• Our software update is now concluded. You will need to reset your password to log in. In order to do this, you will have to click "Log in" in the top right corner and then "Forgot your password?".
  • Forum moderator applications are now open! Click here for details.
  • Welcome to PokéCommunity! Register now and join one of the best fan communities on the 'net to talk Pokémon and more! We are not affiliated with The Pokémon Company or Nintendo.

Jury Finds George Zimmerman Not Guilty

Mr. X

It's... kinda effective?
2,391
Posts
17
Years
The issue with following orders is that a dispatcher lacks the ability to give legally binding orders - They can't order anything, just suggest. Should these be followed? Yeah. Do they have to be? No.

That said, we don't know if it was the weapon that caused Trayvon to say that he would kill Zimmerman. Odd's are that it played some part, but if you fear for your life then I'm pretty sure "Your going to die tonight" isn't something you would say.
 

BraveNewWorld

The Breaker
230
Posts
10
Years
The issue with following orders is that a dispatcher lacks the ability to give legally binding orders - They can't order anything, just suggest. Should these be followed? Yeah. Do they have to be? No.

That said, we don't know if it was the weapon that caused Trayvon to say that he would kill Zimmerman. Odd's are that it played some part, but if you fear for your life then I'm pretty sure "Your going to die tonight" isn't something you would say.
You have to take that with a grain of salt. It's possibly being embellished. Remember that's Zimmerman's take on events. The gist of what he said is likely true, but details like that likely aren't true. Unless an event like that is recorded you can't know what was said, or how it was said.
 
5,281
Posts
14
Years
  • Age 29
  • Seen yesterday
Doubtless it's a great tragedy, and the gun exacerbated the situation immensely, no matter whether Zimmerman's account was right or not. However, I think if there had been a guilty verdict it would've been wrong too - as far as I can tell there's insufficient evidence either way, not helped by half the people who know what happened being dead, so there would've been outrage either way.


Also, I was in the U.S. during the latter stages of the trial (they were just discrediting witnesses over and over as far as I could tell when I looked up from my food), and I'm curious - why do you guys have televised trials? Over here in Britain you're not allowed to even take photos inside the courts - you get artists' paintings of the defendant etc. but nothing else. Doubtless Zimmerman would still be fearing for his safety (As he apparently does) even under the British system, but I can't help thinking that his being on national television for over two weeks constantly can't have helped.
 

droomph

weeb
4,285
Posts
12
Years
It's apparently for getting the public "informed", but all it does is make it into a reality show and not real or serious to anyone watching.

This is partly why this is such a big deal - the Casey Anthony case, all the other ones too - they're no different from other really horrible cases that get skipped over (such as the one where the mother microwaved her baby - just as gruesome if not more, but hardly made a blip in the public conscience), but with the difference that they're making millions off of the publicity of these cases.

I'm not saying that publicity is a bad thing - they're giving more exposure to these crimes (as they very well should), but at the same time trivializing murder and child abuse or whatnot to something like a season of Survivors.

Both of you should can it and get back to discussing the merits of the case. Please.

Am I doing this right

---

Though honestly, I would like to see ALL of these cases so widely known. There already goes something like a thousand heinous crimes committed a year, so it's a matter of showing the victims the same respect.
 
Last edited:

Keiran

[b]Rock Solid[/b]
2,455
Posts
12
Years
This case got a lot of attention initially because Zimmerman wasn't even being arrested. It just happened to then champion a call for change since this case is a great example of our corrupted legal system. The circumstances of this case just happened to highlight every thing that is wrong with our society, and the deaths of completely innocent young people is especially saddening for the communities involved.

Tragedy isn't a contest, anyway.
 

Her

11,467
Posts
15
Years
  • Age 30
  • Seen today
the zimmerman apologists in this thread are absolutely disgusting and you should feel ashamed of yourselves

and just for the record, even if he is 'innocent' or 'not guilty', the fact of the matter is that zimmerman IGNORED the requests of the police to stay in the car and to not pursue trayvon, and he SHOULD NOT have had a gun on him in the first place. if his racist ass listened to the police and did what he was told, this may have never happened in the first place.
 
