RKMBs Forums .::Important::. Politics and Current Events 17 year old Trayvon Martin shot by Neighborhood watch guy Zimmerman

That's just fucking silly. There should be a rule against that.

"ARMPITS! ARMPITS!"

That just sounded ridiculous. The prosecutor shouted and made a lot of noise, but his alleged pattern of "lies" from Zimmerman were ultimately just so much speculation and tea-leaf reading.
For example, that Zimmerman couldn't remember the name of the street where where Trayvon was, and walked out to look at the street sign to give to police. Later when Zimmerman spoke to police, he was able to list the name of the street. Well, there are streets a block from where I live that I used to know the name of, that I would (after years of not looking at the signs) have to read the sign to identify. And later when he was able to identify the street easily to police, it's because he'd just looked at the sign a few hours prior during his 911 call, and at that point it was fresh in his memory. Not at all illogical or difficult to explain.

Ultimately it comes down to this:

• Zimmerman followed Trayvon from a distance to identify him. I've followed people, and been followed, and that is not a crime.
• Physical evidence shows Zimmerman was assaulted, had a broken nose, two black eyes, and lacerations to the head, indicating he was assaulted.
  
• Police on the scene immediately after reported Zimmerman's back was wet with grass stains from being on the ground.
• A Witness identified Traayvon Martin as on top punching Zimmerman "ground and pound", "MMA" style.
• Autopsy of Trayvon Martin showed no bruising signs that Zimmerman had punched him. Only on his knuckles, where he had punched Zimmerman. Evidencing that Trayvon did all the hitting, and Zimmerman did all the defending.

Put together, they overwhelmingly support Zimmerman's account of what happened. That he was taking a heavy beating from Trayvon Martin, and while he may not have been on the edge of death, if he had allowed Martin another 5 or 10 or 20 punches or slams into the sidewalk, he might have lost consciousness and ended up crippled or dead. And under those evidenced circumstances, he acted reasonably to defend himself.

The rest was just the prosecutor's smoke raised to cloud these facts.

The prosecution trying to add "child abuse" to the charges today was incredible over-reach, and smacked of desperation. A wet-spaghetti approach to frantically make something --anything-- stick to the wall.

I think some Zimmerman backers forget that just because he said something happened it's not a fact. Zimmerman has been known to lie with less at stake than jail time.

Even if reasonable people can disagree on what the evidence means there were many people who said many things that backed up Zimmerman's claims.

It was hardly a case of self-defense being based solely on what Zimmerman said.

For you to imply otherwise is beyond a matter of opinion. it is simply disingenuous on your part.

Much of Zimmerman's story depends soley on his telling of events. It's not disingenous to point that out those most of his story are not facts.

Uh...



Which corroborating evidence and witnesses I summarized just a few posts above.

Sorry but a G-man quote doesn't make it true. You don't know how the fight started. The guy armed and who had been training at a mixed martial arts gymn might have just started it. You have a witness that testified that the last words she heard Martin say was "get off, get off" after Martin asked Zimmerman why he was following him.

Didn't the guy who was 'training' him say that Zimmerman sucked at it?

I think every witness that testified for either the prosecution or the defense claim that it was their party shouting.

Also, Treyvon Martin was athletic, played sports, and had a history of fighting.

Also Treyvon only had injuries to his hands (other than the fatal gunshot wound.) while Zimmerman had multiple head injuries.

Yes, you could argue Martin made a lot of those injuries to Zimmerman from the bottom, but not the ones to the back of Zimmerman's head.

I also cited the checklist of evidence in my previous post.

I do know that the evidence shows Zimmerman never laid a glove on Martin. No bruising, no evidence that Zimmerman even hit Martin ONCE, and therefore no evidence that Zimmerman initiated the conflict. And abundant evidence that Martin gave Zimmerman a face-pounding that warranted his acting in self-defense by shooting Martin.

I think Zimmerman was using that deadly MMA move where you headbutt a person's fists until he taps out.

Not guilty.

Justice, or something like it, is still on life support I suppose.

NBC News: Jury finds George Zimmerman not guilty

He still killed a kid G.

You're all class G.

MEM, I tried to explain to you the issues in this case. I acknowledged that reasonable people could differ on what the evidence meant.

You could have reviewed what I wrote and addressed it in a like manner.

Instead you misstated the evidence and refused to consider that any reasonable person could interpret the issues differently than you.

You reacted in a like manner to any other poster here who noted the potential problems with the prosecution 's case.

So...suck it.

And yet he did not violate any law in doing so. People need to realize that there is a difference between what they find immoral and what is illegal. You might find him follwing Martin to be immoral, but he did not violate any law in doing so. You might not like the idea that he had a gun; but not only is it not illegal, Zimmerman had a right to carry it. You may think that Zimmerman initiated the conflict, but there is no evidence that definitively proves such. The case has been decided by people who were, quite frankly, in a better position to make the decision due to their protection from the TV talking heads and access to the evidence, testimony, and the defendant himself.

I feel sorry for both the Martin and Zimmerman families.

It's going to be tough going on for all of them after this.

Looks like the race baiters and occutards are trying to gin up trouble in Times Square.

