Serious Zimmerman Acquitted

[yond]

Thank you for those links/facts Whistle and Rey. I'm glad that there are at least some people posting facts to back up their arguments / opinion.s

Oh and everything you quoted arent facts at all. It is opinion.

stealing one from fabbles book, im outta here

(PS: if this didn't get through to you i'll spell it out: stop posting curtains)

 

[cookie]

i'll just leave this here: http://www.reddit.com/r/Conservativ...ge_zimmerman_was_a_democrat_voted_for/cb3nna5

 

[Curtains]

So just because he had black friends hes not guilty? Terrible argument. For people that are so mad at the media for bringing up race you guys sure use to to solidify your point about his innocence..

 

[Deck Knight]

That is a five star buffet of ignorance and bigotry, DK. You seriously linked to an article that basically said, "that Negro would still be alive if he was just in jail where he belonged." The reason this case is a racial issue is because the defense and the media painted Martin as a low-life thugs and it worked because of the prejudice of most white Americans. You need to clear your mind of your bullshit rhetoric and take some time to seriously look at the world and try and understand the problems that minorities in America face every day. Your mind and your heart are so sealed shut it is scary.


Also, being Hispanic and having black family members does not preclude someone from prejudices. My old boss was black and he refused to hire black people because he thought they were lazy thieves. I don't think Zimmerman is racist. I think he is a wannabe cop that thought he was going to catch the burglar that the real cops had let get away. He hunted a minor while armed (only having the balls to do so because he was armed) and gunned a child down when the kid fought back.

This is a five star buffet of shithead projection. It must be nice to live in a world where everyone who has a different opinion than yours is an ignorant bigot who needs to open their mind and heart. There aren't words to describe how judgmental and uncharitable you are. Oh wait, the words are "you're judgmental and uncharitable. Fix it."

I linked an article that happened to include facts you don't like. That you deny these facts, and further make pains to attack me personally for presenting them to you, leads me to believe it is you who wallows in and celebrates ignorance. The fact is, if Martin were in juvenile hall for a violation that would have landed him there were it not for a bureaucratic redefinition, he wouldn't have been in Sanford that night to break George Zimmerman's nose, blacken George Zimmerman's eyes, and lacerate George Zimmerman's cranium before Zimmerman shot Martin to save his own life.

Furthermore, you're the one who mentioned "Negro." It's *you* who are trying to put a racial imprint on this case. And you're so blinded by your own feigned moral superiority you don't even see it, and you're never going to see it. Because you don't want to see it! I don't need to be morally superior to you for my argument to be correct - but both my argument AND my character are superior. I am superior because you're such a despicable, uncharitable, judgmental little troll, and you really should be put deep into your little ditch and buried there. I am so tired of ingrates like you waltzing around impugning people's character on the fly. What good have you ever done Wikey, but sit on your judgmental ass calling everyone who disagrees with you an ignorant bigot?

Thomas Sowell has your number perfectly:

"The fundamental problem of the political left seems to be that the real world does not fit their preconceptions. Therefore they see the real world as what is wrong, and what needs to be changed, since apparently their preconceptions cannot be wrong."

Martin may or may not have been a low-life thug (Zimmerman certainly had no way of knowing it), but "the media" didn't portray him as such in the aggregate. "The media" did everything they could to paint a biracial Peruvian as the avatar of white racism. They couldn't uncan the narrative once it became clear that Zimmerman's Germanic surname wasn't an indication of an exclusively Germanic heritage. "The media" painted Trayvon as a saintly student with a bright future taken down in his prime by whitey, who, to quote your parlance "hunted a minor."

Unfortunately for you, that narrative is stone-faced stupid to anyone who was actually tasked to figure out what happened in this case. Like say a jury of Zimmerman's peers in a justice system which, btw., has over a 90 percent conviction rate. In fact the conviction rate is one of the black community's grievances with the criminal justice system.

I have lost more knowledge of the arguments surrounding these issues than you have ever even sought, must less obtained, Wikey. I don't want you to open your mind or your heart. I want you to shut the fuck up and listen for once.

