# George Zimmerman found not guilty



## Kord (Jul 13, 2013)

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/07/13/george-zimmerman-found-not-guilty/2514163/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...26dbbe-ec0c-11e2-aa9f-c03a72e2d342_story.html

Just wondering what ya'll think about Zimmerman getting off the hook. I watched the opening statements this morning but didn't follow the whole case today, just heard the news now.


----------



## Bliss (Jul 13, 2013)

It is going to be a riot!


----------



## Aleu (Jul 13, 2013)

America. Where apparently murder is okay.


----------



## Kord (Jul 13, 2013)

Aleu said:


> America. Where apparently murder is okay.


and racial profiling but that's pretty much what our entire justice system is based off of.


----------



## DarrylWolf (Jul 13, 2013)

George Zimmerman will be found dead by vigilante justice if he does not leave the country.


----------



## Kalmor (Jul 13, 2013)

One more reason not to move to Florida other than extreme heat.


----------



## lupinealchemist (Jul 13, 2013)

Lizzie said:


> It is going to be a riot!


Like Rodney King?


----------



## Fernin (Jul 13, 2013)

Aleu said:


> America. Where apparently murder is okay.



Because this crap only happens in America, right? RIGHT? X3


----------



## Kayla (Jul 13, 2013)

I'm depressed about the verdict and pissed with Florida's justice system. I'm ashamed that I was born from that state.


----------



## lupinealchemist (Jul 13, 2013)

DarrylWolf said:


> George Zimmerman will be found dead by vigilante justice if he does not leave the country.


If the vigilante is black, Florida will become a war zone.


----------



## Aleu (Jul 13, 2013)

Fernin said:


> Because this crap only happens in America, right? RIGHT? X3


This makes two cases in Florida where the murderer got off scot-free. We're not having a good streak here.



lupinealchemist said:


> If the vigilante is black, Florida will become a war zone.


If the roles were reversed I'd bet my life that people would call for blood.


----------



## Aetius (Jul 13, 2013)

ITT: Armchair lawyers.


----------



## Sutekh_the_Destroyer (Jul 13, 2013)

This is mental.

George Zimmerman shot Trayvon Martin right in the chest _even though Martin was unarmed_. If that's not murder then I don't know what is.


----------



## Zerig (Jul 13, 2013)

NOT GUILTY!


----------



## AlexInsane (Jul 13, 2013)

Aleu said:


> America. Where apparently murder is okay.



You're surprised that murder goes unpunished here?

Murder isn't even the tip of the iceberg. We have pardoned people with far more heinous acts under their belt in the past.


----------



## PastryOfApathy (Jul 13, 2013)

I know nothing about the case so I'm not gonna pretend I'm some kind of legal expert and go on about how everything was a sham and how person X was innocent because thing Y. 

But what I do know is that I'm now gonna have to listen to people bitch non-stop about how racist everyone is for like weeks. That is the true tragedy of this situation.


----------



## Aleu (Jul 13, 2013)

Sutekh_the_Destroyer said:


> This is mental.
> 
> George Zimmerman shot Trayvon Martin right in the chest _even though Martin was unarmed_. If that's not murder then I don't know what is.


But he was threatened by FISTS :V


----------



## Lobar (Jul 13, 2013)

[yt]xiTM2HQ0g98[/yt]


----------



## AlexInsane (Jul 13, 2013)

Aleu said:


> But he was threatened by FISTS :V



WE MUST IMMEDIATELY CUT EVERYONE'S HANDS OFF - PEOPLE HAVE BEEN WALKING AROUND WITH DEADLY WEAPONS ATTACHED TO THEIR ARMS AND WE HAD NO IDEA. This is a matter of SUPREME URGENCY, as it is a threat to our VERY EXISTENCE, and to our PERSONAL AND NATIONAL SECURITY.


----------



## Aleu (Jul 13, 2013)

AlexInsane said:


> WE MUST IMMEDIATELY CUT EVERYONE'S HANDS OFF - PEOPLE HAVE BEEN WALKING AROUND WITH DEADLY WEAPONS ATTACHED TO THEIR ARMS AND WE HAD NO IDEA. This is a matter of SUPREME URGENCY, as it is a threat to our VERY EXISTENCE, and to our PERSONAL AND NATIONAL SECURITY.


Fisting is srs bsns....wait...shit


----------



## AlexInsane (Jul 13, 2013)

Aleu said:


> Fisting is srs bsns....wait...shit



SWEET JESUS, ARE THOSE HANDS I SEE?! Come with me, terrorist scum. We've a lovely shithole prison to throw you into.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Jul 13, 2013)

Sutekh_the_Destroyer said:


> This is mental.
> 
> George Zimmerman shot Trayvon Martin right in the chest _even though Martin was unarmed_. If that's not murder then I don't know what is.



You're very unaware of Florida's laws then.

The main issue that pretty much determined how this case was going to go was the question of who instigated the altercation between Martin and Zimmerman.  Because there was no real evidence to support either side, all we had was conjecture to work with.  We know that Zimmerman was following Martin.  We know that Martin and Zimmerman got into an altercation.  We know that Zimmerman shot and fatally wounded Martin.  What we don't know is if it was in self-defense or not.  Florida has "Stand Your Ground" laws that helped paint the possibility that Zimmerman may have acted to save his own life.  Apparently the jury wasn't prepared to find a man guilty of murder based solely on the assumption that Zimmerman was the aggressor.

Is that what happened?  Who knows.  There's likely only two people who knew what happened that night, and one of them is dead while the other was just acquitted.

Once again we're reminded of the words of Justice Oliver Wendall Holmes, Jr. when he said "This is a court of law, young man, not a court of justice."


----------



## Zerig (Jul 13, 2013)

Hahahah! O'Mara is offering to help Zimmerman sue the state for letting this get to trial with so little evidence against him!

Oh god the tears will be delicious.


----------



## Kord (Jul 13, 2013)

What's even more scary is the fact that every racist cop around the country is having a tough time hiding their grins. This tragedy is only going to potentiate the overall acts of intolerance  in our police force.


----------



## Zerig (Jul 13, 2013)

The only reason people think this is about racism is because the media spun it that way.

He didn't walk because everyone is an evil racist monster white man, he walked because they had barely any evidence. As he should have.


----------



## Lobar (Jul 13, 2013)

Stand Your Ground is a fucking travesty of a law and this should put the nails in its coffin in every state forever.

Should, but probably won't as every Repub legislator in any southern state with a large racist population (redundant, I know) will likely trip each other trying to push their own version of a legally-murder-black-people bill through as a huge favor to their redneck constituency.


----------



## PastryOfApathy (Jul 13, 2013)

Lobar said:


> Stand Your Ground is a fucking travesty of a law and this should put the nails in its coffin in every state forever.
> 
> Should, but probably won't as every Repub legislator in any southern state with a large racist population (redundant, I know) will likely trip each other trying to push their own version of a legally-murder-black-people bill through as a huge favor to their redneck constituency.



I'm pretty sure the "Stand your Ground" laws weren't devised as a means to kill black people, that's a preposterous notion. You sound like an idiot right now.


----------



## Migoto Da (Jul 13, 2013)

Unfortunately, Zimmerman's freedom probably has the price of his life. I will not be surprised if he ends up dead in the coming weeks. There have been multiple rumours of people sending death threats and such already.


----------



## Aleu (Jul 13, 2013)

PastryOfApathy said:


> I'm pretty sure the "Stand your Ground" laws weren't devised as a means to kill black people, that's a preposterous notion. You sound like an idiot right now.


Not necessarily but as I said before, had the roles been reversed Trayvon would certainly not have walked.


----------



## Falaffel (Jul 13, 2013)

Did we ever know what _*really*_ happened?
No and because of this, for all we know, this could have been self defense. 
Take away racism for a second here. Is it really a punishable offence, in your opinion, to kill in self defense. 

Lets be honest, how would you feel, after murdering in self defense, (Take into account the feeling of sorrow and self hatred you would feel for taking another man's life) being hated by the majority of your country? 

What little sympathy is given to the defendants side is hardly fair. 

Just something I wanted to point out.


----------



## Aleu (Jul 13, 2013)

There is no self-defense on Zimmerman's behalf. If anything, SYG should've backed up Trayvon since he was the one being stalked.


----------



## PastryOfApathy (Jul 13, 2013)

Aleu said:


> Not necessarily but as I said before, had the roles been reversed Trayvon would certainly not have walked.



That's not a problem with the law, that's just racial profiling that is completely separate from the law.


----------



## Lobar (Jul 13, 2013)

PastryOfApathy said:


> I'm pretty sure the "Stand your Ground" laws weren't devised as a means to kill black people, that's a preposterous notion. You sound like an idiot right now.



I am embellishing somewhat because I'm angry, but only slightly.  A good portion of support for extreme pro-gun legislation comes from those that fantasize about finding themselves in a situation where they can legally kill "criminals" (who of course in these fantasies are going to be black).  Not all, but it's either generous or naive to say those people don't exist.



PastryOfApathy said:


> That's not a problem with the law, that's just racial profiling that is completely separate from the law.



Any law that allows someone to stalk an unarmed man with a loaded firearm and then kill him and walk away unpunished doesn't need any more problems with it, it's a fucking shitty law.


----------



## Zerig (Jul 13, 2013)

Aleu said:


> There is no self-defense on Zimmerman's behalf. If anything, SYG should've backed up Trayvon since he was the one being stalked.



Oh, I didn't know you were there that night watching the whole thing? You should have told the police you saw it all. After all that's the only way you could know that happened.


----------



## Falaffel (Jul 13, 2013)

Aleu said:


> There is no self-defense on Zimmerman's behalf. If anything, SYG should've backed up Trayvon since he was the one being stalked.



But... But.... You ignored my entire point D:


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Jul 13, 2013)

Zerig said:


> The only reason people think this is about racism is because the media spun it that way.
> 
> He didn't walk because everyone is an evil racist monster white man, he walked because they had barely any evidence. As he should have.



Well he was able to walk away from a straight up murder charge.

The bigger issue stems from the fact that while the court told the jury to consider a manslaughter charge, the reality is that given the way that Florida's laws work, the "imperfect self-defense" charge would never stick thanks to "Stand Your Ground."  The prosecution would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman didn't feel like his life was in any sort of immediate danger when he pulled the trigger, or that there was no reasonable excuse why he should have believed Martin wasn't carrying a weapon.  The defense used the fact that there were several crimes that had been committed in the neighborhood leading up to the shooting, with several reports of break-ins, thefts, and one instance of a shooting which had created a level of fear in the community, hence Zimmerman's apparent insistence on pretty much being Mr. Neighborhood Watch, and desire to be armed when walking about.  Considering that context, it can be argued why Zimmerman would think Martin was armed, regardless of race.  And since all evidence of Zimmerman's communications with the non-emergency police line show that he would never once bring up race unless asked about it furthers the idea that Zimmerman didn't assume Martin had a deadly weapon because of a racial prejudice he may have had.

Again, is it possible he did?  Sure.  But again, if you go into murder trials like this in the Jack Webb "Just The Facts, Ma'am" kind of way, the facts alone don't necessarily point to Zimmerman being driven by bigoted profiling.  Coupled with the "Stand Your Ground" legislation, the manslaughter charge falls apart when the defense paints Zimmerman as "just a man looking out for his community and who acted within the boundaries of the law with good intentions, but with an unfortunate consequence that he shouldn't be held liable for."

This is why you can never, ever call these things slam dunk cases.  The same thing happened with Casey Anthony.  Why anyone is surprised by this outcome is probably the most surprising thing out of all of this.


----------



## Aleu (Jul 13, 2013)

PastryOfApathy said:


> That's not a problem with the law, that's just racial profiling that is completely separate from the law.


Which is why I said "not necessarily". The law is used as an excuse for cases such as this.

While I do agree with SYG I don't believe in deadly force that is caused by instigation which is what I believe happened here. Trayvon would have every right to claim SYG but because he's black and smoked weed, he's a bad criminal and Zimmerman is a fucking god-send for ridding the scum (even though he shouldn't have had a gun in the first place)



Zerig said:


> Oh, I didn't know you were there that night watching the whole thing? You should have told the police you saw it all. After all that's the only way you could know that happened.


Right cuz it's not like that's what he said he was doing earlier in the case :V


----------



## Kord (Jul 13, 2013)

Falaffel said:


> Did we ever know what _*really*_ happened?
> No and because of this, for all we know, this could have been self defense.
> Take away racism for a second here. Is it really a punishable offence, in your opinion, to kill in self defense.
> 
> ...



Zimmerman's wounds were concluded to be petty. 

If George Zimmerman wasn't racist he wouldn't of labeled this young man as "suspicious" because there wasn't anything suspicious about him...other than his skin color right ?
Why else would he try and apprehend a teenager walking around in the dark talking on the phone with a bag of skittles ? Why ?


----------



## Toshabi (Jul 13, 2013)

I got so many QQ status messages on facebook about this. A lightbulb went off in my head to check FAF. My cup runneth over from your tears and ignorant comments. Thank you for not disappointing.


----------



## Mike Lobo (Jul 13, 2013)

Migoto Da said:


> Unfortunately, Zimmerman's freedom probably has the price of his life. I will not be surprised if he ends up dead in the coming weeks. There have been multiple rumours of people sending death threats and such already.



Nah, people make death threats to people all the time. I don't think he'll get killed. It's the same as Casey Anthony.


----------



## CrazyLee (Jul 13, 2013)

So, when do the Rodney King-style riots start, anyway? Should I be carrying my own gun since I live so close to Detroit and its ghettos? Because this whole trial just HAD to be about race in a supposed colorblind 21st century.

It's funny because I'm old enough to remember the Rodney King riots. I'm also old enough to remember the OJ Simpson trial. And I remember back then that most blacks believed OJ was innocent, while most non-blacks thought he was guilty. The division was obvious and disturbed me. It seems that in this case most blacks believe Zimmerman is guilty... at least it seems from this thread that many whites feel the same way. Progress?




Aleu said:


> This makes two cases in Florida where the murderer got off scot-free. We're not having a good streak here.


So certain that both people were guilty. :V



AlexInsane said:


> You're surprised that murder goes unpunished here?
> 
> Murder isn't even the tip of the iceberg. We have pardoned people with far more heinous acts under their belt in the past.


And we have executed far more people who were later found innocent.



Sutekh_the_Destroyer said:


> George Zimmerman shot Trayvon Martin right in the chest _even though Martin was unarmed_. If that's not murder then I don't know what is.


I dunno, maybe it's manslaughter? Or negligent homicide? Because murder is PREMEDITATED and preplanned. And there's no proof of premeditation here.



Term_the_Schmuck said:


> [block of text]


Wow, I don't think I've ever agreed with Term as much as I do now.


----------



## Aleu (Jul 13, 2013)

Kord said:


> Zimmerman's wounds were concluded to be petty.
> 
> If George Zimmerman wasn't racist he wouldn't of labeled this young man as "suspicious" because there wasn't anything suspicious about him...other than his skin color right ?
> Why else would he try and apprehend a teenager walking around in the dark talking on the phone with a bag of skittles ? Why ?


Don't forget the hoodie.


----------



## Zerig (Jul 13, 2013)

Kord said:


> If George Zimmerman wasn't racist he wouldn't of labeled this young man as "suspicious" because there wasn't anything suspicious about him...other than his skin color right?



Wrong. It was night and he was walking about with his hood up in a neighborhood that had several crimes happen recently.


----------



## Falaffel (Jul 13, 2013)

Kord said:


> Zimmerman's wounds were concluded to be petty.
> 
> If George Zimmerman wasn't racist he wouldn't of labeled this young man as "suspicious" because there wasn't anything suspicious about him...other than his skin color right ?
> Why else would he try and apprehend a teenager walking around in the dark talking on the phone with a bag of skittles ? Why ?


I seriously hope your joking. 
If not my respect levels will be so much farther in the negatives than it already was. 

If by some ungodly chance you're serious I would like to say your argument holds no water, it's based off outlandish assumptions, and is very suggestive about white's views.


----------



## Migoto Da (Jul 13, 2013)

I have looked at this situation with an unbiased point of view ever since the initial hearings; I, personally, feel that Zimmerman should have been charged with Manslaughter, specifically because he disobeyed the dispatcher and followed the kid. Because of this, a child died needlessly. If Zimmerman had listened, this would never have happened, and his life would not be potentially on the line. 

But the prosecution could not prove that Zimmerman killed with murderous intent, so it is only natural that the jury found him Not Guilty; anyone who assumes this is a racist issue needs a reality check, in blatant honesty. I do not believe in Stand Your Ground (Or Castle Laws here in Texas) but taking a life, regardless if it is in self defense or not, should be punishable by prison time.

You took a life away, you should feel like you did.



CrazyLee said:


> I dunno, maybe it's manslaughter? Or negligent homicide? Because murder is PREMEDITATED and preplanned. And there's no proof of premeditation here.
> 
> .


Also, this is false. Murder does not have to be premeditated to be called murder; that is why they went for Second Degree murder and not First.


----------



## Kord (Jul 13, 2013)

Falaffel said:


> I seriously hope your joking.
> If not my respect levels will be so much farther in the negatives than it already was.
> 
> If by some ungodly chance you're serious I would like to say your argument holds no water, it's based off outlandish assumptions, and is very suggestive about white's views.



If you can't see the racism in this issue- I'm sorry but you're completely fucked in the head.

If you saw an african american teenager walking around the block at night talking on his cell phone, would you consider him suspicious ? Would you consider him a 'fucking punk' too ?



Zerig said:


> Wrong. It was night and he was walking about with his hood up in a neighborhood that had several crimes happen recently.



Oh, and all of those crimes have to relate to one's skin color and apparel ?


----------



## Aleu (Jul 13, 2013)

Zerig said:


> Wrong. It was night and he was walking about with his hood up in a neighborhood that had several crimes happen recently.


People walk around with their hood up all the time here.


----------



## Zerig (Jul 13, 2013)

Migoto Da said:


> I have looked at this situation with an unbiased point of view ever since the initial hearings; I, personally, feel that Zimmerman should have been charged with Manslaughter, specifically because he disobeyed the dispatcher and followed the kid.



The dispatcher has no authority, they can only offer suggestions.



Migoto Da said:


> but taking a life, regardless if it is in self defense or not, should be punishable by prison time.
> 
> You took a life away, you should feel like you did.



That is one of the stupidest things I've ever read on the internet. Honestly.


----------



## Uberskunk (Jul 13, 2013)

In our society, you can avoid prison time, but you can never truly be free. Sometimes it's unfair. Sometimes.


----------



## Migoto Da (Jul 13, 2013)

Zerig said:


> That is one of the stupidest things I've ever read on the internet. Honestly.


Well I certainly apologize that my view on the law does not match yours; I simply feel that if you take a life willingly, unless you are an officer of the law and have the legal authority to do so to protect the public, you should be imprisoned.

Whether that is stupid or not is subjective.


----------



## Aleu (Jul 13, 2013)

Zerig said:


> The dispatcher has no authority, they can only offer suggestions.



To take your quote in response to this:



Zerig said:


> That is one of the stupidest things I've ever read on the internet. Honestly.


----------



## Zerig (Jul 13, 2013)

Kord said:


> Oh, and all of those crimes have to relate to one's skin color and apparel ?



No. Anyone would look suspicious in that situation.



Aleu said:


> People walk around with their hood up all the time here.



That's only one factor of it.

Also, why the hell do you need your hood up in Florida, you people don't even know what cold is.


----------



## Falaffel (Jul 13, 2013)

Kord said:


> If you can't see the racism in this issue- I'm sorry but you're completely fucked in the head.
> 
> If you saw an african american teenager walking around the block at night talking on his cell phone, would you consider him suspicious ? Would you consider him a 'fucking punk' too ?
> 
> ...



Oh my lord. You're serious. I wish to stab your eyes out with a screwdriver. 

People are so easily distracted by false racism claims. 
"If a white person kills a black person it's racism! "

So what happens when a white kills a white? No one gives a shit? I mean, there's no racism only murder! That's perfectly all right! 

Appearently murder is only a big deal when racism is involved.


----------



## Butters Shikkon (Jul 13, 2013)

The Zimmerman case is nothing compared to the White Night Riots and the famous "Twinkie Defense" of Dan White. 

They simply had not enough evidence to convict. We cannot just decide a verdict before examining all possibilities and such. Some of you people are acting on Wild West logic or dare I say it:  this 

I don't know much about this case at all so I can't say if I suspect he did it or not...but we certainly mustn't start locking up/killing people on just the surface alone.


----------



## Zerig (Jul 13, 2013)

Aleu said:


> To take your quote in response to this:



I don't know how it's stupid. It's true.

The vast majority of dispatchers are civilians and not sworn officers.

Either way, the dispatcher said "we don't need you to do that" which is not the same as "do not do that".


----------



## Aleu (Jul 13, 2013)

Zerig said:


> That's only one factor of it.
> 
> Also, why the hell do you need your hood up in Florida, you people don't even know what cold is.


That's so fucking stupid. Might as well ask "what the fuck do you wear sweatshirts for?"

Oh my god, we're used to warm climate so anything below our comfort zone is apparently ridiculous because it's still "warm" to people in cooler climates.



Falaffel said:


> Oh my lord. You're serious. I wish to stab your eyes out with a screwdriver.
> 
> People are so easily distracted by false racism claims.
> "If a white person kills a black person it's racism! "
> ...



Kindly shut the fuck up. First of all, Zimmerman isn't white. He's Hispanic.
Secondly, racial profiling is so fucking common here it's ridiculous.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Jul 13, 2013)

Kord said:


> If you can't see the racism in this issue- I'm sorry but you're completely fucked in the head.
> 
> If you saw an african american teenager walking around the block at night talking on his cell phone, would you consider him suspicious ? Would you consider him a 'fucking punk' too ?
> 
> Oh, and all of those crimes have to relate to one's skin color and apparel ?



If you'd read my post here you'll see the main issue of arguing that Zimmerman's motives of following Martin were based on racial bigotry.  The racism angle was perpetuated mostly by the media.  Every article on Gawker concerning this trial from its inception was based on racial commentary.  And while it is a very big issue that we still deal with in this country, there's no actual piece of compelling evidence that you or I could show beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman's actions were based solely on race.  In fact, the evidence surrounding the case giving it more context would show quite the opposite, as I pointed out in my aforementioned post.

Again, we're all willing to convict the man of murder based on conjecture here.  In a lot of our minds from Day 1 he was guilty, regardless of how much a jury would have to infer from the evidence provided to get to the truth or our understanding of state laws in Florida.


----------



## Falaffel (Jul 13, 2013)

Migoto Da said:


> Well I certainly apologize that my view on the law does not match yours; I simply feel that if you take a life willingly, unless you are an officer of the law and have the legal authority to do so to protect the public, you should be imprisoned.
> 
> Whether that is stupid or not is subjective.



So you are going to tell me that if you were assaulted, in a split second reaction to save your life, and kill the assailant you feel you should be imprisoned? 

The choice should never be "die now or die rotting in a cell"


----------



## PastryOfApathy (Jul 13, 2013)

Aleu said:


> Which is why I said "not necessarily". The law is used as an excuse for cases such as this.
> 
> While I do agree with SYG I don't believe in deadly force that is caused by instigation which is what I believe happened here. Trayvon would have every right to claim SYG but because he's black and smoked weed, he's a bad criminal and Zimmerman is a fucking god-send for ridding the scum (even though he shouldn't have had a gun in the first place



Again, not the fault of the law. I'm sure race did play a factor, but it's not the laws fault.


----------



## Mike Lobo (Jul 13, 2013)

Falaffel said:


> Oh my lord. You're serious. I wish to stab your eyes out with a screwdriver.
> 
> People are so easily distracted by false racism claims.
> "If a white person kills a black person it's racism! "
> ...



You're kidding, right? 'Cause people care about white on white crime, you know.


----------



## Migoto Da (Jul 14, 2013)

Falaffel said:


> So you are going to tell me that if you were assaulted, in a split second reaction to save your life, and kill the assailant you feel you should be imprisoned?
> 
> The choice should never be "die now or die rotting in a cell"


I find that crippling or disabling the assailant is a much more viable option than outright killing him/her; so yes, if I were to kill someone in self defense, I would not contest being thrown in jail.

Killing someone regardless of the context is wrong. Many people don't agree with me, yeah, but this is the internet, so I can't really blame people for wanted to rip me to shreds.


Regardless of my personal beliefs, someone was killed due to someone's irresponsibility and foolishness. If Zimmerman had obeyed the dispatcher, nothing would have happened.

He /should/ have at least been charged with Negligent Homicide.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Jul 14, 2013)

Few things on this.

One of which the prosecution shouldn't have gone for a 2nd degree murder charge. Yes, there was the travesty of someone dying for it, but it would have made more sense for a manslaughter charge. The problem was the prosecution put that as a last minute thing. It made the case look even weaker like "well um maybe we didn't make our case, but hey try this instead". That was stupid.

Zimmerman should have stayed in his car like he was advised. We wouldn't be having this discussion if after he was told "You don't need to do that" he DIDN'T DO THAT. 

We need professional jurors. Not Stay at home moms, or people who have nothing else to do because their job sucks and can stay on the jury. These people watch too much fucking CSI and think everything on TV is fact. Not to mention cases aren't pretty and interesting like CSI, there is always something that can come into play for doubt. However, people misinterpret those instructions to a "beyond a shadow of a doubt" no, it's REASONABLE doubt.

Also, about Stand Your Ground? This woman got 20 for firing WARNING SHOTS under the law, not killing someone - http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57433184/fla-mom-gets-20-years-for-firing-warning-shots/


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Jul 14, 2013)

Aleu said:


> On Dispatchers



Most dispatchers aren't official police officers.  They do not have the authority to issue commands to anyone over the phone.

There are very serious legal reasons why they can't, the main reason being that they will be held liable for anything that happens if they try to take control of the situation over the phone.  Departments and private civilians do not want to take the risk of being sued because of bad advice which leads to someone getting hurt or killed.  It's the same reason why you can't just call a doctor and ask him to talk you through how to lance a boil with a nail or remove a wart with a pair of scissors.  They'd be responsible for whatever you do to yourself.

Likewise, Zimmerman wasn't issued a command.  He was told "you don't have to do that" literally means "while I'd prefer you don't do that, you're still free to proceed as you wish because I can't stop you."


----------



## PastryOfApathy (Jul 14, 2013)

Mike Lobo said:


> You're kidding, right? 'Cause people care about white on white crime, you know.



How much you wanna bet if Trayvon wasn't black anyone would give a single shit. We don't care about most crime because it's not an interesting story. White people kill white people, and black people kill black people all the fucking time and no one cares. However when this one asshole kills a black kid (admittedly under suspicious circumstances) everyone immediately goes apeshit and like a year from now we're still talking about it. That shit rarely happens unless there's A: A pretty white girl involved, or B: Someone can call racism.  

Don't tell me that shit doesn't make a difference, because it does.


----------



## Zerig (Jul 14, 2013)

Migoto Da said:


> if I were to kill someone in self defense, I would not contest being thrown in jail.



That's pretty sad.

I hope you live alone far away from any civilization, because that's the only environment where this is a valid mindset.


----------



## Gryphoneer (Jul 14, 2013)

Fuck you America.

Fuck. You.


----------



## Migoto Da (Jul 14, 2013)

Zerig said:


> That's pretty sad.
> 
> I hope you live alone far away from any civilization, because that's the only environment where this is a valid mindset.


I live pretty close to Dallas, Texas, in a city with a population of 87,463. Any mindset is valid as long as you don't force that mindset onto others, which I don't.

Opinions are opinions, my dear. I have mine and you have yours. We should respect them.

...But it's the internet, so hey.

I do believe I've given my 2c on this though, so I'll duck out until someone says something that I wish to remark on again.


----------



## Nikolinni (Jul 14, 2013)

Migoto Da said:


> Well I certainly apologize that my view on the law does not match yours; I simply feel that if you take a life willingly, unless you are an officer of the law and have the legal authority to do so to protect the public, you should be imprisoned.
> 
> Whether that is stupid or not is subjective.



Even _God_ recognizes the difference between killing and murder, just and unjust taking of life. What did you think "You Shall Not Murder" means? (Yes, it's seen in the KJV as "Thou Shall Not Kill", but if you do some research, the original Hebrew suggests it was "Murder", not kill). 

So you mean to tell me, if someone is trying to kill me, trying to say, shoot me, I have NO legal right to defend myself and shoot back? Because you know, don't want to accidently kill him and get jailtime. Sorry sir, but we disagree here. You can say "I don't like the idea of taking life" but making even _self defense_ a punishable offense seems about as stupid as driving while hammered.


----------



## Mike Lobo (Jul 14, 2013)

PastryOfApathy said:


> How much you wanna bet if Trayvon wasn't black anyone would give a single shit. We don't care about most crime because it's not an interesting story. White people kill white people, and black people kill black people all the fucking time and no one cares. However when this one asshole kills a black kid (admittedly under suspicious circumstances) everyone immediately goes apeshit and like a year from now we're still talking about it. That shit rarely happens unless there's A: A pretty white girl involved, or B: Someone can all racism.
> 
> Don't tell me that shit doesn't make a difference, because it does.



You're talking like this is the first time there's ever been a publicized murder case. Ever heard of Casey Anthony? Jodi Arias? Scott Peterson? Joran Van Der Sloot?

People care when it's white on white.


----------



## Zerig (Jul 14, 2013)

Migoto Da said:


> I live pretty close to Dallas, Texas, in a city with a population of 87,463. Any mindset is valid as long as you don't force that mindset onto others, which I don't.



So you're walking down the street and a crazy person jumps out with a knife. They don't want to mug you, they want to kill you. Nothing more.

You would just allow them to stab you to death without putting up a fight?

I don't think even Ghandi was that much of a pacifist. I am amazed.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Jul 14, 2013)

Meh, he's pretty much dead either way with all the publicity he's generated for himself.


----------



## Kord (Jul 14, 2013)

Falaffel said:


> Oh my lord. You're serious. I wish to stab your eyes out with a screwdriver.
> 
> People are so easily distracted by false racism claims.
> "If a white person kills a black person it's racism! "
> ...



Dude, you need to take a look at the big picture here.

Black people are constantly oppressed by the intolerance in our society. The voice of the minority is usually muffled because of hazy situations like this.

Trayvon was minding his own business, that was clear. Zimmerman was not, he declared this young man a threat and approached him with a fire arm. 
But by your logic, the violent and evil black man was the one who brutally attacked poor georgie right ? This poor, poor man was being savagely beaten by this 17 year old, so what was the logical thing to do ? End his life.


----------



## Migoto Da (Jul 14, 2013)

Mike Lobo said:


> You're talking like this is the first time there's ever been a publicized murder case. Ever heard of Casey Anthony? Jodi Arias? Scott Peterson? Joran Van Der Sloot?
> 
> People care when it's white on white.


