The Zimmerman case?

[OneToThirtySix]

*waits for Anonymous to burn Zimmerman's Social Security*

off topic:

That intern is in some serious hot water.

[goDel]

The youtube is "hilarious" (forgetting the actual tragedy for a sec...):

 

too bad about the "fuk" pronounciation ... ;)

[spratters]

Looking at Zimmerman's head injuries, he could have had his head smashed into that state for 48 solid hours before the need to respond would occur. GUILTY!!!!

[SR4]

 

 

Omg

 

TAMPA, Fla. -- Marissa Alexander had never been arrested before she fired a bullet at a wall one day in 2010 to scare off her husband when she felt he was threatening her. Nobody got hurt, but this month a northeast Florida judge was bound by state law to sentence her to 20 years in prison.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/19/marissa-alexander-gets-20_n_1530035.html

 

Wtf

 

do you not perform any due diligence re: your commentary?

she left the scene to obtain the weapon, only then to return and fire off the shot. she had opportunity to escape; apples to oranges. oh, you may have also missed the fact that she had fired the weapon in the general direction of children.

 

 

Apples and oranges because she was actually in a position of "self-defense" far more than Zimmerman ever was. That's the absurdity of the laws and judicial system of Florida. One judge thinks a woman confronting her abusive husband isn't "standing your ground" but another judge thought a man who followed and approached an unknown kid he thought was 'up to know' good was "standing his ground." That's absolute bullshit.

 

She was charged a mandatory 20 years for a law that has unintended consequences legally, based on a law passed in 1999 intended for situations like robbery, not citizens in situations like this. If she had plead guilty for attempted murder she would of served 3, three years, and not twenty for literally discharging a gun.

 

That law, the 10-20-Life was passed in 1999, signed by the same governor, Jeb Bush, as the "Stand Your Ground" law passed in 2005. The laws are in absolute conflict with each other in regard to sentencing and intent. Even the most dumbfuck legislation could, and should, pass laws in Florida to rectify the differences, either by altering the sentencing terms or repealing the laws altogether. The fact is these are not sound and sincere laws, these were both efforts for politicians to boost their election appeal to their voter base. The 10-20-Life law was endorsed by anti-gun groups and in that year even conservative legislators were pressured act against gun violence. The Stand Your Ground Law, praised and supported by the limited government, pro-gun groups NRA and ALEC, was passed by legislators so they could boost their pro-gun, "law and order" image. Both of these absurd cases reflect the blowback from passing these laws. And instead of fixing the problems they created, the Florida legislators will simply go on Hannity or Limbaugh or Maddow or whatever fucking cable talk shows are airing right now and utter their bullshit rhetoric. The rest will stay mute and attend fundraising parties. I can guarantee you very few will try to address these issues legally.

 

As for Zimmerman, I'm not going to touch on race issues or bias or the "debatle" aspects of this case, it comes down to this: Zimmerman should of called the police, gone home, and locked his door. Period. Instead he was overzealous and irresponsible and deliberately instigated a confrontation. That's not self-defense, it's anything but. That not guilty finding is a fucking farce. Only delusions and distortions, and pure misinformation can remotely frame this as self-defense.

 

 

 

But, again, this is the overwhelming deciding factor, reasonable doubt. Maybe him racially profiling was motive, but motive alone is NOT enough to convict someone of murder.

 

Also, as far as I know, the Zimmerman defense dropped the "Stand your ground" defense. Instead what was claimed was that Zimmerman was on the ground being pummeled at the point of doing damage (skull to the concrete), thus he was legally justified in using deadly force to escape the situation. Whether its true or not is a different story. The whole point is ultimately there was not enough evidence to convict.

 

 

Look, personally I agree with you. He was overly paranoid, and way overstepped his boundaries which resulted in a dead kid. I'm not saying he's innocent. And hes not out of the woods yet concerning civil suits and the perjury/molestation charges. But for the charge of 2nd degree murder there was only circumstantial evidence, there was a 4 minute gap in time in which no testimony other than Zimmerman's could account for, you have a voice on a tape that Martin's parents couldn't recognize, you have inconclusive DNA evidence, and you have incredibly faulty eyewitness testimony, one of the weakest forms of evidence within a court of law, especially for a murder case. Ultimately everyone in the US and elsewhere thinks or believes they know what happened. But that's simply not enough to put a man in prison for murder, and the failure of the prosecution to meet the burden of proof is evidence of that.

