world

More protests planned over acquittal in black teen's murder

98 Comments
By MIKE SCHNEIDER and KYLE HIGHTOWER

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2013 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

98 Comments
Login to comment

Everyone needs to stop worrying about last time and start thinking about next time. Laws need to be made and/or adjusted to ensure that if you go stalking innocent people so relentlessly and force them into a fight or flight situation, that you don't get the right to self defense if they happen to choose "fight".

How many Dirty Harry wannabee losers just decided to get their concealed carry permit and appoint themselves Neighborhood Watch captain and pray that they too can set themselves up in a situation where they can provoke a fight and blow someone away?

5 ( +10 / -5 )

Obama called Martin’s death a tragedy for America. It was a rare statement from the president on a case that doesn’t directly involve the federal government.

He should have kept out of this. Has he made any comments regarding the dozens of young black men who have been killed in gang-related violence? Or the innocent bystanders shot in crossfire?

Anyone who says Zimmerman is guilty, is either stupid; or has only read what the biased media has vomited out.

0 ( +14 / -14 )

Getting to be like Egypt now...

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

Jurors were told that Zimmerman was allowed to use deadly force when he shot the teen not only if he actually faced death or bodily harm, but also if he merely thought he did.

So that is the "standard": Not if he actually faced bodily harm, but only if he merely thought he did. And what level of bodily harm would he merely have to think he faced before using deadly force? And wouldn't the threshold be much lower in the mind of a gutless coward than for a person with an average amount of fortitude? And how about the mind of prejudicial person who has already convicted the "suspect" in his thoughts as being guilty of something they should not "get away with?"

On Monday, the country’s top lawyer, Attorney General Eric Holder, called the killing a “tragic, unnecessary shooting.” His Justice Department said the criminal section of its civil rights division, the FBI and federal prosecutors in Florida are continuing to evaluate the case.

In all of the calls made by Zimmerman to the police over the years, how many times did Zimmerman report his concerns about other (non-African-American) "suspects" in relation to the times he singled out African-Americans?

In building the case for a hate-crime charge, it would be helpful if a similar standard is applied as was applied to Zimmerman: If an overwhelming percentage of members of a minority "merely think" that other members of their group were being unfairly singled out for treatment that put their lives in jeopardy unnecessarily.

-5 ( +6 / -11 )

So that is the "standard": Not if he actually faced bodily harm, but only if he merely thought he did.

Wasn't he being hit when he shot the weapon?

9 ( +10 / -1 )

@yabits

So that is the "standard": Not if he actually faced bodily harm, but only if he merely thought he did. And what level of bodily harm would he merely have to think he faced before using deadly force?

If he had reason to believe he faced actual bodily harm. The court and jurors obviously believed him, why isn't that enough for you??

And wouldn't the threshold be much lower in the mind of a gutless coward than for a person with an average amount of fortitude?

That doesn't matter, the law is the law.

And how about the mind of prejudicial person who has already convicted the "suspect" in his thoughts as being guilty of something they should not "get away with?"

Do you want to take that hook, line, and sinker out that the media got you with yet?

In all of the calls made by Zimmerman to the police over the years, how many times did Zimmerman report his concerns about other (non-African-American) "suspects" in relation to the times he singled out African-Americans?

Probably a lot, since he was neighborhood watch.

In building the case for a hate-crime charge, it would be helpful if a similar standard is applied as was applied to Zimmerman: If an overwhelming percentage of members of a minority "merely think" that other members of their group were being unfairly singled out for treatment that put their lives in jeopardy unnecessarily.

First, no matter what you have been told by the media, this wasn't a hate crime!!; and second, an overwhelming percentage of members of a minority "merely think" that other members of their group were being unfairly singled out for treatment that put their lives in jeopardy unnecessarily already, thatnks to race-baiters like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson.

Where is their outrage at the thousands of young black males killed over the years by other young black males?? THAT is more of a problem than one thug getting shot because he attacked a guy following him because the guy thought he was suspicious.

Read the facts, not the lies the media has told you!

1 ( +11 / -10 )

These protests are not about justice or the rule of law but about mob rule. Zimmerman was justly acquitted.

9 ( +17 / -8 )

Jurors examined all info presented in court. We get info from media only, ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////all jurors had same conclusion and verdict came out. ......... probie on above explained in detaill. Media in USA always report for sensationalism, Majority of U/SA people do not trust media. {n this case. defense team prepared well but prosecutors team was sloppy. Don't blame jurors. They worked on proof, and not biased by media. i

11 ( +13 / -2 )

Wasn't he being hit when he shot the weapon?

Not sure. Zimmerman's story was all over the place on a dark night when his imagination was already running wild. He could have been suffering hits, or that could have been the moment when Zimmerman claims Martin was reaching for his gun. (If Zimmerman was on his back on the ground, his gun would have been underneath him -- out of Martin's sight.)

I am pretty sure that, all across the United States tomorrow, there will be hundreds, if not thousands of 16 and 17-year-olds hitting each other in the usual tussles teen-age boys so often get into. The standard asserts that any of those boys can introduce a weapon and apply deadly force when they feel afraid that they will be hurt.

Yes, out of those thousands of tussles, someone occasionally gets seriously injured or killed. But do we adopt the coward's way and endorse the bringing of firearms into those tussles?

-7 ( +4 / -11 )

With all the inequality in America and social/legal injustice (whites against blacks) it 's perplexing to me that the black community chooses such cases as Rodney King, OJ Simpson, and now Trayvon Martinto to champion. These were cases that had no basis in racism but were distorted and manipulated to create emotional reactions rather than logical ones. Should Zimmerman have followed Trayvon Martin? In my opinion...No. But to say that the reason he this all (including murder) went down because of race is an insult to the real situations and issues facing black communities.

1 ( +5 / -4 )

Actually Probie, it WAS a hate crime. When Rachel Jeantel testified under oath that Trayvon Martin described George Zimmerman as a "creepy ass cracker", it proved Martin's attack on Zimmerman was a racially motivated hate crime. Sorry, you can't have it both ways. If racial slurs makes other attacks hate crimes, you can't excuse this one just because the perpetrator got shot and killed.

7 ( +14 / -7 )

Jurors were told that Zimmerman was allowed to use deadly force when he shot the teen not only if he actually faced death or bodily harm, but also if he merely thought he did.

Oh boy. So after being followed by a white guy in his car on the phone who gets out and approaches him, Martin could have shot him right then and there if he thought he was in harms way. And, if Martin does make any moves because he feels his life is in danger, that opens it up for the other guy to make his own move because he feels like his life is in danger.

So I guess what it comes down to is the first person who shoots, wins.

-1 ( +6 / -7 )

Obama ... expressed sorrow at the verdict

The liberals were stamping their feet calling for a trial. Tthose same people are now rioting in the streets of my country because they can't handle the truth that Zimmerman was fairly tried and aquitted of all charges.

Meanwhile, the "Constitutional scholar" who swore on a Bible twice to represent all Americans obviously was absent from that law class on the day when the concept of "innocent until proven guilty" was taught.

