Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 33
  1. #11
    Henchy432 is offline Senior Member Community Builder
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Harlem
    Posts
    3,826

    Default

    The jurors made the right call. When it came to the letter of the law. The prosecution should of not tried for the murder change, if they went for manslaughter to the 3rd degree. Then Zimmerman would of been in jail. As for the federal government thinking about trying him again for Martin's civil rights is bullshit. That is double jeopardy.

  2. #12
    98abaile's Avatar
    98abaile is offline Senior Member Community Builder
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    An Englishman in a shithole somewhere in Wales.
    Posts
    7,892

    Default

    Manslaughter would have failed for exactly the same reasons. His plea was self defence, most of the evidence stacked up that way, the only thing that isn't know is who threw the first punch and it wouldn't have mattered anyway since if TM was on top of him and pinning him (which he was according to witness statements), then he had no choice but to fight back out of fear for his life and safety. Trayvon died as a result of that fight back (yes he was shot, but an overweight asthmatic is unlikely to throw off a younger athletic guy on top of him) and that is justifiable under the law as self defence (it doesn't even invoke the stand your ground law since he was pinned and had no other recourse).

    As for the civil rights bullshit, I'm getting real sick of seeing people making this out to be a race thing (even the fucking FBI couldn't find anything to prove that), especially Obama.

  3. #13
    tigerm is offline Senior Member Frequent Poster
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    116

    Default

    I haven't been following this case too closely, but given the media coverage it's impossible to ignore it.

    I agree this should not have been murder-2 because I haven't heard anything to suggest he had any premeditation to kill anyone (no documented racist ranting even), and manslaughter would have been more appropriate to pursue. They just went after him for murder-2 as a matter of strategy, because the instructions to the jury gave them the option consider murder-2 OR manslaughter, so they had both bases covered. I think that's a common option in these cases (although maybe not certain). The prosecution failed both, and civil rights charges seem unlikely. So it's down to a civil wrongful death suit, and I think the parents have a small chance of winning that one.

    Anyways, this isn't a ball game so I don't want to dwell on the court drama.

    Mostly, I want to speculate that there likely was an element of racism here, but a subtle one rather than GZ being a raving racist who targeted blacks. I'll bet he's a pretty decent guy. He thought of himself as being important to the community and its safety, so he always kept his eyes peeled for suspicious people. Where the racism comes in is his reason for thinking TM suspicious. He had some intuition that TM was suspicious, but what lead to that? Was it the drink? The hoodie? Of course it probably wasn't one thing. A young guy in a hoodie? Getting closer. A young *black* guy in a hoodie? Still more suspicious. That's where the subtle racism came in, or where many people think it came in. It's a part of the social climate in American society and you can't get away from it, and that's why people are protesting.

    Maybe that wasn't enough to totally make GZ suspect TM was up to no good, after all there are lots of black guys who look just like TM. But *something* about him bugged GZ so he went ahead and questioned him. GZ thought he was being responsible and looking after community safety, right? But why should an innocent guy walking down the street be made to feel like a criminal? (Again, subtle and/or perceived racism on either or both sides.) So things escalated briefly, TM ran away, GZ followed (when he should have left it to the police, but he was just protecting the public after all...), and now it's all over the media.

    Did the subtle racism I described in my scenario actually occur in this case? Who knows. But similar things happen to black people every day, which was Obama's point.

  4. #14
    98abaile's Avatar
    98abaile is offline Senior Member Community Builder
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    An Englishman in a shithole somewhere in Wales.
    Posts
    7,892

    Default

    But the point that obama forgot is that blacks commit a disproportionately high amount of crime (not judging, just fact) so when someone sees a black guy that they don't know crossing the street towards them they can either take a risk with their safety to appease some third party who might be offended or they can lock the car door; people will call it a racist action but you can't blame people for putting their own safety above someone else's feelings, people will call it racist racial profiling but you can't blame people for making a judgement call based on what little information they know when the consequences of being wrong are so great.

  5. #15
    BlueDemon is offline Senior Member Community Builder
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    5,287

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 98abaile View Post
    The problem there is that no racist motives were found, in fact the only racism that ever came up in the trial were racial slurs said by Trayvon. You can't convict a man on speculation just because he isn't the same colour as the deceased (I'm not calling TM a victim) and nor should anyone be allowed to (burning crosses and lynch mobs should be springing to mind right about now).
    No, you shouldn't arrest someone on speculation that he's a racist, that's right. Maybe the way the media portrayed this made it sound more like the guy's a racist (what did he say during the phone call again?).

    A principle is not a law, "stand your ground" is. As much as some people may not like the SYG law (even I think it is a bit retarded if you alternative recourse), it is what it is. Courts don't operate based on feelings, they operate based on fact and written law AS WRITTEN. All are equal under the law and all must be judged equally, as such laws cannot be allowed to be bent to suit the sensibilities of those observing.
    Actually, at least in (Western) Europe, as far as I remember from school, court rulings should be case sensitive. That's much more work, of course, but it is also more just (but again, I might misremember it).
    Now you might ask again who made me a judge. And I'll talk to you about a thing we have in Germany called Rule of Law - there are 2 versions of it, the formal one (which the courts have to follow and there simply isn't a judgement about how just the law is). The other one, is the material rule of law. This is an integral part of the German law system, especially after the Third Reich, where legal positivism became an issue. "Yeah, I got ordered to kill that man, it was legal". You can make anything be legal, but that doesn't mean it's also just!
    And just to be clear, I don't say my word is law (hehe), because nobody is objective. 100% objectivity is simply impossible. I'm just saying that for what that guy did, not getting any kind of punishment is simply laughable.


