Were you surprised by the Zimmerman verdict

[Maria D]

Even if you leave race out of the equation, the concept that a man can start a fight with an unarmed kid and end up killing him and not go to jail for it seems unjust.

Looking at the legal definition for manslaughter in Florida (here's an article that does: http://www.inquisitr.com/847607/george-zimmerman-not-guilty-verdict-florida-manslaughter-laws-explained/ ), I can understand why the jury did not consider it if they believed that Zimmerman was acting in self-defense. Actually, I think all they had to believe was that *Zimmerman* believed he was acting in self-defense.

As unjust as you find it, please remember that initially we were dealing with the concept that a man can start this thing and end up killing a kid and NOT EVEN BE ARRESTED. That is what caused this particular case to receive the attention it did. As for stand-your-ground; I do think it's a flawed law and hope that it's repealed, but it was not invoked in the trial.

 

[Niel]

I'm not saying they should convict a person against the laws of the state. I'm just dissapointed that the law is flawed and the family and that boy had to be a casualty of that.

 

[OreoRosies86]

No surprised, neither happy or disappointed with the outcome. The facts were not there for the prosecution to pursue a guilty verdict.

I know this is a sensitive issue, but I never saw this case being racially motivated or a hate crime. Instead of vultures raising racial tension over this case, I would rather have liked to see the media spotlight the issue of Stand Your Ground and it's flaws. When one man with a power complex and enormous ego can take the law into his own hands and walk away from killing someone after being told to stay in his car, that is a law that needs to be re-examined and changed, if not abolished.

If TM was any other color other then black...there wouldn't be an arrest, or trial , or any national media coverage.

Agreed. It would have been one of thousands of unfortunate run-ins that occur daily. A blip in the local papers. I found it particularly grating to be subjected to the intelligence insulting coverage that followed which labeled Zimmerman "White Hispanic." No one walking down the street would say at first glance that GZ looks "white", nor had I ever in my life heard such a label. But oh how quickly it was applied for inflammatory purposes.

 

[Maria D]

Agreed. It would have been one of thousands of unfortunate run-ins that occur daily. A blip in the local papers.

Really? I don't know where you live but it would be unheard of where I live for someone to shoot and kill another person and not get arrested and have to stand trial. There was a case here years ago where a man killed two men who came to his home and tried to continue a fight that had started at a bar and he had to stand trial even though Maine has "Castle Doctrine" laws (which differ from Stand Your Ground in that you have to be defending yourself at home). The man was acquitted, but there would have been outrage if he wasn't even arrested and tried. They were all white.

Where are all these places where where people are shot and killed with nary an arrest?

Those of you that keep insisting that the big deal here is that poor Zimmerman got picked on because he killed a black kid instead of a white kid don't make logical sense to me. Do you really think if Martin had been white people would have been LESS infuriated that it took 44 days to arrest Zimmerman?

 

[OreoRosies86]

Agreed. It would have been one of thousands of unfortunate run-ins that occur daily. A blip in the local papers.

Really? I don't know where you live but it would be unheard of where I live for someone to shoot and kill another person and not get arrested and have to stand trial. There was a case here years ago where a man killed two men who came to his home and tried to continue a fight that had started at a bar and he had to stand trial even though Maine has "Castle Doctrine" laws (which differ from Stand Your Ground in that you have to be defending yourself at home). The man was acquitted, but there would have been outrage if he wasn't even arrested and tried. They were all white.

Where are all these places where where people are shot and killed with nary an arrest?

Those of you that keep insisting that the big deal here is that poor Zimmerman got picked on because he killed a black kid instead of a white kid don't make logical sense to me. Do you really think if Martin had been white people would have been LESS infuriated that it took 44 days to arrest Zimmerman?

Please direct me to where I stated there would have been rightfully no arrest though. You can't tell me that a black man killing another black man garners anywhere near the media attention this trial received. I find that sad. I am not expressing my many thoughts on this case well, but there were many facets of this whole case I took issue with.

Also, please forgive my jumping around typing, I am still adjusting to an ipad and keep clicking out mid-edit!

