Zimmerman vs. Martin
Options
Replies
-
The racism surrounding this case is amazing.
And the only racist words ever spoken were from Trayvon Martin.
What was that? I am asking because I really don't know not to start a ruckus.
From what I understand, Martin called Zimmerman a "cracker" when he was on the phone with a friend.0 -
The racism surrounding this case is amazing.
And the only racist words ever spoken were from Trayvon Martin.
What was that? I am asking because I really don't know not to start a ruckus.
From what I understand, Martin called Zimmerman a "cracker" when he was on the phone with a friend.
He also called him a nigg... That's how these kids talk now. Doesn't mean he was racist against Zimmerman.0 -
i guarantee 90% of the people in this thread have not watched one second of the case, or reviewed the evidence.
Otherwise they're just blinded by SOMETHING to think Zimmerman should be found guilty.
I've watched quite a bit of it, both prosecution and defense arguments. I know what I'm talking about. Zimmerman murdered a kid, its pretty sad.
I won't speculate as to why he did it exactly. Was it racism? Was it for other reasons? Who knows. I'm not going to accuse you of anything for believing otherwise.
Sir, you need to look up the legal definition of murder in both federal law and florida law, you really have no clue what you are talking about. If you have watched the trial then your response is even worse than those who have not, you ability to process information and comprehend it is severely diminished. I'm not saying you can't have the opinion he is guilty of killing this kid but murder by statutory definition it is not.
mur·der (mûrdr)
n.
1. The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.
Yep. And so?
Key word, UNLAWFUL. He was in his rights to defend himself. AKA, it wasn't murder.
It will be unlawful if the jury finds it to be so by their reasonable interpretation. In other words, if they decide it is self defense, his actions were lawful. That will be the jury's interpretation of the events and law. If however they believe Zimmerman stalked and murdered a kid, and don't buy into his version of events for whatever reason, then his actions were unlawful, and not self defense. He was the aggressor and he murdered, if that's how they choose to see it.
We'll have to accept whatever they decide. I know what I believe based on everything I've seen and heard. I hope you can accept it too.
I haven't watched one second of news about this. I only read police reports, listened to the 911 tapes, and watched the trial. So the media pressure hasn't pressured my view at all.0 -
i guarantee 90% of the people in this thread have not watched one second of the case, or reviewed the evidence.
Otherwise they're just blinded by SOMETHING to think Zimmerman should be found guilty.
I've watched quite a bit of it, both prosecution and defense arguments. I know what I'm talking about. Zimmerman murdered a kid, its pretty sad.
I won't speculate as to why he did it exactly. Was it racism? Was it for other reasons? Who knows. I'm not going to accuse you of anything for believing otherwise.
Sir, you need to look up the legal definition of murder in both federal law and florida law, you really have no clue what you are talking about. If you have watched the trial then your response is even worse than those who have not, you ability to process information and comprehend it is severely diminished. I'm not saying you can't have the opinion he is guilty of killing this kid but murder by statutory definition it is not.
mur·der (mûrdr)
n.
1. The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.
Yep. And so?
Key word, UNLAWFUL. He was in his rights to defend himself. AKA, it wasn't murder.
Again, what evidence are you basing your conclusion on that he was definitively defending himself?
police reports, medical examiners testimony, the actual trial, etc. Not CNN, MSNBC or Fox.0 -
i guarantee 90% of the people in this thread have not watched one second of the case, or reviewed the evidence.
Otherwise they're just blinded by SOMETHING to think Zimmerman should be found guilty.
I've watched quite a bit of it, both prosecution and defense arguments. I know what I'm talking about. Zimmerman murdered a kid, its pretty sad.
I won't speculate as to why he did it exactly. Was it racism? Was it for other reasons? Who knows. I'm not going to accuse you of anything for believing otherwise.
Sir, you need to look up the legal definition of murder in both federal law and florida law, you really have no clue what you are talking about. If you have watched the trial then your response is even worse than those who have not, you ability to process information and comprehend it is severely diminished. I'm not saying you can't have the opinion he is guilty of killing this kid but murder by statutory definition it is not.
mur·der (mûrdr)
n.
