The Aftermath of the Trial

[PaulS1950]

The trial was televised. The evidence was shown. A lot of entered evidence was not allowed (mostly the evidence provided by the defense - it was not entered as evidence because it was about Martin and not the case at hand) The reason that the prosecution didn't present a better case was because they didn't have a case to begin with.

If you accept the evidence provided, you would come up with the same verdict that the jury did - a jury that admitted three wanted to convict for second degree murder and two that wanted to convict for manslaughter before they heard the evidence. They all changed their minds because of the evidence presented and accepted by the court.

Stop using the news to try to argue with a jury that was given the evidence and decided that Zimmerman was not guilty of any crime in this case.

 

[PMZ]

Aftermath

I see far too many of the 'usual suspects' turning this into a political issue here, and in the nation. This was not about liberalism, conservatism, or libertarianism. Why do we put up with this? People who are totally ignorant of the case, the evidence presented, the rule of law as it applies in this case, are interjecting emotive politically-based opinions, because that is what EVERYTHING comes down to these days. They have to "pick sides" and go to the mat fighting for "justice" because that's what the rest of the people who share their political philosophy are doing.

Wake, our justice system was established on the principle (not the notion), that you are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. It does not mean that someone found not guilty is innocent of any type of poor judgement, errors or mistakes. It simply means they are innocent of the specified charge. We can't convict people based on our opinions of what they may have done differently to avoid the situation. For instance, we hear people argue, "If Zimmerman had stayed in his truck and followed the 911 dispatcher's instructions, this wouldn't have happened!" And we don't KNOW that for certain. This is speculation. Trayvon may have become so obsessed with 'getting even' that he stalked Zimmerman days later and attacked him when he left his truck to enter his home or a store, we don't know. Zimmerman obviously had to leave his truck at some time, he couldn't very well be expected to live the rest of his days in the cab of his truck. But we assume, if he had remained there, none of this would have happened. We don't convict people of murder because they failed to do something we assume they should have done, in retrospect. We have a clearly defined criteria for murder conviction, and the jury found Zimmerman not guilty, as well as not guilty of manslaughter.

What a REASONABLE society should be debating in the aftermath, is how to avoid such incidents in the future. Gun control would not have likely prevented a murder that night, it may have been a different victim, but a murder was still a possibility. Trayvon had his mind set on violence as a solution, and this should be our focus, and where we need to address this issue. But that's not happening. Why was a young black 17-year-old of the mindset that he needed to resort to violence? Is this cultural influence, and if so, what can we do about that as a society? Was it poor parenting, or perhaps a lack of knowing what to do as parents, which could have been the result of improper resources and avenues available for help? Was it the trend of glorifying gang culture? These are the questions as responsible society should be asking in the aftermath. Instead, it is turned into a political football game, where the cheerleaders come out to cheer on their "team" and trash talk the opposition.

"What a REASONABLE society should be debating in the aftermath, is how to avoid such incidents in the future."

True. Or, how it might have been avoided that night.

"Gun control would not have likely prevented a murder that night"

There is zero evidence to support this.

 

[thanatos144]

Aftermath

I see far too many of the 'usual suspects' turning this into a political issue here, and in the nation. This was not about liberalism, conservatism, or libertarianism. Why do we put up with this? People who are totally ignorant of the case, the evidence presented, the rule of law as it applies in this case, are interjecting emotive politically-based opinions, because that is what EVERYTHING comes down to these days. They have to "pick sides" and go to the mat fighting for "justice" because that's what the rest of the people who share their political philosophy are doing.

Wake, our justice system was established on the principle (not the notion), that you are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. It does not mean that someone found not guilty is innocent of any type of poor judgement, errors or mistakes. It simply means they are innocent of the specified charge. We can't convict people based on our opinions of what they may have done differently to avoid the situation. For instance, we hear people argue, "If Zimmerman had stayed in his truck and followed the 911 dispatcher's instructions, this wouldn't have happened!" And we don't KNOW that for certain. This is speculation. Trayvon may have become so obsessed with 'getting even' that he stalked Zimmerman days later and attacked him when he left his truck to enter his home or a store, we don't know. Zimmerman obviously had to leave his truck at some time, he couldn't very well be expected to live the rest of his days in the cab of his truck. But we assume, if he had remained there, none of this would have happened. We don't convict people of murder because they failed to do something we assume they should have done, in retrospect. We have a clearly defined criteria for murder conviction, and the jury found Zimmerman not guilty, as well as not guilty of manslaughter.