 

Had this occurred in daylight with far more eyewitnesses, if there was videotape, I have a feeling there would be a different outcome. But that's not what happened.

 

We need to emotionally detach ourselves from this for just a second and adjust our criticisms. If this is injustice, it is due to a overreaching prosecution, and a hell of a lot of luck on Zimmerman's side. Criticize the system that outlines the burden of proof on the prosecution and state law. They are the ones that failed you.

[data]

http://publicshaming.tumblr.com/post/55400524628/post-racial-america-finds-george-zimmerman-not-guilty

[SR4]

The author of that article "doesn't care about the people content with the trial"?

 

Who the hell is content with that decision?

[Nebraska]

No opinions from watmm massif on this topic?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2013/07/13/zimmerman-jury.html

 

I don't know nearly enough about the case, but given Zimmerman's pas run-ins with the law, and if I recall correctly that the police asked him not to follow Martin..I have a bit of a tough time with the not guilty verdict...

 

this is kind of not what happened.

 

zimmerman called the cops to report a suspicious character (trayvon martin) at this townhouse compound. they had been having break-ins. whilst on the phone with a police dispatcher- he noted that the person (trayvon) was acting erratically. he even approached his car to look at him. then he took off running. zimmerman followed him (running) but lost him. the dispatcher asked "are you following him?" yes. "you don't have to do that" okay. he said he was returning to his car to wait for the police and gave directions which way he saw the victim running (trayvon) then hang up. this is when he ran into trayvon-

 

this case is really a good reflection of what the general population in florida are like. stupid, ignorant and frightened. almost like babies- but paranoid and without logic. the closing arguments by the prosecution and defense were almost insulting. if i didn't believe in god, i'd start now. it's unlikely things will be getting better anytime soon. and, and btw- welcome to 2013.

[YO303]

I love how the media highlights the race of the two people involve in this tragedy, its like they are trying to get people all mad at each other, mmm, they are literally inciting riots and inter-racial hate. Is there ever going to be a time where the media will be held accountable for helping tear this country apart?

[Nebraska]

I love how the media highlights the race of the two people involve in this tragedy, its like they are trying to get people all mad at each other, mmm, they are literally inciting riots and inter-racial hate. Is there ever going to be a time where the media will be held accountable for helping tear this country apart?

 

if the media can incite people to riot then doesn't that only say more about how gullible people are? personally i think the media is only a reflection of the people.

[MisterE]

The verdict seems to hinge on this part:

The defense maintained that Zimmerman was just walking back to his car when Martin confronted him, punching him in his face and knocking him to the ground. According to the defense, Martin then mounted Zimmerman and smashed his head into the concrete pavement multiple times, forcing the older man to shoot the teen in order to save his own life.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/13/george-zimmerman-not-guilty_n_3588743.html

 

The unsettling thing is that we know Zimmerman shot Martin. But there isn't a good account of what happened, because only one perspective of the event survived, so to speak. I haven't seen, or read about, the medical records of Zimmerman in relation to his fight with Martin, but I'm having a hard time believing his life was at stake and he had to shoot Martin to save his life. To save his ass perhaps, but that's no excuse to kill an "attacker" and to walk away free.

 

there's a reason you are considered innocent until proven guilty. apparently some of the old dudes who made our country decided that's how it should be. in other words, the burden of proof was on the prosecution to prove, beyond a shadow of any doubt whatsoever, that zimmerman shot trayvon not in self defense, but because of some ill will. they didn't prove that. in fact, many of the prosecution's witnesses went a fair way towards backing up zim's story. so you can have hunches that he got away with something all you want, but a hunch is basically admitting you don't know. for the man to be convicted, the jury has to KNOW, beyond a shadow of a doubt. i for one, am thankful that's how it works, because i would rather not we have something more resembling the salem witch trial techniques or just mob rule. call ME the crazy one. the last few sentences in your post seem to indicate that you have a problem with the self defense defense itself. well, you can't blame zimmerman for the fact that some people also thought people should be allowed to defend themselves from an attack. that's the system. if you don't like that then maybe you should be out there protesting the right to self defense.

