Zimmerman not guilty in Trayvon Martin death: Florida jury

[Publicus]

Yes, there are some hot words on each side of the issue here, as would be expected.

NAACP Is 'Outraged And Heartbroken,' And Will Pursue 'Civil Rights Charges' Against George Zimmerman

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/george-zimmerman-not-guilty-naacp-verdict-civil-rights-2013-7#ixzz2Z1bMZ7fL

The NAACP said late Saturday that it was "outraged and heartbroken" over the not-guilty verdict in the George Zimmerman trial, vowing to pursue "civil rights charges" with the Department of Justice.

"We are outraged and heartbroken over today’s verdict," said Ben Jealous, president and CEO of the NAACP. "We stand with Trayvon’s family and we are called to act. We will pursue civil rights charges with the Department of Justice, we will continue to fight for the removal of Stand Your Ground laws in every state, and we will not rest until racial profiling in all its forms is outlawed."

Defense attorney Mark O'Mara said in a press conference after the verdict was read that he doesn't expect Zimmerman's days in court to be over.

"We'll see how many civil lawsuits will spawn from this fiasco," O'Mara said.

AL SHARPTON: The George Zimmerman Verdict Is A 'Slap In The Face To Those That Believe In Justice'

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/al-sharpton-george-zimmerman-verdict-not-guilty-trayvon-martin-2013-7#ixzz2Z1dKB4Q4

The Rev. Al Sharpton blasted a Florida jury's not guilty verdict of George Zimmerman in the death of Trayvon Martin, calling it an "atrocity" and a "a slap in the face to those that believe in justice in this country."

"Well, I think that this is an atrocity," Sharpton said moments after the verdict was read on MSNBC.

"I think that it is probably one of the worst situations that I've seen. What this jury has done is establish a precedent that when you are young and fit a certain profile, you can be committing no crime, just bringing some Skittles and iced tea home to your brother, and be killed. And someone can claim self-defense having been exposed with all kinds of lies, all kinds of inconsistencies."

He added that it was a " sad day in the country and a "slap in the face to those that believe in justice in this country."

Edited July 14, 2013 by Publicus

[SteeleJoe]

We're probably going to see the biggest race polarization since the Rodney King police beating case. On one side, Fox News has already issued an opinion piece that the trial should never have taken place. On the other side, the NAACP is outraged and wants the Feds to prosecute Zimmerman.

Get the popcorn ready....

I imagine it would be even worse were Zimmerman an Anglo Saxon type...

[Salapoo]

Trayvon Martin was the aggressor and the only one who broke the law.

Strange that refusing to follow police orders and stop stalking someone when they tell you to, isn't a breach of the law.

[Ulysses G.]

The press has been pretending that he is white since this started. He is obviously Hispanic and English is his second language.

[SteeleJoe]

Nothing wrong with shooting someone (if you legally carry a gun) who is attacking you and smashing your head into the concrete as hard as he can.

The problem is that that may not be what happened and even if it is, that certainly isn't the whole story.

Flip it around to what is equally possible (and given the facts that we KNOW, very plausible): Nothing wrong with attacking someone who is following you and smashing their head into the concrete if they pull a gun on you.

(By the way, your bias is showing - you have no way of knowing if Mr. Martin was smashing as hard as he could, even if he was smashing at all - if he was, I suspect Mr. Zimmerman would have been in a lot worse shape.)

[Ulysses G.]

Trayvon Martin was the aggressor and the only one who broke the law.

Strange that refusing to follow police orders and stop stalking someone when they tell you to, isn't a breach of the law.

More nonsense. He was not "ordered". It was suggestion from a dispatcher and it was not legally binding.

[SteeleJoe]

If Zimmerman had committed 2nd degree murder, he would have had his gun drawn and ready when he and Martin came face to face. Instead, it didn't come out until Martin was on top of him, beating him "MMA style".

How do you know this?

[SteeleJoe]

Zimmerman ignored the fatally wounded Martin because Zimmerman had done what he set out to do.

