George Zimmerman found not guilty

The ignorance of racism can be extremely appalling.

you're taking my statement too literal. However, it's been used in numerous cases, over the past month, when dumb arguments have gotten out of control.

@inferiorego: Defense attorneys have to earn their keep somehow ;-) I don't blame them for using it as a defense, simply because they have a legal and ethical obligation to provide their clients with the best defense possible. I'm sure criminal defenders have used it in cases it shouldn't have been used, and I'm sure jurries have delivered bad verdicts.

I just don't think there is anything wrong with the law itself.

The SYG Law is to Florida

as to

the insanity plea is to Gotham.

I don't like the idea of people killing other people with no repercussions.

@inferiorego: I don't think anyone does. But what does that have to do with SYG?

the young turks always on the money

It's the verdict i expected, but it's not the verdict i hoped.

Don’t tell me this had nothing to do with race. I hate to break it to you folks, but most black people don’t go around, sniffing for anything remotely off so they can play the over-hyped race card. We call a spade a spade. If you truly believe that justice was served, that Zimmerman’s hands were clean, then I have a few questions I’d like you to consider.

If Trayvon Martin were white (although let's face it, it's unlikely he'd still be named Trayvon), and you changed nothing else about the events of that night, would George Zimmerman have thought him a fucking punk who looked like he was on drugs, another of the teenagers who had been burglarizing his area of late?

If George Zimmerman told the truth in saying that he only shot Trayvon Martin after a struggle over Zimmerman's gun, but it had been Zimmerman who had been shot and killed, would Trayvon Martin have had the benefit of the doubt had he been tried for Zimmerman's death? Would there be as much credence lent to his testimony that he acted in self defense against an armed man following him in the darkness?

If someone had intervened and stopped the fight from taking a fatal turn, or if one or both of the combatants had backed off, and both had been taken into custody would Trayvon Martin's words in his own defense have made any more of an impact that his echoing silence did in his death?

If George Zimmerman was black, and Trayvon Martin was anything but, and events unfolded precisely as they (allegedly) did, would it have taken a media outcry for him to have been tried? Would his testimony have held as much weight, with the same evidence? Would the outcome have been the same?

Had Trayvon Martin been white, would there have been people scrounging his academic and social media records, and would any marks on the record of his life have been taken as concrete evidence by the worst of us that he was a thug? An animal? A gang-banger, a monster? Would a white Trayvon Martin, for the crime of school suspension and marijuana possession, have been someone that a significant portion of this country would say deserved to die?

If you can honestly, concretely, and with anything resembling certainty, answer any of these questions "yes," then I envy you.

I say this without a trace of animus, bitterness, or sarcasm. I say it with a profound sense of sadness and pain. I envy you. I envy you so much. I envy that your experiences have not hardened you to the ways of the world, that you can believe that this country and its laws are as likely to protect you as anyone else within its borders. That you have faith that you, or anyone else, will not be judged for something that is, was and always will be out of your hands, and that your life cannot spiral out of control in the blink of an eye for something that empirically was not your fault.

I envy you. And I hope that the walls never crack, that your sense of safety never falters, that from here until doomsday you walk through all the days of your life with that belief intact.

Come see me if you have trouble coping if that dome ever shatters.Because I don't have that luxury. I haven't had that luxury since I was fourteen years old, and life showed me in no uncertain terms how the remainder of my days would unfold. Countless people in this country do not, did not, and will never have that luxury. Trayvon Martin did not have that luxury, in life or in death.....

Link for complete text.

what aspect of any of this was racist?

so, you don't think people have a right to defend themselves from home invasions?

I'm sure most don't, but being able to kill another in the name of self-defense is necessary. We obviously aren't living in a utopic world where we can protect ourselves by using kind words.

And yes, I am fully aware that there are still those who would admonish me for even suggesting this case was about race. Not just the defenders of George Zimmerman, with whom I shall deal in a moment, but even the state, whose prosecutors de-racialized this case to a point that frankly was as troubling as anything the defense tried to do. Maybe more. I mean, the defense’s job is to represent their client, and I cannot fault them for having done so successfully. But the prosecution’s job is to make it clear to the jury what the defendant did and preferably why he did it. By agreeing to a fundamentally colorblind, “this isn’t about race,” narrative, they gave away the best part of their arsenal before the war had really started.

