Zimmerman

Mikey081057

It is sad that that young man lost his life. Violence in our society is horrific. It is also sad that he made the bad decision to attack someone without cause. He had plenty of time and opportunity to get away from the person who was watching him, and he decided to turn and fight. The preponderence of evidence was that he was the aggressor. If he would have had the good sense to say " I am on my way home to my fathers house at ...." he would be alive today, but he chose to attack someone and threaten another person's life and well being. According to the Justice System Zimmerman is not guilty. There was never a case to prosecute him in the first place, and the politicians pushed this to cause social unrest in our country. When are the politicians going to deal with all of the other violence happening daily in our country? Totally shameful. Now we will be engulfed with people trying to deny the right to defend yourself if you are attacked,

fossy

Mikey081057 wrote: »

It is sad that that young man lost his life. Violence in our society is horrific. It is also sad that he made the bad decision to attack someone without cause. He had plenty of time and opportunity to get away from the person who was watching him, and he decided to turn and fight. The preponderence of evidence was that he was the aggressor. If he would have had the good sense to say " I am on my way home to my fathers house at ...." he would be alive today, but he chose to attack someone and threaten another person's life and well being. According to the Justice System Zimmerman is not guilty. There was never a case to prosecute him in the first place, and the politicians pushed this to cause social unrest in our country. When are the politicians going to deal with all of the other violence happening daily in our country? Totally shameful. Now we will be engulfed with people trying to deny the right to defend yourself if you are attacked,

ditto .....there are no winners in a case like this ...Zim's life will never be the same ... the boy's family's life will never be the same ....needless loss of ......................

monepolk

So if your teen age daughter is being followed by a strange man who gets out of his car and grabs her and she fights him off and gets killed. You would still feel the same?

plainoledave

I don't see anything good coming of this thread, guys. I say we just abandon thread right here.

Msabot1

I think they both are losers....one man killed and the other ones life changed as soon as the trigger was pulled.....sad chain of events.

steveinaz

No law was broken by either Zimmerman OR Martin, until Martin attacked him. This was self-defense. You DO NOT have a "right" to attack someone who hasn't done anything to you.

monepolk

I agree, because I think it is stupid to suggest that this kid should do what we've taught our kids not to do. That is not only to talk to strangers but give them information as to how to find me.

steveinaz

monepolk wrote: »

So if your teen age daughter is being followed by a strange man who gets out of his car and grabs her and she fights him off and gets killed. You would still feel the same?

You are "inserting" elements that were not part of this case. Stop the rhetoric. What evidence do you have the Zimmerman "grabbed" Trayvon Martin? If Martin was scared, why did he not go on home in that 4 minutes? I tell you why, he was a punk kid, that wanted a confrontation--and his poor decision cost him his life.

kevhed72

steveinaz wrote: »

No law was broken by either Zimmerman OR Martin, until Martin attacked him. This was self-defense. You DO NOT have a "right" to attack someone who hasn't done anything to you.

I always enjoy the arm-chair quarterbacking of these high-profile cases.
Only 2 people really know what happened, and one of them is dead.

Beyond that, it is up to the jury, based on the evidence, to decide the case. There were 6 people on this jury.

Everything else is anyone's guess or opinion...

tonyb

Exactly Steve. We have this thing called "evidence" which must be presented in a court of law. Not assumed/made up in a court of public opinion. News media is great at trying cases without the whole story being told by using public opinion to strong arm others into deviating from rational decisions.

Judging by some responses, the guilty verdict was already instilled by public opinion, no evidence required, so now it's a miscarriage of justice that will fill the headlines.

Mikey081057

monepolk wrote: »

So if your teen age daughter is being followed by a strange man who gets out of his car and grabs her and she fights him off and gets killed. You would still feel the same?

apparently you have evidence that the prosecutor did not have, or you are ignoring the facts. For the record: There is no evidence that GZ grabbed or even confronted TM. The only evidence available was that Martin attacked Zimmerman.

Timothy Smith

I work with a smart, tough, young black woman who grew up in the projects in Chicago.

On Friday as we left work, the subject of the coming verdict came up.

She said "you know what the lesson really is?: "Don't F___ with people".

She told me she meant Travon, and to a lesser extent George. She said she sees a whole generation of young black men acting like gangsters and thinking that the law does not apply to them. Too often, they end up in jail, or dead.