We need the Comedian.

Zimmerman's lawyers going after NBC news ASAP: now that the trial is over Zimmerman is renewing his lawsuit against the network for deceptively editing audio to make him sound racist

Good. Those lying fuckers helped put Zimmerman through hell and, more importantly, endangered countless people by enflaming racial tensions. Along with Obama, any riots are squarely on their heads.

I loved that line from one of Zimmerman's lawyers, blasting the media for warping public perception of Zimmerman and convicting him pre-emptively in the court of public opinion.
He said that Zimmerman's situation was comparable to being on the table of Dr. Frankenstein, and Zimmerman looked on with horror at what the media had transformed him into.

I naively believed that with the verdict --either way-- that with the exception of a few scattered riots and protests, this would be the end of it.

But on the Trayvon Martin family-side, it appears they plan to go on for a civil suit against Zimmerman for wrongful death or some other trumped up charges.


And on the George Zimmerman side, his attorneys are suing NBC and possibly other networks for editing the 911 call to make Zimmerman appear to be calling 911 because Trayvon Martin was black, and not for the actual non-racial reasons he clearly stated. Which arguably ratcheted up the racial division nationwide, and possibly stoked black violence toward whites nationwide, and invoked threats and violence toward the Zimmerman family in particular. Most pointedly, when Spike Lee posted what he believed was the address of Zimmerman's parents, an elderly couple who turned out to be completely unrelated to the Zimmermans, but were so endangered they had to leave their home and move to an undisclosed location. I still can't believe Spike Lee has not paid a legal price for this endangerment.

Zimmerman's legal team also has plans to sue the legal prosecutor for malicious prosecution, where the legal evidence never warranted arrest and trial of Zimmerman. And was a politically motivated public spectacle.

And also the Zimmerman team is pursuing charges against the state prosecution team for witholding vital evidence, that took them 6 months to pry from the prosecution so they could fully defend their client (Zimmerman). And that they said "needlessly cost hundreds of wasted hours" of their time, and "delayed the trial by six months".

What's really scary on this last point is this is probably not the first time the prosecution has witheld evidence, and likely only eventually got the evidence they were legally entitled to because of the national visibility of the case. How many others are in jail for a similar denial of rights to evidence for their defense?

I only became aware of this matter watching the news with the verdict.

We were talking about it at home, trying to fathom what had happened from the very limited information which I'm able to find on mainstream news. On the face of it, a black kid got shot by a white guy, who was let off by a jury of his peers. Not a good look.

So, from what I've read on this thread in conjunction with other stuff, did it play out like this?

1. Killer saw victim and followed him, suspecting vistim was participating in a crime.
2. Killer rings 911.
3. Victim assaulted killer by hitting him repeatedly in the head.
4. Killer responded by shooting victim dead.

In most jurisdictions I'm familiar with, that would be manslaughter, with a spent conviction or suspended sentence. My very limited reading of Florida's "stand your ground" laws (first time I'd heard of this was today) suggests you have a right to shoot at an aggressor if in danger. If that's correct, then this verdict must be correct.

If that's all correct, its very very sad that a young man was killed, but it is also sad that a man felt he had to shoot someone dead to protect himself from possible mortal danger.

You have a couple things wrong; Zimmerman is Hispanic, not white.

Or he is whatever a white-hispanic is, a description created by the media when they found out Zimmerman was Hispanic when the media reported otherwise.

Also Martin (the dead one) appears to be the one who started the physical confrontation. I say this because of the injuries to both parties. Zimmerman his head (back and front) and Martin who only had bruised knuckles.

I'll repeat what Bernard Goldberg said:
"I guarantee you, if George Zimmerman were nominated for a Nobel Prize in science, the media would not describe him as "white hispanic".




Dave, you can just read this topic from the beginning. It has links and quotes articles and videos of this case from the beginning, giving both sides.

Zimmerman is dominantly hispanic and identifies himself as hispanic, but also part black, and he has some black relatives. Just yersterday I saw it reported that he even took a black girl to prom. The detectives saw this, and the fact that Zimmerman tutors black kids, and in one detective's own words, instantly dismissed racial motivation as a cause for the shooting.
This case has dominated U.S. news for the last year, and especially during the last three weeks during the trial, almost to the exclusion of any other news. I'd say I'm glad it's over, but... it still ain't over.

Obama already stoked that bonfire a year ago:




He wouldn't manipulate Trayvon Martin as a political tool to galvanize the black vote in 2012, would he?

Oh no, not at all!

Just as he did women voters with Sandra Fluke.
Just as he did hispanic voters with an executive order giving amnesty to about 600,000 children of illegals.
Just as he did rallying gay voters by endorsing gay marriage right before the election.

The Democrat strategy has always been to splinter the nation along race and class lines for their political gain. But never more ruthlessly and blatantly than by Obama.
To the division and detriment of the nation.

Zimmerman got out of his car and ran after the kid. When he was told that he didn't need to chase after Martin he said ok but than says he got out of the car to check an address and see which direction Martin ran. Zimmerman alleges that he was on his way back to his vehicle when Martin jumps out of nonexistant bushes and attacks him. Somehow Zimmerman manages to get his gun out and shoot Martin dead.