[goDel]

Should I respond after you've read the rest of the thread? Or do you like a direct response? I mean, for me it's running around in circles at this point. But if it makes you happy, I'd gladly try to say similar stuff hoping to make you understand this other point of view for a bit, which is completely misrepresented as some sort of salem witch trial. i mean, if you think that is where i'm coming from, you've completely misunderstood my point.

[MisterE]

I love how the media highlights the race of the two people involve in this tragedy, its like they are trying to get people all mad at each other, mmm, they are literally inciting riots and inter-racial hate. Is there ever going to be a time where the media will be held accountable for helping tear this country apart?

i agree with this 100%. the media MADE this into a racial thing. yes this is breitbart.com and it is a conservative site, but everything in this run-down is factual and shows the lengths the media went to to frame this as a racial, white on black crime story. some of the events in that run down are utterly disgusting. i think zim should sue all of them into the stone age. how many kids of either color have died since trayvon, who don't get to be made into national stories? does it only matter if a kid dies if the media can force it into being about race? why are so many people ok with this? they are doing exactly what deer says here, intentionally driving a wedge between us, and some people are more than happy to be manipulated into going along with that. if there are riots, msnbc, HLN, cnn, etc will equally share and have the resulting blood on their hands. they probably know and understand this, just don't care. after-all, a lot of that blood will be the blood of minorities. these media guys are the ones who are obviously racist here. they want to keep the country segregated as much as possible.

[MisterE]

Should I respond after you've read the rest of the thread? Or do you like a direct response? I mean, for me it's running around in circles at this point. But if it makes you happy, I'd gladly try to say similar stuff hoping to make you understand this other point of view for a bit, which is completely misrepresented as some sort of salem witch trial. i mean, if you think that is where i'm coming from, you've completely misunderstood my point.

true i hadn't read the rest of the thread. did u finally come to your senses and admit that due process is a good thing? being innocent until proven guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt? not breaking those rules to obtain a conviction to succumb to mob rule? i think that those things are there to protect US, and if you took them away or even punctured a hole in them for one or two high-profile cases, you would be on a slippery slope towards mob rule, and a guilty until proven innocent reality. which judging on the comment i replied to, you seem ok with that.

[SR4]

the NBC edit was truly, truly despicable. Im surprised that more "leftists" aren't outraged by a blatant and intentional manipulation of the actual record. I still have a lot of my friends believe that Zimmerman just blurted out "He looks black" without any context or being asked by the police dispatcher what color the suspicious person was because of that first edit.

 

 

This trial really just shines a spotlight on how absolutely fucked up our society is. Nebraska has it I think. No one wins. We all lose and look like fools for it.

 

edit: just realized i was responding to a post made and corrected two pages ago. nevermind.

 

Should I respond after you've read the rest of the thread? Or do you like a direct response? I mean, for me it's running around in circles at this point. But if it makes you happy, I'd gladly try to say similar stuff hoping to make you understand this other point of view for a bit, which is completely misrepresented as some sort of salem witch trial. i mean, if you think that is where i'm coming from, you've completely misunderstood my point.

true i hadn't read the rest of the thread. did u finally come to your senses and admit that due process is a good thing? being innocent until proven guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt? not breaking those rules to obtain a conviction to succumb to mob rule? i think that those things are there to protect US, and if you took them away or even punctured a hole in them for one or two high-profile cases, you would be on a slippery slope towards mob rule, and a guilty until proven innocent reality. which judging on the comment i replied to, you seem ok with that.

 

 

 

you seemed okay with that with regards to Dorner, the Boston bombers, and quite a few others.

[LimpyLoo]

This case rubbed me the wrong way.

 

Some people are pretty touchy about this whole ordeal.

 

 

 

*makes hilarious molestation joke*

[Nebraska]

http://www.naacp.org/page/s/doj-civil-rights-petition

 

[Guest Atom Dowry Firth]

there's a reason you are considered innocent until proven guilty. apparently some of the old dudes who made our country decided that's how it should be.

 

lol

[goDel]

Although in Holland the same principle of innocent until proven guilty holds, it is applied differently. Different does NOT automatically entail some sort of salem witch trial. If, at this point, you still think it does entail something like that, you can stop reading here and we can agree on disagreeing.

 

From the Dutch perspective, if there wasn't any doubt Zimmerman killed Martin, things would be a bit different.

 

In Holland, prosecution, most likely in the form of an independent part of the police would have to prove Zimmerman killed Martin. Because that seemed without a doubt the case: Martin had no medical condition, so it was, without a doubt, the bullet from the gun that Zimmerman fired, that killed Martin.

 

The next question would be whether there were circumstances which would "soften" the conditions and make this - by Dutch law - illegal action less severe. (Killing someone is illegal, right? Those crazy Dutch people and their stupid laws...)

 

Or, in other words, what were the conditions? What were Zimmermans intentions and if it wasn't a planned action (which I'm assuming it wasn't - and there wasn't any discussion about this aspect as well, I believe) but out of self defence, was it proportional? The other option would be that Zimmerman wasn't conscious of his actions and wasn't in a position where he should/could be held responsible for his actions. This wasn't part of the case, so I'll assume I wont need to go here as well.

 

So at this point, the intention behind Zimmermans action comes into play. And it's exactly at this point where the account is sketchy (I guess we established that in this thread, even though Elusive argued otherwise). I'm not entirely sure what the outcome of this case would be under Dutch law, but if it's obvious Zimmerman killed Martin. And Zimmerman was fully conscious and in control of his actions. And Martin wasn't armed. And there was proof they were in a fight of sorts, the prosecution, under Dutch law would probably have an easy case where:

a. it is proven that Zimmermans action of firing his gun killed Martin;

b. Zimmerman was fully conscious at the moment of killing Martin;

c. it is proven Zimmerman was tracking Martin (and Martin knew he was being tracked by Zimmerman)

d. Zimmerman had a proven motiv to follow Martin; (regardless of whether his following Martin was actually justified)

e. it is proven they were in a fight;

f. ...

Point a-d make it pretty easy for the prosecution - under Dutch law - to demand some punishment of sorts, imo. They would need to prove the severity of the crime to match their demands, but the act of killing someone by itself is already considered illegal. (Again, those silly Dutch people!!) So, it would be crucial FOR THE DEFENCE to show Zimmerman was acting out of necessity, making his action proportional to the threat. Imo, the burden of the proof would probably be more on the defence to show this proportionality.

 

It's exactly at this point where my backwards logic comes from. Backwards from the US perspective, that is. So, from the Dutch perspective, Zimmermans "guilt" of killing Martin was already "proven" (without implying the severity of the punishment, btw). And from the US perspective, apparently the burden of proof is still completely in the corner of prosecution at this point. Again, this doesn't imply that Zimmerman would automatically be put in jail, or anything. It only implies that the burden of proof aspect of the discussion would be different under Dutch law.

 

In other more abstract words, it's a bit more subtle and not the black and white disney world logic, where if someone reasons "not A" you can assume he argues "B" (the salem witch crap). There are many more letters in the alfabet. So "not A" means just that. And probably some other unspecified letter of the alfabet. Possibly "B", but there are many other options still available. If you catch my abstract drift.

[MisterE]

the NBC edit was truly, truly despicable. Im surprised that more "leftists" aren't outraged by a blatant and intentional manipulation of the actual record. I still have a lot of my friends believe that Zimmerman just blurted out "He looks black" without any context or being asked by the police dispatcher what color the suspicious person was because of that first edit.

 

 

This trial really just shines a spotlight on how absolutely fucked up our society is. Nebraska has it I think. No one wins. We all lose and look like fools for it.

 

edit: just realized i was responding to a post made and corrected two pages ago. nevermind.

 

Should I respond after you've read the rest of the thread? Or do you like a direct response? I mean, for me it's running around in circles at this point. But if it makes you happy, I'd gladly try to say similar stuff hoping to make you understand this other point of view for a bit, which is completely misrepresented as some sort of salem witch trial. i mean, if you think that is where i'm coming from, you've completely misunderstood my point.

true i hadn't read the rest of the thread. did u finally come to your senses and admit that due process is a good thing? being innocent until proven guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt? not breaking those rules to obtain a conviction to succumb to mob rule? i think that those things are there to protect US, and if you took them away or even punctured a hole in them for one or two high-profile cases, you would be on a slippery slope towards mob rule, and a guilty until proven innocent reality. which judging on the comment i replied to, you seem ok with that.

