Was Zimmerman innocent or just not enough evidence to convict him?
I believe anyone can be convicted. You just need enough evidence. As to his innocence, I don't believe so. Yet what I think doesn't matter. What happens in the courts does.
I think the prosecution, who didn't want to prosecute this case in the first place, but then were forced to do so, gave it a half-hearted effort. I agree with the guy that said the prosecution was disgraceful. The only thing I have to say is Zimmerman may have escaped man's justice, but NO ONE escapes God's justice.
Total bull. The evidence through his girlfriend who was on the phone with martin at the time makes clear that Martin perceived Z as a gay predator and did "whoop ass" on a man "creepy ass cracka who was thought to be gay:
Hi Maestro, I agree God is the judge of all Judges; right is right and wrong is wrong, plain and simple.
You are forgetting that a special prosecutor was brought in who was trying to make a name by successfully hanging Zimmerman failed completely.
This case was purely political from the beginning with the President and Attorney General of the United States injecting themselves into a local issue.This case cost everyone all over the US something because Obama wanted the RACIAL unrest.
Careful Eric. Sounds like you are saying men that molest boys are gay. Example: Jerry Sandusky Is he a child molester or gay. Rachel said he might be a rapist. She didn't mention gay.
he was innocent as any man can be. He was doing his job watching the neighborhood and was attacked by the criminal . The he killed his attacker in self defense, case closed . criminal properly disposed of. award commendation
Innocent until proven guilty? Not the case. It all depends on the attorney. If you have a good (expensive) attorney, you will probably walk. In this case, the defense just beat the DA's office badly as far as evidence. The state dropped the ball. If you are provided a public defender, do not make any plans for the future.
You are always innocent, in the legal sense, until proven guilty. It is the state's burden to prove you guilty. This is not a statement of actual guilt but a necessary condition for a free society. The state simply had no case.
Yes, this is the way it is supposed to be my friend. But unfortunately, this is no longer the way it is. Now, you are guilty until proven innocent.
In Zimmerman's case that was certainly true. Look at the forces arrayed against him - the Media, the Attorney General of the United States, the President and Roseanne Barr
This is a common notion. We operate under Common Law. But far more of the populace of the world follow Civil Law like France and Mexico and anything remotely communist. There like Louisianan and Puerto Rican it is guilty first and prove innocence.
The Zimmerman case should never have gone to trial. There was never enough evidence to convict. However, the racist mongers fuel divisional attitudes by attacking like hounds in a hog hunt. These hounds represent the major societal problem.
I do believe that men who walk around looking for trouble will find it. Both these guys were not angelic. They were out there in the milieu of the dangers of the world. One was a bad ass dude, and the other, a man who wished he was not picked on as a child.
They chose confrontation and brutality and one died that day of it. So be it. I have lived a life when death was a companion because I was bad ass. These folks are not like you. Their engine and elevator stop at the floor that says trouble and they jump out looking for it.
One guy looses. Tough beans. Trayvon should have played football instead of a life or death game.
Whine whine whine parents when you did a horrible job. The blame for this tragedy lies on your head. Please do not raise another like this.
I think it is far simpler than ascribing unknown character traits to those involved. It was the result of a string of poor decisions by both and a part of the human condition. They may have been friendly if they had met under other circumstances.
My friend you strike a good note. However that thing that is out there called our human condition is far from simple! Perhaps you have answers that I do not yet know.
I have only one answer regarding the human condition - we are, by our nature, flawed, imperfect, limited and fallen. All men fall short of God's glory.
Hi, Everything you said was here say because you were not there, when was it wrong to walk, to the store and walk back home. I don't see nothing wrong with that I'm sure you walked home before from the store or some where else were you wrong.
Wow How judgmental can you be not knowing the heart of any of the victims. Justifying homicides is outrageous! Judging the parents is just an example of the morals and beliefs you were brought up with, (none). I thank the Lord your judgement is His
I think a negative image of black men is shown all over mass media because it is NEWS. It is also news when a whole class at an all boys' school in Chicago graduates and goes to college. There should be wider coverage on the good things done by AAs
diane you are absolutely right about the media coverage except honestly they don't care what race the negative news is. What school was that? We can make our own news.
