• 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

27,733
Posts
14
Years
I've avoided this thread for long enough, but I guess I'll add in my 2¢ about the Zimmerman case..

Honestly, I was upset to see that Zimmerman got away with what he did. It may be true that he didn't murder Martin, but what I dislike him about is that he clearly did not follow Sanford Police's orders when they told him not to follow after Martin. That, my friends, is being a vigilante. However, I do believe that Zimmerman is at fault and he should have been proven guilty of murder (or manslaughter), because he used lethal force against Martin, which is a stronger force than fists. Not only was this case a trial against a crime Zimmerman was convicted of, it was a challenge to Florida's 'stand your ground' self-defense law.
 

Zet

7,690
Posts
16
Years
I've avoided this thread for long enough, but I guess I'll add in my 2¢ about the Zimmerman case..

Honestly, I was upset to see that Zimmerman got away with what he did. It may be true that he didn't murder Martin, but what I dislike him about is that he clearly did not follow Sanford Police's orders when they told him not to follow after Martin. That, my friends, is being a vigilante. However, I do believe that Zimmerman is at fault and he should have been proven guilty of murder (or manslaughter), because he used lethal force against Martin, which is a stronger force than fists. Not only was this case a trial against a crime Zimmerman was convicted of, it was a challenge to Florida's 'stand your ground' self-defense law.
A dispatcher isn't the police, and they can't give legal binding orders or they can be legally held liable. Manslaughter is the intent to kill someone with malice, so he can't be charged with that since all he did was defend himself. He used lethal force because he was well within his rights to do so, considering he was almost beaten to death. However I believe he didn't intend to kill Treyvon, since he could only fire his gun blindly(I'd like to see you see well with your face covered in blood from a broken nose and it's raining at night).
 
5,983
Posts
15
Years
A dispatcher isn't the police, and they can't give legal binding orders or they can be legally held liable. Manslaughter is the intent to kill someone with malice, so he can't be charged with that since all he did was defend himself. He used lethal force because he was well within his rights to do so, considering he was almost beaten to death. However I believe he didn't intend to kill Treyvon, since he could only fire his gun blindly(I'd like to see you see well with your face covered in blood from a broken nose and it's raining at night).

Sure, and a kid isn't going to be punished legally for disobeying their parents and doing something stupid. Whether or not disobeying dispatcher orders is illegal is missing the point that he didn't follow sensible instruction. Also, nobody knows if he was almost beaten to death. A broken nose and lacerations will not kill you. He certainly didn't have a concussion, considering how he was able to recount his side of the story immediately after the shooting occurred. To go from those injuries to predicting that Martin would have killed him turns every human body into a weapon >> These injuries, which is common knowledge, tell me that Zimmerman was not at the verge of death. You can get much worse practicing martial arts. If Martin had a knife, then yeah Zimmerman should be scared. But he didn't have one. And Zimmerman shooting Martin because he reached for the gun is a weak argument. I could get away with shooting anybody lol as long as they reach for my firearm.

Zimmerman could have been had for imperfect self-defence, offing Martin and believing it was necessary when it actually wasn't and unreasonable. It would still be manslaughter though, because that's the murder-without-intent sentence. The question is whether or not Zimmerman shooting Martin was reasonable at that point in time (getting beaten up, on the ground etc.).
 

Alexander Nicholi

what do you know about computing?
5,500
Posts
14
Years
It would still be manslaughter though, because that's the murder-without-intent sentence.

To clarify, first degree murder is the murder of someone that is willful and premeditated. For Zimmerman, this could be the case (considering he followed Martin), but most people believe not. Second degree murder is the murder of someone that is not premeditated or planned in advance. To me, this seems to fit Zimmerman's situation, and is where you misspoke on the line between second and third degree murder. Voluntary manslaughter, also known as third degree murder, is the murder of someone that involved extenuating circumstances that would make the killer emotionally or mentally unstable. This is kind of a stretch to me, though it seems some think otherwise.
 
5,983
Posts
15
Years
To clarify, first degree murder is the murder of someone that is willful and premeditated. For Zimmerman, this could be the case (considering he followed Martin), but most people believe not. Second degree murder is the murder of someone that is not premeditated or planned in advance. To me, this seems to fit Zimmerman's situation, and is where you misspoke on the line between second and third degree murder. Voluntary manslaughter, also known as third degree murder, is the murder of someone that involved extenuating circumstances that would make the killer emotionally or mentally unstable. This is kind of a stretch to me, though it seems some think otherwise.

I believe that Zimmerman believes that he never meant to kill Martin. I also believe that he tried to defend himself. Imperfect self-defense would be a manslaughter sentence even though it involves poor judgment and disproportionate force vs. emotional states. I don't agree with 2nd degree murder because self-defense precludes murder, and yes I think Zimmerman acted in self-defense. A murder, whether of first or second degree, is an intentional killing, and I think it's a hard argument to make that Zimmerman intended to kill Martin. Second degree murder is like spur of the moment, you're thinking of killing - but that thought was pretty instantaneous.
 