Last edited:
2,138
Posts
11
Years
the zimmerman apologists in this thread are absolutely disgusting and you should feel ashamed of yourselves

and just for the record, even if he is 'innocent' or 'not guilty', the fact of the matter is that zimmerman IGNORED the requests of the police to stay in the car and to not pursue trayvon, and he SHOULD NOT have had a gun on him in the first place. if his racist ass listened to the police and did what he was told, this may have never happened in the first place.

Why are you bringing race into this? What evidence do you have to show that Zimmerman was a racist?

Also, one might say if Trayvon wasn't involved in suspicious behavior he may not have aggressed at Zimmerman. Sure, Zimmerman should not have checked-up on Trayvon as a personal duty, however, he should have been able to do so without being assaulted, and thus requiring using lethal force in order to defend himself. He did understand the risk of confronting Trayvon, but no law exists in Florida that prohibits someone from confronting a person engaged in suspicious or illegal activity such as trespassing. Of which, I don't care what your skin color is, I don't want anyone being allowed to trespass in my neighborhood, as I think you wouldn't either.

To say people on this thread are disgusting because they are acknowledging facts of the case such as documented suspicious and illegal behavior of Trayvon, and physical evidence that supports Zimmerman's testimony, it is undermining what our justice system is about. We must act in accordance with the law and only factual evidence may be used to demonstrate violations.

It appears from the inflammatory language that your opinion is based on personal sentiment and you have unfairly judged the situation by the merits of factual evidence, and instead supplemented it with sensationalist sentiments proscribed by the newsmedia, not the courtroom testimonies and objective analysis of the law.
 
Last edited:

Mr. X

It's... kinda effective?
2,391
Posts
17
Years
the zimmerman apologists in this thread are absolutely disgusting and you should feel ashamed of yourselves

and just for the record, even if he is 'innocent' or 'not guilty', the fact of the matter is that zimmerman IGNORED the requests of the police to stay in the car and to not pursue trayvon, and he SHOULD NOT have had a gun on him in the first place. if his racist ass listened to the police and did what he was told, this may have never happened in the first place.

Get your facts straight - He was never ordered by a cop to remain in his vehicle. A police dispatcher suggested that he did, but a dispatcher isn't a cop nor are his suggestions legally binding.

Continue on your rant of righteous anger if you wish - Just be sure that you have your information correct before you start going on a hate filled tirade against a person you never have and most likely never will know.
 
5,983
Posts
15
Years
Why are you bringing race into this? What evidence do you have to show that Zimmerman was a racist?

Also, one might say if Trayvon wasn't involved in suspicious behavior he may not have aggressed at Zimmerman. Sure, Zimmerman should not have checked-up on Trayvon as a personal duty, however, he should have been able to do so without being assaulted, and thus requiring using lethal force in order to defend himself. He did understand the risk of confronting Trayvon, but no law exists in Florida that prohibits someone from confronting a person engaged in suspicious or illegal activity such as trespassing. Of which, I don't care what your skin color is, I don't want anyone being allowed to trespass in my neighborhood, as I think you wouldn't either.

To say people on this thread are disgusting because they are acknowledging facts of the case such as documented suspicious and illegal behavior of Trayvon, and physical evidence that supports Zimmerman's testimony, it is undermining what our justice system is about. We must act in accordance with the law and only factual evidence may be used to demonstrate violations.

It appears from the inflammatory language that your opinion is based on personal sentiment and you have unfairly judged the situation by the merits of factual evidence, and instead supplemented it with sensationalist sentiments proscribed by the newsmedia, not the courtroom testimonies and objective analysis of the law.

"Also, one might say if Trayvon wasn't involved in suspicious behavior he may not have aggressed at Zimmerman." just exactly what are you trying to mean with this phrase? If he wasn't a thug than maybe he could've avoided getting a cap blown up his ass? What, was he asking for it?

