The laws are not designed for people to make moral or emotional decisions. Verdicts must be based on facts, even when the outcome might be dead wrong. Let’s talk about George and Trayvon.

14 Jul

The verdict for George Zimmerman in the shooting death of Trayvon Martin is in: Not Guilty, and a lot of people are understandably very, very upset.

zimmerman

http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/13/justice/zimmerman-trial/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

I won’t pretend I’ve been following the case in excruciating detail, because I haven’t been. I’m operating on the bare bones of the case, which I understand to be this:

George Zimmerman felt personally responsible for the safety of the people who lived in his gated community, and he felt that young black men in particular were ‘F***ing punks, these a**holes always get away’. When he saw Trayvon in the neighborhood, wearing a hoodie and carrying a can of tea and some Skittles, he called in his suspicions to 911.

trayvon

911 dispatchers told George to stay in his car and leave well enough alone, and dispatched officers to the scene.

George ignored the 911 dispatchers, went after Trayvon and a scuffle ensued. George sustained some injuries to his head and face, and Trayvon was shot through the heart at point blank range.

mouth

head

Trayvon died. He was 17 years old.

The prosecutors in the case offered the jury three possible routes of conviction:

Second degree murder

Manslaughter

Not guilty

The jury does not have the power to consider any possible verdict other than the ones the prosecutors give them. They do have a fourth option: mistrial. No decision is reached and the case goes to trial again with a different jury. Maybe. Prosecutors could just agree to let the whole thing slide until more evidence shows up.

hung

Second degree murder requires that the prosecutors PROVE, beyond all reasonable doubt, that George murdered Trayvon out of spite, or malice, or hatred. That George was completely indifferent to Trayvon’s value as a human being.

Had prosecutors found evidence that George had a long history of spewing racist bullshit on Twitter, or had he blogged about wanting to kill a black man, they might have had a case for second-degree murder.

There was no such evidence.

On the lesser charge of manslaughter, the prosecutors had to PROVE that George intentionally killed Trayvon. He went after Trayvon, meant to kill him, and did kill him.

fifth

That’s dicier territory. In Florida, you can’t use the fact that a defendant exercises their Fifth Amendment rights as prejudicial. Juries are not allowed to read anything negative into the fact that George refused to testify on his own behalf. That’s not true in every country. Courts in Ireland, Britain and Wales are allowed to draw negative inferences from the fact that defendants don’t testify on their own behalf.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/justice/arrests/right_to_silence_in_criminal_cases.html

Florida also has some interesting laws about self-defence. Florida’s laws have a twist that says once a defendant claims self-defence, the so called “Stand Your Ground” law, it becomes the prosecutor’s job to prove that it WASN’T a case of self-defence at all.

all women

6 jurors, all women, deliberated for 16 ½ hours and found that the prosecutors had failed on both charges. They did NOT prove, beyond all reasonable doubt, that George had a severe case of hate for young black men, and they did NOT prove that George went after Trayvon with the intent to kill him.

They might have hung the jury, but didn’t. They came back with a not guilty verdict.

The jury was comprised of six women. Five were white and one was not. I already question what kind of justice can be achieved with a jury like that. We already know that when you put a group of women together and ask them to make a tough, ethically fraught decision, women don’t like that.

http://judgybitch.com/2013/04/04/women-are-more-ethical-okay-as-long-as-by-ethical-you-mean-chicken-shit-cowards/

grads

I have serious doubts about how much depth and understanding a group of white women can possibly have when it comes to being a young black man, constantly on guard against being fingered for the crime of DAWB (Doing Anything While Black). Hey, there is no doubt that plenty of young black men ARE thugs and a menace to society, for lots of complicated reasons, but that doesn’t mean they ALL are. We don’t like all men being treated like rapists, even though some of them ARE, so why should we accept all young black men being treated like thugs?

Bullshit.

http://judgybitch.com/2013/02/16/schrodingers-slut-or-why-it-matters-what-you-wear/

I would have liked to see a few more black men or women on that jury. Five white women is not a jury of Trayvon’s peers. If the verdict was in fact, the right one, then the outcome would have been the same, no matter what the composition of the jury. If it was the WRONG verdict, simply because a group of white ladies couldn’t see what was right in front of their faces, then that is a miscarriage of justice.

The charge that a more diverse jury would have lined up in favor of a guilty verdict no matter what can be levelled against a group of white women, too. They will line up in favor of a not guilty verdict, no matter what.

And the verdict was, in fact, not guilty.

The lack of diversity on the jury panel makes me very, very uneasy.

How much stock would we put in the verdict at a rape trial in which all the jurors were sorority girls, accustomed to getting shit-faced drunk at frat parties and holding other people responsible for their ensuing sexual escapades?

girls

Yeah, not much.

An interesting aside: frat boys are actually the LEAST likely to be sexually aggressive towards women. Perfect illustration of how stereotypes become pervasive and we make decisions beginning from a prejudiced set of assumptions.

http://totalfratmove.com/study-shows-fraternity-men-are-least-likely-to-be-sexually-aggressive-toward-women/

Trials like this trigger huge emotional reactions. The trial hits exposed nerves in the culture and the whole point of trials gets lost in the ensuing rancor and pain. There is no denying that young black men are treated with disproportionate harshness in the criminal justice system.

death-penalty

You know the best way to get a death sentence: be a black man who has killed a white person.

The easiest way to avoid a death sentence: be a woman.

http://judgybitch.com/2013/05/12/life-and-death-and-the-curious-case-of-ariel-castro/

Both defendants might have committed the exact same crime: they murdered a white man. The black man will die. The woman will serve a minimal sentence, if she gets a sentence at all.

http://www.wabi.tv/news/9375/judge-rules-no-prison-time-for-amber-cummings

That is the reality of Justice in the USA. Anyone who denies that the criminal justice system in the US is stacked way against black men and way in favor of women is willfully ignorant. And that is why the response to the Zimmerman case is so anguished. It looks like another case of a young black man’s life being thrown away with no regard whatsoever.

But those people calling the verdict a travesty of justice should be very, very careful. If the jury reached their verdict based on evidence and evidence alone (and I’m not saying they did), critics are essentially calling for a verdict that ignores evidence in favor of emotional response.

And while that may have exonerated Trayvon, it’s a call for a legal revision that will come back to bite the most vulnerable in the ASS harder than they could ever imagine. Who do you think will be most convicted AFTER such a revision is in place?

Make an emotional call? Really? How the jurors “feel” should come into play? Everyone can see how absolutely insane that is, right?

If justice has been miscarried in the Zimmerman trial, then it is the LAWS that must come under scrutiny. If Florida’s self-defence statutes are so lax as to allow neighborhood vigilantes to ignore instructions from police dispatchers and take the law into their own hands, then it’s the LAWS that need to change.

crying

I sincerely hope all the people who are heart-broken that Trayvon’s killer walked away a free man band together to address the laws, and not to visit vengeance on a man who was found not guilty under the law.

The laws are not designed to make moral decisions. They’re just not. Nor should they be. If the Zimmerman verdict has revealed a huge flaw in the law, then change the laws. That’s what democracy is about: you don’t like the rule of the land?

Change it.

flag

That’s the power the people have. It’s not easy to exercise, by any means. But that’s no excuse.

Difficulty is the excuse history never accepts.

Edward R. Murrow

Lots of love,

JB

112 Responses to “The laws are not designed for people to make moral or emotional decisions. Verdicts must be based on facts, even when the outcome might be dead wrong. Let’s talk about George and Trayvon.”

  1. PrinceCharming July 14, 2013 at 15:24 #

    This verdict bothers me, but does not surprise me.

    I thought, at the very least, that manslaughter was clear.

    The biggest defence of Zimmerman is that he was protecting himself. The argument is that they got into a fight and that Martin was doing harm to Zimmerman. The defence argued that Martin should have never fought him, and without the fight, Zimmerman would not have had to kill him.

    But let’s flip this around and let’s say that Martin killed Zimmerman in the fight. Would he have got off with self defence?

    Martin was walking home, minding his own business. Zimmerman came after him with a gun. Would any of us fight back? If we fought back and killed him, isn’t that the most obvious form of self defence there is?

    Zimmerman was the agitator in this. If he did not chase after Martin with the gun, none of this would have ever happened. Was he trying to win the fight and stop himself from getting further injured? Maybe. But it is not self defence if you are the one who started the whole situation.

    But this is Florida and it is not the first time that justice has not been served. In the end, Zimmerman will probably fade in the background and no one will hear from him again.

    Either that, or he will be Sarah Palin’s running mate in 2016.

    Like

  2. Leap of a Beta July 14, 2013 at 15:28 #

    Just going to say that both sides fought for the all female jury. They both agreed to and wanted it.

