George Zimmerman found not guilty of Trayvon Martin murder

[Ray Lewis]

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]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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:

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]

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]

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.


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.


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





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:

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]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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]

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]

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.

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.

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]

-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]

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

 

[Lacius]

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.

Lacius, you're smart

Aw, ergh, urgh, um. *blushes*

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.

(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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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]

Good for him.

you must be joking he's guilty.

 

[jonthedit]

you must be joking he's guilty.

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

 

[Parasite X]

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

 

[g4jek8j54]

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.

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]

What does that mean?

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

 

[omgpwn666]

you must be joking he's guilty.

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

 

[Gahars]

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.

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.

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.

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.

(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.

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.

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.

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]

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]

*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]

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?