DescentBB

Found innocent. Let the riots begin.

It was the right thing to do. We can only hope that's what Zimmerman did too....

I don't think we'll ever know exactly what happened, but there certainly wasn't enough evidence to justify a murder or even a manslaughter charge. I'm glad he was found not guilty if for no other reason than the principle that it is better to let a thousand guilty men go free...

Hopefully the hate mongers are shouted down.

But now it appears the NAACP want the "unbiased" DOJ to charge him with civil right violations

CUDA wrote:Hopefully the hate mongers are shouted down.

But now it appears the NAACP want the "unbiased" DOJ to charge him with civil right violations

Good, let the race mongers tear each other up over that! Holder vs Sharpton with Obama trying to triangulate like a Clinton.

So now the question is raised, does Zimmerman sue NBC for altering the 911 call that tried to make it appesr that this was a racist act.

Is that in and of itself a hate crime? It is definitely a racist act.

woodchip wrote:Found innocent. Let the riots begin.

found not guilty. Different, and I hope that no riots ensue.

callmeslick wrote:

woodchip wrote:Found innocent. Let the riots begin.

found not guilty. Different, and I hope that no riots ensue.

agreed,
He was always not guilty, that is the foundation of this country.

I would also like to know why the special prosecutor withheld evidence that was inflamitory to Trayvon Martin.and why it took an IT employee to finally hand it over to the defense. An act which subsequently got him fired

callmeslick wrote:

woodchip wrote:Found innocent. Let the riots begin.

found not guilty. Different, and I hope that no riots ensue.

Ah, time to parse verbiage. So if Z was not guilty of 2nd degree murder then he was innocent of said charge.

Z was also not guilty of manslaughter thus he was found innocent of the charge.

So what was Z guilty of then? Inciting POTUS to make a ridiculous claim of wishful patronage? Wasting tax payer dollars to foment race baiting by the DOJ? Or perhaps Z was guilty of making statements that could be edited by a major network news organization and thus cause innocent stock holders to loose money from the huge settlement NBC news will have to pay Z once his lawyers wring the network dry?

So slicky, do try and elucidate us as to what Z is "guilty" of.

Dude it’s just legal terminology and slick is trying to look smart, by being all kinds of anal.

The charges are…

Guilty

Not Guilty

Innocent is a lay term, and just fine when used by a layman. In this country you are “innocent” until proven guilty.

I see this ★■◆● all of the time when someone has picked the losing side of a court decision.

Not guilty is a legal status and innocent is a condition, and sore losers always seem to try the split the finest of hairs to make some kind of meaningless point.

He's guilty of killing someone. Didn't care much about this case, but I think it's funny that the instigator gets to be the one to claim self defense. Every bit of this case could have been avoided had the guy just listened to the 911 dispatcher. But hey, when you're packing heat and carrying some tin foil neighborhood watch badge you get to just do what you want. I wonder, had the roles been reversed and some 17 year old black kid stalked, shot and killed an older citizen, would we have believed his story? Something tells me that will, woodchip, cuda, and all the others would be calling for his head.

CobGobbler wrote:He's guilty of killing someone.

Yes, but that’s not what he was charged with.

no matter to me. like i said, never cared about this much anyways.you really had to be a bit crazy to think there would be an outcome any different than this. i'm just glad it's over; now we can find another story to get all upset about.

CobGobbler wrote:He's guilty of killing someone. Didn't care much about this case, but I think it's funny that the instigator gets to be the one to claim self defense. Every bit of this case could have been avoided had the guy just listened to the 911 dispatcher. But hey, when you're packing heat and carrying some tin foil neighborhood watch badge you get to just do what you want. I wonder, had the roles been reversed and some 17 year old black kid stalked, shot and killed an older citizen, would we have believed his story? Something tells me that will, woodchip, cuda, and all the others would be calling for his head.

actually that did happen in Florida. A blackman killed a white man in similar circumstances. Claimed self defense. And no charges were ever file. But MSNBC and the NAACP don't seem to want to talk about that case. Why?

CobGobbler wrote:He's guilty of killing someone.

Guilty isnt the right word since it implies fault. He shot someone. More details must be understood to determine if there is any fault in his shooting someone.

CobGobbler wrote:Didn't care much about this case, but I think it's funny that the instigator gets to be the one to claim self defense.

Again the wrong word. Instigator in the context you used it implies he began the dangerous confrontation that lead to using force to defend himself. He didn't. He started the process where he could follow the suspect and called for the police to join him. That is not creating a dangerous situation unless the person you are following is both violent and criminal.