Bruce - notice article says 4th year in a row
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/2 … 81203.html
A charter school! I thought they only reported bad things about them. I suspect the "magic" is the way they are viewed. No matter what has happened to them, there are people there who believe they can do well and expect it of them.
Obviously Zimmerman is innocent.
Otherwise the system would have found him guilty.
Society has declined in respect over the decades due to lack of correct parental action and training.
We will not see anything change with regard to this type of activity until the respect returns to society.
The MSM will not assist in this restoration as the detonating commentators thrive on disaster and vengeance.
The politicians will not assist in this restoration because they thrive on disarray and legal opinion to preserve their reign over the masses.
The evil ones will not assist in this restoration because they live only for the violence that they spread.
Obviously Casey Anthony and OJ are innocent since our system never fails. The "evil" ones here are the ones that glorify zimmerman and his stupid choices while demonizing the other guy.
Christin S - you are stating correct facts about Casey Anthony and OJ. We either follow the law as law abiding citizens or there is no law. While the Trayvon case is tragic, it was a result of the evil inflamed by race-card mongers. Sad but true.
Christin you are talking "talking points from media crappola" Taburkett you are out in right field trying to stir hate. ?This case should have not been tried and it is not a fulcrum. It was not even tried under "stand your ground" or race.
Most people aren’t even aware that George Zimmerman was on mind altering drugs which are controlled substances, the night he shot and killed the Martin teen. Medical records released from the night of the killing reveal that Zimmerman was under the i
Hi, taburkett You said the system would not have found him guilty, Well I say the jurors that found him not guilty, are just men who had an opinion about the case just as we did. So is that Justice, That could of been yours or mine or any body else.
MSGolden51.... the entire jury were women. Did you even watch the trial?
MSGolden-my desire is to support the law as it is provided. Not proclaim other acts based on faulty emotion. It is horrible that the attacker was not smarter. I realize his ineptness came from the parents and not the legal system. The jury agreed.
All Glory to Jorge Zimmerman.Thank God George survived a life threatening encounter with an angry,troubled,violent punk.Good thing George was armed or he would be dead,buried,anonymous,ignored.Instead we are treated to Black on White hate crimes.
taburkett Fact that Zimmerman was found not guilty doesn't mean he was innocent. all it means is "if you have no proof that he killed him intentionally, you can't say he's guilty." Not that he wasn't guilty, you just can't prove he did it intentional
When people make comments, I like to check their profiles. Based on retief2000's profile, it appears that he wants to race bait. He hasn't written articles. He participated in 4 forums that are on race and/or politics. Intent is divisiveness.
Reasonable doubt of guilt and obvious innocence are very far apart in reality. We don't know that it wasn't Zimmerman who caused the confrontation. The line was dead, and no one saw the result. Very hard to tell. Obvious innocence? No way.
I believe that there was not enough evidence to cut through the prejudices and misconceptions ingrained in today’s society. I try to think logically but logic also has no place in a society that operates by ideology.
Logic…….Zimmerman sees a hooded individual and decides to follow him to make sure he is not a thief or burglar. Martin sees him following and after several minutes decides to confront Zimmerman for following him. This is a point in the situation where any of us might find ourselves. Whatever we decide to do is well within our rights as an individual. We may say “hey I live here in the community and I don’t appreciate being followed” or we might take a more confrontational route which Zimmerman claims is what happened. This scenario was not clearly deciphered.
The situation now changes to a one on one confrontation where we also have the right to defend ourselves to the point of using lethal force. I believe that the case was judged within this cocoon. What was given little weight was the fact that Zimmerman acted in provocation. Instead they try to assassinate Martin’s character by turning him into a troubled hoodlum.
What I also don’t understand is how the (Stand Your Ground) laws work in someone’s favor if they were the instigator in the confrontation to begin with.
This case was not tried under Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law. It was tried as a case of simple self defense.
True dat. And the prosecution was given huge latitudes and gratitude's to prove their case. They are shameful for bringing it to trial.
The pros clearly failed to show who was the instigator within the scopes of why and how. They failed to build a strong enough case against Zim's character because his is built on ideals held by most. To dispute that one would have to resort to race
How would it have resorted to race. The recording of the 911 call is exculpatory regarding Zimmerman's NBC doctored tape created racism. The police believed, and after all of this folly, rightfully, that there was no evidence of a crime.