 

[OreoRosies86]

I apologize for not effectively articulating my thoughts. I know this is a sensitive topic and I sincerely do not wish to offend. I find Stand Your Ground extremely flawed, but as law dictated, GZ benefitted from it. I hope that despite my respect for the jury's decision that this law is drastically ammended in the future.

 

[ruby59]

I agree that the stand your ground law in Florida is flawed. And I agree that Trayvon deserved his day in court, so I am glad there was a trial. But the prosecution could not prove its case and George Zimmerman was found not guilty.

So what is the point of the justice department suggesting it might try him on civil charges? Based on what?

 

[Dancing Fire]

Agreed. It would have been one of thousands of unfortunate run-ins that occur daily. A blip in the local papers.

Where are all these places where where people are shot and killed with nary an arrest?

Those of you that keep insisting that the big deal here is that poor Zimmerman got picked on because he killed a black kid instead of a white kid don't make logical sense to me. Do you really think if Martin had been white people would have been LESS infuriated that it took 44 days to arrest Zimmerman?

Chicago, it happens everyday, but those are mostly black vs black crimes. there are no national media coverage. How come we don't hear anything from Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton about all those killings in Chicago? it is ok for blacks killing blacks?

 

[Maria D]

Agreed. It would have been one of thousands of unfortunate run-ins that occur daily. A blip in the local papers.

Really? I don't know where you live but it would be unheard of where I live for someone to shoot and kill another person and not get arrested and have to stand trial. There was a case here years ago where a man killed two men who came to his home and tried to continue a fight that had started at a bar and he had to stand trial even though Maine has "Castle Doctrine" laws (which differ from Stand Your Ground in that you have to be defending yourself at home). The man was acquitted, but there would have been outrage if he wasn't even arrested and tried. They were all white.

Where are all these places where where people are shot and killed with nary an arrest?

Those of you that keep insisting that the big deal here is that poor Zimmerman got picked on because he killed a black kid instead of a white kid don't make logical sense to me. Do you really think if Martin had been white people would have been LESS infuriated that it took 44 days to arrest Zimmerman?

Please direct me to where I stated there would have been rightfully no arrest though. You can't tell me that a black man killing another black man garners anywhere near the media attention this trial received. I find that sad. I am not expressing my many thoughts on this case well, but there were many facets of this whole case I took issue with.

Also, please forgive my jumping around typing, I am still adjusting to an ipad and keep clicking out mid-edit!

This trial received the media attention it did because it took so long to arrest Zimmerman. In fact, one could argue that without the media attention, Zimmerman would never have been arrested. If a black guy ADMITS to killing another black guy, an arrest is made - no media attention necessary.

Now it's just getting *continued* attention because it was already out there. Sure, people's agreement or disagreement with the verdict may or may not be based on racial issues. But far fewer people would be weighing in on the verdict now if on that night in February 2012 Zimmerman had just been arrested for killing a minor - because they would never have heard the story in the first place. It would be just another of the many tragic deaths by gun violence, hardly a big deal in the U.S.

 

[kenny]

I agree that the stand your ground law in Florida is flawed. And I agree that Trayvon deserved his day in court, so I am glad there was a trial. But the prosecution could not prove its case and George Zimmerman was found not guilty.

So what is the point of the justice department suggesting it might try him on civil charges? Based on what?

Based on civicl charges having a lower standard of proof than criminal charges ... ala OJ.

I think having two systems is dumb.
Either the person did it, or not.

OJ being criminally not-guilt but civilly guilty, Opps excuse me ... liable, is just semantics, word-masturbation.

 

[ruby59]

I agree that the stand your ground law in Florida is flawed. And I agree that Trayvon deserved his day in court, so I am glad there was a trial. But the prosecution could not prove its case and George Zimmerman was found not guilty.

So what is the point of the justice department suggesting it might try him on civil charges? Based on what?

Based on civicl charges having a lower standard of proof than criminal charges ... ala OJ.

I think having two systems is dumb.
Either the person did it, or not.

OJ being criminally not-guilt but civilly guilty, Opps excuse me ... liable, is just semantics, word-masturbation.

http://main.aol.com/2013/07/14/_n_3562115.html?13739107589&ncid=webmail1

OK, but according to this, they are saying that it will be a lot harder to prove it in Federal Court.

