Trayvon Martin is responsible for his own death because he began an illegal physical confrontation

[Robb]

I don't agree with this, but I know many of you will enjoy the perspective.

(snip)

A man is by many accounts unjustly arrested, put through a year long ordeal where his life (literally) hangs in the balance, death threats against him and all members of his perceived race, unknown hundreds of thousands of dollars spent on a defense, a name that will now live in infamy, his personal information posted across all time and space, yet many are saying “but he is not being held accountable.” Seriously?

Never mind the fact that while Florida law provides him protection from most forms of civil litigation, that does nothing to help against those who are now calling for the Department of Justice to file federal civil rights violation charges against him.

His life will never be his again. He will forever be persecuted for defending himself while trying to look out for his community. He has been labeled a wannabe, racist, murder, liar, and all manner of social stigma has been tattooed to his forehead by the media…before the trial.

It seems to me that many people simply cannot grasp the fact that Trayvon Martin is responsible for his own death because he began an illegal physical confrontation with George Zimmerman. George Zimmerman did nothing illegal in his actions. While he made decisions that many would not have chosen, that does not mean his actions were illegal. Trayvon Martin made some very poor decisions that led to his death– a very unfortunate death. However, the evidence suggests that he ambushed George Zimmerman, not the other way around. As such, George Zimmerman did what any person in his shoes could and should have done, he survived.

Read More: http://www.thebangswitch.com/zimmerman-case-analysis/

[yourout]

1. As far as I am concerned the second Zimmerman spewed his hate and ignored the 911 operator this.....

became a manslaughter case.

[Travis_0004]

3. If calling somebody an asshole is grounds for manslaughter, I commit it every day I drive to work.

[gejohnston]

5. fucking punks is hate speech?

ignored what 911?
http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/326700-full-transcript-zimmerman.html

[CreekDog]

35. yes, when the term is used because the person is black, yes

[gejohnston]

39. even when spoken by a mixed race person?

I'm sorry, that's bullshit.

[CreekDog]

40. a mixed race person can't be racist?

a mixed race person or person of the same color can't treat a person of color as crappy as the rest of society does on average?

you need to get out more. you might start by leaving this mostly white and male group subgroup and checking out the rest of DU.

[gejohnston]

42. The FBI found no evidence of racism last year

"fucking punk" is not racist, since he was not sure of the race. and unlike most of DU I actually watched the trial and read writings of real lawyers instead of pundits. So, not valid point. I actually do read the rest of DU. I just don't happen to post often.
I saw everything the jury saw. I actually saw more than the jury, nice thing about live streaming and self employment office.

[CreekDog]

43. so the agency that tailed MLK JR is telling us that there is no racism?

case closed then, in your mind.

well then, you'll probably want to stay in the confines of this group where that thought will be less likely to be challenged.

[gejohnston]

44. Hoover died a long time ago.

He spied on everyone. Hoover was also very racist and a self loathing gay.
Would a racist take a college class from an African American?
I prefer to discuss the case with people who are actually informed. So, which witness was the most compelling for you? What was the most compelling part of the prosecution's closing remarks? The Defense's weakest? Why?

[CreekDog]

45. so you're saying that Hoover did all the spying, had no assistants, no employees, etc.

all just one guy who is dead. racism died with him.

all gone.

now whatever the FBI says about racism is proven in your mind.

this group is the least informed on DU. not surprised that this is the only place you are comfortable.

[gejohnston]

46. really?

kind of a self serving rant isn't it? In some things, but not on others like anything else.
since, like I said, watched the whole thing and went to legal blogs with no ideological bias. So, did you know that Alan Dershowitz is calling for the DA's disbarment for unethical behavior in this case? Not that it would be her first behavior.
Unless you have a valid point based on evidence...............

[CreekDog]

50. oh from the guy that badmouths the Southern Poverty Law Center...maybe you should quit...

gejohnston (13,183 posts)
1. what is the SPLC basing their information on?

and what are the defining as a group? What are they defining as "far right extremest group"? How much is it gun control and how much is it is something like this
http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/05/politics/obama-drones-cia/index.html
How about left wing extremest groups that may have the same issues?

