Florida boy killed by Neighborhood Watch (1 Viewer)

[GroveDiesel]

Abraham, we're not supposed to give them reparations and we're not supposed to feel guilty. We're supposed to try to understand, and help where it makes sense. Personally I think more money toward education would be a good place to start. I don't think Republicans in Congress should be cutting off food stamps just when people need it most.

And I don't believe racists like George Zimmerman (and yes, I believe he is a racist!) should be allowed to shoot an unarmed black teen without repercussions. He should be in jail for manslaughter right now. Our society is better than this.

Tim, please stop spouting talking points. How much more do we need to spend on Education? The real issue is making sure that what we spend on education is actually going to the classroom for better teachers and student focused curriculums. Public school systems are full of waste. Republicans are attempting to cut a percentage of the SNAP program that is equal to the amount of waste and fraud in the program. I believe they want to reduce funding by 3-5%. I would think that if 3-5% of the SNAP program is waste, fraud and abuse then the Dept of Agriculture and the State agencies that administer this program should look into clamping down harder on such abuse. That way the people that need the assistance will continue to get it and the people who game the system will be pushed out of it.Tim, what evidence do you have to support your view that George Zimmerman is a racist? You yourself said that if you were on the jury you would have had to acquit him. But now your saying he should be in jail for manslaughter. The known facts dont support such a conclusion. Only your suppositions do. I think this is why some people get frustrated with you. Your all over the map sir. You are consistent in your inconsistency.

Sorry, I thought I had made myself very clear.1. The reason I believe Zimmerman is a racist has to do with this case and his comments to 911 and his actions. It is also based on some earlier comments by friends and on MySpace that Zimmerman expressed racist attitudes (This came out over a year ago on Huffington Post, and I can't source it now, as much as I've tried.). I can't prove it, and in fact ArbyMelt has brought up some interesting facts that would seem to contradict my supposition. So I will suspend judgment for now. It doesn't change my frame of mind about this case. Even if he is the least racist person on Earth, he should not be allowed to shoot down an unarmed Trayvon Martin.

2. I believe that George Zimmerman is guilty of manslaughter and should be in prison. But I allow for reasonable doubt, so I would have voted to acquit him. I disagree with you, however, that the known facts don't support such a conclusion (manslaughter). I strongly believe they do, and had the case been presented correctly, GZ would now stand convicted.

3. I really don't care if people get frustrated with me or not, but I doubt the reason for their frustration is my "inconsistency".

Which comments on the 911 call lead you to believe he is racist?

 

[timschochet]

Abraham, we're not supposed to give them reparations and we're not supposed to feel guilty. We're supposed to try to understand, and help where it makes sense. Personally I think more money toward education would be a good place to start. I don't think Republicans in Congress should be cutting off food stamps just when people need it most.

And I don't believe racists like George Zimmerman (and yes, I believe he is a racist!) should be allowed to shoot an unarmed black teen without repercussions. He should be in jail for manslaughter right now. Our society is better than this.

Tim, please stop spouting talking points. How much more do we need to spend on Education? The real issue is making sure that what we spend on education is actually going to the classroom for better teachers and student focused curriculums. Public school systems are full of waste. Republicans are attempting to cut a percentage of the SNAP program that is equal to the amount of waste and fraud in the program. I believe they want to reduce funding by 3-5%. I would think that if 3-5% of the SNAP program is waste, fraud and abuse then the Dept of Agriculture and the State agencies that administer this program should look into clamping down harder on such abuse. That way the people that need the assistance will continue to get it and the people who game the system will be pushed out of it.Tim, what evidence do you have to support your view that George Zimmerman is a racist? You yourself said that if you were on the jury you would have had to acquit him. But now your saying he should be in jail for manslaughter. The known facts dont support such a conclusion. Only your suppositions do. I think this is why some people get frustrated with you. Your all over the map sir. You are consistent in your inconsistency.

Sorry, I thought I had made myself very clear.1. The reason I believe Zimmerman is a racist has to do with this case and his comments to 911 and his actions. It is also based on some earlier comments by friends and on MySpace that Zimmerman expressed racist attitudes (This came out over a year ago on Huffington Post, and I can't source it now, as much as I've tried.). I can't prove it, and in fact ArbyMelt has brought up some interesting facts that would seem to contradict my supposition. So I will suspend judgment for now. It doesn't change my frame of mind about this case. Even if he is the least racist person on Earth, he should not be allowed to shoot down an unarmed Trayvon Martin.

2. I believe that George Zimmerman is guilty of manslaughter and should be in prison. But I allow for reasonable doubt, so I would have voted to acquit him. I disagree with you, however, that the known facts don't support such a conclusion (manslaughter). I strongly believe they do, and had the case been presented correctly, GZ would now stand convicted.

3. I really don't care if people get frustrated with me or not, but I doubt the reason for their frustration is my "inconsistency".

Which comments on the 911 call lead you to believe he is racist?

I just wrote that I'll suspend judgment. I discussed this some time ago in this thread, so you can look it up if you want.

 

[timschochet]

Who is arguing that the jury was racist?

Rachel Jeantel all but called them racist last night on CNN (saying they found Zimmerman not guilty because they were all white IS a racist comment).

I didn't watch her. I don't believe most reasonable people are making this argument.

 

[Spanky267]

I saw this elsewhere:

Top 10 misconceptions and unsubstantiated claims regarding the Zimmerman-Martin Incident

1. "George Zimmerman approached Trayvon Martin with his gun in hand."

There is no evidence to substantiate this claim. Zimmerman claims the gun was exposed while he was being beaten by Trayvon Martin, and it was during that time it was taken out and used. Ballistic evidence stated during the trial confirms that it was consistent with Trayvon Martin being the one on top when the weapon was fired, and no evidence has been submitted to the contrary.

