't recognize the."

The moment Zimmerman exited the car the likelihood of something bad happening went up 100-fold. Period.

No, zipman, I would not find that threatening. Because it would not be threatening.

However, if I were inclined to feel threatened by someone following me through their neighborhood as I wandered through, my response would not be to start a fight with them, punch them, take them to the ground, and pummel them. Two reasons: First, feeling threatened would lead me to avoid them rather than attack them, being unarmed as I was, and not knowing if they were armed. Second, starting such a fight would make me the bad-guy, and the follower I was pummeling would be justified in shooting me; I would not want that.

Sure seems like Martin did not feel threatened at all Zip. Didn't walk away; didn't run away. Sure seems like he wanted to be "lets fight guy".

And then we have Obama stirring things up with his political, devisive, dumbass comments. Is he going to comment on every case? Does he want to be Prosecutor in Chief also?

This has got to be the longest thread I have seen thus far,but can we let it go now. I have little compassion for stupidity or those outside my circle.

Will Zimmerman now be given a new identity and be moved to another part of the U.S. ?

I've stayed out of this just to see what is said with my tainting the replies. And as tumble mentions, maybe I set a record for longest TUSCL thread.

Before I end my participation, there are two points that bear mentioning, IMHO.

The prosecution made a valiant effort to show the world that, 1. Zimmerman's injuries were minor, and 2. he is a "wanna be" cop.

First, one must remember that at what point the injuries were "minor". Up till the point he fired his pistol. Now if he had waited, perhaps he could have grievous injuries or be dead. Would that make it all better?

Second, had he BEEN a cop, he likely would have fired his pistol BEFORE Martin even got within arms reach.

As William Blackstone stated, "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer". Justice is not infallible, but in this case, it was righteous.


Now I'll end with this as I started it...

As Bryan stated, "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”.

The correct verdict was reached. If you look at the facts of the case the correct verdict was rendered. Overcharging often does result in loss and all you whiner's can go suck a dick. Ranukam, for you that means proceed as usual.

I have to one up Mr. Blackstone,it is far better to be the one answering questions.

Just one more shitty thread failimg apart......founder needs to banned candyman

@London:
No, he will go back to trying to price together whatever he can to make a normal life. He will never be the same and will probably always struggle with the "what if" questions. He will be hated by a group and supported by a group, with relatively few in between. Everyone will have an opinion on whether or not he is a racist murdering fuck or just a guy trying to make his neighborhood safer who had a tragic event placed upon him. There could be a civil suit against him by the Martin family that could take away everything he's ever worked for, and place additional lawyer bills on him that he will struggle to pay. He won't get special treatment from the courts or government on establishing a new life.

So in a nutshell, Trayvon is dead, but Zimmerman's life (as he knew it) is also gone. It's a sucky situation all around. The unfortunate part is how this country has politicized a tragedy. People are trying to score political points and prove some sort of fucked up argument on gun control, racial profiling, or over zealousness when the fact is both parties involved lost greatly.

An added thought...

I thought the network I was watching did a piss poor job of breaking into programming to announce the verdict.

I was watching a baseball game (Cubs-Cardinals) on FOX when they cut to the courtroom. FOX was late. The verdict had already been announced and the jurors were being polled. For several minutes I watched without knowing the verdict. The female attorney with GZ had a smile but Zimmerman was pretty stoic.

I just wondered if CNN, CBS, NBC did a better job of getting to the verdict on time.

I don't remember who I was watching but they caught the whole of the verdict reading.

Here is my take on it.... They got the verdict correct.

Like mentioned should have zimmerman not done the things leading up to it....maybe.

But the fact is a guy was getting hammered on and was afraid for his life. Drew his firearm and shot. By the stand your ground law and self-defense. That is just. That is the facts and you can't dispute them.

I saw an article by a lawyer saying Zimmerman's lawyer punked the Judge. He cited a precident where the judge had instructed the jury that if the defendant provoked the person who was ultimately killed, it was not legitimate self-defense, and the aquittal was overturned on appeal because of that. So the judge left that completely out of the jury instructions. But, in the cited case, it was actually overturned because the jury instructions did not provide enough detail about what was and wasn't a relevant level of provocation.

100???

101:

I read an article in today's paper where several community members were interviewed. My take on it is that now blacks feel the verdict opens the door for white people to legally murder AA's. C'mon people. Let's not be ridiculous.

