George will be going to trial soon for the murder of Trayvon Martin. Are you concerned about what will happen is he is found 'not guilty'?
George will be going to trial soon for the murder of Trayvon Martin. Are you concerned about what will happen is he is found 'not guilty'?
Not in and of itself. However, the legal precedent for future trials will be significant. Also, we might get to know whether or not the "stand your ground" component to self-defense is valid. Fun times.
What would Buddah do?
Yes, I'm concerned, especially as it relates to Florida's "stand your ground" laws. "According to state crime stats, Florida averaged 12 “justifiable homicide” deaths a year from 2000-2004. After “Stand your Ground” was passed in 2005, the number of “justifiable” deaths has almost tripled to an average of 35 a year, an increase of 283% from 2005-2010."
This is a good example: http://rt.com/usa/stand-your-ground-florida-lover-097/ I have a hard time believing that justice was done. The guy probably deserved to be slugged in the face, but he didn't deserve to be murdered.
At some point people may begin to think twice about vacations in FL. If it ever starts to hit the pocket books of FL, the good people of fl may think about what they've done.
This is the link to the quote in the first paragraph of this post. http://miami.cbslocal.com/2012/03/20...round-enacted/
Yes - I'm concerned what will happen to my friends in Florida should the man walk away free and clear. I know I shouldn't expect California all over again, but the climate is right for it.
"Heads buried in the sand,
You are impotent..."
Why is that thread being ignored? Seems this stuff is happening in Texas all the time, though it usually goes the other way (like somebody being fingered by a sole witness 200 feet away at night, being enough for the death penalty).
If you're SUPPOSED to be killed if you "steal $150" from somebody, why do the too-big-to-fail bankster gambling casinos still exist?
The consequences of a Not Guilty verdict in Sanford (or did they change the venue?) do scare the hell out of me, yes - and you're right MouthOfKhaos, the climate is extremely ripe and pregnant for Rodney King, or even 1967, to happen all over again. Two (or more) wrongs don't make a right, but there are a LOT of people pissed off now with preferential justice, the most massive upwards *ROBBERY* of wealth in the history of the world, etc.
But, another thing scares me even more - the possibilities of a bad ruling in the Supreme Court on the Voting Rights Act. A bad ruling could be so horrific, with consequences possibly even worse than Citizens United which I have already considered one of the worst rulings of any top court in the world in decades or centuries. A bad ruling on this could far exceed the horrors and consequences of anything that may be ruled on the DOMA and Proposition 8 rulings.
BOSS: I'm sorry, but I'll have to lay you and Jack off.
SUE: Can you just jack off? I feel like shit today.
"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do, because I notice it always coincides with their own desires" - Susan B. Anthony
If Mary gave birth to Jesus, and Jesus is the Lamb of God, did Mary have a little lamb?
We might want to ask who was "standing his ground" that day, Trayvon or the man who stalked him?
Injustice anywhere is injustice everywhere.
A man killed an unarmed teen, why? Because he was BLACK.
Would Zimmerman have stalked a nice looking white teen? Hell no.
Put George's ass where a murder's ass belongs, behind bars.
If he is found not guilty then I for one will be pissed off, yes, I am concerned.
I think ultimately, the gunman will go free. George Zimmerman will be a target of revenge shootings. I think he brought this on his own head. Give it time, I think as sure as he lives by the gun, he'll eventually wind up in a box because of it.
I still hung up on the fact that he was told not to pursue Trayvon in the first place, and the fact that he wash't allowed to have a gun on the job. I think he should be found guilty, and I hope he is.
I am so sick of this whole case.
The guy deserves some form of punishment but clearly this case is complicated....... very complicated. And the media response was responsible for tampering both of the men's characters just to start a controversy and boost ratings.
I believe in a civil society both sides have the right to be heard ..........
Thats how America wastes money.
The case should be simple, guilty, 15 years jail.
NEVER LISTEN TO A ONE SIDED STORY AND JUDGE.
http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal...-overview.htmlInvoluntary manslaughter usually refers to an unintentional killing that results from recklessness or criminal negligence, or from an unlawful act that is a misdemeanor or low-level felony (such as DUI). The usual distinction from voluntary manslaughter is that involuntary manslaughter (sometimes called "criminally negligent homicide") is a crime in which the victim's death is unintended.