What a REASONABLE society should be debating in the aftermath, is how to avoid such incidents in the future. Gun control would not have likely prevented a murder that night, it may have been a different victim, but a murder was still a possibility. Trayvon had his mind set on violence as a solution, and this should be our focus, and where we need to address this issue. But that's not happening. Why was a young black 17-year-old of the mindset that he needed to resort to violence? Is this cultural influence, and if so, what can we do about that as a society? Was it poor parenting, or perhaps a lack of knowing what to do as parents, which could have been the result of improper resources and avenues available for help? Was it the trend of glorifying gang culture? These are the questions as responsible society should be asking in the aftermath. Instead, it is turned into a political football game, where the cheerleaders come out to cheer on their "team" and trash talk the opposition.

"What a REASONABLE society should be debating in the aftermath, is how to avoid such incidents in the future."

True. Or, how it might have been avoided that night.

"Gun control would not have likely prevented a murder that night"

There is zero evidence to support this.

Chicago is all the evidence you need to prove gun control doesn't work

 

[PMZ]

Chicago is middle of the road for American cities in violent crime.

FL is well known as a very difficult state in which to get unwitnessed murder convictions. Stand your ground in both law and culture is the reason. It's a gun nut nirvana.

The judge realized that and instructed the jury to consider manslaughter after the prosecution had attempted the nearly impossible. Good for her but too late.

What is there to be learned from this? Policing should be done by trained police.

 

[twopockets]

as a society we need to focus more on conflict resolution,,there are right and wrong responses no matter what the conflict is and violence should always be the LAST LAST LAST resort.

 

[PaulS1950]

There is a very simple way to prevent the death in this case. Martin should not have committed the crime of attacking a man going to his car. If Martin had not committed assault and battery he would not be dead.

It is as simple as that. Martin had no legal reason to attack Zimmerman.
Once Zimmerman was attacked and felt that his life was in danger he had the legal right to use deadly force to end the attack.

If you don't want your kids to end up dead teach them to respect the laws and to obey them.

 

[twopockets]

Also as a society we need to take personal responsibility for our character because lack of good character causes mistrust and suspicion,,,it isn't necessarily a 'race thing'. I don't trust anyone who has poor character no matter what the color of their skin...

 

[PMZ]

There is a very simple way to prevent the death in this case. Martin should not have committed the crime of attacking a man going to his car. If Martin had not committed assault and battery he would not be dead.

It is as simple as that. Martin had no legal reason to attack Zimmerman.
Once Zimmerman was attacked and felt that his life was in danger he had the legal right to use deadly force to end the attack.

If you don't want your kids to end up dead teach them to respect the laws and to obey them.

Zimmerman had no reason to stalk Martin with a gun. The confrontation was not random. I've injured myself worse than Zimmerman was pounding nails.

If you think that all who die of gun violence are those who disrespect or disobey the law, you have a rude awakening coming.

 

[PaulS1950]

You cannot trust someone you don't know.
Trust is not an issue but staying on the right side of the law is.
If you break the law you should be punished.
If you defend yourself from one breaking the law you should not.

This issue has nothing to do with whether someone seems to be a good person or not and even mean spirited bigots can defend themselves when their life or health is threatened.

 

[PMZ]

Also as a society we need to take personal responsibility for our character because lack of good character causes mistrust and suspicion,,,it isn't necessarily a 'race thing'. I don't trust anyone who has poor character no matter what the color of their skin...

Many people mistake being armed with having character. It's a brand thing that the NRA has been selling for years to keep the arms industry so profitable. People who haven't fallen under the spell of the NRA see it oppositely. It's more likely that those of dysfunctional character try to compensate by blaming others for their fear.

 

[Pop23]

Aftermath

I see far too many of the 'usual suspects' turning this into a political issue here, and in the nation. This was not about liberalism, conservatism, or libertarianism. Why do we put up with this? People who are totally ignorant of the case, the evidence presented, the rule of law as it applies in this case, are interjecting emotive politically-based opinions, because that is what EVERYTHING comes down to these days. They have to "pick sides" and go to the mat fighting for "justice" because that's what the rest of the people who share their political philosophy are doing.

Wake, our justice system was established on the principle (not the notion), that you are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. It does not mean that someone found not guilty is innocent of any type of poor judgement, errors or mistakes. It simply means they are innocent of the specified charge. We can't convict people based on our opinions of what they may have done differently to avoid the situation. For instance, we hear people argue, "If Zimmerman had stayed in his truck and followed the 911 dispatcher's instructions, this wouldn't have happened!" And we don't KNOW that for certain. This is speculation. Trayvon may have become so obsessed with 'getting even' that he stalked Zimmerman days later and attacked him when he left his truck to enter his home or a store, we don't know. Zimmerman obviously had to leave his truck at some time, he couldn't very well be expected to live the rest of his days in the cab of his truck. But we assume, if he had remained there, none of this would have happened. We don't convict people of murder because they failed to do something we assume they should have done, in retrospect. We have a clearly defined criteria for murder conviction, and the jury found Zimmerman not guilty, as well as not guilty of manslaughter.