 

[Princess Bubblegum]

I keep on seeing it pop up in this thread from both sides, so I want to point out and clear up that Zimmerman was found to be Not-Guilty, he was not found to be Innocent. There is an entire world of difference between these words, please stop misusing them.

 

[X5Dragon]

I keep on seeing it pop up in this thread from both sides, so I want to point out and clear up that Zimmerman was found to be Not-Guilty, he was Not Found to be Innocent. There is an entire world of difference between these words, please stop misusing them.

"So, Landrus is NOT Broken, he is just Banned to Ubers".

 

[Deck Knight]

I keep on seeing it pop up in this thread from both sides, so I want to point out and clear up that Zimmerman was found to be Not-Guilty, he was not found to be Innocent. There is an entire world of difference between these words, please stop misusing them.

Our criminal justice system is based on "Innocent until Proven Guilty." "Innocence" is a term based around criminality, it only makes sense if you're charging someone of a crime.

You are correct in the sense that "action" and "crime" are not synonymous. It is known to all that Zimmerman's action was to kill Martin. The question before the court was whether that action constituted a crime based on its context.

No one, not even George Zimmerman, started their morning setting out to kill Trayvon Martin that night, or even after Zimmerman spotted Martin. That's why we have trial by jury rather than trial by public opinion.

Good Post

You're entirely correct that my analysis is presumptive and incomplete on a few points. I wasn't on the jury, I was only trying to explain plausible scenarios that I could think of that led to an altercation. The jury has the best idea of what happened that night, all I'm trying to do is provide background and hypotheticals for the behavior based on information on both people. This includes all the info I can verify, warts and all.

 

[akela]

Wrong place, wrong time for both individuals. Zimmerman was too concerned about playing hero in his neighborhood to follow he advice of neighborhood watch and police dispatch. Martin was in a location that has had a series of break-ins occur at night by hooded individuals. Rather than let a potential criminal commit an illegal act then escape, Zimmerman wanted to ensure the potential wrongdoer could not escape this his/her ill-gotten gains.

This case has nothing to do with race. It only went to trial because of communities yelling about a "white" man killing an "innocent" black team with the "white" man's gun. Communities were enraged that a man who fired a gun and killed a black teenager wasn't even brought in for questioning. Officer involved shootings of men wearing a bomb vest covered by 26 national news programs received more investigation than this case before the initial proclamation that there wasn't enough evidence contradicting Zimmerman's tale of events.

This case spent very little time examining evidence. More emphasis was placed on Trayvon Martin's juvenile record. Some people used Martin's past involvement with Weed and gangs as justification for Zimmerman's actions. Outright ignoring what occurred. The only good "(BAN ME PLEASE)" is a dead "(BAN ME PLEASE)" mindset. Others placed emphasis on Zimmerman's history of calling 911 about a break-in and a definitely occurred crime whenever he saw a hooded teenager in the neighborhood. Even ones wearing a hooded rain jacket in the rain... and no crime had occurred. Neither Trayvon or George are innocent like each side claimed. George Zimmerman has a history of making snap judgments and trying to support those initial judgments by finding evidence to support them and ignoring other evidence. Not a person I would call an innocent bystander attacked for a gang initiation. Trayvon Martin has a history of buying and selling drugs, being involved with gangs, and getting kicked out of schools. Not a person I would call an innocent bystander stalked, accosted, attacked, mauled, and molested by a racist jackass.

Zimmerman made snap judgments and focused more on being a savior to the community. Martin chose to strike the creepy dude following him for several blocks. Funny thing is that if Martin was a woman, no one would have faulted him for striking first. A stranger following you for several blocks, all because of what you were wearing? If I was a woman and strange man followed me for several blocks at night, I would think he was planning on raping me. Those snap judgments of Zimmerman's painted him as a predator. Watching "To Catch A Predator" and "America's Most Wanted", and comparing Zimmerman's actions before the confrontation to the criminals on the shows, not a major difference. I am not saying Zimmerman's actions before the confrontation means he is guilty of a planned assault. Rather his actions before the confrontation do not make it seem like this whole altercation was self defense.