    Unless you’re going to say that women shouldn’t be jurors (a different argument) then you can’t claim mistrail because of the all female jury.

    Like

  3. judgybitch July 14, 2013 at 15:29 #

    I wasn’t claiming mistrial, just questioning whether six women can make a good decision.

    I wonder why the prosecution wanted all women?

    Like

  4. MargeryM July 14, 2013 at 15:43 #

    This was a tricky and loaded case. Part of me wanted Zimmerman to be convicted of manslaughter because, well, he deserved it. This whole thing was completely avoidable on his part but he wanted to play hero against a non-threat. This was, undoubtably, his own doing. No questions asked he caused this whole thing and could have ended it much differently. However, he is going to pay for his crime. No, I’m not talking vigilante justice but rather that the nation knows what he did. Half of it wants to buy him a beer and pat him on the back and the other half is going to make his life a living hell from here on out. Is he ever going to be able to hold down a job here? Move into a new neighborhood? Show his face at the grocery store? In a very real way he has already made a prison for himself.

    Meanwhile Florida shows the meaning of hypocrisy and racism (and I’m not one to easily play the race card): http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57433184/fla-mom-gets-20-years-for-firing-warning-shots/

    “Marissa Alexander of Jacksonville had said the state’s “Stand Your Ground” law should apply to her because she was defending herself against her allegedly abusive husband when she fired warning shots inside her home in August 2010. She told police it was to escape a brutal beating by her husband, against whom she had already taken out a protective order.”

    She was just sentenced to 20 years.

    Like

  5. John July 14, 2013 at 15:47 #

    “Jury of his peers …”

    How about six “White Hispanic”” males instead? A man’s “peers” aren’t women and since we have a Balkanized country ethically and racially, “peers” should be “peers”, correct?

    Note number two (and make a relationship with that definition and number one):

    peer
    1 [peer]
    noun
    1.
    a person of the same legal status: a jury of one’s peers.
    2.
    a person who is equal to another in abilities, qualifications, age, background, and social status.

    Like

  6. judgybitch July 14, 2013 at 15:57 #

    I see your point, but I don’t think six people who share one common, significant identity can ever be considered a jury of “peers”. If we are going to take “peers” to mean fellow citizens, then we need a little diversity.

    Trayvon’s fellow citizens are made up of more than just white women.

    Like

  7. Liz July 14, 2013 at 16:00 #

    “George Zimmerman felt personally responsible for the safety of the people who lived in his gated community, and he felt that young black men in particular were ‘F***ing punks, these a**holes always get away’. ”

    There was a reason Zimmerman felt that way. The history of of burglaries by young black men in that neighborhood. Burglars who were not apprehended. In one case, a woman locked herself in her infant’s room with a pair of scissors while calling 911 and listening to the burglars break in to her home. I’ve lived in crappy crime ridden neighborhoods before, and it’s damn scary. The police (in many cases) cannot help until it’s too late.

    I lived in Miami for a year, and now live about a half hour from Miami and I can assure you shootings between blacks and hispanics (of all ages) happen with regularity here and it never makes national news.

    Like

  8. Liz July 14, 2013 at 16:07 #

    Trayvon wasn’t the one on trial, JB. Zimmerman was.

    Like

  9. judgybitch July 14, 2013 at 16:09 #

    Good point.

    But their job was to decide if Trayvon had been murdered. I think some capacity to relate to the victim as well as the accused is called for.

    Like

  10. dgarsys July 14, 2013 at 16:22 #

    Sorry JB. Usually I think you’ve got a lot of good stuff to say, but in this case, I think you’ve allowed your ignorance of the case and laws to lead you astray.

    One – I think the prosecution also wanted women for the same reason you outlined “all women” may be bad at a rape trial. The ability to appeal to emotion and entitlement. Also – I’ve not verified the source on this and it was too long ago to track it down (take it with a grain of salt), but prosecutors apparently like women because they’re more likely to not act as a road bump hanging a jury, and more likely to convict.

    Two – bringing up stand your ground is something of a red herring. As far as I know, both when the initial investigation declined to prosecute, and (having followed much of the testimony) in the current trial, the defense was strictly “acted self defense”. Also – if the prosecution could reasonably prove that Zimmerman had “gone after” Trayvon to the extent of initiating the fight or actively stalked him, Both self-defense and stand your ground would have been out the window entirely. SYG is NOT an excuse to pick a fight, and is invalidated by doing so.

    Three – while those were the options the jury was eventually offered, let’s not forget that the grand jury was waived before trial (the step that would normally determine if there was enough evidence to go to court), and that the prosecution attempted to set up Murder third as an option because hurting/killing Trayvon was child abuse.

    So it really boils down to who picked a fight with whom. Unfortunately we do not know what transpired near Zimmerman’s car that ended up with Trayvon kneeling over and straddling Zimmerman, pounding Zimmerman’s face with his fists and Zimmerman’s head into the pavement repeatedly. (Injuries on TM’s hands, and GZ’s skull match this story by both GZ and witnesses, and are not consistent with GZ overpowering TM) – so it’s entirely possible that when GZ was approached (I’ll get into that in a bit) he decided to be a jackass and pick a fight and thus threw self-defense out the window.

    Nobody witnessed that though. Only god/allah/gaia will know the truth of that.

    What we DO know – oddly mostly from the prosecution’s testimony, but consistent with the defense – is that GZ did get out of his car (and was not ordered to stay there, though it was suggested he did not have to) to follow on foot. We know, from testimony on both sides, that TM ran off down an alley. We also can corroborate from testimony on both sides that, given the relative locations of the car, the alley where TM lost Zimmerman, TM’s residence, and where the final fight occurred, that Zimmerman was headed back to his car, and that Trayvon had to backtrack away from the house to go back to not only where he lost Zimmerman, but even further back to get to where the final fight occurred.

    So Zimmerman turned around, and TM, younger, faster, turned into the one who then went out of his way to track down Zimmerman.

    Again, we don’t know who instigated the final fight with whom, but between an older, slower guy who only described TM as “black” (not “n****r”) and only when explicitly asked and turned around to head back (consistent with both sides of the story and where the final altercation occurred) and a guy who describes the other as “creepy cracker”, well, if GZ hopping out of his car to follow on foot demonstrates intent, then surely going out of your way to chase down a guy who’d turned back, instead of going the opposite direction (home) does too?

    The prosecution’s witnesses, again and again, noted that all of the physical evidence (phone calls, scars) were consistent with the self defense story. Those who had worked with GZ spoke of their admiration for him, that he was NOT a hothead, and that he had a reputation for calmly and professionally acting as a neighborhood watch – had even been offered more power and authority and had turned it down.

    Yes, this was the best argument the prosecution could provide.

    In the end, with both of them on the ground and without a gun, the odds were better than even that GZ was going to end up dead or incapacitated for life if it kept on beyond the injuries he’d already accumulated. With a gun, he shot Trayvon.

    Also – please don’t act like this hasn’t been heavily propagandized from the President on down. While Obama’s hypothetical son may have looked like Trayvon, he wouldn’t have acted like him. Showing shots of a cute 14 year old kid (instead of the muscle-bound selfless of T at 17) against mug shots of Zimmerman (instead of him in a business suit) doesn’t help either.

    One more item – I’ve spent more than enough time in Miami, and via my wife, have more than enough full-blooded hispanic relatives of Columbian descent, to know there are plenty of full-blooded hispanics far whiter than Zimmerman (who’s mom was Peruvian of Indio descent). Said relatives are also proof that conflating “culture” with race is a total non-starter.

    Like

  11. PrinceCharming July 14, 2013 at 16:23 #

    He had reasons to feel that way, but he did not have the right to act the way he did. He was Martin’s judge, jury and executioner. He took an innocent person’s life.

    Like

  12. The Karamazov Idea July 14, 2013 at 16:24 #

    They were banking on an identification with the Martin family. If you listened to Mr. de la Rionda’s (looks like Dr. Phil) closing argument, you would notice that words like “feel,” “emotion,” and other non-fact words appeared disproportionately. The prosecution hoped to get the female jury to think about Trayvon as they would a son of their own and render “justice” as they saw accordingly.

    Also, the prosecution opted not to have a black male juror during their selection. I wonder why that is. Also relevant is what constitutes Zimmerman’s “peers.” The jury should have been roughly representative of the gated community the crime was committed in.

    Like

  13. judgybitch July 14, 2013 at 16:30 #

    All good points and thank you for explaining.

    I still think my main point that allowing juries to let their feelings influence the verdict is a really bad call. No matter how you feel, you can only decide on the basis of fact.

    Casey Anthony. That bitch killed her baby. We all know it. But that does not matter. The prosecution had no evidence. The jury made the right call.

