Zimmerman Found Not Guilty

[okie556]

Yea, the verdict does need it's own thread. I'm interested in what different perspectives will pop up. As for me, I think the whole thing is sad. I'm not sure I wanted Zimmerman to get off scot free. I think he antagonized the whole thing and should pay one way or the other. I didn't follow the story, so maybe I'm wrong.

My wife totally thought he was guilty....but she can't get past the part where Zimmerman was told not to follow Martin. I tried to explain the jury just had to decide if it was self defense....after the altercation started. Myself....I think Zimmerman was a cocky bastard looking to make a name for himself.......but he was not guilty of murder.

 

[JColumbus]

You're wrong.

After reading these comments, I sure am.

@ JColumbus I don't know how he antagonized anyone. This trial should have never been. He was abused, harassed, and antagonized by the media, govt, public.

Not a personal attack, just a response.

Not taken bad at all. Thanks for the info.

Probably ought to get the facts right... Z walking back to his car... out of the darkness, Tre says you got a problem mofo... Z says no... at that point Tre throws a sucker punch.

I think it's pretty easy to spot the aggressor... but maybe that's just me.

Well, I didn't really have any facts at all. I was going on what I last heard and thought that was what stood.

Haha, sorry guys. I guess there was a whole more to it than I thought. I usually follow this stuff but just got sick of hearing about it. So the last impression I had was Zim followed until Mart noticed and confronted him. My bad...

 

[JColumbus]

Martin made it home turned around headed back out and sought confrontation. All the evidence proved it.

No shit?! Haha wow. Yea I definitely messed up not keeping up to date. I never heard he made it home and went back out. That'll do it.

 

[JColumbus]

So if Zimmerman did indeed walk back to his truck, Martin followed HIM, and started the fight... Why the hell did this end up to be such a high profile court battle? If those were the widely believed events, wouldn't the stand your ground law have been applied and he should have been exempt from prosecution? The fact that he was prosecuted indicates that his story wasn't strait? I don't get that.

 

[JColumbus]

Pay? For being attacked?

You think all of the shit he has been through is scot [sic] free?

What does, [sic], in the middle of the sentence mean?

 

[RetArmySgt]

I like the way the family's attorneys acted and handled their interview.

 

[GaryH]

I have no opinion. I don't know all of the facts. I'm sure there's be a lot written about it before long. We can read about it then. For now, we'll see if the riots happen as promised.

 

[GlockOwner]

What does, [sic], in the middle of the sentence mean?

[sic] is used when quoting another persons words, letting the reader know that you know the word is misspelled, but you left it misspelled because it is a quote. For example, if I said/wrote this:

I love baccon for breakfast!

You would write the following to quote me:

I love baccon [sic] for breakfast!

 

[majormadmax]

What does, [sic], in the middle of the sentence mean?

Actually, it is suppose to mean you used the wrong word...but it is "scot free"...

www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/scot free.html

Given the reputation of Scotsmen as being careful with their money we might look to Scotland for the origin of 'scot free'. Wrong again, but at least we are in the right part of the world now. 'Skat' is a Scandinavian word for tax or payment and the word migrated to Britain and mutated into 'scot' as the name of a redistributive taxation, levied as early the 10th century as a form of municipal poor relief.

'Scot' as a term for tax has been used since then in various forms - Church scot, Rome scot, Soul scot and so on. Whatever the tax, the phrase 'getting off scot free' simply refers to not paying one's taxes.

As to whether Zimmerman was guilty of breaking any laws, tell me which ones he allegedly broke? It is not illegal to follow someone unless you are trespassing, it is not illegal to confront someone if you suspect they are up to nefarious activities, and a 911 operator has no legal authority to tell a private citizen what they can or cannot do.

But it is illegal to physically attack someone, which is what Martin did. It was a stupid move on his part, and it cost him his life.

Zimmerman was acquitted because there was no evidence he broke the law. It's that simple.

 

[JColumbus]

[sic] is used when quoting another persons words, letting the reader know that you know the word is misspelled, but you left it misspelled because it is a quote. For example, if I said/wrote this:



You would write the following to quote me:

Oh, thanks.