 

[ruby59]

Agreed. It would have been one of thousands of unfortunate run-ins that occur daily. A blip in the local papers.

Where are all these places where where people are shot and killed with nary an arrest?

Those of you that keep insisting that the big deal here is that poor Zimmerman got picked on because he killed a black kid instead of a white kid don't make logical sense to me. Do you really think if Martin had been white people would have been LESS infuriated that it took 44 days to arrest Zimmerman?

Chicago, it happens everyday, but those are mostly black vs black crimes. there are no national media coverage. How come we don't hear anything from Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton about all those killings in Chicago? it is ok for blacks killing blacks?

We had a case like that recently in my home state. A black man was thrown out of a party. He came back with a gun and shot into the crowd killing a 12 year old black girl with a bullet to her neck. very little was heard about it after that.

 

[kenny]

We had a case like that recently in my home state. A black man was thrown out of a party. He came back with a gun and shot into the crowd killing a 12 year old black girl with a bullet to her neck. very little was heard about it after that.

IMO, the media shares a huge percentage of the blame.
They can smell money, and there wasn't much scent here.

If the media detect a case with even a whiff of racial conflict they're all over it like flies on s hit.
The coverage, the headlines fan the fire so they make zillions on advertising.
They know how to print money ... helping America slip deeper into its racial quagmire.

This case was an excellent example.

 

[dragonfly411]

Kenny - You translated my thoughts very well. A white man kills a white man, very little is heard. A black man kills a black man, the same. They might get covered on local news and that is that. If the media smells a good story, something to make money on, like racism, or the killing of one's family, they're all over it like mud on a pig. It's really very sad to see. Race should never have been a factor, and never should be.

 

[missy]

Kenny - You translated my thoughts very well. A white man kills a white man, very little is heard. A black man kills a black man, the same. They might get covered on local news and that is that. If the media smells a good story, something to make money on, like racism, or the killing of one's family, they're all over it like mud on a pig. It's really very sad to see. Race should never have been a factor, and never should be.

It's not just race that is a factor with the news media. If the victim is an attractive woman the story will get more coverage than if she was plain looking. The media sensationalizes the stories that will get the most public attention and sell. It's a sad fact but true. It's big business and there is nothing fair or equal about coverage.

 

[zoebartlett]

I wasn't surprised by the verdict.

 

[kenny]

Kenny - You translated my thoughts very well. A white man kills a white man, very little is heard. A black man kills a black man, the same. They might get covered on local news and that is that. If the media smells a good story, something to make money on, like racism, or the killing of one's family, they're all over it like mud on a pig. It's really very sad to see. Race should never have been a factor, and never should be.

It's not just race that is a factor with the news media. If the victim is an attractive woman the story will get more coverage than if she was plain looking. The media sensationalizes the stories that will get the most public attention and sell. It's a sad fact but true. It's big business and there is nothing fair or equal about coverage.

Indeed.

 

[LibbyLA]

Even if you leave race out of the equation, the concept that a man can start a fight with an unarmed kid and end up killing him and not go to jail for it seems unjust.

Looking at the legal definition for manslaughter in Florida (here's an article that does: http://www.inquisitr.com/847607/george-zimmerman-not-guilty-verdict-florida-manslaughter-laws-explained/ ), I can understand why the jury did not consider it if they believed that Zimmerman was acting in self-defense. Actually, I think all they had to believe was that *Zimmerman* believed he was acting in self-defense.

As unjust as you find it, please remember that initially we were dealing with the concept that a man can start this thing and end up killing a kid and NOT EVEN BE ARRESTED. That is what caused this particular case to receive the attention it did. As for stand-your-ground; I do think it's a flawed law and hope that it's repealed, but it was not invoked in the trial.

George Zimmerman "started this thing" exactly how? It wasn't illegal for him to check out a stranger in his neighborhood and Zimmerman's following Martin didn't justify Martin hitting Zimmerman. Martin was the aggressor, the one who broke Zimmerman's nose and caused the damage to the back of Zimmerman's head. Had Martin gone to his house instead of attacking Zimmerman, none of this would have happened.