1. The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.
Yep. And so?
you gave a dictionary definition, again cluing into your inability to digest and comprehend, let me go ahead and give you the FL statutory definition which the prosecution has to prove:
(3) When a human being is killed during the perpetration of, or during the attempt to perpetrate, any:
(a) Trafficking offense prohibited by s. 893.135(1),
(b) Arson,
(c) Sexual battery,
(d) Robbery,
(e) Burglary,
(f) Kidnapping,
(g) Escape,
(h) Aggravated child abuse,
(i) Aggravated abuse of an elderly person or disabled adult,
(j) Aircraft piracy,
(k) Unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb,
(l) Carjacking,
(m) Home-invasion robbery,
(n) Aggravated stalking,
(o) Murder of another human being,
(p) Aggravated fleeing or eluding with serious bodily injury or death,
(q) Resisting an officer with violence to his or her person, or
(r) Felony that is an act of terrorism or is in furtherance of an act of terrorism,
by a person other than the person engaged in the perpetration of or in the attempt to perpetrate such felony, the person perpetrating or attempting to perpetrate such felony commits murder in the second degree, which constitutes a felony of the first degree, punishable by imprisonment for a term of years not exceeding life or as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
They might have had a case if they tried to prove aggravated stalking but I am going to assume this is going to be supported by case law regarding traditional stalkers.
You insult me for quoting a source, then you give your own copy pasting of a source. :laugh:
because he said LEGAL definition, which he gave. Webster's isn't law.0 -
I've been keeping up on the news, trial, and commentary, and there was no way to avoid ignorant people from going negative on this post. I always discouraged to see the blatant racism that still exists. Off my pedestal and on to my actual point.
We are 20 years past the riots after Rodney King! I just don't think that is going to happen if Zimmerman is found innocent. Granted, people will be mad, but I don't think we'll be reduced to rioting and destroying our own neighborhoods again. I'm just so tired of seeing these comments saying black people are going to riot. Saying all that, I hope this jury can see through the trash and find Zimmerman guilty....at least of manslaughter, if not 2nd degree.
There are twiiter accounts, facebook pages, etc dedicated to people saying they ARE going to riot if he is aquitted. Why would people not think this?
Link some? I haven't seen a single one. I don't believe there will be rioting over this, the assumption that blacks will riot seems itself questionable. Or its very selective cherry picking.
Thank you REC! If black people rioted every time we heard a bad verdict, it would look like Syria around here. Black riots haven't happened in over 20 years. If Zimmerman gets off, it just shows that another citizen has the power to shoot a kid (yes, he is a kid, no matter the size!) because of a stereotype or preconceived notion that he was a criminal.
I don't want to assign racial motivations to anyone, I don't know what's in someone's head completely. But when some people jump to the idea that blacks will riot, it's coming from a place of prejudice in some way. Just a belief in a stereotype or something. If anything, the opposite is more likely: blacks in america in general do not expect justice. They are probably more skeptical and less trusting of the system to provide an outcome that they feel is just. So since it's what they cynically expect, why would they riot? The action of rioting assumes that blacks in america are going to get an outcome from this trial they don't expect, when I think many black americans probably think Zimmerman will get off.
Zimmerman going free will be an injustice. But I don't know how this will turn out, comes down to that jury and do they find reasonable doubt. Defense has thrown alot of sand in their eyes, will they see through it?0 -
I've been keeping up on the news, trial, and commentary, and there was no way to avoid ignorant people from going negative on this post. I always discouraged to see the blatant racism that still exists. Off my pedestal and on to my actual point.
We are 20 years past the riots after Rodney King! I just don't think that is going to happen if Zimmerman is found innocent. Granted, people will be mad, but I don't think we'll be reduced to rioting and destroying our own neighborhoods again. I'm just so tired of seeing these comments saying black people are going to riot. Saying all that, I hope this jury can see through the trash and find Zimmerman guilty....at least of manslaughter, if not 2nd degree.
There are twiiter accounts, facebook pages, etc dedicated to people saying they ARE going to riot if he is aquitted. Why would people not think this?
