Neighborhood watch is to protect your neighborhood. Not to be a police officer or investigator. If you think somebody is up to no good and could be dangerous, following him is stupid and only invites confrontation. The police told him not to do anything, but the guy just couldn't listen. The only reason he followed him in the first place was because he had a gun. If he didn't, that pussy would have stayed far away. The confrontation could have easily been avoided if he had listened to the police. That's one of the worst comparisons I've ever seen. Zimmerman wasn't the victim, and he FOLLOWED Martin strictly because he was dressed "like a thug", against police advisement. Ignoring the police is why he should be charged with Negligence.
Don't see why everyone is choosing sides. This was a close case, with really difficult facts. A juror interviewed on CNN last night said that when they first voted, they were split 3-3 on whether to convict. So much for a case that should never have been charged. The juror also said race was never part of their consideration. So much for the race card being in play. Finally, the juror said that Zimmerman used bad judgment and should not have followed Martin. So much for Zimmerman being exonerated. Ultimately Zimmerman benefited from having to be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by a unanimous jury. The system worked because we have set the burden of proof in a criminal case really high. Now everybody shut the fuck up and quit taking credit or casting blame. It is what it is.
This is out of bounds. Following someone who you perceive as dangerous is stupid, but not illegal. So GZ hasn't committed a crime. The 911 operator actually has no legal ground to tell GZ what to do, and GZ has no obligation to do as a 911 operator commands. Again, no crime was committed had he disobeyed (we don't know). Generally it is good to follow the instructions of a 911 operator though. Also, there is just no way you can come to such a conclusion based on the evidence given whether or not GZ did as the 911 operator said or not. Your opinion is your own, however, the evidence doesn't support it.
Really, if this young man was white wearing that hoodie, Zimmerman would not even have given him a second look. You know it, I know it and the majority of folks who followed this know it.
Because Blue, the Prosecution didn't bother to present any rebuttal to the evidence that the defense put out there. The Prosecution didn't really go into Trayvon the kid except for putting his Mom on the stand about a cry for help on tape. The Prosecution allowed the Defense to paint Trayvon as a dope smoking thug who attacked Zimmerman. IMO, for what its worth, the Prosecution halfassed this case. Zimmerman was guilty of shooting an unarmed 17 year kid because he was getting his ass kicked and if the Prosecutors had did their jobs, even down to challenging the seating of an all-white jury, the verdict may have been different. Can't change shit now though. The Verdict is indeed final.
I don't know that. Neither do you. Only uneducated ignorant people draw conclusions from smoke. Where in GZ history can you find him being a racist? If there was evidence that even suggested this, the pathetic prosecution team would have been able to get that out. But they didn't. There is a reason the jury member who spoke out stated that they never once thought about race. (I know a comment will be made about the jury being white). I am so sick and tired of this damn race card. Just stop, go educate yourself on the story. Read the law. Then make conclusions from facts. This is how it works in court. Exactly. And had this twit of a prosecutor Corey not acted out of line, she might have just gotten an aggravated assault charge to stick. But no, she had to over charge and stir up the pot. She is the sole person to blame for this fiasco. For these misguided thoughts and opinions from the public who have tunnel vision.
Right Cman....in the course of committing Battery, the 17 year old got shot. The dope smoking was not allowed into evidence IIRC. But, under the established scenario, the only crime was Battery, and Martin did it.
