George Zimmerman Found Not Guily

Avatar for Cmmelissa
iVillage Member
Registered: 11-13-2008
George Zimmerman Found Not Guily
10
Mon, 07-15-2013 - 12:04pm

There are lots of protests and riots all across the US over the not guilty verdict:

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/07/14/19466847-marches-rallies-follow-zimmerman-acquittal?lite

Do you agree with the jury's decision?  What are your thoughts on the protests, do they do any good or just an excuse for some to riot and cause trouble?

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-17-2012
Tue, 07-16-2013 - 6:26pm

The verdict was fair and appropriate.  The protests are unwarranted.  The violence should be put down the same way you put down a rabid dog.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-03-2009
Wed, 07-17-2013 - 9:58am

I think the jury had a difficult task and did its best to take into consideration the various factors of a potentially incendiary situation. We will never know, barring a confession from Zimmerman, if he truly was in any danger or whether he was over-reacting criminally. From my POV, Zimmerman was looking for trouble. He found it. One wonders if he learned anything about the peril of vigilantism. Florida's "stand your ground" law is questionable since it relies on the perception of the person who claims he/she "reasonably BELIEVES" there is a threat. IMHO, that's nowhere near enough justification to respond with potentially lethal force of a firearm. And how do you PROVE beliefs in a court of law? "Stand your ground" is a perilous concept with real potential for abuse. Eric Holder is right to point out its flaws.  As for protests, provided the protesters comply with local ordinances and voice their concerns peacefully, they have every right to gather. The First Amendment of the Constitution provides for exactly such "assemblies". Comparisons to "rabid dogs" are hyperbolic .  We do not, as a civil society, believe that violence justifies a killing without due process of the law--which one presumes is absent in the putting down of a rabid animal.  But I'm not surprised.  The mindset of vigilantism is rarely logical or nuanced.  More often it is reactionary, in the worst sense of the word. 

Jabberwocka

Avatar for xxxs
Community Leader
Registered: 01-25-2010
Wed, 07-17-2013 - 10:46am

  According to the evidence GZ had to be found not guilty.  He has the right to defend himself.  The state of Florida needs to compensate him for the cost to him of a politically forced persecution.

Goldfish

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-17-2012
Fri, 07-19-2013 - 1:09am

We will never know, barring a confession from Zimmerman, if he truly was in any danger or whether he was over-reacting criminally.

No confession needed.  There is extensive physical evidence that Zimmerman was beaten and his head pounded on the sidewalk.  There is also incontravutable evidence that Martin was the one doing the beating.  There was also testimony from the medical examiner stating that, if the attack had continued, it could have been fatal to Zimmerman.  The only evidence of anyone acting "criminally" was Martin.

From my POV, Zimmerman was looking for trouble. He found it.

George Zimmerman was just going about his personal business when he saw Martin, whom he didn't know, who was acting "suspiciously," and who fit the description of the people who had been committing burglaries in the neighborhood.  As the captain of the neighborhood watch, he called the police to investigate and tried to keep an eye on where Martin was so he could give that information to the police.  If you lived in a neighborhood that was being overrun with break-ins, even when the residents were home, you'd probably be thanking someone who was watching out for your safety and security, rather than denigrating him.

One wonders if he learned anything about the peril of vigilantism.

Neighborhood watch are vigilanties?

Florida's "stand your ground" law is questionable since it relies on the perception of the person who claims he/she "reasonably BELIEVES" there is a threat.

You're mistaken.  First, "stand your ground" only removes the obligation to retreat, if possible, when someone is threatened...and "stand your ground" wasn't a factor in the Zimmerman trial.  The personal perception of whether or not someone is being threatened is inherent in simple self-defense and is legal in every state.  I also don't know why you would want someone else to determine whether you feel threatened or not.  Sounds kind of silly.

IMHO, that's nowhere near enough justification to respond with potentially lethal force of a firearm.

So if you were attacked in a dark alley and the assailant were to throw you to the ground and beat you bloody, with no indication they would stop, you don't think you have the right "reasonably believe" you're being threatened or have the right to defend yourself?  Really?

Btw, Zimmerman didn't pull out his gun when Trayvon sucker-punched him and broke his nose...he didn't even pull it out when Trayvon was bashing his head on the sidewalk...Zimmerman stated that he only went for his gun when he saw Trayvon trying to get it after saying he was going to kill Zimmerman.

And how do you PROVE beliefs in a court of law?

That's where the "reasonable belief" comes in.  The jury has to believe that you acted the way a "reasonable" person would act.

"Stand your ground" is a perilous concept with real potential for abuse. Eric Holder is right to point out its flaws.