 

[Sugar Land]

Wow I learn something new everyday

 

[leVieux]

My wife totally thought he was guilty....but she can't get past the part where Zimmerman was told not to follow Martin. I tried to explain the jury just had to decide if it was self defense....after the altercation started. Myself....I think Zimmerman was a cocky bastard looking to make a name for himself.......but he was not guilty of murder.

"the part where Zimmerman was told not to follow Martin" WRONG ! What he was told was that "We don't need you to do that". From a 911 operator, not even a LEO. Martin "confronted" Zimmerman, attacked him, and told him "You're gonna die tonight !" This is exactly what the Florida law was crafted to guard against. Contrary to what the defense attorney said in a post-verdict interview "This was not a civil rights case."; It was very much a CIVIL RIGHTS CASE. A case of Zimmerman's AND everyone's Second Amendment and Self-Defense RIGHTS ! ! ! leVieux

 

[JColumbus]

Actually, it is suppose to mean you used the wrong word...but it is "scot free"...

www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/scot free.html

And to determine whether Zimmerman was guilty of breaking any laws, tell me which ones he allegedly broke? It is not illegal to follow someone unless you are trespassing, it is not illegal to confront someone if you suspect they are up to nefarious activities, and a 911 operator has no legal authority to tell a private citizen what they can or cannot do.

But it is illegal to physically attack someone, which is what Martin did. It was a stupid move on his part, and it cost him his life.

Zimmerman was acquitted because there was no evidence he broke the law. It's that simple.

I do know that he did not break any laws. The only thing I thought he did was follow Martin till Martin finally had enough. I now know that is not the case. This is one case I just got sick of hearing about so I am terribly behind. Now I want to know why he was prosecuted in the first place, if he did nothing wrong. I thought the stand your ground law came with immunity to the person who had to use deadly force. Or maybe that's the castle doctrine.

 

[txinvestigator]

Is it possible that GZ could face Federal Charges?

No. No double jeopardy

 

[txinvestigator]

I've been wondering about this, what evidence do they have to say he violated TM's civil rights that wouldn't have gotten GZ charged with Murder or manslaughter?

Civil rights violations come into play when the actor was operating under the color of law. Meaning an agent of the government.

 

[JColumbus]

TXI can you help me out with my inquires. I would like to know how he was prosecuted in the first place if he broke no laws. Doesn't the person who had to use deadly force get impunity? Is that for the castle law or stand your ground, or both? Thanks.

 

[txinvestigator]

My wife totally thought he was guilty....but she can't get past the part where Zimmerman was told not to follow Martin. I tried to explain the jury just had to decide if it was self defense....after the altercation started. Myself....I think Zimmerman was a cocky bastard looking to make a name for himself.......but he was not guilty of murder.

Zimmerman was tired of the crime in his neighborhood. He was trying to prevent crime in his neighborhood. I don't believe for one second he was trying to "make a name", nor have I seen any evidence that he was.

 

[Glockster69]

I do know that he did not break any laws. The only thing I thought he did was follow Martin till Martin finally had enough. I now know that is not the case. This is one case I just got sick of hearing about so I am terribly behind. Now I want to know why he was prosecuted in the first place, if he did nothing wrong. I thought the stand your ground law came with immunity to the person who had to use deadly force. Or maybe that's the castle doctrine.

With all due respect you should stop posting and start reading/learning.

 

[txinvestigator]

So if Zimmerman did indeed walk back to his truck, Martin followed HIM, and started the fight... Why the hell did this end up to be such a high profile court battle? If those were the widely believed events, wouldn't the stand your ground law have been applied and he should have been exempt from prosecution? The fact that he was prosecuted indicates that his story wasn't strait? I don't get that.

**sigh*** self defense laws do not work that way; however, you do know that the prosecutor did not want to prosecute because it was a clear cut case of self defense, and the police chief agreed. It became political, the prosecutor was replaced in a political move, and the police chief fired.

You don't have your story strait [sic]

 

[mikeofcontex]

O says... if I had a son, he'd look like Trayvon. The mom hears the 911 call in the mayor's office. DOJ sends folks to participate in the protest rallies. Police chief is fired because he won't prosecute. The lead detective is demoted because he won't recommend arrest.

A special prosecutor is appointed and the grand jury is skipped.

I think his prosecution had something to do with the "railroad." Again... just my opinion.