Casey Anthony is another clear example of the media making people look like nothing but evil psychopaths whenever they're suspected for a crime. 

I wish people would draw their own conclusions more instead of just listening to what the news tells them.



Zerig said:


> So you're walking down the street and a crazy person jumps out with a knife. They don't want to mug you, they want to kill you. Nothing more.
> 
> You would just allow them to stab you to death without putting up a fight?
> 
> I don't think even Ghandi was that much of a pacifist. I am amazed.



I do not believe in killing whatsoever; I would not contest (permanently or temporarily) crippling someone who wished me harm or wanted to take my life, however.


----------



## Aleu (Jul 14, 2013)

Nikolinni said:


> Even _God_ recognizes the difference between killing and murder, just and unjust taking of life. What did you think "You Shall Not Murder" means? (Yes, it's seen in the KJV as "Thou Shall Not Kill", but if you do some research, the original Hebrew suggests it was "Murder", not kill).
> 
> So you mean to tell me, if someone is trying to kill me, trying to say, shoot me, I have NO legal right to defend myself and shoot back? Because you know, don't want to accidently kill him and get jailtime. Sorry sir, but we disagree here. You can say "I don't like the idea of taking life" but making even _self defense_ a punishable offense seems about as stupid as driving while hammered.


Oh dear lord please do not bring God into this, I implore you.


----------



## Sutekh_the_Destroyer (Jul 14, 2013)

Reading through this thread I've changed my mind - there really isn't enough evidence to say "Zimmerman did this" or "Zimmerman did that". The details of what happened are hazy at best.


----------



## PastryOfApathy (Jul 14, 2013)

Mike Lobo said:


> You're talking like this is the first time there's ever been a publicized murder case. Ever heard of Casey Anthony? Jodi Arias? Scott Peterson? Joran Van Der Sloot?
> 
> People care when it's white on white.



Wow, way to ignore the point entirely. Good job, you should feel proud of yourself you master debater you. You wanna know the tying factor between all those cases that I directly referenced in my post? They *all* involve pretty white girls. Next time when you want to act all superior, try reading what you're responding to so you don't come off like an idiot.


----------



## PsychicOtter (Jul 14, 2013)

As awful as it was that this kid was killed, there just wasn't enough evidence to convict Zimmerman of murder.


----------



## Nikolinni (Jul 14, 2013)

Kord said:


> Dude, you need to take a look at the big picture here.
> 
> Black people are constantly oppressed by the intolerance in our society. The voice of the minority is usually muffled because of hazy situations like this.
> 
> ...



How do you know what Trayvon was up to? Do you have clairvoyance to prove this? He could be looking for a house to break into for all we know. 

Yeah that's right...if we can criminalize Zimmerman from the outright, I reserve the right to do it to Trayvon as well.


----------



## Zerig (Jul 14, 2013)

Kord said:


> Trayvon was minding his own business, that was clear. Zimmerman was not, he declared this young man a threat and approached him with a fire arm.
> But by your logic, the violent and evil black man was the one who brutally attacked poor georgie right ? This poor, poor man was being savagely beaten by this 17 year old, so what was the logical thing to do ? End his life.



Zimmerman was doing what he thought was right as the neighborhood watch. Maybe he was a bit overzealous, but Martin's girlfriend said herself that he made it into his house, then came back out. So who confronted who?


----------



## Aleu (Jul 14, 2013)

Nikolinni said:


> How do you know what Trayvon was up to? Do you have clairvoyance to prove this? He could be looking for a house to break into for all we know.
> 
> Yeah that's right...if we can criminalize Zimmerman from the outright, I reserve the right to do it to Trayvon as well.


I always arm myself with tea and Skittles whilst chatting with my boyfriend before I break in to a home.


----------



## Butters Shikkon (Jul 14, 2013)

PastryOfApathy said:


> Wow, way to ignore the point entirely. Good job, you should feel proud of yourself you master debater you. You wanna know the tying factor between all those cases that I directly referenced in my post? They *all* involve pretty white girls. Next time when you want to act all superior, try reading what you're responding to so you don't come off like an idiot.



Look up the death of Harvey Milk sometime.


----------



## Migoto Da (Jul 14, 2013)

Trayvon may very well have been looking to commit a crime, but there is no proof of this, and therefore we can't do more than assume.

The only people who knew what really happened are Trayvon and Zimmerman. One is dead, and the other is likely to be if people get pissed off enough.

There wasn't enough evidence, and it's simple as that... sending Zimmerman to prison is a deathwish for him anyway.


----------



## Sutekh_the_Destroyer (Jul 14, 2013)

The real clincher in this case _would _have been whoever threw the first punch, but unfortunately we simply don't know who indeed did throw it.


----------



## PastryOfApathy (Jul 14, 2013)

Butterflygoddess said:


> Look up the death of Harvey Milk sometime.



There's a massive difference between a regular person being murdered, and a highly prolific activists murder. You can't even compare them...like at all.


----------



## Kord (Jul 14, 2013)

Nikolinni said:


> How do you know what Trayvon was up to? Do you have clairvoyance to prove this? He could be looking for a house to break into for all we know.
> 
> Yeah that's right...if we can criminalize Zimmerman from the outright, I reserve the right to do it to Trayvon as well.



Actually, we have evidence that tells us

-He was on the phone w/ his girlfriend
-He was walking home (assumption, could of been walking anywhere but that's irrelevant) from a convenient store with some candy and a beverage

If he was casing a neighborhood or prepping for home invasion I don't think he'd be yapping outloud. Also..you usually case a neighborhood during the day when people are home, watching their movements and making note of their schedule. 

The evidence shows that he was just some kid walking around at night.


----------



## Nikolinni (Jul 14, 2013)

Aleu said:


> I always arm myself with tea and Skittles whilst chatting with my boyfriend before I break in to a home.



Yeah, umm...no. Like I said, we don't know what he was up to. Just like we don't know if Zimmerman was planning to kill Trayvon from the outset or even at all or not. We only have our own assumptions. And it seems like people are perfectly content with assuming that 'man was the villain and Trayvon the poor, helpless victim.



Kord said:


> Actually, we have evidence that tells us
> 
> -He was on the phone w/ his girlfriend
> -He was walking home (assumption, could of been walking anywhere but that's irrelevant) from a convenient store with some candy and a beverage
> ...



Objection. Sure he was chatting with his girlfriend, and had tea and skittles, but we still don't know what his entire itinerary for the night was.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Jul 14, 2013)

Migoto Da said:


> Casey Anthony is another clear example of the media making people look like nothing but evil psychopaths whenever they're suspected for a crime.



Yeah totally NOT a psychopath when she identified some poor woman who was just apartment hunting as a babysitter who kidnapped her dead daughter.
TOTALLY not a psychopath who was googling ways to kill her daughter.

Yeah that was so made up.

@Term, oh I'm well aware of that which is why I said what I did. The fact is Zimmerman took it upon himself and this wouldn't have happened if he followed some good advice.


----------



## Zerig (Jul 14, 2013)

Aleu said:


> I always arm myself with tea and Skittles whilst chatting with my boyfriend before I break in to a home.



Breaking News! Buying snacks renders you completely incapable of doing crimes!


----------



## PastryOfApathy (Jul 14, 2013)

Arshes Nei said:


> Yeah totally NOT a psychopath when she identified some poor woman who was just apartment hunting as a babysitter who kidnapped her dead daughter.
> TOTALLY not a psychopath who was googling ways to kill her daughter.
> 
> Yeah that was so made up.



It's a shitty example, but a fair point. The media does have a horrible habit of essentially labeling people as a "hero" or a "villian" regardless of the possible circumstances.


----------



## Butters Shikkon (Jul 14, 2013)

PastryOfApathy said:


> There's a massive difference between a regular person being murdered, and a highly prolific activists murder. You can't even compare them...like at all.



I can and I just did. You keep on looking for excuses though. You seem to be full of em.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Jul 14, 2013)

Kord said:


> Trayvon was minding his own business, that was clear. Zimmerman was not, he declared this young man a threat and approached him with a fire arm.
> But by your logic, the violent and evil black man was the one who brutally attacked poor georgie right ? This poor, poor man was being savagely beaten by this 17 year old, so what was the logical thing to do ? End his life.



I don't think anyone's made the claim that Martin was violent or evil.  Those are your own words there.  If anything, from what we've seen the opposite was true given how the media portrayed Zimmerman from the beginning, from editing the tape of the phone call he made to the authorities to make it seem like he brought up the kid's race and appearance first to the photos they chose to use to represent Zimmerman and Martin, to the countless editorials of people pretty much boiling this case down to "white man kills black kid."  Except that's not even right because Zimmerman is of mixed-race and his own family identifies him as a Spanish-speaking Hispanic.  On all of his IDs and in the census he's listed as Hispanic.  So please, there's been plenty of assumptions on either side here to try and blow this case out of proportion here to make it more of a commentary on race rather than how flimsy the laws are in Florida.

Looking at this purely by the facts, they got into an altercation.  What lead to it, we don't know.  Who struck who first, we don't know.  What caused Zimmerman to pull the gun?  We don't know.  All we have is testimony and context, and unfortunately, given that Zimmerman is the only one left alive his story speaks louder than someone who is dead.  It's easier to make one party look more believable when they other party can't argue their side of the story.


----------



## Migoto Da (Jul 14, 2013)

Zerig said:


> Breaking News! Buying snacks renders you completely incapable of doing crimes!


Quickly, distribute this Snickers bar to the general public. It'll satisfy everyone so much that all crime will stop.

...If only.


----------



## Mike Lobo (Jul 14, 2013)

PastryOfApathy said:


> Wow, way to ignore the point entirely. Good job, you should feel proud of yourself you master debater you. You wanna know the tying factor between all those cases that I directly referenced in my post? They *all* involve pretty white girls. Next time when you want to act all superior, try reading what you're responding to so you don't come off like an idiot.



The whole "pretty white girl" thing is just you trying to discredit any examples I might bring up by labeling them as exceptions which by the way aren't excpetions, and if they were, they'd _still prove what I'm saying is true_. Nice try, though. Either way, the guy said nobody cares about white on white crime. What I said proved him wrong. 

I was not trying to act superior.


----------



## Kord (Jul 14, 2013)

Zerig said:


> Zimmerman was doing what he thought was right as the neighborhood watch. Maybe he was a bit overzealous, but Martin's girlfriend said herself that he made it into his house, then came back out. So who confronted who?



It's clear that Zimmerman approached Trayvon. The recording of him talking with the dispatcher shows just how 'overzealous' he was. At this point, for all we know Trayvon probably didn't even know Zimmerman existed


----------



## Arshes Nei (Jul 14, 2013)

PastryOfApathy said:


> It's a shitty example, but a fair point. The media does have a horrible habit of essentially labeling people as a "hero" or a "villian" regardless of the possible circumstances.



Then make fair examples. Making shitty examples doesn't make the point "fair" at all.

If anything the racial stuff was played up by family and the outraged more than the media in this one. I mean other things that happened is made the girlfriend look dumb as fuck (which who knows maybe she is or had a seriously bad upbringing where "Cracker' was ok).


----------



## TeenageAngst (Jul 14, 2013)

I'mma just say, April 29th 1992 was a good day.


----------



## Bando (Jul 14, 2013)

Man, errybody mad about this.

Here's my two cents: The decision was made by people who have access to far more information, testimony, and evidence about this case than we all do. The jury deliberated over all the facts and came to a decision that they thought was just. Personally, I think Zimmerman was guilty of murder, but that opinion doesn't change the jury's verdict. 

The prosecution really fumbled what should have been a straightforward case, which is a shame. Either way, Zimmerman's life is pretty screwed, even with him being found not guilty. Who wants to hire OJ #2? Nobody.


----------



## PastryOfApathy (Jul 14, 2013)

Butterflygoddess said:


> I can and I just did. You keep on looking for excuses though. You seem to be full of em.



You can compare anyone to anything, but it doesn't magically make it a valid comparison. Look let me demonstrate, Trayvon Martin's death was just like the death of Martin Luther King Jr. because they were both black and named Martin. That doesn't make any sense yet I can still say it does. You sound silly and brushing me off because you don't actually want to actually make any sense doesn't change that.


----------



## Migoto Da (Jul 14, 2013)

TeenageAngst said:


> I'mma just say, April 29th 1992 was a good day.


That was the first day of the LA riots, correct?


Arshes Nei said:


> Then make fair examples. Making shitty examples doesn't make the point "fair" at all.
> .


Keep in mind that there were also many untrue 'facts' about Casey that were spread around by the media as well; the fact that Casey was looking for ways to kill a child was only found out _after _â€‹the trial ended, if I remember correctly.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Jul 14, 2013)

Arshes Nei said:


> @Term, oh I'm well aware of that which is why I said what I did. The fact is Zimmerman took it upon himself and this wouldn't have happened if he followed some good advice.



And I'm not arguing that he shouldn't be held liable for the decision he made.  On the same token, had say the dispatcher commanded Zimmerman to follow Martin and Martin is killed, then the dispatcher would also be on trial here for putting Martin's life in Zimmerman's hands instead of letting the authorities handle the situation.

The point I'm trying to impress on people using the "disobeying the dispatcher" argument is that the dispatcher is not legally allowed to issue commands over the phone and can only offer suggestions, at most.  Whether or not Zimmerman ignores those suggestions is a moot point, because he's the only one who's responsible for his actions.


----------



## Aleu (Jul 14, 2013)

Zerig said:


> Breaking News! Buying snacks renders you completely incapable of doing crimes!


Who said "incapable"? But how is it suspicious that someone is walking back from a convenience store with tea and candy? Please enlighten me on this.


----------



## Kord (Jul 14, 2013)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> I don't think anyone's made the claim that Martin was violent or evil.  Those are your own words there.  If anything, from what we've seen the opposite was true given how the media portrayed Zimmerman from the beginning, from editing the tape of the phone call he made to the authorities to make it seem like he brought up the kid's race and appearance first to the photos they chose to use to represent Zimmerman and Martin, to the countless editorials of people pretty much boiling this case down to "white man kills black kid."  Except that's not even right because Zimmerman is of mixed-race and his own family identifies him as a Spanish-speaking Hispanic.  On all of his IDs and in the census he's listed as Hispanic.  So please, there's been plenty of assumptions on either side here to try and blow this case out of proportion here to make it more of a commentary on race rather than how flimsy the laws are in Florida.
> 
> Looking at this purely by the facts, they got into an altercation.  What lead to it, we don't know.  Who struck who first, we don't know.  What caused Zimmerman to pull the gun?  We don't know.  All we have is testimony and context, and unfortunately, given that Zimmerman is the only one left alive his story speaks louder than someone who is dead.  It's easier to make one party look more believable when they other party can't argue their side of the story.



We know that a grown man pulled the trigger on an unarmed civilian. Zimmerman claims it was 'self defence' but the fact that he put himself in this danger by ignoring the dispatcher shows that his ignorance is what lead to the death of a young man. Just because Zimmerman is half  Peruvian doesn't mean he's incapable of racial profiling. Anybody can profile, not just white people.
What else could of fueled the ignorance to ignore the dispatcher and apprehend the boy with a firearm ?


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Jul 14, 2013)

Bando said:


> Man, errybody mad about this.
> 
> Here's my two cents: The decision was made by people who have access to far more information, testimony, and evidence about this case than we all do. The jury deliberated over all the facts and came to a decision that they thought was just. Personally, I think Zimmerman was guilty of murder, but that opinion doesn't change the jury's verdict.
> 
> The prosecution really fumbled what should have been a straightforward case, which is a shame. Either way, Zimmerman's life is pretty screwed, even with him being found not guilty. Who wants to hire OJ #2? Nobody.


OJ's case was almost the _opposite_ of Zimmerman's.


----------



## Bando (Jul 14, 2013)

Aleu said:


> Who said "incapable"? But how is it suspicious that someone is walking back from a convenience store with tea and candy? Please enlighten me on this.



I think he's pointing out Martin having snacks on him and the possibility of him committing a premeditated crime aren't mutually exclusive.


----------



## Zerig (Jul 14, 2013)

Aleu said:


> But how is it suspicious that someone is walking back from a convenience store with tea and candy? Please enlighten me on this.



It has nothing to do with whether he was suspicious or not. You can commit the same crime whether you have tea and candy or not.



Kord said:


> What else could of fueled the ignorance to ignore the dispatcher and apprehend the boy with a firearm ?



The fact that he took on the duty of neighborhood watchman, which is usually created by residents of that neighborhood (which recently had multiple break-ins) to watch out for suspicious characters.


----------



## PastryOfApathy (Jul 14, 2013)

Mike Lobo said:


> The whole "pretty white girl" thing is just you  trying to discredit any examples I might bring up by labeling them as  exceptions which by the way aren't excpetions, and if they were, they'd _still prove what I'm saying is true_. Nice try, though. Either way, the guy said nobody cares about white on white crime. What I said proved him wrong.



If you want to ignore a legitimate, documented media phenomenon  that's fine. I said the only times the media gives a shit about white on  white murder is when there's a pretty white girl involved (or as a I  forgot to mention, cute children). You said I was wrong by listing  examples which all involved pretty white girls (and children). 



Arshes Nei said:


> Then make fair examples. Making shitty examples doesn't make the point "fair" at all.
> 
> If anything the racial stuff was played up by family and the outraged more than the media in this one. I mean other things that happened is made the girlfriend look dumb as fuck (which who knows maybe she is or had a seriously bad upbringing where "Cracker' was ok).



Are you seriously going to say the media didn't overwhelmingly frame Zimmerman as a guilty murderer? Are you going to tell me the media didn't play up race non-stop? Did you not watch the news coverage or something?


----------



## Toshabi (Jul 14, 2013)

Arshes Nei said:


> Few things on this.
> 
> One of which the prosecution shouldn't have gone for a 2nd degree murder charge. Yes, there was the travesty of someone dying for it, but it would have made more sense for a manslaughter charge. The problem was the prosecution put that as a last minute thing. It made the case look even weaker like "well um maybe we didn't make our case, but hey try this instead". That was stupid.
> 
> ...







What is this ignorance that you spew by bringing up this court case?




> An argument ensued, and Alexander said she feared for her life when she went out to her vehicle and retrieved the gun she legally owned. She came back inside and ended up firing a shot into the wall, which ricocheted into the ceiling.



Please try again.

Source: 

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/1530035


----------



## Aleu (Jul 14, 2013)

Bando said:


> I think he's pointing out Martin having snacks on him and the possibility of him committing a premeditated crime aren't mutually exclusive.


Zimmerman said that trayvon was acting suspicious

What the fuck is so suspicious about walking home with snacks?


----------



## PastryOfApathy (Jul 14, 2013)

Aleu said:


> Zimmerman said that trayvon was acting suspicious
> 
> What the fuck is so suspicious about walking home with snacks?



How do you know that's what he was doing? Are you a wizard?


----------



## Zerig (Jul 14, 2013)

Aleu said:


> What the fuck is so suspicious about walking home with snacks?



Doing at at night. With your hood up. In a neighborhood where there had been multiple break ins in the last few weeks.


----------



## Butters Shikkon (Jul 14, 2013)

PastryOfApathy said:


> You can compare anyone to anything, but it doesn't magically make it a valid comparison. Look let me demonstrate, Trayvon Martin's death was just like the death of Martin Luther King Jr. because they were both black and named Martin. That doesn't make any sense yet I can still say it does. *You sound silly and brushing me off because you don't actually want to actually make any sense doesn't change that.*



I think not. I'll explain. 



PastryOfApathy said:


> How much you wanna bet if Trayvon wasn't black anyone would give a single shit. We don't care about most crime because it's not an interesting story. White people kill white people, and black people kill black people all the fucking time and no one cares. However when this one asshole kills a black kid (admittedly under suspicious circumstances) everyone immediately goes apeshit and like a year from now we're still talking about it. That shit rarely happens unless there's A: A pretty white girl involved, or B: Someone can call racism.
> 
> Don't tell me that shit doesn't make a difference, because it does.



^This is the post that originated this current topic you and I are discussing. You claim the only types of murders ppl care involve pretty young white girls and/or racism. Bull. I could link you so many fucking murder cases where neither of these are a factor. In fact, I did with the Harvey Milk thing. Which involved a gay white man being murdered by a white straight dude. 

You also forgot that in this case one of the parties was a minor and those tend to get attention as well. 

But please keep that excuse fountain running. Your point has already been proven wrong.


----------



## Artillery Spam (Jul 14, 2013)

Me and a couple of other people on some other forum were discussing this case. The only thing I argued was why, exactly, did Zimmerman exit his vehicle? You can argue that the dispatcher had no authority to tell Zimmerman to stay inside of his car, but the advice was still given yet ignored. In addition, Neighborhood Watchmen or Watchwomen are supposed to observe and report a crime, not intervene. That's why they're called Neighborhood *Watch*. They do not (usually) attend an extensive policemen's academy or go through any sort of other specialized training that would put them at liberty to handle a situation like this. They're regular schmucks like you and I.

Zimmerman, had he possessed more than two brain cells, would have stayed in his car and continued to feed information to the dispatcher instead of playing "Hero Policeman".  

Other than that, there isn't enough evidence to slap Zimmerman with a murder charge. Do I believe he's innocent? No. Do I believe he's guilty? No. For all I know, Zimmerman could have been making up lie after lie during his questionings to save his own bacon. 

Anyway, I believe these things because there isn't enough evidence at hand to make a sound and unbiased judgement. 

The race baiting crap done by the media was an extremely low blow, and only helps to strengthen the racial tensions that persist in America to this day. Rather than remain pissy over this case, why not concentrate on Florida's gun laws?


----------



## Bando (Jul 14, 2013)

Aleu said:


> Zimmerman said that trayvon was acting suspicious
> 
> What the fuck is so suspicious about walking home with snacks?



No clue. Still, doesn't rule out the possibility.



Kit H. Ruppell said:


> OJ's case was almost the _opposite_ of Zimmerman's.



I wasn't commenting on the case itself, more the public perception of the defendant. Both Zimmerman and OJ are figures seen as villains in the public eye. Not the best example, I admit. But both of these men instantly have the American public's hatred as soon as their names are said.


----------



## TeenageAngst (Jul 14, 2013)

Zerig said:


> Doing at at night. With your hood up. In a neighborhood where there had been multiple break ins in the last few weeks.



This is America, not Nazi Germany. I did that every other night at my apartment and I'm no hood rat. Generally speaking there needs to be something suspicious actually going on, like him cutting across people's lawns or something.


----------



## Aleu (Jul 14, 2013)

Zerig said:


> Doing at at night. With your hood up. In a neighborhood where there had been multiple break ins in the last few weeks.


And what? Then it's okay to shoot people now? Seriously.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Jul 14, 2013)

Kord said:


> We know that a grown man pulled the trigger on an unarmed civilian. Zimmerman claims it was 'self defence' but the fact that he put himself in this danger by ignoring the dispatcher shows that his ignorance is what lead to the death of a young man. Just because Zimmerman is half  Peruvian doesn't mean he's incapable of racial profiling. Anybody can profile, not just white people.
> What else could of fueled the ignorance to ignore the dispatcher and apprehend the boy with a firearm ?



I see you've continually decided to ignore my post here which provides reasonable arguments against the accusations of this being a racially driven case, mainly the context of the neighborhood being reportedly in a state of fear from several crimes being committed within it during the previous year as well as the fact that Zimmerman would never once in the several calls he made to the police bring up the race of someone he reported on, unless he was asked.  Certainly the laws in Florida empowers their citizens to take a much more proactive stance against crime given that "Stand Your Ground" can be applied to several situations, and this was one of them.  You can account this to Zimmerman making several bad decisions by ignoring the dispatcher's suggestions, to following Martin and eventually having a confrontation with him, again with no evidence to suggest who approached who first and who may have acted in a threatening manner/became physically violent with the other.  We have testimony from Zimmerman that he was being attacked by Martin and he feared for his own life, which caused him to pull the gun and fire in self-defense.  The prosecution argues that couldn't have happened, but without testimony from anyone else who was actually there to witness the event it's difficult to assume that this was a racially motivated incident without taking some pretty big leaps of faith here, which because this case seemed so straight-forward to you, you were more than willing to make because hey, as I said everyone declared him guilty on Day 1 so why shatter your sound judgement of this case with but a few shreds of evidence that trickled in during the immediate aftermath?

Yes other races are capable of racial profiling, but you completely missed my point.  People made this case out to be "white man using his influence to indiscriminately kill black man and get away with it" which people are still making this out to be even though we've known for some time now that Zimmerman isn't what you'd call "Non-Hispanic, White."  The issue with people wasn't about racial profiling, it was a general commentary on how minorities always get the shaft in favor of white people, when a "white" individual wasn't even involved in this case.  

And again, the bigger issue I believe isn't racial profiling, but the kind of legislation which puts the power in the average citizen to carry a concealed weapon and be able to easily apply a self-defense label to avoid any sort of liability for the life of another human being.


----------



## PastryOfApathy (Jul 14, 2013)

Butterflygoddess said:


> I think not. I'll explain.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You're ignoring everything I said again. You are once again ignoring every. Single. Thing I say, it's very annoying. 

I was talking about cases which captured the attention of the media like this case did, you could easily list plenty of cases which may have appeared on the local news for like 2 days but they don't compare to the scale of this case. I'm not even going to bother to elaborate on this point because *I know*, you'll simply make some half-assed retort which completely fails to address anything I say and finish it off with some variation "you're just making excuses". I could easily tell you why you're wrong, I could pick everything you just said apart, point by point but quite frankly you're not worth it. If you want to live in whatever alternate reality where I'm magically wrong then by all means feel free to do so, but leave me the fuck out of it. 

Go ahead, say I'm making excuses. Say "you don't have a point so you're just quitting" or some other cop-out bullshit. Anyone who actually pays attention or reads knows I'm right, and I don't need to prove that to you. 6/10 made me a little bit mad.


----------



## Zerig (Jul 14, 2013)

Aleu said:


> And what? Then it's okay to shoot people now? Seriously.



I didn't say it was enough to shoot him, I said it was enough to follow him.


----------



## Butters Shikkon (Jul 14, 2013)

PastryOfApathy said:


> You're ignoring everything I said again. You are once again ignoring every. Single. Thing I say, it's very annoying.
> 
> I was talking about cases which captured the attention of the media like this case did, you could easily list plenty of cases which may have appeared on the local news for like 2 days but they don't compare to the scale of this case. I'm not even going to bother to elaborate on this point because *I know*, you'll simply make some half-assed retort which completely fails to address anything I say and finish it off with some variation "you're just making excuses". I could easily tell you why you're wrong, I could pick everything you just said apart, point by point but quite frankly you're not worth it. If you want to live in whatever alternate reality where I'm magically wrong then by all means feel free to do so, but leave me the fuck out of it.
> 
> Go ahead, say I'm making excuses. Say "you don't have a point so you're just quitting" or some other cop-out bullshit. Anyone who actually pays attention or reads knows I'm right, and I don't need to prove that to you. *6/10 made me a little bit mad.*



Good, I want you to get mad. I want you think about your point of view. That case I brought up was BIG news back in the 70's. Not on just some little local news channel. But in anycase, the media is known to look for scandals and it all really depends on the whim of fate whether a trial becomes popular or not. 

I have no idea why you think the measure of a trial is how much media attention, it receives but as it would seem you are running low on ammo, I think you and I are done here.


----------



## Aleu (Jul 14, 2013)

Zerig said:


> I didn't say it was enough to shoot him, I said it was enough to follow him.


Then I shall follow every person from the convenience store because they are obviously suspicious in their grocery trip :V


----------



## Kord (Jul 14, 2013)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> I see you've continually decided to ignore my post here which provides reasonable arguments against the accusations of this being a racially driven case, mainly the context of the neighborhood being reportedly in a state of fear from several crimes being committed within it during the previous year as well as the fact that Zimmerman would never once in the several calls he made to the police bring up the race of someone he reported on, unless he was asked.  Certainly the laws in Florida empowers their citizens to take a much more proactive stance against crime given that "Stand Your Ground" can be applied to several situations, and this was one of them.  You can account this to Zimmerman making several bad decisions by ignoring the dispatcher's suggestions, to following Martin and eventually having a confrontation with him, again with no evidence to suggest who approached who first and who may have acted in a threatening manner/became physically violent with the other.  We have testimony from Zimmerman that he was being attacked by Martin and he feared for his own life, which caused him to pull the gun and fire in self-defense.  The prosecution argues that couldn't have happened, but without testimony from anyone else who was actually there to witness the event it's difficult to assume that this was a racially motivated incident without taking some pretty big leaps of faith here, which because this case seemed so straight-forward to you, you were more than willing to make because hey, as I said everyone declared him guilty on Day 1 so why shatter your sound judgement of this case with but a few shreds of evidence that trickled in during the immediate aftermath?
> 
> Yes other races are capable of racial profiling, but you completely missed my point.  People made this case out to be "white man using his influence to indiscriminately kill black man and get away with it" which people are still making this out to be even though we've known for some time now that Zimmerman isn't what you'd call "Non-Hispanic, White."  The issue with people wasn't about racial profiling, it was a general commentary on how minorities always get the shaft in favor of white people, when a "white" individual wasn't even involved in this case.
> 
> And again, the bigger issue I believe isn't racial profiling, but the kind of legislation which puts the power in the average citizen to carry a concealed weapon and be able to easily apply a self-defense label to avoid any sort of liability for the life of another human being.



What motivated Zimmerman to act ignorant of the dispatchers advice then ? 
I'm not siding with the media's "WHITE MAN KILLS BLACK KID, HATE CRIME" BS. I'm just saying that the words he used to refer to Trayvon when speaking with the dispatcher could be argued racist. Although he doesn't mention skin color..he's referring to a young African American teenager as a 'fucking punk' because of the recent crimes. He's associating Trayvon with the recent string of crimes.
The police have a long history of profiling African Americans, it's not outlandish to assume that's what this neighborhood watchman was doing because it happens far too often and he knew that if he played his cards right and adapted Florida's shitty laws- he'd be able to play this off as self defence.
This case is far to convenient for Zimmerman.


----------



## Hakar Kerarmor (Jul 14, 2013)

PastryOfApathy said:


> You're ignoring everything I said again. You are once again ignoring every. Single. Thing I say, it's very annoying.



Welcome to every internet debate ever.


----------



## Zerig (Jul 14, 2013)

Aleu said:


> Then I shall follow every person from the convenience store because they are obviously suspicious in their grocery trip :V



Why are you deliberately ignoring everything else I bring up and just saying "b-but the snacks!"


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Jul 14, 2013)

Kord said:


> What motivated Zimmerman to act ignorant of the dispatchers advice then ?
> I'm not siding with the media's "WHITE MAN KILLS BLACK KID, HATE CRIME" BS. I'm just saying that the words he used to refer to Trayvon when speaking with the dispatcher could be argued racist. Although he doesn't mention skin color..he's referring to a young African American teenager as a 'fucking punk' because of the recent crimes. He's associating Trayvon with the recent string of crimes.
> The police have a long history of profiling African Americans, it's not outlandish to assume that's what this neighborhood watchman was doing because it happens far too often.