2. "George Zimmerman ignored an order to not follow Trayvon Martin and initiated the physical confrontation."

He was not ordered not to follow Trayvon Martin. The 911 dispatcher said "We don't need you to do that." This is a standard response they give callers in order to protect the safety of the caller. It is not an order and there are never legally-binding repercussions for not following the suggestion. In addition, George Zimmerman claims he was no longer following Trayvon Martin after that time, that he encountered Trayvon Martin while walking back to his car after finishing the 911 call.

There is no evidence to suggest that Zimmerman initiated the physical confrontation. None was offered by the prosecution or its witnesses. Zimmerman claims a few words of hostility were expressed toward him from Trayvon and he was then attacked by Trayvon.

3. "The whole reason Zimmerman got off was because of the Stand Your Ground law in Florida."

Incorrect. The Stand Your Ground law was not used by the defense to justify Zimmerman's actions. SYG says that in a situation where you have a choice between facing a potentially dangerous confrontation with another individual and fleeing, you have the right to face the situation and use force if necessary to defend yourself. Since Zimmerman claims he was pinned on the ground by Trayvon Martin at the time he fired his weapon, there was no opportunity to flee, and therefore the SYG law does not apply. Instead, the standard rule of self-defense applies, where a person has the right to use force to defend himself if he has no option to flee. This right is guaranteed in every state, not just Florida.

4. "George Zimmerman is a racist."

There is substantial evidence to the contrary. He filed a request with the NAACP to assist in protesting the beating of a homeless black man by the son of a police officer who had gone unpunished, and partook in making a big stink about the issue when the NAACP refused to help. This is not something that a person who harbors an inner hatred of black people would do.

5. "George Zimmerman appointed himself as crusader of justice in the neighborhood and bought a gun to be the neighborhood vigilante."

Actually, in 2011 the Retreat at Twin Lakes community held a meeting to create a neighborhood watch program and George Zimmerman was selected by the community to be the program's coordinator. He purchased the gun back in 2009 on the suggestion of an animal control officer. The area had been having problems with a loose and threatening pit-bull, which at one time had behaved threatening toward Zimmerman's wife.

6. "I can get a fair understanding of this incident by watching the news on TV."

Demonstrably questionable. MSNBC was caught red-handed having edited a section of the 911 tape in order to make Zimmerman appear racist. They had no choice but to apologize to Zimmerman and fire two employees responsible for it. In addition, virtually every news organization has used a photo of Trayvon Martin dated to 5 years prior the shooting, when he was 12. Nobody has yet offered a reason why they would use this photo instead of a more recent one, except to garner sympathy for Trayvon Martin.

7. "The supporters for George Zimmerman have unfairly tried to make Trayvon Martin the one on trial by attacking his character with allegations of violence and drug use."

The reasoning for this is quite simple. Two people who wish not to get in a fight will not get in a fight. If George Zimmerman did not want a fight, it requires that Trayvon Martin did. Therefore, arguing against claims that Zimmerman initiated the attack requires making the argument that Trayvon Martin started it, and establishing a pattern of behavior supporting that is completely valid.

8. "George Zimmerman racially profiled Trayvon Martin and should not have done that."

In the 14 months prior to Trayvon's death, the Retreat at Twin Lakes community was subjected to 8 confirmed burglaries, in addition to dozens of other incidents that were unreported to police. In nearly every single circumstance, all of the captured thieves and suspects were teenage black males (there was one incident where 3 black males and 1 white male were the suspects). There were frequent reports of these suspects wandering in yards and peering into houses. George Zimmerman was suspicious of Trayvon Martin because Trayvon Martin fit the profile exactly, including wandering in yards and appearing to look into houses. Zimmerman's responsibility in his position with the neighborhood watch program required him to be suspicious of this. In addition, less than one month prior to Trayvon's death, George Zimmerman had called the police about another black teenage male engaging in similar behavior, and chose not to follow the suspect. As a result, the suspect escaped before the police arrived.

9. "George Zimmerman is lying in all his claims about what happened that night."

No-one except Zimmerman knows what actually happened as nearly all of his activity was unobserved by witnesses. There is no evidence provided by the prosecution or witnesses to counter any of the claims made by the defense in the court room as far as what Zimmerman did or where he was at specific times. Of the minimal amount of evidence that can be recovered from the scene (witnesses during the fight, ballistics evidence, and corroboration between the 911 call and where Zimmerman claims he was during each part of the call), it fully backs up Zimmerman's claims. And, because our court-system is based on innocence-until-proven-guilty, accusing Zimmerman of lying in his claims requires evidence to the contrary of what he has said.

10. "He was found not guilty because the prosecutor was poor quality / because the jury was racist."

Florida Governor Rick Scott went out of his way to select the best prosecutor he could find for the case, hiring State Attorney Angela Corey, who hired 3 other attorneys of her choice, including Bernie De la Rionda who had been a prosecutor for 29 years. They did not just appoint some incompetent run-of-the-mill attorney to prosecute the case as many seem to allege.

Regarding claims that the jury was racist... this jury was selected and approved as unbiased by both the defense and prosecution. In a trial, both sides have the ability during jury selection process to disqualify potential jurors based on how they answer pretrial questionnaires and inquiry by the lawyers and judge. Furthermore, there is no evidence offered to suggest that any of the jurors harbor racist feelings.

Wow. Talk about knocking down straw men. Who is arguing that the jury was racist?

The MSM has implied that since the jury was made up of 5 white and one hispanic woman that it would have been impossible to get justice for Trayvon. It wasnt until last night that I heard a talking head explain why this line of thinking is invalid. The talking head on CNN mentioned that it is Zimmerman who gets judged by a jury of his peers. Not a jury of Martin's peers.

 

[Fennis]

Who is arguing that the jury was racist?