I don't know why you have to bring up his history as if it makes a difference here. When a creepy man is behind you and following you around, I don't think your response is "oh this muthaf must die". Maybe Trayvon is a thug, and maybe he wanted to beat Zimmerman's head in, but I doubt that there would be any intent to kill. At the end of the day neither of them wanted to kill, but if one of them is equipped with a firearm and the other is equipped with his fists, I think it's quite obvious which one is going to die >>

All this case was trying was whether or not Zimmerman can justify shooting his gun as self-defense. Which means all the defense has to do is make it look like Zimmerman's life was in immediate danger of ending. Perhaps there was reasonable doubt. Doesn't stop him from being an ******* though, and one's record of *******ry doesn't really count in this world. Common sense dictates that you don't approach someone the way Zimmerman did. You can be a total idiot, and get yourself into a position in which you "have" to shoot someone, but you're still a total idiot. Maybe the vice in what Zimmerman did cannot be judged by law, but it was still viceful. Zimmerman did something wrong, only that it doesn't count for anything.

I don't even want to talk about your last paragraph. If that isn't troll material, I don't know what is. You don't have to come across as having attitude.
 
14,092
Posts
14
Years
The dispatcher probably said that because you're kinda sorta supposed to wait because, you know, you're not a cop if you're the one calling 911. You are not to take the law into your own hands. Which is what Zimmerman did.

Also, I am so goddamn sick of the reports coming out of his thread. I will lock and delete this, and start handing out infractions. Try me.
 
Last edited:
2,138
Posts
11
Years
"Also, one might say if Trayvon wasn't involved in suspicious behavior he may not have aggressed at Zimmerman." just exactly what are you trying to mean with this phrase? If he wasn't a thug than maybe he could've avoided getting a cap blown up his ass? What, was he asking for it?
Please don't insert racist inferences, there is clearly an illogical line of reasoning and comprehension of the post. That statement was in response to the point that without Zimmerman's actions, there would have been no conflict, but it is also true that without trayvon's conduct, there would not have been a conflict. The conflict was only possible with both actions, rather than one's actions. Further, Trayvon was walking in private property, under the eaves of the homes, that is trespassing. Simply, Trayvon had a responsiblity to not engage in illegal behavior just as much as Zimmerman was responsible for confronting Trayvon on his own terms. Regardless of race, a person walking in people's property in the night is suspicious, race, age, gender, ect, are all irreverent to that point.


I don't know why you have to bring up his history as if it makes a difference here. When a creepy man is behind you and following you around, I don't think your response is "oh this muthaf must die". Maybe Trayvon is a thug, and maybe he wanted to beat Zimmerman's head in, but I doubt that there would be any intent to kill. At the end of the day neither of them wanted to kill, but if one of them is equipped with a firearm and the other is equipped with his fists, I think it's quite obvious which one is going to die

What history am I bringing up? I am only going back to the history of that night and the illegal behavior that Trayvon was engaging in as far as property trespassing. The history of why Zimmerman approached is a pertinent article of information.

Additionally, there is no evidence that Trayvon was a thug, which I am assuming means gang affiliated, and I never inference that. Simply, he only needed to potentially cause great bodily harm, which is very possible in a hand-to-hand scuffle. Without the use of a firearm, Zimmerman could have suffered brain injuries with repeated blows to the head. Which may or may not have been the case, but the prosecution failed to demonstrate enough of a case against this point with the medical witnesses.


All this case was trying was whether or not Zimmerman can justify shooting his gun as self-defense. Which means all the defense has to do is make it look like Zimmerman's life was in immediate danger of ending. Perhaps there was reasonable doubt. Doesn't stop him from being an ******* though, and one's record of *******ry doesn't really count in this world. Common sense dictates that you don't approach someone the way Zimmerman did. You can be a total idiot, and get yourself into a position in which you "have" to shoot someone, but you're still a total idiot. Maybe the vice in what Zimmerman did cannot be judged by law, but it was still viceful. Zimmerman did something wrong, only that it doesn't count for anything

.I don't even want to talk about your last paragraph. If that isn't troll material, I don't know what is. You don't have to come across as having attitude.

