Zimmerman verdict: Not Guilty.

[Red Celt]

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-ju...evelopment

Again, I hope our European cousins can access this. It will be lost on the redneck yahoos over here, anyway.

John Oliver pretty much misrepresented all of the facts in this case in a matter of minutes. That alone is impressive. That segment had everything: the "order" for Zimmerman to not follow Trayvon, the child-like photo of Trayvon from years ago, accusations of racism, not at all mentioning the fact that Trayvon was on top of Zimmerman beating the crap out of him.

I'm sure it all made for wonderful comedy, but it's by far the worst compilation of the facts I've seen yet.

Is there a reason why you're going out of your way to defend a murderer? You're certainly not impartial. I've not seen you write a single word saying that Zimmerman did anything wrong... when he clearly did.

[Tiberius]

Is there a reason why you're going out of your way to defend a murderer?

Firstly, he's not a murderer. He was found not guilty. Call him a killer if you want; I have no problems with that label since it's accurate...he did kill someone.

Secondly, I'm not going "out of my way" to defend him. This is a thread where there has been an active discussion on the case for many pages. I've been involved with this discussion since page 4. From the start I've asked people to stop being so emotional and judge the case on the facts rather than anything they heard via some media source that was clearly out for a good story.

Thirdly, the reason I'm defending George Zimmerman is because I agree with the jury's verdict, and I think the evidence certainly points more towards Zimmerman's version of events than any imagined version that the media still try to portray.

You're certainly not impartial. I've not seen you write a single word saying that Zimmerman did anything wrong... when he clearly did.

Perhaps you could tell me what he did wrong then? Back it up with actual verified evidence as well, because y'know...evidence is important when making judgements.

Is it tragic that a 17 year old had to die? Of course; in an ideal world, none of this would ever have happened. However, we don't live in an ideal world. Trayvon Martin was not an innocent and non-violent kid who was targeted by some gun-toting madman. He was a badly behaved, possibly criminal individual who was beating a guy into a pulp for no good reason. It just so happens that this time, the guy he was beating had a gun, and managed to use it in self defense to stop the vicious attack.

It doesn't make the death any less tragic, but if you are being attacked, you have the right to defend yourself, and if you fear for your life, you have the right to use deadly force if necessary.

[Doubting Thomas]

I have no problem with him defending himself against a possible deadly assault (getting his head rammed into the concrete). The only thing I have a problem with is Zimmerman putting himself into that situation in the first place. While it wasn't illegal to follow Martin or even confront him as to his actions, it probably wasn't the smartest thing to do. But even then, there was and is no reason to throw him in jail. The only reason at all this ever went to trial was because of political pressure.

[Minimalist]

Sadly, the Divine Tiberius is correct. Zimmerman is a killer but he was found not guilty of murder. The first is a value judgement the second a legal verdict.

However, Oliver is correct also. Any redneck asshole can put a gun in his belt and go out and follow a black guy and should the guy being followed turn and say "why are you following me" the redneck can pull his gun and shoot if if he CLAIMS he thought he was in danger. That is the precedent this verdict establishes.

The problem is the law, Tibs. And please do not insult my ( or your own) intelligence by suggesting that if the shooter was black and the victim was white the result would have been the same. Take the example of the woman who was sentenced to 20 years for firing a "warning shot." She was black.

You're a great guy, Tibs, but you are dreadfully naive about racial conditions in the US.

[Red Celt]

I'm very anti-gun (for good reason). Zimmerman placed himself in a position of danger, whilst not being physically capable of handling himself in such a situation - other than by using his gun.

I listened to all of the audio recorded that night - from Zimmerman to 911 and the residents who also called 911. He didn't describe Treyvon as peering into properties, ready to rob them. He said he was acting suspiciously. Who was he to judge such a thing?

I'm picturing Gene Kelly doing his "Singing in the rain" scene, with the cop standing nearby. Who the hell has the authority to say whether someone is acting suspiciously? You have to walk in a straight line, with an upright back going directly from A to B? Or can you just walk along, taking in your surroundings?

Treyvon didn't deserve to die that night. He was minding his own business. He walks near a guy in a truck who is staring at him whilst talking on his mobile. He keeps staring at him. He becomes suspicious, pulls up his hoody and runs off, getting away from the strange man. He tells his girlfriend that some weirdo is following him. He confronts the guy... and goes further than he should have done. Perhaps he had good reason to. Perhaps he didn't. We only have Zimmerman's word about the conversation, and Zimmerman was doing his very best not to be convicted. We'll never know exactly what was said... but what if Zimmerman gave him a very good reason to defend himself?

Regardless, a young man died that night when he shouldn't have done. The reason? Zimmerman going above and beyond what any Neighbourhood Watch person should have done... which was to make a presence and give possible burglars reason not to commit a crime with a witness around... and to contact the police if necessary.

Treyvon matched the description of previous burglars? How? He was black. Congratulations on categorising criminals based on skin colour. How enlightened of him.

It doesn't matter what history Treyvon had. Zimmerman had no knowledge of that, that night. He once was discovered with jewelry and a "burglary tool" (screwdriver) in his bag at school... did he have a screwdriver on him that night? No.

Zimmerman fucked up big time that night and regardless of the appropriate charge against him, he should have served time for taking someone's life. Perhaps that was the fault of the prosecutors. Regardless, there was a fuck-up there for allowing Zimmerman to go free.

[wwjs]

Oh for fuck sake, black 17 year old shot by not even white dude must clearly be racist. Give me a break with this hippie racial bullshit.

[Doubting Thomas]

Take the example of the woman who was sentenced to 20 years for firing a "warning shot." She was black.

That's not quite what happened in that case. She had a fight with her husband, decided to leave, and went into the garage. Then she discovered she forgot her keys, and before entering the house again to get her keys she fired a shot into the wall in the direction of where her children were. If she were in fear of her safety, she could have left the house and not gone back in. Her husband was not pursuing her or fighting with her when she fired the shot.

She could have taken a 3 year plea bargain but fought it and got 20 years. Is 20 years too harsh? Probably. But the entire media picked up the story and ran with the idea that she is a helpless battered wife who was just firing a warning shot to keep her abusive husband away and wrongly got 20 years in prison for it.

[Red Celt]

Oh for fuck sake, black 17 year old shot by not even white dude must clearly be racist. Give me a break with this hippie racial bullshit.

Racial profiling took place that night. If it were a white man or white woman would it still have happened the same way? No. He was black, he was male, ergo he "matched the description" of previously reported burglar(s).

Nothing hippy about that.

[Doubting Thomas]

I'm very anti-gun (for good reason). Zimmerman placed himself in a position of danger, whilst not being physically capable of handling himself in such a situation - other than by using his gun.

That's my contention with the whole case. Would he have confronted Martin if he hadn't been armed? I'm willing to bet not. All too often a gun confers a false sense of security. And probably a little false bravado.

---

He was black, he was male, ergo he "matched the description" of previously reported burglar(s).

How is this racial profiling? Racial profiling would be more like, "he's black, so he's guilty of something." Finding someone in the area who matches the description of previous suspects and calling the police is just being a good citizen. Of course confronting someone you think is a burglary suspect is not and could get you into a bad situation.

[wwjs]

Racial profiling took place that night. If it were a white man or white woman would it still have happened the same way? No. He was black, he was male, ergo he "matched the description" of previously reported burglar(s).

Nothing hippy about that.

So maybe Zim is sexist as well?
If white male was also reported and TM was white acting suspiciously then I bet that Zim would also "confront" him.