I am saying that it has resorted to race. Black people feel victimized by a system that created the mindset that Zim acted within and that resulted in martins death. Exclusion, prejudice, and ultimately protectionism.
I'm curious as to how you can label following someone to see if they are up to "No Good" as provocative. I would do the same thing in my neighborhood.
Correction to your second paragraph. Zimmerman sees a hooded individual with a backpack cutting through back yards while he was on his neighborhood watch patrol. This was days after being told to be on the lookout for the person breaking into houses.
The innocent verdict should not be taken to indicate that Zimmerman's actions were proper. They clearly were not. The tragic incident does show a need to examine Florida's stand your ground law and lax concealed carry laws. Moreover, neighborhood "watchers" should not be allowed to carry concealed weapons. Also, it would be helpful if these volunteers were required to wear easily identifiable insignia or clothing so that people they encounter will take note and react appropriately rather than out of fear as Trayvon Martin apparently did.
This was not tried under the "Stand Your Ground" law. There is ample evidence that your concealed carry position is flawed, however, identifying someone as neighborhood watch sounds like a good idea. It may have prevented this tragedy.
Stand your Ground is bogus. Every human should stand their ground. Sometimes life sucks and we eat it big time. But the worst is when we fail to stand for something and fall for anything. But this case was not about that at all. Martin lost.
As usual, we attack a law that protects the innocent. In this case, as in all others an individual created the problem. Mr Martin as the attacker created the resulting situation. Why - No one but Mr Martin knows. Again, the individual is at fault.
Taburkett, Martin did not set out to get killed. He got caught up in a situation that perhaps he did not handle properly, but then neither did Zimmerman. There are no heroes here, just bad judgement by two people. One is dead. One lived. We all lost.
High profile cases often go in favor of the defendant. I have no numbers to back this up, but look at the current case, the OJ Simpson Case and other cases going back 20 years.
I am no a lawyer, but I often think prosecutors make a mistake going for the maximum possible. Secondly, high profile trials become very technical and complicated. I did not watch much of the trial, but saw enough questions that would cause confusion among jurors.
I think Zimerman broke the law when the got out of the car and went on foot pursuit, after being told not to by police, if that is an accurate statement. The focus of the trail should had been why did he not follow the instructions from the PD.
Smarter people than me will have to figure that out.
Larry, life is cut and dried, from our arm chairs. But walk a beat. Put yourself there. Some radio or other thing cannot tell us how to act. I had a screwdriver at my throat once. I do not judge any more. Battle is not judgworthy.
We do not live in a police state, yet. So getting out of your car because a police dispatcher says not to and not interfering with a police investigation is not illegal.
The fact is - Zimmerman did nothing illegal. The trial should not have happened. However, the race card is always played so that criminals are protected from law-abiding citizens. This is societies worst enemy and keeps racism rolling and ranting.
Life is not cut and dry. I agree. As part of a para-police unit--i.e. Neighborhood watch Zimmerman should had obeyed instructions I do not think anyone has the right to stop and question me unless they are an officer of the law. Tragedy was avoidable
Larry here is a fact of life. One does not carry a gun on a patrol without insurance. A neighborhood watch that allows it is wrongful. Gated community neighborhood watches are run by HOAs. They are insured. Insurance would prohibit the carry.
I carry a firearm. I carry it everywhere it is legal for me to carry it. Only once have I considered using it and if that situation had unwound differently, I would have shot a man to death. A pretty terrible prospect.
Many people carry. Many more in houses and cars. I do not see the problem there. But carry it in a situation where you must deal with bad then that is huge responsibility, socially and morally and financially. No question Zimmerman shouldn't have.
I couldn't disagree more.Alone, at night while watching for potential problems - the perfect time to carry.I am undeterred by the moral issues as I have already settled those. As for all others it is better to be alive than dead, pistols save lives.
Buddy remember this is a discussion on the Zimmerman solution. In this case the gun just plain allowed for the killing of man. I do not think cops should shoot robbers. And neighborhood watch folk should not shoot trespassers and burglars. Gun why?
Zimmerman's gun saved his life and it would have saved the life of any neighborhood watch member in a similar situation.Zimmerman was right for carrying it and right for using it.Buddy.I am unmoved at the notion of a dead thief.