Zet

7,690
Posts
16
Years
Sure, and a kid isn't going to be punished legally for disobeying their parents and doing something stupid. Whether or not disobeying dispatcher orders is illegal is missing the point that he didn't follow sensible instruction. Also, nobody knows if he was almost beaten to death. A broken nose and lacerations will not kill you. He certainly didn't have a concussion, considering how he was able to recount his side of the story immediately after the shooting occurred. To go from those injuries to predicting that Martin would have killed him turns every human body into a weapon >> These injuries, which is common knowledge, tell me that Zimmerman was not at the verge of death. You can get much worse practicing martial arts. If Martin had a knife, then yeah Zimmerman should be scared. But he didn't have one. And Zimmerman shooting Martin because he reached for the gun is a weak argument. I could get away with shooting anybody lol as long as they reach for my firearm.

Zimmerman could have been had for imperfect self-defence, offing Martin and believing it was necessary when it actually wasn't and unreasonable. It would still be manslaughter though, because that's the murder-without-intent sentence. The question is whether or not Zimmerman shooting Martin was reasonable at that point in time (getting beaten up, on the ground etc.).
Oh my God, you're right! I completely forgot people don't require oxygen to live. To think that silly blood going back up through his nose and in his mouth rendered him unable to breathe.
 
5,983
Posts
15
Years
I'm not sure about the likelihood of choking to death on my own blood. But what you're saying opens the door to someone opening fire on anybody who manages to get on top of them and bloody his or her nose. That is a disproportionate use of force, and even if you lack the ability to use lesser force it does not open the doorway to using excessive force.
 

droomph

weeb
4,285
Posts
12
Years
um props to everyone who managed to not explode into tears at this point :x

But I have one interesting point people seems to have missed - wasn't Zimmerman Hispanic (or part idek Zimmerman is a German case) or something? So why does this show racism between black and white communities?

Then again, Mexicans are also known to dislike blacks (if George Lopez can be trusted) so I wouldn't know.

But that's besides the point. What I'm trying to get at, is that if that was true, wouldn't the protests in Oakland, LA, etc. of black people seem kinda overdoing it?

And even if this is a case of black v. white, are the riots overreacting?

I personally think they are…I mean, idek…I would be pretty mad also, but protests? They…um…I am speechless.

Oh my God, you're right! I completely forgot people don't require oxygen to live. To think that silly blood going back up through his nose and in his mouth rendered him unable to breathe.

ngl you guys using emotions to judge right now…what we need in situations like these are rational, non-biased minds (or portions of minds).

This applies to everyone talking here. I'm not handing out infractions even if I wanted to (because I can't), but rather this is just a plea for you guys to start using some rational thought. Because tbh this is just as bad as the Republicans who are like "ghey ppl r horribl" except it's socially acceptable. Wtf really guys? I don't mean to insult but this is what is wrong with our society. I fully support reason and freedom of choice and all that ****, but with that comes a responsibility to act rationally when possible, even if against what your emotions are.
 
Last edited:

Mr. X

It's... kinda effective?
2,391
Posts
17
Years
We're pointing out that a dispatcher isn't a police officer and that their instructions not because we are missing the point, but because pretty much no one else realizes this and keeps saying that he 'should have listened to the police'.

As for his injuries, his head was bloodied up pretty nice. Not just his nose - He had blood on the back as well. The nose can be written off as one to the face, but the only way you'd get the injuries to the back of the head is if someone was bashing your head against the ground.

We can argue that this was a move of self-defense... But honestly? If you think shooting someone in self-defense is a overreaction, the same can also be said of bashing a persons skull.

Edit - I find it odd that, for all their hatred of racism, most anti-racists are more then willing to judge Zimmerman by his skin color. Well, misjudge - They say he's white and when it's pointed out that he isn't they always follow up with a "Well... uh... his skin looks white, he has a whiteish sounding name, and uh... *random change of subject here*"

As for Zimmerman he's either Mexican or Peruvian. I'm not quite sure really. He looks Mexican but I think I remember reading that his mother was Peruvian.
 
Last edited:

droomph

weeb
4,285
Posts
12
Years
Okay so

Time for a completely honest take on this

So. Who was Trayvon Martin?

Was he a nice kid, studying for the SAT, trying to make people eat their preconceptions about thuggy black kids?

Did he have lots of nice friends from various races? Did he pick his based on commitment to studying, or they were nice?

Was he timid?

If so, I would say that this is a racial killing. From what I would know of him, he wouldn't have wanted to get into any trouble, wouldn't have wanted to have himself in the possibility of getting shot.

However, what if he was "thuggy"?

Just embraced that black people were gonna be *****s, and went with it?

Or otherwise, was he one of the mean pseudo-"ghetto" teenagers? And trust me, I know they exist in every color and race so this has nothing to do about being black.

