# George Zimmerman found not guilty of Trayvon Martin murder



## Deleted_171835 (Jul 14, 2013)

> George Zimmerman, the Florida neighbourhood watchman who shot dead an unarmed black 17-year-old male last year, *has been found not guilty.*
> 
> Lawyers for Mr Zimmerman, 29, argued he acted in self-defence and with justifiable use of deadly force in the death of Trayvon Martin.
> 
> Protesters are gathering, reports the BBC's David Willis, in Sanford, the Florida town where the shooting took place.


 
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23304198


----------



## GameWinner (Jul 14, 2013)

Wow...this is shocking...
Not really surprising after seeing the facts.


----------



## Sterling (Jul 14, 2013)

Look at all the evidence, and then look at how the courts conducted the trial. This was a very real case of political pressure in the court system, and some rather worrying conspiracy. The biggest thing is how everyone seems to be on one side or the other without due research. I have no opinion on this so, the decision doesn't matter much to me.


----------



## omgpwn666 (Jul 14, 2013)

Good for him.


----------



## Gahars (Jul 14, 2013)

If people want more information and context on the situation, this video is pretty helpful. (Edit: Yeah, the video kind of goes on a completely different tangent towards the end. The first 25 or so minutes is still useful enough)

I have to say, it's shameful to see the way this case is being publicized. A human being is dead and so many have been happy to play on this tragedy for their own gain. It seems like people on all sides have been more than happy to twist the facts in order to suit their narratives and agendas. Christ, news stations seem practically eager for riots to break out like goddamned vultures.

Still, if anything good has come out of this case, I suppose it's been watching Nancy Grace completely and utterly lose her shit.


----------



## Celice (Jul 14, 2013)

Along with Blackstone...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackstone's_formulation



Justice is not looking through the lens of what others desire happens. It looks at what ought to occur given the circumstances and precedent cases. It ought to be fair in all cases, and not motivated by context. In this case, the law found Zimmerman not guilty. That means if the law was genuinely followed, then anyone who may have actually killed in self-defense, and who were sincerely in a position that called for it, would not be wrongly condemned a guilty person.

Cases like these allow the law to be further honed and conditioned to prevent strange and wild occurrences, so that a practical and a just law may continue to organize and support a social construct.


----------



## EzekielRage (Jul 14, 2013)

its simple:
a kid is dead and the person who pulled the trigger is free and that is wrong. they could ahve said it was an accident or manslaugther or whatever but just plain out letting him go is wrong on SO many levels...


----------



## Nathan Drake (Jul 14, 2013)

EzekielRage said:


> its simple:
> a kid is dead and the person who pulled the trigger is free and that is wrong. they could ahve said it was an accident or manslaugther or whatever but just plain out letting him go is wrong on SO many levels...


This, completely. Self-defense or not, there are many ways to subdue a person that is not killing them, and quite frankly, if you can reach for your gun and aim, you can damn well take the time to not deliver a fatal shot. Self-defense or no, a limit must come to what is considered acceptable. With a total lack of concrete evidence and facts, Zimmerman should have at the least been revoked legal gun privileges and spent some time in prison for manslaughter. Unfortunately, this case, like everything else in the US that's controversial, was turned into a political battle where the actual crime itself just acts as the base for people to fight for being "right" once more. Now, guilty or no, Zimmerman is walking free and will have his gun back in his hands.

At the absolute least, with such confusion of the facts until the very end, he should not have been legally allowed to own a firearm anymore. If you can't control yourself even in a situation where someone may be hitting you, you're someone who doesn't need to own a gun. Quite frankly, he is the very definition of what I believe should not qualify as reason for gun ownership in the US.


----------



## dalc789 (Jul 14, 2013)

I'm happy for zimmerman.  I followed the trial via stream, and the defense gave a very strong case, giving nothing but facts and logic, while the prosecution just embarrassed itself and relied on almost nothing but emotional appeal.


----------



## Gahars (Jul 14, 2013)

Nathan Drake said:


> This, completely. Self-defense or not, there are many ways to subdue a person that is not killing them, and quite frankly, if you can reach for your gun and aim, you can damn well take the time to not deliver a fatal shot. Self-defense or no, a limit must come to what is considered acceptable. With a total lack of concrete evidence and facts, Zimmerman should have at the least been revoked legal gun privileges and spent some time in prison for manslaughter. Unfortunately, this case, like everything else in the US that's controversial, was turned into a political battle where the actual crime itself just acts as the base for people to fight for being "right" once more. Now, guilty or no, Zimmerman is walking free and will have his gun back in his hands.
> 
> At the absolute least, with such confusion of the facts until the very end, he should not have been legally allowed to own a firearm anymore. If you can't control yourself even in a situation where someone may be hitting you, you're someone who doesn't need to own a gun. Quite frankly, he is the very definition of what I believe should not qualify as reason for gun ownership in the US.


 
Hindsight, as they say, is 20/20. It's easy to say that Zimmerman should've found another way, but it's sort of hard to maintain control of a fight when you're in the heat of the moment and someone is pounding the back of your head into the concrete. You say "hit" like he had just been slapped here and there, but that's not what happened at all. Thrasing" would be a more accurate term, really.


----------



## DinohScene (Jul 14, 2013)

I didn't knew what he did or who he was.

I really should watch more news ._.


----------



## trumpet-205 (Jul 14, 2013)

Well, since juries had taken over 12 hours on deliberating, I'd say there was a strong disagreement/debate among them.

My understanding is that Zimmerman was told to wait in the car by the police dispatcher, but he went out to confront Martin anyway.

This should've been a simple murder trial like any other trial, but instead it goes political about race.


----------



## Nathan Drake (Jul 14, 2013)

Gahars said:


> Hindsight, as they say, is 20/20. It's easy to say that Zimmerman should've found another way, but it's sort of hard to maintain control of a fight when you're in the heat of the moment and someone is pounding the back of your head into the concrete. You say "hit" like he had just been slapped here and there, but that's not what happened at all. Thrasing" would be a more accurate term, really.


The main problems:
- We technically don't know who instigated the fight, so the idea that the use of deadly force was proven to be acceptable is already a joke. Quite frankly, if Zimmerman hadn't been apparently trying to play neighborhood hero and taking the law into his own hands, the encounter never would have happened to begin with. It was established that Zimmerman had called the police about Trayvon's supposedly suspicious actions prior to the confrontation from within his car. That means he _had_ to get out of his car and go confront Trayvon for whatever reason.

- With that said, if you instigate a confrontation, it is no longer an act of self defense, but rather an act of aggression. By getting out of his car, he put himself in the situation that occurred.

Now, I'm no lawyer, but from a common sense standpoint, Zimmerman was the one that fucked up and ended up apparently having to fatally shoot another person because he wanted to play neighborhood hero. If he provoked the actions of Trayvon in the least, which he had to of given the scenario, he is no longer acting under the stand-your-ground law. If you bring a situation upon yourself, I'm of the belief that our justice system should take some measure to make sure you don't make the same mistake again.


----------



## air2004 (Jul 14, 2013)

The right verdict was reached , anything else would not only have been a miscarriage of justice.



trumpet-205 said:


> Well, since juries had taken over 12 hours on deliberating, I'd say there was a strong disagreement/debate among them.
> 
> My understanding is that Zimmerman was told to wait in the car by the police dispatcher, but he went out to confront Martin anyway.
> 
> This should've been a simple murder trial like any other trial, but instead it goes political about race.


First off its a 911 dispatcher not a law enforcement officer, second it was a suggestion "we don't need you to do that" third he was walking back to his vehicle when he was attacked, forth he was sucker punched and then had his head bashed against the concrete, fifth the media loves to make race an issue when its not.


----------



## UltraHurricane (Jul 14, 2013)

even though he's not guilty, the stigma that surrounds this case will follow him for the rest of his life, even if he really was acting in self-defense almost everyone he meets will still think he was a murder and i think that's almost as bad as any sentence he could have gotten


----------



## air2004 (Jul 14, 2013)

UltraHurricane said:


> even though he's not guilty, the stigma that surrounds this case will follow him for the rest of his life, even if he really was acting in self-defense almost everyone he meets will still think he was a murder and i think that's almost as bad as sentence he could have gotten


And we have nothing but the "over zealous need to make a buck because we have nothing else to report on, so let's make up a story" media to thank for it .


----------



## Nathan Drake (Jul 14, 2013)

air2004 said:


> First off its a 911 dispatcher not a law enforcement officer, second it was a suggestion "we don't need you to do that" third he was walking back to his vehicle when he was attacked, forth he was sucker punched and then had his head bashed against the concrete, fifth the media loves to make race an issue when its not.


So you're saying if you suspiciously watch another person who is aware you're watching them, get out of your car when you don't need to so that you can conveniently go the exact same direction as the person you shouldn't have been anywhere near to begin with after contacting the police initially, and apparently act in such a way that you get assaulted, then you should be able to murder a person? I mean, hell, the guy walked away with minor injuries, and didn't even get a concussion, which is damn convenient after getting his head apparently slammed into the ground multiple times.

Honestly, if all we have is the shooter's testimony for the actual lead up to the shooting, it shouldn't even be considered reliable testimony because _the shooter will say whatever they have to in order to not go to prison_. There is no police test in the world that a person can't fake it through, so citing something like a voice stress test as if it's reliable information is ridiculous as well.

Everything else aside, if Zimmerman had been intelligent enough to remain in his car, that scenario would not have occurred to begin with, even if taking Zimmerman's testimony as undeniable factual evidence. If he had waited for a moment, even if his ADD had somehow stunted his memory (honestly, I think the ADD memory issue thing is bullshit, but w/e), I'm sure the street name would have come to him. He did not have to leave his car. He did not have to physically be anywhere near Trayvon. The confrontation, however it truly occurred, did not have to happen. If you're going to sit there and defend him like he made the right decision, at least acknowledge the ridiculously stupid decision that lead up to it.


----------



## AngryGeek416 (Jul 14, 2013)

So disappointing....RIP TM


----------



## SolidSnake95 (Jul 14, 2013)

To be honest, I could give a damn. I'm sure Martin was looking suspicious, but that doesn't mean he had to be killed. Either way it doesn't affect me, if morons want to sstart a race war let them, natural selection will play its role in the outcome. I like the idea of idiots killing each other off, just means the world will be a better place without these _idiots_.


----------



## Gahars (Jul 14, 2013)

Nathan Drake said:


> The main problems:
> - We technically don't know who instigated the fight, so the idea that the use of deadly force was proven to be acceptable is already a joke.


 
The burden of proof lies on the prosecution to prove, *beyond a reasonable doubt*, that Zimmerman was not acting in self-defense. Saying "It isn't self defense because we don't know for absolute certain who threw the first punch!" is utterly ludicrous.



Nathan Drake said:


> Quite frankly, if Zimmerman hadn't been apparently trying to play neighborhood hero and taking the law into his own hands, the encounter never would have happened to begin with. It was established that Zimmerman had called the police about Trayvon's supposedly suspicious actions prior to the confrontation from within his car. That means he _had_ to get out of his car and go confront Trayvon for whatever reason.


 
And if Trayvon Martin just left and went home, instead of returning to confront Zimmerman, this all would have been avoided. It certainly goes both ways here.

"For whatever reason." - He was the neighborhood watch captain and the community had been hit by a string of robberies and break-ins. Did the guy take his position too seriously? Sure, possibly, but that's certainly not criminal or even suspicious in any way.

Again, Trayvon Martin also had the opportunity to remove himself from the situation and deliberately chose to go back. Again, it goes both ways.



Nathan Drake said:


> - With that said, if you instigate a confrontation, it is no longer an act of self defense, but rather an act of aggression. By getting out of his car, he put himself in the situation that occurred.


 
I mean, what constitutes "instigating a conflict" here? If someone takes offense to something I say and they attack me, what, am I the one at fault here? I'm the aggressive one? Just because someone made you mad or upset you with the things they said doesn't give you the justification to retaliate with physical violence. If you throw that punch, you are not in the right - and the person getting punched has every right to defend him-or-herself.

Also, defense law in general doesn't work that way. All that matters here is that, at the moment Zimmerman fired the gun, he believed that he was at risk of great bodily injury. Considering that Zimmerman was getting his head slammed into the concrete, yeah, he did and justifiably so. We could argue about the merits of this part of the law all night long, but the fact of the matter is that the jury can't judge him on the law as you wish it was; they have to work with the law as it actually is.

Plus, again, the power of hindsight. Expecting Zimmerman to know that the situation would turn violent is an absolutely silly standard.



Nathan Drake said:


> Now, I'm no lawyer, but from a common sense standpoint, Zimmerman was the one that fucked up and ended up apparently having to fatally shoot another person because he wanted to play neighborhood hero. If he provoked the actions of Trayvon in the least, which he had to of given the scenario, he is no longer acting under the stand-your-ground law. If you bring a situation upon yourself, I'm of the belief that our justice system should take some measure to make sure you don't make the same mistake again.


 

This is a senseless tragedy, and it's a crying shame that a life was cut down so young. However, demonizing Zimmerman here and twisting standards to reach the verdict you want accomplishes nothing. It's more damaging than anything else, festering on the wound rather than moving on and trying to let it heal.

(Also, this isn't even a "Stand Your Ground" case, so I have to wonder why you're mentioning it here.)



SolidSnake95 said:


> To be honest, I could give a damn. I'm sure Martin was looking suspicious, but that doesn't mean he had to be killed. Either way it doesn't affect me, if morons want to sstart a race war let them, natural selection will play its role in the outcome. I like the idea of idiots killing each other off, just means the world will be a better place without these _idiots_.


 
It's time to stop posting.


----------



## air2004 (Jul 14, 2013)

Nathan Drake said:


> So you're saying if you suspiciously watch another person who is aware you're watching them, get out of your car when you don't need to so that you can conveniently go the exact same direction as the person you shouldn't have been anywhere near to begin with after contacting the police initially, and apparently act in such a way that you get assaulted, then you should be able to murder a person? I mean, hell, the guy walked away with minor injuries, and didn't even get a concussion, which is damn convenient after getting his head apparently slammed into the ground multiple times.
> 
> Honestly, if all we have is the shooter's testimony for the actual lead up to the shooting, it shouldn't even be considered reliable testimony because _the shooter will say whatever they have to in order to not go to prison_. There is no police test in the world that a person can't fake it through, so citing something like a voice stress test as if it's reliable information is ridiculous as well.
> 
> Everything else aside, if Zimmerman had been intelligent enough to remain in his car, that scenario would not have occurred to begin with, even if taking Zimmerman's testimony as undeniable factual evidence. If he had waited for a moment, even if his ADD had somehow stunted his memory (honestly, I think the ADD memory issue thing is bullshit, but w/e), I'm sure the street name would have come to him. He did not have to leave his car. He did not have to physically be anywhere near Trayvon. The confrontation, however it truly occurred, did not have to happen. If you're going to sit there and defend him like he made the right decision, at least acknowledge the ridiculously stupid decision that lead up to it.


Wasn't Zimmerman going to the store when all this went down ? pretty sure that's what he said . So why are you trying to make it sound like he was out stalking/looking to shoot someone when all this went down ? ( I could tell ya why but you would disagree )
What way did he act again that deserved to be assaulted , I missed that part ?
Minor injuries you say ? So if I sucker punch you and get you on the ground ( you just happen to have gun which I don't know about ) you wouldn't have reacted the same way ? Really...
Why didn't the prosecution call an expert witness to explain the bullet trajectory ? I'll tell you why , because they knew they didn't have a case , and calling an expert for their side would only make them look like jack asses .
Do not allow others to control your emotions ( talking to you media , and al Sharpton )


----------



## Nathan Drake (Jul 14, 2013)

air2004 said:


> Wasn't Zimmerman going to the store when all this went down ? pretty sure that's what he said . So why are you trying to make it sound like he was out stalking/looking to shoot someone when all this went down ? ( I could tell ya why but you would disagree )
> What way did he act again that deserved to be assaulted , I missed that part ?
> Minor injuries you say ? So if I sucker punch you and get you on the ground ( you just happen to have gun which I don't know about ) you wouldn't have reacted the same way ? Really...
> Why didn't the prosecution call an expert witness to explain the bullet trajectory ? I'll tell you why , because they knew they didn't have a case , and calling an expert for their side would only make them look like jack asses .
> Do not allow others to control your emotions ( talking to you media , and al Sharpton )


Yes, he was going to get groceries. So why did he have to stop, get out of his car, watch Trayvon in a fashion that made him aware and suspicious, and then proceed to act suspiciously after calling the police that would have shown up and talked to Trayvon likely without any conflict? Is a broken nose, some bruises, and a couple of cuts suddenly serious injuries, especially if it was your own actions that lead to them? Last I checked, noses break really, really easily, since, you know, they aren't supposed to get hit, and I've had cats give me worse cuts than what Zimmerman apparently got if a hospital visit was deemed optional immediately following the incident. Those injuries hardly scream "my life was at stake." But I digress. That is ultimately just opinion, since, even if it wasn't, Zimmerman could have personally felt his life was threatened. By the way, I would never have a gun on me because why the fuck do I need to carry a gun to go to the damned store? Was he expecting to get into a dual while browsing for peanut butter? Someone carrying a gun on them at all times is something I take serious issue with, regardless of the circumstances. There are many, many less immediately lethal options that will still make a person bleed if your intent on carrying a weapon with you. If you have a hand so free you can remove and aim a pistol, the other options would have been just as effective.

Also, it was explained that the bullet was fired from very close range, so trajectory is about as conclusive as that 911 call.

Even a child is taught well that if it's a matter for the police, you leave it to the police. You absolutely do not, under any circumstance, try to play police and put yourself in the line of harm.


----------



## SolidSnake95 (Jul 14, 2013)

Nathan Drake said:


> Even a child is taught well that if it's a matter for the police, *you leave it to the police. You absolutely do not, under any circumstance, try to play police and put yourself in the line of harm*.


 
And who the hell are you? WHo made that rule?

What a joke. I agree with everything else in your post but this is where you crossed the line.


----------



## Nathan Drake (Jul 14, 2013)

SolidSnake95 said:


> And who the hell are you? WHo made that rule?
> 
> What a joke. I agree with everything else in your post but this is where you crossed the line.


Because I dared to say leave the police to do the job they were trained to do? They may not be perfect, but a person is faster to recognize the authority of a policeman than some random guy with a concealed weapon appearing out of nowhere and watching you.


----------



## Qtis (Jul 14, 2013)

While I don't know every detail about the case, it does highlight the problems with the so called neighborhood watches and gun laws in general. I do know about the constitutional rights that every american is allowed to carry a gun and such, but is it really necessary? A police officer is trained to work in different situations and use the least level of violence if need be (at least here in Finland). A random passerby will most likely just take their gun and shoot the person without much though. Especially if they're a bit over zealous with the work, as seems the case here.

Like the case or have an opinion, that you are entitled to. Start yelling about racial this and media that, you are probably very much an asshole. Zimmerman wasn't the one who was killed. He was the one pulling the trigger and now has been found not guilty for any crime, although he did pull the trigger. If it's legal to shoot someone and get away with it without any kind of sanctions, the legal system is very interesting.


----------



## air2004 (Jul 14, 2013)

Nathan Drake said:


> Because I dared to say leave the police to do the job they were trained to do? They may not be perfect, but a person is faster to recognize the authority of a policeman than some random guy with a concealed weapon appearing out of nowhere and watching you.


Some people like to fight the police , maybe he trayvon was one of them


----------



## Nathan Drake (Jul 14, 2013)

air2004 said:


> Some people like to fight the police , maybe he trayvon was one of them


Assuming a person may be violent towards all authority because they didn't recognize some random individual as a person of authority is flawed logic. I'm sure if Trayvon had a history of noncompliance with authority, that would be relevant, but with no such information given, it can be assumed he would have cooperated with the proper authority figures. Many people don't like dealing with the police, but they're smart enough to just talk to them and see what questions they may have if they know they aren't in the wrong.



Gahars said:


> -snip-


You seem to be operating under the assumption that Zimmerman's testimony was absolutely, 100% correct, and that the conflict was entirely the fault of Trayvon. I have a hard time taking you seriously when you say that Trayvon could have just gone home and removed himself from the situation, because I doubt when he left his house, he expected a random individual to decide they were the law. The evidence was shoddy at best, and acting as if Zimmerman told the whole truth is a little too presumptuous for my tastes.

If you're going to recognize Zimmerman's testimony as absolute fact, then we have little to discuss.


----------



## smile72 (Jul 14, 2013)

Qtis said:


> While I don't know every detail about the case, it does highlight the problems with the so called neighborhood watches and gun laws in general. I do know about the constitutional rights that every american is allowed to carry a gun and such, but is it really necessary? A police officer is trained to work in different situations and use the least level of violence if need be (at least here in Finland). A random passerby will most likely just take their gun and shoot the person without much though. Especially if they're a bit over zealous with the work, as seems the case here.
> 
> Like the case or have an opinion, that you are entitled to. Start yelling about racial this and media that, you are probably very much an asshole. Zimmerman wasn't the one who was killed. He was the one pulling the trigger and now has been found not guilty for any crime, although he did pull the trigger. If it's legal to shoot someone and get away with it without any kind of sanctions, the legal system is very interesting.


 
But this is America...not Finland...an officer shoots a person every day. Plus this case always had a racial problem, it took 44 days to even arrest Zimmerman, and Sanford had a lot of racial problems in the past decades with its police force, to even remove race is ignorant. But I look at this case as I did the Casey Anthony it's a tragedy now let us move on. Sure I believe both are guilty but my opinion doesn't change anything. So what point is there.


----------



## Sterling (Jul 14, 2013)

Qtis said:


> While I don't know every detail about the case, it does highlight the problems with the so called neighborhood watches and gun laws in general. I do know about the constitutional rights that every american is allowed to carry a gun and such, but is it really necessary? A police officer is trained to work in different situations and use the least level of violence if need be (at least here in Finland). A random passerby will most likely just take their gun and shoot the person without much though. Especially if they're a bit over zealous with the work, as seems the case here.
> 
> Like the case or have an opinion, that you are entitled to. Start yelling about racial this and media that, you are probably very much an asshole. Zimmerman wasn't the one who was killed. He was the one pulling the trigger and now has been found not guilty for any crime, although he did pull the trigger. If it's legal to shoot someone and get away with it without any kind of sanctions, the legal system is very interesting.


A police officer may or may not have the proper response time compared to someone immediately on the scene. As always, what guarantee to you have that an officer would have made a better decision than Zimmerman? Because he has a badge and a openly worn firearm? Police officers are not infallible, nor have the police shown consistently that they are the spotless knights in shining armor that most people believe them to be. 

People in power are prone to corruption. You hear many stories about how an officer murders in cold blood and gets a slap on the wrist. Something like this would be a prime example of a case where an officer would not have garnered this much attention., much less a punishment. I think Zimmerman was wrong in pulling the trigger, but at the same time I think if he hadn't, Trayvon would have killed him. 

In short, I do not believe designated law enforcement would have handled this any better than Mr. Zimmerman had. In fact, they would have likely killed Travon anyway. There would have been no trial. There would have been no precedent. And there definitely would be two or more bodies.

Do I have all the facts? No, I don't. As with anything, there is indeed a certain amount of room for doubt, but I think this was the best conclusion for the array of events that took place.


----------



## Nathan Drake (Jul 14, 2013)

Sterling said:


> A police officer may or may not have the proper response time compared to someone immediately on the scene. As always, what guarantee to you have that an officer would have made a better decision than Zimmerman? Because he has a badge and a openly worn firearm? Police officers are not infallible, nor have the police shown consistently that they are the spotless knights in shining armor that most people believe them to be.
> 
> People in power are prone to corruption. You hear many stories about how an officer murders in cold blood and gets a slap on the wrist. Something like this would be a prime example of a case where an officer would not have garnered this much attention., much less a punishment. I think Zimmerman was wrong in pulling the trigger, but at the same time I think if he hadn't, Trayvon would have killed him.
> 
> ...


Allowing yourself to be taken in by the idea that all policeman murder without pulling from your own experiences is falling to the traps of the media. The idea that a random policeman would shoot Trayvon simply because he was _potentially_ acting suspiciously is just ridiculous. Honestly, the police force in America isn't that corrupt. There may have been some racial profiling on part of the police, because, let's face it, it's the south and Trayvon was black. Acting like that doesn't matter would be ignorance on my behalf, but I have my doubts that Trayvon would be dead right now had Zimmerman pulled back. Trayvon's actions as relayed by Zimmerman did not require immediate action. Trayvon was not actually breaking into a house. Nothing actually needed to be done. Essentially, Zimmerman convicted Trayvon of a crime he didn't commit based on his own circumstantial evidence, and proceeded to take actions that lead to the death of Trayvon Martin.

I assure you, the average policeman likely could have gotten through that without somebody bleeding to death on the side of the road courtesy of a bullet to the heart.


----------



## Taleweaver (Jul 14, 2013)

Okay...this is a first thing I hear of this case. If I understand things correctly...

Zimmerman was in his car. Reports a 'suspicious person' to the police (over the radio or phone or something?) and goes to confront him. A fight ensures (though not proven). The suspicious person - Trayvon Martin - is shot dead.


I won't go into assuming right or wrong in this case (I'd rather stay out of debates when unprepared). But I will say this.


With this sort of law existing: _Under the state's controversial "stand your ground" law, the use of lethal force is allowed if a person feels seriously under threat._

...in combination with the right to carry weapons...

I *really* don't want to go on vacation in the US. If I happen to accidentally cross someone who feels "seriously under threat" and has a gun (kind of like William 'D-Fens' Foster*), he can *legally shoot me* if he comes up to me and starts asking questions he won't like to hear my answers to.




*for those not getting it: go watch the movie Falling down.


----------



## Thanatos Telos (Jul 14, 2013)

I'm on Nathan's side on this one, but don't feel like arguing. Here's a tidbit: They didn't even take away his gun until *after* the 44 days. (I'm not even too sure of that.)


----------



## Qtis (Jul 14, 2013)

Sterling said:


> A police officer may or may not have the proper response time compared to someone immediately on the scene. As always, what guarantee to you have that an officer would have made a better decision than Zimmerman? Because he has a badge and a openly worn firearm? Police officers are not infallible, nor have the police shown consistently that they are the spotless knights in shining armor that most people believe them to be.
> 
> People in power are prone to corruption. You hear many stories about how an officer murders in cold blood and gets a slap on the wrist. Something like this would be a prime example of a case where an officer would not have garnered this much attention., much less a punishment. I think Zimmerman was wrong in pulling the trigger, but at the same time I think if he hadn't, Trayvon would have killed him.
> 
> ...


Indeed, a police officer is not infallible. But he/she has at least received some kind of training to cope with sudden situations. Neighborhood watches on the other hand are, as far as I've come to understand the laws and customs of these watches, just random people carrying a gun and in some cases taking the law into their own hands. If the transcript of the 911 call is anything to go by, Zimmerman is more than guilty of taking the law into his own hands regardless of it being legal or illegal in some situations. Hopefully something like the lowest possible force is added at some point to the ways people should act in a confrontation. (in other words, don't take the gun out at first, but try to get past the situation in another way).



smile72 said:


> But this is America...not Finland...an officer shoots a person every day. Plus this case always had a racial problem, it took 44 days to even arrest Zimmerman, and Sanford had a lot of racial problems in the past decades with its police force, to even remove race is ignorant. But I look at this case as I did the Casey Anthony it's a tragedy now let us move on. Sure I believe both are guilty but my opinion doesn't change anything. So what point is there.