I hear you. I get your point. I grew up with that mindset in my home and town. And we had no crime, accepting fighting. Trayvon brought his fists to a gun fight. And now we know it was gay bashing on the deceased side.
N W doesot work for the Police it is to opp.. Z did his job by protecting the residents of his comm. Citizen R allowed 2 carry guns. M nt wlk home, he didn't live there. H lived with his mom someplace else and tld nt 2 b there. Z nt wrong.
Lady....... Martin was staying with his Father who did live in that community.
Thn Y was he going 2 his father's GF's house. His Mother Had Custody of Him and She told him nt 2 go there. That is what his mom said in the beg b4 Big Netwrk got the story. R U going by the Ntwork or B4's story?
I doubt that since you are listening to the Lies that the Networks have devised for their ratings. That is NOT the truth at all. Shows how much people are gullible when listening to someone whom they think has their best interest in.
What do you think he was doing there Lady? With all of your "facts?"
I dunno JT. He was told not to go there by his mother who does NOT live in the neighborhood. If he listened to his mother he prolly would still be alive. He did NOT live with his Father and wasn't even going there to begin with.
Hi Eric, what you are saying, if true, would make a difference. George Zimmerman did not have a job. He was on the way to Target. NW means watch and report. There was nothing at his thr
oat. Trayvon had skittles and iced tea.
Eric-according to your statements everyone except Zimmerman should be able to carry.this sounds much like protection to the evil criminal.society must eliminate the evil-not protect it.
LadyG, Trayvon had been at his father's house for a week. He and his mother lived in Miami. It's interesting how information that is wrong gets around.
Ws that b4 the bib ntwrk got it bcuz I remember in the beginning that she said right on the news that she told him not to be there. Now it is diff and he ws going to his dad's BUT he was going 2 his dads Glfriend's. News adding to it it seems..
According to court testimony Martin was cutting through the complex as a short cut to 711 store. He wasn't living there or visiting there he was just passing through.
Z lived in the complex and was the NW point person for the complex.
LadyG and Borsia, I can't convince you if you don't want to believe it. The Skittles were for Chad, who testfied. Chad was his future step brother. I don't know what point you consider the very beginning but it is unrefuted.
Testimonies from the other classmates in court and out of court solidify my suspicions that M was NOT an Angel in Disguise! People want NW to protect and when they do They find anything to crusify them.
LadyG, none of his classmates testified. Rachel is a childhood friend who lives in another neighborhood. You don't kill people because you think they are bad. You report them to the police and let justice take place.
No, you kill people who are sitting on your chest beating your brains out. By the way, a large full can of tea would make a good bludgeon or placed across the trachea and leaned into a pretty serviceable garotte.
And what law did Zimmerman break by getting out of his car even if he was told not to?
Fact check: The father did live nearby with a gal unmarried. Not inside the gated community. Martin was trespassing. No doubt or argument about that. In Arizona if you trespass you can be killed without warning. We even have signs that say it.
Erick, the father's girlfriend lived there at Twin Lakes. There was testimony about Trayvon arriving and possibly leaving. Her son testified at the beginning of the trial. He was home playing video games and waiting for Trayvon to bring him snacks
Murder is murder; Zimmerman was stalking and bullying Trevon Martin and then he decided to kill the young man because of prejudice reasons. Trevon needed more help for self-defense, maybe we can help defend Travon after the fact of his death.
The government cannot legislate intelligence-compassion-stupidity. Self-defense begins and ends with each individual. When someone attacks someone else, tragic endings pursue. Personal feelings on the matter do not fact make. The FBI found nothing.
True; and this wasn't murder. Even after bringing in a "special prosecutor" Zimmerman was found innocent of any wrongdoing.
When you are attacked you have a right to defend yourself. Martin should have just gone home and avoided confrontation.
Your comment puts Martin as a sort of saint, let me tell you that this kid was nothing compared to an angel and most certainly not a saint. The press didn't release all the information and details, they missed some other stuff, important stuff.
Zimmerman was not found innocent. The legal condition of everyone ever charged in a court of law is innocence. The burden is the prosecutions to prove guilt. Zimmerman was innocent and not found guilty.
Not anymore. It is clear now that Martin attacked Z. for being perceived as gay. No more race. All about gays.
