CharlotteSmith
New member
That's quite funny, coming from the guy who linked to a sensationalist character assassination of Martin.
Zimmerman Martin Case
- Thread starter ChristophB
- Start date
Agreed
While NOT on the job, let's remember
You're suggesting that an off-duty neighborhood watcher follows who he considers a suspect for something, and forgets he's carrying a gun?
Not if he hadn't followed Martin
Why would we suspect that M had a gun "where he was from"?
Truth is they made a decision based on the information they had. Which, to me, sees miles short of the information they needed.
While NOT on the job, let's remember
You're suggesting that an off-duty neighborhood watcher follows who he considers a suspect for something, and forgets he's carrying a gun?
Not if he hadn't followed Martin
Why would we suspect that M had a gun "where he was from"?
Truth is they made a decision based on the information they had. Which, to me, sees miles short of the information they needed.
ankur2000uk
New member
On the contrary. It has everything to do with the discussion
Being prejudice is being prejudice.
I have gotten shot at because of someone thinking I was a cop.
I was there to pick up a kid who I sponsored
I like this. Goes upon what I have been saying about evidence
Being prejudice is being prejudice.
I have gotten shot at because of someone thinking I was a cop.
I was there to pick up a kid who I sponsored
I like this. Goes upon what I have been saying about evidence
oliviatrill
New member
If you read before you post, you may find that a lot of your questions are answered before you do so.
The fact that you can ask a question like that means that you have no idea what you're talking about. That may sound harsh but it isn't a put down, rather an invitation for you to broaden your understanding of the country you live in. There have already been numerous articles and videos linked by myself and others that would've answered your question pages ago. It seems like you are finally coming to understand that you do need to educate yourself in this regard and that is positive though.
No, the race card you are trying to play is the lowest form of argument and you can certainly do better. You tried it a few pages ago and got called on it so why do so again?
You aren't the only one, but you should stay above table with your argument. It deserves as much.
The fact that you can ask a question like that means that you have no idea what you're talking about. That may sound harsh but it isn't a put down, rather an invitation for you to broaden your understanding of the country you live in. There have already been numerous articles and videos linked by myself and others that would've answered your question pages ago. It seems like you are finally coming to understand that you do need to educate yourself in this regard and that is positive though.
No, the race card you are trying to play is the lowest form of argument and you can certainly do better. You tried it a few pages ago and got called on it so why do so again?
You aren't the only one, but you should stay above table with your argument. It deserves as much.
The part that didn't have anything to do with the discussion, in my opinion, was when you said that anti-Z folks don't know the definition of the word evidence. I think that's a needless character attack and you're a poo poo head (kidding, of course 
).
As to the other point, I'm not disputing that bad things might happen to you as a result of prejudice. The difference is that you have quite a bit of institutional weight backing you up, whereas minorities often don't. If you fired back and killed a black man whom you believe was trying to kill you, that homicide is statistically more likely to be ruled justified than if a black person shot a white man and made the same claim of self defense. Many people might have prejudices, our society supports some of those.
).As to the other point, I'm not disputing that bad things might happen to you as a result of prejudice. The difference is that you have quite a bit of institutional weight backing you up, whereas minorities often don't. If you fired back and killed a black man whom you believe was trying to kill you, that homicide is statistically more likely to be ruled justified than if a black person shot a white man and made the same claim of self defense. Many people might have prejudices, our society supports some of those.
liveyourlife`
New member
If Anti-Z people come to terms that there wasn't enough evidence for a conviction, why all of the fuss?
If is was a black killing a black, it would not have made national news
The minority card is being played all too often.
The trick nowadays is to determine who is the minority
Here is the crux:
Man follows young man.
Young man gets angry allegedly attacks man
Both get into fight
One has a gun and managed to shoot the other dead
Because it is a political and racial conflict;
The first police chief, DA, Judge are thrown out of case-lack of evidence
Jury-Truth is they made a decision based on the information they had. Which, is miles short of the information they needed. (ap)
Because it is a political and racial conflict;
People cannot accept the verdict
GZ is free by the system likewise to OJ
Tah Dah. Live with it. Move on
If is was a black killing a black, it would not have made national news
The minority card is being played all too often.
The trick nowadays is to determine who is the minority
Here is the crux:
Man follows young man.