 
I came out a bit wrong, I was trying to state that the pro Zimmerman side just says "You're just playing the race cards!" instead of actually looking at the fact that a teen has been killed by a 29 year old. Without going into the racial side, it's cold fact that one person is dead and the other is set free, although he never said he didn't do it.

EDIT: But alas, Zimmerman will probably have quite a hard time now till the end of his days. He'll have one hell of a time trying to find a proper job and actually get on with his life. He will end up watching his back and probably live with the consequences of what he has done. Regardless of it being legal or illegal.


----------



## Sterling (Jul 14, 2013)

Nathan Drake said:


> Allowing yourself to be taken in by the idea that all policeman murder without pulling from your own experiences is falling to the traps of the media. The idea that a random policeman would shoot Trayvon simply because he was _potentially_ acting suspiciously is just ridiculous. Honestly, the police force in America isn't that corrupt. There may have been some racial profiling on part of the police, because, let's face it, it's the south and Trayvon was black. Acting like that doesn't matter would be ignorance on my behalf, but I have my doubts that Trayvon would be dead right now had Zimmerman pulled back. Trayvon's actions as relayed by Zimmerman did not require immediate action. Zimmerman was not actually breaking into a house. Nothing actually needed to be done. Essentially, Zimmerman convicted Trayvon of a crime he didn't commit based on his own circumstantial evidence, and proceeded to take actions that lead to the death of Trayvon Martin.
> 
> I assure you, the average policeman likely could have gotten through that without somebody bleeding to death on the side of the road courtesy of a bullet to the heart.


Are you sure you know exactly the circumstances that went down, or are you just taking everything the media tells you at face value? I know the human condition. I know police officers command a great respect of the public. I have personally seen corruption within not only our justice system, but also law enforcement. With that, why do you think I question those in places of power? Do you deny that a person is prone to mistakes? Officers are people. Officers get into heated situations and they are authorized to use weapons with very little consequences. Mr. Zimmerman is an average person, who likely could have made a career of law enforcement if he had chose.


Also, what do you know about me and my experiences. I've already pointed out that I really couldn't give two flying flips about the decision that has been made today. I've pointed out that humans are not infallible. If you know everything about the case, why were you not called to be on the jury? Listen buddy, the world is not black and white. Racial profiling is just as rampant in southern police forces. You're kidding yourself if you think that an officer would have gone into the situation without being prepared to pull the trigger.

Qtis: An average person thinks twice about pulling a firearm. As can be seen here, the repercussions are insanely huge, and potentially life shattering. Heated situations or not, a police officer already commands a power that average people do not have. It is known as "the use of deadly force".

EDIT: Scratch the part about the racial profiling. I misread your post Nathan.


----------



## Nathan Drake (Jul 14, 2013)

Sterling said:


> Are you sure you know exactly the circumstances that went down, or are you just taking everything the media tells you at face value? I know the human condition. I know police officers command a great respect of the public. I have personally seen corruption within not only our justice system, but also law enforcement. With that, why do you think I question those in places of power? Do you deny that a person is prone to mistakes? Officers are people. Officers get into heated situations and they are authorized to use weapons with very little consequences. Mr. Zimmerman is an average person, who likely could have made a career of law enforcement if he had chose.
> 
> 
> Also, what do you know about me and my experiences. I've already pointed out that I really couldn't give two flying flips about the decision that has been made today. I've pointed out that humans are not infallible. If you know everything about the case, why were you not called to be on the jury? Listen buddy, the world is not black and white. Racial profiling is just as rampant in southern police forces. You're kidding yourself if you think that an officer would have gone into the situation without being prepared to pull the trigger.


You essentially said, and I'm not even putting words in your mouth here, that if a policeman had shown up on the scene, Trayvon still would have died and potentially others as well. Sorry, but if you don't expect that view to be called into question, then I'm a bit surprised because it's a view that screams "all I know about the police is what the media has reported to me". All because the media only reports the killings and such by police does not mean that's all they do. In fact, that's largely a minority. The average police office is far more civil than you're giving credit for. If Zimmerman had not gotten involved, I assure you, Trayvon would still be alive today.


----------



## smile72 (Jul 14, 2013)

Qtis said:


> EDIT: But alas, Zimmerman will probably have quite a hard time now till the end of his days. He'll have one hell of a time trying to find a proper job and actually get on with his life. He will end up watching his back and probably live with the consequences of what he has done. Regardless of it being legal or illegal.


 
Meh...that's life actions have consequences...anything anyone now a days does will affect their future and their career. He's not exempt.


----------



## Qtis (Jul 14, 2013)

Sterling: Indeed, I'm probably not the best person to comment, as I'm not that familiar with the US legal system and how it regards to the use of deadly force. In Finland there will always be an investigation if/when a gun is fired by the police. Especially if someone has been shot and killed or the situation is odd in one way or the other (imaginative situation: 1 old granny, movement impaired and in a wheelchair, gets shot by 2 officers). The use of the least amount of force needed is very strict and reduces unnecessary conflicts on both side. It is very rare for a police officer or a potential criminal to be shot in a situation.

A tragedy for all sides. Debates can and will follow in regards to what can be seen as justice.


----------



## Sterling (Jul 14, 2013)

Nathan Drake said:


> You essentially said, and I'm not even putting words in your mouth here, that if a policeman had shown up on the scene, Trayvon still would have died and potentially others as well. Sorry, but if you don't expect that view to be called into question, then I'm a bit surprised because it's a view that screams "all I know about the police is what the media has reported to me". All because the media only reports the killings and such by police does not mean that's all they do. In fact, that's largely a minority. The average police office is far more civil than you're giving credit for. If Zimmerman had not gotten involved, I assure you, Trayvon would still be alive today.


You do yourself no credit. You cast criticism at me for one extreme, then you yourself go to the other end. What guarantee do you have that a police force in the south would have treated Travon civilly? You yourself just said you had concerns with racial profiling. How can you assure me that he'd be alive with the concerns you've already said you had.

Now you're calling my integrity into question. You're skirting the issues by attacking me instead of countering what I countered you with. In fact you've even attempted to mirror my tactics. 

Look dude, it's fine if you call my views into question. But don't just sit there and use the debate equivalent of a handwave to debunk my arguments. You've already said you thought the police might have done some racial profiling. Yet you have unshakable confidence that these "racist" southern officers would have taken care of it without bloodshed. Even while knowing that there are frequent reported incidents of officers abusing their powers. Yeah, real confidence booster you are.


----------



## Nathan Drake (Jul 14, 2013)

Sterling said:


> You do yourself no credit. You cast criticism at me for one extreme, then you yourself go to the other end. What guarantee do you have that a police force in the south would have treated Travon civilly? You yourself just said you had concerns with racial profiling. How can you assure me that he'd be alive with the concerns you've already said you had.
> 
> Now you're calling my integrity into question. You're skirting the issues by attacking me instead of countering what I countered you with. In fact you've even attempted to mirror my tactics.
> 
> Look dude, it's fine if you call my views into question. But don't just sit there and use the debate equivalent of a handwave to debunk my arguments. You've already said you thought the police might have done some racial profiling. Yet you have unshakable confidence that these "racist" southern officers would have taken care of it without bloodshed. Even while knowing that there are frequent reported incidents of officers abusing their powers. Yeah, real confidence booster you are.


I'm sorry, but them not killing the person isn't another extreme. I don't know what experience you may have had with the police in the past, but it has left you with a very uncommon, skewed view of the American police force in general. Even people I know who don't respect the police in the slightest don't assume that they'll open fire, you know, just 'cause.

I mean, what guarantee do I have that they wouldn't have shot him in cold blood? How about the fact that the unprovoked murder of black individuals by police isn't a common occurrence? Honestly, you're essentially dehumanizing police officers, calling them murderous monsters that would kill because somebody was acting suspicious, without a weapon, all because they were black and in the south. Believe it or not, racial profiling does not mean shoot on sight.


----------



## Black-Ice (Jul 14, 2013)

So if I wanted some skittles.
Got followed and confronted.
Shot and Killed, 

My killer will walk free coz in America
Guns > Black boys

Gotta hate America


----------



## Deleted member 319809 (Jul 14, 2013)

To those who think it was
* racial profiling, or
* political pressure, or
* that the death of a child is a tragedy that is sufficient cause for, and must necessarily result in, a human being found to blame and punish,

please read the prosecution and the defense's evidence first.

In some places other than GBATemp, I have also heard and read things like "It is sickening that killing black people is now legal in the US", "seriously? how was that dick found not guilty?", which I have ignored because they completely miss the point. It has not been made legal to kill black people; this is not the precedent that has been set!

The media appears to have instilled emotions into people all over the world (some of the comments prejudiced against Zimmerman written above came from the UK and Canada!), portraying Zimmerman as a possible criminal. Naturally, there is no "possible criminals" for some people, only "dangerous criminals which we must immediately protect ourselves from", and each story fuels that belief.

Keep it rational or it'll turn into a flame war. _(Me? I hold no opinion until I have fully read the evidence. I have no emotional link to this case at all.)_


----------



## 2ndApex (Jul 14, 2013)

I've been seeing lot of kneejerk reactions and anger on the internet as expected but I've also been seeing a surprising amount of rationality as well. 

What people have to realize is that Zimmerman isn't just walking zippy-doo-dah out of the court as if nothing ever happened. Regardless of what may or may not have happened and whether or not his actions were justified he's walking out of that courtroom now with the entire country knowing his name and the majority of them really angry at him. He's also going to have to live with horrifying memory of killing a teenage kid, and that's fucking horrifying no matter what happened that day.


----------



## Black-Ice (Jul 14, 2013)

2ndApex said:


> He's also going to have to live with horrifying memory of killing a teenage kid, and that's fucking horrifying no matter what happened that day.


 
For some dirt-bags.
That really isnt a problem at all.


----------



## Forstride (Jul 14, 2013)

People need to stop talking about this when they most likely haven't even heard about it until the verdict was reached (Yes, that's an exaggeration, although it's probably valid in a lot of cases).

Both sides of the case are biased, and it's just stupid.  Like, I'm sure Miley Cyrus knows what she's talking about.

Unless you actually give a damn about law and know what you're talking about (Which 99% of people on GBAtemp don't), stop getting involved and making yourself look like a moron.


----------



## Nathan Drake (Jul 14, 2013)

Forstride said:


> People need to stop talking about this when they most likely haven't even heard about it until the verdict was reached (Yes, that's an exaggeration, although it's probably valid in a lot of cases).
> 
> Both sides of the case are biased, and it's just stupid. Like, I'm sure Miley Cyrus knows what she's talking about.
> 
> Unless you actually give a damn about law and know what you're talking about (Which 99% of people on GBAtemp don't), stop getting involved and making yourself look like a moron.


The only problem is that most of this case wasn't really complex law. It was mostly "do we have conclusive evidence that he's guilty? no? not guilty." And quite frankly, I can't argue the fact that that's how US justice works. I don't think it's necessarily the best system on the planet, since, if the verdict ever ends up being shown to be wrong, there is no way to retry him because Constitutional laws, but it is what it is. There is a lot of maybes where the lead up is concerned due to only having Zimmerman's testimony as even remotely useable evidence, but witness testimony, especially from the defendant himself, isn't considered to be the most reliable testimony you can get when there's no way to verify via another person or physical evidence.

Essentially, from the start, with proper investigation, this case never would have happened since there was not enough evidence to convict Zimmerman. When all you know for sure is that some point, Zimmerman was apparently attacked and shot/killed Trayvon Martin, it doesn't leave a lot of room for interpretation of events within a reasonable spectrum by legal standards. Although from a third party standpoint, we can look at the stories presented and see the potential holes, the stupid decisions made, and decide that it isn't very clear cut, there is no way to take that to court and turn it into a strong, valid legal argument.

What people need to realize is that you can't let yourself get pulled into the right and left wing media outlets and believe it was about race. Both sides of the political spectrum used this case to get gears spinning, debates going, and people angry. One would almost think the media is trying to start a race war. Just try to ignore it. Even if it was about race for some reason and Zimmerman shot Trayvon because he was black, do you know what proof we have? Nothing. Nothing at all. What proof do we have that Zimmerman was declared "not guilty" because Trayvon was black and it was the southern US? None. Don't believe it's about race.

Now, after thinking for a little while, I think this does pull into question the state of self-defense laws in the US, and at what point we should say that killing another person is ok in the name of self-defense when we can't wholly prove that it was actually self-defense to begin with. When there are too many questions left over like there are with this case, I have to wonder exactly what kind of repercussions this could have. I honestly don't feel we should make do with a witness testimony just because they could pass a lie detector test all because that's the best we can get. If that's ultimately the best a case can do, it's a joke that it went to court to begin with.

tl;dr of the primary reply to your post: One hardly needs to be a legal expert to create a valid interpretation of the given facts. All because a court reached a decision doesn't mean it was necessarily a correct one either. The US justice system has incarcerated many an innocent man in the past, and has let go people who turned out to be guilty later after nothing could be done about it. With that said, every court decision regarding a person can be viewed in a critical fashion when the evidence isn't there to make it clear cut, whether we're law experts or not.


----------



## Black-Ice (Jul 14, 2013)

Forstride said:


> stop getting involved


 
don't talk about things on a forum < Forum


----------



## Nathan Drake (Jul 14, 2013)

Black-Ice said:


> dont talk about things on a forum < Forum


To be fair, you're taking the media bait and acting like this is about race, which it isn't. About the only piece of knowledge regarding this case that you've put forth is that you know it was a black person that was killed by a white/Hispanic person, and that a gun was involved. You have shown literally no understanding or knowledge of what lead to the final decision.

Don't be that guy. Please show that you know the details of how the decision was reached. Otherwise you just come across as "they let him go because he killed a black kid, and America hates black people" which is just ignorant.


----------



## Black-Ice (Jul 14, 2013)

Nathan Drake said:


> To be fair, you're taking the media bait and acting like this is about race, which it isn't. About the only piece of knowledge regarding this case that you've put forth is that you know it was a black person that was killed by a white/Hispanic person, and that a gun was involved. You have shown literally no understanding or knowledge of what lead to the final decision.
> 
> Don't be that guy. Please show that you know the details of how the decision was reached. Otherwise you just come across as "they let him go because he killed a black kid, and America hates black people" which is just ignorant.


 
I know what I know.
And i kinda have no care for if he was a neighbourhood watchman or any of that crap, you can't follow a guy, confront him, and then use a firearm on him, then walk away like its calm.
That's unethical. It was overkill at the very least. Trayvon was unarmed, stalked and killed. His defence were a load of crap and the jury were ridiculous. And i think there's possibility for corruption within the Jury.

Even an Ignorant person can figure out that case was a load of crap. So i dont get why people are acting like its so complex. There are underlying issues but the main facts are simple. That man walking not guilty is a crime within a crime.


And i'm not really on the race train, but I know if he was a white boy this wouldnt have happened. That's my opinion


----------



## emigre (Jul 14, 2013)

I'm reading this and I'm just left thinking America really need to rethink their relationship with guns.


----------



## Psionic Roshambo (Jul 14, 2013)

Nathan Drake said:


> The only problem is that most of this case wasn't really complex law. It was mostly "do we have conclusive evidence that he's guilty? no? not guilty." And quite frankly, I can't argue the fact that that's how US justice works. I don't think it's necessarily the best system on the planet, since, if the verdict ever ends up being shown to be wrong, there is no way to retry him because Constitutional laws, but it is what it is. There is a lot of maybes where the lead up is concerned due to only having Zimmerman's testimony as even remotely useable evidence, but witness testimony, especially from the defendant himself, isn't considered to be the most reliable testimony you can get when there's no way to verify via another person or physical evidence.
> 
> Essentially, from the start, with proper investigation, this case never would have happened since there was not enough evidence to convict Zimmerman. When all you know for sure is that some point, Zimmerman was apparently attacked and shot/killed Trayvon Martin, it doesn't leave a lot of room for interpretation of events within a reasonable spectrum by legal standards. Although from a third party standpoint, we can look at the stories presented and see the potential holes, the stupid decisions made, and decide that it isn't very clear cut, there is no way to take that to court and turn it into a strong, valid legal argument.
> 
> ...


 
After reading over the actual facts about the case in respect to what happened in probably something that took all of 5 seconds to happen.... I honestly cannot say I would convict the guy either.  

The whole race thing seems odd to me since the guy who shot the Black guy was Hispanic so unless there is something I am completely unaware of in that respect? I mean do Hispanics dislike Black people? 

I do find the whole case to be horrible and in many ways avoidable but I just couldn't convict the guy of murder. Murder requires motive, intent and a few other things. The lesser charge of manslaughter might have stuck with me but even that would leave me wondering if he really was just defending himself in that moment, so that's that whole shadow of a doubt thing. 




As a super side note some people have been talking about: I do live here in Florida and if the whole "Southern Racist" thing was true, they would have convicted the guy and brought old Sparky out of retirement for being Hispanic, and called it two birds with one stone.


----------



## Black-Ice (Jul 14, 2013)

Psionic Roshambo said:


> Murder requires motive, intent and a few other things. .


 
So as long as I have no motive or intent. I can go on a killing spree?


----------



## Forstride (Jul 14, 2013)

Black-Ice said:


> So as long as I have no motive or intent. I can go on a killing spree?


Sure, but you'll be charged with manslaughter, or something worse.  He's talking about the legal definition of murder.


----------



## Psionic Roshambo (Jul 14, 2013)

Black-Ice said:


> So as long as I have no motive or intent. I can go on a killing spree?


 

Even random killing spree's have a motive and intent, usually it is a political message or a psychological issue causing the individual to act that way. 

Not that your hypothetical quandary has anything to do with this story.

In answer to your question no you cannot go on a killing spree and stop asking!


----------



## Black-Ice (Jul 14, 2013)

Forstride said:


> Sure, but you'll be charged with manslaughter, or something worse. He's talking about the legal definition of murder.


 
Will I? 
Coz your countries flexible gun laws dont really convince me right now.
I have the right to bare arms against a random unarmed citizen coz i think he's dangerous. Right? what amendment is that now....
That's what I've learnt from Mr George Zimmerman and America today.


----------



## Nathan Drake (Jul 14, 2013)

Black-Ice said:


> I know what I know.
> And i kinda have no care for if he was a neighbourhood watchman or any of that crap, you can't follow a guy, confront him, and then use a firearm on him, then walk away like its calm.
> That's unethical. It was overkill at the very least. Trayvon was unarmed, stalked and killed. His defence were a load of crap and the jury were ridiculous. And i think there's possibility for corruption within the Jury.
> 
> ...


I could poke holes in all the little convenient bits of Zimmerman's testimony all day and totally dismantle it to the point where you'd have to wonder how much thought went into coming up with some of it (seriously, just read his testimony - something is so, so far off about it), but in the end, US law requires more than just a "that's fucking ridiculous" in order to convict somebody. If the testimony is at least plausible, which I guess Zimmerman's was considered passable, it really sets things up to fail.

US law has a bad habit of being convoluted, with the "guilty beyond all reasonable doubt" thing really throwing a wrench in the works, as it sometimes lets guilty men go free, and at other times convicts an innocent man just because somebody needs to take the blame. Go back to Casey Anthony, and go back further to OJ Simpson, and you find two notable examples of what many would consider to be the guilty going free. To this day, people make jokes about OJ Simpson being a murderer, because frankly, no matter what the court says, once the majority of the public has an opinion, they don't care what the court said anymore.


----------



## Black-Ice (Jul 14, 2013)

Nathan Drake said:


> US law requires more than just a "that's fucking ridiculous" in order to convict somebody. If the testimony is at least plausible, which I guess Zimmerman's was considered passable, it really sets things up to fail.


 
That's the problem, I could lie out my ass but as long as its "plausible" in the eyes of a few people in a room. I can walk free from anything.
That's the logic that courtrooms in dictatorships carry. 
Its not right.

So i always laugh when I see USA digging up other countries's legal systems and procedures when their own leaves much to be considered.


----------



## Psionic Roshambo (Jul 14, 2013)

Black-Ice said:


> Will I?
> Coz your countries flexible gun laws dont really convince me right now.
> I have the right to bare arms against a random unarmed citizen coz i think he's dangerous. Right? what amendment is that now....
> That's what I've learnt from Mr George Zimmerman and America today.


 

Thinking some one is dangerous is a lot different than being physically assaulted.


----------



## Black-Ice (Jul 14, 2013)

Psionic Roshambo said:


> Thinking some one is dangerous is a lot different than being physically assaulted.


 
George stalked him, George confronted him. George created the situation. George used overkill. George killed him. 
Trayvon was followed, Trayvon was confronted, Trayvon was dragged into a situation, Trayvon had a gun pulled on him, Trayvon tried to defend himself against a man and a gun and died.

So tell me how George was "physically assaulted"


----------



## blinkzane (Jul 14, 2013)

this case was set to be determined by the jury, that's how cases like this work unfortunately. in self defense cases it always depends on the opinions of the ones convicting the suspect. In my opinion, I disagree, Zimmerman provoked the fight which lead to violence, and he was armed while the teen was left unarmed. Zimmerman also had previous police training but was denied a position, he knew he could handle the situation so he did, but if he knew proper protocol, you always wait for backup unless it's an emergency situation.

this kid was doing nothing wrong, he had no reason to get out of his vehicle. there were no witnesses, therefore no one else can testify to continue on what was believed to be a murder, therefore the court can only do so much. I still believe the guy is guilty just as much as Micheal Jackson is a pedophile, and OJ killing his wife. But we can only push our legal system so far.
obviously that's my opinion and how I feel about it, no matter how you pick at it, it will stand that way.


----------



## Psionic Roshambo (Jul 14, 2013)

Black-Ice said:


> That's the problem, I could lie out my ass but as long as its "plausible" in the eyes of a few people in a room. I can walk free from anything.
> That's the logic that courtrooms in dictatorships carry.
> Its not right.
> 
> So i always laugh when I see USA digging up other countries's legal systems and procedures when their own leaves much to be considered.


 

Happens in every court room in every country, this is why evidence is so important. 

To go the other way is to convict people on random accusations, we used to do that here. Back during the Salem witch hunts all you had to do was accuse some person of being in league with the devil and have them burned at the stake. Simple clean and always right? 

The US justice system is far from perfect but show me one that is better. That's going to be a tough order to fill, please don't mind me if I don't hold my breath waiting.


----------



## Black-Ice (Jul 14, 2013)

Psionic Roshambo said:


> To go the other way is to convict people on random accusations,


 
Implying America isnt one of the biggest offenders of this.



Psionic Roshambo said:


> Happens in every court room in every country, this is why evidence is so important.


 
No. It doesn't



Psionic Roshambo said:


> The US justice system is far from perfect but show me one that is better. That's going to be a tough order to fill, please don't mind me if I don't hold my breath waiting.


 
Everywhere that isnt war-torn, China or North Korea.


----------



## Psionic Roshambo (Jul 14, 2013)

Black-Ice said:


> George stalked him, George confronted him. George created the situation. George used overkill. George killed him.
> Trayvon was followed, Trayvon was confronted, Trayvon was dragged into a situation, Trayvon had a gun pulled on him, Trayvon tried to defend himself against a man and a gun and died.
> 
> So tell me how George was "physically assaulted"


 

How did Trayvon have wounds on his knuckles? Was he punching George while being shot? That's one tough SOB if that is how it went down. 

More reality based is that the fight wounds happened before the shooting part.

When you are unarmed you do not defend yourself from a man with a gun, this is not even a joke. The police will tell you this if your being robbed.... Give them what they want and don't fight back. 

Trayvon could have kept on going too, its not like he was shot in the back while running away...


----------



## Psionic Roshambo (Jul 14, 2013)

Black-Ice said:


> China or North Korea.


 
This is horrible, do you even know what China does to it's prisoners or who they convict for what? 

Hint: I do, I have friends from China.... so please don't say any more about China's legal system unless you know what your talking about...


----------



## Black-Ice (Jul 14, 2013)

Psionic Roshambo said:


> How did Trayvon have wounds on his knuckles? Was he punching George while being shot? That's one tough SOB if that is how it went down.
> 
> More reality based is that the fight wounds happened before the shooting part.
> 
> ...


 
I was waiting for someone to say that.

Ok. How many times have you bruised your knuckles when fucking punching someone?
Implying he had to fight back properly anyway.
Implying if you have a gun you'll let someone bruise their knuckles on you
And if his knuckles were so bruised, why the hell is Georges face all nice and smooth. Loreal coz he's worth it?
No.
The bruised knuckles thing is a load of crap.

George wasnt a robber. He was an armed assailant.
And are you saying you'll give someone your skittles if they stalked and confronted you with a gun?
If I confronted you with a gun you wouldnt try to help yourself? You would defy genetic human nature and curl up so i can shoot you?
Please.

You're pulling stuff from the air now.



Psionic Roshambo said:


> This is horrible, do you even know what China does to it's prisoners or who they convict for what?
> 
> Hint: I do, I have friends from China.... so please don't say any more about China's legal system unless you know what your talking about...


 
You said list places with worst legal systems.
I said places that ARENT war-torn, china or north korea.
Dont reply until you know what your talking about


----------



## Veho (Jul 14, 2013)

The sooner the entire world is positively _shingled_ with cameras, the better.


----------



## Psionic Roshambo (Jul 14, 2013)

Black-Ice said:


> You said list places with worst legal systems.
> I said places that ARENT war-torn, china or north korea.
> Dont reply until you know what your talking about


 

China and North Korea are not war torn... Where do you get you information from?

I think you should take your own advice listed in the last line of your post.

Edit: 

"George wasnt a robber. He was an armed assailant.
And are you saying you'll give someone your skittles if they stalked and confronted you with a gun?
If I confronted you with a gun you wouldnt try to help yourself? You would defy genetic human nature and curl up so i can shoot you?
Please." 

You make no sense here, please clarify are you talking about some one assaulting some one or are you trying to talk about being robbed for skittles and being tough about it? 

Would make more sense if you would stick to one point or another, but I am not going to try and guess what one your going to say you mean.


----------



## blinkzane (Jul 14, 2013)

Psionic Roshambo said:


> China and North Korea are not war torn... Where do you get you information from?
> 
> I think you should take your own advice listed in the last line of your post.


HE DID NOT SAY WAR TORN, DONT YOU GET IT? HE SAYS PLACES THAT AREN'T WAR TORN....COMMA....CHINA....COMMA....OR NORTH KOREA, THE COMMA SEPERATES THE FACTS.

rant over.

EDIT: okay so he didnt use a comma on the last part, but please, its common sense to figure out.


----------



## Black-Ice (Jul 14, 2013)

Psionic Roshambo said:


> China and North Korea are not war torn... Where do you get you information from?
> 
> I think you should take your own advice listed in the last line of your post.


 
Can you read?
Let me put in words even a 12 year can understand

Places that have better legal systems than america is basically everywhere that is not:
War Torn
China
North Korea

If you satisfy any of the 3 conditions above, you have a worst legal system than America.

Now we've established that you cant read and your argument is so flawed you've resorted to trying to correct grammar. The biggest sign of a lost war on a forum.
Even worst that you failed at that.