Because anyone who still believes that this case had nothing to do with race — or worse, that it was simply a tragedy, the racial meaning of which was concocted by those whom they love to term “race hustlers” — are suffering from a delusion so profound as to call into question their capacities for rational thought. And yet still, let us try to reason with them for a second, as if they were capable of hearing it. Let’s do that for the sake of rational thought itself, as a thing we still believe in; and for our country, which some of us still believe — against all evidence — is capable of doing justice and living up to its promises. In short, let’s give this one more shot.

Those who deny the racial angle to the killing of Trayvon Martin can only do so by a willful ignorance, a carefully cultivated denial of every logical, obvious piece of evidence before them, and by erasing from their minds — if indeed they ever had anything in there to erase — the entire history of American criminal justice, the criminal suspicion regularly attached to black men, and the inevitable results whenever black men pay for these suspicions with their lives. They must choose to leave the dots unconnected between, for instance, Martin on the one hand, and then on the other, Amadou Diallo or Sean Bell or Patrick Dorismond, or any of a number of other black men whose names — were I to list them — would take up page after page, and whose names wouldn’t mean shit to most white people even if I did list them, and that is the problem.

Oh sure, I’ve heard it all before. George Zimmerman didn’t follow Trayvon Martin because Martin was black; he followed him because he thought he might be a criminal. Yes precious, I get that. But whatyou don’t get — and by not getting it while still managing to somehow hold down a job and feedyourself, scare the shit out of me — is far more important. Namely, if the presumption of criminality that Zimmerman attached to Martin was so attached because the latter was black — and would not have been similarly attached to him had he been white — then the charge of racial bias and profiling is entirely appropriate.

And surely we cannot deny that the presumption of criminality was dependent on this dead child’s race can we? Before you answer, please note that even the defense did not deny this. Indeed, Zimmerman’s attorneys acknowledged in court that their client’s concerns about Martin were connected directly to the fact that previous break-ins in the neighborhood had been committed by young black males.

This is why it matters that George Zimmerman justified his following of Martin because as he put it, “these fucking punks” always get away. In other words, Zimmerman saw Martin as just another “fucking punk” up to no good, similar to those who had committed previous break-ins in the community. But why? What behavior did Martin display that would have suggested he was criminally inclined? Zimmerman’s team could produce nothing to indicate anything particularly suspicious about Martin’s actions that night. According to Zimmerman, Martin was walking in the rain, “looking around,” or “looking around at the houses.” But not looking in windows, or jiggling doorknobs or porch screens, or anything that might have suggested a possible burglar. At no point was any evidence presented by the defense to justify their client’s suspicions. All we know is that Zimmerman saw Martin and concluded that he was just like those other criminals. And to the extent there was nothing in Martin’s actions — talking on the telephone and walking slowly home from the store — that would have indicated he was another of those “fucking punks,” the only possible explanation as to why George Zimmerman would have seen him that way is because Martin, as a young black male was presumed to be a likely criminal, and for no other reason, ultimately, but color.

Which is to say, Trayvon Martin is dead because he is black and because George Zimmerman can’t differentiate — and didn’t see the need to — between criminal and non-criminal black people. Which is to say, George Zimmerman is a racist. Because if you cannot differentiate between black criminals and just plain kids, and don’t even see the need to try, apparently, you are a racist. I don’t care what your Peruvian mother says, or her white husband who married the Peruvian mother, or your brother, or your black friends, or the black girl you took to prom, or the black kids you mentored. If you see a black child and assume “criminal,” despite no behavioral evidence at all to suggest such a conclusion, you are a racist. No exceptions. That goes for George Zimmerman and for anyone reading this. (cont).

TimWise.com for complete article.

Please, TYT are a biased bunch Of morons.

@xanni15: wow cant say im surprised at the ridiculous black panther who are racists themselves putting a hit on zimmerman...smh

Because that will bring trav back...