Link some? I haven't seen a single one. I don't believe there will be rioting over this, the assumption that blacks will riot seems itself questionable. Or its very selective cherry picking.
Thank you REC! If black people rioted every time we heard a bad verdict, it would look like Syria around here. Black riots haven't happened in over 20 years. If Zimmerman gets off, it just shows that another citizen has the power to shoot a kid (yes, he is a kid, no matter the size!) because of a stereotype or preconceived notion that he was a criminal.
no it doesn't. It means people have the right to defend themself against an attacker.0 -
The racism surrounding this case is amazing.
And the only racist words ever spoken were from Trayvon Martin.
What was that? I am asking because I really don't know not to start a ruckus.
From what I understand, Martin called Zimmerman a "cracker" when he was on the phone with a friend.
He also called him a nigg... That's how these kids talk now. Doesn't mean he was racist against Zimmerman.
I'm not saying he was. I was just answering the question. I hate that that's "how these kids talk now." I think it's despicable. If it's racist one way, it's racist both ways. If that's how they talk, then either word shouldn't matter, unfortunately I don't think that's how many people see it. I don't use either because I think those words are still offensive, but I'm not everyone.0 -
To those who keep drumming the "he was only a 17 year old kid" I gotta ask, did GZ hurt any less, would he have bled any less, would his head being slammed in the concrete hurt any less, because TM wasnt 20 years old?0
-
Again, what evidence are you basing your conclusion on that he was definitively defending himself?
The forensic evidence aired yesterday at the trial? The numerous witness reports that Trayvon was on top of GZ? The blood spatter evidence? Take your pick.0 -
i guarantee 90% of the people in this thread have not watched one second of the case, or reviewed the evidence.
Otherwise they're just blinded by SOMETHING to think Zimmerman should be found guilty.
I've watched quite a bit of it, both prosecution and defense arguments. I know what I'm talking about. Zimmerman murdered a kid, its pretty sad.
I won't speculate as to why he did it exactly. Was it racism? Was it for other reasons? Who knows. I'm not going to accuse you of anything for believing otherwise.
Sir, you need to look up the legal definition of murder in both federal law and florida law, you really have no clue what you are talking about. If you have watched the trial then your response is even worse than those who have not, you ability to process information and comprehend it is severely diminished. I'm not saying you can't have the opinion he is guilty of killing this kid but murder by statutory definition it is not.
mur·der (mûrdr)
n.
1. The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.
Yep. And so?
so if im driving in my car and hit someone, I should be convicted of murder?
no
Of course not. But thats not what this trial is and its not what Zimmerman did.
Le sigh. It's the same principal though. It's obvious he did not premeditate this unfortunate event. It's not murder in the second therefore walking is what he'll do.0 -
i guarantee 90% of the people in this thread have not watched one second of the case, or reviewed the evidence.
Otherwise they're just blinded by SOMETHING to think Zimmerman should be found guilty.
I've watched quite a bit of it, both prosecution and defense arguments. I know what I'm talking about. Zimmerman murdered a kid, its pretty sad.
I won't speculate as to why he did it exactly. Was it racism? Was it for other reasons? Who knows. I'm not going to accuse you of anything for believing otherwise.
Sir, you need to look up the legal definition of murder in both federal law and florida law, you really have no clue what you are talking about. If you have watched the trial then your response is even worse than those who have not, you ability to process information and comprehend it is severely diminished. I'm not saying you can't have the opinion he is guilty of killing this kid but murder by statutory definition it is not.
mur·der (mûrdr)
n.