Kill.

Another poster who has magical powers.

[Ulysses G.]

Nothing wrong with shooting someone (if you legally carry a gun) who is attacking you and smashing your head into the concrete as hard as he can.

The problem is that that may not be what happened and even if it is, that certainly isn't the whole story.

Flip it around to what is equally possible (and given the facts that we KNOW, very plausible): Nothing wrong with attacking someone who is following you and smashing their head into the concrete if they pull a gun on you.

(By the way, your bias is showing - you have no way of knowing if Mr. Martin was smashing as hard as he could, even if he was smashing at all - if he was, I suspect Mr. Zimmerman would have been in a lot worse shape.)

The preponderance of evidence supports Zimmerman's story and as most people would resist having their head smashed into the cement it is no surprise that his injuries were not worse YET. That is why he was found not guilty. He had to stop Trayvon. It was self defence.

Edited July 14, 2013 by Ulysses G.

[Jingthing]

If Zimmerman had committed 2nd degree murder, he would have had his gun drawn and ready when he and Martin came face to face. Instead, it didn't come out until Martin was on top of him, beating him "MMA style".

How do you know this?

Zimmerman said so. How convenient.

[SteeleJoe]

Nothing wrong with shooting someone (if you legally carry a gun) who is attacking you and smashing your head into the concrete as hard as he can.

The problem is that that may not be what happened and even if it is, that certainly isn't the whole story.

Flip it around to what is equally possible (and given the facts that we KNOW, very plausible): Nothing wrong with attacking someone who is following you and smashing their head into the concrete if they pull a gun on you.

(By the way, your bias is showing - you have no way of knowing if Mr. Martin was smashing as hard as he could, even if he was smashing at all - if he was, I suspect Mr. Zimmerman would have been in a lot worse shape.)

The preponderce of evidence supports Zimmerman's stoty and as msot people would resist having their head smashed into the cement it is no surprise that his injuries were not worse YET. That is why he was found not guilty. He had to stop Trayvon. It was self defence.

The preponderance of evidence was apparently enough for reasonable doubt. That certainly doesn't mean is necessarily enough, or should be, to convince people who are not jurors that we know the full and accurate story and that he is (or isn't) guiltless. Only someone who WANTS to believe his story would apply that sort of lawyerly standard to justify their personal opinion as if it were fact.

[Ulysses G.]

If Zimmerman had committed 2nd degree murder, he would have had his gun drawn and ready when he and Martin came face to face. Instead, it didn't come out until Martin was on top of him, beating him "MMA style".

How do you know this?

Zimmerman said so. How convenient.

Zimmerman was there, and the evidence backed him up. You, on the other hand, have no evidence to refute him.

[NeverSure]

Trayvon Martin was the aggressor and the only one who broke the law.

Strange that refusing to follow police orders and stop stalking someone when they tell you to, isn't a breach of the law.

A dispatcher who Zimmerman had called, who wasn't a police officer, asked Zimmerman if he was following. He was told only "you don't need to do that." That's not the police, not a lawful order, and even if it was from the police, it's not a lawful order.

[Jingthing]

Zimmerman was there, and the evidence backed him up. You, on the other hand, have no evidence to refute him.

So more people will kill more people now because by doing so they kill the witness.

[Ulysses G.]

The preponderance of evidence was apparently enough for reasonable doubt. That certainly doesn't mean is necessarily enough, or should be, to convince people who are not jurors that we know the full and accurate story and that he is (or isn't) guiltless. Only someone who WANTS to believe his story would apply that sort of lawyerly standard to justify their personal opinion as if it were fact.

As you are providing nothing but an opinion, the preponderance of evidence looks pretty darn good.

[uptheos]

I guess the crime rate in that neighbourhood will drop significantly.

Will Zimmerman resume his armed vigilante duties?

He will probably write a best seller and make a mint!

[SteeleJoe]

Zimmerman was there, and the evidence backed him up. You, on the other hand, have no evidence to refute him.

Yes, the defendant was there. That's generally the case. Not typically viewed by anyone as anything remotely similar to an unbiased witness or one without cause to distort or lie...

In all sincerity - I actually don't know the case as well as you apparently do - what evidence is there that his story is accurarate or that, for example, my scenario isn't?

[Ulysses G.]

Zimmerman was there, and the evidence backed him up. You, on the other hand, have no evidence to refute him.

So more people will kill more people now because by doing so they kill the witness.

Well, they do have to trick the "people" into attacking them, breaking their nose and smashing their head while giving them no wounds first.

[Jingthing]

I guess the crime rate in that neighbourhood will drop significantly.

Will Zimmerman resume his armed vigilante duties?

He will probably write a best seller and make a mint!

I hope he does so the Martin family can sue him to take it ALL from him.

[NeverSure]

Zimmerman was there, and the evidence backed him up. You, on the other hand, have no evidence to refute him.

So more people will kill more people now because by doing so they kill the witness.

No, there is always a witness called forensic evidence. There was a lot of it. In Florida as in many states, you may shoot someone to "avoid serious bodily harm." Zimmerman's nose was broken and his head was being pounded into the concrete. He shot Martin to avoid serious bodily harm, and for all he knew, death.

The jury got it right.

[Ulysses G.]

In all sincerity - I actually don't know the case as well as you apparently do - what evidence is there that his story is accurarate or that, for example, my scenario isn't?

No you don't, but that never stops you from weighing in anyway. I suggest you go read about the case before commenting. It would take me two hours of searching to gather all the evidence. Most of the expert witnesses backed up much of what Zimmerman had to say and that includes many of -what were supposed to be - the prosecution's "star" witnesses.

[Ulysses G.]

I hope he does so the Martin family can sue him to take it ALL from him.

They can try, but they will lose and they will have to pay his legal fees.

[jamhar]

Zimmerman was there, and the evidence backed him up. You, on the other hand, have no evidence to refute him.

So more people will kill more people now because by doing so they kill the witness.

No, there is always a witness called forensic evidence. There was a lot of it. In Florida as in many states, you may shoot someone to "avoid serious bodily harm." Zimmerman's nose was broken and his head was being pounded into the concrete. He shot Martin to avoid serious bodily harm, and for all he knew, death.

The jury got it right.

So you can shoot a person to death "to prevent bodily harm"

But you get 20 years in prison, if you fire a warning shot?

Link marissa-alexander-gets-20

Marissa Alexander Gets 20 Years For Firing Warning Shot

Edited July 14, 2013 by jamhar

[F430murci]

If Zimmerman had committed 2nd degree murder, he would have had his gun drawn and ready when he and Martin came face to face. Instead, it didn't come out until Martin was on top of him, beating him "MMA style".

How do you know this?

Zimmerman said so. How convenient.

Eyewitness corroboration, wounds consistent with his story, original police investigation and a jury verdict.

I suppose the jury were just a bunch a racist women.

Here we go.

http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_23657590/protesters-san-francisco-oakland-gather-denounce-zimmerman-verdict

Really??? Nice. I bet all those protesting, breaking windows and burning stuff did the same thing when OJ got off. Right.

[F430murci]

I hope he does so the Martin family can sue him to take it ALL from him.

They can try, but they will lose and they will have to pay his legal fees.

No legal fees. American system does not require loser to pay fees in civil dispute.

[NanLaew]

From the LA Times

SANFORD, Fla. -- An employee of the Florida state attorney's office who testified that prosecutors withheld evidence from George Zimmerman's defense team has been fired, a spokeswoman told The Times.

Like I said, Not best outing by the prosecutors.

Spot on. They should have charged him with manslaughter from the get go. A proper wording of the indictment through the grand jury would have allowed them to seek the third degree murder of a child. However, they went for broke and got bugger all.

I scored it Prosecution 4 - Defence 6

The Prosecution played the wrong game so the Defense didn't need to work too hard.

[SteeleJoe]

The preponderance of evidence was apparently enough for reasonable doubt. That certainly doesn't mean is necessarily enough, or should be, to convince people who are not jurors that we know the full and accurate story and that he is (or isn't) guiltless. Only someone who WANTS to believe his story would apply that sort of lawyerly standard to justify their personal opinion as if it were fact.

As you are providing nothing but an opinion, the preponderance of evidence looks pretty darn good.

Which opinion have I provided? I don't know what happened and - unlike yourself - don't claim to. And why try and compare someone's opinion on a thread to evidence in a court?

If the prosecution failed to convict, that's good enough for me. Nonetheless, you know as well as I do that the jury needn't believe he is innocent, merely have a reasonable doubt as to his guilt based on evidence they were allowed to see and hear and how it was presented. I see no reason to pretend that we must be limited in the same way. I can only speculate but I seriously doubt had the outcome been different, you would be using the same "preponderance of evidence" and accepting the verdict with equanimity.

[SteeleJoe]

In all sincerity - I actually don't know the case as well as you apparently do - what evidence is there that his story is accurarate or that, for example, my scenario isn't?

No you don't, but that never stops you from weighing in anyway. I suggest you go read about the case before commenting. It would take me two hours of searching to gather all the evidence. Most of the expert witnesses backed up much of what Zimmerman had to say and that includes many of -what were supposed to be - the prosecution's "star" witnesses.

It never stops me? <deleted> are you talking about? I don't think I've ever posted about this case. (Now if you want to claim I typically post without sufficient knowledge, I'd have to ask you to cite such a thing - you've never dared make such an accusation in any thread before, despite having had more than one argument with me.)

I weigh in because I have something to say. I haven't said anything that exceeds that which is warranted by the extent of my knowledge. I have read about the case but I simply asked if you could give me something more substantial for your certainty beyond repeating "the preponderance of evidence".

[F430murci]

So more people will kill more people now because by doing so they kill the witness.

No, there is always a witness called forensic evidence. There was a lot of it. In Florida as in many states, you may shoot someone to "avoid serious bodily harm." Zimmerman's nose was broken and his head was being pounded into the concrete. He shot Martin to avoid serious bodily harm, and for all he knew, death.

The jury got it right.

So you can shoot a person to death "to prevent bodily harm"

But you get 20 years in prison, if you fire a warning shot?

Link marissa-alexander-gets-20

Marissa Alexander Gets 20 Years For Firing Warning Shot

This is the mentality that keeps the country divided. If a black person gets convicted, its racism.

Apparently, someone did not believe or credit her story about being in imminent fear of bodily harm. Do you know how many people shoot their spouse or kill their spouse and allege they were in fear for their safety?

Cannot make a witness credibility call reading a news clip. We did not make credibility calls in the appellate court because jury is in a much better position to hear witness, view witness demeanor and make those calls.

[NeverSure]

So more people will kill more people now because by doing so they kill the witness.

No, there is always a witness called forensic evidence. There was a lot of it. In Florida as in many states, you may shoot someone to "avoid serious bodily harm." Zimmerman's nose was broken and his head was being pounded into the concrete. He shot Martin to avoid serious bodily harm, and for all he knew, death.

The jury got it right.

So you can shoot a person to death "to prevent bodily harm"

But you get 20 years in prison, if you fire a warning shot?

Link marissa-alexander-gets-20

Marissa Alexander Gets 20 Years For Firing Warning Shot

You really didn't read the two cases did you? Marissa Alexander was having a verbal only fight with an estranged husband at his house. She went out to her car, got a gun and came back into the house and fired it at him. That's a big no-no and is in no way self defense.

Zimmerman was under physical attack, had his nose broken and his head was being pounded into the pavement. He fired to prevent serious bodily injury or death.

Now, if you can't understand the difference, I hope you're never allowed to own a gun.