So, how else do you wish to embarrass yourself


----------



## Nathan Drake (Jul 14, 2013)

Veho said:


> The sooner the entire world is positively _shingled_ with cameras, the better.


The NSA is working on the US. The rest of the world just needs to follow suit already.


----------



## Psionic Roshambo (Jul 14, 2013)

Black-Ice said:


> Can you read?
> Let me put in words even a 12 year can understand
> 
> Places that have better legal systems than america is basically everywhere that is not:
> ...


 

Well lets add some more exceptions to that rule than shall we, since we have cleared up what you meant to say. 

Mexico, if you have enough money you can do what ever you want. South America pretty much the same thing all the way around.  
War torn rules out most of Africa... 

Down two continent and barely had to even think about it, hell half of Europe is considered war torn at any given moment. 

Asia well you covered China and that alone is like two thirds of the worlds population.

So yeah the US system is better than China's and that's most of the world already so you said that most of the worlds legal system is better than the US's and yet you also say that China's is worse.


----------



## Veho (Jul 14, 2013)

Nathan Drake said:


> The NSA is working on the US. The rest of the world just needs to follow suit already.


The NSA is only monitoring the already existing  networks. _Not good enough._


----------



## blinkzane (Jul 14, 2013)

it's argue about continents and their legal systems day here in the George Zimmerman case discussions.


----------



## Black-Ice (Jul 14, 2013)

Psionic Roshambo said:


> Mexico, if you have enough money you can do what ever you want. South America pretty much the same thing all the way around.
> War torn rules out most of Africa...


 
Same with your country bro, except sometimes you dont even need money. So no.



Psionic Roshambo said:


> Down two continent and barely had to even think about it, hell half of Europe is considered war torn at any given moment.


 
What an incredibly ignorant and wrong thing to say. And the whole of Europe do have better Legal systems than US, laughable comment that.



Psionic Roshambo said:


> Asia well you covered China and that alone is like two thirds of the worlds population.
> .


 
Wow. 
1/8 would be more accurate i believe. But then again why do I expect accuracy from you.



Psionic Roshambo said:


> So yeah the US system is better than China's and that's most of the world already so you said that most of the worlds legal system is better than the US's and yet you also say that China's is worse.


 
Go home Psionic. You're under the influence.


----------



## BORTZ (Jul 14, 2013)

And today I learned that everyone on GBAtemp is an aspiring lawyer


----------



## blinkzane (Jul 14, 2013)

BortzANATOR said:


> And today I learned that everyone on GBAtemp is an aspiring lawyer


 
actually I'm in law school!
no jkjk I would never do that, too much stress. I like to live a bit longer.


----------



## Black-Ice (Jul 14, 2013)

BortzANATOR said:


> And today I learned that everyone on GBAtemp is an aspiring lawyer


 
Maybe, but not in US courts, Nope


----------



## air2004 (Jul 14, 2013)

Taleweaver said:


> Okay...this is a first thing I hear of this case. If I understand things correctly...
> 
> With this sort of law existing: _Under the state's controversial "stand your ground" law, the use of lethal force is allowed if a person feels seriously under threat._


 You are aware that he was claiming self defense right ? He was not using the stand your ground law.



Nathan Drake said:


> Assuming a person may be violent towards all authority because they didn't recognize some random individual as a person of authority is flawed logic. I'm sure if Trayvon had a history of noncompliance with authority, that would be relevant, but with no such information given, it can be assumed he would have cooperated with the proper authority figures. Many people don't like dealing with the police, but they're smart enough to just talk to them and see what questions they may have if they know they aren't in the wrong.
> 
> 
> You seem to be operating under the assumption that Zimmerman's testimony was absolutely, 100% correct, and that the conflict was entirely the fault of Trayvon. I have a hard time taking you seriously when you say that Trayvon could have just gone home and removed himself from the situation, because I doubt when he left his house, he expected a random individual to decide they were the law. The evidence was shoddy at best, and acting as if Zimmerman told the whole truth is a little too presumptuous for my tastes.
> ...


I suppose you over looked this little tidbit about mr. martin


*The teen was suspended from school three times*
*He was on suspension when he was shot in February, after officials caught him with a 'marijuana pipe' and a baggie with drug residue*
*Trayvon was kicked out of school in October for graffiti after he was allegedly caught with a 'burglary tool' and a bag full of women's jewelry*
*Officials also suspended him once for skipping school and tardiness*


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2120504/Trayvon-Martin-case-He-suspended-times-caught-burglary-tool.html#ixzz2Z1PS974B
So yeah he seems to have a problem with authority .


----------



## Psionic Roshambo (Jul 14, 2013)

Black-Ice said:


> 1/8 would be more accurate i believe.


 
But we can agree that it is a significantly large portion of the worlds populace? 

but feel free to carry on with the insults they do make you feel good right?


----------



## Zerousen (Jul 14, 2013)

Now, I don't know all too much about all of this, never did care, but I think that none of this would have been an issue if Martin didn't attack Zimmerman in the first place, then Zimmerman wouldn't have had to resort to "self defense".


----------



## Black-Ice (Jul 14, 2013)

air2004 said:


> -snip-


 
And George Zimmerman knew all about this and used it as part of his official police judgement to stalk, follow and murder this boy in a justice filled attack to rid the world of this troublesome youth,
Nice evidence.
Nice irrelevant evidence.


----------



## air2004 (Jul 14, 2013)

Black-Ice said:


> And George Zimmerman knew all about this and used it as part of his official police judgement to stalk, follow and murder this boy in a justice filled attack to rid the world of this troublesome youth,
> Nice evidence.
> Nice irrelevant evidence.


Its plenty relevant , it leads credence to the fact that this 17yr is not the angle you all want to make him out to be. If he didn't attack Zimmerman , he would still be alive today.


----------



## Black-Ice (Jul 14, 2013)

air2004 said:


> Its plenty relevant , it leads credence to the fact that this 17yr is not the angle you all want to make him out to be. If he didn't attack Zimmerman , he would still be alive today.


If US had good gun laws, and didnt defend madmen with guns he would be alive today

He didnt attack Zimmerman.
He was stalked, confronted and murdered.
Also, i dont think you understand how trials work.

Zimmerman knew nothing of any of that, it formed no part of his decision to attack Trayvon. Therefore that makes it irrelevant evidence and would be brushed aside in any competent court.
And even if he did, its still not reasonable to kill a boy over it.
So thanks again for providing slander and dirt against Trayvons name, coz thats all what you've said is.


----------



## DSGamer64 (Jul 14, 2013)

Nathan Drake said:


> This, completely. Self-defense or not, there are many ways to subdue a person that is not killing them, and quite frankly, if you can reach for your gun and aim, you can damn well take the time to not deliver a fatal shot. Self-defense or no, a limit must come to what is considered acceptable. With a total lack of concrete evidence and facts, Zimmerman should have at the least been revoked legal gun privileges and spent some time in prison for manslaughter. Unfortunately, this case, like everything else in the US that's controversial, was turned into a political battle where the actual crime itself just acts as the base for people to fight for being "right" once more. Now, guilty or no, Zimmerman is walking free and will have his gun back in his hands.
> 
> At the absolute least, with such confusion of the facts until the very end, he should not have been legally allowed to own a firearm anymore. If you can't control yourself even in a situation where someone may be hitting you, you're someone who doesn't need to own a gun. Quite frankly, he is the very definition of what I believe should not qualify as reason for gun ownership in the US.


 

Easier to shoot someone in the leg rather then the chest. Sure, he would go to prison for assault, but a kid wouldn't be dead from it.


----------



## air2004 (Jul 14, 2013)

Black-Ice said:


> If US had good gun laws, and didnt defend madmen with guns he would be alive today
> 
> He didnt attack Zimmerman.
> He was stalked, confronted and murdered.
> ...


 
I never said Zimmerman knew anything about it , all I was saying is this man is not the angle you pretend him to be.
Not really sure how he stalked him either , where did you get that idea from ?
Its not slander if its true. Emphasis on the TRUE.


----------



## SickPuppy (Jul 14, 2013)

Black-Ice said:


> If US had good gun laws, and didnt defend madmen with guns he would be alive today


 
The US does have good gun laws. In the US we have the Bill of Rights, and the Constitution of the United States of America. That's all we need. In America, everybody is allowed a defence, even madmen, gun or no gun. And, our justice system works the way it should, just ask O.J. Simpson.


----------



## Psionic Roshambo (Jul 14, 2013)

air[quote="Black-Ice said:


> If US had good gun laws, and didn't defend madmen with guns he would be alive today


 
Don't play the if game here, too many to go into. Cases are about facts not speculations.



air[quote="Black-Ice said:


> He didn't attack Zimmerman.
> He was stalked, confronted and murdered.
> Also, i don't think you understand how trials work.


 
You where there? Why didn't you testify!!! I am just pulling your leg... This is the difference between evidence and opinion or facts and speculation.

You are a fantastic example of human nature's ability to fill in the blanks when it is missing information sometimes correctly sometimes not so much.



air[quote="Black-Ice said:


> Zimmerman knew nothing of any of that, it formed no part of his decision to attack Trayvon. Therefore that makes it irrelevant evidence and would be brushed aside in any competent court.
> And even if he did, its still not reasonable to kill a boy over it.
> So thanks again for providing slander and dirt against Trayvons name, coz thats all what you've said is.


 

Your right he didn't know anything about Trayvon's past, but Trayvon's past still happened. Those documents are real and are not slander in any form. Slander requires lies to perform.

So no Zimmerman didn't know what he was dealing with, and neither did Trayvon apparently.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slander


----------



## Gahars (Jul 14, 2013)

Nathan Drake said:


> You seem to be operating under the assumption that Zimmerman's testimony was absolutely, 100% correct, and that the conflict was entirely the fault of Trayvon. I have a hard time taking you seriously when you say that Trayvon could have just gone home and removed himself from the situation, because I doubt when he left his house, he expected a random individual to decide they were the law. The evidence was shoddy at best, and acting as if Zimmerman told the whole truth is a little too presumptuous for my tastes.


 
Not necessarily; of course there may be inaccuracies in his description of events. However, the fact remains that all the evidence best supports the Defense's account - from Trayvon Martin's recorded call indicating that he went back to confront Zimmerman, the bruising on Martin's knuckles, the injuries to Zimmerman, etc. 

I never said the fault of the conflict lies on Trayvon Martin alone. My point is that saying that it was entirely Zimmerman's fault was absolutely wrongheaded. Both men made conscious decisions that night that led to this fatal outcome - Martin was just as much of an actor here as Zimmerman.

We could quibble about the exact details of Zimmerman's account, but in the end, the fact remains that it is the account best verified by the evidence at our disposal and that the prosecution (which, again, has to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt) was completely unable to prove otherwise. A "Not Guilty" verdict is the only just ruling possible.

I do want to take a look at this part in particular, though.



> I have a hard time taking you seriously when you say that Trayvon could have just gone home and removed himself from the situation, because I doubt when he left his house, he expected a random individual to decide they were the law.


 
That's completely irrelevant. Trayvon Martin had the opportunity to leave and go home (or really, go anywhere else). Zimmerman did not pursue him. He had four minutes. Instead, he deliberately chose to confront Zimmerman again.

It doesn't matter if Martin was irritated by Zimmerman's suspicions; that doesn't mean he wasn't able capable of making a rational judgement.



Nathan Drake said:


> If you're going to recognize Zimmerman's testimony as absolute fact, then we have little to discuss.


 
 If you're going to ignore the plethora of evidence and instead play mental gymnastics to justify your irrational position, then yeah, of course there's nothing to talk about. It's obvious that you were already convinced of Zimmerman's guilt going in - now you're trying to justify it however you can. Of course you're going to ignore anything that disagrees with the viewpoint you've already constructed for yourself.

Believe me, I was on the Martin's family side at the beginning. However, I watched the trial with an open mind and it became absolutely clear to me that the Defense had the better case, the one actually backed by the evidence. It's clear that the popular account, that Martin was an innocent child stalked and shot down by a depraved vigilante, was grossly distorted. I'd advise you to try and examine this with an open mind as well.

I applaud the jury for looking past the charged, emotional rhetoric surrounding this case and making a judgement based on the facts and facts alone.


----------



## Gahars (Jul 14, 2013)

Thanatos Telos said:


> The problem is, the guy could've shot him in the knee or something. Would it have crippled the kid? Maybe. Would it have killed him? Hell no. My take is that the problem here is that a life was extinguished without due cause. (Note: I'm an Arab-American (Born and raised here) with caucasian skin, so I'm as neutral as it probably gets on this topic.)


 

I'd like to quote one of my previous posts...



Gahars said:


> It's easy to say that Zimmerman should've found another way, but it's sort of hard to maintain control of a fight when you're in the heat of the moment and someone is pounding the back of your head into the concrete.


 
Zimmerman fired blind as Martin assailed him. He didn't have the opportunity to aim down the barrel and deliberately aim his shot.


----------



## tronic307 (Jul 14, 2013)

O.J. Simpson, Casey Anthony, and now this. Isn't it about freakin' time to stop trying murder cases in the media?


----------



## blahkamehameha (Jul 14, 2013)

Thanatos Telos said:


> The problem is, the guy could've shot him in the knee or something. Would it have crippled the kid? Maybe. Would it have killed him? Hell no. My take is that the problem here is that a life was extinguished without due cause. (Note: I'm an Arab-American (Born and raised here) with caucasian skin, so I'm as neutral as it probably gets on this topic.)


 
Only problem with that is, it was a high pressure situation. Zimmerman was having his head slammed on the sidewalk, I doubt he was going to ask "good sir, can you please kindly hold your knee out for me to shoot."

He had to subdue Trayvon quickly, not calculate how to cripple Trayvon.


----------



## blahkamehameha (Jul 14, 2013)

tronic307 said:


> O.J. Simpson, Casey Anthony, and now this. Isn't it about freakin' time to stop trying murder cases in the media?


 
The media was rather biased in Trayvon's favor, so I'm not sure what you are saying.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Jul 14, 2013)

blahkamehameha said:


> The media was rather biased in Trayvon's favor, so I'm not sure what you are saying.


 

Any bias is bad in a murder case. All it does is put a spotlight on victims and perpetrators and create more hate and more worship.


----------



## Psionic Roshambo (Jul 14, 2013)

Gahars said:


> Zimmerman fired blind as Martin assailed him. He didn't have the opportunity to aim down the barrel and deliberately aim his shot.


 
You hear people say "shoot some one in the leg!" all of the time, most of the time it comes from some one who has never shot a gun.

Hard enough to shoot a target, moving target harder yet, target that is 2 feet in front of you actively attempting to harm/defend from you? Almost impossible and risks your own life in the process. (Never said Zimmerman is innocent/guilty only that there is not enough evidence to convict him.)


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Jul 14, 2013)

Black-Ice said:


> Wow.


 

Actually thanks for basically getting the best part of that post for a good Shit GBAtemp Says submission.

Genuine thanks not sarcastic thanks.


----------



## Black-Ice (Jul 14, 2013)

Psionic Roshambo said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slander


 
Similar to defamation is public disclosure of private facts, which arises where one person reveals information that is not of public concern, and the release of which would offend a reasonable person.

Also in that link you posted.
Yeah,



blahkamehameha said:


> Zimmerman was having his head slammed on the sidewalk, .


 
...what?


----------



## Sterling (Jul 14, 2013)

Black-Ice said:


> Similar to defamation is public disclosure of private facts, which arises where one person reveals information that is not of public concern, and the release of which would offend a reasonable person.
> 
> Also in that link you posted.
> Yeah,
> ...


Legal cases are different dude.


----------



## Black-Ice (Jul 14, 2013)

No, in the case of taking irrelevant information and trying to make it relevant.
No it isnt different


----------



## TheCasketMan (Jul 14, 2013)

I don't why this case got so much attention.  Zimmerman was defending himself. Period.
I would had done the samething if someone came and tried to kill me.


----------



## Psionic Roshambo (Jul 14, 2013)

Black-Ice said:


> Similar to defamation is public disclosure of private facts, which arises where one person reveals information that is not of public concern, and the release of which would offend a reasonable person.
> 
> Also in that link you posted.
> Yeah,


 
Similar but not good enough, or the prosecution would have used it to have the facts suppressed. They couldn't do this as those are public records and therefore have no expectation of privacy.


----------



## Black-Ice (Jul 14, 2013)

TheCasketMan said:


> I don't why this case got so much attention. Zimmerman was defending himself. Period.
> I would had done the samething if someone came and tried to kill me.


 

And now people are saying Trayvon tried to kill Zimmerman? Wow america. You crazy.

Right. Alot of you have been missing something important.
Including the people involved in the case.

Zimmerman followed and confronted Trayvon.
Therefore as the person who created the situation, his claim to "self defence" is void unless Trayvon brings out a weapon or something. And in any normal court and law system, self defence as a plea is void when the defendant goes beyond reasonable force. Shooting unarmed Trayvon isnt reasonable.

Of course that's how normal law logic is, i'm not sure about America anymore.


----------



## p1ngpong (Jul 14, 2013)

My understanding of this case is as follows.

A youth (Martin) with a known history of getting into fights, petty crimes (possibly burglary) and mild drug taking/dealing goes out in the pouring rain to purchase the ingredients of a codeine based drug/drink called "lean" (That what the skittles and soft drink were for). This drink is known to affect people psychologically, constant violent thoughts can result as well as brain damage and other psychological issues.

Zimmerman a neighborhood watch volunteer sees Martin and calls the police because he thinks Martin is acting suspiciously. He continues to follow him and at one point gets out of his car (he says to look at street signs to confirm his location to the police).

At around this point Martin approaches him asking him what "the fuck his problem is" Martin attacks him (it seems accepted that Martin threw the first punch) and they ended up on the ground, with Martin on top of Zimmerman. At this point Martin was using an MMA style ground and pound technique on Zimmerman where you beat the person you are on top of into submission. At this point Martin had no injuries other than bruised knuckles and Zimmerman had multiple injuries including a broken nose and injuries to his head.

At this point Zimmermans concealed carry gun which he had on him was revealed and Martin says "you are going to die tonight" or something to that affect. After a brief struggle Zimmerman fires a shot that damages Martins heart and results in his death, all of this happened while Martin was on top of Zimmerman beating him and as far as anyone can tell the gun only came into play once it was revealed and a struggle/Martin attempting to go for it took place.

If I was on the jury I would have probably agreed that Zimmerman was defending himself and found him not guilty myself.

When you remove the race and gun cards and just look at the evidence as it is laid out it makes the people playing either look extremely foolish and misguided.

edit: like I said this is just my understanding of things, not saying this is anywhere near100% full and complete


----------



## Thanatos Telos (Jul 14, 2013)

p1ngpong said:


> My understanding of this case is as follows.
> 
> A youth (Martin) with a known history of getting into fights, petty crimes (possibly burglary) and mild drug taking/dealing goes out in the pouring rain to purchase the ingredients of a codeine based drug/drink called "lean" (That what the skittles and soft drink were for). This drink is known to affect people psychologically, constant violent thoughts can result as well as brain damage and other psychological issues.
> 
> ...


 
Just as a quick correction, Lord p1ngpong, according to his step brother (I saw it from earlier on in the thread/from a link), he (the brother) asked him (Martin) to get the skittles. Also that drink was iced tea, to be specific. (IIRC)


----------



## TheCasketMan (Jul 14, 2013)

p1ngpong said:


> My understanding of this case is as follows.
> 
> A youth (Martin) with a known history of getting into fights, petty crimes (possibly burglary) and mild drug taking/dealing goes out in the pouring rain to purchase the ingredients of a codeine based drug/drink called "lean" (That what the skittles and soft drink were for). This drink is known to affect people psychologically, constant violent thoughts can result as well as brain damage and other psychological issues.
> 
> ...



Now that is common sense.  Trayvon should had called the police if he felt followed instead of trying to kill Zimmerman and even threatening him at the same time.  Zimmerman might had been an racist ahole, but Martin had no right to almost beat him up to death.  I bet 90% of the people would have done the same as Zimmerman, but since they are not in his shoes, they talk bad about him.


----------



## Lushay (Jul 14, 2013)

The one thing i don't understand is, if Zimmerman  was on his way for groceries and sees some "suspicious"  kid walking through the neighborhood, why did he put on his gun holster before he got out of the car to continue following the kid. When did neighborhood watchmen start bringing weapons while they were on duty.  None of this would of happened if Zimmerman called the police and kept driving to wherever he was going.


----------



## ThatDudeWithTheFood (Jul 14, 2013)

p1ngpong said:


> My understanding of this case is as follows.
> 
> A youth (Martin) with a known history of getting into fights, petty crimes (possibly burglary) and mild drug taking/dealing goes out in the pouring rain to purchase the ingredients of a codeine based drug/drink called "lean" (That what the skittles and soft drink were for). This drink is known to affect people psychologically, constant violent thoughts can result as well as brain damage and other psychological issues.


He did not at all try to purchase the ingredients of Lean. He had skittles and an arizona which is iced tea. Lean is coedine and sprite or any other type of soda.

I myself would've given him manslaughter though.


----------



## Lushay (Jul 14, 2013)

Also, I feel like he should've took the stand to plead his case. If an altercation between two people go down and one of them is shot and killed, the survivor should testify himself, not just sit back and watch everything as it goes down. Honestly the one thing that bothers me in this country is the profiling of African Americans and other minorities. Just because a few people in a race want to act up, doesn't give you the right to presume everyone else  in that manner is commit the same crime.


----------



## Psionic Roshambo (Jul 14, 2013)

I had to look up what lean was myself... 

Originally it was Sprite plus Skittles and Cough Syrup with DXM. 

But the new formula is Arizona plus Skittles plus the Cough Syrup. 

http://therealrevo.com/blog/?p=75112


----------



## Lushay (Jul 14, 2013)

Psionic Roshambo said:


> I had to look up what lean was myself...
> 
> Originally it was Sprite plus Skittles and Cough Syrup with DXM.
> 
> ...


 
Lol, this source isn't accurate at all. I live in a hoodish area, and no one has ever put Arizona in "Lean" it's always been codeine and sprite. Gin or vodka sometimes added. And you'll add a jolly rancher for flavoring.


----------



## GBA rocks (Jul 14, 2013)

Not going to comment on the specific trial itself (as it would require 1) being a law expert and 2) having read thousands of pages of papers with evidence and whatnot), but I feel accidents like this are bound to happen if civilians feel entitled to stalk other civilians while carrying guns...

A neighborhood watchman's most powerful weapon in 2013 should be the CELL PHONE. Just use that and STAY SAFE. There was NO immediate danger. And if you're a neighborhood watchman, carry a damn GPS smartphone to give your position and street name to 911. Getting out of the car (and closer to the suspect) to read street signs? Really?


----------



## Thanatos Telos (Jul 14, 2013)

Psionic Roshambo said:


> I had to look up what lean was myself...
> 
> Originally it was Sprite plus Skittles and Cough Syrup with DXM.
> 
> ...


 
He still didn't have the cough syrup. Also, do I even want to ask how you knew about this stuff?


----------



## Psionic Roshambo (Jul 14, 2013)

Lushay said:


> Lol, this source isn't accurate at all. I live in a hoodish area, and no one has ever put Arizona in "Lean" it's always been codeine and sprite. Gin or vodka sometimes added. And you'll add a jolly rancher for flavoring.


 

Because your area is the definitive version? 

Sorry to put this bluntly but don't you think that the recipe could be different in different area's? 

I mean my Google search consisted of "Lean Skittles" just two words and that was the top result. 

So maybe Google is throwing faulty results? (it might who knows, I am not an expert on the subject.)


----------



## Psionic Roshambo (Jul 14, 2013)

Thanatos Telos said:


> He still didn't have the cough syrup. Also, do I even want to ask how you knew about this stuff?


 

Supposedly some one else had the cough syrup, he was supplying the other parts? 

I really don't know any of this myself. I had to search on Google to see what everyone was talking about lol

Hell I just learned what Robo Tripping was a few months ago.


----------



## Thanatos Telos (Jul 14, 2013)

Psionic Roshambo said:


> Supposedly some one else had the cough syrup, he was supplying the other parts?
> 
> I really don't know any of this myself. I had to search on Google to see what everyone was talking about lol
> 
> Hell I just learned what Robo Tripping was a few months ago.


 
Then it would make his lordship p1ng incorrect in that assumption, wouldn't it?


----------



## Frederica Bernkastel (Jul 14, 2013)

Gahars said:


> Not necessarily; of course there may be inaccuracies in his description of events. However, the fact remains that all the evidence best supports the Defense's account - from Trayvon Martin's recorded call indicating that he went back to confront Zimmerman, the bruising on Martin's knuckles, the injuries to Zimmerman, etc.
> 
> I never said the fault of the conflict lies on Trayvon Martin alone. My point is that saying that it was entirely Zimmerman's fault was absolutely wrongheaded. Both men made conscious decisions that night that led to this fatal outcome - Martin was just as much of an actor here as Zimmerman.
> 
> ...


Thank-you, you are by far one of the most sensible members I've ever seen express their opinion, especially concerning this travesty.

Isn't it ironic, in a forum where the Ace Attorney series is held in high regard, for its members to have forgotten the meaning of rationality and instead to allow the fallacies of appeals to emotion and to popularity, to rewrite the truth?
That fact alone does not bode particularly well for the future, given that a rather high profile forensic scientist was able to prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that Zimmerman's testimony held. Ignoring that, among the swathe of other pieces of supporting evidence, in favor of baseless storytelling?
My my, cognitive dissonance indeed.

Zimmerman did no wrong, this should not have been taken to trial, and the mass publication of the trial along the the apparent gullibility of the majority only paints a grim picture about Zimmerman's future as a free man. Some of the worst threats that I've seen made by Trayvon's "supporters" on twitter include death-threats made against Zimmerman, the Jury, the Judge, his defense team and most alarmingly there have even been a few not-so-subtle threats to bomb heavily populated areas of cities for 'Justice'. This all goes to show that the only crime which has been committed here is trial by media - a biased media at that which has made assertions including that he self-harmed after the incident, that he was a white man (as opposed to the double-minority Hispanic Jew that he is) and that this was a crime of race, at that.
To paraphrase a rather deluded backstabber, "When someone tries to kill you, you should just take it and let them". I sure hope you guys don't turn out like her.

- Alex.


----------



## Psionic Roshambo (Jul 14, 2013)

Thanatos Telos said:


> Then it would make his lordship p1ng incorrect in that assumption, wouldn't it?


 

Who knows, to me just having skittles and some soda/tea on you doesn't say he is heading to go mix up some cough syrup crap. (He might have been but equally possible is that he just liked Skittles and Tea!) 

My whole deal was just finding out what the hell Lean was... lol 

Seems to me way better than bath salt zombies chewing your face off. Also in Florida.... I think I need to move this state is getting too weird.


----------



## Thanatos Telos (Jul 14, 2013)

Psionic Roshambo said:


> Who knows, to me just having skittles and some soda/tea on you doesn't say he is heading to go mix up some cough syrup crap. (He might have been but equally possible is that he just liked Skittles and Tea!)
> 
> My whole deal was just finding out what the hell Lean was... lol
> 
> Seems to me way better than bath salt zombies chewing your face off. Also in Florida.... I think I need to move this state is getting too weird.




We might need to excise it form from the US. So much happens there it deserves to be its own country.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Jul 14, 2013)

totalnoob617 said:


> snip


 

Well we have a winner better pack it up crazies you can't top this.


