Charges which should never have been brought

[KeithKSR]

The acquittal of George Zimmerman closes a case that should never have seen the light of day. Zimmerman was clearly defending himself, as the law enforcement officials and prosecutors originally concluded. Due to the racism and political pressures brought about a law enforcement official lost his job, and a special prosecutor had to be appointed in order to bring charges against Zimmerman. It is Zimmerman who was harmed by racism, and should seek compensation in civil court and pursue federal charges for having his federal rights violated.

[kritikalcat]

One can never tell without being on the jury, but I think if I was on it I'd have voted to acquit.

That said, it's NOT true that the local authorities felt no charges were warranted. They felt that there was no probable cause to arrest and charge Zimmerman on the scene. However, the local police recommended a manslaughter charge after further investigation. This was lost in the noise when outside elements took over the case and pushed for a murder charge.

[Catonahottinroof]

It still should have never gone to trial. The prosecution could demonstrate nothing more than the defense's story was at least partially accurate and itself created resaonable doubt about Zimmerman's guilt.

[Doc]

IMO it certainly should have if for no other reason than the outrage that would have happen. A young person was killed andthere needed to be an explanation, something that appeared to be more than just an investigation. Were that my son, I would not have been satisfied if the case never went farther than an investigation.

[Catonahottinroof]

And you just described a political prosecution...



IMO it certainly should have if for no other reason than the outrage that would have happen. A young person was killed andthere needed to be an explanation, something that appeared to be more than just an investigation. Were that my son, I would not have been satisfied if the case never went farther than an investigation.

[UKHistory]

Zimmerman killed an unarmed US citizen who was walking down the street and who had not committed a crime. An armed Zimmerman stopped the boy.

I would be very alarmed if Zimmerman or anyone without a badge stopped me and began questioning me.

If someone armed stopped me, I would be scared and I am pretty slow so I might think my only alternative was to fight.

This was a horrible senseless tragedy that could have been avoided

Zimmerman is being harmed. He caused this damn problem. He pulled the trigger and killed an unarmed boy who had committed no crime.




The acquittal of George Zimmerman closes a case that should never have seen the light of day. Zimmerman was clearly defending himself, as the law enforcement officials and prosecutors originally concluded. Due to the racism and political pressures brought about a law enforcement official lost his job, and a special prosecutor had to be appointed in order to bring charges against Zimmerman. It is Zimmerman who was harmed by racism, and should seek compensation in civil court and pursue federal charges for having his federal rights violated.

[Doc]

And you just described a political prosecution...

No. Wanting an explanation isn't political prosecution. It was about seeking justice. Trial based on evidence where a jury found him not guilty is enough for me.

[Catonahottinroof]

The police investigated, didn't arrest, DA investigated, didn't indict. Not until involvement from Civil Rights leaders, some help from the DOJ and replacement of individuals by the state of Florida, only then did indictment abd a trial occur. The outcome is telling as to why Zimmerman wasn't arrested and prosecuted from the get go. Florida's stand your ground law left no room to prosecute him with any certainty of some kind of conviction.
This became political when the prez injected himself into the situation and will possibly still be in the air with federal prosecution on civil rights grounds, and again it will be a political prosecution.
The entire situation is a travesty, a cop wannabe, a less than angelic kid who didn't learn the lesson of discretion being the better part of valor.
Treyvon had 4 minutes to walk less than 100 yards to his fathers residence per the phone tapes prior to being shot...and chose to fight an armed man. Bad choices all around, but still doesn't equate to charges being brought and prosecuted because the State of Florida had no case to win from the start.

[CitizenBBN]

No. Wanting an explanation isn't political prosecution. It was about seeking justice. Trial based on evidence where a jury found him not guilty is enough for me.

The legal system isn't in place to answer the questions of those not involved in the case. It's there to pursue justice for those involved. It doesn't owe anyone "an explanation".

Of course it's used that way, we all want a trial with lots of evidence so we can decide for ourselves if justice was done, but it's not supposed to be used for that purpose. If the police and the DA decide to not prosecute we don't get to put a person on trial just so we can all be convinced of the outcome. At least that's the ideal, but it obviously doesn't work that way. Trials are brought all the time b/c of the outcry to have "justice", which is really just a call for doing "something" b/c we don't like the outcome of a situation or confuse doing nothing b/c there's nothing to be done with doing nothing b/c we don't care.

[Darrell KSR]

I've been thinking a lot since the Zimmerman trial started about something my Dad always told me growing up. He taught my brother and I to defend ourselves, and one thing he always said--always--was "if you know you're going to be in a fight, throw the first punch."

I wonder how sound that is as a "grown-up" philosophy. May not be the best advice to an 8-year old, but if Trayvon Martin was operating under the belief he was going to get into a fight, and my Dad was his Dad, he might've done the same thing he did. And be killed.

Just a horrible tragedy. I would not have convicted Zimmerman of any crime, based on what I know--just no way guilt beyond a reasonable doubt could be proved for anything. But I hate that it happened.


Zimmerman killed an unarmed US citizen who was walking down the street and who had not committed a crime. An armed Zimmerman stopped the boy.

I would be very alarmed if Zimmerman or anyone without a badge stopped me and began questioning me.

If someone armed stopped me, I would be scared and I am pretty slow so I might think my only alternative was to fight.

This was a horrible senseless tragedy that could have been avoided

Zimmerman is being harmed. He caused this damn problem. He pulled the trigger and killed an unarmed boy who had committed no crime.

[BigBlueBrock]

I've been thinking a lot since the Zimmerman trial started about something my Dad always told me growing up. He taught my brother and I to defend ourselves, and one thing he always said--always--was "if you know you're going to be in a fight, throw the first punch."

I wonder how sound that is as a "grown-up" philosophy. May not be the best advice to an 8-year old, but if Trayvon Martin was operating under the belief he was going to get into a fight, and my Dad was his Dad, he might've done the same thing he did. And be killed.

Just a horrible tragedy. I would not have convicted Zimmerman of any crime, based on what I know--just no way guilt beyond a reasonable doubt could be proved for anything. But I hate that it happened.

Interesting. I was taught and believe that you never start a fight, but you should always finish one.

[Darrell KSR]

BBB, my Dad always said that the person who got the first punch in had the best chance of being the one who finished it.

That flies in the face of "legal" issues...for example, words alone do not constitute legal provocation...but he grew up in a tougher, real world environment than most, and that's the background from which he taught us.

[BigBlueBrock]

BBB, my Dad always said that the person who got the first punch in had the best chance of being the one who finished it.

That flies in the face of "legal" issues...for example, words alone do not constitute legal provocation...but he grew up in a tougher, real world environment than most, and that's the background from which he taught us.
Yeah, the words thing is something I believe as well. You can say whatever you want to me personally and it's water off a duck's back as far as I'm concerned. I spent far too much of my childhood being called names to ever care about words as an adult. However, I am quite skilled at the use of words myself and am very capable of driving you (the royal you) to throwing the first punch if you insist on being verbally abusive.

Had an obnoxious drunk in a bar try to pick a fight a couple months back. The bouncer grabbed him before it got physical, but he started off talking about having a problem with a fellow bar fly (and friend of mine) and then threatened me with "What if I told you I was gonna kick your ass?" Of course I'm so much of a smartass I just had to answer with "I wouldn't recommend you try."

[CitizenBBN]

I've been thinking a lot since the Zimmerman trial started about something my Dad always told me growing up. He taught my brother and I to defend ourselves, and one thing he always said--always--was "if you know you're going to be in a fight, throw the first punch."

I wonder how sound that is as a "grown-up" philosophy.

Sounds like an all expense paid trip to a state resort complete with orange day wear.

While it may be the best way to win a fight, it's absolutely the best way to be charged with assault, and in this case be killed. You could get away with it if it was in self defense, i.e. the other guy had a weapon in his hand or something "imminent" but basically I'd say it's very bad advice. Not that way in days gone by, but in an era where people get charged with assault for throwing a drink in someone's face for an insult I don't think it works well.

[CitizenBBN]

Yeah, the words thing is something I believe as well. You can say whatever you want to me personally and it's water off a duck's back as far as I'm concerned. I spent far too much of my childhood being called names to ever care about words as an adult. However, I am quite skilled at the use of words myself and am very capable of driving you (the royal you) to throwing the first punch if you insist on being verbally abusive.

Had an obnoxious drunk in a bar try to pick a fight a couple months back. The bouncer grabbed him before it got physical, but he started off talking about having a problem with a fellow bar fly (and friend of mine) and then threatened me with "What if I told you I was gonna kick your ass?" Of course I'm so much of a smartass I just had to answer with "I wouldn't recommend you try."

The concealed carry class training specifically hits on how NO insult is cause to take physical action. None, no matter what you're called or what is said to you. It's a good basic rule. B/c if you punch the guy you're now the aggressor and the law is on his side and against you from there on out no matter what happens.

[BigBlueBrock]

The concealed carry class training specifically hits on how NO insult is cause to take physical action. None, no matter what you're called or what is said to you. It's a good basic rule. B/c if you punch the guy you're now the aggressor and the law is on his side and against you from there on out no matter what happens.

I would think any course on self defense of any kind would teach the same thing.

[kritikalcat]

If I were a juror, or a prosecutor deciding whether to bring charges, I'd look at circumstances, witnesses, etc. I don't believe that anyone has a duty to allow themselves to be hit first, any more than I believe you have an obligation to let an assailant take the first shot, or try to shoot the weapon out of their hand, or other Hollywood garbage. If you swing first just because you're being insulted, to me you've committed assault. If you've done nothing aggressive and the other guy has announced in front of witnesses that he's about to smash your face in and cocks his fist back and you take him down, I'm going to let you go.

[kritikalcat]

This is the relevant part of the Florida Stand your Ground Law
(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

and this is Paul Waldman's (CNN.com) interpretation
More importantly, under Florida law, it's perfectly legal to follow someone for even the worst of reasons, confront them, and even start a fight with them. Then when you lose the advantage to the point where you believe you're in danger of "great bodily harm," you can shoot the other person dead.

Is Waldman correct? Is he extrapolating something from his own interpretation of the Zimmerman verdict? Sure, I can see if you get angry and shove someone and they pull out a metal pipe and proceed to try to smash your skull and you have a weapon you're going to use it to protect yourself from the excessive force being used in response to your minor assault. That said, I'm probably going to expect at least a manslaughter charge which you engaged in a reckless act which led to a homicide. It's why I feel that a manslaughter charge might've been justified in this case, though I also respect that the jury did not find that the evidence supported it.

[badrose]

Well, here goes another personal anecdote:
(Some background provided here: http://www.kysportsreport.com/forums/showthread.php?10298-Use-of-force&p=96349#post96349 )

I worked with this guy and we got along well for some time but at some point he turned against me (again, bigger than me about 6'2' and lifted weights as a hobby) and proceeded to try to embarrass me with bullying tactics, nothing to cause harm and I didn't feel threatened because we were at work and we both valued our job. He never told me why he turned against me and, to my knowledge, he didn't tell anyone else either.Nothing ever happened away from work. This went on for at least a couple of months and by this time I'd been moved to another department to help out there. Circumstances dictated that I fill in one shift where he and I had worked together and, as luck would have it, it was me and him alone around 6AM.

We both had work to do by deadlines so we kept busy but for some glares that I expect were meant to intimidate. Finally I confronted him about his behavior. To the best of my recollection it went something like this:

"I know you're not going to fight me or come at me with that intent. If you were, you'd have done it by now. You know where I work and you know where I live. But you also know that I'm smarter than to fight straight up. If, or when, you try I'll be ready and you will lose. Knowing you, that wouldn't end things and at some point someone's going to the hospital, die, or go to jail. I don't really want any of those options for myself and I don't think you do either."

He looked down, nodded, "I guess you're right."

He never bothered me again. I was about 21 years old then. He was about 28.

[CitizenBBN]

This is the relevant part of the Florida Stand your Ground Law
(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

and this is Paul Waldman's (CNN.com) interpretation
More importantly, under Florida law, it's perfectly legal to follow someone for even the worst of reasons, confront them, and even start a fight with them. Then when you lose the advantage to the point where you believe you're in danger of "great bodily harm," you can shoot the other person dead.

Is Waldman correct? Is he extrapolating something from his own interpretation of the Zimmerman verdict? Sure, I can see if you get angry and shove someone and they pull out a metal pipe and proceed to try to smash your skull and you have a weapon you're going to use it to protect yourself from the excessive force being used in response to your minor assault. That said, I'm probably going to expect at least a manslaughter charge which you engaged in a reckless act which led to a homicide. It's why I feel that a manslaughter charge might've been justified in this case, though I also respect that the jury did not find that the evidence supported it.

He's absolutely positively wrong, and an idiot or a biased lair. His summary and the law are so unrelated I don't know where to start.

where does it say you can start a fight with someone? That's assault, covered in other statutes, and a crime. Guess what, THAT IS UNLAWFUL ACTIVITY!!!!! Sorry not yelling at you,just this idiot. At the point at which you assault someone you are engaging in unlawful activity, so the first words of the statute removes protection from you. You're now the criminal, you are not using defensive force (I'll post the other parts of the statute below), and it is the OTHER person in the fight who has this protection, not you.

Oh and it also says "who is attacked". Guess what? if you attack someone and they punch back that's not "being attacked" at law, that's them defending themselves, using defensive force, so again the statute wouldn't apply. Huge gaping holes in this guy's reading of the law.

Where does it say you can follow someone for the worst reasons? Again, that is covered in other sections of the law, such as terroristic threatening or endangerment, also crimes and, if proven, again it removes the stand your ground protection.

It's like he's looking at this one sentence, ignoring the rest of the statute and lawbook and saying "well it doens't say you can't kill puppies, so this law lets you kick puppies". It's beyond absurd. Hes' just making this crap up for TV IMO and ignoring all kinds of things, like the rest of the entire Florida body of law.

FWIW that's a big problem here. Zimmerman may be guilty of something in Florida law, like endangerment of some sort or something else related to having contributed to this confrontation, but that wasnt' enough to charge him with politically. It would have looked like a slap on the wrist, so they filed for murder, a charge that was never in the ballpark of accurate. Manslaughter I can see at least a case to make, but not murder.

OK, done ranting. In the case where A shoves B and B comes back with a pipe, in Kentucky you may or may not have the protection of self defense. A jury could hold that the shove wasn't what a reasonable person would see as threatening enough to warrant picking up a pipe, a deadly weapon in Kentucky law, so his use of deadly force wasn't justified. if he wasn't acting in self defense then that protection would probably move to you and you could claim self defense.

Like you're in line for a movie. A guy cuts. you tap him on the shoulder to get his attention, he flips you off. You tap him, he shoves your arm. You shove his shoulder, he runs over and grabs a pipe and comes after you. In kentucky you could easily maintain the protection of self defense b/c your shove may not be seen as sufficient force by a jury for him to get the right to use deadly force (he picked up a deadly weapon) to defend himself even though he had no obligation to retreat from you. You then use deadly force to stop him, it would go to the prosecutor and jury to decide if self defense rested with him or you.

As it should be. We have the trials b/c the law can't spell out every possible sitaution. It's a guideline and the jury determines from the evidence how it applies to that situation.

However, NOTHING in the Kentucky laws would say it was just OK for him to pick up a pipe inherently, nor would it give you permission to shove someone to the ground so hard as to give them a concussion and then claim self defense if they did something to defend themselves. That's what Waldman is saying, and he's full of it. No state law says such things.

[CitizenBBN]

Sorry, here's the complete Florida self defense statute:

776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—

(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and
(b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.

(2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or
(b) The person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or
(c) The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or
(d) The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.

(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

(4) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person’s dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.

(5) As used in this section, the term:
(a) “Dwelling” means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night.
(b) “Residence” means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest.
(c) “Vehicle” means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property.

[kritikalcat]

Here's an interesting case from 2006. http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2010/12/paterson_commutes_sentence_in.html (]"http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2010/12/paterson_commutes_sentence_in.html")

A group of white youth came to the home of John White, a 57 year old black male, on Long Island, because they wrongly believed his 19 year old son Aaron had threatened a girl they knew online. They were standing the driveway yelling threats and racial epithets. White took a Beretta handgun, went outside to confront them, and shot a 17 year old in the face, killing him. He was charged and convicted of gun violations and involuntary manslaughter and given a sentence of up to 4 years in prison. His defense was that his grandfather's stories of being run out of Alabama by the KKK led him to believe his life was in danger. The NAACP advocated against White being charged and pushed for his release. After 4 months the governor of NY commuted his sentence.

[KeithKSR]

Zimmerman killed an unarmed US citizen who was walking down the street and who had not committed a crime. An armed Zimmerman stopped the boy.

I would be very alarmed if Zimmerman or anyone without a badge stopped me and began questioning me.

If someone armed stopped me, I would be scared and I am pretty slow so I might think my only alternative was to fight.

This was a horrible senseless tragedy that could have been avoided

Zimmerman is being harmed. He caused this damn problem. He pulled the trigger and killed an unarmed boy who had committed no crime.


First of all Martin was not simply walking down the street, he was walking close to homes, close enough to be under the overhang, in an area that had been subject to criminal activity. There is a huge difference in walking down the street and walking onto people's property. The prosecution says that was to avoid the rain, which could be true. At the very least if someone is seen near homes in a neighborhood in which they do not live it is reasonable to raise suspicions.

Martin committed felony assault, which due to that action he created a situation in which Zimmerman felt his only recourse was to use lethal force.

Anyone who thinks Martin was just your average kid has not paid attention to the details of the case from the outset. Posters comparing Martin to their children need to be really concerned about their children, unless they are making the comparison without knowing what the real Travon Martin was like.

At the time of Martin's death he was sent to his father's home following a suspension from school for violating his school's drug policy. In my experience kids sent to live with someone other than their custodial parent following suspensions is an indicator that the custodial parent could not control the kid.

Martin's twitter account revealed disturbing info that he had attacked a bus driver, posted pictures of himself posing with copious amounts of cash, a firearm, jewelry, flying double birds, etc. He was suspended from school for graffiti, and possession of a burglary tool.

Evidence in court indicated he was irritated over the "cracker" following him, and as a kid who was known to enjoy fighting, it is reasonable to think Martin's state of mind was that he was going to teach that "cracker" a lesson and sought out the physical confrontation and was the aggressor.

The racist in this tale of woe was Martin. When provided with a 4 minute window in which he could have walked back to his father's girlfriends house, he chose instead to find a dark area and lie in wait for Zimmerman, so that he could get the jump on him rather than turning and facing him to inquire why he was being followed.

Unlike most of you I am exposed to a large number of students, I will have 140 to 160 each school year, all year long. It is not hard to pick out the bad apples. It is really rare that good kids are suspended, I cannot recall of a single instance when a good kid has received multiple suspensions. Kids with Martin's record of lack of respect for authority, early drug use, etc are on the fast track to jail, a grave, or both.

[KeithKSR]

Here's an interesting case from 2006. http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2010/12/paterson_commutes_sentence_in.html (]"http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2010/12/paterson_commutes_sentence_in.html")

A group of white youth came to the home of John White, a 57 year old black male, on Long Island, because they wrongly believed his 19 year old son Aaron had threatened a girl they knew online. They were standing the driveway yelling threats and racial epithets. White took a Beretta handgun, went outside to confront them, and shot a 17 year old in the face, killing him. He was charged and convicted of gun violations and involuntary manslaughter and given a sentence of up to 4 years in prison. His defense was that his grandfather's stories of being run out of Alabama by the KKK led him to believe his life was in danger. The NAACP advocated against White being charged and pushed for his release. After 4 months the governor of NY commuted his sentence.

The governor did the right thing, given the situation. The jury did the right thing given NY laws. The laws aided those in the wrong and the governor used his power to right a wrong created by poor laws.

Many people fail to realize that the castle doctrine and stand your ground laws are tremendous aids in those states with those laws.

Had Martin been white and Zimmerman been white there would have been no trial, given the evidence there should have been no trial. There simply wasn't any evidence to sustain the charge, the prosecution's only hope for a verdict was to attempt to get the jury to make an emotional judgement, and not a legal judgement.

[Doc]

The legal system isn't in place to answer the questions of those not involved in the case. It's there to pursue justice for those involved. It doesn't owe anyone "an explanation".

Of course it's used that way, we all want a trial with lots of evidence so we can decide for ourselves if justice was done, but it's not supposed to be used for that purpose. If the police and the DA decide to not prosecute we don't get to put a person on trial just so we can all be convinced of the outcome. At least that's the ideal, but it obviously doesn't work that way. Trials are brought all the time b/c of the outcry to have "justice", which is really just a call for doing "something" b/c we don't like the outcome of a situation or confuse doing nothing b/c there's nothing to be done with doing nothing b/c we don't care.

What part of "were it my son" did you miss? Were it my son that was killed, I'd want it brought to court and the evidence placed before a jury for them to decide. Again, were it my son........... I'd want an explanation, plain and simple. This is what I stated in post #4, my original post in the thread, and the post upon which my further posts were based.

Second


Treyvon had 4 minutes to walk less than 100 yards to his fathers residence per the phone tapes prior to being shot...and chose to fight an armed man. Bad choices all around, but still doesn't equate to charges being brought and prosecuted because the State of Florida had no case to win from the start.

So Zimmerman calls the police. How is Martin supposed to know that he called the police? Much has been made of this 4 minutes between the call by Zimmerman (the one where he was told to not follow the kid) and when the altercation began. Martin was doing nothing illegal and had no idea that Zimmerman called the police. Likely he didn't have on his E.S.P. cap that would have informed him that Zimmerman called the police so that even though he (Martin) was doing nothing wrong, he should go home. Zimmerman instigated the altercation and when he was getting his ass whooped, he pulled his gun... unless he pulled it earlier in an attempt to detain Martin.

It went to trial, the prosecution failed to prove its case to the jury in the opinion of a jury. The fact the case was not proved does not equate that charges should have not been brought. The fact he was found not guilty is fine by me because in doing so it does not appear as if he was let off because of anything other than the prosecution failed based on the evidence available to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty.

As for the shannanigans by Sharpton and his hord of race baiting whores (see post #8), it makes zero difference to me. The fact that Zimmerman was found not guilty likewise means little to me in the long run either. What does matter is that justice was found in courts system of this country and that there isn't the appearance that anything less than justice was done.

ETA: Just to emphasize, I'm fine with the verdict. I personally believe it was manslaughter however that was not proved by the evidence or the prosecution. IMO the verdict was CORRECT.

[KeithKSR]

What part of "were it my son" did you miss? Were it my son that was killed, I'd want it brought to court and the evidence placed before a jury for them to decide. Again, were it my son........... I'd want an explanation, plain and simple. This is what I stated in post #4, my original post in the thread, and the post upon which my further posts were based.

Second


So Zimmerman calls the police. How it Martin supposed to know that he called the police? Much has been made of this 4 minutes between the call by Zimmerman (the one where he was told to not follow the kid) and when the altercation began. Martin was doing nothing illegal and had no idea that Zimmerman called the police. Likely he didn't have on his E.S.P. cap that would have informed him that Zimmerman called the police so that even though he (Martin) was doing nothing wrong, he should go home. Zimmerman instigated the altercation and when he was getting his ass whooped, he pulled his gun... unless he pulled it earlier in an attempt to detain Martin.

It went to trial, the prosecution failed to prove its case to the jury in the opinion of a jury. The fact the case was not proved does not equate that charges should have not been brought. The fact he was found not guilty is fine by me because in doing so it does not appear as if he was let off because of anything other than the prosecution failed based on the evidence available to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty.

As for the shannanigans by Sharpton and his hord of race baiting whores (see post #8), it makes zero difference to me. The fact that Zimmerman was found not guilty likewise means little to me in the long run either. What does matter is that justice was found in courts system of this country and that there isn't the appearance that anything less than justice was done.

SMH, Doc it is pretty obvious you have not been following this case much at all.

Not every action is worthy of the time taken for a trial, especially given the crowded court dockets. The state of Florida knew from the outset that there was no evidence to even suggest the lesser manslaughter charge, but bowed to political pressure and arrested a man who should not have been arrested in order to have a trial where there was no crime to try. The prosecution was unable to cite a single fact during the entire trial that pointed to any other reasonable course of events than that stated by Zimmerman.

One cannot instigate the altercation after it has begun. The only marks on Martin's body were the gunshot wound, and the wounds on his knuckles that got there as a result of assaulting Zimmerman and beating him as the primary witness stated "MMA-style," meaning he was beating Zimmerman savagely.

I sure hope your kid isn't out scoping out homes on rainy nights, peering into windows, etc.

[Doc]

So we disagree and its because I've not been following? That's fairly disingenuous IMO. I'll give the crowd that feels Zimmerman's action their due. I'll give them that they have their opinions that may differ from mine. I'll do that without the need to label them as uninformed. I'll credit it to a difference of opinion, not ignorance.

You pull a gun on me and attempt to detain me, that is the start of an altercation. In my uninformed opinion, that is the most likely event that started the altercation.

You seem to be misinformed. There is no evidence Martin was "peering into windows". Additionally from your posts above, walking close to homes, close enough to be under the overhang, in an area that had been subject to criminal activity isn't criminal, unless the laws have changed. I don't know, I've not been following that either so maybe the laws in FL have changed. It's interesting you criticize the state of FL for bring the case to court when there is a lack of what you see as evidence yet you accuse Martin of criminal activity based on nothing, or at least justify (edit) Zimmermans action because Martin looked like a criminal based on where he was and what he was doing. There was no evidence that Martin was doing anything illegal.

As for my son, he often goes out late at night and walks around the neighborhood. In fact he does it often, at times late at night. We have a 24 hr CVS phamacy right around the corner at its not uncommon for him to walk the mile or so to that store late at night (after 11:00 pm) on weekends when he has friends over. My hope is that some Lone Ranger wannabe with a gun doesn't decide to play Barney Fife, attempt to detain him and put a bullet in his chest because my son didn't listen to his instructions.

[Doc]

Here's the full text of your post:

IMO it certainly should have if for no other reason than the outrage that would have happen. A young person was killed andthere needed to be an explanation, something that appeared to be more than just an investigation. Were that my son, I would not have been satisfied if the case never went farther than an investigation.

I have highlighted the part where you called for a trial based purely on the outrage with no reference to it being the outrage of a parent.

If you meant just the parents of Trayvon OK, but it doesn't read that way. Your statement doesn't read to me like a trial needed just for parents, as if somehow that averts the issue of trials not being about answering to those who aren't parties to the event, but like a trial being needed b/c of the "outrage".

I agree with you in that there was going to be great outrage with no trial, one was forced, but it was forced from public opinion not just the facts of the case. IMO the charges were even more forced by politics than the trial itself. Sans the call to hang Zimmerman even if it got to trial they would have gone for manslaughter from the outset.

It does work that way, but it shouldn't, and it shouldn't even for parents in this case. I'm not sure you put a person on trial b/c the parents desire it. You put a person on trial b/c the facts support it, whether anyone else likes it or not, and you don't put a person on trial if there isn't a case whether people want someone arrested or not.

In this case they short circuited the entire process to get to that trial, which is wrong in itself and also blew up in their faces b/c they were forced into a process and to seek a charge that wasn't going to ever stick. Instead of a proper investigation and charging with something lesser that fit better they get nothing.

http://www.brainlesstales.com/images/2011/Mar/cherry-picking.jpg

My posts are short and relatively to the point. I try not to be overly wordy so that folks can take my posts in whole rather than simply cherry picking the parts. Read the entire post and it will convey the entire idea


IMO it certainly should have if for no other reason than the outrage that would have happen. A young person was killed andthere needed to be an explanation, something that appeared to be more than just an investigation. Were that my son, I would not have been satisfied if the case never went farther than an investigation.

[Catonahottinroof]

Florida law allowed for nothing more than a not guilty verdict in this situation and it was a senseless waste of taxpayer money to prosecute Zimmerman, not to mention the circus that surrounded it, and the media painting Zimmerman as racist. Pressure from the so called "civil rights leaders" drove this with help from Obama.
The prosecution meandered from Zimmerman was on top, to he wasn't on top, to a witness who relayed Martin's thought that a "crazy ass cracker" was following him....and Zimmerman is portrayed as the racist..hmmm
If Florida had a law on bad judgement, this case would have been a slam dunk. I think both of them demonstrated atrocious judgement, but stand your ground doesn't give remedy here for that.
And who is to say that some other politically expedient prosecution doesn't occur down the road that involves someone you know, or you yourself. Would that need to go to trial too even if there is no chance of conviction? It could be anything...after all politics can be just about anything.
Political prosecutions are patently wrong and you seem to support this one.

I understand the need for "if it's my son", I have one too ya know.






So Zimmerman calls the police. How is Martin supposed to know that he called the police? Much has been made of this 4 minutes between the call by Zimmerman (the one where he was told to not follow the kid) and when the altercation began. Martin was doing nothing illegal and had no idea that Zimmerman called the police. Likely he didn't have on his E.S.P. cap that would have informed him that Zimmerman called the police so that even though he (Martin) was doing nothing wrong, he should go home. Zimmerman instigated the altercation and when he was getting his ass whooped, he pulled his gun... unless he pulled it earlier in an attempt to detain Martin.

It went to trial, the prosecution failed to prove its case to the jury in the opinion of a jury. The fact the case was not proved does not equate that charges should have not been brought. The fact he was found not guilty is fine by me because in doing so it does not appear as if he was let off because of anything other than the prosecution failed based on the evidence available to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty.

As for the shannanigans by Sharpton and his hord of race baiting whores (see post #8), it makes zero difference to me. The fact that Zimmerman was found not guilty likewise means little to me in the long run either. What does matter is that justice was found in courts system of this country and that there isn't the appearance that anything less than justice was done.

ETA: Just to emphasize, I'm fine with the verdict. I personally believe it was manslaughter however that was not proved by the evidence or the prosecution. IMO the verdict was CORRECT.

[kritikalcat]

Two things. 1. Local investigators did not initially feel there was probable cause to charge Zimmerman with a crime. Upon conclusion of their investigation they did feel that the evidence warranted a manslaughter charge. That is straight from the ex-police chief.

2. What is the evidence other than pure speculation that Zimmerman had the gun out threatening Martin with it? It was apparently concealed on his hip toward his back. No forensics and no testimony from any of the calls indicates that Martin even new that Zimmerman was armed until the physical altercation ensued. What is the basis for any theory that Martin punched Zimmerman because Zimmerman had his gun out threatening him?

