Zimmerman not guilty in Trayvon Martin death: Florida jury

[mopar71]

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

"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.

It wasn't iced tea. It was Arizona Watermelon Fruit Juice Cocktail. With all the racial undertones to this case I can see why they always refer to it as ice tea though.

http://www.hlntv.com/slideshow/2013/06/03/trayvon-martin-crime-scene-evidence-photos-george-zimmerman

[jamhar]

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

I never mentioned race.

But you noticed her skin color right away.

and based on that, you can make a conclusion.

Says a lot.

[Johpa]

Way too late as the country has been polarized for years, by design. More so than when I was a child during the pre-civil rights years. Why you ask? I have no idea, you need to as the POTUS.

You need not ask the president (POTUS), you only need to ask yourself that timeless question attributed to Cicero, "cui bono?", who profits. And clearly the ruling 1% profits when the underlying masses can be divided over secondary issues like race, religion, and lifestyles while the primary issue of the organization and control of the overall economy remains unchallenged as the 1% continue to eviscerate the New Deal offered by Roosevelt.

Just look at how masterfully they have used the corporate controlled media to create a "civil rights" issue out of this tragedy. Martin was not "stalked" by Zimmerman, he was followed by Zimmerman for a short time. There is nothing illegal about following someone: I do it all the time in my store. And I readily confess that I profile just about every young male wearing a hoodie who comes into my store, the ethnicity of the person wearing the hoodie is irrelevant. There was no evidence presented that Zimmerman picked a fight or assaulted Martin prior to the shooting, the presented evidence showed only that, for whatever reason, Martin initiated an assault on Zimmerman. This case had nothing to do with Martin being Black; on the contrary, Zimmerman had excellent relations with his local Black community and apparently was a model neighbor with numerous Black friends. Clearly, regardless of what a dork Zimmerman may have seemed by following Martin, at some point Martin stopped minding his own business. Martin is dead because of the ridiculous gun culture in the USA and our even more ridiculous laws here in the USA that allow just about any dork to carry a gun and use it in self defense.

Edited July 14, 2013 by Johpa

[mopar71]

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.

The "police" didn't "order" Zimmerman to stop "stalking" anyone. I was listening to the trial on the radio. It was an 911 operator and he told Zimmerman "We don't need you to do that" because they could be held libel. The operator said they always tell/advise people not to take action but to wait otherwise they could be sued if something happened.

[F430murci]

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

I never mentioned race.

But you noticed her skin color right away.

and based on that, you can make a conclusion.

Says a lot.

Uhm, that is what this is really about. That article focused on racial issues and NAACP.

What is really annoying is when people are dishonest and try to make it about something other than what it really is or try and say this is not about racism when that is the true agenda or rub.

For heaven's sake, that is what Obama insinuated, Sharpton said, Jackson initially said (he backed off a bit now), Martin's family's lawyer read tweet for MLK daughter about this trial being symbolic of MLK's movement and same lawyer compared Martin to Emmett Till (a real American tragedy).

Now you want to blame me for making this about racism???

The article cited states:

"Her case in Jacksonville has drawn a fresh round of criticism aimed at mandatory-minimum sentencing laws. The local NAACP chapter and the district's African-American congresswoman say blacks more often are incarcerated for long periods because of overzealous prosecutors and judges bound by the wrong-headed statute. Alexander is black."

Edited July 14, 2013 by F430murci

[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.

Which opinion have I provided?

This one. Again, if you resist someone smashing your head against the sidewalk, you can usually hold someone off for a while. That is my opinion and an expert witness agreed with it in Zimmerman's trail..

(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.)

[mopar71]

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.

No, it was an eye-witness who testified to it under oath (the part about Martin was on top of him, beating him "MMA style")

Edited July 14, 2013 by mopar71

[jamhar]

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.

Dude, you have the wrong name

because you are ALWAYS SURE

I wasnt there so i cant say

But to be able to shoot an unarmed person

Kill him, and to be able to walk away, seems wrong.

PS, i do own some guns. Wanna go shooting sometimes?

Scratch that, I dont want to go shooting with someone named "neversure"

but seems to be "always sure". I'm a cautious type

[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?

This one. Again, if you resist someone smashing your head against the sidewalk, you can usually hold someone off for a while. That is my opinion and an expert witness agreed with it in Zimmerman's trail..

(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.)

Ah, so you are comparing that one parenthetical aside in a casual post on a TVF thread to the entirety of the evidence provided in court, and find that the latter is of more value in deciding the rightful verdict or what happened.

Brilliant. I agree.

[Ulysses G.]