1. The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.
Yep. And so?
you gave a dictionary definition, again cluing into your inability to digest and comprehend, let me go ahead and give you the FL statutory definition which the prosecution has to prove:
(3) When a human being is killed during the perpetration of, or during the attempt to perpetrate, any:
(a) Trafficking offense prohibited by s. 893.135(1),
(b) Arson,
(c) Sexual battery,
(d) Robbery,
(e) Burglary,
(f) Kidnapping,
(g) Escape,
(h) Aggravated child abuse,
(i) Aggravated abuse of an elderly person or disabled adult,
(j) Aircraft piracy,
(k) Unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb,
(l) Carjacking,
(m) Home-invasion robbery,
(n) Aggravated stalking,
(o) Murder of another human being,
(p) Aggravated fleeing or eluding with serious bodily injury or death,
(q) Resisting an officer with violence to his or her person, or
(r) Felony that is an act of terrorism or is in furtherance of an act of terrorism,
by a person other than the person engaged in the perpetration of or in the attempt to perpetrate such felony, the person perpetrating or attempting to perpetrate such felony commits murder in the second degree, which constitutes a felony of the first degree, punishable by imprisonment for a term of years not exceeding life or as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
They might have had a case if they tried to prove aggravated stalking but I am going to assume this is going to be supported by case law regarding traditional stalkers.
You insult me for quoting a source, then you give your own copy pasting of a source. :laugh:
because he said LEGAL definition, which he gave. Webster's isn't law.
To both of you on your tag team- congrats on your distinction without a difference. :drinker:0 -
Key word, UNLAWFUL. He was in his rights to defend himself. AKA, it wasn't murder.
Again, what evidence are you basing your conclusion on that he was definitively defending himself?
In the Criminal Justice system the burden of proof is not on the defendant. The Prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he acted with "Depraved indifference" to prove murder. all the defense has to do is prove reasonable doubt.
Like others have said the state over charged, and only filled charges after outrage and politicians got involved.
To me shooting someone once who is straddling you and beating your head into the ground is not depraved indifference.
my instinct in that situation would have been to go for double taps if not more.0 -
The racism surrounding this case is amazing.
And the only racist words ever spoken were from Trayvon Martin.
What was that? I am asking because I really don't know not to start a ruckus.
From what I understand, Martin called Zimmerman a "cracker" when he was on the phone with a friend.
He also called him a nigg... That's how these kids talk now. Doesn't mean he was racist against Zimmerman.
but if the tables were turned it would be racism. But it's ok because "kids talk that way these days". Wow0 -
I've been keeping up on the news, trial, and commentary, and there was no way to avoid ignorant people from going negative on this post. I always discouraged to see the blatant racism that still exists. Off my pedestal and on to my actual point.
We are 20 years past the riots after Rodney King! I just don't think that is going to happen if Zimmerman is found innocent. Granted, people will be mad, but I don't think we'll be reduced to rioting and destroying our own neighborhoods again. I'm just so tired of seeing these comments saying black people are going to riot. Saying all that, I hope this jury can see through the trash and find Zimmerman guilty....at least of manslaughter, if not 2nd degree.
There are twiiter accounts, facebook pages, etc dedicated to people saying they ARE going to riot if he is aquitted. Why would people not think this?
Link some? I haven't seen a single one. I don't believe there will be rioting over this, the assumption that blacks will riot seems itself questionable. Or its very selective cherry picking.
Thank you REC! If black people rioted every time we heard a bad verdict, it would look like Syria around here. Black riots haven't happened in over 20 years. If Zimmerman gets off, it just shows that another citizen has the power to shoot a kid (yes, he is a kid, no matter the size!) because of a stereotype or preconceived notion that he was a criminal.
I don't want to assign racial motivations to anyone, I don't know what's in someone's head completely. But when some people jump to the idea that blacks will riot, it's coming from a place of prejudice in some way. Just a belief in a stereotype or something. If anything, the opposite is more likely: blacks in america in general do not expect justice. They are probably more skeptical and less trusting of the system to provide an outcome that they feel is just. So since it's what they cynically expect, why would they riot? The action of rioting assumes that blacks in america are going to get an outcome from this trial they don't expect, when I think many black americans probably think Zimmerman will get off.
Zimmerman going free will be an injustice. But I don't know how this will turn out, comes down to that jury and do they find reasonable doubt. Defense has thrown alot of sand in their eyes, will they see through it?
look aond, there are internet pages, facebook, twitter, etc TALKING about how people WILL riot if he walks. You are oblivious to the real world.0 -
You are right about that one. He would have to move ASAP. Start anew elsewhere. I really hope riots do not occur. That would make me VERY upset.
