George Zimmerman Not Guilty

[dairyfreelife]

It's okay for a white male to shoot a black, unarmed teenager.

Hispanic/white biracial male. You don't have to be white to be a racist.

[BoomerLynn]

Where I think a lot of the (justified, IMHO) anger is coming from is just that - people want there to have been some sort of sanction, any sort of sanction, any sort of punishment for the initial profiling and following bit, for the poisonous way in which the two first met.

The case, meanwhile, was only about the very end of the fight, whether Zimmerman was afraid for his life at the very end, and carefully cut off and separated from the "earlier interactions" between the two. Conveniently, even. Which means that yeah, legally, it comes out as it did, prosecution bringing bad case, etc.

Honestly I thought that perhaps he would end up convicted of manslaughter with a light sentence, to at least acknowledge that earlier stuff, but I guess it's not how the law works, the case is very very narrow.

Or in other words, I think the court was set to answer a question different from the one that the wider public actually wanted answered.

I was trying to think of a way to put my feelings to words and you managed it better than me. I know that I (can't speak for everyone else) wanted him to answer for disobeying the 911 dispatcher and leaving his car in the first place. If he had done as instructed, Trayvon Martin would still be alive. I firmly believe Zimmerman profiled Martin, tried to prove himself a badass, and when Martin fought back he shot and killed him. I am appalled at a system that allows someone to get away with this. I am also appalled at a system that allows a person with a violent history to hold a concealed weapons permit. I do believe the case would have been handled very differently if Zimmerman had shot and killed a white teenager wearing Abercrombie. Sorry if I'm rambling. My thoughts seem to be all jumbled today. I blame the obnoxious humidity in my area.

[bananacat]

It's quite a red herring to say that the problem here is that the prosecution didn't make an adequate case. I guarantee you that if the races had been reversed and the prosecutor's case were exactly the same, he would have been convicted. Black men have been convicted on far less evidence than was presented here.

[jenny_islander]

Where I think a lot of the (justified, IMHO) anger is coming from is just that - people want there to have been some sort of sanction, any sort of sanction, any sort of punishment for the initial profiling and following bit, for the poisonous way in which the two first met.

This. I would have expected "Not guilty of murder, but guilty of violating whatever Florida law applies to dumbass behavior that gets somebody else killed."

(But I still think that Zimmerman wanted to chase down and shoot an evil inhuman invader of his domain in order to feel heroic and decided that a 17-year-old boy would have to do.)

[LilMissMetaphor]

[wild little fox]

Hispanic/white biracial male. You don't have to be white to be a racist.

My dark skinned Indian EX-boyfriend from Trinida is/was racist against people of African descent. (It was not a good decision to be with him, I was desperate to be loved)

[Savoring Samsara]

Hispanic/white biracial male. You don't have to be white to be a racist.

"Hispanic" is not, strictly speaking, a race. It denotes a person with a cultural connection to the Iberian Peninsula (Spain and Portugal). There are white Hispanics, black Hispanics, Asian Hispanics, Indigenous/First Nations Hispanics, etc. George Zimmerman is a white Hispanic.

[ADoyle90815]

This shows that not only does one not have to be white to be a racist, but that even with a history of domestic violence, Zimmerman was able to get the murder weapon back. Sure, he was found not guilty, but that just means that the prosecution didn't provide the burden of proof. Reasonable doubt is a big thing, and if there is even the smallest amount of doubt, juries have to give a not guilty verdict.

[Maia68]

What people have forgotten, in cases at least since the Simpson trial, is that "reasonable doubt" is not the same as "beyond a shadow of a doubt". But I do agree that this case was mishandled. Heart-breakingly so.

[doggie]

What people have forgotten, in cases at least since the Simpson trial, is that "reasonable doubt" is not the same as "beyond a shadow of a doubt". But I do agree that this case was mishandled. Heart-breakingly so.

it was mishandled as soon as the cops arrived and went downhill from there.

[Kira]

Someone on CNN just said it was like the prosecution threw the case. Something was not right about the way they handled the case.

Another thing that's bothering me is the way people are describing Zimmerman's injuries. The paramedic(or doctor?) testified that Zimmerman's injuries were minor and he did not have a broken nose. The defense's medical expert testified that if Zimmerman's head was banged against concrete 25 times he would need serious medical attention. Everyone seems to be ignoring this, including the prosecution.

[crazyforkate]

Based on what I've heard of the evidence, I think the jury did what they had to. However, the legal basis they were working from was totally fucked up. Just because Zimmerman could not be convicted doesn't mean he's at all innocent of Martin's death, and I hope it follows him around forever. This is what happens when a gun is worth more than a human being, people.