Just look at how masterfully they have used the corporate controlled media to create a "civil rights" issue out of this tragedy. Martin was not "stalked" by Zimmerman, he was followed by Zimmerman for a short time. There is nothing illegal about following someone: I do it all the time in my store. And I readily confess that I profile just about every young male wearing a hoodie who comes into my store, the ethnicity of the person wearing the hoodie is irrelevant. There was no evidence presented that Zimmerman picked a fight or assaulted Martin prior to the shooting, the presented evidence showed only that, for whatever reason, Martin initiated an assault on Zimmerman. This case had nothing to do with Martin being Black; on the contrary, Zimmerman had excellent relations with his local Black community and apparently was a model neighbor with numerous Black friends. Clearly, regardless of what a dork Zimmerman may have seemed by following Martin, at some point Martin stopped minding his own business. Martin is dead because of the ridiculous gun culture in the USA and our even more ridiculous laws here in the USA that allow just about any dork to carry a gun and use it in self defense.

Now YOU, have been following the case.

[uptheos]

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.

Quite right.

"A judge threw out Alexander's "stand your ground" self-defense claim, noting that she could have run out of the house to escape her husband but instead got the gun and went back inside".

[mopar71]

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.

One thing I'm sure potential murderers learned from this trial was what to say - and not to say - when they call 911, and how to say it.

Maybe they should also have candy and a non-alcoholic beverage in their pockets at the time of the murder since so many people seem to believe that proves innocence.

[mopar71]

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.

I think they are already rich from suing the housing development which chose to settle out of court.

[Scott]

Posts with messed up quotes have been deleted.

[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.

The "police" didn't "order" Zimmerman to stop "stalking" anyone. I was listening to the trial on the radio. It was an 911 operator and he told Zimmerman "We don't need you to do that" because they could be held libel. The operator said they always tell/advise people not to take action but to wait otherwise they could be sued if something happened.

Zimmerman was not "stalking" Martin. He was watching what he was doing as he felt that he was high on drugs - he did turn out to have THC in his system - and he felt that he was acting suspiciously. There had been a lot of burglaries in the neighborhood and many of them had been committed by black youths. It is no surprise that he wanted to keep an eye on a young man that he did not recognize.

Edited July 14, 2013 by Ulysses G.

[geriatrickid]

If Zimmerman is truly not guilty, justice *not* served until Trayvon's family *pays Zimmerman* for the rigors of a false accusation and ruining Zimmerman's life. Suffering grief (even of your own child) does not absolve you from unjustly ruining someone else's life.

No. There was reasonable doubt sufficient to preclude a guilty verdict.

The estate of Treyvon Martin can still bring a civil suit as the burden of guilt is different. One need only show some responsibility. A guilty verdict would have made the civil case a slam dunk. However, the evidence at trial was sufficient to support a civil suit against Zimmerman.

[NanLaew]

....and the lawyers are rubbing their hands with glee.

[mopar71]

If Zimmerman is truly not guilty, justice *not* served until Trayvon's family *pays Zimmerman* for the rigors of a false accusation and ruining Zimmerman's life. Suffering grief (even of your own child) does not absolve you from unjustly ruining someone else's life.

No. There was reasonable doubt sufficient to preclude a guilty verdict.

The estate of Treyvon Martin can still bring a civil suit as the burden of guilt is different. One need only show some responsibility. A guilty verdict would have made the civil case a slam dunk. However, the evidence at trial was sufficient to support a civil suit against Zimmerman.

Didn't OJ get taken to the cleaners in a civil suit after getting off the murder charge?

[geriatrickid]

The case featured some manipulation of people's perceptions.

First we are treated to the portrayal of Zimmerman as some sort of nasty brute. He's often pictured in his prison attire next to a an old photo of Treyvon Martin, when Treyvon is a young kid. This makes Treyvon look like a victim.

And then we get into the character assassination of Treyvon Martin, where he is portrayed as a doped up thug, and Zimmerman as a nice gentleman

IMO, George Zimmerman was an idiot. A really stupid wannabe cop. Well, there's a reason why the police wouldn't hire him.

Treyvon Martin was a smartass kid, like a lot of other teenagers.

2 dumbasses met and this was the result. Zimmerman may not be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, but he certainly bears a significant responsibility in the death of Treyvon Martin. Treyvon broke no laws and Zimmerman should not have pursued Treyvon. Zimmerman should have waited for the police to arrive. He screwed up. So did Treyvon when he confronted the man he described as a "creepy cracker".

[F430murci]

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.

I think they are already rich from suing the housing development which chose to settle out of court.

Reportedly settled for over a million. Never heard final number.

[Loptr]

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?

It came from the court record. I read / heard it too as part of the instructions to the jury.

[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?

It came from the court record. I read / heard it too as part of the instructions to the jury.

Ah, in other words because Zimmerman said so.

[NeverSure]

Is this thread going to go on forever? The trial is over, all evidence and arguments were presented, and the verdict is "not guilty."

Now we have a bunch of people who weren't there, including during the 16 hours of jury deliberation, who know it all.

Amazing.

[Johpa]

2 dumbasses met and this was the result. Zimmerman may not be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, but he certainly bears a significant responsibility in the death of Treyvon Martin. Treyvon broke no laws and Zimmerman should not have pursued Treyvon. Zimmerman should have waited for the police to arrive. He screwed up. So did Treyvon when he confronted the man he described as a "creepy cracker".