Young man gets angry allegedly attacks man
Both get into fight
One has a gun and managed to shoot the other dead
Because it is a political and racial conflict;
The first police chief, DA, Judge are thrown out of case-lack of evidence
Jury-Truth is they made a decision based on the information they had. Which, is miles short of the information they needed. (ap)
Because it is a political and racial conflict;
People cannot accept the verdict
GZ is free by the system likewise to OJ
Tah Dah. Live with it. Move on
salamander_lover
New member
It's possible to simultaneously be upset by a jury's decision and recognize that they made it based on the limited available evidence. I think there was quite a bit of police misconduct on this case, and I think it's ok to be upset about that too. For example:
Police attempted to coach a witness:
http://abcnews.go.com/US/neighborhood-watch-shooting-trayvon-martin-probe-reveals-questionable/story?id=15907136#.T3SbtI5YfhN
Although the police chief and local attorney did not think it was worth taking to court, the lead homicide investigator did:
http://abcnews.go.com/US/trayvon-martin-investigator-wanted-charge-george-zimmerman-manslaughter/story?id=16011674#.UeR3mL9uFYN
They neglected to test Zimmerman for drugs or alcohol (edit: apparently I am confused as to whether it is standard or not. ABC claims it is, Morgenstern claims it was not (from Miami Herald source below) Not sure what the discrepancy is.):
http://abcnews.go.com/US/neighborhood-watchman-allegedly-shot-trayvon-martin-wanted-cop/story?id=15949879#.UeR3vr9uFYO
Further misconduct:
http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/21/2706876/sanford-commission-votes-no-confidence.html
I recognize that these sources are older. If there's something out there that says these were all nonissues, I'd be interested in reading it. Live with it? Sure. Move on? I think that's a mistake. This should, at the very least, be a call to action and reform for the US criminal justice system.
Police attempted to coach a witness:
http://abcnews.go.com/US/neighborhood-watch-shooting-trayvon-martin-probe-reveals-questionable/story?id=15907136#.T3SbtI5YfhN
Although the police chief and local attorney did not think it was worth taking to court, the lead homicide investigator did:
http://abcnews.go.com/US/trayvon-martin-investigator-wanted-charge-george-zimmerman-manslaughter/story?id=16011674#.UeR3mL9uFYN
They neglected to test Zimmerman for drugs or alcohol (edit: apparently I am confused as to whether it is standard or not. ABC claims it is, Morgenstern claims it was not (from Miami Herald source below) Not sure what the discrepancy is.):
http://abcnews.go.com/US/neighborhood-watchman-allegedly-shot-trayvon-martin-wanted-cop/story?id=15949879#.UeR3vr9uFYO
Further misconduct:
http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/21/2706876/sanford-commission-votes-no-confidence.html
I recognize that these sources are older. If there's something out there that says these were all nonissues, I'd be interested in reading it. Live with it? Sure. Move on? I think that's a mistake. This should, at the very least, be a call to action and reform for the US criminal justice system.
Waterdragon
Member
If the US didn't legally provide every idiot with guns, there wouldn't even be a case. Except maybe a case about a white guy getting his ass kicked by a young black guy, but no one would have had to die. If either had guns anyway and one of them died, this case would have been closed a long time ago.
People talk about racial discrimination and whatnot, but all I can see is 'idiot with a gun kills someone with it'.
I don't have to look the past the part "had a gun" to see the actual problem here. With all these people walking around with guns legally, it's like they're all walking around deciding who gets to live or who gets to die. How can you expect to avoid situations like these this way?
It's ridiculous if you ask me.
People talk about racial discrimination and whatnot, but all I can see is 'idiot with a gun kills someone with it'.
I don't have to look the past the part "had a gun" to see the actual problem here. With all these people walking around with guns legally, it's like they're all walking around deciding who gets to live or who gets to die. How can you expect to avoid situations like these this way?
It's ridiculous if you ask me.
It is as equally ridiculous to blame the use of a gun. In a place without guns, a knife could have been used. Don't blame the weapon
___________________________________________
Likewise, there is no evidence that Martin attacked Zimmerman. There is only Zimmerman's account that he did so. It's he said, shot the other guy dead. So Martin can't be presumed the attacker either. WE DON'T KNOW, one way or the other.
Likewise there is evidence that M attacked Z. Z had injuries. But based off the 'WE DONT KNOW, thus cast a reasonable doubt, a man is set free.
So, if you believe he is a paranoid, racist moron who is stalking a guy who then feels uneasy, harassed, and threatened, how is the innocent guy walking down the street not within his rights to defend himself? You are not making sense.
The guy was not so innocent because, allegedly, he attacked a man, who happened to have a gun. This would be like a man who happens to walked into a tiger cage.What people do not realise is that this was a hotheaded youth who attacked a man for following him. If he was innocent, so was the man who followed him, as a jury thought he was innocent from murder
No, you are assuming because you make a huge jump in logic by believing Zimmerman's side of the story whereas many will continue to say that we don't know either way.