What a REASONABLE society should be debating in the aftermath, is how to avoid such incidents in the future. Gun control would not have likely prevented a murder that night, it may have been a different victim, but a murder was still a possibility. Trayvon had his mind set on violence as a solution, and this should be our focus, and where we need to address this issue. But that's not happening. Why was a young black 17-year-old of the mindset that he needed to resort to violence? Is this cultural influence, and if so, what can we do about that as a society? Was it poor parenting, or perhaps a lack of knowing what to do as parents, which could have been the result of improper resources and avenues available for help? Was it the trend of glorifying gang culture? These are the questions as responsible society should be asking in the aftermath. Instead, it is turned into a political football game, where the cheerleaders come out to cheer on their "team" and trash talk the opposition.

"What a REASONABLE society should be debating in the aftermath, is how to avoid such incidents in the future."

True. Or, how it might have been avoided that night.

"Gun control would not have likely prevented a murder that night"

There is zero evidence to support this.

There was NO murder that night. This is why an honest discussion is nearly impossible.

Fairy tales rule!

 

[PMZ]

You cannot trust someone you don't know.
Trust is not an issue but staying on the right side of the law is.
If you break the law you should be punished.
If you defend yourself from one breaking the law you should not.

This issue has nothing to do with whether someone seems to be a good person or not and even mean spirited bigots can defend themselves when their life or health is threatened.

People who make laws spend a great deal of time making sure that the punishment fits the crime. Many people believe that the inherent uncertainty in man made judgements makes death always inappropriate for any crime.

All of that is way beyond George Zimmerman's moral judgement. I believe that he realizes that now and is doomed to a very unhappy future. It's arguable who paid the biggest price between he and his victim. In the same way it's arguable for O. J. Simpson and Casey Anthony.

 

[PaulS1950]

Zimmerman had no reason to stalk Martin with a gun. The confrontation was not random. I've injured myself worse than Zimmerman was pounding nails.

If you think that all who die of gun violence are those who disrespect or disobey the law, you have a rude awakening coming.

Zimmerman was not even following Martin when the attack happened. Zimmerman was not "stalking" anyone and the gun was concealed and holstered and completely legal under the law. Zimmerman did not brandish the gun or use it to threaten Martin.

Martin attacked Zimmerman which was a felony. At that point Martin became a criminal by the definition of the law. Zimmerman, forced on his back and being beaten had no other recourse than to use his gun to defend himself.

People do get attacked by criminals with guns and are killed but this case is in no way similar to those cases. Martin committed a crime in attacking Zimmerman and lost his life for doing so.

1.5 to 3 million times a year people use guns to legally defend themselves from criminals and most of the times they are confronted before a shot has to be fired and they run. Martin thought he was going to beat this man to show him not to mess with him - all in his mind - and this man had a way to defend his life. Martin died in the act of committing a felony. Martin was "the bad guy" in this case and Zimmerman was the victim.

That was the decision of the trial as shown by the verdict.

 

[PMZ]

Aftermath

I see far too many of the 'usual suspects' turning this into a political issue here, and in the nation. This was not about liberalism, conservatism, or libertarianism. Why do we put up with this? People who are totally ignorant of the case, the evidence presented, the rule of law as it applies in this case, are interjecting emotive politically-based opinions, because that is what EVERYTHING comes down to these days. They have to "pick sides" and go to the mat fighting for "justice" because that's what the rest of the people who share their political philosophy are doing.

Wake, our justice system was established on the principle (not the notion), that you are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. It does not mean that someone found not guilty is innocent of any type of poor judgement, errors or mistakes. It simply means they are innocent of the specified charge. We can't convict people based on our opinions of what they may have done differently to avoid the situation. For instance, we hear people argue, "If Zimmerman had stayed in his truck and followed the 911 dispatcher's instructions, this wouldn't have happened!" And we don't KNOW that for certain. This is speculation. Trayvon may have become so obsessed with 'getting even' that he stalked Zimmerman days later and attacked him when he left his truck to enter his home or a store, we don't know. Zimmerman obviously had to leave his truck at some time, he couldn't very well be expected to live the rest of his days in the cab of his truck. But we assume, if he had remained there, none of this would have happened. We don't convict people of murder because they failed to do something we assume they should have done, in retrospect. We have a clearly defined criteria for murder conviction, and the jury found Zimmerman not guilty, as well as not guilty of manslaughter.