It seems that the verdict hinged on Zimmerman's fear of being injured when he shot Martin. While it seems fairly obvious to me that Zimmerman lied and exagerated parts of his story, even I believe that he was afraid of Martin in that instant.

If a civil suit is allowed though instead of reasonable doubt, the threshold for conviction becomes a preponderance of the evidence.

http://reason.com/blog/2013/07/14/sorry-the-zimmerman-case-still-has-nothi

It's less a question of FL 'stand your ground laws' and more a question of standard rules of self defense. I'm assuming from your comment that Australia no longer follows that doctrine?

Nobody was running.

Legal Insights on the Zimmerman Verdict

• Stephen P. Garvey, a professor at Cornell Law School, said he thinks the jury “got it right.”
  
  
   Quote:

  Unless you think Zimmerman “provoked” the use of force against himself it was pretty easy to find self defense. If you think he did “provoke” the use of force you have a pretty expansive view of provocation. Think about it. Even if Zimmerman did follow Martin, should that mean he loses the right to defend himself when thereafter faced with an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm? Following someone when maybe you shouldn’t shouldn’t make you guilty of murder, or even manslaughter.
  
  
  Andrew Branca, a Massachusetts lawyer and author of “The Law of Self Defense, 2nd Edition,” went even further. The Zimmerman case, he said, “would make a very nice case study of the justifiable use of deadly force in self-defense for a law school criminal law text book.”
  
  Mr. Branca explained why the most recognizable aspect of the “Stand Your Ground” law didn’t apply in Mr. Zimmerman’s case.
  
   Quote:

  
  “Stand your ground” is a legal release from the traditional duty to retreat, if safely possible, before using force in self-defense. When safe retreat is not possible, however, the duty does not apply. If the duty does not apply, “stand your ground” is not needed to release you from that duty. In this case, at the moment George Zimmerman used deadly force in self-defense his attacker was pinning him to the ground and reaching for his gun. [This is Mr. Zimmerman's version of events.] Under such circumstances no reasonable avenue of self-defense exists, so there is no duty to retreat even absent “stand your ground.”

Hmmm, who to believe. A Cornell professor and an expert on self defense law or MEM and NBC's doctored tapes?

Zimmerman told police that Martin had taken off running. Martin's friend testified that she heard somebody out of breadth ask Martin what he was doing. I'm going by memory but I think it sounded like Zimmerman was in a hurry after he exclaimed "shit he's running".

Zimmerman got out of his car, and from a distance ran after Trayvon Martin. That much you can hear on the recorded 911 call. He said he did not go out to pursue Martin, but to see where Martin went and read the street name on the sign to tell police where to go.
After that, Zimmerman said he was walking back toward his truck when Trayvon came out of the darkness.
(I've seen several reporters on tv re-trace the neighborhood at night, and whether "from behind bushes" or just hiding in the darkness, it would be very easy to ambush someone the way Martin did Zimmerman.)


And in plain words without legal definitions, I think if a guy is on the ground getting his face pounded (as a witness testified, Martin was on top, pounding away) he has a right to defend himself.

If Martin had hit Zimmerman once or several times and then walked away, I'd say Zimmerman was in the wrong, because the danger would have been over.
If Zimmerman shot Martin from 5 or 10 feet away (and not 1 to 18 inches, as the autopsy measured from the powder burns), then I'd say Zimmerman was wrong, and the shooting was unnecessary.
But that was not the case.

Witnesses and evidence showed at the time Zimmerman fired, he was being pounded relentlessly. Zimmerman's injuries prove that. And Martin's autopsy showed no injury to him, not even a single punch. By evidence, all provocation was by Martin.
Zimmerman did not initiate the fight, and when pounded relentlessly with no end in sight, had a right to defend himself.

Ok, there was running, I was wrong.

To be honest, I don't have much of an idea about it. We have a low murder rate. My very limited understanding is that there is no principle attached to it: its circumstantial ie. depends on the facts of the case.

Rather than read this entire thread, I went ot Wikipedia - the entry on this is in a state of flux and constantly updated.

There was a comment on the "stand your ground" princple though. The dispatcher recommended to Zimmerman that he not follow Martin. The suggestion is that when Zimmerman did follow Martin, he lost his ability to claim he was acting in self-defence. Sounds iffy to me. As a member of Neighbourhood Watch, part of his job was to deter crime by showing a presence.

There's also some data on Wikipedia which suggests that Zimmerman had been responsible for organising some sort of protest about local cops' treatment of the black community. If that's true, this doesn't sound like he is a bigot to me.

As for Obama, I think the choice of words that Martin's physical appearance would mirror that of the son Obama never had was a very, very misguided effort at an expression of personal sympathy for the family. "Misguided" because it carried with it the significant risk of poisoning a jury (a subconscious conclusion that Zimmerman had killed someone who could have been the President's son). I think that was a very big mistake, albeit one done apparently off-the-cuff and with the best of intentions.

I would have shot him too if he was pounding my head on the sidewalk. Of course I probably wouldn't have picked a fight with him in first place.