Who screamed? I don't know. From what I saw of the trial, no expert was brought in to compare Zimmerman's voice to the scream. Only mommy Zimmerman, Daddy Zimmerman, and Zimmerman's friends. Mommy Martin, Daddy Martin, and Martin's friends all said that was Martin's scream. So we have witnesses biased on Zimmerman's side for Zimmerman and witnesses biased on Martin's side for Martin. Was there a neutral party to say whose scream that was? And was it a scream of agony "OH MY GOD I HAVE BEEN ATTACKED!" or a Xena Warrior Princess scream of "I AM GOING TO WHOOP YOUR ASS!"? I don't know.

My verdict? Zimmerman killed Martin. Not murdered. Killed. The evidence I have seen indicates that during the altercation, Martin was going to kill Zimmerman. I have seen no evidence indicating who started the fight only who finished the fight. And finishing a fight doesn't make you guilty of murder. Was it self defense? I have no idea. Florida's Stand Your Ground law is enforced with discrimination. Other cases in Florida concerning SYG have stated that if you husband is violating a restraining order and attacking you, you cannot discharge your firearm, injuring no one, in self defense. In fact, discharging your firearm and not injuring anyone is grounds for 20 years in prison and the man who attacked you gaining custody of your child.

Zimmerman is guilty of something. You do not lie to the judge about your finances if you are altar boy innocent. But is he guilty of murder? No. If Martin killed Zimmerman in the confrontation, I would say that Martin isn't guilty of murder either. It was a kill or be killed situation. And in those situations, all parties placed themselves into that situation. They are guilty of placing themselves between life and death. That is all I know they are guilty of. Trayvon Martin was a guilty man. George Zimmerman is a guilty man. Just not guilty of what everyone wants him to be guilty of.

 

[Jorgen]

i'll just leave this here: http://www.reddit.com/r/Conservativ...ge_zimmerman_was_a_democrat_voted_for/cb3nna5

Sounds like, as I've heard elsewhere, there was really no evidence to incriminate him, so the not guilty verdict is very appropriate. However, there really doesn't seem to be sufficient evidence to prove him innocent like that poster seems to be suggesting, not that it does or should matter in the eyes of the court.

 

[Every1XplodeNOW]

The problem I have with rey's quote from reddit and what I assume DK is saying(I never read his posts) is that it's just another theory as to what happen that night.

Disclaimer: Now I'm not trying prove that post is wrong, I'm just trying to prove that it's just another theory in a sea of theories.

Point 1: Are we suppose to assume Zimmerman(Z) is telling the truth? Yes their has been no evidence that contradicts it, but there has been no evidence to prove this except for Z's word, which I wouldn't trust since he was the one being charged with murder. Also, there's the possibility that Martin(M) could of of started the fight, but he didn't have any malicious intent. He could of noticed Z was following him, remembered that there has been robberies in the area, thought Z was going to attack him, and then the rest of the reddit theory plays out. In that scenario, it was a misunderstanding between two people on edge with an unfortunate outcome. Again, it's just another theory and it could be wrong.

Point 2: It is possible for M to have no injuries and Z could of instigated the altercation. A simple push or words could start a fight and neither would leave any injuries on M if that happen.

Point 3: Probably the most compelling piece of evidence that does point to Z being innocent. Even though the officers thought the reaction was genuine, it's not hard evidence and it doesn't prove his innocence.

Point 4: Anything about someone's past can be used to initiate an arrest warrant or can be used to describe someone's character during trial, but it doesn't prove that person did said the crime. Also, I haven't seen an article actually saying M has ever assaulted someone, so that plays into account.

Point 5: I have nothing wrong with what's in this point, but it still doesn't prove Z's story. In fact, it proves that the evidence is weak on both sides and no one knows what happen that night, except for Z.

