So now not only can you carry a gun in a lot of states you can NOW use that gun to shoot and kill an innocent UNARMED human being!!!!!!!!
Only in gun loving America could they bring down a verdict like this.
The thing that gets me is the FACT Mr.Zimmerman was told to stop following this kid FROM ""THAT"" POINT ON he was guilty as sin.
These jurers screwed up big time. Watch the concealed carry shootings GO UP NOW!!!
PATHETIC!!!
In my opinion IF Mr.Zimmerman had not been armed he would have never followed this kid. Like a lot of gun toters IT WAS THE GUN that gave him the courage to do so. Have gun have balls!!!
America home of the brave?? Yeah right Jethro as long as they are armed with a gun!!!
Issues Pages:
A "minor" correction. Zimmerman was not told to stop following Martin (the dispatcher wouldn't have had the authority to do so in any case). What he was told was "we don't need you to do that", a completely different matter.
And from the jury instructions:
I almost fell out of my chair reading that. I guess it is open season on Black kids carrying chocolate bars, or whatever it was Martin had bought at a dépanneur.
One thing is sure, we should think of boycotting Florida. Not safe, with the highest rate of gun ownership in the US (I thought it would be either Texas, or some sparsely populated, largely wilderness state: Montana or even Alaska). Florida is highly urbanised or rather suburbanised, except in the Everglades, not much threatening wildlife.
If it has such a high rate of firearms ownership, that must mean even a lot of snowbird pensioners have guns. Now, obviously a majority of elderly people don't have dementia, but some do, or are simply frightened of all the thieves with guns.
this is ridiculous.
Jay Smooth said it well:
Gary Younge: Open season on black boys after a verdict like this http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jul/14/open-season-black-bo...
Mr Younge is a British journalist of Barbadian descent with the Guardian who has covered news stories in many countries, including the US, covering presidential campaigns and the history of the civil rights movement. He now resides in Chicago. His own website: www.garyyounge.com
STAND YOUR GROUND INCREASES RACIAL BIAS IN “JUSTIFIABLE HOMICIDE” TRIALS via The Society Pages
Follow link to a good bar graph representation
Blame the law and the system.
But I would also blame the prosecutors in blowing the chance of a conviction by laying too heavy a charge.
Why did we have a trial when everyone assumes he was guilty? We should have just lynched him when he was first caught, could have saved the time and effort of having a court and justice system.
Let's go back to the old days "Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth".
Nice mob mentality here on the forums.
Todrick, the nicest way I can say this is that you are seriously misreading the communal spirit of this thread. Don't come back and post that kind of [redacted] again. Thanks.
Meanwhile, so much for the "it's just the law" argument...
[Black] Fla. mom gets 20 years for firing warning shots
Not the only ones making assumption, Todrick
Fake riot videos:
http://www.politicususa.com/2013/07/14/riot.html
Zimmerman's brother on Trayvon Martin:
http://gawker.com/zimmermans-brother-calls-trayvon-martin-a-gun-running-...
Catchfire.
I didn't say it's just the law. Don't twist my words.
But it would be blindness to not call bad laws what they are, and point out when prosecutors reach too far in trying to get a conviction under those laws. Why do you think they were scrambling at the last minute to re-lay a new charge?
Winston, my post was not directed at you at all.
Todrick, if you can't see that this man hunted and killed a black teenager and walked free, you don't belong on these forums. Please don't post in this thread again. Thanks.
ETA. NP, Smith. I can see why you thought that based on our posts now. And, of course, this is a sickening, heated topic.
Catchfire
I think I am reading the spirit of both these threads correctly. A majority of the people here on the forums wanted Zimmerman found guilty of this crime (now many are upset that is not guilty).
We had a trial, evidence was presented, and justice was given based of the facts provided to the judge and jury. It is the best system of justice we have, we may not like the results but we have to work with that what we have.
He was found innocent by a jury of his peers, based off the laws and court procedures of the country.
Now in the case you provided she was found guility by a jury of her peers, based off the laws and court procedures of the country. It is a chance that you have to take when dealing with lady justice.
Sorry for the misunderstanding, CF.
(edit)
And Todrick, I think that is a willfully blind way of looking at the law. Do you honestly think there is no such thing as misconduct and bias?
One only has to look at the fact that slavery and the Jim Crow system were all enshrined under the law.
And I saw NDPP's post in the other thread. Looks like so far the riots are an invention of FOX News, though I wouldn't be surprised if people were driven to that.
Catchfire,
Your forums, your rules, your justice. I will not post here any more.
This guy was also aquitted.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2336859/Texas-jury-acquit-man-sh...
And this guy.
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/06/04/2095821/citing-stand-your-gr...
I guess we shouldn't have a problem with those either, right? After all, who are we mere peasants to have our own opinions once our overlords have given thumbs up or down? Not our place to make those calls. A good slave defers to his masters when making moral judgements.