Rachel Jeantel all but called them racist last night on CNN (saying they found Zimmerman not guilty because they were all white IS a racist comment).

your example is someone almost argued they were racist? I am sure there are examples better than someone almost arguing the jury was racist.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

Who is arguing that the jury was racist?

Rachel Jeantel all but called them racist last night on CNN (saying they found Zimmerman not guilty because they were all white IS a racist comment).

More...

RACHEL JEANTEL, FRIEND OF TRAYVON: Well, the jury, they see their facts. My thoughts of the jury, they old, that's old school people. We in a new school, our generation, my generation. So --

PIERS MORGAN: Let's talk about 'creepy ### cracka.' People have said that that is a phrase used by black people, cracka, to describe a white person. Is that true?

JEANTEL: No! Like I said --

MORGAN: How do you spell it, first of all?

JEANTEL: Cracka.

MORGAN: There's no 'e-r,' right?

JEANTEL: No, it's an 'a' at the end.

MORGAN: C-r-a-c-k-a.

JEANTEL: Yeah. And that's a person who act like they're a police [officer], who, like a security guard who acting like -- that's what I said to them. Trayvon said creepy ### cracka.

MORGAN: It means he thought it was a police or a security guard?

JEANTEL: Yeah, he acting like the police. And then he keep telling me that the man is still watching him. So, if it was a security guard or a policeman, they would come up to Trayvon and say, 'Do you have a problem? Do you need help?' You know, like normal people.

So according to DiDi a Cracka is police or security guard, according to her, Martin thought Zimmerman was either a security guard or police, so that's why Martin decided to attack him?. This just goes to show Martin knew Zimmerman was snitching on him to police, he overheard enough of the conversation.

Or it means she is flat out lying again to try to cover the bad press she is getting for saying Cracka is not a racist term. I give up.

 

[Ghost Rider]

Who is arguing that the jury was racist?

Rachel Jeantel all but called them racist last night on CNN (saying they found Zimmerman not guilty because they were all white IS a racist comment).

I didn't watch her. I don't believe most reasonable people are making this argument.

No one cares what you believe. Whether you like it or not, comments have been made, implying that the jury was racist, therefore it is not a straw man.

But if you don't like that, ignore number 10 and read the rest. That breakdown does a good job of refuting the many misconceptions about this case.

 

[Fennis]

Who is arguing that the jury was racist?

Rachel Jeantel all but called them racist last night on CNN (saying they found Zimmerman not guilty because they were all white IS a racist comment).

I didn't watch her. I don't believe most reasonable people are making this argument.

No one cares what you believe. Whether you like it or not, comments have been made, implying that the jury was racist, therefore it is not a straw man.

you are making a straw man argument about whether or not it was a straw man argument .

 

[timschochet]

Who is arguing that the jury was racist?

Rachel Jeantel all but called them racist last night on CNN (saying they found Zimmerman not guilty because they were all white IS a racist comment).

I didn't watch her. I don't believe most reasonable people are making this argument.

No one cares what you believe. Whether you like it or not, comments have been made, implying that the jury was racist, therefore it is not a straw man.

But if you don't like that, ignore number 10 and read the rest. That breakdown does a good job of refuting the many misconceptions about this case.

No it really doesn't.

 

[Ghost Rider]

Who is arguing that the jury was racist?

Rachel Jeantel all but called them racist last night on CNN (saying they found Zimmerman not guilty because they were all white IS a racist comment).

I didn't watch her. I don't believe most reasonable people are making this argument.

No one cares what you believe. Whether you like it or not, comments have been made, implying that the jury was racist, therefore it is not a straw man.

But if you don't like that, ignore number 10 and read the rest. That breakdown does a good job of refuting the many misconceptions about this case.

No it really doesn't.

Feel free to refute them then, based on facts, not on your ever-changing opinion. Come on, Jr., give it a try.

 

[avoiding injuries]

Who is arguing that the jury was racist?


Rachel Jeantel all but called them racist last night on CNN (saying they found Zimmerman not guilty because they were all white IS a racist comment).

Mark Geragos and Sonny Hostin said it last night on AC360

 

[jon_mx]

Who is arguing that the jury was racist?


Rachel Jeantel all but called them racist last night on CNN (saying they found Zimmerman not guilty because they were all white IS a racist comment).

your example is someone almost argued they were racist? I am sure there are examples better than someone almost arguing the jury was racist.

Without knowing, I would bet Sharpton has made that argument.

 

[Ghost Rider]

Who is arguing that the jury was racist?


Rachel Jeantel all but called them racist last night on CNN (saying they found Zimmerman not guilty because they were all white IS a racist comment).

Mark Geragos and Sonny Hostin said it last night on AC360

How can that be? Tim doesn't believe anyone is saying that!!!

 

[GroveDiesel]

Abraham, we're not supposed to give them reparations and we're not supposed to feel guilty. We're supposed to try to understand, and help where it makes sense. Personally I think more money toward education would be a good place to start. I don't think Republicans in Congress should be cutting off food stamps just when people need it most.

And I don't believe racists like George Zimmerman (and yes, I believe he is a racist!) should be allowed to shoot an unarmed black teen without repercussions. He should be in jail for manslaughter right now. Our society is better than this.

Tim, please stop spouting talking points. How much more do we need to spend on Education? The real issue is making sure that what we spend on education is actually going to the classroom for better teachers and student focused curriculums. Public school systems are full of waste. Republicans are attempting to cut a percentage of the SNAP program that is equal to the amount of waste and fraud in the program. I believe they want to reduce funding by 3-5%. I would think that if 3-5% of the SNAP program is waste, fraud and abuse then the Dept of Agriculture and the State agencies that administer this program should look into clamping down harder on such abuse. That way the people that need the assistance will continue to get it and the people who game the system will be pushed out of it.Tim, what evidence do you have to support your view that George Zimmerman is a racist? You yourself said that if you were on the jury you would have had to acquit him. But now your saying he should be in jail for manslaughter. The known facts dont support such a conclusion. Only your suppositions do. I think this is why some people get frustrated with you. Your all over the map sir. You are consistent in your inconsistency.