RR

-1 ( +8 / -9 )

Actually, if you start looking at the trial and the evidence, as opposed to 'OMG RACISM' you'll see that the jury made a pretty sensible decision.

14 ( +15 / -1 )

@probie

Where is their outrage at the thousands of young black males killed over the years by other young black males?? THAT is more of a problem than one thug getting shot because...

The answer to this is rather obvious. (It could be your hateful attitude keeps you blind to it.) But first notice the contradiction: People are not supposed to care about one young black male getting killed, but rather "thousands." This is a rhetorical ploy as well as a pretense. You don't care about thousands of -- as you refer to them -- "thugs" being killed, nearly all them -- like Trayvon Martin -- being killed off one at a time. You simply deeply resent that attention should be focused on any one individual.

But the obvious difference is how the justice system, including local law enforcement, treats a killer of a young black man. In the places where "thousands" have been killed, does local law enforcement treat the killers as Zimmerman was treated by his local police? Certainly, even a hardened racist should be able to see the distinction.

The court and jurors obviously believed him, why isn't that enough for you??

We have always been in the court of public opinion -- where even our justice system is and should be subject to comment and evaluation. When you speak of "him," you can't possibly mean Zimmerman. Zimmerman did not allow himself to be put on the stand and face questions from attorneys. The only person alive who truly knows what happened that night was not allowed to be questioned. At the very least, there is no indication whatsoever that any juror "believed him." The burden of proof was on the State to make its case, not for Zimmerman to prove otherwise.

As far as that goes, the state was not allowed to introduce evidence relating to Zimmerman's past character-tendencies to act out with aggression and violence. The jurors may not have known about it, but the facts are here in the court of public opinion.

Read the facts, not the lies the media has told you!

Your post comes up very short on facts, I am afraid. Pardon me if I don't join you in your pit.

-7 ( +3 / -10 )

His lawyers are chompin' at the bit to go after NBC. That is where the money is. Gun, murder, race, lawsuits: This is the quintessential American story. It's only a matter of time before he announces his candidacy for some Tea Party position (oh, how they love him!).

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

@ViennaSausage - Say what you will about Rodney King and OJ, but people have a right to be upset about Martin. An innocent kid is dead because some overzealous cop wannabe decided to start a fight with him and shot him when he started getting his ass handed to him. To say that race has nothing to do with the case is just silly. The whole reason Zimmerman started following Martin is because he was a "suspicious black guy in a hoodie." If Zimmerman shot a white kid, I guarantee everything from the way the police initially treated Zimmerman to the way the verdict came out would've been different.

2 ( +9 / -7 )

As far as that goes, the state was not allowed to introduce evidence relating to Zimmerman's past character-tendencies to act out with aggression and violence. The jurors may not have known about it, but the facts are here in the court of public opinion.

I would like to add that, according to the standard, it would not have mattered one bit if Zimmerman actually initiated the fight and then, at some later point, if and when Zimmerman felt Martin might be winning, Zimmerman suddenly felt "threatened" enough to apply deadly force.

His lawyers are chompin' at the bit to go after NBC...oh, how they [tea party] love him!)

Well, that would certainly open Zimmerman up to cross-examination about his racist and violent tendencies. I think it would be utter folly to mistake "success" in this trial with admiration for Zimmerman's character. The Tea Party might value cowardice but I doubt if most Americans do.

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

@Probie

"Anyone who says Zimmerman is guilty, is either stupid; or has only read what the biased media has vomited out."

Then how did you come to your conclusion ? Did you do your own investigation ?

Wake up dude, you are as biased as everyone else

0 ( +4 / -4 )

Never mind the legal details as long as the racism narrative is supported. So evidently the good reverend Jackson believes that Trayvon Martin didn't get a fair jury of HIS peers, meaning a jury that consists of black males. What? Perhaps someone on his staff should clue him into the little fact that a jury of peers is for the DEFENDANT, in this case George Martin, and not for the complainant/plaintiff/victim. Also, the jury can be made up of any combination of races, sexes, etc. as long as both the prosecution and defense both accept them during jury selection, and also that the defendant is never entitled to or guaranteed a jury containing members of his/her own race, gender, age, or sexual orientation. Of course you can't blame ol' Jesse for ignoring these pesky legal fundamentals so he can push the racial bias angle to the max...

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-finkelstein/2013/07/14/jesse-jacksons-odd-complaint-trayvon-martin-denied-jury-his-peers

2 ( +5 / -3 )

Anyone who says Zimmerman is guilty, is either stupid; or has only read what the biased media has vomited out.

Well, some tidbits from the jurors are starting to emerge. As reported tonight, the initial vote of the jury had *three for acquittal, two for manslaughter, and one vote for second-degree murder**. So the jury was split 50/50 in thinking Zimmerman was guilty, at least in principle. (And this is after the State presented its case very poorly.)

Laws need to be made and/or adjusted to ensure that if you go stalking innocent people so relentlessly and force them into a fight or flight situation, that you don't get the right to self defense if they happen to choose "fight".

While the application of law -- such as in this case -- can be just, you make the excellent point that there are unjust laws. Laws, for example, that enable cowards or social misfits to gun down innocent people because they feel afraid of them, and walk away from any legal consequences with their right to carry deadly weapons intact.

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

Read the press, even this one. "More protests planned over acquittal in black teen's murder" Bias? He was found NOT GUILTY on Manslaughter too. Why is Murder in the title? Where were all the Casey Anthony protests? Oh that's right it was white on white.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

USinJapan: Never mind the legal details as long as the racism narrative is supported.

The only racism narrative that I support is that if Martin had shot Zimmerman I have to wonder if the result would have been the same.

As for everything else, it's a smoke screen. Racism doesn't stop a 16-year old black kid from going to school in an all black area. It doesn't stop him from getting basic grammar skills. It doesn't stop him from succeeding amongst his peers. We look at Asians with their very high academic standards but no one cries racism for everyone who might rate below them. We know it's something that starts at the home and the (over zealous) Asian parents push their kids harder than most, on average. Racism should only be debated if everything is put on the table, especially the culture of the black community overall.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Toshiko.... The prosecution had done an excellent job with little or nothing to go on. It was media and political pressure that charged Zimmerman.

Thank you honorable Rev. Al Sharpton. May you someday meet your maker and repent your sins that you have perpetuated over the decades. Profiting financially on racial divide! You do it so well.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

So evidently the good reverend Jackson believes that Trayvon Martin didn't get a fair jury of HIS peers, meaning a jury that consists of black males.

It seems as though you are conveying your own racist narrative here. Note that your link includes similar comments from former Republican Congressman, Joe Scarborough. And because you are so wrapped up in your own racist narrative, you fail to regard the possibility that a justice system has to be perceived as just by as large a majority of people it purports to serve as possible.

When a white Republican joins a black minister in expressing concerns, perhaps there is something important behind them, something only a complete and utter fool would try to dismiss.

In my view, it is a coward who blows a threat way out of proportion and then uses his fear to justify the application of deadly force on another person. It would have been helpful, although not necessarily for Zimmerman, if the jury would have included at least one male -- someone who is more likely from experience to understand the threat represented by a high-school fist-fight -- and whether that threat reaches existential proportions. (Especially given the 40-lb weight difference between the combatants.)

