BigC Posted July 14, 2013 Share Posted July 14, 2013 http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23304198 Absolutely shocking decision. Apparently you can chase someone down the street and shoot then for being black and wearing a hoodie in America and it's OK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frankblack Posted July 14, 2013 Share Posted July 14, 2013 Its not surprising in a culture ruled by the NRA. This is exactly why guns should be banned in the US as it gives the shoot first defence credibility, but this won't happen. I'm sure I read some time ago about a British tourist being shot dead for knocking on someone's door for help, and the owner shooting through the door. Again, the house owner was found not guilty. Too many ****wits in the U.S. keep focusing on their twisted "right to carry arms" part of their constitution. This was written at the time of formation of the U.S.A. and bears little relevance now to what it was intended to cover. This is going to turn into another Rodney King situation, I'm afraid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Real Maroonblood Posted July 14, 2013 Share Posted July 14, 2013 Disgusting decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Benoit Posted July 14, 2013 Share Posted July 14, 2013 Disgusting decision. Very much this. I can't comprehend how someone can kill another man in cold blood and get found not guilty of murder Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_jambo Posted July 14, 2013 Share Posted July 14, 2013 Shocking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chad Sexington Posted July 14, 2013 Share Posted July 14, 2013 Wouldn't surprise me if it kicks off over the next few days. Ridiculous decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sterling Archer Posted July 14, 2013 Share Posted July 14, 2013 Not guilty of anything at all? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sterling Archer Posted July 14, 2013 Share Posted July 14, 2013 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
milky_26 Posted July 14, 2013 Share Posted July 14, 2013 according to USA today it is because of the prosecution didn't do enough to prove their case, this includes things like not properly preparing witnesses http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/07/13/george-zimmerman-found-not-guilty/2514163/ "The prosecution had no clear narrative, witnesses that appeared poorly prepared, and at the end of the day, this is more of a loss by the prosecution than a win by the defense," criminal attorney Darren Kavinoky said. Susan Constantine, a jury consultant and body language expert who attended Zimmerman's trial regularly, said the verdict meant there was reasonable doubt. "They just could not put the pieces together," she said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FWJ Posted July 14, 2013 Share Posted July 14, 2013 Its not surprising in a culture ruled by the NRA. This is exactly why guns should be banned in the US as it gives the shoot first defence credibility, but this won't happen. I'm sure I read some time ago about a British tourist being shot dead for knocking on someone's door for help, and the owner shooting through the door. Again, the house owner was found not guilty. Too many ****wits in the U.S. keep focusing on their twisted "right to carry arms" part of their constitution. This was written at the time of formation of the U.S.A. and bears little relevance now to what it was intended to cover. This is going to turn into another Rodney King situation, I'm afraid. Yes, his name was Andrew deVries (from Aberdeen) and he was shot in Houston. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff Kilpatrick Posted July 14, 2013 Share Posted July 14, 2013 Wait! So jury trial by your peers is inappropriate now when the "wrong" verdict is reached? I don't know enough about the case to say if he was guilty or not. I do know that I believe in jurisprudence and trial by jury. Mistakes will happen. Guilty people will be released. Far better that than an innocent man go to jail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cade Posted July 14, 2013 Share Posted July 14, 2013 Horrendous verdict. It was one of the most clear-cut murder cases in recent history and the guy goes free?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Real Maroonblood Posted July 14, 2013 Share Posted July 14, 2013 Wait! So jury trial by your peers is inappropriate now when the "wrong" verdict is reached? I don't know enough about the case to say if he was guilty or not. I do know that I believe in jurisprudence and trial by jury. Mistakes will happen. Guilty people will be released. Far better that than an innocent man go to jail. Aye OK. The thing is he did shoot him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mutley Posted July 14, 2013 Share Posted July 14, 2013 Wonder what would have happened if a black guy had shot a white kid Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PortyJambo Posted July 14, 2013 Share Posted July 14, 2013 Zimmerman's defence was that Martin attacked him, so he defended himself, and the prosecution failed to provide enough evidence/witnesses to get the jury to dismiss that defence. Yes, he followed Martin with a loaded gun and Martin wasn't armed, but their law allows him to shoot someone if he's legitimately threatened...the defence managed to persuade the jury that Martin was the one that escalated it to violence first. He shouldn't have done it, and he's an extremely lucky man to get away with it. I don't understand the American way of life when it comes to gun ownership/use, but I can understand why the jury reached the decision, even if a travesty imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snake Plissken Posted July 14, 2013 Share Posted July 14, 2013 Wonder what would have happened if a black guy had shot a white kid It wouldn't have made the news. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 14, 2013 Share Posted July 14, 2013 I was watching Fox news the other day and they had a judge on who was saying that it was a political prosecution and if he'd been in charge of the case he would have thrown it out due to lack of evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paolo Posted July 14, 2013 Share Posted July 14, 2013 Horrendous verdict. It was one of the most clear-cut murder cases in recent history and the guy goes free?? Obviously it wasn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff Kilpatrick Posted July 14, 2013 Share Posted July 14, 2013 Aye OK. The thing is he did shoot him. Indeed, but the charge was 2nd degree murder which has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. It wasn't in the eyes of the jury. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
invernessjt Posted July 14, 2013 Share Posted July 14, 2013 Can't say I'm surprised at this decision. It is America after all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gershwin Posted July 14, 2013 Share Posted July 14, 2013 He's 29? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peebo Posted July 14, 2013 Share Posted July 14, 2013 Horrendous verdict. It was one of the most clear-cut murder cases in recent history and the guy goes free?? It wasn't remotely "clear-cut". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peebo Posted July 14, 2013 Share Posted July 14, 2013 It wouldn't have made the news. The main reason this one was such big news was that the police didn't charge Zimmerman for weeks, not purely because of the race of those involved (Hispanic and black, for the record...). A lot of external pressure was applied, and he was finally charged. It looks like the policy's initial thoughts have been vindicated- that there wasn't enough evidence that this wasn't a crime involving intent. No one has suggested Zimmerman didn't kill him, but he wasn't on trial for simply killing him. The whole "self-defence" argument seems to have won the day. Personally, I find Zimmerman's actions that night pretty reprehensible and in my mind, it's because of him that this kid is dead. I find it disgusting that he basically walks away from this with no punishment. However, in the eyes of the law (in the US, not anywhere else) he wasn't guilty of the charges presented. The prosecution must take some blame for that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrick Bateman Posted July 14, 2013 Share Posted July 14, 2013 Zimmerman will be dead within weeks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peebo Posted July 14, 2013 Share Posted July 14, 2013 Yes, his name was Andrew deVries (from Aberdeen) and he was shot in Houston. He was reeking, and was, along with someone else, pounding on someone's backdoor, in the middle of the night. Unfortunately, due to the widespread availability of guns, and tendency of home invasions (which happen quite frequently still) to involve guns, the owners of the home were probably pretty scared and acted accordingly. The police never even charged them. Until I moved to Houston, I'd find that sort of thing pretty hard to comprehend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2NaFish Posted July 14, 2013 Share Posted July 14, 2013 Zimmerman? Wealthy white guy kills a poor black and there's a clear break down in justice? "Oh, but you who philosophize disgrace and criticize all fears Bury the rag deep in your face For now's the time for your tears" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moogsy Posted July 14, 2013 Share Posted July 14, 2013 Zimmerman will be dead within weeks. Hopefully Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Digby Chicken Caesar Posted July 14, 2013 Share Posted July 14, 2013 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tazio Posted July 14, 2013 Share Posted July 14, 2013 On the surface it basically looks likes someone using the law as a means to carry out a murder. If the victim did indeed assault him this law gives people an opportunity to exact revenge by simple claiming they felt they were in serious danger from the person. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hate_hibs Posted July 14, 2013 Share Posted July 14, 2013 Disgusting that he got not guilty.. Defenceless black kid murdered and the killer let off with it.... sums America right up to a tee... Can't see zimer lasting too long without someone getting payback on him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peebo Posted July 14, 2013 Share Posted July 14, 2013 On the surface it basically looks likes someone using the law as a means to carry out a murder. If the victim did indeed assault him this law gives people an opportunity to exact revenge by simple claiming they felt they were in serious danger from the person. Yes, people can claim that. However, juries will then have to determine the difference between a possible revenge attack, and someone possibly defending themselves in the heat of the moment (amongst other possible scenarios). It's worth remembering that there is a decent amount of evidence that Zimmerman was getting the shite beaten out of him moments before he shot Martin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tazio Posted July 14, 2013 Share Posted July 14, 2013 Yes, people can claim that. However, juries will then have to determine the difference between a possible revenge attack, and someone possibly defending themselves in the heat of the moment (amongst other possible scenarios). It's worth remembering that there is a decent amount of evidence that Zimmerman was getting the shite beaten out of him moments before he shot Martin. That is why I said "on the surface" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peebo Posted July 14, 2013 Share Posted July 14, 2013 That is why I said "on the surface" Yeah, I read the whole post, cheers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gizmo Posted July 14, 2013 Share Posted July 14, 2013 I've not followed this story closely but just going on what the beeb report says it's a bit of a shocker. Boy sits, armed, in his car looking for trouble in his neighbourhood. Gets out the car when he sees a black teenager wearing a sweatshirt with the hood up (because it was raining). The rest we can't perhaps know, but the most salient point is that Zimmerman was the initial antagonist in this case and caused the altercation by his own actions. This wasn't someone believing they were being followed home down a dark alley where several muggings had occurred and shooting their potential assailant, this was a do-gooder who racially profiled a young adult and, rather than being content with reporting a potential trouble-maker (and that's surely an assumption) to the Police, thought he was some modern day Sheriff and kicked-off a chain of events ending in him shooting the guy dead. Not a country I would want to live in, where life is so damn cheap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moogsy Posted July 14, 2013 Share Posted July 14, 2013 I've not followed this story closely but just going on what the beeb report says it's a bit of a shocker. Boy sits, armed, in his car looking for trouble in his neighbourhood. Gets out the car when he sees a black teenager wearing a sweatshirt with the hood up (because it was raining). The rest we can't perhaps know, but the most salient point is that Zimmerman was the initial antagonist in this case and caused the altercation by his own actions. This wasn't someone believing they were being followed home down a dark alley where several muggings had occurred and shooting their potential assailant, this was a do-gooder who racially profiled a young adult and, rather than being content with reporting a potential trouble-maker (and that's surely an assumption) to the Police, thought he was some modern day Sheriff and kicked-off a chain of events ending in him shooting the guy dead. Not a country I would want to live in, where life is so damn cheap. A truly heinous crime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2NaFish Posted July 14, 2013 Share Posted July 14, 2013 I've not followed this story closely but just going on what the beeb report says it's a bit of a shocker. Boy sits, armed, in his car looking for trouble in his neighbourhood. Gets out the car when he sees a black teenager wearing a sweatshirt with the hood up (because it was raining). The rest we can't perhaps know, but the most salient point is that Zimmerman was the initial antagonist in this case and caused the altercation by his own actions. This wasn't someone believing they were being followed home down a dark alley where several muggings had occurred and shooting their potential assailant, this was a do-gooder who racially profiled a young adult and, rather than being content with reporting a potential trouble-maker (and that's surely an assumption) to the Police, thought he was some modern day Sheriff and kicked-off a chain of events ending in him shooting the guy dead. Not a country I would want to live in, where life is so damn cheap. He did report it to the police. They police said they'd deal with it and for him to not get involved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cade Posted July 14, 2013 Share Posted July 14, 2013 Zimmerman was a neighbourhood watch vigilante with a gun and an attitude problem. Him acting the amateur cop led directly to the murder of Treyvon Martin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArcticJambo Posted July 14, 2013 Share Posted July 14, 2013 Zimmerman was a neighbourhood watch vigilante with a gun and an attitude problem. Him acting the amateur cop led directly to the murder of Treyvon Martin. Wasn't wearing a badge = charged. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fabienleclerq Posted July 14, 2013 Share Posted July 14, 2013 I think the law in Florida is more shocking than the actual verdict. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigC Posted July 14, 2013 Author Share Posted July 14, 2013 Zimmerman was a neighbourhood watch vigilante with a gun and an attitude problem. Him acting the amateur cop led directly to the murder of Treyvon Martin. He wasn't even that. He never attended any neighbourhood watch meetings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koolkeith Posted July 14, 2013 Share Posted July 14, 2013 Unfortunately Treyvon was never going to be able to give his side of the story, so easy for Zimmerman to say what ever he wanted of there were no direct witness's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CJGJ Posted July 14, 2013 Share Posted July 14, 2013 He wasn't even that. He never attended any neighbourhood watch meetings. There was not enough proof.. it's that simple. This rush to judgement by the media fuels anger amongst those groups who feel they are being penalised and then the whole thing escalates with all the hangers on trying to stir things up for their own agendas. Only 2 people truly know what happened and one of them is dead......the family of the boy deserve all our sympathy but it does not take away from the fact that the proof was not there for a conviction. There was a lot more to the case than the headlines and a jury heard the evidence and made a decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hmfc_liam06 Posted July 14, 2013 Share Posted July 14, 2013 That gave me a proper LOL moment! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matt84 Posted July 14, 2013 Share Posted July 14, 2013 Did anybody actually read the facts of the case? Trayvon Martin attacked George Zimmerman. Zimmerman recieved a broken nose and numerous cuts to the back of his head. Martin was on top of Zimmerman beating him when he was shot. Zimmerman feared for his safety and defended himself. The verdict was correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Draper Posted July 14, 2013 Share Posted July 14, 2013 Nicely done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cade Posted July 14, 2013 Share Posted July 14, 2013 If Zimmerman had not stalked Treyvon and initiated the confrontation, he would not have been on the end of a few punches. This entire situation was caused by Zimmerman. Who knows what he said or did to provoke Treyvon into action. Maybe Treyvon was acting in self defence after having a gun drawn on him? It's easy to counter questions with more questions. Only one side of the story can be heard because the only other witness is DEAD. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sten Guns Posted July 14, 2013 Share Posted July 14, 2013 It's completely irrelevant that Zimmerman initiated the confrontation. What was relevant was whether or not pulling the trigger was in self defence or not. Given Zimmerman was getting a bit of a doing, it's not difficult to see why the jury made this decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigC Posted July 14, 2013 Author Share Posted July 14, 2013 It's completely irrelevant that Zimmerman initiated the confrontation. How did you get to that conclusion? If I followed you down the road with a glass bottle, approached you and told you you weren't allowed to be wherever you were and you took a swing at me, I have the right to stab you in the neck with it and murder you? If I do is that "self defence". I understand that you may have stated the above in relation to the specific case and the law that they were working under, but chasing someone down, getting into a fight with them and killing them is never self defence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cade Posted July 14, 2013 Share Posted July 14, 2013 Following that kind of insane logic, nobody had better go out in that neighbourhood ever just in case they get stalked by a vigilante and shot dead if they defend themseves. Moron Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigC Posted July 14, 2013 Author Share Posted July 14, 2013 Did anybody actually read the facts of the case? Trayvon Martin attacked George Zimmerman. Zimmerman recieved a broken nose and numerous cuts to the back of his head. Martin was on top of Zimmerman beating him when he was shot. Zimmerman feared for his safety and defended himself. The verdict was correct. The medical examiner in the case said his wounds were very superficial. The only reason he feared for his safety was because he was chasing innocent people down the street and starting fights with them. You can't claim self defence when you initiate a confrontation just because the other guy gets the better of you. You can't ignore what happens before the point that Martin got the better of Zimmerman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.