If you are unarmed and feel concerned for your safety, you leave, you do not start a fight with the person you feel threatened by. I think Martin was unaware that Zimmerman was carrying and attacked him, thinking he could beat him down. Only an idiot would attach someone he knew was carrying unless he were cornered and there was no other choice. Not the case here.

I feel sorry for both Zimmerman and Martin, and for their families. No one wins this situation, regardless of the verdict.

liz

 

[dragonfly411]

Kenny - You translated my thoughts very well. A white man kills a white man, very little is heard. A black man kills a black man, the same. They might get covered on local news and that is that. If the media smells a good story, something to make money on, like racism, or the killing of one's family, they're all over it like mud on a pig. It's really very sad to see. Race should never have been a factor, and never should be.

It's not just race that is a factor with the news media. If the victim is an attractive woman the story will get more coverage than if she was plain looking. The media sensationalizes the stories that will get the most public attention and sell. It's a sad fact but true. It's big business and there is nothing fair or equal about coverage.

Right, that's why I was saying if you kill your own family, or you're a large public figure or agreed if you are a more attractive woman, or person (in the case of the man who was killed by the girlfriend that garnered so much media attention recently). It's sad.

 

[dragonfly411]

Even if you leave race out of the equation, the concept that a man can start a fight with an unarmed kid and end up killing him and not go to jail for it seems unjust.

Looking at the legal definition for manslaughter in Florida (here's an article that does: http://www.inquisitr.com/847607/george-zimmerman-not-guilty-verdict-florida-manslaughter-laws-explained/ ), I can understand why the jury did not consider it if they believed that Zimmerman was acting in self-defense. Actually, I think all they had to believe was that *Zimmerman* believed he was acting in self-defense.

As unjust as you find it, please remember that initially we were dealing with the concept that a man can start this thing and end up killing a kid and NOT EVEN BE ARRESTED. That is what caused this particular case to receive the attention it did. As for stand-your-ground; I do think it's a flawed law and hope that it's repealed, but it was not invoked in the trial.

George Zimmerman "started this thing" exactly how? It wasn't illegal for him to check out a stranger in his neighborhood and Zimmerman's following Martin didn't justify Martin hitting Zimmerman. Martin was the aggressor, the one who broke Zimmerman's nose and caused the damage to the back of Zimmerman's head. Had Martin gone to his house instead of attacking Zimmerman, none of this would have happened.

If you are unarmed and feel concerned for your safety, you leave, you do not start a fight with the person you feel threatened by. I think Martin was unaware that Zimmerman was carrying and attacked him, thinking he could beat him down. Only an idiot would attach someone he knew was carrying unless he were cornered and there was no other choice. Not the case here.

I feel sorry for both Zimmerman and Martin, and for their families. No one wins this situation, regardless of the verdict.

liz

Libby - I think there are two sides to this, and I think there is a LOT more than what we truly know. Zimmerman followed the guy against police recommendations. Maybe Martin attacked him, maybe Zimmerman went to reach for the kid and the kid felt threatened and attacked. There are so many things that could have been missed by "witnesses" on a dark night in a neighborhood. It could be exactly as Zimmerman and witnesses presented it, but I don't think it's fair to say that Zimmerman didn't start it. He called in, talking about how people always get away with stuff, and followed the kid against police recommendations. That started the event. Period. The kid was just walking. Sure he may not have had good intentions, but that doesn't mean you go against what the police tell you. I do agree with feeling sorry for both parties. I think that Zimmerman was being protective of where he lived, and he made a mistake in following the kid, and the kid made a mistake in injuring Zimmerman and Zimmerman made a mistake in shooting him, and thus, killing him. He will not be able to live in the place he was so protective of in all likelihood because people feel so passionately about this that they have taken to violent thoughts/threats and that is sad. I wish all of them peace.

 

[momhappy]

I didn't follow the case and only looked up something about it when the verdict came in, and it was such huge news.

