ZIMMERMAN VERDICT IS IN - NOT GUILTY

Post Reply New Topic

Dumb statement indeed and blatantly shows that racism has many colors of skin. This whole collective "It's because I'm black or minority thinking" is the problem in the first place. The kid probably thought that way too and let's say for instance he did he sees this white boy creeping up and to the black kid he profiled Zimmerman as this white boy out to get him because he was black. So the young kid probably got aggressive with Zimmerman and caught Zimmerman off guard. Zimmerman whom admittedly stated that he thinks the perp has a weapon took that act of aggression hostile and shot him the first chance he got loose to prevent the perp from making the shot. Do you see what I painted there.

Let's say we lived in a world without racism here is how it would go down. Zimmerman sees a suspicious kid with a hoodie walking around. The kid with the hoodie see Zimmerman watching him closely. The kid thinks to himself why is this guy watching me. The kids goes up to Zimmerman to get things straitened out. Zimmerman now knows why the kid is creeping around. They walk away to their own lives. Racism out of the picture and now the kid acts appropriately to the situation instead of becoming defensive for no reason other than "It's because I'm black".

Yes, it was explicitly included. It was also apparently considered by the jury. It's just that they still could not prove it was not self-defense in this case.

I mean, I understand how so many people feel like this isn't just, and Zimmerman was not behaving in the best way at all. Nobody is going to label him a saint afterwards, once again, most legal analysts do find this conclusion justified.

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2013/07/14/leg ... an+Verdict

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/zimmer ... /id/514186

http://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/prawfsblaw ... -king.html

http://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/prawfsblaw ... uilty.html (note: Different author than other citation)

http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/07/ra ... zimmerman/

http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/2013/0 ... _walk.html

So..... yeah. I mean, it's great for us to have our private opinions, but my understanding is that the people who actually know about the law do lean strongly towards acquittal, with manslaughter perhaps just being the most extreme. And.... honestly, given a legal principle like "It's better to let 10 guilty people free than to ruin the life of 1 innocent" or anything similar, then we should actually NOT be too distressed at this trial. Accepting injustices in failing to convict are the favored error by that heuristic, and pushing for marginal cases to be punished seems like it goes contrary to that relatively basic heuristic of justice.

(I dunno, do you actually disagree with the 10 guilty vs 1 innocent heuristic? I don't have any reason to dogmatically favor it, but I would assume most people tend to lean towards it in some way, shape, or form.)

Have you ever lived in the United States?


No rioting has happened yet, except in Oakland (Ca.). I’m sure that if people keep fanning the flames we’ll have roaring fires all over before long and everyone will be happy.


There’s never been a day in my life that I’ve been ashamed of being white or American and I can assure you that will never change.

It's racist to assume Black people are going to riot.

That's what general liability insurance is for.

I agree 100% - and it's actually a *very* important point.

to all the Zimmerman supporters, he isn't off the hook just yet. In federal crime cases double jeopardy doesn't apply. He can be tried again for the same crime under the federal court.

Not at all. It doesnt matter if the population concerned are black, white, red, brown, yellow or anything inbetween. Rioting happens in any country where you have a marginalised population where they have no meaningful representation or lawful voice of dissent.

Case in point being the nationalist community in Northern Ireland during the peak of the troubles.

The difference is in the US everyone has meaningful representation, they have lawful voice and dissent is allowed by law as long as it is nonviolent. Blacks are hardly marginalized (or any other population that is legally in the US). Riots only tend to happen in the US when something really outrageous happens... like the on-camera Rodney King beating and how the system fubar'd the way they handled their officers afterwards. That was riot worthy since the system failed despite overwhelming evidence.

This case has no such evidence. Its all running on media hype and Jesse Jackson's rabble rousing-for-profit. There will be protests (with the usual few angry people in them trashing a police car just because they have the opportunity to do so not because they are mad at this), lots of upset internet posts and a few weeks of pointless 'memorial' services/events/etc and then it will be all forgotten. But riots? Hardly.

I would disagree in part. Every time the black community turns to violence and racist epitaphs to get their way, it really just annoys everyone else who is trying to be sympathetic.

A white person is beaten and murdered, you don't see white people burning police cars. Same can be said of the Asians and Hispanics.

Act like fools and you only erode sympathy for your so-called "plight."

Economies of power.

White, hispanic and asian Americans have not experienced the same level or tradition of systematic persecution in their own country.

No hispanic or Asian American was ever expected to give up their seat on the bus.

If you don't have enough evidence to assume guilt beyond reasonable doubt, you should not find the defendant guilty.

This is how the court system works. I don't want people to be sent to prison who are actually not guilty of the crime that they have been accused of, but nor do I want people who really did it set free either.

If there was enough evidence there to convict, and the jury believed the prosecution, then he absolutely should be sent down.

The prosecution could not convince the jury of Zimmerman's guilt - hence, he was acquitted of the charge.

That's all there is to it.

Someone is imputing collective guilt, and it is shameful.

the things which disgust me the most about this trial are not necessarilly the white vs black element but they way in which the defence lobby has stooped to the lowest possible factors to rationale their case such as Martin's attitude towards his education or suspension from school.

I think rather than race this is going to become a war between landowners and the disposessed and will open the floodgates for more shootings on the basis of race profiling and over vigilante and paranoid suspicion of poor people. In America however this is going to invariably translate into a race conflict.

Interpretation is down to the individual. I understand that reactionaries are completely numb to any sense of social responsibility.

If I was American, I would be ashamed.

An important note is that while Zimmerman is not white himself, he benefits from white privilege because he 'passes' for white.

Particularly since he is a white-looking landowner.

As for the defence using the fact that Martin had marijuana in his system (a relaxant) it's worth noting that Zimmerman supposedly had Adderall and Temazepam in his system. An amphetamine/benzodiazepine cocktail has been known to have a side effect of increased aggression in certain individuals.