Those are important questions to ask.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=113558

[gejohnston]

55. not bashing at all

a valid question. So, simply asking where they got their information from is bashing? Seriously? It is obvious that you have no interest in an honest conversation, so on ignore you go.

[CreekDog]

57. oh you never say *ANYTHING* you're just *ASKING*

always asking, always asking, always quoting, never taking any position unless it's against dreaded LIBERAL DOGMA.

please spare us Mr. Perot, Mr. Ventura, Mr. Centrist.

please spare us the sanctimony, especially if you won't post your own damned opinion on anything.

[gejohnston]

66. I don't do "me too" much

I do bitch about conservative dogma, but other places where it won't be drowned out.

[gejohnston]

47. Since Zimmerman is Hispanic,

what's you point?

[CreekDog]

48. that he could be racist against blacks

you don't think so?

[gejohnston]

49. His African American college teacher

said he was one of his best students, his African American neighbor said it was George screaming for help before the shot. Oh then there is Sherman Ware
http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/24/justice/florida-teen-shooting
He dated an African American woman before he married his current wife.
Would a racist do that?

The false racism claim comes from a PR firm hired by the law firm Crump and Parks, personal injury lawyers hired by Trayvon's parents. A couple of days ago, Parks told Piers Morgan that Zimmerman should be liable "after yelling for help, he knew the police would be there in a minute or two." IOW, he admitted what was proven in court. I was very disgusted at the very least, given that Trayvon had been pounding his fists in Zimmerman for almost a minute before the shot was fired.

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2013/6/28/154919/856/crimenews/Martin-Family-Attorneys-Now-Say-Case-Not-About-Race
Floridians of all races saw or know someone who did the entire trial, know who the players are, and what really happened. Like I said, saw what the jury saw and much of what they didn't. At the end of the day, Floridians of all colors saw for themselves the evidence and the facts of the case, not the trial by media infotainment version.

So, no I don't think so. Since I am here, saw the trial in full, actually researched beyond the pundits, I think I am very well informed. I prefer to discuss actual evidence and proven fact instead of speculation and dogma. If you have some, please feel free to discuss. thecount put the entire trial on you tube, Talk Left did a very good job covering it.

[CreekDog]

51. so you're saying he's not racist, why didn't you have the guts to say it was your opinion?

instead of just pretending you weren't all in for George Zimmerman, but constantly quoting other people and other things that stood up for Zimmerman?

you barely leave this group but for gun issues, Zimmerman is a gun issue to you, that's the only reason you took any interest in it.

of course you don't support Trayvon Martin, being that this is only a gun issue to you, his death is really incidental to what you really care about --the gun owner. Zimmerman.

[gejohnston]

54. actually you are wrong as usual

I care about the truth before dogma and, no it is not about guns. I do go to other parts of DU I just don't have much to say, since I like to know what I am talking about before I post. But I do learn a lot from those I do subscribe to.

I quoted what people said under oath in court.

I'm sorry, objective reality trumps ideology. I detest mindless dogma, that's the way I roll. It isn't supporting one or the other. So unless you have a valid point to make................

[CreekDog]

56. okay, so you're a conservative, we know that

you don't get points for being a conservative here just because you are going against the grain.

stop patting yourself on the back for that.

it's not some sort of mark of character to spend all your time in here posting nonsense about guns and venture out into GD to post there when it comes up in there.

[gejohnston]

60. no, I am not

so no more false assumptions please. BTW, the SOP says center to left Democrat.

[VanillaRhapsody]

52. Funny not racist yet all 46 calls to 911 to report suspicious charachters in the neighborhood were

African Americans!

[gejohnston]

58. you didn't watch the trial did you?

You have a cite? Or is it like this claim?

http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/326700-full-transcript-zimmerman.html

[VanillaRhapsody]

59. Oh yes I did!

did you?

[gejohnston]

62. the entire thing

streaming in my office.