 

 

 

you seemed okay with that with regards to Dorner, the Boston bombers, and quite a few others.

the boston brothers? did i really? awepittance here had said that he didn't think that the bros had been shown to be guilty of anything AFTER they went on their little rampage they started off by shooting the mit cop. any comment i made with regards to their guilt was largely based on the fact that their participation in that rampage should indicate to anyone who isn't a total idiot, or who hasn't let their ideology warp their view to complete distortion, that the bros were involved. why would they go on that little spree, shooting the cop, hijacking a car, and all that if they weren't guilty of something? and the idea of saying they might not be guilty is fucked in and of itself. guilty of what? just the bombing? how about the mit cop and hijacking? there were MULTIPLE fricking witnesses to the chain of events that happened that night. i was here at watmm/chatmm with others watching it unfold. some of these witnesses were tweeting the events. there are probably dozens of people that saw those bros that night, and the one who was still alive the next day.

 

just how in the utter fuck could they have not been involved or guilty of SOMETHING, at that point?

 

did someone come to their place, abduct them, and drive them out to the scene of the shootout with the cops? did 'they' detonate home made bombs? did 'they' force the younger bro to run over his big bro? did 'they' plant a fake hijacking victim who said that these two hijacked him, and admitted to/bragged about the bombing?

 

no dude, i never thought the concept of innocent until proven guilty should be suspended in that. i just didn't have my head

all

the

way

up my ass.

 

and i never denied that the living brother should have his day in court either. i also never said dorner should have been burnt alive. i just said it was easy to understand how events led to that. and as i've pointed out, it is ENTIRELY dishonest when people recount that event, and mention the burning of the cabin, and completely fail to mention (intentionally) that the prick shot two more cops from that cabin, KILLING one. and i believe i've seen YOU do that. that's dishonest as all fuck. i mean what should they have done? just kept sending more cops into a barricaded place where a guy has had ample time to arrange it to his benefit? just let one after another cop get killed? am i saying they should have burned it? no. but-

the whole thread was about drones. it was in the headline.

turns out there most likely was no drone. nobody in that thread seemed to have the intellectual integrity to want to see that, or point it out. the use of a drone would have required approval from some high up people. and the general tone of that thread was that these guys really had a hard on for shutting the guy up/killing him, all along. i suppose this had nothing to do with dorners claims that he saw cops do some bad things while he was one, and various cesspits of the internet just automatically assumed that they are out to stop him from shedding light on these events. 4 fucking years after he was fired. and his firing didn't make him a biased person at all, did it? nor was it likely that he participated in those fucked up things he witnessed, being a COP himself at the time. seems to me at least possible he just missed beating people up with a badge on, and couldnt get over the fact that he was kicked out of their gang. the whole tone of that thread WAS conspiratorial. 'they' had to shut him up. and to that end, 'they' got drones on his ass.

 

how about the more logical approach, being that cops had a hardon for him because he DECLARED WAR ON COPS AND THEIR FAMILIES? could that have ticked them off just a bit, maybe? then when he followed through with that threat by killing the DAUGHTER of the guy who actually DEFENDED him when he was fired (which is a complete disgusting, cowardly, and shithead thing to do, but didn't prevent him from being painted as a hero to some out there), could that have really pissed the cops off?

 

no conspiratorial explanation was needed for why cops hated the guy. and to be honest, i don't blame them for hating him. if it were me there and i saw one of the guys i worked with get shot and killed from that cabin, i might have wanted to burn it down too. i don't think i would actually do it, and it still doesn't excuse it. BUT there still is one shadow of a doubt YOU have ignored, which is the fact that even though a radio caught someone saying 'burn it down' or whatever on news, it still MAY have been an accident. probably not. but there was no drone, and no conspiracy is required to explain those events.

 

cops enforcing the law are a separate thing entirely from the court room. what, are you saying that when the cops got a phone call from a guy who just claimed he was hijacked by two bros claiming to be the boston bombers, who he barely escaped from with his life, and who now have his car, and had robbed his atm account.... that the cops should have been like 'sorry we can't do anything about that because they haven't been proven guilty of the boston bombings in the court of law yet'.