    If the jury DID have factual reasons to acquit Zimmerman, well good. They made the right call then.

    Like

  14. The Karamazov Idea July 14, 2013 at 16:31 #

    Have you done any research at all? All witness accounts, prosecution and defense, confirmed that Trayvon was on top of Zimmerman pounding away at him. Trayvon had no injuries except bruising of his fist and entrance wound from the single bullet. Zimmerman had multiple contusions and a broken nose.

    It is not illegal to
    -Follow someone
    -Ask them what they are doing

    It is illegal to
    -Assault someone

    It is not illegal to
    -Use lethal force when in fear for your life

    Zimmerman was neither a judge, a jury, nor an executioner. He was a man afraid for his life. The emotional thinking around this case has made lunatics of people I considered normally sane and rational. I’m hearing ridiculous assertions from people who haven’t paid attention to the case in the slightest.

    Also, just for the record, a single bullet casing was found in the chamber of Zimmerman’s Kel-Tech 9mm pistol. This only happens when somebody is holding the slide and preventing the blowback from ejecting the casing and racking another round. Trayvon’s finger prints were on the slide. Trayvon was on top of Zimmerman beating him when the gun was exposed and Trayvon went for it. Zimmerman shot him before Trayvon had the chance to use it.

    Trayvon also had a firearm collection of his own if you care to google.

    Like

  15. PrinceCharming July 14, 2013 at 16:34 #

    If I come after you with a gun, do you have the right to defend yourself?

    Like

  16. Liz July 14, 2013 at 16:38 #

    Agreed.
    Furthermore, the media’s misrepresentation of this case from the beginning, and outright purposeful misinformation campaign via selectively withholding facts is inexcusable and completely unethical.

    Like

  17. PrinceCharming July 14, 2013 at 16:39 #

    Also, Martin’s finger prints WERE NOT on the gun.

    Like

  18. The Karamazov Idea July 14, 2013 at 16:41 #

    You’re assuming Zimmerman brandished the firearm and threatened Trayvon. That’s completely unproven and illogical.

    You don’t try to beat the life out of somebody who has a gun. The fact that Trayvon assaulted Zimmerman is proof enough that Zimmerman did not brandish a firearm.

    And Martin’s fingerprints were not on the GRIP. That’s a different part than the slide. But good Google detective work.

    Like

  19. PrinceCharming July 14, 2013 at 16:45 #

    You have a kid walking down the street minding his own business. You have a guy who was told by the police to stay in his house, leave his house with a loaded pistol to find out what is going on with this kid.

    But yes, that is good enough to conclude that Martin was guilty in trying to kill Zimmerman and therefore, he needed to be shot.

    It makes a whole lot of sense that this kid who had no previous record of this type of stuff would like to walk down a random neighbour to try to start fights, and attempt to kill someone who has a gun.

    Like

  20. William Newman July 14, 2013 at 16:52 #

    A lot of people sincerely don’t like the idea of a man using a gun to defend against an unarmed beating by a single other man. (I saw plenty of this attitude in a controversy some years ago in Texas. Lots of people sincerely thought shooting was wrong even though he was clearly not the aggressor, and was trapped and outclassed.) If that’s how you feel, it would be good to say that, and then say the law is wrong, not that the jury got it wrong. In Florida if someone pins you down, hits you hard enough to break your nose, and bangs your head into the pavement hard enough to mess up your scalp, it’s pretty good legal justification for lethal self defense.

    The state was supposed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that (among other things) Zimmerman was not justified in shooting in self-defense (because justified self-defense is a defense against both charges, murder and manslaughter). The state certainly didn’t prove that M didn’t use enough force to justify Z’s lethal defense under FL law. Indeed it’s clear beyond a reasonable doubt that M did use enough force to meet that condition. (As above, you may not like that law, but it really is the law, not some wild misinterpretation dreamed up by a jury gone wild.) The main avenue for the state to prove self-defense doesn’t excuse Z’s shot is to show that some other condition for justified self-defense wasn’t met. The best way to do that would be to show that Z’s previous actions made M entitled to use that level of force to defend himself. Instead, as far as I can see, the state didn’t even try, because the evidence doesn’t support anything like that.

    Z’s critics have argued that Z must have provoked M somehow, but most kinds of provocations, even pretty extreme ones — e.g. Z throwing a dog turd at M — are not legal justification for M to pin Z down and bang him up the way he did. If Z had used his gun as a prop then there are lots of ways he could have given M legal justification — e.g., Z pointing the gun at M and hissing “you have 15 seconds to live if, but only if you beg for your life”. But it’s pretty hard to believe such a scenario, much less prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, given that Z had chosen to identify himself to the police first, given that Z had every reason to expect police within a few minutes, given that all evidence shows that someone was screaming and shouting for quite some time before the one and only shot was fired, and given that Z was the only one of the two who looked like he had been hurt much other than the gunshot.

    Also, often I am impressed with your choice of photos, but your choice of the young hoodie picture of Martin is misleading. Look at the convenience store security camera images on the day of the murder, not just the cute hoodie photo. Kids grow up, and 17-year-olds attack and even kill quite a few adults, and like it or not FL law doesn’t even require a threat of death before shooting, avoiding serious bodily harm works too.

    The unrepresentative jury doesn’t give me any confidence that the legal system of FL will do a good job on a tough case. The prosecutor attempting to conceal evidence doesn’t give me confidence either. And the media coverage just makes me shake my head. (Maintaining the preferred race narrative by defining Z a ‘white Hispanic’? As JB might say, what. The. Fuck.) But as above, this wasn’t a particularly tough case. If you want to use this case to argue that people like Obama’s long-lost son don’t get a fair shake in FL, the way to use this case to support this point is to find a similar case where the state couldn’t begin to prove that a Martin-like 17-year-old wasn’t entitled to self-defense and still successfully convicted him of manslaughter or murder. (It wouldn’t particularly surprise me if you could find various cases like that. The FL legal system doesn’t come out of this case looking very good, and I was pretty cynical even before this case.)

    Like

  21. Human-Stupidity.com July 14, 2013 at 16:56 #

    Thank you for your very sensible explanation

    It was a travesty, the trial should have never started.

    It is sad that Zimmerman was in the defense. It seems the entire press conspired against him, and used the old adage: if you repeat a lie often enough it becomes a truth

    Everyone assumes Zimmerman is obliged to never leave his car, to obey 911 dispatcher, that he the out of shape guy hunted down the football playing athlete, somehow surprisingly ended up at the point where they started, …

    Even calling Trayvon the victim is wrong.

    Zimmerman was the real victim. Attacked by a thug, beaten, injured, cleared by police, arrested unjustly, maligned, threatened by black vigilantes for the rest of his life, ….

    George Zimmermann Acquitted:,Victim of Government and Black Racism

    Like

  22. Liz July 14, 2013 at 17:01 #

    As TKI mentions, you are assuming that Zimmerman’s confrontation was him starting a fight with Martin. What if Zimmerman, his gun holstered and concealed, just went up to Martin and confronted him verbally? (far more plausible)

    Per self-defense: First, to be the aggressor, you have to do more than just talk, you have to be reasonably threatening. Two, under Florida’s law, even the initial aggressor can regain his right to self-defense by disengaging.

    Furthermore, and more to the point…It is possible to have dueling claims of self defense. By everything I’ve read the facts behind Zimmerman’s actions would indicate this qualified as self defense by both the Stand Your Ground law AND Duty to Retreat.

    Like

  23. ar10308 July 14, 2013 at 17:08 #

    ” Five white women is not a jury of Trayvon’s peers.”

    The “jury of your peers” isn’t about Trayvon’s peers, but Zimmermans. The rights to due process go to the accused and one of those rights is a trial by a jury of the ACCUSED’s peers.
    Though, 5 White women aren’t Zimmerman’s peers either.

    Like

  24. dej July 14, 2013 at 17:14 #

    Another clarification. It is George Zimmerman, the defendant, not Trayvon Martin, the victim, who was entitled to a jury of his peers.

    Like

  25. PrinceCharming July 14, 2013 at 17:14 #

    Wow

    If getting into verbal spats on phones, smoking weed (which is a calming drug, not an aggressive one), and taking stupid pictures is enough to conclude that someone is an aggressive person who goes around and tries to kill people, then I think half of the world should be in jail.

    Like

  26. ar10308 July 14, 2013 at 17:14 #

    “If Florida’s self-defence statutes are so lax as to allow neighborhood vigilantes to ignore instructions from police dispatchers and take the law into their own hands, then it’s the LAWS that need to change.”

    Stand down JB. You have no idea what you are talking about.