-7 ( +1 / -8 )

Where is their outrage at the thousands of young black males killed over the years by other young black males?? THAT is more of a problem than one thug getting shot because...

The answer to this is rather obvious. (It could be your hateful attitude keeps you blind to it.) But first notice the contradiction: People are not supposed to care about one young black male getting killed, but rather "thousands." This is a rhetorical ploy as well as a pretense. You don't care about thousands of -- as you refer to them -- "thugs" being killed, nearly all them -- like Trayvon Martin -- being killed off one at a time.

No. My point is that stuff worse than what happened in this case, happens every day in parts of the US. But the media doesn't care about black on black crime, or black on white crime. Where was the news about that black guys who beat up a white family- father, mother, and daughter at a gasoline stand because they were white?

http://theadvocate.com/home/5974195-125/police-man-wife-attacked-at

You simply deeply resent that attention should be focused on any one individual. But the obvious difference is how the justice system, including local law enforcement, treats a killer of a young black man. In the places where "thousands" have been killed, does local law enforcement treat the killers as Zimmerman was treated by his local police? Certainly, even a hardened racist should be able to see the distinction.

No. they don't, because Zimmerman didn't murder him. It was self defense!

The court and jurors obviously believed him, why isn't that enough for you??

We have always been in the court of public opinion -- where even our justice system is and should be subject to comment and evaluation. When you speak of "him," you can't possibly mean Zimmerman.

And public opinion is moulded by the media. The media have been against Zimmerman from the start. There was the photo thing- showing a bad picture of Zimmerman, while showing a picture of TM when he was 12 or something, not the thug he was when he died.

Zimmerman did not allow himself to be put on the stand and face questions from attorneys.

He didn't have to. The burden of proof is on the prosecution.

The only person alive who truly knows what happened that night was not allowed to be questioned.

He didn't have to. The burden of proof is on the prosecution.

At the very least, there is no indication whatsoever that any juror "believed him."

Oh, no. Of course they didn't believe him. They only found him NOT GUILTY! I didn't know that jurors found people they didn't believe not guilty.

The burden of proof was on the State to make its case, not for Zimmerman to prove otherwise.

Exactly. They couldn't prove otherwise, because there was no case. Everything they had was negated by the stand your ground law.

As far as that goes, the state was not allowed to introduce evidence relating to Zimmerman's past character-tendencies to act out with aggression and violence. The jurors may not have known about it, but the facts are here in the court of public opinion.

They probably didn't fight that ruling, because then the defense would be able to bring up TM's past behaviour and blow the case out of the water.

Read the facts, not the lies the media has told you!

Your post comes up very short on facts, I am afraid. Pardon me if I don't join you in your pit.

No no no. YOUR posts are empty of facts. Look at the facts impartially and you'll see GZ is innocent.

5 ( +10 / -5 )

...a jury of peers is for the DEFENDANT, in this case George Martin....

Right. In Zimmerman's case, a group of women is the closest thing he has to "peers" - he is nothing like a man.

-12 ( +0 / -12 )

erm, way to make a low-blow at women at the same time Laguna. Way to go. Way.to.go.

6 ( +7 / -1 )

It's only a matter of time before he announces his candidacy for some Tea Party position (oh, how they love him!)

.Have to try and make him a part of the Tea Party on zilch evidence, pathetic.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

So that is the "standard": Not if he actually faced bodily harm, but only if he merely thought he did. And what level of bodily harm would he merely have to think he faced before using deadly force? And wouldn't the threshold be much lower in the mind of a gutless coward than for a person with an average amount of fortitude?

Dude, whenever you hear legalese like that it means that any other reasonable, normal person placed in the same situation would have viewed the situation the same way. If Zimmerman's account is true and Martin was slamming his head against the pavement, I would absolutely fear great bodily harm, or even death.

Have you ever personally been in a fight? In High School I once got jumped by a guy who clocked me from behind with a huge blow to the back of my head. Thankfully I didn't start bleeding or receive a concussion, but in that moment I honestly feared for my personal well-being. There have been numerous cases over the years where one, single punch can kill someone if landed in just the right spot and with the right amount of force. If that's what one punch can do, imagine what having your head slammed against concrete could do.

6 ( +6 / -0 )

. It's only a matter of time before he announces his candidacy for some Tea Party position (oh, how they love him!).

He will have to leave the Democrat party first:

The individual at the center of the controversial Trayvon Martin shooting is a registered Democrat.

George Michael Zimmerman, born Oct. 5, 1983, registered as a Democrat in Seminole County, Fla., in August 2002, according to state voter registration documents.

It is unclear whether he voted for President Barack Obama in 2008.

http://freebeacon.com/registered-dem-killed-trayvon/

2 ( +5 / -3 )

erm, way to make a low-blow at women at the same time Laguna.

Right, Tokio - I have to apologize there. Women would be unlikely to be stupid enough to pick a fight they couldn't win, shoot the target of their aggression, and them blame it on the victim. That would be just crazy.

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

i don't see anything wrong so I don't know what's the fuss is all about, america..

YOU choose to arm your citizens, deal with it.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Don't hit a guy with a gun multiple times...........

6 ( +8 / -2 )

who ask the US to allow guns everywhere? Even if someone has never seen or hold a gun, he or she would be tempted to pull the trigger if happens to have one in the hand. Guns are not toys and should not be legalized like that in the US.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

Three of the six female jurors believed he was innocent from the beginning of their deliberations, while one wanted to convict the neighborhood watchman of second degree murder and the other two wanted to find him guilty of manslaughter.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

This is a bit of a cliché, but it is instructive to consider this case with the roles reversed. Imagine an unarmed black man sitting in his car. He sees an unknown white man walking past in the rain and, believing him to be suspicious, calls the police. The police explicitly tell him not to follow the man, but he does so anyway. The white man ends up dead from a single gunshot wound with no independent witnesses to confirm how the altercation started. How many of you defending the acquitted man contend that a black shooter, would not, in such circumstances be immediately arrested by the police? How many of you contend that a black man, in such circumstances could go to trial and walk out a free man innocent of any crime? While much of the media reaction has focused on profiling the pedestrian, it is surely also pertinent to “profile” the armed neighborhood watchmen with the following exercise: Consider if and how your instinctive gut reactions vary to the following two phrases. Phrase 1: An armed black man is sitting in his car monitoring passersby. Phrase 2: An armed white man is sitting in his car monitoring passersby. In the absence of all context, do you assume the man in phrase 2 is protecting his community or is up to no good? What about phase 2? I would suggest that the reason a black man could never be acquitted in the way that Zimmerman was is that he would never be the beneficiary of an initial assumption of benevolence. That is because, in the minds of the majority, only the white man is granted the freedom to make decisions for the whole community. In other words, Trayon Martyn’s killer was assumed, even before any evidence is available, to be acting as a trustworthy individual on behalf of his community, where as a black man is never given the benefit of the doubt in this manner. As such, in such cases, the starting point for the white man is the presumption of innocence and the starting point for the black man is the presumption of guilt. Of course, another key issue in this case is the laws in Florida that theoretically allow someone, of any race, to follow a complete stranger, provoke them into a confrontation, and shoot them dead, before claiming self-defense. Most cultures around the world would surely reject such a law as absurd. However while the faults of the Stand Your Ground Law are not a racial issue per se, the application of the law in this case undoubtedly has a racial element for the reasons outlined above.