[VanillaRhapsody]

64. So did I...I work from home....

[VanillaRhapsody]

63. Here is the transcripts of them...

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/03/22/george-zimmerman-s-history-of-911-calls-a-complete-log.html

[Old and In the Way]

61. And your defective conclusion is what?

That thse people wanted an innocent African-American killed by a gun happy vigilante?
Stupid fucking post.

[VanillaRhapsody]

65. WTF are YOU talking about?

My conclusion is.....that since he mad 46 CALLS to 911 to report suspicious "African Americans" in his neighborhood...perhaps he was racist...

Good god!

[Old and In the Way]

67. OK, my bad....

now I remember why I've throttled back from posting on DU. Speed reading/posting after a few beers on such emotional topics set me up misinterpreting posts. I thought you meant a bunch of AA people called 9/11 to complain. Sincerest Mea Culpas!

[VanillaRhapsody]

68. Okay .....you had me totally confused!

couldn't make heads or tails of it.

[CreekDog]

53. you just said that a mixed race person couldn't be racist

oh, now you're going to say you didn't say that. but that's where you're bullshitting us.

you didn't say it, but you posted the hint of it so that you could make the argument without being called on it.

i'm calling you on it. you said because you meant it, and it's stupid.

the idea that someone who is mixed race can't be racist themselves is stupid.

[RandySF]

2. Black kids are not allowed to "stand their ground".

[rrneck]

4. A cautionary tale all around.

Don't provoke people unnecessarily. Don't assume authority you don't have. Keep a cool head and walk away from taunts. Some will have a chance to learn from those lessons, others will not.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

6. I really do not enjoy the death of anyone no matter how a jury rules ...

even justifiable homicide is no cause for celebration. Sadness and just shows the kind of person you are, Robb.

It is a sad day on DU and in the world.

I thought you were better than this, Robb.

seems the dingbat epitaph suits you after all.

[BainsBane]

92. It wasn't ruled a justifiable homicide

He was found not guilty of manslaughter or second degree murder. All that means is the prosecution didn't prove it's case to the jury, not that the killing was justifiable.

[gejohnston]

94. kind of

they had to disprove self defense.

[BainsBane]

95. No, not kind of

He was found not guilty. That's it. I know you think it's justifiable because you think CCW holders have a right to kill. Most of us do not. Getting away with killing doesn't make it justifiable, even in a legal sense.

Your discussion of this case points out what is so dangerous about concealed carry better than anything else I've seen.

[gejohnston]

99. no

You have no idea what I think or what I base it on. You are making unfounded assumptions. Go watch the trial in full on you tube and get back with me.

Dangerous to whom? Since I am not in the habit of robbing or bullying people, they are no danger to me. Like I said, you are free to be a complete pacifist. I have no obligation to die for something you believe in. I prefer nonviolence. There is a difference.
So you agree with Mr. Parks then?

[Tuesday Afternoon]

104. ?

[NYC_SKP]

7. "I don't agree with this, but I know many of you will enjoy the perspective."

