Well then, I guess I'm a racist

[Andy83]

How about a law suit against Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson for their leadership in race baiting?

[kreator]

I'm not sure why people are upset now as opposed to when they first heard of the SYG law. The law is what made his actions defensible, not the jury.

Wrong. SYG was never an issue in the trial. This was a traditional self defense case, and the relevant laws (excluding weapons laws) are similar in all states.

Syaigh, it's always nice to see that some liberals still think people are innocent until proven guilty.

Ok I stand corrected that the SYG law specifically wasn't an issue here, but the "relevant laws" are what allowed the jury to make their decision. People are only outraged when the decisions from those laws come down.

[johno]

I don't see what's outrageous about "Beyond a Reasonable Doubt."

And the only "White Pride" I enjoy is that we live in a country where rule of law prevails. Not the race-baiting media or the Jackson/Sharpton Injustice Machine.

[Batboy2/75]

I don't want a court system that determines its verdicts by media influenced public opinion.

Looks like a good slice of America does.

[j-cubed]

Just a what if thought

What if the police arrived just before the shooting.

Based on the forensic evidence from court, Zimmerman with a bashed up face, broken nose and bashed up back of head, Martin with no injuries except skinned knuckles...

Would Martin have been charged with assault with intent to cause great bodily harm?
Would Martin have been charged as an adult?
Would it have made national news?

[Pinky]

I'm not sure why people are upset now as opposed to when they first heard of the SYG law. The law is what made his actions defensible, not the jury.

Wrong. SYG was never an issue in the trial. This was a traditional self defense case, and the relevant laws (excluding weapons laws) are similar in all states.

Syaigh, it's always nice to see that some liberals still think people are innocent until proven guilty.

Ok I stand corrected that the SYG law specifically wasn't an issue here, but the "relevant laws" are what allowed the jury to make their decision. People are only outraged when the decisions from those laws come down.

Which relevant laws do you think are outrageous or unique to Florida? I don't think there's a state in the Union that would forbid the use of lethal force by a victim of potentially lethal violence who is unable to retreat.

People are only outraged about this decision because they are uninformed about the case.

[Batboy2/75]

I'm not sure why people are upset now as opposed to when they first heard of the SYG law. The law is what made his actions defensible, not the jury.

Wrong. SYG was never an issue in the trial. This was a traditional self defense case, and the relevant laws (excluding weapons laws) are similar in all states.

Syaigh, it's always nice to see that some liberals still think people are innocent until proven guilty.

Ok I stand corrected that the SYG law specifically wasn't an issue here, but the "relevant laws" are what allowed the jury to make their decision. People are only outraged when the decisions from those laws come down.

LOL! Please keep typing.

Are you really this uninformed or just stupid?

[DrDonkeyLove]

A tragedy all around, but not one that has anything to do with racism, just the overconfidence of youth and the false bravado of the insecure.

I think this probably describes the event as well as anything I've seen.

Most of what's occurred after the event is a Rorschach test of modern America. As far as I can tell, our MSM and most lib elites can tolerate dead black teens by the train car full if they were killed by other blacks. If they were killed by whites (even legally), it's a crime so heinous that it's an indelible blot on society.

Zimmerman was a marked man from the moment they shitcanned the police chief. It's a surprisingly positive testament to the system that he prevailed. I don't know if Zimmerman is evil or not but I'm pretty sure Angela Corey is.

Angela Corey, the special prosecutor appointed by Florida Gov. Rick Scott (R) to investigate the death of Trayvon Martin, and who charged George Zimmerman (now acquitted) with second-degree murder, fired a whistleblower Friday who revealed that prosecutors had not turned over exculpatory evidence to the defense, the Florida Times-Union reported.

Ben Kruidbos, the information technology director in Corey's office, had testified in a pre-trial hearing about a report he had created regarding text messages and images retrieved from Martin's cellphone. Defense lawyers never received the report from the prosecution, as is required by law.

A hand-delivered letter informing him of his dismissal indicated that he "can never again be trusted to step foot in this office," and cited a variety of reasons for his firing, unrelated to the trial.

Corey's conduct had been questioned from the start, when she made the dramatic announcement that her office would be charging Zimmerman with murder. The affidavit that she filed with the court had omitted exculpatory evidence of Zimmerman's injuries, prompting Harvard Law School professor Alan Dershowitz to accuse her of a "grave ethical violation," adding that her conduct was "not only immoral, but stupid."