I've repeatedly made mention of what likely motivated him to get out of this car, but again, you don't seem to like to actually read the conversation going on here.  A little thing called "Stand Your Ground." Look it up in this thread because it's been mentioned several times.

You're really reaching if "fucking punk" is an automatic sign of racist motivation.  I mean c'mon.  No older individual has ever called a teenager a "punk" before, regardless of race?  That's a bit out there man, a very tough sell.  Especially when considering that Zimmerman and his wife apparently were mentoring two young black kids, which was funded by the state, whose fathers were serving prison sentences reportedly to help stop the cycle of turning to a life of crime by providing a loving family atmosphere.  This was character evidence which had been repeatedly brought up by the defense, the family, and people who knew Zimmerman, but unsurprisingly went under-reported.  Of course I don't believe any of this coming to your attention now will change your view here, because it's quite clear you've sold yourself on this being race-driven, because it's the easy answer and considering someone just made a series of bad decisions based on their experiences in a neighborhood significantly effected by crime is just waaaaaaay too complicated.  I get that, and it's fine if that's the way you feel.

It's also not outlandish to assume that he just thought a lone teenager walking the streets at night alone in a neighborhood known to have significant instances of break-ins and robberies with his hands in his pockets might be a tad bit suspicious.  We're not exactly talking about a gated-community for the upper-middle class here, where yes, I would think race would probably play a much bigger role in someone's suspicions.  On the same token you don't have any real evidence to prove your assertions, aside from attempting to ask open-ended questions of "what else could it possibly be?" after you've already been given, several times, all the possible reasons why it doesn't HAVE to be based solely on Martin's race, or have anything to do with this case at all.  And unlike your assertions of grand social commentary, the evidence for why it isn't racially motivated actually stems on factors that specifically deal with this case, including the context of the neighborhood he lives in, the calls he made to the cops, and the comments made by friends and family which doesn't exactly paint someone as ready and willing to attend the next Klan meeting, let alone sits around and makes racist jokes with his buddies or some other nonsense like that.

EDIT:  I feel like I wasn't completely fair about my characterization of Zimmerman, so I'm submitting these other known facts about him: he was also cited for assaulting a police officer over a dispute brought on by a friend's DUI, was accused of sexual harassment, and was accused of beating up an ex-girlfriend which resulted in them both filing restraining orders against each other.  The prosecution attempted to use these facts to show that Zimmerman was a violent individual when it came time to set his bail, but the court viewed these issues as mild and not compelling evidence to show that Zimmerman was, by nature, a violent person.


----------



## Willow (Jul 14, 2013)

So I just walked in on this but regardless of whether or not Zimmerman had a legit reason to pursue the boy, he wasn't actively doing anything. He was walking by himself, with candy and tea. And I believe he was talking on the phone too if I'm not mistaken. 

Admittedly people are wary of people who wear hoods at night, or in stores, etc. but he should have actually left him alone when he realized there was no imminent danger.



Term_the_Schmuck said:


> I've repeatedly made mention of what  likely motivated him to get out of this car, but again, you don't seem  to like to actually read the conversation going on here.  A little thing  called "Stand Your Ground." Look it up in this thread because it's been  mentioned several times.


Again. Just got home. Don't care to look through this crock of shit. 

But "Stand Your Ground" only applies if you have, without a doubt, a reason to believe that your life or someone's life is actually in danger. Like the threat is already there. 
There was no threat. The police even _told him_ to leave the kid alone because even _they_ didn't believe there was any reason to chase him. 

And even less reason to kill him. What was he going to do? Choke someone with Skittles? Drown them in tea?


----------



## PastryOfApathy (Jul 14, 2013)

Hakar Kerarmor said:


> Welcome to every internet debate ever.



What can you do. At the very least this helps me keep a mental list of people on this forum who are seemingly illiterate.


----------



## Aleu (Jul 14, 2013)

Zerig said:


> Why are you deliberately ignoring everything else I bring up and just saying "b-but the snacks!"


Because literally nothing you have said make any logical sense. I cannot fathom how someone can justify following someone when it's blatantly clear he's coming back from a convenience store.
"Baww he wore his hood up" People wear their hoods up all the time here.
"He was walking at night." He has a right to, for one. For two, saving gas IF he even has a driver's license.
"Just because he has snacks doesn't mean anything". I'm sorry but I just can't make the connection that anyone's mind would be on breaking and entering when coming back from the store with snacks.


----------



## Zerig (Jul 14, 2013)

Aleu said:


> I'm sorry but I just can't make the connection that anyone's mind would be on breaking and entering when coming back from the store with snacks.



There is no connection goddamnit. That's what I'm saying. You can break and enter whether you just bought snacks or not.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Jul 14, 2013)

Willow said:


> Again. Just got home. Don't care to look through this crock of shit.
> 
> But "Stand Your Ground" only applies if you have, without a doubt, a reason to believe that your life or someone's life is actually in danger. Like the threat is already there.
> There was no threat. The police even _told him_ to leave the kid alone because even _they_ didn't believe there was any reason to chase him.
> ...



Could you at least get the order of events right. 

He didn't pull his gun until the confrontation. The rest of it was HIS fault. But I'm tired of this blind eye bullshit argument like the guy had the gun out and ready to shoot. He pulled the gun at the confrontation, and evidence stated he had his head bashed repeatedly.

That doesn't mean Term is supporting Zimmerman shooting the guy, but didn't just insert some ranDUMB bullshit about seeing the guy with Skittles and getting pissed off he had tea - so let's go shooting. He probably didn't even know he had those things


*Skittles* FUCK YO SKITTLES *BANG*


----------



## Aleu (Jul 14, 2013)

Zerig said:


> There is no connection goddamnit. That's what I'm saying. You can break and enter whether you just bought snacks or not.


But why would you draw the conclusion that anyone would be thinking of such a thing after coming back from a convenience store?


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Jul 14, 2013)

Willow said:


> But "Stand Your Ground" only applies if you have, without a doubt, a reason to believe that your life or someone's life is actually in danger. Like the threat is already there.
> There was no threat. The police even _told him_ to leave the kid alone because even _they_ didn't believe there was any reason to chase him.
> 
> And even less reason to kill him. What was he going to do? Choke someone with Skittles? Drown them in tea?



Again, it's an empowering piece of legislation for those who decide to carry a concealed weapon.  And the way it's treated in Florida, any situation which potentially seems threatening can easily have the SYG label slapped on it.

Likewise by the time that Zimmerman actually pulls the gun, he claims, the threat was already there because Martin was attacking him.  According to his phone call with the dispatcher, of which you can read the full transcript here he claims that Martin is keeping his hands around his waistband and appears to be carrying a dark object in his hand, which he likely interpreted to mean that Martin was carrying a weapon, or at least had one on his person based on how he was conducting himself when he noticed he was being watched.

And no, the dispatcher said "we don't need you to follow him" as per the transcript because Zimmerman was already providing all the information they needed on his last location.  By the time the dispatcher tells him the "we don't need you to do that" line, it appears Zimmerman had already started chasing after Martin, who he claimed was running into a "clubhouse".  Again, that's just an inference, I don't have any evidence to prove that they were booking it, just that it appears like he was following Martin at this point on foot because apparently other people he's reported on got away from the cops by the time they arrived on the scene.  By the time he hangs up that's all the information we have about what happened that night.  What happened next is anyone's guess.  Did Zimmerman pull his gun on Martin immediately?  Did Martin confront Zimmerman in a threatening manner?  Were words exchanged?  Did someone throw a punch?  We don't know.  But by virtue of "Stand Your Ground" the fact that the shooter is the only one to live to tell the tale helps the "self-defense" argument since he doesn't have anyone who can claim differently with first-hand knowledge.


----------



## Willow (Jul 14, 2013)

Arshes Nei said:


> Could you at least get the order of events right.


Guy sees suspicious character > Guy follows suspicious character > Guy calls police to ask what do about suspicious character > Police say leave kid alone > Guy doesn't listen > Follows kid > Confronts kid > Shoots kid

How did I do?



> He didn't pull his gun until the confrontation. The rest of it was HIS fault. But I'm tired of this blind eye bullshit argument like the guy had the gun out and ready to shoot. He pulled the gun at the confrontation, and evidence stated he had his head bashed repeatedly.


I'm aware he didn't pull out the gun until he actually confronted him, the problem is that he had no reason to do it. There was no imminent danger. End of story. 



> That doesn't mean Term is supporting Zimmerman shooting the guy, but didn't just insert some ranDUMB bullshit about seeing the guy with Skittles and getting pissed off he had tea - so let's go shooting. He probably didn't even know he had those things


Which still doesn't validate him acting in self defense..


----------



## Aetius (Jul 14, 2013)

At least the trial is over and we can focus on more important things.

Edit: This accurately describes my reaction.


----------



## Zerig (Jul 14, 2013)

Aleu said:


> But why would you draw the conclusion that anyone would be thinking of such a thing after coming back from a convenience store?



Why are you drawing the conclusion that someone automatically can't be thinking of such a thing after coming back from a convenience store?


----------



## Aleu (Jul 14, 2013)

Zerig said:


> Why are you drawing the conclusion that someone automatically can't be thinking of such a thing after coming back from a convenience store?


Stop avoiding the question.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Jul 14, 2013)

Willow said:


> Guy sees suspicious character > Guy follows suspicious character > Guy calls police to ask what do about suspicious character > Police say leave kid alone > Guy doesn't listen > Follows kid > Confronts kid > Shoots kid
> 
> How did I do?



Fail.

Fight Ensues which is why he pulled his gun. That's where the danger was. I don't think a dead teen can bash your skull against the cement repeatedly. 
In addition the phone call also points to Martin wanting to engage the guy too. Basically it was a dick waving war but one guy was being the original aggressor. Meaning that I get that Martin was frustrated and saying racial slurs about the guy because he felt he was wrongfully targeted. If Zimmerman didn't have a gun, a fight was gonna ensue by both of them being heated individuals regardless.



> I'm aware he didn't pull out the gun until he actually confronted him, the problem is that he had no reason to do it. There was no imminent danger. End of story.
> 
> Which still doesn't validate him acting in self defense..



Until a fight ensues. The problem is one person brought a gun to the party. However, the law on Stand your ground leads to these problems. I think it was manslaughter. I don't think Zimmerman was meaning to kill someone that night but rather felt that he was being a Hero in apprehending a criminal. Then he's in a situation where he's getting his head bashed and in a scuffle so he shoots someone. He had no business in my opinion having a gun to begin with, but that's Florida's law into play here.

And to make this more to the point. I think if Zimmerman brandished his gun before the fight, unless Martin is super dumb would have engaged in a physical confrontation if he saw the gun. Unless you think you should fight people with guns? Which is why it looks to be that the gun was pulled during a physical fight. 

The problem is no one knows who threw the first punch exactly.


----------



## Zerig (Jul 14, 2013)

Aleu said:


> Stop avoiding the question.



Okay. I answered it 5 other times already because we're just going in circles, but whatever.

"Why would I draw the conclusion that anyone would be thinking of such a thing after coming back from a convenience store?"

Because there is no correlation between buying something at a convenience store and planning to rob a house.


----------



## dinosaurdammit (Jul 14, 2013)

you can say a fight happened but even the doctor testifying about the sustained injuries said they were meager at best, not something yo would usually get with a 
life or death struggle. As for the hood if i remember correctly it was drizzling, thus he had his hood up, this really shouldnt matter but it seems some people bicker over the use of a hoodie.


----------



## Aleu (Jul 14, 2013)

Zerig said:


> Okay. I answered it 5 other times already because we're just going in circles, but whatever.
> 
> "Why would I draw the conclusion that anyone would be thinking of such a thing after coming back from a convenience store?"
> 
> Because there is no correlation between buying something at a convenience store and planning to rob a house.


That's not a "why" answer.

I'm saying there's no reason for someone to be suspicious if someone decided to do a snack run late at night. You're literally trying to grasp any excuse to justify racial profiling.


----------



## Zerig (Jul 14, 2013)

Aleu said:


> That's not a "why" answer.
> 
> I'm saying there's no reason for someone to be suspicious if someone decided to do a snack run late at night. You're literally trying to grasp any excuse to justify racial profiling.



Fuck it, man. 

It's quarter after 2 in the morning here, and neither of us are going to change our opinions, so I'm going to bed.


----------



## Machine (Jul 14, 2013)

I love ineffectual justice systems.


----------



## Willow (Jul 14, 2013)

Arshes Nei said:


> Fail.


No no no, I'm detailing the entire string of events. Not just the supposed fight.



> Fight Ensues which is why he pulled his gun. That's where the danger was. I don't think a dead teen can bash your skull against the cement repeatedly.


You're right. It would be pretty hard for a dead kid to hurt you _but_ for supposedly having his skull bashed against pavement, Zimmerman looks pretty good. I'd expect at least a scar or something granted this happened months ago. But he looks perfectly fine. 





> In addition the phone call also points to Martin wanting to engage the guy too. Basically it was a dick waving war but one guy was being the original aggressor. Meaning that I get that Martin was frustrated and saying racial slurs about the guy because he felt he was wrongfully targeted. If Zimmerman didn't have a gun, a fight was gonna ensue by both of them being heated individuals regardless.


I'm not sure if you personally have ever had to deal with this sort of thing, but if someone's following you, you could either approach them or run. Just from reading this transcript, it almost sounds like Martin approached the car just to see what they were doing and then he ran inside this clubhouse place because he felt like he was in danger. 



> Until a fight ensues. The problem is one person brought a gun to the party. However, the law on Stand your ground leads to these problems. I think it was manslaughter. I don't think Zimmerman was meaning to kill someone that night but rather felt that he was being a Hero in apprehending a criminal.


I don't think it was a premeditated attack, but he definitely wanted to shoot someone that night. The fact that it was raining when this happen gives Martin more of a reason to be wearing the hood by the way. Just as an added note. 

If he was looking at other houses? Who cares? I look at houses when I walk down the street. Does that necessarily mean I'm thinking about attempting a theft?


> Then he's in a situation where he's getting his head bashed and in a scuffle so he shoots someone. He had no business in my opinion having a gun to begin with, but that's Florida's law into play here.


I kind of have reason to believe that didn't happen. This law is actual garbage.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Jul 14, 2013)

dinosaurdammit said:


> you can say a fight happened but even the doctor testifying about the sustained injuries said they were meager at best, not something yo would usually get with a
> life or death struggle. As for the hood if i remember correctly it was drizzling, thus he had his hood up, this really shouldnt matter but it seems some people bicker over the use of a hoodie.



There was also mention there was a struggle for the gun. There was a point that someone told Zimmerman they may have it on tape and his reaction was relief....so something was going on there...


----------



## dinosaurdammit (Jul 14, 2013)

Arshes Nei said:


> There was also mention there was a struggle for the gun. There was a point that someone told Zimmerman they may have it on tape and his reaction was relief....so something was going on there...



they could have evidence of god too but unless its brought forth it doesnt mean much to say you have something.


----------



## Aetius (Jul 14, 2013)

Machine said:


> I love ineffectual justice systems.



A justice system isn't supposed to be a vengeance system.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Jul 14, 2013)

dinosaurdammit said:


> they could have evidence of god too but unless its brought forth it doesnt mean much to say you have something.



Not sure you understand? There was reports that someone had the fight on video as evidence - implying they were trying to pressure him to crack. Zimmerman didn't feel like he was fucked, he was *relieved*. So it sounds like that there may be events in his favor that corroborated with what he said.


----------



## Rilvor (Jul 14, 2013)

It surprises me how much thought people invest into this. It says a lot about ourselves now doesn't it?


----------



## dinosaurdammit (Jul 14, 2013)

Arshes Nei said:


> Not sure you understand? There was reports that someone had the fight on video as evidence - implying they were trying to pressure him to crack. Zimmerman didn't feel like he was fucked, he was *relieved*. So it sounds like that there may be events in his favor that corroborated with what he said.



maybe so, but if he did lie and convinced himself what he did was right and his story was truth to the point he believed it then i could see why he would be more at ease. Still, there is word of a tape but we havent seen it, at least i havent. My point still stands. Without seeing it or hearing it its just he said she said. I would bother to believe that he does feel he did right, even if he did- not saying he did- murder the kid in cold blood. If he believed so hard what he did was right then it is the truth to him.


----------



## Willow (Jul 14, 2013)

Was this video ever shown in court? Because I feel like that would be more damning evidence either way more so than trying to figure out who was screaming on a recording. Was the guy who even filmed it at the trial?
They sound like a pretty key witness. :|


----------



## Recel (Jul 14, 2013)

I always blame the media, because we don't know really what went down in court, or for a mater what really happened. An if someone is found innocent for any reason, the media never says that, they just say the suspect was released, as implying "Oh, they just couldn't prove he's guilty."

And from that, threads like these are born, and peoples life gets fucked up. As everyone thinks he's guilty and evil, even tho we don't know, we can just speculate mostly, really.


----------



## Tasty Bacon (Jul 14, 2013)

Im surprised nobody has mentioned that Zimmerman was getting his brains beat out of him right before he shot Trayvon, I believe both men were a fault, Zimmerman didn't need to follow Martin and Martin didn't need to start a fight that resulted in his death.

Also, a white man kills another white man and nobody cares, a white man kills a black man and everybody loses their minds.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Jul 14, 2013)

dinosaurdammit said:


> maybe so, but if he did lie and convinced himself what he did was right and his story was truth to the point he believed it then i could see why he would be more at ease. Still, there is word of a tape but we havent seen it, at least i havent. My point still stands. Without seeing it or hearing it its just he said she said. I would bother to believe that he does feel he did right, even if he did- not saying he did- murder the kid in cold blood. If he believed so hard what he did was right then it is the truth to him.



That's why the case is problematic. As I said earlier the jury pool tends to suck, and too many are dependent on TV court drama as their basis for judgements. If the prosecution laid out manslaughter as a charge from the beginning instead of a last minute afterthought there may have been a conviction on the lesser charge - but who knows...jury could have made up its mind beforehand/already. They needed more solid evidence for murder than manslaughter.



Tasty Bacon said:


> Im surprised nobody has mentioned that Zimmerman was getting his brains beat out of him right before he shot Trayvon, I believe both men were a fault, Zimmerman didn't need to follow Martin and Martin didn't need to start a fight that resulted in his death.
> 
> Also, a white man kills another white man and nobody cares, a white man kills a black man and everybody loses their minds.



Maybe you should go back and actually read the thread. We stated this already that there was a fight. There's arguments about the amount of damage caused during the fight.


----------



## Tasty Bacon (Jul 14, 2013)

Ha, I spent 30min reading the thread and then another 15 to make an account just to reply.


----------



## Saga (Jul 14, 2013)

I just hope it doesnt end up like rodney king's death.


----------



## Lobar (Jul 14, 2013)

Yes, I'm sure it wasn't until Zimmerman was locked in to the chaos of a life-or-death struggle with this kid half his weight, with his head being "bashed" into the ground with sufficient force to inflict MULTIPLE minor scratches, that he then drew his weapon, loaded it, disengaged the safety, chambered a round, aimed, and fired.

There's no  big enough to properly accompany this post.


----------



## Icky (Jul 14, 2013)

Tasty Bacon said:


> Ha, I spent 30min reading the thread and then another 15 to make an account just to reply.



And what an informative and interesting reply it was.


----------



## Toshabi (Jul 14, 2013)

Lobar said:


> Yes, I'm sure it wasn't until Zimmerman was locked in to the chaos of a life-or-death struggle with this kid half his weight, with his head being "bashed" into the ground with sufficient force to inflict MULTIPLE minor scratches, that he then drew his weapon, loaded it, disengaged the safety, chambered a round, aimed, and fired.
> 
> There's no  big enough to properly accompany this post.



Because



You clearly knew what happened



Because


You were there



And clearly know more than the people who made the ruling about this topic



And clearly


Your theory crafted scenario is how it went down.





Clearly.


----------



## Azure (Jul 14, 2013)

TeenageAngst said:


> I'mma just say, April 29th 1992 was a good day.


pretty much the only good post ITT

zimmerman will be murdered, rightfully so, by insane black rioters

the "justice system" is, and has been, bullshit for many years. people want to talk about the OJ trial, well hey, theres a fantastic misappropriation of justice. just like this one. a man shoots an unarmed, nonthreatening kid multiple times, and gets off scot free. murrika. rationalize away, but thats the short and long of the entire situation.


----------



## Recel (Jul 14, 2013)

Azure said:


> pretty much the only good post ITT
> 
> zimmerman will be murdered, rightfully so, by insane black rioters
> 
> the "justice system" is, and has been, bullshit for many years. people want to talk about the OJ trial, well hey, theres a fantastic misappropriation of justice. just like this one. a man shoots an unarmed, nonthreatening kid multiple times, and gets off scot free. murrika. rationalize away, but thats the short and long of the entire situation.



Because there is no "justice system". It wasn't even _designed_ around of the idea of justice in the first place. They are designed to upkeep law and order. By description, a gulag guard is serving the "justice system".

So expecting it to actually find out the truth is not more than an emotional impulse.
Besides, even if it would be based around finding out the truth, it still couldn't do it 100% of the time, innocents will be condemned, and murderers will be let lose.

This whole thing breaks down to who makes what of the limited information we have.


----------



## Hakar Kerarmor (Jul 14, 2013)

Azure said:


> pretty much the only good post ITT
> 
> zimmerman will be murdered, rightfully so, by insane black rioters



Hey, they can always claim they were 'standing their ground'.


----------



## Lobar (Jul 14, 2013)

Toshabi said:


> And clearly
> 
> 
> Your theory crafted scenario is how it went down.



Not sure if your sarcasm sense is completely fucked or not.  Some posters here seem to think that is exactly how it went down, and I am illustrating just how contrived a scenario that is versus the far more believable scenario where Zimmerman prepared himself to shoot down an unarmed minor prior to initiating an entirely avoidable confrontation.



Hakar Kerarmor said:


> Hey, they can always claim they were 'standing their ground'.



I think any black man encountering Zimmerman could now reasonably feel in fear for their life, sure.  Too bad SYG will be enforced as a whites-only law.

e: Before I get called on that, because I know I will, allow me to support that:






http://blog.metrotrends.org/2012/03/stand-ground-laws-miscarriages-justice/


----------



## TheMetalVelocity (Jul 14, 2013)

People are biased. They are either going to support the white guy or the black guy. Unfortunately, we weren't at the scene to see what really happened and people like to make pre-judgements. America has become less on factual judgements and more biased based on the person's skin color.


----------



## AlexInsane (Jul 14, 2013)

Mike Lobo said:


> You're kidding, right? 'Cause people care about white on white crime, you know.



White people have been killing each other since Fred came back from work at the quarry and found Barney fooling around with Wilma. 

Needless to say we've turned it into an artform and, perhaps, a fine science by now. After all, we've had a lot of practice.

Vigilantism is a highly romantic notion which is nevertheless very effective at what it does. I'm all in favor of this guy getting what he so richly deserves at the hands of someone else. But on the other hand, if all you need to make the law and to make the world a better place is to have a gun in your hand, then nobody would be safe. But nobody is safe NOW. So what do we do? 

Maybe we should just have censorship laws like China - instead of letting Fox News and whoever whip the country into a frothing frenzy, the government steps in, shuts them up, and we don't hear about it.


----------



## Gryphoneer (Jul 14, 2013)

Does Kickstarter allow "hire a contract killer" campaigns?


----------



## cobalt-blue (Jul 14, 2013)

FOX?  

http://www.businessinsider.com/nbc-...ke-george-zimmerman-look-really-racist-2012-4


----------



## ShÃ nwÃ ng (Jul 14, 2013)

It's a bit extreme but I think this long interview for the NYPD worked out for George Zimmerman.


----------



## Machine (Jul 14, 2013)

AlexInsane said:


> White people have been killing each other since Fred came back from work at the quarry and found Barney fooling around with Wilma.
> 
> Needless to say we've turned it into an artform and, perhaps, a fine science by now. After all, we've had a lot of practice.
> 
> ...


The idea of state censorship was always annoying to me because I believed the public deserved to be educated and should have a say in judicial/governmental/political affairs.

While that's fine and dandy, idiots seem to be the loudest of the bunch.


----------



## Aleu (Jul 14, 2013)

Machine said:


> The idea of state censorship was always annoying to me because I believed the public deserved to be educated and should have a say in judicial/governmental/political affairs.
> 
> While that's fine and dandy, the idiots who seem to be the loudest of the bunch.


Damned if you do, damned if you don't in my opinion.

On the one hand, it's beneficial to keep it quiet before the trial to get the most unbiased jurors. They're not tainted by anything other than "Hey, this is what's going down right now".

On the other, people wouldn't be able to call out any sort of flaw they catch.


----------



## Cain (Jul 14, 2013)

Ain't the NAACP trying to get Zimmerman on civil rights charges now?


----------



## TransformerRobot (Jul 14, 2013)

Tasty Bacon said:


> Im surprised nobody has mentioned that Zimmerman was getting his brains beat out of him right before he shot Trayvon, I believe both men were a fault, Zimmerman didn't need to follow Martin and Martin didn't need to start a fight that resulted in his death.
> 
> Also, a white man kills another white man and nobody cares, a white man kills a black man and everybody loses their minds.



To be fair, white people are responsible for most of the world's historical evils. Just look at World War II, and 200+ years ago in Africa.


----------



## Cain (Jul 14, 2013)

TransformerRobot said:


> To be fair, white people are responsible for most of the world's historical evils. Just look at World War II, and 200+ years ago in Africa.


You do not want to go down that road.

Besides being completely untrue, you really do not want to start that shitstorm.


----------



## Llamapotamus (Jul 14, 2013)

Falaffel said:


> Did we ever know what _*really*_ happened?
> No and because of this, for all we know, this could have been self defense.
> Take away racism for a second here. Is it really a punishable offence, in your opinion, to kill in self defense.
> 
> ...



Yeah, it sounds like the life he would've had in prison is better than his life now. The name George Zimmerman is pretty much a household name now, and for most people it invokes hatred. It really is true that the life he had is ruined.


----------



## TransformerRobot (Jul 14, 2013)

Cain said:


> You do not want to go down that road.
> 
> Besides being completely untrue, you really do not want to start that shitstorm.



It's the reason I have white guilt.


----------



## Distorted (Jul 14, 2013)

It really sucks how it turned out. But they really didn't have enough to prove that Zimmerman was guilty. And to add insult to injury, I believe Trayvon Martin was charged with aggravated assault. And that O'Hara guy wants to sue the state for even having the trial. If they let that one happen too, then it'll be bloody murder.

And personally, I'm kinda paranoid now. What's gonna stop some crazy person from walking up and shooting me because they felt their life was in danger. I'm exaggerating of course, but judging by the way some of these people look at me down here, I wouldn't be surprised if the thought had crossed their minds.


----------



## PastryOfApathy (Jul 14, 2013)

TransformerRobot said:


> To be fair, white people are responsible for most of the world's historical evils. Just look at World War II, and 200+ years ago in Africa.



There's not enough time in the world to explain exactly why you're so wrong.


----------



## TransformerRobot (Jul 14, 2013)

PastryOfApathy said:


> There's not enough time in the world to explain exactly why you're so wrong.



That's just what I've seen when I go by historical incidents.

But yes, there's evil in ever race. Idi Aman Dada was black, Muammar Gadhafi was Arab, and don't forget Kim Jong il.


----------



## Cain (Jul 14, 2013)

TransformerRobot said:


> That's just what I've seen when I go by historical incidents.
> 
> But yes, there's evil in ever race. Idi Aman Dada was black, Muammar Gadhafi was Arab, and don't forget Kim Jong il.


I like how all you can think of is post-ww2 atrocities, and a brief mention of '200 years ago in africa'. I'm assuming you mean the Boer war. The Boers were white.
I would like to remind you of Genghis Khan as a prime example.


----------



## Falaffel (Jul 14, 2013)

So. 
Has Zimmerman been murdered by an angry mob yet? 
There's only about a million tweets saying they'd kill him on sight. 
So.. Yeah. Good job America. Stupid douchbags. 
What a lot of people don't consider is how in the fuck is killing him make us any better? 
But.... Whatever. Racism was involved, whether proven or not (which is an extremely hard thing to prove), so people go nuts. 

So... Uh.. Good job to everyone involved with giving this case the amount of publicity it got. You ruined a life as well.


----------



## CannonFodder (Jul 14, 2013)

Kord said:


> Just wondering what ya'll think about Zimmerman getting off the hook


I think this video is more appropriate now than ever before.
[YT]xiTM2HQ0g98[/YT]

How in the fuck is this guy not in prison?!


----------



## Aleu (Jul 14, 2013)

CannonFodder said:


> I think this video is more appropriate now than ever before.
> [YT]xiTM2HQ0g98[/YT]
> 
> How in the fuck is this guy not in prison?!


Check the front page. It was alread posted



Falaffel said:


> So.
> Has Zimmerman been murdered by an angry mob yet?
> There's only about a million tweets saying they'd kill him on sight.
> So.. Yeah. Good job America. Stupid douchbags.
> ...


You act like he did nothing. He brought it all on himself because he wanted to play "hero."


----------



## CannonFodder (Jul 14, 2013)

Aleu said:


> Check the front page. It was alread posted


In my defense I've been away for a day cause I got called into work to pull extra hours and felt like going into a coma by the time I got home.  I would have had to read all 8 pages today to have seen it.


----------



## AlexInsane (Jul 14, 2013)

Machine said:


> The idea of state censorship was always annoying to me because I believed the public deserved to be educated and should have a say in judicial/governmental/political affairs.
> 
> While that's fine and dandy, idiots seem to be the loudest of the bunch.



No point in informing people if they're just going to raise a big stink about things and try to put gum in the gears. 

Besides, it's all froth, like I said - showy, but ultimately nobody really gives a shit. We're very good at token protests here in the U.S., that I have noticed.


----------



## Aleu (Jul 14, 2013)

CannonFodder said:


> In my defense I've been away for a day cause I got called into work to pull extra hours and felt like going into a coma by the time I got home.  I would have had to read all 8 pages today to have seen it.


No you wouldn't have. I said it's on the first page. It's the 18th post


----------



## TransformerRobot (Jul 14, 2013)

Cain said:


> I like how all you can think of is post-ww2 atrocities, and a brief mention of '200 years ago in africa'. I'm assuming you mean the Boer war. The Boers were white.
> I would like to remind you of Genghis Khan as a prime example.



Guess I should've left my mention of Caligula, Napoleon, a few Pharaohs, certain Japanese warlords, Caesar (Why not?), American slave traders (That's what I meant by 200+ years ago), Jack the Ripper, Henry the VIII, the witch hunters, whoever it was trying to kill Baby Jesus...You get the idea.


