Zimmerman not guilty!

[Fluffy]

You cannot sit back and judge someone on HOW they defended themself, because in essense, they are DEFENDING themself.

I don't see how you can say this when this is precisely what the jury's job is.

And last I checked, the LAW decided that Zimmerman was innocent.

A jury did. A jury that used Stand Your Ground law in his defense, when Stand Your Ground was never brought in as a defense during the trial.


My "problem" is not with the law, it's with miscarriage of the law, which I believe to be the case in this trial, and in many trials. Whether they got the verdict right or wrong is another issue. They came to the verdict through means outside of the evidence presented. All you're supposed to use is the evidence, your jury instructions, and your brain.

My other problem is with people completely discounting the possibility that Trayvon Martin's right to self defense may have been violated, and yet celebrate this trial as a victory for self defense. Again, whether his rights were violated or not is not the issue: it's that many refuse to even see the possibility that people's rights are violated and people go free for it all too often.

I'm not going to pretend that I know of a better system, or that there is even the possibility of one. But I hate that people refuse to acknowledge that the law gets it wrong sometimes, and it's probably far more often than we'd like to admit.

[Lacquer Head]

I don't see how you can say this when this is precisely what the jury's job is.

The jury was presented both cases FULLY and it was their job to decide, not yours.

A jury did. A jury that used Stand Your Ground law in his defense, when Stand Your Ground was never brought in as a defense during the trial.

So, if someone doesn't bring up a law that protects them in court, they should be considered guilty? It is odd that the defense didn't mention it, I suppose they were just confident lol

My "problem" is not with the law, it's with miscarriage of the law, which I believe to be the case in this trial, and in many trials. Whether they got the verdict right or wrong is another issue. They came to the verdict through means outside of the evidence presented. All you're supposed to use is the evidence, your jury instructions, and your brain.

>your brain

You just contradicted yourself, they used their brain because they based it on the knowledge of the law, regardless if it was mentioned.

My other problem is with people completely discounting the possibility that Trayvon Martin's right to self defense may have been violated, and yet celebrate this trial as a victory for self defense. Again, whether his rights were violated or not is not the issue: it's that many refuse to even see the possibility that people's rights are violated and people go free for it all too often.

Once again, you're wallowing in the what ifs and baseless possibilities with no supporting evidence.

I'm not going to pretend that I know of a better system, or that there is even the possibility of one. But I hate that people refuse to acknowledge that the law gets it wrong sometimes, and it's probably far more often than we'd like to admit.

It CAN be right or wrong, but the same laws that possibly let people get away also help far more innocent people stay out of prison. If there's no proof, there's no case, regardless of what your gut tells you about possibilities, possibilities and what ifs have NO place in court without proper testimony and proof to back it up.

[Fluffy]

It CAN be right or wrong, but the same laws that possibly let people get away also help far more innocent people stay out of prison. If there's no proof, there's no case, regardless of what your gut tells you about possibilities, possibilities and what ifs have NO place in court without proper testimony and proof to back it up.

I'm expecting a citation for this. (I'm partially joking.)

>your brain

You just contradicted yourself, they used their brain because they based it on the knowledge of the law, regardless if it was mentioned.

No I didn't. You use your brain to interpret the evidence and the jury instructions and discussion, nothing more.

You are not to read laws or read anything regarding the trial outside of the court room, and you are not to use any law other than the one given to your in the jury instructions.

[Lacquer Head]

I'm expecting a citation for this. (I'm partially joking.)

The 5th, 6th and 7th Amendments.

No I didn't. You use your brain to interpret the evidence and the jury instructions and discussion, nothing more.

You are not to read laws or read anything regarding the trial outside of the court room, and you are not to use any law other than the one given to your in the jury instructions.

You're not supposed to have contact with other people and the media to possibly bias yourself, but you ARE supposed to be familiar with the law. Are you really trying to tell me that the jury should OMIT laws because the defense didn't mention them when they're clearly protected the defendant?

[Fluffy]

You're not supposed to have contact with other people and the media to possibly bias yourself, but you ARE supposed to be familiar with the law. Are you really trying to tell me that the jury should OMIT laws because the defense didn't mention them when they're clearly protected the defendant?