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

@jpn_guy

It wouldn't even be news. Black on white crime is almost never reported on to the extent white on black crime is.

White people don't have race-baiters like Al Sharpton on TV to blow up anything that suits them, and ignore as due.

6 ( +8 / -2 )

While the case was complex and I believe most would agree a tragedy - the protests, have people targeting their own low-income neighborhoods and trashing local stores, businesses and vehicles ...it's happening right now in my home city, including assaults and beatings on people who had a) nothing to do with the case in itself and b) who take a risk in 'dangerous' neighborhoods and try to build up the community, bringing jobs etc...these guys will leave and again the community goes into decline. Whatever you think of the verdict the violent protests achieve nothing...

3 ( +3 / -0 )

@probie "it wouldn't even be on the news". Thanks for your reply. As it happens, I agree with you entirely. For various social, historical and commercial reasons black on white crime is under-reported in comparison to white on black crime. But that is a completely separate issue. I’m not talking about bias in media coverage. I’m talking about bias in the results of judicial process. Logically , there is no reason why media bias and judicial bias should not go in opposite ways. Let me state the question simply. If the roles were reversed, are there any similar circumstances in which you can imagine a black gunmen walking free? Be honest with yourself!

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

The headline is misleading. Martin wasnt murdered as the man responsible for killing him has been cleared of murder charges by the court system.

In reality Zimmerman should have been convicted for manslaughter. He followed/approached Martin despite being told not to by police, he bears some responsibility for the killing for that.

It wasnt murder, though. There is no evidence whatsoever that Z planned to kill Martin.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

Let me state the question simply. If the roles were reversed, are there any similar circumstances in which you can imagine a black gunmen walking free? Be honest with yourself!

I took your challenge and found a case in Iowa where the shooter was African American and the person assaulting him was a white Anglo by the name of James Scott Ludwick,,,,,,Excerpt:

A former security guard and law enforcement officer, Lewis also is a hunter and gun collector and came to Iowa with a permit to carry a concealed weapon.

Police reports and court records say Lewis’ troubles began shortly before midnight on Oct. 29. Lewis was headed home in his blue Ford Mustang, south on 11th Street toward Regency Woods Apartments in West Des Moines, when he came upon a Ford Taurus driven by James Scott Ludwick, 35.

Ludwick, a former soldier and convicted felon, was driving four people home from a Halloween party. Documents say Ludwick slowed; Lewis passed him. Ludwick sped up, and the cars raced down 11th Street until they came to Regency Woods. They collided when Lewis, in front and on the right, started to turn left.

Lewis said Ludwick and a passenger, Justin Lossner, got out of the Taurus and began punching the Mustang’s windows.

Ludwick was shot, Lewis said, when Ludwick turned away as if to retreat, then spun back and charged. Records say the bullet hit Ludwick in his chest above the right pectoral muscle, then tore through his right bicep.

Jurors found Lewis’ actions entirely appropriate.

“He gave them fair warning,” jury forewoman Nancy Alberts said. “Normally, anybody that would pull a gun on someone, you would think that they would stop. ... That wasn’t the case here. You could clearly hear on the 911 call where he warned Mr. Ludwick.”

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20120222/NEWS01/302220033/Man-acquitted-in-shooting-is-happy-to-be-free-?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|News&nclick_check=1

Ludwick's mug shot from a previous DUI arrect in Iowa.

http://www.whosarrested.com/iowa/polk-county/des-moines/pcso/974510-james-scott-ludwick:

4 ( +4 / -0 )

I should add that on second thought, perhaps the issues of media bias and judicial bias are not entirely unrelated. While it is certainly true that there are many black on white crimes that do not attract much media attention, the reason the Trayvon Martin case got more publicity than many white on black killings is not principally because the victim was black. It is because the perpetrator was not immediately arrested despite shooting someone. As a black man in such circumstances would be arrested at the scene, there is obviously no chance for a black on white killing to result in in a "man shoots pedestrian, police not interested" hook for the media to run with, which is where the Trayvon story first gained traction. In fact in your comment that the issue "would not make the news" with the roles reversed, you seem to be tacitly agreeing that had Trayvon been the shooter and Zimmerman the deceased, Trayvon would simply have been railroaded to jail with a complete lack of media interest. Is that what you meant to say?

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

sailwind - Are you seriously suggesting that the circumstances of the Lewis case you describe are in any way similar to the Zimmerman case?

It sounds from your description that it was Ludwick who started off the car chase, approached Lewis' car after the collision with another person and started punching Lewis' car. Then he 'charged'. While I do not approve of guns at all, it sounds like Lewis was right to fear for his life; he was being ganged up on by a bunch of seriously deranged people.

That incident bears no relation to the Zimmerman case, where it was the man with the gun doing the stalking, following and approaching.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

just because zimmerman followed him doesn't mean he was intent on attacking him. he very well may have wanted to keep tabs on him until the police showed up. zimmerman only acted on a paranoid hunch, but following someone, even someone you don't like, does not prove intent to batter.

and talking to, accosting, or even threatening (verbally not with a weapon) someone also doesn't mean zimmerman began the altercation. the first person to make physical contact began it. we have no idea who that was. never will. if he confronted martin and martin hit him... martin, regardless of innocence leading up to moment, started the battery in the eyes of the law.

now, if you want my GUESS as to what happened here it is. zimmerman is not a racist. he is a paranoid coward of a man who probably lives most of his life scared. he did follow trayvon. trayvon is a bit of a punk, but that night he wasn't doing anything wrong (and certainly didn't deserve to die) he saw zimmerman watching him and also became paranoid. rather than go home he hid. zimmerman lost site of him and went looking for him so he didn't get away with whatever imagined crime zimmerman thought he did. either he came upon trayvon and confronted him or trayvon saw him first, and attacked him out of fear of being attacked himself. during the fight zimmerman was getting his butt kicked and shot.

zimmerman did a lot of stupid things, but I don't think any was with harmful intent. he was a scared man acting out of imagined fears. martin did nothing to deserve zimmerman's paranoia, but he could have avoided the conflict by continuing home rather than allowing (or possibly encouraging) the conflict to escalate. he was a scared kid who fought rather than retreat. neither was in the the absolute right. trayvon paid a heavy price for it. it's a terrible and completely avoidable thing and the real irony is that the real cause is that we've (americans) become a nation of paranoids constantly fearful of people that aren't like us... a fear now being stoked by the emotions brought to the surface by the very tragedy it caused.

of course this is all my largely ignorant opinion, which is why you won't see me claiming either victory in the verdict nor condemning it. this is a terrible thing... but nearly as terrible is what this national reaction to it says about who we are as a society and just how badly we will skew and color an event to fit our own narrative. It's a shame.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Did you hear about this one? Didn't think so. The crickets were deafening...

http://dailycaller.com/2013/07/12/why-is-joshua-chellew-less-important-than-trayvon-martin/

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Thanks Cleo, you saved me a post.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

some07791 is correct. The headline is false and heavily biased, misleading at best. Trayvon Martin was NOT murdered. The word "murder" needs to be replaced by the word "death".

