George Zimmerman found not guilty of Trayvon Martin murder

[Deleted_171835]

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]

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

 

[Sterling]

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]

Good for him.

 

[Gahars]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

I really should watch more news ._.

 

[trumpet-205]

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

So disappointing....RIP TM

 

[SolidSnake95]

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]

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.

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.

- 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.

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.)

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.