Hi Ericdierker, huh. . . .being a Black person can get you into heaven, we're not sure if being gay will. The Trevon case was all about racism, sad but true.
Where did this come from I didn't see it in the trial?
Eric... where are you getting this information?? I am lost?
If there is not enough evidence to convict then according to our law a person is innocent (innocent until proven guilty). We do this so hopefully innocent persons don't get convicted by opinion, public pressure, political pressure, or because someone looks guilty. Is he truly innocent, God knows. Jesus said if you hate someone in your heart then you are a murderer. So how many of us are truly innocent.
The testimony and physical evidence says he is innocent. As did the jury.
There is no indication that he was "out looking for trouble" as those who want to see him guilty try to push. He was a member of the Neighborhood Watch in a community that had been suffering a rash of property crimes watching someone acting strangely. If you have never had your things stolen maybe you will understand better when you do.
Detractors say he should have stayed in his vehicle, my question is why?
Are you or I restricted to our vehicles in our own neighborhoods?
When the dispatcher asked if he was following the suspicious stranger the dispatcher never told him to return to his vehicle he said that "the police don't need you to do that." but moments later Z was asked if he could still see M or knew which way he went. Doesn't that imply that he should try to find out?
But the best evidence is the ballistics. The combination of holes, burns and stippling (traces of burnt and un-burnt powder) showed that Martin had to be on top of Z and reaching forward and down; as in head slamming Z. There is no other way for it all to line up.
The law is very clear about one thing above all others. Nobody has a right or cause to physically assault another and Martin was clearly assaulting Zimmerman.
Since Martin was on top of Z there was no way for him to flee and he fought back with what he had. A gun which he was legally carrying with a CCW permit.
I seriously doubt that Z intended the shot to be fatal, it is highly unlikely that he could aim at all beyond simply pointing in the general direction.
Perhaps a better question is why did Martin choose to attack Zimmerman rather than going home?
He had plenty of time to either reach the exit well ahead of Z or at the very least have enough lead on Z that he couldn't have caught up. Certainly M at 17, 5'10" and in excellent condition could have stayed well out of Z's reach.
My parents told me from an early age that if a stranger is following you keep going until you reach the safety of home or a public place and call the police.
Martin had a cell phone in his hand, where was his 911 call?
Martin never made a 911 call. Instead he choose an act of violence.
That single choice is what lead to his death, yet nobody is talking about the elephant in the room.
I will not disagree with you. My problem, and as an old news reporter I encountered this before, is that neighborhood watch programs often do more harm than good, because of misunderstood directions, lack of training. Hire an off-duty cop to patrol.
I believe statistics would argue the opposite. If everyone dos their part and posts signs, attend the occasional meeting etc NW can be very effective.
Hiring any security costs money and they are only useful when there and usually very predictable.
I disagree with you regarding statisticsm but I cannot prove it. I pay about $25 a year for my neighborhood watch program. That pays for an off duty officer to patrol in a marked car at night. I will take a trained officer over a volunteer anytime.
sure an off duty cop killing him instead? would he not still be justifieably dead. he is rightfuly dead as all such attackers should be case closed
I have no idea if he was innocent or not but I knew the out come of the trial from the beginning because there wasn't enough evidence for what they wanted to convict Zimmerman for. Still I believe Zimmerman approached Martin asking him questions demandingly. Martin then responded like many teenagers do with a tough guy act. Both sides then proceeded to get more hostile to one another and then a fight broke out. I think machismo is what caused this tragedy.
Guilt or innocence is not the issue today? Procedure is the issue. Was Zimmerman properly trained in surveillance, did he get clear instructions from the PD and follow them. Was there just cause to approach Martin? Did emotions and fear take control?
I believe there was enough evidence, and the juror's overlooked a lot of things that were vital to the trial, and I believe there was misunderstanding in this case and that they voted based on misunderstanding. This is my opinion. But you know what, I'm so glad that man never hides from God, because God knows everything and we don't really get away with anything.
Emotion does not a fact make. The jury acted upon fact so they returned the correct verdict in this case. Emotion is what created the situation. And when emotion is the focus of an individual, bad things result, Jesus taught us about these acts.