Sorry, I thought I had made myself very clear.1. The reason I believe Zimmerman is a racist has to do with this case and his comments to 911 and his actions. It is also based on some earlier comments by friends and on MySpace that Zimmerman expressed racist attitudes (This came out over a year ago on Huffington Post, and I can't source it now, as much as I've tried.). I can't prove it, and in fact ArbyMelt has brought up some interesting facts that would seem to contradict my supposition. So I will suspend judgment for now. It doesn't change my frame of mind about this case. Even if he is the least racist person on Earth, he should not be allowed to shoot down an unarmed Trayvon Martin.

2. I believe that George Zimmerman is guilty of manslaughter and should be in prison. But I allow for reasonable doubt, so I would have voted to acquit him. I disagree with you, however, that the known facts don't support such a conclusion (manslaughter). I strongly believe they do, and had the case been presented correctly, GZ would now stand convicted.

3. I really don't care if people get frustrated with me or not, but I doubt the reason for their frustration is my "inconsistency".

Which comments on the 911 call lead you to believe he is racist?

I just wrote that I'll suspend judgment. I discussed this some time ago in this thread, so you can look it up if you want.

And I'm sure that your reasons were probably thoroughly discredited earlier in the thread since nothing on that 911 call is remotely racist absent the NBC edit and yet you continue to cling to that because your gut tells you to apparently.

 

[avoiding injuries]

I was wrong about the riots.

Actually, it looks like I wasn't.

Peaceful Demonstrations, but some opportunists loot/vandalize (75 votes [30.49%] - View)

 

[timschochet]

Who is arguing that the jury was racist?

Rachel Jeantel all but called them racist last night on CNN (saying they found Zimmerman not guilty because they were all white IS a racist comment).

I didn't watch her. I don't believe most reasonable people are making this argument.

No one cares what you believe. Whether you like it or not, comments have been made, implying that the jury was racist, therefore it is not a straw man.

But if you don't like that, ignore number 10 and read the rest. That breakdown does a good job of refuting the many misconceptions about this case.

No it really doesn't.

Feel free to refute them then, based on facts, not on your ever-changing opinion. Come on, Jr., give it a try.

Trying to goad me? Unfortunately I don't have the time right now. Perhaps later today.

 

[kentric]

Who is arguing that the jury was racist?


Rachel Jeantel all but called them racist last night on CNN (saying they found Zimmerman not guilty because they were all white IS a racist comment).

Mark Geragos and Sonny Hostin said it last night on AC360

How can that be? Tim doesn't believe anyone is saying that!!!

Tim is saying "reasonable people" aren't saying it.

 

[Spanky267]

Who is arguing that the jury was racist?


Rachel Jeantel all but called them racist last night on CNN (saying they found Zimmerman not guilty because they were all white IS a racist comment).

Mark Geragos and Sonny Hostin said it last night on AC360

How can that be? Tim doesn't believe anyone is saying that!!!

Tim is saying "reasonable people" aren't saying it.

Well I have always felt that CNN and MSNBC were unreasonable, FNC too. I guess since Tim said reasonable people werent sayng it we can now imply that everyone who made the implication that the jury was racist or not representative of the views of the victim is unreasonable. Melissa Harris-Perry, Mark Geragos, Piers Morgan, Sonny Hostin, Eugene Robinson and a host of others on the major cable news networks.

 

[Witz]

Who is arguing that the jury was racist?


Rachel Jeantel all but called them racist last night on CNN (saying they found Zimmerman not guilty because they were all white IS a racist comment).

Mark Geragos and Sonny Hostin said it last night on AC360

How can that be? Tim doesn't believe anyone is saying that!!!

Tim is saying "reasonable people" aren't saying it.

I believe it was Sonny Hostin who made mention of this the night of the verdict as well (also noting that since there were no blacks on the jury, they weren't able to understand the emotional aspects of a black person when it came to rendering a verdict as opposed to you know, the facts of the case).

 

[Clifford]

2. I believe that George Zimmerman is guilty of manslaughter and should be in prison. But I allow for reasonable doubt, so I would have voted to acquit him.

WTH?

I think he means: "I think Zimmerman did commit manslaughter. However, I don't think the state proved that he did beyond a reasonable doubt, therefore 'not guilty.'"

Because the state spent all their time trying to prove he was a murderer, like a bunch of overly aggressive idiots who can't learn from others mistakes (Casey Anthony).

 

[glock]

2. I believe that George Zimmerman is guilty of manslaughter and should be in prison. But I allow for reasonable doubt, so I would have voted to acquit him.

WTH?

I think he means: "I think Zimmerman did commit manslaughter. However, I don't think the state proved that he did beyond a reasonable doubt, therefore 'not guilty.'"

Because the state spent all their time trying to prove he was a murderer, like a bunch of overly aggressive idiots who can't learn from others mistakes (Casey Anthony).

They definitely over reached...

 

[jonessed]

Who is arguing that the jury was racist?

Rachel Jeantel all but called them racist last night on CNN (saying they found Zimmerman not guilty because they were all white IS a racist comment).

I didn't watch her. I don't believe most reasonable people are making this argument.

No one cares what you believe. Whether you like it or not, comments have been made, implying that the jury was racist, therefore it is not a straw man.

But if you don't like that, ignore number 10 and read the rest. That breakdown does a good job of refuting the many misconceptions about this case.

No it really doesn't.

Feel free to refute them then, based on facts, not on your ever-changing opinion. Come on, Jr., give it a try.

Trying to goad me? Unfortunately I don't have the time right now. Perhaps later today.

I doubt it.