Again, self-defense has to prove that the defendant believed he may have suffered great bodily harm or death if he did not use of self-defense. Also, Zimmerman was not using good judgment, I think mostly everyone would agree to that point. But, getting himself in a risky situation doesn't mean that he relegate the legal right to self-defense if attacked.

I am only using my analytically skills in order to make a less volatile and emotive commentary on the trial, which is not conducive with "trolling". A trial of which many people on both sides have expressed a propensity to use inflammatory language, against both of the individuals involved (and their supporters), and making inferences based on personal beliefs rather than evidentiary support. In doing so, both sides that engage in such volatile discussion are doing so at the expense of reason, by which is required to have a civil and productive discussion. I urge others to do the same rather than making this a personal affair for mudslinging.

EDIT: On an unrelated note, those who condone the acquittal should not be label as racists. I am not saying anyone on here did, but generally, it is disconcerting to see it happening. Myself, I was completely up-in-arms about the Trayvon Martin murder when I was first notified of the killing, at which point I believed race was a factor. However, I have payed close attention to the aftermath, at which point I tried to be the most objective, and not interject my personal feelings into my perception of the proceedings based off media hysteria. So with that, I advise everyone to no make any premature judgement in respect to racial sentiments.
 
Last edited:

KingCharizard

C++ Developer Extraordinaire
1,229
Posts
14
Years
I posted this on fb, after the verdict

I'm not gonna lie i think justice has been served.. cause the evidence matched his story to the letter. Don't get me wrong he did profile trayvon, he stalked him, and instigated the situation and I feel bad trayvon was murdered, but I don't like how they are trying to paint the kid to be a saint, when no one anymore is a saint, plus reports said he was high at the time. Another thing that bothers me is if zimmerman had gotten killed trayvon woulda been called a hero and said he did it outta self defense it wouldn't have made national headlines and all that other crap.. the only reason its a big deal is cause the color of their skin, cause had this been a black on black crime or white on white no one would really have given a crap.. like seriously. people may disagree with my opinion here but its a free country and im allowed to such just like zimmerman is allowed to be a racist douche..

This is my objective opinion based on the evidence presented and the stories given

I also think people should watch this Video

EDIT: I had to edit this post after reading some of the comments in this thread,

The thing most of you guys seem to be stuck on is he shouldn't have followed trayvon, and listened to the dispatcher.. While I agree with that point, that is NOT what he was on trial for. That is what most of you fail to realize or think about. He was on trial for the shooting. Not for disobeying what he was told, not for profiling the kid. So while I agree he was wrong to do such things, again its not what he was on trial for. Also i seen someone here say "he should not have had a gun on him" this is incorrect, if he had the proper paperwork/credentials to carry a concealed weapon its his 2nd amendment right to keep/bear arms and the use of that gun was protected by flordia's law of self defense. So that is why he wasn't arrested, it would have been a violation of his constitutional rights as an american.

Another thing why he was found not guilty, cause the persecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt this was a planned killing or a hate crime, meaning he planed to shoot the kid from the jump which is very hard. That also goes with them having to prove without a reasonable doubt that it wasn't self defense which is also hard to do, especially when the evidence seems to support the self defense claim. The persecution was fighting an up hill battle the whole time and they didn't have sufficient evidence to win the case.

To be honest, Zimmerman & Trayvon were both in the wrong. Neither of them should have did what they did. Someone died, someone didn't. Its the way it happened. What people seem to have been doing is bringing race into it, and making it about the color of the skin even more now that a Not Guilty verdict was reached, Some misinformed people are calling Zimmerman white/cracker, when he is however what I believe to be a Mexican(Hispanic), I may be wrong. However his race doesnt matter, it should of never had, but it did and that is why a local florida case got national attention in the first place, which is wrong. Also they are saying things like "the white man got off" and other things as such, making it about race. Which are making the ones saying that a bunch of hypocrites but as I said before and its in the video above its mentions, that when O.J got off for killing his "white" wife, no one screamed injustice or anything of the sorts. They were proud and happy, which really makes me mad. It also shows what morales people really have.

