168 replies to this topic

[Thrash]

As I understood it, the kid attacked first.

That's what the defence claimed. Forensic evidence showed that they were lying.

 

George Zimmerman saw a black kid wearing a hoodie and shot him.

 

What forensic evidence can prove who started a fight? Did you watch the same trial as me? If he wanted to shoot a black kid because they were wearing a hoodie why did he wait until he was on top of him (forensic evidence proved THAT), or for that matter why wasn't he out shooting black kids with hoodies every day?

 

Seriously, Haf, there are such things as white people who aren't racist.

[Haflinger]

No, forensic evidence didn't prove that. In fact the evidence I read about suggested that the kid was running away when he was shot.

[PrinceVegeta]

 or lash out against the Hispanic community.

 

You mean the white community.

 

Well yeah them too.

[The Dark Empire]

I haven't followed this too closely but I believe that forensic evidence proved that Zimmerman shot the kid when the kid was on top of him making it appear as if Zimmerman was knocked over by this kid. I also believe Zimmerman was covered in scratches. My opinion it was self defense. I don't think it is ok to shoot an unarmed person to defend yourself or even pull a gun on a person who is clearly very young. I don't think it was a race thing at all. I think this kid got unlucky and chose to mess with the wrong gun nut who was a little too trigger happy.

 

The Stand your ground law had no effect here because Zimmerman was on his back on the ground and couldn't get away. Why was he on the ground in the first place who knows. But that is why he shot the kid and why he got away with it. I don't think he is guilty but I think he is a retard and should be shunned. Poor kid chose the wrong guy to mess with.

[Haflinger]

Insane Americans

 

You'd all be screaming bloody murder by now if Martin had been white and Zimmerman was black. (Except you wouldn't, because he would've been convicted, and would be on death row now.)

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

Unfortunately, given the lack of evidence, it's really the only verdict they could reach.  It's too bad, because I think there's very little doubt that George Zimmerman was exactly what the prosecution portrayed him as: a wannabe cop who put himself in a situation in which he had no business being.  But that's not a crime.  I wonder what he'll do now?  He'll probably have to move.

 
Jorost???? I'm SHOCKED. Not to mention the jury and the attorneys having to move.

 
I didn't say I thought he was innocent.  But being guilty and being proved guilty are two different things.  I have no doubt that Zimmerman picked that fight — in direct contravention to the police dispatcher's instructions — and then shot the kid when things got out of hand because he (Zimmerman) was too much of a fat loser to intimidate a healthy 17-year-old.  But my feelings don't constitute proof.

[Thrash]

No, forensic evidence didn't prove that. In fact the evidence I read about suggested that the kid was running away when he was shot.

 

He didn't get shot in the back. Kinda hard to get shot at close range in the front when you are "running away".

[Thrash]

 

Unfortunately, given the lack of evidence, it's really the only verdict they could reach.  It's too bad, because I think there's very little doubt that George Zimmerman was exactly what the prosecution portrayed him as: a wannabe cop who put himself in a situation in which he had no business being.  But that's not a crime.  I wonder what he'll do now?  He'll probably have to move.

 
Jorost???? I'm SHOCKED. Not to mention the jury and the attorneys having to move.

 
and then shot the kid when things got out of hand because he (Zimmerman) was too much of a fat loser to intimidate a healthy 17-year-old.  But my feelings don't constitute proof.

 

I agree with you 100% on this, but the law is the law. You feel your life is in danger, you can act accordingly and that's what he did.

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

Yeah.  He was a wannabe cop who learned that thinking you're a big man and being one are two very different things.  Too bad a kid had to pay for that lesson with his life.

[Manoka]

News flash: Guns are legal in your country.

 

So, what you don't expect people to use them?

 

Guns are legal in your country? O_o

 

I expect them to use them appropriately, like a kitchen knife, car, powdered sugar etc.

 

 

Yes, you can make a bomb from powdered sugar, or even flour.

 

Hell all you need is some old beer bottles and some gasoline from a car and you have a weapon.

 

 

I didn't do this with the expectation that 17 year old kids are to be killed for no reason.

Edited by Manoka, 14 July 2013 - 01:18 PM.

[Manoka]

Insane Americans

 

You'd all be screaming bloody murder by now if Martin had been white and Zimmerman was black. (Except you wouldn't, because he would've been convicted, and would be on death row now.)

 

No, that's not true at all.

 

Trials require evidence, and there just wasn't enough evidence to prove murder; manslaughter maybe, but the prosecution did a horrible job.

 

 

What makes you think he was racist at all?

 

Where do you get this from?

 

 

Millions of Americans are crying blood murder.

 

But our will doesn't directly influence the courts.

Edited by Manoka, 14 July 2013 - 01:22 PM.

[Manoka]

 

 

Unfortunately, given the lack of evidence, it's really the only verdict they could reach.  It's too bad, because I think there's very little doubt that George Zimmerman was exactly what the prosecution portrayed him as: a wannabe cop who put himself in a situation in which he had no business being.  But that's not a crime.  I wonder what he'll do now?  He'll probably have to move.

 
Jorost???? I'm SHOCKED. Not to mention the jury and the attorneys having to move.

 
and then shot the kid when things got out of hand because he (Zimmerman) was too much of a fat loser to intimidate a healthy 17-year-old.  But my feelings don't constitute proof.

 

I agree with you 100% on this, but the law is the law. You feel your life is in danger, you can act accordingly and that's what he did.

 

The difference is it was a violent response to an unarmed attacker; you don't use lethal force because someone punches you, especially if you initiated the contact by stalking a person.