[MyNameIsJonas]

"Hispanic" is not, strictly speaking, a race. It denotes a person with a cultural connection to the Iberian Peninsula (Spain and Portugal). There are white Hispanics, black Hispanics, Asian Hispanics, Indigenous/First Nations Hispanics, etc. George Zimmerman is a white Hispanic.

Thank you for saying this. Zimmerman was "white" in every way that counted.

That being said, Black Twitter absolutely exploded when the verdict was handed down. I and a lot of my friends were not at all surprised and not really sad, even. Melissa Harris-Perry said today that black people are used to getting less, so we don't expect much. It's true. We're used to our friends and family being killed with little recourse, so there's no point in rioting about it. It's like waking up to see the sky is blue. Another black kid is dead, and life goes on for us.

[YPestis]

I have not been following the Zimmerman case but I do know the basics. I figure the guy would get something for what he did. Ok, I can understand that maybe Zimmerman did not intend to kill the boy but the fact that he charged into a situation after being told not to, and then shot an unarmed guy because he acted "suspicious'.....well, I figure our justice system would allocate some punishment for him. Still, even if our judicial system won't punish him, I hope society will ostracize him for a time, to remind him of his misdeed. I doubt a civil lawsuit will do much, or even happen. The guy is not rich and probably spent his last penny on his legal bills. All in all, this is a sad case. A young man is dead. Another man goes free after killing him. And the American public is reminded, once again, that race is still an issue in our judicial system.

[dairyfreelife]

"Hispanic" is not, strictly speaking, a race. It denotes a person with a cultural connection to the Iberian Peninsula (Spain and Portugal). There are white Hispanics, black Hispanics, Asian Hispanics, Indigenous/First Nations Hispanics, etc. George Zimmerman is a white Hispanic.

Latino/White then. His appearance is more Latino than white, but because he's half-white, everyone says he's a white man. Point is that you don't have to white to be a racist.

[argypargy]

I have not been following the Zimmerman case but I do know the basics. I figure the guy would get something for what he did. Ok, I can understand that maybe Zimmerman did not intend to kill the boy but the fact that he charged into a situation after being told not to, and then shot an unarmed guy because he acted "suspicious'.....well, I figure our justice system would allocate some punishment for him. Still, even if our judicial system won't punish him, I hope society will ostracize him for a time, to remind him of his misdeed. I doubt a civil lawsuit will do much, or even happen. The guy is not rich and probably spent his last penny on his legal bills. All in all, this is a sad case. A young man is dead. Another man goes free after killing him. And the American public is reminded, once again, that race is still an issue in our judicial system.

He was never explicitly told not to follow Martin. All the operator said was, "we don't need you to do that". Then, a minute or so later, the operator asks Zimmerman where Martin was, which was the reason he got out of the car. Seems a bit conflicting. Also, there was no/little evidence presented that indicated Zimmerman was the agressor (started the physical conflict), but more evidence indicating Martin struck first (physical injuries to Zimmerman, witness testimonies (although no eye witnesses)). For everyone saying that Martin was "unarmed", that is not true. Fists are considered a deadly weapon within the letter of the law. In the US, if I or any of you were getting punched or beaten, you would be within your right to use deadly force in the name of self-defense.

Could this all have been avoided if Zimmerman hadn't followed Martin? Yes. However, Zimmerman was not doing anything illegal by following Martin. The jury made the correct decision with the evidence provided.

As far as race, yes there are still many issues with race in this country. Is this case evidence of that? Maybe. I am positive there was profiling involved. It's hard to look or think differently, though, when you've had several break-ins in the neighborhood. It puts everyone on alert, so the minute you see someone who doesn't belong there (even though Martin had every right to be where he was), people get suspicious. Now, I'm assuming Zimmerman thought Martin didn't belong because he was black/wearing a hoodie/etc.

I don't think Zimmerman is innocent, but, by the letter of the law, with the evidence presented, he was found not guilty.

Before you start flaming, understand that I don't think what Zimmerman did was "right". But I do understand why he was found "not guilty".

[MyNameIsJonas]

Latino/White then. His appearance is more Latino than white, but because he's half-white, everyone says he's a white man. Point is that you don't have to white to be a racist.