Here's a reality check for everyone: No matter how many google searches you do, videos you watch, arguments you have, you will never be able to prove if Zimmerman is truly guilty or not guilty. I can not honestly say he is or isn't, so the verdict I think is the right one. Does that mean I'm happy with the outcome? Of course not, because we don't know the truth and we probably never will know. I think it's sort of pointless to argue this at this point because the case is closed, but if y'all still want to continue going in circles then have at it, I've said my piece.

 

[Stratos]

if we have multiple plausible theories: he's not gonna be convicted. Do you know how the justice system works? Zimmerman doesn't have to "prove his innocence" like you're insinuating here.

edit: i see your last paragraph does indeed come to this conclusion; however, this thread is still alive because some people aren't happy with the null hypothesis and want to kill this goddamn race-baiting from people like Al Shitbrain

 

[Every1XplodeNOW]

Yeah I know *sigh* and for the race crap: There could be some racial undertones in this case, but they were never definite. I do think people have blown it out of proportion and we can think the media for starting that fire.

 

[Cresselia~~]

I can read just fine thank you. However, I just don't understand your faulty logic... What does the age comparison even have anything to do with the case? 12 year old TM could have easily gotten into as many fights as older TM. Older TM might not have gotten into many fights at all.... Like I said you can't take a twitter handle and then write a book on someone. Assumptions like that are just so stupid.

Um... it's not faulty logic.
This is an induction argument where if an individual repeatedly do something, he is more likely to continue to do something in the future compared to other individuals.
It's not about owning a Twitter, it's about the content he has in his Twitter.

Maybe you personally only recognize deduction argument, but in real life, induction arguments are important and generally recognized.

 

[Daenym]

he was protected under a law that just months ago was rejected as a defense when a black woman fired a warning shot at her abusive ex husband
nobody was even hurt and she was sentenced to 20 years in prison

the hypocrisy of this law is astounding and the people who can only be assed to look at zimmerman rather than the atmosphere of the country clearly dont have a clue as to why this case is important

While I don't agree with the Stand Your Ground law, this post...

"Her abusive ex-husband"? You mean her husband?

http://www.scribd.com/doc/89763280/...nts-Motion-for-Immunity-and-Motion-to-Dismiss

While the husband's name is blanked out, I think "alleged victim" and "husband" being back-to-back are sufficient. Not to mention the fact that this woman, after being confronted about texts with her EX-husband, walked out to the garage, got a gun, came back inside, and fired a shot. At which point her husband took the two children in the house, fled, and called 911. Alexander did not call 911. So yes, the Stand Your Ground defense, which she invoked, was thrown out.

Also this:

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/120355498/Alexander-Arrest-Report-Dec-2010

While Alexander was out on bail waiting for the trial of the aforementioned incident, she shows up at her husbands house (for a legitimate reason), and her husband ends up with injuries. That hardly helps her self defense case.

That case is hardly a parallel to Zimmermann's. People just want it to be, because then the law is not just stupid, but racist.

 

[Deck Knight]

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/...on-martin-george-zimmerman-verdict-94301.html

Seriously, what does Hillary want out of this? Does she want George Zimmerman's severed head marched around Sanford, Florida on a pike? At this point, what difference does her opinion make?

I sometimes wonder if I push a little bit too hard on "the left" in making my points. Then they do something that reminds me why I'm completely justified.

It was irresponsible for President Obama to taint the case by saying "If I had a son, he'd look like Trayvon." Now in the aftermath, some national political figures are trying to fan the flames of racial unrest as high as they can go. Meanwhile, Drudge has been reporting ongoing incidents of crime or theatrics by people purportedly seeking "JustUs For Trayvon."