 

[greenroom]

I saw this elsewhere:

Top 10 misconceptions and unsubstantiated claims regarding the Zimmerman-Martin Incident

2. "George Zimmerman ignored an order to not follow Trayvon Martin and initiated the physical confrontation."

He was not ordered not to follow Trayvon Martin. The 911 dispatcher said "We don't need you to do that." This is a standard response they give callers in order to protect the safety of the caller. It is not an order and there are never legally-binding repercussions for not following the suggestion. In addition, George Zimmerman claims he was no longer following Trayvon Martin after that time, that he encountered Trayvon Martin while walking back to his car after finishing the 911 call.

There is no evidence to suggest that Zimmerman initiated the physical confrontation. None was offered by the prosecution or its witnesses. Zimmerman claims a few words of hostility were expressed toward him from Trayvon and he was then attacked by Trayvon.

7. "The supporters for George Zimmerman have unfairly tried to make Trayvon Martin the one on trial by attacking his character with allegations of violence and drug use."

The reasoning for this is quite simple. Two people who wish not to get in a fight will not get in a fight. If George Zimmerman did not want a fight, it requires that Trayvon Martin did. Therefore, arguing against claims that Zimmerman initiated the attack requires making the argument that Trayvon Martin started it, and establishing a pattern of behavior supporting that is completely valid.

2. There is also no evidence that Martin started the fight. We know he punched Zimmerman and was winning the fight, but there is no proof either direction of who started the fight. other than Zimmerman who has a motive to say it was Martin. So it is a he said/he is dead argument to which it cannot be proven either direction.

7. I am sure Martin did not asked to be followed by Zimmerman so depending on how far back you want to go with this can be debated. I agree both did not want a fight, but both had actions that led to the fight. Both had ample chances to avoid the situation and neither took advnatage of it. And Martin was not on trial for being killed it was Zimmerman, so who cares if Martin wanted to be a MMA fighter or not, or did drugs, that is not what got him killed. He got killed because he did not retreat when having the chance and because he happened to be spotted by Zimmerman who even the jury agreed with was overzealous.

Bottom line the jury got it right and Zimmerman will have to face the music just like OJ Simpsin, did (most likely) in a civil court.

 

[avoiding injuries]

2. I believe that George Zimmerman is guilty of manslaughter and should be in prison. But I allow for reasonable doubt, so I would have voted to acquit him.

WTH?

I think he means: "I think Zimmerman did commit manslaughter. However, I don't think the state proved that he did beyond a reasonable doubt, therefore 'not guilty.'"

Because the state spent all their time trying to prove he was a murderer, like a bunch of overly aggressive idiots who can't learn from others mistakes (Casey Anthony).

They definitely over reached...

Let me play devil's advocate with this.

I don't think they did over reach. The charged based on the public outcry and political/social pressure applied to the case. They already didn't arrest GZ at the time of the incident, so I don't think a manslaughter charge 40 something days later would have been enough to satisfy the masses.

People wanted justice. Now that justice has been "served", the justice system is broken and biased. It's incredible and fascinating at the same time.

 

[Bonzai]

The Onion weighs in.

 

[Clifford]

2. "George Zimmerman ignored an order to not follow Trayvon Martin and initiated the physical confrontation."

He was not ordered not to follow Trayvon Martin. The 911 dispatcher said "We don't need you to do that."

This is the dumbest, most semantically driven argument I have ever heard in this case. So what? People also love making the point that a dispatcher is not a police officer. Who cares? Zimm called 911, was advised to stay in the car by the person he called, and ignored that advice. Because he ignored that advice, and all neighborhood watch bylaws and training, a kid is dead. No one has ever disagreed that had Zimm just remained in his car, nothing happens.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

2. "George Zimmerman ignored an order to not follow Trayvon Martin and initiated the physical confrontation."

He was not ordered not to follow Trayvon Martin. The 911 dispatcher said "We don't need you to do that."

This is the dumbest, most semantically driven argument I have ever heard in this case. So what? People also love making the point that a dispatcher is not a police officer. Who cares? Zimm called 911, was advised to stay in the car by the person he called, and ignored that advice. Because he ignored that advice, and all neighborhood watch bylaws and training, a kid is dead. No one has ever disagreed that had Zimm just remained in his car, nothing happens.

Who advised him to stay in his car?

 

[T Bell]

The patronizing, arrogant "I told you so" tone of many people in this thread is hard for me to stomach.

1. I love Dershowitz, but he is wrong. Of course this case should have gone to trial. Zimmerman should have been charged with manslaughter(not murder 2). The prosecution could have won this case on the evidence had they been competent. Zimmerman deserves to be in prison right now, and he's not because the state blew it.

2. Zimmerman is not going to be suing any media outlets. If he did he'd get his ### kicked in court.

3. Zimmerman is not going to be found immune from a civil lawsuit which is already in place. Zimmerman will be forced to take the stand, reasonable doubt is removed, so I believe he will likely lose this lawsuit.

4. Many of you "I told you so" crowd were also predicting widespread rioting. Are you willing to admit that you were wrong about that?

I'm imagining a gif directed at you, of a smiling George Zimmerman with sunglasses slowly descending from above and coming to a rest on his face with the message "Deal with it" popping up above his head.

 

[Clifford]

2. I believe that George Zimmerman is guilty of manslaughter and should be in prison. But I allow for reasonable doubt, so I would have voted to acquit him.

WTH?

I think he means: "I think Zimmerman did commit manslaughter. However, I don't think the state proved that he did beyond a reasonable doubt, therefore 'not guilty.'"

Because the state spent all their time trying to prove he was a murderer, like a bunch of overly aggressive idiots who can't learn from others mistakes (Casey Anthony).

They definitely over reached...

Let me play devil's advocate with this.

I don't think they did over reach. The charged based on the public outcry and political/social pressure applied to the case. They already didn't arrest GZ at the time of the incident, so I don't think a manslaughter charge 40 something days later would have been enough to satisfy the masses.

