George Zimmerman found not guilty of Trayvon Martin murder

[Deleted member 319809]

To those who think it was
* racial profiling, or
* political pressure, or
* that the death of a child is a tragedy that is sufficient cause for, and must necessarily result in, a human being found to blame and punish,

please read the prosecution and the defense's evidence first.

In some places other than GBATemp, I have also heard and read things like "It is sickening that killing black people is now legal in the US", "seriously? how was that dick found not guilty?", which I have ignored because they completely miss the point. It has not been made legal to kill black people; this is not the precedent that has been set!

The media appears to have instilled emotions into people all over the world (some of the comments prejudiced against Zimmerman written above came from the UK and Canada!), portraying Zimmerman as a possible criminal. Naturally, there is no "possible criminals" for some people, only "dangerous criminals which we must immediately protect ourselves from", and each story fuels that belief.

Keep it rational or it'll turn into a flame war. (Me? I hold no opinion until I have fully read the evidence. I have no emotional link to this case at all.)

 

[2ndApex]

I've been seeing lot of kneejerk reactions and anger on the internet as expected but I've also been seeing a surprising amount of rationality as well.

What people have to realize is that Zimmerman isn't just walking zippy-doo-dah out of the court as if nothing ever happened. Regardless of what may or may not have happened and whether or not his actions were justified he's walking out of that courtroom now with the entire country knowing his name and the majority of them really angry at him. He's also going to have to live with horrifying memory of killing a teenage kid, and that's fucking horrifying no matter what happened that day.

 

[Black-Ice]

He's also going to have to live with horrifying memory of killing a teenage kid, and that's fucking horrifying no matter what happened that day.

For some dirt-bags.
That really isnt a problem at all.

 

[Forstride]

People need to stop talking about this when they most likely haven't even heard about it until the verdict was reached (Yes, that's an exaggeration, although it's probably valid in a lot of cases).

Both sides of the case are biased, and it's just stupid. Like, I'm sure Miley Cyrus knows what she's talking about.

Unless you actually give a damn about law and know what you're talking about (Which 99% of people on GBAtemp don't), stop getting involved and making yourself look like a moron.

 

[Nathan Drake]

People need to stop talking about this when they most likely haven't even heard about it until the verdict was reached (Yes, that's an exaggeration, although it's probably valid in a lot of cases).

Both sides of the case are biased, and it's just stupid. Like, I'm sure Miley Cyrus knows what she's talking about.

Unless you actually give a damn about law and know what you're talking about (Which 99% of people on GBAtemp don't), stop getting involved and making yourself look like a moron.

The only problem is that most of this case wasn't really complex law. It was mostly "do we have conclusive evidence that he's guilty? no? not guilty." And quite frankly, I can't argue the fact that that's how US justice works. I don't think it's necessarily the best system on the planet, since, if the verdict ever ends up being shown to be wrong, there is no way to retry him because Constitutional laws, but it is what it is. There is a lot of maybes where the lead up is concerned due to only having Zimmerman's testimony as even remotely useable evidence, but witness testimony, especially from the defendant himself, isn't considered to be the most reliable testimony you can get when there's no way to verify via another person or physical evidence.

Essentially, from the start, with proper investigation, this case never would have happened since there was not enough evidence to convict Zimmerman. When all you know for sure is that some point, Zimmerman was apparently attacked and shot/killed Trayvon Martin, it doesn't leave a lot of room for interpretation of events within a reasonable spectrum by legal standards. Although from a third party standpoint, we can look at the stories presented and see the potential holes, the stupid decisions made, and decide that it isn't very clear cut, there is no way to take that to court and turn it into a strong, valid legal argument.

What people need to realize is that you can't let yourself get pulled into the right and left wing media outlets and believe it was about race. Both sides of the political spectrum used this case to get gears spinning, debates going, and people angry. One would almost think the media is trying to start a race war. Just try to ignore it. Even if it was about race for some reason and Zimmerman shot Trayvon because he was black, do you know what proof we have? Nothing. Nothing at all. What proof do we have that Zimmerman was declared "not guilty" because Trayvon was black and it was the southern US? None. Don't believe it's about race.

Now, after thinking for a little while, I think this does pull into question the state of self-defense laws in the US, and at what point we should say that killing another person is ok in the name of self-defense when we can't wholly prove that it was actually self-defense to begin with. When there are too many questions left over like there are with this case, I have to wonder exactly what kind of repercussions this could have. I honestly don't feel we should make do with a witness testimony just because they could pass a lie detector test all because that's the best we can get. If that's ultimately the best a case can do, it's a joke that it went to court to begin with.

tl;dr of the primary reply to your post: One hardly needs to be a legal expert to create a valid interpretation of the given facts. All because a court reached a decision doesn't mean it was necessarily a correct one either. The US justice system has incarcerated many an innocent man in the past, and has let go people who turned out to be guilty later after nothing could be done about it. With that said, every court decision regarding a person can be viewed in a critical fashion when the evidence isn't there to make it clear cut, whether we're law experts or not.