PA Graffiti, Arson: http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/07/16/Business-spray-painted-kill-zimmerman
FL jogger beaten: http://www.myfoxdc.com/story/228507...taliation-for-zimmerman-verdict#axzz2Z8TvGzrd
Musician Attacked: http://www.ktvu.com/news/news/crime-law/legendary-musician-attacked-after-dedicating-song-/nYqdG/
Oakland / LA Riots: http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/...art-in-crenshaw-area-20130715,0,2522648.story
Stevie Wonder boycotts Florida: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/stevie-wonder-boycotting-florida-zimmerman-585760
Zimmerman's Parents getting death threats: http://abcnews.go.com/US/zimmermans...th-threats-abc/story?id=19670456#.UeaDuW37ZaE
AP Still pushing narrative Zimmerman is white: http://www.breitbart.com/InstaBlog/2013/07/15/AP-Still-Referring-to-Zimmerman-as-White

At least President Obama has issued a statement saying he "accepts" the verdict, but that's very weak brew for a President who inserted himself before the trial even occurred.

And of course, we have these posts in this very thread:

He stalked and killed an unarmed minor. Seems vaguely fair to me that society will succeed where the justice system has failed.

Who said I was hoping for vigilante action. Him living out his days in fear is a perfectly satisfactory outcome.

You, Hillary Clinton, and every other person who wants to keep fanning the flames of hatred - who are perfectly fine with a man (and his family, as indicated above) living in fear the rest of his (their) life for the crime of "hostile and violent following" as nastyjungle put it, are everything that is wrong with every corrupt government on earth.

Seriously, you want a man condemned to a life of fear for "hostile and violent following." Can you tell me how someone violently follows someone? You're not just a mob, you're an illiterate mob. This is why I read your posts and can't take any of you seriously.

If you're not even going to read posts because you know they are going to challenge your viewpoint, potentially in a snarky way that offends your delicate sensibilities, don't post in a discussion forum. If you do post, don't ever accuse someone else of being close-minded. This is partially directed at The Diverman because, seriously, acknowledging you are answering a post you haven't read is either literally indicating you're about to strawman, or you're just including the line when it has no relevance to your post.

This case was over Saturday night. Zimmerman and his family should be able to go about their business in peace. Martin and his family should be able to grieve and mourn their son and move on. But that isn't good enough for the professional left. It's not enough that Zimmerman was tried and acquitted by a jury of his peers. Instead, the Peruvian son of a mixed-race couple and their family needs to live the rest of their lives in fear so that leftist politicians and academics can rail against white racism and get elected.

Truly disgusting, banana republic stuff.

 

[Cresselia~~]

Obama probably doesn't want to say anything the majority doesn't want to hear, presumably for his reputation.
If he had a stronger opinion, some black rights group may become very hostile to him.
There had already been some ridiculous people (yet quite many) disliking him for being not black enough, and other ridiculous people (also quite many) who dislike him for being too black.
So if he leans too much onto Zimmerman's side, there could be even more racists who say things like Obama's no longer with us, Obama's a disgrace, why's he not supporting his own race, blah blah blah.

Anyway, that was only my prediction.
But I mean, although I'm disappointed, I guess I understand why he wants to take it this way.

 

[Wikey]

I really tried to think of a way to respond to your shit, DK but it really doesn't matter what anyone says because you just plug your ears and say, "You just call anyone who doesn't agree with you a racist!" You constantly post ridiculously bigoted and hurtful arguments and people call you out but you just plug your ears and double down. You are a straight white male yet you tell gay people who they can marry, black people how they should feel about Martin's death, and women what they can and can't do with their bodies. Think about that for a second. I'm not sure how old you are but I know it is a challenge for someone that goes through school always being the smartest kid in their class to realize that they aren't always right. That they don't always know best in a given situation. But you have to learn that lesson if you want people to stop calling you a bigot.

Also, what the hell does the reaction to this case have to do with a banana republic?

 

[Outlaw]

I really tried to think of a way to respond to your shit, DK but it really doesn't matter what anyone says because you just plug your ears and say, "You just call anyone who doesn't agree with you a racist!" You constantly post ridiculously bigoted and hurtful arguments and people call you out but you just plug your ears and double down. You are a straight white male yet you tell gay people who they can marry, black people how they should feel about Martin's death, and women what they can and can't do with their bodies. Think about that for a second. I'm not sure how old you are but I know it is a challenge for someone that goes through school always being the smartest kid in their class to realize that they aren't always right. That they don't always know best in a given situation. But you have to learn that lesson if you want people to stop calling you a bigot.