Strong Bad

None of us were in that courtroom or on that jury and heard ALL of the evidence. Once again the media did their fair share of blowing this up and convicting the man before his day in court.

Our justice system is no where near perfect, but it's what we have to work with.

monepolk

steveinaz wrote: »

You are "inserting" elements that were not part of this case. Stop the rhetoric. What evidence do you have the Zimmerman "grabbed" Trayvon Martin? If Martin was scared, why did he not go on home in that 4 minutes? I tell you why, he was a punk kid, that wanted a confrontation--and his poor decision cost him his life.

Wrong what I gave you was and example. Like KEVHED says neither one of us were there. And we only have one side of the story.

monepolk

Mikey081057 wrote: »

apparently you have evidence that the prosecutor did not have, or you are ignoring the facts. For the record: There is no evidence that GZ grabbed or even confronted TM. The only evidence available was that Martin attacked Zimmerman.

How can he attack him if he's in his car??

monepolk

So just throw out everything that you taught your children about dealing with strangers. Please hold a conversation if approached, answer all of their questions, tell them where you live and go peacefully if asked. YOU don't know what was said or done during this encounter.

polkfarmboy

I blame MC Hammer as he is the one that started the influential gangster rap movement

BlueFox

polkfarmboy wrote: »

I blame MC Hammer as he is the one that started the influential gangster rap movement

LOL. No, it's Cheezy's fault. Or AudioTruth's fault. Actually, it's Florida's fault. First it's hanging chads, now its drinking ice tea and eating Skittles in George's neighborhood is a death sentence. Mob rule. What a concept. :rolleyes:

Mikey081057

monepolk wrote: »

How can he attack him if he's in his car??

He did not break ANY law by leaving his car... He was out of his car.... The altercation WAS initiated by TM..He would be alive today if he didn't act the way he did. The Jury has spoken, and got it right.You can misrepresent fact all you want, But what TM did caused GZ to act in self defense... He had the right to ... he did... and the Jury decided that...Again TM had plenty of time to elude and get away from GZ but he chose yo attak him... You can emotionalise the argument any way you chose, but the facts and the evidence show he broke GZ nose and was pounding him. So you would incarcerate him based on your speculation. Maybe in another country but not in this one. So you would teach your childen to attack and beat someone who was on neighborhood watch?

brgman

I am just puzzled by two things now.
Wtf? Is a White-Hispanic?
In my 51 years I never heard of this.
And the other is referring to a 17 yr old as a young child.
I have a 17 yr old "child" upstairs and although I'd never tell him I bet he could whoop my butt if he was pissed at me.

monepolk

Mikey081057 wrote: »

He did not break ANY law by leaving his car... He was out of his car.... The altercation WAS initiated by TM..He would be alive today if he didn't act the way he did. The Jury has spoken, and got it right.You can misrepresent fact all you want, But what TM did caused GZ to act in self defense... He had the right to ... he did... and the Jury decided that...Again TM had plenty of time to elude and get away from GZ but he chose yo attak him... You can emotionalise the argument any way you chose, but the facts and the evidence show he broke GZ nose and was pounding him. So you would incarcerate him based on your speculation. Maybe in another country but not in this one. So you would teach your childen to attack and beat someone who was on neighborhood watch?

Based on the law I knew that he would be found not guilty. I'm just no gullible enough to believe GZ's story. How did TM know that he was with the neighborhood watch?? Did GZ tell you he identified himself. I will teach my children not to TRUST strangers no matter what they said. You even have to teach them not to believe that someone is a police officer just because they say they are. And it is your speculation that he had time to elude a Stalker, child molester, maniac?

monepolk

brgman wrote: »

I am just puzzled by two things now.
Wtf? Is a White-Hispanic?
In my 51 years I never heard of this.
And the other is referring to a 17 yr old as a young child.
I have a 17 yr old "child" upstairs and although I'd never tell him I bet he could whoop my butt if he was pissed at me.

The Law.

Jhayman

but I really liked his Song HammerTime

polkfarmboy wrote: »

I blame MC Hammer as he is the one that started the influential gangster rap movement

mrbigbluelight

Strong Bad wrote: »

None of us were in that courtroom or on that jury and heard ALL of the evidence.

Agreed, Strong Bad.
The situation almost occurred where those who WERE in the courtroom (judge, jury, lawyers) did not get to hear/see all the evidence.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-zimmerman-evidence-firing-20130713,0,4147108.story

Worth reading the linked story, IMO.