Subsequently, Dershowitz said, Corey had threatened to sue Harvard for Dershowitz's remarks.

Corey was also criticized, particularly as the weakness of the prosecution's became apparent, for seeking a conviction on second-degree murder, rather than a lesser charge such as manslaughter.

She dismissed that criticism, according to the New York Times, after the verdict was delivered on Saturday evening: "We charged what we had based on the facts of the case....We truly believe the mind-set of George Zimmerman and the reason he was doing what he did fit the bill for second-degree murder."

Corey had also attended the Zimmerman trial in the company of Trayvon Martin's relatives.

[Grandpa's Spells]

People are only outraged about this decision because they are uninformed about the case.

You're talking about the idiots, which neither side is lacking. There are people who are upset for legit reasons:

At the police
Taking the shooter's statement at face value and releasing him would very likely not have happened had the races of the two parties been switched, or even if Z had also been black. This would be the case even if they ultimately found there wasn't enough info to charge him. They mangled the early handling of the case pretty badly.

At Z
Say his account is completely accurate. Carrying a gun for self-defense comes with an obligation to mind your own business and not going out looking for trouble. Once he gets out of the car, he is engaging in HBAD behavior that in a fair world should result in some liability. He acted a lot like so many wannabes who have jerk-off fantasies about justifiably shooting a criminal who just so happens to black. It looked pretty bad, which is why the conservative media didn't defend him a bit until Obama took the other side.

Martin died because Zimmerman packed a gun and decided to be a self-appointed armed crime fighter, while having no ability to handle an unarmed confrontation. That this appears to be perfectly legal troubles people.

[kreator]

Which relevant laws do you think are outrageous or unique to Florida?
People are only outraged about this decision because they are uninformed about the case.

I don't think it's outrageous at all.

LOL! Please keep typing.

Are you really this uninformed or just stupid?

I think we agree on the results here, sir. I'm just trying to make sense of why a large portion of the general public is mad about it. I think we agree that they are uninformed on how a jury doesn't write a law.

[johno]

I'm just trying to make sense of why a large portion of the general public is mad about it. I think we agree that they are uninformed on how a jury doesn't write a law.

There's nothing wrong with the law. In almost every state, people have the right to defend themselves when attacked. And the prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
And a substantial number of the pissed-off general public is running free today because of the presumption of innocence and the "beyond reasonable doubt" requirement.

Folks are mad because their initial opinions were poisoned by media propaganda and/or race-baiting hucksters like Sharpton & Crump.

[johno]

Martin died because Zimmerman packed a gun and decided to be a self-appointed armed crime fighter, while having no ability to handle an unarmed confrontation. That this appears to be perfectly legal troubles people.

It's admirable that Zimmerman cared enough to join his neighborhood watch. (Not everyone is obliged to watch their hood turn into a shithole like Spells lives in.)
Zimmerman had every right to patrol, watch, report, follow, get out of his truck, walk on the sidewalk, and even to peacefully converse with Martin. I wish, and I think he wishes, that he'd been more able in the hand-to-hand department. But, if he can be believed, he got sucker punched, and never gained the initiative.

[Grandpa's Spells]

Martin died because Zimmerman packed a gun and decided to be a self-appointed armed crime fighter, while having no ability to handle an unarmed confrontation. That this appears to be perfectly legal troubles people.

It's admirable that Zimmerman cared enough to join his neighborhood watch.

Nothing to do with neighborhood watch. He blatantly disregarded the neighborhood watch's policies on not confronting suspects, which are there to avoid situations like the one he found himself in. He disregarded instructions to stay in his vehicle from 911, which were for his safety.

Zimmerman had every right to patrol, watch, report, follow, get out of his truck, walk on the sidewalk, and even to peacefully converse with Martin.

His rights go well beyond that. He has the legal right to arm himself, go out looking for people he perceives to be punks, mis-identify criminals, confront them without training or the authority of a badge, and kill them if things get physical. This upsets people.

[Pinky]

People are only outraged about this decision because they are uninformed about the case.

You're talking about the idiots, which neither side is lacking.

I'm also talking about outrage over the decision, not outrage over the initial treatment of Z or Z's stupid decisions.

