Not Guilty

[oldno7]

Christ almighty that city is a mess! More people killed there in the last 10 years than have been killed during the entire military operations in Afghanistan? That's insane.

And thats the point--there are no movie stars wearing dead shitcago kids t shirts--no president adopting them as sons, no media running a 24hour circus'.

But when movie stars/presidents/media outlets endorse one side of a crime, there becomes an expectation of guilt.

Of course endorsement's could be selective as well as political or worse yet based on sensationalism and profit's off same.

[oldno7]

I think shooting and killing an unarmed person after stalking him through your neighborhood deserves a trial. Even in Chicago, DC, your imagination, or wherever else you think that the known killer of another person doesn't have to defend that action.

So--like I said, I missed your posts where you were outraged anywhere but Florida and the TM case.

Are you outraged because it's "trending" right now? It's only trending because it became a race event as well as a circus event, am I wrong?

I'm simply saying you're apparently outraged about a jury decision yet you have no apparent outrage for inconvenient violent crimes, like shitcago.

Selective to be sure....

[oldno7]

AG--I know you didn't read the link I posted about shitcago, so heres a statistic for you out of the article--

"During the period of 2003-2011, blacks were the victims of 75 percent of 4,265 murders. Blacks also were the offenders in 75 percent of the murders."

Are you outraged that mostly blacks are killing blacks or just Hispanics killing blacks?

[Scott P]

I'm simply saying you're apparently outraged about a jury decision yet you have no apparent outrage for inconvenient violent crimes,

How do you know this? People are commenting on the Zimmerman case because that is the topic of this thread.

I agree that the media is making this too much a racial issue, but why do you think that anyone who thinks that Zimmerman may have done something wrong only cares about it because it involved people of two races? Or why do you think that someone who thinks Zimmerman may have been wrong wouldn't think that someone of the same race killing someone would also be wrong?

I haven't seen Absolute Gravity (or anyone else but you) even bring up race at all on this thread.

So far the media has, but you seem to be the only one bringing it up on this thread.

[Absolute Gravity]

So--like I said, I missed your posts where you were outraged anywhere but Florida and the TM case.

Are you outraged because it's "trending" right now? It's only trending because it became a race event as well as a circus event, am I wrong?

I'm simply saying you're apparently outraged about a jury decision yet you have no apparent outrage for inconvenient violent crimes, like shitcago.

Selective to be sure....

WTF are you talking about? I'm not outraged with the jury's decision. I'd (most likely) be outraged if there was no trial to begin with.
You seem WAY more invested in this than I am. This is just a Bogley thread that showed up, I didn't create it, just commented on it.

Selective to be sure....

Absolutely. About what canyons I do, what I feed my kids, and every other thing I can think of. I don't have the time to give everything on this planet the attention you think I should.

[Byron]

Now that's how ya do it!

[Byron]

In regards to the "racism" thing...I'm not usually a fan of Geraldo Rivera, but he is ALL OVER IT. Check out what he's been saying about this, it cuts right to the bone!

[oldno7]

How do you know this? People are commenting on the Zimmerman case because that is the topic of this thread.

And I'm saying, why is this a topic of this thread?

Why did the Zimmerman/Martin case go viral?

It's all jumping on the popular bandwagon and has little to do with law, it has to do with emotion.

If you feel like this was an important case, will you spend as much time commenting on the 16yr old in shitcago who got shot in the back and killed?

My point again is--violent crime happens every day, what made this case go viral?

[Iceaxe]

Here is the deal.... this never would have went to trial if it had not been turned into a racial matter.... and you all know that is the truth....

The police investigated the incident and concluded the shooting met the criteria of Florida's stand your ground law. And the trial has proven the police were correct.

Everything about the trial was nothing but a racial show....

Now it you want to argue if stand you ground is a good law or if neighborhood watch groups are a good thing that is a separate issue.

But under the law as written Zimmerman was within his rights and the rest was just a racial dog and pony show.

Tap'n on my Galaxy G3

[Byron]

My point again is--violent crime happens every day, what made this case go viral?

Because Obama got upset.

[Brian in SLC]

The police investigated the incident and concluded the shooting met the criteria of Florida's stand your ground law. And the trial has proven the police were correct.

Everything about the trial was nothing but a racial show....

http://www.pbs.org/pov/blog/docsoup/...2883436177.png



Yeah, folks jump on any bandwagon that supports their corner of the universe. Xenophobic male afraid of folks you don't know in the neighborhood? Check. Hate Obama? Check. Hate the "liberal" media? Check. Hate privileged "scary ass crackers"? Check. Hate guns? Check.

Became a media shit storm. I do think, realistically, it wasn't about race. If you listen to the audio, review GZ's history, he didn't have a history of racial slurs that I could find.

That said, it didn't seem to me that he just "stood his ground". Wasn't like he was mindin' his own business on his property and a kid came up and startin' hasslin' him. He tracked him down, followed him. And they got into it. Both probably had a chip on their shoulder.

I think it was good it went to trail. Not sure it helped clear the air on this. But, here we are still debating it.

I get going out and actively protecting your neighborhood from miscreants. I think when you do that, and, you're armed, you best have a bit of a non-confrontational demeanor, or, you'll end up shootin' some kid.

Had GZ not had a gun...maybe he and the kid would just given each other a good ol fashioned beat down. Easy to hindsite "what ifs".

Tragic situation all the way around. I think this thing has legs because it scratches a bunch of hot buttons.

[Absolute Gravity]

My point again is--violent crime happens every day, what made this case go viral?

Seemed to me it was a combination of a white dude killing an unarmed black dude, the seeming indifference of the local police, and the relatively new stand your ground law. All these put together mean ratings for the media and politicians alike

Everything about the trial was nothing but a racial show....

I disagree. In the media yes, but legally it was also about where the limits of the Stand Your Ground law lie.

[Iceaxe]

FWIW- there is nothing in Florida's stand your ground law about minding your own business, standing on your property, or profiling.....

The law is pretty simple.... it basically says if you are threatened you do not have to retreat and that you are within your rights to defend yourself.


Tap'n on my Galaxy G3

[Absolute Gravity]

The law is pretty simple.... it basically says if you are threatened you do not have to retreat and that you are within your rights to defend yourself.

Martin was feeling threatened no? Would he have been within his rights to shoot Zimmerman? Stupid law I think.

[Brian in SLC]

FWIW- there is nothing in Florida's stand your ground law about minding your own business, standing on your property, or profiling.....

The law is pretty simple.... it basically says if you are threatened you do not have to retreat and that you are within your rights to defend yourself.

Well...not just "threatened"...but, yeah, there is a part of the law that deals with "use of force by aggressor". Its actually kind of interesting to read the Florida laws:

776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or

(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.

776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.

Here's an interesting part of the law:

776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or

(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or

(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

So...interesting to ponder...was GZ an aggressor? He lost track of the kid, got out of his car, tracked him down. I dunno.

The debate on these "stand your ground" laws has been around the "dead men tell no tales" aspect. It ain't he said she said if there's only one party left doing the reporting.

Crazy stuff.

[DOSS]

Sounds like a jury of his peers already decided all of this. What is the point in continuing to argue the law or its application in this situation when it has already been decided. This is the way out cj system works. We would be more productive to talk about corrective actions to the system than the use of this one law...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Scott P]

If you feel like this was an important case, will you spend as much time commenting on the 16yr old in shitcago who got shot in the back and killed?

If there was a thread on it, yes. The race of the individuals doesn't matter to me. I agree with you that the media made it a racial issue. That doesn't mean that it's the primary issue with anyone commenting on the thread though.

Although it may matter to the media, it wouldn't matter to me if it were two white guys, two black guys, two mormons, two democrats, or whatever.

As far as deaths in Chicago, I don't have much sympathy if it were two gang bangers going at each each other, but if someone is shot in the back as in your example, of course it would be wrong and warrants comment.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Although speculation, it is certainly possible that the kid had some major attitude towards Zimmerman if Zimmerman was following him. Martin probably "looked" like a criminal in Zimmerman's eyes (and probably most of ours as well). Zimmerman also had been accused of domestic violence and was charged with assaulting a police officer in the past. It is possible, if not probable that both both were pretty aggressive. It isn't surprising a fight ensued.

If Zimmerman wasn't the one following Martin, this would be a case of obvious self defense. If it were the other way around, it would be a clean case. The fact that it was Zimmerman following Martin is what makes it worth going to trial, IMHO. It would also be a clean cut case if Martin really were caught doing a break in. Without doubt, the shooting would have been (at least in my opinion) 100% justified if either of those two were the case. Since Zimmerman was following Martin, it's much harder to differentiate.

The jury did decide that there wasn't enough proof to convict Zimmerman. It doesn't mean that he had no fault in the manner, but there is no proof that it was murder or that Zimmerman wasn't telling the truth.

[Iceaxe]

So what is the moral of this story?

Don't bring a knife... err... cement sidewalk to a gunfight.

[oldno7]

The race of the individuals doesn't matter to me. I agree with you that the media made it a racial issue. That doesn't mean that it's the primary issue with anyone commenting on the thread though.

Although it may matter to the media, it wouldn't matter to me if it were two white guys, two black guys, two mormons, two democrats, or whatever.

I agree with all of this...

Do you think there has been any intended/un-intended consequences to bso claiming if he had a son he would look like trayvon?

could these comments be construed as racist?

could these comments by the President of the United States, possibly caused a feeling of expectation?

seems odd to me that the head of the executive branch would weigh in on an ongoing criminal case, basically choosing a side.

Am I wrong?

[Sombeech]

For those who think the verdict should have been guilty, is there a particular piece of evidence you think didn't get highlighted for the jury?

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2