Like us on Facebook, follow us on Twitter! Celebrate another year with MH and read our yearbook.
Manga News: Check out this week's new manga (7/21/14 - 7/27/14).
Forum News: Visit new sections for Nisekoi and Kingdom!
i agree with the verdict
i disagree with the verdict
either i am split or i dont feel i know what really happened
i dont care
Not necessarily because Zimmerman could have avoided this whole thing had he not possibly profiled racially or followed orders. It's pretty much relevant as to why he followed the kid despite being told not to, especially with how this is being made a race issue.
No one could ever prove, given the facts and the evidence in the trial, who started the fight, therefore that casts a shadow of doubt, reasonable, maybe it's not who done what now, maybe it's a bit too late for that. Given the trial as it is, it could never be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Such is the justice system, the defense argued more over that than of the case, and that got Zimmerman off the hook.
Zimmerman may be off the hook in the courtroom, but he's definitely on the hook in real life. I'm shocked he's not dead yet, given the reaction of people, especially the stupid protesters destroying life.
... security guards aren't always enough to stop determined people.
I know. I don't like the way people have reacted to the verdict.
I find it amusing that Zimmerman, who got into the news as an armed vigilante, is now afraid of... armed vigilantes.
I think the SYG laws should be repealed because it is a justification for killing someone in front of no witnesses. That was the case here. All witness testimony was in doubt because it was dark. The only person who could've brought evidence of equal weight to Zimmerman was Martin. But Martin is dead. So Zimmerman got an automatic win as far as SYG is concerned.
What if Martin had survived? Then SYG should've applied to both of them, because Martin stood his ground when Zimmerman approached him (which is a threat), and Zimmerman stood his ground when Martin attacked him.
I do think Martin threw the first punch, but I think it was after substantial threat from Zimmerman (being followed counts). As Zimmerman realized he wouldn't win, he decided to shoot Martin.
The crux is that taking a life should not be taken lightly. In California, at least Mehserle was convicted of manslaughter because bad training was no excuse for someone being deprived of life.
This case is annoying. There are talking about it everywhere & way too much. Of course, zimmerman was found not guilty. How can so many people be talking about "wanting justice" when they want to judge on what they think and not on the verified facts.
If I was in the jury, I would have found him not guilty too. It's possible that he is just an aggressive racist but you can't prove it. End of story.
The most shocking part about the case: Obama going out of line. He clearly gave the impression to side with T.Martin & his family & against Zimmerman. It's a professional fault.
I just don't see how you can disagree with the verdict. This is nuts. Are there so many potentially dangerous jury members who would act on feelings instead of facts among you ? 4 who voted "disagree" for the moment, that's 4 too much
Last edited by zelllogan; July 20, 2013 at 07:38 PM.
The law has little to do with facts. It is the rhetorical binding that links facts.
Legally, Zimmerman had every right to shoot Trayvon if he "felt" threatened. That's the Stand Your Ground law in action.
Factually, we won't ever know what happened that night because it was dark, so witness testimony is not reliable. The only person who had the other side of the story is dead.
Justly, no man should get away with killing another, especially when one is just walking home from the store.
The judge read everything to the jury before they went ahead to debate the verdict. Meaning they knew how the law worked in a jury trial.
But I am amazed at how anyone can just say THERE IS NO DOUBT that Zimmerman acted out of malice.
This causes doubt, that means they can not convict him without any reasonable doubt.
Conflicting testimony, thus more cause for doubt.
It's not that George Zimmerman did not kill Trayvon, given the evidence and the circumstances you can never prove that in court, WITHOUT a doubt.
Last edited by Josef K.; July 21, 2013 at 01:21 AM.
When i m talking about facts , i m always talking about verified facts.
Last edited by zelllogan; July 21, 2013 at 04:05 AM.
As far as the verdict goes, I don't see how it could reasonably be anything else. If what zimmerman was being accused of could not be proven beyond reasonable doubt then by no means could the verdict be anything else. The fact that zimmerman walked out of this one is prove that the system did precisely what it was supposed to do under the circumstances. No one can prove there was racial profiling done here. From what I have been able to read about the case even when talking to the cops zimmerman never once made a race claim... And unfortunately the issue of whether you agree with the law which allowed zimmerman to shot martin is a separate issue, a separate discussion altogether. And whether zimmerman should have been accused of something else (I think a few people mentioned involuntary manslaughter) is also a separate issue. In a system that works the claims made against zimmerman should have never held any ground under the circumstances.
President Obama is entitled to his opinion. He isn't purely the puppet of the people. He is a human being. In fact, I would argue that his fear of offending parts of his electorate have made him easy to push around. I appreciated that he actually spoke from his heart on this issue.
There is something to be said for speaking your mind despite knowing that others disagree.
Following someone without their consent is stalking, and yes it is a threat. Under the SYG law, Trayvon had every reason to attack Zimmerman because he was in fear of his life.Quote:
Zimmerman could not have been charged with involuntary manslaughter. Involuntary manslaughter requires negligence, and means that there was no intent to kill. A fatality resulting from a car accident caused by a drunk driver is involuntary manslaughter. Use of a weapon establishes clear intent to kill. Zimmerman was charged with voluntary manslaughter, along with second degree murder, and found not guilty on both accounts. Second degree murder requires that the prosecution establish malice. Because the prosecution could not establish racism in the eyes of the jury, malicious intent could not be established, and guilt could not be established. Voluntary manslaughter is "the unjustifiable, inexcusable, and intentional killing of a human being without deliberation, premeditation, and malice." Zimmerman was not convicted on charges of voluntary manslaughter largely because of procedural mistakes. On the night of the shooting the police released him without pressing charges, based on the stand your ground law. Given the circumstances of the case, this was a very unusual, and highly unprofessional move. Stand Your Ground does not justify the use of deadly force in all circumstances, it merely allows "reasonable" force to be used without any requirement to flee or evade deadly action. Because of the circumstances (an unarmed assailant, police on the scene within two minutes), it would have been difficult for the responding officers to determine at the scene whether Zimmerman used reasonable, or excessive force. Under these circumstances the responding officers normally would have processed Zimmerman, and allowed the court to determine whether his actions properly constituted self defense. Because Zimmerman was not initially charged, based on the Stand Your Ground Act, it became more difficult (if not impossible) for the prosecution to establish this as an unlawful death. Had normal procedure been followed, they most likely would have. Based on available evidence, claiming the use of deadly force was "reasonable" would have been very difficult. The police had already been called before Martin assaulted Zimmerman, and Martin was unarmed.
I dunno about zimmerman goading martin into a fight. Its true he did stalk the kid, which is a crime, but overall it does not seem like martin approaching zimmerman to fight him was an appropriate or reasonable response. Or does the law actually permit the attacking of stalkers? Maybe it does but my first guess on the matter would be that approaching a stalker to beat the everloving crap out of him would qualify as assault. It wouldn't have been martin's job to impart justice on zimmerman for following him either....