Just because Z was acquitted doesn't mean what he did was reasonable or that his intentions were good. The jury had to acquit if they had a 'reasonable doubt' about whether Z was defending his life. The fact that he not only put himself in this situation, he actively pursued this situation, was not considered.
It seems clear to me that a legal decision is not necessarily a just decision, and that laws are enforced unequally according to race. Whenever you get lots of people screaming "This isn't about race!" you can be sure it is all about race.
The trial was all about race there is no question about that. Had martin been Hispanic or white there wouldn't have been a trial.
In fact, if Zimmerman had used Jorge and his mother's maiden name there would have been no news coverage and the race baiters couldn't be angry that a Jew killed a Black "child." Just another example of Al Sharpton attacking a Jew, that racist.
...AND EVERYONE IS IGNORING WHAT TREYVON WAS LIKE AND MAKING "SWEET LITTLE LIES" UP ABOUT HIM.
Did you know him personally Lady? How do we know what is truth and what are lies? The jury's responsibility was to do this and that they did. Believe me, I've sat on a jury and it is a rigorous thing!
What was he like? He had been suspended, not arrested and prosecuted as you or I would be, for drug possession on campus and for possession of stolen goods.HE WAS NO ANGEL
Thank You Retire2000. Before the BIG Networks got this story it was also NOT a Race thing. JT, Do YOU know him personally??
It was indeed a race thing from the very beginning as Al Sharpton, perceiving George Zimmerman to be a Jew, had flew to Florida for the attack. Zimmerman's race was always the issue.
Neither Zimmerman or Martin is innocent in this situation. I do believe Zimmerman had a right to defend himself. I don't think the prosecution proved their case beyond a reasonable doubt and I believe the jury made a fair and correct decision. I understand how African - Americans feel about the verdict, but I believe Martin attacked Zimmerman at some point. Zimmerman should not have followed Martin to begin with. Neither one is innocent .
I believe we will find out that B37 was a stealth juror who had quite a bit of influence over others. She might have been perceived as more knowledgeable of the law because her lawyer was a husband. I think the Hispanic(?s) juror felt out of place.
After watching the trial I didn't see them being able to convict on anything and stay within the law.
I don't think it matters what was said in court. The supervising sheriff is being investigated. B37 was planning her book w/ her husband from the day she got on the jury.
Belief is a powerful thing. I believe that if someone was sitting on my chest beating on me with both fists and I thought there was no help coming I would have emptied my pistol in his chest, but that is just what I believe.
Jurors must be approved by the prosecution as well. So unless they didn't want to win a career case, it was in their vested interest to choose a quality juror. The selection process was fair. You can't systematically stop influence either.
I honestly do not believe Zimmerman is completely innocent, but he is definitely not guilty of 2nd degree murder either. Manslaughter? Maybe. On another note, the racist claims are absolutely ridiculous. This wasn't a hate crime by any means.
The fact of the matter is that we will never really know what happened that night – only little bits and pieces and one side of the story (because the other side of the story is dead). Under these circumstances, it was a tough prosecution. Was Zimmerman the aggressor, was Martin the aggressor? Where they both to blame? It was a tragic outcome, one man is alive and one is dead and that is all we really know . . . and justice is fleeting.
Martin was profiled short and simple. For those saying Zimmerman was innocent, would you have the same opinion if your child was being followed for no reason? Stand your ground should apply, but for Martin! He was a scared kid put in this situation by an over zealous neighborhood watch individual, who would have served the situation better by seeing and reporting what he "thought" was a problem to the police and abandoning the pursuit! Zimmerman created the situation and escalated the situation which resulted in the senseless loss of a young life! Leave policing for the police! If you "think" there's a problem call the authorities! Short and simple!
So you believe the person who was on the phone with him at the time? So do I. But I come to a different conclusion.
It's a sad day in this country when protecting "STUFF" (yes stuff is what Zimmerman was protecting), is more important then life itself. Stolen "stuff" can be replaced, a life can't! Food for thought.
The only thing better than protecting stuff is protecting life.Those who would take your stuff don't care if they take your life.People exchange the free use of their life for stuff therefore destroying their stuff enslaves them.
it resulted in the loss of the life of a young criminal good riddance we will have to spend money taking care of him in jail good riddance
If my child attacked someone who was following him I would have a much bigger issue with that! If he acted in aggression before weighing the consequences I would be disappointed!