People wanted justice. Now that justice has been "served", the justice system is broken and biased. It's incredible and fascinating at the same time.

This is basically the definition of how prosecutorial overreach happens in a highly publicized trial. They based the charge on factors other than the evidence they had.

You suck at playing Devil's advocate. Here's how it's done

 

[larry_boy_44]

Abraham, we're not supposed to give them reparations and we're not supposed to feel guilty. We're supposed to try to understand, and help where it makes sense. Personally I think more money toward education would be a good place to start. I don't think Republicans in Congress should be cutting off food stamps just when people need it most.

And I don't believe racists like George Zimmerman (and yes, I believe he is a racist!) should be allowed to shoot an unarmed black teen without repercussions. He should be in jail for manslaughter right now. Our society is better than this.

Tim, please stop spouting talking points. How much more do we need to spend on Education? The real issue is making sure that what we spend on education is actually going to the classroom for better teachers and student focused curriculums. Public school systems are full of waste. Republicans are attempting to cut a percentage of the SNAP program that is equal to the amount of waste and fraud in the program. I believe they want to reduce funding by 3-5%. I would think that if 3-5% of the SNAP program is waste, fraud and abuse then the Dept of Agriculture and the State agencies that administer this program should look into clamping down harder on such abuse. That way the people that need the assistance will continue to get it and the people who game the system will be pushed out of it.

Tim, what evidence do you have to support your view that George Zimmerman is a racist? You yourself said that if you were on the jury you would have had to acquit him. But now your saying he should be in jail for manslaughter. The known facts dont support such a conclusion. Only your suppositions do. I think this is why some people get frustrated with you. Your all over the map sir. You are consistent in your inconsistency.

Sorry, I thought I had made myself very clear.

1. The reason I believe Zimmerman is a racist has to do with this case and his comments to 911 and his actions. It is also based on some earlier comments by friends and on MySpace that Zimmerman expressed racist attitudes (This came out over a year ago on Huffington Post, and I can't source it now, as much as I've tried.). I can't prove it, and in fact ArbyMelt has brought up some interesting facts that would seem to contradict my supposition. So I will suspend judgment for now. It doesn't change my frame of mind about this case. Even if he is the least racist person on Earth, he should not be allowed to shoot down an unarmed Trayvon Martin.

2. I believe that George Zimmerman is guilty of manslaughter and should be in prison. But I allow for reasonable doubt, so I would have voted to acquit him. I disagree with you, however, that the known facts don't support such a conclusion (manslaughter). I strongly believe they do, and had the case been presented correctly, GZ would now stand convicted.

3. I really don't care if people get frustrated with me or not, but I doubt the reason for their frustration is my "inconsistency".

This was his comment on Myspace:

I dont miss driving around scared to hit mexicans walkin on the side of the street, soft ### wanna be thugs messin with peoples cars when they aint around (what are you provin, that you can dent a car when no ones watchin) dont make you a man in my book. Workin 96 hours to get a decent pay check, gettin knifes pulled on you by every mexican you run into!”

He was 20 when he wrote that. I can see how people who want to see him as racist will see that but it reads to me like a guy frustrated by criminals.

Its racist for someone who is of Hispanic descent to talk about Mexicans? (I know that Hispanic doesn't mean Mexican only... My point is that to paint a Hispanic man as racist because he said something about Mexicans seems kind of silly to me...

 

[Clifford]

2. "George Zimmerman ignored an order to not follow Trayvon Martin and initiated the physical confrontation."

He was not ordered not to follow Trayvon Martin. The 911 dispatcher said "We don't need you to do that."

This is the dumbest, most semantically driven argument I have ever heard in this case. So what? People also love making the point that a dispatcher is not a police officer. Who cares? Zimm called 911, was advised to stay in the car by the person he called, and ignored that advice. Because he ignored that advice, and all neighborhood watch bylaws and training, a kid is dead. No one has ever disagreed that had Zimm just remained in his car, nothing happens.

Who advised him to stay in his car?

Do you think you're making some awesome, salient gotcha point here, when I've already said how stupid it is to rely purely on semantics to make a point?

 

[avoiding injuries]

2. "George Zimmerman ignored an order to not follow Trayvon Martin and initiated the physical confrontation."

He was not ordered not to follow Trayvon Martin. The 911 dispatcher said "We don't need you to do that."

This is the dumbest, most semantically driven argument I have ever heard in this case. So what? People also love making the point that a dispatcher is not a police officer. Who cares? Zimm called 911, was advised to stay in the car by the person he called, and ignored that advice. Because he ignored that advice, and all neighborhood watch bylaws and training, a kid is dead. No one has ever disagreed that had Zimm just remained in his car, nothing happens.

Who advised him to stay in his car?

Let it go. If they are still mistaken by the facts at this point, I don't think they'll ever get it right.

 

[17seconds]

take home message....walk away and call for help. This applies to travon and zimmerman.

I don't understand why it's so hard for people to acknowledge that both parties behaved badly here. Zimmerman is a wannabe tough guy who followed Martin around. Martin decided to get in his face about it. This is exactly the kind of donk-on-donk confrontation that doesn't end well, especially when one of the donks is armed. It doesn't follow from that that the survivor committed a crime of any kind.

Huh?

Two guys get into a fight. One ends up dead. The guy who lived isn't automatically guilty of a crime.

No ####. What an dumb, oversimplified statement. The circumstances are what make it a crime or not. You can't distill that out.

The only evidence against Trayvon is that he was winning a fistfight against a guy who had been following him in the dark for no reason.

We don't need any evidence "against" Martin. He's not the one who was on trial. I don't have to think that Martin was uniquely evil or that Zimmerman is somehow good to reach the conclusion that Zimmerman should be found not guilty.