What a REASONABLE society should be debating in the aftermath, is how to avoid such incidents in the future. Gun control would not have likely prevented a murder that night, it may have been a different victim, but a murder was still a possibility. Trayvon had his mind set on violence as a solution, and this should be our focus, and where we need to address this issue. But that's not happening. Why was a young black 17-year-old of the mindset that he needed to resort to violence? Is this cultural influence, and if so, what can we do about that as a society? Was it poor parenting, or perhaps a lack of knowing what to do as parents, which could have been the result of improper resources and avenues available for help? Was it the trend of glorifying gang culture? These are the questions as responsible society should be asking in the aftermath. Instead, it is turned into a political football game, where the cheerleaders come out to cheer on their "team" and trash talk the opposition.

"What a REASONABLE society should be debating in the aftermath, is how to avoid such incidents in the future."

True. Or, how it might have been avoided that night.

"Gun control would not have likely prevented a murder that night"

There is zero evidence to support this.

There was NO murder that night. This is why an honest discussion is nearly impossible.

Fairy tales rule!

There was an innocent life lost.

 

[PaulS1950]

NO innocent life was lost. Martin committed a felony when he attacked Zimmerman. He died while in the act of committing that felony.

 

[PMZ]

Zimmerman had no reason to stalk Martin with a gun. The confrontation was not random. I've injured myself worse than Zimmerman was pounding nails.

If you think that all who die of gun violence are those who disrespect or disobey the law, you have a rude awakening coming.

Zimmerman was not even following Martin when the attack happened. Zimmerman was not "stalking" anyone and the gun was concealed and holstered and completely legal under the law. Zimmerman did not brandish the gun or use it to threaten Martin.

Martin attacked Zimmerman which was a felony. At that point Martin became a criminal by the definition of the law. Zimmerman, forced on his back and being beaten had no other recourse than to use his gun to defend himself.

People do get attacked by criminals with guns and are killed but this case is in no way similar to those cases. Martin committed a crime in attacking Zimmerman and lost his life for doing so.

1.5 to 3 million times a year people use guns to legally defend themselves from criminals and most of the times they are confronted before a shot has to be fired and they run. Martin thought he was going to beat this man to show him not to mess with him - all in his mind - and this man had a way to defend his life. Martin died in the act of committing a felony. Martin was "the bad guy" in this case and Zimmerman was the victim.

That was the decision of the trial as shown by the verdict.

So, your assumption was that it was a random attack. You are the only person that I know who sees it that way.

 

[PMZ]

NO innocent life was lost. Martin committed a felony when he attacked Zimmerman. He died while in the act of committing that felony.

One of the principles that my country was founded on is innocent until proven guilty by a fair trial and by a jury of your peers.

That's not something that I'm willing to give up to vigilantes.

 

[PaulS1950]

Random or not it was an illegal act. Zimmerman showed no malice and no threatening behavior. He was in the process of leaving the scene when he was attacked, criminally, by Martin. The evidence in the trial supported Zimmerman's account, Eye-witness testimony supported Zimmerman's account and the prosecution's witnesses, for the most part supported Zimmerman's account. There was no evidence that Zimmerman did anything illegal and there is direct and eye-witness evidence that Martin attacked Zimmerman without legal cause.

The jury agreed and found Zimmerman guilt free of any wrong doing.

 

[PaulS1950]

NO innocent life was lost. Martin committed a felony when he attacked Zimmerman. He died while in the act of committing that felony.

One of the principles that my country was founded on is innocent until proven guilty by a fair trial and by a jury of your peers.

That's not something that I'm willing to give up to vigilantes.

So, you are saying that if you are brutally attacked and you feel your life is in danger you will just die without making every effort to preserve your own life?

I doubt that unless you are Mennonite. If someone is a clear and present danger to you or your loved ones I believe that you have at least the same right to defend yourself as wild animals.

By the way, why are not extending the "innocent until proven guilty" to Zimmerman? It must not be an important belief for you in this case. He was presumed guilty by the press but not by the law and was adjudicated not guilty so why do you have such a hard time accepting the very foundation you say you stand for?

By the way - self defense was a founding precept in the founding of your country. That is exactly why there is a second amendment.

 

[PMZ]

The 2ond Ammendment has to do with defending the country back in days before we could afford a standing military. You must be reporting the gospel according to the NRA.