Zimmerman Found Not Guilty

[I-10east]

I glad that Jesse Jackson is actually doing something worthwhile today. He's in town concerning the lady who got twenty years for a warning shot. I'll give credit when it's due, esp when it's rare.

[Cheshire Cat]

There are a lot of different ways things could have gone down that night. There was no racism. There was simply a series of moderately bad decisions on behalf of two people. Zimmermans mistake getting out his car, and Martins was to jump someone who he had no idea if he was armed or not. This led to one life ended, and the other one basically ruined.

Its sad, and as much as we try to paint it as a black and white issue, its so nuanced that its a folly to try to make it seem simple.

You can pretty much say the same thing about a person who's had too many drinks at the bar and accidentally kills someone as a result of DUI. Innocent mistakes. Most of the discussion on black vs white issues taking place right now is most likely a major result of GZ walking free.  GZ gets hit with manslaughter and does prison time, then he's no different from Mr. DUI or Southside Chicago murderer who's caught and put behind bars.

I would actually put it the other way Lake. 

In DUI cases, the act of drinking and then getting behind the wheel establishes negligence. 

In this case, the act of pursuit, continuous surveillance without questioning or verbal contact, even to the point of exiting the vehicle without identification visually or verbally, actually searching for Martin on foot, and the resulting fear that placed in a young Mr. Martin.  That would seem to be the argument that establishes negligence on the part of Mr. Zimmerman leading to manslaughter.

The prosecution argued this very point aggressively but they failed to make their case.  Actually, the only verbal exchange between Zimmerman and Martin that was testified to was that when Trayvon approached Zimmerman he was alleged to have stated "Do you have a problem with me?" and Zimmerman responded "No I don't have a problem with you?" and then Trayvon punched him.  The jury believed what Zimmerman said about Trayvon being the the one to initiate the physical attack and they also felt that the evidence and forensics as well as professional testimony backed up Zimmerman's explanation of how the physical altercation went down.

[thelakelander]

There are a lot of different ways things could have gone down that night. There was no racism. There was simply a series of moderately bad decisions on behalf of two people. Zimmermans mistake getting out his car, and Martins was to jump someone who he had no idea if he was armed or not. This led to one life ended, and the other one basically ruined.

Its sad, and as much as we try to paint it as a black and white issue, its so nuanced that its a folly to try to make it seem simple.

You can pretty much say the same thing about a person who's had too many drinks at the bar and accidentally kills someone as a result of DUI. Innocent mistakes. Most of the discussion on black vs white issues taking place right now is most likely a major result of GZ walking free.  GZ gets hit with manslaughter and does prison time, then he's no different from Mr. DUI or Southside Chicago murderer who's caught and put behind bars.

I would actually put it the other way Lake. 

In DUI cases, the act of drinking and then getting behind the wheel establishes negligence. 

In this case, the act of pursuit, continuous surveillance without questioning or verbal contact, even to the point of exiting the vehicle without identification visually or verbally, actually searching for Martin on foot, and the resulting fear that placed in a young Mr. Martin.  That would seem to be the argument that establishes negligence on the part of Mr. Zimmerman leading to manslaughter.

Yes. Much better description than mine!

[thelakelander]

The prosecution argued this very point aggressively but they failed to make their case.  Actually, the only verbal exchange between Zimmerman and Martin that was testified to was that when Trayvon approached Zimmerman he was alleged to have stated "Do you have a problem with me?" and Zimmerman responded "No I don't have a problem with you?" and then Trayvon punched him.  The jury believed what Zimmerman said about Trayvon being the the one to initiate the physical attack and they also felt that the evidence and forensics as well as professional testimony backed up Zimmerman's explanation of how the physical altercation went down.

The juror I heard on tv, said none of the events leading up to GZ shooting TM mattered to her as much as if GZ felt his life was in danger the instant he fired the shoot killing TM.  I'm sure everyone believes that.  I don't agree with the outcome but I certain believe GZ feared for his life at that moment.  However, she also saw GZ and TM as equal victims.

[johnnyman]

There are a lot of different ways things could have gone down that night. There was no racism. There was simply a series of moderately bad decisions on behalf of two people. Zimmermans mistake getting out his car, and Martins was to jump someone who he had no idea if he was armed or not. This led to one life ended, and the other one basically ruined.

Its sad, and as much as we try to paint it as a black and white issue, its so nuanced that its a folly to try to make it seem simple.

You can pretty much say the same thing about a person who's had too many drinks at the bar and accidentally kills someone as a result of DUI. Innocent mistakes. Most of the discussion on black vs white issues taking place right now is most likely a major result of GZ walking free.  GZ gets hit with manslaughter and does prison time, then he's no different from Mr. DUI or Southside Chicago murderer who's caught and put behind bars.

