Now that the jury has acquitted Zimmerman what message will resound?

1. 41

   Borsiaposted 5 years ago

   Now that the jury has acquitted Zimmerman what message will resound?
   
   Will there be more reporting and comments on the basic theme that violence begets violence and that if you attack someone they can defend themselves no matter what your reasons might be.
   Or will it be that a racist prejudiced system has legalized the hunting and killing of young blacks?

   replyreport
2. 0

   JThomp42posted 5 years ago

   This has become nothing but a media circus. We tend to forget a young man actually lost his life. A brother, a son, a human being. There is nothing good that will, or can come out of this tragedy. Only more bickering by the left as to how unfair our justice system is to African Americans.
   
   Our justice system is broken. Not because of this verdict, just because it truly is.

   replyreport
   1. 41

      Borsiaposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      While a completely agree that the system is broken at least in this case it seemed to work, despite all of the outside interference.
      Sad for everyone involved but the law was upheld in a just manner.

      replyreport
3. 81

   FitnezzJimposted 5 years ago

   I find it interesting that the case never would have gone to court if it had not been for the media advertising hype.  Now that it has gone through the process, the media is continuing the advertising hype.
   
   We have all seen the signs on TV, 'no justice, no peace'.  We have all seen the riots, where folks are burning shops of people who had absolutely nothing to do with it.  It makes no sense, and no good comes from it.  The jury decided it was a case of self-defense.  A lot of things led to that man feeling he needed to defend himself.  Were they justified?  No, they probably were not.  Were the actions that led to this tried in Court?  No they were not.  The only act that was tried in Court, by a jury, was that final act, where the man feared for his life, and acted to save his own life (after he stupidly aggravated a young man who responded irrationally).  Did it have to happen?  No, it didn't, but there were two folks who acted stupidly.
   We all wish it had not happened, but the plain fact is, we would not care except that the media hype ensured that we would publicly have to know justice before we know peace.
   So, my question is this, now that we know justice for that final act, when will we know peace?

   replyreport
   1. 41

      Borsiaposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Sadly it's doubtful that we will see any gains in peace or even people having a better understanding of the nature of violence.
      All we will see in more media circus and a lot of politicians trying to make hay.

      replyreport
4. 61

   DommaLeighposted 5 years ago

   Knowing the media they are not ready to stop. They will milk every negative they can come up  with, no matter what the truth is. I feel for the family of the deceased because the lost of a life no matter of age or race is a terrible tragedy for any family to endure.This case was turned into a race vs race case which had nothing to do with it. It was a case on if we can defend ourselves, our homes and our neighbors, which thank heaven the courts ruled that we still have a right to do so no matter if the the attacker is younger and of another race.

   replyreport
   1. 41

      Borsiaposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Absolutely  They will avoid the real subject and revel in everything that doesn't matter.
      This case never should have gone to trial as the original investigation showed.

      replyreport
5. 79

   Charluposted 5 years ago

   In "my" opinion the laws of Florida and Texas stating that there is NO duty to retreat or stand down when a person is in fear of their life have, and will continue to allow unnecessary deaths by those whose egos run rampant..  This law has resulted in numerous deaths and shootings that I feel were unnecessary. Ziimmerman was told on the 911 call to police NOT to follow Trevon and should have in my opinion stood down and left.  He could have watched from afar without a confrontation to see if Trevon was up to no good and no one would have been injured, or lost their life.
   
   In May of 2010 in Texas Raul Rodriguez took a video camera, cellphone, and gun to a birthday party several doors down to inform a neighbor to turn down the music and stop being so loud.  Although he had already called the police several times who had not yet responded, he shot  Ricky Johnson, Kelly Danaher (father of the 3 year old and husband to the wife whose birthday party was being celebrated) and Marshall Stetson.  He taped the entire incident and repeatedly stated, "I am in danger, I am in fear of my life" even when he was being approached the first time without aggression to see what he wanted.  Kelly Danaher bleed to death in front of his home even though Rodriquez was told numerous times by the police not to approach the home. He had also told neighbors to quote the same words if ever wanting to confront someone armed and even if they shot them, would get off scot-free.  He was found guilty of murder in 2012, but that's not the point.
   
