re: Zimmerman not guilty

It is kind of fricked up that anyone is celebrating this. There's nothing to be joyful about.

quote:

---

Use your words. Explain.

---

First of all, your definition of justice is different than that used by our court system. That is the biggest inherent flaw in your post.

Second, if Trayvon was using the level of force the defense says he was (and the prosecution offered no proof that he wasn't) then Zimmerman was justified. He could have easily been killed by what he claims Trayvon was doing.

I'm not celebrating the verdict (can't speak for anyone else). I'm merely happy that our court system didn't send someone to prison for a decade or more because of media pressure.

The fact is there was NOTHING to convict on here. Nothng. If Trayvon wasn't black (or Zimmerman was dark enough to not be mislabeled as white) this never even makes the news let alone goes to trial. Once you realize that, the not guilty verdict becomes the only logical outcome. This was driven by a media circus that obsesses over race.

The fact that news outlets are literally ignoring the facts and STILL calling him white proves my point. This was ALL about crucifying a "white" man for the death of a black guy.

I have tried more than anything to avoid even discussing this case. I can admit that Zimmerman made poor decisions. But his decisions(based on the evidence that has been presented) were not illegal. Based on the evidence that is available to the public, it shows that he acted in self defense. People are injecting too much race and ignorance in to their opinions. I'm sick and tired of being accused of being a racist over something like this. Just because I didn't call for GZ's head on a silver plate. It's sickening the way people are acting over this. It's sickening the way the media shoved this down peoples throats.

I don't know what all happened that night. All I know is that a tragic event happened. All I(and ANY of us) have to go on is the evidence that is available. The death of Martin is very tragic. Nobody should have to die that way. But based on what evidence we have, he made decisions just as bad as Zimmerman.

I hope I never end up in a situation like that. I don't think anyone can say that they would not have fired to save themselves if they felt necessary. Nobody can prove that GZ did not fear for his life. All I do know is that if I ever end up in a situation where I do fear for my life, and IF I have a firearm....if my life is being threatened I will empty the clip to save it.

quote:

---

Consider why Trayvon might've used force. He was confronted, likely in a hostile manner (by an armed civilian), by a person who had an established motive, who was ignoring the advice of professionals. The statutory definition of manslaughter is a PERFECTLY REASONABLE fit for this sort of case.

---

Sure, but not to the extent that it outweighs Zimmerman's self defense defense.

Trayvon was not shot fleeing.

He was shot while on top of and beating the shite out of Zimmerman.

But in order to find someone guilty of manslaughter shouldn't it be beyond a reasonable doubt? At least that's how the jury is instructed to decide (from what I remember having been a juror myself).

I can't see how based on the way the evidence was presented by the prosecution how someone would be able to come to that conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt.

quote:

---

He was confronted, likely in a hostile manner

---

Speculation.

If you were a lawyer, you'd know that speculation does not fly in court. More so, I would argue that there is actual evidence to the contrary.

The Prosecution failed miserably at this. For starters they pursued a charge that they had to know would not hold up based on the evidence. I don't see how they legitimately thought it would stick.

Add in the fact that(from what I remember) most of their witnesses were not doing anything to help their case, but instead helped the defense more than anything. It was just a poor case that they put together.

quote:

---

People keep saying this but the point of protecting yourself is to prevent further harm - you don't know whether the next blow Zimmerman would've received would've been his last.

---

Self-defense is a privilege you assert to deny culpability for your actions. You are privileged to use the degree of force used against you. As an aggressor (which Zimmerman was almost surely in this case) you are not permitted to use above that which you employ against another person (and really it doesn't even matter who was the aggresor). Trayvon was unarmed. Zimmerman's injuries didn't even require hospitalization. There are VERY ,VERY FEW cases in which this sort of retaliatory conduct would be considered a reasonable use of force to constitute self-defense.

quote:

---

No reasonable person takes joy in any death, but it would be an injustice to convict someone of murder/manslaughter when they were in reasonable fear for their life and acted to defend it.

---

Manslaughter is precisely the charge for this sort of scenario. Zimmerman acted recklessly. He pursued and confronted an individual against the advice of professionals. His prior stmts established a likely motive. He was armed.

quote:

---

Manslaughter is precisely the charge for this sort of scenario. Zimmerman acted recklessly. He pursued and confronted an individual against the advice of professionals. His prior stmts established a likely motive. He was armed.

---

The issue is that nowhere did the prosecution show that he confronted him in any kind of aggressive manner. Simply following him wasn't going to be enough to convince a jury to convict him "beyond a reasonable doubt".