Racism won't die because blacks(African Americans) wont let it die, they use the race card to this day to get by, or get something to go their way.. Its very unfair, and the reason racism still exist.
 
Last edited:

Keiran

[b]Rock Solid[/b]
2,455
Posts
12
Years
White is not just a race. George Zimmerman has a name and skin tone that can pass as white. That is all you need to qualify for white privilege. Like I said previously; this case didn't get the attention it did because it was a white man killing an unarmed black child. It got the attention it did because of racist police not even trying to arrest a black childs killer- which is what sparked the online petitions that gained mass attention.

To say "we don't know if he was racist" is to ignore his behaviour regarding POC previously. The amount of times he called the cops on POC for nothing is absurd. He is also a rapist.

If you don't fully understand how white privilege influenced this case and many others, do not put down others for bringing race into it. Your last statement about POC being the ones not letting racism die is highly ignorant. You are also victim blaming.
 

KingCharizard

C++ Developer Extraordinaire
1,229
Posts
14
Years
White is not just a race. George Zimmerman has a name and skin tone that can pass as white. That is all you need to qualify for white privilege. Like I said previously; this case didn't get the attention it did because it was a white man killing an unarmed black child. It got the attention it did because of racist police not even trying to arrest a black childs killer- which is what sparked the online petitions that gained mass attention.

You must have completely ignored my paragraph on even if they wanted to arrest him, they could not... 17 also is not a child you guys act like he was 12 or something. But if you really think it has nothing to do with skin tone ur being foolish, and your whole post was "a racist one" and its clear your opinions are fueled by race. You're not being objective or rational. your letting your feelings on the situation fuel ur words and opinions. Had zimmerman been killed I know u would not be this upset. it would have been "justified", when no one was there no one can say what wasn't or was justified. The fact he was young has nothing to do with why your so upset. it never did. But again your pulling the race card cause it is convenient for you. How many children between the ages of 3-14 are killed everyday by black on black crime, or by just killers in general, how many are never caught or arrested cause lack of evidence. How upset are you for those children, for those families? I live in philly, i see it everyday, i hear the bullets, i hear the screams.. so dont sit there n tell me its not about race or never was..

To say "we don't know if he was racist" is to ignore his behaviour regarding POC previously. The amount of times he called the cops on POC for nothing is absurd. He is also a rapist.

not sure if that was directed at me but if it was I don't believe I ever made such a statement. Infact i said the opposite, stating I believe he was racist. About being a rapist I cant comment on that cause i don't even know where you got that piece of information.
 
Last edited:
10,769
Posts
14
Years
I don't understand how someone can believe that a person who instigates a confrontation that leads to someone's death can be innocent. I'm not saying necessarily that if you start a fight you're 100% responsible for everything that happens in it, but you're at least partially responsible. And to instigate something after the police tell you not to, while armed is incredibly reckless. Acting reckless is not something you should do. We have laws against reckless endangerment.

The accused person isn't required to intend the resulting or potential harm, but must have acted in a way that showed a disregard for the foreseeable consequences of the actions.

Someone in a neighborhood watch should know that better than most people. Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that Zimmerman had no bad intentions, no racial bias, and that Trayvon was hostile, Zimmerman brought a gun into the mix. He escalated things needlessly.
 

Alexander Nicholi

what do you know about computing?
5,500
Posts
14
Years
Here's what I think.

First off, Zimmerman was wrong with approaching Martin. His mistake, thus his fault for whatever injuries he sustained.

Second, Martin was wrong in attacking Zimmerman (out of, what we can assume, fear for his life). That, however, isn't much against a dead man.

Zimmerman could've avoided all of this and prevented Martin's death if he did what he was told. Unfortunately for Martin, though, he was pretty stubborn for a wannabe cop and intentionally followed him.


Zimmerman caused the mess, and finished the mess. He was completely at fault for everything that happened to him and Martin. Not only that, all of his claims and stories are solely against the word of a dead man. How fair is that?


Nonetheless, all jurors in any case are specifically instructed that, if in the case of "reasonable doubt", to plead not guilty. That's general business in a case without any witnesses that aren't suspects, normally.
 
Last edited:
2,138
Posts
11
Years
Racism won't die because blacks(African Americans) wont let it die, they use the race card to this day to get by, or get something to go their way.. Its very unfair, and the reason racism still exist.

This is a bit much (to say the least). Racism doesn't exist solely because of the black community by any means. It remains in existence largely as a residual reminiscence of racism observed since the 1600's onward in the US. Though, there are certain issue in which race should not be a factor or a point of contention, that doesn't mean that there doesn't exists issues in which true racial tensions do exist. The existing relations are in part aggravated by civil rights advocates, that detract from substantive issues that are systemic and affect the population broadly, and thereby close off certain pathways of dialogue pertaining to issues of poverty and crime in the black community. Those are issue that need to be addressed, not isolated incidences that don't have a broad effect on the general public. These issues, do involve race, and therefore, discounting racial tensions and statistical evidence that supports the claim that there exists flaws in public policy that affects blacks in the U.S. is non-productive. Further, overreaching generalizations of an entire demographic's behavior is in of itself an agitator of racial tensions given that there is nothing to substantiate your claim rather than a subjective bias.

Here's what I think.

First off, Zimmerman was wrong with approaching Martin. His mistake, thus his fault for whatever injuries he sustained.

Second, Martin was wrong in attacking Zimmerman (out of, what we can assume, fear for his life). That, however, isn't much against a dead man.

Zimmerman could've avoided all of this and prevented Martin's death if he did what he was told. Unfortunately for Martin, though, he was pretty stubborn for a wannabe cop and intentionally followed him.


Zimmerman caused the mess, and finished the mess. He was completely at fault for everything that happened to him and Martin. Not only that, all of his claims and stories are solely against the word of a dead man. How fair is that?


Nonetheless, all jurors in any case are specifically instructed that, if in the case of "reasonable doubt", to plead not guilty. That's general business in a case without any witnesses that aren't suspects, normally.

Again, a subjective, completely one-dimensional analysis of the events that occurred. We cannot place 100% of the blame of the iniation of verbal conflict on zimmerman as he did have a legitimate claim given that Trayvon was engaging in the illegal and suspicious act of trespassing. More than one witness corroborated his actions. Thus, it can be assumed that if Trayvon had not had been trespassing the death would not have occurred just as must as we can say without Zimmerman's actions Trayvon's death would not have occurred. Please try to observe both sides arguments, as they are valid points, but only if the concession is made that acknowledges the fault of both parties vis-a-vis the involvement in commencing the verbal conflict.

No matter who starts a verbal conflict though, is outside of the law as it pertains to the physical conflict and the use of self-defense. And this is the difficult key fact of the case, which is who initiated the physical conflict, and was the defendant in a position is which belief of great bodily harm or death could have happened if he did not use his gun in defense. Thus, the initiator of the verbal confrontation is not a defining article of information in assessing whether this was self-defense or not. Yes, we can all agree it is troubling that Zimmerman followed Trayvon, but the law doesn't state that following a person who is observed engaging in illegal and suspicious activity is illegal in of itself.

"Second, Martin was wrong in attacking Zimmerman (out of, what we can assume, fear for his life). That, however, isn't much against a dead man."