    911 dispatchers have ZERO legal authority and the person calling 911 has ZERO legal obligation to follow their instructions. Z-E-R-O. 911 is NOT the police because 1. They aren’t police officers and therefore have no legal authority and 2. They aren’t there in the situation.
    The Supreme Court has upheld this.

    Like

  27. judgybitch July 14, 2013 at 17:16 #

    I stand corrected.

    I’m learning a lot from this discussion!

    Like

  28. Kurt July 14, 2013 at 17:16 #

    1) Zimmerman left his car in the first place because the police dispatcher asked him where Martin was, and Zimmerman had lost sight of him. when the dispatcher told him he didn’t have to do that he turned to go back to his car and was confronted by Martin. That Martin initiated the confrontation is corroborated by his friend Rachel Jeantelle, who told about how Martin was nearly home and turned back to confront the “Creepy-ass cracka” following him.

    2) If you believe Martin knew he was being followed by a man with a gun then a) you don’t understand what “concealed weapon” means, and b) you make Martin sound even more aggressive, as confronting a man you know to be armed a very bad idea.

    3) Even if Zimmerman had started the confrontation, if he was in fear for his life from Martin after it escalated, he would still have a valid self defense claim. The manner in which Martin straddled him, which would prevent his escape, combined with the broken nose and hitting his head on the concrete, seem to support a fear of death or grievous bodily injury, and therefore his self defense claim.

    Like

  29. Kurt July 14, 2013 at 17:17 #

    They were hoping to get them to sympathize with the “child,” a 17 year old you man notably larger and stronger than his supposed attacker.

    Like

  30. Wilson July 14, 2013 at 17:18 #

    No, I generally wouldn’t fight back if someone “came at me with a gun”, but of course you are very well aware that Martin isn’t a retard, and was sneak-attacking a man he knew he could take, and that Zimmerman didn’t draw until he was on his back

    Like

  31. ar10308 July 14, 2013 at 17:18 #

    Here’s one more bit you should know.
    Here is a physical comparison of Trayvon and Zimmerman:

    The large cardboard cutout is Trayvon.
    The smaller one is Zimmerman.

    Zimmerman is outclassed in nearly every single way in this fight.

    Like

  32. ar10308 July 14, 2013 at 17:21 #

    That doesn’t mean anything. It was still a good shoot since Trayvon was about to commit 2nd degree murder on George Zimmerman by repeatedly slamming his head into the concrete.

    Like

  33. judgybitch July 14, 2013 at 17:21 #

    What I like about this discussion is that everyone is bringing up FACTS, which is exactly how juries should reach verdicts.

    The protesters are responding to very understandable emotions, but they are crazy to think facts should be ignores in favor of feelings.

    Like

  34. Kurt July 14, 2013 at 17:23 #

    THE POLICE DID NOT TELL ZIMMERMAN NOT TO FOLLOW MARTIN! They said he did not have to, which is a big difference.

    This also ignores that the entire prosecution is blatantly unconstitutional anyway. 5th amendment: “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury…”

    Like

  35. Liz July 14, 2013 at 17:24 #

    He wasn’t in his house, he was in his vehicle. He had a license to carry concealed weapon and was wearing it.

    What actually happened:
    911: “Are you following him?” [2:24]
    Zim: “Yeah.” [2:25]
    911: “OK. We don’t need you to do that.” [2:26]
    Zim: “OK.” [2:28]
    At which point he made arrangements to meet the police at the mailboxes.

    Like

  36. judgybitch July 14, 2013 at 17:25 #

    Wow

    Well that conversation has been a little skewed in the media, hasn’t it?

    I went with CNN

    I’d say they blew that one

    Like

  37. ar10308 July 14, 2013 at 17:26 #

    You’ll find that the black community is functioning entirely on the emotions. They have utterly ignored the facts and say things like “Zimmerman GOT OUT of his car and STALKED him”
    -Getting out of your car is not illegal the last time I checked. It shows not malice.
    -The legal definition of “Stalking” requires a pattern of behavior to be verified in a court of law. So that is another fallacious and misleading statement.

    I know exactly 3 black people who I have discussed the facts with and come to a reasonable conclusion.

    Finally, who calls 911 before they are about to go intentionally kill someone?

    Like

  38. dgarsys July 14, 2013 at 17:26 #

    I utterly agree with that point about deciding something like this on feelings and verdicts.

    Like

  39. dgarsys July 14, 2013 at 17:32 #

    The further irony being that if the state was willing to railroad a case this public this blatantly – I’m imagining that same prosecutor tackling a questionable case with a relatively powerless black kid with no spotlight to even TRY to keep things fair.

    Like

  40. Kurt July 14, 2013 at 17:39 #

    An unknown black man walking through a neighborhood in which there has recently been a string of burglaries is inherently suspicious. Zimmerman was in his car, not his house, and left his car because the police dispatcher asked him where Martin was, and he had lost sight of him. When the police told him he did not have to follow Martin, he turned and was walking back to his car, when MARTIN confronted HIM. Your apparent belief that Martin knew the man was armed serves only to make Martin seem more irrational and aggressive. Your apparent opinion is that Zimmerman chase Martin down with a gun, intending to kill him the whole time. If that was the case Martin would have been shot before he could knock Zimmerman down straddle his chest to prevent his escape and punched him repeatedly in the face.

    Like

  41. Liz July 14, 2013 at 17:46 #

    “Finally, who calls 911 before they are about to go intentionally kill someone?”

    Exactly. Mens rea eliminated right there. The highest charge they could hope to stick him with is INVOLUNTARY manslaughter, not manslaughter.

    Like

  42. AKI widad July 14, 2013 at 18:12 #

    slightly (but importantly) different laws in NZ Manslaughter would be defined he killed him but didn’t set out with that intention.

    Like

  43. FeministHater July 14, 2013 at 18:30 #

    I will just pipe in a say JB is entirely wrong in this case. Utterly and completely, Zimmerman had the right to defend himself. The racists were the the people and media intent on making this into the case of the century, changing Zimmerman’s photos to make him look white and then calling him a ‘white hispanic’. They also doctored the recordings to make it out that he used ‘racial terminology’ in his rant, which was simply not the case. Anyway, he is not white, he is a Mestizo. Ask yourself why ‘the powers that be’ decided to try and turn this into a racial case…

    You cannot have justice in a multi-racial and multicultural society, you just can’t. Different people abide by different laws and morals. It’s the abuse of forcing people, who do not wish to be together, that is going to cause more heartache, war and destruction than any preceding time in history.

    Like

  44. Exfernal July 14, 2013 at 18:36 #

    A seventeen year old is hardly a kid. There are more recent self-made photos of Trayvon Martin circulating the Internet. A seventeen year old of his build is physically capable of overwhelming George Zimmerman.

    You have a guy who was told by the police to stay in his house. Is that true?

    Like

  45. Radical Suburbanite July 14, 2013 at 18:40 #

    Wow, you’re completely ignoring a pattern of behavior that is inconvenient to your argument. Travon was only 17 and was already a petty thug.

    This whole case was prosecuted for political reasons because the media and the Al Sharptons of the world decided to gin-up a racial angle where none existed. I’m glad the jury didn’t let them get away with it.

    Like

  46. Liz July 14, 2013 at 18:58 #

    The media was blatantly wrong about a lot of things, especially at the beginning before the facts were out and they just ran with whatever they had. There’s a profit incentive to create outrage and hysteria. The more, the better for them. I’m sure they’re on standby hoping for riots now.

    Like

  47. dgarsys July 14, 2013 at 19:13 #

    Nevermind the blatant misrepresentation of a different part of the conversation where (paraphrased) GZ was edited to state that someone suspicious was walking down the street and was black, where the real conversation was him talking about a suspicious person, the 911 operator asking him to describe the person, and GZ mentioning that the person was black.

    Oddly, TWO separate news affiliates managed to make that identical edit, cropping out an entire Q&A, to string together two separate sentences by GM as one statement.

    Like

  48. Radical Suburbanite July 14, 2013 at 19:14 #

    @Liz
    From what I’ve seen the media appears to be actively trying to instigate some riots.

    Like

  49. Human-Stupidity.com July 14, 2013 at 19:24 #

    I think it was always wrong to call Trayvon Martin the victim. Before he was the “alleged victim”. Now you can call him, correctly, the aggressor and Zimmerman is the victim

    Like

  50. Kurt July 14, 2013 at 19:29 #

    No it is not. The police dispatcher asked Zimmerman where Martin was, and Zimmerman had lost sight of him from his car, so he got out to try and see. When it became clear he had left the vehicle to follow, the dispatcher said “we don’t need you to do that.” Zimmerman turned to go back to his car, and on the way back was confronted by Martin.

    I could be wrong but “we don’t need you to do that” doesn’t sound like an order not to follow him.

