R.I.P Trayvon

[jjs07]

How does it make it more ridiculous? So because the prosecution/defense team chose the jury it takes away the fact that a 85% Caucasian dominated jury decided this man wasn't guilty of any crime?

We get it guys, George Zimmerman is a Hispanic male. There's no way a Hispanic can show racism towards another minority race. It's not about black vs white to me and in my opinion I don't think that's what people are upset about. They're upset that a black person was racially profiled in general.

Where's the anger directed towards...the jury or the prosecution? Media is driving a white/black race war down the throats of people. No one ever suggested that Zimmerman wasn't racially profiling. If that wasn't the case, Martin would probably still be here today.

As I said before, there is so much grey area as far as the events that transpired on that night that it's hard to say with 100% certainty that you know what happened. In addition, if the prosecution's arguments weren't convincing, how do you expect a jury to say Zimmerman is guilty?

This isn't my POV, but I'm just trying to think of why the jury went the route that they did.

I think manslaughter is a lesser charge than murder....would people have been content with that being the verdict?

 

[celticsfan9783]

The racial undertone isn't just because of Zimmerman though, people are bothered by the make up of the jury

For example:

View media item 496229

What an idiotic Tweet. Because they were white women, we're to assume they have an inherit fear of young black males?

Also, what's this about GZ "looking hispanic." What does that even mean? Pretty stereotypical statement.

 

[jchambers]

,

 

[heliumclinton]

What an idiotic Tweet. Because they were white women, we're to assume they have an inherit fear of young black males?

Also, what's this about GZ "looking hispanic." What does that even mean? Pretty stereotypical statement.

No we're to assume they relate more to Zimmerman's way of thinking that night instead of Trayvon Martin

 

[sundoobie]

This is the prosecution's fault because they couldn't convince the jury that Zimmerman was guilty of the charges.

Exactly. I didn't follow the trial but I am reading all these legal expert analyses today and it's just crazy how the prosecutors overreached going for that 2nd degree murder charge.

How can anyone really blame the jury cause they were just doing their jobs which is to decide a verdict based on the evidence presented and how it applies to the law.

I blame the prosecutors and I blame Florida's ridiculous 'stand your ground law' and the Politicians that push forth that law.

 

[celticsfan9783]

No we're to assume they relate more to Zimmerman's way of thinking that night instead of Trayvon Martin

Based on what? Them being caucasian?

 

[timelessflight]

The prosecution never believed that Zimmerman should have been tried in the first place so why would they put forth the effort necessary to get him convicted.  On top of the fact that i dont feel it was really a jury of his peers. Very sad trial and i think the need to troll the community of individuals of African descent has sadly trumped common sense among individuals that were rooting for Zimmerman.  The goals are short sighted so many demons feel like this gives them a license to kill people they perceive to be dangerous but sadly, in the long term, this ruling is going to be used to hurt a lot of people outside the scope of their hatred.  

This ruling means you can approach anyone in the street, provoke them to fight and then shoot them and as long as no ones around to give an accurate account of the events you can make up the circumstances of the shooting as you see fit.  This is going to hurt alot more then the so called thugs alot of these demonic individuals are hoping it will hurt. 

Its so demonic, friends. 

You're on The Coli huh? Lol

 

[jchambers]

.

 

[desent]

NOT ONE person complained about the JURY when the possible manslaughter question was raised... The moment the verdict was non guilty it was "oh the jury"

Its a shame that people can profit so much over some sheep and they clearly thrive for these moments.its funny how some who claim to be religious are giving revengeful statements and basically calling for this guys head...

the ONLY facts anyone rants about on here(that are against zimmerman) is that TM was black, 17, had skittles and iced tea(which its actually watermelon fruit punch but i will give you a freebie.), THEN THE OMISSION OF THE EVENTS INBETWEEN BUT Being FOLLOWED (only once in the car.... yet you guys will overlook this) and then shot.

EVERYTHING IN BETWEEN IS LEFT OUT. WHATS FUNNY IS I COULD TYPE IT HERE BUT THE ANTI ZIMMERMAN WOULD SIMPLY BE OBLIVIOUS TO IT.

Sheep will sheep though.

 

[celticsfan9783]

EVERYTHING IN BETWEEN IS LEFT OUT.

Yet people still can't understand reasonable doubt. Unreal.

 

[jchambers]

,

 

[shoelyesses]

NOT ONE person complained about the JURY when the possible manslaughter question was raised... The moment the verdict was non guilty it was "oh the jury"

Its a shame that people can profit so much over some sheep and they clearly thrive for these moments.its funny how some who claim to be religious are giving revengeful statements and basically calling for this guys head...

the ONLY facts anyone rants about on here(that are against zimmerman) is that TM was black, 17, had skittles and iced tea(which its actually watermelon fruit punch but i will give you a freebie.), THEN THE OMISSION OF THE EVENTS INBETWEEN BUT Being FOLLOWED (only once in the car.... yet you guys will overlook this) and then shot.

EVERYTHING IN BETWEEN IS LEFT OUT. WHATS FUNNY IS I COULD TYPE IT HERE BUT THE ANTI ZIMMERMAN WOULD SIMPLY BE OBLIVIOUS TO IT.

Sheep will sheep though.

actually they did...they thought that one why wasn't it 12 instead of 6...and also why didn't they do the typical "jury of his peers" Its just it was promoted and pushed out by mainstream media as much until after the fact.

I mean the media in general promote, glorify, and paint certain thoughts and images all day everyday. Example the general media isn't really talking much about the shootings and arrest by the police, of ppl who are PEACEFULLY protesting.

Yet lets be honest, if ppl went out in most part and did a la riots part 2....it would be on tv 24/7 all day everyday. It would be number 1 trending twitter topic... And they would be canceling tv shows etc.... just to get the footage and promote, see these ppl are animals and don't know how to act.

 

[jchambers]

.

 

[shoelyesses]

There is nothing wrong with that law. It simply states that if you fear for your life, you can defend yourself. The problem is that it was publicized and misinterpreted so much, and now all of these idiots think that it is some type of license to kill. If the law won't allow an individual to defend himself against the threat of death, then we have a serious problem. I think that it is being misinterpreted in this case. Zimmerman was the aggressor. He was not standing his ground, he placed himself in that situation and was dealing with an unarmed opponent. That is not self defense, it is murder. You all stay safe out there, because I foresee more of this type of **** happening after this verdict. A lot of these closet racist dudes are just waiting for a chance to off someone of color and get away with it legally.

I agree and I think it will happen less publicized...with a lot less coverage/notoriety. It will be uncovered/less covered isolated incidents. I don't think anything will be said or brought up about this law until it homes to the majority of the us...ala some white kid/white guy etc...gets killed by a minority, and ppl try to use the same guise/argument.

 

[sundoobie]

There is nothing wrong with that law. It simply states that if you fear for your life, you can defend yourself. The problem is that it was publicized and misinterpreted so much, and now all of these idiots think that it is some type of license to kill. If the law won't allow an individual to defend himself against the threat of death, then we have a serious problem.

There is so much gray area with that law though. Personally, I think that law gives permission to shoot first regardless if it was warranted or not.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...ou-need-to-know-about-stand-your-ground-laws/

 

[Mr.Guy]

Funny how people are ASSUMING that the state has not proved its case in the trial. I am not sure, not too long ago we know that  whites used to unapologetically engage in jury nullification on the DAILY setting free their fellow whites who had been accused of killing a black irregardless of what the evidence  had shown. Not so sure if this verdicts was based on the evidence or not, in fact, you could NEVER be   sure in this nation, where we adore the "rule of law" and two kinds of justice systems.  Just sayin......
 

 

[celticsfan9783]

There was way more evidence against OJ Simpson in his murder case, and I don't remember people rallying when he was found innocent.

Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!

View media item 496367

Law enforcement dropped the ball on that one. Hard to convict when key evidence is dismissed, screwing up the credibility of the entire investigation.

 

[Mr.Guy]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-self-defence-law-wake-Zimmerman-verdict.html

 

[shoelyesses]

There was way more evidence against OJ Simpson in his murder case, and I don't remember people rallying when he was found innocent.

because a good amount of the "evidence" found in that case was shown the be tainted and planted by the police etc.... So that's a little different. Cant see comparing proven "tainted and planted" evidence with unbiased it is what it is non planted evidence.

 

[kdawg0508]

I'm not angry at the prosecution. I feel like they did enough to prove that George Zimmerman was guilty of a crime. Do I think that crime was 2nd degree murder? No. Manslaughter? Absolutely.

How was it manslaughter?

 

[kdawg0508]

Funny how people are ASSUMING that the state has not proved its case in the trial. I am not sure, not too long ago we know that  whites used to unapologetically engage in jury nullification on the DAILY setting free their fellow whites who had been accused of killing a black irregardless of what the evidence  had shown. Not so sure if this verdicts was based on the evidence or not, in fact, you could NEVER be   sure in this nation, where we adore the "rule of law" and two kinds of justice systems.  Just sayin......
 

Well one of the jurors already decided to write a book so we should know if the verdict was based on the evidence soon.

 

[celticsfan9783]

View media item 496378

 

[shoelyesses]

Funny how people are ASSUMING that the state has not proved its case in the trial. I am not sure, not too long ago we know that  whites used to unapologetically engage in jury nullification on the DAILY setting free their fellow whites who had been accused of killing a black irregardless of what the evidence  had shown. Not so sure if this verdicts was based on the evidence or not, in fact, you could NEVER be   sure in this nation, where we adore the "rule of law" and two kinds of justice systems.  Just sayin......
 

Add to that, that ppl somehow believe or think, just because laws where changed....(again by the same ppl who was doing these heinous crimes/acts) That their sentiments, values, and belief systems changed along with it.

I never got how ppl pretty much are all in agreement things like emit till, etc were wrong and unjust, and the laws and the ppl behind things like this happen, just all of a sudden had a change of heart and became new ppl? Like when did the transformation and change occur? Anyone got a year? Hell a decade something.

The notion of racism/bigotry etc...just was here one day and the next day gone is laughable. Only thing that has changed is the way ppl go about doing it. Like the saying goes..."its more then one way to skin a cat" Just cause you use a different method doesn't mean it cease to exist.

 

[kdawg0508]

Is that MLK?

 

[awm412]

I and other members have said this before, but it seems useful to reiterate this point...

The stand your ground law did not matter in this case. In many (if not all) states, the same self-defense argument could have been used. If Martin truly was on top of Zimmerman, then Zimmerman can claim self-defense unless he was the first to elevate the confrontation to deadly force. Unfortunately, Martin isn't able to refute Zimmerman's account, so unless there is evidence to show that Zimmerman initially elevated it to deadly force, he has a good argument for self-defense according to the law. Is that law fair? Not in all situations, and in times like these, the laws almost seem stupid. However, there's not much the jury can do about the law. This is a ****** situation with no good outcome.

By the way, for those criticizing the second degree murder charge... It is typical for the prosecution to charge the harsher offense, and then the lesser offense gets brought up during trial. It would not have been typical strategy or good strategy for the prosecution to only charge manslaughter from the beginning. I'm not saying they did a good job, but the way they charged Zimmerman was probably not one of the things they screwed up (and there were obviously things they did poorly).