[Haflinger]

No, forensic evidence didn't prove that. In fact the evidence I read about suggested that the kid was running away when he was shot.

He didn't get shot in the back. Kinda hard to get shot at close range in the front when you are "running away".

It wasn't close range: there wasn't any powder residue.

 

It was in the front.

[Haflinger]

What makes you think he was racist at all?

Oh, I don't know. Could it be because he murdered an innocent black kid for walking on the street?

[The Dark Empire]

What makes you think he was racist at all?

Oh, I don't know. Could it be because he murdered an innocent black kid for walking on the street?

Haf we've been over this people don't belong in the streets. Streets are clearly for cars. 

[Ellis]

What makes you think he was racist at all?

Oh, I don't know. Could it be because he murdered an innocent black kid for walking on the street?

Well, there's your problem. If a black guy gets murdered, it doesn't necessarily make the person who killed them a racist, just a murderer.

 

In this case, Zimmerman went after him because he was young and acting suspiciously (at least to Zimmerman), which was wrong, he shouldn't have, and a man was killed because of it, but a trial by jury said it wasn't murder, or even manslaughter, according to Florida law, and they heard a hell of a lot more about the case than you did before making that decision.

 

 

[Manoka]

What makes you think he was racist at all?

Oh, I don't know. Could it be because he murdered an innocent black kid for walking on the street?

Just because he's black doesn't mean that it was racist.

[Redezra]

 

What makes you think he was racist at all?

Oh, I don't know. Could it be because he murdered an innocent black kid for walking on the street?

Well, there's your problem. If a black guy gets murdered, it doesn't necessarily make the person who killed them a racist, just a murderer.

 

In this case, Zimmerman went after him because he was young and acting suspiciously (at least to Zimmerman), which was wrong, he shouldn't have, and a man was killed because of it, but a trial by jury said it wasn't murder, or even manslaughter, according to Florida law, and they heard a hell of a lot more about the case than you did before making that decision.

Thank you Ellis.

 

Honestly, this is ridiculous. Haf, the evidence as according to the trial shows that he fired in self defence. Now whether he was supposed to be there, or picked the fight with the kid is irrelevant. The USA has legal firearms. Therefore, if you're in trouble, shooting the guy is an inherently legal choice. So, he was never going to be convicted.

 

Sure, if the races were reversed, there would be a conviction. But it's not because shooting someone is illegal, it's because shooting someone while black is illegal. Simple racist bias. Again, what I'm trying to say is he should not have been convicted, and if he had, that would have been silly.

 

I don't see why there's so much angst over this still.

[Manoka]

 

 

What makes you think he was racist at all?

Oh, I don't know. Could it be because he murdered an innocent black kid for walking on the street?

&am

p;am

p;nb

sp;

lockquote>

Well, there's your problem. If a black guy gets murdered, it doesn't necessarily make the person who killed them a racist, just a murderer.

 

In this case, Zimmerman went after him because he was young and acting suspiciously (at least to Zimmerman), which was wrong, he shouldn't have, and a man was killed because of it, but a trial by jury said it wasn't murder, or even manslaughter, according to Florida law, and they heard a hell of a lot more about the case than you did before making that decision.

lockquote>lockquote>

Thank you Ellis.

 

Honestly, this is ridiculous. Haf, the evidence as according to the trial shows that he fired in self defence. Now whether he was supposed to be there, or picked the fight with the kid is irrelevant. The USA has legal firearms. Therefore, if you're in trouble, shooting the guy is an inherently legal choice. So, he was never going to be convicted.

 

Sure, if the races were reversed, there would be a conviction. But it's not because shooting someone is illegal, it's because shooting someone while black is illegal. Simple racist bias. Again, what I'm trying to say is he should not have been convicted, and if he had, that would have been silly.

 

I don't see why there's so much angst over this still.

 

 

No, it's not.

 

The only situation which permits the use of a firearm is that which warrants the use of lethal force; if the sistuation can be resolved without killing a person and there's no immediate threat of death then you are obligated to do so.

 

 

Saying that guns are legal so any kind of murder is warranted or self defense in a situation where violence is unnecessary is ludicrous.

 

By that logic, since Kitchen knives are legal, and can be used for self defense, a petty argument is legally justifiable for killing someone; but it's not, it gets nowhere close.

 

 

Guns are legal in Australia and Britain, but murder is not.

 

There is a clear difference.

Edited by Manoka, 14 July 2013 - 07:47 PM.

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

He should have been convicted of manslaughter, since his action in confronting Trayvon, after specifically being instructed not to do so, resulted in Trayvon's death.  Murder was probably never a serious option given the evidence.

 

But this was an all-female jury, which I would think would be inherently sympathetic to Trayvon Martin, given that at least some of them must be mothers.  But who knows?  Group psychology is a weird thing.  And I didn't see the evidence they saw. 

 

And Manoka, Florida's so-called "stand your ground" law states that deadly force is justified if you are in legitimate fear of your life.  Obviously George Zimmerman convinced the jury that he was in fear of his life.

 

Frankly I think the prosecution went at this wrong.  I don't think this was ever murder, I think it was always manslaughter.  Trayvon Martin may very well have thrown the first punch; he may even have had Zimmerman down on the ground.  In fact, given Zimmerman's poor physical shape, it seems likely that Trayvon could have overpowered him in a physical confrontation.  He probably did fire on him as a last resort.  But my point is that he should never have been there in the first place.  The police dispatcher told him not to confront Trayvon, and he went and did it anyway.  He wanted to be a big man, and a kid got killed.  That's manslaughter.

 

But then again I'm just some asshole on the Internet, what do I know?