CobGobbler wrote:Every bit of this case could have been avoided had the guy just listened to the 911 dispatcher.

True.
However what he did instead isn't against the law or a violation of anyones rights. What he did also is perfectly acceptable to a reasonable persons expectations of a neighborhood watch person who has been asked to keep an eye out for suspects who fit the profile that Martin fit. Yes, profiling is perfectly acceptable in this case even though the word carries baggage associated with 'unlawful profiling'. You just have to be smart enough to know the distinction, or not attempting to ignore the distinction so as to manipulate and prejudice your audience with the implication that 'illegal profiling' took place even though you know it didn't...

CobGobbler wrote:But hey, when you're packing heat and carrying some tin foil neighborhood watch badge you get to just do what you want.

No, but you do get to follow a suspicious looking person and call the police with the expectation that you won't be physically assaulted by the suspicious looking person. And if you are assaulted you haven't surrendered your right to defend yourself.

CobGobbler wrote: I wonder, had the roles been reversed and some 17 year old black kid stalked, shot and killed an older citizen, would we have believed his story? Something tells me that will, woodchip, cuda, and all the others would be calling for his head.

I can only speak for myself but if the 17 year old in your scenario had followed the law the way Zimmerman did I would be supporting him the same way I support Zimmerman. However, 17 years old isn't old enough to get a concealed carry permit. 17 year old people tend to be a little immature and prone to bad judgement and rash behavior....as we saw with the 17 year old that Zimmerman shot...
If that 17 year old had resisted the urge to get violent he would have had the opportunity to tell the creepy assed cracker to ★■◆● off and brought his skittles and ice tea home to his brother. He would have scored one for his own civil rights, made his family happy and deprived the race pimps of using him as fodder for their greedy self serving power play. Unfortunately they lit his fuse and he went off like a timebomb just like they planned it.

Whatever floats the boat. It's a sad state of affairs when the "news" channels are deciding if the outcome of some trial will affect poll numbers one way or another.

woodchip wrote:

callmeslick wrote:

woodchip wrote:Found innocent. Let the riots begin.

found not guilty. Different, and I hope that no riots ensue.

Ah, time to parse verbiage. So if Z was not guilty of 2nd degree murder then he was innocent of said charge.

no, it means his guilt was not proven, beyond reasonable doubt. It isn't for mere men to declare 'innocence', IMHO. CUDA said it perfectly, we are always presumed to be not guilty in the American system.


On the other hand, Florida is a tricky place, especially if you are black:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/1 ... 30035.html

she gets 20 for firing a warning shot? WTF?

CobGobbler wrote:He's guilty of killing someone. Didn't care much about this case, but I think it's funny that the instigator gets to be the one to claim self defense. Every bit of this case could have been avoided had the guy just listened to the 911 dispatcher. But hey, when you're packing heat and carrying some tin foil neighborhood watch badge you get to just do what you want. I wonder, had the roles been reversed and some 17 year old black kid stalked, shot and killed an older citizen, would we have believed his story? Something tells me that will, woodchip, cuda, and all the others would be calling for his head.

You know what's sad in all this? A 17 year old kid minding his own business while walking home from the store gets shot and killed because some rent-a-guard with a attitude and a gun to back him up decided that he thought he could take matters into his own hands and solve a problem that wasn't a problem in the first place. The kid wasn't a burglar and no one called the police to complain Martin was a burglar. Zimmerman, who did call the police, didn't even follow their instructions. Zimmerman made that judgement call and through his incompetence, bravado and lack of judgement, caused the death of some other parent's loved child. The idiot survived while the innocent died. He deserved manslaughter at least. I've seen more conservatives outraged about abortion doctors killing fetuses than this moron murdering someone's child in the name of self defense.

You should be brought up on obstruction of justice charges for withholding all of this from the authorities all this time, TC...

I'm going to make a new Bulletin Board rule. You don't get to call someone an innocent child after they bash another person's head against the ground. How does that sit with everyone here?

Tell me where I'm wrong. Martin was walking back home in the dark wearing a hoody and had his hands in his pockets. Nowhere have I heard he was looking through people's windows looking for a mark. No one called the cops from any home about a peeping tom or burglar in the area at the time. Zimmerman made the assumption Martin was a no gooder and called the cops himself. Nowhere did I hear that Zimmerman even identified himself to Martin as a security guard. The whole thing stinks of callous stupidity, on Zimmerman's part. If Zimmerman was so worried about Martin, why didn't he approach Marin with his gun already drawn, identifying himself as security, instead of slinking around like somebody up to no good? Zimmerman set himself up for a fight, and he got one.