I believe in peaceful organizations.0 -
The racism surrounding this case is amazing.
And the only racist words ever spoken were from Trayvon Martin.
What was that? I am asking because I really don't know not to start a ruckus.
From what I understand, Martin called Zimmerman a "cracker" when he was on the phone with a friend.
He also called him a nigg... That's how these kids talk now. Doesn't mean he was racist against Zimmerman.
but if the tables were turned it would be racism. But it's ok because "kids talk that way these days". Wow
Paula Deen.....0 -
i guarantee 90% of the people in this thread have not watched one second of the case, or reviewed the evidence.
Otherwise they're just blinded by SOMETHING to think Zimmerman should be found guilty.
I've watched quite a bit of it, both prosecution and defense arguments. I know what I'm talking about. Zimmerman murdered a kid, its pretty sad.
I won't speculate as to why he did it exactly. Was it racism? Was it for other reasons? Who knows. I'm not going to accuse you of anything for believing otherwise.
Sir, you need to look up the legal definition of murder in both federal law and florida law, you really have no clue what you are talking about. If you have watched the trial then your response is even worse than those who have not, you ability to process information and comprehend it is severely diminished. I'm not saying you can't have the opinion he is guilty of killing this kid but murder by statutory definition it is not.
mur·der (mûrdr)
n.
1. The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.
Yep. And so?
you gave a dictionary definition, again cluing into your inability to digest and comprehend, let me go ahead and give you the FL statutory definition which the prosecution has to prove:
(3) When a human being is killed during the perpetration of, or during the attempt to perpetrate, any:
(a) Trafficking offense prohibited by s. 893.135(1),
(b) Arson,
(c) Sexual battery,
(d) Robbery,
(e) Burglary,
(f) Kidnapping,
(g) Escape,
(h) Aggravated child abuse,
(i) Aggravated abuse of an elderly person or disabled adult,
(j) Aircraft piracy,
(k) Unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb,
(l) Carjacking,
(m) Home-invasion robbery,
(n) Aggravated stalking,
(o) Murder of another human being,
(p) Aggravated fleeing or eluding with serious bodily injury or death,
(q) Resisting an officer with violence to his or her person, or
(r) Felony that is an act of terrorism or is in furtherance of an act of terrorism,
by a person other than the person engaged in the perpetration of or in the attempt to perpetrate such felony, the person perpetrating or attempting to perpetrate such felony commits murder in the second degree, which constitutes a felony of the first degree, punishable by imprisonment for a term of years not exceeding life or as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
They might have had a case if they tried to prove aggravated stalking but I am going to assume this is going to be supported by case law regarding traditional stalkers.
You insult me for quoting a source, then you give your own copy pasting of a source. :laugh:
because he said LEGAL definition, which he gave. Webster's isn't law.
To both of you on your tag team- congrats on your distinction without a difference. :drinker:
There is a difference. Webster's doesn't carry law, a statute does.0 -
The racism surrounding this case is amazing.
And the only racist words ever spoken were from Trayvon Martin.
What was that? I am asking because I really don't know not to start a ruckus.
From what I understand, Martin called Zimmerman a "cracker" when he was on the phone with a friend.
He also called him a nigg... That's how these kids talk now. Doesn't mean he was racist against Zimmerman.
but if the tables were turned it would be racism. But it's ok because "kids talk that way these days". Wow
Paula Deen.....
Exactly. And she used the word decades ago, and is getting blasted by everyone.0 -
Dear Posters,
I wanted to provide a brief explanation for locking this topic.
The forum guidelines include this item:
16. No Political Topics in the Main Forums
Political content is not allowed on the Main Forums. This includes images. Please form or join a Group if you would like to engage in political debate on MyFitnessPal.
If you would like to review the forum guidelines, please visit the following link:
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/welcome/guidelines
At our discretion, this locked thread may be deleted entirely in the near future.
With respect,
Olivia
MyFitnessPal Community Manager0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 401 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 996 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions