Will you accept the outcome of the Zimmerman trial?

[Still a Democrat]

Were you simply hoping for an arrest and a trial to determine if he was guilty, or do you think you've heard enough to know he's guilty of some type of crime and there must be a conviction for there to be justice?

[pappy]

(04-14-2012 01:23 PM)Still a Democrat Wrote:  Were you simply hoping for an arrest and a trial to determine if he was guilty, or do you think you've heard enough to know he's guilty of some type of crime and there must be a conviction for there to be justice?

Seeking justice?

A conviction of Zimmerman won't mean justice. It will be meaningful and will bring a small measure of justice in one murder case.

The ensuing lawsuits by the family of Trayvon (regardless of the criminal outcome) will not bring justice except for the family and also a measure of responsibility to those that enabled Zimmerman.

Justice can only come when we reach that Promised Land that Martin foresaw. When all men and women can recognize that the Promised Land is not for one race, one gender or one nation alone then we will be close to justice. When we replace tolerance with respect, then we will be close to justice.

When a child is killed the race of the child will not need to be reported because it will be irrelevant. In that society we will be close to justice.

For now, in this society, I am afraid we will have to accept that justice, true and meaningful justice regardless of the outcome of the Trayvon killing case, eludes us. For now we have to accept a small victory in the movement towards the Promised Land and accept that the struggle continues.

For now, we must vow to continue the struggle. Not for ourselves but for our children and their children.

Will I accept what justice comes from the Trayvon murder? Only as a step in the struggle. The outcome may not be to my liking but whatever the outcome, it is up to me to turn it into a positive step towards the Promised Land rather than a step backwards towards darkness.

I hope I am up to that challenge.

[Andy823]

(04-14-2012 01:50 PM)pappy Wrote:  Seeking justice?

A conviction of Zimmerman won't mean justice. It will be meaningful and will bring a small measure of justice in one murder case.

The ensuing lawsuits by the family of Trayvon (regardless of the criminal outcome) will not bring justice except for the family and also a measure of responsibility to those that enabled Zimmerman.

Justice can only come when we reach that Promised Land that Martin foresaw. When all men and women can recognize that the Promised Land is not for one race, one gender or one nation alone then we will be close to justice. When we replace tolerance with respect, then we will be close to justice.

When a child is killed the race of the child will not need to be reported because it will be irrelevant. In that society we will be close to justice.

For now, in this society, I am afraid we will have to accept that justice, true and meaningful justice regardless of the outcome of the Trayvon killing case, eludes us. For now we have to accept a small victory in the movement towards the Promised Land and accept that the struggle continues.

For now, we must vow to continue the struggle. Not for ourselves but for our children and their children.

Will I accept what justice comes from the Trayvon murder? Only as a step in the struggle. The outcome may not be to my liking but whatever the outcome, it is up to me to turn it into a positive step towards the Promised Land rather than a step backwards towards darkness.

I hope I am up to that challenge.

Well said Pappy, I couldn't have said it better myself. Thank you.

[KonaKane]

I'd accept the outcome if it led to the demise of the breathlessly stupid Stand Your Ground Laws, which are without a doubt one of the worst ideas to ever make it through a legislature.

[There Is No Spoon]

(04-14-2012 01:50 PM)pappy Wrote:  

(04-14-2012 01:23 PM)Still a Democrat Wrote:  Were you simply hoping for an arrest and a trial to determine if he was guilty, or do you think you've heard enough to know he's guilty of some type of crime and there must be a conviction for there to be justice?

Seeking justice?

A conviction of Zimmerman won't mean justice. It will be meaningful and will bring a small measure of justice in one murder case.

The ensuing lawsuits by the family of Trayvon (regardless of the criminal outcome) will not bring justice except for the family and also a measure of responsibility to those that enabled Zimmerman.

Justice can only come when we reach that Promised Land that Martin foresaw. When all men and women can recognize that the Promised Land is not for one race, one gender or one nation alone then we will be close to justice. When we replace tolerance with respect, then we will be close to justice.

When a child is killed the race of the child will not need to be reported because it will be irrelevant. In that society we will be close to justice.

For now, in this society, I am afraid we will have to accept that justice, true and meaningful justice regardless of the outcome of the Trayvon killing case, eludes us. For now we have to accept a small victory in the movement towards the Promised Land and accept that the struggle continues.

For now, we must vow to continue the struggle. Not for ourselves but for our children and their children.

Will I accept what justice comes from the Trayvon murder? Only as a step in the struggle. The outcome may not be to my liking but whatever the outcome, it is up to me to turn it into a positive step towards the Promised Land rather than a step backwards towards darkness.

I hope I am up to that challenge.

Well said. :applaud:

[sandnsea]

Justice is a fair arrest and trial. We already missed the fair arrest part so there can never be full justice in this case. The verdict isn't the only, or even the best means of determining justice. Justice requires an impartial judge, a jury of impartial peers, impartial police that follow and disclose all evidence, an impartial prosecution that shares ALL of the evidence with the defense, and a vigorous defense that knows their job means more than crossing i's and dotting t's. Probably the only person who knows what this verdict should be is Zimmerman himself, unless there is an unknown eyewitness or video of the entire incident. It is beginning to look like the police and prosecution is getting their shit together. I'll wait to see what comes out in court, how the judge rules on evidence, etc, before I ultimately decide what the verdict could be. Zimmerman looks goddamn guilty today, but there may be info I don't know.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

He's guilty as shit. The facts everyone agrees to are: 1.) The kid had nothing and was going home 2.) Zimmerman followed him to ask him what he was doing 3.) 911 took the call and told him to not follow. If anyone had the right to invoke the "stand your ground laws" it was Martin since asshole Zimmerman was the one threatening him.

I am fucking LOVING that RWers are desperately trying to make hispanics hate Obama and black people on this despite the fact polls show hispanics by 59% (compared to 30+% of white, 80% of black Americans) think Zimmerman is guilty as shit. I also love they dont know what "hispanic" is, comparing pointing out Zimmerman is a white hispanic to saying obama is a "white black". Hispanic is not a race! UGH!

[sandnsea]

(04-14-2012 07:11 PM)SemiCharmedQuark Wrote:  He's guilty as shit.

Presumption of innocence. It seems to me that's one of the key foundations of liberalism. Just as nobody knows to a certainty that Zimmerman is guilty of shit, nobody knew to a certainty that there were no WMD in Iraq. There will be no facts that everybody can agree to until people testify and interrogations are released. I think it's a good idea for 100% of the country to wait for trials before convicting people.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

(04-14-2012 07:40 PM)sandnsea Wrote:  

(04-14-2012 07:11 PM)SemiCharmedQuark Wrote:  He's guilty as shit.

Presumption of innocence. It seems to me that's one of the key foundations of liberalism. Just as nobody knows to a certainty that Zimmerman is guilty of shit, nobody knew to a certainty that there were no WMD in Iraq. There will be no facts that everybody can agree to until people testify and interrogations are released. I think it's a good idea for 100% of the country to wait for trials before convicting people.

He doesn't deny that he followed and harassed a child who had every right to be where he was. They have audio of it. Everybody agrees on those facts. There is nobody denying that. Florida law (the same one he is using to defend himsef) states that kid had a right to defend himself and did not have to retreat after feeling threatened. So either the law is bogus (in which case his whole defense is crap) or the law stands in which case his making Martin feel threatened means Martin had every right to defend himself with all force necessary. So the choices are "guilty" or "guilty".

[sandnsea]

(04-14-2012 11:58 PM)SemiCharmedQuark Wrote:  

(04-14-2012 07:40 PM)sandnsea Wrote:  Presumption of innocence. It seems to me that's one of the key foundations of liberalism. Just as nobody knows to a certainty that Zimmerman is guilty of shit, nobody knew to a certainty that there were no WMD in Iraq. There will be no facts that everybody can agree to until people testify and interrogations are released. I think it's a good idea for 100% of the country to wait for trials before convicting people.

He doesn't deny that he followed and harassed a child who had every right to be where he was. They have audio of it. Everybody agrees on those facts. There is nobody denying that. Florida law (the same one he is using to defend himsef) states that kid had a right to defend himself and did not have to retreat after feeling threatened. So either the law is bogus (in which case his whole defense is crap) or the law stands in which case his making Martin feel threatened means Martin had every right to defend himself with all force necessary. So the choices are "guilty" or "guilty".

Following someone you find suspicious is not illegal. I would never ask someone walking down the street why they were in the neighborhood, but I certainly pay attention. If they're acting weird, and I'm not saying Trayvon was, but if someone else was in my neighborhood , I might go outside and pay a little extra attention. So that, in itself, is not illegal.

He had a right to be where he was. That doesn't mean he had a right to hit anybody. Key moments in the escalation of the situation is what will determine whether Zimmerman is legally guilty. Did Trayvon go back and confront Zimmerman after Zimmerman was leaving? If so, who hit first there? What words were exchange? Were threats of violence and death made? Who made them? All of that matters.

We don't have all the facts yet. We Just Don't.

[There Is No Spoon]

He's already guilty for pursuing (& murdering for good measure) an unarmed teen after being told not to. That's not up for dispute.

[OptimistesMaddie]

of the shoddy police work or no investigation at all.

I am thankful the case came to light to expose the "Stand your ground Law". I am thankful it is shedding light on the Repug Governers who have shown they are willing to function as an arm of Alec and not for the constituents of their states.

I will be angry but at least I will know the Prosecutor will have done her damndest to convict him. From what I read she is aggressive and will leave no stone unturned.

[jaxx]

If there is a trial by jury there won't be any reason not to accept the verdict. I may not like the verdict, but I do respect the law when used as it's supposed to be. On the other hand if Zimmerman would walk free in the hearing on April 20th that will determine if he was 'standing his ground' and is blameless......no, I won't accept that. Even the person who wrote the bill says it doesn't allow for what Zimmerman did to Trayvon.

[Treestar]

I will accept the verdict but if an acquittal, will always wonder what would have happened had the police properly investigated. It seems the death of a black child led them to simply accept Zimmerman's story and not bother. You can bet if Trayvon were white full forensic investigation would have been done.

I too hope this will mean that people seriously reconsider the SYG laws outside the "castle."

[azmouse]

Yes.
I didn't agree with the outcome of the OJ trial but had no choice but to accept it as the jury's decision.
At least a trial was held.
And one should be held now for Zimmerman.

[KonaKane]

You actually do not have the clear cut legal right to follow someone. That can be interpreted as a form of harassment, which is very illegal. It can also be seen as stalking, another activity of questionable legality.

I did a little digging on the Neighborhood Watch programs around the country, and found these guidelines to be pretty common among them.

http://johnsoncitywatch.tripod.com/siteb...evised.pdf

This section most caught my eye (bold mine):

PATROL SAFETY
• NEVER put yourself in danger.
• Watch for slippery conditions and trip hazards.
• Do not go on private property.
• Do not confront a suspected criminal or attempt to make an arrest yourself.

Nowhere did those guidelines even come close to suggesting you follow someone behaving in a "suspicious" manner. Let alone walking along a sidewalk while Black.

[sandnsea]

(04-15-2012 01:09 PM)KonaKane Wrote:  You actually do not have the clear cut legal right to follow someone. That can be interpreted as a form of harassment, which is very illegal. It can also be seen as stalking, another activity of questionable legality.

Supposition. Where's the evidence that this moved into harrassment? Or stalking? That's my exact precise point. We've used those arguments to get the arrest. WOOHOO!

Now. Present Day. You have to step back and look at the words and gestuers in the seconds that led up to the shooting. The Real Evidence. Which we don't entirely have yet.

[There Is No Spoon]

(04-15-2012 01:14 PM)sandnsea Wrote:  

(04-15-2012 01:09 PM)KonaKane Wrote:  You actually do not have the clear cut legal right to follow someone. That can be interpreted as a form of harassment, which is very illegal. It can also be seen as stalking, another activity of questionable legality.

Supposition. Where's the evidence that this moved into harrassment? Or stalking? That's my exact precise point. We've used those arguments to get the arrest. WOOHOO!

Now. Present Day. You have to step back and look at the words and gestuers in the seconds that led up to the shooting. The Real Evidence. Which we don't entirely have yet.

"Are you following him (Trayvon)?"; (Zimmerman) "yes"; "(911 dispatch) we don't need you to do that".

(Zimmerman) "they always get away" (assumed a black kid walking with a hoodie is committing a crime.)

Guilty.

[KonaKane]

(04-15-2012 01:14 PM)sandnsea Wrote:  Supposition. Where's the evidence that this moved into harrassment? Or stalking?....

Let's see....following someone (see the guidelines against that, posted above). Following someone who is not doing anything wrong (he was walking through the neighborhood on the sidewalk. A legal activity). Trying to stop and question the kid even after he was told specifically not to do that by law enforcement.

On what planet is this not harassment?

[sandnsea]

(04-15-2012 01:21 PM)KonaKane Wrote:  

(04-15-2012 01:14 PM)sandnsea Wrote:  Supposition. Where's the evidence that this moved into harrassment? Or stalking?....

Let's see....following someone (see the guidelines against that, posted above). Following someone who is not doing anything wrong (he was walking through the neighborhood on the sidewalk. A legal activity). Trying to stop and question the kid even after he was told specifically not to do that by law enforcement.

On what planet is this not harassment?

It's not illegal to follow someone for a short period. It's not illegal to talk to someone walking down the sidewalk. Period. As I said, whether it's harrassment will depend on the words exchanged. The second by second behaviors and words of the incident.

I've got to either do the yard or prep the bathroom to paint, haven't decided which, but we don't get a lot of sun here so I better use it while I can! Be back later.

[KonaKane]

(04-15-2012 01:43 PM)sandnsea Wrote:  It's not illegal to follow someone for a short period. It's not illegal to talk to someone walking down the sidewalk. Period. As I said, whether it's harrassment will depend on the words exchanged. The second by second behaviors and words of the incident.

And you're not yet convinced, by the obvious words exchanged in the incident that this was harassment?

Wow, I have never seen such back bending contortions to support an untenable position.

[jaxx]

(04-15-2012 01:09 PM)KonaKane Wrote:  You actually do not have the clear cut legal right to follow someone. That can be interpreted as a form of harassment, which is very illegal. It can also be seen as stalking, another activity of questionable legality.

I did a little digging on the Neighborhood Watch programs around the country, and found these guidelines to be pretty common among them.

http://johnsoncitywatch.tripod.com/siteb...evised.pdf

This section most caught my eye (bold mine):

PATROL SAFETY
• NEVER put yourself in danger.
• Watch for slippery conditions and trip hazards.
• Do not go on private property.
• Do not confront a suspected criminal or attempt to make an arrest yourself.

Nowhere did those guidelines even come close to suggesting you follow someone behaving in a "suspicious" manner. Let alone walking along a sidewalk while Black.

Plus Zimmerman's neighborhood watch specified not carrying a gun while doing the watch and he was told to not follow the victim. It should be all downhill from there.

[KonaKane]

(04-16-2012 08:00 AM)jaxx Wrote:  Plus Zimmerman's neighborhood watch specified not carrying a gun while doing the watch and he was told to not follow the victim. It should be all downhill from there.

Good catch, I missed that one. Probably the most damning part of all.

[sandnsea]

(04-16-2012 08:00 AM)jaxx Wrote:  Plus Zimmerman's neighborhood watch specified not carrying a gun while doing the watch and he was told to not follow the victim. It should be all downhill from there.

He says he was not actually performing neighborhood watch duties, but was headed to the store. Now you and I may think it's beyond all sense and credibility to carry a gun to the grocery store, but these NRA types do carry their guns at all times. And guess what, it's not illegal.

So. You're on the jury. Is it plausible that Zimmerman wasn't actually doing his neighborhood watch stuff at that moment? What would you need to convine you that he was going to the store. Or, that he was lying about going to the store.

As the police have made clear - they did not "order" Zimmerman not to follow, they can't do that. They "asked" him not to follow. He had a legal right to continue to walk down the street, from everything that I've read.

So there's a pretty good possibility - at least reasonable doubt - that those two arguments aren't pertinent at all.

[KonaKane]

(04-16-2012 12:29 PM)sandnsea Wrote:  He says he was not actually performing neighborhood watch duties, but was headed to the store. Now you and I may think it's beyond all sense and credibility to carry a gun to the grocery store, but these NRA types do carry their guns at all times. And guess what, it's not illegal.

So let me get this straight. He was acting like a neighborhood watchman, but he wasn't "actually performing neighborhood watch duties"? He was confronting a "suspicious person" with a gun, when specifically told not to by authorities, yet he was "just going to the store"?

And you wonder why your tortured attempts to give this guy the precious benefit of the doubt are meeting such opposition?

[jaxx]

(04-16-2012 12:29 PM)sandnsea Wrote:  

(04-16-2012 08:00 AM)jaxx Wrote:  Plus Zimmerman's neighborhood watch specified not carrying a gun while doing the watch and he was told to not follow the victim. It should be all downhill from there.

He says he was not actually performing neighborhood watch duties, but was headed to the store. Now you and I may think it's beyond all sense and credibility to carry a gun to the grocery store, but these NRA types do carry their guns at all times. And guess what, it's not illegal.

So. You're on the jury. Is it plausible that Zimmerman wasn't actually doing his neighborhood watch stuff at that moment? What would you need to convine you that he was going to the store. Or, that he was lying about going to the store.

As the police have made clear - they did not "order" Zimmerman not to follow, they can't do that. They "asked" him not to follow. He had a legal right to continue to walk down the street, from everything that I've read.

So there's a pretty good possibility - at least reasonable doubt - that those two arguments aren't pertinent at all.

I'm not sticking up for the killer. It seems to me those two arguments....the no gun on watch and following after being told not to....are as valid as they get. Reasonable doubt would be Z calling the police and then letting them do their job. Which means nobody would have been shot and killed.

[Velleity]

Let's face it. "Conservatives" couldn't give a shit about Zimmerman. To them this is all about their precious license to kill laws.

I don't know if there can be justice, per se, but then too the idea of letting this ne'er do well out to do this to some other 17 year old kid is pretty sickening. I hope he's duly punished and I hope some much needed backlash is generated against this kind of legislation.

[Peacetrain]

I will be satisfied when he is found guilty of murder.. stalking a 17 year old in his own parents neighborhood, after being told by authorities not to do that.. then killing him with a gun he was not supposed to carry as a neighborhood watch person.

And then the stand your ground laws brought to trial.

If those two things happen, I will be satisfied.