Doubtful.



~~~~~

[CreekDog]

36. not doubtful, you've been in this group enough to know far from doubtful

considering in the wake of Newtown, not even 48 hours afterwards, you posted an OP full of gun pron to mock and taunt those calling for gun control in the wake of Newtown.

don't act like this is all in our heads.

[gejohnston]

8. after watching the trial and reading

the legal blog Talk Left, it is close to reality.
Enjoy? No. Just accepting the reality of the situation.

[petronius]

9. Despicable...

[Vinnie From Indy]

10. As mentioned on another thread,

is there anyone that seriously believes that were the roles reversed and an armed Trayvon Martin stalked and shot an unarmed Zimmy that the outcomes would be drastically different.

Our justice system makes horrible mistakes at times. I believe that this is one of those times.

[gejohnston]

14. Talk Left put it best

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2013/7/14/145748/759/Colo_News/The-Legacy-of-the-George-Zimmerman-Trial

If it were the other way around, and the facts in court were the same, there would not have been an arrest if they followed the letter of the law.
I don't think the white and Hispanic cops who investigated were racists. I don't think the city manager was an uncle tom. Yes, I seriously believe that.

[DWC]

105. I absolutely agree. n/t

[HiDemGunOwner]

106. How about we just reverse the race(s) of the shooter and victim?

A black man shoots a white teenager who "rushed" him.....surely with the extreme bias the justice system has against blacks the jury would find for the poor undeserving white teenager and against the cruel and blood-thirsty black man, right??

http://rochester.ynn.com/content/top_stories/490926/jury-finds-roderick-scott-not-guilty/

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/07/tim-mcnabb/black-man-shoots-white-teen-jury-says-self-defense-and-nobody-cares/

[bluedigger]

11. That requires me to believe GZ's side of events without reservation.

For some reason, I have a small problem with that.

[gejohnston]

15. there are forensics and two

eye witnesses if that helps. You can see the whole trial on youtube if you want. thecount is one that has a complete archive. After watching the whole thing on livestream and you tube, I have to believe what I saw for myself. If it happens to coincide with anyone else's, shit happens.

[bluedigger]

16. That does not help, but thanks for endlessly repeating your belief.

[gejohnston]

17. not my belief

it is in the trial transcripts and you tube videos. It sucks but it is what it is. I know how you feel.

[ileus]

12. It's a bad thing on all accounts...it's almost made me rethink carrying a PSD.

Just saving your own life could cause yourself a lifetime of struggle, maybe it's better to be carried by 6 than judged by a nation.

The only saving grace is the fact my PSD also protects my children and wife....maybe I'll just not carry when I'm alone.

[CokeMachine]

13. Sure Robb, whatever you say!! Stay classy!

Here it is before the editing starts:

Trayvon Martin is responsible for his own death because he began an illegal physical confrontation

I don't agree with this, but I know many of you will enjoy the perspective.


(snip)

A man is by many accounts unjustly arrested, put through a year long ordeal where his life (literally) hangs in the balance, death threats against him and all members of his perceived race, unknown hundreds of thousands of dollars spent on a defense, a name that will now live in infamy, his personal information posted across all time and space, yet many are saying “but he is not being held accountable.” Seriously?

Never mind the fact that while Florida law provides him protection from most forms of civil litigation, that does nothing to help against those who are now calling for the Department of Justice to file federal civil rights violation charges against him.

His life will never be his again. He will forever be persecuted for defending himself while trying to look out for his community. He has been labeled a wannabe, racist, murder, liar, and all manner of social stigma has been tattooed to his forehead by the media…before the trial.

It seems to me that many people simply cannot grasp the fact that Trayvon Martin is responsible for his own death because he began an illegal physical confrontation with George Zimmerman. George Zimmerman did nothing illegal in his actions. While he made decisions that many would not have chosen, that does not mean his actions were illegal. Trayvon Martin made some very poor decisions that led to his death– a very unfortunate death. However, the evidence suggests that he ambushed George Zimmerman, not the other way around. As such, George Zimmerman did what any person in his shoes could and should have done, he survived.

Read More: http://www.thebangswitch.com/zimmerman-case-analysis/

Speaking of editing, I notice this hasn't been deleted yet.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022928786