The law is the law and it's so blind that it can be cruel. What's right, what's merciful, reality and honesty doesn't mater....it's all about evidence and proof and the jury. They said not guilty so he's not guilty.
Ahhhhhhh I so wish this state would go ahead and address the "Stand your ground law" Statute #716.013, which gives someone who believes they are in eminent peril and fear for their lives to STAND THEIR GROUND AND NOT RETREAT.
No where (same statute in Texas and a few other states) does it state that you can, or should, pursue the individual who is causing such peril! The law leaves way to much to interpretation. In Texas Raul Rodriquez (a retired fireman) was found guilty of killing a man while at his wife and 3 yr old's birthday party. He walked down the street with a gun, phone and camera calling police stating repeatedly that he was in fear of his life. Amazingly, he had taught his neighbors to do the same when they had a conflict with someone and basically wanted to get away with murder!
Zimmerman was told by law enforcement not to follow or pursue Trayvon, along with Rodriquez when he walked down the street to tell them the noise was to loud. Zimmerman was in his car when he was instructed to do so and in Florida all to often not following instructions from a law enforcement officer is a crime in itself! If either one of them would have LISTENED AND OBEYED THE LAW as it stands neither would have went to trial and two murder cases would not have cost us a small fortune!
If that wasn't enough now were going Federal Really??? Trying to stop tourists OUTRAGEOUS Why do they think we don't pay any state taxes? Because tourists do it for us. DUH !!! Lets just punish the entire state.
The law needs to be more specific in reference to NOT being able to follow or pursue someone who may cause you harm. This is especially true when you have been instructed NOT to by someone who has the experience and wisdom to know there would be a PROBLEM!
Change the law and stop the MADNESS!!! They were both guilty according to the defense they portrayed. If the prosecution had focused exactly on those facts and not tried to get more tv time the case would have been simple, short, and saved us all this disaster.
How can you 5 paragraphs passionately about something that has nothing to do with the case or the question? I assume you realize. The statute never came into play at all in the case?
The law didn't come into play because they never wanted to try the case at all, let alone bring unwanted attention to SYG. SYG gave Z the confidence to pursue and provoke Martin.
I would suggest that what gave Zimmerman the impetus to follow Martin was the unknown risk to his neighbor's property posed by an unknown person of unknown,possibly criminal intent.It is good that some people can read minds.SYG laws save Black lives.
@Eric My point is that HAD the prosecutors used the exact law without interpretation as applied with a "self defense" case Zimmerman would have probably been convicted. Evidence such as his head injuries would not be justified/excuse self defense.
Fact that Zimmerman was found not guilty doesn't mean he was innocent. all it means is "if you have no proof that he killed him intentionally, you can't say he's guilty." Not that he wasn't guilty, you just can't prove he did it intentionally" He may have killed intentionally killed Martin but it's hard to prove that.
It's like all the wrongly convicted men who spent 10, 20 years etc in prison that the Innocence project got released after DNA testing proved they were innocent of the crimes they were convicted of.
So just because a person is found guilty or innocent of a crime is no guarantee that that they were guilty or innocent unless there's proof positive they did or didn't commit the crime.
Zimmerman being found innocent of all charges doesn't meet that standard.
We only have his side of the story.
I wonder what details Martin would have added to the story if had survived the gunshot wound.
I hope DOJ will include thorough investigation of the jury. I read that there is a connection between B37's husband and O'Mara.
So the ironically named Justice Department isn't content with wire tapping journalists it now has to oppress free American citizens. Welcome to the People's Republic of Obamastan.
There was, indeed a lack of evidence, which I wrote about extensively in my personal blog. The prosecution could not prove that Zimmerman continues his pursuit of Martin after being told by dispatch to desist, and no witnesses saw who the aggressor was in the physical confrontation.
Personally, I think Zimmerman was out of line for behaving as an officer of the law and probably should have been guilty of something.
The jury did get the proper interpretation of the law, though.
Much appreciated, sir. I've taken a lot of flack on the hard left and the hard right for my position. No one wants to accept that we don't really know for sure. They might be able to win a civil battle, though. Burden of proof changes hands.
