Discussion in 'Debate & Marathon Threads Archive' started by Missy, Jul 14, 2013.
Jul 14, 2013
The verdict is in: not guilty.
How did they determine it was self defense if one had a gun and one had a can of ice tea and skittles? Did Zimmerman have any signa of having been in a physical altercation?
Well, I don't follow news but I did read an article my facebook friend posted. This pretty much explains it.
I didn't hear anything much about this case since I don't watch the news on tv but it seems pretty straightforward to me unless I'm missing something.
We had the trial on a lot around here. As naseum. This whole event from the moment of the call to the verdict has been a media circus. The evidence in the case presented in court made self defense pretty obvious. Even Tryvon's brother looked confused by what he heard.
I watched the trial. I would have been surprised at any other verdict.
Yeah, I got that impression just reading one article. I don't think the point that he only had skittles and ice tea was any real part of the equation.
Yes he did. I believe they said his head was banged on the concrete and bloodied, and someone testified at one point that they saw Trayvon on top of Zimmerman on the ground.
I'm not surprised at the verdict based on the evidence presented and testimony during the trial.
However, this may not be over. They could go after Zimmerman in civil court if they want to pursue it further.
I watched quite a bit of CNN as it was announced and after the fact.
I'm not saying Zimmerman is an evil person...but, well, he ain't "innocent". My opinion, of course. And a pretty strong one. This is something that's often discussed in this sort of case. That is, the jurors may feel he's guilty but couldn't return that verdict according to instructions provided (reasonable doubt and such).
Zimmerman's brother spoke with Piers Morgan last night after the verdict (and he's impressively well spoken especially under nerve-racking circumstances!). The one thing he said that bothered me was about the gun. Piers asked if he thinks his brother would or should keep it should it be returned and he responded that of course he should...no reason not to, and he needs it now more than ever. Um, I just...no. Get rid of the gun. It was used to rid a young man of his life.
So if he didn't have the gun he would have gotten his head bashed in...would Travon have been found guilty?
how could this have been prevented? that's what i'm asking myself. i don't expect an answer from anyone (though if you have one that'd be great). things are tense here.
I don't see anything tense. Everyone has an opinion but the only one that counts is the jury's. There are probably 50 different ways it could have played out but both parties were not completely innocent so it is unfortunate that what came about was a death.
Tense in your area, you mean?
Em~it could have been prevented had Zimmerman followed the instructions of the dispatcher and stayed in the car.
I haven't followed the trial except the recap of my local news. I would have been surprised if he had been found not guilty. I don't think the prosecution provided enough shadow beyond a reasonable doubt.
A friend of mine said something last night, and I'm not sure if I agree or not, but she said that had Martin been white or hispanic or if Zimmerman had been African American....this trial would have never made national news. What do you guys think?
Yes, the pictures of Zimmerman's injuries have been out long before this case went to trial. The injuries were consistent with Zimmerman's account of what happened and *if* Zimmerman's account of what happened is correct (which NONE of us know), then he did not commit manslaughter or murder. That is where the state has the burden to prove that someone is lying and covering up a crime.
The state of Florida did not do this, they did not present evidence for the jurors to convict him of 2nd degree murder or manslaughter. Because of that, the jury found him "not guilty." Not necessarily "innocent," but "not guilty."
The state's presentation was so pathetic that their opening statement argued that they would prove 2nd degree murder. In closing arguments, they were grappling at straws trying to convince the jury to consider the lesser, included charge of manslaughter. They did not even touch 2nd degree murder in closing arguments. They KNEW at the end of the trial that their evidence did not prove their initial charge. And what an injustice to Trayvon Martin, if Zimmerman is guilty of 2nd degree or manslaughter, that the state came wholly unprepared for trial--it was a total fiasco.
All of the attorneys I have seen on the news networks stated during the trial and before the verdict was rendered that the state did not prove its case and they all predicted acquittal.
And just because someone is carrying a bag of skittles and iced tea doesn't mean that they will not (or did not in this case) start beating the ever-living crap out of someone, which is what Zimmerman has stated.
I have no idea what happened that night, but I do know that we should never send anyone to prison for a crime when the evidence does not support the conviction. I think the jury did the right thing with the pathetic case they were handed by the state.
No, HERE as in offline, not this forum.
Unfortunately it isn't over. Al sharpton made it very clear that it wasn't over last night in his interview.
He is still around? He must be elderly by now or am I thinking of a different man.
The actual 911 transcripts do not support your accusation. The actual 911 transcripts support that George Zimmerman was out of his vehicle already.
The version you are using is fictitious and created by media and the on-line "telephone game" where someone says something inaccurate and it takes on a life of its own.
No, he is as old as dirt. He was on television last night saying the family was going to sue. And Zimerman would have to testify.
The dispatchers asked if Zimmerman if he was following him. He responded, "Yeah". The dispatcher said "Okay, we don't need you to do that."
You act like there is this outrageously embellished story being made up about this particular fact of the case, and I think you're wrong. He was advised his continued pursuit or following of Martin was unnecessary.
No where in my post was I making any sort of accusation. I was just stating what I have read or heard on news stations. And like I stated in my earlier post, I have not been following it that closely.
My news is reporting that the NAACP is already filing a suit against Zimmerman.
The DA and police dept originally weren't going to bring this to trial since they felt they didn't have enough evidence. The prosecution did not present a strong case.
I don't think we'll ever know truly what happened. My thoughts and prayers go out to all the families affected. Innocent or not Zimmerman will have to live with this for the rest of his life. I also think of the families of the hundreds (if not thousands) of other people who have been murdered this year alone. The ones who are probably sitting back wondering why this story became national news when their story was never told. It's a tragedy, any way you look at it.
well said Christy.
One thing that bothered me is that there were two witnesses that stated that Zimmerman had no significant injuries. That doesn't say anything about whether or not his life was truly in danger, but there isn't much evidence to state that Trayvon was truly a threat to Zimmerman.
This was a tragedy no doubt about it. But the jury IMHO was correct in the Not Guilty verdict. It was up to the prosecution to prove it's case beyond a reasonable doubt. They didn't or couldn't do it.
GZ made a monumental mistake in getting out of his car and following Martin. Martin made a major mistake by attacking GZ. I tend to believe GZ, while having his head slammed into the concrete, made a split second decision use his 9mm pistol to stop the threat.
This tragedy didn't have to happen. Martin is dead. GW's life will never be the same.
I love how people who barely know anything about the case have such strong opinions and state things as fact.
Bottom line, respect that the jury did their job and produced what they believed was the truth. They took their job seriously, just as YOU would if you were one of them.
Sorry that this is off topic, but Al Sharpton is 58. I'm not sure that qualifies as "old as dirt."
This whole thing scares me because that could have been my son being followed that night. That could have been me being followed. I feel like a line has been crossed, and we are no longer safe to even go about our daily business.
In my head I hear my parents saying, "Don't start a physical fight unless you know you can finish it. If you get your butt kicked, then don't come crying to us." I feel like GZ started something, got in over his head, and now a young man is dead because GZ wasn't really prepared to handle what he started.
Even if that were the case (and I actually do remember pictures of him with a bloody head that were shown from the night it happened). You don't have to be injured to win a self-defense case. The law states that you simply have to be in fear for your life-whether that perception in the situation is correct or not.
This is pretty much what President Obama said.
"I know this case has elicited strong passions," Obama's statement read. "And in the wake of the verdict, I know those passions may be running even higher. But we are a nation of laws, and a jury has spoken."
I thought he was older. He just always seems to be around when there's drama.
Separate names with a comma.