----------



## Frederica Bernkastel (Jul 14, 2013)

totalnoob617 said:


> <snip>


Do you know what a Jury is? Do you know a single thing about who was on the defense team?
The 'people with connections' already did their very best to try and pin just _something_ on him. Some of the charges included manslaughter and child abuse.
I suggest you stop trying to find conspiracies where there aren't any, and start paying attention to the cold, hard facts.

Isn't it funny now that he's been acquitted, that he's suddenly Jewish and that strings were pulled? I remember only a while ago, CNN reporters talking about how this was a racially motivated crime [neglecting to mention that he tutored young african-americans for free], while MSNBC reporters were talking about him being a calculated profiler who faked injuries. Both spun the angle that he was a white man.

Also, on a side note, the brand of Anti-Semitism which you're trying to pull here is just as racist as this murder would've been had Zimmerman really been white, and 'racially motivated'.

Please, stop behaving like an imbecile before you do or say something you'll regret.

- Alex.


----------



## SuzieJoeBob (Jul 14, 2013)

DinohScene said:


> I didn't knew what he did or who he was.
> 
> I really should watch more news ._.


 
I don't want to sound mean, but how did you _not_ hear about this??? This was publicized even more than JFK getting sniped in CoD.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Jul 14, 2013)

SuzieJoeBob said:


> I don't want to sound mean, but how did you _not_ hear about this??? This was publicized even more than JFK getting sniped in CoD.


 

He's not from the US and I'm not sure this got worldwide coverage exactly.


----------



## Tom Bombadildo (Jul 14, 2013)

Fredrica Bernkastel said:


> Zimmerman did no wrong,


 
I agree with your above statement regarding Gahars and such, but you can't say Zimmerman did no wrong. While I agree with Gahars, it was more of a heat of the moment, didn't think about it thing, as far as I'm aware a volunteer of the Neighborhood Watch, in certain states, isn't legally allowed to carry a weapon while on "duty" or whatever you'd call it, as they should only call the police when they see suspicious activity.


----------



## SuzieJoeBob (Jul 14, 2013)

Guild McCommunist said:


> He's not from the US and I'm not sure this got worldwide coverage exactly.


 
Just noticed the little flag.......


----------



## totalnoob617 (Jul 14, 2013)

Fredrica Bernkastel said:


> Do you know what a Jury is? Do you know a single thing about who was on the defense team?
> The 'people with connections' already did their very best to try and pin just _something_ on him. Some of the charges included manslaughter and child abuse.
> I suggest you stop trying to find conspiracies where there aren't any, and start paying attention to the cold, hard facts.
> 
> ...


 
they were not even going to charge him at all till the blacks came out in force and protested for months  , and have you ever heard of a kept jury,   4 out of  6 of them the media reported either were married to lawyers or had a son who was a lawyer ,that is not normal , they weed pople out who are not sycophants to the system through the jury selection process , the whole system is rigged and if you dont think so i dont know what to tell you your are just hopelessly naive


----------



## Frederica Bernkastel (Jul 14, 2013)

Tom Bombadildo said:


> I agree with your above statement regarding Gahars and such, but you can't say Zimmerman did no wrong. While I agree with Gahars, it was more of a heat of the moment, didn't think about it thing, as far as I'm aware a volunteer of the Neighborhood Watch, in certain states, isn't legally allowed to carry a weapon while on "duty" or whatever you'd call it, as they should only call the police when they see suspicious activity.


​


----------



## Frederica Bernkastel (Jul 14, 2013)

totalnoob617 said:


> they were not even going to charge him at all till the blacks came out in force and protested for months , and have you ever heard of a kept jury, 4 out of 6 of them the media reported either were married to lawyers or had a son who was a lawyer ,that is not normal , they weed pople out who are not sycophants to the system through the jury selection process , the whole system is rigged and if you dont think so i dont know what to tell you your are just hopelessly naive


The Jury were all under intense media pressure to convict Zimmerman, with a highly emotively-charged attack from the prosecution. If you're looking for conspiracies, try taking a look at the media - whose agenda was to convict Zimmerman - and in particular the Rockefeller family.
Fyi, they're also 'in cahoots' with the Rothschild family, and many other (Jewish) political families. Trying to say that he was set free as a Jew doesn't make sense by your own conspiracy-theorist logic. In his current state, he'll likely be attacked by many other deluded minds who have taken every opinion and emotive statement given by the prosecution (and exaggerated by the media) as fact.

Please, just think about what you're trying to say here. Just try. There's a reason that conspiracies don't make sense, and it's because they're all the product of cognitive dissonance.

Would you like to bring up the Knights Templar too? Perhaps the Illuminati?


----------



## Nathan Drake (Jul 14, 2013)

Gahars said:


> Not necessarily; of course there may be inaccuracies in his description of events. However, the fact remains that all the evidence best supports the Defense's account - from Trayvon Martin's recorded call indicating that he went back to confront Zimmerman, the bruising on Martin's knuckles, the injuries to Zimmerman, etc.
> 
> I never said the fault of the conflict lies on Trayvon Martin alone. My point is that saying that it was entirely Zimmerman's fault was absolutely wrongheaded. Both men made conscious decisions that night that led to this fatal outcome - Martin was just as much of an actor here as Zimmerman.
> 
> ...


I keep seeing the word "evidence" thrown around as if anything that was said was conclusive, or would be considered by any person a good explanation. "The best we could do" does not mean it was in any way believable. It does not mean Zimmerman's recounting was even remotely accurate. If you had bothered to actually review the list of Zimmerman's injuries, you would have found that they were so minor that one would be surprised if the back of his head actually met the pavement with any kind of force more than once, and if he received more than a single, potentially two to three punches to the face that apparently didn't have murderous intent packed behind them because Zimmerman came out of it all looking pretty damned good checking out those early photos.

For anyone wondering, here's the list of known facts:
- Zimmerman spotted Trayvon while going to get groceries and decided he looked suspicious
- Calling 911, Trayvon apparently noticed Zimmerman watching him from the car and began to get suspicious of being watched
- At some point, Zimmerman leaves his car, and disregarding what was told to him over the phone, he remained potentially purposefully in pursuit of Trayvon
- A big gray area that lead up to the conflict itself that nobody but Zimmerman seems to actually know anything about
- Zimmerman was apparently on the ground and was hit a couple of times, somebody screamed for help with no confirmation of who it actually was, and then Trayvon was shot

Now, I don't know about how much you know about what blunt force trauma to the back of the head can do, but needless to say, if Zimmerman walked away with all of his mental facilities fully intact, he wasn't getting hit with murderous intent. People who tried to play the Zimmerman getting mercilessly beaten card pretty much totally ignored the fact that his injuries don't match up with the intense hits recorded, and that Zimmerman's worst injury was a broken nose, which, as previously stated, noses break really, really easily. They aren't meant to get hit. Otherwise, the recorded lacerations to the back of his head were very minor and hardly a cause for immediate concern. With that in mind, please don't once again state that Trayvon was mercilessly beating Zimmerman's head against the sidewalk because *nothing but unsubstantiated claims can do anything to confirm that*. What's more likely is that as Zimmerman hit the ground when being brought down (he didn't just appear on the ground, after all), his head may have bounced off the pavement one time. Hell, he could have just been pushed and ended up falling and smacking his head to do that much damage. His injuries do not coincide with the idea of a merciless beat down.

To note, if Trayvon had never really thrown a punch previously, it would only take one punch to bruise the knuckles. Faces are hard and made of bone like that. With that in mind, all we really know is that Trayvon threw at least one to three punches for an unknown reason. Zimmerman claims unprovoked, but as I previously stated, nothing known about Trayvon indicated him to be a violent person, and the testimony of Trayvon's friends indicated that he had felt unsafe prior to the altercation. Despite p1ng's reference to "lean", there was no indication that Trayvon had ever taken or intended to take it.

That is absolutely it for what's known as accepted facts. Considering Trayvon's most notable previous offenses almost exclusively involved smoking weed and skipping school, it would be hard to label him as more than a fairly standard teenager all in all, doing nothing out of the ordinary in terms of stupid things. The fact that Zimmerman was conveniently going the same way as Trayvon while on foot because he needed that street name is ridiculous though, and stood out as one of the most questionable pieces of information put forward. Zimmerman's recounting of events does not fail to put Trayvon in the wrong at every single turn, and I have to view such a convenient situation with an adequate amount of skepticism. Your views of this situation do not fail to rely on Zimmerman's testimony as an absolute, unquestionable recounting of events, and I think that is the wrong way to view his testimony. I've reviewed this a few times, both calm and a bit charged with the wanting for debate coursing through me, and my view has not changed on that matter.

Now, if you're thinking I'm saying the court made the wrong decision with the information that was available to them, you're wrong. I've accepted that in court, when all of your evidence is essentially testimony and statements, and whether or not it all could make it through a lie detector test, that you just have to do the best with what's given. Even assuming Zimmerman's entire testimony is bogus, there's nothing you can really do as there isn't a replacement testimony to put any events in the most important part of the case (what lead to the actual altercation). Even if you cut out Zimmerman's testimony, he isn't technically in the wrong. Just remember, I can agree that the court made what was legally the correct decision without agreeing that it was the right decision.

By the way, the entire altercation _is_ Zimmerman's fault in the long run. By getting out of his car, he did ultimately set into motion the events that would lead to Trayvon's death. Even it was just a mistake on his part, it was undeniably the first actual step towards the death of Trayvon. We don't actually know for sure that Trayvon ever got the chance to flee (would Zimmerman have pulled his gun to try to keep Trayvon there?). Now, legally, his actions one on one with Trayvon determine his guilt in that respect, which unfortunately makes his initial actions, even if stupid, inconsequential in a court of law.


----------



## Frederica Bernkastel (Jul 14, 2013)

Nathan Drake said:


> I keep seeing the word "evidence" thrown around as if anything that was said was conclusive, or would be considered by any person a good explanation. "The best we could do" does not mean it was in any way believable. It does not mean Zimmerman's recounting was even remotely accurate. If you had bothered to actually review the list of Zimmerman's injuries, you would have found that they were so minor that one would be surprised if the back of his head actually met the pavement with any kind of force more than once, and if he received more than a single, potentially two to three punches to the face that apparently didn't have murderous intent packed behind them because Zimmerman came out of it all looking pretty damned good checking out those early photos.
> 
> For anyone wondering, here's the list of known facts:
> - Zimmerman spotted Trayvon while going to get groceries and decided he looked suspicious
> ...


 
Please, read my posts, and watch this video (as it includes many of the resources I cannot be bothered to cite).


Fredrica Bernkastel said:


> ​


----------



## AngryGeek416 (Jul 14, 2013)

The amount of secret racists on here is appalling, most of you dont even realize how racist you are. A 17 year old unarmed kid was killed because he was black its as simple as that. People bringing up that he got suspended alot or that he smoked weed  as staples of his "bad" character make me cringe. You all really need to take a look at yourselves in the mirror as try and figure out where all this hate is coming from. Anyway on a realistic note i expect Zimmerman to be killed very soon he wont last long and i wont be surprised if it is carried out by some other racial group not blacks.


----------



## Frederica Bernkastel (Jul 14, 2013)

CanuckBuck said:


> The amount of secret racists on here is appalling, most of you dont even realize how racist you are. A 17 year old unarmed kid was killed because he was black its as simple as that. People bringing up that he got suspended alot or that he smoked weed as staples of his "bad" character make me cringe. You all really need to take a look at yourselves in the mirror as try and figure out where all this hate is coming from. Anyway on a realistic note i expect Zimmerman to be killed very soon he wont last long and i wont be surprised if it is carried out by some other racial group not blacks.


Zimmerman was a volunteer who taught young African-American children, without charge.
I feel no hatred towards Trayvon, although I strongly disapprove of his aggressive attitude, and after following the trial find your assertion that anyone pro-Zimmerman is a racist, to be just as judgemental, unfounded and flat-out offensive as the very notion with which you are trying to pin us. Thanks for presuming that we hate African-Americans, thanks for presuming that Trayvon was innocent and that this was a crime of race, and thanks for coming into this thread and further inciting flames simply because a trial ran its course and the end result was not in your favor.
Such rude, childish and frankly abrasive behaviour is exactly what got Trayvon killed in the first place, and I sincerely hope you inherit some of that (ironically stereotypical; I am not a racist) Canadian politeness sometime soon before you too end up doing something stupid.

- Alex.


----------



## Clydefrosch (Jul 14, 2013)

Knock, knock.
- Who's there?
George Zimmerman.
- George Zimmerman who?
... ... nothing??


----------



## The Milkman (Jul 14, 2013)

Well, im gonna save us all the 30 page arugement and say flat out that america is racist because of this one case.

Oh yeah, and the illuminati had EVERYTHING to do with it.


----------



## Nathan Drake (Jul 14, 2013)

The Milkman said:


> Well, im gonna save us all the 30 page arugement and say flat out that america is racist because of this one case.


And that is falling to the ploys of the media attempting to turn the entire series of events into a race war. In the actual trial, race was not a deciding factor. Honestly, believing Trayvon may have been targeted just because he's black is as racist as actually targeting someone because of the color of their skin. Assuming that because he's black, it was a racist crime shows more ignorance than understanding.


----------



## The Milkman (Jul 14, 2013)

Opps, double post.


----------



## SickPuppy (Jul 14, 2013)

Lushay said:


> The one thing i don't understand is, if Zimmerman was on his way for groceries and sees some "suspicious" kid walking through the neighborhood, why did he put on his gun holster before he got out of the car to continue following the kid. When did neighborhood watchmen start bringing weapons while they were on duty. None of this would of happened if Zimmerman called the police and kept driving to wherever he was going.


 
A lot of people that have ccw permits carry thier gun whenever they leave their house. You don't have to be "on duty" to carry a weapon having a ccw permit.


----------



## The Milkman (Jul 14, 2013)

Nathan Drake said:


> And that is falling to the ploys of the media attempting to turn the entire series of events into a race war. In the actual trial, race was not a deciding factor. Honestly, believing Trayvon may have been targeted just because he's black is as racist as actually targeting someone because of the color of their skin. Assuming that because he's black, it was a racist crime shows more ignorance than understanding.


 

Someone clearly took me too serious.


----------



## Frederica Bernkastel (Jul 14, 2013)

The Milkman said:


> Well, im gonna save us all the 30 page arugement and say flat out that america is racist because of this one case.


I'll just respond with this quote, since anything longer might be too much for you to comprehend.


> > It's funny to me to hear a white male actually try to justify this killing, and not having a clue what it means to be a Black Male in america. Tryvon's past events had nothing to do with him getting killed. It was a paranoid person that saw a black individual that he thought didn't belong so he followed him and subsequently killed him.
> >
> > What you don't understand is that could have been me walikng home, I have never been arrested, don't do drugs,perfect driving record,etc. You have NO CLUE!
> 
> ...


Nice one.

- Alex.


----------



## Nathan Drake (Jul 14, 2013)

The Milkman said:


> Someone clearly took me too serious.


This isn't really a thread where you can post satirically without making it obvious where race is concerned (such as you did with your second post). Some people genuinely believe the case was entirely about race, and it's not easy to say "oh, clearly you're joking even though that person over there is entirely serious about it".


----------



## The Milkman (Jul 14, 2013)

Nathan Drake said:


> This isn't really a thread where you can post satirically without making it obvious where race is concerned (such as you did with your second post). Some people genuinely believe the case was entirely about race, and it's not easy to say "oh, clearly you're joking even though that person over there is entirely serious about it".


 

Oh, no. Im just making fun.

I seriously think its just a case of a black kid getting shot by a guy, the media blew it up and everyone jumped on it like flies to shit.

Its happened too many times for people to still fall for this, therefore I think its something that deserves to be poked fun at.

Hell, the fact you feel the need to respond to my joke argumentatively like this says something about the amounts of butthurt that is being generated here.


----------



## Black-Ice (Jul 14, 2013)

The Milkman said:


> Someone clearly took me too serious.


 
Not the right thread or the right place.
This is a serious discussion dude.
I know you, i know you're not a troll or anything. But yeah, save the jokes for another thread yo


----------



## The Milkman (Jul 14, 2013)

Black-Ice said:


> Not the right thread or the right place.
> This is a serious discussion dude.


 

Well, sorry then. I dont find it as something serious like that. Ignore my post if it really offends you.


----------



## Black-Ice (Jul 14, 2013)

The Milkman said:


> Well, sorry then. I dont find it as something serious like that. Ignore my post if it really offends you.


 
Not me, i'm not offended.
The most emotion i've felt here is sorrow for the rational people of america and what they live in.


----------



## The Milkman (Jul 14, 2013)

Black-Ice said:


> Not me, i'm not offended.
> The most emotion i've felt here is sorrow for the rational people of america and what they live in.


 

Then were coming from similar places.


----------



## DinohScene (Jul 14, 2013)

SuzieJoeBob said:


> I don't want to sound mean, but how did you _not_ hear about this??? This was publicized even more than JFK getting sniped in CoD.


 
I don't watch the news.
Nor newspapers nor radio.

Besides, I'm an European, dunno if that got much to do with it tho.


----------



## Deleted member 319809 (Jul 14, 2013)

Guild McCommunist said:


> He's not from the US and I'm not sure this got worldwide coverage exactly.


I had heard about it during the case and I'm in Canada. However, I am also in chats where there are many Americans, and my mother and sister, who follow the news somewhat and knew about the death of Michael Jackson a mere hour after the American media did, have not talked about the Florida v. Zimmerman case at all while it was going on.

Now, the _*verdict*_ itself seems to have been broadcast pretty much worldwide, but I would think only the US had so much live coverage of it (and the anger of Americans would have been built up with each story in the coverage, as I said in post #42).

As a side note, about #115:


Fredrica Bernkastel said:


> Isn't it ironic, in a forum where the Ace Attorney series is held in high regard, for its members to have forgotten the meaning of rationality and instead to allow the fallacies of appeals to emotion and to popularity, to rewrite the truth?


I would have referenced Ace Attorney in #42 but it would have made my message sound like I didn't know the difference between reality and games. Kudos there. However, the irony is not lost on me: both in the Ace Attorney games and in real life, you must ignore appeals to emotion and concentrate on the facts to present your case. It's just that not everyone on GBATemp plays the Ace Attorney games


----------



## Taleweaver (Jul 14, 2013)

air2004 said:


> You are aware that he was claiming self defense right ? He was not using the stand your ground law.


No. I was not. As said, I only go by the article in the OP. So you're saying that Zimmerman WASN'T in the car before he called in a suspicious person? Perhaps that sounds like a detail, but that means the difference between being provoked and provoking. And in the latter case, self defense simply does not apply.


[/quote="air2004"]
I suppose you over looked this little tidbit about mr. martin


*The teen was suspended from school three times*
*He was on suspension when he was shot in February, after officials caught him with a 'marijuana pipe' and a baggie with drug residue*
*Trayvon was kicked out of school in October for graffiti after he was allegedly caught with a 'burglary tool' and a bag full of women's jewelry*
*Officials also suspended him once for skipping school and tardiness*
 
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2120504/Trayvon-Martin-case-He-suspended-times-caught-burglary-tool.html#ixzz2Z1PS974B
So yeah he seems to have a problem with authority .[/quote]
I know this part was aimed at Nathan Drake (and I haven't exactly checked the extra 4 pages this thread has grown since I last checked)...but how is this in any way relevant?

Zimmerman wasn't a police officer. He wasn't an authority. So all this info you're posting is irrelevant. But hey...if you're resorting to it, don't mind if I do the same:

*YOU'RE NOT THE ONLY ONE WHO CAN POST IN LARGE BOLD POSTS TO SEEM RELEVANT, Y'KNOW.*


So do me a favor, will you? Stop that bullshit. If Zimmerman was a close relative to you, I can understand why you want to shout out his innocence. But if you're just listening to other new sources than the OP: don't get all emotional, okay? I'm willing to discuss why these points you mention aren't an excuse. But if you're going all internet-hysterical on us...don't fucking bother. It's not like these posts are going to do anything to change the verdict, let alone the system.


----------



## mkdms14 (Jul 14, 2013)

Here is the thing wether you agree with the verdict or disagree with the verdict is not important.  The media should not have been involved with this court case to begin with.  It should be left up to the court systems, so lets just leave it at that.


----------



## Flame (Jul 14, 2013)

I not a lawyer. so I'm not going one way or the other. but ....




> Mr Zimmerman's family and representatives have said they are afraid he could fall victim to revenge attacks


----------



## wrettcaughn (Jul 14, 2013)

Fredrica Bernkastel said:


> ​




Watched this video in its entirety.
I'll preface this response by stating there was not one moment where I thought Zimmerman was going to be convicted of any wrongdoing. It was certainly poor decision making on both sides that led to Trayvon Martin being killed, but at no point was there any *evidence* that Zimmerman hunted Martin down or even initiated the conflict.

Now, having said that, there's also no evidence at all that completely corroborates Zimmerman's claims of what went down. There was expert testimony on _both_ sides attempting to paint a picture of what transpired. Neither was more convincing than the other.

Eyewitness testimony really couldn't play much part at all in the outcome as everyone contradicted one another. One person claims to have heard three shots, though only one was fired. Multiple people claim to have heard someone calling for help but couldn't be sure as to which of them it was. A couple people claim to have gotten a glimpse of the two fighting on the ground, but couldn't agree on who was on top.

The gentleman in the quoted video mentions the "evidence" and "eyewitness testimony" numerous times as if there was any credibility to any of it. There wasn't. If this video was purely about what "The Law" says then there was no need to mention Trayvon Martin's past or possible drug use any more than there was a need to mention Zimmerman's efforts in tutoring poor black children or having a black business partner. If the gentleman in the video was really trying to share all circumstantial info about Martin's and Zimmerman's pasts, he strangely forgot one doosy from Zimmerman's...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/16/george-zimmerman_n_1676729.html

The gentleman was making quite a bit of sense though, despite quoting some pretty random statistics, until he made it a point to refer to President Obama as "B. Hussein Obama". A tad trite in his nonchalant Obama bashing...

On the subject of race...and I personally don't believe race played much of a factor, if at all...it's silly to think that because Zimmerman is hispanic or because he has black friends or tutors black kids he couldn't be racist... The most racist person that I've actually personally known was my Mexican grandfather. "N****r this" and "H*nk*y that"... I stayed with him for a couple weeks when I was 14. A black man came to the door and asked if he could mow the lawn one day, I asked the gentleman to wait a moment while I checked. My grandfather replied (loud enough for the guy to hear) "Fuck that sweaty n****r. I wouldn't even've opened the door." The guy was gone by the time I got back to the door.

Two of my dad's best friends through high school and to this day are black. That doesn't stop him from profiling or saying stuff like "that fake n****r B. Hussein Obama hates America".

There was no justice to be served in this trial. Two idiots collided and one ended up dead...


----------



## LightyKD (Jul 14, 2013)

It's a sad day today and frankly I'm sure that a good 80 percent of you will never understand why this day and this outcome is so sad. Today, my views on how I should conduct my daily affairs were validated. Frankly I'll only go outside to work, aside from that I'm staying locked in this apartment. Each day I'm becoming more and more scared to live in this nation and will spend the remainder of this day in grief while I try to push myself to be as active as I can for productivity's sake.


----------



## Ray Lewis (Jul 14, 2013)

I knew this thread would be volatile.  Everyone be safe, regardless of your views.  Not worth being flamed for having one here, lol.


----------



## wrettcaughn (Jul 14, 2013)

LightyKD said:


> It's a sad day today and frankly I'm sure that a good 80 percent of you will never understand why this day and this outcome is so sad. Today, my views on how I should conduct my daily affairs were validated. Frankly I'll only go outside to work, aside from that I'm staying locked in this apartment. Each day I'm becoming more and more scared to live in this nation and will spend the remainder of this day in grief while I try to push myself to be as active as I can for productivity's sake.


Kind of a knee-jerk reaction, isn't it?  Do you truly think that you'll get shot if you leave your apartment?


----------



## Black-Ice (Jul 14, 2013)

LightyKD said:


> It's a sad day today and frankly I'm sure that a good 80 percent of you will never understand why this day and this outcome is so sad. Today, my views on how I should conduct my daily affairs were validated. Frankly I'll only go outside to work, aside from that I'm staying locked in this apartment. Each day I'm becoming more and more scared to live in this nation and will spend the remainder of this day in grief while I try to push myself to be as active as I can for productivity's sake.


 
Come to the UK.
In our country its illegal to kill people.


----------



## Deleted member 319809 (Jul 14, 2013)

Taleweaver said:


> No. I was not. As said, I only go by the article in the OP. So you're saying that Zimmerman WASN'T in the car before he called in a suspicious person? Perhaps that sounds like a detail, but that means the difference between being provoked and provoking. And in the latter case, self defense simply does not apply.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Was this a factor in the jury's decision, or only in the eyes of the public and its mob justice? Could it have been admitted as circumstantial evidence in the first place?

This also goes for circumstantial evidence against Zimmerman in #149, though wrettcaughn acknowledges that the video was biased against Martin to begin with:


wrettcaughn said:


> If this video was purely about what "The Law" says then there was no need to mention Trayvon Martin's past or possible drug use any more than there was a need to mention Zimmerman's efforts in tutoring poor black children or having a black business partner. If the gentleman in the video was really trying to share all circumstantial info about Martin's and Zimmerman's pasts, he strangely forgot one doosy from Zimmerman's...
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/16/george-zimmerman_n_1676729.html


----------



## LightyKD (Jul 14, 2013)

wrettcaughn said:


> Kind of a knee-jerk reaction, isn't it? Do you truly think that you'll get shot if you leave your apartment?


 

It's not just about being shot but I don't know about you but I have to walk around in a society that, without knowing me as a person, views me as a menace and a criminal. Hell I even get horrid looks when I give people polite "hello" smiles. After a while you just get tired of living in a society that hates you for no good reason and looks down on you as if you just don't have a right to life.



Black-Ice said:


> Come to the UK.
> 
> 
> In our country its illegal to kill people.




LOL My wife suggested that we moved there last night


----------



## Frederica Bernkastel (Jul 14, 2013)

Black-Ice said:


> Come to the UK.
> In our country its illegal to kill people.


It is illegal to kill people in the USA too. George Zimmerman would have been dead, and Trayvon Martin would have been the one being tried, had he not discharged his firearm.
Only then, the very same race card, would have been used to acquit him of murder. First degree murder at that.



LightyKD said:


> It's not just about being shot but I don't know about you but I have to walk around in a society that, without knowing me as a person, views me as a menace and a criminal. Hell I even get horrid looks when I give people polite "hello" smiles. After a while you just get tired of living in a society that hates you for no good reason and looks down on you as if you just don't have a right to life.
> 
> 
> 
> LOL My wife suggested that we moved there last night


The UK is far worse, as far as that goes, as over 80% of all random stop-and-searches conducted by the police last year, were on black people.

You're perfectly safe in the USA, so long as you don't attack anyone like Trayvon did. You sound like a nice guy, and so I'm sure that won't be a problem for you. Remember, the same safeguards that allowed George to defend himself, will also protect you against any potential crazies or racists (arguably they're the one and the same, but I don't want to offend anyone).
Of all the countries in Europe, the British were rated least friendly and most xenophobic, oh and going by recent opinion polls, the attitudes toward non-whites is also on the rise.