    Like

  51. Human-Stupidity.com July 14, 2013 at 19:33 #

    These racists also made Trayvon Martin look like a little cute 12 year old, like he was, maybe, 5 years ago.

    I just saw the German press, all of Germany is misguided by the “Civil rights” communities’ lies and nobody can understand the jury’s decision.

    They just heard the propaganda of an “unarmed innocent little teen boy being followed and gunned down by a vigilante”. They don’t even mention Zimmerman was injured

    Like

  52. Kurt July 14, 2013 at 19:34 #

    Yeah, a man who is 1/2 latino and 1/8 black is a WHITE hispanic, a category which was apparently created by the media just for him.

    http://isteve.blogspot.com/2012/12/quiz-can-you-pick-out-white-hispanic.html

    Like

  53. feeriker July 14, 2013 at 19:38 #

    You have a kid walking down the street minding his own business.

    “Minding his own business?” I think a definition of this phrase is in order here. Care to enlighten us as to how Martin was “minding his own business?” If I’m casing a house with the intention of breaking into it (especially if it’s in a neighborhood in which I don’t live), am I “minding my own business?”

    Like

  54. feeriker July 14, 2013 at 19:58 #

    Casey Anthony. That bitch killed her baby. We all know it. But that does not matter. The prosecution had no evidence. The jury made the right call.

    I absolutely agree, both with your statement about Casey killing her daughter AND with the jury doing the right thing by not convicting – because the state presented no solid EVIDENCE that she had done so.

    I blame the state of Florida –specifically, the district attorney’s office of the county in which she was tried– for the fact that Casey Anthony is walking the streets today a free woman. As in so many other cases (the O.J. Simpson case comes quickly to mind), the state did an abominable job of presenting factual evidence against the defendant.

    There’s a reason for this: hubris on the part of agents of the State. It has reached the point where agents of the State have become so drunk with illegitimate power (don’t even get me started on the criminal scumbag shysters who are prosecutors and the equally doucbebaggy politicized lawyers called “judges”), so sure that they can coerce a guilty plea out of someone they intend to railroad that they don’t even try to present a solid case in court under the color of law and rules of evidence anymore. I have to believe that this is a large part of what happened in the Zimmerman case. In this case the prosecution was so sure that they could hand-pick a jury that was so shitting-their-pants terrified of the potential aftermath of an acquittal (riots, etc.) that they would automatically convict and that they thus would not even have to present anything resembling credible evidence against Zimmerman. Well, thank God that voire-dire hasn’t quite yet become a prosecution-dominated kangaroo process in the way that grand juries have. The Zimmerman jurors weren’t going to play the role of rubber stamp and voted in accordance with the evidence they were presented – or lack thereof in this case. Surely the Establishment is in full-fledged rage/panic mode now because of this and is already concocting new and more blatantly unlawful ways to undermine the system of trial by jury of one’s peers.

    On that same note, read this and be horrified – VERY horrified. Judge Debra Nelson needs to be impeached, removed from the bench, disbarred, and subject to criminal indictment! (Oh, and she should also be forced to divulge who, if anyone, threatened/blackmailed her into conducting herself in the inexcusable way she did in that courtroom, in flagrant violation of judicial rules of conduct and the law.) I know that the chances of this actually happening are about the same as those of the Jezebel moronettes ever becoming MHRAs en masse, but serious effort needs to be undertaken to ensure that anyone who decides to try to tamper with the “justice” system has their arms cut off at the shoulders.

    JB, I do agree with other posters here in that you really went off the rails on this one. However, not to worry; even the very best make mistakes and are entitled to the occasional misstep. You have, most admirably, stated that you’ve learned a lot from this discussion – as have all of us. If we can’t learn from each other, what useful purpose do we serve?

    Like

  55. feeriker July 14, 2013 at 20:04 #

    I must say, in my many years of traveling and living in various parts of Europe, that I’m left speechless at the degree to which continental Europeans gobble up as mother’s-milk gospel the bullshit that their gutter press spews out. I used to think that the Amoricon sheeple were the world’s biggest brainstemmers when it comes to swallowing propaganda (and they very nearly take the prize), but the European public tops them, hands down. It’s truly a sickening thing to behold.

    Critical thinking is effectively a dead skill, practiced by a tiny minority of the world’s population.

    Like

  56. Alex July 14, 2013 at 21:09 #

    i wish someone would’ve found a way to put together a narrative of Trayvon’s day before he died. it’s entirely plausible that throughout the day, people filled his rage meter and Zimmerman happened to be the unlucky person that he vented in out on. people often ignore the build-up (if there is one) and just look at the one event. one of bill burr’s pieces was the inspiration of that line of thinking, although his example is domestic abuse

    Like

  57. dgarsys July 14, 2013 at 21:13 #

    For a lot of analysis on the trial itself, including how little the prosecution had to go on, take a look at Legal Insurrection’s coverage. http://legalinsurrection.com/tag/george-zimmerman-trial/

    You can skip the majority of the articles and look at the end-of-day analysis and summary.

    Like

  58. Renee July 14, 2013 at 21:14 #

    Here’s my issue with the whole thing.

    First off, even if the police said that Zimmerman didn’t have to follow Martin, it appears that Martin did notice that he was being followed. Every saying that it’s not against the law to follow someone….are you kidding me? It make not be against the law, but do you honestly expect someone who’s being followed during a rainy night by a complete stranger who happens to have a loaded weapon on him (even though it’s concealed, the fact is, he had a weapon) not to get spooked or at the least, uneasy. If the person being followed knew how to fight and knew that they knew how to fight, then it’s to be expected that they will use said abilities to kick the butt of the stranger following them. Is it the best thing to do, no, but it is to be expected.

    To Martin, Zimmerman was some strange dude following him. He wasn’t the police, just a stranger. It’s believed that Martin doubled-back after running away from Zimmerman, and apparently to some people, this means that Martin initiated the entire attack, cementing the idea that he was a “thug”. For all we know, Martin may have confronted Zimmerman, just to know who he was and why he was following him, which he would’ve had every right to know. Of course, should Martin have continued to go back home, yes.

    In the end, we don’t know who started the actual attack. All we know for sure was that Martin had no reason to be followed and treated as suspicious, but he was, and that there was a confrontation where apparently Zimmerman felt threatened. But threatened enough to kill someone? Yeah he was getting his butt kicked, but he actually felt that threatened enough to kill a teenager? Did Zimmerman even try to identify himself as a member of the Neighborhood Watch and explain himself?

    Also about the fact that there were previous break-ins in the neighborhood – was Martin simply walking home at night make him suspicious? I’ve read elsewhere that the previous robbers were black. So I guess that automatically made Martin look suspicious…just by him walking? So what, if previous robbers were white, Hispanic, Asian, and/or women and we see one walking around at a neighborhood at night, would they be viewed with suspicion.

    People talk about race-baiting, but it’s not race-baiting when there’s actually issues of race being related to the issue at hand.

    Like

  59. FeministHater July 14, 2013 at 21:29 #

    Wow! If you’re getting your head smashed in, you’re not going to feel threatened? Listen, anyone at night, walking around houses, dressed in a hoody, whether black, white, hispanic, Indian, Asian or any other colour I have missed out, is going to be looking suspicious. Also note, suspicious behaviour isn’t just a person’s looks, it’s how they act. It’s the neighbourhood watches responsibility to quietly look upon and report suspicious characters.

    For all we know, Zimmerman could have doubled back after being told not to follow, then Trayvon could have jumped him and pushed him to the ground and started beating up on him, being frightened and scared, Zimmerman pulls his gun and shoots Trayvon. What then, huh?

    Like

  60. feministhater July 14, 2013 at 21:31 #

    And what I have just outlined for you is something called ‘Reasonable Doubt’.

    Like

  61. Renee July 14, 2013 at 21:36 #

    Thank you for mentioning what happened to Marissa Alexander.

    Like

  62. Liz July 14, 2013 at 21:41 #

    “But threatened enough to kill someone? Yeah he was getting his butt kicked, but he actually felt that threatened enough to kill a teenager?”

    More people are killed every year with fists than rifles, and Zimmerman’s head was being pounded into concrete. Here is what one punch can do: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2319680/Utah-soccer-referee-dies-Ricardo-Portillo-killed-attacked-teen-yellow-card-warning.html

    Per race baiting, this is the most blatant, egregious race-baiting by mass media misinformation campaign I have ever seen. If Zimmerman’s last name had been Hernandez, I doubt it would have even made headline news.

    Like

  63. Richard Nikoley (@rnikoley) July 14, 2013 at 21:42 #

    I only needed to read comments to “The Karamazov Idea’s” first, that pretty much ought to have ended things amongst rational people.

    Big fan of JB as anyone who knows, knows, but I find her equivocation and vacillation here quite annoying.