My theory is that Martin didn't like being followed, felt his personal space was being encroached by Zimmerman, didn't like this person who wasn't even a cop questioning what he was doing, and decided to kick his butt to teach him not to disrespect him and to mind his own business. At 17 I probably would've felt the same way about being followed and questioned, even now I would, but I wouldn't punch the person in the nose. I think you have only two reasonable hypotheses: Zimmerman threatened Martin or Martin just decided to teach Zimmerman a lesson. I see problems with both. For the former, where is evidence of a prior explicit threat? For the latter, why would Martin attack the larger Zimmerman without provocation? My personal theory is teen bravado, he figured after the first punch he'd put Zimmerman on the ground and then it would just be a matter of how much punishment to deal out.

Of course there is one other theory which is that Zimmerman started the fight. 1. This almost certainly negates any claim that he had his gun out - really, he pulls his gun and then wades in to start a fist fight? 2. It is only supported by Ms. Jeantel's confused, possibly coached, and pretty much discredited testimony.

[jazyd]

I didnt follow this word for word, day by day. But I am ready two different versions of what happened.
On one there is the version where Zimmerman pulled the gun first before anything happened and evidently Martin attacks
The other is Martin hides and then attacks Zimmerman, gets on top...and a witness bears this out...and starts basically trying to kill Zimmerman. Beating a guys head against concrete is trying to kill him.
I had not heard anywhere that Zimmerman had pulled his gun and confronted Martin.
So which happended?

Based on what I learned of Florida law, and the witness describing Martin on top trying to killZimmerman, he had to be found not guilty.

A tragedy occurred that could have been avoided, IMO, by Martin. All he had to do was stop and ask Zimmerman why he was following him, but it appears to me he wanted a confrontation based on testimony and wanted a fight.

Zimmerman on the other hand knew of problems in his neighborhood, was watching over the property but should have returned to his truck.

All indications are Martin was no little boy, around 180#, in trouble at school, into drugs and wanted to whip a cracker ass.

I am very disappointed in tweets by black pro athletes, even calling for the death of the jury and Zimmerman. I don't recall any of them being upset whenever a black kills a white.

[Catonahottinroof]

I agree about teen bravado, swag, whatever it is called these days. Poor decision that in part cost him his life.

[CitizenBBN]

I am very disappointed in tweets by black pro athletes, even calling for the death of the jury and Zimmerman. I don't recall any of them being upset whenever a black kills a white.

Not really following the fallout, but who is tweeting such things? I expect some lamentations for Martin, but not calls to violence. Of course many of the athletes and such supporting martin initially (black and white) were happy to buy into what we now know was a group of fabrications and distortions by the media in the first weeks of the investigation. Few have bothered to go back and discover it was wrong and adjust their thinking accordingly.


Re having the gun out first, there's no evidence for such a theory and moreover it doesn't fit well with the few facts we do have. We know martin was on top of Zimmerman at some point. had Zimmerman had a gun out he'd have had to attack Zimmerman and get him down but he lets Zimmerman hold on to the gun? Does nothing to get away if he knocked him down and held onto the gun?

Forensics said they found no struggle for a gun b/c there was no trace of material from Martin on the gun. So he sees a gun and doesn't ever grab for it, doesn't try to knock it out of Zimmerman's hands? Why wouldn't there be a grab on the wrist or damage where he slammed Zimmmerman's hand to the ground, etc.? There's no evidence at all from either side there was ever any struggle for the gun. All the evidence and all the witness statements point to the gun being pulled once the struggle started, probably totally unnoticed by Martin until it was too late. That's why there was no struggle for one, Martin had no idea Zimmerman had one until it was fired.

[jazyd]

Roddy White, WR for falcons said jurors should go home and kill themselves

Victor Cruz, WR for giants said Zimmerman would not last a year until the hood caught up with him.


Not really following the fallout, but who is tweeting such things? I expect some lamentations for Martin, but not calls to violence. Of course many of the athletes and such supporting martin initially (black and white) were happy to buy into what we now know was a group of fabrications and distortions by the media in the first weeks of the investigation. Few have bothered to go back and discover it was wrong and adjust their thinking accordingly.


Re having the gun out first, there's no evidence for such a theory and moreover it doesn't fit well with the few facts we do have. We know martin was on top of Zimmerman at some point. had Zimmerman had a gun out he'd have had to attack Zimmerman and get him down but he lets Zimmerman hold on to the gun? Does nothing to get away if he knocked him down and held onto the gun?

Forensics said they found no struggle for a gun b/c there was no trace of material from Martin on the gun. So he sees a gun and doesn't ever grab for it, doesn't try to knock it out of Zimmerman's hands? Why wouldn't there be a grab on the wrist or damage where he slammed Zimmmerman's hand to the ground, etc.? There's no evidence at all from either side there was ever any struggle for the gun. All the evidence and all the witness statements point to the gun being pulled once the struggle started, probably totally unnoticed by Martin until it was too late. That's why there was no struggle for one, Martin had no idea Zimmerman had one until it was fired.