Note to Jury: Please read all of the edits in the above link. Very cleverly made all of the edits after the post was jury proof.

[Eleanors38]

18. Just illustrates the double standard now institutionalized on DU.

nt.

[Lizzie Poppet]

23. Standards: so cool, DU has two!

[CokeMachine]

34. It's got to the point that I'm not sure what standards there are anymore (if any).

Maybe its a religious thing, If your pro RKBA then God hates you otherwise God loves you. JMHO

[CreekDog]

38. yes, DU has a double standard, actual liberals are appreciated more than trolls and conservatives

far from a tragedy as there are plenty of places on the net where a right wing opinion is valued.

we don't have to play games and pretend that all opinions are equal here. they aren't, especially bullshit ones.

[Eleanors38]

69. I continue to believe I am more liberal than you...

[CreekDog]

70. yet you post more conservatively than me and most others

is your belief like a religious thing and not fact/evidence-based?

[Eleanors38]

71. Posting on boards is a pretty synthetic measure of bona fides.

[CreekDog]

41. if you don't enjoy a board where civil rights and liberalism are held higher than others you can go

seriously.

if you want a place where liberal and conservative values are held equally and where racism against blacks is considered as common as racism against whites --there are places you can find that.

DU never promised it would be such a place to you. you seem to dislike that DU is as liberal as it is.

you're welcome to take your 38 and go elsewhere where it and conservative opinions are more celebrated than here.

[Eleanors38]

72. Again, I think I am more liberal than you.

[CreekDog]

73. you aren't. here's why:

you post almost exclusively here on guns and on that topic, to the right of not only me, but most posters on DU.

and because you post almost exclusively on guns and there are gobs and gobs of subjects you don't bother to comment on --unless you can tangentally relate them to guns, you aren't interested.

ergo, you aren't liberal.

of course, you're trying to make a case that outside DU, you are running an Occupy camp and fighting for living wages and socialism.

yeah right. i'll take that bet.

[Eleanors38]

76. Please quit your hollier-than-thou protestations,

and baiting. You might try life beyond the keyboard; who knows maybe your "activism" will finally bare fruit.

[CreekDog]

78. I didn't say I'm holier than you, just more liberal

[Eleanors38]

81. Sounded like a religious "rite" to me.

BTW, do you think Wendy Davis should angle for an Obama appointment now, and build up her base for a presidential run in, say, 2014?

OR

Develop her own organization ( since the Texas Democratic Party is a hapless mess) now for a run against Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst (vulnerable) and thereby establish once again the Party's credibility?

[rrneck]

82. What is your definition of liberalism? ntt

[Tuesday Afternoon]

90. still waiting.

[rrneck]

91. Yep. I anticipate an exercise in patience. nt

[CreekDog]

74. looks like you trolled using racially insensitive references to Jim Crow on guns, and got hidden

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=127580

Eleanors38 This message was hidden by Jury decision. Hide
14. Jim Crow gun laws just got life support unplugged.

A Jury voted 6-0 to hide this post on Wed Jul 10, 2013, 09:46 AM. Reason: This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See Community Standards.)

you aren't more liberal than almost anybody here. cut the crap, nobody believes it Mr. "38".

[Eleanors38]

75. There is Ample evidence of Chicago's gun

Laws being based on Southern racist laws. I do not support these laws, and I hope to see ALL of them overturned. Clearly, some here disagree with that.

I know I am more liberal than you. A lot more. Now, please quit the disrespectful chanting.

[CreekDog]

77. so the laws in Chicago prevent integration of blacks and whites?

news to anybody here.

no, that crap makes you more conservative than anyone here.

more wrong too, but that goes without saying.

[Eleanors38]

79. Sorry, your dodge and straw are thin gruel. The topic

is -- ahem, WAS -- Chicago's gun laws and how they are based on racist models used in the South during the era of That big old bird. I don't support laws which use as their model old racist codes.

Do you, oh fellow DUer who trails off to my right?

[CreekDog]

80. yes, please quote the portions of the law which enforce segregation as they did during Jim Crow?

or just keep protesting that i'm treating you badly for expecting you to post proof instead of just accepting your BS assertion as fact.

[Decoy of Fenris]

83. Allow me to shed a tiny bit of light here, mate. Dialup warning.

Please note the trends and the overlap. While you're doing so, please remember that Chicago prosecutes the fewest gun crimes in the nation. Seeing the pattern?

[CreekDog]

84. and the racist text in the law is where?

or are you just wasting our time with obfuscation as the other poster has attempted already?

[Decoy of Fenris]