 

??? really? because that's what some people seemed to think up in that thread. and thats completely retarded. the cops came after them because they hijacked someone. they shot at the cops, and that resulted in one of them being killed. how much of a snake in the grass do you have to be to have a problem with that process?

[awepittance]

I guess you have to have your head all the way up your ass to distrust the word of the Boston police department neck deep in 24-fantasy land islamic terrorism fears who's first word to the press after the chase was 'we believe this to be a terrorist, we believe he has come here to kill people'. Seem like pretty level headed dudes to me who should be trusted at their word.

[MisterE]

the older bro faving jihad vids on youtube, or the russians warning the fbi about him, and having heard conversations between him and his mommy talking about jihad, and her talking to others about how her son (who she later went on to say would never do anything like this) was willing to die for his cause... none of that stuff means anything to you? and your post there still doesn't explain what you think may have actually went down. you see, this is kind of important.

 

are you saying that the boston cops actually shot the mit cop? are you saying that the boston cops disguised themselves as the tsarnaev bros and hijacked some kids car and was like 'dude we totes did the bomb stuff too bro! cool huh!'

then after the hijack victim called the cops, the cops just planted the bros at the scene of the shootout and started unloading on them?

 

really man, you have to present some possible alternate story to explain what else could have happened. and you can't. so you won't. but you will still cling on to your biased as all fuck idea that cops are always in the wrong, and that people who have mountains of evidence against them are really the good guys. it's like you have some deep-seated need to always root for the 'underdog', regardless of facts. the fbi should have deported these bros just based on what the russians told them and the older bro's internet activity which was publicly available to anyone. and this is besides the fact that we have the NSA spying on everyone and that should have turned up even more evidence against them, since they want to sell us on the idea that this program is so good at sussing out terrorists.

[MisterE]

Although in Holland the same principle of innocent until proven guilty holds, it is applied differently. Different does NOT automatically entail some sort of salem witch trial.......etc etc.... If you catch my abstract drift.

first of all why the exposition of whether or not zimmerman shot trayvon. he never denied that. we all already knew it. one thing i see conspicuously missing from this long post though is the phrase 'self defense'. seems somehow it just completely slipped your mind to mention that in there. you see, this isn't the Netherlands. here we have something called 'self defense'. i don't know if they have it or if it exists where you are. what it means is, that a person has a right to defend themselves from what could amount to serious injury. for example, if a guy had his nose broken, and then his head slammed into a sidewalk over and over by a kid (who was actually taller than zim, and wasn't 12 as he was in the photo the not-at-all-biased-or-fucked-up media chose to use to show trayvon) who was already close to his house but decided to go back and beat the shit out of a 'cracka' he just saw, and who's twitter account shows to anyone who cares to actually know facts that he was highly involved in fights, to the extent of being asked on facebook by his half-brother when he would teach him how to fight. that would fall under 'self defense'. so again i'll repeat that it seems as though your issue is with the idea of american self defense laws, since you refused to mention or acknowledge them in your post. it has been thoroughly established that zim shot trayvon. he never denied it. he used self defense in court, which lead to him walking.

[MisterE]

ya know what godel, nevermind because i have no idea what the fuck you are even talking about, as usual. you want to talk about chilling effects (seems to be the monthly buzz-word flav of the month around here), justice systems in other countries (it's such a shame that they can all have their own), and then your last paragraph there is trying to apply some kind of math formula to, or make some kind of equation out of, i guess one of my posts where i mentioned salem. what in the shit are you even talking about man? i'm pretty sure it has nothing to do with this trial.

[Adieu]

 

 

 

Omg

 

TAMPA, Fla. -- Marissa Alexander had never been arrested before she fired a bullet at a wall one day in 2010 to scare off her husband when she felt he was threatening her. Nobody got hurt, but this month a northeast Florida judge was bound by state law to sentence her to 20 years in prison.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/19/marissa-alexander-gets-20_n_1530035.html

 

Wtf

 

do you not perform any due diligence re: your commentary?

she left the scene to obtain the weapon, only then to return and fire off the shot. she had opportunity to escape; apples to oranges. oh, you may have also missed the fact that she had fired the weapon in the general direction of children.

