Breaking News! George Zimmerman found not guilty.

Originally posted by marg6043
reply to post by litterbaux

 

Yes I already seen it on TV, I knew he was going to be found no guilty, the whole case was nothing but a politicized, circus with none other that our own dictator president supporting the prosecution Even the justice department was involved, this just a show of how politics now are involved in every aspect regardless if the case is a federal case or just like in this instance a state local issue.

America is nothing but a circus this days thanks to whore politics sticking their noses on everything, but what you get when we allowed to be spied on like terrorist.

edit on 13-7-2013 by marg6043 because: (no reason given)

Thank you Marg, and I can hope this is at least a small wake up call to the
rest of the people that didn't rule on the jury, or on their keyboards. When major
players definitely out of their jurisdiction or other sphere of direct influence start
making 'judgment calls' or worse 'show support' for a verdict one way or another--
you can assume they're going to profit from the fallout.

I just hope nobody is spoiling for anything tomorrow except a slam of the media
on "Beat [UP] the Press", they deserve one thorough beating for 'helping out' too.
As for the prosecution; conduct like doctoring, fabricating or outright obstruction
if shown and not pursued by Holder (oh NO, his real JOB) should be indeed telling.

Best of all, what a wonderful diversion The Scott Peterson / Aruba Girl / Ad Nauseums
are from the really important stuff. Makes you wonder about the "rooters"....

Originally posted by SonOfTheLawOfOne

Originally posted by Grimpachi

Originally posted by SonOfTheLawOfOne

Originally posted by rickymouse
Zimmerman started the confrontation and the teen got mad. This is what I see. I guess if you start a conflict it is not against the law anymore. The boy also had a right to stand his ground and was not in the wrong for punching a jerk that was harrassing him by the same law. Yet Zimmerman goes free when he killed this teen that was standing his ground, with the same rights we all have.

I see a major riot brewing, worse than we have ever seen in this country. Our country is so polarized I feel that this will collapse it. It is the governments fault, they intentionally polarized us so we will not stick together. It is a regular tactic of governments but when it goes wrong, it really goes wrong.

I disagree fully Ricky.

It appears you don't understand the law in Florida regarding stand your ground. If I'm in your face threatening to kill you, you can NOT hit me or take any physical action until I commit an actual crime against you. Following, making verbal threats, watching at a close distance, are not crimes. Trayvon was not "standing his ground" by punching him under the law, that is assault and is a felony.

I highly recommend you look at the laws regarding self-defense in Florida before commenting on who was right or wrong.

~Namaste

Actually you have that wrong. Remember THIS case wasn't SYG it was self defense however the situation you described where if you came up and threatened my life here under SYG I WOULD be in the legal right to shoot and kill you and all I would have to do is claim I was in fear for my life. (I better hope there was a witness that could confirm your verbal threat)

Almost that exact scenario played out years ago down the street from me except the guy shot THROUGH his door and killed the guy threatening his life. Under castle doctrine he was never charged or prosecuted.

SYG is an extension of castle doctrine but it is separate from self defense.

I respectfully disagree.

Stand your ground means you "have no duty to retreat" when your life is being threatened. But the part you are missing is that a verbal threat is not a "reasonable" threat of your life or property. If you were correct, than police could arrest every single person who threatens someone else, which they can't and never do. The only thing they do is take a report. Look at domestic disputes as a perfect example, where a man threatens to kill or beat the woman, and the police can't do anything except ASK one of them to leave. There are no laws broken until they commit a violent act.

Self defense is synonymous with stand your ground, because you are defending yourself when standing your ground either in your "castle" or home, or in any other location where you do not have any duty to retreat. If a felony act is committed against you or your property, that you believe will inflict great bodily harm or death, you are allowed to defend yourself under said law. My words won't kill you, so verbal threats don't matter until I do something. I can stand next to your car waiting for you, you can't shoot me for it, especially if I am not holding a weapon and haven't attacked you.