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Agreed on the poor title, but "killed" would be more accurate.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

GZ was found Not Guilty. It was not an acquittal. More media bias.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

@ 80393 overall your post seems quite reasonable but you make one incredible statement "martin... could have avoided the conflict by continuing home". I cannot see how you manage to pin the blame for the altercation on Trayvon. It's a reversal of logic. None of us know for sure the exact sequence of events, other than a man walking home was, through no fault of his own, followed by an armed stranger, and would up being shot dead. Maybe "just trying to continue home is exactly what he was doing". It is certainly exactly what he was doing before the armed man got out of his car.

There is no independent evidence for any of the "lost sight of" scenarios, as far as I have read in the news (I did not watch the trial, so if there is any independent evidence of this, I would be grateful to anyone who can point it out). Again, we have to ask, would a dead white man gunned down by an armed black man in this situation be facing accusations that he could have "avoided the conflict"? (Sailwind, just to help you out, "in this situation" means walking home, minding your own business and ending up shot, not smashing all the windows on a car you have just collided with, which to my understanding, is not really the same thing at all. Thanks for the example though).

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

GZ was found Not Guilty. It was not an acquittal. More media bias.

@MarkG

I'd love to hear your explanation of the difference between a "not guilty" verdict and an "acquittal".

According to my Oxford dictionary, my Chambers dictionary and the online Websters dictionary, they're exactly the same. But you know better?

2 ( +2 / -0 )

@jpnguy- thats why i said it was my guess. in big capital letters.

this is interesting. it plays the 911 call and shows the movements, step by step, on a map of the area. im not familiar with the website so i cant vouch for it. believe what you will.

http://www.wagist.com/2012/dan-linehan/evidence-that-trayvon-martin-doubled-back

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

zimmerman did a lot of stupid things, but I don't think any was with harmful intent. he was a scared man acting out of imagined fears

It didn't matter. As soon as Zimmerman left his car -- against the rules -- to pursue the teenager with a loaded weapon, Martin could justifiably claim, under Florida law, that he was in fear for his safety. If he had a gun, he could have drawn and fired at Zimmerman, and the law would have protected him.

The evidence of Zimmerman's gun -- carried against the rules for Watches -- would have added a great deal of weight to Martin's justly feeling afraid for his life. Plus, now, Florida citizens have this case to use as a precedent. The Zimmerman standard might become as well known as Miranda rights.

This is what the case, and Florida law, are broadcasting as a message to all of its citizens. As long as you feel afraid, you have a lot of leeway to act upon your fear. I think the ideal that some Americans have is that, if everyone is armed, people will be a lot "nicer" to each other. We'll see how that plays out. Personally, I think there's going to be a lot more "Shoot first, and ask questions later."

Keep in mind that it's going to be up to the State to prove beyond that shadow of a doubt that a person in a given situation could not have feared for his safety. That's the standard that this case has set into place.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Seems to me that this law basically gives me the right to take out anybody I like.

I see someone I don't like, follow him down the street, put my face in his face and say "What you looking at boy?". And when he happens to move his hand towards his pocket, I blow him away because I felt "threatened".

Wonderful.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

To be totally fair, if we are going to dig up the past about BOTH parties, we can start to refer to Trayvon by his twitter handle, "no_limit_n!gga", or by his tattoos, or his drug use, or his expensive gold "grille", or school suspension for carrying suspected stolen goods and a housebreaking tool, etc etc etc.

I also notice that the original story only mentions the race of Trayvon, and not George. Why is that, I wonder...

2 ( +3 / -1 )

@Vienna Sausage2 - I am interested in you comment, please do explain it!

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

And when he happens to move his hand towards his pocket, I blow him away because I felt "threatened".

And it will be up to the State to prove you weren't actually threatened.

To be totally fair

Does anyone believe that is remotely achievable for you?

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

MarkG

GZ was found Not Guilty. It was not an acquittal. More media bias.

A jury's "Not Guilt" verdict IS an "acquittal" in every sense of the word. At least in the U.S. justice system. What the hell are you talking about?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It didn't matter

it did to the jury.

against the rules for Watches

the rules of the watch dont mean anything. they are not laws and zimmerman wasnt claiming 'member of the watch' as a defense.

Florida citizens have this case to use as a precedent

ever been to florida? they hardly need a precedent.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

@yabits

And it will be up to the State to prove you weren't actually threatened.

Which is going to be difficult without witnesses. So then race becomes the key factor, and we all know where that's going to end up....

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Which is going to be difficult without witnesses.

I'm not sure there is any witness who can prove or disprove what I was or was not feeling at any given time.

So then race becomes the key factor

I don't know if it's the key factor in one respect: Thanks to the case, African-Americans have just cause to feel even more fear for their security now that they can't put much faith in a legal system that allows anyone who claims to feel threatened by them to use deadly force against them with impunity.

But here is where it might become a key factor: When a sufficient number of people are freed by the justice system for killing whites who made them feel afraid, watch how fast the law changes. Believe.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

@yabits

When a sufficient number of people are freed by the justice system for killing whites who made them feel afraid, watch how fast the law changes. Believe.

I sincerely hope you're right, my friend....

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

For all the armchair lawyers, the words of one of the actual jurors may be helpful.

" The juror said that she thinks it was Trayvon threw the first punch in the subsequent physical altercation that night and that she believed Zimmerman's account of what happened that night.

"I think George was pretty consistent and told the truth basically," she said.

She said that both sets of parents likely believe that it was their child calling for help on the 911 tape. "They are your kids you want to believe they are innocent," she said.

As for the juror herself, she was "sure" that it was Zimmerman calling for help.

She said that the laws they had to consider were "very confusing" so they took their time to think through it all carefully."

The jurors didn't take the decision lightly. They examined the evidence, examined the laws, and took their decision, unanimously after much deliberation.

The ones playing up the race card are the media buztards.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

the rules of the watch dont mean anything. they are not laws and zimmerman wasnt claiming 'member of the watch' as a defense.

You don't appear to be too swift on the uptake so allow me to describe the scenario the way it will likely play out going forward:

A 17-year-old shoots and kills a man who he claims is stalking him and making him fear for his safety. The physical evidence includes the gun that the stalker was carrying. The grieving family of the alleged stalker claims that he was a Neighborhood Watch member and just doing his duty. And then the defense introduces the fact that Neighborhood Watch members were instructed never to carry weapons or to pursue suspects -- ironclad evidence that the stalker was not acting as a Watch member and therefore could be interpreted by someone who didn't know him as being "up to no good."

Remember that the State has to prove to a jury that someone like Trayvon Martin could not have felt threatened -- if it had happened that Trayvon took out a weapon and shot Zimmerman that night. The reality of the George Zimmermans out there stalking people they think are suspicious -- and Florida legal system protecting that behavior -- has drawn a very clear line and upped the ante if a very significant way.