At the police
Taking the shooter's statement at face value and releasing him would very likely not have happened had the races of the two parties been switched, or even if Z had also been black. This would be the case even if they ultimately found there wasn't enough info to charge him. They mangled the early handling of the case pretty badly.

But this is also silly. There's no evidence that the police simply took Zimmerman's statement at face value with no other examination of the evidence. People who make this argument need to point to specific mishandling of the case, or they need to calm down.

Martin died because Zimmerman packed a gun and decided to be a self-appointed armed crime fighter, while having no ability to handle an unarmed confrontation. That this appears to be perfectly legal troubles people.

I agree completely that Zimmerman acted foolishly. But that doesn't negate the right to self defense.

So then which foolish actions should we punish by law? Getting out the car when there's a suspicious character in the area? Carrying a gun without having the ability to beat up a high-school football player? How about dressing like a slut around drunken men?

[Pinky]

His rights go well beyond that. He has the legal right to arm himself, go out looking for people he perceives to be punks, mis-identify criminals, confront them without training or the authority of a badge, and kill them if things get physical. This upsets people.

You don't know that Zimmerman confronted Martin, and neither does anyone else who's upset about this.

[johno]

confront them without training or the authority of a badge, and kill them if things get physical. This upsets people.

Where do you get the "confront?" Any basis beyond the fantasies of race-baiters?

[Grandpa's Spells]

I agree completely that Zimmerman acted foolishly. But that doesn't negate the right to self defense.

So then which foolish actions should we punish by law? Getting out the car when there's a suspicious character in the area? Carrying a gun without having the ability to beat up a high-school football player? How about dressing like a slut around drunken men?

Nope. Just arming oneself and then confronting people who are breaking no laws, if that confrontation ends in the death of the party who was minding his own business.

[VO2 maxed]

I agree completely that Zimmerman acted foolishly. But that doesn't negate the right to self defense.


Nope. Just arming oneself and then confronting people who are breaking no laws, if that confrontation ends in the death of the party who was minding his own business.

You must have access to evidence that no one else has.

[Grandpa's Spells]

His rights go well beyond that. He has the legal right to arm himself, go out looking for people he perceives to be punks, mis-identify criminals, confront them without training or the authority of a badge, and kill them if things get physical. This upsets people.

You don't know that Zimmerman confronted Martin, and neither does anyone else who's upset about this.

It seems to be the only reasonable explanation. Nobody knows anything they didn't personally witness, but if you think there's a reasonable doubt that Z confronted M, based on Z's account of why he ignored neighborhood watch training, 911 instructions, and got out of his truck, and ended up nowhere near the truck and in a fight, we disagree.

But confronting him wasn't what he was tried for, since it isn't illegal.

[CharlieBob]

Martin died because Zimmerman packed a gun and decided to be a self-appointed armed crime fighter, while having no ability to handle an unarmed confrontation. That this appears to be perfectly legal troubles people.

So Trayvon has no culpability in this whole thing at all? Just an innocent bystander shot in the night?

[dead man walking]

30 years ago, two families (call them a and b) competed in the same business. they had a feud. one night, family a tried to steal some lumber from of a new building family b was putting up. family a sent one of their kids in. family b was lying in wait and grabbed the kid. dad of kid from family a went rushing in. guy from family b had a gun and pistol whipped father from family a. fucked him up. brother of pistol whipped guy from family a emerged from hiding and shot the guy from family b. brother from a also shot a neighbor of b, who was with b

shoots them both deader 'n a smelt.

the shooter from family b got off on self defense.

moved to hawaii.

the son of the dead guy from family b drove around in a pick up with bullet holes in it. took over the family business.

apparently you can attempt to commit a crime, pick a fight, and still get off on self-defense if you plan goes pear-shaped.

true story.

[Turdacious]

His rights go well beyond that. He has the legal right to arm himself, go out looking for people he perceives to be punks, mis-identify criminals, confront them without training or the authority of a badge, and kill them if things get physical. This upsets people.

Does it upset a majority of people in that neighborhood when they vote and aren't on camera? That seems to be the key question. A history of recent, unresolved, property crimes in the neighborhood (which do reduce property values) would seem to be a factor as well.

I make no judgements on these questions. Like you, I wasn't there and don't live there.