Im also so tired of hearing about this whole thing being racist? How so because trav was black? So if he were white, hispanic or asian would it be a 'race' issue?

I never said terrified...I said scared. Lot's of things scare us. Some things terrify us. We don't automatically call the police just because we're scared. Whether or not Trayvon called the police is beside the point. Just because he didn't call the police doesn't prove that he wasn't fearful neither does the fact that Zimmerman did prove that he was. You guys are trying really hard to paint this young kid as a thug. You need to remember that Trayvon was 17 and Zimmerman was 28 and the 17 year old had his life taken. Not the other way around.

@$$hole isn't a racist term. But the only indication to Zimmerman that Trayvon could have been one was his race and maybe the hoodie. Remember it was raining so the hoodie was probably just to cover his head. I mean should he walk to the store in a business suit to not be threatening? What exactly did Trayvon do to be labeled as such? That is were the profiling comes in. If he'd been Chinese or Irish would he had still been one of those @$$holes? The only thing Zimmerman knew about Trayvon was that he was black and he had on a hoodie.

But he did have a statement to police that served as his testimony. Again one person is DEAD and you guys are making it out like he deserved it and your glad that he's gone. Maybe one less @$$hole on the streets is fine for you guys. I personally think that a 17 year old kid should be allowed room to make mistakes and learn from them. Not be shot in the chest by some Punisher wannabe with a paranoid disposition and an itchy trigger finger.

@night_thrasher

You are wasting your time. If you still need to defend Martin, a 5'11" 17 yr old teen after he initially was pursued by a 28 yr old adult, fought this adult, was shot by this adult, and ultimately killed by this adult. Then there is no hope. People will forever believe what they want if they believe it strong enough.

I still have hope. But it seems to me that for some reason the life of a 17 year old black kid isn't worth as much to some people as it is to me.

Yes, its a sad reality.

If it don't fit you must acquit!

Jury got together, discussed everything there was to discuss and agreed that he was innocent.

Case closed.

Then people like Roddy White (wide receiver for the Falcons) is going to tweet messages talking about the jurors should kill themselves. smh.

People are going to keep crying and crying until someone finally has had enough and goes and kills Zimmerman.

That's what this could lead to, y'know that right?

The jury made up their minds before the case. Juror B37 pretty much said this in her interview with Anderson Cooper. To me the important fact is that a kid is dead. A 28 year old man and a 17 year old kid got into a confrontation, both made mistakes, but only the 28 year old man got to walk away. How do you justify that? It seems that the prevailing argument is that 'the kid deserved to die because he was a bad person'. A mindset that I take a little personal offense to and disagree with completely. Zimmerman might have been a little scared of Trayvon, but you don't get to shoot and kill anybody that scares you. Plus, if he was so scared of Trayvon, why did he get out of the car?

@night_thrasher: I agree that Zimmerman shouldn't be able to get off 100%, but unfortunately, according to the Stand your Ground law in Florida (which I really don't care too much for) he didn't break the law, or commit murder.

So that's why he is innocent.

Sure, I'll say that law should be taken away, but until then, it's a law, and he didn't break it.

They didn't apply SYG to this case. It was simple self defense. I think that by giving a verdict of 'not guilty' then the jury is saying that Zimmerman didn't act negligibly at all. Which is really all you need for manslaughter. They were basically saying that Zimmerman following Trayvon wasn't a mistake, getting out of the car wasn't a mistake and the fact that he did follow Trayvon is no reason for Trayvon to be fearful or any reason for self defense at all. What they are really saying is "Trayvon was a thug and I would've shot him too!" It's a shame really. I feel that he should've gotten a manslaughter conviction at least.

Ok, so now the case is any guy favored by the state can walk up and kill me and the courts will be like, "Well was he wearing a color that this person did not like? Yes? Not guilty."

@lady_liberty

said:

I think that's why we aren't seeing eye to eye. Your issue is i'm assuming Zimmerman was racially profiling based on no evidence, but as i've said several times now, I'm basing what I believe on his words and his actions, of which I believe is evidence that he profiled Trayvon Martin. Just because he didn't call him a n_gger, or a monkey, or tell the cops "I think he's up to something BECAUSE he's black" doesn't mean it's impossible or ridiculous to have found something racist in what transpired.