-7 ( +0 / -7 )

MarkkC: Prosecutors did not grill one of voice witness to whom Zimmerman owes $4,000. Did not have Pathology expert. Did kept mum when Texas Pathology expert was on stand for Defence team, on and on. I

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

And to those of you who believe that (the Hispanic) Zimmerman pursued Martin because Martin was black. Really? So if the man in the "hoodie" would have been white or Hispanic, Zimmerman would have let it go? How is that race has been dragged into this argument? I personally can't believe people are allowed to carry around firearms...But to say that this is a race issue is completely ridiculous.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Don't forget that Zimmerman was the neighborhood watch captain. He never seen Martin before because Martin doesn't live there. With the recent crimes experienced in the home owners association, it should not be a complete surprise if Zimmerman paid more attention to Martin. BUT, whatever your feelings are, the jury has decided. I think the all the shouting and demos are because Martin happens to be black and people think a miscarriage of justice took place. Fact was decided by jury.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

So if the man in the "hoodie" would have been white or Hispanic, Zimmerman would have let it go?

Zimmerman was noted for calling 911 a great many times over the past few years. Of all those calls, how many were made to report a suspicious person who was not African-American?

How is that race has been dragged into this argument?

Race plays a big part in the court of public opinion. Here's a test:

Let's assume for a minute that it was George Zimmerman who was shot and killed that night by Trayvon Martin. And that Martin claimed he was afraid when Zimmerman stalked him. With no witnesses, the police accept his claim of self-defense and the court finds him "not guilty." (Review the Florida Law that sets a standard that Trayvon only had to feel afraid for his safety in order to claim self-defense. Prosecution would have to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that Martin could not be afraid. It being dark and with a "creepy" stalker after him, I think reasonable doubt would be there.)

Question: Do you believe the people here applauding the court's decision and congratulating Zimmerman would take the same position if it was Zimmerman who was shot?

Well, do you?

Full disclosure: I have no qualms saying in a heartbeat that if Martin pulled out a gun and shot Zimmerman, that he would be every bit the gutless coward that, with the trial and full evidence of his "injuries" now in the record, Zimmerman has demonstrated himself as being. Doubly so, if Zimmerman turned out to be as unarmed as Trayvon Martin was that night. But Florida law, being what it is, would have and should have exonerated either one of them.

Any person walking through a neighborhood, park, or other public space in Florida who feels threatened in any way is going to have a very compelling reason to defend themselves with deadly force. (The safest thing is to assume the person you feel threatened by is armed -- increasing dramatically your justification in feeling fear for your life.) As soon as a sufficient number of shooters walk free who have killed whites, claiming self-defense and applying the Zimmerman standard, you'll see changes made to Florida law so fast, you'll think it was magic. (And that's where race figures in too.)

What makes this case so powerful is that, even though a criminal court might even eventually convict someone of manslaughter, an appeals process would certainly review to determine if the law had been fairly applied -- using the Zimmerman standard.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

http://www.gzdocs.com/documents/0513/discovery_3/tm_photos/thumbnail_photos.pdf (Trayvon cell-phone pics w/gun)

Let's assume for a minute that it was George Zimmerman who was shot and killed that night by Trayvon Martin.

http://www.gzdocs.com/documents/0513/discovery_3/tm_photos/thumbnail_photos.pdf (Trayvon cell-phone pics with his gun)

It was only a matter of time before this young thug got caught. His Mom was smart in kicking him out of her house. Still parents need to be responsible for their kids and they should be getting sued for all these crimes.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Question: Do you believe the people here applauding the court's decision and congratulating Zimmerman would take the same position if it was Zimmerman who was shot?

Yep, you caught us. Everyone is a racist except for you.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

It was only a matter of time before this young thug got caught.

Completing that line of thought: So it was better for all concerned that he was killed that night.

For a nation and society which has endorsed the concept of "preemption" when it comes to defense, based upon the likelihood of a threat being in the "five percent" range, the endorsement of applying deadly force to a teenager with fists seems to fit in quite nicely.

What the people who control the state of Florida appear to be doing is driving the decisions and consequences for personal defense down to the individual level. Allow "justice" to play out on the streets, as it will. Once Zimmerman claimed self-defense with no witnesses, his story should not have been subject to anything more than routine questioning -- and certainly not in any courtroom. Whatever he portrayed about Martin should have been accepted completely. After all, Zimmerman is a regular choir boy who would never exaggerate to save his own skin.

But even if some of the story doesn't add up, applying the Zimmerman standard means that he gets to gauge the threat using his own imagination. And if his imagination leads him to fear the worst, he gets to apply deadly force and Florida law will protect him for doing it.

The same would a apply to a Trayvon Martin who guns down someone he feels threatened by. And since Zimmerman was no angel in his past, it could be said about a gunned-down Zimmerman that it was only a matter of time before his anger and aggression finally caught up with him.

Yep, you caught us.

Caught one, obviously.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

Yabits The jury made a decision based on the facts and evidence. Do you believe the jurors were racist? I'm honestly cery curious.to understand your thought process. And if a white (or in this case Hispanic) man were attached in a black neighborhood, is this racism? Should this be deemed a hate crime? Please expand on your views.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

The jury made a decision based on the facts and evidence.

Juror B37 has revealed that the jury, when it first polled itself, found that it was split 50/50 on the decision. Two jurors, having heard all of the facts and evidence, voted to convict Zimmerman of manslaughter; one juror, hearing the same facts and evidence, voted for second-degree murder. The remaining three voted to acquit.

Then, something very interesting happened, if we are to believe Juror B37: She claims that members of the jury introduced the Florida law regarding Stand-Your-Ground. Keep in mind that the legal points of Stand-Your-Ground were never introduced in the trial, nor were the discussed. The jury decided on their own to introduce the law and use it to argue and weigh their final decision.

So, go back to your statement: If Juror B37 is to be believed, the jury made their decision influenced to such a degree that it was worthy of her to note it, on a law that was never part of the trial. So, in light of that evidence, how can you claim that their decision was based upon the "facts" of the trial, when it clearly was not?

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

So the stand-your-ground law isn't relevant to the case? And, again, do you believe that the jury was racist or was it just a simple case of man hating?

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Keep in mind that the legal points of Stand-Your-Ground were never introduced in the trial, nor were the discussed. The jury decided on their own to introduce the law and use it to argue and weigh their final decision.

Not true at all:

Judge Nelson's instructions to the jury excerpt prior to deliberations:

"If George Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in anyplace where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony"

http://guardianlv.com/2013/07/zimmerman-jury-instructions-as-read-by-judge-nelson/?utmsource=rss&utmmedium=rss&utm_campaign=zimmerman-jury-instructions-as-read-by-judge-nelson

1 ( +1 / -0 )

@jpn_guy

@probie "it wouldn't even be on the news". Thanks for your reply. As it happens, I agree with you entirely. For various social, historical and commercial reasons black on white crime is under-reported in comparison to white on black crime. But that is a completely separate issue. I’m not talking about bias in media coverage. I’m talking about bias in the results of judicial process. Logically , there is no reason why media bias and judicial bias should not go in opposite ways. Let me state the question simply. If the roles were reversed, are there any similar circumstances in which you can imagine a black gunmen walking free? Be honest with yourself!