Well, I guess no one can believe "Martin's Story". That's right, he can't produce one. It doesn't matter who believes Z's side but the jury. According to many legal experts (lawyers, prosecutors, DAs) this case should have not went to trial due to lack of evidence.
Because he killed the guy who could provide any contrary evidence. There is no evidence that Zimmerman is not lying, unless there was a polygraph that I haven't heard about
There is no evidence that he is.
Wow, that's pretty funny. You believe anybody the court acquitted and probably feel that anybody the courts convict is guilty right?So then you feel OJ was innocent then?
Do you feel OJ was innocent? (Hence the problem, too many feelings and not enough looking over evidence)
No, I am saying we don't know either way. Is this mike on?
Is the hearing aid on? We dont know, so there is no evidence for conviction. Doh!
It's not that difficult, but it does require you to suspend your assumptions about what things mean to different people.
Yep, seems like a hypercritical assumption on either stance
His actions would scare most people enough to react, the question then becomes how would each individual react, and what the further consequences would be. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that Zimmerman's questionable judgement led to an innocent person's death(innocent in this case, he was walking home and not doing anything wrong). You may be alright with that, but it seems that there are several filters and reasons for your belief that go beyond just the facts of the case.
Scared people to react? Confronting someone following you is a act of being frightened? If Martin was scared, he would not have went into a fighting mode. I would think a scared person would not be on top of another pounding him. I would think a scared person would have fled or called for cops. It was Z on the phone calling for help. It was Z who was scared for his life thus pulling out his firearm at the last resort. All black people I know, are not "scared" of white people. If anything, they easily become more aggressive towards whites. And thus what happened with M
It's like apartheid in some respects. I am not discounting that an African-American might have the same reaction, just what the consequences are.
The consequences would not have been a bunch of non-blacks rioting or protesting because emotions interfering with common sense or logic
________________________________________________________
President Obama called the death of Trayvon Martin a tragedy Sunday, but urged "calm reflection" in the wake of a jury's verdict finding his killer not guilty.
"We are a nation of laws, and a jury has spoken," Obama said in a statement posted on the White House web site following a Florida jury's acquittal of George Zimmerman Saturday.
Obama also used the occasion to renew his call for gun safety legislation, saying, "We should ask ourselves if we're doing all we can to stem the tide of gun violence that claims too many lives."
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/07/14/obama-trayvon-martin-zimmerman-verdict-statement/2516137/
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/07/14/zimmerman-trayvon-martin-nbc-news-column-rieder/2516251/
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/07/14/zimmerman-trayvon-martin-lawyers-verdict/2516065/
___________________________________________________________
Again, I do not think that teen should have died. What I think, because of the teen having previous problems, is that he was angry for being followed.
He perhaps did attack Z.
Z perhaps went for his gun from getting his butt beat.
They probably both struggled for the gun
M got shot and killed
Should Z have not gotten out of the car? Yes-he should NOT have gotten out of his car. To avoid conflict, he should have remained in the car. For what it was worth, the person he was following could have had a gun also.
Should Z should not have a gun? No. He had the proper credentials to carry. Allegedly, Z did not produce the gun until after he was getting beat up
I think the result could have went one of two ways: Not Guilty, or Manslaughter
___________________________________________
Likewise, there is no evidence that Martin attacked Zimmerman. There is only Zimmerman's account that he did so. It's he said, shot the other guy dead. So Martin can't be presumed the attacker either. WE DON'T KNOW, one way or the other.
Likewise there is evidence that M attacked Z. Z had injuries. But based off the 'WE DONT KNOW, thus cast a reasonable doubt, a man is set free.
So, if you believe he is a paranoid, racist moron who is stalking a guy who then feels uneasy, harassed, and threatened, how is the innocent guy walking down the street not within his rights to defend himself? You are not making sense.
The guy was not so innocent because, allegedly, he attacked a man, who happened to have a gun. This would be like a man who happens to walked into a tiger cage.What people do not realise is that this was a hotheaded youth who attacked a man for following him. If he was innocent, so was the man who followed him, as a jury thought he was innocent from murder
No, you are assuming because you make a huge jump in logic by believing Zimmerman's side of the story whereas many will continue to say that we don't know either way.
Well, I guess no one can believe "Martin's Story". That's right, he can't produce one. It doesn't matter who believes Z's side but the jury. According to many legal experts (lawyers, prosecutors, DAs) this case should have not went to trial due to lack of evidence.
Because he killed the guy who could provide any contrary evidence. There is no evidence that Zimmerman is not lying, unless there was a polygraph that I haven't heard about
There is no evidence that he is.