But it seems to me that if Zimmerman had simply left well alone then nothing would have happened. As far as I could tell, the kid was just buying some sweets and juice, and he phoned a friend to say that a man was following him. If Zimmerman hadn't started worrying at him, nothing would have transpired. That's the impression I got.

Generally, I look at cases like this in America and I know I'm in a foreign country. We don't have these tinderbox racial tensions in the UK which can easily ignite into huge protests, and you can't buy guns either. Of course, everywhere has its own problems. London is one of the most diverse, multi-cultural cities in the world and 99% of the time people co-exist perfectly happily, but then one or two extremists come along and ruin it for everyone. A recent example is the guy who killed the soldier in the street a few months ago in London. But the mix of guns and racial issues is particular to modern-day America, and I look at cases like these with complete amazement because it's all so foreign to me. One article said that one of the guys had been training at an MMA gym, but I have no idea what that is. When I read about the case, I'm probably missing a million cultural references so I can't say I'm that well-qualified to judge. Just seems to me that if the guy had been allowed to buy his sweets and go home, all would have been well.

Except you left out the part where he told the friend on the phone that he was being followed by a "creepy-ass cracker"...

 

[Abril]

Fine to be happy about the verdict, as long as you would cheer for an acquittal if the tables were turned: say Trayvon had a gun as well and he fired and killed GZ in self-defense. Under the FL law, TM should walk away free, not guilty.

 

[lulu]

To tell you the truth, I was shocked by the verdict. I watched the trial gavel to gavel and the verdict was an accurate application of the law to the facts, but the media created such a racial circus that I thought they'd come up with some compromise verdict.

Stand Your Ground didn't play into it at all. Even in a duty to retreat state he had the right to use deadly force in self defense. He was pinned down and being beaten. Furthermore the special prosecutor, Angela Corey, has been indicted by a grand jury for falsifying the underlying documents. He should never have been prosecuted.

Yes, If George Zimmerman had stayed in his car it never would have happened and I'm very sorry he got out of his car. But the verdict was accurate.

 

[dragonfly411]

momhappy - So was it okay that Zimmerman said on the phone to the police that "these a-holes always get away", or "F*ing punks"? Kettle, pot? Two wrongs don't make a right. They both did things wrong.

 

[tyty333]

As much as I wanted to hold Zimmerman accountable for killing someone that was walking
Through his neighborhood on a rainy night, the evidence was just not there.

I was not surprised after watching most of the case.

TYTY in case you didn't see the trail or read the account it was much more then that. The kid attacked Zimmerman and gave him a blood nose and head lacerations. Last time I checked that was a bit more then walking through a community on a rainy night. I completely agree the trial went as it should and the outcome.

If Zimmerman had not been following him and most likely scaring him (we'll never know because he's dead) then Zimmerman would
not have had a bloody nose and head lacerations. I dont hold Zimmerman entirely innocent in this unfortunate set of circumstances
but IMO mistakes were made on both parts.

Edit - BTW...I did watch the whole trial.

 

[momhappy]

momhappy - So was it okay that Zimmerman said on the phone to the police that "these a-holes always get away", or "F*ing punks"? Kettle, pot? Two wrongs don't make a right. They both did things wrong.

No, it was not okay and I never said it was.
In fact, I didn't even address any of that. My post was in response to a comment about how TM appeared to be just out for a walk, buying sweets, etc. The offensive/racial comment that he made on the phone seemed to imply that he was participating, at least on some level, to the unfortunate encounter between the two of them. I agree with you that both parties involved were likely to blame and it's sad that someone died as a result of their combined actions.

 

[Karl_K]

If Zimmerman had not been following him and most likely scaring him (we'll never know because he's dead) then Zimmerman would
not have had a bloody nose and head lacerations. I dont hold Zimmerman entirely innocent in this unfortunate set of circumstances
but IMO mistakes were made on both parts.

Edit - BTW...I did watch the whole trial.

Under Fla law that doesn't matter what matters is what happened at the time the shot was fired.
Under IL law there is case law that makes the almost exact circumstances manslaughter.
Anyone who works security in IL is taught the basics on the case.
Security guard sees someone who doesn't belong, gives chase, they meet, they fight, Guard is losing so he pulls his gun and shoots the other person.
Manslaughter conviction, repeals uphold the conviction because of the wording of the laws covering manslaughter and self defense.

