I think the verdict was obvious. The real issue, however, is why we let citizens like Zimmerman play cop with real guns. If Zimmerman is at home watching TV and reporting the "suspicious" person to the police from inside his house without a gun, Martin is alive today and Zimmerman is not scared for life. Its the guns, again.
The thing on the bold, we don't know that happened. Wasn't that the whole problem? We had George's story, some eyewitnesses in the dark, a phone call with screams and voices that we don't know who said what, and evidence that Zimmerman was on his back and Martin had grass on knees. Even with that, there is no logical conclusion to say how that happened. Maybe Zimmerman grabbed Martin to hold him while the police came and Martin shoved him back, Zimmerman fell, Martin then saw the gun and tried to keep Zimmerman away from it. Or maybe George was accurate, Martin followed him back to the truck, initiated the contact and physicality, George feared for his life and shot him. I just accept the fact that we have no idea what happened that night, and never will. The whole case is an usual one from the very beginning til the end. In the end, I think the jury was right in what they decided, but I don't have problem with people having outrage or "injustice" in the prosecution's strategy, the law, or how both the prosecution and defense acted in the post trial interviews. I also see why many people are frustrated with the law in itself. There were problems here, but I guess I agree with you, with what was given, you cannot blame the jury here, at all.
there were no word games at all. if you are not disputing my hypothetical than you are conceding that that there are scenarios in which it would be justified for someone to kill a 17 year old. so it is dishonest on your part to ignore the factors in this case that could justify the killing.
the problem was not knowing who initiated the fight that would cause Zimmerman to claim his life was in danger and had to shoot Trayvon. that is why the murder charge was ludicrous. the prosecutor attempted to stretch the cause of death all the way back to Zimmerman simply thinking he was suspicious and following him, which he had every right to do, and not addressing the confrontation only, which was the problem, to justify intent that did not exist or could not be proven.
First off, profiling does not constitute manslaughter, profiling IS NOT illegal, PERIOD. How do you know what someone is carrying when it's pitch black outside, 911 operators are NOT police officers & they NEVER told Zimmerman NOT to do what he did the operator stated "We don't need you to do that", that is far from saying "don't do that". The "scuffle" came about because the 17yr old initiated it, wrong decisions, in & of itself without any of the culpable mental states that would be required to constitute a crime (which Zimmerman did not have) does NOT constitute a criminal act. The ONLY "racial" profiling that occurred was when the 17yr old stated "creepy ass white cracker" msnbc played it off last night like it was some lighthearted comment that in no way could be taken as racist, but if Zimmerman had stated something like "that gangly ass monkey" you would have NEVER stopped hearing about it as being racist. The MEDIA PROMOTES RACISM EVERY CHANCE THEY GET, it's GREAT for ratings & that IS ALL they care about. ps-How about when a well known media outlet doctored Zimmerman's 911 tape to make it sound like he was racist, the MEDIA ONLY wants 1 thing, PERIOD. The media & the race baiters FAILED, not the legal system.
What hypothetical? An unarmed 17 year old is killed by an armed 28 year old. And the 28 year old is not charged. Simple as that for me. But whatever. Your country, your law, your people. No reason to continue for me.
Well it certainly isn't that easy. What if Zimmerman only had a flashlight,and Martin killed him with something?
Martin should have been charged with murder. Why are you asking this? Whoever kills an unarmed person should be charged with murder.
I will give you that. Self defense is a valid argument. But in this particular case, I am not buying the self defense story. An unarmed 17 year old can't create a life danger for an armed 28 year old. Again, please excuse me as I am not knowledgable about US law and expressing my opinion from a humanitarian point of view. Your country, your law, your people.
That's true too. I just think the whole thing starts with how it was initiated. Can you claim self defense that your life is in danger if you initiated a physical confrontation? My gut feeling says no, that legally wouldn't be acceptable as self defense since it was aggression turned into defense. I agree the murder charge was stretching. That was one part about how weird the case was. From my understanding, manslaughter would have been easier and might have put George guilty.
Don't worry, it's still early, the media & race baiters will continue to chip away at it until they get what they want, then and only then will they be happy.
Actually, under the law, whoever started the fight doesn't actually matter, despite the media trying to feed it down our throats. I saw the media state that one cannot claim self defense if they are the first aggressor. That is a misstatement of the law and is not correct. One can be the first aggressor and still claim self denfense. Once the fight is ongoing, if the original non-aggressor escalates the fight into a deadly situation, the first aggressor can now use deadly force and claim self defense. That is why the moment where Trayvon is on top allegedly slamming Zimmerman's head into the concrete, along with Trayvon "reaching for the gun" is so important, and quite honestly, is the only thing that matters. Regardless of who started the fight, if Trayvon was slamming George's head into the concrete over and over to the point where George reasonably feared imminent death or serious bodily injury, he is entitled to self defense even if he started the fight. If people want to make a moral argument about George "starting it" that's fine, but under the law it doesn't actually matter if Trayvon was the one who escalated it.
Tell me why if you don't mind. I am in this country for 9 years and you are the first one to tell me to go back. Special day for me.
Did you even hear the defenses description of what they claim happened? Judging by your post I can only assume you haven't. Maybe get some details before you come to a conclusion based on your assumptions?
Forget about me. Why do a lot of people feel like justice isn't served? You don't need to convince me as I am a foreigner. Yes I watched the defense. And I know their claims but I am not buying it. It is 21st century and still a 17 year old black kid is killed by a 28 year old and nothing happens. This is how I perceive it, this is how millions perceive it.