    I’ve a completely different perspective on the whole thing but do address slightly the verdict.

    http://freetheanimal.com/2013/07/sunday-church-for-human-animals-anarchy-begins-at-home-zimmerman-martin.html

    Moreover, anyone who hasn’t really followed along (as I did not) and is now willing to view a 35-minute exhaustive expose of the case, as I finally did this morning, given the verdict:

    Ok, over & out.

    Like

  64. Liz July 14, 2013 at 21:43 #

    It was very important that they portray him as a white guy at the onset. Also a white guy living in a safe gated community. When in actuality the community was not safe at all and half minority.

    Like

  65. judgybitch July 14, 2013 at 21:57 #

    Richard,

    My equivocation and vacillation here is entirely due to the fact that I am genuinely trying to avoid engaging any racist “young black men are automatically thugs” mindset, combined with the fact that I am using what I generally consider to be reputable media sources for my information.

    CNN can usually be counted on to at least get the material facts right. As Liz demonstrates with the 911 call, that did NOT happen in this case.

    Why would that be?

    It seems that the media is more interested in convicting a man who defended himself against a threat with deadly force than looking at this particular case in detail. They are SO committed to denying that young black men can ever be violent and reactionary, that they are twisting themselves in knots to avoid what seems to be a pretty open and shut case.

    That in itself is pretty interesting. Okay, so Trayvon was entirely complicit in the altercation that lead to his death. He brought a knife to a gun fight, as the saying goes.

    I personally think we can say “Trayvon Martin is a thug who bit off far more than he could chew” while at the same time pointing out that there are a whole lot of young black men who have done nothing wrong, who get snared in a racist net of racial profiling.

    I used the mainstream media to understand what turns out to be a horrifically misrepresented case to call attention to the fact that the criminal justice system really IS biased against black men. In this situation, the jury made the right call. In plenty of other situations, they don’t.

    I think THAT is the source of the black community’s anger and sorrow over the verdict. They wanted the jury to reach a different conclusion BECAUSE so many other young black men have been punished simply because they were black.

    The OJ Simpson jury did exactly that. They gave the world a little “fuck you” and let a murderer walk.

    That’s the kind of verdict I was really concerned about. It is a massive mistake to use one case to try and right a century of wrongs.

    Turns out the jury wasn’t wrong at all., based on everything I’ve read in the comments here.

    I may have been misguided about the facts in this case, but I stand by my assertion that no matter what the social context, juries must ALWAYS reach verdicts on the basis of fact, and fact alone.

    Like

  66. cbmts (@cbmts) July 14, 2013 at 23:30 #

    the trouble is stand your ground laws doesn’t seem to applicable equally to some individuals. it applies to George Zimmerman but not this african american woman who got 20years for firing a warning shot at her husband: http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/11/justice/florida-stand-ground-sentencing

    Like

  67. MoscowEast July 14, 2013 at 23:55 #

    Have Americans completely lost their minds?

    1. Zimmerman isn’t White, so stop saying that being White has got a thing to do with this case.
    2. Zimmerman broke no laws and was doing what he thought right to look after his own community.
    3. Zimmerman didn’t initiate violence.
    4. Martin was the aggressor and was larger and stronger than Zimmerman.
    5. Zimmerman was in fear of his life and was justified in defending himself.
    6. That’s it.

    Also, this case is not comparable with that of Marissa Alexander. Whilst her sentence seems on the heavy side to me, her life was not in danger and she left the house and came back with a gun and then fired it. That is against the law.

    At least your legal system seems to have more sense than many of the people it serves. The day both self-loathing Whites and White-hating Blacks stop holding Blacks to lower standards of behaviour than they do people of other races in general, but especially Whites in particular is the day rifts between the different peoples of your nation shall heal (to put it in the revoltingly schmaltzy language many Americans seem to find appealing).

    Like

  68. Renee July 14, 2013 at 23:57 #

    Well then we must have different views on hoodies, because I don’t look at someone wearing a hoodie, even walking at night, as suspicious in and of itself. Everyone wears hoodies. They’re comfortable and warm.

    And how exactly did Trayvon act that night that made him suspicious?

    Also, do neighborhood watch members actually follow people as well, because I thought that they were supposed to just WATCH and report.

    Like

  69. MoscowEast July 15, 2013 at 00:49 #

    As a corollary to point 1 above, a tweet I read earlier:

    “So a Hispanic shoots a black and is acquitted by women, but it’s still white men’s fault.”

    Like

  70. ar10308 July 15, 2013 at 01:56 #

    She didn’t fire the shot at her husband. She discharged the weapon illegally in an unsafe direction after charging back into the room she had just left.

    Like

  71. Human-Stupidity.com July 15, 2013 at 05:09 #

    right. I don’t know how the “Civil Rights Movement” are the only ones that dominate the press with highly unlikely stories what could have happened.

    Actually, I have seen NO ONE explain why Trayvon did a 4 minutes circle to fight where the two were 4 minutes earlier, instead of a 15 second run or 30 second walk home.

    Did Zimmermann also run after him in a circle? Being in the bad shape he is?

    These stories are simply STUPID, but everyone wants to believe them

    Like

  72. FeministHater July 15, 2013 at 08:33 #

    I cannot point out something I didn’t see. Ask Zimmerman what Trayvon was doing that made him look suspicious. I’m thinking that would have been asked at the trial and by the police when questioning him.

    If you are inclined to watch someone and report on them, it might require that you follow them for a bit. Meh, logic lost on you lot…

    A hoody covers the face, much the same as a balaclava. A balaclava though, brings outright suspicion, whereas a hoodie brings mild suspicion. I’m not even going to go further with you. You race hustlers are wrong, completely and utterly. There is no point in debating this issue with you. Please continue to push this case though, it’s showing the American people exactly the type of Tyrant Government they now have in power.

    What you lot are asking for is unconscionable, profiling in and of itself is not an evil. You’re asking for logic and reason to be suspended. Go jump in a lake.

    Like

  73. Spaniard July 15, 2013 at 09:16 #

    No popular jury in Spain. It was used a few years ago as an experiment in some trials. And failed. Now is revoked.

    Like

  74. Exfernal July 15, 2013 at 10:31 #

    I think THAT is the source of the black community’s anger and sorrow over the verdict. They wanted the jury to reach a different conclusion BECAUSE so many other young black men have been punished simply because they were black.

    Even if so, is the revenge for acts of OTHER people than the accused and acquitted person of mixed descent a proper course of action? A $10 000 reward for “capturing” George Zimmerman looks more like a call for a witch-hunt than merely an expression of “anger and sorrow”.

    Like

  75. Spaniard July 15, 2013 at 13:17 #

    Off topic

    Judgybitch, I need and advice from you: what about dating a 44 year old woman, with a grown up (18+) daughter?
    Could you include that case in the subject: “Do not date single moms?”
    No legal reponsibilities to the girl, no economic, no need to play the stepfather… but maybe still something not good there. I cannot see, as man, but maybe some female advise would be good.

    Thank you

    Like

  76. judgybitch July 15, 2013 at 13:51 #

    I’d say go for it! If you cannot be held legally responsible for her, you’re in the clear.

    Don’t be surprised if the daughter turns her attentions towards you, though. If she has Daddy issues, watch out!

    You could be in trouble.

    Like

  77. Fred Flange, S.J. July 15, 2013 at 14:04 #

    My take: white people now have their O.J. (By which I mean, not the jury so much, who did what the judge charged them to do, but his champions – see above – trying to Blame The Victim, just like OJ’s lawyers did, successfully).
    Here is something else OJ and Zimmerman – and their champions – will share:
    Like OJ, Zimmerman will be in jail for something else in 5 years’ time. He won’t shut up and he won’t stay still. One night he will get into something with somebody, and when he does “stand your ground” will not save him a second time. Just like “if the glove don’t fit” couldn’t save OJ on the “sports memorabilia” robbery

    Like

  78. dgarsys July 15, 2013 at 16:11 #

    Sorry Fred – but the circumstances aren’t anywhere near that close. When you look at the testimony of his neighbors, as well as the prosecutions own witnesses who interacted with him over years – and the fact that (even with the prosecution’s timeline) TM had to turn back and hunt down GZ, making him the most likely primary aggressor in the confrontation (GZ broke off in both timelines given known locations) – GZ may end up in jail for something (sure are enough people calling for his head…..), but I would not be quite so assured as you are.

    It doesn’t fit to well with the known facts as presented.

    Like

  79. Goober July 15, 2013 at 17:19 #

    You are repeating the media’s narrative of what happened, which has no basis in reality. If the series of events that lead to Trayvon’s death had actually followed the order that you laid out, then I would agree with you that George Zimmerman needed to be thrown in jail, but the series of events didn’t follow that order, according to every witness that was called, both by the prosecution and the defense.