   My point is these laws leave way to much room for interpretation as to "Being in fear of ones life". Whether it is an Hispanic shooting a black male, or a black male  shooting an Hispanic, the laws are the problem and allow people to die (whether committing murder or not).  Between plea bargains that allow murderers, child molesters, and rapist to serve a few years or probation for their crime, or probation and immunity for a habitual criminal for their testimony It Is Not Justice,  The justice system is BROKEN as JThomp stated, and depends way to much on political competition, the media, along with inept and unconcerned prosecutors who leave a multitude of victims they never even see!
   
   Sorry to rattle on, but unnecessary deaths are just astronomical and show no signs  of change in the future until something is done.

   replyreport
   1. 41

      Borsiaposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      I don't see any connection Z didn't stand his ground he responded to an ongoing attack. He had nowhere to go
      I don't know why you mention a case where the law correctly convicted a murderer. Again nothing to do with the intent of "stand your ground".

      replyreport
   2. 79

      Charluposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Your joking right? Zimmermans call to Sanford PD was made while he was in the car stating "This guy looks like he's up to no good, or he's on drugs or something. It's raining and he's just walking around, looking about" and "looking at all the houses

      replyreport
6. 91

   suzettenaplesposted 5 years ago

   I think what we learn from this acquittal is that the prosecution did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman had hate in his heart when he shot Trayvon Martin.  The prosecution was unable to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman did not act in self-defense.  Justice was served in this trial.  Both sides put on the best prosecution/defense they could given the circumstances and the evidence available.  The justice system worked in this situation.  I understand that some feel otherwise, but it is a FACT not an opinion that the system worked.
   
   Now, each side has to find peace in their hearts to not continue any more violence.  We have seen what violence as a solution has done in the Zimmerman/Martin situation.  We have to reflect and then come up with alternate solutions other than violence used in this horrible confrontation brought on by BOTH Zimmerman and Martin.

   replyreport
   1. 79

      Charluposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Yes of course that's the case. The same is true with the OJ case and the thousands of others who have been acquitted by juries who either never saw all  the evidence or were to confused about the law as it stands, or who had a high priced defense att

      replyreport
   2. 91

      suzettenaplesposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      If the law is the problem, then the law has to be changed by the state legislature.  But the trial happened according to law and justice was served.  Some may not like the outcome but the jury has spoken.  End of story,

      replyreport
   3. 41

      Borsiaposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Suzette After watching the trial and listening to all the testimony and evidence I came to the same conclusion. I also would have voted innocent as opposed to any of the charges they could consider.
      I'm not at all sure that any peace will come out.

      replyreport
   4. 79

      Charluposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Oh  I thought legislators were politicians who changed the law in 2005 in reference to standing ground/self defense
      .  Zimmerman was told on the phone in the car NOT to pursue Trevon by an officer which he did  anyway and a crime in some states.

      replyreport
7. 58

   taburkettposted 5 years ago

   The system operated correctly and determined the truth based on fact. The system convened, the lawyers spoke, and the jury did its job.  Anyone who disagrees does not believe in following any law that has been written by those who respectfully live under the law.
   The primary message should be that it is the responsibility of each individual to protect themselves from an act like this. When one person challenges another, anything can happen. In those states that permit the individual to protect themselves this will happen when a person attacks another.
   Mr. Martin could have simply walked home followed by the individual and then informed the correct authorities about the incident. However, this is not what happened.
   Many in media will attempt to throw many innuendoes about the circumstances and case, None will present the actual truth because they do not know it firsthand. But still they will present their side of the argument based on their personal feelings about the law. However, none of this makes law.
   The politicians will continue to spread deceit and division so that the citizens will be at odds over this with each other. The citizens must look to the truth. The court was held, and the individual was found not guilty. The system has judged that the individual was not guilty of any crime. Therefore, the citizens should be content that the system has spoken.
   If individuals ask if it represents a biased system - they do not respect this nation that works through impartial laws.  If individuals speak of the hunting and killing of young blacks, they operate as racists because young blacks are more likely to be killed by other blacks rather than any other race.

   replyreport
   1. 41

      Borsiaposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Yes I have. And I've been confronted by armed criminals, more than once.
      In every case I was armed and I never had to fire but I was ready and willing.

      replyreport
   2. 79

      Charluposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      I'm so glad you believe the system worked. I can't understand how to the contrary you think the politicians who make and enforce our laws "spread deceit and division"  You must have studied Fl self defense law and the change in 2005 standing ground

      replyreport