No, the judge does that for you. They specifically tell you that you are to come to your verdict only through the evidence and the only law to be used is the one written in the jury instructions.

[Rowan]

I suppose the paramount question here is;

What should Zimmerman have done instead? But that is exactly the question. I am not asking what he shouldnt have done, I am asking you what he should have done.

[Lacquer Head]

No, the judge does that for you. They specifically tell you that you are to come to your verdict only through the evidence and the only law to be used is the one written in the jury instructions.

Yeah, no, the judge doesn't get to pick and choose what laws are allowed to be used or known about

[Odin1199]

There was little Zimmerman could do while being on the ground and being punched in the face. It's hard to throw somebody off yourself while taking hits all the time. It takes skill to get out of that type of situation. In this case, Zimmerman had no choice. He didn't know if the attack would stop and he was pretty helpless. The only thing left was to put a hole in attacker's body or risk getting crippled or killed. Zimmerman did the right thing, given those circumstances. If he shot him while he was standing and fighting back, that would be unacceptable. He was helpless and had to use deadly force.

[Fluffy]

Yeah, no, the judge doesn't get to pick and choose what laws are allowed to be used or known about

You must follow the law as it is set out in these instructions. If you fail to follow the law, your verdict will be a miscarriage of justice. There is no reason for failing to follow the law in this case. All of us are depending upon you to make a wise and legal decision in this matter.

Sometimes they'll cross out information in the very jury instructions that you must ignore, as changes are made. The judge ultimately decides what instructions will be given.

And because I feel like quoting it.

This case must be decided only upon the evidence that you have heard from the testimony of the witnesses and have seen in the form of the exhibits in evidence and these instructions.

Rowan: Because of what I believe from the evidence, I don't believe deadly force was necessary and he could and should have just used lesser force. You guys are free to believe whatever you want and obviously disagree.

I've said my part and I tire of this whole trial thing. So I'm going go ahead and step out for good.

[Alpha]

I simply do not think that Zimmerman used the least amount of force necessary. His injuries were not life-threatening. He retained enough room to pull out his weapon and to shoot it without interference. Most people being punched in the head would be shielding their face, or attempting to grab an assailants' hands/arms. And yes, in assessing this we can and must use hindsight. A gun was not an appropriate response given the injuries he had sustained and the options he had not executed fir his self-defense. Moreover, a gun was an excessive option to begin with. Just because it was his only weapon, does not mean it cannot be considered excessive. If his only weapon had been a shotgun, it would certainly have been considered excessive to use it in reaction to punches. A gun is excessive relative to a taser.

Excessive defensive force causing death, even in the course of self-defense, and even if only in hindsight, is manslaughter.

[OnOneRyder]

And who are you to dictate that he should have received more blows instead of reacting to the situation as he did? The law grants him to act just as he did, Martin as the aggressor on top does not have the same rights to his well fair as Zimmerman did. His actions which instigated Martin's response were entirely lawful, Martin put himself in that situation and made lethal force a legal option.

I can tell you right now if I'm on my back and you started the fight, my concern is not going to be for your well being. I'm going to protect myself from your aggressive behavior in the most efficient use of the law as possible. Zimmerman did and he's free to go, interpret the law to your morality all you wish but he's been found not guilty.

[Lacquer Head]

Sometimes they'll cross out information in the very jury instructions that you must ignore, as changes are made. The judge ultimately decides what instructions will be given.

And because I feel like quoting it.

I'm just straight out calling bullshit/misquotation.

I simply do not think that Zimmerman used the least amount of force necessary. His injuries were not life-threatening.

They weren't because he was able to defend himself before he died. If Treyvon had been allowed to continue for any length of time, they could have VERY easily became life threatening, a blow to the head is a very traumatic and possibly lethal attack, let alone more than one.

He retained enough room to pull out his weapon and to shoot it without interference. Most people being punched in the head would be shielding their face, or attempting to grab an assailants' hands/arms.

That's a LAAAAAAAARGE assumption. Hell, you don't even know where he concealed his gun. Your hands tend to naturally be near your waist/chest, both the most common areas to conceal a weapon. It's not like the gun was across the room. Not to mention, he claims Treyvon was reaching for it during the attack, seems like a good opening. Block the punching hand with one freehand and grab his gun first with the other, makes sense.

And yes, in assessing this we can and must use hindsight. A gun was not an appropriate response given the injuries he had sustained and the options he had not executed fir his self-defense.

See, this is where you're making a large mistake. So you believe that a person has to have taken a lethal injury before they can defend themselves with lethal force? I'd hate to see your reaction towards a shootout when the survivor has NO injuries. A person's injuries do NOT reflect the danger they were in. That's the whole point, he SUCCESSFULLY defended himself, preventing the deadly injuries.

Moreover, a gun was an excessive option to begin with. Just because it was his only weapon, does not mean it cannot be considered excessive. If his only weapon had been a shotgun, it would certainly have been considered excessive to use it in reaction to punches. A gun is excessive relative to a taser.

See, this just seems like a bias towards guns. How can you possibly electrocute someone that is PHYSICALLY TOUCHING YOU!?

Excessive defensive force causing death, even in the course of self-defense, and even if only in hindsight, is manslaughter.

Good thing it wasn't excessive, eh?

[Alpha]

they could have VERY easily become life threatening

Right, so at what point in a fist fight is it just that you whip out your gun and kill the guy you're fighting? The first punch? The sixth punch? Granted, it's probably before the last punch, but any punch (including the very first) can "become" life-threatening. I could poke needles into you until you die, but it would not be just for you to shoot me after the first needle.

Deadly reactive force is just when it can be determined that a rational person could credibly fear for their life under the circumstances that they are facing. Involuntary manslaughter must not include a "cool down" between an attack and a deadly counter-attack. I don't believe that a rational person would fear for their life in that situation, given the evidence I have read. There was no cool down, based on the evidence I have read. Ergo, involuntary manslaughter.

The injuries on the back of his head are actually less than what I had the night I drunkenly dived (at speed) onto the pavement and busted open my arm through two layers of clothing. I have a permanent scar from that, and I bled more than all of the blood I can see in the photos you linked. Note also, that if he had received the cuts to his head while lying on his back, why have they all flowed as though his head were in an upright position, leaning forward (down his neck, and towards his face past his ears)?

Attachment 23491

I've seen fights on the rugby field where people are hurt more than that, and if any one of them had then killed the other, they'd be up for murder.

His life was not in danger, and he had not done enough to resolve the situation without using deadly force*. His actions were therefore excessive.

Of course, I'm happy for the jury to determine that for me, and he wasn't even facing the charge I think he should have been. I just don't think the outcome was the best.

*In my non-American mind, that includes the decision about what constitutes an appropriate weapon to be carrying, especially if it's going to be your first recourse (given the lack of blood on his hands).

[Mystyrion]

Right, so at what point in a fist fight is it just that you whip out your gun and kill the guy you're fighting? The first punch? The sixth punch? Granted, it's probably before the last punch, but any punch (including the very first) can "become" life-threatening. I could poke needles into you until you die, but it would not be just for you to shoot me after the first needle.

Deadly reactive force is just when it can be determined that a rational person could credibly fear for their life under the circumstances that they are facing. Involuntary manslaughter must not include a "cool down" between an attack and a deadly counter-attack. I don't believe that a rational person would fear for their life in that situation, given the evidence I have read. There was no cool down, based on the evidence I have read. Ergo, involuntary manslaughter.

The injuries on the back of his head are actually less than what I had the night I drunkenly dived (at speed) onto the pavement and busted open my arm through two layers of clothing. I have a permanent scar from that, and I bled more than all of the blood I can see in the photos you linked. Note also, that if he had received the cuts to his head while lying on his back, why have they all flowed as though his head were in an upright position, leaning forward (down his neck, and towards his face past his ears)?

Attachment 23491

I've seen fights on the rugby field where people are hurt more than that, and if any one of them had then killed the other, they'd be up for murder.