Thanks.

@awesam: I have to disagree with your position sir or madam.

It's not that I'm being biased or moral. I can just see how much Zimmerman was unfairly favored by the court. There was plenty of evidence pointing to the fact that he was guilty. However, they ignored that for some reason.

1. They took the tapes of some unclear 911 calls for fact while they mysteriously disreguarded the call Martin made to his girlfriend and her whole testimony for no particular reason even though it was right in the mix of the fight.

2. The courts used the standing your ground law in favor of Zimmerman while it perfectly applied to Martin as well. He was perfectly within his rights to be where he was and thus perfectly within his rights to retaliate against his wrongful aggressor or who he believed to be an aggressor.

3. He was told not to. He got someone killed. He had the gun. He is responsible for his actions. Simple as that.

This is my view on the situation.

@ultimatehero0406: Actually, they favored Trayvon.

1. If you're talking about Jeantel, she was brought up as a witness. The call was not recorded.

2. Beating a random person on the sidewalk does not count as confronting your agressor. Please learn how the law works.

3. He did not have to listen to the dispatcher. The gun was legal. Martin attacked, therefore making him guilty. Sorry, but your argument is wrong.

The man was in her house. Or her mom's house. And she'd already brought charges on him before for a restraining order.

Zimmerman is still an @$$-Hole...... He may have got off in his trail, but the rest of his life is F-ed...... You know how many people want to kick the dog $#!% out of that cat...... What the chances of getting off twice with the "stand your ground law" when someone beating the $#!% out of him for being a retard with a hand gun?

@judasnixon: Please, don't.

How did the dog sh!t get up the cat's butt and should we call PETA to protect the animal?

It's another case of injustice in our failing justice system.

I'm not going to deeply analyze the pigments of their skin because that's not what's important.

Let's hope that we see a reduction in cases that end like this one, for if we don't I fear for our future.

The Law is the Law. Can't really do much now can we?

Another person that needs to get back on their meds.

@totalbalance:

What are your opinions on this? Ehh

Is this the verdict you expected? No

Do you think there will be riots? Dude, I live in cali....Theirs already a riot in the making

dO.ob

@awesam:

1. They still pushed her testimony away as unreliable for no reason. They pretty much listened to everyone but her for some reason.

2. A person who has been following you for blocks and then approaches you aggrassively in not a random person. The standing your ground law says that you are allowed to use force or deadly force against anyone who you in your right mind deem to be an aggressor and see no other way out than violence. Fits perfectly. I know the law bru.

3. They don't know for sure who attacked first. And even if they did, Martin was still in the right due to the standing your ground law. To Martin, Zimmerman looked like he was about to attack him therefore he had every right to attack first before being attacked. They always seem to forget that people being stalked in the middle of the night are more likely retaliate.

How am I wrong?

@ultimatehero0406:

1. She lied to the court. Once you lie, you lose you credibility.

2. It has to be reasonable. Zimmerman lost Martin, then got attacked. He did not confront him. Doesn't fit the law.

3. Martin was on top, plus he had no bodily harm except for the gun wound. He had no right to attack Zimmerman. He could have called the police or run. He decided to attack making him the aggressor.

Seriously dude? That's just. okay....

To make matters worse they are trying to give him the murder weapon back wtf....

@awesam:

1. What lie did she tell? And how do we know for sure Zimmerman wasn't lying?

2. It was reasonable. If someone was following you home in the middle of the night and then suddenly approaches you, the assumption is not that they are coming to say hi. Chances are they are trying to mug you or kill you. This was in Martin's mind so he attacked first which is in the law.

3. Again, they don't know how the fight went. They assumed based on the general concensus of the physical evidence. There are a number of ways the fight could have went and one is just as good as any other truthfully. And it doesn't matter. The law says if you believe your in danger, your allowed to attack first. This is the stand your ground law. It doesn't matter who was winning the fight. Martin thought he was in danger because of what Zimmerman looked like he was about to do and as such was allowed to defend himself.

i give 1 more week. after that, nobody will give a **** anymore. until the next big media covered trial.