[url=http://www.salon.com/2013/07/14/white_supremacy_meet_black_rage/]White supremacy, meet black rage[/url]
Is a transcript of Zimmerman's testimony available on the web somwhere?
Thanks for your accurate and succinct characterization of how it is here: Outrageous...
And this guy had his sentence commuted:
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2010/12/paterson_commutes_sentence_...
The issue isn't race, it's a gun-crazy culture and the idea that one can defend personal property -- mere things -- by taking a human life. Or kill someone on a hunch. The verdict isn't black-white, hispanic-asian or any other race combination, simply a confirmation of a might-makes-right society where possessions have a greater value than life.
There is nothing that makes these two notions mutually exclusive. Just because there are many other prejudices that lead to the devaluing of human life in the US, doesn't mean that race isn't one of them. There's a strong argument to be made that it is the biggest prejudice, but even if it isn't, it's clearly a large factor.
That's fair, but in this case, looking only at what was presented by both sides of the case there's no way that anyone, of any race would have been convicted in FL, given their laws. This despite the salivating media, desperate to continue the ratings boom.
@ richardp
I think there's a woman facing 20 years, mentioned above, who might disagree.
And I presume everyone has already seen that the federal justice department is going to review this case:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/14/justice-department-george-zimme...
What are the facts of this woman's case, and how are they analogous to Zimmerman's?
[url=https://twitter.com/charliedemers/status/356238554067779584]Excellent Twitter post by Charles Demers:[/url]
This. Cannot be repeated often enough. Brilliant.
In that both involve the discharge of a firearm, even if only one actually resulted in a bullet hitting someone and killing him.
As for my other feelings about why ZImmerman may have gotten off, I think I make that clear upthread.
From the Merely Calamitous to the Unspeakably Nauseating
http://powerofnarrative.blogspot.ca/2013/07/from-merely-calamitous-to-un...
Arthur Silber on 'The Killer-in-Chief's statement about the verdict in the Zimmerman-Martin case...'
There's two sides to every story. I haven't read a lot on it, but it didn't take me long to find the husband's claims:
http://jacksonville.com/news/crime/2012-05-16/story/marissa-alexanders-h...
Again, I can't say for certain who's being truthful but if it was demonstrated that Marissa Alexander was not acting in self defence then her guilt and sentence could be justified. Given the husband's history of spousal abuse with past partners, it tends to sway me in Ms. Alexander's favour, which would lead me to question why self-defence wasn't given consideration, but again, I don't know the case.
I've not seen that before -- do you have the article / data from that? I'd love to read it!
There has been some interesting analysis of the Stand Your Ground law in the Tampa Bay Times:
"
The Times analysis found no obvious bias in how black defendants have been treated:
• Whites who invoked the law were charged at the same rate as blacks.
• Whites who went to trial were convicted at the same rate as blacks.
• In mixed-race cases involving fatalities, the outcomes were similar. Four of the five blacks who killed a white went free; five of the six whites who killed a black went free.
• Overall, black defendants went free 66 percent of the time in fatal cases compared to 61 percent for white defendants — a difference explained, in part, by the fact blacks were more likely to kill another black.
"Let's be clear,'' said Alfreda Coward, a black Fort Lauderdale lawyer whose clients are mostly black men. "This law was not designed for the protection of young black males, but it's benefiting them in certain cases.''
"
In any case, I can't fathom a scenario where the Zimmerman trial would have turned out differently, no matter the race of the defendant, given presentation of identical evidence. This case was cut-and-dried IMHO.
After months of reflection about this incident and the subsequent courtroom drama, I'm inclined to agree in large part.
Race can't be discounted entirely as a backdrop in this most racist of societies. But the brutality of the United States far exceeds "racism". It is exactly that, a culture where human life is worthless. Statistics on capital punishment demographics, prison populations, poverty, etc. clearly indicates that some human life is more worthless than others. But a country which hands out guns to murder its own people, and people of every other country in the world, suffers from a cancer which is much deeper than "white supremacy".
The world speculated that the Newtown shootings would at last lead to dramatic changes in the U.S. The world was naive. Those murders led, of course, to nothing at all, as many on this board clearly predicted. Corporations, crooks, exploiters, arms merchants - they have value. People do not. Quod erat demonstrandum.
Please. As if this would all have been exactly the same if it had been a white 17-year-old boy that had been shot dead in the street. First off, he wouldn't have been killed in the first place, since a white boy wandering around isn't "suspicious". But more to the point, the image of a dead white young man is a shocking image of tragic waste for America. It would have provoked a response, a need to lay blame in a case where it was obvious who was in the wrong.