I would actually put it the other way Lake. 

In DUI cases, the act of drinking and then getting behind the wheel establishes negligence. 

In this case, the act of pursuit, continuous surveillance without questioning or verbal contact, even to the point of exiting the vehicle without identification visually or verbally, actually searching for Martin on foot, and the resulting fear that placed in a young Mr. Martin.  That would seem to be the argument that establishes negligence on the part of Mr. Zimmerman leading to manslaughter.

Yes. Much better description than mine!

This is a good analogy.  I would add though,,, if the car gets on top of you and starts to bash your head into the ground,,, you have the right to put it in a salvage yard compactor till it stops.

[Cheshire Cat]

And it's unfortunate that many blacks (and many under class whites too) aren't educated enough to see the reality of this. So instead, they turn their anger on each other, some random person on the street, or an entire group of regular everyday people for their woes.

I don't think this is the case either.  The situation stems from economics.  People still have kids, have to pay bills and still need places to live and cars for access.  This requires money regardless of whether you have a college degree/job or not.  You're broke, behind on the bills, the car needs to be repaired, and there's no food in the frige for the kids.  What are you going to do?  For many, doing illegal things are simply a desperate means of survival.  However, the flip end of that, is it also leads to felonies (which screw you up long term even more) and confrontations. In many circumstances, those confrontations (could be as simple as fighting over turf to make illegal money) result in death.  It's a pretty bad cycle but it's an economic and environmental one.  Not racial.

Its what I was sorta alluding to in my earlier comment on how many blacks are all of a sudden riled up because a black man/teen was shot by a non-black.

GZ/TM is a non-story if GZ is locked away behind bars for manslaughter.  He's no different from the drunk driver doing time for killing an innocent pedestrian or someone on the Southside of Chicago getting arrested for murder. Right or wrong, the way things went down (jury finds killer not guilty), makes it another sad chapter in what one segment of the population deems as a list of injustices (especially, since the Florida law allows such an event to legally take place).  Just goes to show, things aren't all peaches and cream despite some trying to paint our picture in that light.

I agree that poverty can undoubtedly lead to crime.  What I think is missing in this equation is the fact that there are services in place to help feed and house people though they are admittedly lacking especially in view of the fact that many families, including the middle class are struggling to get by.  So the question becomes why do some turn to crime and others do not?  Do you think it goes beyond poverty and also includes education which directly effects ones status in the job market?  I know many people who have to work two and three jobs to get by, but do that rather than resort to crime.

To your second point, I do believe that some people feel that the Trayvon death is another chapter in a sad long history of someone who was responsible for the death of a Black man and that someone walking.  But the reality is that he walked because of how the laws are written and not because of his race.  I personally think it is unfortunate that this case became the "bellwether" for racial reform when it is more about how our laws written and applied.  I don't know who thinks everything is peaches and cream though?  I think and have expressed our society has some serious problems to overcome.  Can your clarify a bit more?  Thanks.

[thelakelander]

Seems like the poor actual victim (especially viewed from their perspective of the same situation) literally has no right to defend themselves.  That should be a concern with the interpretation of such policies as described. 

[JeffreyS]

If we have learned anything from this trial it is to make a video telling your side of the story. That way you can testify without being cross examined. That is one rare gift GZ will be eternally greatful to the police for.

[Cheshire Cat]

Seems like the poor actual victim (especially viewed from their perspective of the same situation) literally has no right to defend themselves.  That should be a concern with the interpretation of such policies as described. 

Doesn't this go back to the law though?  I don't think this ruling impacts ones ability to defend themselves.  I think it says that if you are the aggressor in a physical altercation you are not the victim at that moment and have become the aggressor.  That's what it seems like in my view.  Not defending either person here by the way just suggesting another perspective.

[thelakelander]

I agree that poverty can undoubtedly lead to crime.  What I think is missing in this equation is the fact that there are services in place to help feed and house people though they are admittedly lacking especially in views of the fact that many families, including the middle class are struggling to get by.

The assumption here is that every actual knows what resources are available, has access to them and that certain services aren't restricting certain segments of the population they are intended to serve. 

So the question becomes why do some turn to crime and others do not? Do you think it goes beyond poverty and also includes education which directly effects ones status in the job market?  I know many people who have to work two and three jobs to get by, but do that rather than resort to crime.

I can't answer why mankind resorts to crime.  I know many people of various races who work multiple jobs and others with criminal records longer than the length of the St. Johns River. However, from what I can tell, there's a direct correlation between crime, money and power, regardless of skin color.

To your second point, I do believe that some people feel that the Trayvon death is another chapter in a sad long history of someone who was responsible for the death of a Black man and that someone walking.  But the reality is that he walked because of how the laws are written and not because of his race.