----------



## Aleu (Jul 14, 2013)

TransformerRobot said:


> Guess I should've left my mention of Caligula, Napoleon, a few Pharaohs, certain Japanese warlords, Caesar (Why not?), American slave traders (That's what I meant by 200+ years ago), Jack the Ripper, Henry the VIII, the witch hunters, whoever it was trying to kill Baby Jesus...You get the idea.


Just stop.


----------



## Judge Spear (Jul 14, 2013)

TransformerRobot said:


> You get the idea.



Oh, we do. But, probably not the same as yours. Can it, dude.


----------



## Zerig (Jul 14, 2013)

TransformerRobot said:


> Guess I should've left my mention of Caligula, Napoleon, a few Pharaohs, certain Japanese warlords, Caesar (Why not?), American slave traders (That's what I meant by 200+ years ago), Jack the Ripper, Henry the VIII, the witch hunters, whoever it was trying to kill Baby Jesus...You get the idea.



Okay so I wasn't going to post in this thread again because 90% of this forum disagrees with me, and I don't have the patience for that argument.

But I just wanted to say, what did Caesar (either Julius or Augustus) or Napoleon ever do to warrant being put on a list with serial killers and insane emperors who name horses to Head of Senate?


----------



## TransformerRobot (Jul 14, 2013)

Well Caesar put out a smere campaign against Celts (That was pretty evil), hosted gladiator fights, and had his enemies executed.

Do I really need to explain how evil Napoleon Bonaparte was?


----------



## Falaffel (Jul 14, 2013)

TransformerRobot said:


> Well Caesar put out a smere campaign against Celts (That was pretty evil), hosted gladiator fights, and had his enemies executed.
> 
> Do I really need to explain how evil Napoleon Bonaparte was?



I... Just stop. 
Just. Stahp. 
No. One. Cares. NO ONE.


----------



## Zerig (Jul 14, 2013)

TransformerRobot said:


> Well Caesar put out a smere campaign against Celts (That was pretty evil), hosted gladiator fights, and had his enemies executed.
> 
> Do I really need to explain how evil Napoleon Bonaparte was?



I typed out a long ass reply to this, but then I felt like I was in Western Civ again, and this thread really isn't the place to be debating this stuff anyway.

So I'll say this: as many (debatably) bad things they did, they did more good, and their actions helped shape most of the civilized world as we know it. 

And it took serious balls to do some of the stuff they did, so I respect them.


----------



## PastryOfApathy (Jul 14, 2013)

Falaffel said:


> So.
> Has Zimmerman been murdered by an angry mob yet?
> There's only about a million tweets saying they'd kill him on sight.
> So.. Yeah. Good job America. Stupid douchbags.
> ...



Honestly I feel really bad for the guy for this specific reason. Regardless of what happened in the courts or on that fateful night, the poor bastard has become a victim and it's our goddamn fault. Like if he wants to get a job, or do virtually anything now, he's gotta change his name, change his appearance, change his everything. Just so he can go to the grocery store without the risk of being murdered. We ruined a legally innocent mans life, and we should all be disgusted by it.


----------



## Aleu (Jul 14, 2013)

PastryOfApathy said:


> Honestly I feel really bad for the guy for this specific reason. Regardless of what happened in the courts or on that fateful night, the poor bastard has become a victim and it's our goddamn fault. Like if he wants to get a job, or do virtually anything now, he's gotta change his name, change his appearance, change his everything. Just so he can go to the grocery store without the risk of being murdered. We ruined a legally innocent mans life, and we should all be disgusted by it.


Maybe he shoulda thought of that before he decided to kill a teen.


----------



## PastryOfApathy (Jul 14, 2013)

Aleu said:


> Maybe he shoulda thought of that before he decided to kill a teen.



We don't know the exact circumstances of the incident, we don't know what we he knew, or who did what. We shouldn't treat the man like a criminal when the law has shown otherwise.


----------



## Aleu (Jul 14, 2013)

PastryOfApathy said:


> We don't know the exact circumstances of the incident, we don't know what we he knew, or who did what. We shouldn't treat the man like a criminal when the law has shown otherwise.


It wasn't about whether or not he killed him. It was whether or not it was justified. Not even he is contesting that he shot him.


----------



## PastryOfApathy (Jul 14, 2013)

Aleu said:


> It wasn't about whether or not he killed him. It was whether or not it was justified. Not even he is contesting that he shot him.



What? Where the hell did I dispute he shot him, or even hinted at that being remotely at dispute?


----------



## Aleu (Jul 14, 2013)

PastryOfApathy said:


> What? Where the hell did I dispute he shot him, or even hinted at that being remotely at dispute?


By saying that he's the victim and that it's our fault and saying we "don't know who did what".


----------



## PastryOfApathy (Jul 14, 2013)

Aleu said:


> By saying that he's the victim and that it's our fault and saying we "don't know who did what".



What? We don't know what *anyone* did. We don't know who necessarily confronted who, what Martin was doing that made him appear suspicious, who attacked who first. All we know is that Zimmerman (allegedly) shot him in self-defense. 

My point was in regards to the massive media coverage in regards to this case which has quite frankly demonized Zimmerman, and made sure he can never live a normal life despite being proven innocent in a court of law which knows way more than us. It is our fault by feeding into the rampant coverage of this case, and by telling these networks that this is okay. It is our fault, that an innocent mans life is forever ruined.


----------



## Judge Spear (Jul 14, 2013)

This is why I stay away from news usually. I don't even know what to think about all this. And I know that whatever side I choose, I'll be labeled wrong/ignorant/sheep/taking the red pill or whatever/etc. And so I just don't care. It's really just interesting to see more points on this topic, really just not adding any myself (as if anyone can anymore).


----------



## Rheumatism (Jul 14, 2013)

It was the skittles, man.


----------



## Willow (Jul 14, 2013)

PastryOfApathy said:


> Honestly I feel really bad for the guy for this specific reason. Regardless of what happened in the courts or on that fateful night, the poor bastard has become a victim and it's our goddamn fault. Like if he wants to get a job, or do virtually anything now, he's gotta change his name, change his appearance, change his everything. Just so he can go to the grocery store without the risk of being murdered. We ruined a legally innocent mans life, and we should all be disgusted by it.


I feel zero remorse for murderers. Not to say killing him will make anyone better but if his life goes to hell because he wanted to play Batman then so be it. He killed someone. Even if the case wasn't highly publicized the fact of the matter is that he killed someone so the odds of him getting a job anyway were pretty slim once he did that. 

I don't really care much for the race relations part of it but, what makes this case a little different from most is the fact that he killed him after being told not to even follow him. The circumstances surrounding the case make it stand out. 

How many people felt bad for Casey Anthony having to go into hiding though? We don't know what happened even though it was painfully obvious she killed her daughter. But we don't know all the circumstances surrounding that either. 

So I'm going to treat him like a criminal because when all is said and done, he shot to kill. 

I don't even think neighborhood watch people are supposed to do this sort of thing anyway.


----------



## Aleu (Jul 14, 2013)

Willow said:


> I don't even think neighborhood watch people are supposed to do this sort of thing anyway.


They're not. It's simply observe and report. That's why it's called a Neighborhood *Watch. *That's another reason why I'm pissed he got off.



PastryOfApathy said:


> What? We don't know what *anyone* did. We don't know who necessarily confronted who, what Martin was doing that made him appear suspicious, who attacked who first. All we know is that Zimmerman (allegedly) shot him in self-defense.
> 
> My point was in regards to the massive media coverage in regards to this case which has quite frankly demonized Zimmerman, and made sure he can never live a normal life despite being proven innocent in a court of law which knows way more than us. It is our fault by feeding into the rampant coverage of this case, and by telling these networks that this is okay. It is our fault, that an innocent mans life is forever ruined.


Bullshit. If he were innocent then he wouldn't have shot him. He brought it on himself.


----------



## Migoto Da (Jul 14, 2013)

Is someone seriously blaming white people for atrocities committed in the past? Even the slave trade?


You do realize that African Chieftains (Who 99% of which were black) would sell undesireables and war prisoners to the Europeans for resources such as guns and food so they can expand their territory right?

If anything, all races have an equal amount of blame in a majority of situations. To say that white people are solely to blame/mostly to blame is a foolish notion.


OT: I'm still surprised that the prosecution neglected to press the point that Zimmerman was only part of the watch and therefore really not supposed to go chasing after 'criminals' anyway.


----------



## PastryOfApathy (Jul 14, 2013)

Aleu said:


> Bullshit. If he were innocent then he wouldn't have shot him. He brought it on himself.



He was innocent in defending himself from supposedly lethal harm. If you have a gun and someone is going to try and kill (I'm not saying Martin was trying to, just saying that for example, don't want you taking me out of context again) you, are you just going to not shoot him because you don't want to go to jail?

Bullshit.


----------



## Aleu (Jul 14, 2013)

PastryOfApathy said:


> He was innocent in defending himself from supposedly lethal harm. If you have a gun and someone is going to try and kill (I'm not saying Martin was trying to, just saying that for example, don't want you taking me out of context again) you, are you just going to not shoot him because you don't want to go to jail?
> 
> Bullshit.


Oh yes. Scratches are so lethal. 

I wouldn't be stupid enough to follow someone who I think is a criminal. I'd be smart enough to FOLLOW DIRECTIONS.


----------



## Rheumatism (Jul 14, 2013)

Aleu said:


> Oh yes. Scratches are so lethal.
> 
> I wouldn't be stupid enough to follow someone who I think is a criminal. I'd be smart enough to FOLLOW DIRECTIONS.


Do you understand adrenaline?  If someone physically attacks you you're not gonna sit there and think "hmmmm, what is my best bet to get out of this situation?  Legally of course."


----------



## Willow (Jul 14, 2013)

PastryOfApathy said:


> He was innocent in defending himself from supposedly lethal harm.


The irony of this case is that if Martin really was trying to use deadly force on Zimmerman (who by the way was bigger than Martin) he'd have more reason to stand his ground because:
1. He was being followed
2. He was being chased

I still have reason to believe the fight was exaggerated because if Zimmerman really did get his head beat in repeatedly, he'd have some major head trauma probably a few good scars to prove it. 

But I think it was already mentioned the injuries sustained were minor scratches. So either Zimmerman just his a bunch of walls during the chase or that was a lie.


----------



## Aleu (Jul 14, 2013)

Rheumatism said:


> Do you understand adrenaline?  If someone physically attacks you you're not gonna sit there and think "hmmmm, what is my best bet to get out of this situation?  Legally of course."


You seemed to have ignored the most important aspect of my post.

*I wouldn't be stupid enough to follow someone who I think is a criminal. I'd be smart enough to FOLLOW DIRECTIONS.
*Had he not stalked him, there wouldn't have been an altercation. I find it sad that no one is bothering to consider Trayvon's POV in all of this. It's only the poor guy that shot the kid because he "somehow" looked suspicious, pressed the issue, and freaked the kid out. Does no one consider that Trayvon was reacting in a way to protect himself? No? Of course not because obviously he got what he deserved because the courts said so.


----------



## Rheumatism (Jul 14, 2013)

Aleu said:


> You seemed to have ignored the most important aspect of my post.
> 
> *I wouldn't be stupid enough to follow someone who I think is a criminal. I'd be smart enough to FOLLOW DIRECTIONS.
> *Had he not stalked him, there wouldn't have been an altercation. I find it sad that no one is bothering to consider Trayvon's POV in all of this. It's only the poor guy that shot the kid because he "somehow" looked suspicious, pressed the issue, and freaked the kid out. Does no one consider that Trayvon was reacting in a way to protect himself? No? Of course not because obviously he got what he deserved because the courts said so.



Huh, you're right.  I'm too tired for posting tonight it seems.  8I


----------



## PastryOfApathy (Jul 14, 2013)

Aleu said:


> Oh yes. Scratches are so lethal.
> 
> I wouldn't be stupid enough to follow someone who I think is a criminal. I'd be smart enough to FOLLOW DIRECTIONS.



You don't know if he had a weapon, you don't know what he said, you don't know anything. We can't arrest a man on assumptions.


----------



## Kazooie (Jul 14, 2013)

The US is pretty fucked up, not gonna lie. Florida might wana work on its laws a bit.


----------



## Willow (Jul 14, 2013)

PastryOfApathy said:


> You don't know if he had a weapon, you don't know what he said, you don't know anything. We can't arrest a man on assumptions.


There's really not much to assume. It was pretty obvious.
Edit: I'll remember that if I'm ever being chased down that if _I_ act in self defense then obviously I'm in the wrong there. Not the other way around. 

If I chase someone down no matter the intent, I'm the aggressor. If I shoot the person I chase down, no matter if there was a struggle, I'm the killer. And I don't even live in Florida so I can't even claim it was me standing my ground.


----------



## Kazooie (Jul 14, 2013)

Also, this whole case kinda implies that if I'm ever alone with someone in Florida, they're pretty much free to shoot me dead, scratch themselves up a bit, and state that I attacked them with deadly force.

Remind me never, ever, to go to Florida. Thanks.


----------



## PastryOfApathy (Jul 14, 2013)

Willow said:


> There's really not much to assume. It was pretty obvious.




Apparently not if he was found innocent.


Willow said:


> Edit: I'll remember that if I'm ever being chased down that if _I_ act in self defense then obviously I'm in the wrong there. Not the other way around.
> 
> If I chase someone down no matter the intent, I'm the aggressor. If I shoot the person I chase down, no matter if there was a struggle, I'm the killer. And I don't even live in Florida so I can't even claim it was me standing my ground.


You're making assumptions again.


----------



## Willow (Jul 14, 2013)

PastryOfApathy said:


> Apparently not if he was found innocent.


Because the jury has _never_ found a guilty person innocent before. You're right. 



> You're making assumptions again.


That's really not an assumption. I'm saying if I deliberately try to attack someone and kill them I'm a fucking murderer regardless. How is that an assumption??

Edit: From the police dispatch transcript I read, Martin was holding something in his hand (probably a phone). If he was truly armed, why would he need to bash a grown man's head on concrete? Wouldn't he have just used the weapon he was reported to be holding?


----------



## PastryOfApathy (Jul 14, 2013)

Willow said:


> Because the jury has _never_ found a guilty person innocent before. You're right.


I'm just saying they knew way more than us. 



Willow said:


> That's really not an assumption. I'm saying if I deliberately try to attack someone and kill them I'm a fucking murderer regardless. How is that an assumption??



How do you know he attacked him? How do you know he didn't only kill him when he had no choice?


----------



## Attaman (Jul 14, 2013)

Fun fact: If Martin were armed with a handgun, and shot Zimmerman, he would have had an open-and-shut "Stand your ground" case. Zimmerman was stalking him, at night, against 911-responder discretion, strongly implied racist / "I'm going to do something stupid" commentary, and looking as though he might possibly be under the influence of a drug and / or alcoholic substance. If Martin had been armed and _may_ have initiated the situation by shooting Zimmerman, versus the current scenario where he _may _have initiated the situation and shoved Zimmerman, he'd not only be alive but in the clear.

Funny how that works, eh?


----------



## Falaffel (Jul 14, 2013)

Attaman said:


> Fun fact: If Martin were armed with a handgun, and shot Zimmerman, he would have had an open-and-shut "Stand your ground" case. Zimmerman was stalking him, at night, against 911-responder discretion, strongly implied racist / "I'm going to do something stupid" commentary, and looking as though he might possibly be under the influence of a drug and / or alcoholic substance.


Idunno. I didn't live in the universe where Martin killed Zimmerman. Wait.... You didn't either! How do know this?! Unless.... Unless you're making an assumption! 

That didn't happen, won't happen, and is unprovable. 
Hell, that's what this whole ordeal is. 


> If Martin had been armed and _may_ have initiated the situation by shooting Zimmerman, versus the current scenario where he _may _have initiated the situation and shoved Zimmerman, he'd not only be alive but in the clear.
> 
> Funny how that works, eh?


Wat. This is to badly worded for me to understand. Someone translate.


----------



## DarrylWolf (Jul 14, 2013)

And the inevitable riots will prove that "Justice is served" only when your side wins.


----------



## Aleu (Jul 14, 2013)

PastryOfApathy said:


> I'm just saying they knew way more than us.
> 
> 
> 
> How do you know he attacked him? How do you know he didn't only kill him when he had no choice?


He had a choice to not stalk. He didn't take that choice.

You seem to be under the impression that the jury is always right. Innocent people do get put in jail and guilty people do walk free. It's really all about who can provide the best argument.

I swear it's like watching Devil's Advocate, except with less Keanu Reeves and sex.


----------



## Kazooie (Jul 14, 2013)

but no, seriously, doesn't this case prove that:

1) If a murder between strangers takes place
2) And there's no witnesses
3) And the murderer claims self-defense

Then, by Florida law, the murderer is innocent?

e: I mean, obviously you wouldn't be able to make a habit out of it. But doesn't that mean that everyone in Florida, essentially, gets a free murder?


----------



## Willow (Jul 15, 2013)

Falaffel said:


> Wat. This is to badly worded for me to understand. Someone translate.


He's basically saying if Martin was also armed and shot Zimmerman he'd be proven innocent immediately. 



PastryOfApathy said:


> I'm just saying they knew way more than us.


People have a tendency to lie when they know they have a good chance of going to jail. 




> How do you know he attacked him? How do you know he didn't only kill him when he had no choice?


I'll have to thank Term later for this link

It doesn't matter who initially started the physical fight. What matters is who's the aggressor. If I chase a person down and attack or get attacked, it's my fault because I shouldn't have been chasing them. 

Martin ran away because he was being stalked.

And you never answered my other question. If Martin was actually armed, why didn't he use the weapon he had?


----------



## Aleu (Jul 15, 2013)

Kazooie said:


> but no, seriously, doesn't this case prove that:
> 
> 1) If a murder between strangers takes place
> 2) And there's no witnesses
> ...


You'd have to prove self defense. SYG isn't supposed to be used as a "get out of jail free" word.


----------



## Kazooie (Jul 15, 2013)

Aleu said:


> You'd have to prove self defense. SYG isn't supposed to be used as a "get out of jail free" word.


Well, the kid was unarmed, wasn't he? Just scratch yourself up a bit and say you were attacked. Who's to prove otherwise? Isn't that exactly how this case went?

Not like the person you murdered could vouch for themselves.


----------



## Aleu (Jul 15, 2013)

Kazooie said:


> Well, the kid was unarmed, wasn't he? Just scratch yourself up a bit and say you were attacked. Who's to prove otherwise? Isn't that exactly how this case went?
> 
> Not like the person you murdered could vouch for themselves.


There was an altercation between the two so no it's not exactly how the case went. There were also a few witnesses however they claimed different things. One said Trayvon was on top, the other said Zimmerman was on top. Though I guess they both could be right if one was on top but then knocked over by the other.

It would also depend on the medical report used for evidence if you did claim there was a struggle. There's going to be evidence of a fight on both parties especially if it's going to be in a supposed life or death situation.

Now what the case is implying is that, it's okay to instigate a fight and kill the person if you think you're going to lose. That's what most people are afraid that this law is going to promote given that it extends to public places rather than just homes.


----------



## Nikolinni (Jul 15, 2013)

Well when you're own witness can't even read a letter that they supposedly wrote because they "can't read cursive", kinda dents your credibility dunnit?


----------



## Aleu (Jul 15, 2013)

Nikolinni said:


> Well when *you're* own witness can't even read a letter that they supposedly wrote because they "can't read cursive", kinda dents your credibility dunnit?


>8C

Witnesses don't carry that much weight to them if I remember right for the sole purpose is that they can:
lie
forget
be bribed 
be blackmailed
and so forth.


----------



## Attaman (Jul 15, 2013)

Aleu said:


> >8C
> 
> Witnesses don't carry that much weight to them if I remember right for the sole purpose is that they can:
> lie
> ...


There's also the fact that witnesses rapidly lose credibility the longer between the incident in question and the court case. Memories are _extremely_ sketchy over longer periods of time, so relying on witness testimonial is basically the same as relying on a game of telephone after a certain amount of time has passed. Case in point: Describe to me what you did this morning both until breakfast. Now, every other day for the next month, I will ask you the same thing. Do you feel confident that what you say a month from now will closely match what you say tonight? Let alone what you actually did before breakfast?


----------



## Falaffel (Jul 15, 2013)

Aleu said:


> >8C
> 
> Witnesses don't carry that much weight to them if I remember right for the sole purpose is that they can:
> lie
> ...



That's just people. 
... But you are right.


----------



## Aleu (Jul 15, 2013)

Falaffel said:


> That's just people.
> ... But you are right.


That's the idea. THey are just people as Atta pointed out. Even a single day after an event happened, people can still make a mistake.

I remember one instance when I was taking a forensics class where my teacher wanted to prove this point. She showed us a crime reenactment scene or some shit, told us to pay close attention to as much of it as possible. Then afterwards, we had to write down everything that we remembered. The next time we had class, she asked us to write what we remembered down. Not many people were 100%.


----------



## Migoto Da (Jul 15, 2013)

Aleu said:


> That's the idea. THey are just people as Atta pointed out. Even a single day after an event happened, people can still make a mistake.
> 
> I remember one instance when I was taking a forensics class where my teacher wanted to prove this point. She showed us a crime reenactment scene or some shit, told us to pay close attention to as much of it as possible. Then afterwards, we had to write down everything that we remembered. The next time we had class, she asked us to write what we remembered down. Not many people were 100%.


That's pretty interesting. My memory isn't the best, but I do sometimes find myself recalling something that happened a year ago to the smallest minute detail, and yet for some other memories they're hazy with the same time frame.

Neat how the mind works. And unfortunately, it can affect testimony.


----------



## Aleu (Jul 15, 2013)

Migoto Da said:


> That's pretty interesting. My memory isn't the best, but I do sometimes find myself recalling something that happened a year ago to the smallest minute detail, and yet for some other memories they're hazy with the same time frame.
> 
> Neat how the mind works. And unfortunately, it can affect testimony.


I'm like that too.
My boyfriend is the weirdest though. He remembers some of the most inane crap but important events and appointments, nope.
He's just now getting the hang of remembering my birthday ._.


----------



## Lobar (Jul 15, 2013)

PastryOfApathy said:


> Honestly I feel really bad for the guy for this specific reason. Regardless of what happened in the courts or on that fateful night, the poor bastard has become a victim and it's our goddamn fault. Like if he wants to get a job, or do virtually anything now, he's gotta change his name, change his appearance, change his everything. Just so he can go to the grocery store without the risk of being murdered. We ruined a legally innocent mans life, and we should all be disgusted by it.



Legally "not guilty" of murder.  Courts do not find people "innocent", and for good reason.  Nor should a legal judgment ever be construed as a moral judgment, especially given the completely fucked-up state of the US justice system.

Zimmerman needlessly stalked an unarmed minor with a lethal weapon, initiated a confrontation, and then killed him.  There are no assumptions here, all parties involved agree on this much.  He deserves everything he's going to get in the aftermath of this case, and I have zero sympathy for him.  It's a poor substitute for a proper conviction, but in lieu of any actual punishment, I'll gladly take it.



PastryOfApathy said:


> You don't know if he had a weapon



Yes we do.  There is literally zero chance that the Florida PD would fail to find a weapon on a dead black kid.  You're the one making assumptions now, that we can never know anything at all without personally witnessing it.


----------



## Rilvor (Jul 15, 2013)

I for one am ready and welcome to wish more violence beget by violence, that way we can prove ourselves superior in some nebulous way and achieve our fictional concept of "justice".

Just wanting the hatred, bigotry, and violence to stop is not even worth striving for wouldn't you all agree?


----------



## Aleu (Jul 15, 2013)

Rilvor said:


> I for one am ready and welcome to wish more violence beget by violence, that way we can prove ourselves superior in some nebulous way and achieve our fictional concept of "justice".
> 
> Just wanting the hatred, bigotry, and violence to stop is not even worth striving for wouldn't you all agree?


People can want something all they want (hur) but as you said many times, you gotta be the example yourself.
But even so it's never going to stop because we're all violent creatures.

Not sayin' that it's an excuse or anything but it's just how it is.


----------



## Khaki (Jul 15, 2013)

Is it the true that they are rioting over there now?

I like how such an event is a legitimate warrant for some dill to go breaking some poor bugger's windows.

"We demand respect!, I know!, lets go burn some bins!"


----------



## Recel (Jul 15, 2013)

Rilvor said:


> Just wanting the hatred, bigotry, and violence to stop is not even worth striving for wouldn't you all agree?



Of course it's not! Is that even a question?

Clearly, a justice system which no one believes in, and no one accepts their decision is better! 
We should be able to kill anyone who WE think committed a crime! A modern witch hunt based judgement system, where if your neighbor tells the police you killed someone, and a few others agree, you will be shot on sight. No questions, no court. Think of the money we could save, by making this new, better, more fair system a reality!


Just read around the internet and the news, read this thread, listen to people talk about it. They want it to...


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Jul 15, 2013)

Apparently the NAACP is in the midst of talking to the Justice Department to go through with charging Zimmerman with federal civil rights charges.

In order to do that though, the government would have to have enough evidence to show that Zimmerman's actions were fueled by racism, which isn't an easy proposition as several people tend to think. According to Zimmerman's brother, the FBI already conducted an investigation into the possibility of this being a civil rights issue, but their questioning led them to find more evidence to the contrary rather than affirming that Zimmerman was a racist. 

The NAACP claims that young black men in Zimmerman's community felt targeted by the neighborhood watch, but as it stands right now that's a statement based on opinion as opposed to fact.

I believe that if convicted of a civil rights charge, Zimmerman would face up to 10 years in a federal prison.


----------



## CaptainCool (Jul 15, 2013)

And this is why the concept of "in dubio pro reo" sucks really badly some times.
They couldn't close the case without a reasonable doubt so Zimmerman got out of it, it's that simple. It isn't satisfying and it really sucks, but that is how the law works.
On the one hand this means that people like Zimmerman don't have to go to jail. But on the other hand this also means that innocent people don't have to go to jail either.



Term_the_Schmuck said:


> Apparently the NAACP is in the midst of talking to the Justice Department to go through with charging Zimmerman with federal civil rights charges.
> 
> In order to do that though, the government would have to have enough evidence to show that Zimmerman's actions were fueled by racism, which isn't an easy proposition as several people tend to think. According to Zimmerman's brother, the FBI already conducted an investigation into the possibility of this being a civil rights issue, but their questioning led them to find more evidence to the contrary rather than affirming that Zimmerman was a racist.
> 
> ...



And that is the problem, that this might not be a civil rights issue. Who knows? Maybe he is just a paranoid old idiot who would have shot any kid with a hoodie?


----------



## Ozriel (Jul 15, 2013)

Rilvor said:


> Just wanting the hatred, bigotry, and violence to stop is not even worth striving for wouldn't you all agree?



It is worth striving for, but as long as most people have an "eye for an eye" mentality and not aim to be the better example for peace, then it becomes...worthless.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Jul 15, 2013)

They really should have tried for the manslaughter charge. I mean in all honesty if the struggle through some testimony could be accounted for and Martin got a hold of the gun both parties were struggling for, and shot Zimmerman - it would be the same issue. 

The case from what evidence gleaned was stronger for manslaughter than 2nd degree murder. The fact they threw it in as an option at the last minute made it worse. There is some discussion whether double jeopardy would apply, but - they cemented it would definitely be double jeopardy by throwing in the manslaughter charge at the last minute.


----------



## Artillery Spam (Jul 15, 2013)

Khaki said:


> Is it the true that they are rioting over there now?
> 
> I like how such an event is a legitimate warrant for some dill to go breaking some poor bugger's windows.
> 
> "We demand respect!, I know!, lets go burn some bins!"



No, they're protesting. Jesse Jackson and Sharpton have urged people to keep it peaceful. A few police cars have been damaged and a number of people have been arrested for disorderly conduct. Nothing major has happened----yet.


----------



## LogicfromLogic (Jul 15, 2013)

I am ashamed of my country. First the guy who killed Otto Zen was given just five years, and now this? Yeah, 'America the free' means that you are free if you shoot someone but if you go into a store for soda damn it you deserve to be convicted or killed on sight. But good job police officers for being douchebags.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Jul 15, 2013)

Arshes Nei said:


> They really should have tried for the manslaughter charge. I mean in all honesty if the struggle through some testimony could be accounted for and Martin got a hold of the gun both parties were struggling for, and shot Zimmerman - it would be the same issue.
> 
> The case from what evidence gleaned was stronger for manslaughter than 2nd degree murder. The fact they threw it in as an option at the last minute made it worse. There is some discussion whether double jeopardy would apply, but - they cemented it would definitely be double jeopardy by throwing in the manslaughter charge at the last minute.



It's further complicated by the fact that apparently the jury wasn't fully aware of what constitutes a manslaughter charge. Reportedly they sent a note to the judge asking her to explain it during the deliberations.

So yeah, going for second-degree murder was partially why this case couldn't stick. Likely why they should have done, of not going for the manslaughter charge, was proceede to a wrongful death civil suit. Those require much less burden of proof and since it can be argued that since Martin wasn't armed that they use of the gun was unnecessary then Zimmerman would likely at least be on the hook for those damages. 

The family may still seek a civil case against Zimmerman, but now it will likely come at the price of having to go through this whole process all over again.


----------



## Ozriel (Jul 15, 2013)

Arshes Nei said:


> They really should have tried for the manslaughter charge. I mean in all honesty if the struggle through some testimony could be accounted for and Martin got a hold of the gun both parties were struggling for, and shot Zimmerman - it would be the same issue.
> 
> The case from what evidence gleaned was stronger for manslaughter than 2nd degree murder. The fact they threw it in as an option at the last minute made it worse. There is some discussion whether double jeopardy would apply, but - they cemented it would definitely be double jeopardy by throwing in the manslaughter charge at the last minute.



I am in agreement with that and they should have put that on the table instead of murder in the second degree. I still think the defendant was a POS...but still.




LogicfromLogic said:


> I am ashamed of my country. First the guy who killed Otto Zen was given just five years, and now this? Yeah, 'America the free' means that you are free if you shoot someone but if you go into a store for soda damn it you deserve to be convicted or killed on sight. But good job police officers for being douchebags.




*Only if you are white. :V


----------



## LogicfromLogic (Jul 15, 2013)

Ozriel said:


> I am in agreement with that and they should have put that on the table instead of murder in the second degree. I still think the defendant was a POS...but still.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Fair enough. I just think that police have too much power.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Jul 15, 2013)

LogicfromLogic said:


> Fair enough. I just think that police have too much power.



Not sure what the police have to do with this case since it concerned two private citizens but whatever I guess.


----------



## LogicfromLogic (Jul 15, 2013)

Oh wait sorry got it mixed up with another case. Wow, I feel stupid...