As far as the latent racism in the USA goes, most of it sources from statistics in particular states (funnily enough, also the ones with tighter gun laws - California and New York are the worst, in fact), where the majority of all crimes committed - including with (commonly stolen!) firearms - are by Blacks and Mexicans. If people are grouping you into the same categories, I suggest you may wish to move further out from the centres of these cities, or to another state with (ironically) less-strict gun control. Somewhere like Wyoming, Arizona or Vermont just to name three. I recommend the latter, as it's a very nice place to live.


----------



## Amber Lamps (Jul 14, 2013)

EzekielRage said:


> its simple:
> a kid is dead and the person who pulled the trigger is free and that is wrong. they could ahve said it was an accident or manslaugther or whatever but just plain out letting him go is wrong on SO many levels...


 
looks like said kid was literally beating the defendant to death.  had he killed the defendant, probably nothing would have ever happened to him.   and that is right isn't it because he is a black kid.  lol?

Well anyway I believe 100% that the defendant shouldn't have been stalking the kid.  then none of this would have happened.  that is the confusing part of it.

any race riots on monday? I don't think so because everyone knows the kid shouldn't have attacked the defendant.  so it is at a mute point.   if I think someone is following me in the dark at night, I don't run up and bash the person's skull into the ground.  common sense guys!


----------



## LightyKD (Jul 14, 2013)

Fredrica Bernkastel said:


> It is illegal to kill people in the USA too. George Zimmerman would have been dead, and Trayvon Martin would have been the one being tried, had he not discharged his firearm.
> Only then, the very same race card, would have been used to acquit him of murder. First degree murder at that.
> 
> 
> ...


 

been dropping money into savings every month just so that I can get out of Virginia. The place is turning into a police state, the laws are so damn backwards, the people are downright mean. "Virginia is for lovers" is a god damned lie! I just want to live somewhere where my wife and I can feel safe and be around progressive, sane, individuals who do not place a thousand year old book over logic and science.


----------



## Frederica Bernkastel (Jul 14, 2013)

Amber Lamps said:


> looks like said kid was literally beating the defendant to death. had he killed the defendant, probably nothing would have ever happened to him. and that is right isn't it because he is a black kid. lol?
> 
> Well anyway I believe 100% that the defendant shouldn't have been stalking the kid. then none of this would have happened. that is the confusing part of it.
> 
> any race riots on monday? I don't think so because everyone knows the kid shouldn't have attacked the defendant. so it is at a mute point. if I think someone is following me in the dark at night, I don't run up and bash the person's skull into the ground. common sense guys!


I wish. The whole reason there's any debate in this thread, and that the media were able to hype it up so much, is because people genuinely believe that Trayvon was innocent, and that Zimmerman was an evil white man out to get the poor young black kid [who was beating him into the sidewalk].



LightyKD said:


> been dropping money into savings every month just so that I can get out of Virginia. The place is turning into a police state, the laws are so damn backwards, the people are downright mean. "Virginia is for lovers" is a god damned lie! I just want to live somewhere where my wife and I can feel safe and be around progressive, sane, individuals who do not place a thousand year old book over logic and science.


Ah. I feel your pain.
I agree with the constitution, and the principles behind it (as I do with the Magna Carta, actually), but I do think that some people really don't "get" it.



Ryukouki said:


> Oh lordy. I'm starting to like your edits on posts. :3
> 
> -
> 
> As far as the Zimmerman case, definitely interesting to see how things played out. In my opinion, I think that this trial was way too publicized. I didn't really keep up with all of the details (hell, I just found out like a month ago) and after hearing things from a bunch of people, it kind of gets hard to side with any particular party, although I have to hand it to the defense as I think they did a pretty good job in their presentation of the facts.


"Trial by media". Zimmerman's innocence was the job of the jury to decide, and not of every citizen who has happened to turn on their television set for a few minutes recently. Poor Zimmerman may have been found not-guilty by the courthouse, because they were sensible enough to get over the emotional appeal and to look at what he was and wasn't allowed to do, but that doesn't mean anyone who knows about it is too. In fact, as I've mentioned, there are some particularly ridiculous posts I've seen in various places with people having delusional views of his innocence purely because they aren't aware of what actually happened.
Zimmerman's life, as he knew it, might be over (for at least a good few months), but those involved in the mass media don't care - they got their latest controversial story, they get their paychecks.

Anyone remember that one guy... er... Snowden, was it? He's still in that airport, currently arranging more talks with Russia. Have we heard about him since the trial began?..
That, is my point.


----------



## Ryukouki (Jul 14, 2013)

Fredrica Bernkastel said:


> -snip-


 
Oh lordy. I'm starting to like your edits on posts. :3

-

As far as the Zimmerman case, definitely interesting to see how things played out. In my opinion, I think that this trial was way too publicized. I didn't really keep up with all of the details (hell, I just found out like a month ago) and after hearing things from a bunch of people, it kind of gets hard to side with any particular party, although I have to hand it to the defense as I think they did a pretty good job in their presentation of the facts.


----------



## Amber Lamps (Jul 14, 2013)

Black-Ice said:


> Not the right thread or the right place.
> This is a serious discussion dude.
> I know you, i know you're not a troll or anything. But yeah, save the jokes for another thread yo


 
This is a video game forum, thus I think if you have an off topic conversation then anyone is more than capable and obliged to state what they please.

On the other hand I do know for a fact that on this forum there are some trolls that are protected by mods that can do whatever they want, not short of cussing/trolling people off of the forum.

Fair is fair.


----------



## Amber Lamps (Jul 14, 2013)

Fredrica Bernkastel said:


> I wish. The whole reason there's any debate in this thread, and that the media were able to hype it up so much, is because people genuinely believe that Trayvon was innocent, and that Zimmerman was an evil white man out to get the poor young black kid [who was beating him into the sidewalk].


 
Agreed 100% because it was stupid... and that Zimmerman is hispanic but they try to make it like "oh he is white he is white...he is whitee......" since when in recent decades (shit since the 1950s even) has a hispanic man in this country been considered white?  And plus they demonize their own people to that extent.  It is a shame.  I know some Mexicans that aren't bad people at all.. one of them even has a lot of money (I tell everyone he is rich because he probably fuckin' is rich..he's about to retire at 65 from working at refineries all his life plus doing double shifts and whatnot.  dude is ant-marijuana, doesn't drink a lot afaik, and is a stand up citizen of the usa).

But now we gotta call Zimmerman white so we can make him into the devil *chuckle* and yeah..this country sucks.  lol

Well anyway as much as I don't believe anyone should have lost their life, I think that if zimmerman was just carrying a knife or a mace he probably would have either been paralyzed for the rest of his life or he would be dead.  That kid sure beat the crap out of him that is for sure.  And I have know blacks from the projects that were fucking STRONG and it is because all they do with their time (besides going to the convenient store for candies like this guy) is they do pushups whenever/wherever they can.  In stairways up to where they live, out by where they play basketball wherever they can.  They get strong, street smart, and they can beat the living shit out of people with their bare hands.  Plus on top of that they generally are not taught morals and standards of life so they don't know the difference between harming/killing people to get along with their life opposed to just getting along with people.

I knew this one guy like that but somehow he taught himself morals.  I doubt he's alive any more either that or he is in prison because he hasn't visited me in quite a long time.  Usually he would come by every number of years to say hi.  Great guy and man I'll tell you what, I wouldn't want to get in a fight with him.  He is lean so he looks thin but I punched his arm and it is like hitting a brick wall.


----------



## wrettcaughn (Jul 14, 2013)

Amber Lamps said:


> snip


 
I think someone needs to get out Oakland and see the world...


----------



## Frederica Bernkastel (Jul 14, 2013)

I responded a little more in my last post, so it'd be appreciated if people could re-read it, but I'll continue here.


Amber Lamps said:


> Agreed 100% because it was stupid... and that Zimmerman is hispanic but they try to make it like "oh he is white he is white...he is whitee......" since when in recent decades (shit since the 1950s even) has a hispanic man in this country been considered white? And plus they demonize their own people to that extent. It is a shame. I know some Mexicans that aren't bad people at all.. one of them even has a lot of money (I tell everyone he is rich because he probably fuckin' is rich..he's about to retire at 65 from working at refineries all his life plus doing double shifts and whatnot. dude is ant-marijuana, doesn't drink a lot afaik, and is a stand up citizen of the usa).
> 
> But now we gotta call Zimmerman white so we can make him into the devil *chuckle* and yeah..this country sucks. lol
> 
> ...


The 'Social Justice' movement does this too. Young, White, Males are the worst demographic right now in terms of employability, 'diversity' is stacked against it, plus it is also frequently portrayed as comprising of a bunch of inadequate delinquents incapable of doing good. In reality, however, this is just as true as the original stereotype of the black 'gangster'. Except that is apparently much more prevalent nowadays, as it is allowed to thrive while we strive to ignore it for the sake of 'political correctness'. The same goes the way of social justice wymyn too, and their 'lack' of privilege.

Will we ever grow up, and stop judging (or not judging) people just because they fall into a particular demographic?


----------



## ProtoKun7 (Jul 14, 2013)

SolidSnake95 said:


> To be honest, I could give a damn.


 
Your post suggests that you actually _couldn't_.

(Or at least don't.)


----------



## Amber Lamps (Jul 14, 2013)

wrettcaughn said:


> I think someone needs to get out Oakland and see the world...


 
random without backing up why you stated this, typical of internet trolling... moving along.


----------



## Ryukouki (Jul 14, 2013)

Fredrica Bernkastel said:


> I wish. The whole reason there's any debate in this thread, and that the media were able to hype it up so much, is because people genuinely believe that Trayvon was innocent, and that Zimmerman was an evil white man out to get the poor young black kid [who was beating him into the sidewalk].
> 
> 
> Ah. I feel your pain.
> ...


 

Yeah, and that's a really good point. I'm gonna try and actually make an effort to seriously read the ins and outs of what happened, because seeing all this debate is really interesting. I have a hell of a lot of things to catch up on since I was literally away from the internet for about five months. With my limited knowledge what this looks like is that the case is getting so much attention because an African American citizen was shot and killed by a non-African person. Again, I need to read more details about it.

The only major thing I have been following is the Edward Snowden case, and from what I do know, he's still holed up in Russia, and he's talking to them despite them telling him that if he wants asylum he needs to stop leaking or something along that line. Guy's in a real predicament and I actually applaud what he's doing because he's following what's right. And ugggh, the media, they are all kinds of trouble. Like how that one news company threw in bogus names for the Asiana Airlines incident, and now they're being sued for it.


----------



## Amber Lamps (Jul 14, 2013)

Fredrica Bernkastel said:


> I responded a little more in my last post, so it'd be appreciated if people could re-read it, but I'll continue here.
> 
> The 'Social Justice' movement does this too. Young, White, Males are the worst demographic right now in terms of employability, 'diversity' is stacked against it, plus it is also frequently portrayed as comprising of a bunch of inadequate delinquents incapable of doing good. In reality, however, this is just as true as the original stereotype of the black 'gangster'. Except that is apparently much more prevalent nowadays, as it is allowed to thrive while we strive to ignore it for the sake of 'political correctness'. The same goes the way of social justice wymyn too, and their 'lack' of privilege.
> 
> Will we ever grow up, and stop judging (or not judging) people just because they fall into a particular demographic?


 
I have noticed this and the only way the white can succeed is show that he is mature and a go getter.  Not that many people actually fall into this category and can easily become jobless due to that.  Get hired by a white person some time, and then be supervised by non whites... basically what happens is the non white will report to the white superior and have your ass canned in no time just because you aren't a minority.  It is a bad thing.

But you have some options when this happens.  If you get wrongly terminated, there are government agencies that you can complain to and they will contact the place you get terminated from.  Some people get their job back.  it is sad that people have to resort to this but that is how it goes these days.

On the other hand if you get to know the minorities before even applying for a job and get accepted and start working there, you have a much better chance of being retained as an employee.  That is what I am getting into right now.  I have no issues with minorities whatsoever and they seem to know that.  But they won't know that if you just like step in as a new hire... that shit doesn't float to well with people.  they start going like "wooahhh i wish they hired another one of us...wahhhhhh" it is stupid.  what the hell is the difference? an employee is an employee.  there's only one type of employee: employee.  it isn't bounded by race.  but man there are so many people that have to make issues.....  and all u wanna do is make some cash so you can have a place to live and so you can eat.  and possibly do that with having other things that people who have jobs get such has have gf wife baby car clothes video games etc etc the list goes on.  those whom are situated in the workplace have it and they don't care if new people get to have those things or not.


----------



## Frederica Bernkastel (Jul 14, 2013)

Ryukouki said:


> Yeah, and that's a really good point. I'm gonna try and actually make an effort to seriously read the ins and outs of what happened, because seeing all this debate is really interesting. I have a hell of a lot of things to catch up on since I was literally away from the internet for about five months. With my limited knowledge what this looks like is that the case is getting so much attention because an African American citizen was shot and killed by a non-African person. Again, I need to read more details about it.
> 
> The only major thing I have been following is the Edward Snowden case, and from what I do know, he's still holed up in Russia, and he's talking to them despite them telling him that if he wants asylum he needs to stop leaking or something along that line. Guy's in a real predicament and I actually applaud what he's doing because he's following what's right. And ugggh, the media, they are all kinds of trouble. Like how that one news company threw in bogus names for the Asiana Airlines incident, and now they're being sued for it.


Snowden is a quite the fool for not having negotiated with them sooner. There's some political unrest between Russia and the US right now, with Israel having bombed what appears to be a Russian depot, after disagreements with how to handle things in Syria. Everybody knows Israel does things based on US order, and so Russia are trying to avoid provoking anything serious.
I value the facts he has brought to life, however, as now it isn't just conspiracy theorists and crazy privacy-obsessed paranoid buffoons who are looking to keep their information secure, and private.



Amber Lamps said:


> I have noticed this and the only way the white can succeed is show that he is mature and a go getter. Not that many people actually fall into this category and can easily become jobless due to that. Get hired by a white person some time, and then be supervised by non whites... basically what happens is the non white will report to the white superior and have your ass canned in no time just because you aren't a minority. It is a bad thing.
> 
> But you have some options when this happens. If you get wrongly terminated, there are government agencies that you can complain to and they will contact the place you get terminated from. Some people get their job back. it is sad that people have to resort to this but that is how it goes these days.
> 
> On the other hand if you get to know the minorities before even applying for a job and get accepted and start working there, you have a much better chance of being retained as an employee. That is what I am getting into right now. I have no issues with minorities whatsoever and they seem to know that. But they won't know that if you just like step in as a new hire... that shit doesn't float to well with people. they start going like "wooahhh i wish they hired another one of us...wahhhhhh" it is stupid. what the hell is the difference? an employee is an employee. there's only one type of employee: employee. it isn't bounded by race. but man there are so many people that have to make issues..... and all u wanna do is make some cash so you can have a place to live and so you can eat. and possibly do that with having other things that people who have jobs get such has have gf wife baby car clothes video games etc etc the list goes on. those whom are situated in the workplace have it and they don't care if new people get to have those things or not.


You're right, I'm talking about initial employment though. It's a statistic I've been following quite keenly, and I'm glad to say that it's wavering and doesn't look like a trend that'll stick around for long. 'Social Justice', however...

Diversity should NEVER be simply to meet a quota. I think that people, regardless of gender, age or ethnicity (skin color ahuehuehue), are people, and should be rated based upon their actions and skills. Is that really such a bad viewpoint to have in this day and age?
The Republican party has one rather similar, and consequently its members and representatives are branded as ~horrible~ racists.




 


Amber Lamps said:


> random without backing up why you stated this, typical of internet trolling... moving along.


He's not the only one shamelessly doing this, and frankly with examples like this, I can't blame him...



ProtoKun7 said:


> Your post suggests that you actually _couldn't_.
> 
> (Or at least don't.)


This post is off-topic and utterly irrelevant. Please desist with your condescending correctional posts, because while adding nothing to the conversation (against the rules you're _supposed_ to be enforcing, yes?) I'm willing to bet that they also constitute a rather large portion of your post-count.
More importantly, aren't moderators supposed to be setting a good example to the users of a forum as to how they should behave?

Instead, please leave the corrections to us, the users, because they're far more useful in the heat of a debate, where we can use them to undermine the points presented by others. This wouldn't be quite the same without the abuse of logical fallacies, and I don't appreciate you depriving people of theirs.

Just __stop__.


----------



## Ryukouki (Jul 14, 2013)

Fredrica Bernkastel said:


> Snowden is a quite the fool for not having negotiated with them sooner. There's some political unrest between Russia and the US right now, with Israel having bombed what appears to be a Russian depot, after disagreements with how to handle things in Syria. Everybody knows Israel does things based on US order, and so Russia are trying to avoid provoking anything serious.
> I value the facts he has brought to life, however, as now it isn't just conspiracy theorists and crazy privacy-obsessed paranoid buffoons who are looking to keep their information secure, and private.


 
I find it admirable that he's not even worried about this either. I also think that he's been holed up in Russia for far too long, and now with his passport annulled, he's pretty fucked unless he gets in the good graces of Russia and can successfully acquire a travel documentation that would allow him to depart to Venezuela.

Either way, your posts are actually hellishly entertaining and informative, so kudos to you for that.


----------



## Amber Lamps (Jul 14, 2013)

Fredrica Bernkastel said:


> Snowden is a quite the fool for not having negotiated with them sooner. There's some political unrest between Russia and the US right now, with Israel having bombed what appears to be a Russian depot, after disagreements with how to handle things in Syria. Everybody knows Israel does things based on US order, and so Russia are trying to avoid provoking anything serious.
> I value the facts he has brought to life, however, as now it isn't just conspiracy theorists and crazy privacy-obsessed paranoid buffoons who are looking to keep their information secure, and private.
> 
> 
> ...


 

I still don't know what his point is.  Oakland is a great place unless you just stick to one small tiny little area such as International which is in East Oakland or if you stick with Peralta in West both aren't that ideal of places to be.  Poeple venture from there to downtown and sometimes just once in a while someone gets punched in the face randomly or mugged. Is that what he is talking about?  It can happen anywhere.  Oakland is actually a lot more clean than San Francisco.  last time I was in SF it was rather vile.  Right off the bart.

But yeah it is good to travel because there are more places to see.  Easier said than done sometimes you just don't have anything to go out and do.

Well good thing that job stuff is changing.  I have seen a lot of selfish bastards especailly in government jobs.  They try to make sure that their little bubble doesn't get interrupted and they go to extremes to do it.  It's like why hire anyone new if you already have this impermiable bubble you want to maintain?  Purely ignorant and wastes people's time.  Places should only hire if there is a need and if there isn't just keep the doors shut.

anywho I wonder how long it will take before people troll and get into racism arguments in this thread and then the admins will close it.  This thread, entirely, does not belong on this forum at all anyway.


----------



## Amber Lamps (Jul 14, 2013)

Oh and I just noticed that this is user submitted news.  heh.. yeah.. good going guys, this isn't even gaming related.  I'm guessing this thread won't even last much more than a couple hours before it is locked.


----------



## Ryukouki (Jul 14, 2013)

The temp has been deviating to more open minded materials as of late. Bad decision to include religion and politics on a gamers forum.


----------



## SuzieJoeBob (Jul 14, 2013)

LightyKD said:


> been dropping money into savings every month just so that I can get out of Virginia. The place is turning into a police state, the laws are so damn backwards, the people are downright mean. "Virginia is for lovers" is a god damned lie!* I just want to live somewhere where my wife and I can feel safe and be around progressive, sane, individuals* who do not place a thousand year old book over logic and science.


 
Don't move to New Jersey then...too many idiots. Just the other day, I heard a 19 or 20-year-old complaining about her boyfriend being arrested. No joke, this was what I was able to hear:

"His blood-alcohol was only, like, 0.2. So he threw a Four Loko can out of the window. It's not like he was throwing real alcohol out the window." Successful dipshit is successful....???


----------



## LightyKD (Jul 15, 2013)

SuzieJoeBob said:


> Don't move to New Jersey then...too many idiots. Just the other day, I heard a 19 or 20-year-old complaining about her boyfriend being arrested. No joke, this was what I was able to hear:
> 
> "His blood-alcohol was only, like, 0.2. So he threw a Four Loko can out of the window. It's not like he was throwing real alcohol out the window." Successful dipshit is successful....???


 

Trust me, Jersey was NEVER on my radar lmao! BTW it looks like this will be sent to the feds as a hate crime which is justifiably so. Irregardless of whether Zimmerman followed the stand your ground law or not, his actions and his profiling were indicative of a hate crime.


----------



## VashTS (Jul 15, 2013)

so i was right all along...

i knew there was going to be one outcome. either guilty or not guilty. guess i was right


----------



## SickPuppy (Jul 15, 2013)

LightyKD said:


> Trust me, Jersey was NEVER on my radar lmao! BTW it looks like this will be sent to the feds as a hate crime which is justifiably so. Irregardless of whether Zimmerman followed the stand your ground law or not, his actions and his profiling were indicative of a hate crime.


 
Why is it when a white man kills another white man in self defense it's not a hate crime, but when a white man kills a black man in self defense it's labeled as a hate crime? Sound to me like *you* are a racist.


----------



## pyromaniac123 (Jul 15, 2013)

VashTS said:


> so i was right all along...
> 
> i knew there was going to be one outcome. *either guilty or not guilty*. guess i was right


 
I think we just found gbatemp's new legal expert.


----------



## Amber Lamps (Jul 15, 2013)

Ryukouki said:


> The temp has been deviating to more open minded materials as of late. Bad decision to include religion and politics on a gamers forum.


 
yup i'm out before the forum regulars / trolls ruin the integrity of the conversation.  nothing to add to this disaster waiting to happen.  to all else involved, good luck.


----------



## wrettcaughn (Jul 15, 2013)

Amber Lamps said:


> random without backing up why you stated this, typical of internet trolling... moving along.





Amber Lamps said:


> ...I know some Mexicans that aren't bad people at all.. one of them even has a lot of money...
> 
> ...I have know blacks from the projects that were fucking STRONG and it is because all they do with their time (besides going to the convenient store for candies like this guy) is they do pushups whenever/wherever they can...



You have a pretty limited view of Mexicans and black people.


----------



## 1stClassZackFair (Jul 15, 2013)

CanuckBuck said:


> A 17 year old unarmed kid was killed because he was black its as simple as that. People bringing up that he got suspended alot or that he smoked weed  as staples of his "bad" character make me cringe. I expect Zimmerman to be killed very soon he wont last long and i wont be surprised if it is carried out by some other racial group not blacks.



Are you shitting me? Age doesn't determine if your a kid, it's the level of maturity and choices that do and from what I've seen Martin wasn't a "kid" at all. Also, he wasn't "killed because he was black", he could have been a white,asian,hispanic male and the situation still could have ended the same way regardless of color. I expect people to think rationally and I won't be surprised if it takes a while to carry out.


----------



## Amber Lamps (Jul 15, 2013)

wrettcaughn said:


> You have a pretty limited view of Mexicans and black people.


 
try to troll elsewhere.  I am not going to be a part of this.  You are from here on in being ignored.  buh-bye.


----------



## ggyo (Jul 15, 2013)

Amber Lamps said:


> Oh and I just noticed that this is user submitted news. heh.. yeah.. good going guys, this isn't even gaming related. I'm guessing this thread won't even last much more than a couple hours before it is locked.


Doesn't change that you're insanely ignorant. It seems like you're basing a whole country's ethnic image on it's popular culture. You don't understand the conditions of disenfranchisement.

"The village makes the villain." People are products of their environments.

So when the US government admitted through the Free Associated Press in 1978 that they had been covertly distributing narcotics and firearms to impoverished communities around the country, and that they were operating with Nicaraguan drug cartels (CointelPRO) and heroin king pins in the Golden Triangle to profit off the misfortunes of minorities, that was the ENVIRONMENT that the government created for said demographics.

There's nothing wrong with people in ghettos. Ghettos are what's wrong, but they'll never be abolished because they're profitable. When the average Black male can spend a third of his life in a jail cell working for less than $1US of forced labor, you can see why prison industry is profitable, and you can see why racial profiling is so important to the constitution and the economical prosperity of America. And when individuals try to change the conditions, they first get framed for a crime they did not commit so as to discredit them (MLK - rape, Huey Newton - drug trafficking and use, Tupac - rape, Michael Jackson - child sexual abuse, etc), and if the framing is unsuccessful, their untimely death is conspired.

But if you observe disenfranchised minorities that were raised in stable environments, they always excel athletically, academically, socially and occupationally. Even those disenfranchised minorities who make it out of said ghettos.

ALL people in the world are mentally equal in capabilities, but an environment will dictate how far your mind can go.


----------



## Amber Lamps (Jul 15, 2013)

ggyo said:


> Doesn't change that you're insanely ignorant. It seems like you're basing a whole country's ethnic image on it's popular culture. You don't understand the conditions of disenfranchisement.
> 
> "The village makes the villain." People are products of their environments.
> 
> ...


 
as seems that all the trolls are forthcoming now. I should just report both of these and then maybe someone who is sane will lock this thread. I'll just ignore this guy as well. People calling people names and throwing things off a tangent are no better than what they are claiming other people are.

anyways, blocked, reported. I didn't come to this forum for an argument. don't start one.


----------



## Celice (Jul 15, 2013)

itt: humanity is fucking pathetic.


----------



## ggyo (Jul 15, 2013)

Amber Lamps said:


> as seems that all the trolls are forthcoming now. I should just report both of these and then maybe someone who is sane will lock this thread. I'll just ignore this guy as well. People calling people names and throwing things off a tangent are no better than what they are claiming other people are.
> 
> anyways, blocked, reported. I didn't come to this forum for an argument. don't start one.


You've never travelled, have you? I'm not insulting you. Your backwater environment made you the full-of-animosity, insecure, acutely educated, racist White male. None of those are insults. You fall under the taxonomy of the average human being. Average. Human. Being. Nobody choses what they're taught and raised on from infancy to maturity, and it's hard to relearn a lifetime of miseducation, but that's what you need to do.

Go visit ghettos. Go visit slums in India. Go visit the African countries (Africa is a continent, just so you know) in commercials with small Black children being landed on from fly after fly. Read books. Read about people from Mansa Musa to Ernesto Guevara, from Khun Sa to Patrice Lumumba. Broaden your horizons, student.

Because right now you're an average human being. Not every individual is an anomaly and can make an environment become a product of them. They're called leaders, and they challenge the norm and conformity and innovate the world. Every character in history who has been remembered did just that. Maybe being average is enough for you, though. Personally, I refuse to be a fool.


----------



## Ray Lewis (Jul 15, 2013)

Laws mean nothing when not enforced evenly.  In England guys cut people up and brag on camera.  More restrictive gun laws do = more crime.  Posting "No guns allowed" tells predators where to go.  There are many knife attacks...somein China lately.  If all you watch is Msnbc, Fox News, CNN of course your views are limited.  

How many murders are not publicized?  Kids, infants, get gunned down by gangs in Chicago often.  New York, Chicago, etc; only criminals are armed; hardly a progressive vision as it is sold.  You hate the Constitution?  Move.  Democracyis 2 wolves telling the sheep it is dinner.  ConstitutionalRepublic, startpage.com that.  On page five but this stuff was ridiculous.


----------



## Ryukouki (Jul 15, 2013)

Man, you guys just don't take a break on this, do you?

