Right, because a determination was made that there was no evidence to sustain a charge. If the experts decide it's self defense it shouldn't be mind boggling. Instead Floridians got so spend a lot of tax dollars so a jury could tell everyone that original prosecutor who said there shouldn't be a trial was correct. But, in the end this will be good for Florida because an apparently terrible and hyper political state's attorney will likely lose her job and or be disbarred.
I don't expect anyone to try and answer this. It's much easier to say if a black guy did it.. Let's be real. black culture glorifies aggressive acts of violence and drug dealing. Its fine to call each other *****, but other races can't say it. They create the divide, and now they're dealing with the consequences. It won't stop unless they make a change, starting with their music idols and father figures who create the animosity.
Remember, not guilty of something does not mean he is innocent. I bet bigtexxx will be sprung all week.
What exactly is the "black culture"? You mean to tell me all of the working class people and everyone you've ever seen listen to violent music and worship JayZ? Funny bringing rap music up when other races are the ones who buy most of it ironically at that. ...and you get all of this because some idiot couldn't control his vigilante spirit? Ok man, you got it
What I'm asserting is that Zimmerman clearly knew Martin was black at the time he made the phone call. If he didn't know this, he wouldn't have been able to identify Trayvon's race when asked about it. Him not volunteering that information does NOT prove that Trayvon's race didn't play into his perception that Trayvon was suspicious. Nor does it prove he did. You simply can't read into why Zimmerman felt Trayvon was suspicous enough to make a conclusive determination either way. But what we do know for a fact is that Detective Serino was asked if he would have suspected Trayvon of criminal activity based on the account Zimmerman gave him and his answer was "No". We also know that Zimmerman could not cite any activity Trayvon was engaged in him that meets the typical standards society has for suspicious behavior. "Walking around and looking about" is not suspicious behavior. He never gave the police or the 911 dispatcher any credible or reasonable examples of behavior Trayvon was engaged him that made him suspicous. This is why many feel the real reason is that Trayvon was black. And while it is an opinion, not a fact, it is a perfectly defensible won.
Zim talked to the police THREE times without an attorney present. He even took them back to the crime scene, WITHOUT an attorney. Stereotyping, in a lot of instances, is crime prevention.
You can't prove Trayvon committed "felony assault" any more than the prosecutors could prove Zimmerman committed murder.
Well it should work both ways then, lets see how many black murderers will get to claim self defense after killing someone.
Go for it. Everyone has a right to try to say it was self defense. Unfortunately self defense claims rarely work because it's rarely true if the case is actually brought. In this case there was enough evidence to support Zimmerman's self defense claim. The original prosecutor was right not to bring charges. Alan Dershowitz has nailed this case perfectly.
You realize that is own lawyer has admitted on TV interviews Zimmerman profiled Trayvon Martin, right? Zimmerman referred to the man he killed as "The suspect" THIRTY times in a written statement the night he took TM's life. If that isn't profiling Martin as a criminal, what is it? What are statements like "these assholes always get away" or "f'n punks?" when he sees Trayvon running? He made these conclusions about Trayvon despite never having met or talked to this man, did he not? That is the very definition of profiling. At no point in this trial did Mark O'Mara attempt to deny Travyon was criminally profiled. His argument was moreover that Zimmerman was justified in profiling Trayvon. If you want to argue Zimmerman was justified in profiling Trayvon, you can make that argument and it's a reasonable position. But it's a ludicrous, completely intellectually dishonest position to deny that Zimmerman profiled Trayvon. That was blatantly obvious. He made all kinds of conclusions and assumptions about Trayvon just based on the way he looked and was dressed.
Are you serious? There's NOTHING against criminally profiling someone. Zim did NOTHING wrong. How many black people are murdered where dope ISN"T involved?
No, it wasn't. You need to look on how long THC can stay in the system. It's not like alcohol where having a bit of it in your system means you have been drinking within the past few hours. GZ also said TM looked like he was up to no good and implied he may be about to commit a robbery. Both of those assumptions were patently false. Bad things happen in life when you ASSume and that's exactly what GZ did.
Except that there are stats that show if you are white and claim self defense it's more likely that others will see your claim as justified. This has been posted a bunch of times already. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/front...-there-racial-bias-in-stand-your-ground-laws/
It's not like GZ went and tackled him. There's NOTHING wrong with thinking TM looked suspicious. The horse is dead.
Quite serious. Since the only other eyewitness to the incident is dead, you tell me how does Zimmerman's word prove that Martin committed "felony assault"? Sure he has injuries, but that doesn't prove assault. What if Trayvon acted in self defense? You seem to not realize that "not guilty" is not the same as "innocent." All the verdict means is that there is not enough evidence to prove that Zimmerman committed murder beyond a reasonable doubt. That doesn't mean that Martin was legally assigned blame. Like I said above, "not guilty" does not equal "innocent". Legally, Zimmerman could not be convicted. That does not prove he actually did nothing wrong. You tell us, you seem to have the world all figured out. Do you have statistics, or are you just making assumptions based on your personal anecdotal observations?
You don't. He could have profiled for other reasons, such as age, gender, attire, etc. It was realistically probably a combination of many factors. I personally think if Travyon was black but a 40 or 50 year old instead of a teenager that he would not have seen him as suspicious and there wouldn't have been any incident. And I think if Trayvon was another race but was young and was wearing a hoodie, GZ may still have thought he was suspicous. I think race played a role, but wasn't the only reason he criminally profiled TM. But I fully concede that's just an opinion and respect anyone's opinion that he didn't racially profile him. I honestly don't even have a problem with GZ profiling him. My problem is when he made the conscious and voluntary decision to ACT upon the profiling and not let law enforcement do what we pay and trust them to do. Following someone repeatedly late at night is reckless and incredibly stupid. This is type of behavior is highly likely to lead to at least a verbal confrontation. He could easily have gotten himself killed that night had TM been a real criminal.