 

[Smith1942]

I didn't follow the case and only looked up something about it when the verdict came in, and it was such huge news.

But it seems to me that if Zimmerman had simply left well alone then nothing would have happened. As far as I could tell, the kid was just buying some sweets and juice, and he phoned a friend to say that a man was following him. If Zimmerman hadn't started worrying at him, nothing would have transpired. That's the impression I got.

Generally, I look at cases like this in America and I know I'm in a foreign country. We don't have these tinderbox racial tensions in the UK which can easily ignite into huge protests, and you can't buy guns either. Of course, everywhere has its own problems. London is one of the most diverse, multi-cultural cities in the world and 99% of the time people co-exist perfectly happily, but then one or two extremists come along and ruin it for everyone. A recent example is the guy who killed the soldier in the street a few months ago in London. But the mix of guns and racial issues is particular to modern-day America, and I look at cases like these with complete amazement because it's all so foreign to me. One article said that one of the guys had been training at an MMA gym, but I have no idea what that is. When I read about the case, I'm probably missing a million cultural references so I can't say I'm that well-qualified to judge. Just seems to me that if the guy had been allowed to buy his sweets and go home, all would have been well.

Except you left out the part where he told the friend on the phone that he was being followed by a "creepy-ass cracker"...

I already said that I didn't follow the case and that I wasn't the best judge as I'm foreign and don't understand the cultural references. What is a cracker, if not a piece of crunchy food? Also, I didn't realise that Zimmerman was able to hear the conversation. I just looked up "cracker" and saw that it could be applied as a racial slur. This country's language is indecipherable. Where I come from, a cracker is a Jacob's cream cracker, something you eat with Marmite.

Anyway, I'm in full agreement with you. If he was privy to that phone conversation and he heard himself described as a creepy ass cracker, by which I gather that a donkey with a picnic is not what is being implied, then yes, Zimmerman could have got upset about that.

I'm sorry for not understanding, but you have to understand that this hijacked, beaten-up, mangled-beyond-repair version of English that you insist on calling English is a form of the language that I have never encountered in 32 years of living in the British Isles. I literally have no idea what most people are talking about on this continent, so I have limited ability to understand, well, anything here.

 

[JaneSmith]

Well, I've learned something from this. If you want to stalk, harass, then murder people legally, go to Florida.

Here's a lovely piece of an interview with Zimmerman:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?hl=en&gl=US&client=mv-google&v=eD83PmBeaW4&nomobile=1

Interviewer: "Is there anything you regret...?"
Z: "No sir."
Z: "I feel that it was all God's plan..."
Interviewer: "Is there anything you might do differently, in retrospect ...?"
Z: "No sir."

 

[Circe]

As somebody who has in all seriousness been called a "cracker" (in NYC as Jew, where for a variety of reasons, not so much - we've never really been the folks to hold the whips - AND where I've actually been personally attacked for racial reasons ... it's still really not a reason to shoot a person.

It wasn't a reason for Bernie Goetz thirty years ago. (He did, and I think it set this city back twenty years.) It wasn't a reason for my dad ( robbed violently three times, carrying the last two). It shouldn't have been a reason for a man who randomly and against the advice of the legal officers who spoke to him chose to stalk a kid.

I sort of feel like there's a faintly disingenuous air in play when we attempt to equate "cracker" with any racial epithet used against black folk. Or, for that matter, any other currently mistreated minority group. Being called a cracker didn't make me feel nearly as threatened as the time I was, say, called a cunt. Or a kike. Some words pass into the majority usage, usually when they're so inane as to be amusing, others don't. NONE of them act as an excuse for violence. Shooting an unarmed kid, though? I dunno.

I feel like whatever maneuvers we engage in, that should actually carry some consequences, regardless of race or class. Just because ... consequences matter. At the end of the day, they're the only things that matter. And yet, our laws currently involve workarounds.

Much more than this particular ruling, that concerns me. THAT is what we should be working on in order to rectify these circumstances, I think.