I used to have a limited view of events, and then I started taking college courses within the ethnic studies division, and that ended up changing everything. It really does not matter if Trayvon was Caucasian, African American, Asian, etc. What did matter is that a life was taken. Instead of bitching about being killed over his ethnicity, or whatever the heck you guys are arguing about, instead you should focus on what America could do to prevent this tragedy from happening again.

Does shit happen in America? Yes. Was the outcome of this trial fair? It depends on how you look at it. But seriously. There's no point arguing about this anymore. All this topic will do is further incite problems. What I do not understand is how topics like this even are acceptable on this website. I know that GBAtemp has been steering towards a larger audience that's above gaming, but topics that go with politics or religion shouldn't even be posted here, because all that's going to happen is shit like this. If I wanted to read about this kind of news, I'd go elsewhere for it.


----------



## p1ngpong (Jul 15, 2013)

LightyKD said:


> It's a sad day today and frankly I'm sure that a good 80 percent of you will never understand why this day and this outcome is so sad. Today, my views on how I should conduct my daily affairs were validated. Frankly I'll only go outside to work, aside from that I'm staying locked in this apartment. Each day I'm becoming more and more scared to live in this nation and will spend the remainder of this day in grief while I try to push myself to be as active as I can for productivity's sake.


 
The best way to conduct your daily affairs and avoid getting murdered as a black male in the USA is to avoid other black males in your daily life and only hang around white people in your free time (when you aren't grieving).



> According to a study conducted by the *Bureau of Justice Statistics*, between 1976 and 2011 there were 279,384 black murder victims, which means that 262,621 were murdered by other blacks, resulting in the 94 percent figure.
> 
> Read more: http://globalgrind.com/news/7000-black-people-murdered-each-year-other-blacks-details#ixzz2Z4gNL4PV


----------



## wrettcaughn (Jul 15, 2013)

Only _some_ Mexicans are decent enough people...  Project kids are strong because all they do is eat candy and do push-ups.

Disagreeing with someone's limited (at best) world view means one is a troll.  Well, I'm one troll who's tired of all the troll discrimination on these forums...


----------



## g4jek8j54 (Jul 15, 2013)

I am happy with this verdict, and to be honest, if it wasn't for the media race-baiting and blowing this story out of proportion, charges would never have been brought in the first place.  There was no way that the state was going to prove these charges beyond a reasonable doubt.  Although I think Zimmerman used poor judgment, he did nothing illegal (the 911 operator ADVISED him not to pursue), and nothing which justified Martin brutally attacking him and slamming his head into the concrete.  Zimmerman's story is also consistent with the injuries that he had.  The lead detective of the case even said that he believed Zimmerman's version of the events.  I know that this is FOX News, but this is a very good article on explaining things...

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/07/14/never-should-have-witnessed-zimmerman-trial/#ixzz2Z05Fc355


----------



## blahkamehameha (Jul 15, 2013)

Media also tried to make this a white man killed black boy case. As one commentator noted, George Zimmerman is as white as President Obama.


----------



## VashTS (Jul 15, 2013)

pyromaniac123 said:


> I think we just found gbatemp's new legal expert.


 

you did. my defense: since a possible outcome of this is not guilty, you should find not guilty. 

my offense: hey everybodys guilty of sum'en right?


----------



## air2004 (Jul 15, 2013)

If I had a daughter she would look like Autumn Pasquale. Why isn't the media playing up the race card here ? I'll tell ya why , its because she is white.


----------



## Deleted member 318366 (Jul 15, 2013)

It surprised me when the verdict was announced so late at night but that's just my opinion, I didn't really care whether zimmerman would be found guilty or not. I was just ready for the trial to be over and for the media to finally shut up but alas that is not the case...the trial may be over but the travon martin george zimmerman saga is not over yet, there will be some difficulties Mr. Zimmerman will have to deal with in due time? No "Forever" first off he will bear the thought of having killed 17 year old martin, he'll have a target on his back as many would like to see him dead and he'll never be free. It's possible people will forget over the years but the black community will never forget...they will never forget what he did. All anyone can do is pray for him, his family and the safety of him and his family and the travon martin family.


----------



## Nathan Drake (Jul 15, 2013)

So I'm confused as to why people are still pulling the "Trayvon was beating Zimmerman to death" card. I urge you all to review Zimmerman's injuries after the incident, his denials of immediate treatment, which means there was no injury so serious that his life was even close to being in danger, and then compare it to what is being said. Zimmerman's injuries did not support the level of assault he claimed to have endured. Quite frankly, if you're having your head bashed into the sidewalk, you should have more than a couple of minor cuts. If you were being punched oh so brutally, you should have more than some bruises and a broken nose. The fact that people are still riding the "he was being beaten to death and simply defended himself" bandwagon just tells me that there is an intense refusal to listen to common sense.


----------



## The Milkman (Jul 15, 2013)

Huh. We might just hit 30 after all.


----------



## dalc789 (Jul 15, 2013)

Nathan Drake said:


> So I'm confused as to why people are still pulling the "Trayvon was beating Zimmerman to death" card. I urge you all to review Zimmerman's injuries after the incident, his denials of immediate treatment, which means there was no injury so serious that his life was even close to being in danger, and then compare it to what is being said. Zimmerman's injuries did not support the level of assault he claimed to have endured. Quite frankly, if you're having your head bashed into the sidewalk, you should have more than a couple of minor cuts. If you were being punched oh so brutally, you should have more than some bruises and a broken nose. The fact that people are still riding the "he was being beaten to death and simply defended himself" bandwagon just tells me that there is an intense refusal to listen to common sense.


 

Maybe the reason his injuries aren't so serious is because he stopped Trayvon before they became so.

Like one of the experts said in the trial: "You probably shouldn't wait until you're on the verge of death before defending yourself"


----------



## SickPuppy (Jul 15, 2013)

10 pages? wow

Zimmerman was within his rights and the laws of the state of Florida to shot his attacker. That's why he was found not guilty. What don't tempers understand about what's going on here.


----------



## Nathan Drake (Jul 15, 2013)

dalc789 said:


> Maybe the reason his injuries aren't so serious is because he stopped Trayvon before they became so.
> 
> Like one of the experts said in the trial: "You probably shouldn't wait until you're on the verge of death before defending yourself"


I don't feel one can adequately judge whether or not their life is in danger after only a few punches, especially when we don't know why those punches were delivered. The "he just jumped me like some street hooligan and threatened my life" thing is in no way believable.


----------



## Black-Ice (Jul 15, 2013)

Amber Lamps said:


> This is a video game forum, thus I think if you have an off topic conversation then anyone is more than capable and obliged to state what they please.


 
I dont think society works that way boss,


----------



## Amber Lamps (Jul 15, 2013)

Black-Ice said:


> I dont think society works that way boss,


 
no idea why people are still quoting me in this thread, i'm already done with it.  I wonder if there's a way to turn off the alert.


----------



## Vengenceonu (Jul 15, 2013)

Amber Lamps said:


> no idea why people are still quoting me in this thread, i'm already done with it. I wonder if there's a way to turn off the alert.


 

1) sorry for quoting you again 

2) at the top of this thread to the right you should see the "Unwatch thread button"


----------



## Amber Lamps (Jul 15, 2013)

Vengenceonu said:


> 1) sorry for quoting you again
> 
> 2) at the top of this thread to the right you should see the "Unwatch thread button"


 
yeah it isn't being watched but the alert settings are for all quoted replies so that is why..  anyway this thread was about to drastically get derailed before because people seem to want to be internet trolls by misinterpreting what I say... thus I don't want to be involved.  whatever goes is on them.


----------



## Vengenceonu (Jul 15, 2013)

Amber Lamps said:


> yeah it isn't being watched but the alert settings are for all quoted replies so that is why.. anyway this thread was about to drastically get derailed before because people seem to want to be internet trolls by misinterpreting what I say... thus I don't want to be involved. whatever goes is on them.


 

Welcome to the world of politics..... and children...


----------



## Thanatos Telos (Jul 15, 2013)

LightyKD said:


> been dropping money into savings every month just so that I can get out of Virginia. The place is turning into a police state, the laws are so damn backwards, the people are downright mean. "Virginia is for lovers" is a god damned lie! I just want to live somewhere where my wife and I can feel safe and be around progressive, sane, individuals who do not place a thousand year old book over logic and science.


 
Northern VA, VA beach, or every other part of VA? The first two are pretty great, but anywhere else is shit.


----------



## dalc789 (Jul 15, 2013)

Nathan Drake said:


> I don't feel one can adequately judge whether or not their life is in danger after only a few punches, especially when we don't know why those punches were delivered. The "he just jumped me like some street hooligan and threatened my life" thing is in no way believable.


 

Ok, you do have a point there.  However, Zimmerman did say that Trayvon had told him "You're gonna die tonight motherfucker".  Now granted he could have lied about that, but if he was telling the truth then he wouldn't have needed more than a few punches to determine his life was in danger, since Trayvon had flat out stated he was going to murder him.


----------



## smile72 (Jul 15, 2013)

Well, the Justice Dept is now reviewing this case to see if they should file "criminal civil rights charges" against Zimmerman.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/14/justice-department-george-zimmerman_n_3595835.html


----------



## Amber Lamps (Jul 15, 2013)

anyway no use in arguing with a 17 year old kid. ignored.  I looked at user submitted news and 100% of the page besides this thread is video game related hmmm tells me something doesn't it..  and now I can see the age demographic of trolls.. once again.. since last time there was an issue he was from the same country and only 1 year older.  still a teenager.. and still from a country that seems to breed asshats =.="  thank God we split off in 1776.


----------



## Ryukouki (Jul 15, 2013)

You might also meet people like me.  Seriously though GBAtemp, there should be a ban on material that has to do with politics and religion. Treading a VERY thin line here...


----------



## Frederica Bernkastel (Jul 15, 2013)

Amber Lamps said:


> anyway no use in arguing with a 17 year old kid. ignored. I looked at user submitted news and 100% of the page besides this thread is video game related hmmm tells me something doesn't it.. and now I can see the age demographic of trolls.. once again.. since last time there was an issue he was from the same country and only 1 year older. still a teenager.. and still from a country that seems to breed asshats =.=" thank God we split off in 1776.


Hey now, it's no secret that Britian died (I estimate in 1997, after the last major anti-freedom bill was passed), but that doesn't mean everyone from there is particularly bad. Your post was a little uncalled for - if the points you're making hold value, they should stand up on their own to any rational person, there is no need to resort to personal attack if this doesn't happen. It just means that either you're wrong, or that person is irrational and that others reading won't be very inclined to take them very seriously either.

You're right about the video-gamers demographic, however, it tends to be a place where immaturity and ignorance run rampant. Why bother doing productive things, and waste your time learning and exercising your powers of rationality, when you can seek an artificial sense of achievement from both videogames and the communities involved?
I've noticed many of the same attitudes are prevalent in both videogaming communities, roleplaying communities (including the more normal desktop kind - seriously you have no idea how bad some people get with even DnD) and in the anime communities. Interestingly enough, were you aware that the tumblrite 'social justice' movement is an offshoot of some older forum-based roleplaying communities?
That isn't any reason to judge, however, and I make a point of habit to try and discuss things rationally with people with memberships in forums like these, as belonging to a demographic doesn't make a person. Their personal viewpoints and ideas do.



Ryukouki said:


> You might also meet people like me.  Seriously though GBAtemp, there should be a ban on material that has to do with politics and religion. Treading a VERY thin line here...


Censorship is a quick fix, and not one that should be used here.
It is the fault of the media, with their intent to make money by manipulating the views of their audience, that we all have mixed and contradictory opinions.

If everyone were given the facts, straight up, threads like this one would not reach the same level of controversy. We'd still find a few "special snowflakes" with rebellious opinions, too edgy for us normal folk to understand completely, but they wouldn't get anywhere near the same level of support - and hopefully many would recieve the mental healthcare of which they are so badly in need.

I'm left feeling a little bad for the Martin's, as they've been misled by the same tactics as so many others here. While they were right to seek out a second opinion on what had happened, I think we can all agree that this is is mockery of what that should have entailed.

- Alex.


----------



## xist (Jul 15, 2013)

Amber Lamps said:


> and still from a country that seems to breed asshats =.=" thank God we split off in 1776.


 
I'm genuinely hurt....also please don't block me for actually sensibly quoting you.

Therein lies another facet about the discussion of this topic that is being overlooked or perhaps taken for granted...nationality. Whilst the media is capable of manipulating or emphasising certain facts about the case, it doesn't alter the fact that because a gun is involved it influences people's perception, especially those from non gun available regions. Furthermore the penalties for self defence are very different from place to place...the closest example of a case like this that i can think of which occurred in the UK involved a farmer shooting an invader into his home who was fleeing said angry resident. The burglar died and the farmer was convicted. Perhaps my understanding is flawed due to distance from the system but i think i'm right in saying that under US Castle Doctrine that wouldn't have happened. It's difficult to judge accurately but Country of origin is relatively important in discussions of this nature because of different national feeling. Although irrespective of that there's still a load of stupid posts in this topic regardless of locale.

Whilst i agree with Fredrica Bernkastel that Britain is one messed up place i honestly don't think race would have factored into this if it occurred over here...i honestly believe that despite public perceptions race isn't a huge thing in the UK. That being said if it did happen here Zimmerman would be doing time.


----------



## p1ngpong (Jul 15, 2013)

Keep things civil guys, off topic personal attacks and other forms of derailment will not be tolerated.


----------



## Qtis (Jul 16, 2013)

SickPuppy said:


> Zimmerman was within his rights and the laws of the state of Florida to shot his attacker. That's why he was found not guilty. What don't tempers understand about what's going on here.


I think the biggest problem is the complexity of the US law system (federal, state, etc) compared to other countries. Very few countries even have a constitution, which has quite a few parts still from the 18th century. Without changes, except state laws (banning of automatic rifles, but still quite liberal gun laws). Kinda hard for many people to see someone being completely freed of all charges for actually killing another person. Regardless of the circumstances, which are very special in many ways including the media attention.

As for most of the people outside of the US, the biased media and commentators don't help. It's been almost impossible to get a clear review of the case with the relevant fact untampered. If there happens to be a somewhat unbiased commentary, the person speaking makes an odd comment out of the blue and the credibility goes down a lot (alex: thanks for the video, though the last part of it goes a bit overboard as mentioned before, but that really isn't the most relevant part to the case in regards to clarity anyways). I for one have been mistaken in many ways, but then again, I do think that the case has gone out of proportion. If only the media in general didn't want to get as much sensational "news" as possible, this and many other cases would have been dealt with in a better way. Especially the Jury seems to be having it almost as bad as the people being charged, doing the prosecution or trying to defend the defendant.

And no. Going around giving bomb threats and threatening other people with violence should not be tolerated in any ways. Especially when the US is trying to stay a civilized nation with an unbiased justice system. If you feel there has been a wrong here, write to your local politicians (senators too?) and tell them what you think is wrong. And especially if there is something wrong. If you can't find anything else at a fault except that Zimmerman (or anyone else related to the case, be it the judge, jury or someone else) should be sentenced to something that can't be sentenced given the evidence (or the lack of it). The justice system is there to give everyone an possibility of defending themselves. If the case was filled with loopholes in the investigation and the events that happened (not taking into account the events that led to the shooting, since there is basically only one witness, ie. the defendant), it would be a different case. As it is not (or doesn't seem so), I'd just give it a rest and let the justice system do its things. If there is a need for more investigation, it'll be on a federal level (someone correct me if I'm wrong with the way it goes in the 'States).


----------



## Amber Lamps (Jul 16, 2013)

Fredrica Bernkastel said:


> Hey now, it's no secret that Britian died (I estimate in 1997, after the last major anti-freedom bill was passed), but that doesn't mean everyone from there is particularly bad. Your post was a little uncalled for - if the points you're making hold value, they should stand up on their own to any rational person, there is no need to resort to personal attack if this doesn't happen. It just means that either you're wrong, or that person is irrational and that others reading won't be very inclined to take them very seriously either.
> 
> You're right about the video-gamers demographic, however, it tends to be a place where immaturity and ignorance run rampant. Why bother doing productive things, and waste your time learning and exercising your powers of rationality, when you can seek an artificial sense of achievement from both videogames and the communities involved?
> I've noticed many of the same attitudes are prevalent in both videogaming communities, roleplaying communities (including the more normal desktop kind - seriously you have no idea how bad some people get with even DnD) and in the anime communities. Interestingly enough, were you aware that the tumblrite 'social justice' movement is an offshoot of some older forum-based roleplaying communities?
> ...


 
The video game forum apparantly gives people a place to troll since the reprecussions are minimal and the benefit or gain is some pseudo-power trip sans being mod and is a place for the trolls to go when they are bored and "use" people to satisfy their boredom.  Imho it doesn't make a difference to me.  Trolling doesn't make me "happier" nor does it cure boredom whatsoever.   But yeah the main people on this site that tend to cause issues fit that demographic.  As far as online gaming is concerned, usually the worst ones are under 14 years old from Russia and otherwise anyone aged under 25 from us/uk/australia.  Australia tends to have the most angry gamers in it but I guess that is because they don't have much going for them in that country (at least that is what they tell me I have no idea..I thought AU was suppose to be better than the US culturally so who knows).

But yeah I guess it is one of those things where instead of replying to the troll u are suppose to just let them have their "win" because the problem with flame wars is that trolls won't give up until they think they have won... that or the mod comes in and gives them the boot which seems to basically do the same thing; putting an end to the arguing.

anyways the news keeps going on and on and working more angles about the Zimmerman case.  it is analagous to a flame war as well.  It will keep going and going and going until some day another big news story comes up and then it will be all but forgotten.  I don't believe that anyone should lose his life but still... Zimmerman was getting his ass handed to him, he had a weapon, he defended himself, jury pretty much had to either acquit or just go not guilty.  I just don't agree with the armed vigilante thing so I can understand why people are doing protests and stuff but throwing in the race card?  on a hispanic?  give me a fucking break.  that's like when I say to a mexican that he/she is white.  guess what? all it will do is piss them off (if it is an idiot anyway, non idiots don't get pissed) but still... it's asking for it.


----------



## smile72 (Jul 16, 2013)

Amber Lamps said:


> The video game forum apparantly gives people a place to troll since the reprecussions are minimal and the benefit or gain is some pseudo-power trip sans being mod and is a place for the trolls to go when they are bored and "use" people to satisfy their boredom. Imho it doesn't make a difference to me. Trolling doesn't make me "happier" nor does it cure boredom whatsoever. But yeah the main people on this site that tend to cause issues fit that demographic. As far as online gaming is concerned, usually the worst ones are under 14 years old from Russia and otherwise anyone aged under 25 from us/uk/australia. Australia tends to have the most angry gamers in it but I guess that is because they don't have much going for them in that country (at least that is what they tell me I have no idea..I thought AU was suppose to be better than the US culturally so who knows).
> 
> But yeah I guess it is one of those things where instead of replying to the troll u are suppose to just let them have their "win" because the problem with flame wars is that trolls won't give up until they think they have won... that or the mod comes in and gives them the boot which seems to basically do the same thing; putting an end to the arguing.
> 
> anyways the news keeps going on and on and working more angles about the Zimmerman case. it is analagous to a flame war as well. It will keep going and going and going until some day another big news story comes up and then it will be all but forgotten. I don't believe that anyone should lose his life but still... Zimmerman was getting his ass handed to him, he had a weapon, he defended himself, jury pretty much had to either acquit or just go not guilty. I just don't agree with the armed vigilante thing so I can understand why people are doing protests and stuff but throwing in the race card? on a hispanic? give me a fucking break. that's like when I say to a mexican that he/she is white. guess what? all it will do is piss them off (if it is an idiot anyway, non idiots don't get pissed) but still... it's asking for it.


Really....you mention the race card, my father who is Hispanic (100% Mexican) is a racist. A person can be a racist, plus we don't know if race is involved until the U.S. Justice Dept finishes reviewing the case. And decides whether or not to press charges.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Jul 16, 2013)

smile72 said:


> Really....you mention the race card, my father who is Hispanic (100% Mexican) is a racist. A person can be a racist, plus we don't know if race is involved until the U.S. Justice Dept finishes reviewing the case. And decides whether or not to press charges.


 

To be fair I think the "race card" here isn't "Zimmerman can't be racist since he's Hispanic!" but more that people believe that the courts were biased towards him for being white while he's also part Hispanic.


----------



## smile72 (Jul 16, 2013)

Guild McCommunist said:


> To be fair I think the "race card" here isn't "Zimmerman can't be racist since he's Hispanic!" but more that people believe that the courts were biased towards him for being white while he's also part Hispanic.


 
Hmmm, I would say that's a small minority of people...but Seminole County is a rich white county to be fair. Though Sanford (county seat) is the poorest city.


----------



## Amber Lamps (Jul 16, 2013)

smile72 said:


> Really....you mention the race card, my father who is Hispanic (100% Mexican) is a racist. A person can be a racist, plus we don't know if race is involved until the U.S. Justice Dept finishes reviewing the case. And decides whether or not to press charges.


 
What I meant is that the news media is stating that Zimmerman is a caucasian or white sometimes which society dictates otherwise but the media twists it enough in a way that people will believe it.  and yeah I don't see any evidence that race was an issue however they are using that simply because Trayvon was Black.  I believe that if Trayvon was some white person whom was a total asshole, the same thing would definitely have happened thus invalidating the race card in all.  But that is just my opinion.  Opinions like this are what spark protests, riots, flame wars, bigotry, etc etc.  Once could easily hop in this thread and start some vicious name calling.  I think now I'll just go ahead and turn off notifications because that is all that is going to end up happening lol.  I can read the internet like a book.


----------



## jonesman99 (Jul 16, 2013)

In my opinion, I did not think this was a matter of race, I thought it was a matter of common sense and what's right and wrong. Zimmerman decided that he was going to follow this child, with the conscious intent to use lethal force, and to be quite honest, for what? What neighborhood watch do ANY of us know goes into a situation and using lethal force, premeditated or not? The least he could have done was pinned Trayvon down and called it citizen's arrest.


----------



## Hanafuda (Jul 16, 2013)

"Protestors" in LA trashing cars, stores, beating down random people on the street.

http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/live-video/


----------



## Ray Lewis (Jul 16, 2013)

Mainstream media doing their propaganda reading, Obama pushing for guns again; always political, always about pathos.  Nobody discusses babies shot by gangs in Chicago.  Most restrictive gun laws in the US...and highest number of shooting crimes last I checked.  Once second amendment is gone, we will be Greece.  Already have police beating people to death, cavity searches, no 4th amendment.  If attacked, call police, hope you and kids survive 15 minutes to get there.  Zimmerman is not the best example but mass shootings have been stopped by armed citizens.  No good stories pushed by media.

If Trayvon was white, nobody would care as race baiting DOJ, racist administration, Al Sharpton...media pushes what they are told to push.  No borders, no religions, no rights is the goal of globalists.  There is no two party system.  It is WWE.  Actors.  Criminals don't prosecute criminals.  Anyone see Michael Moore go on rants when Obama is Bush x20?  Disagree with the bad BO and you are racist.  Old black panthers despise this, acting like nobody else were slaves, like people never sold out their own people.  

Controlled puppets and false opposition.  MLK said judge character, not skin.  He is racist.  Jesus Christ said know a tree by its fruits.  Love your neighbor as yourself, forgive as you want to be forgiven, and don't commit blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.  Media portrays crazy Muslims as all of them.  Then Westboro is a cult.  Father hates nobody, he hates sin.  Vengeance is Fathers.  Meaning not my place to attack abortion doctors.  

Al Sharpton is not a reverand.  Maybe chruch of Satan.  Synagogue of Satan.  Tragedy in good old Chicago every day, every week.  Nobody talks about why gangs and criminals get guns, Fast and Furious giving cartels guns.  Just take from law abiding citizens.  Independent, no party is right.  If more woke up, the mainstream media would be disgusting.  At work, and bus stop, all I heard was Zimmerman hatred.  Syria?  Snowden, one of many scandals?  Big banks, inflation, lies of job growth, etc.  Nope, Russia mobilizes 160,000 troops and media race baits?  This was interesting but with no rights, this site would be gone.  Enjoy the time.  One more thought though...

Where did Earth come from?  Moon?  Sun?  Galaxies, stars, black holes...if it was all made, how far back does this go?  Everything appeared from nothing?  What was absolute beginning?  I am Christian but all religions have a view.  Nobody can debate this fact; it all began somewhere.  Not Hawking, not any honest person can argue against this.  If this is the matrix...who/what is all the way back?  Alpha?  Tragic, but there are much larger concerns to have.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 16, 2013)

I was going to stay out of this thread, but there are a couple of points I want to make. My apologies ahead of time to Gahars for only picking on him.



Gahars said:


> The burden of proof lies on the prosecution to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Zimmerman was not acting in self-defense. Saying "It isn't self defense because we don't know for absolute certain who threw the first punch!" is utterly ludicrous.


To repeat what others in this thread have already stated, "I'm not a lawyer." It very well might have been the prosecution's obligation with regard to legal burden of proof, but that's not how burden of proof should work. The claim that George Zimmerman killed Trayvon Martin has the burden of proof and meets its burden of proof. The claim that George Zimmerman acted in self-defense is what should have the next burden of proof, not the other way around; you can rephrase the claim as "Trayvon Martin did X, and that's why George Zimmerman shot him" to better understand why it now has the burden of proof. There's a reason why the phrase "Trayvon Martin was put on trial" isn't just rhetoric. The claim that Zimmerman's use of deadly force was warranted far from meets its philosophical burden of proof.



Gahars said:


> And if Trayvon Martin just left and went home, instead of returning to confront Zimmerman, this all would have been avoided. It certainly goes both ways here.
> 
> "For whatever reason." - He was the neighborhood watch captain and the community had been hit by a string of robberies and break-ins. Did the guy take his position too seriously? Sure, possibly, but that's certainly not criminal or even suspicious in any way.
> 
> Again, Trayvon Martin also had the opportunity to remove himself from the situation and deliberately chose to go back. Again, it goes both ways.


And one extreme of this kind of thinking is that rape victims could have just stayed home. See the bottom article for more on your point you make here.

It doesn't matter that Trayvon Martin fought with George Zimmerman or if he even threw the first punch in response to being harassed and racially profiled. Putting a pin in the other minute details of the case for a moment (e.g. Zimmerman being told by police not to engage Trayvon Martin, etc.), Zimmerman instigated a conflict based on racial profiling, Trayvon Martin responded, and Zimmerman shot him. One should not get to instigate a conflict and then jump the gun (figuratively and literally, in a sense) without consequences to him/herself. The claim that Zimmerman's use of deadly force was warranted far from meets its philosophical burden of proof.



Gahars said:


> This is a senseless tragedy, and it's a crying shame that a life was cut down so young. However, demonizing Zimmerman here and twisting standards to reach the verdict you want accomplishes nothing. It's more damaging than anything else, festering on the wound rather than moving on and trying to let it heal.
> 
> (Also, this isn't even a "Stand Your Ground" case, so I have to wonder why you're mentioning it here.)


It was a "Stand Your Ground" case, even if just with regard to jury instruction.


			
				Before "Stand Your Ground" jury instruction said:
			
		

> The defendant cannot justify the use of force likely to cause death or great bodily harm unless he used every reasonable means within his power and consistent with his own safety to avoid the danger before resorting to that force.
> 
> The fact that the defendant was wrongfully attacked cannot justify his use of force likely to cause death or great bodily harm if by retreating he could have avoided the need to use that force.