Of course.  The laws that led to similar outcomes to the black community in the past were also written a certain way. So, the challenge is the change them, if you're in the segment of the population that doesn't agree with them.  My guess, is that's where all the debate and protesting will ultimately end up.

I personally think it is unfortunate that this case became the "bellwether" for racial reform when it is more about how are laws are written and applied.  I don't know who thinks everything is peaches and cream though.  I think and have expressed our society has some serious problems to overcome.  Can your clarify a bit more?  Thanks.

Whenever, I hear or read someone say everyone in this city, state or country has equal opportunity and access to certain things, in my mind, I believe that person is looking at the world with blinders on.  It's even worse when someone born and living with a golden spoon in their mouth decides to lecture a specific population living in an economic situation they've never had to personally deal with.  I felt the same way about Oprah when she'd lecture people on raising kids.  We have our challenges but we'll never overcome them if we're not willing to have a serious discussion about addressing and resolving our faults.

[Cheshire Cat]

Thanks Ennis, this better helps me understand another viewpoint. 

[Cheshire Cat]

What is literally sickening is that people seem to think this is an opportunity for them to decide whether or not the dead child was a 'good' person.

This is the problem with this kind of nonsense.  It puts people in the position of passing judgement on the actual 'value' of the life of this child rather than on the circumstances of the murder.

If it turned out that Trayvon was a bad person, would it be ok to attack and then murder him?

Really?

And then who would be the judge of whether or not a persons life was worth getting worked up about?

Thats the literal opposite of rule by Law.

Unfortunately Stephen there are people who are prone to blame or judge in this manner.  It reminds me of so many cases where a woman is assaulted or raped and then finds her character attacked and victimized all over again.  I hear you loud and clear.

[Demosthenes]

Seems like the poor actual victim (especially viewed from their perspective of the same situation) literally has no right to defend themselves.  That should be a concern with the interpretation of such policies as described.

Do you think its ok that "victim" threw the first punch? Should that not come into play, thus calling into question the character of the victim?

If you were in this situation, would you have gone home and called the police, or would you have confronted, and attacked the person following you, without regard to if that person is armed or not?

I am not asking this as a legal question. This is a question of common
ense and self preservation.

[Cheshire Cat]

What is literally sickening is that people seem to think this is an opportunity for them to decide whether or not the dead child was a 'good' person.

This is the problem with this kind of nonsense.  It puts people in the position of passing judgement on the actual 'value' of the life of this child rather than on the circumstances of the murder.

If it turned out that Trayvon was a bad person, would it be ok to attack and then murder him?

Really?

And then who would be the judge of whether or not a persons life was worth getting worked up about?

Thats the literal opposite of rule by Law.

Unfortunately Stephen there are people who are prone to blame or judge in this manner.  It reminds me of so many cases where a woman is assaulted or raped and then finds her character attacked and victimized all over again.  I hear you loud and clear.

Yes.  Its unbelievable, really.

Everyone feels entitled until it happens to one of their own.

A couple of the comments on this thread have literally sickened me.  Especially the ones along the lines of 'people are portraying the 17 year old as some kind of 'good' person....'

Shame.  Seriously, Shame.  To my mind its the sign of someone who has completely lost their moral compass.

Agreed.  Did you mean to say portraying a 17 year old as a bad person?   Trayvon was pretty much an average kid making pretty average mistakes, i.e. his school suspension which has happened to many people in their youth and today.  Not to mention messing with weed.  I grew up in the sixties and frankly almost everyone I knew would be losers today if we were to question their use of MJ, including those who didn't inhale.  lol

[Cheshire Cat]

Seems like the poor actual victim (especially viewed from their perspective of the same situation) literally has no right to defend themselves.  That should be a concern with the interpretation of such policies as described.

Do you think its ok that "victim" threw the first punch? Should that not come into play, thus calling into question the character of the victim?

If you were in this situation, would you have gone home and called the police, or would you have confronted, and attacked the person following you, without regard to if that person is armed or not?

I am not asking this as a legal question. This is a question of common sense and self preservation.

Demo, I know you were speaking to Stephen.  I hope you don't mind me chiming in on the issue of the first punch thrown.  Trayvon was a 17 year old boy who was at the age when they are raging with testosterone and trying to define their prowess as a man.  I know this because I have two sons.  The combination of maturity (i.e. he's a kid), hormones and fear are understandable and likely the reason he did what he did.  I don't condone it but I sure as heck can understand it.  Just think of yourself as a teenager.  If there is not a list of things you did or said that you should not have and that in fact were potentially dangerous you may be an angel.  Remember that kids don't think things through when excited and that's the reality for Trayvon I believe.