Pursuing somebody after he was told not to and shooting him is not "recklessness or criminal negligence", nor is it a "misdemenor or low-level felony". Neither was it 'involuntary'. Zimmerman 'volunteered' to follow Trayvon and he volunteered to pull out his gun and shoot him, and now he is hiding behind the 'Stand-Your-Ground' defence to get out of paying the price. At no time was his life in jeopardy. He deserves jail time, not probation.
In addition to the criminal charges being brought, I am wondering whether Martin's family is bringing any civil action against Zimmerman, like a wrongful death suit.
For all sad words of tongue and pen,
The saddest are these, 'It might have been.'
I am concerned, I fear because of American racism that Zimmerman is going to go free or get a light sentence like less than five years in the slammer.
I am not convinced that Zimmerman is going to get convicted.
Sadly, people keep up bringing up that Trayvon had problems, as if other teenagers aren't troubled or never had problems.
But since Trayvon was a black boy, the media are trying to paint the boy as though he's sinister and he's a bad kid.
If Trayvon was white, I think the media attention would be much more positive and hopeful.
People seem to forget two parents are grieving and a seventeen year old unarmed teenager is DEAD.
Nobody seems to care about Travyon's parents, the media seems so blood thirsty all they care about the sensationalism. But what about this kid's parents? I feel so bad for Travyon's parents, over a year has passed and their child was brutally murdered.
George Zimmerman has a history of acting like an idiot he shot and killed an unarmed black teenager in cold blood.
There is no excuse for this bastard's behaviour he should get the death penalty but I am worried he might actually get off.
I commend the American people for protesting, but I am shocked it took over a month for that bastard to get arrested. Florida's stupid stand your ground law is pathetic. Zimmerman is a proven liar he lied to the court about how much money he had he got people to raise over $200,000 dollars for him.
The fact, is Trayvon was unarmed the boy's past is irrelevant nobody deserved to be murdered in cold blood. If Zimmerman gets away with murder then this just proves there are different justice system for blacks and whites in America.
If Zimmerman was a black man we wouldn't even be having this debate he would be thrown in the slammer and locked away long time ago.
Last edited by MorrisseyX; June 10th, 2013 at 08:24 AM.
In his autumn, before the winter, comes man's last mad surge of youth
http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal...-overview.htmlSecond-degree murder is ordinarily defined as:
1) an intentional killing that is not premeditated or planned, nor committed in a reasonable "heat of passion"; or 2) a killing caused by dangerous conduct and the offender's obvious lack of concern for human life. Second-degree murder may best be viewed as the middle ground between first-degree murder and voluntary manslaughter.
I think the prosecution has a good case for second-degree murder, and Zimmerman's downfall is going to be the fact that he disobeyed an order to stand down and let the police do their job. Zimmerman initiated the confrontation and he ended it with a gunshot.
The police photos when Zimmerman was taken into custody (the overhead views which do no show the wounds Zimmerman claims he had from Trayvon smashing his head against the concrete) and the 911 call which he disobeyed make a pretty strong case. He was never in danger, never in fear for his life. He was a big-shot bully who killed a young man.
The evidence belies everything he says happened, but I'm afraid the jury is going to believe him instead of the evidence. Trayvon's past is going to come into play, but you can bet your ass that Zimmerman's past will never be allowed in court.
I don't get concerned about things I can't control.
But this is accomplishing nothing. I've submitted 'law' and you've submitted opinion. I'll stop now.
I dont think he will walk free... the public condemned him sans all the facts... the jury, no matter how carefully selected, will come from the public. He will burn dont you worry... our media has told us so.
I think there will be a verdict of manslaughter. If he's not found guilty,I don't know what will happen.
He (Zimmerman) will be found not guilty.
He saw someone he thought was suspicious, and called the cops.....legal
He was carrying a concealed weapon....legal
The 911 operator told him not to follow......He was under no obligation to obey the 911 operator.
He followed Martin....legal
There was a confrontation.......only Zimmerman knows who initiated it.