Obviously I know that. I'm saying your point via removal of the circumstances was meaningless. It didn't seem to bother you but apologies if I came on too strong there.

 

[avoiding injuries]

2. I believe that George Zimmerman is guilty of manslaughter and should be in prison. But I allow for reasonable doubt, so I would have voted to acquit him.

WTH?

I think he means: "I think Zimmerman did commit manslaughter. However, I don't think the state proved that he did beyond a reasonable doubt, therefore 'not guilty.'"

Because the state spent all their time trying to prove he was a murderer, like a bunch of overly aggressive idiots who can't learn from others mistakes (Casey Anthony).

They definitely over reached...

Let me play devil's advocate with this.

I don't think they did over reach. The charged based on the public outcry and political/social pressure applied to the case. They already didn't arrest GZ at the time of the incident, so I don't think a manslaughter charge 40 something days later would have been enough to satisfy the masses.

People wanted justice. Now that justice has been "served", the justice system is broken and biased. It's incredible and fascinating at the same time.

This is basically the definition of how prosecutorial overreach happens in a highly publicized trial. They based the charge on factors other than the evidence they had.

You suck at playing Devil's advocate. Here's how it's done

They charged to appease, not convict. They're off the hook for this and it's the problem for someone else now. Mission accomplished.

 

[Clifford]

Lemme clear this up for all you court stenographers

If you aren't trying to be an obstinate blowhard unwilling to see anyone else POV

Dispatcher: Are you following him? Zimmerman: Yeah Dispatcher: Ok, we don't need you to do that. = Advising Zimm to not follow Trayvon

 

[cstu]

Abraham, we're not supposed to give them reparations and we're not supposed to feel guilty. We're supposed to try to understand, and help where it makes sense. Personally I think more money toward education would be a good place to start. I don't think Republicans in Congress should be cutting off food stamps just when people need it most.

And I don't believe racists like George Zimmerman (and yes, I believe he is a racist!) should be allowed to shoot an unarmed black teen without repercussions. He should be in jail for manslaughter right now. Our society is better than this.

I live in a county in NJ which includes an inner city. The inner city per student educational cost is 30%-40% higher on average than the surrounding towns and the city is still performing at a much lower rate. Throwing money at education is not working. You need to change the social structure of inner cities and invest in the economic well-being of the area before you can get any material benefit from education $.

One thing I would do is make it easier to expel students who are consistently disruptive to other students. They should then not be allowed into regular public schools and put into special schools for students who have been expelled. Harsh, but why are we putting the trouble makers ahead of students who are truly interested in getting an education?

Link

[SIZE=small]In the District of Columbia, for example, where charters now serve about 40 percent of public school students, only one student in 15,000 was expelled from the traditional schools in DC during the 2011-12 academic year. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=small]By contrast, the charter schools in DC expelled one student for every 139. That's a lot more than 1 in every 15,000.[/SIZE]

The charter schools are doing it right and making sure their school is a good environment for learning.

 

[Witz]

2. "George Zimmerman ignored an order to not follow Trayvon Martin and initiated the physical confrontation."

He was not ordered not to follow Trayvon Martin. The 911 dispatcher said "We don't need you to do that."

This is the dumbest, most semantically driven argument I have ever heard in this case. So what? People also love making the point that a dispatcher is not a police officer. Who cares? Zimm called 911, was advised to stay in the car by the person he called, and ignored that advice. Because he ignored that advice, and all neighborhood watch bylaws and training, a kid is dead. No one has ever disagreed that had Zimm just remained in his car, nothing happens.

Who advised him to stay in his car?

Do you think you're making some awesome, salient gotcha point here, when I've already said how stupid it is to rely purely on semantics to make a point?

Sorry but it's not dumb or semantic - it's actually quite material to the discussion. A number of folks believe the operator told Zimmerman to stay in the car when nothing was ever said to that point. That's not semantics - that's misinformation plain and simple.

To say that no one has ever disagreed that had Zimm just remained in the car, nothing happens as a response to this 'dumb' clarification, one could easily say had Martin just gone straight home, nothing happens. Both points are entirely valid and true (from a hindsight perspective) yet neither matter from this cases perspective. Martin wasn't killed because Zimmerman got out of the car, nor was Martin killed because he didn't go home.

 

[Gawain]

2. "George Zimmerman ignored an order to not follow Trayvon Martin and initiated the physical confrontation."

He was not ordered not to follow Trayvon Martin. The 911 dispatcher said "We don't need you to do that."

This is the dumbest, most semantically driven argument I have ever heard in this case. So what? People also love making the point that a dispatcher is not a police officer. Who cares? Zimm called 911, was advised to stay in the car by the person he called, and ignored that advice. Because he ignored that advice, and all neighborhood watch bylaws and training, a kid is dead. No one has ever disagreed that had Zimm just remained in his car, nothing happens.

Who advised him to stay in his car?

Do you think you're making some awesome, salient gotcha point here, when I've already said how stupid it is to rely purely on semantics to make a point?

:whoosh:

His point isn't to whether or not the person on the phone was a police representative or not, it was to the fact that Zimmerman was already out of the car when the dispatcher said "we don't need you to do that."

And the whole no one ever said "remain in your car."

But keep making stuff up, it's working wonders.

 

[cstu]

Lemme clear this up for all you court stenographers

If you aren't trying to be an obstinate blowhard unwilling to see anyone else POV

Dispatcher: Are you following him? Zimmerman: Yeah Dispatcher: Ok, we don't need you to do that. = Advising Zimm to not follow Trayvon

Advising him they don't NEED him to do that. In other words, he CAN do it but it's not NEEDED.

 

[Witz]

Lemme clear this up for all you court stenographers

If you aren't trying to be an obstinate blowhard unwilling to see anyone else POV

Dispatcher: Are you following him? Zimmerman: Yeah Dispatcher: Ok, we don't need you to do that. = Advising Zimm to not follow Trayvon

He was already outside the car!!! Are you purposely trying to fish or is it accidental?