One name for you: O.J. Simpson.

Obviously guilty, but got off because the defence played the race card.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

We are waiting for your responses Yabits and Jpn-guy

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@some07791

The headline is misleading. Martin wasn't murdered as the man responsible for killing him has been cleared of murder charges by the court system. In reality Zimmerman should have been convicted for manslaughter. He followed/approached Martin despite being told not to by police, he bears some responsibility for the killing for that.

He wasn't told anything by "police". The person who answered the 911 call, isn't the police, and they aren't trained enough to give any real advice.

@jpn_guy

I should add that on second thought, perhaps the issues of media bias and judicial bias are not entirely unrelated.

They are totally related.

While it is certainly true that there are many black on white crimes that do not attract much media attention, the reason the Trayvon Martin case got more publicity than many white on black killings is not principally because the victim was black.

So, does Obama ALWAYS make dumb speeches about people who have been shot? He validated all this stupidity by saying "if I had a son, he would look like Trayvon Martin". Yeah? Well that same son would also look like one of the thousands of thugs that kill and are killed in the inner cities every year.

It is because the perpetrator was not immediately arrested despite shooting someone.

He wasn't arrested, because there was no reason to arrest him. The courts just proved that. He was arrested after pressure from interest groups and politics.

As a black man in such circumstances would be arrested at the scene, there is obviously no chance for a black on white killing to result in in a "man shoots pedestrian, police not interested" hook for the media to run with, which is where the Trayvon story first gained traction.

It gained traction because the news ran wild with stupid accusations and lies.

In fact in your comment that the issue "would not make the news" with the roles reversed, you seem to be tacitly agreeing that had Trayvon been the shooter and Zimmerman the deceased, Trayvon would simply have been railroaded to jail with a complete lack of media interest. Is that what you meant to say?

Yes that is exactly how it would have happened. It probably happens a few times a week.

@80393 overall your post seems quite reasonable but you make one incredible statement "martin... could have avoided the conflict by continuing home". I cannot see how you manage to pin the blame for the altercation on Trayvon.

You obviously have no idea about the facts of the case. All TM had to do was GO HOME. He didn't. He decided to confront GZ and attack him.

@cleo

That incident bears no relation to the Zimmerman case, where it was the man with the gun doing the stalking, following and approaching.

He was doing his job as neighborhood watch, and was going back to his car when TM attacked him. Learn the facts.

@USNinJapan2

Great link! Shows up the media bias.

@yabits

It didn't matter. As soon as Zimmerman left his car -- against the rules -- to pursue the teenager with a loaded weapon,

He had a carry permit, so it's NOT "against the rules" (What rules BTW?)

Martin could justifiably claim, under Florida law, that he was in fear for his safety. If he had a gun, he could have drawn and fired at Zimmerman, and the law would have protected him.

Someone following you is not enough to justify the use of stand your ground. TM attacked GZ. THAT is enough to justify the use of stand your ground.

The evidence of Zimmerman's gun -- carried against the rules for Watches -- would have added a great deal of weight to Martin's justly feeling afraid for his life.

He had a carry licence,so it's not "against the rules".

Plus, now, Florida citizens have this case to use as a precedent. The Zimmerman standard might become as well known as Miranda rights.

No. It is a perfect example of the stand your ground law.

Keep in mind that it's going to be up to the State to prove beyond that shadow of a doubt that a person in a given situation could not have feared for his safety. That's the standard that this case has set into place.

You are painting your own pictures here.

So then race becomes the key factor

I don't know if it's the key factor in one respect: Thanks to the case, African-Americans have just cause to feel even more fear for their security now

I just laughed out loud at that comment. Look at the crime figures and see how many young white males are committing crimes opposed to young black males.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

So the stand-your-ground law isn't relevant to the case?

Conservative supporters will correctly assert that "stand-your-ground" was not put forth by the defense team. But yet, it was discussed by the jury and, according to Juror B37, weighed significantly in their decision.

For Zimmerman to have claimed "stand-your-ground" as a defense,. his actions leading to the altercation would have needed to be lawful -- without any doubts.

I was not aware of the details of the Florida law that regards as unlawful a citizen stalking or harassing another person for no reason. Being suspicious of a person is not grounds to stalk or harass them. The statute that defines harassment sets the standard as a course of action causing substantial stress in another person. The person who correctly perceived he was being stalked by a strange ("creepy") man, was under such substantial stress that he felt he had to confront his pursuer.

The result was that the jury awarded Zimmerman the benefits of stand-your-ground without Zimmerman having to meet the conditions ("no unlawful activity").

And, again, do you believe that the jury was racist or was it just a simple case of man hating?

I have no opinion whatsoever on that question. What I can assert is that, as far as the way Juror B37 recounts it, one side got the benefit of nearly every doubt -- which included failing to take into account his unlawful action -- while the other side did not receive anywhere near that level of the benefit. I found it amazing when Juror B37 recounted details of the case with the words, "George said..." and "George believed.." -- As we know, Zimmerman never took the stand to say anything or express any of his beliefs.

Most people do not act out of the purest of motives. For example, when you cut and ran after claiming that Martin had "pot in his bloodstream." (A person under the influence of pot will have nearly 100 times the level of THC in their bloodstream than the trace amount that the autopsy revealed that Martin had.) Was a way to try to undermine Martin's character? When Zimmerman reported that Martin looked like he was "on drugs," the autopsy report didn't back up his observation.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

He was doing his job as neighborhood watch, and was going back to his car when TM attacked him.

Sez who, Zimmerman? You would expect him to say anything different?

What was Martin's version of events? Oh that's right, he can't tell us because he's dead.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

lucabrasiJUL. 16, 2013 - 08:11PM JST Seems to me that this law basically gives me the right to take out anybody I like.

you hit the nail right on the head, mate.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

@cleo

He was doing his job as neighborhood watch, and was going back to his car when TM attacked him.

Sez who, Zimmerman? You would expect him to say anything different? What was Martin's version of events? Oh that's right, he can't tell us because he's dead.

The jury believed him. Why don't you? Oh, that's right, you haven't seen all the information, and are basing your opinion on what the biased media has fed you.

The only other "witness" was that belligerent, hardly literate, mush-mouthed idiot girl who looks like Biz Markie, and was probably the worst "witness" ever in the history of criminal law.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

The jury believed him..

According to Juror B37, the initial vote of the panel was 3 to convict and 3 to acquit. So, no, the jury did not all "believe" him.

The only other "witness" was that belligerent, hardly literate, mush-mouthed idiot girl

And you're an example of something higher on the chain?

Give her credit: she called it right-on-the-money when she said Zimmerman wasn't man enough to take the stand and allow himself to face questioning.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

According to Juror B37, the initial vote of the panel was 3 to convict and 3 to acquit. So, no, the jury did not all "believe" him.

They still acquitted him.

The only other "witness" was that belligerent, hardly literate, mush-mouthed idiot girl

And you're an example of something higher on the chain?

Yes.

Give her credit: she called it right-on-the-money when she said Zimmerman wasn't man enough to take the stand and allow himself to face questioning.