Zimmerman was hit in the face (injuries to the nose), knocked to the ground (injuries to the back of his head)
Martin was shot from a distance of 18", leaning over Zimmerman (coroners report).
Martin wasn't fleeing a man with a gun, he was attacking a man on the ground. Zimmerman pulled his weapon, in self defence, and fired.
There is more than ample room for reasonable doubt.......Zimmerman walks.
There was no Illegal act until the physical confrontation.
Who actually threw the first punch? Zimmerman? Very unlikely, he had a gun, and was waiting for the cops.
First point - him ignoring the 911 operator not only looks horrible for this perceived notion that he had no intent to harm Trayvon, it negates him calling the police in the first place; if he was just going to pursue the "suspicious" person anyway, whether or not the police were involved, why involve them? He was told not to pursue - whether he has the LEGAL RIGHT to ignore their instruction is wholly irrelevant.
Second point - him following Trayvon created a situation that didn't have to be; had Zimmerman simply done as he was advised to do by the operator, Trayvon would more than likely be alive and both man and boy would have gone home. This, by the way, NEGATES your last point - Zimmerman did NOT wait for the cops, because you cannot wait and FOLLOW at the same time. Having a gun does not mean the man could not have thrown the first punch, it just means had things escalated that he had a ready weapon to use. There's no "reasonable doubt" on that.
Third point - But that's what we're talking about; the illegal act and the intent/reasoning for it. You don't call the police and then go looking for a fight - that's ass backwards. And given the circumstance so far, it sounds like that's what the man did. Now you can say he had the right to do all the things he did, and it a lot of ways i'll agree, but I can also say it also erases this so-called reasonable doubt you claim he has.
"Heads buried in the sand,
You are impotent..."
Zimmerman did one thing right: calling the police. Everything else he did is against the rules of Neighbourhood Watch. I found this news article explaining what Zimmerman did wrong:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/23/us...anted=all&_r=0SANFORD, Fla. — Last August, Wendy Dorival got a call about setting up a local neighborhood watch. As the volunteer coordinator for the Police Department here, she gets such calls regularly, and the city already had at least 10 active watch groups. So she thought nothing of this call, from George Zimmerman.
She set up a visit for the next month at the Retreat at Twin Lakes, a gated community that had been dealing with a string of burglaries. When 25 residents showed up, a decent turnout, she had the residents introduce themselves; after all, people join the groups to look out for each other. She then gave a PowerPoint presentation and distributed a handbook. As she always does, she emphasized what a neighborhood watch is — and what it is not.
In every presentation, “I go through what the rules and responsibilities are,” she said Thursday. The volunteers’ role, she said, is “being the eyes and ears” for the police, “not the vigilante.” Members of a neighborhood watch “are not supposed to confront anyone,” she said. “We get paid to get into harm’s way. You don’t do that. You just call them from the safety of your home or your vehicle.”
Using a gun in the neighborhood watch role would be out of the question, she said in an interview.
Mr. Zimmerman was there, she recalled, and the local group appointed him their coordinator. But on Feb. 26, Mr. Zimmerman, 28, pursued, confronted and fatally shot Trayvon Martin, 17, an unarmed black high school student who had been carrying only an iced tea and a bag of Skittles.
To Ms. Dorival, the widening controversy has led to a false impression about neighborhood watch programs, which she said strengthen local communities and help reduce crime.
“I believe in neighborhood watch,” she said. “I advocate for neighborhood watch. I don’t want this black eye for neighborhood watch.”
In Sanford, she said, watch groups are not even supposed to make the rounds. That is the job of another kind of volunteer organization, Citizens on Patrol, whose members are selected and trained by the police and who drive the streets in a specially marked vehicle. Members of that group, Ms. Dorival said, “are armed only with a radio.”
A wide range of neighborhood watch organizations exist across the country. Some have patrols, while others like Sanford’s do not. But the National Sheriffs’ Association, which sponsors the program nationwide, is absolutely clear on one point: guns have no place in a watch group. A manual distributed by the association repeatedly underscores the point: “Patrol members do not carry weapons.”
The manual warns that watch members should “not attempt to apprehend a person committing a crime or to investigate a suspicious activity.” It should be emphasized to members of patrols, the materials state, that “they do not possess police power and they shall not carry weapons.” The consequences of not following the guidelines are severe, the manual states: “Each member is liable as an individual for civil and criminal charges should he exceed his authority.”
As I said I wasn't there, but can reasonably assume Zimmerman was following Martin to keep him (Martin) in visual contact in order to inform the police of his (martin) whereabouts. His (Zimmerman's) intent was not to confront Martin, but rather alert the police and hopefully (in Zimmerman's eyes) play the hero. There had been an unsolved burglary in the neighbourhood.
As to the point "You can't wait and follow"..........actually you can, Zimmerman kept a visual on the person he believed to be suspicious, while waiting for the police to arrive on scene.
I agree, the mere possession of a gun doesn’t mean Zimmerman "couldn't" have thrown the first punch, but his injuries lend credence to the incident time line stated by Zimmerman.
Reasonable doubt, not certain fact, reasonable doubt.
You perceive Zimmerman went looking for a fight, I believe he saw someone he thought was suspicious and saw an opportunity to for positive interaction with the local police. There is nothing in Zimmerman's past, that I'm aware of, that indicates a willingness for physical confrontation, the same cannot be said of Martin.
I believe the verdict will hinge on who initiated the physical confrontation, the balance leans towards Martin.
Last edited by The Fly; June 11th, 2013 at 08:17 AM.
It's like preparing for a hurricane. Whatever the verdict will be...make sure you have a week's worth of food and water in your home. Lock down, hunker down in your basement for 3 to 4 days until the riot is over.
Didn't really know that much about it, not usually too interested in these types of things. However, since I've just speed-read most of the LONG Wiki article (locked) about the whole event, may as well give an opinion....
Turns out not to be as clear-cut against Zimmerman as I always imagined this case was. But that isn't to say he wasn't the clear instigator and provoker of the whole sorry event. Nevertheless multiple eye-witnesses mostly confirm that Trayvon was on top of Zimmerman punching him. Backing up that view is Z's injuries, a bloodied nose, black eyes, scratches on the back of his head from him being laid down on his back on the ground. Then there's these contentious 911 audio sounds where yelling for help is heard in the background - but no-one can identify for certain which of them it is.
I tend to agree with The Fly and ZombieKiller - a sorry mess where no-one comes out good, and both could be said to have been at fault - Trayvon for attacking and punching (understandably though since he was being stalked and confronted by a man) - and Zimmerman for going off on a chase despite being told otherwise, and for blatantly spoiling for a confrontation.
Verdict will probably be not guilty of the charges (but maybe guilty of a lesser offence and also in a civil case)
LEAVING ALL THIS ASIDE....
These types of (in the grand picture of things) insignificant and routine legal cases have a very bad habit in the United States of being conflated by the entire country into a MAJOR national story, fracturing it along racial lines, and then completely exaggerating the impact that the verdict has on the entire nation. It blows the whole thing up into a ridiculous level of importance beyond what it ever should be.
The most telling and depressing sign of this is that probably (I'm guessing) 90% of African-Americans have already automatically declared T innocent and Z guilty and that (another guess) 60% of whites/other races have already declared exactly the opposite. Plucking those figures out of thin air but I'm describing the tendency for this to be come a racial CONTEST. It should never be portrayed that way, but I've no doubt it will. Speaks volumes of the low state of race relations in some parts of the U.S.
Then on top of all that you have the amplified consequences of the verdict based on the already amplified case, ESPECIALLY if Z is found innocent, because it then gives sanction to (as I referred to in another thread) frightened white people to think they can legally shoot black people dead where and when they choose. Or at least that is how it will be perceived and portrayed.
Bottom line.... regardless of what occurred and who is guilty or innocent, this entire case should not be made into a great national black vs. white judgment on race. Doing so actually does terrible harm to race relations and blows racial tension sky-high. One legal case should never have such amount of power.
^ Jury selection must have been a nightmare for both the defence and the prosecution. There would have been so very many people to eliminate for one reason or another. I wouldn't be surprised if they went through the entire pool on this one.