Latino is ethnicity as well. I agree that Zimmerman doesn't exactly pass, but he's white in almost every way that counts. Won't get into the concept of nonwhite "racism" because that argument has been had and I'm not keen on having it again

[FrancineFishpaw]

He was never explicitly told not to follow Martin. All the operator said was, "we don't need you to do that". Then, a minute or so later, the operator asks Zimmerman where Martin was, which was the reason he got out of the car. Seems a bit conflicting. Also, there was no/little evidence presented that indicated Zimmerman was the agressor (started the physical conflict), but more evidence indicating Martin struck first (physical injuries to Zimmerman, witness testimonies (although no eye witnesses)). For everyone saying that Martin was "unarmed", that is not true. Fists are considered a deadly weapon within the letter of the law. In the US, if I or any of you were getting punched or beaten, you would be within your right to use deadly force in the name of self-defense.

Could this all have been avoided if Zimmerman hadn't followed Martin? Yes. However, Zimmerman was not doing anything illegal by following Martin. The jury made the correct decision with the evidence provided.

As far as race, yes there are still many issues with race in this country. Is this case evidence of that? Maybe. I am positive there was profiling involved. It's hard to look or think differently, though, when you've had several break-ins in the neighborhood. It puts everyone on alert, so the minute you see someone who doesn't belong there (even though Martin had every right to be where he was), people get suspicious. Now, I'm assuming Zimmerman thought Martin didn't belong because he was black/wearing a hoodie/etc.

I don't think Zimmerman is innocent, but, by the letter of the law, with the evidence presented, he was found not guilty.

Before you start flaming, understand that I don't think what Zimmerman did was "right". But I do understand why he was found "not guilty".

I understand both of your stances. I think Zimmerman was a bit overzealous w/his privilege of carrying a concealed weapon. Thank God for Neighborhood Watches, they are intended to keep us safe. However, I think Zimmerman took the law into his own hands and made a poor decision to follow a kid who MAY or MAY NOT have been in his neighborhood to cause harm. Martin got pissed b/c he was accused (rightly or wrongly) and made the poor decision to fight. I do think Zimmerman should have been punished in some way though.

[argypargy]

I understand both of your stances. I think Zimmerman was a bit overzealous w/his privilege of carrying a concealed weapon. Thank God for Neighborhood Watches, they are intended to keep us safe. However, I think Zimmerman took the law into his own hands and made a poor decision to follow a kid who MAY or MAY NOT have been in his neighborhood to cause harm. Martin got pissed b/c he was accused (rightly or wrongly) and made the poor decision to fight. I do think Zimmerman should have been punished in some way though.

He can only be guilty of what he was charged with, which was 2nd degree murder or manslaughter. The jury saw no evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he was guilty of either of those crimes.

ETA: The human mind likes to draw conlcusions based upon "what-ifs". What if Zimmerman didn't have a gun? Would he have followed Martin? If he had followed Martin anyway, would Zimmerman be dead from being brutally beaten? Or...would Zimmerman have stayed in his car until police got there? As a juror, you can't assume. You have to look at the evidence and make a decision based upon the law.

As far as a civil or federal case, I really don't think they have the evidence. There is no "proof" that Zimmerman racially profiled Martin. You can't just assume. I profile people everyday. It's part of self-preservation. Everyone does it, whether they choose to admit it or not. However, I choose not to go following suspicious people.

[fakepigtails73]

I have not been following the Zimmerman case but I do know the basics. I figure the guy would get something for what he did. Ok, I can understand that maybe Zimmerman did not intend to kill the boy but the fact that he charged into a situation after being told not to, and then shot an unarmed guy because he acted "suspicious'.....well, I figure our justice system would allocate some punishment for him. Still, even if our judicial system won't punish him, I hope society will ostracize him for a time, to remind him of his misdeed. I doubt a civil lawsuit will do much, or even happen. The guy is not rich and probably spent his last penny on his legal bills. All in all, this is a sad case. A young man is dead. Another man goes free after killing him. And the American public is reminded, once again, that race is still an issue in our judicial system.

I think that the jury did give the best verdict they could based on the case this prosecution team presented them. Because of "reasonable doubt", they had to find GZ "not guilty". Sad for TM's family though...

Even if I agree with the jury's decision, I still think that GZ looks like a major asshole with a serious case of "I wanna be a cop really bad!!!" LEO envy. Granted I don't know the guy beyond what I saw in the media; he took his occasional work as a neighbourhood watch volunteer (in a gated community, no less!) too seriously, IMHO. :evil:

I hope that this tragedy will get other neighbourhood watch dudes with testosterone overload and cop envy to calm the fuck down when they see a tall guy (and don't treat the 1st black guy you see at night as a criminal-in-progress, treat him the same as you would a guy from the same race as yours) wearing a hoodie walking at night...Before de-holstering your gun ask yourself first if there is a legitimate reason for whoever you're checking to be out there, and obey the police dispatch at the end of the line before doing something so drastic and killing someone. :angry-banghead: And anyways, you're only the block watch volunteer: why the need to have a gun in your hand when you want to talk to someone at first? "Shoot first and ask questions later??" Wtf?