----------



## Lobar (Jul 15, 2013)

Arshes Nei said:


> They really should have tried for the manslaughter charge. I mean in all honesty if the struggle through some testimony could be accounted for and Martin got a hold of the gun both parties were struggling for, and shot Zimmerman - it would be the same issue.
> 
> The case from what evidence gleaned was stronger for manslaughter than 2nd degree murder. The fact they threw it in as an option at the last minute made it worse. There is some discussion whether double jeopardy would apply, but - they cemented it would definitely be double jeopardy by throwing in the manslaughter charge at the last minute.



In Florida law, a murder charge automatically has the lesser charges rolled in, including manslaughter.  Double jeopardy was not a factor at all.  He couldn't be convicted with more than one charge for the killing, and they can't try him again with any of those charges, but it was not double jeopardy to have both a murder 2 and a manslaughter charge.  You have no idea what you're talking about.


----------



## Nikolinni (Jul 15, 2013)

Ozriel said:


> *Only if you are white. :V



Well in this case, the defendant was "Hispanic"...or "White Hispanic", or just "White", depends on the person.


----------



## Lobar (Jul 15, 2013)

Nikolinni said:


> Well in this case, the defendant was "Hispanic"...or "White Hispanic", or just "White", depends on the person.



"Hispanic" is an ethnicity, not a race.  A light-skinned man named Zimmerman passes for "White" by any reasonable measure.


----------



## DarrylWolf (Jul 15, 2013)

What's really disturbing about this whole case is that even after Zimmermann was cleared by the state courts, civil rights organizations now want to try him at the federal level. I have heard of guilty men being brought into appellate courts and winning innocence but this could be a case where a higher-ranking court actually makes an "innocent" man guilty. Now, many of us think that Zimmermann is a total monster and should have been executed, but the dangerous precedent is that now American citizens must worry about being tried for the same crimes more than once. 

Say, for instance, you get out in your car and while driving you accidentally run over and kill a jaywalker, who happens to be black. You're brought before the courts because there is suspicion you might have done that intentionally. The state courts acquit you of "vehicular manslaughter" and you think you're home free but then the NAACP pursues those same "vehicular manslaughter" charges at a higher-ranking appellate court and you're dragged back into another court room, to face the exact same charges. The ordeal could continue over and over ad infinitium.

Unable to pay court costs and driven insane by the constant need to attend trials, you eventually plead guilty, figuring that ten years behind bars is better than a lifetime of living in a prison without bars.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Jul 15, 2013)

Lobar said:


> In Florida law, a murder charge automatically has the lesser charges rolled in, including manslaughter.  Double jeopardy was not a factor at all.  He couldn't be convicted with more than one charge for the killing, and they can't try him again with any of those charges, but it was not double jeopardy to have both a murder 2 and a manslaughter charge.  You have no idea what you're talking about.



http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/...mmerman-murder-trial-20130711,0,1516524.story

The prosecution had a meeting to allow the lesser charge to be considered near the end of the trial. 

By adding in the charge last minute you now have it where Double Jeopardy sets in because "not guilty" means he's cleared of the manslaughter charge, whereas if he was only found not guilty on 2nd degree murder, manslaughter can be considered.


----------



## Recel (Jul 15, 2013)

Ironic. Zimmerman followed someone who he thought is a criminal. Now that he's released, with all the life threatening mails and letters, it could easily end up, that he will be followed by someone who thinks he's a criminal.


----------



## Falaffel (Jul 15, 2013)

Recel said:


> Ironic. Zimmerman followed someone who he thought is a criminal. Now that he's released, with all the life threatening mails and letters, it could easily end up, that he will be followed by someone who thinks he's a criminal.


Humanity :v


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Jul 15, 2013)

DarrylWolf said:


> What's really disturbing about this whole case is that even after Zimmermann was cleared by the state courts, civil rights organizations now want to try him at the federal level. I have heard of guilty men being brought into appellate courts and winning innocence but this could be a case where a higher-ranking court actually makes an "innocent" man guilty. Now, many of us think that Zimmermann is a total monster and should have been executed, but the dangerous precedent is that now American citizens must worry about being tried for the same crimes more than once.
> 
> Say, for instance, you get out in your car and while driving you accidentally run over and kill a jaywalker, who happens to be black. You're brought before the courts because there is suspicion you might have done that intentionally. The state courts acquit you of "vehicular manslaughter" and you think you're home free but then the NAACP pursues those same "vehicular manslaughter" charges at a higher-ranking appellate court and you're dragged back into another court room, to face the exact same charges. The ordeal could continue over and over ad infinitium.
> 
> Unable to pay court costs and driven insane by the constant need to attend trials, you eventually plead guilty, figuring that ten years behind bars is better than a lifetime of living in a prison without bars.



Uh, not really. First of all, in Zimmerman's case the NAACP can't force the government to do anything, nor can any special interest force law enforcement or the Justice Department to charge someone with something if there isn't enough evidence to bring him to trial.  Remember Zimmerman originally wasn't going to be charged with anything be ause the Sanford Police Department, through their investigation, couldn't find the evidence to discredit Zimmerman's claim of self-defense.  The only reason this went to trial is because the state DA caved in on the protests and calls for him to be charged for murder which they were perfectly capable of saying "no" to, but decided that there might be enough to convict him of something given that no one was disputing that he killed Martin and the context surrounding it certainly convinced a significant portion of the nation, including members of this board, that he was guilty of murder. 

It then became a political show trial as evidenced by the failed use of a Skype video conference, the joking attorneys, and the media blitz that followed.  And then it ends in the exact way that the Sanford police said it would from the beginning, a lack of evidence to prove Zimmerman didnt act in self-defense.

The whole race issue was investigated as a precaution by the FBI, but since there's even less evidence to prove that Zimmerman was a racist, the Justice Department stepped back and allowed this to play out in the state court. Now while they may investigate those racism claims further, we'll likely see the same result of the previous FBI investigation which means nothing will happen.

If someone makes the baseless claim of racism with no evidence to back it up besides opinion, there's really nothing anyone can do. It's the same thing if you get fired from a job and claim it was discriminatory.  Unless you have proof, you really don't have a case worth anyone's time, except maybe the lawyer you hire who will be all too happy to take your money to look into the case.


----------



## Lobar (Jul 15, 2013)

Arshes Nei said:


> http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/...mmerman-murder-trial-20130711,0,1516524.story
> 
> The prosecution had a meeting to allow the lesser charge to be considered near the end of the trial.
> 
> By adding in the charge last minute you now have it where Double Jeopardy sets in because "not guilty" means he's cleared of the manslaughter charge, whereas if he was only found not guilty on 2nd degree murder, manslaughter can be considered.



Your previous post wasn't clear and seemed to indicate that the prosecution was violating double jeopardy by having the judge instruct the jury to consider convicting for manslaughter while there was already a murder charge on the table.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Jul 15, 2013)

Lobar said:


> Your previous post wasn't clear and seemed to indicate that the prosecution was violating double jeopardy by having the judge instruct the jury to consider convicting for manslaughter while there was already a murder charge on the table.



You seemed to be the one having trouble with the post - other people got what I said pretty well.


----------



## Recel (Jul 15, 2013)

Falaffel said:


> Humanity :v



You could very well remove the :V from the end of it.

Even if not on the level of laws, society seems to practice witch hunts.
It's really sad when you think of it.


Whit this whole case I'm reminded that law enforcement and justice doesn't works. Not because of the system, but because of society. People decide for them self if you're guilty or not. And the media has a big part in this, and more often than not, to a negative effect. And no mater how the trial ends, your life is at the mercy of people who weren't there, don't have all the pieces of the puzzle and ARE biased towards one side or the other from the start. And the less evidence there is, like in this case, the more place left for doubt. And people will doubt.

Truly, guilty until proven otherwise. But it seems, most often, if ever, you can't prove it 100%, that you're innocent to the court, or the people. No mater what, you will be the bad guy from the point you become a suspect. And your life will become very hard, innocent or not.

And with that, there goes justice, right out of the window.


Just my thought on the subject.


----------



## Scaly Fal (Jul 15, 2013)

I just think it's funny that everyone still listens blindly to the media. I thought he was evil too....until I looked up some more stuff about the case. Hear me out on this now- did you know that the kid in this case was 5' 11" and 17? And the story goes like this- Zimmerman was on neighborhood watch in the middle of the night. He saw some tall guy in a hoodie slowly walking and looking at houses, and he called the cops obviously.

Then the tall guy started coming towards the car. Zimmerman got out and then got jumped by the guy. That's what he says anyway, but to be fair have you guys seen the police pics? His nose is like 5 times bigger than before, and he has a lot of blood on the back of his head.

I'm not taking sides here, I'm just saying that it's not exactly what the news reports. Then again, maybe he was a crazy killer and that stuff is just faked. I dunno really, but I thought you guys'd like a new perspective on this thing for a change. Because, as _furries _should know most of all, the media likes to demonize everything it comes into contact with.


----------



## Scaly Fal (Jul 15, 2013)

By the way I wasn't talking to anyone in particular, just posting that. I didn't really look at the posts above so if I sound like anyone else I'm sorry.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Jul 15, 2013)

Recel said:


> Truly, guilty until proven otherwise. But it seems, most often, if ever, you can't prove it 100%, that you're innocent to the court, or the people. No mater what, you will be the bad guy from the point you become a suspect. And your life will become very hard, innocent or not.
> 
> And with that, there goes justice, right out of the window.
> 
> ...



The court of public opinion is cruel to anyone who goes to trial. As was previously mentioned, Zimmerman will have to divulge to his future employers that he was charged with murder. Any background check on him will include this bit about the murder trial. And that's just assuming that people don't remember this trial. And with that comes a stigma that can hurt his chances of returning to a normal life.

Now certainly some people here will say "good" and some already have because he's still responsible for Martin's death, and on that front they aren't wrong.  But in theory, if someone was acquitted or served their time try shouldn't be discriminated against when they look for work or what have you.  The irony is that the same people who often will complain about the social stigma placed on ex-cons, veterans and so on are more than willing to allow Zimmerman to become a social pariah because "he deserves something wrong to happen to him."


----------



## Aleu (Jul 15, 2013)

Scaly Fal said:


> I just think it's funny that everyone still listens blindly to the media. I thought he was evil too....until I looked up some more stuff about the case. Hear me out on this now- did you know that the kid in this case was 5' 11" and 17? And the story goes like this- Zimmerman was on neighborhood watch in the middle of the night. He saw some tall guy in a hoodie slowly walking and looking at houses, and he called the cops obviously.
> 
> Then the tall guy started coming towards the car. Zimmerman got out and then got jumped by the guy. That's what he says anyway, but to be fair have you guys seen the police pics? His nose is like 5 times bigger than before, and he has a lot of blood on the back of his head.
> 
> I'm not taking sides here, I'm just saying that it's not exactly what the news reports. Then again, maybe he was a crazy killer and that stuff is just faked. I dunno really, but I thought you guys'd like a new perspective on this thing for a change. Because, as _furries _should know most of all, the media likes to demonize everything it comes into contact with.


You seem to not know how the body works when injured. Yes, his nose was swollen because that's what noses do when they're punched. Obviously he'd have a lot of blood on the back of his head but that doesn't mean he was injured badly. Head wounds bleed the most for the most minute cut.

If we're going by "did you knows" Did you know that Zimmerman has been charged with domestic violence before thus rendering him (by law) unable to actually carry a weapon?


----------



## Attaman (Jul 15, 2013)

Scaly Fal said:


> I just think it's funny that everyone still listens blindly to the media. I thought he was evil too....until I looked up some more stuff about the case. Hear me out on this now- did you know that the kid in this case was 5' 11" and 17? And the story goes like this- Zimmerman was on neighborhood watch in the middle of the night. He saw some tall guy in a hoodie slowly walking and looking at houses, and he called the cops obviously.


 And you realize that they said he should _stop stalking the teenager and go home_, something he responded to by ignoring and - at _best -_ with hostile commentary, at worst something very possibly racist and in regard to the ethnicity of the person being stalked.



Scaly Fal said:


> Then the tall guy started coming towards the car. Zimmerman got out and then got jumped by the guy.


 This is Zimmerman's commentary, and his story literally changed at _least_ twice during the trial (I know he offered at least three versions of the event during the investigation, cannot recall if it changed any further). Do note also that the court didn't find Zimmerman's commentary to be _factual_, merely _inconclusive enough to state as infactual without a doubt_. There is a _major _difference.



Scaly Fal said:


> That's what he says anyway, but to be fair have you guys seen the police pics? His nose is like 5 times bigger than before, and he has a lot of blood on the back of his head.


 Talking with several EMTs (who in turn have talked to their own superiors on the matter), all this means is that he may have been / probably was socked in the face and fell to the ground. None I've talked to have said that the evidence is in any way conclusive of "being pounded into the concrete" as Zimmerman claims. Now, again, they also haven't said that it's _impossible_ or the like, just that the details of the event are very sketchy (especially when trying to focus on how Martin was "Big Scary Black Man" and the injuries are so relatively minor from (supposed) repeated concrete diet).



Scaly Fal said:


> Because, as _furries _should know most of all, the media likes to demonize everything it comes into contact with.


 Yes, because the media abuses Furries so badly. If only they got off as easy as African Americans are during this whole ordeal, or D&D during its day.


----------



## Butters Shikkon (Jul 15, 2013)

Attaman said:


> Yes, because the media abuses Furries so badly. If only they got off as easy as African Americans are during this whole ordeal, or D&D during its day.



Calm yo tits, Attaman. He's just saying that as we belong to a group that the media often exagerates, we should be well aware of what they'll do to get a story. 

For God's sake.


----------



## Attaman (Jul 15, 2013)

Butterflygoddess said:


> Calm yo tits, Attaman. He's just saying that as we belong to a group that the media often exagerates, we should be well aware of what they'll do to get a story.
> 
> For God's sake.


But Furries _don't_. Furries get almost literally _nil_ media attention, and most of it is neutral or only marginally negative. _Rock and Roll_ has had worse media coverage than Furries, at a micro and macro scale. Whining about Furries getting the short end of the media stick is merely mindless persecution complex with no basis.


----------



## Butters Shikkon (Jul 15, 2013)

Attaman said:


> But Furries _don't_. Furries get almost literally _nil_ media attention, and most of it is neutral or only marginally negative. _Rock and Roll_ has had worse media coverage than Furries, at a micro and macro scale. Whining about Furries getting the short end of the media stick is merely mindless persecution complex with no basis.



Oh for fuck's sake...

Attaman, get the stick outta your ass and off your high horse while you're at it. You know damn well what his point was. You are just jumping that "you don't need to come out as a fuwrie!!1!!11/lolfurries"  bullshit to discredit his agrument. 

The POINT IS that ppl who have received negative attention (remember the CSI shit that every assumes furries do?) from any form of media should know better than to fully trust them like sheep.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Jul 15, 2013)

Attaman said:


> And you realize that they said he should _stop stalking the teenager and go home_, something he responded to by ignoring and - at _best -_ with hostile commentary, at worst something very possibly racist and in regard to the ethnicity of the person being stalked.



To be fair he wasn't told to go home. In fact the dispatcher was trying to set up where the cops were going to meet Zimmerman for him to explain what was going on and possibly offer more information on where Martin was. Unfortunately it seems, Zimmerman decided he wanted to keep tabs on where Martin was by always keeping him in his sight line which eventually led to the confrontation.


----------



## Aleu (Jul 15, 2013)

Butterflygoddess said:


> Oh for fuck's sake...
> 
> Attaman, get the stick outta your ass and off your high horse while you're at it. You know damn well what his point was. You are just jumping that "you don't need to come out as a fuwrie!!1!!11/lolfurries"  bullshit to discredit his agrument.
> 
> The POINT IS that ppl who have received negative attention (remember the CSI shit that every assumes furries do?) from any form of media should know better than to fully trust them like sheep.


He never said anything about coming out as a furry and Atta does have a point. Comparing this to fucking furries is stupid at best. Contrary to popular belief, no one fucking cares about furries.


----------



## Butters Shikkon (Jul 15, 2013)

Aleu said:


> He never said anything about coming out as a furry and Atta does have a point. Comparing this to fucking furries is stupid at best. Contrary to popular belief, no one fucking cares about furries.



I feel I have to spell this out for certain people. 

Any such minority/group/people in general that have been burned by the media *SHOULD KNOW FUCKING BETTER THAN TO BELIEVE EVERY WORD THEY SAY*. And I'm not gonna say much more on the furry thing, but we all know here on FAF people have bitched and moaned enough about "people who make this fandom look bad"

So don't piss on my leg and tell me its raining.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Jul 15, 2013)

Alright kids. Let's relax on this tangential nonsense about furrys and people who gets burned by the media.


----------



## Aleu (Jul 15, 2013)

Butterflygoddess said:


> I feel I have to spell this out for certain people.
> 
> Any such minority/group/people in general that have been burned by the media *SHOULD KNOW FUCKING BETTER THAN TO BELIEVE EVERY WORD THEY SAY*. And I'm not gonna say much more on the furry thing, but we all know here on FAF people have bitched and moaned enough about "people who make this fandom look bad"
> 
> So don't piss on my leg and tell me its raining.


Except you don't need to be in a minority group to understand this for one. And two, comparing a murder trial to people thinking animal headed people are icky (not you burdy) is a really insulting comparison that screams persecution complex.

EDIT: Damn you ninja crabs


----------



## Khaki (Jul 15, 2013)

Artillery Spam said:


> No, they're protesting. Jesse Jackson and Sharpton have urged people to keep it peaceful. A few police cars have been damaged and a number of people have been arrested for disorderly conduct. Nothing major has happened----yet.



Alright, obviously the media blowing things out of proportion as they do.

Still the behaviour shown in the footage is unacceptable.


----------



## Butters Shikkon (Jul 15, 2013)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> Alright kids. Let's relax on this tangential nonsense about furrys and people who gets burned by the media.



Because I respect you, Term, you got it.


----------



## Kahoku (Jul 15, 2013)

Aleu said:


> America. Where apparently murder is okay.



I was very upset with this ruling, and I hope he gets killed from profiling at this rate. I am so checked out of the USA.....I rather just leave and find a new home.


----------



## Shay Feral (Jul 15, 2013)

The reaction after the verdict just goes to show that you're not allowed to kill a black man in self defense if you're white.


----------



## Attaman (Jul 15, 2013)

Shay Feral said:


> The reaction after the verdict just goes to show that you're not allowed to kill a black man in self defense if you're white.


 No, the verdict shows that prosecution should not get greedy and stick with much surer charges (such as manslaughter or wrongful death). If you honestly feel Zimmerman is a poor hispanic victim who did nothing to provoke the situation at all I have a wonderful bridge to sell you.


----------



## Aleu (Jul 15, 2013)

Shay Feral said:


> The reaction after the verdict just goes to show that you're not allowed to kill a black man in self defense if you're white.


Really? Because the case tells me that if you stalk someone they're in the wrong for defending themselves.


----------



## Shay Feral (Jul 15, 2013)

Attaman said:


> No, the verdict shows that prosecution should not get greedy and stick with much surer charges (such as manslaughter or wrongful death). If you honestly feel Zimmerman is a poor hispanic victim who did nothing to provoke the situation at all I have a wonderful bridge to sell you.



Quitcher fuckin' belly aching, a jury of his peers found the man not guilty in consideration of the evidence provided by the state. Unless you've got evidence to the contrary you should jump off the bandwagon before it drives off the end of that bridge you'd like to sell.



Aleu said:


> Really? Because the case tells me that if you stalk  someone they're in the wrong for defending themselves.



Being "stalked" isn't an excuse to drive someone's head into the pavement if they aren't posing a threat. Zimmerman shouldn't have got out of his truck, but that doesn't allow Martin to beat on him.


----------



## Aleu (Jul 15, 2013)

Shay Feral said:


> Quitcher fuckin' belly aching, a jury of his peers found the man not guilty in consideration of the evidence provided by the state. Unless you've got evidence to the contrary you should jump off the bandwagon before it drives off the end of that bridge you'd like to sell.
> 
> 
> 
> Being "stalked" isn't an excuse to drive someone's head into the pavement if they aren't posing a threat. Zimmerman shouldn't have got out of his truck, but that doesn't allow Martin to beat on him.


Uh, being stalked is grounds to feel threatened.


----------



## Attaman (Jul 15, 2013)

Shay Feral said:


> Quitcher fuckin' belly aching, a jury of his peers found the man not guilty in consideration of the evidence provided by the state.


 And what "Not Guilty" means is - very literally - _there is a lack of sufficient evidence to convict someone without a doubt_. There is a _huge _difference between the two. In one case the Jury is saying "We feel [x] did not do this!" In the other, the defense is going "We do not have enough evidence to say [x] did this without any doubt, and our legal system is built around the concept that it's better for a guilty man to go free then risk an innocent man go to jail." 



Shay Feral said:


> Being "stalked" isn't an excuse to drive someone's head into the pavement if they aren't posing a threat.


 You, of course, have proof that Zimmerman did not initiate the confrontation? That Martin swung the first blow? That Martin was driving Zimmerman's head into the pavement versus, say, socking the person who stalked him, then tried to disarm them after they saw a gun before they could get shot?

The reason Zimmerman walked is not because the Martin _must_ have initiated the confrontation, _must_ have been driving Zimmerman's head in the pavement, _must _have forced him to act in self-defense. It's because there is a _chance_ that this may be what happened, and since that chance exists and there's no way for the Jury to know what actually happened (especially so long after the incident and with an improper police follow-up), it's better to have him go free (at least from a legal perspective) under the premise that he _may_ be innocent than it is to have him go to prison because he _may_ be guilty.

And again: If the court went for Manslaughter or Wrongful Death, it's highly probable Zimmerman would have been found guilty (at least more probable than what he was charged under). Similarly, if Martin had been armed with a legal firearm and argued he practiced "Stand Your Ground", it's similarly probable he would have been found non-guilty as - again, unknowing of the circumstances - there is a very strong case for Zimmerman looking extremely suspicious and threatening in the context of the scenario with the only major witness being the defendant in question.


----------



## Shay Feral (Jul 15, 2013)

Aleu said:


> Uh, being stalked is grounds to feel threatened.



Unless they're stalking you with a weapon drawn with an intent to harm you, it's not.


----------



## Kahoku (Jul 15, 2013)

** On second thought, not worth my time. **


----------



## Aleu (Jul 15, 2013)

Shay Feral said:


> Unless they're stalking you with a weapon drawn with an intent to harm you, it's not.



That is the stupidest fucking thing I have ever heard.


----------



## Attaman (Jul 15, 2013)

Shay Feral said:


> Unless they're stalking you with a weapon drawn with an intent to harm you, it's not.


We _don't even know who initiated the confrontation_. 

And again: If Martin was armed with a pistol and shot Zimmerman versus used his fists, he _probably_ would get off under "Stand Your Ground" even if he was the one who initiated the confrontation. Zimmerman was stalking him at night, made recorded commentary that implied intent to interact with Martin in some fashion, there was no proper drug test and such _may_ have been relevant with Zimmerman, he was armed, etcetera. It would be _very_ hard for a prosecution to prove that Martin initiated the confrontation (as again, they wouldn't need to prove that Zimmerman initiated the confrontation: Just that there's a doubt as to whether Martin did), and if they can't prove that it's easy to argue that Martin was simply defending himself (especially if the lack of a drug test does turn out to be relevant). Zimmerman could have approached Martin with the intent of asking him for the time and been mercilessly shot through the heart, if he tested positive for any drugs and there were no other new evidence introduced it'd be _extremely easy_ for Martin to argue that Zimmerman approached him under the influence of drugs in a manner that implied immediate threat and he acted to protect himself.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Jul 15, 2013)

Umm it doesn't allow you to use fists if he's following you. It's reasonable force and both being tough guys is what caused this mess, and unfortunately being tough guy with a gun really fucked things up.


----------



## lupinealchemist (Jul 15, 2013)

Florida, great place to live if you're not black or female.


----------



## Batty Krueger (Jul 15, 2013)

Zimmerman isn't white. He's half Mexican half Jewish or some shit. There were 2 witnesses that said they saw the kid slamming zimmermans head into the concrete before opening fire.  Fuck that kid he got what he deserved.

Well, he didn't deserve it, but when one dude is beating on another dude with a gun, it doesn't usually end well.


----------



## Aleu (Jul 15, 2013)

d.batty said:


> Zimmerman isn't white. He's half Mexican half Jewish or some shit. There were 2 witnesses that said they saw the kid slamming zimmermans head into the concrete before opening fire.  Fuck that kid he got what he deserved.


He wouldn't have done so if Zimmerman had left him the fuck alone.

Jesus christ you people act like Trayvon was the one following him.


----------



## Attaman (Jul 15, 2013)

d.batty said:


> Zimmerman isn't white. He's half Mexican half Jewish or some shit. There were 2 witnesses that said they saw the kid slamming zimmermans head into the concrete before opening fire.  Fuck that kid he got what he deserved.


Let's say they saw Zimmerman's head being slammed into the concrete, it wasn't improper memory, and we know it happened. It's a sure thing: Martin was slamming Zimmerman's head into concrete. Violently.

Do you have any evidence that Martin did so purely out of unbased aggression (which he initiated), versus - say - Zimmerman drawing his pistol and trying to coerce Martin into what for all he (Martin) knew was a mugging / kidnapping, and Martin trying to defend himself in one of the few ways he could (since running away would totes work if someone has a gun drawn on you). You don't? Well then, I find it funny you're willing to excuse Zimmerman on the "We don't know" basis, but Martin? _Totes_â€‹ a monster.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Jul 15, 2013)

Well remember he was referred to a Creepy Ass Cracker. Kinda makes you wonder about the racial motivation so many people were crying about.

Does not mean I don't feel Martin shouldn't be upset, but I just see this as both parties being overheated.


----------



## Willow (Jul 16, 2013)

I still really don't get how people believe part of this was Martin's fault like??? If you're being chased by someone and have no viable means of escape, your second best option is to -- wait for it -- _stand your ground_ and try to fight off the attacker. So _if_ Martin truly started the fight, it was out of defense. 

But to break it down again. 

He was leaving his dad's house (as I heard this morning on a talk show) and he went to a convenience store to get the skittles and tea. Then continued walking home with his hood up because it was raining. 

Suddenly a guy starts following him and he [Martin] reasonably grows suspicious of the car that's suddenly following him. So he approaches the car and then runs. Zimmerman chases after him (as you can infer really. Martin ran away so how else could there have been a confrontation?) and Martin defends himself. It has nothing to do with both parties being overheated. Martin had more reason to fear for his life regardless of if Zimmerman had a gun because the man was twice his size. 

Fuck racial motivation for a moment, let's focus on the heart of the matter. A grown man killed a younger man. That's it. 

Race complicates things and frankly it's irrelevant to me.


----------



## CrazyLee (Jul 16, 2013)

Keep expecting this thread to get closed before I can even post in here. Doesn't help that my internet kept going down (and by "my" internet I mean the internet of the school library with AC I was hanging out in because it was 90+ F and humid).

And my god... my opinion of you guys has gone down so much... all these people claiming certainty of knowing what happened despite not having enough evidence, and even worse, the calls for vigilante justice.

Sadly, my own opinions on this have caused one friend I've known for 12 years to stop being friends with me because I disagreed with her, because I said the verdict made sense due to lack of concrete evidence. I guess that she assumed that meant I thought Zimmerman was in the right in shooting Travon, which I don't. Oh well...


Here's two thoughts I'd like to put out there. I have more but I think people like Term and Arshes have done a good job of echoing my thoughts.

- First, the fact that people keep throwing around this idea that Travon was a "child" and much smaller than Zimmerman (and does anyone notice people say "Travon" and not "Martin" and "Zimmerman" and not "George"?).
This is silly. Travon was 17. The media has been showing an image of Travon at 13 to garner sympathy. However, Travon was about 6 feet tall, 180 or so pounds, and a football player. Built like an adult, not a child. In fact, Travon was taller than George. And more in shape. So in a fist fight, it's an even match.

- Second, I have read that when examined by a doctor afterward that George had suffered a fractured nose and at least one black eye in addition to the head lacerations, and that this was admitted as evidence during the trial. Zimmerman could not have gotten a broken nose if he just ran up to Travon and shot him, there had to have been some kind of struggle or fight. Zimmerman was wrong to go after Travon but there was a fight and who knows who instigated or started it, and what happened.



Term_the_Schmuck said:


> Why anyone is surprised by this outcome is probably the most surprising thing out of all of this.


Because people get their idea on how the justice system works from Judge Judy, Law and Order, and listening to "experts" on cable news.



Lobar said:


> Yes, I'm sure it wasn't until Zimmerman was locked in to the chaos of a life-or-death struggle with this kid half his weight


See above. Travon was around 6ft tall and about 180lbs. Not "half his size".



Azure said:


> zimmerman will be murdered, rightfully so, by insane black rioters





Kahoku said:


> I was very upset with this ruling, and I hope he  gets killed from profiling at this rate.



Sigh. Really.
Because murdering someone in response to a murder is the right thing to do. Eye for an eye is a great idea. 
Yes, let's do the exact same thing that clans and groups in developing countries do. "That Shia killed one of us Sunni, let's kill ALL the Shia, men women and child, because that is justice!" Yes, that sounds like a good idea.



DarrylWolf said:


> The state courts acquit you of "vehicular manslaughter" and you think you're home free but then the NAACP pursues those same "vehicular manslaughter" charges at a higher-ranking appellate court and you're dragged back into another court room, to face the exact same charges. The ordeal could continue over and over ad infinitium.


Wait, wat?
An appellate court cannot press new charges. Appellate courts can only overturn existing convictions. Do you even know how the courts work?



Aleu said:


> You seem to not know how the body works when injured. Yes, his nose was swollen because that's what noses do when they're punched.


Wait, weren't you saying that Zimmerman just ran up and shot Travon, and now you're saying that Travon punched Zimmerman? What?


----------



## Aleu (Jul 16, 2013)

CrazyLee said:


> Wait, weren't you saying that Zimmerman just ran up and shot Travon, and now you're saying that Travon punched Zimmerman? What?


No. I said there was indeed an altercation. I never said that Zimmerman randomly shot him.

Also it's Trayvon. Not Travon. God if you're going to bitch about names you should at least get them right :V


----------



## Saga (Jul 16, 2013)

Way I see it
Two men fought (Trayvon was force to be reckoned with, much larger and stronger than the media potrays him) a fight that shouldnt have happened. It's too bad that one had a gun and decided to use it, but I don't blame him. We don't think right when we're enraged.

But that doesnt make it right.


----------



## Willow (Jul 16, 2013)

CrazyLee said:


> - Second, I have read that when examined by a doctor afterward that George had suffered a fractured nose and at least one black eye in addition to the head lacerations, and that this was admitted as evidence during the trial. Zimmerman could not have gotten a broken nose if he just ran up to Travon and shot him, there had to have been some kind of struggle or fight.


The lacerations he sustained were said to be minor at best. So I still have reason to believe the altercation wasn't as violent as played out to be. 