    It went something more like this, from the statements of witnesses and the testimony of Trayvon’s girlfriend, who he was on the phone with during part of the happening:

    1.) George Zimmerman, a man who had championed the cause of poverty, and more specifically, poverty in black neighborhoods, on numerous occasions in his life, saw a black man he didn’t know walking along the streets of his neighborhood. He was on neighborhood watch at the time, and decided that the guy looked suspicious. Given that the neighborhood had been getting its ass kicked by crime, and that the crimes had all, to a one, been committed by young black men, this wasn’t an unreasonable assumption to make, no matter how politically incorrect you might think it was. His obscenity on the phone is pretty much meaningless, except to show that he was frustrated with the constant crime in his neighborhood and the lack of any resolution to any of it – remember, he was assuming, based on his observation, that Trayvon was casing the place, not walking home, and you weren’t there, so you have no business judging that determination.
    2.) He called 911 to report the suspicious individual.
    3.) The 911 operator asked him to figure out where the individual went, so Zimmerman got out of his truck and followed the individual. When the 911 operator found out that he was following him for all of a block or so, the operator told him that he didn’t need to follow him anymore. Contrary to the popular narrative, at this point in time, Zimmerman said “OK” (this is in the 911 transcript) and STOPPED FOLLOWING HIM.
    4.) No contact had been made between the individuals at this point, when Zimmerman stopped following Trayvon and went back to his truck.
    5.) Trayvon, on the phone with his girlfriend at the time, made it back to his home, and was in the back yard of the place, when he told his girlfriend that he was going to go back and confront the “creepy-assed cracker”. His words.
    6.) Zimmerman was working with the 911 operator to determine when and where he was going to meet with responding officers as Trayvon walked back to confront this “creepy-assed cracker.”
    7.) Trayvon found Zimmerman right as he got back to his truck. By all accounts, TRAYVON ATTACKED ZIMMERMAN. He initiated the physical confrontation on his own accord, not because he was cornered and scared by a man who was following him, but because, as his girlfriend stated, he was insulted by being followed by this “creepy assed cracker” and wanted to go beat his ass.
    8.) Zimmerman screamed for help. The only people that claim that it was Trayvon screaming are Trayvon’s parents. All the other tens of witnesses said it was clearly Zimmerman. Based on his injuries, I’d agree. Given that Trayvon’s only injury was a gunshot wound, I’d speculate that Zimmerman was losing the fight, badly, right up to the point to where he pulled his gun and shot Trayvon. When a guy is beating your head into the pavement, you have no idea when the next slam is going to black you out. The bad guy gets his way with you at that point. Your only option is to shoot. Zimmerman did what he had to do.

    This is not the case of an innocent black kid getting gunned down by an overzealous Paul Blart mall cop. This is the case of a 17 year old kid who got taken in by “thug culture” enough that he thought it would be a rational decision to start a physical confrontation with a man who followed him for a short while on the street, which he found out later that he couldn’t finish. Consider the fact that the things that he was supposed to have been coming home with, skittles and Arizona watermelon idec tea, are ingredients in a drug cocktail called “lean.” This is the same drug cocktail that Trayvon was asking about on Facebook only days before the incident. I’m not saying he was high at the time, but the fact that he was playing around with drugs should go towards maybe reducing the vision that people have of an innocent little boy, which Trayvon was not.

    I know that all black kids aren’t thugs, and this isn’t what I’m trying to say – not by a long shot. I don’t want to play to that stereotype, because its offensive and untrue. However, the stereotype exists for a reason, and that is because there are huge societal pressures for young black men to be just that – thugs. I don’t think Trayvon was a thug, but I think that he made a decision to go back to start a fight instead of just staying home like he should have, in part based on a culture that expected him to go start that fight.

    I suspect that like most of us, if Trayvon had survived this incident and grew up to be an adult, he’d look back on it and see how stupid he was being when he did what he did. I know that as a younger man/boy, I did a lot of stuff that should have gotten me killed (I used to race motocross, for chrissake) and its only by sheer luck that I didn’t die.

    Trayvon got unlucky, and we’re all worse off for that. But he got unlucky because the man who’s head he was pounding against the pavement had a pistol and the will to use it. George Zimmerman did nothing wrong, and I feel sorry for him because his life is ruined, all due to the actions of a young man who made a really bad decision.

    Like

  80. feeriker July 15, 2013 at 18:04 #

    Like OJ, Zimmerman will be in jail for something else in 5 years’ time. He won’t shut up and he won’t stay still. One night he will get into something with somebody, and when he does “stand your ground” will not save him a second time. Just like “if the glove don’t fit” couldn’t save OJ on the “sports memorabilia” robbery

    I’ll ask one of my favorite questions here: on what basis do you make this statement? Was it ever revealed over the course of this farce of a trial that George Zimmerman was a troublemaker who is prone to starting fights without provocation? I saw no evidence of such in my following of the trial, so I see no basis for your prediction.

    What George Zimmerman WILL face very soon, and it goes without saying, is a bogus civil “wrongful death” suit by the Martin family, almost certainly to be heard in a biased court in which a verdict of liable for the death based on a preponderance of evidence has already been prepared. THAT is the real battle Zimmerman stands the most chance of losing.

    Like

  81. Liz July 15, 2013 at 19:08 #

    “What George Zimmerman WILL face very soon, and it goes without saying, is a bogus civil “wrongful death” suit by the Martin family, almost certainly to be heard in a biased court in which a verdict of liable for the death based on a preponderance of evidence has already been prepared. THAT is the real battle Zimmerman stands the most chance of losing.”

    Exactly. Last I heard, the federal government is starting an investigation as well. I’m sure this is the justice system our founding fathers envisioned…politically motivated double jeopardy prosecutions mandated by mob. Jesus wept.

    Like

  82. Fred Flange, S.J. July 15, 2013 at 19:22 #

    Aha! The OJ parallels continue: OJ also was taken out to dry by a large civil judgment against him brought by Nicole’s family. Remember?

    I stand by my prediction. I have backed it up as a dinner bet with a colleague who is a big Zimmerman fan. I base it on Zimmerman’s tendency to pop off and talk before he thinks, having seen him on Hannity, talking to the cops on tape, his willingness to step up in a confrontation, etc. I grew up with guys like this, not all of whom went to the Big House, or packed heat 24/7, or were psycho Francis Begbie-types, but all had their share of stupid dust-ups because they didn’t have the sense to shut up or back off.

    This has nothing to do with the verdict; that’s done. To continue the OJ comparison one more time: this was a righteous acquittal, based on the judge’s charges to the jury, just like the OJ acquittal was righteous, because the prosecution so botched the case.

    Like

  83. Human-Stupidity.com July 15, 2013 at 19:29 #

    Great summary of what happened.

    Unfortunately, the politically correct press made sure that 95% of the world’s population hears a very different story

    Press media’s lies, deceit about George Zimmermann trial

    Like

  84. Reggie July 15, 2013 at 19:31 #

    Y’all are forgetting the obvious. This was a mixed race neighbourhood. The odds of a suspicious character being black are good without any racial profiling.

    Like

  85. judgybitch July 15, 2013 at 19:32 #

    Including me!!!

    Oh well. I can’t be right 100% of the time.

    Just, you know, 99.9% of the time.

    😛

    Like

  86. Liz July 15, 2013 at 19:32 #

    “OJ also was taken out to dry by a large civil judgment against him brought by Nicole’s family. Remember?”

    I do. And the US department of justice did not go after OJ.

    Like

  87. feeriker July 15, 2013 at 20:43 #

    And the US department of justice did not go after OJ

    BINGO.

    Nice try, Fred, but no cigar.

    Like

  88. Mike Hunter July 16, 2013 at 02:55 #

    Just one quick correction. Zimmerman did not invoke Florida’s stand your ground law. He argued on the basis of pure self defense. People who dislike SYG, or who are simply ignorant of the facts keep trying to link SYG to the ZImmerman case because they hope to repeal SYG, and make right wing republicans suffer politically.

    Here is what the law says about legally using deadly force [outside of a home, business, or vehicle] in Florida. I think the law is pretty reasonable.

    776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:

    (1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or

    (2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.
    History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1188, ch. 97-102; s. 2, ch. 2005-27

    You can find all of the Florida statues on deadly force here if you want to look:
    http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0776/0776.html

    The prosecution had to prove that Zimmerman didn’t reasonably believe that the use of deadly force was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself. They failed.