 

[jon_mx]

Lemme clear this up for all you court stenographers

If you aren't trying to be an obstinate blowhard unwilling to see anyone else POV

Dispatcher: Are you following him? Zimmerman: Yeah Dispatcher: Ok, we don't need you to do that. = Advising Zimm to not follow Trayvon

You do realize a police dispactcher is specifically prohibited from giving such advice and certainly has no training or authority to give anyone an order.

 

[avoiding injuries]

Lemme clear this up for all you court stenographers

If you aren't trying to be an obstinate blowhard unwilling to see anyone else POV

Dispatcher: Are you following him? Zimmerman: Yeah Dispatcher: Ok, we don't need you to do that. = Advising Zimm to not follow Trayvon

Where's the quote telling him to stay in his car? He was already out of the car. There's an infinite number of hypotheticals we can throw out and discuss all day. You look like a fool trying to insult people and then misrepresenting the facts.

 

[ArbyMelt]

If you aren't trying to be an obstinate blowhard unwilling to see anyone else POV

Are you trying to lead by example?

 

[17seconds]

What Juror B37 said in the CNN interview was pretty outrageous, IMO. She has so much sympathy for GZ it is baffles me.

When asked if she felt sorry for TM she answered that she felt sorry for both of them. ok... Remember one person is an adult who is a free man and the other is a minor and dead. Didn't even hint that TM has it worse than GZ. She said TM attacked GZ because he was angry and fed up with GZ (where is the evidence for that?). She stated GZ's narrative (the defendant!) as completely true - expressing no doubt whatsoever. She said she thinks GZ would have treated any other person of any race the same way. She even said she would have GZ on her neighborhood watch. wow

I haven't been on the side of the Sharptons of the world, but if that attitude doesn't drive home the fact that black life has less meaning then I don't know what does. It's so latently racist it's incredible. No way in hell she gives all of those answers if it was a white middle class 17yo. No damn way.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

2. "George Zimmerman ignored an order to not follow Trayvon Martin and initiated the physical confrontation."

He was not ordered not to follow Trayvon Martin. The 911 dispatcher said "We don't need you to do that."

This is the dumbest, most semantically driven argument I have ever heard in this case. So what? People also love making the point that a dispatcher is not a police officer. Who cares? Zimm called 911, was advised to stay in the car by the person he called, and ignored that advice. Because he ignored that advice, and all neighborhood watch bylaws and training, a kid is dead. No one has ever disagreed that had Zimm just remained in his car, nothing happens.

Who advised him to stay in his car?

Do you think you're making some awesome, salient gotcha point here, when I've already said how stupid it is to rely purely on semantics to make a point?

"Stay in your car, and that's an order" <> "We don't need you to do that."

Noticing the difference isn't really "semantics" in the disqualifying sense that you mean. It's just a recognition of how the English language works.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Lemme clear this up for all you court stenographers

If you aren't trying to be an obstinate blowhard unwilling to see anyone else POV

Dispatcher: Are you following him? Zimmerman: Yeah Dispatcher: Ok, we don't need you to do that. = Advising Zimm to not follow Trayvon

This is wrong too.

"We don't need you to do that" <> "Don't do that."

 

[jon_mx]

What Juror B37 said in the CNN interview was pretty outrageous, IMO. She has so much sympathy for GZ it is baffles me.

When asked if she felt sorry for TM she answered that she felt sorry for both of them. ok... Remember one person is an adult who is a free man and the other is a minor and dead. Didn't even hint that TM has it worse than GZ. She said TM attacked GZ because he was angry and fed up with GZ (where is the evidence for that?). She stated GZ's narrative (the defendant!) as completely true - expressing no doubt whatsoever. She said she thinks GZ would have treated any other person of any race the same way. She even said she would have GZ on her neighborhood watch.

I haven't been on the side of the Sharpton's of the world, but if that attitude doesn't drive home the fact that black life has less meaning then I don't know what does. It's so latently racist it's incredible. No way in hell she gives all of those answers if it was a white middle class 17yo. No damn way.

Whatever. The police investigator felt the same way. Just because Zimmerman is not dead, does not mean his situation is not sympathetic. She no way implied TM did not have it worse than GZ. You are just reaching for stuff to hate her for.

 

[Witz]

What Juror B37 said in the CNN interview was pretty outrageous, IMO. She has so much sympathy for GZ it is baffles me.

When asked if she felt sorry for TM she answered that she felt sorry for both of them. ok... Remember one person is an adult who is a free man and the other is a minor and dead. Didn't even hint that TM has it worse than GZ. She said TM attacked GZ because he was angry and fed up with GZ (where is the evidence for that?). She stated GZ's narrative (the defendant!) as completely true - expressing no doubt whatsoever. She said she thinks GZ would have treated any other person of any race the same way. She even said she would have GZ on her neighborhood watch.

I haven't been on the side of the Sharpton's of the world, but if that attitude doesn't drive home the fact that black life has less meaning then I don't know what does. It's so latently racist it's incredible. No way in hell she gives all of those answers if it was a white middle class 17yo. No damn way.

Are you serious? You take from her comments that she's a racist only because she believed Zimmermans narrative after hearing all of the evidence presented at the trial? WTF is wrong with some of you people.

 

[Clifford]

OK, the point about him being out of the car is something I forgot and important. If you believe that he did not initiate the confrontation.

The fact that a dispatcher is not a cop and not allowed to order someone doesn't mean his advice was not good advice.

Unfortunately it was advice Zimm should have received well before that stage in the process.

Unless of course you think he should have been checking Tray out in the first place.

 

[Da Guru]

Zimmerman FB rant goes viral. 100,000 shares in one day.