Free Allegiance Forums

TakingArms wrote:QUOTE (TakingArms @ Jul 14 2013, 12:29 PM) Yeah, I get that. I'm not sure that feeling is justified, but for all I know Zimmerman could be a racist @#$%@#. Being hispanic, one would think he'd be a bit less prejudiced, but who knows.

Hispanics and blacks have massive racial issues with each other, moreso than whites and mexicans/whites and blacks

things get really complicated if you're blaxican

not to mention that hispanics are some of the most racist people on the planet, so there's that

In the streets thousands of kids kill each other every year through gang violence, suddenly throw a guy that looks kinda white killing a black kid through self defense and it becomes a civil rights issue.

Welcome to libertard America.

Lupe Fiasco probably said it best, and I quote:

QUOTE Rub your face in it! Swallow down that hard pill! Black blood spills in the streets of America nightly at the hands other blacks
Yeah gimme that anger...once again that rage...that misguided angst when you true enemy is your own complacency and cowardice.
Curse kick scream yell tweet unfollow. Don't matter to me if y'all don't start valuing yourselves N*****S will be in the same boat tomorrow
Nobody knows what really happened except trayvon and Zimmerman. The justice system relies on reasonable doubt not our emotions.[/quote]

Zimmermans family has an AMA on Reddit.

Once upon a time you only had to worry about getting a good lawyer if you were accused of a serious crime, now you need a good publicist too.

It is not illegal to follow someone. It's not illegal to verbally confront them. Not even if a 911 operator advises you against it. Not even if you're a flaming racist.

Nor should it be.

If Martin was the one to first attack Zimmerman, and by surprise -- as the defense alleges, and as in all probability what actually happened -- then he was not just a innocent kid out for skittles and ice tea, but an participating coauthor of his own demise.

Zimmerman might be guilty of terrible judgment and being a horrible person besides, but no crime was committed until the moment Martin jumped Zimmerman. Had he not done that, he would still be alive today.

True, but if you're scared and you are willing and able to take some kind of action, you probably will.

Zimmerman essentially created a situation that scared a stranger into doing something stupid, and while that isn't illegal, it does create a legal loophole for justified manslaughter.

Just so we are clear I didn't follow the trial and don't know much of the details. It didn't matter to me, just another shooting, sad tbs when someone loses their life but really *meh*in the bigger scope of things. Unfortunately much of society has given it why more attention then it deserved and now it will become a rally cry for the personal perceptions of those who did follow the trial. Honestly it seems many of you formed an opinion early and with only the "facts" the media has given you.

Here is an article outlining some basics ideas about how Florida law works. It basically echoes TA, the only one who has posted and is a lawyer to the best of my knowledge.

You want to be outraged over the lack of conviction and its "injustice" but here is what the Executive Director of a Civil Rights firm has to say:
QUOTE "There is a difference between the law and what people think is fundamentally justice," said Barbara Arnwine, president and executive director of the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, a Washington-based civil rights group.[/quote]

Reginald Denny
Rodney King
Twana Brawly
Bernard Getz
Central Park Wilding Teens
OJ Simpson

I no longer see the trials as anything more then the media circus that they are manufactured to be. If you want to become an activist I submit you roll on down to your local court house. You find lots of stuff to piss you off, and even occasional make you proud. The level of court, city, and even country does not matter...

If you want to see justice done you are really only get see it half the time at ever trial and only if things go well

the extreme degree to which people are reacting to this verdict is just $#@!ing stupid

open season on black boys? really? are you $#@!ing kidding me?

It's pretty hard to know what exactly happened, there are only a few known facts, we know that Zimmerman followed Martin, we know they got in a fight and we know that Zimmerman shot Martin. What we don't know is who "jumped" who, it's plausible that Zimmerman actually physically confronted Martin and might have engaged him but then Martin got the upper hand but was then shot, if I was being followed by a guy with a gun it's very possible that I would try and grab the gun to stop being shot. However it is also plausible that the events happened out as the defence say it did, eitherway Zimmerman initiated the confrontation and I feel that should result in a manslaughter charge.

I don't think the "Stand your ground" law is intended to provoke a confrontation and then shoot the person you provoke, Martin was not heading towards Zimmerman, he was not doing anything suspicious and he was unarmed, all these points make it hard to believe that it was Zimmerman who was standing his ground, if anything it was Martin who was standing his ground, he was just unarmed.

But hold on, you don't know if Zimmerman started the altercation. All we know is that he followed some kid around and had some words with him. None of those things are illegal. No one knows who started the fight so you can't prove manslaughter that way.

Everyone keeps talking about the "stand your ground" law but I don't even see how that law is implicated here. Based on the facts we have, Zimmerman did not have an opportunity to retreat. The opportunity to retreat comes when you are faced with a physical altercation, not a verbal one. If someone punches you in the face, and you can run away, that is when you have the opportunity to retreat. If some guy is on top of you and pummeling you, you have no opportunity to retreat. I don't know why people keep bringing up that law as it clearly does not apply.

The whole means of retreat doctrine is stupid anyway. If your life is threatened, and you have this emergency life or death situation, you have to react. If you make the wrong decision, you could die or be seriously injured. Then if you are lucky enough to survive, you have a jury of people deciding if your decision was right or wrong, even after they agree that you acted in self defense. That seems pretty unjust. And just to be clear, the "stand your ground" law does not allow you to start a fight and then end it by killing someone. The guy who throws the first blow is not likely to be found justified and acting in self defense.

At the end of the day, we live in civil society. It is not acceptable to resort to physical violence no matter how much someone verbally antagonizes you. The correct response to that sort of thing is to walk away. I find it troubling that no one seems to question Martin's conduct in this case, and I agree that everyone is blowing this way out of proportion in terms of its impact on race relations.