@ultimatehero0406:

1. She lied abour her age, hearing Martin telling Zimmerman to get off, hearing Martin getting hit, and about giving a letter to Trayvon's mother. She's lucky she wasn't prosicuted.

2. You cannot assault someone because of what you think. Read up on the law.

3. Wrong again. We know Martin was on top attacking Zimmerman. Had Zimmerman's gun been visible, then it would be reasonable. What you are doing is you're arguing Martin's innocence. Since Zimmerman was not going to attack him, the shooting was justified. We're not talking about Martin, we're debating whether Zimmerman was justified or not. Unless you're more qualified than he judge, jury, defense, and prosicution, then you have no right to decide how the law works. Stop making yourself look bad. The law favors Zimmerman. It was justified.

Like most "tragedies"? The same happened with the Boston bombings, Newtown, and Sandy Hook.

Scared and terrified are pretty much synonymous with each other, so playing around semantics here isn't going to help your case. We are not talking the variety of things that scare of us; we are talking about Trayvon Martin being followed at night by Zimmerman, and how he was "supposedly" in fear of his life. So, if he didn't try to get outside help from the police or neighbors what justification do you have to claim that he was fearful of Zimmerman? No one is trying to paint Trayvon Martin as a thug, and what you need to get through your head is that Trayvon Martin was old to know that you shouldn't go around putting your hands on people.

1) How is being hooded irrelevant? Wouldn't someone getting ready to commit a crime want to obscure their identity with a mask or hat? The point I'm trying to make here is that roaming around at night in the rain isn't normal behavior.

2) So, you don't believe that Trayvon Martin attacking Zimmerman would escalate the situation to his death?

3) I don't actually believe that to be the case here since this has never been a issue with other black males who lived in the community.

The media played a bunch of people for fools. From what I've seen, Trayvon's parents have handled all this hubbub with an incredible amount of class and dignity. They lost their boy and they have every right to grieve. I wish the same could be said of these Trayvon "supporters" who rely on Twitter and network chatter for the bulk of their information. Under the current laws, this should have never went to trial. And now that the mob hasn't gotten Zimmerman, they're bitching about changing the laws and how this is a "Florida" problem. What these morons don't realize is the result would have been the same in most states.

I hope Zimmerman makes an absolute fortune in his civil suit against NBC. The tactics the press has been getting away with is absolutely despicable. And it never ceases to amaze me how many reactionary, meme-loving sheep will consume its garbage and then turn around, presenting themselves as "informed." What a joke.

@betatesthighlander1:

so, you don't think people have a right to defend themselves from home invasions?

I feel bad for that mother in new jersey when that d-bag invaded her house, if she had a gun things would have turned out differently

poor her and her traumatized daughter

Trayvon did not deserve death

That guy on jersey deserves a good hanging

@betatesthighlander1 said:

There are some jumps that are made here, and the person writing is obviously angry, but he uses a lot more relevant facts than most Trayvon supporters. The actual facts and relevant law overwhelmingly favored Zimmerman. Overwhelmingly. This is why the trial was pretty much a sham. It only went to trial in the first place because we turned it into a racial issue.

@nick_hero22 said:

1.Because it was raining. Your point is invalid because you don't know he was "roaming". You don't know what he was doing and neither does George Zimmerman, which is clear by what he says in the 911 call.

2. The question is, what exactly lead to Trayvon Martin attacking him?

3.That has nothing to do with anything. Someone can't profile you if they know you.

Where was I when the media started caring about black people?

Actually alot of that stuff is reaching.

They don't care about black people. They care about money. Turning this into a racial issue generated controversy. The greater the controversy, the greater the viewership. The greater the viewership, the greater their paychecks.

Calling Zimmerman a murderer is reaching.

@reignmaker said:

I don't agree that it was the "media" that turned this into the race issue. I think people had their suspicions that this had something to do with race all along.

I didn't.