Wow, that's pretty funny. You believe anybody the court acquitted and probably feel that anybody the courts convict is guilty right?So then you feel OJ was innocent then?
Do you feel OJ was innocent? (Hence the problem, too many feelings and not enough looking over evidence)
No, I am saying we don't know either way. Is this mike on?
Is the hearing aid on? We dont know, so there is no evidence for conviction. Doh!
It's not that difficult, but it does require you to suspend your assumptions about what things mean to different people.
Yep, seems like a hypercritical assumption on either stance
His actions would scare most people enough to react, the question then becomes how would each individual react, and what the further consequences would be. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that Zimmerman's questionable judgement led to an innocent person's death(innocent in this case, he was walking home and not doing anything wrong). You may be alright with that, but it seems that there are several filters and reasons for your belief that go beyond just the facts of the case.
Scared people to react? Confronting someone following you is a act of being frightened? If Martin was scared, he would not have went into a fighting mode. I would think a scared person would not be on top of another pounding him. I would think a scared person would have fled or called for cops. It was Z on the phone calling for help. It was Z who was scared for his life thus pulling out his firearm at the last resort. All black people I know, are not "scared" of white people. If anything, they easily become more aggressive towards whites. And thus what happened with M
It's like apartheid in some respects. I am not discounting that an African-American might have the same reaction, just what the consequences are.
The consequences would not have been a bunch of non-blacks rioting or protesting because emotions interfering with common sense or logic
________________________________________________________
President Obama called the death of Trayvon Martin a tragedy Sunday, but urged "calm reflection" in the wake of a jury's verdict finding his killer not guilty.
"We are a nation of laws, and a jury has spoken," Obama said in a statement posted on the White House web site following a Florida jury's acquittal of George Zimmerman Saturday.
Obama also used the occasion to renew his call for gun safety legislation, saying, "We should ask ourselves if we're doing all we can to stem the tide of gun violence that claims too many lives."
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/07/14/obama-trayvon-martin-zimmerman-verdict-statement/2516137/
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/07/14/zimmerman-trayvon-martin-nbc-news-column-rieder/2516251/
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/07/14/zimmerman-trayvon-martin-lawyers-verdict/2516065/
___________________________________________________________
Again, I do not think that teen should have died. What I think, because of the teen having previous problems, is that he was angry for being followed.
He perhaps did attack Z.
Z perhaps went for his gun from getting his butt beat.
They probably both struggled for the gun
M got shot and killed
Should Z have not gotten out of the car? Yes-he should NOT have gotten out of his car. To avoid conflict, he should have remained in the car. For what it was worth, the person he was following could have had a gun also.
Should Z should not have a gun? No. He had the proper credentials to carry. Allegedly, Z did not produce the gun until after he was getting beat up
I think the result could have went one of two ways: Not Guilty, or Manslaughter
SummerofLoveCommando
New member
Zimmerman isn't white
LexiLooHoo
Member
Z is getting his gun back. I guess there will be anti-gun people chiming in looking to see if he has a notched-marked on the handle
LouFrankel
New member
Don't matter. He wasn't black. Don't you know black killing black with guns doesn't happen often?
AdenSuicide
New member
I now this is The Onion but it basically covers how I feel about this case.
Darn it - both the URL and article contain unmasked profanity. But I'd like you to read it anyway (at your own risk on account of the aforementioned profanity). So click me.
Basically it's to do with how the jurors must uphold the law and while it may be clear to them that Z did something wrong the wording of the law did not give them a chance but to acquit. So the laws are rubbish and as a result they had little choice in the matter.
Darn it - both the URL and article contain unmasked profanity. But I'd like you to read it anyway (at your own risk on account of the aforementioned profanity). So click me.
Basically it's to do with how the jurors must uphold the law and while it may be clear to them that Z did something wrong the wording of the law did not give them a chance but to acquit. So the laws are rubbish and as a result they had little choice in the matter.
chocolate22
New member
With all of the current so called "protestors" now acting up, all it really does is show a lack of class now I have to say. People in Oakland are throwing a fit.. why? It happened 2,000 miles from there.
Perhaps you're right... but how much more can you admit your own racism then by thowing things, jumping on cars, etc because a "cracker" got off because the Florida prosecution failed to show enough evidence to convict him? It's like a 5 year old throwing a temper tantrum because Mommy won't buy him a candy bar is it not? Aren't there better ways of showing your displeasure? More intelligent ways?
ilive4vday
New member
Zinowar said it was about a white guy getting his butt kicked by a young black dude. That's why I pointed out Z isn't white