As I said, "stand your ground" only relieves the person who believes they're being threatened of the obligation to retreat if possible.  It isn't a get out of jail free card.  You're still subject to the law and, if prosecuted, you still would have to convince a jury that you acted "reasonably"...and "SYG" is the law in 20+ states, not just Florida.

As for protests, provided the protesters comply with local ordinances and voice their concerns peacefully, they have every right to gather. The First Amendment of the Constitution provides for exactly such "assemblies". Comparisons to "rabid dogs" are hyperbolic .

No comparison of protests with "rabid dogs" was made.  That comparison was made with the people who were committing acts of violence.

We do not, as a civil society, believe that violence justifies a killing without due process of the law--which one presumes is absent in the putting down of a rabid animal.

That would depend on the violence being committed.  A jury found the killing of Trayvon Martin to stop the violence he was doing to George Zimmerman was a reasonable and lawful act.  Again, I wonder if you would be so "liberal" in your opinions if it was your home that people were attacking, or if it was you or your family that was under assault.

But I'm not surprised.  The mindset of vigilantism is rarely logical or nuanced.  More often it is reactionary, in the worst sense of the word.

If only the anti-Zimmerman hypocrites would try to use logic, or at least try to understand the facts before spouting their hate, the would might be a more civilized place.  Btw, self-defense is not the same thing as vigilantism.

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-11-2006
Fri, 07-19-2013 - 5:19pm

Zimmerman is an aggressive man. He is a vigilante. That doesn't say anything about "all neighborhood watch" people in general.

Washington Pos: May 28th:  In July 2005, he was arrested for“resisting officer with violence.” The neighborhood watch volunteer who wanted to be a cop got into a scuffle with cops who were questioning a friend for alleged underage drinking. The charges were reduced and then waived after he entered an alcohol education program. Then in August 2005, Zimmerman’s former fiance sought a restraining orderagainst him because of domestic violence. Zimmerman sought a restraining order against her in return. Both were granted. Meanwhile, over the course of eight years, Zimmerman made at least 46 calls to the Sanford (Fla.) Police Department reporting suspicious activity involving black males.

It is hard for me to envision how a "stand your ground" law protects a person who initiates the confrontation.  If anything the law seems to protect Martin's right to defend himself against ahis unknown staulker, Zimmerman. Sadly, the law was not applied that way and Martin is dead and his killer set free.

Hopefully the ridiculousness of the stand your ground law will be addressed in the future. I have no hope for the Florida legislature to do anything, but ,maybe, someday, shooting and killing a minor for "looking suspicious" will no longer be legal in any state.

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-17-2012
Fri, 07-19-2013 - 7:16pm

Zimmerman is an aggressive man. He is a vigilante.

Zimmerman is a conscientious man, not a vigilante, and nothing has been presented to indicate that he is "aggressive."  In fact, when he previously called police to investigate someone acting suspiciously he specifically told police that he didn't want to confront the individuall personally.  Martin, on the other hand, had a long history of getting into fights.

And to his alleged "criminal past"...Zimmerman was arrested once and the charges were dropped.  Hardly an indication of violence or aggressiveness.

Meanwhile, over the course of eight years, Zimmerman made at least 46 calls to the Sanford (Fla.) Police Department reporting suspicious activity involving black males.

Of the 46 calls, only a few were reports about "suspicious activity involving black males" and those were made when the neighborhood was practically under criminal assault by...wait for it..."young black males."  Other calls involved both white and hispanic individuals and the great percentage of the calls were about neighborhood stuff...trash, improperly parked cars, etc.  Here's the list...

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/03/22/george-zimmerman-s-history-of-911-calls-a-complete-log.html

It is hard for me to envision how a "stand your ground" law protects a person who initiates the confrontation.

Zimmerman didn't initiate the confrontation, Martin did.

If anything the law seems to protect Martin's right to defend himself against ahis unknown staulker, Zimmerman.

First, following someone is not the same thing as stalking them.  Second, you don't have the right to physically assault someone you think is following you.  The fact is that it was perfectly legal for Zimmerman to walk anywhere he wanted and follow anyone he wanted, especially in his neighborhood.  The only one who committed a crime that night was Trayvon Martin.

Sadly, the law was not applied that way and Martin is dead and his killer set free.

"Stand your ground" wasn't even a factor in the trial.  And Martin is dead because the guy he decided to attack happened to be carrying a gun and was able to use it to defend himself.

Hopefully the ridiculousness of the stand your ground law will be addressed in the future. I have no hope for the Florida legislature to do anything, but ,maybe, someday, shooting and killing a minor for "looking suspicious" will no longer be legal in any state.