An article regarding fl stand your ground law



The Tampa bay times analysis found no obvious bias in how black defendants have been treated:

• Whites who invoked the law were charged at the same rate as blacks.

• Whites who went to trial were convicted at the same rate as blacks.

• In mixed-race cases involving fatalities, the outcomes were similar. Four of the five blacks who killed a white went free; five of the six whites who killed a black went free.

• Overall, black defendants went free 66 percent of the time in fatal cases compared to 61 percent for white defendants — a difference explained, in part, by the fact blacks were more likely to kill another black.



TC

Except that according to the verdict Martin attacked Zimmerman.

Zimmerman had a legal right to follow Martin. He violated no law in doing so.
Martin did not have a legal right to attack Zimmerman. He commited assault and a crime in doing so.

And why did the prosecution try to withold photos of martin holding a gun with a stack of jewelry on his bed?

Travon Martin was not an innocent child as the defense tried to portray him and commited offenses in school that should have gotten him arrested

tunnelcat wrote:Tell me where I'm wrong. Martin was walking back home in the dark wearing a hoody and had his hands in his pockets. Nowhere have I heard he was looking through people's windows looking for a mark. No one called the cops from any home about a peeping tom or burglar in the area at the time. Zimmerman made the assumption Martin was a no gooder and called the cops himself. Nowhere did I hear that Zimmerman even identified himself to Martin as a security guard. The whole thing stinks of callous stupidity, on Zimmerman's part. If Zimmerman was so worried about Martin, why didn't he approach Marin with his gun already drawn, identifying himself as security, instead of slinking around like somebody up to no good? Zimmerman set himself up for a fight, and he got one.

You are wrong suggesting Martin was just a kid walking home when Zimmerman 'made him' start a fight!
The culture that made Martin think he would be justified in punching some guy to the ground if that guy was somehow offensive to him is what 'made him' start the fight. Not a guy suspicious of him who would have no right or authority to pull his gun if he was suspicious of him but did have every right to follow him and call the police.

You are twisting logic and the law in order to assign blame where it doesn't belong.

since when do you get to tail someone so closely that the person can simply turn around and confront you? Especially, when that person was instructed, not once but twice, by actual policepersons to NOT DO SO? At any rate, it's over, and one can merely read this board and others and get the feeling the whole thing will revert to political circus. That will again lose my interest. I did appreciate the comment made by someone that the worst part of a not guilty verdict won't be riots, it will be more George Zimmermans. AMEN.

callmeslick wrote:since when do you get to tail someone so closely that the person can simply turn around and confront you?

Thats a hell of an assumption and not supported in court. Talk about conjecture

CUDA wrote:

callmeslick wrote:since when do you get to tail someone so closely that the person can simply turn around and confront you?

Thats a hell of an assumption and not supported in court. Talk about conjecture

tell me who claimed that Martin had to dash back any distance to encounter Zimmerman.

callmeslick wrote:

CUDA wrote:

callmeslick wrote:since when do you get to tail someone so closely that the person can simply turn around and confront you?

Thats a hell of an assumption and not supported in court. Talk about conjecture

tell me who claimed that Martin had to dash back any distance to encounter Zimmerman.

no one. Zimmermans account was he lost sight if Martin, and martin approached him from the rear, and the is NO evidence to refute that

conveniently, of course, the one person who could refute that is deceased.

Slickster wrote:Especially, when that person was instructed, not once but twice, by actual policepersons to NOT DO SO?

That's getting milked for all it isn't worth. Policemen always try to control/defuse a potential situation by encouraging non-action. That doesn't mean it's what a person ought to do, and it's no commentary on what Zimmerman actually did with no policemen present.

We seem to be forgetting that the evidence shows that Martin was commiting a crime against Zimmerman. Zimmerman has assault injuries on him. Martin had none. It appears that Martin chose the wrong person to assault.

callmeslick wrote:conveniently, of course, the one person who could refute that is deceased.

And why do you insist on ignoring the other supporting evidence?

This is not a he's said she said case. There is other evidence involved

Sergeant Thorne wrote:

Slickster wrote:Especially, when that person was instructed, not once but twice, by actual policepersons to NOT DO SO?