I agree that this verdict was not technically incorrect. It was a valid interpretation of the law as it exists, but that does not mean that there was no other way that this case could have gone. Part of a jury's duty is to evaluate laws and reject them if they are shown to be creating an unjust outcome. That doesn't happen often, of course, but this is precisely the kind of case that can prompt such a reaction. Or that is, it would have been if the body had been white. The image of the dead black young man is not shocking. It is all too familiar to the public. Like panhandlers and child abuse, it is regrettable but a fact of life. It provokes no response, not need to see someone punished. It generates little outrage and much shrugging amongst white middle America.
Yes, human life is worthless in the US, but some lives are clearly more worthless than others.
So, if I understand you correctly, it's okay if one misses their target.
Warning shots don't HAVE "a target". The purpose of warning shots is to prevent a confrontation before anyone is harmed. Do you really equate that with intentionally firing a gun, at close range, with the sole intent of killing an unarmed teenager, a teenager the shooter was only following because he was black?
Please don't go there.
This question should have been asked of these 6 jurers:: If you were being followed by a car while you walked along the sidewalk minding your own business WOULDN'T you be a little concerned?""
This kid was being stocked by a killer. What did the kid do that deserved this treatment? Is it against the law to walk the sidewalks in Zimmerman's neighborhood, wear a hoodie?
What did the kid do wrong that warranted Zimmerman stocking him or even confronting him??
Zimmerman would have got more if he had shot the neighbours dog!
You people who think he is innocent need to think about what actually happened !! Do you people go poking a sleeping bear with a stick to get somekind of a reaction??
Absolutely. And I think it's fair to say that if Zimmerman's first name had been "Jorge" this case would never have made the front page.
BTW, if the White House and Department of Justice want to press federal charges based on some sort of "racial profiling" argument they're going to have to overcome a serious hurdle:
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/07/12/155918/more-evidence-released-in-trayvon.html#.UePaBo21Eo5
America is a wasteland of far right racists.
Had the kid been white,Zimmerman's Hispanic roots would be a lightning rod and these Tea bag yokels would be calling for his deportation.
Not only was Trayvon Martin black but his fate was sealed the minute Obama said that 'he could of been my son'
Racism,anti-Obama hate, Tea baggers and right wing media managed to turn victim into criminal.
I give up on the US...They're nuts.
I'm not making the comparison with the Zimmerman case. Whether or not the woman fired a "warning" shot, is a matter of interpretation.
PBS Frontline: [url=http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/criminal-justice/is-there-racial... There Racial Bias in “Stand Your Ground” Laws?[/url]
Fascinating, but flawed:
"
So the disparity is clear. But the figures don’t yet prove bias. As Roman points out, the data doesn’t show the circumstances behind the killings, for example whether the people who were shot were involved in home invasions or in a confrontation on the street.
Additionally, there are far fewer white-on-black shootings in the FBI data — only 25 total in both the Stand Your Ground and non-Stand Your Ground states. In fact, the small sample size is one of the reasons Roman conducted a regression analysis, which determines the statistical likelihood of whether the killings will be found justifiable.
"
In no way can I discount racial bias, especially in the USA, but I'm not certain this study accurately demonstrates a consistent and predictable racial bias in "stand your ground" cases. However, I believe it makes a compelling case to study the effectiveness and potential bias of a SYG law. Flawed data doesn't necessarily mean that the hypothesis is incorrect, after all.
For those pushing for federal charges based on some sort of racial profiling argument, it's going to be tough to make that case:
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/07/12/155918/more-evidence-released-in-trayvon.html#.UePaBo21Eo5
I kind of hope this story is untrue, even though it's from 2012.
George Zimmerman Wants African-Americans to Apologize to Him
I wonder if anyone's researching the possible correlation between an increase in Stand Your Ground laws, and a rise in the number of concealed weapons permits. Perhaps it's become critically problematic, as more Americans feel the need to carry a gun, rather than keep it at home. Are there more guns kept in vehicle glove boxes, than under bedroom pillows, nowadays?
[url=https://www.facebook.com/harsha.walia]Harsha Walia's amazing Faecbook post:[/url]
...not to mention: fear, misunderstanding, and demagogues willing to exploit travesty to further their own agendas.
[url=http://www.thenation.com/blog/175270/domestic-violence-and-george-zimmer... Violence and George Zimmerman’s Defense[/url]
The prosecution did not introduce race as a factor in the case even though it clearly is. This fellow nails it pretty well:
http://www.timwise.org/2013/07/no-innocence-left-to-kill-racism-injustic...
So why didn't the prosecution raise race as a factor in the killing? I would suggest the prosecutors are as much instruments of the state as is the legislature and by not raising race they reduced the trial a hearing on the "stand your ground" law. (Although standing your ground is a luxury enjoyed only by lighter skinned people even when instigating a confrontation.) The state prosecutors have allowed the law to withstand a criminal court challenge and now all young black men are on notice that they must submit to burly thugs looking for trouble or expect to be shot dead in cold blood.
Or as one twitterer pointed out: The system did work just as intended. It supported institutionalized racism.
Pages