 


			
				After "Stand Your Ground" jury instruction said:
			
		

> If George Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in any place where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.


 

Most of what else I had to say is very well said in the article "The Zimmerman Jury Told Young Black Men What We Already Knew."

One highlight:



			
				Cord Jefferson said:
			
		

> If you’re a black man and you don’t remain vigilant of and obsequious to white people’s panic in your presence—if you, say, punch a man who accosts you during dinner with your girlfriend and screams “n****!” in your face, or if you, say, punch a man who is following you without cause in the dark with a handgun at his side—then you must be prepared to be arrested, be beaten, be shot through the heart and lung and die on the way home to watch a basketball game with your family. And after you are dead, other blacks should be prepared for people to say you are a vicious thug who deserved it. You smoked weed, for instance, and got in some fights at school (like I did)—obviously you had it coming. You were a ticking time bomb, and sooner or later someone was going to have to put you down.


----------



## Black-Ice (Jul 16, 2013)

Ray Lewis said:


> Where did Earth come from? Moon? Sun? Galaxies, stars, black holes...if it was all made, how far back does this go? Everything appeared from nothing? What was absolute beginning? I am Christian but all religions have a view. Nobody can debate this fact; it all began somewhere. Not Hawking, not any honest person can argue against this. If this is the matrix...who/what is all the way back? Alpha? Tragic, but there are much larger concerns to have.


 





When we bring in philosophy.
We're going too far


----------



## Ray Lewis (Jul 16, 2013)

Lacius said:


> I was going to stay out of this thread, but there are a couple of points I want to make. My apologies ahead of time to Gahars for only picking on him.
> 
> 
> To repeat what others in this thread have already stated, "I'm not a lawyer." It very well might have been the prosecution's obligation with regard to legal burden of proof, but that's not how burden of proof should work. The claim that George Zimmerman killed Trayvon Martin has the burden of proof and meets its burden of proof. The claim that George Zimmerman acted in self-defense is what should have the next burden of proof, not the other way around; you can rephrase the claim as "Trayvon Martin did X, and that's why George Zimmerman shot him" to better understand why it now has the burden of proof. There's a reason why the phrase "Trayvon Martin was put on trial" isn't just rhetoric. The claim that Zimmerman's use of deadly force was warranted far from meets its philosophical burden of proof.
> ...


Let me fix this part for you.  Profile of a PERSON matched one of the person committing burglary.  It is not illegal to follow somebody.  if you worry, go to public place, run, ask for help, call police.  Avoids conflict.  Following does not justify striking a person and ambushing them.  Self defense laws, MOST, once Zimmerman was down, there was a chance to get away.  Following is not attacking.  Police order a lot, and following was stupid, yet, not illegal. 

So we have assault, and another chance to get help, get away, and/or call police.  Instead, TM took dominant position, bounced Zimmerman's head of the ground, and was shot.  Jury felt it was imminent danger, self defense.  TM crossed line by striking, THEN by executing assault that could be considered attempted manslaughter.  Z was wrong to follow, TM was wrong to assault then CONTINUE attacking.  Witnesses, the jury, expert testimony all attest to this.

Now, can you prove it was ALL racism?  All profiling?  If it were a 6 foot 6 white guy and Zimmerman followed him would this even be a discussion?  He was assaulted, put into imminent danger, and took action to defend his life at that point.  The moral?  Don't raise your kids to assault strangers, trap them, and continue assaulting them--they just may be able to defend themselves and/or be armed.  Zimmerman was stupid, but not illegal in his actions.  He was not under arrest.  However, nobody in media says TM could/should have ran, left, called police worried about stalking.  Political games make it about race, gun rights, etc.  Chicago and other places sure are crime free when citizens are not allowed to have guns, right?  (sarcasm, look this up).  Black gangs kill black 6 month old babies every day, and it never gets brought up.  MEDIA says a Mexican guy is a WHITE guy and nobody thinks it smells funny? 

It is not like a duel, one guy with skittles, or that Zimmerman tackled TM and executed him.  Or that he wore a hoody and had skittles and was black.  You could argue profiling but was it racial or as it was stated; fit the profile (appearance/build/height/etc) of a burglary suspect nobody was catching?  Your statement made me want to vomit, change responses, then realize you probably watch MSNBC/CNN/Fox News.  Nobody reads the Constitution because "Them old rules", lmfao.  Bill of rights?  Nothing about this was race, and this is purely for venting as most don't comprehend the difference in ETHOS, PATHOS, LOGOS.  The jury went through it, based on logos, and found not guilty.  IF they were all people like you, or MSNBC worshippers, Al Sharpton, then it would be all PATHOS.  They were both wrong, one assaulted the other when that force was not justified (MANY alternatives), and I highly doubt if he did not assault Zimmerman and was standing with others that anything would have happened. 

I might glance for a giggle, but just as I am sure Gahars put this thread behind him, some people focus on ETHOS and LOGOS knowing PATHOS is a dangerous form of argument.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 17, 2013)

Ray Lewis said:


> Let me fix this part for you. Profile of a PERSON matched one of the person committing burglary. It is not illegal to follow somebody. if you worry, go to public place, run, ask for help, call police. Avoids conflict. Following does not justify striking a person and ambushing them. Self defense laws, MOST, once Zimmerman was down, there was a chance to get away. Following is not attacking. Police order a lot, and following was stupid, yet, not illegal.


I think you're missing the point that striking someone in response to stalking, harassment, and racial profiling does not give one the right to shoot that person dead.



Ray Lewis said:


> So we have assault, and another chance to get help, get away, and/or call police. Instead, TM took dominant position, bounced Zimmerman's head of the ground, and was shot. Jury felt it was imminent danger, self defense. TM crossed line by striking, THEN by executing assault that could be considered attempted manslaughter. Z was wrong to follow, TM was wrong to assault then CONTINUE attacking. Witnesses, the jury, expert testimony all attest to this.


As far as I can tell, what you're saying could be considered Trayvon Martin's "attempted manslaughter" has not met its burden of proof.

On a side note, I also can't say I wouldn't empathize with someone (albeit discondone) for reacting in some physical way to being stalked, harassed, and racially profiled. Reacting in some way to that kind of stalking, harassment, and racial profiling doesn't warrant one's death.



Ray Lewis said:


> It is not like a duel, one guy with skittles, or that Zimmerman tackled TM and executed him. Or that he wore a hoody and had skittles and was black.


I didn't say that.



Ray Lewis said:


> You could argue profiling but was it racial or as it was stated; fit the profile (appearance/build/height/etc) of a burglary suspect nobody was catching?


It was racial profiling. It would be factually incorrect to say the initial stalking and harassment was at all Trayvon Martin's fault.



Ray Lewis said:


> Your statement made me want to vomit, change responses, then realize you probably watch MSNBC/CNN/Fox News. Nobody reads the Constitution because "Them old rules", lmfao. Bill of rights? Nothing about this was race, and this is purely for venting as most don't comprehend the difference in ETHOS, PATHOS, LOGOS. The jury went through it, based on logos, and found not guilty. IF they were all people like you, or MSNBC worshippers, Al Sharpton, then it would be all PATHOS. They were both wrong, one assaulted the other when that force was not justified (MANY alternatives), and I highly doubt if he did not assault Zimmerman and was standing with others that anything would have happened.
> 
> I might glance for a giggle, but just as I am sure Gahars put this thread behind him, some people focus on ETHOS and LOGOS knowing PATHOS is a dangerous form of argument.


If you're going to attempt to insult my character or discredit me because you can't respond to my actual points, don't bother posting. These views are my own, and I've done nothing but present logical arguments for my views.


----------



## ggyo (Jul 17, 2013)

How is it possible that people are living in a kindergarten-campfire-sing-along world where racism doesn't exist? Get back to reality.

Timeline; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin

Trayvon Martin, at the time an innocent civilian, was walking home and was approached by a strange and hostile man. There's no question that Zimmerman had a hostile approach. His tone over the phone with the police respondent, the reaction of Trayvon, etc.

You think Martin just randomly started beating on Zimmerman with no warning? You think when a man goes home on a single incident and hits his bating "I DARE YOU TO HIT ME! YOU'RE NOT A MAN." wife, it's because she undercooked the roast beef? You think police just like to wait till everybody's camera phones are out to start beating the sh** out of random bystanders with their batons?

Life isn't spontaneous like that. There's always precedence, which you don't see. Trayvon Martin was violently approached, defended himself overwhelmingly, and was shot and killed. And he became the assailant because he was Black, and Zimmerman's ethnicity is irrelevant to the publics eye.

And because Zimmerman presented no witnesses to his claims, why is it that they were assumed true? I still feel for him. His neighbourhood was being targeted, and under circumstances where authorities won't intervene properly, I believe in vigilantism. Unfortunately Zimmerman has poor judgement. Why would a burglar be hanging around on the SIDEWALK in plain sight, eating skittles and drinking Arizona, and making calls on his cellular? What the f*** is suspicious about that?


----------



## Gahars (Jul 17, 2013)

Lacius said:


> I was going to stay out of this thread, but there are a couple of points I want to make. My apologies ahead of time to Gahars for only picking on him.
> 
> To repeat what others in this thread have already stated, "I'm not a lawyer." It very well might have been the prosecution's obligation with regard to legal burden of proof, but that's not how burden of proof should work. The claim that George Zimmerman killed Trayvon Martin has the burden of proof and meets its burden of proof. The claim that George Zimmerman acted in self-defense is what should have the next burden of proof, not the other way around; you can rephrase the claim as "Trayvon Martin did X, and that's why George Zimmerman shot him" to better understand why it now has the burden of proof. There's a reason why the phrase "Trayvon Martin was put on trial" isn't just rhetoric. The claim that Zimmerman's use of deadly force was warranted far from meets its philosophical burden of proof.


 
It doesn't matter how any one of us thinks it should work - the jury had to decide on the basis of how it actually works. "Innocent until proven guilty" means, well, the law must presume you are innocent unless the state can unequivocally prove otherwise.

Debating the point here is really moot. It's pretty much the entire basis of our entire legal system.



Lacius said:


> And one extreme of this kind of thinking is that rape victims could have just stayed home. See the bottom article for more on your point you make here.


 
No. No. No, no, no. Lacius, you're smart, smart enough to know that these two subjects are entirely incomparable. You are better than shameless slippery slope arguments like this.

Zimmerman, as was noted before, did not pursue him. Martin actively made a choice to return and confront Zimmerman. His agency was not once compromised. He made that decision of his own free will, and there is a world of fucking difference between that and rape.



Lacius said:


> It doesn't matter that Trayvon Martin fought with George Zimmerman or if he even threw the first punch in response to being harassed and racially profiled. Putting a pin in the other minute details of the case for a moment (e.g. Zimmerman being told by police not to engage Trayvon Martin, etc.), Zimmerman instigated a conflict based on racial profiling, Trayvon Martin responded, and Zimmerman shot him. One should not get to instigate a conflict and then jump the gun (figuratively and literally, in a sense) without consequences to him/herself. The claim that Zimmerman's use of deadly force was warranted far from meets its philosophical burden of proof.


 
(Quick note - through is a huge leap between "Being told by the police not to engage" and "Being advised by the dispatcher, as is protocol", which actually happened. Getting out of the car may no doubt have been a mistake, but it means nothing on any sort of legal basis.)

First of all, on the "racially profiling" bit - People trying to paint Zimmerman as some sort of unrepentant bigot conveniently forget that the man is mixed-race himself (he has quite a few black relatives, even), freely volunteered to teach black youths, started a business with a black partner, and vocally spoke out against the murder of a black homeless man by a white kid all the way back in... 2011. Of all the people to target a youth on the basis of race alone, Zimmerman is a pretty unlikely candidate.

I think it's important to remember the context of this case, too. The community was hit by a string of robberies and on the lookout. A hooded individual walking through the pouring rain at night looks suspicious regardless of race. (Even Zimmerman's awareness of Martin's race is suspect - he's only able to confirm Martin as a "Black male" after quite a bit of dialogue with the dispatcher). Was Zimmerman paranoid ? Sure, definitely, and given the circumstances, it's understandable what fueled that. Necessarily racist, though? Hardly.

But let's say that Zimmerman approached Martin because he's racist. It's not just a matter of instigation - it's a matter of escalation. Let's say I'm gay and someone calls me a faggot. That man is perfectly within his legal rights to call me that. I'm perfectly in my legal rights to call him a fucktard in response. However, that does not give me any right to punch him in the mouth. Just because my feelings are hurt does not give me the justification to escalate to violence. Attacking the man, no matter how bigoted he is, is still illegal. You can't just attack people because you think they're dicks - that's the law.

It is no different with race or anything else, really. It doesn't matter what was said - once you throw that punch, it's all on you.



> It was a "Stand Your Ground" case, even if just with regard to jury instruction.


 
Could I have a source? Not because I'm doubting you here - I just haven't seen that.



> Most of what else I had to say is very well said in the article "The Zimmerman Jury Told Young Black Men What We Already Knew."


 
The author makes the same assumption that racial epithets should somehow justify the use of violence, which is... yeah, pretty dumb. That's not a race issue - it's an issue of common sense.

As for the parts about Martin's background, I'm sorry, but I disagree. Considering how much the media attempted to whitewash his image to spin a narrative (I mean, Christ, many news networks and websites still only show the pictures of him when he was 12 years old), his background and history are relevant to the case. It's not that he "deserved it" or that "he had it coming" - it's a matter of looking past the common, biased portrayal to get a clearer, more accurate picture.


----------



## ggyo (Jul 17, 2013)

Gahars said:


> -snip-


Any of what you just said would stand even on a pair of paraplegic's legs, but...

White kids don't get stopped and killed for being innocent civilians walking home in their own neighbourhood, eating skittles and minding their own business. It's unimaginable, yet it happens to Black men ALL THE TIME, and it's because they're Black.

I bet you can't find ONE similar incident with a White victim which has no precedent conflict. I bet you everything in my life. If you find ONE case where a White child is killed in his own neighbourhood for being profiled as an assumed criminal, and that White child has no known history to his assailer, I will come down to wherever you live and I will sign everything over to you.

I'll chop my fucking dick off and let you sell it on the Black market. Better yet, I'll chop my Black dick off and have it surgically attached to you (upgrade!) and you can sell your dick on the Black market.

But if I can find 100 similar cases where an innocent Black child is killed by an assailant, as a product of racial profiling, even though they have no prior knowledge to each other, you have to sell your dick to the Black market and donate all proceeds to the Martin family.

This is serious. Put that on everything. My life, my family's lives, my God, my liberty, everything. Deal?


----------



## ggyo (Jul 17, 2013)

I'm really confident because I've been looking myself for half a year.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 17, 2013)

Gahars said:


> It doesn't matter how any one of us thinks it should work - the jury had to decide on the basis of how it actually works. "Innocent until proven guilty" means, well, the law must presume you are innocent unless the state can unequivocally prove otherwise.
> 
> Debating the point here is really moot. It's pretty much the entire basis of our entire legal system.


I agree.



Gahars said:


> Lacius, you're smart


Aw, ergh, urgh, um. *blushes*



Gahars said:


> smart enough to know that these two subjects are entirely incomparable. You are better than shameless slippery slope arguments like this.
> 
> Zimmerman, as was noted before, did not pursue him. Martin actively made a choice to return and confront Zimmerman. His agency was not once compromised. He made that decision of his own free will, and there is a world of fucking difference between that and rape.


There's a world of difference between this and a slippery slope argument. A potential rape victim going out of the house is neither consent nor justification to be raped. Being black and out of the house is neither consent nor justification to be stalked and harassed. Throwing a punch is neither consent nor justification to be shot.



Gahars said:


> (Quick note - through is a huge leap between "Being told by the police not to engage" and "Being advised by the dispatcher, as is protocol", which actually happened. Getting out of the car may no doubt have been a mistake, but it means nothing on any sort of legal basis.)


I misspoke when I said "police," but it doesn't change my initial point of putting a pin in extraneous information with regard to my summarizing of what happened.



Gahars said:


> First of all, on the "racially profiling" bit - People trying to paint Zimmerman as some sort of unrepentant bigot conveniently forget that the man is mixed-race himself (he has quite a few black relatives, even), freely volunteered to teach black youths, started a business with a black partner, and vocally spoke out against the murder of a black homeless man by a white kid all the way back in... 2011. Of all the people to target a youth on the basis of race alone, Zimmerman is a pretty unlikely candidate.


I just got back from a trip visiting family in a small town in rural Missouri (population of ~5,000). These are some of the nicest people I've ever met. They do community service, youth group stuff with racial minorities, discondone senseless murder like the example you just gave, etc. That doesn't mean these people don't say blatantly racist things at Thanksgiving, lock their car doors while at a stoplight when they see black people on the sidewalk, or racially profile. Gahars, you're smart. Too smart to supplement this conversation with anecdotal evidence that demonstrably doesn't mean anything, particularly if one takes into account what Zimmerman said/did directly before, during, and after the shooting.

Edit: My family and I are white, by the way.



Gahars said:


> I think it's important to remember the context of this case, too. The community was hit by a string of robberies and on the lookout. A hooded individual walking through the pouring rain at night looks suspicious regardless of race. (Even Zimmerman's awareness of Martin's race is suspect - he's only able to confirm Martin as a "Black male" after quite a bit of dialogue with the dispatcher). Was Zimmerman paranoid ? Sure, definitely, and given the circumstances, it's understandable what fueled that. Necessarily racist, though? Hardly.
> 
> But let's say that Zimmerman approached Martin because he's racist. It's not just a matter of instigation - it's a matter of escalation. Let's say I'm gay and someone calls me a faggot. That man is perfectly within his legal rights to call me that. I'm perfectly in my legal rights to call him a fucktard in response. However, that does not give me any right to punch him in the mouth. Just because my feelings are hurt does not give me the justification to escalate to violence. Attacking the man, no matter how bigoted he is, is still illegal. You can't just attack people because you think they're dicks - that's the law.
> 
> It is no different with race or anything else, really. It doesn't matter what was said - once you throw that punch, it's all on you.


I touched on the lack of illegality to Zimmerman's racial profiling in a later post. I also said I don't condone reacting to racial profiling with violence. However, as I also already said, throwing a punch doesn't warrant shooting someone dead without consequence.

Let's run through a hypothetical scenario to illustrate why I believe Zimmerman is guilty.

Zimmerman racially profiles Trayvon Martin
Zimmerman proceeds to stalk him, and Zimmerman confronts/harasses him.
Trayvon Martin assaults Zimmerman due to his infuriation at the harassment and racial profiling.
-or-
Trayvon Martin assaults Zimmerman in self-defense against this "creep" who is stalking and harassing him, for any number of reasons.
Zimmerman responds with deadly force, the justified need for which having yet to be seen and various inconsistencies existing within the self-defense story.



Gahars said:


> Could I have a source? Not because I'm doubting you here - I just haven't seen that.


Sure. I don't remember where I got it, but highlighting one of those block quotes sent me to these as the first results:
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/op...man-trayvon-oped0717-20130717,0,3291635.story
http://dangelber.com/blog/view_blog.php?ID=268
http://mediamatters.org/research/2013/07/16/media-neglect-that-stand-your-ground-is-centerp/194916
http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/07/14/3500168/little-hope-of-changing-stand.html



Gahars said:


> The author makes the same assumption that racial epithets should somehow justify the use of violence, which is... yeah, pretty dumb. That's not a race issue - it's an issue of common sense.


He says racial epithets justify the use of violence as much as he says that "justified violence" justifies the use of deadly force.



Gahars said:


> As for the parts about Martin's background, I'm sorry, but I disagree. Considering how much the media attempted to whitewash his image to spin a narrative (I mean, Christ, many news networks and websites still only show the pictures of him when he was 12 years old), his background and history are relevant to the case. It's not that he "deserved it" or that "he had it coming" - it's a matter of looking past the common, biased portrayal to get a clearer, more accurate picture.


The point was that his background does not justify him being "put down," as the author puts it.


----------



## Parasite X (Jul 17, 2013)

omgpwn666 said:


> Good for him.



you must be joking he's guilty.


----------



## jonthedit (Jul 17, 2013)

Parasite X said:


> you must be joking he's guilty.


 

What's done is done.
He's going to die anyway.


----------



## Parasite X (Jul 17, 2013)

yes justice the guilty get charged & the good get rewarded =)!!!


----------



## g4jek8j54 (Jul 17, 2013)

Parasite X said:


> you must be joking he's guilty.


 
Actually, a jury rightfully found him not guilty.  The state never disproved self-defense.  There is no evidence that Zimmerman did anything illegal up to and after the confrontation, and there is no evidence that Martin was justified in physically attacking Zimmerman and slamming his head into concrete, as the injuries to Zimmerman suggest.  If Zimmerman is telling the truth about that (and again, he has the injuries to back it up, along with eyewitnesses), then he was in very potential danger of a life-threatening skull fracture.  Head trauma is nothing to take lightly.



jonthedit said:


> What's done is done.
> He's going to die anyway.


 
What does that mean?



Anyway, I just started watching this (about ten minutes in), and so far, it is pretty good.  I apologize if this has been posted in advance, and I don't know where it is going to lead, but if you would like to listen to it, here is the video...


----------



## jonthedit (Jul 17, 2013)

g4jek8j54 said:


> What does that mean?


 
Either way, people consider him "racist."
There is already bounty lists with him on it.
People are crazy.


----------



## omgpwn666 (Jul 17, 2013)

Parasite X said:


> you must be joking he's guilty.


 
Only George would know that, but based on the verdict he's not guilty.


----------



## Gahars (Jul 17, 2013)

Lacius said:


> There's a world of difference between this and a slippery slope argument. A potential rape victim going out of the house is neither consent nor justification to be raped. Being black and out of the house is neither consent nor justification to be stalked and harassed. Throwing a punch is neither consent nor justification to be shot.


 
And that's based in the ludicrous assumption that the events occurred only because Martin was black.

Nobody (or, at least, nobody reasonable) is saying "He was black, he was askin' for it!" and/or "He was wearing a hoody, he was askin' for it!" The issue lies entirely in how he reacted to Zimmerman - something he absolutely had a choice in.



Lacius said:


> I just got back from a trip visiting family in a small town in rural Missouri (population of ~5,000). These are some of the nicest people I've ever met. They do community service, youth group stuff with racial minorities, discondone senseless murder like the example you just gave, etc. That doesn't mean these people don't say blatantly racist things at Thanksgiving, lock their car doors while at a stoplight when they see black people on the sidewalk, or racially profile. Gahars, you're smart. Too smart to supplement this conversation with anecdotal evidence that demonstrably doesn't mean anything, particularly if one takes into account what Zimmerman said/did directly before, during, and after the shooting.
> 
> Edit: My family and I are white, by the way.


 
My point isn't "Racist can't be nice people" or vice versa. The issue is, in order to paint Zimmerman as a racist, you have to make an astoundingly huge leap and ignore pretty much ignore everything about the man and his life. His family, his life - that's beyond anecdotal.

We're not just talking about "dinner table racism" here. There's a difference between that and, say, supposedly "stalking" a teen down just because he's black. It's inconsistent with the record at hand.

Maybe he's incredibly racist and kept it a secret all this time. However, there's no evidence for this alone - it relies entirely on, at best, shallow assumptions.

Perhaps it's a good time to remind people of Hanlon's Razor.



Lacius said:


> I touched on the lack of illegality to Zimmerman's racial profiling in a later post. I also said I don't condone reacting to racial profiling with violence. However, as I also already said, throwing a punch doesn't warrant shooting someone dead without consequence.


 
If Martin had just thrown a punch and Zimmerman immediately retaliated with gunfire, yeah, sure. However, that's not what the situation was. Zimmerman didn't resort to using the weapon until he was pinned to the ground and having his head slammed into the pavement (and yes, his injuries are consistent with this detail).

We can talk about the merits of self-defense all night long, but please, let's not forget what the details here. In a case like this, they're absolutely crucial.



Lacius said:


> Let's run through a hypothetical scenario to illustrate why I believe Zimmerman is guilty.
> 
> Zimmerman *"*racially profiles*"* Trayvon Martin
> Zimmerman proceeds to stalk him, and Zimmerman confronts/harasses him.
> ...


 
(As for the link - Wasn't Jeantel the prosecution's star witness? The one who repeatedly contradicted herself on rather significant matters? Credibility is kind of an issue here. Plus, wouldn't this make Martin as much of a profiler as Zimmerman is claimed to be?)

In both of your scenarios, Martin unjustifiably starts the violence. For the first account, anger (no matter the cause) is not grounds to attack another person. As for the second, that flimsy excuse would not stand any sort of actual legal scrutiny - and so we're back at Martin unjustifiably retaliating with violence.

And, again, your accounts ignore the fact that Martin deliberately returned to confront Zimmerman - again, Zimmerman didn't "track him down", Martin actively went looking for Zimmerman. That's a pretty important piece in this puzzle. Violence was anything but Martin's only resort here.



Lacius said:


> Sure. I don't remember where I got it, but highlighting one of those block quotes sent me to these as the first results:
> http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/op...man-trayvon-oped0717-20130717,0,3291635.story
> http://dangelber.com/blog/view_blog.php?ID=268
> http://mediamatters.org/research/2013/07/16/media-neglect-that-stand-your-ground-is-centerp/194916
> http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/07/14/3500168/little-hope-of-changing-stand.html


 
Ah. Several sites have made a distinction between self-defense and Stand Your Ground, like this, so that's what I was basing my statement on.



Lacius said:


> He says racial epithets justify the use of violence as much as he says that "justified violence" justifies the use of deadly force.


 
Let's not mince words here - he certainly implies it.



> if you, say, punch a man who accosts you during dinner with your girlfriend and screams “n****!” in your face, or if you, say, punch a man who is following you without cause in the dark with a handgun at his side—then you must be prepared to be arrested,


 
Not to mention that placing this incident on the same level as the Martin/Zimmerman incident (where, you know, a person actually lost their life) is... a poor choice, to say the least.



Lacius said:


> The point was that his background does not justify him being "put down," as the author puts it.


 
Of course not. Nobody (or at least, again, nobody reasonable) is saying that. So...


----------



## Ray Lewis (Jul 17, 2013)

Is Gahars the only one sticking to logos and ethos?  About the guy talking about body parts, and anything else, innocent people get killed daily.  All races.  Police have beaten mentally ill suspects to death.  Rodney King was profiling and nobody deserves that.  A video made me cry.  A guy called out to his dad, for help, over and over.  Police smothered/beat him.  He later died.  His crime?  Sitting against a pole in a public place-- he was white.  These days the police are going at everyone.  All arguments aside, emotional baiting, enjoy your loved ones.  Everyone has the right to an opinion (until first amendment is gone like the fourth and others).

I find myself agreeing with Gahars BUT, as a human being, maybe we can agree many are victims.  Two white women pulled over, cavity searched with same glove!!!  Cops laughing at Constitution.  There are good/bad in police, military, etc.  Maybe somebday we get angry at the dividers?


----------



## Lacius (Jul 17, 2013)

Gahars said:


> *snip*


 
Instead of nitpicking the minor problems I had with your response (e.g. I never said Zimmerman had to be a racist to racially profile, your misinterpretation of the op-ed, etc.), I'm going to go ahead and say that this and other supplementary research has led me to the conclusion that Zimmerman probably acted in self-defense and was rightfully acquitted.