That's getting milked for all it isn't worth. Policemen always try to control/defuse a potential situation by encouraging non-action.

of course they do. They are paid professionals in charge of....wait for it......MAINTAINING THE PEACE.

That doesn't mean it's what a person ought to do, and it's no commentary on what Zimmerman actually did with no policemen present.

what did Zimmerman actually accomplish, then? Did he prevent a crime? NO. Did he maintain peace in his neighborhood? NO Did he kill a CHILD armed with candy and sweet tea for no fecking good reason? Yes. Gee, why on earth would those damn cops not want that scenario to possibly unfold?

CUDA wrote:

callmeslick wrote:conveniently, of course, the one person who could refute that is deceased.

And why do you insist on ignoring the other supporting evidence?

This is not a he's said she said case. There is other evidence involved

not terribly much, CUDA. Really. A voice on a recording, which was claimed variously to be Zimmerman and Martin. Some superficial wounds, not requiring major medical attention on Zimmerman. Oh, and there is that sweatshirt that clearly shows that our hero stuck the gun into the chest of the deceased. Really, there is exactly ZERO evidence, and a lot of suggestive facts that Zimmerman wanted it to be that way, which is why he wasn't where the police instructed him to be either before or after the event.

Oh I'm sorry.

The lack of any assault injuries to Martin, and the eyewitness that saw Martin on top of Zimmerman in an MMA hold beating him.
And the pathologists testimony that Martin was on top of Zimmerman
Man you ignore a lot of facts

callmeslick wrote:...
what did Zimmerman actually accomplish, then? Did he prevent a crime? NO. Did he maintain peace in his neighborhood? NO Did he kill a CHILD armed with candy and sweet tea for no fecking good reason? ...

Do you think the jury acquitted Zimmerman because they thought Martins possession of tea and skittles was enough of a threat to justify self defense?

Or did you leave something important out so that Zimmerman looks much more culpable than the facts and witness testimony indicate?

You aren't being even close to realistic in your portrayal of the events. Why?

PS: if Martin was a "CHILD" then Zimmerman was a portly TODDLER...

CUDA wrote:TC

Except that according to the verdict Martin attacked Zimmerman.

Zimmerman had a legal right to follow Martin. He violated no law in doing so.
Martin did not have a legal right to attack Zimmerman. He commited assault and a crime in doing so.

And why did the prosecution try to withold photos of martin holding a gun with a stack of jewelry on his bed?

Travon Martin was not an innocent child as the defense tried to portray him and commited offenses in school that should have gotten him arrested

He only had that right if he had IDENTIFIED himself as a guard. He apparently didn't do that. Someone follows me in the dark, and I'm a young, strong male, my inclination would be to turn around and kick his ass first, before he kicks mine.

Martin was not carrying a gun when he was followed. All that other stuff you mentioned would have been prejudicial, not that it mattered. And school problems are not indicative of other bad behaviors. My brother was no angel in school, he got in trouble plenty, but he never robbed or burgled someone's home or store. Still not admissible in court.

witnesses who 'think it looked like', and at that, only saw a small fraction of the event. Hell, I'd give anything to know if Zimmerman was in a position to merely pull the gun and have Martin flee or freeze rather than plug him in the chest. I suspect he was, as it seems impossible to grab a gun whilst pinned onto the ground, but we'll never know.

callmeslick wrote:witnesses who 'think it looked like', and at that, only saw a small fraction of the event. Hell, I'd give anything to know if Zimmerman was in a position to merely pull the gun and have Martin flee or freeze rather than plug him in the chest. I suspect he was, as it seems impossible to grab a gun whilst pinned onto the ground, but we'll never know.

evidence. stop ignoring it. Try reading the pathologists testimony. That expert says you are wrong

tunnelcat wrote:[...

He only had that right if he had IDENTIFIED himself as a guard. He apparently didn't do that. ...

In what country do you think this event took place because there is no such law in Fla, U.S.A. which is where I think it took place.

CUDA wrote:

callmeslick wrote:witnesses who 'think it looked like', and at that, only saw a small fraction of the event. Hell, I'd give anything to know if Zimmerman was in a position to merely pull the gun and have Martin flee or freeze rather than plug him in the chest. I suspect he was, as it seems impossible to grab a gun whilst pinned onto the ground, but we'll never know.

evidence. stop ignoring it. Try reading the pathologists testimony. That expert says you are wrong

what part of that testimony. The pathologist says Martin was shot at close range.