Take your duties seriously, but remember that you're not Dirty Harry. :naughty:

As far as GZ goes, he just got a Pyrhic victory. He'll have to look over his shoulders for the rest of his life and his legal bills will likely ruin him in some way $$. I wouldn't celebrate too outlandishly if I were him.

I doubt very much that it will happen but I hope that the state of Florida reviews some of their laws such as "stand your ground", or at least parts of it. There has been many, many incidents in that state where the accused mentionned that he was shooting in legitimate defense or in fear for his life but at trial he (or she, in one infamous trial that I read about last year) was convicted for 20 years as mandatory minimum. A review of these laws are in order. But hey, I don't live there so what do I know! :shrug:

ETA: I'm reminded of a case in the early or mid 1980s in the NYC Subway where a (white) man was accosted by a few black guys and he ended up shooting one of them. I remember bits and pieces of this, it was a big story in the media at the time. I don't remember other details such as trial (if there was any), the name of the protagonists, in which station did this occur or if the shooter had a legal gun (somehow I doubt it was...It was in NYC not Florida).

Off to Google I go... :popcorn2:

[tabitha2]

As far as GZ goes, he just got a Pyrhic victory. He'll have to look over his shoulders for the rest of his life and his legal bills will likely ruin him in some way $$. I wouldn't celebrate too outlandishly if I were him.

not really. you know his phone is already ringing the hook for book deals and when a suitable amount of time has passed possibly interviews.

[fakepigtails73]

not really. you know his phone is already ringing the hook for book deals and when a suitable amount of time has passed possibly interviews.[/quote

This is just a "feeling" I have, it won't go very far. Zimmerman doesn't seem like a likeable fellow, his past indiscretions before the Trayvon Martin case (domestic violence is not a great thing to have in your recent past if you want good PR!) among others and the fact that he doesn't seem to speak v well inj public (one can always be coached for this though, that's true) so I had hoped that after his acquittal he'd just fade away and let the Martins grieve in peace. As I said, I might agree with the verdict but I don't want to see him in the media anymore.

Tabitha2, now that I think about it more you're likely right though... Darn. :angry-banghead:

He'll likely make the rounds of the NRA conferences and the Fox News shows like Hannity. Yuck. :disgust:

No offense as I respect the 2nd amendment; it's just that I don't like the Tea Partiers that see the US Constitution as only worth the 2nd amendment and maybe the 1st for the freedom of religion as this permits them to be loud proselitizers. I've never understood how lots of them don't grasp the fact that not only extreme Tea Party members are respectable gun owners. To them, it's Tea Partiers-GOP lovers: responsible gun owners Criminals: all other gun owners. No room in the middle. But that is getting away from the thread's subject.

(Sorry for today's horrible grammar, orthograph and syntax. It's been a long weekend!) :twisted:

[tabitha2]

the dilemma is...some angry person really attacks him with intent to harm or kill ... he has to defend himself without a doubt, so if he kills that person...? this is very likely to happen.

[StatenIslandMom1]

ETA: I'm reminded of a case in the early or mid 1980s in the NYC Subway where a (white) man was accosted by a few black guys and he ended up shooting one of them. I remember bits and pieces of this, it was a big story in the media at the time. I don't remember other details such as trial (if there was any), the name of the protagonists, in which station did this occur or if the shooter had a legal gun (somehow I doubt it was...It was in NYC not Florida).

Off to Google I go... :popcorn2:

[fakepigtails73]

ETA: I'm reminded of a case in the early or mid 1980s in the NYC Subway where a (white) man was accosted by a few black guys and he ended up shooting one of them. I remember bits and pieces of this, it was a big story in the media at the time. I don't remember other details such as trial (if there was any), the name of the protagonists, in which station did this occur or if the shooter had a legal gun (somehow I doubt it was...It was in NYC not Florida).

Off to Google I go... :popcorn2:

That was the Bernie Getz (sp?) case. A man was attacked on the subway and fought the teenagers off, then shot one in the back as he was running away.

I am a licensed attorney although I am not currently practicing. People are mad at the jurors, but they actually have a very narrow job to do.

They can't convict Zimmerman because he "deserves some punishment" or was a bad guy. They have to apply the facts as presented by the prosecution to the laws of Florida, and I think they did so properly.

However, Zimmerman never should have followed him, and certainly never should have gotten out of the car.