    All the SYG law did was remove the duty to retreat if you are otherwise legally entitled to use deadly force, hence the name. That makes sense considering that’s it’s impossible to defend yourself if you’re legally forced to run, and risk getting shot in the back. The SYG law was irrelevant in this case because when Zimmerman shot Trayvon he was pinned to the ground beneath him. Therefore it would have been impossible to run, and even under the old deadly force laws Zimmerman would have been entitled to use deadly force if he reasonably believed it was necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm.

    That being said I think George Zimmerman is guilty, that he didn’t reasonably believe that deadly force was needed, and he should be in prison. If you follow a teenager around, provoke a confrontation, and get your ass kicked; then you should take your beating like a man and call it a night. Not pull out a pistol when you start losing a fight you provoked and shoot the kid though the heart.

    But the state couldn’t prove that beyond a reasonable doubt and we can’t execute people just because we think they’re probably guilty. That’s not justice; it’s mob rule. Their guilt must be proven. Also lets not compound this injustice by changing the law so that every day citizens are unable to defend themselves against violent criminals, or by lowering the bar for sending someone to the electric chair. Especially considering that Florida now executes more people then any other state in the nation.

    Like

  89. Mike Hunter July 16, 2013 at 03:08 #

    Bullshit! Not to mention the headline in that news article is a lie.

    This woman had already left her house that had her husband in it. She then returned to the house, went to the garage, grabbed a firearm, entered the residence and fired in his direction striking the wall. The bullets went though the wall and into her daughters occupied room. She claims that she was firing warning shots [don’t you fire those straight in the air?] the jury didn’t believe her.

    She was also offered a plea deal in which she would have only served 3 years. She decided to roll the dice and lost. Now it’s time to pay the piper.

    If she was being threatened why didn’t she just call the police after she left the house? A more likely scenario is that she and her husband got in a fight, enraged she left the house, and then decided that she’d go back and grab the pistol in the garage to show him who’s boss.

    The closest thing to an argument that this woman’s supporters can come up with is: ‘Zimmerman got away with murder after provoking a confrontation and he’s white [not true Zimmerman is actually Hispanic]; so Marissa Alexander should at least be able to get away with attempted murder after provoking a confrontation with her husband.

    This is exactly why when things ended with my “baby’s mama” I decided to take all of the firearms out of the house. lol

    Like

  90. Mike Hunter July 16, 2013 at 03:19 #

    “Zimmerman was neither a judge, a jury, nor an executioner. He was a man afraid for his life.”

    Was he? Or was he just a coward who decided to pull his pistol out because he was losing a fist fight that he started? If you follow a stranger around, harass them, and start a fight that you lose; then take your beating like a man and call it a night.

    Also if someone started a fight with me, and pulled a gun on me when they started losing; you can be damn sure I’m going for it. If they’re crazy enough to start a fight and pull out a firearm; they’re probably crazy/cowardly enough to shoot you dead over a fistfight. George Zimmerman certainly was.

    Trayvon also had a firearm collection of his own

    So what. Owning guns isn’t the problem, killing someone in cold blood is.

    Like

  91. Mike Hunter July 16, 2013 at 03:26 #

    “In the end, with both of them on the ground and without a gun, the odds were better than even that GZ was going to end up dead or incapacitated for life if it kept on beyond the injuries he’d already accumulated.”

    Bullshit! It was a fistfight. One that George ZImmerman started! Of course it’s possible that Zimmerman could have been seriously injured. But highly unlikely. How many fights like this happen at the local high school every day, and everyone walks away just fine?

    The politicians should pass a new law. If you’re too much of a pussy to take a beating as a result of a fight that you provoked, then you’re too much of a pussy to own or carry a firearm.

    Like

  92. Mike Hunter July 16, 2013 at 03:28 #

    Then perhaps he should have stayed in his car instead of picking a fight.

    Like

  93. Mike Hunter July 16, 2013 at 03:33 #

    “Don’t be surprised if the daughter turns her attentions towards you, though. If she has Daddy issues, watch out! You could be in trouble.”

    Be in trouble!? As long as she’s over 18 I call that hitting the jackpot! LOL

    Like

  94. Mike Hunter July 16, 2013 at 03:36 #

    I never thought about it that way. But you’re absolutely right.

    Like

  95. ar10308 July 16, 2013 at 03:37 #

    Prove he picked a fight, moron.

    He has the right to get out of his car.

    Like

  96. Fred Flange, unplugged July 16, 2013 at 03:53 #

    So far just noise. They haven’t done it yet. And they won’t. Not worth it. Just like they didn’t go after OJ. So I’ll take that cigar.

    On second thought, I’ll pass. Don’t know where it’s been. Night night.

    Like

  97. Exfernal July 16, 2013 at 10:52 #

    Did Zimmerman punch Martin even once? Knuckle abrasions are difficult to hide. If one gets rushed by surprise and ends up pinned down and being pounded away into oblivion there aren’t many options to choose from.

    Like

  98. Mike Hunter July 16, 2013 at 11:37 #

    Prove he didn’t. Sure he has a right to get out of his car. But he doesn’t have a right to follow strangers around in the middle of the night, who are lawfully walking home, and harass them.

    Like

  99. ar10308 July 16, 2013 at 11:46 #

    There is no evidence that Zimmerman got a single punch in.

    Like

  100. ar10308 July 16, 2013 at 11:50 #

    “Prove he didn’t.”

    The American justice system functions on presumption of innocence. Meaning, if you can’t prove it happened then you must assume it didn’t happen.

    You most absolutely have the right to watch and follow strangers in a public space. You are not entitled to any right to privacy in a public space. Zimmerman lawfully followed Trayvon, if you can prove that observing and following someone from a distance is illegal by citing a law, then do so. Otherwise, GTFO.

    Like

  101. Liz July 16, 2013 at 11:51 #

    “So far just noise. They haven’t done it yet. And they won’t. Not worth it. Just like they didn’t go after OJ.”

    Did the US Justice Department “make noise” about going after OJ?

    Like

  102. Mike Hunter July 16, 2013 at 11:52 #

    I’ve been in fights and hit people multiple times with no abrasions to my knuckles. Human flesh is pretty soft, as long as you’ don’t catch your knuckles on their teeth you’re fine. In any people walking home alone rarely fight strangers for no reason.

    This much we know : Martin was unarmed and walking lawfully walking home from the store. An armed Zimmerman confronted him; despite a 911 operator telling him to leave the kid alone. A few minutes later Martin was laying dead with a gunshot wound though the heart.

    Those are pretty damning facts. There may not be enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman used lethal force to prevent great bodily harm or death but that doesn’t mean that he isn’t most likely guilty.

    Even if Zimmerman was 100% correct in his application of lethal force; and I doubt it. After all it was only a fist fight you blathering pussies. He’s still morally liable for recklessly creating a situation that warranted it’s use and ended with him taking another human beings life.

    Like

  103. Mike Hunter July 16, 2013 at 11:57 #

    There’s no evidence that he didn’t either. Because he killed the person he got into a fight with. But there’s plenty of evidence that he shot an unarmed teen though the heart, at close range, after unnecessarily confronting him, against the advice of a 911 dispatcher. Which I’d venture to say is much worse.

    Like

  104. ar10308 July 16, 2013 at 12:01 #

    There would be physical evidence of a punch. It also doesn’t legally matter who started the fight, because was provably using potentially lethal force against Zimmerman by banging his head into the ground.

    911 Dispatchers have no legal authority so their advice is irrelevant. If they tell you not to leave a burning building, are you going to listen? The Supreme Court says you don’t have to do anything they say.

    Like

  105. ar10308 July 16, 2013 at 12:03 #

    You’re a full blown fool who hasn’t done a single scrap of honest research on this topic. I’m done trying to educate you.

    Like

  106. ar10308 July 16, 2013 at 12:04 #

    And for the record, numerous people have died due to a single strike to the back of the head. So a person’s head being slammed into the pavement (as evidence corroborates) is very much potentially lethal.

    Like

  107. Liz July 16, 2013 at 12:09 #

    “Prove he didn’t”

    Sorry, law doesn’t work that way. Burden of proof is on the person making the claim against the defendant.

    Like

  108. Liz July 16, 2013 at 14:56 #

    “After all it was only a fist fight you blathering pussies”

    In your opinion is there any point at which a person who is overpowered and getting his head bashed into the pavement earns the right to defend himself? What point would that be exactly?

    Like

  109. Goober July 16, 2013 at 17:47 #

    HE DID NOT CONFRONT TRAYVON. You are misinformed big time. He was walking back to his truck when trayvon attacked HIM. you’re just wrong on the chain of events here. GZ is totally innocent here.

    Like

  110. Exfernal July 17, 2013 at 16:39 #

    Photos (PDF) linked from here (scroll several comments down to Katydidthat):

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2013/05/28/pictures-put-trayvon-martin-on-trial/

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: