Zimmerman not guilty!

[Order]

(Yes, I actually got THIS bored...)


My question is:
Would martin have hurt someone in the future?
Would he have sexually assaulted someone, broken into someone's home or killed a stranger?
Was he on his way to do something along those lines that night?
We don't know.
There is evidence to affirm he would not. He had no criminal record and made decent grades in school.
There is evidence to affirm he would have. He had stolen from fellow students at school and kept some stolen items in his locker.
Still, we will never know.

Zimmerman was on patrol and prepared for a possible fight that night.
He was indeed looking for trouble, as is his reason for finding Martin in the first place.

Martin may have simply wanted to punish Zimmerman for following him or for directing his suspicion toward him.
Martin may have believed it would be similar to a school yard fight.
Martin may have been looking for an excuse to brawl.
We don't know.

The kid could have easily escaped.
Zimmerman could have easily stayed in his car and drove his happy ass back home.

They both decided to escalate. Martin is dead because he thought he was going to pound some helpless old man. He is dead because Zimmerman thought he was tracking some helpless high school kid. They both put themselves in that position.
Did Zimmerman deserve Manslaughter?
Yeah, I believe so.

Are the riots related to the verdict logical, rational and beneficial to the cause they claim?
Pfft. Rioting is only revolutionary when it is directed toward the government, not fellow citizens.


Also,
Nobody should have been surprised by the verdict.
If you look back at cases where a shooter fired from a similar position, they have always been shown leniency. In general, firing at an advancing attacker from laying on your back is taken as a fully defensive action (As opposed to firing from a standing position at a target who is turned away and retreating).
On top of that, Martin is dead and could not testify which made all of the prosecution's evidence philosophical, racial and assumed.

[Sasquatch]

My question is:
Would martin have hurt someone in the future?
Would he have sexually assaulted someone, broken into someone's home or killed a stranger?
Was he on his way to do something along those lines that night?
We don't know.
There is evidence to affirm he would not. He had no criminal record and made decent grades in school.
There is evidence to affirm he would have. He had stolen from fellow students at school and kept some stolen items in his locker.
Still, we will never know.

He was serving a suspension from school at the time of the incident. The only reason he had no criminal record is that the school district had intentionally kept their findings (of crimes he committed) in-house as to keep statistics lower in regards to crime rates of black teenagers. (They have admitted this -- and Martin had served multiple suspensions, for reasons ranging from possession of marijuana paraphernalia, to vandalism, to burglary and possession of stolen property.)

Zimmerman was on patrol and prepared for a possible fight that night.
He was indeed looking for trouble, as is his reason for finding Martin in the first place.

False. Zimmerman was not "on patrol", and not "looking for trouble". He happened to notice Martin acting suspicious.

Martin may have simply wanted to punish Zimmerman for following him or for directing his suspicion toward him.
Martin may have believed it would be similar to a school yard fight.
Martin may have been looking for an excuse to brawl.
We don't know.

We know that Martin intended serious harm to Zimmerman, and we know that Martin's assault was entirely unprovoked.

The kid could have easily escaped.
Zimmerman could have easily stayed in his car and drove his happy ass back home.

Zimmerman had no obligation to stay in his car -- he was returning to his vehicle when the incident occurred, anyway. Martin, on the other hand, DID have an obligation to "escape" -- if by "escape" you mean "not track somebody down because you don't like what they're doing and viciously assault them".

They both decided to escalate. Martin is dead because he thought he was going to pound some helpless old man. He is dead because Zimmerman thought he was tracking some helpless high school kid. They both put themselves in that position.

Martin caused his own death by assaulting somebody. Zimmerman caused Martin's death by walking well behind him. The two are not equally at fault, or anywhere near equally at fault.

Did Zimmerman deserve Manslaughter?
Yeah, I believe so.

On what grounds? He broke zero laws, he followed the non-binding instructions of a police dispatcher, and he defended himself with deadly force when he believed his life was in danger. These are all things that he should be praised, not punished, for.

Also,
Nobody should have been surprised by the verdict.
If you look back at cases where a shooter fired from a similar position, they have always been shown leniency. In general, firing at an advancing attacker from laying on your back is taken as a fully defensive action (As opposed to firing from a standing position at a target who is turned away and retreating).

Something about shooting while your skull is being beaten into the pavement is a pretty good indication of a perfect self-defense case. That's not leniency, that's justice.

On top of that, Martin is dead and could not testify which made all of the prosecution's evidence philosophical, racial and assumed.

Despite that assumption, there were other forms of evidence, including witnesses. Just as the defense had more of a case than the word of Zimmerman, the prosecution's case would not have been completely lost because Martin was not there to testify. The prosecution's case fell short because they simply had no case.

That having been said ... I'm actually saddened by the displays of ignorance in this thread. On the law, on this particular case, and on the concept of self-defense.

[Order]

He was serving a suspension from school at the time of the incident. The only reason he had no criminal record is that the school district had intentionally kept their findings (of crimes he committed) in-house as to keep statistics lower in regards to crime rates of black teenagers. (They have admitted this -- and Martin had served multiple suspensions, for reasons ranging from possession of marijuana paraphernalia, to vandalism, to burglary and possession of stolen property.)

Fair point. He did have the capacity to be a "career criminal" or at least commit a violent crime in the future.

False. Zimmerman was not "on patrol", and not "looking for trouble". He happened to notice Martin acting suspicious.

I may be wrong, but I believe he was part of the neighborhood watch and had been patrolling his community. I'm not sure if I'm remembering correctly.

We know that Martin intended serious harm to Zimmerman, and we know that Martin's assault was entirely unprovoked.

True. What I meant to imply was that Martin may have been out simply to cause trouble. Having attacked Zimmerman for simply following him, I can only assume that was the case.

Zimmerman had no obligation to stay in his car -- he was returning to his vehicle when the incident occurred, anyway. Martin, on the other hand, DID have an obligation to "escape" -- if by "escape" you mean "not track somebody down because you don't like what they're doing and viciously assault them".

Yeah, Zimmerman didn't break any laws. He didn't have an obligation to follow Martin outside his own desire to protect his community. My point is that Zimmerman (intentionally or not) put himself in the position of having to defend himself.

Martin caused his own death by assaulting somebody. Zimmerman caused Martin's death by walking well behind him. The two are not equally at fault, or anywhere near equally at fault.

No, they were not equally at fault in that Martin had a responsibility to walk away. They both made the mistake of thinking the situation would not escalate beyond their control (Martin believed he could knock Zimmerman out. Zimmerman believed he wouldn't need to fire his gun.)

On what grounds? He broke zero laws, he followed the non-binding instructions of a police dispatcher, and he defended himself with deadly force when he believed his life was in danger. These are all things that he should be praised, not punished, for.

Zimmerman killed a person. Even justified to have done so, he should have had a conviction. That's not to say I think he should be jailed, fined or any other punishment as such. Simply, that he killed Martin. That is manslaughter.
I understand that there is a distinction between accidentally killing a person and accidentally killing an attacker. I disagree with those who believe the court was too lenient on Zimmerman. There is no charge of "Justified Manslaughter" or "Justified Homicide", but there should be.

Something about shooting while your skull is being beaten into the pavement is a pretty good indication of a perfect self-defense case. That's not leniency, that's justice.

Oh. Thank you for clarifying for me, as my point was probably not plain enough.

Despite that assumption, there were other forms of evidence, including witnesses. Just as the defense had more of a case than the word of Zimmerman, the prosecution's case would not have been completely lost because Martin was not there to testify. The prosecution's case fell short because they simply had no case.

Yeah, I could have worded that better. The prosecution really didn't try to build a case.

That having been said ... I'm actually saddened by the displays of ignorance in this thread. On the law, on this particular case, and on the concept of self-defense.

Well, that's because you are the only smart person in the world. Don't be sad, though. If you get sad, then I'll be sad and if I'm sad I'll cry and if I cry a fairy will lose it's wings.