----------



## Gahars (Jul 17, 2013)

Lacius said:


> Instead of nitpicking the minor problems I had with your response (e.g. I never said Zimmerman had to be a racist to racially profile, your misinterpretation of the op-ed, etc.), I'm going to go ahead and say that this and other supplementary research has led me to the conclusion that Zimmerman probably acted in self-defense and was rightfully acquitted.


 

Yeah, I apologize if I was a bit jumpy with my arguments.

Just so we're clear, though, I'm not saying that Zimmerman made no mistakes and is the perfect embodiment of justice (that's /pol/). I think this was just a case of two men making a series of rash decisions that ultimately resulted in a horrible, tragic outcome. Unfortunately, it seems that many media outlets tried to twist this into something it wasn't, callously exploiting this teen's death for the sake of a narrative. That's beyond reprehensible. I can't imagine what Trayvon's family must be going through, or Zimmerman's for that matter, and I'm absolutely sure putting them under constant media scrutiny has made it no easier.

Perhaps if the story was treated the tact, dignity, and respect it deserved, discussions on the matter wouldn't be so inflamed. Perhaps there wouldn't be people rioting in the streets and calling for blood. Perhaps we could actually accomplish something and move forward.

It would be nice, wouldn't it?


----------



## Black-Ice (Jul 17, 2013)

Hey guys,
Listen to ggyo
I think he's correct.


Oh and how many of you have notice the Jury was as far away from a representation of Trayvon as possible. All older white (well one was hispanic/white i think?) women.
No blacks, no men and no younger people. That just screams "planted jury". But hey, america would never do something like that now


----------



## CraddaPoosta (Jul 17, 2013)

Ashtray Martin got precisely what he deserved. He was a racist thug. He racially profiled Zimmerman as a 'creepy ass cracker'. Then, he committed two hate crimes as the result. Assault, and attempted murder. **snip**

*That's quite enough of that. Your opinions are yours to express, but don't take it over the top with more hate. *
*-Twin*


----------



## Xarsah16 (Jul 17, 2013)

Neo Draven said:


> Ashtray Martin got precisely what he deserved. He was a racist thug. He racially profiled Zimmerman as a 'creepy ass cracker'. Then, he committed two hate crimes as the result. Assault, and attempted murder. *snip*


 

It wasn't quite attempted murder Trayvon did IMO upon reading but he did certainly attack Zimmerman. Trayvon was suspicious of Zimmerman, and didn't like the fact that Zim was following Tray. I'm sure Tray didn't expect the gun, but I feel as if Zim had every right to shoot Tray in self defense. Zim felt as if his life was in danger. I agree with Zimmerman's motive for watching the neighborhood - and I think he failed at trying to play the hero by taking the life of Tray. He did the best he could.

I don't think Martin deserved to die - the kid was just a rebellious, robbing punk. It's unfortunate that he did die though - because now he'll never have the opportunity to learn from his mistakes.

It's just a tragedy - and I still hold that Zimmerman shouldn't be held accountable for defending himself whilst his head was being pounded into the pavement.

*snip*


----------



## g4jek8j54 (Jul 17, 2013)

Black-Ice said:


> Hey guys,
> Listen to ggyo
> I think he's correct.
> 
> ...


 
1.  There was one "black hispanic" juror on the jury.
2.  George Zimmerman is not white, despite what the media says.  He is hispanic.

Anyway, I think we really need to just ignore the noise being made by the racist/race-baiting mainstream media, and just look at the facts of this case.  The fact is that there is no evidence or proof that Zimmerman did anything illegal in this encounter, and the evidence indicates that Martin was the one who first initiated the violence (which is illegal).  Zimmerman's account of the story is consistent with the available evidence.  Yes, unfortunately, we don't have Martin's side of the story, but Zimmerman is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and there is no proof to counter his claims.

According to Zimmerman, Martin started the physical confrontation, and the injuries on both individuals are consistent with Zimmerman's account.  Zimmerman had injuries to his nose and back of his head, where Martin only had injuries to his knuckles, and obviously, the fatal gunshot wound.  Zimmerman had no injuries to his knuckles.  Again, the available evidence supports his claims.

As I said earlier in this thread, I think Zimmerman could have handled the situation better, but he still did nothing illegal in the encounter.  Also, there is no evidence or proof that Zimmerman was racist toward black people.  In fact, the evidence available strongly suggests otherwise.


----------



## Black-Ice (Jul 17, 2013)

g4jek8j54 said:


> 1. There was one "black hispanic" juror on the jury.
> 2. George Zimmerman is not white, despite what the media says. He is hispanic.


 
I dont care what if he's mexican, russian or chinese
My point is that Trayvon had no jury representation. And my point is valid.


----------



## Gahars (Jul 17, 2013)

Black-Ice said:


> I dont care what if he's mexican, russian or chinese
> My point is that Trayvon had no jury representation. And my point is valid.


 

The thing is, juries don't select for race. They're prohibited from selecting _against_ race (or gender, or so on), of course, but that's it. Ensuring that the members of the jury are as unbiased as possible is far more pressing.

Besides, juries aren't selected to "represent" the subjects of a case, so the point is moot anyway.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 17, 2013)

Black-Ice said:


> Hey guys,
> Listen to ggyo
> I think he's correct.


 
Said nobody in the history of ever. 

#ShitGBATempSays


----------



## Black-Ice (Jul 17, 2013)

Gahars said:


> The thing is, juries don't select for race. They're prohibited from selecting _against_ race (or gender, or so on), of course, but that's it. Ensuring that the members of the jury are as unbiased as possible is far more pressing.
> 
> Besides, juries aren't selected to "represent" the subjects of a case, so the point is moot anyway.


 
I know, I studied law. its just that... meh. It seemed so conspiracy like. I know its far fetched to say it was planted, and it probably wasnt,
But that has to be the worst luck of the draw i've seen. 



Foxi4 said:


> Said nobody in the history of ever.
> 
> #ShitGBATempSays


 
LOOOL, I actually agreed with him. Real talk


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 17, 2013)

Black-Ice said:


> I know, I studied law. its just that... meh. It seemed so conspiracy like. I know its far fetched to say it was planted, and it probably wasnt,
> But that has to be the worst luck of the draw i've seen.


The problem with this case is the way in which media spun it in the beginning. The victim was white-washed wheras his past was shady and he _was_ agressive towards Zimmerman while Zimmerman was painted as the white racist when he's neither. Your _"feels"_ are less important than facts and one of the characteristic features of a fact is that you can prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt.


----------



## Black-Ice (Jul 17, 2013)

Foxi4 said:


> The problem with this case is the way in which media spun it in the beginning. The victim was white-washed wheras his past was shady and he _was_ agressive towards Zimmerman while Zimmerman was painted as the white racist when he's neither. Your _"feels"_ are less important than facts and one of the characteristic features of a fact is that you can prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt.


 
True.
But there isnt much that can be proved without a shadow of a doubt with this case imo


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 17, 2013)

Black-Ice said:


> True.
> But there isnt much that can be proved without a shadow of a doubt with this case imo


Perhaps that's the case, but it's not a good enough reason to put someone in jail when he could very well be innocent.


----------



## Black-Ice (Jul 17, 2013)

Foxi4 said:


> Perhaps that's the case, but it's not a good enough reason to put someone in jail.


 
Or to completely acquit from murder either. But thats how I see it.


----------



## p1ngpong (Jul 17, 2013)

Black-Ice said:


> Hey guys,
> Listen to ggyo
> I think he's correct.
> 
> ...


 
So what you are saying is an all white female jury in America will be biased and automatically side against a black male victim in a murder trial and exonerate a Hispanic defendant because they are white?

Guess what?



Spoiler











 
Really that is no different from me saying Martin was out to burgle houses because he is black, young and was wearing a hoody.

I put it to you that you are the one who is a disgusting racist *black*-ice. Shame on you.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 17, 2013)

Black-Ice said:


> Or to completely acquit from murder either. But thats how I see it.


...are you going to keep him in limbo then? The persecution had time to prepare a case and their case failed to convince the jury and that's that - you can't drag him from one courtroom to another _"until the persecution wins"_, that's not how justice works.


----------



## Black-Ice (Jul 17, 2013)

p1ngpong said:


> So what you are saying is an all white female jury in America will be biased and automatically side against a black male victim in a murder trial and exonerate a Hispanic defendant because they are white?
> 
> Guess what?
> 
> ...


 
What I said was that it was the worst draw of jury that could have been drawn for Trayvon. 
Also, loool sorry if my "racism" causes a sandstorm in your vagina p1ng.
I got opinions bro. If they make me a disgusting racist, sure whatever.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 17, 2013)

Black-Ice said:


> What I said was that it was the worst draw of jury that could have been drawn for Trayvon.
> Also, loool sorry if my "racism" causes a sandstorm in your vagina p1ng.
> I got opinions bro. If they make me a disgusting racist, sure whatever.


 
p1ngpong has a point - if you assume that a white jury will be bias against a black defendant then you're being a racist Blice. Racism works both ways.


----------



## Black-Ice (Jul 17, 2013)

Foxi4 said:


> p1ngpong has a point - if you assume that a white jury will be bias against a black defendant then you're being a racist Blice. Racism works both ways.


 
Well.
I'm a racist.

Thanks for helping me discover more about myself gbatemp.
I'll take what you said to heart and treasure it forever.

Lol 90% of everyone who talks about this case is a racist in that light


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 17, 2013)

Black-Ice said:


> Thanks for helping me discover more about myself gbatemp.
> I'll take what you said to heart and treasure it forever.


 
If you want to stop being a racist, stop playing the race card. A difference of race between the victim and the defendant does not a hate crime make.


----------



## Black-Ice (Jul 17, 2013)

Foxi4 said:


> If you want to stop being a racist, stop playing the race card. A difference of race between the victim and the defendant does not a hate crime make.


 
I'm not playing cards, i'm stating what I think.
And i've already accepted this new revelation you've pointed out to me. I've embraced it and its part of me now.

Race plays a part in everything. Ignoring it is ignorant.


----------



## p1ngpong (Jul 17, 2013)

Black-Ice said:


> What I said was that it was the worst draw of jury that could have been drawn for Trayvon.
> I got opinions bro. If they make me a disgusting racist, sure whatever.


 
You are saying that a white jury is incapable of being neutral and fair in a trial, that if the jury was predominantly black it would be somehow better for Martin.

My above post was not all that serious but I was just pointing out the hypocrisy and casual racism displayed by a lot of people due to this trial that they are getting away with freely.

If the shoe was on the other foot and I was saying things like "well I am white and Trayvon was black so he was probably a criminal and deserved to die" there would be a shitstorm here. And basically what you are saying is that that was essentially the attitude of the jury.

So stick your opinions up your arse racist.


----------



## Black-Ice (Jul 17, 2013)

p1ngpong said:


> You are saying that a white jury is incapable of being neutral and fair in a trial, that if the jury was predominantly black it would be somehow better for Martin.
> 
> My above post was not all that serious but I was just pointing out the hypocrisy and casual racism displayed by a lot of people due to this trial that they are getting away with freely.
> 
> ...


 
Actually, all i said is that it was a jury that didnt represent Trayvon.
Said nothing about their ability to make decisions.
Thats assumptions you've created in your head to start a fight i dont care about mate.

But hey i'm racist. So i'm wrong.


----------



## p1ngpong (Jul 17, 2013)

Black-Ice said:


> Actually, all i said is that it was a jury that didnt represent Trayvon.
> Said nothing about their ability to make decisions.
> Thats assumptions you've created in your head to start a fight i dont care about mate.
> 
> But hey i'm racist. So i'm wrong.


 
If their ability to make decisions is unaffected then what difference does the race and colour of the jury make in the first place? Why even bring it up?

Im not picking a fight or being serious at all, just pointing out the irony.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 17, 2013)

Black-Ice said:


> Actually, all i said is that it was a jury that didnt represent Trayvon.


 
That's the thing about juries though - they're not supposed to represent the victim _or_ the defendant, that would make them bias either way. The jury members are supposed to be impartial, so _"representing the victim"_ factor is irrelevant.

I would personally be happier with a mixed race jury myself just so that problems like this don't pop up, but the verdict of this jury still stands.


----------



## ggyo (Jul 18, 2013)

So Trayvon, because he's a young Black man being harassed and followed by a creepy old fat White guy in a state famous for racial tension and hate crimes, can't be afraid for his life and defend himself against potential harm and death?

That situation is the definition of Fight or Flight. Black people have been running for how long. Why can't they stand their ground?

P.S. Zimmerman isn't Hispanic. He's White AND Hispanic.


----------



## LightyKD (Jul 18, 2013)

p1ngpong said:


> If their ability to make decisions is unaffected then what difference does the race and colour of the jury make in the first place? Why even bring it up?
> 
> Im not picking a fight or being serious at all, just pointing out the irony.


 


It makes a HUUUUGE fucking difference! Unlike the propaganda the U.S. spews out as if this nation is "One America" the fact is, there is an America for well off and rich Caucasians and a America for poor Caucasians and minorities even more so for minorities. A jury here is SUPPOSED to be a "jury of your peers" but ever so often, especially in cases with African American defendants, that jury tends to represent one type of person. Some, "jury of peers" huh? I would rather see a law that forces the courts to ensure that their juries have a male and female from each "major" race in this country. One that is representative of the many different walks of life that this country represents.  

In regards to race, while there are many Caucasians here that are able to empathize with other types of people, there are also a fair amount that just don't give a damn and are racially biased beyond belief.  They walk around as if they are better than everyone else or that they are entitled to better treatment "just because". Sadly it's the reality of this country. -just had a conversation similar to this with my Wife today. She's Caucasian and I'm Black so you can say that our family is very mixed. I lucked out by having in-laws that "get it". They understand that things just aren't where they should be these days. I can say from experience that the stereotypes the media pushes out are far from truth but as a nation the US really needs some "re-education" on what tolerance really means. 

Side note, forget all of this race talk, I can't wait for the day this planet does away with this silly ass concept of "nationalism". That shit isn't going to mean a hill of beans once we start traveling the stars and meeting our interstellar neighbors. How silly will we look stepping onto the interstellar scene as the "Divided Nations of Earth" -food for thought.


----------



## Bobbybangin (Jul 18, 2013)

If Trayvon did something wrong, he deserved a trial as guaranteed by our constitution. Bottom line. What he got instead was a perversion of our justice system that rewarded a man for acting as his judge, jury, and executioner. 

George Zimmerman was a racist. He was racially motivated and had a violent criminal past. His old Myspace page reveals as much. 

For a lot of people this is easy to simply dismiss as 'playing the race' card. Most will never fully understand the frustration of being in this situation. And I wouldn't wish it on anyone. 

After George Zimmerman shot Trayvon Martin he was paraded around the police station like a hero and was eating donuts with the cops. It took six months of activists organizing and campaigning to get charges brought against Zimmerman. That's why there was all the media coverage.

In a bit of good news today, Stevie Wonder announced he will no longer be performing in Florida until they retract the 'Stand you ground' law. Even a blind man can see that it's unfair.


----------



## Hyro-Sama (Jul 18, 2013)

Why is this thread still open?


----------



## Bobbybangin (Jul 18, 2013)

Hyro-Sama said:


> Why is this thread still open?



Get used to it. No matter how sick people get of hearing about it, there will likely be just as many who are going to be frustrated over this for quite some time.


----------



## wrettcaughn (Jul 18, 2013)

People still seem to be discussing "evidence" as if there was any actual evidence for either side in this case.  There wasn't.  George Zimmerman was not _proven innocent_.  He just wasn't proven guilty.  There were no witnesses who saw the altercation begin. It was Zimmerman's word against Martin's as to who threw the first punch or who approached who...and dead men tell no tales.

Trying to piece together a fist fight from some grass stains and scratches on the back of someone's head is a joke.


----------



## Bobbybangin (Jul 18, 2013)

"Can you imagine feeling like you're being followed? Everyone just assuming you're a criminal? If I were him, I'd wear something to hide my face."


----------



## p1ngpong (Jul 18, 2013)

LightyKD said:


> It makes a HUUUUGE fucking difference! Unlike the propaganda the U.S. spews out as if this nation is "One America" the fact is, there is an America for well off and rich Caucasians and a America for poor Caucasians and minorities even more so for minorities. A jury here is SUPPOSED to be a "jury of your peers" but ever so often, especially in cases with African American defendants, that jury tends to represent one type of person. Some, "jury of peers" huh? I would rather see a law that forces the courts to ensure that their juries have a male and female from each "major" race in this country. One that is representative of the many different walks of life that this country represents.


 
The defendant was not white or black he was Hispanic, he was tried by a jury who was apparently predominantly not of his ethnic group, gender or age group. Going by your reasoning the jury should have been biased against him, instead they found him innocent because there was a reasonable doubt in their minds that he did not intend to kill Martin.

Small things like the fact that he was on a prolonged 911 call asking the police to attend the scene before he even had any contact with Martin caused a reasonable doubt in their minds. Things like his injuries which show he had suffered a prolonged violent attack before the gun was used also casts a reasonable doubt as to his intent to murder Martin.

But no the jury was white therefore inherently biased towards the victim. We can say that sort of thing because even though we only know one major fact about them, that being the colour of their skin, knowing the colour of their skin is the only fact we need to know to come to a conclusion about them.

Right?


----------



## Bobbybangin (Jul 18, 2013)

p1ngpong said:


> The defendant was not white or black he was Hispanic


 
Just wanted to point out that George Zimmerman's dad is white. Not that I care.


----------



## grossaffe (Jul 18, 2013)

Bobbybangin said:


> Just wanted to point out that George Zimmerman's dad is white. Not that I care.


 
That never stopped white people from disowning people from their race


----------



## g4jek8j54 (Jul 18, 2013)

Bobbybangin said:


> George Zimmerman was a racist. *He was racially motivated* and had a violent criminal past. His old Myspace page reveals as much.


 
Do you have proof of the bold?  By the way, Trayvon Martin also got into fights, had been suspended from school, was talking about buying an illegal firearm, possibly committed burglary, and there was evidence that he used drugs (marijuana and "Lean.")  He was not the innocent twelve year old little boy that the media portrayed him as.

See, two people can play the character assassination game.  What does any of that have to do with the incident?  Also, for the record, I don't care what Martin used on his own body.  He had a right to use whatever he wants on his own body, although it could be important with regard to the incident with Zimmerman.



Bobbybangin said:


> It took six months of activists organizing and campaigning to get charges brought against Zimmerman. That's why there was all the media coverage.


 
No, the only reason that charges were ever brought was because the racist/race-baiting mainstream media decided to blow this whole thing out of proportion, and was trying to start a race war.  The investigators never thought that there was anything that Zimmerman could be charged with.  Even the lead investigator stated under oath that he thought Zimmerman was telling the truth.  Former prosecutors were laughing at how weak the prosecutions case was.



Bobbybangin said:


> In a bit of good news today, Stevie Wonder announced he will no longer be performing in Florida until they retract the 'Stand you ground' law. Even a blind man can see that it's unfair.


 
Oh noes...

Anyway, this is not a "Stand your Ground" case.  Zimmerman had no option of retreating because Martin was on top of him.



wrettcaughn said:


> People still seem to be discussing "evidence" as if there was any actual evidence for either side in this case. There wasn't. George Zimmerman was not _proven innocent_. He just wasn't proven guilty. There were no witnesses who saw the altercation begin. It was Zimmerman's word against Martin's as to who threw the first punch or who approached who...and dead men tell no tales.
> 
> Trying to piece together a fist fight from some grass stains and scratches on the back of someone's head is a joke.


 

Nobody is ever found "innocent" in a criminal trial in the United States.  It is always "Guilty" or "Not Guilty," even if you really are innocent.  Either you have been proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, or you haven't been proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.  Also, the defense doesn't have to prove anything.  All they have to do is create a reasonable doubt with the jury.

And I agree, it would be nice to have Martin's side of the altercation, but unfortunately, we don't.  With regard to the evidence that we do have, it is consistent with what Zimmerman is saying.



Bobbybangin said:


> Just wanted to point out that George Zimmerman's dad is white. Not that I care.


 
Obama's mother, Ann Dunham, was white.  Just curious, but when is the media going to start referring to Obama as a "white man?"  That's not directed at you, just an observation of the obvious media bias with regard to this case, and referring to Zimmerman as a "white man."


----------



## Thanatos Telos (Jul 18, 2013)

Foxi4 said:


> Said nobody in the history of ever.
> 
> #ShitGBATempSays


 
Guild McCommunist Ballin', man!


----------



## Bobbybangin (Jul 18, 2013)

g4jek8j54 said:


> Do you have proof of the bold? By the way, Trayvon Martin also got into fights, had been suspended from school, was talking about buying an illegal firearm, possibly committed burglary, and there was evidence that he used drugs (marijuana and "Lean.") He was not the innocent twelve year old little boy that the media portrayed him as.
> 
> See, two people can play the character assassination game. What does any of that have to do with the incident? Also, for the record, I don't care what Martin used on his own body. He had a right to use whatever he wants on his own body, although it could be important with regard to the incident with Zimmerman.


 
The proof of the bold is in his Myspace page statements. The info is out there. That is correct, he was 17. Not 12. Also, I for one do not correlate the use of marijuana as criminal behavior. I know I'm not alone on this.

I'm not playing a character assassination game. I just stated facts. If what George Zimmerman stated on his Myspace page is true, then he has done all character assassination needed for himself. If it's not true then he is a liar. I'm sure his feelings towards towards minorities has plenty to do with thinking a guy is committing a crime just because he was black and walking down the street in the rain with his hood up. I could see if Trayvon was looking in people's car windows or messing around people's houses but he was doing nothing to arouse suspicion but being black and walking in a gated community. I'm also sure his violent criminal history could also have special significance when it comes to future violent confrontations.



g4jek8j54 said:


> No, the only reason that charges were ever brought was because the racist/race-baiting mainstream media decided to blow this whole thing out of proportion, and was trying to start a race war. The investigators never thought that there was anything that Zimmerman could be charged with. Even the lead investigator stated under oath that he thought Zimmerman was telling the truth. Former prosecutors were laughing at how weak the prosecutions case was.


 
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that one. I think the whole situation was provocated because of George Zimmerman's actions. It shouldn't have taken all the action it did to get charges brought against him.



g4jek8j54 said:


> Oh noes...
> 
> Anyway, this is not a "Stand your Ground" case. Zimmerman had no option of retreating because Martin was on top of him.


 
Yes, I am well aware. I watched the trial. Zimmerman waived the 'Stand your ground' defense clause before it even started.



g4jek8j54 said:


> Obama's mother, Ann Dunham, was white. Just curious, but when is the media going to start referring to Obama as a "white man?" That's not directed at you, just an observation of the obvious media bias with regard to this case, and referring to Zimmerman as a "white man."


 
I dunno...I just call him the president. Not the 'black', 'white', or even the 'half-black' president. It's a gift I suppose, to be able to see people and not see them as a color. I know what you mean though. I'm not naive, I am aware that race baiting exists. I just don't think you can toss every case aside as a simple 'playing the race card' case. Especially this one.


----------



## Maverick Lunar X (Jul 18, 2013)

Just wanna throw out how happy I am to see more people being knowledgeable about the subject matter being argued than say, Facebook. Really refreshing to see that a web forum of nerds is generally being more respectable than most people I interact with on a day to day basis.


----------



## Ray Lewis (Jul 18, 2013)

I forgot, you should not cry about alleged profiling while beating up joggers, Mexican men, etc saying. "This is for Trayvon.". You can but how stupid does this look?  Few guys died in drive by; had a "Free Zimmerman" bumper sticker.  Profiling?  Cannot be victims and commit thise





Gahars said:


> Yeah, I apologize if I was a bit jumpy with my arguments.
> 
> Just so we're clear, though, I'm not saying that Zimmerman made no mistakes and is the perfect embodiment of justice (that's /pol/). I think this was just a case of two men making a series of rash decisions that ultimately resulted in a horrible, tragic outcome. Unfortunately, it seems that many media outlets tried to twist this into something it wasn't, callously exploiting this teen's death for the sake of a narrative. That's beyond reprehensible. I can't imagine what Trayvon's family must be going through, or Zimmerman's for that matter, and I'm absolutely sure putting them under constant media scrutiny has made it no easier.
> 
> ...


I want to add one part.  You are being too nice in saying narrative.  DOJ pushes race issues, Holder involved with NAACP.  Caught funding some rallies I believe it was--taxpayer dollars.   I need to research that part more.  It was from trusted radio show (to me).  Used to bring up gun control again.  BO gave speech on it, said Trayvon looked like his son.  All political and race baiting, imho.  

To go further, it distracted from IRS scandal, Syria, Russia, Israel, China, Benghazi, 9% congressional approval rating, etc.  Everyone talking about guns, self defense, stand your ground, racial profiling, etc.  Lets be very honest, the initiated, as Bane would say, know mainstream media does what they are told.  Think Hastings was suspiciously killed...after calling reporters to war against government; to stop illegal activities media covered up.  Cannot prove, but it is suspicious.  I can tell about 90% on here watch CNN, msnbc, fox news.


----------



## LDAsh (Jul 18, 2013)

g4jek8j54 said:


> ...there was evidence that he used drugs (marijuana...


What!?  Merry-Goanna???  Well, then he definitey deserves to be shot in the face multiple times, especially if he's tryin' to runs away!  No pot-head gonna be runnin' 'way from this here hot packets 'o justice!  Now, where's that Bob Dylan fella, I beens wantin' shoot him for the longest times, bye and bye.  If only Bob Marley wasn't dead alreadys, I'd shoot him in the face too.  Lousy pinko pot-head commies...


----------



## wrettcaughn (Jul 18, 2013)

g4jek8j54 said:


> Nobody is ever found "innocent" in a criminal trial in the United States.  It is always "Guilty" or "Not Guilty," even if you really are innocent.  Either you have been proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, or you haven't been proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.  Also, the defense doesn't have to prove anything.  All they have to do is create a reasonable doubt with the jury.
> 
> And I agree, it would be nice to have Martin's side of the altercation, but unfortunately, we don't.  With regard to the evidence that we do have, it is consistent with what Zimmerman is saying.



That's precisely what I was saying...  Being found "not guilty" does not make one innocent.


----------



## MelodieOctavia (Jul 18, 2013)

Hyro-Sama said:


> Why is this thread still open?


 

Short answer: To keep the discussion of this topic to one easily moderated thread.


----------



## Amber Lamps (Jul 18, 2013)

Hyro-Sama said:


> Why is this thread still open?


 
Probably because the jurors are into video games who knows.  As moderated as it may be, it might just be a honeypot for bannage.


----------



## wrettcaughn (Jul 18, 2013)

Amber Lamps said:


> Probably because the jurors are into video games who knows.  As moderated as it may be, it might just be a honeypot for bannage.


Read as: People should be banned for having opinions that differ from mine and for quoting and commenting on the posts I make...

It's always fun seeing people complain about threads going off-topic and "trolling" by taking it further off-topic with their own "troll" posts.


----------



## The Milkman (Jul 18, 2013)

Amber Lamps said:


> Probably because the jurors are into video games who knows. As moderated as it may be, it might just be a honeypot for bannage.


 

I highly doubt mods are looking for opportunities to ban people.


----------