> Zimmerman was wrong to go after Travon but there was a fight and who knows who instigated or started it, and what happened.


Regardless of who started the fight, Zimmerman's still the aggressor here. Who initiated the fight is irrelevant because Martin was the one being pursued. :I
It's like chasing after a lion and then being surprised when the lion actually attacks you.


----------



## Toshabi (Jul 16, 2013)

Omgawd, some people have no taste!


http://imgur.com/a/myEIr


----------



## HungryWolf (Jul 16, 2013)

Merica, where the shit happens and nobody gives a single fu-


----------



## Toshabi (Jul 16, 2013)

HungryWolf said:


> Merica, where when shit doesn't go the way we want it to, we throw a fucking tantrum without looking at the big picture



I fix'd that for you, m'lady.


----------



## HungryWolf (Jul 16, 2013)

Toshabi said:


> I fix'd that for you, m'lady.


Thank you Kind sir!


----------



## HungryWolf (Jul 16, 2013)

Well good night guys o.o
random post, please excuse it


----------



## Rilvor (Jul 16, 2013)

HungryWolf said:


> Merica, where the shit happens and nobody gives a single fu-


Well, yes actually. America is busy bellyaching about the Zimmerman case while a vicegrip of the murder of our privacy closes around our throats. We're seriously a few changed laws from a nightmare, but ask anyone on the street about the NSA or Utah Data Center and they don't know a goddamn thing. But they have all kinds of "facts" about the Zimmerman case.

Game Set and Match America, let's all go watch another Adam Sandler movie to stimulate our intellects!


----------



## Judge Spear (Jul 16, 2013)

Adam Sandler sucks. :<


----------



## Nikolinni (Jul 16, 2013)

Rilvor said:


> Well, yes actually. America is busy bellyaching about the Zimmerman case while a vicegrip of the murder of our privacy closes around our throats. We're seriously a few changed laws from a nightmare, but ask anyone on the street about the NSA or Utah Data Center and they don't know a goddamn thing. But they have all kinds of "facts" about the Zimmerman case.
> 
> Game Set and Match America, let's all go watch another Adam Sandler movie to stimulate our intellects!



People caring about rights? Naaah, unless you're female or gay, no one gives two fucks. 

I mean, no one cares if the Gov't knows every personal thing you're saying. Sure there might not be some FBI Foolio reading it, but it's still stored in some database most likely to be reviewed whenever it needs to be. Would work very easily in a police state where everything is monitored. 

But hey, all we do is draw dicks, write about dicks, and look at dicks. So it "doesn't affect us" in anyway, even if our privacy is invaded. 

Let me ask you this: do you people not like it when someone goes through your phone? If so, then why's it different with the government? 

Jesus Christ, you people forget about how much power you have. But no, you'd all rather focus on Zimmerman's trial and suddenly all get your law degrees. Not enough evidence to convict. End of subject. But eh, I think I'd have better luck preaching to a brick wall here. This is like talking to Christians or Atheists and trying to get them to tolerate each other. 

</end mini rant>


----------



## Willow (Jul 16, 2013)

Rilvor said:


> Well, yes actually. America is busy bellyaching about the Zimmerman case while a vicegrip of the murder of our privacy closes around our throats. We're seriously a few changed laws from a nightmare, but ask anyone on the street about the NSA or Utah Data Center and they don't know a goddamn thing. But they have all kinds of "facts" about the Zimmerman case.


The problem with the NSA controversy is that it's been going on for years well before the Obama administration. It's just no one cared about it as much then. 

This trial has created a public safety concern though as well as a massive outcry because seriously, this case was handled so poorly.


----------



## Nikolinni (Jul 16, 2013)

Willow said:


> The problem with the NSA controversy is that it's been going on for years well before the Obama administration. It's just no one cared about it as much then.
> 
> This trial has created a public safety concern though as well as a massive outcry because seriously, this case was handled so poorly.



The only reason why this trial got so much attention is because of the people involved made it blow up like this and the media got involved and blew it up. 

Compare with Gun incidents: How come school shootings or even just murders with a gun make national headlines and fuel antigun crowds? What about the times where someone with a concealed carry permit or a gun stops a bad guy. Y'know, a good guy w/a gun stopping a bad guy like the NRA says? 

'Cause the media don't care. And the Gov't sure as hell don't care because it damages the fear they want to put into people about guns.


----------



## Willow (Jul 16, 2013)

Nikolinni said:


> The only reason why this trial got so much attention is because of the people involved made it blow up like this and the media got involved and blew it up.


The people involved made it blow up like it did because it was their child that was killed and they wanted justice. Even though he was a year shy of being an adult he was still a child as far as the media is concerned. And children being killed by adults has the potential to gain a lot of media attention. 

I don't even think the courts were going to make a huge deal out of it until it got that attention. 


> Compare with Gun incidents: How come school shootings or even just murders with a gun make national headlines and fuel antigun crowds? What about the times where someone with a concealed carry permit or a gun stops a bad guy. Y'know, a good guy w/a gun stopping a bad guy like the NRA says?


How many times does this actually happen though? The most recent one I can think of is a woman shot and killed an intruder in her home and I think that one was last year. Not to say it doesn't happen at all but the bad tends to outweigh the good here. 



> 'Cause the media don't care. And the Gov't sure as hell don't care because it damages the fear they want to put into people about guns.


*doesn't


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Jul 16, 2013)

Willow said:


> Regardless of who started the fight, Zimmerman's still the aggressor here. Who initiated the fight is irrelevant because Martin was the one being pursued. :I
> It's like chasing after a lion and then being surprised when the lion actually attacks you.



Hmmm, not really. 

Zimmerman was doing what he was doing because he believed Martin was a suspicious individual. The only thing we know is that Zimmerman was following Martin by the time the last useful first-hand account ends with the phone call to the dispatcher and Trayvon text that "a creepy ass cracker" was following him.  While this might constitute stalking, it can also be chalked up to being a gross misunderstanding. 

Who approached who first, initiated violence, and so forth are extremely important details missing from this case. People can say "HE SHOULD HAVE LISTENED TO THE DISPATCHER" until they're blue in the face.  And you know what?  Zimmerman probably feels the same way. But at the time he made a rash decision against an unarmed teen who he thought was suspicious and he certainly didnt have an legal obligation to hang back and let Martin out of his sight.  If they got into a fight that doesn't make him the aggressor for following him, much like how if I bump into you on the side of the street and we get into an argument that doesn't mean I'm an aggressor. It's the person who initiates the immediate physical act because this also had the potential to be resolved with words. But we since we don't know exactly what happened we'll never know. 

Of course not saying Zimmerman was justified, but as they say, hindsight is 20/20. I doubt he followed Martin with the intent of anyone getting hurt that night, but unfortunately that's what happened.


----------



## Infestissumam (Jul 16, 2013)

I am sure many many people are disappointed that Zimmerman is not yet slain.


----------



## Nikolinni (Jul 16, 2013)

Willow said:


> How many times does this actually happen though? The most recent one I can think of is a woman shot and killed an intruder in her home and I think that one was last year. Not to say it doesn't happen at all but the bad tends to outweigh the good here.
> 
> 
> *doesn't



Here's a rather decent list of incidents where owners legally licensed did something good: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=598875

And "Dont'" was used on purpose. I know the proper form is "Doesn't", but I jus' don't have the feelin' of properly speakin' like onna dose proper folks at the moment.


----------



## Rilvor (Jul 16, 2013)

Willow said:


> The problem with the NSA controversy is that it's been going on for years well before the Obama administration. It's just no one cared about it as much then.
> 
> This trial has created a public safety concern though as well as a massive outcry because seriously, this case was handled so poorly.



To talk about this like it is even the first, or most significant, or last, or anything notable at all in the grand scheme of daily murders in the USA is what makes this headache inducing.

It's not about the people anymore, this whole thing has been turned into some sort of sick murder mystery for people to argue or obsess over if you ask me. That's sure what it looks like.


----------



## Gryphoneer (Jul 16, 2013)

Or maybe it's just that some people think KKK mentality and actions have no place in modern-day society.

I believe they're called "sane people".


----------



## Khaki (Jul 16, 2013)

Rilvor said:


> It's not about the people anymore, this whole thing has been turned into some sort of sick murder mystery for people to argue or obsess over if you ask me. That's sure what it looks like.



Got to keep the minds of the public occupied some how.


----------



## Infestissumam (Jul 16, 2013)

Gryphoneer said:


> Or maybe it's just that some people think KKK mentality and actions have no place in modern-day society.
> 
> I believe they're called "sane people".


The fact that so many people believe this was a racist crime is laughable.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Jul 16, 2013)

Rilvor said:


> To talk about this like it is even the first, or most significant, or last, or anything notable at all in the grand scheme of daily murders in the USA is what makes this headache inducing.
> 
> It's not about the people anymore, this whole thing has been turned into some sort of sick murder mystery for people to argue or obsess over if you ask me. That's sure what it looks like.



Well the problem is more with how Stand Your Ground works. 

The other problem is the prosecution provided a weak case for 2nd degree murder and people's passions override the logic of the evidence in the case. It's not that it isn't a tragedy but people who want him to be guilty for 2nd Degree murder will have confirmation bias. 

But last time I checked, people multitask - just because there's talks about the Zimmerman case here it doesn't mean that people aren't upset with the NSA or the fact that the IRS accidentally released social security numbers online. To assume that there are groups of people upset over the Zimmerman case or talking about it aren't thinking about anything else is a very disingenuous argument. 

As far as the media, yes it's known they blow things out of proportion and don't properly fact check...

I think this video and how the news blamed the NTSB for "confirming the names" (but doesn't mention where the hell they got the names from)...speaks volumes about the quality of the news agency involved.

[yt]L1JYHNX8pdo[/yt]


----------



## Infestissumam (Jul 16, 2013)

Arshes Nei said:


> But last time I checked, people multitask - just because there's talks about the Zimmerman case here it doesn't mean that people aren't upset with the NSA or the fact that the IRS accidentally released social security numbers online. To assume that there are groups of people upset over the Zimmerman case or talking about it aren't thinking about anything else is a very disingenuous argument.


A _lot_â€‹ of Americans do not know about the NSA thing, partly because it is buried by the news of Zimmerman. In fact, I'm almost certain that no major news source in the US is talking about the whole NSA thing, knowing how friendly the news media is with the government.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Jul 16, 2013)

Infestissumam said:


> A _lot_â€‹ of Americans do not know about the NSA thing, partly because it is buried by the news of Zimmerman. In fact, I'm almost certain that no major news source in the US is talking about the whole NSA thing, knowing how friendly the news media is with the government.



The statistical proof? Because people were all talking about the NSA thing before the Zimmerman trial made the news. The problem was that a lot of people didn't really care or were apathetic. That's a big difference than not knowing.


----------



## Attaman (Jul 16, 2013)

Nikolinni said:


> The only reason why this trial got so much attention is because of the people involved made it blow up like this and the media got involved and blew it up.


 The main reason it got media attention is not even the case so much as _police not doing their job_. If the Police involved had actually done a proper investigation and filed the reports properly and whatnot, regardless of whether we got a different verdict or not, the case would have been _much_ less noteworthy. 



Nikolinni said:


> Compare with Gun incidents: How come school shootings or even just murders with a gun make national headlines and fuel antigun crowds?


 Not even 1%? In 2010 there were 358 rifle homicides, 6009 handgun homicides, and 1939 with an unreported firearm type. This excludes attempted homicides, muggings, and so-on.

If you honestly want to tell me that the news reported _8306_ incidents in 2010 in an attempt to slander guns, by all means do go on. However, do note that if they spent an average of just _thirty seconds_ per report they'd have spent almost _three full days of news-time_ (as in if you compiled all the footage back-to-back) on the matter. Gods help you with any tragedies or mass-shootings that get several minutes / hours of coverage.

Furthermore, looking at this:



Nikolinni said:


> What about the times where someone with a concealed carry permit or a gun stops a bad guy. Y'know, a good guy w/a gun stopping a bad guy like the NRA says?


 And along with the fact you're attempting to derail the Trayvon Martin thread on this point, you aren't upset that the media might have a slant. You are upset it isn't _your_ slant.


----------



## Khaki (Jul 16, 2013)

Arshes Nei said:


> Well the problem is more with how Stand Your Ground works.
> 
> The other problem is the prosecution provided a weak case for 2nd degree murder and people's passions override the logic of the evidence in the case. It's not that it isn't a tragedy but people who want him to be guilty for 2nd Degree murder will have confirmation bias.
> 
> ...




I love the fact that the news reporter didn't even raise an eyebrow at the names.

That's the best thing I have seen happen on the news yet.


----------



## Infestissumam (Jul 16, 2013)

Arshes Nei said:


> The statistical proof? Because people were all talking about the NSA thing before the Zimmerman trial made the news. The problem was that a lot of people didn't really care or were apathetic. That's a big difference than not knowing.


I am not sure a statistic of that actually exists. I was going on the fact that none of anyone I've spoken to about the whole thing even knew what I was talking about until I explained it to them.

Being apathetic about a serious problem is as about as good as not knowing, though. But I suppose that's more an opinion.


----------



## Cocobanana (Jul 16, 2013)

It's no surprise whatsoever that the majority of opinions in this thread are that George Zimmerman deserves death for defending himself. He was mounted by a bigger, younger guy and having his face punched in, getting the back of his head banged against the concrete, yelling for help at least 30 whole seconds before shooting. If a person isn't allowed to defend themselves in this country anymore then I wouldn't want to live here.


----------



## Attaman (Jul 16, 2013)

Cocobanana said:


> It's no surprise whatsoever that the majority of opinions in this thread are that George Zimmerman deserves death for defending himself. He was mounted by a bigger, younger guy and having his face punched in, getting the back of his head banged against the concrete, yelling for help at least 30 whole seconds before shooting. If a person isn't allowed to defend themselves in this country anymore then I wouldn't want to live here.


Alternatively, people are pushing for punishment because Zimmerman ambushed a random teenager at night for the crime of aggravated swarthiness and, when they reasonably panicked and tried to escape, shot them dead.

Funny how relying your entire argument on "I'm going to take the absolutely best case scenario for my side in a case that _not even a court of law could get conclusive answers out of_â€‹" can backfire, eh?


----------



## Aleu (Jul 16, 2013)

Infestissumam said:


> I am not sure a statistic of that actually exists. I was going on the fact that none of anyone I've spoken to about the whole thing even knew what I was talking about until I explained it to them.
> 
> Being apathetic about a serious problem is as about as good as not knowing, though. But I suppose that's more an opinion.



Because people you've spoken to obviously equate the majority of America :V


----------



## Scaly Fal (Jul 16, 2013)

Well this whole thing taught me something- I have no idea what's going on in the life of George Zimmerman or the kid he killed. So, from now on I'm just going to say out of these kinds of things. I mean, within the last 24 hours my opinion has changed 3-4 times on the whole thing. I don't really even know what happened anymore. *sighs* Why does America focus on this shit anyway? Why not, oh I dunno, the thousands of crucified childeren if Syria? Could we please do something about that before Jesus comes down and kicks our asses?


----------



## Cocobanana (Jul 16, 2013)

Attaman said:


> Alternatively, people are pushing for punishment because Zimmerman ambushed a random teenager at night for the crime of aggravated swarthiness and, when they reasonably panicked and tried to escape, shot them dead.
> 
> Funny how relying your entire argument on "I'm going to take the absolutely best case scenario for my side in a case that _not even a court of law could get conclusive answers out of_â€‹" can backfire, eh?



There is endless proof for the opinion I believe in (George Zimmerman's wet back, Zimmerman's blood on Trayvon's fist and a cut on his fist as well, the 'creepy ass cracker' remark from Trayvon, etc) but in the end both parties made mistakes. Trayvon should have just gone straight home instead of being a creepy ass teenager loitering at 10pm at night in the rain. Trayvon probably saw a guy with his lights on driving slowly through the neighborhood and thought it was strange though it was Zimmerman's job to do the neighborhood watch thing and there had been a string of attempted break-ins recent to the unfortunate confrontation. American soldiers get to kill Iraqi's and Afghani's for far less reason than Zimmerman had and they don't get questioned at all.


----------



## Aetius (Jul 16, 2013)

Scaly Fal said:


> Why does America focus on this shit anyway?



This was something the media could easily inflame for ratings.


----------



## Recel (Jul 16, 2013)

Scaly Fal said:


> Well this whole thing taught me something- I have no idea what's going on in the life of George Zimmerman or the kid he killed. So, from now on I'm just going to say out of these kinds of things. I mean, within the last 24 hours my opinion has changed 3-4 times on the whole thing. I don't really even know what happened anymore. *sighs* Why does America focus on this shit anyway? Why not, oh I dunno, the thousands of crucified childeren if Syria? Could we please do something about that before Jesus comes down and kicks our asses?



Because of media. They need viewers, so they take a case they think will get peoples attention, and spice it up a bit. Their job is to inflate the flee to the size of an elephant, and to deflate elephants to the size of a flee.

And it's ok to not know what happened, because no one does. You can only pick a side, or just stay out of it really.


----------



## Attaman (Jul 16, 2013)

Cocobanana said:


> There is endless proof for the opinion I believe in (George Zimmerman's wet back, Zimmerman's blood on Trayvon's fist and a cut on his fist as well,


 Again, all this proves is... there was a confrontation. Something we already knew. It doesn't prove that Martin howled a litany of "Goddamn cracker I'm going to fuck your white-boy ass up!" as he tried to smear Zimmerman's head on the pavement, it doesn't mean Zimmerman initiated a fight with Martin to the point that he tried socking him and wrestling the gun away in a chance to escape. All it means is... there was a confrontation. Something _everyone already knows_.



Cocobanana said:


> Trayvon should have just gone straight home instead of being a creepy ass teenager loitering at 10pm at night in the rain.


 Just in case you didn't know: Aggravated Swarthiness _is not an actual crime_.



Cocobanana said:


> American soldiers get to kill Iraqi's and Afghani's for far less reason than Zimmerman had and they don't get questioned at all.


Despite the completely different context of the situation, you speak as though most people here _defend_â€‹ such killings.


----------



## Aleu (Jul 16, 2013)

Coco I don't think you understand what "loitering" means.

Or anything really but at least try to use words in their proper context.

But of course you'd condemn the black guy.


----------



## Infestissumam (Jul 16, 2013)

Aleu said:


> Because people you've spoken to obviously equate the majority of America :V


I apologise for making assumptions.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Jul 16, 2013)

Attaman said:


> The main reason it got media attention is not even the case so much as _police not doing their job_. If the Police involved had actually done a proper investigation and filed the reports properly and whatnot, regardless of whether we got a different verdict or not, the case would have been _much_ less noteworthy.



Not sure what you're so upset about concerning the police investigation.

Are you upset because they couldn't find any evidence to support the idea that Zimmerman wasn't acting in self-defense?  Or that when the FBI investigated Zimmerman they found more evidence to debunk a racist motive than to support it?

People were pissed off because the police department wasn't going to charge Zimmerman with anything, because they knew this case would come down to a "he-said, he-said" argument since none of the witnesses saw how the confrontation originated.  The police chief of Sanford even mentioned that "Stand Your Ground" protected Zimmerman since he was claiming self-defense from the beginning. 

I'm just curious what more you thought the cops could have done. Should they have just made up stuff about the case or claim an officer was in the area and totally saw Zimmerman act as the aggressor?  

Help me out here.


----------



## Attaman (Jul 16, 2013)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> Not sure what you're so upset about concerning the police investigation.
> 
> Are you upset because they couldn't find any evidence to support the idea that Zimmerman wasn't acting in self-defense?  Or that when the FBI investigated Zimmerman they found more evidence to debunk a racist motive than to support it?


 I'm upset mostly because they put very little effort into the initial investigation and follow-up, at least compared to what's appropriate for a _homicide_. No drug tests were involved, there was very little depth to the initial scouring for witnesses / accounts of what happened, actual cross-examination and / or verification of the series of events as given by Zimmerman, etcetera.

If the police investigation had been properly conducted at the start, the lengthy ordeal could have been readily avoided and resolved in short order (and we might actually have some potential for conclusive "Zimmerman is not guilty" / "Zimmerman is guilty" verdicts instead of "We dunno" wurbling).

EDIT: Note I use homicide above, though that's a poor choice of words made for brevity's sake. What I should have said is "appropriate for _an incident that lead to one dead and another person at least lightly injured_". Homicide implies murder and whatnot, incident-bit doesn't infer any innocence and / or guilt.


----------



## Verin Asper (Jul 16, 2013)

Cocobanana said:


> It's no surprise whatsoever that the majority of opinions in this thread are that George Zimmerman deserves death for defending himself. He was mounted by a bigger, younger guy and having his face punched in, getting the back of his head banged against the concrete, yelling for help at least 30 whole seconds before shooting. If a person isn't allowed to defend themselves in this country anymore then I wouldn't want to live here.


Then maybe he shouldnt have NEVER gotten out of that car then...


----------



## Aleu (Jul 16, 2013)

Verin Asper said:


> Then maybe he shouldnt have NEVER gotten out of that car then...


But he had to defend himself from the kid walking away :V


----------



## Verin Asper (Jul 16, 2013)

Aleu said:


> But he had to defend himself from the kid walking away :V


Then I get problems with people using the word Assault, forgetting that
"You dont NEED to hit someone to be assault, as long as you are threatening them...its assault by the law definition of it"

Thats right folks, I can get hit with assault if I have a pipe in my hand trying to threaten you with it, as I could be trying to scare you off but its still assault.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Jul 16, 2013)

Attaman said:


> I'm upset mostly because they put very little effort into the initial investigation and follow-up, at least compared to what's appropriate for a _homicide_. No drug tests were involved, there was very little depth to the initial scouring for witnesses / accounts of what happened, actual cross-examination and / or verification of the series of events as given by Zimmerman, etcetera.
> 
> If the police investigation had been properly conducted at the start, the lengthy ordeal could have been readily avoided and resolved in short order (and we might actually have some potential for conclusive "Zimmerman is not guilty" / "Zimmerman is guilty" verdicts instead of "We dunno" wurbling).
> 
> EDIT: Note I use homicide above, though that's a poor choice of words made for brevity's sake. What I should have said is "appropriate for _an incident that lead to one dead and another person at least lightly injured_". Homicide implies murder and whatnot, incident-bit doesn't infer any innocence and / or guilt.



Well unlike most homicide investigations there wasn't any question on who killed who. Zimmerman never argued that he didn't kill Martin. As I mentioned, the witnesses who were questioned didn't see how the confrontation started so there's not much there. The autopsy on Martin didnt reveal any presence of drugs.  The only possible misstep here was that Zimmerman wasn't drug tested but given what we know of him and of the night, there's no real reason to suspect that Zimmerman was under the influence aside from just wanting to be doubly sure.

Police photo and a visit to a family physician concluded that Zimmerman suffered a broken nose, a black eye, and other minor injuries. Abrasions on Martin's hand were consistent with the claim that he at some point began struggling with Martin. It was raining that night and police were unable to keep the crime scene in pristine condition in order to keep any blood from washing away, which is more bad luck than police incompetence since they originally weren't sent to investigate a homicide. 

Honestly the main questions remaining from the investigation was who started the fight. Zimmerman claimed he was walking back to his car when Martin approached him and, according to Zimmerman, said that he was gonna "die tonight" whilst attacking him.  That was his side of the story, which according to reports the police didnt really buy but since he was the only person who could provide a first-hand account as to how the fight started then there wasn't a whole lot they had to work on to punch holes in Zimmerman's claims.  None of the evidence was compelling enough to suggest that Zimmerman could be found guilty of second-degree murder. 

Now as we previously mentioned, the prosecution steps in and doesn't spend enough time trying to sell a manslaughter charge and instead focused the majority of their attention on second-degree murder.  Someone was throwing around the prosecution charging him with "wrongful death" which they can't because "wrongful death" is a civil claim, not a criminal one.  If the family of Martin wants to file a wrongful death lawsuit they would have to file it by February 26, 2014 when the statute of limitations runs up. 

In short, as you even acknowledge, if the investigation were run 100% to your satisfaction there's no guarantee that would have any bearing on the outcome of this trial. However as I mentioned the main reason the public was pissed off wasn't because of a shoddy investigation but because the department concluded that they couldn't pin a charge on Zimmerman that would stick given what they knew.  There's a crucial leap of faith a jury has to make in this case to determine whether or not Zimmerman was guilty and as we saw a jury was not ready to convict someone of murder by taking a guess that Zimmerman initiated the physical confrontation and didnt feel like his life was in immediate danger.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Jul 16, 2013)

Aleu said:


> But he had to defend himself from the kid walking away :V



Which is it, an altercation or walking away?


----------



## Cocobanana (Jul 16, 2013)

I'm not meaning to condemn Trayvon Martin as much as I'm condemning all of this 'fill in the blanks' we're doing. No one wants to be seen as racist so they're trying to prop this 17 year old kid up like a folk hero when he had a history of aggression and by all means probably was the one who escalated things here (but since there is no proof either way that is solely opinion based on his history compared to George's). I've seen t-shirts and posters comparing Trayvon Martin to fucking Martin Luther King Jr. Please. A movie director I used to respect (Spike Lee) even jumped on the bandwagon, posting what he thought was Zimmerman's address on his twitter in the hopes he'd get attacked. All of this is complete nonsense.

A jury of 6 women found him not guilty of 2nd degree murder, and I truly believe he didn't kill because based on racism, only paranoia. However, I don't think Zimmerman should get off completely free either and he should probably have his gun rights revoked or something.

One troubling thing though... there are multiple phone calls of hearing the screams for help yet none of the witnesses saw what happened? The altercation lasted long enough that if the neighbors wanted to truly help or see what was happening they could have ran out there but they were all chickens and now we've got this mess of not knowing for sure who did what and people assigning blame to people they've never met for the sake of looking good, JUST LIKE RELIGION DOES.


----------



## Verin Asper (Jul 16, 2013)

Cocobanana said:


> I'm not meaning to condemn Trayvon Martin as much as I'm condemning all of this 'fill in the blanks' we're doing. No one wants to be seen as racist so they're trying to prop this 17 year old kid up like a folk hero when he had a history of aggression and by all means probably was the one who escalated things here (but since there is no proof either way that is solely opinion based on his history compared to George's). I've seen t-shirts and posters comparing Trayvon Martin to fucking Martin Luther King Jr. Please. A movie director I used to respect (Spike Lee) even jumped on the bandwagon, posting what he thought was Zimmerman's address on his twitter in the hopes he'd get attacked. All of this is complete nonsense.
> 
> A jury of 6 women found him not guilty of 2nd degree murder, and I truly believe he didn't kill because based on racism, only paranoia. However, I don't think Zimmerman should get off completely free either and he should probably have his gun rights revoked or something.
> 
> One troubling thing though... there are multiple phone calls of hearing the screams for help yet none of the witnesses saw what happened? The altercation lasted long enough that if the neighbors wanted to truly help or see what was happening they could have ran out there but they were all chickens and now we've got this mess of not knowing for sure who did what and people assigning blame to people they've never met for the sake of looking good, JUST LIKE RELIGION DOES.


Just cause someone is aggressive, or have a history of it doesnt actually mean shit.
Also what bugs me is that people always constantly bring up "a jury of 6 women"
A jury is a jury


----------



## Aleu (Jul 16, 2013)

Arshes Nei said:


> Which is it, an altercation or walking away?


He's walking home. That's walking away.



Cocobanana said:


> One troubling thing though... there are multiple phone calls of hearing the screams for help yet none of the witnesses saw what happened? The altercation lasted long enough that if the neighbors wanted to truly help or see what was happening they could have ran out there *but they were all chickens* and now we've got this mess of not knowing for sure who did what and people assigning blame to people they've never met for the sake of looking good, JUST LIKE RELIGION DOES.


Son lemme tell you 'bout the bystander effect

Also why the fuck do people keep bring up religion? What the fuck does that have to do with anything?


----------



## Cocobanana (Jul 16, 2013)

Aleu said:


> He's walking home. That's walking away.
> 
> 
> Son lemme tell you 'bout the bystander effect
> ...



The inherent worth of a person is based on hearsay in religion, just like in this court case.


----------



## Aleu (Jul 16, 2013)

Cocobanana said:


> The inherent worth of a person is based on hearsay in religion, just like in this court case.


You don't need religion to do that. We do it anyway.

Now can we please just stop using every excuse in the book to bring up religion?


----------



## Corto (Jul 16, 2013)

Cocobanana said:


> JUST LIKE RELIGION DOES.



Between this and the mention of US soldiers I saw somewhere, I'm pretty sure you're just randomly yelling bullshit you know it's controversial to get responses. So stop that or I'm changing your username to "The Daily Mail".


----------



## Arshes Nei (Jul 16, 2013)

Aleu said:


> He's walking home. That's walking away.



But Zimmerman didn't know that -as there were a number of burglaries prior to this incident. You already admitted earlier there was an altercation. So don't cherry pick that he was "walking away". 

Should Zimmerman have followed him, no probably not - but it wasn't clear he had a gun out and was ready to shoot a guy walking away. Obviously a confrontation took place where during the altercation he had a gun and shot someone. How it happened exactly is the point of contention.


----------



## Aleu (Jul 16, 2013)

Arshes Nei said:


> But Zimmerman didn't know that -as there were a number of burglaries prior to this incident. You already admitted earlier there was an altercation. So don't cherry pick that he was "walking away".
> 
> Should Zimmerman have followed him, no probably not - but it wasn't clear he had a gun out and was ready to shoot a guy walking away. Obviously a confrontation took place where during the altercation he had a gun and shot someone. How it happened exactly is the point of contention.


I wasn't cherry picking. My point was that people shouldn't cry this bullshit of "he needed to defend himself" when it was pretty clear he was following and intended to come in contact with *what he was assuming* *for reasons unknown* "a criminal".


----------



## Arshes Nei (Jul 16, 2013)

So no one should come into contact with anyone that may be suspicious for whatever reason? The fact is he was wrong, but what if he was right and that was a burglar and he shot him? Would we be having this discussion? I think what he did was stupid because of the other risks involved and the tragedy of harming an innocent person. But I doubt anyone would have been shedding tears if the same scenario ran but it was a burglar instead of Martin.


----------



## Aleu (Jul 16, 2013)

Arshes Nei said:


> So no one should come into contact with anyone that may be suspicious for whatever reason? The fact is he was wrong, but what if he was right and that was a burglar and he shot him? Would we be having this discussion? I think what he did was stupid because of the other risks involved and the tragedy of harming an innocent person. But I doubt anyone would have been shedding tears if the same scenario ran but it was a burglar instead of Martin.


Why are you bringing up "what ifs?" It has no relevance. Even so, Zimmerman would still be out of line because he's not a fucking cop.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Jul 16, 2013)

Aleu said:


> Why are you bringing up "what ifs?" It has no relevance. Even so, Zimmerman would still be out of line because he's not a fucking cop.