 

 

Apples and oranges because she was actually in a position of "self-defense" far more than Zimmerman ever was. That's the absurdity of the laws and judicial system of Florida. One judge thinks a woman confronting her abusive husband isn't "standing your ground" but another judge thought a man who followed and approached an unknown kid he thought was 'up to know' good was "standing his ground." That's absolute bullshit.

 

She was charged a mandatory 20 years for a law that has unintended consequences legally, based on a law passed in 1999 intended for situations like robbery, not citizens in situations like this. If she had plead guilty for attempted murder she would of served 3, three years, and not twenty for literally discharging a gun.

 

That law, the 10-20-Life was passed in 1999, signed by the same governor, Jeb Bush, as the "Stand Your Ground" law passed in 2005. The laws are in absolute conflict with each other in regard to sentencing and intent. Even the most dumbfuck legislation could, and should, pass laws in Florida to rectify the differences, either by altering the sentencing terms or repealing the laws altogether. The fact is these are not sound and sincere laws, these were both efforts for politicians to boost their election appeal to their voter base. The 10-20-Life law was endorsed by anti-gun groups and in that year even conservative legislators were pressured act against gun violence. The Stand Your Ground Law, praised and supported by the limited government, pro-gun groups NRA and ALEC, was passed by legislators so they could boost their pro-gun, "law and order" image. Both of these absurd cases reflect the blowback from passing these laws. And instead of fixing the problems they created, the Florida legislators will simply go on Hannity or Limbaugh or Maddow or whatever fucking cable talk shows are airing right now and utter their bullshit rhetoric. The rest will stay mute and attend fundraising parties. I can guarantee you very few will try to address these issues legally.

 

As for Zimmerman, I'm not going to touch on race issues or bias or the "debatle" aspects of this case, it comes down to this: Zimmerman should of called the police, gone home, and locked his door. Period. Instead he was overzealous and irresponsible and deliberately instigated a confrontation. That's not self-defense, it's anything but. That not guilty finding is a fucking farce. Only delusions and distortions, and pure misinformation can remotely frame this as self-defense.

 

 

 

But, again, this is the overwhelming deciding factor, reasonable doubt. Maybe him racially profiling was motive, but motive alone is NOT enough to convict someone of murder.

 

Also, as far as I know, the Zimmerman defense dropped the "Stand your ground" defense. Instead what was claimed was that Zimmerman was on the ground being pummeled at the point of doing damage (skull to the concrete), thus he was legally justified in using deadly force to escape the situation. Whether its true or not is a different story. The whole point is ultimately there was not enough evidence to convict.

 

 

Look, personally I agree with you. He was overly paranoid, and way overstepped his boundaries which resulted in a dead kid. I'm not saying he's innocent. And hes not out of the woods yet concerning civil suits and the perjury/molestation charges. But for the charge of 2nd degree murder there was only circumstantial evidence, there was a 4 minute gap in time in which no testimony other than Zimmerman's could account for, you have a voice on a tape that Martin's parents couldn't recognize, you have inconclusive DNA evidence, and you have incredibly faulty eyewitness testimony, one of the weakest forms of evidence within a court of law, especially for a murder case. Ultimately everyone in the US and elsewhere thinks or believes they know what happened. But that's simply not enough to put a man in prison for murder, and the failure of the prosecution to meet the burden of proof is evidence of that.

 

Had this occurred in daylight with far more eyewitnesses, if there was videotape, I have a feeling there would be a different outcome. But that's not what happened.

 

We need to emotionally detach ourselves from this for just a second and adjust our criticisms. If this is injustice, it is due to a overreaching prosecution, and a hell of a lot of luck on Zimmerman's side. Criticize the system that outlines the burden of proof on the prosecution and state law. They are the ones that failed you.

 

 

OH PRAISE THE LORD JESUS CHRIST A BIT OF INTELLIGENCE ON THE SUBJECT

[Guest zaphod]

zimmerman is an incompetent wannabe cop who shouldn't have been confronting anyone in his neighborhood in the first place. i think he's lying about a number of things and there's an element of criminal negligence to his actions.