The crime was shooting an unarmed kid but there was no conviction for it because of an inept prosecutorial team. I still maintain that if Zimmerman had come up on a real life, honest to goodness pistol packin thug, he'd be taking a dirt nap today. Unarmed teenagers are much easier to shoot. Perhaps one day, he'll get to meet a real life thug. Shouldn't be a problem for Zimmerman since he gets to keep his pistol and is quite the lawman.
wrong. one of the jurors admitted that Trayvon likely hit Zimmerman first, which means he committed battery against Zimmerman. that was the first crime committed, and Zimmerman was the victim. and in case you didn't hear the verdict, based on that conclusion, Zimmerman was found not guilty of any crime. which means, even though Trayvon died, Zimmerman was still the victim in the case and shooting Trayvon was self defense. Trayvon could only be the victim if Zimmerman committed a crime against him. people are choosing sides because they believe their interpretation of the case is correct, and want the facts of the case to determine its perception, not the lies of the media. that is an oversimplification. 1 of the 6 wanted murder and 2 wanted manslaughter. 3 wanted acquittal. so it wasn't just a 50/50 split, because the three that wanted a conviction didn't even agree on what he should be convicted of. he certainly was exonerated of the crime. he wasn't on trial for bad judgement. racists weren't asking him to be convicted of bad judgement. they were demanding his conviction for a crime the evidence did not support, and despite 3 jurors having initial inclinations that he should be convicted of something, upon further review of the evidence they all came to the conclusion that he was not guilty of the crimes he was charged with. because they likely did not have any evidence to counter it. they may have downplayed that race was an issue in the media, but their entire case for murder was predicated on the concept that Zimmerman profiled him, because he profiled him he was racist, and because he was a racist he had intent. there was no evidence to prove any of that. but would the verdict been different on the merits of the evidence? is that really how we want our justice system to work? social and racial bias determining cases, not the evidence? there is nothing to indicate that the non-black jury did not convict Zimmerman because of race and not the evidence, so the suggestion that a black jury would have done things differently raises the question whether you are suggesting they would have been influenced by other factors beyond the evidence, or lack thereof of evidence. if so, that isn't a fair and honest jury. I don't think the prosecution half-assed it. I think they were dishonest and incompetent. after the verdict they were still defending their premise of the case, which was a ridiculous premise. not only was there no evidence to support it, it was a stretch in logic. they either depended on the jury being complete idiots, or had no idea how their premise did not lead logically to their conclusion. the latter being the most likely. add to the the dishonesty in turning over evidence, and their motive in bringing about such an egregious charge of murder rather than the more obvious manslaughter charge, and you have a dangerous combination.
you might be right, but that isn't a condemnation of Zimmerman, it is a condemnation of the thug he may have come up against. in either case Zimmerman is the victim, just in one situation his attacker dies and in the other he dies. the question becomes, why should he die in either one if he is the victim of the attack? your position actually validates Zimmerman's actions. he came across a kid who was a poorly equipped thug and paid with his life for his behavior as opposed to a well equipped thug who was capable of murdering him. in either case Zimmerman would have a right to defend himself.
Cman, there was no conviction, because the shooting occured during the commision of Battery. And FWIW, if your assumption about Zimmerman.l.lwas accurate...I think he would have shot him, after getting punched in the face, not when he was on the ground getting his skull slammed into concrete. And, I think that was his mistake, not pulling the gun, after getting hit the first time. Trayvon would have backed off, and both could have retreated. Zimmerman showed an amount of restraint, counter to the purpose of carrying the gun. Had the gun been visible, Martin would be alive, and Zimmerman would have a normal life.
No. Zimmerman should have had the gun out...and in hand. Martin would be alive, and Zimmermans life wouldnt be ruined. Trayvon would not have attacked him if the gun was out. The first purpose of carrying is to ward off danger when possible. When in doubt, you whip it out. What if....for instance Trayvon had a gun and bad intentions? Zimmermans gun would have been worthless. He should have had it out when exiting the truck. On that argument...they could have gotten manslaughter.
I wish people would stop seeing this as a race thing. Guy comes across someone in the dark in a hoodie. Are you telling me he immediately recognized the kid as black because the kid initially thought he was white when this man is clearly a Mexican. Yes, Zimmerman should have probably backed off when the 911 operator told him too and yes he probably would have had he not had a gun. There are a whole lot of ways this situation could have gone differently. For instance, had the kid been carrying a gun and shot Zimmerman first. Would it still be national news then? I just wish this would be over.