News is Jeantel was warning Trayvon Zimmerman might be a GAY RAPIST!

Black Gay Bashing!

This keeps getting better!

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2013/0…

w.r.t. 100+ comment threads – two come to mind:

1) duomaxwell’s thread on tattoos (131 posts)
https://www.tuscl.net/postread.php?PID=2…

2) another dancer by the name of “lovemetiddys” whom caused a TUSClular uproar with her thread titled “THINGS DANCERS ABSOLUTELY HATE” (157 posts)
https://www.tuscl.net/postread.php?PID=1…

I don't consider myself racist but I am prejudiced based on my observations and experiences.

I don't care for this attitude that a black person can do no wrong because of 400 years of slavery and oppression. No black person (alive today) in the US today has been a slave and no white person (alive today) has owned a slave. Many Americans here today immigrated after the civil war and had nothing to do with slavery. Lots of white Americans fought and died to free the slaves and fought and died for the civil rights of minorities.

Yet it seems that when a case like this comes up, every non black person is supposed to feel guilty over what happened to the slaves and those not treated equally in the past. People all over the world have been enslaved at one point or another in history. Women have been screwed over since the beginning of time. Homosexuals are just now starting to be accepted and earning their equal rights. I hate that this one group asks for equality but really seems to want the pendulum to swing their way to make up for past grievances. If you are equal and want to be treated as such, then don't ask for extra points on university applications and don't ask for quotas in the work place.

Every individual should be just that...an individual person. They should be judged on their actions and achievements and not on skin color, race, sexual orientation, gender, religion, etc.

As far as the case goes, we will only know if the case was truly just if we can go back in time and read the minds of the two individuals involved. There wasn't enough evidence to find Z guilty...end of story unless new evidence emerges. They were both idiots. They both made choices that led to the outcome.

Speaking of Zimmerman, I heard he came out of hiding to pull a family of 4 out of an overturned SUV that was on fire.

Seriously...

^^^^^^

ilbbaicnl will want to know what color the family was before he tells us what actually happened

An appeals court needs to review the trial judge's rulings against the prosecutor with regards to the jury instructions. How could anyone who's really interested in justice have a problem with that?

HAHA to doctors comment!

Last I read, that information hasn't been mentioned. Perhaps today.

The DOJ is investigating Zimmerman's action for possible charges. :)

Good comment on CNN about this

"George Zimmerman = Chuck Norris"

sc,

Not sure if the above referenced my post or not. I was referring to the people he helped rescue and the ethnicity.

Clubber - I was referring to the rescue event. :)

sc,

I wonder the PC of this. "They", of course, know the ethnicity of the people. Why would they hold it back? If they were black, that might hurt the media and race baiters case against GZ. perhaps?

The FBI investigated to see if they could find ANY evidence that GZ is racist. 61 interviews later, they could not find any such evidence.

The PRESUMPTION that GZ must be racist because the guy who attacked him and whom he therefore shot fatally happened to be black -- that presumption is as vile and hateful towards GZ as any claimed "oppression" by the current crop of grievance-mongers.

Let's forget about TM & GZ. What about justice for Emmanuel Gatewood? It's been over one year since this Lakewood, CA 17 year old was gunned down in cold blood for no reason whatsoever. He played football and wasn't involved in gangs. I'll do my best to provide the link at The Los Angeles Times homicide report.

http://projects.latimes.com/homicide/pos…

Here is evidence Zimmerman made racist comments to a co-worker:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/george-zimmerma…

Dang maybe the FBI will make me Director!

He said, he said. Two people have two stories amazing. Never, ever has happened before.
ilb keeps grasping at straws. You probably believe that Martin never uttered any racial epithets.

"That is the facts and you can't dispute them"

Unless you were a DIRECT witness to the confrontation between Zimmerman & Martin and watched it in its entirety - The Facts can be DISPUTED!! It is the word of a "Living" person vs a "DEAD" person and the Dead person COULDN'T testify for himself. The Living person could & possibly did LIE.

Facts are DISPUTED in every trial. That's why our judicial system allows for a jury to weigh the evidence, and UNANIMOUSLY determine the veracity of the facts presented by either side.

motor,

And when you disagree, then just civil disobedience, AKA riot!

I still like this the best from Bryan Petersen – "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”.

Succinct and to the point!