I agree that neither party is admirable. Neither party was initially breaking any laws. There is no law against following someone. There are no laws against using bad judgement and clearly both Zimmerman and Martin used bad judgement that night. Alas, for the tragic Martin, his lapse of good judgement, from the evidence offered in court, led him to break the law by assaulting Zimmerman. And the lack of good judgement in US law allows even people with bad judgement to carry a weapon and use it in self-defense. So I disagree, I don't think that Zimmerman bears responsibility here.

Edited July 14, 2013 by Johpa

[Jingthing]

It's not over.

The DOJ may indeed file very serious charges and they have every legal right to do so.

Then there are the civil cases which will be easy to win.

Zimmerman will pay for killing Martin. He argued he needed to kill him. He may have gotten off on legal technicalities because Florida's self defense laws are absurdly lax for the killers, but that doesn't mean he is in any way an INNOCENT man.

[Loptr]

It was not that many years ago when everyone in the US was armed with a side arm and a long rifle if mounted. As short 120 years ago. There was a reason that people were armed and that is because you needed to defend your life in a violent world. Many are still armed today for this very reason. If you are going to attack another person with malice and intent, then that person should be able to defend his life. The courts realize this and that is why the laws are on the books. You do the crime, be prepared to pay for it with your life. Some forget this and think of Martin as the victim in this case, regardless of what the court and jury finds. No sense arguing the semantics as there will always be two distinct, polarized views on the topic.

The real question is, what does Holder and the DOJ do? Do they go after Zimmerman with civil rights charges and appease the black community while further alienating the white and hispanic community -or- does he abide by the ruling of the jury and piss off the black community. The POTUS also has political skin in this case after publicly taking a position. Which ever way they lean, they are screwed.

[Jingthing]

Your racial analysis is WRONG.

White liberals want Zimmerman to pay for the murder.

Latinos largely want the same thing as white liberals.

Its simplistic to assume they side with the killer Zimmerman because he is 1/2 Hispanic.

Of course most of the black community also wants Zimmerman to pay.

Right wing whites mostly want to gloss this over and for this to be over now.

But it is NOT over.

Yes it's a very divisive situation.

When you add the white liberals, majority of Latinos, and almost all blacks, you've got a MAJORITY of Americans who still care that the killer faces the consequences of his actions.

BTW, Zimmerman can potentially face the death penalty under federal charges. Not saying that will happen, but it's interesting that it is even possible.

Edited July 14, 2013 by Jingthing

[Steely Dan]

Disbar the prosecutors is the view of Alan Dershowitz, I couldn't agree more.

http://www.newsmax.com/newswidget/dershowitz-zimmerman-trayvon-martin/2013/07/12/id/514847?promo_code=F53B-1&utm_source=Debka&utm_medium=nmwidget&utm_campaign=widgetphase1

Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz says the prosecutors in the George Zimmerman murder trial should be charged with "prosecutorial misconduct" for suggesting the defendant planned the fatal shooting of Trayvon Martin.

"That is something no prosecutor should be allowed to get away with … to make up a story from whole cloth," Dershowitz told "The Steve Malzberg Show" on Newsmax TV.

"These prosecutors should be disbarred. They have acted absolutely irresponsibly in an utterly un-American fashion."

[F430murci]

....and the lawyers are rubbing their hands with glee.

I don't think so. I think most lawyers are pretty sickened by the whole thing. As geriatric kid pointed, out both Martin and Zimmerman are messed up. The cops and state prosecutors did their job and found no crime. President, Sharpton, Jackson, NAACP et al played the racial card and appointed a special prosecutor, withheld from public information such as photos of Zimmerman injuries, evidence from defense and used the media to inflame the public. Then once again, we have a media circus around a trial. The jury did its job and ow NAACP is circulating another petition because they are not happy with a jury verdict. This is un-American and racist in my opinion and does nothing but create more racial divide and casts doubts on our legal system just because certain people, sitting at home listening to the media or sitting out side the courthouse, are not happy with the verdict. Unfair verdicts that make one side unhappy happen every day. This is the nature of the beast.

Edited July 14, 2013 by F430murci

[F430murci]

Disbar the prosecutors is the view of Alan Dershowitz, I couldn't agree more.

http://www.newsmax.com/newswidget/dershowitz-zimmerman-trayvon-martin/2013/07/12/id/514847?promo_code=F53B-1&utm_source=Debka&utm_medium=nmwidget&utm_campaign=widgetphase1

Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz says the prosecutors in the George Zimmerman murder trial should be charged with "prosecutorial misconduct" for suggesting the defendant planned the fatal shooting of Trayvon Martin.

"That is something no prosecutor should be allowed to get away with … to make up a story from whole cloth," Dershowitz told "The Steve Malzberg Show" on Newsmax TV.

"These prosecutors should be disbarred. They have acted absolutely irresponsibly in an utterly un-American fashion."

This is the real story. God knows if the ones defending the evil racist would have concealed evidence.