Strong Bad wrote:

Once again the media did their fair share of blowing this up and convicting the man before his day in court.

I would also agree with that opinion.
Just for sheets and grins, look at this following headline from one news source:

" Protests in US after Zimmerman acquittal
Small protests break out after Florida neighbourhood watchman found not guilty for death of black teen Trayvon Martin."

That is, IMO, a rather neutral headline that, IMO, rather accurately reflects post-verdict actual events that actually occurred.
That is not the typical tone of headlines that I have experienced from readings on the internet.
BTW: perhaps it might be slightly interesting to note the source of that (IMO) neutral headline:

AL JAZEERA
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/americas/2013/07/2013714132147516526.html

The article that accompanies that headline is an example, IMO, of what journalism used to be like in this country.
Facts, such as they are, quotes from significant parties involved, and reactions from outside parties.
The article mentions peaceful protests around the country.
The article does mention (but does NOT overemphasize) one protest that was not particularly peaceful:

"In the California city of Oakland, protests were more violent, with angry demonstrators spray-painting cars and smashing windows, according to the US media reports."

"Spray painting cars and smashing windows".
Certainly not activity that should be welcomed or condoned.
But that is far from the anticipated (dare I say, "Encouraged" ?!) activity that, IMO, our homegrown US media expected (dare I say, "Hoped for" ?!).

Reports of peaceful protests by demonstrators doesn't sell as many newspapers as reports of seething, slathering mobs of inhuman terroristic thugs intent on coming to your home to pillage your pets.
Reports of peaceful protests may, in fact, cause one to focus on issues involved with the event.

My point ?
Read everything you are able to from

ALL

sources.

Then YOU decide what is real and what is an illusion (Moody Blues)

Strong Bad wrote:

Our justice system is no where near perfect, but it's what we have to work with.

Absolutely agree. And, like America, love her for what she is and where she might be wrong, make her right.

tonyb

monepolk wrote: »

. YOU don't know what was said or done during this encounter.

Ok then, you just made the case for the correct verdict then, innocent. Ever hear of innocent 'till proven guilty ? Doesn't work the other way around. Physical proof was presented, forensics , testimony of what was heard, everything possible to convince a jury one way or the other. No indication that Zimmerman was the aggressor or lied about his story. So you agree then, the right verdict came down given the evidence presented ?

Timothy Smith

How did the media turn a partially hispanic, partially black, registered Democrac, Obamo voter who taught math to underpriveliged black students in his spare time into an example of "white racism" in this country.

The fact is that he was apparrently not a racist. But the media and race hustlers were willing to portray him as one, and destroy him, in order to advance their agenda.

I would feel the exact same way if a black man shot a white teenager in self defense during a street fight.

Mikey081057

monepolk wrote: »

Based on the law I knew that he would be found not guilty. I'm just no gullible enough to believe GZ's story. How did TM know that he was with the neighborhood watch?? Did GZ tell you he identified himself. I will teach my children not to TRUST strangers no matter what they said. You even have to teach them not to believe that someone is a police officer just because they say they are. And it is your speculation that he had time to elude a Stalker, child molester, maniac?

So people who do not see your point of view are gullible? Which implies ignorance? So when confronted with the facts you start name calling? I guess the Jury was ignorant and racist too? But you would tell your children to confront and beat someone who did nothing to you?

The fact remains that TM would be alive today if he took the 4 minutes of time he had to go the 150' to his fathers door...

brgman

monepolk wrote: »

The Law.

Legally he is a minor.
Young child?
Hardly.

mrbigbluelight

monepolk wrote: »

How can he attack him if he's in his car??

George Zimmerman could not continue to perform his Neighborhood Watch duties from his car once Mr. Martin took the path he took.
At that point George Zimmerman stopped and got out of his car to continue his Neighborhood Watch duties.

That point is undisputed.
Events that occurred afterwards may be, but that point is undisputed.

monepolk

Mikey081057 wrote: »

So people who do not see your point of view are gullible? Which implies ignorance? So when confronted with the facts you start name calling? I guess the Jury was ignorant and racist too? But you would tell your children to confront and beat someone who did nothing to you?

The fact remains that TM would be alive today if he took the 4 minutes of time he had to go the 150' to his fathers door...

I said nothing about race (must shape your opinion) but obviously, from your comment, he didn't have the right to be outside.