[KeithKSR]

So we disagree and its because I've not been following? That's fairly disingenuous IMO. I'll give the crowd that feels Zimmerman's action their due. I'll give them that they have their opinions that may differ from mine. I'll do that without the need to label them as uninformed. I'll credit it to a difference of opinion, not ignorance.

You pull a gun on me and attempt to detain me, that is the start of an altercation. In my uninformed opinion, that is the most likely event that started the altercation.

You seem to be misinformed. There is no evidence Martin was "peering into windows". Additionally from your posts above, walking close to homes, close enough to be under the overhang, in an area that had been subject to criminal activity isn't criminal, unless the laws have changed. I don't know, I've not been following that either so maybe the laws in FL have changed. It's interesting you criticize the state of FL for bring the case to court when there is a lack of what you see as evidence yet you accuse Martin of criminal activity based on nothing, or at least justify (edit) Zimmermans action because Martin looked like a criminal based on where he was and what he was doing. There was no evidence that Martin was doing anything illegal.

As for my son, he often goes out late at night and walks around the neighborhood. In fact he does it often, at times late at night. We have a 24 hr CVS phamacy right around the corner at its not uncommon for him to walk the mile or so to that store late at night (after 11:00 pm) on weekends when he has friends over. My hope is that some Lone Ranger wannabe with a gun doesn't decide to play Barney Fife, attempt to detain him and put a bullet in his chest because my son didn't listen to his instructions.

His walking close to homes and peering in them isn't necessarily criminal, unless one considers simple trespass to be criminal behavior. Martin's actions were documented in the call Zimmerman made to the dispatcher.

What his actions were suspicious given the recent burglaries in the area. The kid just wasn't walking down the sidewalk or street, he was acting in a way a reasonable person would deem suspicious which caused Zimmerman to call the police.

There is no evidence that would indicate that Zimmerman drew his gun, then allowed Martin to pummel him just so he could shoot him. It is also not consistent with eyewitness testimony of the struggle, the witness did not indicate that Zimmerman was waving his gun around while he was getting his head beaten against the ground while screaming for help, with Martin on top of him.

I am not saying you are not familiar with the case because we disagree, it comes by way of your comments indicating you have not followed the case as closely as some of us.

[CitizenBBN]

Roddy White, WR for falcons said jurors should go home and kill themselves

Victor Cruz, WR for giants said Zimmerman would not last a year until the hood caught up with him.

Figures it would be NFL players. For being the most popular sport in America by far it has a lot of bad people in it.

[KeithKSR]

Figures it would be NFL players. For being the most popular sport in America by far it has a lot of bad people in it.

A black football player executes another black man in cold blood, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are silent.

[badrose]

A black football player executes another black man in cold blood, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are silent.

Our national leader as well, who, by the way, is looking to make a civil rights case out of this Zimmerman thing. The trouble for him is the FBI already vetted Zimmerman as clean.

[jazyd]

Lots of NBA players reacted also, but not in violent ways. Many indicated, including AD, that the verdict was totally wrong. Wade asked what should he tell his children....I would tell them if you are out at night in a neighborhood not yours and you are followed, either state who you are and take the damn hood off, or get to the house quickly and that the legal system spoke. AD said the verdict was "crazy".

One, I think it was stall worth of the NFL did say the black community needed to work on stopping black on black murders, good for him.

It does show, IMO, that there is a lot of racism in the black community and even black athletes who make mega millions off the white community.


Figures it would be NFL players. For being the most popular sport in America by far it has a lot of bad people in it.

[UKHistory]

Racism and prejudice is alive and well on both sides. Martin and Zimmerman saw the worst in each other that night and tragically the worst came out. Doc's comments that Zimmerman was playing Barnie Fife hits home to me.

The boy was not armed and had not committed any crime.

I am very polite to police under any circumstance. I really want to be nice to everyone but. I would be upset at an ordinary citizen stopping me and asking me what I was doing in a public place. Frankly I would be concerned about him. If I saw that person was armed I would be even more concerned.

If I am stopped by a man who lets me know that he is armed, I am feeling threatened by him. He has not assaulted me but I am scared. I am also really slow so running is not an option. I can't say how I would react. But to submit to this man with no legal authority I could see him ending me--maybe even using this as a ruse to kidnap and torture me.

I wish to hell that Zimmerman would have just let it go at the 911 call.

[badrose]

Racism and prejudice is alive and well on both sides. Martin and Zimmerman saw the worst in each other that night and tragically the worst came out. Doc's comments that Zimmerman was playing Barnie Fife hits home to me.

The boy was not armed and had not committed any crime.

I am very polite to police under any circumstance. I really want to be nice to everyone but. I would be upset at an ordinary citizen stopping me and asking me what I was doing in a public place. Frankly I would be concerned about him. If I saw that person was armed I would be even more concerned.

If I am stopped by a man who lets me know that he is armed, I am feeling threatened by him. He has not assaulted me but I am scared. I am also really slow so running is not an option. I can't say how I would react. But to submit to this man with no legal authority I could see him ending me--maybe even using this as a ruse to kidnap and torture me.

I wish to hell that Zimmerman would have just let it go at the 911 call.

If I'm in a neighborhood where there had been numerous break-ins I might ask why he was following me and then thank him for looking out for all of us.