 

[Black-Ice]

stop getting involved

don't talk about things on a forum < Forum

 

[Nathan Drake]

dont talk about things on a forum < Forum

To be fair, you're taking the media bait and acting like this is about race, which it isn't. About the only piece of knowledge regarding this case that you've put forth is that you know it was a black person that was killed by a white/Hispanic person, and that a gun was involved. You have shown literally no understanding or knowledge of what lead to the final decision.

Don't be that guy. Please show that you know the details of how the decision was reached. Otherwise you just come across as "they let him go because he killed a black kid, and America hates black people" which is just ignorant.

 

[Black-Ice]

To be fair, you're taking the media bait and acting like this is about race, which it isn't. About the only piece of knowledge regarding this case that you've put forth is that you know it was a black person that was killed by a white/Hispanic person, and that a gun was involved. You have shown literally no understanding or knowledge of what lead to the final decision.

Don't be that guy. Please show that you know the details of how the decision was reached. Otherwise you just come across as "they let him go because he killed a black kid, and America hates black people" which is just ignorant.

I know what I know.
And i kinda have no care for if he was a neighbourhood watchman or any of that crap, you can't follow a guy, confront him, and then use a firearm on him, then walk away like its calm.
That's unethical. It was overkill at the very least. Trayvon was unarmed, stalked and killed. His defence were a load of crap and the jury were ridiculous. And i think there's possibility for corruption within the Jury.

Even an Ignorant person can figure out that case was a load of crap. So i dont get why people are acting like its so complex. There are underlying issues but the main facts are simple. That man walking not guilty is a crime within a crime.


And i'm not really on the race train, but I know if he was a white boy this wouldnt have happened. That's my opinion

 

[emigre]

I'm reading this and I'm just left thinking America really need to rethink their relationship with guns.

 

[Psionic Roshambo]

The only problem is that most of this case wasn't really complex law. It was mostly "do we have conclusive evidence that he's guilty? no? not guilty." And quite frankly, I can't argue the fact that that's how US justice works. I don't think it's necessarily the best system on the planet, since, if the verdict ever ends up being shown to be wrong, there is no way to retry him because Constitutional laws, but it is what it is. There is a lot of maybes where the lead up is concerned due to only having Zimmerman's testimony as even remotely useable evidence, but witness testimony, especially from the defendant himself, isn't considered to be the most reliable testimony you can get when there's no way to verify via another person or physical evidence.

Essentially, from the start, with proper investigation, this case never would have happened since there was not enough evidence to convict Zimmerman. When all you know for sure is that some point, Zimmerman was apparently attacked and shot/killed Trayvon Martin, it doesn't leave a lot of room for interpretation of events within a reasonable spectrum by legal standards. Although from a third party standpoint, we can look at the stories presented and see the potential holes, the stupid decisions made, and decide that it isn't very clear cut, there is no way to take that to court and turn it into a strong, valid legal argument.

What people need to realize is that you can't let yourself get pulled into the right and left wing media outlets and believe it was about race. Both sides of the political spectrum used this case to get gears spinning, debates going, and people angry. One would almost think the media is trying to start a race war. Just try to ignore it. Even if it was about race for some reason and Zimmerman shot Trayvon because he was black, do you know what proof we have? Nothing. Nothing at all. What proof do we have that Zimmerman was declared "not guilty" because Trayvon was black and it was the southern US? None. Don't believe it's about race.

Now, after thinking for a little while, I think this does pull into question the state of self-defense laws in the US, and at what point we should say that killing another person is ok in the name of self-defense when we can't wholly prove that it was actually self-defense to begin with. When there are too many questions left over like there are with this case, I have to wonder exactly what kind of repercussions this could have. I honestly don't feel we should make do with a witness testimony just because they could pass a lie detector test all because that's the best we can get. If that's ultimately the best a case can do, it's a joke that it went to court to begin with.

tl;dr of the primary reply to your post: One hardly needs to be a legal expert to create a valid interpretation of the given facts. All because a court reached a decision doesn't mean it was necessarily a correct one either. The US justice system has incarcerated many an innocent man in the past, and has let go people who turned out to be guilty later after nothing could be done about it. With that said, every court decision regarding a person can be viewed in a critical fashion when the evidence isn't there to make it clear cut, whether we're law experts or not.

After reading over the actual facts about the case in respect to what happened in probably something that took all of 5 seconds to happen.... I honestly cannot say I would convict the guy either.

The whole race thing seems odd to me since the guy who shot the Black guy was Hispanic so unless there is something I am completely unaware of in that respect? I mean do Hispanics dislike Black people?

I do find the whole case to be horrible and in many ways avoidable but I just couldn't convict the guy of murder. Murder requires motive, intent and a few other things. The lesser charge of manslaughter might have stuck with me but even that would leave me wondering if he really was just defending himself in that moment, so that's that whole shadow of a doubt thing.




As a super side note some people have been talking about: I do live here in Florida and if the whole "Southern Racist" thing was true, they would have convicted the guy and brought old Sparky out of retirement for being Hispanic, and called it two birds with one stone.

 

[Black-Ice]

Murder requires motive, intent and a few other things. .

So as long as I have no motive or intent. I can go on a killing spree?