His life was not in danger, and he had not done enough to resolve the situation without using deadly force*. His actions were therefore excessive.

Of course, I'm happy for the jury to determine that for me, and he wasn't even facing the charge I think he should have been. I just don't think the outcome was the best.

*In my non-American mind, that includes the decision about what constitutes an appropriate weapon to be carrying, especially if it's going to be your first recourse (given the lack of blood on his hands).

I don't see how you come to the conclusion that just because you have seen worse fights or worse injuries that means his actions were unjustified.
Your two examples aren't anything like this situation.
Have you ever actually been in a fight? It takes awhile to bleed, its not just one punch and there is blood everywhere. Except for a good shot to a nose and if you got that shot I'm willing to bet you are winning the fight.

A populated rugby field is an extremely different environment than a street alley by yourself. If I had someone beating me up, alone, and I cry for help and no one shows, I would be scared for life as well.

[che]

The injuries on the back of his head are actually less than what I had the night I drunkenly dived (at speed) onto the pavement and busted open my arm through two layers of clothing. I have a permanent scar from that, and I bled more than all of the blood I can see in the photos you linked. Note also, that if he had received the cuts to his head while lying on his back, why have they all flowed as though his head were in an upright position, leaning forward (down his neck, and towards his face past his ears)?

Congrats on your drunken excapade. Did your drunk self pull out a gun and stalk your sober self, ending up in a metaphysical fist/gun fight?

What are you, Dexter now? Blood is thick sometimes, it can pool and be heavy. Maybe it sticks to his head instead of just dripping right out of the wound. The pictures I saw were of him sitting upright. If there was a gun involved, doesn't it make sense that there wasn't enough time for the wound to stop bleeding? Thus, after shooting the dude, he was probably upright for longer than he ever was laying on the ground.

Look, it's a ****ed situation. And the flaw here is our justice system. But neither you or anyone here in this thread is going to change the fact that the dude is dead. No matter how bitchy of an argument you can conceive and type here in Intellectual Discussion.

While you and I both dislike the outcome here, and the things leading up to what happened how can you, as non-american as **** as you have ever been in your life, determine that his life was not threatened? If someone had you on the ground and had slammed your head into the ground more than once, would you determine that your life was not in danger? What if I interviewed you after? What if in two different dimensions, the same thing happened, except in one you died and one you were alive. Would your dead self then say it was not life threatening? And would your alive self say it was?

Then again I don't see you pulling a gun out, and chasing a "suspicious" person around town. Good. I would hope that you'd call the police.

COME TO THE US. Seriously. Come here. Experience what it's like to see that everyone has a gun. You can't change it. If you suddenly outlawed all guns, who would you be protecting? The people that choose not to turn them in and instead keep them, while honest people turn them in. Come here, and with your self-proclaimed intellectual discussion ability, become a US lawyer or congressman and change it. Please. Because no one ****ing else is. We're all here bitching in this god damned forum. At each other. Arguing the same silly ****ing minuscule-important points to a case we basically all agree on.

[Clint]

Who the hell cares of Zimmerman was guilty or not? That case was over-hyped by the media. It was a simple case of self-defense, in which, an idiot killed another idiot. Big deal.

The media started a race war in order to distract people long enough for Congress to agree to give all US crops to Monsanto. Food will soon be government regulated due to people's blindness and stupidity over a court case that was none of their business to begin with.

Hello new age of slavery. I would leave the United States if I didn't love my country so much.

[Rowan]

Who the hell cares of Zimmerman was guilty or not?

Zimmerman, for sure.

[Clint]

Zimmerman, for sure.

No he didn't. If he cared about being guilty or not, he wouldn't have killed a guy in the first place.

[Odin1199]

So it's ok to not defend yourself while being on the ground and taking punches while a guy is on top of you and being almost defenseless? He should've just waited it out and risked getting killed or crippled??? He did the right thing, he couldn't know if was going to get killed of not.