It has a lot of relevance. Because "What ifs" were the whole reason Zimmerman went to follow the guy. Was he overzealous, a bit because he had already called dispatch. However, jurors found the dispatch contradicting because right after he told him not to follow he also asked for more info on the guy basically encouraging him to follow and get more info.

The additional frustration of a lot of burglaries is why he became overzealous. While people were arguing over whether or not he actually said "coon" or "punks" over something rather inaudible, the fact of the matter is he was frustrated with the robberies. The problem is as a neighborhood watch guy it's not the wisest thing to engage.

But this "no one shouldn't come across anyone they find suspicious" is kinda bunk. People are told in many industries to simply ask a person who they are or if they can help them if they see someone they don't know hanging around, not run the other way. The reason why is the base contact is usually enough to get someone to stop what they're doing if they're up to no good.

The problem was, Martin was already pissed and had ideas going on in his head because a Creepy Ass Cracker was following him from his POV and he was only taking a shortcut home. Zimmerman thought another guy who didn't belong in the neighborhood was hanging about and while yeah he was playing hero cop it's still not uncommon to approach someone you don't know in your area.


----------



## Aleu (Jul 16, 2013)

Just because they ask for more info doesn't mean that they want Zimmerman to follow him. Zimmerman's mindset wasn't "what if". It's pretty obvious that he had it in his head that Trayvon was up to no good because of the comment you just brought up. Whether it was "coons" or "punks" doesn't matter as it was still a derogatory remark either way.

People will find any excuse to find someone suspicious as people have made it evident in the thread. "Oh he's walking at night" "Oh, he has his hood up." Just a little funfact about what's not uncommon in MY area neither of these are anything close to rare. What IS rare is a person coming up and asking what I'm up to when I walk around neighborhoods. Not even been approached by cops. I've only heard of one case of this with a friend of mine who just so happened to be black.

Whether people want to admit it or not, the area is still rife with racial profiling.


----------



## DarrylWolf (Jul 16, 2013)

News out of California is that some bodegas in LA and Oakland are getting ransacked by thugs. Why didn't the jurors realize that the NAACP and their ilk needs a "blood offering" to be happy? Those jurors should reimburse all the owners of the storefronts in the nation that get destroyed because of their decision. If you had placated the Sharpton-ites with Zimmerman's life, the riots would never have occurred. We all know that the NAACP will never pass judgement on the people currently looting stores, because they are just "blowing off steam" after the decision and shouldn't be condemned for their barbarous acts. I get the feeling that the NAACP really only wanted to see "an eye for an eye" this whole time, and they won't respectfully abide by the jury's findings, unless they got what they wanted.


----------



## Inciatus (Jul 16, 2013)

DarrylWolf said:


> News out of California is that some bodegas in LA and Oakland are getting ransacked by thugs. Why didn't the jurors realize that the NAACP and their ilk needs a "blood offering" to be happy? Those jurors should reimburse all the owners of the storefronts in the nation that get destroyed because of their decision. If you had placated the Sharpton-ites with Zimmerman's life, the riots would never have occurred. We all know that the NAACP will never pass judgement on the people currently looting stores, because they are just "blowing off steam" after the decision and shouldn't be condemned for their barbarous acts. I get the feeling that the NAACP really only wanted to see "an eye for an eye" this whole time, and they won't respectfully abide by the jury's findings, unless they got what they wanted.


That is a stupid idea. Why should the jurors pay for making a judgement? The jurors are not the people causing the damage, the rioters are causing the damage. 'Blowing off steam' is not an acceptable excuse. There are judgements people find upsetting but that is the way it is.


----------



## Nikolinni (Jul 16, 2013)

DarrylWolf said:


> News out of California is that some bodegas in LA and Oakland are getting ransacked by thugs. Why didn't the jurors realize that the NAACP and their ilk needs a "blood offering" to be happy? Those jurors should reimburse all the owners of the storefronts in the nation that get destroyed because of their decision. If you had placated the Sharpton-ites with Zimmerman's life, the riots would never have occurred. We all know that the NAACP will never pass judgement on the people currently looting stores, because they are just "blowing off steam" after the decision and shouldn't be condemned for their barbarous acts. I get the feeling that the NAACP really only wanted to see "an eye for an eye" this whole time, and they won't respectfully abide by the jury's findings, unless they got what they wanted.



And this is fair and just how? 

I get cha. Let's not pass down justice because it just might cause riots or make people go batshit crazy. And say what you want about what Zimmerman did, but legally he's not guilty, as there's not enough hard evidence to get him sentenced, or whatever.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Jul 16, 2013)

Inciatus said:


> That is a stupid idea. Why should the jurors pay for making a judgement? The jurors are not the people causing the damage, the rioters are causing the damage. 'Blowing off steam' is not an acceptable excuse. There are judgements people find upsetting but that is the way it is.




He was being facetious actually. Basically saying how these protestors or gatherers rarely say anything about the looting or even express much moral outrage towards how their own destroy the community over a trial that didn't even happen in their state. It's pretty fucked up tbh.


----------



## Inciatus (Jul 16, 2013)

Arshes Nei said:


> He was being facetious actually. Basically saying how these protestors or gatherers rarely say anything about the looting or even express much moral outrage towards how their own destroy the community over a trial that didn't even happen in their state. It's pretty fucked up tbh.


Really, oh crap. This is what I get for taking two week break from FAF, completely forget how to read sarcasm.
*crawls back into hole*


----------



## Arshes Nei (Jul 16, 2013)

Inciatus said:


> Really, oh crap. This is what I get for taking two week break from FAF, completely forget how to read sarcasm.
> *crawls back into hole*



Yeah I almost misread it too because...well it's DarrylWolf  But I noticed how he was saying how these guys that organize protests rarely take accountability or really solve things when damage happens.


----------



## Lobar (Jul 16, 2013)

DarrylWolf said:


> News out of California is that some bodegas in LA and Oakland are getting ransacked by thugs. Why didn't the jurors realize that the NAACP and their ilk needs a "blood offering" to be happy? Those jurors should reimburse all the owners of the storefronts in the nation that get destroyed because of their decision. If you had placated the Sharpton-ites with Zimmerman's life, the riots would never have occurred. We all know that the NAACP will never pass judgement on the people currently looting stores, because they are just "blowing off steam" after the decision and shouldn't be condemned for their barbarous acts. I get the feeling that the NAACP really only wanted to see "an eye for an eye" this whole time, and they won't respectfully abide by the jury's findings, unless they got what they wanted.



A hilarious post from someone that wants to be a black stereotype.


----------



## Cyanide_tiger (Jul 17, 2013)

Aleu said:


> What IS rare is a person coming up and asking what I'm up to when I walk around neighborhoods. Not even been approached by cops. I've only heard of one case of this with a friend of mine who just so happened to be black.
> 
> Whether people want to admit it or not, the area is still rife with racial profiling.



I've actually been approached by police over half a dozen times in my own neighborhood to ask what I'm doing, even in front of my own house, which I've lived in for quite a while. And the weirdest part of this experience compared to your friend's account? I'm white, was not wearing a hood or even a jacket, and every time was at night. 

Know what has happened every time? The cop asks what I'm doing and to see my ID, I oblige and provide it, he makes sure I don't have any outstanding warrants, then hands it back, tells me to have a good evening, and goes on his way. 

I'm really not seeing where the problem is in your example as far as the cops are concerned.


----------



## Verin Asper (Jul 17, 2013)

Cyanide_tiger said:


> I've actually been approached by police over half a dozen times in my own neighborhood to ask what I'm doing, even in front of my own house, which I've lived in for quite a while. And the weirdest part of this experience compared to your friend's account? I'm white, was not wearing a hood or even a jacket, and every time was at night.
> 
> Know what has happened every time? The cop asks what I'm doing and to see my ID, I oblige and provide it, he makes sure I don't have any outstanding warrants, then hands it back, tells me to have a good evening, and goes on his way.
> 
> I'm really not seeing where the problem is in your example as far as the cops are concerned.


Cause some of us dont get that same luxury, specially since this is florida, and specially since this whole thing happen in sanford. No one in their right mind go to sanford cause of how bad it is.


----------



## Cyanide_tiger (Jul 17, 2013)

Verin Asper said:


> Cause some of us dont get that same luxury, specially since this is florida, and specially since this whole thing happen in sanford. No one in their right mind go to sanford cause of how bad it is.



And what luxury is that?


----------



## Verin Asper (Jul 17, 2013)

Cyanide_tiger said:


> And what luxury is that?


That sort of thing dont actually happen to me. 
Life is varied from person to person, don't ever go "well it doesn't happen to me so I don't see the problem."


----------



## Cyanide_tiger (Jul 17, 2013)

Verin Asper said:


> That sort of thing dont actually happen to me.



Elaborate?



> Life is varied from person to person, don't ever go "well it doesn't happen to me so I don't see the problem."



I think you got a bit turned around here. I specifically said that it did happen to me over half a dozen times, only I'm not crying victim because I don't feel like I was one. I also never said that experiences don't vary from one person to another, so I'm not sure where you're pulling that one from.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Jul 17, 2013)

Hmm, so Florida doesn't have a mandatory retreat law? Well I think people need to lobby to get that changed because that really changed the outcome of the case.


----------



## Verin Asper (Jul 17, 2013)

Cyanide_tiger said:


> Elaborate?
> 
> 
> 
> I think you got a bit turned around here. I specifically said that it did happen to me over half a dozen times, only I'm not crying victim because I don't feel like I was one. I also never said that experiences don't vary from one person to another, so I'm not sure where you're pulling that one from.


When you actually have to get your sister involve to PROVE you live at your residence, to prove just cause you are in a nice car, you didnt steal it. I dont like getting racial profiled, I dont like knowing "black guy going for a night jog very suspicious"

Then we have SANFORD, where this kind of racial profiling reach common levels, specially when you combine two communities to become one.


Finally you did, re read your final line



			
				cyanide_tiger said:
			
		

> _I've actually been approached by police over half a dozen times in my own neighborhood to ask what I'm doing, even in front of my own house, which I've lived in for quite a while. And the weirdest part of this experience compared to your friend's account? I'm white, was not wearing a hood or even a jacket, and every time was at night. _
> 
> _Know what has happened every time? The cop asks what I'm doing and to see my ID, I oblige and provide it, he makes sure I don't have any outstanding warrants, then hands it back, tells me to have a good evening, and goes on his way. _
> 
> _*I'm really not seeing where the problem is in your example as far as the cops are concerned.*_


You pretty much went "I don't have this problem so I don't see the problem"

It must be nice to have that Luxury


----------



## Lobar (Jul 17, 2013)

Arshes Nei said:


> Hmm, so Florida doesn't have a mandatory retreat law? Well I think people need to lobby to get that changed because that really changed the outcome of the case.



That is the entire point of Stand Your Ground, to eliminate mandatory retreat.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Jul 17, 2013)

Lobar said:


> That is the entire point of Stand Your Ground, to eliminate mandatory retreat.



Depends on the state, many try to make it work in conjunction...not completely eliminate.


----------



## Verin Asper (Jul 17, 2013)

Lobar said:


> That is the entire point of Stand Your Ground, to eliminate mandatory retreat.


Doesnt stop the fact we can work a system of which retreating should be an option. I mean for idola sake, the original rules of life is Fight or Flight, somehow when I wasnt watching it became Kill or be killed.


----------



## Cyanide_tiger (Jul 17, 2013)

Verin Asper said:


> When you actually have to get your sister involve to PROVE you live at your residence, to prove just cause you are in a nice car, you didnt steal it. I dont like getting racial profiled, I dont like knowing "black guy going for a night jog very suspicious"
> 
> Then we have SANFORD, where this kind of racial profiling reach common levels, specially when you combine two communities to become one.



So, the address on your ID doesn't match where you currently claim to live, and the name on the registration of the car you're driving doesn't match your own, and then you cry "racial profiling!" when the police want you to prove you're telling the truth. Especially in a high-crime area. Right. 



> Finally you did, re read your final line
> 
> You pretty much went "I don't have this problem so I don't see the problem"
> 
> It must be nice to have that Luxury



I'm still confused about why you're using the word "luxury". I call this logic. The police are here to catch bad guys that do bad things. If you're not doing bad things, then why are you worried about them asking what you're doing when you're on a jog, regardless of time of day? From what I can see here, you're essentially getting mad at the police for doing their job.


----------



## Aleu (Jul 17, 2013)

Cyanide_tiger said:


> So, the address on your ID doesn't match where you currently claim to live, and the name on the registration of the car you're driving doesn't match your own, and then you cry "racial profiling!" when the police want you to prove you're telling the truth. Especially in a high-crime area. Right.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm still confused about why you're using the word "luxury". I call this logic. The police are here to catch bad guys that do bad things. If you're not doing bad things, then why are you worried about them asking what you're doing when you're on a jog, regardless of time of day? From what I can see here, you're essentially getting mad at the police for doing their job.


I don't recall Verin saying that the ID didn't match or anything like that.

Man that's the most fucking bullshit cop-out (hur) I continue to see. "If you're not doing anything wrong, why worry?" No one's worried about being stopped. People just don't like assumptions because of skin color. "Oh god damn, lookit that black guy goin' for a jog. I bet he's really gonna rob someone. Better stop him and ask him 20 questions"


----------



## Inciatus (Jul 17, 2013)

Aleu said:


> "Oh god damn, lookit that black guy goin' for a jog. I bet he's really gonna rob someone. Better stop him and ask him 20 questions"


He's running away! Arrest him!


----------



## Aleu (Jul 17, 2013)

Inciatus said:


> He's running away! Arrest him!


"He twitched! He's resisting arrest! Quick! Tase him!"


----------



## Cyanide_tiger (Jul 17, 2013)

Aleu said:


> I don't recall Verin saying that the ID didn't match or anything like that.



If it didn't match up, why would he need to get anyone else involved for verification purposes? "This guy claims to live at this address, which is on his *state issued ID*, better get him to have someone verify it!"



> Man that's the most fucking bullshit cop-out (hur) I continue to see. "If you're not doing anything wrong, why worry?" No one's worried about being stopped. People just don't like assumptions because of skin color. "Oh god damn, lookit that black guy goin' for a jog. I bet he's really gonna rob someone. Better stop him and ask him 20 questions"



You're entirely missing my point. Not every time someone gets stopped and questioned is a matter of skin color, and short of the police directly admitting "we stopped you because you're black," you're going to be very hard pressed to prove that it wasn't the cop just doing his job. Short of that, it looks to me like you're simply slinging assumptions and crying "racist!" for the attention of it.


----------



## Aleu (Jul 17, 2013)

Cyanide_tiger said:


> If it didn't match up, why would he need to get anyone else involved for verification purposes? "This guy claims to live at this address, which is on his *state issued ID*, better get him to have someone verify it!"
> 
> 
> 
> You're entirely missing my point. Not every time someone gets stopped and questioned is a matter of skin color, and short of the police directly admitting "we stopped you because you're black," you're going to be very hard pressed to prove that it wasn't the cop just doing his job. Short of that, it looks to me like you're simply slinging assumptions and crying "racist!" for the attention of it.


Riiiight because people aren't racist and don't ever racial profile.

Funny how you claim that I"m making assumptions when you did just the post before.

You also missed the point of my original post on this but what the fuck ever. Keep being an idiot.


----------



## Cyanide_tiger (Jul 17, 2013)

Aleu said:


> Riiiight because people aren't racist and don't ever racial profile.
> 
> Funny how you claim that I"m making assumptions when you did just the post before.
> 
> You also missed the point of my original post on this but what the fuck ever. Keep being an idiot.



When did I ever say that racial profiling doesn't exist? I merely said that it's extremely difficult to prove when it happens short of the police admitting it.

So you're saying the logic of "Police doesn't believe I live where I say I live, so I have to call someone to prove it" -> "Why would the police do this? Most likely the address on my ID doesn't match up with the address I told them" is less valid than "Police doesn't believe I live where I say I live, so I have to call someone to prove it" -> "It's because I'm black!" 

The overall point of your original post doesn't really apply here. What I'm getting at is that you said it's rare for the police to stop and question what people are doing, and that when they do it's because they racially profiled the person. I'm saying that that isn't the case, as shown by my experiences. Race doesn't always play into it, and without admission of such or use of derogatory language that slurs your race, there's no reason to believe it does.


----------



## Aleu (Jul 17, 2013)

Cyanide_tiger said:


> When did I ever say that racial profiling doesn't exist? I merely said that it's extremely difficult to prove when it happens short of the police admitting it.
> 
> So you're saying the logic of "Police doesn't believe I live where I say I live, so I have to call someone to prove it" -> "Why would the police do this? Most likely the address on my ID doesn't match up with the address I told them" is less valid than "Police doesn't believe I live where I say I live, so I have to call someone to prove it" -> "It's because I'm black!"
> 
> The overall point of your original post doesn't really apply here. What I'm getting at is that you said it's rare for the police to stop and question what people are doing, and that when they do it's because they racially profiled the person. I'm saying that that isn't the case, as shown by my experiences. Race doesn't always play into it, and without admission of such or use of derogatory language that slurs your race, there's no reason to believe it does.


Oh my god you are such full of shit. So you say that whatever happens to you is what happens to everyone? "Race doesn't apply to me so it doesn't apply to anyone else"

How about you come to Florida and see what goes on here.


----------



## Cyanide_tiger (Jul 17, 2013)

Aleu said:


> Oh my god you are such full of shit. So you say that whatever happens to you is what happens to everyone? "Race doesn't apply to me so it doesn't apply to anyone else"
> 
> How about you come to Florida and see what goes on here.



How about you cut the shit and quit intentionally misconstruing what I'm saying? Wanna try that for a change of pace? 

Your example was flawed. Black people aren't the only ones to get pulled over by the police, and even when it happens it isn't necessarily because they're black. Not all actions the police take are racially charged, as you've been attempting to assert. How much more do I really need to dumb this down for you to get it?

It's a grey area that you're choosing not to acknowledge. Some actions may be, but how are you going to prove it? Chances are high that you aren't. Believe it or not, some police officers actually do their job without bias or prejudice. I know that may be difficult for you to accept, but it's true. 

So how about you stop screaming racism at every single cop that's just trying to get home alive at the end of the night while doing their job, hm?


----------



## Aleu (Jul 17, 2013)

Cyanide_tiger said:


> How about you cut the shit and quit intentionally misconstruing what I'm saying? Wanna try that for a change of pace?
> 
> Your example was flawed. Black people aren't the only ones to get pulled over by the police, and even when it happens it isn't necessarily because they're black. Not all actions the police take are racially charged, as you've been attempting to assert. How much more do I really need to dumb this down for you to get it?
> 
> ...


Except you're only going according to you. In YOUR TOWN. Not mine. How about instead of dumbing down, smarten up and think that just because that happens to you, doesn't mean it happens everywhere. At least two people in this fucking thread FROM FLORIDA acknowledge the blatant racism. I'm also kinda tired of the "HUR DUR YOU CAN"T PROVE IT" attitude. People don't need to outright say "Hey I'm stopping you for being black" to be able to tell that's exactly what they're fucking doing.

I also find it funny how you automatically jump to Verin's ID being mismatched when there's also the probability of the police assuming that he has a fake ID.


----------



## Cyanide_tiger (Jul 17, 2013)

Aleu said:


> Except you're only going according to you. In YOUR TOWN. Not mine. How about instead of dumbing down, smarten up and think that just because that happens to you, doesn't mean it happens everywhere. At least two people in this fucking thread FROM FLORIDA acknowledge the blatant racism. I'm also kinda tired of the "HUR DUR YOU CAN"T PROVE IT" attitude. People don't need to outright say "Hey I'm stopping you for being black" to be able to tell that's exactly what they're fucking doing.



So now you're saying that every single cop in your home town that decides to ask a black person what they're doing - regardless of any circumstances surrounding the questioning - is racist. Period. There's absolutely no leeway there. No question that they're just doing their job rather than deciding to abuse the authority of their badge and act on their racist impulses. A cop asks a white man what's he's doing in the middle of the night in a high crime neighborhood and he's doing his job, but if the man is black then it's racism. Is being racist a requirement to be on the police force in your home town? Will they deny you a badge, even if you meet or exceed every other qualification, simply for not being racist? 

At this point, you're simply being both obstinate and hyperbolic in your assertion that every single police officer in your home town is racist. 

By the way, without direct admission or the use of racial slurs, how do you determine that a police officer is racist when he stops someone to question them? I'm interested in your process here. Surely it must be more than "the officer is questioning a black person, that's racist!", yes? 



> I also find it funny how you automatically jump to Verin's ID being mismatched when there's also the probability of the police assuming that he has a fake ID.



The thing about that is that government issued IDs have a number on them. This number corresponds to a file in a government database where all the information printed on the card is stored, along with criminal records and other things like that. The first thing an officer is going to do when you hand them your ID is radio this number back to dispatch or type it into their car's computer. If the number comes back with different, false, or no information, then the officer knows it's a fake ID and you're arrested on the appropriate charges and there's no reason to call the person's family member for verification. However, if the ID is real, the information on the card lines up with what the number brings back, and there's still no reason to assume it's false, and therefore no reason to have the person call a family member for verification. Awesome how that works, isn't it?


----------



## Aleu (Jul 17, 2013)

Except white people are generally left alone in my area unless they're doing something blatantly illegal like smoking pot out for the world to see or whatever. However, even if you're associated with a black person walking to a fucking store, you're automatically suspicious.

Obviously there have been no cases of fake IDs slipping by :V


----------



## Attaman (Jul 17, 2013)

DarrylWolf said:


> News out of California is that some bodegas in LA and Oakland are getting ransacked by thugs. Why didn't the jurors realize that the NAACP and their ilk


 Protip, since you're trying to make this out as a "Black savages" bit (at least since you're explicitly referring to the "NAACP" and "their ilk"): _look up the goddamn story first_, because - and I'm sure this may surprise you - _several of the people arrested in the incident were white, as well as a fair deal of the protestors_.

Also, seeing his opinion on the NAACP and "their ilk": This is another reason why people feel the partial VRA appeal was too soon. 



Arshes Nei said:


> He was being facetious actually. Basically saying how these protestors or gatherers rarely say anything about the looting or even express much moral outrage towards how their own destroy the community over a trial that didn't even happen in their state. It's pretty fucked up tbh.


 To be fair, _several of the protestors arrested_ were from out-of-city (as in they literally went into a different city to join the protesting there). The conditions within Oakland mixed with its reputation practically make it a beacon for protestors, wanna-be anarchists, hooligans, and so-on to congregate on the place.


----------



## Cyanide_tiger (Jul 17, 2013)

Aleu said:


> Except white people are generally left alone in my area unless they're doing something blatantly illegal like smoking pot out for the world to see or whatever. However, even if you're associated with a black person walking to a fucking store, you're automatically suspicious.



And now who's basing their argument on stereotype? Now you're no better than the supposedly racist police.



> Obviously there have been no cases of fake IDs slipping by :V



Obviously because all police officers are not only racists, but robots as well, which gives absolutely no room for error.


----------



## Aleu (Jul 17, 2013)

-fuck it. I'm not derailing anymore. This is about a court case-


----------



## Inciatus (Jul 17, 2013)

*Warning! If you are easily offended by racist things you probably shouldn't continue reading or using the internet.*

Pretty much everyone in Florida is racist to some degree (actually pretty much everyone everywhere is racist to some degree except maybe people with really really bad Alzheimer's). I am also racist to a degree, not to the 'I'm gonna lynch myself a negro' degree, but still to a degree. It comes down largely to the fact that there are not many black people in my area. We have about 12% blacks. Now almost all of them are poor (there are some middle class and wealthy blacks but they 'speak like white people' and though their skin is black they are largely considered 'white' even by the 'I'm gonna lynch myself a negro' racists). Now a lot of the crime that occurs happens in the poor black areas is committed by black people. We are long taught to avoid those areas and those people largely because of the crime in that area. Even my father's friend, a former South African police officer, was scared of the area, when my father took a wrong turn, wanting to get out quickly because "these are real darkies." So yes when a black person is outside of those areas, people are suspicious and yes they will likely be talked to to see what it is they are doing far more so than a white person. So yes, there is racial profiling in the state of Florida, and there is racial profiling in my town. Pretty much whenever a black comes into a store, people are suspicious and watch the person (though if he speaks and is actually 'white' then people go about their business) to make sure s/he isn't going to steal something or something. In Florida this is commonplace.



Aleu said:


> Except white people are generally left alone in my area unless they're doing something blatantly illegal like smoking pot out for the world to see or whatever. However, even if you're associated with a black person walking to a fucking store, you're automatically suspicious.


Even then I have seen such things very much ignored.


----------



## King conker (Jul 18, 2013)

Thing is even though he came out of this not guilty its a loss. Someone died, Civil rights were pushed and every racist person in the country can smile knowing we took 10 steps back from racial equality.

It should never have been about race and the media made this into a monster that was not needed. The media got there story an there happy. The rest of us now have the mess. Look i personally believe if it was self defense and zimmerman was on the ground getting the life beat out of him that this was then a fair trial, if that was not the case then its a different story.
I was not there clearly and the witness's that were called ended up being train wrecks.

Violence never solves violence is a great idea but its flawed.  Nobody of sound mind wants to take another persons life but if you were put into the same situation as zimmerman was here what would you have done?

No matter what its a hard topic because there realy is no solid evidence besides the dead kid and Zimmerman. I still find Zimmerman a coward for not taking the stand more but that's my own opinion. Take the whole race thing out of the equation.
It has no place here and only dilutes the real issue.


----------



## Inciatus (Jul 18, 2013)

King conker said:


> Thing is even though he came out of this not guilty its a loss. Someone died, Civil rights were pushed and every racist person in the country can smile knowing we took 10 steps back from racial equality.


We didn't really take a step back from racial equality. If you are going to make such claims, elaborate.


> It should never have been about race and the media made this into a monster that was not needed. The media got there story an there happy. The rest of us now have the mess.


The race thing initially started because some important guy in Sanford (was it chief of police or schools or something (I can't remember it's been too long)) threw it as a race thing and then other groups joined in and then it exploded.


> Look i personally believe if it was self defense and zimmerman was on the ground getting the life beat out of him that this was then a fair trial, if that was not the case then its a different story.
> I was not there clearly and the witness's that were called ended up being train wrecks.
> 
> Violence never solves violence is a great idea but its flawed.  Nobody of sound mind wants to take another persons life but if you were put into the same situation as zimmerman was here what would you have done?
> ...


Eh you uh just seemed to uh contradict your implied opinions earlier.


----------



## King conker (Jul 18, 2013)

Inciatus said:


> We didn't really take a step back from racial equality. If you are going to make such claims, elaborate.
> 
> The race thing initially started because some important guy in Sanford (was it chief of police or schools or something (I can't remember it's been too long)) threw it as a race thing and then other groups joined in and then it exploded.
> 
> Eh you uh just seemed to uh contradict your implied opinions earlier.



Id say we took a step simply due to how this played out. Looking at the groups out there who are upset about this not because it was necessarily a murder but because it was a white/Hispanic that killed a black teen.  People are killed everyday and most dont register more then a bleep on the news. The way i see it, the Second people became upset over a white killing a black rather then just it being a murder we took steps back.

Well yea that's my point, once this was made into a racial thing it then became a big story for the media which then made it worse. Drama and violence get more viewers and its sad to but say the media loves this kinda stuff and will make it bigger to get more viewers.


I tend to see in shades of gray. Kinda makes me horrible when it comes to debating. After rereading what i wrote it looks like i argued with myself for minute. I see what i typed although it was not my intent.


----------



## Inciatus (Jul 18, 2013)

King conker said:


> Id say we took a step simply due to how this played out. Looking at the groups out there who are upset about this not because it was necessarily a murder but because it was a white/Hispanic that killed a black teen.  People are killed everyday and most dont register more then a bleep on the news. The way i see it, the Second people became upset over a white killing a black rather then just it being a murder we took steps back.


Well even then not really. We didn't take steps back in terms of racial stuffs. It just happens to be more apparent.



> Well yea that's my point, once this was made into a racial thing it then became a big story for the media which then made it worse. Drama and violence get more viewers and its sad to but say the media loves this kinda stuff and will make it bigger to get more viewers.


People do love Floridian law and such. It is like a real life version of those crime shows that seem so popular now and because Florida lets cameras in the courthouse it is 'more entertaining' (apparently) for people to watch rather than looking at a series of pictures drawn. They get to enjoy the watching of these things and puzzling at our laws (that many people seem to think of us as a lawless state).



> I tend to see in shades of gray. Kinda makes me horrible when it comes to debating. After rereading what i wrote it looks like i argued with myself for minute. I see what i typed although it was not my intent.


Are there 50 gradations of it? :V 
Grey doesn't make a person bad a debating. Arguing two sides of a coin, however, is confusing.


----------



## Verin Asper (Jul 18, 2013)

Cyanide_tiger said:


> So, the address on your ID doesn't match where you currently claim to live, and the name on the registration of the car you're driving doesn't match your own, and then you cry "racial profiling!" when the police want you to prove you're telling the truth. Especially in a high-crime area. Right.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm still confused about why you're using the word "luxury". I call this logic. The police are here to catch bad guys that do bad things. If you're not doing bad things, then why are you worried about them asking what you're doing when you're on a jog, regardless of time of day? From what I can see here, you're essentially getting mad at the police for doing their job.


I'm not getting angry at the cops, I'm getting angry at *you* for just going "I dont have this problem, so I dont see the problem"

Why the hell would I need my ID on me when I'm JUST SITTING OUTSIDE MY HOUSE to enjoy the rain, why cant I wear what I like to wear being dark clothing, why is it suspicious when a black person is in a nice car? Why does it look like I'm doing SOMETHING suspicious when I'm taking a breather from my jog but the guy further up the road who I been jogging with gets a "nah just drive past that guy."

Florida has a bad case of racial profiling, specially when this state seems to just want to screw the minorities
I know cops are trying to do their job, but can they at least know the communities, can they at least know "hey theres always a group of joggers that go jogging at 3am in this area"
(sorry for this post being late though, I had work today)


----------



## thoughtmaster (Jul 18, 2013)

I personally don't care about which way it goes or if he is guilty or innocent but I'm curious why we're do focused on this single case with the amount of gun violence that occurs in the US? This is just one instance of gun violence when there is currently 8583 murders in the US involving firearms (source http://www.guardiannews.com/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-state). I see no reason why this one is so significant compaired to all the other ones. The amount of murders is massive, a single killing with a gun isn't that big a deal.


----------



## Recel (Jul 18, 2013)

thoughtmaster said:


> I personally don't care about which way it goes or if he is guilty or innocent but I'm curious why we're do focused on this single case with the amount of gun violence that occurs in the US? This is just one instance of gun violence when there is currently 8583 murders in the US involving firearms (source http://www.guardiannews.com/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-state). I see no reason why this one is so significant compaired to all the other ones. The amount of murders is massive, a single killing with a gun isn't that big a deal.