Please, at least try to learn a few of the facts instead of the propaganda you're so eagerly gobbling up.  First, AGAIN, "stand your ground" had NOTHING to do with the Zimmerman trial...there was no opportunity to "stand your ground" or to retreat with Martin straddling him.  Zimmerman pleaded self-defense and was found not guilty.  I also don't know why you're lamenting your "hope for the Florida legislature" in particular when 25 other states have similar "stand your ground" laws.

And Martin wasn't shot for "looking suspicious."  If Martin had chosen to go home instead of attacking Zimmerman then he would be alive today.  Instead, Martin chose to hide in the shadows and confront Zimmerman...and then, instead of walking away, he chose to viciously attack Zimmerman, allegedly trying to kill him.  According to his testimony, Zimmerman only pulled his gun when he felt Trayvon going for it and thought he was in a "kill or be killed" situation.  It's unfortunate, but Martin was the architect of his own demise.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-08-2011
Sat, 07-20-2013 - 7:01pm

The ridiculous Trayvon Martin case

It’s a failure of US judicial system. It failed to help the weak side people.

When it says Zimmerman is not guilty to kill Trayvon Martin, then what Trayvon was? He became an attacker – a threat to other’s life. That’s how a court to turn an innocent man to be a potential life threatener. An unarmed teen on his way to his relative’s house. He now was believed to be a threaten to other’s life. The other one, though proved having original bad will against Trayvon and finally killed him, became victim.

It indicates that any law abiding citizens should be obedient to unreasonable search (followed, monitored, provoked…). Or he would be killed, if the provoker announced that his life has been threatened.

This case also would encourage people to use guns in argument because dead people losing their  voice in the case.

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-20-2013
Sat, 07-20-2013 - 7:30pm

Not sure if I agree or disagree with the verdict, I didn't study the case enough for myself to be honest.  But I will say their verdict is their verdict.  People can protest all they like, its a right, but that won't change.  Nor should it.  GZ shouldnt have to fear any further consequences either.  The 6 people whom the prosecution and defense agreed on have spoken.  To threaten GZ in anyway undermines our legal system.  And look around the world.. most places systems you wouldn't want here.  

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-17-2012
Sat, 07-20-2013 - 8:00pm

It’s a failure of US judicial system. It failed to help the weak side people.

Actually, it's an example of the judicial system working as it should.  Despite the mob mentality against Zimmerman, after listening to the evidence, six jurors and a court of law found him not guilty;

When it says Zimmerman is not guilty to kill Trayvon Martin, then what Trayvon was? He became an attacker – a threat to other’s life. That’s how a court to turn an innocent man to be a potential life threatener.

Martin ceased being "an innocent man" and became "an attacker - a threat to other's life" when he attacked Zimmerman.

An unarmed teen on his way to his relative’s house. He now was believed to be a threaten to other’s life. The other one, though proved having original bad will against Trayvon and finally killed him, became victim.

There was no evidence that Zimmerman had any "bad will" against Martin, and an investigation by the FBI proved that race was not a factor.  And since when does someone have to be "armed" in order to be considered a threat?  Is a husband beating his wife not a threat?  If someone were to throw you on the ground, climb on top of you and beat your head into the sidewalk, you wouldn't consider that a threat?  Ridiculous.

It indicates that any law abiding citizens should be obedient to unreasonable search (followed, monitored, provoked…). Or he would be killed, if the provoker announced that his life has been threatened.

Again you misunderstand the facts.  Zimmerman never stopped or searched Martin, and in this country you're prefectly free to follow anyone at any time.  Zimmerman was just keeping an eye on a suspicious guy that fit the general description of the people who were committing crimes in the neighborhood...he never said a word to Trayvon and never tried to detain him.  The altercation occurred when Martin chose to confront Zimmerman rather than walk the 70 yards to his home...and then chose to attack him.

This case also would encourage people to use guns in argument because dead people losing their  voice in the case.

Hopefully it might make the next thug think twice before attacking someone.  In this case, having a gun might have saved Zimmerman's life.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-08-2011
Fri, 08-02-2013 - 5:55pm

The fact: Trayvon Martin was on his way to his father's firend's house. He was unarmed. He didn't know Zimmerman.

The fact. Zimmerman carried a gun. He devoted for a task force to catch and arrest burglars. He actively tracked Trayvon. He dialed 911, said Trayvon was suspicious.

Who was the man provoked the case? Who had the motive to kill?

The rest story mostly depends on Zimmerman's description. It turns a provocateur into a victim. That's why it's a bad case to encourage people to kill in argument. Because the dead could never have a voice. The killer takes too much advantage.