[Sinister]

Once again, in the ID forum people manage to avoid the most intelligent phrase for three pages. You ready? All your cliche hardcore internet arguments would crumble if you simply only admitted that it's okay that:

You don't know. You weren't there. You are basing arguments off worse than hearsay and word-of-mouth, you're basing it off news media. You know dick. You weren't on the jury. You didn't hear the evidence. You don't know the people. And what little you "know" about the situation, was told to you. You've been whipped into a frenzy, all of you, like some pathetic herd. So, no...You don't know anything.

But I bet you reckon something, don't you? You should tweet your opinion to the media, post more on this board. Your opinion is vital...get it out there, after all, you're in the know and have come to some fascinating conclusions, all of you. Why not say something that will fuel a riot? You're disappointing me. I expected worse. See if you can bounty hunt George and turn him over to the Black Panthers. Or go burn a cross in someone's yard with a white hood on.

-Sin

[Rowan]

Once again, in the ID forum people manage to avoid the most intelligent phrase for three pages. You ready? All your cliche hardcore internet arguments would crumble if you simply only admitted that it's okay that:

You don't know. You weren't there. You are basing arguments off worse than hearsay and word-of-mouth, you're basing it off news media. You know dick. You weren't on the jury. You didn't hear the evidence. You don't know the people. And what little you "know" about the situation, was told to you. You've been whipped into a frenzy, all of you, like some pathetic herd. So, no...You don't know anything.

But I bet you reckon something, don't you? You should tweet your opinion to the media, post more on this board. Your opinion is vital...get it out there, after all, you're in the know and have come to some fascinating conclusions, all of you. Why not say something that will fuel a riot? You're disappointing me. I expected worse. See if you can bounty hunt George and turn him over to the Black Panthers. Or go burn a cross in someone's yard with a white hood on.

-Sin

soo... not guilty, right?

[HeroZero]

Of course, when its a a 'discussion' you use whatever knowledge you have gleaned from all sources available to you. These are never threads of absolute truths, its mostly opinions so don't be a jackass about it.

Sin, if you don't want to actually join the discussion then don't it's really darn simple concept, almost as simple as the concept of we will NEVER known precisely what happened the night of Trayvon's death. So get off your ****ing high horse and chill the **** out.

[Sinister]

soo... not guilty, right?

And...sadly, there it is. The madness brought out into the light. Whether you were joking or not, it's true. People can't fathom not having an opinion. They can fathom being preemptively defensive or offensive in an off-hand manner, they can accept a racist frothing rabid rant, they understand the reactionary conservatives or the absolving liberals. The humor of it was that I was checking this thread again and again for those very words. We are two of a kind, TFF, nothing alike and misunderstanding each other till the end.

And you belittle what goes on in these threads, Hero. What one discusses here, gets brought home to the kids and the people we meet at work and gets echoed back and forth like a mad game of political pinball until it hits a tilt and some stressed out person takes it too far. Even the president got in on the fun with his "could have been me" statement. You want to deal with never knowing but you want to advise people on death and justice and spread it around. Go ahead! Lite em up. I'm fine where I am on my high horse. At least I have perspective and the lay of the land.

-Sin

[Rowan]

Of course, when its a a 'discussion' you use whatever knowledge you have gleaned from all sources available to you. These are never threads of absolute truths, its mostly opinions so don't be a jackass about it.

Sin, if you don't want to actually join the discussion then don't it's really darn simple concept, almost as simple as the concept of we will NEVER known precisely what happened the night of Trayvon's death. So get off your ****ing high horse and chill the **** out.

This one has fire in ze belly.


Anyway, I think the purpose of this thread was not only to discuss, but actually offer opinions differing from other media. I definitely gained some new perspectives on what some people consider self defense, and what some people consider murder. They are not particularly useful to me, but at least I know theres people out there who would be willing to imprison me for life for defending myself.

[Odin1199]

Sinister, you're so wrong here. There should be no media hysteria over this. This is nothing more than black people hyping this up, when it shouldn't be. Get off your crusade horse and stop parading around like this is important. Obviously you care too much and have fallen victim to the white racism media propaganda.

I have to admit, first I thought Zimmerman was guilty and all, but then I got some fact straight and this is nothing more than blacks being over sensitive and hysterical. If this was a black guy who shot a white teen, nobody would even care. All I can say is, people are too prejudice.