85. I'd say not pursuing or prosecuting black murders in specific areas is rather racist, isn't it?

I mean, maybe it's not. Maybe there's no discrimination, segregation of blacks into "undesirable" areas, no letting them die without criminal prosecutions... Maybe that's not racist at all.

[CreekDog]

86. ok, thanks for admitting that you have no proof that the law in question is "Jim Crow"-like

i guess now you want to distract from the BS that Eleanors38 was posting saying it was "Jim Crow" when in fact, the gun control laws make no mention of race nor did they attempt to separate or segregate the races.

but the important thing is that you have attempted to obfuscate to distract from one of your compatriots having to justify or prove an inflammatory statement he made.

NOTED.

[Decoy of Fenris]

87. Hey, you can't see the racism in -allowing- blacks to die? No one will convince you otherwise.

I can only provide empirical evidence. If you ignore it, you'll ignore it, as is your right to do so.


Rather than engaging you further, I'm taking off from this particular conversation as you've demonstrated no desire to engage in intellectual dialogue. That's okay, though, mate. We all have our differences.

Take care, buddy.

[CreekDog]

88. hey you said "Jim Crow". prove it. you won't and now you're running away because you can't.

pretending to take the "high ground" when all you're doing is saying that the poster (who also ran away) who compared a gun control law to Jim Crow and couldn't explain where the segregation or racial text of the law or action was found, wants everyone to just see some maps and say --wow, that action was Jim Crow!

i'm not falling for it.

and i'm not listening to any poster who has only posted about racism EVER only because the topic was related to guns.

for-get it.

[Decoy of Fenris]

89. You know what? I'll prove it, if, when I'm done, you admit you were wrong. Deal?

Whereas you're only assuming you're right, I -know- I am.

Tell you what. If, in the course of my research, I find that you're right, I'll apologize, right here, or out in GD. Your choice. If you're wrong, you do the same thing, except in a place of my choosing. Let's have a little fun with it, yeah?

[CreekDog]

37. welcome back

[mzmolly]

19. I think Zimmerman tackled or tried to hold Trayvon

which started the physical confrontation.

[gejohnston]

22. after watching the entire trial

I can't picture it.

[mzmolly]

25. Perhaps you need a cartoon

demo?

[gejohnston]

29. go to you tube and watch the trial

archives.

[mzmolly]

30. No need. I watched from home.

Eom.

[DWC]

20. "The Jury has spoken"

End of story.

Next.

Semper Fi,

[Lizzie Poppet]

21. Legally correct...but not justice.

Sadly, the law doesn't account for Zimmerman being the one to initiate the entire incident.

[gejohnston]

24. In spite of the common narrative, there is no evidence that he did

or if there was, it wasn't in court.
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2013/7/15/2534/37292/crimenews/Lawyers-Reacting-to-Zimmerman-Verdict

[mzmolly]

26. Talk Left has been shilling for Zimmercop

for months.

[gejohnston]

28. No, I watched the trial

and they are being intellectually honest.

[mzmolly]

31. I disagree.

Eom

[BainsBane]

93. So if I decide you look suspicious, follow you,

and end up killing you, I didn't initiate it?

[gejohnston]

96. no

because for all the other guy knows we could be going in the same direction by coincidence. For example, if I'm walking down my road and some guy happens to be walking or running behind me. I have no idea who it is or why. Do I have the right to attack him based on that? No. If I do attack, does he or she have every right to use appropriate including lethal force (taken in account in disparity of force, see my example of Chris Hayes and Matt from Operation Repo.)? Yes.

That said, if the guy following is either bigger and stronger than I am, and/or has an artifact that can be used as a weapon making making threats like "I'm going to beat your Obama voting liberal head in" then that is a game changer.

At least that is how it works in Florida and Wyoming (which doesn't have a SD statute that covers outside the house, being common law.) I'm guessing that is true everywhere. Your state may vary. Some states have variations, for example I read that California allows the defender chase down the initial attacker.

Remember the Florida case where white guy who had had issues with car stereo playing Hip Hop and shot the black people because he felt threatened by the shotgun sitting on the back seat? He drove off and claimed SYG when the cops caught up with him? Investigation showed his self defense claim is bullshit and is now sitting in one of Rick Scott's prisons. Same concept.

[BainsBane]

97. Trayvon saw Z following him in the car

saw him get out of the car and continue to follow him. Z provoked the incident. Because that jury didn't value the life of a young black man doesn't make the killing justifiable. Moreover, there was NO legal determination that the killing was justifiable.