 

[Forstride]

So as long as I have no motive or intent. I can go on a killing spree?

Sure, but you'll be charged with manslaughter, or something worse. He's talking about the legal definition of murder.

 

[Psionic Roshambo]

So as long as I have no motive or intent. I can go on a killing spree?

Even random killing spree's have a motive and intent, usually it is a political message or a psychological issue causing the individual to act that way.

Not that your hypothetical quandary has anything to do with this story.

In answer to your question no you cannot go on a killing spree and stop asking!

 

[Black-Ice]

Sure, but you'll be charged with manslaughter, or something worse. He's talking about the legal definition of murder.

Will I?
Coz your countries flexible gun laws dont really convince me right now.
I have the right to bare arms against a random unarmed citizen coz i think he's dangerous. Right? what amendment is that now....
That's what I've learnt from Mr George Zimmerman and America today.

 

[Nathan Drake]

I know what I know.
And i kinda have no care for if he was a neighbourhood watchman or any of that crap, you can't follow a guy, confront him, and then use a firearm on him, then walk away like its calm.
That's unethical. It was overkill at the very least. Trayvon was unarmed, stalked and killed. His defence were a load of crap and the jury were ridiculous. And i think there's possibility for corruption within the Jury.

Even an Ignorant person can figure out that case was a load of crap. So i dont get why people are acting like its so complex. There are underlying issues but the main facts are simple. That man walking not guilty is a crime within a crime.


And i'm not really on the race train, but I know if he was a white boy this wouldnt have happened. That's my opinion

I could poke holes in all the little convenient bits of Zimmerman's testimony all day and totally dismantle it to the point where you'd have to wonder how much thought went into coming up with some of it (seriously, just read his testimony - something is so, so far off about it), but in the end, US law requires more than just a "that's fucking ridiculous" in order to convict somebody. If the testimony is at least plausible, which I guess Zimmerman's was considered passable, it really sets things up to fail.

US law has a bad habit of being convoluted, with the "guilty beyond all reasonable doubt" thing really throwing a wrench in the works, as it sometimes lets guilty men go free, and at other times convicts an innocent man just because somebody needs to take the blame. Go back to Casey Anthony, and go back further to OJ Simpson, and you find two notable examples of what many would consider to be the guilty going free. To this day, people make jokes about OJ Simpson being a murderer, because frankly, no matter what the court says, once the majority of the public has an opinion, they don't care what the court said anymore.

 

[Black-Ice]

US law requires more than just a "that's fucking ridiculous" in order to convict somebody. If the testimony is at least plausible, which I guess Zimmerman's was considered passable, it really sets things up to fail.

That's the problem, I could lie out my ass but as long as its "plausible" in the eyes of a few people in a room. I can walk free from anything.
That's the logic that courtrooms in dictatorships carry.
Its not right.

So i always laugh when I see USA digging up other countries's legal systems and procedures when their own leaves much to be considered.

 

[Psionic Roshambo]

Will I?
Coz your countries flexible gun laws dont really convince me right now.
I have the right to bare arms against a random unarmed citizen coz i think he's dangerous. Right? what amendment is that now....
That's what I've learnt from Mr George Zimmerman and America today.

Thinking some one is dangerous is a lot different than being physically assaulted.

 

[Black-Ice]

Thinking some one is dangerous is a lot different than being physically assaulted.

George stalked him, George confronted him. George created the situation. George used overkill. George killed him.
Trayvon was followed, Trayvon was confronted, Trayvon was dragged into a situation, Trayvon had a gun pulled on him, Trayvon tried to defend himself against a man and a gun and died.

So tell me how George was "physically assaulted"

 

[blinkzane]

this case was set to be determined by the jury, that's how cases like this work unfortunately. in self defense cases it always depends on the opinions of the ones convicting the suspect. In my opinion, I disagree, Zimmerman provoked the fight which lead to violence, and he was armed while the teen was left unarmed. Zimmerman also had previous police training but was denied a position, he knew he could handle the situation so he did, but if he knew proper protocol, you always wait for backup unless it's an emergency situation.

this kid was doing nothing wrong, he had no reason to get out of his vehicle. there were no witnesses, therefore no one else can testify to continue on what was believed to be a murder, therefore the court can only do so much. I still believe the guy is guilty just as much as Micheal Jackson is a pedophile, and OJ killing his wife. But we can only push our legal system so far.
obviously that's my opinion and how I feel about it, no matter how you pick at it, it will stand that way.

 

[Psionic Roshambo]

That's the problem, I could lie out my ass but as long as its "plausible" in the eyes of a few people in a room. I can walk free from anything.
That's the logic that courtrooms in dictatorships carry.
Its not right.

So i always laugh when I see USA digging up other countries's legal systems and procedures when their own leaves much to be considered.

Happens in every court room in every country, this is why evidence is so important.

To go the other way is to convict people on random accusations, we used to do that here. Back during the Salem witch hunts all you had to do was accuse some person of being in league with the devil and have them burned at the stake. Simple clean and always right?

The US justice system is far from perfect but show me one that is better. That's going to be a tough order to fill, please don't mind me if I don't hold my breath waiting.