    [quote]Who made you judge? Since when do you get to decide what defines justice?[quote]

    Refer to the answer above. Oh and I forgot to say I don't want to compare the Nazi system with the Stand your ground law, just wanted to point out that a law alone doesn't have to be blindly followed.

    You've just slipped up. Zimmerman shot ONCE. The majority of witness statements only mention one gunshot, the only contradictory article I can find mentions 2 heard shots, Trayvon only had a single gunshot to the chest at point blank range (between 2 and 4 inches). If you know so little about this case, why do you think you have the right to decide a man's fate when a judge, a state prosecutor and a jury couldn't convict a man of a lesser charge because all the evidence backed up the defendants claims and we all have the right to be considered innocent until proven guilty?
    No, no, you didn't read what I wrote correctly. I refered to this article posted by Red.

    As for your second question, you are right, I don't have any right to decide his fate and I have never stated I had the right. Especially since I'm no judge. I do have the right to state my opinion though, especially when I see injustice (again, this is my opinion, so it is subjective of course). And I do believe that in no society a man shooting an unarmed teenager should have no consequences. But then again, I also believe the whole US system is fucked up, so I AM biased when discussing issues tangent to this.

  6. #16
    R3dKnight is offline Senior Member Community Builder
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    third world country
    Posts
    4,643

    Default


  7. #17
    StealDragon's Avatar
    StealDragon is offline Super Moderator Community Builder
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    NCC-1701
    Posts
    13,425

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 98abaile View Post
    Manslaughter would have failed for exactly the same reasons. His plea was self defence, most of the evidence stacked up that way, the only thing that isn't know is who threw the first punch and it wouldn't have mattered anyway since if TM was on top of him and pinning him (which he was according to witness statements), then he had no choice but to fight back out of fear for his life and safety. Trayvon died as a result of that fight back (yes he was shot, but an overweight asthmatic is unlikely to throw off a younger athletic guy on top of him) and that is justifiable under the law as self defence (it doesn't even invoke the stand your ground law since he was pinned and had no other recourse).

    As for the civil rights bullshit, I'm getting real sick of seeing people making this out to be a race thing (even the fucking FBI couldn't find anything to prove that), especially Obama.
    See this is the bullshit. It TOTALLY matters who initiated the conflict. George Zimmerman did and that is indisputable. If I walk up and punch someone in the face and they kick my ass as a result they don't get charged with assualt I do. They can claim self defense because I initiated the conflict and they were defending themselves, it doesn't matter who was winning the fight, I initiated so everything that happens afterwards is my fault. I don't understand how you can pretend like what GZ did was self defense its literally the EXACT opposite. He initiated the conflict thus he CANNOT claim self defense. Period end of story. I dont care how many blacks disproportionately commit crimes, I dont care how much weed they smoke, I don't care how much better shape they're in versus fat hispanic wannabe cops, the facts are George Zimmerman initiated the fight by his own admission so the fact they let him claim self defense or stand your ground is bullshit.


    I'd like to die with the songs I love stuck in my head. I hope to make the most of these hollow bones we become.
    I raise a toast to the the souls that sang all along. I've been gathering friends to just to make some sounds,
    before the ship goes down, I've been making amends by making the rounds before the whole world ends


    [Chit Chat Specific Forum Rules] // Last Update - Friday March 13, 2009

  8. #18
    R3dKnight is offline Senior Member Community Builder
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    third world country
    Posts
    4,643

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by StealDragon View Post
    He initiated the conflict thus he CANNOT claim self defense.
    well you see.
    Zim was approve by a walled neighborehood community to be neighborehood watch and was even allowed to carry a firearm.
    If I hired someone to do security, I would expect him to his "JOB" and "SECURE" whatever I pay him to do.

    oh yeah, let me post some pictures of sweet baby innocent Trayvon

  9. #19
    98abaile's Avatar
    98abaile is offline Senior Member Community Builder
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    An Englishman in a shithole somewhere in Wales.
    Posts
    7,892

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by StealDragon View Post
    It TOTALLY matters who initiated the conflict. George Zimmerman did and that is indisputable.
    Let's see some evidence then. Because as far as I'm concerned, nobody knows.

  10. #20
    BlueDemon is offline Senior Member Community Builder
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    5,287

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 98abaile View Post
    Let's see some evidence then. Because as far as I'm concerned, nobody knows.
    Wasn't it clear from him calling the police and telling them he's following the guy? And the police telling him not to do anything? I'm asking here, since I don't really know anymore.

    And it's quite ironic how an "Englishman" and an American are discussing this issue from exactly the position you wouldn't expect them to (yeah, I know, I'm generalising here, but it's still funny).

 

 
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
vBulletin Skin by: ForumThemes.com
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.0
Copyright © 2014 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.
SEO by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79