[Sinister]

I stand corrected. I am wrong. I shall get off my crusade horse. Please continue your discussions.

-Sin

[Rowan]

If this was a black guy who shot a white teen, nobody would even care. All I can say is, people are too prejudice.

Its interesting you mention that, because that happened within the same week of the zimmerman incident. Noone gave a f**k.

[Alpha]

Its interesting you mention that, because that happened within the same week of the zimmerman incident. Noone gave a f**k.

I hate arguments like this. That it wasn't widely reported in the media does NOT mean that no one cared. It means that it just wasn't picked up by the media.

I only have the capacity to express opinions on things that I hear about. So I'm sorry that my newspaper and the selection of online news content that I read on a daily basis chose to focus on other things and that I never heard about it. I'm not sure what you want me to do about that, though. I imagine I would've cared equally about this story if it was again presented as an open-and-shut self-defense case that I don't think is so open-and-shut. If you note in my comments in this thread, I was very careful to avoid that stupid race debate. Anyone being killed sucks, I don't care about what pigment they do or do not have in their skin.

[Rowan]

I hate arguments like this. That it wasn't widely reported in the media does NOT mean that no one cared. It means that it just wasn't picked up by the media.

I only have the capacity to express opinions on things that I hear about. So I'm sorry that my newspaper and the selection of online news content that I read on a daily basis chose to focus on other things and that I never heard about it. I'm not sure what you want me to do about that, though. I imagine I would've cared equally about this story if it was again presented as an open-and-shut self-defense case that I don't think is so open-and-shut. If you note in my comments in this thread, I was very careful to avoid that stupid race debate. Anyone being killed sucks, I don't care about what pigment they do or do not have in their skin.

excuse me,

*media didnt give a *****

[the_savior21]

After reading this for the last few minutes I've come to understand that discussion mostly revolves around what many see as a grey area in self defense laws. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

IMO, and this is after hearing evidence that I didn't know about like the autopsy report for example and seeing the pic of George's face, defiantly a not guilty verdict.

Martin's death was his own fault and its pretty cut and dry. Even in hypothetical scenarios I can't justify Martin attacking Zimmerman like he did.

In a situation like that you act on instinct. Adrenaline does it for you. Unless you are trained for situations like that your not gonna think to yourself "well I don't wanna shoot him in the torso unless its his upper right half were I can miss vital spots so ill go for the leg but I better not hit the femoral artery so he doesn't bleed out. On second thought ill just pistol whip him." I takes soldiers, operatives, and agents years to develop the concentration, firearm proficiency, and self defense skills to issue a less then lethal injury, with a lethal weapon, on purpose. You think about all this in less then a second and you expected some neighborhood watchman to think about it when his head was being bashed off of the ground? I don't think so.bat that point it's point, shoot, pray. Do you think he was able to shoot Martin and pierce his heart and lung at the same time on purpose? No way I don't buy it. Could there have been a way to use less force? Probably but hindsight is always 20/20. Put yourself in his position do you let this kid kill you? Hell no. If it was me I would have went for my gun at the earliest convenience after getting attacked just like he did. Even in hindsight I would have done the same thing I have a family to think about too and when it comes down to it if I feel like its gonna be him or me, it's gonna be him.

Don't get me wrong it's a tragedy that Martin is dead and i feel for his family who is probably still looking for some type of closure especially after the case but it's his own fault and Zimmerman never stepped outside of his rights. He doesn't need to justify following him as a neighborhood watchman, he certainly doesn't need to get beat half to death to protect himself.

In regards to the jury/stand your ground law point, it is a jury made up of ones peers, peers like you and I. Yes the rules state that you use the evidence presented to you. On the other hand as a human being who was raised with some definition of right and wrong and knowing the law in Florida as a Floridian, you cannot expect a jury to not have at least one person who is going to fight for that stand your ground law. That won't happen unless you replace juries with computers. You can say the law system is flawed all you want and with some cases it appears that way but not here. They hit this one right on the head.