~Namaste

edit on 13-7-2013 by SonOfTheLawOfOne because: (no reason given)

Maybe it is different where you are at but here you can shoot and kill a person who threatens your life.

It has happened and will happen again.

Maybe you missed where I said a guy was threatening another person at his house that person shot through his door and killed the guy and was never charged.


As for you saying police will not arrest someone for threatening someone life again maybe not where you are at but HERE they will and have. In fact it happened to a friend less than a month ago.

BTW I have a CCW permit and know the laws pertaining to castle doctrine and SYG here in florida. Self defense is a separate issue.

My observations:

1) He absolutely, without a shadow of a doubt, profiled Treyvon Martin. There is no doubt that he considered him especially dangerous or likely to be up to some sort of mischief because he was black. He was likely unaware of his racial biases, but still, it took this profiling to lead him on the path that Treyvon was walking.

This is what civil rights activists are upset over. Yet again, a black youth had been unfairly targeted and subject to suspicions that weren't well founded. George Zimmerman should have minded his own business. He was "looking for trouble", as they say.

2) Treyvon Martins response may have validated George Zimmerman's act of self defense. It was a barbaric attack. Zimmerman may been committing a racially based social faux pas, but that in no way warranted the violence Treyvon Martin unleashed upon him.

3) This was NOT an easy case. Both sides have their arguments, and frankly, it could have gone either way. Justice may have been served in one sense, but it was lost in another. Treyvon Martin showed himself to be another mindless thug willing to violently beat down another human being. As a black youth being "unfairly profiled", this was not the type of response that bestirs sympathy. YET, it seems insanely naive to think that Zimmerman didn't have a preconceived idea of what Treyvon was all about.

So what was the "just" thing to do? It's extremely difficult to say. It depends primarily upon where you locate the beginning; if George Zimmerman profiled Treyvon Martin, as he plausibly did, than Treyvon shouldn't be held completely responsible for his violent response. He was being somewhat harassed by Zimmerman.

On the other hand, although Zimmerman was profiling, following, and annoying Treyvon Martin, Treyvons excessive response provoked Zimmerman to take out his gun and shoot. Was his response overboard? Was it disconnected from the idea that compelled him to follow Treyvon in the first place? Was he only too happy to take out his gun and shoot him when Treyvon attacked him?

Mama Mia, what a difficult case to deal with!

What bothers me, however, are those people who take such a passionate dogmatic stance that they pretty much ignore the position of the other side. Civil rights activists will consider this "a travesty" for Black America, even though Treyvon Martin was clearly a violent kid who acted in a manner inconsistent with a civil society. Civil libertarians will exult that "justice has been served", ignoring the fact that Zimmerman racially profiled Treyvon igniting this whole fiasco to begin with.

It wasn't easy. I'm not sure if justice was served. I understand the Juries hesitance in reaching a verdict. It could have gone either way.

Originally posted by SonOfTheLawOfOne

Originally posted by rickymouse
Zimmerman started the confrontation and the teen got mad. This is what I see. I guess if you start a conflict it is not against the law anymore. The boy also had a right to stand his ground and was not in the wrong for punching a jerk that was harrassing him by the same law. Yet Zimmerman goes free when he killed this teen that was standing his ground, with the same rights we all have.

I see a major riot brewing, worse than we have ever seen in this country. Our country is so polarized I feel that this will collapse it. It is the governments fault, they intentionally polarized us so we will not stick together. It is a regular tactic of governments but when it goes wrong, it really goes wrong.

I disagree fully Ricky.

It appears you don't understand the law in Florida regarding stand your ground. If I'm in your face threatening to kill you, you can NOT hit me or take any physical action until I commit an actual crime against you. Following, making verbal threats, watching at a close distance, are not crimes. Trayvon was not "standing his ground" by punching him under the law, that is assault and is a felony.

I highly recommend you look at the laws regarding self-defense in Florida before commenting on who was right or wrong.

~Namaste

Nobody saw the beginning of this thing so the only evidence we have of the innitial confrontation is from Zimmerman. Maybe he was shoving him, we do not know. He admitted he got out of his car and approached him, we don't know what went on after that, I personally think that Zimmerman should have never been patroling that neighborhood. I consider him a loose cannon, by statements I heard him saying. I believe in neighborhood watches, but I know half a dozen people I would not want being part of a neighborhood watch, a couple who have the same attitude as zimmerman.

reply to post by hounddoghowlie



Not yet . . .

Originally posted by jiggerj
reply to post by litterbaux

 

I just hope the good people of Florida remember that no cities were burned down when O.J.Simpson was found innocent even though we know he committed a double homicide.

Is that supposed to make white people look rational?... because it actually just makes us look unconcerned with justice, which is not rational at all. I'm not saying we should burn down cities but I know I didn't go to any OJ verdict protests, did you?

I'd be hard pressed to find one black person in my town that would try to say OJ was innocent.

We have no way of knowing what the jury was afraid of when they voted, just like we have no idea what was going through the minds of the women jurors in the Zimmerman case.

There's no telling. There is absolutely no telling. I think that is the whole problem.

It shouldn't be up to a half a dozen people if they already got the whole damn nation arguing about it.

Too much pressure and we really don't know if they received any other kind of influence or not.
The nation was watching and waiting to see what a half a dozen women would say.

There's nothing fair about that. either they keep the case out of the media, or they let us ALL vote since they got us all involved, that's what I say.

Originally posted by GrantedBail
Well, I take comfort in the fact that he will never truly be a free man.

What a way to live?? Looking over your shoulder for the rest of your life!

massengill should be calling about you being their new spokesperson.

this is a momentous day for you!

For those who want to take out Zimmerman: An eye for an eye makes the world blind

reply to post by Propulsion


I call my neighbors crack heads and they are not even the same racial background as Treyvon, they are whites, I am doing racial profiling? I don't know but by the way they behave I am pretty sure that they are.

Sometimes depending where you live and what you see you pretty much can deduce what kind of people are among you.

Originally posted by DeadSeraph

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
It seems the prosecution asked too much and this ultimately cost them.

If they went for third degree murder, wanting to cause harm but not necessarily kill, then they would have had a much better chance.

Almost like voluntary manslaughter. In fact what is the difference between third degree murder and voluntary manslaughter? "heat of passion" is just one example of wanting to hurt someone(but not necessarly kill them) with no premeditation.

Second degree requires wanting to kill someone with malice.

There is no proof Zimmerman wanted to hurt Martin whatsoever. In fact, the evidence seems to indicate the opposite. You don't call the police and report someone that you plan to assault (or worse, murder), and then go and commit the act. It's obvious Zimmerman had no intention of attacking Martin to everyone with a bit of objectivity.

Not even manslaughter? The kid DID die afterall, heh

reply to post by jhn7537


The world is already blind. We're just shouting and hitting another in the darkness.
Reality is sad sometimes.

Katt Williams ‏@KattWiIlliams 12m
#IfIEverSeeZimmerman I'll do absolutely nothing because he has a gun and isn't afraid to use it.


From a comedian, thats pretty funny....

I usually side with the prosecutors but in this case I think the not guilty verdict is correct.How in the world O.J. did not get found guilty is ridiculous and laughable.

reply to post by PLASIFISK


Based on the evidence it looked like this would happen. That's true.