Also, what the hell does the reaction to this case have to do with a banana republic?

Holy hell, my privilege is too high to read this post.

 

[Snkz]

I wish I could of got away with shooting a 17 year old for kicking my ass. Especially after starting it

 

[kd24]

i just want to note that sharpton and other "race baiters" only push race relations (even when they're wrong) and the black plight because of what can happen if left unchecked. 50-60 years ago blacks were second class citizens and racial tensions were at a high. yet 70 years before that, life was actually good for black people and some were elected to positions of office on the national level and life improved in areas of education, owning land, etc. overtime, disenfranchisement, jim crow laws, etc turned black people into those "lower" people.

racism is a real thing and btw, this happened! http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/26/us/supreme-court-ruling.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

all i'd say is that i agree that the media can be painfully wrong sometimes and should be held accountable, but people take things like this the way they do for the above reasons. if you don't learn from history, you're bound to repeat it, etc etc etc

that being said, my thoughts haven't changed, in my opinion the law doesn't really do much here. at the end of the day zimmerman was a self appointed watchman who probably was suspicious of a strange black youth and then acted in self defense after a confrontation. the racial profiling exists right there, and this tragedy could have been avoided but the law doesn't punish any actions zimmerman took. the verdict wasn't wrong, but i still feel the laws are.

 

[Trax]

Every time I try to read a deck knight post where he decides to make something that is really non-political into a political topic the sheer volume of idiocy makes me want to work on a device to allow punching people through ones monitor.

 

[Tayla]

It is pretty political when the president of the US inappropriately opens his face on a civil case that really has nothing to do with anyone up in Washington. Saying the majority of this case wasn't politically influenced is silly. The police weren't even going to arrest Zimmerman until politics got involved. So, I don't see a problem with DK commenting on the political aspects.

When there are people like Al Sharpton in this world, the "race thing" is never going to disappear.

 

[Wikey]

You really think racism stems from a small number of radical people like Al Sharpton and not widespread prejudice?

@Outlaw: You got me. I think ignorance is bad so clearly I am a feminist who wants all straight white males to be ashamed of themselves.

 

[Shiruba]

Hold up. Not being part of a group does not mean you have no say in what happens to them. If that was the case, blacks, women, gays - it's unlikely they would have gone anywhere in their fights for equality, or it would have at least taken much longer. If you cannot have an opinion on something despite not being directly affected by it, clearly those that sympathized with the people in question had no business getting involved - which is crap, of course. Getting people that are not directly affected - especially those in positions of power - can be exceptionally helpful for a case, as these people are not handwaved as just bitching due to their problems, and may actually help sway others due to their being held in high regard. Naturally, not everyone will agree, however. That said, silencing people just because you don't agree with them is exactly what got people into this mess, but in reverse.

As I like to keep to heart, "I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will defend your right to say it."

So even if they're being a bigot like DK, they still have the right to an opinion and are allowed to voice that opinion. Even if that opinion sucks. What goes around comes around.

 

[yond]

This is absolutely a political subject, especially because of how media driven it is. Also I understand DK has made some questionable posts in the past, but where in this thread is DK being a "bigot" other than disagreeing with most of your opinions? (and backing his opinions based on facts he cites). I'm one of the few whose actually read all of his posts probably and I would say some of you calling DK a bigot right now are acting just the same as he is. Here's a definition for those who may not understand the meaning entirely:

big·ot·ed
/ˈbigətid/
Adjective

1. Obstinately convinced of the superiority or correctness of one's own opinions and prejudiced against those who hold different opinions.
2. Expressing or characterized by prejudice and intolerance.

Synonyms
fanatical - fanatic

Anyway if the people who are crying out about racism in this country (and this thread), because of this case, want to make change....wouldn't the first step be to stop making everything about race? In my opinion the worst thing you can do right now is create more division between races and by making this case such a black vs white case (by the way Zimmerman isn't even under the racial classification of "white" as DK has said numerous times) only further feeds the hate amongst both groups towards each other.