So I wouldn't be justified in killing you under those same circumstances, but you say Z is justified in killing Martin.

[gejohnston]

98. not quite

what is known for certain, and there is no dispute based on forensics and eye witness, even the Martin family lawyer concedes (although his claim that Zimmerman should have endured the beating until the cops got there to rescue him, thus making him liable, disgusting. He told it to Piers Morgan after the trial) that Martin had Zimmerman pinned down beating the shit out of him.

Since there is no evidence that Zimmerman started it, all doubt goes to the defendant. That matters regardless of race. BTW you do know that the Sanford City Manager is African American? So is the police chief. Whatever you might think of Sanford or Metro Orlando in general, neither of those two are "uncle toms". Nor is the place small town Mississippi 1952 or Los Angeles umm still. Half of the officers who investigated were Hispanic. Just saying.

[noiretextatique]

27. sure...if you take the murderer's word for what happened

since he's such a reasonable person

[doc03]

32. What evidence other than the murderer's word is there the Martin started anything?

My opinion Z started it when he left his car and carried a gun on nieghborhood watch. Bottom line if Martin was white and
Z a person of hispanic decent killed him, he would have been convicted and half the people in the US would want all the people of his
nationality put in labor camps.

[NYC_SKP]

100. It's a not a serious question. The OP hasn't replied. This thread is just a provocation, IMO.

It's really kind of disappointing to see this level of behavior on this board by a long-term member and former DU moderator.

[Sissyk]

101. FYI

I'm posting all jury results that I think are bogus alerts. Not all jury duty results, just useless ones:

At Wed Jul 17, 2013, 09:28 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

It's a not a serious question. The OP hasn't replied. This thread is just a provocation, IMO.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=128627

REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus#communitystandards" target="_blank">Community Standards</a>.)

ALERTER'S COMMENTS:

Personal attack IMO

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Wed Jul 17, 2013, 09:40 AM, and the Jury voted 0-6 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: IMO you are alert happy this morning. This is not a personal attach in any shape, form or fashion. Please stop alerting on posters just because you don't like them.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Not a personal attack, IMO
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: This case has generated strong emotions on DU and elsewhere. On both sides of the issue. Saying "It's really kind of disappointing to see this level of behavior on this board" is an opinion, not a personal attack.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[NYC_SKP]

103. Thank you for that. Incredible.

[HiDemGunOwner]

107. How about if "Z" was black?

http://rochester.ynn.com/content/top_stories/490926/jury-finds-roderick-scott-not-guilty/

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/07/tim-mcnabb/black-man-shoots-white-teen-jury-says-self-defense-and-nobody-cares/

Your opinion about who started what is just that, and unsubstantiated by any reasonable assessment of the facts presented at trial....and your "bottom line" is just another unsubstantiated opinion, which when evaluated in light of the story presented above, fails miserably.

[sir pball]

102. Zimmerman is responsible for the death. And I think Murder2 was way overreaching.

I don't know what happened that night, I don't know if GZ got out of his car with the intent to kill TM or to just be a belligerent asshat. I don't *know* (legally not morally, to quote Carter) what happened during the confrontation, if GZ's actions did rise to (legally) Murder - honestly, that, with my imperfect understanding of FL law, requires elements that simply can't be proven to a legal standard absent any other direct witnesses. I personally suspect it probably was Murder 2 but personal suspicions doth not beyond a reasonable doubt make. It's shitty, but that's how the law is. Maybe with UK-style pervasive CCTV...but I digress.

What GZ IMO legally provably DID do, beyond a reasonable doubt, was through gross negligence create the situation that led to TM's death. The State should have gone for intentional manslaughter, and the judge should have also given the jury the option of negligent homicide/involuntary manslaughter, whichever it would be under FL law.

Seems to me to be quite parallel to Casey Anthony and illustrative of yet another problem with Florida "justice" - the prosecutors appear to be far too swayed by public pressure, so instead of being sensible, making winnable cases, and getting some kind of punishment even if it isn't what the more vocal critics want, they go for the gold and end up falling flat on their faces. Just my 2¢.