Jury Finds George Zimmerman Not Guilty

KingCharizard said:

why did trayvon start running if he wasn't doing anything wrong? Think about it objectively.. A suspicious person usually runs when he thinks someone is onto him or he will get caught. An innocent person wouldn't run because he would have nothing to worry about.

Click to expand...

Innocent ≠ fearless.

I need to get that out of the way lol

Running, etc. is a way for humans to get out of trouble in prehistoric times regardless of who they were…so why should it be different here? :p

KingCharizard said:

again ur bringing race into it, anyone can be put in that situation, i have myself, i was suspected of a crime i even was stopped by the police when they confirmed it wasnt me they let me go. I did not run, i did not worry cause i knew it wasnt me, but apparently i almost fit the description of suspect perfectly.. just had different hair..

Click to expand...

key difference being a man in an unmarked van is not the police. nobody has the right to stop you, or rather, you have all the right to gun it if you find a situation suspicious. that's all i have to say. even if an unmarked vehicle was following me while i was driving, i would still refuse to pull over and pull up to a police station. they can't get me for evading arrest if i can't know if they're the authorities.

And, the only people who have the right to stop you are state-or-federally issued police cars with sirens and everything.

So here, despite all the "dispatchers" and the "neighborhood watch" and the pseudo-legal crap that they use to keep cities safe, this is purely a private matter.

I did not really watch the case, but I've read a bunch of articles scattered over time. I'm in the same boat as Mr. X in that I didn't expect him to go free without at least a manslaughter charge. From what I've read / researched, Trayvon was unarmed at the time and posed no apparent threat, while Zimmerman was armed and as BlahISuck stated, had all the advantages over the kid just for that reason alone.

End Note: Should've at least been manslaughter, if not first degree murder for lack of pre-planning.

Keiran777 said:

Protests are how change can begin. Sitting home while innocent people are being killed by privileged folks and cops who have forgotten their duty does justice for no one. The protests have little to do with one coloured man killing a different coloured man, and more to do with outrage towards a system that cares more for killers that walk than the underprivileged they murder.

I would just like to point out that in this thread alone people have called Trayvon a thug, said he was tresspassing, and regarded him as a drug addict because he 'had traces of pot in his system'. For no reason other than because the word "black" is in his description. So can people please stop asking why race is being brought into the case by people who point out the racism of others and the system? Because it's not.

We have a lot to protest about in the U.S, and it's definitely not overreacting.

Click to expand...

It wasn't because he was black. He did have pot in his system, saying that he smoked sometime earlier. You can find a lot of neat things by reading an autopsy report.

The US should be protesting against the fact that their government is spying on them, and not on some case about some guy they don't know shooting another guy they don't know.

Keiran777 said:

So, how saintly do you have to be before you're allowed to punch some guy following you with a gun? And, uh, he was suspended for being late to school, graffiti, and owning a 'baggie'. Hardly criminal acts. I was late to school every day. Is my murder justified because I arrived to school at 7:46 and not 7:45?

I don't mean to sound off-topic, I just want to point out how unfair racist double-standards are, especially to the dead. Trayvons past has no place in this case because he is not the prejudiced one that provoked the conflict out of racial profiling and fear of dark people.

Click to expand...

If you were beating a guy to death, then your murder would be an act of self-defense.

Maybe Trayvon was a racist, after all George Zimmerman is hispanic.

And since you brought up criminal acts let not forget that Trayvon did own pot, balled up women's jewelry, and attempted to get an illegal firearm. Oh, and since the media has been calling him a child, let's also call the pictures of the underage naked girls on his phone children. He owned child porn, which is also criminal act. While only one of those is actually related to the case, the rest don't paint a very good picture for Trayvon.

Belldandy said:

I did not really watch the case, but I've read a bunch of articles scattered over time. I'm in the same boat as Mr. X in that I didn't expect him to go free without at least a manslaughter charge. From what I've read / researched, Trayvon was unarmed at the time and posed no apparent threat, while Zimmerman was armed and as BlahISuck stated, had all the advantages over the kid just for that reason alone.

End Note: Should've at least been manslaughter, if not first degree murder for lack of pre-planning.

Click to expand...

Manslaughter is with malice. I think he can be sentenced for first degree murder in the civil case.


Also everyone really should watch this. I have nothing against both sides in this case. I only agree with what the evidence has told us. If anything else were to popup and prove that Zimmerman did it with malice, etc. Then my stance will change.

That's a completely critical reading of the facts, with certain facts conveniently missing or altered or added in a misleading way.