Fear of his life was not substantiated in court. In being confronted for illegal activity, Martin could have feared being apprehended by the authorities, ect, as simply being confronted for illegal behavior doesn't grant a person the ability to respond by physical means. However, it cannot be proven who commenced the actual physical element of the confrontation. Thus, the prosecutor was unable to demonstrate that Zimmerman was the physical aggressor, of which the burden of proof is on the prosecutor's bench, whereas the defense was able to demonstrate reasonably that Zimmerman was in a position in which great bodily harm could be done. The only article that was not substantiated either way, was who iniated the physical attack, again which is a fact in which the prosecution has the burden. What would happen to our justice system if we are allowed to convict someone without the evidence necessary to demonstrate guilt?

"Not only that, all of his claims and stories are solely against the word of a dead man. How fair is that?"

This is true of many cases of self-defense, just because the alleged aggressor is dead does not mean that the defendant's story should not be taken into account along with the other witnesses' and officials' testimonies.
 
Last edited:

Alexander Nicholi

what do you know about computing?
5,500
Posts
14
Years
Again, a subjective, completely one-dimensional analysis of the events that occurred.
Thanks. :)

We cannot place 100% of the blame of the iniation of verbal conflict on zimmerman as he did have a legitimate claim given that Trayvon was engaging in the illegal and suspicious act of trespassing. More than one witness corroborated his actions. Thus, it can be assumed that if Trayvon had not had been trespassing the death would not have occurred just as must as we can say without Zimmerman's actions Trayvon's death would not have occurred. Please try to observe both sides arguments, as they are valid points, but only if the concession is made that acknowledges the fault of both parties vis-a-vis the involvement in commencing the verbal conflict.
Where did this trespassing allegation come from? I never heard anything about it. ;)

No matter who starts a verbal conflict though, is outside of the law as it pertains to the physical conflict and the use of self-defense. And this is the difficult key fact of the case, which is who initiated the physical conflict, and was the defendant in a position is which belief of great bodily harm or death could have happened if he did not use his gun in defense. Thus, the initiator of the verbal confrontation is not a defining article of information in assessing whether this was self-defense or not. Yes, we can all agree it is troubling that Zimmerman followed Trayvon, but the law doesn't state that following a person who is observed engaging in illegal and suspicious activity is illegal in of itself.
First, I don't think it's 'troubling', I quite frankly see it as wrong and defiant.
Second, the police told him to stay where he was. In a sense, he violated the law by disobeying orders from police.

Fear of his life was not substantiated in court.
Considering Zimmerman was the only one to confirm that, of course it was. :)

In being confronted for illegal activity, Martin could have feared being apprehended by the authorities, ect, as simply being confronted for illegal behavior doesn't grant a person the ability to respond by physical means.
So it's Trayvon's fault he got shot. Nice one.

However, it cannot be proven who commenced the actual physical element of the confrontation. Thus, the prosecutor was unable to demonstrate that Zimmerman was the physical aggressor, of which the burden of proof is on the prosecutor's bench, whereas the defense was able to demonstrate reasonably that Zimmerman was in a position in which great bodily harm could be done. The only article that was not substantiated either way, was who iniated the physical attack, again which is a fact in which the prosecution has the burden.
So it's Trayvon's side of the courtroom that has to deal with Zimmerman's shoddy retelling of what happened?

This is true of many cases of self-defense, just because the alleged aggressor is dead does not mean that the defendant's story should not be taken into account along with the other witnesses' and officials' testimonies.
Personally, I think it should, in any case, definitely questioned. You wouldn't want that though, would you? Also, didn't you say earlier that they couldn't be sure who the aggressor was? Methinks you did ;).
 
Last edited:

Mr. X

It's... kinda effective?
2,391
Posts
17
Years
As I've said numerous times, a dispatcher isn't a police officer. Because of this, his orders a not legaly binding - While his suggestion should be listened to, there is no law that says you have to.

All a dispatcher does is route messages to the proper emergency service.
 
10,769
Posts
14
Years
As I've said numerous times, a dispatcher isn't a police officer. Because of this, his orders a not legaly binding - While his suggestion should be listened to, there is no law that says you have to.

All a dispatcher does is route messages to the proper emergency service.

Should it matter that they are not an officer? They're still the most experienced person in a crisis when it's just them and someone calling 911.
 
Back
Top