not guilty

[WalkTheWay]

The injustice is that the law is not being applied equitably in Florida.

[Steve_S]

The injustice is that the law is not being applied equitably in Florida.

 

Explain that in greater detail, please?

[ayin jade]

http://news.yahoo.com/rallies-large-small-zimmerman-verdict-231947267.html

[Burning_Ember]

 

 

 

I am as well,  JDavis.  I believe Zimmerman, while not guilty of murder, is guilty of provoking a confrontation.  Even if the Martin kid was being a typical mouthy teenager he didn't deserve to die for it.  Lives have been devastated and one lost forever here.  But the jury has spoken and we have to respect their verdict.

 

Zimmerman was jumped and beaten by the kid.  How, exactly, does that translate into provoking a confrontation?  If Zimmerman had been black, and the kid killed was white or Hispanic, the case never would have gone to trial and he probably wouldn't have been charged at all. So your concept of "justice" and my concept of justice are not the same.  You are advocating that an innocent man be held responsible and punished for something that he didn't do.  Would that work for you, if the shoe were on your foot?

 

 

I would say that getting out of your car and following Martin could be construed as provoking a confrontation.

 

 

There's no law against observing someone you think is suspicious nor even asking them what their intentions are. Doing something legal cannot be considered a provocation.

 

Rachel testified at the trial that Zimmerman followed Trayvon, that Trayvon asked why Zimmerman was following him, that the headset was knocked from Trayvon's ear, followed by Trayvon shouting "Get off, Get off!"

 

The evidence seems to suggest that Trayvon was assaulted first, and that he defended himself.

 

Really, the fact that a broken nose is a justification for shooting someone through the heart, when the person who gave them a broken nose was defending themselves is a shocking disregard for human life by the law.

[The_Patriot21]

Its entirely possible that she was hearing zimmerman yelling get off get off. She was panicked and may have misheard. Also, being so connected, she may have lied to protect her boyfriend, with his character, I wouldnt be surprised if he chose a girlfriend who was less then reputable. Also keep in mind there is always evidence that they dont release to the public.

[Steve_S]

 

 

 

 

I am as well,  JDavis.  I believe Zimmerman, while not guilty of murder, is guilty of provoking a confrontation.  Even if the Martin kid was being a typical mouthy teenager he didn't deserve to die for it.  Lives have been devastated and one lost forever here.  But the jury has spoken and we have to respect their verdict.

 

Zimmerman was jumped and beaten by the kid.  How, exactly, does that translate into provoking a confrontation?  If Zimmerman had been black, and the kid killed was white or Hispanic, the case never would have gone to trial and he probably wouldn't have been charged at all. So your concept of "justice" and my concept of justice are not the same.  You are advocating that an innocent man be held responsible and punished for something that he didn't do.  Would that work for you, if the shoe were on your foot?

 

 

I would say that getting out of your car and following Martin could be construed as provoking a confrontation.

 

 

There's no law against observing someone you think is suspicious nor even asking them what their intentions are. Doing something legal cannot be considered a provocation.

 

Rachel testified at the trial that Zimmerman followed Trayvon, that Trayvon asked why Zimmerman was following him, that the headset was knocked from Trayvon's ear, followed by Trayvon shouting "Get off, Get off!"

 

The evidence seems to suggest that Trayvon was assaulted first, and that he defended himself.

 

Really, the fact that a broken nose is a justification for shooting someone through the heart, when the person who gave them a broken nose was defending themselves is a shocking disregard for human life by the law.

 

 

 

You can't choose which witness to believe arbitrarily. Another witness, an eye witness, who was an absolute independent observer (he was actually a prosecution witness) said that he came outside and saw martin on top of zimmerman. The burden of proof is on the prosecution in a murder case. Criminal justice is not set up to convict people who may be guilty or are probably guilty, it's set up to convict people who are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt (i.e. who have been proven to be guilty beyond by a mass preponderance of the evidence). There was, clearly, too much conflicting testimony. Nobody claimed a broken nose was a justification for shooting somebody through the heart. An expert witness testified that when the shooting took place the victim was on top of the defendant and was leaned over. In other words he was in a position of superiority. There were gashes on the back of the defendant's head. You painted it as if he shot the victim in retaliation for getting his nose broken. There was plenty of evidence presented that the conflict was still ongoing at the time of the shooting and that damage was still being done to the defendant at the time of the shooting. You are looking past the burden of proof issue here. This is not about whether a person shot another person in malice. This is about whether it was proven that one person shot another person in malice and it simply was not proven. The fact that even prosecution witnesses backed up parts of the defendant's version of events pretty much shows that the burden was too great for the prosecution to meet.

[Burning_Ember]

Its entirely possible that she was hearing zimmerman yelling get off get off. She was panicked and may have misheard. Also, being so connected, she may have lied to protect her boyfriend, with his character, I wouldnt be surprised if he chose a girlfriend who was less then reputable. Also keep in mind there is always evidence that they dont release to the public.

So because you eblieve Trayvon is of poor character it's possible the she was of poor character therefore she could be lying. That's a couple logical fallcies of Ad Hominem and Guilt by Association.