Because the victim was black! Also, media.
Nothing more to it really.


----------



## Inciatus (Jul 18, 2013)

thoughtmaster said:


> I personally don't care about which way it goes or if he is guilty or innocent but I'm curious why we're do focused on this single case with the amount of gun violence that occurs in the US? This is just one instance of gun violence when there is currently 8583 murders in the US involving firearms (source http://www.guardiannews.com/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-state). I see no reason why this one is so significant compaired to all the other ones. The amount of murders is massive, a single killing with a gun isn't that big a deal.


An important person in the town raised a hullabaloo about it and  media caught on and it went from there. People love Floridian news, partially for reasons I've already stated and partially because some of our news is weird to the rest of the country.


----------



## Gryphoneer (Jul 18, 2013)

thoughtmaster said:


> I personally don't care about which way it goes or if he is guilty or innocent but I'm curious why we're do focused on this single case with the amount of gun violence that occurs in the US? This is just one instance of gun violence when there is currently 8583 murders in the US involving firearms (source http://www.guardiannews.com/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-state). I see no reason why this one is so significant compaired to all the other ones. The amount of murders is massive, a single killing with a gun isn't that big a deal.


Because it's a disgusting symptom of a massive disease, the murder made blatantly clear institutionalized racism is alive and kicking in the US.

There's no lasting discussion about your gun violence addiction because, well, you're not only addicted to white supremacism/exceptionalism, but also to violence and bloodshed, going into denial if you're confronted with reality like every junkie (see the last national gun discussion).


----------



## Arshes Nei (Jul 18, 2013)

Attaman said:


> To be fair, _several of the protestors arrested_ were from out-of-city (as in they literally went into a different city to join the protesting there). The conditions within Oakland mixed with its reputation practically make it a beacon for protestors, wanna-be anarchists, hooligans, and so-on to congregate on the place.



Always, it's a big problem like Occupy Wall Street had good intentions, then you always get the people who latch on and do stupid shit.

With this one though, Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton would need to find new careers if they didn't feed into making things hysterical because they'd be out of jobs.


----------



## Inciatus (Jul 18, 2013)

Gryphoneer said:


> Because it's a disgusting symptom of a massive disease, the murder made blatantly clear institutionalized racism is alive and kicking in the US.
> 
> There's no lasting discussion about your gun violence addiction because, well, you're not only addicted to white supremacism/exceptionalism, but also to violence and bloodshed, going into denial if you're confronted with reality like every junkie (see the last national gun discussion).


You embody almost perfectly an earlier post.


Inciatus said:


> Everyone knows Europe is a paradise where it is sunshine and pink unicorns dancing on rainbows all the time unlike the United States the most backwards, racist, poor and starving nation in all the west who continually uses their military might to invade everyone for their oil, ensure that noone can get healthcare, and issue guns to the populace so they can cause mass murders and hunt the blacks and homosexuals. At least that is how many of the Europeans on here seem to depict things.


Frankly you just look like an idiot.


----------



## Rilvor (Jul 18, 2013)

Gryphoneer said:


> Because it's a disgusting symptom of a massive disease, the murder made blatantly clear institutionalized racism is alive and kicking in the US.
> 
> There's no lasting discussion about your gun violence addiction because, well, you're not only addicted to white supremacism/exceptionalism, but also to violence and bloodshed, going into denial if you're confronted with reality like every junkie (see the last national gun discussion).



rabble rabble your country is terrible based on my opinion of events that are spread across the entirety of humanity, pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. Go be a facepalm inducing nationalist somewhere else.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Jul 18, 2013)

Well Graphic Warning - but this is what Martin looked like on the night of his death - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jiby_-of0RU


----------



## Nikolinni (Jul 19, 2013)

Rilvor said:


> rabble rabble your country is terrible based on my opinion of events that are spread across the entirety of humanity, pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. Go be a facepalm inducing nationalist somewhere else.



Don't you know Rilvor? Anywhere's better than 'MURICA! We're like the Humans of any given science fiction/fantasy story.


----------



## Rilvor (Jul 19, 2013)

Nikolinni said:


> Don't you know Rivlor? Anywhere's better than 'MURICA! We're like the Humans of any given science fiction/fantasy story.



Beep Boop Maggot.

You spelled my name wrong.


----------



## Nikolinni (Jul 19, 2013)

Fix'd


----------



## Inciatus (Jul 19, 2013)

So apparently there are protests in Amsterdam about the trial. - link

I can understand why some people in Florida are interested/upset. I can slightly understand why the rest of the nation is interested. Why the fuck do these people care?


----------



## Mayfurr (Jul 19, 2013)

Inciatus said:


> So apparently there are protests in Amsterdam about the trial. - link
> 
> I can understand why some people in Florida are interested/upset. I can slightly understand why the rest of the nation is interested. Why the fuck do these people care?



Because they're human? Because racism - especially what looks like institutionalised racism - is wrong no matter where in the world you are? Because justice is - or should be - universal?

By your logic, the rest of the would shouldn't have given a damn about 9/11 because it didn't happen to _us._


----------



## Inciatus (Jul 20, 2013)

Mayfurr said:


> Because they're human? Because racism - especially what looks like institutionalized racism - is wrong no matter where in the world you are? Because justice is - or should be - universal?


I don't understand why people keep claiming this as a racial issue and why institutionalized racism is brought up. A jury of his peers (a jury that both the defense and prosecution have to agree on) found there wasn't enough evidence to convict. I don't see how that is institutionalized racism.


> By your logic, the rest of the would shouldn't have given a damn about 9/11 because it didn't happen to _us._


I feel like this is a logical fallacy but I cannot remember the name.


----------



## Nikolinni (Jul 20, 2013)

Mayfurr said:


> Because they're human? Because racism - especially what looks like institutionalised racism - is wrong no matter where in the world you are? Because justice is - or should be - universal?
> 
> By your logic, the rest of the would shouldn't have given a damn about 9/11 because it didn't happen to _us._



Why is this racist? Because white vs black guy and white kills black guy? 

And justice? There wasn't enough evidence to convict...now think with me here, what if Zimmerman was innocent, and we sent him to the chair and found out he was innocent? How is that just? Whatever happened to "Innocent until proven guilty"? Guess what -- not proven guilty. Therefore, justice, at least by the american systems. 

And I don't think Inciatus is saying no one can care -- he's saying he doesn't get why people are protesting -- as if some great big evil had been committed.

People only care when it's racism, minorities, or oppression it seems.


----------



## Mayfurr (Jul 20, 2013)

Nikolinni said:


> Why is this racist? Because white vs black guy and white kills black guy?



Well, let's see:
* White man is found alone with a dead black man killed by the white man's firearm, claims "self-defence"... and it takes _over a month and persistent action by the black man's family to even get a trial started._ In most other Western countries - mine included - there is _some_ investigation of a potential homicide in these cases instead of just taking the fellow's word that "it was self-defence, honest guv".
* The white man deliberately confronts a black man who is walking while "armed" with only tea and candy, much is made of whether the black man was the one who started the fight _despite the fact that it was the white man who placed himself in a confrontation while carrying a firearm._
* Much is made of the white man's rights under a "Stand Your Ground" law that is supposed to enable people to use justifiable lethal force in self-defence - _but somehow the "Stand Your Ground" defence doesn't seem to apply to the black man being approached by the white man who is the one with the firearm._
* And despite the fact that not even the white man's _defence_ claims that the white man _didn't_ kill the black man with his firearm, the black man was found to be unarmed, and even allowing for there being sufficient doubt of the circumstances that a charge of actual murder could not be proven, not even a "slap on the wrist with a wet bus-ticket" suspended sentence of manslaughter was passed down.

Seems pretty damn racist to me. 

Especially when your current President - himself a black man - described how he experienced that same kind of prejudice that ultimately led to the death of Trayvon Martin.



Nikolinni said:


> People only care when it's racism, minorities, or oppression it seems.



So... if we're not "permitted" to "care when it's racism, minorities, or oppression", pray tell us what we _may_ be permitted to care about? Because those three seem to be pretty bloody good reasons to care where I come from.


----------



## Nikolinni (Jul 20, 2013)

Mayfurr said:


> So... if we're not "permitted" to "care when it's racism, minorities, or oppression", pray tell us what we _may_ be permitted to care about? Because those three seem to be pretty bloody good reasons to care where I come from.



I never said people can't care about those things. It's just that y'know, peoples' rights in America and other places are being destroyed but who gives fucks about that right? Unless they try to say who we can or cannot marry or take away our internet.

Also, here's basically my viewpoint on this whole thing: http://www.ijreview.com/2013/07/66730-charles-barkley-the-voice-of-reason-on-the-zimmerman-case/

Again, I'm not saying I agree that what Zimmerman did was right...just that there's not enough evidence to place the blame properly on anyone, only our own thoughts, assumptions, and opinions.


----------



## Rilvor (Jul 20, 2013)

Mayfurr said:


> Well, let's see:
> * White man is found alone with a dead black man killed by the white man's firearm, claims "self-defence"... and it takes _over a month and persistent action by the black man's family to even get a trial started._ In most other Western countries - mine included - there is _some_ investigation of a potential homicide in these cases instead of just taking the fellow's word that "it was self-defence, honest guv".
> * The white man deliberately confronts a black man who is walking while "armed" with only tea and candy, much is made of whether the black man was the one who started the fight _despite the fact that it was the white man who placed himself in a confrontation while carrying a firearm._
> * Much is made of the white man's rights under a "Stand Your Ground" law that is supposed to enable people to use justifiable lethal force in self-defence - _but somehow the "Stand Your Ground" defence doesn't seem to apply to the black man being approached by the white man who is the one with the firearm._
> ...




If you reach a little harder for that racism card, you just might be able to call Uno! You don't need to be racist to be a paranoid moron.


----------



## Lobar (Jul 20, 2013)

Rilvor said:


> If you reach a little harder for that racism card, you just might be able to call Uno! You don't need to be racist to be a paranoid moron.



Really, whether Zimmerman himself is racist is actually the smallest part of the race issue (though I can't imagine he would have seen Trayvon as suspicious enough to pursue if he had been white).

Race is an issue because the PD showed up to find an unarmed dead black kid shot by a white guy that they knew had been pursuing the kid, and they take him at his word that it was self-defense and allow him to _return home_ before they've even ID'd the body.

Race is an issue because it took _six weeks_ of media pressure after the shooting before the police finally arrested Zimmerman.  They had never intended to build a case against Zimmerman up to that point, and you can't expect that didn't impact the quality of the investigation and collection of evidence.

Race is an issue because the defendant of a white-on-black murder trial in a Stand Your Ground state is four times more likely to be acquitted than in a white-on-white murder trial, and in this case it's hard to imagine that wasn't a factor in Zimmerman not even being convicted of manslaughter.  The amount of time spent in the trial spent on discussing Trayvon's character and the comments of juror B37 in her CNN interview after the trial sure do nothing to dispel that notion.

Race is an issue because black people all across America are afraid that America doesn't value their lives, and this case is another piece in that continuing narrative.  They're worried that they're in danger of being killed by "black panic" if they're ever in white or even multiracial neighborhoods, and that SYG has raised the threshold for getting away with it so low as to be impossible _not_ to clear.

Race is an issue because the dog-whistle racism in politics has become so charged and gotten completely out of control that voices on the right are actually hailing Zimmerman as some sort of fucking _folk hero_ for shooting Trayvon, they are cheering his acquittal for entirely political reasons, and they are frighteningly common throughout social media.


----------



## TreacleFox (Jul 20, 2013)

Zimmerman is Hispanic, not white.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jul 20, 2013)

" it took _six weeks_ of media pressure  after the shooting before the police finally arrested Zimmerman.  They  had never intended to build a case against Zimmerman up to that point,  and you can't expect that didn't impact the quality of the investigation  and collection of evidence." -lobar

Putting the entire issue of race aside, 6 weeks after a potential murder is far too long. A stand your ground law surely would not merit abandoning even any attempt at an investigation; until there's been a criminal investigation they can't be sure that the man was standing his ground- without an investigation they only have the word of the fight's victor, and that's the most biased source imaginable. 

After 6 weeks everyone has been given more than sufficient time to perfect their stories, much of the evidence has escaped detection and if there was a crime, the chances of detecting it are diminished. 

That's what's unacceptable. If that kind of thing can happen, regardless of the races of the people involved, then there's something wrong with the law.


----------



## Lobar (Jul 20, 2013)

TreacleFox said:


> Zimmerman is Hispanic, not white.



*SIGH*



Lobar said:


> "Hispanic" is an ethnicity, not a race.  A light-skinned man named Zimmerman passes for "White" by any reasonable measure.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jul 20, 2013)

Calling Hispanic a race is like calling Germanic a race- although Germanic seems to be what most people refer to when they say 'white'.


----------



## cobalt-blue (Jul 20, 2013)

Hmmmm

http://rochester.ynn.com/content/to...scott-claims-self-defense-in-teen-s-shooting/

http://radioviceonline.com/media-roderick-scott-not-guilty-manslaugter-self-defense-shooting-chris-cervini/



http://news.yahoo.com/black-americas-real-problem-isnt-white-racism-070000529.html 


â€œThere is nothing more painful to me at this stage in my life than to  walk down the street and hear footsteps... then turn around and see  somebody white and feel relieved.â€   
  â€•     Jesse Jackson

http://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/268964.Jesse_Jackson


----------



## Attaman (Jul 20, 2013)

cobalt-blue said:


> Hmmmm
> 
> http://rochester.ynn.com/content/to...scott-claims-self-defense-in-teen-s-shooting/
> 
> ...


Cobalt, protip: When trying to prove you're credible, _don't use multiple racist opinion pieces._ For fuck's sake, your Yahoo article _blatantly says that there is a correlation between being black and criminal._


----------



## cobalt-blue (Jul 20, 2013)

"An analysis of 'single offender victimization figures' from the FBI for  2007 finds blacks committed 433,934 crimes against whites, eight times  the 55,685 whites committed against blacks. Interracial rape is almost  exclusively black on white â€” with 14,000 assaults on white women by  African Americans in 2007. Not one case of a white sexual assault on a  black female was found in the FBI study."

I guess the FBI is not credible either (the FBI must ALL be white and racist).  I know, if the facts don't support your opinion, just ignore them.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Jul 20, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> Putting the entire issue of race aside, 6 weeks after a potential murder is far too long. A stand your ground law surely would not merit abandoning even any attempt at an investigation; until there's been a criminal investigation they can't be sure that the man was standing his ground- without an investigation they only have the word of the fight's victor, and that's the most biased source imaginable.



This is factually incorrect. They *DID* have an investigation. It was just inconclusive at the time as to murder. An arrest is not always needed for an investigation.

It may have been aggravated assault at best, or as I said manslaughter, but public media pressure caused the prosecution to overreach the charge and present a really weak case.


----------



## Attaman (Jul 20, 2013)

cobalt-blue said:


> "An analysis of 'single offender victimization figures' from the FBI for  2007 finds blacks committed 433,934 crimes against whites, eight times  the 55,685 whites committed against blacks. Interracial rape is almost  exclusively black on white â€” with 14,000 assaults on white women by  African Americans in 2007. Not one case of a white sexual assault on a  black female was found in the FBI study."
> 
> I guess the FBI is not credible either (the FBI must ALL be white and racist).  I know, if the facts don't support your opinion, just ignore them.


If I honestly need to point out the problems of the Yahoo Opinion piece to you - such as the fact that it completely ignores _every single sociological, economic, and political factor leading up to such arrests_ (Fun fact: Did you know the War on Drugs was literally made to disproportionately imprison minorities? Or the fact that the legal system disproportionately targets those of the lower income brackets, which in turn disproportionately targets those of racial minorities? Or perhaps that _people who are living in shithole conditions with improper educational support are more liable to wind up criminals?_) - then I must advise you _stay the fuck out of sociological debates until you can learn to take such into account_.

Though please, do go on. We know you aren't racist, it really is those evil darkies out to get poor white people, that black people are just more likely to rape and murder and thieve and...


----------



## Thundershadowwolf (Jul 20, 2013)

I read an article saying that the  jury were all white people. I feel  that they  made the  wrong decision  and should have found him guilty of manslaughter or 2nd degree murder  and not him free with anything. I know that  George is in hiding  but somebody will find him and  beat the  crap out of him for what he did.


----------



## Nikolinni (Jul 20, 2013)

Thundershadowwolf said:


> I read an article saying that the  jury were all white people. I feel  that they  made the  wrong decision  and should have found him guilty of manslaughter or 2nd degree murder  and not him free with anything. I know that  George is in hiding  but somebody will find him and  beat the  crap out of him for what he did.



The problem is I don't think the Jury can decide what to charge him with; that's the prosecution's job, or the judge's job. The Jury couldn't find enough evidence to get him convicted of murder, which is why a lot of people feel that the prosecution should've gone for manslaughter, because it would've been an easier case to prove.

And so what if the jury was all white? What because it's an all white jury and the defendant is white we're all gonna assume the jury's gonna side with the defendant automatically?


----------



## Icky (Jul 20, 2013)

Well, I feel extremely silly for thinking that people were going to stop arguing about this once the trial was over.

(why is everyone getting b& you guys ;; )


----------



## Arshes Nei (Jul 20, 2013)

Attaman said:


> Though please, do go on. We know you aren't racist, it really is those evil darkies out to get poor white people, that black people are just more likely to rape and murder and thieve and...



You know though, at some point when is it really about educational issues and just a moral problem. At what point in education do you need to know that stealing/rape and assaulting another is wrong? High School Degree? 

There are problems with Blacks today with upbringing in poor environments, but just like many immigrants in poor environments, Asians especially included because many of them come here and have to really learn a completely different language. Gangs and crime do exist in many cultures and groups, but what values are instilled matters most. If you have a group that continues to justify that "we were treated wrongly, so it's ok to continue to treat others the same way" the cycle continues. 

So do you continue to turn a blind eye, and say well see "they don't know better" (which I find the pandering just as racist as the condemning someone for their skin color) and people should listen and say their own community is the problem. There's a collective guilt when someone goes to jail for something in certain Black communities. Whereas if a White person commits a crime you don't have that. Depending upon the evidence it's not a community issue, but an issue with the individual. 

As Blacks it's constantly about "how bad we have it", "look another one of us X happened to" and less about those who did something good - see why they're successful despite the odds or perception and learn to push that agenda. When there is constant negativity surrounding a group, it drives the perception of negativity up for that group. It's not a positive effect to constantly protest and bring it up - it actually has the opposite circumstance.

For example, this tumblr post just through sheer imagery - http://knowledgeequalsblackpower.tumblr.com/post/42363036647/dr-mae-c-jemison-stephanie-wilson-joan brought a positive effect for Black Women. If it was just an article about how Black women don't get the support they needed for education for science and math. I think it would be received negatively.


----------



## cobalt-blue (Jul 20, 2013)

Attaman said:


> If I honestly need to point out the problems of the Yahoo Opinion piece to you - such as the fact that it completely ignores _every single sociological, economic, and political factor leading up to such arrests_ (Fun fact: Did you know the War on Drugs was literally made to disproportionately imprison minorities? Or the fact that the legal system disproportionately targets those of the lower income brackets, which in turn disproportionately targets those of racial minorities? Or perhaps that _people who are living in shithole conditions with improper educational support are more liable to wind up criminals?_) - then I must advise you _stay the fuck out of sociological debates until you can learn to take such into account_.



So I guess all of that ^^^^^ makes all of this  vvvvvvv    OK?

Most nonfatal violence against blacks was intraracial; victim/offender relationship varied by victim gender

About four-fifths of black victims of nonfatal violence perceived the offenders to be black (table 5). About 12% of 

black victims perceived the offender to be white, while about 8% thought the offender was neither black nor white 

(categorized as other races on table 5).  Blacks (78%) were more likely to be victims of intraracial violence than whites 

(70%)

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/bvvc.pdf


----------



## CrazyLee (Jul 20, 2013)

Hmm... Thought experiment, for all those who think this is only about race.

Would Zimmerman had found Trayvon suspicious if he wasn't wearing a hoodie, but was wearing a button up shirt, sweater vest, and khakis like a black Mr Rogers?

Sometimes it's not race that people find suspicious.


----------



## Mayfurr (Jul 20, 2013)

Nikolinni said:


> And so what if the jury was all white? What because it's an all white jury and the defendant is white we're all gonna assume the jury's gonna side with the defendant automatically?



The colour of the jurists _shouldn't_ make a difference. In that sense you're correct.

On the other hand, the US _is _ the country where a predominantly-white jury once let a bunch of white police officers off from beating up a black man despite the whole affair being captured on videotape... the acquittal which even the then-US President found hard to understand. 

So when it comes to US justice... the best that can be said about the colour-blindness of jurists is that "your mileage may vary".



CrazyLee said:


> Hmm... Thought experiment, for all those who think this is only about race.
> 
> Would Zimmerman had found Trayvon suspicious if he wasn't wearing a hoodie, but was wearing a button up shirt, sweater vest, and khakis like a black Mr Rogers?



Surely you're not suggesting that Trayvan was killed because he was wearing "suspicious" clothes? Especially as people from lots of races like to wear them?

Hell, let's class everyone in a three-piece suit as suspicious because they dress like the bankers that caused the Great Financial Crash, as well as everyone dressed as a Catholic priest because they could be a potential child-molester...


----------



## Arshes Nei (Jul 20, 2013)

Mayfurr said:


> Surely you're not suggesting that Trayvan was killed because he was wearing "suspicious" clothes? Especially as people from lots of races like to wear them?
> 
> Hell, let's class everyone in a three-piece suit as suspicious because they dress like the bankers that caused the Great Financial Crash, as well as everyone dressed as a Catholic priest because they could be a potential child-molester...



I posted a youtube video that showed what Martin was wearing. I even said it was NSFW because he's DEAD in that image. He was wearing Rolled up Khakis. HERE: http://forums.furaffinity.net/threa...d-not-guilty?p=3277676&viewfull=1#post3277676


----------



## DarrylWolf (Jul 20, 2013)

I sort of hope that there is a retrial, if for no other reason than to pacify people who might be compelled to start a riot if Zimmermann is not thrown in jail or executed. But the chances of that are slim, what might happen is that just as Presidents can issue pardons for the guilty, that Obama and Holder could be pressed to issue a sort of "anti-pardon" for a man proven innocent. Obama could use executive privilege to arrest a specific individual as an "enemy of the US government"- this has precedent in China and the USSR- and force him to go through a retrial, possibly for the same accusations he was found innocent of in Florida state courts. After that, they would use "hate crime" legislation to try and convict him; that would mean criminalizing the intent behind the crime rather than the crime itself. This would mean that while shouting a racist slur is not the same as physically hurting someone of a different race because of his race, that distinction will soon be eliminated. The future of the United States could very well include "speech-crimes" a la _1984_ and double jeopardy.


----------



## Inciatus (Jul 20, 2013)

Thundershadowwolf said:


> I read an article saying that the  jury were all white people.


So? I don't see your point, at least Mayfurr links to things. Both sides have to agree on the jury. Pointing out they are all white is like pointing out they are all women.


DarrylWolf said:


> I sort of hope that there is a retrial, if for no other reason than to pacify people who might be compelled to start a riot if Zimmermann is not thrown in jail or executed. But the chances of that are slim, what might happen is that just as Presidents can issue pardons for the guilty, that Obama and Holder could be pressed to issue a sort of "anti-pardon" for a man *declared not guilty*. Obama could use executive privilege to arrest a specific individual as an "enemy of the US government"- this has precedent in China and the USSR- and force him to go through a retrial, possibly for the same accusations he was found innocent of in Florida state courts. After that, they would use "hate crime" legislation to try and convict him; that would mean criminalizing the intent behind the crime rather than the crime itself. This would mean that while shouting a racist slur is not the same as physically hurting someone of a different race because of his race, that distinction will soon be eliminated. The future of the United States could very well include "speech-crimes" a la _1984_ and double jeopardy.


fixed* Innocent and not guilty are not the same.


----------



## Attaman (Jul 20, 2013)

Arshes Nei said:


> You know though, at some point when is it really about educational issues and just a moral problem.


 It is not entirely educational, no. However, there really is a direct correlation between education and reducing crime.



Arshes Nei said:


> So do you continue to turn a blind eye, and say well see "they don't know better"


 I have never said "they don't know better". I have said that there's a slew of sociological, economic, and so-on issues that contribute to the fact other than "Black People: Natural Alignment Chaotic and Racial Class of Thief".



Arshes Nei said:


> and people should listen and say their own community is the problem.


Note that I'm not trying to say "African Americans don't rape caucasians" or "Rape sometimes isn't a serious issue", what I'm saying is that they're using blatantly biased sources (Hell, just two seconds of google searching found glaring holes in the "FBI says darkies 2000 times more likely to rape whitey than the other way around" argument some people are trying to make) and that there's a pretty fucking huge difference between contesting whether American society disproportionately targets / demonizes minorities and "Black people dun be evil".


EDIT:



DarrylWolf said:


> I sort of hope that there is a retrial, if for no other reason than to pacify people who might be compelled to start a riot if Zimmermann is not thrown in jail or executed.



"Black people going to riot. Any second now. Aaaaany second now."


----------



## Arshes Nei (Jul 20, 2013)

Inciatus said:


> So? I don't see your point, at least Mayfurr links to things. Both sides have to agree on the jury. Pointing out they are all white is like pointing out they are all women.



Not to mention that jury pool is sided more for the defense, ie jury of your peers. Last I recalled Zimmerman was on trial not Martin. So the Defense felt all white women would help Zimmerman's case. Similarly if Martin was on trial I would think a defense would be (*should be* chosen of his peers) where all white women may be a problem due to racial discrimination.


----------



## Inciatus (Jul 20, 2013)

Attaman said:


> It is not entirely educational, no. However, there really is a direct correlation between education and reducing crime.


Many of the people who live in and deal with the socio-economic problems are from areas with poor schools. The quality is schooling is made worse by the socio-economic problems, and the problems are often made worse by the lack of schooling. So it winds up being a downward spiral. Most attempts to control this have been utter failures, sadly.


----------



## Hakar Kerarmor (Jul 21, 2013)

Nikolinni said:


> And so what if the jury was all white? What because it's an all white jury and the defendant is white we're all gonna assume the jury's gonna side with the defendant automatically?



*gasp* That's racist! :v


----------



## Willow (Jul 21, 2013)

Arshes Nei said:


> Not to mention that jury pool is sided more for the defense, ie jury of your peers. Last I recalled Zimmerman was on trial not Martin. So *the Defense felt all white women would help Zimmerman's case.* Similarly if Martin was on trial I would think a defense would be (*should be* chosen of his peers) where all white women may be a problem due to racial discrimination.


Technically the jury is supposed to be unbiased. Because having a jury that favors the defense's side almost seems like it would guarantee a win for them.


----------



## Inciatus (Jul 21, 2013)

Willow said:


> Technically the jury is supposed to be unbiased. Because having a jury that favors the defense's side almost seems like it would guarantee a win for them.


Also both sides agree on the jury before they are taken.


----------



## Mayfurr (Jul 21, 2013)

DarrylWolf said:


> Obama could use executive privilege to arrest a specific individual as an "enemy of the US government"- this has precedent in China and the USSR [...] use "hate crime" legislation to try and convict him; that would mean criminalizing the intent behind the crime rather than the crime itself [...] "speech-crimes" a la _1984_...



You forgot drone strikes. 
/sarcasm


----------



## Khaki (Jul 21, 2013)

Mayfurr said:


> You forgot drone strikes.
> /sarcasm



You can't beat them drones mate.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Jul 21, 2013)

Willow said:


> Technically the jury is supposed to be unbiased. Because having a jury that favors the defense's side almost seems like it would guarantee a win for them.



Yes, we know that it's "technically" but that isn't what happens. A lawyer is going to go for who can buy the defense. They aren't going to share why they struck members down for selection. Start looking at who they select and what career they have.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Jul 22, 2013)

Just a curious little find that's been making the rounds on the internet today.

As I'm sure many of you have seen, people have been posting up a photoshopped image of Zimmerman and Martin as a black guy and white kid respectively with the attempted poignant question "how would it have ended up if it was like this?"

Apparently we already have the answer.  Back in 2009, a neighborhood watchman from Greece, New York Roderick Scott was acquitted of manslaughter charges by claiming self-defense after shooting and killing a 17-year-old white kid who he claimed was breaking into cars.  Allegedly the unarmed teen charged Scott who already had his pistol drawn and fired two shots, both connecting and killing the kid.

The jury apparently couldn't find any reason to convict Scott of the much lesser manslaughter charge since Scott apparently had the right to stand his ground and kill an unarmed kid.

Of course this story got absolutely zero national media attention and I didn't even know about it until today.


----------



## CrazyLee (Jul 22, 2013)

Attaman said:


> Cobalt, protip: When trying to prove you're credible, _don't use multiple racist opinion pieces._ For fuck's sake, your Yahoo article _blatantly says that there is a correlation between being black and criminal._


He quoted Pat Buchanan. Nothing else needs to be said.



Mayfurr said:


> On the other hand, the US _is _ the country where a predominantly-white jury once let a bunch of white police officers off from beating up a black man despite the whole affair being captured on videotape... the acquittal which even the then-US President found hard to understand.



It is interesting to note that during the riots after that acquittal, the black rioters attacked people who were white just because they were white. And also attacked Hispanics, and the local Korean population. Because, you know, anyone who's white, Hispanic, or Korean is automatically racist and deserves to be lynched by an angry mob. :V




Mayfurr said:


> Surely you're not suggesting that Trayvan was killed because he was wearing "suspicious" clothes? Especially as people from lots of races like to wear them?


You're damn right I'm suggesting it. 

You're suggesting that Zimmerman found TrayvOn suspicious because of his race. I'm suggesting that it's possible that he found him suspicious because he was wearing a hoodie. Plenty of people profile others because of the things they wear. A teen's walking down the street with facial piercings, tattoos, colored hair, a Mohawk, a skateboard under their arm, ripped jeans, patched jacket, or even pants sagging down off their asses, long shirts with rapper slogans, chains, and backwards hats, and someone's gonna think they're suspicious. Some older or upper-class person's going to think that punk or gangsta looks like they might be up to no good. People judge by the clothes other wear all the time.

So it is possible that if Trayvon was walking through an upper-middle-class GATED community wearing expensive clothing standard for that kind of community, such as a suit or button up shirts, rather than the hoodie, Zimmerman might have not found him suspicious. Then again no one knows exactly what was going through Zimmerman's mind and what he found suspicious.




Term_the_Schmuck said:


> Of course this story got absolutely zero national media attention and I didn't even know about it until today.


Cobalt-blue posted the same story here. The comments on the second link are golden. :V


----------



## TreacleFox (Jul 23, 2013)

Wow, this just happened.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/george-zimmerman-emerged-hiding-truck-crash-rescue/storynew?id=19735432


----------