He didn't have to, so why should he. The evidence obviously spoke for itself.

You don't have to be a white apologist forever, you know?

2 ( +4 / -2 )

yabits

And you're an example of something higher on the chain?

I'm pretty sure Probie can read cursive. Right Probie?

Give her credit: she called it right-on-the-money when she said Zimmerman wasn't man enough to take the stand and allow himself to face questioning.

Ya, let's toss out the 5th Amendment while we're at it.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

any defense attorney who let zimmerman take the stand would never get hired again

1 ( +2 / -1 )

I'm pretty sure Probie can read cursive. Right Probie?

That you have to ask indicates doubt. (I've got mine too.)

any defense attorney who let zimmerman take the stand would never get hired again

Even Ms. Jeantal would understand that the role of an attorney is to counsel his/her client. If Zimmerman was man enough to put himself on the stand, no attorney could have stopped him. The limit to their power over a client is giving advice.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

So Zimmerman should take the stand to prove he is a man? Listen, your arguments are completely ridiculous and an insult to any rationally thinking person and are a spdissefivice to anybody who truly cares about race relations in the US. Nice grammar by the way...

1 ( +2 / -1 )

a defense attorney would quit before their client did something so stupid. and nobody would blame them

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

a defense attorney would quit before their client did something so stupid. and nobody would blame them

Now you're learning.

So Zimmerman should take the stand to prove he is a man?

It only helps confirm and cement his cowardice. Nobility and courage do appear like stupidity to cowards. Even Ms. Jeantel understands that much. A George Zimmerman who could tell his lawyers to stuff it -- who was so confident that he was right that he could take the stand and look Mr. Martin's parents in the eyes while allowing himself to be cross-examined -- would have sent a powerful message to those who value old-fashioned honor and dignity over lawyerly, spineless equivocations.

If I knew in my heart I was wrong in any way, only what is left of manhood and nobility would enable a person to act contrary to his immediate self-interests. But to the pond scum that passes for much of the average American today, nobility is so far from them that it appears to them to be totally ludicrous.

I am not for throwing out the 5th amendment. Every cowardly rat who cares more about saving his read end than saving his name should have access to it. And the name "George Zimmerman" deserves to be written down and remembered as a coward, a scared little punk with a gun.

an insult to any rationally thinking person

When you find one, point him out.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

If Zimmerman was man enough to put himself on the stand, no attorney could have stopped him.

Right, because he's dying to tell us that he ordered the Code Red...

1 ( +1 / -0 )

The mob (protestors not mafia) demanded this trial by marching in the streets when the FBI said there was no reason for the trial. Now the mob disagrees with the verdict and demonstrates in the streets with more violence. Perhaps the jury system in the USA just needs to be discarded and replaced with public (vigilante) TV decision making. If that were to happen, gun sales would go off the chart, and everyone would have a concealed weapon.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Instead of pointing fingers and blaming the plight of the black community on perceived racism, perhaps it would be best to direct the energy on strengthening the black community from within. The real culprit behind the American black community's continued inability to rise in the social social strata is the lack of a proper family unit, poor education, poor role modals, and the continued idea that their troubles are the result of other communities (white, Jewish, Korean, Italian, etc) taking advantage of them. Uttering the truth is tantamount to being a racist., a word that can now destroy careers (especially in the media) and lives. The silent majority (in this case those that agree with the jurors finding that Zimmerman is innocent) basically have no choice but to sit back while the shameful media creates a frenzy and builds ratings, the black leaders shift the responsibility of their communities' plight to others, and America loses yet another chance to learn a lesson and create proper gun control laws...

3 ( +3 / -0 )

yabits, your knowledge of courtroom procedure is laughable, as are your assumptions that you know what it takes to be an honorable man, as all of your snide posts prove. your calling people stupid and pond scum shows what kind of person you are. that is, one not to be taken seriously

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Instead of pointing fingers and blaming the plight of the black community on perceived racism, perhaps it would be best to direct the energy on strengthening the black community from within.

Are you suggesting that they are too inferior to do that on their own? Consider the possibility that, in a spiritual sense, the trials that people are faced with makes them far, far superior than the "communities" enjoying material prosperity. The greatest way one can strengthen an individual human being is to love them unconditionally -- a very rare thing. If you can expand that love to a whole community, more will be done to strengthen it than any program that doesn't come out of that motivation.

If you can't truly examine yourself and your motivations and love first, it's better if you stay out of the way.

yabits, your knowledge of courtroom procedure is laughable

Amen, brother. In the courtroom, I am a veritable sheep among wolves.

as are your assumptions that you know what it takes to be an honorable man

My assumptions are to read scripture, reflect on it and on myself deeply -- many many hours, practice and act with truthfulness, and read and reflect again, and keep repeating the cycle. If you think you have a better way, I will listen.

What my path has led me to is that courageous and noble acts should be recognized. And cowardly acts also. If we become so depraved so as to be too afraid to do that, then we end up with the dominant culture as we see it in the US today. Consider that the greatest courage and nobility come from bearing the heaviest burdens, the heaviest "crosses." And consider how much weight has been added to the cross that the parents of Mr. Trayvon Martin have to bear. Son brutally tracked down and slain, every single flaw in his character and their character twisted and magnified, as if being publicly spit upon and scourged. And they bear it with a torment that few can imagine, but without malice, thirsting for righteousness and justice in their darkest hour. And we look to improve upon their community. Give me a break.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

The real culprit behind the American black community's continued inability to rise in the social social strata is the lack of a proper family unit, poor education, poor role modals, and the continued idea that their troubles are the result of other communities (white, Jewish, Korean, Italian, etc) taking advantage of them.

Vienna speaks the truth. During Jim Crow, black families were strong - they had to be. However, the victories of the civil rights era coincided with the war on poverty. This "war" ironically arrested a steep decline in poverty in the US that had occurred since the end of WWII. All of the incentives worked against family life and drove fathers away. So instead of having the government hold them down, black families were hollowed out and they were held down by the collapse of their families. This has also begun to happen to white families as well. Studies show that single parent families are much much more likely to have children that drop out of school and get in trouble with the law. Well, 73% of black children are in single parent families. It was something like 5% prior to that.

Americans have been very generous to blacks over the past 50 years with trillions devoted to poverty and welfare programs that have gone disproportionately to blacks. Throw in affirmative action discrimination to give them an edge over whites and you've got a lot of help but with very little to show for it. There are many successful black Americans but overall blacks lag behind every other racial group in just about every category except for perhaps NBA basketball players (which doesn't use affirmative action by the way).

What America has done over the last 50 years has not been working. The war on poverty has been a war of the black family - and hasn't done wonders for whites, asians and hispanics either. Doing the same thing for another 50 years won't do any good. It is time for America to dedicate itself to a race blind society where every person is judged by the content of their character instead of the color of their skin. If 35 years ago, Barack Obama had gone on an elevator wearing a suit instead of the latest outfits worn by the baddest of the bad, that women - most likely a black woman - would probably not have felt the need to clutch her purse so tightly.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

AARP is preparing to sue now. Z stated that he will go to law school.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites