The George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin Trial Verdict!!

I have just scrolled all through this forum and I cant beleive that theres not a thread on this!!

Anyway, I was wondering what you guys thought of the verdict!! Personally, I feel that George Zimmerman is guilty. He should never got out of the car and acted like he was his own personal vigilante team!! He basically took the law into his own hands instead of obeying the police officer on the phone and stayed in the car!! In all honesty, it had all the hallmarks of racism!!

How on earth could the jury have got it so horribly wrong is beyong beleif, in my opinion!!

It is intriguing. My first thoughts are about gun ownership in the US. This gung-ho guy had a gun and was roaming around looking for suspicious people....a recipe for disaster.

I think with the trial it boiled down to whether he used the gun in self defense. Whether at the moment of the altercation he believed he was in danger. I don't know.

I can't help but think that the situation itself....a gung-ho guy roaming around with a gun and approaching somebody with the idea of interrogating them is a ridiculous situation.   

Couple of thoughts:
1) News reporting on this has been very selective, mostly skewed towards Martin's side of things (but varies with politics - the right wing tends to support Zimmerman). The selective editing of the 911 call is a classic example.
2) Had the CPS been the prosecuting authority, I'm fairly certain it would have been filed as "insufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction". Plenty of stupidity but nothing actually illegal on Zimmerman's part prior to the fight starting. After it did start, he's the only surviving witness in a position to tell you anything important - the other witnesses give conflicting accounts (some changing between interview and trial), and were some distance away. With Zimmerman sticking to his story, that makes conviction almost impossible - remember the standard is "beyind reasonable doubt".

Actually, I think even the CPS would have been able to secure a conviction. It's an offence simply to carry a loaded firearm around in a public place "without a good reason" and being a crank - despite the hosannas of praise Zimmerman would've gotten from the Daily Mail - isn't enough.

A weird question I have is about Robert Zimmerman - George's older brother. Did his parents deliberately name him after Bob Dylan or knew the coincidence but didn't care?

If I had rubies and riches and crowns
I’d buy the whole world and change things around
I’d throw all the guns and the tanks in the sea
For they are mistakes of a past history

-Let Me Die in My Footsteps
Bob Dylan

Actually, I think even the CPS would have been able to secure a conviction. It's an offence simply to carry a loaded firearm around in a public place "without a good reason" and being a crank - despite the hosannas of praise Zimmerman would've gotten from the Daily Mail - isn't enough.

Not to mention that all handguns are prohibited firearms. However, he wouldn't have been convicted of murder. The Tony Martin case is relevant here - he was convicted of murder because the victim was shot in the back, not because he was shot with a prohibited firearm.

I think George Zimmerman should have been convicted of manslaughter.  He is a holder of a concealed-carry permit, and nobody has disputed the legality of the carry.  Most people who have such permits are required to take classes to learn when they can legally use the weapon in self-defense, and shooting proficiency.  Add that to his criminal-justice studies, he had a much better-than-average idea of how the law and gun ownership works.

Neighborhood watch is supposed to observe and report only.  He should have simply reported Trayvon as a suspicious person and left the rest to the police.  George Zimmerman had no business asking anyone what they were doing walking down a public sidewalk.  He was also very irresponsible in escalating a situation to the point that someone died.  

He also tried to have himself declared indigent, while he had a fund of $100,000 for his legal defense.  His wife was complicit in this, and will be tried for perjury later this year.  He was attempting to use a code to get his wife to use the money in that fund to pay off personal bills.  

There is also the Federal matter of him using deception to obtain a new passport.  He claimed that he lost the old one (with 4 months remaining on it), but it later turned up in a home safe.  Coincidence that some countries won't issue a visa on a passport with less than 6 months remaining?  I don't think so.  

You know the part where Zimmerman wants the gun back now....unbelievable.

You know the part where Zimmerman wants the gun back now....unbelievable.

Whether or not there was someone trying to kill him last time he used it, there's reason to believe that there is now.

http://www.examiner.com/article/black-panthers-bounty-video-reboot-zimmerman-will-always-be-hunted-an-hated

In any case, he was found not guilty by a court of law. That means, under our justice system, he is legally innocent and must not be punished. Accordingly, his property should be returned to him. Whether people should be allowed firearms is a whole different matter (personally, I'm broadly against).

Accordingly, his property should be returned to him.

I think your reading of this is probably correct. Given the uproar though,  it takes a certain something to ask for the gun back.

interesting talk from President Obama:
http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2013/07/19/19563566-trayvon-martin-couldve-been-me

Comments about what would have happened here are irrelevent, the fact is that Zimmerman was not doing anything illegal by carrying a weapon where he was.
My opinions is that he should have got manslaughter and apparently the jury were given the option to consider it but didn't.
The whole "stand your ground" law seems very strange though, it's virtually a licence to kill because all you have is Zimmerman's word as to what happened.
The claim was that a fight ensued and that Martic was on top of Zimmerman when he was shot, which would tie in with the "self defence" claim, however I believe that there wasn't much blood on Zimmerman.
All in all it's a bit of a mess but we should hope that people accept this and move on.

Had anyone watched the trial, they would clearly see that Mr. Zimmerman acted in self defense and there is no way he could be found guilty-- furthermore you would see why he wasn't even arrested in the first place.  The prosecution had ZERO case.  Mr. Martin had four minutes to make it only 100 yards- his friend "DD" (Rachel Jeantel, Diamond Eugene-- whoever she claims to be who was on the phone with him right before the altercation) even said on Piers Morgan that Trayvon was "whooping ass" and on another show in her mind he swung first.  Trayvon had no defensive marks on him.  It is not illegal to get out of your car.  It is, however, illegal for someone to "ground and pound" your head into the concrete of a sidewalk.  I am pretty sure most of the replies indicate that they have been watching the biased media coverage and not doing any independent research or actually watching the entire trial for themselves.  By the way, Mr. Zimmerman helped a family out of a smoking SUV that had rolled over this past Friday...  He is actually a decent person- not the villian the media has created.

Tykeman, Mr. Zimmerman was not guilty of manslaughter.  Mr. Martin was commiting a felony on him (aggravated assualt) when Mr. Zimmerman defended himself, therefore, by law-- it is NOT manslaughter and if there was a ruling this way it would be a great miscarriage of justice.

Also, Stand Your Ground is a law to protect people, not a licence to kill. A man was jumped by four thugs and beaten and when he tried to scramble back got ran over by a car and died.  Stand Your Ground just removes the duty to retreat (this law already applies to your home, say if someone invades).  And just so everyone knows, this was not a Stand Your Ground case, this was a simple self defense case. For self defense, it does not matter the extent of your injuries- it is advisable you do not wait until you are unconscious, a veggie, or dead.  For self defense there just needs to be a reasonable fear of death.  If anyone worked in a hospital they would know some people die from head trauma where there has been no physical indication after someone gets their head hit...

The case is really not as difficult as some people are making it out to be.

Tykeman, Mr. Zimmerman was not guilty of manslaughter.  Mr. Martin was commiting a felony on him (aggravated assualt) when Mr. Zimmerman defended himself, therefore, by law-- it is NOT manslaughter and if there was a ruling this way it would be a great miscarriage of justice.

I disagree, he killed him, self defence? Martin did not have a weapon therefore Zimmerman used undue and excessive force in shooting him dead - that in my book is manslaughter.
I accept that laws are different in Florida than in the UK  but he killed him and the "stand your ground" as it stands means anyone would be able to shoot someone and then claim it was self defence.

just noticed - interestingly this is your first post on the site, I suspect a troll.

By the way, Mr. Zimmerman helped a family out of a smoking SUV that had rolled over this past Friday.

Oh yes, I heard about that....no witnesses statements to confirm though I understand, including not even the family coming forward!

Biased media? Yes i did follow it on biased media....actually most of what I heard about the case was on Fox News which was rooting for Zimmerman, but I am able to make my mind up without completely just taking what I hear in the media.