Martin was never proven to have attacked Zimmerman. He hasn't been on trial for that, and never had a defense presented against that. The Zimmerman trial did not find Martin guilty of attacking Zimmerman.
Common sense would lead one to believe that Martin attacked Zimmerman first. Neither of these guys come out smelling like roses. Zimmerman is guilty of racially profiling and following Martin who was doing nothing wrong. Martin is guilty of attacking a guy and smashing his head into the sidewalk. Zimmerman followed Martin because he was black, but he shot him because he was bashing his head into the ground. Two completely different actions that should not be related in any way.
Wrong, that's not the way the law works. Not even the ****ty r****d laws that Florida has. The actions are inextricably related as one series or chain of events. I hope Trayvon's family sues the **** out of zimmerman.
Well someone's idea of common sense isn't proof that a person is guilty of a crime. Without a trial not all of the evidence is seen, and examined. Common sense would tell you a man who's armed, ignores his neighborhood watch training, disregards the comments of the 911 dispatch, and admits shooting and killing the unarmed teen, would be guilty of a crime. But once the evidence was presented, and examined, he was found not guilty. It doesn't always work that way, but it's better to make sure we have a trial and examine all the evidence before making up minds about whether someone is guilty of something or not. TM was never tried for assault. He was never found guilty of that crime or any other crime. He may have been guilty but it's not been proven.
It has been proven by default. Otherwise Zimmerman would be in prison right now. And trying to link the racial profiling of following someone into the right to then bash someone's head in is a slippery slope. People that want Zimmerman to take the blame are saying that he started the chain of events that led to the shooting by racially profiling Martin. If you follow that logic then you are really opening up a can of worms there. I might take an extra glance at someone or call the police for neighbor's loud music or check my car after someone parks a little too close for me. Doesn't give any of them the right to bash my head in. Nothing Zimmerman did warranted him getting his head bashed in, so that is where the chain of events breaks and the initial racial profiling is no longer attached to the eventual killing. You have to, as an adult, be able to remove your anger from the situation and see the situation for what it was.
Uh, no it hasn't. All the not guilty verdict means is that your story of Martin attacking Zimmerman could be true. It doesn't mean it IS true to any degree of certainty. No one knows to a certainty what happened that night, and no one will ever know. But since no one knows, we have to presume Zimmerman is innocent. This is patently obvious, which is further augmented that the jurors have basically said that they were looking for any reason to toss Zimmerman in jail given his irresponsibility. Do you really think OJ didn't kill Nicole just because he was found not guilty?
If you believe that Zimmerman may have initiated the violence, then true. Most of the commenters I have seen and talked with are pointing to the initial profiling and following as instigating the ordeal and then ultimately causing the killing, which is obviously faulty logic. As long as we all agree that if Martin was the aggressor then the verdict was fair and just. I can be on board with the verdict being unfair if Zimmerman did, in fact, start the fight.
Good luck with that.... The Star witness is going on TV show after TV show making statements that make her even less credible than she was before.
In this case, there was eyewitness testimony that saw TM beating GZ. They could not have found GZ not guilty if the defense hadn't proven TM assaulted GZ because it was indisputable that GZ shot him and self defense was the reason for doing so. The juror who spoke out wanted to find him guilty because they felt they both played a role in the events that night. She said that based on the evidence that TM got mad and struck GZ first.
When I read all of the conservatives posts I can see there is a wide divide in so many areas, including how people view the most basic differences in how people treat each other. The odd thing... they seem to want to attract others to their way of thinking. This post is a perfect example... a 17 year teenager was walking home from the store gets killed.
You leave out what got him killed. It was his decision to use street justice because he felt angry because he was being followed. Tell the entire story
The 17 year old kid walking home is not the 17 year old kid that got killed. It was the 17 year old that started bashing someone's head in for no reason that got killed. Every single person that has ever been killed past age 18 in the history of the United States was at one time a 17 year old kid walking home. What they were doing when they got killed though might not really have anything to do with the time that they were a 17 year old kid walking home. No point in bringing up that part of Martin's history as it does not relate to the reason he was killed.
He was a 17 year old, walking home, and he was killed. Both sides can argue whether one party was assaulting the other, or one party should have have stayed in the car and/or not carrying a gun. What can't be argued... "Your side lost, get over it." Once the death of a 17 year kid becomes a part of someone's scoreboard, you really have to wonder...
50yrs from now people will still be debating weather justice was served by this verdict. The only truth is people see/hear what they want to see/hear, facts or the lack of facts is irrelevant! The only thing that I wish is that I hope my kids outlive me, and if they don't that at least their not taken in a tragedy such as this! ....... ....... .......
Yeah the scoreboard stuff is dumb. One person getting out of the car is not illegal. The other guy assaulting someone is illegal. There is no comparison to be drawn there. Martin unfortunately transformed from 17 year old walking home to 17 year old assaulting someone, and because of that, he is dead. Again, it is a tragedy, and no one looks good in this instance.
Not in evidence and certainly not common sense. Not in evidence I don't think that's a standard of proof in a trial. True by default? Eh? Not in evidence and Martin was a minor, not an adult. Not in evidence Not in evidence