I haven't really been following the case on ATS, I've been following it on a legal blog that focuses on self-defense, but what I've seen here is very enlightening. The conspiracy theory crowd talks a good game about freedom, but when it comes down to the nitty-gritty nuts and bolts of how to live in a free society, at least half the people here are just as authoritarian as everyone else. Don't carry guns. Don't drive around your neighborhood looking for burglars, even if there have been a bunch of burglaries and even a home invasion recently. Don't watch suspicious strangers in public, even from a distance. Obey the telephone operator and treat even the mildest suggestion as an absolute command. Don't defend yourself if attacked, take your beating and let it be a lesson to you. Lie there meekly and wait for the police to come. You do not have the right to defend yourself or your community. That's the government's job, and if you try to take responsibility for yourself or your community, you're some kind of freak, a wannabe, and the real government ought to take you away.

The actual manner in which the government sought to haul Zimmerman away, the collusion between Federal and state government, the overruling of local authority, the manufacture of evidence in the media, the misconduct by the state and blatant reprisal against the whistleblower, and the Federal participation in narrative crafting (including the Justice Department and the POTUS himself), was astounding. This is probably the clearest case of government and media colluding to attack a fundamental right that most of us will see in our lifetimes. There are many lessons to learn here. The next time they go after your right of self defense, they will not be so sloppy.

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

Originally posted by DeadSeraph

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
It seems the prosecution asked too much and this ultimately cost them.

If they went for third degree murder, wanting to cause harm but not necessarily kill, then they would have had a much better chance.

Almost like voluntary manslaughter. In fact what is the difference between third degree murder and voluntary manslaughter? "heat of passion" is just one example of wanting to hurt someone(but not necessarly kill them) with no premeditation.

Second degree requires wanting to kill someone with malice.

There is no proof Zimmerman wanted to hurt Martin whatsoever. In fact, the evidence seems to indicate the opposite. You don't call the police and report someone that you plan to assault (or worse, murder), and then go and commit the act. It's obvious Zimmerman had no intention of attacking Martin to everyone with a bit of objectivity.

Not even manslaughter? The kid DID die afterall, heh

Well the kiiiid was trying to KILL George afterall. heh

reply to post by jhn7537


It seems that Zimmerman getting a bullet through his heart would fit your logic.

I wish death on nobody, but don't you think that Zimmerman might of had a better life spending it in prison than trying to hide the rest of his life on the 'outside'?

Originally posted by PsykoOps

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes
So, since you admit TM attacked, then you admit he committed a felony. Someone attacked like that has a right to defend their life, with deadly force.

Says the guy who killed a teen. He says he was attacked. So make note again, if you start a fight you better kill the other guy and claim self defense. Doesn't matter if you stalk them with your weapon and follow them to their home.

No one followed anyone to their home. When Zimmerman exited the car, Martin was already OUT OF SIGHT. Pay attention; this has been stated probably a few hundred times on this site alone.

Martin started the fight. Martin has no fight injuries. All the evidence backs Zimmerman. DNA on Martin's knuckles, from what I have read, of Zimmerman's. Stop trying to make this out to be something it isn't. Every single person alive has a right to self defense. Do you think that is a bad thing?

Originally posted by Grimpachi

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

Originally posted by DeadSeraph

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
It seems the prosecution asked too much and this ultimately cost them.

If they went for third degree murder, wanting to cause harm but not necessarily kill, then they would have had a much better chance.

Almost like voluntary manslaughter. In fact what is the difference between third degree murder and voluntary manslaughter? "heat of passion" is just one example of wanting to hurt someone(but not necessarly kill them) with no premeditation.

Second degree requires wanting to kill someone with malice.

There is no proof Zimmerman wanted to hurt Martin whatsoever. In fact, the evidence seems to indicate the opposite. You don't call the police and report someone that you plan to assault (or worse, murder), and then go and commit the act. It's obvious Zimmerman had no intention of attacking Martin to everyone with a bit of objectivity.

Not even manslaughter? The kid DID die afterall, heh

Well the kiiiid was trying to KILL George afterall. heh

That is what manslaughter means. Unintentional death. Like passing a red light, slamming into another car and ACCIDENTALY killing someone. If I kill under self defence is it still not killing?