 

Really though, if we're deciding this based on character, George Zimmerman was convicted of Domestic abuse, he claimed that him attacking his ex fiance was to "stop her from attacking him". (Sound familiar?) His cousin just filed a statement saying that he molested her for 13 years.

 

So you're judging Trayvon based on an assumption of Rachels character based on assumptions about Trayvon... But Zimmerman doesn't get the same treatment?

 

 

 

 

 

 

I am as well,  JDavis.  I believe Zimmerman, while not guilty of murder, is guilty of provoking a confrontation.  Even if the Martin kid was being a typical mouthy teenager he didn't deserve to die for it.  Lives have been devastated and one lost forever here.  But the jury has spoken and we have to respect their verdict.

 

Zimmerman was jumped and beaten by the kid.  How, exactly, does that translate into provoking a confrontation?  If Zimmerman had been black, and the kid killed was white or Hispanic, the case never would have gone to trial and he probably wouldn't have been charged at all. So your concept of "justice" and my concept of justice are not the same.  You are advocating that an innocent man be held responsible and punished for something that he didn't do.  Would that work for you, if the shoe were on your foot?

 

 

I would say that getting out of your car and following Martin could be construed as provoking a confrontation.

 

 

There's no law against observing someone you think is suspicious nor even asking them what their intentions are. Doing something legal cannot be considered a provocation.

 

Rachel testified at the trial that Zimmerman followed Trayvon, that Trayvon asked why Zimmerman was following him, that the headset was knocked from Trayvon's ear, followed by Trayvon shouting "Get off, Get off!"

 

The evidence seems to suggest that Trayvon was assaulted first, and that he defended himself.

 

Really, the fact that a broken nose is a justification for shooting someone through the heart, when the person who gave them a broken nose was defending themselves is a shocking disregard for human life by the law.

 

 

 

You can't choose which witness to believe arbitrarily. Another witness, an eye witness, who was an absolute independent observer (he was actually a prosecution witness) said that he came outside and saw martin on top of zimmerman. The burden of proof is on the prosecution in a murder case. Criminal justice is not set up to convict people who may be guilty or are probably guilty, it's set up to convict people who are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt (i.e. who have been proven to be guilty beyond by a mass preponderance of the evidence). There was, clearly, too much conflicting testimony. Nobody claimed a broken nose was a justification for shooting somebody through the heart. An expert witness testified that when the shooting took place the victim was on top of the defendant and was leaned over. In other words he was in a position of superiority. There were gashes on the back of the defendant's head. You painted it as if he shot the victim in retaliation for getting his nose broken. There was plenty of evidence presented that the conflict was still ongoing at the time of the shooting and that damage was still being done to the defendant at the time of the shooting. You are looking past the burden of proof issue here. This is not about whether a person shot another person in malice. This is about whether it was proven that one person shot another person in malice and it simply was not proven. The fact that even prosecution witnesses backed up parts of the defendant's version of events pretty much shows that the burden was too great for the prosecution to meet.

 

Even if it was not proven, that's why manslaughter was there.

 

And this is why we have disproportionate force law in Canada. Because getting a punch in the nose is not sufficient justification for killing someone. Regardless of whether a broken American Criminal Justice System conficts someone or not, the killing was still, unjustified, wrong, and hideous. From personal experience... A broken nose is not an excuse to kill someone.

[Matthitjah]

 

Obama statment following Zimmerman verdict.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/07/14/obama-makes-statement-following-zimmerman-verdict/?hpt=hp_t2

 

"The death of Trayvon Martin was a tragedy. Not just for his family, or for any one community, but for America. I know this case has elicited strong passions. And in the wake of the verdict, I know those passions may be running even higher. But we are a nation of laws, and a jury has spoken. I now ask every American to respect the call for calm reflection from two parents who lost their young son. And as we do, we should ask ourselves if we’re doing all we can to widen the circle of compassion and understanding in our own communities. We should ask ourselves if we’re doing all we can to stem the tide of gun violence that claims too many lives across this country on a daily basis. We should ask ourselves, as individuals and as a society, how we can prevent future tragedies like this. As citizens, that’s a job for all of us. That’s the way to honor Trayvon Martin."

 

 

I agree with the President's statement but......the federal government, nor the President, should never have weighed in on what was a state issue, subject to Florida law.                         

 

What does this verdict have to do with gun control?

 

The President has shown once again that he is out of touch with America and the rule of law.

[Matthitjah]

I am shocked

I'm elated!

 

I'm curious, did you feel the same way when we learned that Kermit Gosnell was live birthing supposed abortions, who were mostly illegitimate black baby's, and then removing the babies heads with a pair of what amounted to tin snips as they squirmed around crying on the table?

[George]

Of course, nobody is grilling the press on its actions!  Because the media storm was created by HYPED, EDITED, OUT RIGHT LYING by the press itself!  And yet nobody checks them on their part in this!

 

GUILTY UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT: HOW THE PRESS PROSECUTED ZIMMERMAN WHILE STOKING RACIAL TENSIONS