How did he behave as an officer of the law?What evidence is there that he did anything wrong.Someone suspicious on my block would get followed to their front door and woe betide any effort to attack me, I wouldn't stand still for the beating.
Let's say I'm the "suspicious" one, for whatever reason. If a man is following me around, I have no idea what his intentions are. He might be neighborhood watch. He might be out there to rob me. We don't know who the instigator was.
Based on how the prosecution was acting you could tell that most of what they were saying didn't make sense to even them. I think what happened was partially zimmerman's fault for ignoring the order to not chase after the suspect but that little Martin wasn't the dignified angel his family made him out to be (in fact he was hopped up when zimmerman confronted him).
"the order to not chase after the suspect" this is one of the many lies that have been told often enough to become fact in people's minds - the 911 operator said "we don't need you to do that" - IT WAS NOT A POLICE ORDER - Zimmerman was in his rights
I guess there is no good reason to suggest as to why he would like to kill , other then some claims as to he was racist, well it might be true but really hard to prove in a court of law ... so now that he court has pronounced him innocent,lets accept the judgement and move on ....
I watched the entire trial, from start to finish.
The only witness to actually see anything stated that Zimmerman was on the bottom and being attacked. A dozen people testified that it was Zimmerman's voice on the phone screaming for help. Only one person said it was Trayvon's voice, it was his father (who first told police that it was definitely not his sons voice).
I see a lot of comments where he is thought to be guilty because of his actions before the attack. It is not acceptable to attack someone because they are following you. It is not acceptable to attack someone because they confronted you (if you believe that Zimmerman confronted him).
I also see comments about him being ordered to stop following him. The person on the phone was an operator, not an officer of the law. They told him to not to follow him for liability reasons. This was not by any means a legal order. Even if it was a police officer, they can not legal order you to stop doing something that is not against the law. Following someone because you think they broke the law is not a crime.
Can we say that Zimmerman put himself in the situation. Yes, he allowed himself to be in that situation because he wanted to live in a low crime area. There were reported break-ins, as neighborhood watch he was told to be on the lookout for the perp, he seen a person with that appeared to be concealing their identity, with a backpack on, going through people back yards. He called the police and followed the person so that he would not get away. Zimmerman put himself in a dangerous situation in order to try to make a positive change in his neighborhood. He made the same assumption about the person as any reasonable person would have made. Not based on his skin color, or his age. But instead based on his suspicious actions.
Unfortunately it was a 17 year old teenage. If instead it was an older person with a criminal record that included violence, Zimmerman would have been called a hero instead of arrested and charged.
Stand your ground law... What about Martin? Can he stand his ground? After all, he was the one being pursued AFTER being told NOT TO FOLLOW HIM. Trayvon was a child. A 16-year-old boy. He was RACIAL PROFILED.
This NEVER happens to white children.
Black Lives Matter.
Rest in peace Trayvon Martin (16), Tamir Rice (12), Cameron Tillman (14), Laquan McDonald (17), Jordan Edwards (15)... and so many more.
by SpanStar 6 years ago
The 2 representatives who sponsored "The Stand Your Ground Law" have openly and publicly stated that Mister George Zimmerman does not qualify under the statutes of this law. ...
by VC L Veasey 6 years ago
Why Did Some people See George Zimmerman As The Victim And Trayvon Martin As The Aggressor?Why did they believe and not question his account of how their confrontation started?
by SunShineSnow 9 years ago
What do you believe to be true, innocent until proven guilty or the opposite?Do you have to prove yourself innocent or do they have to prove you guilty? The law says innocent until proven guilty.
by Ralph Deeds 9 years ago
Do you agree with Lynn Cheney and Bill Kristol's criticism of 7 Justice Department lawyers who provided legal representation to accused terrorists, calling them "The Al Qaeda Seven"? Here's a link to the controversial video.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZIxg7Lml … r_embedded
by yankeeintexas 6 years ago
Now that George Zimmerman was found not-guilty do you fell that the state did not have a strong caseor has a great injustice been done?
by chipsball 6 years ago
The most important phase of this criminal trial will be the selection of six (6) jurors and (4) alternate jurors who will determine the outcome. Selecting jurors who can set aside their feelings towards either the State of Florida or the Defense, listen to the testimony that only comes from the...
Copyright © 2019 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
HubPages Inc, a part of Maven Inc.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|