In that case, it would go either way. He's not innocent - he would be willing to kick some ass if it came down to that.

So there's that.

And I believe he was suspended when the incident happened, so i that's true, we can see something about his school behavior reflected…

Though if not, it could go either way.
 

Keiran

[b]Rock Solid[/b]
2,455
Posts
12
Years
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.
 

droomph

weeb
4,285
Posts
12
Years
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.
About the "because he's black" part, I think it was mentioned that he was suspended when this happened? :x Because if so, we can rule him out as not being known as a troublemaker.

Edit: THIS DOES NOT MEAN I THINK HE IS A TROUBLEMAKER PLEASE REMIND THINESELVES OF SUCH
 

Keiran

[b]Rock Solid[/b]
2,455
Posts
12
Years
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.
 

droomph

weeb
4,285
Posts
12
Years
I thought my disclaimer was enough, but okay.

I um. How to put this so that this doesn't seem too personal.

I got suspended, and I know that that's some serious stuff outside of a detention, but I understand that sometimes they get too crazy (believe me I understand stupid suspensions :p)

But the main thing here is his personality. Would he be aggressive, or would he try his best to get out of it? Now, nobody's saint or Satan, so I'm not calling him evil or saintly.

But just keep in mind that you don't know him as a friend (and if you do, I apologize) so you wouldn't know how he would react, and to what level of threat. And that would factor in to how much of a "self-defense" it really was.

So. This has nothing to do with his righteousness. Just keep that in mind please :p
 
5,983
Posts
15
Years
Spoiler:


http://goo.gl/maps/niyWq <-- this is where it happened. He entered it on the north entrance most likely, a quick search for 7 11 in the search bar will reveal why. The following image details the points of interest:

Spoiler:


Personally I don't see what's so suspicious about not following the road and sidewalks, I use shortcuts all the time >> And I suppose it's easy to trespass when there aren't any backyards. You can trace the path of least resistance by yourself. I don't see any bushes. Check out the streetview of the neighbourhood, it's a really nice place.

Anyways, here's some actual evidence for once. Do what you want, rip it apart. I've had enough of people equating lacerations to life-threatening injuries and "trespassing". Considering Zimmerman's phone call, Trayvon was on the road until he checked him out and started running. So for the people who are talking about "considering the facts", get the facts straight. Anyways, at the end of the day, it's just another ***** dead.
 

KingCharizard

C++ Developer Extraordinaire
1,229
Posts
14
Years
Anyways, here's some actual evidence for once. Do what you want, rip it apart. I've had enough of people equating lacerations to life-threatening injuries and "trespassing". Considering Zimmerman's phone call, Trayvon was on the road until he checked him out and started running. So for the people who are talking about "considering the facts", get the facts straight. Anyways, at the end of the day, it's just another ***** dead.

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.
 
5,983
Posts
15
Years
Nobody walks around thinking that they have to prove innocence to anybody. If I see an unmarked van creeping up behind me, I run. I don't know about you, but I think a creepy van creeping on me is something to worry about.

It's clear to me that Trayvon was on the road, then ran into the backstreets. First point because Zimmerman and Trayvon would've never saw each other and Trayvon never been able to walk back towards him otherwise. Second point because he ran away, and cuz vehicles generally don't follow somebody off the road. If Trayvon was trespassing, Zimmerman would've said that on the phone. If he's going to assume that Trayvon's "up to no good, or he's on drugs or something" ('or'? wtf does 'or' mean), I'd imagine he'd want to mention Trayvon passing under eaves or walking on people's driveways cuz if you check out the map I linked, that's really the worst he can do >.> But he didn't, which tells me that he did a poor job of trespassing, considering everything else Zimmerman said.

It's not objective to say that Trayvon wasn't innocent /because/ he ran - because there are many good reasons for running. It is equally, if not more, plausible that Trayvon was creeped out and wanted to get home as quickly as possible. And what would Trayvon be accused of doing to arouse such suspicion other than going out and buying an Arizona? Was he suspected of pulling a lick then?
 
14,092
Posts
14
Years
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.

Because some completely random white man showed up and started following him?
 
10,769
Posts
14
Years
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.
Aren't young black men advised by their parents and so on never to run because people will assume they're up to no good because they're black and running? I think I saw something on the news recently where our Attorney General for cryin' out loud said he had to give that talk to his own son.

I'm not even black and I've had people look at me sideways and ask me to stop because I was running somewhere. And no, I wasn't doing anything illegal. I can only imagine what it would have been like if I'd been black or brown.
 

KingCharizard

C++ Developer Extraordinaire
1,229
Posts
14
Years
Aren't young black men advised by their parents and so on never to run because people will assume they're up to no good because they're black and running? I think I saw something on the news recently where our Attorney General for cryin' out loud said he had to give that talk to his own son.

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..
 
Back
Top