Zimmerman Trial | INFJ Forum

Zimmerman Trial

Faye

^_^
Retired Staff
Mar 9, 2009
7,363
5,476
892
Gridania
MBTI
INFJ
Enneagram
4w5
So what do you all think about the trial of Zimmerman for the death of Trayvon Martin? I am surprised we don't have a thread in here on this already.


I am amazed that he did not go down for negligent manslaughter at the very least, but then again, I have not actually read the case and only caught glimpses of it on television.
 
The media portrayed him as an over zealous white dude who shot down an innocent black kid because he had a racist agenda. Turns out he mentors black kids and advocates for the black community. Oh, and he's not even white. Oh, and Trayvon Martin is known for being aggressive, fighting and refereeing other fights. Oh, and the neighbourhood had undergone a series of robberies.

This case got blown up because the family decided they wanted to hire a publicist. It was only being covered by Florida news and then it got picked up country wide and sensationalized like a hate crime. This doesn't really happen for black people shooting other black people. It's always got to be about "white guys" killing off the blacks which to me just makes me pissed off because everyone is screaming for a punishment over circumstantial evidence. Let's not forget the fact that because the family hired a publicist everyone and their dog knows who Zimmerman is and his life is effectively over. He will always be known as the "white" guy who needlessly shot an innocent, sweet and precious child and any other good he ever did in his life will be forgotten. He will continue to get death threats and his family will continue to be in harms way.

In truth he would have been better off going to jail because it would have made the public feel justified and it would have protected him more after he got out. Not to mention his family. He'd be behind bars and everyone would forget thinking that the courts did a job well done. Fucked up.
 
From a legal standpoint, the jury reached an appropriate verdict. He did not do anything illegal under Florida law and that is what he was on trial for. Yes, it was an unfortunate chain of events and it's terrible that it ended the way it did, but at the end of the day, it was (and this is my personal belief too) self defense. People need to put their emotions aside for a minute and understand that the verdict was based on law...not what they feel is morally right or wrong. Maybe we should blame youthful recklessness for this? It seems that Martin initiated a confrontation with Zimmerman because he felt that he was being folllowed. Initiating that confrontation IS against the law. Zimmerman being on that same street as him is not. Martin should have walked away but he chose not to. Zimmerman didn't go out there to kill anyone that night. He had a gun for protection. A gun that he carried legally. He may have followed Martin but that did not give Martin any right to physically attack him. If Martin felt that threatened, he should have went home. But he didn't and the worst case scenario became a reality.

Zimmerman didn't shoot Martin because he was black. He shot him because he was being attacked by him badly enough that he feared for his life. Self defense. Not guilty. Case closed.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
But what about the black mother who got sentenced to 20 years, hard time, for "standing her ground"? She was getting strangled by her child's father, so she shot a warning shot at the wall. And this man was violating her restraining order.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rawr
From a legal standpoint, the jury reached an appropriate verdict. He did not do anything illegal under Florida law and that is what he was on trial for. Yes, it was an unfortunate chain of events and it's terrible that it ended the way it did, but at the end of the day, it was (and this is my personal belief too) self defense. People need to put their emotions aside for a minute and understand that the verdict was based on law...not what they feel is morally right or wrong. Maybe we should blame youthful recklessness for this? It seems that Martin initiated a confrontation with Zimmerman because he felt that he was being folllowed. Initiating that confrontation IS against the law. Zimmerman being on that same street as him is not. Martin should have walked away but he chose not to. Zimmerman didn't go out there to kill anyone that night. He had a gun for protection. A gun that he carried legally. He may have followed Martin but that did not give Martin any right to physically attack him. If Martin felt that threatened, he should have went home. But he didn't and the worst case scenario became a reality.

Zimmerman didn't shoot Martin because he was black. He shot him because he was being attacked by him badly enough that he feared for his life. Self defense. Not guilty. Case closed.

exactly.

In order to charge with murder, the jury would have to prove without a shadow of a doubt that Zimmerman did not act in self-defense, but rather shot Martin unprovoked and in cold blood. This is what the media and activists made it seem like at the onset, but up to and during the trial it became clear that Martin did indeed attack Zimmerman.
While his actions may have been extreme, they are legally justifiable. Even though the jury may not like it, they took an oath. And they abided by it. They could not convict him of murder beyond doubt if there was even a bit of solid evidence that proved self-defense.
 
But what about the black mother who got sentenced to 20 years, hard time, for "standing her ground"? She was getting strangled by her child's father, so she shot a warning shot at the wall. And this man was violating her restraining order.

I agree that something doesn't seem right there. But I also am not familiar with the facts surrounding that case and what brought that jury to a guilty verdict in the end. 20yrs for shooting a gun in the air to scare the man trying to attack you does seem extreme. With what I have heard, it makes no sense. But like I said, maybe there is more to it? Don't know.

But...different case, different outcome. All I know is that in the Zimmerman trial, he was rightfully acquitted.

I'm not sure how I feel about the "stand your ground" law in Florida, but I do feel that if enough people are against it, people should work together to try and get it repealed and see what happens.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
We are controlled by the media. The media tried and convicted Zimmerman before they had any other information other than a black man had been killed by someone who was not black. That we put up with this as a nation means we are all sheep. Our justice system has been and continues to be broken.
 
But what about the black mother who got sentenced to 20 years, hard time, for "standing her ground"? She was getting strangled by her child's father, so she shot a warning shot at the wall. And this man was violating her restraining order.

What most people don't tell you is that she escaped, left to get the gun from her car, and then returned to the house before shooting. There's always more to a story than you see at a glance.
Stand your ground laws, by the way, don't apply to warning shots and threats of force. They exist only to provide for justifiable use of force.

Really, the Florida justice system is just a big pile of shit in pretty much any verdict they put out. So, no matter the particulars of who did what, I'm not surprised they ruled in favor of black people getting shot.
K1Bl1qq.gif
 
Last edited:
Minority on minority crime doesn't seem like interesting news to me. That said, you have an insurance salesman trying to be a hero and prove he's got balls so he chases down some black kid on the street and ends up getting his ass kicked. His pride is hurt because he always fancied himself as a badass but it turns out he is actually a pussy so he shoots the kid. IMO trayvon was standing his ground and Zimmerman should be executed because I don't believe in prisons.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rawr
I have been burgled, five years ago someone used tools lying around the house and pried open the back door. Took the kids' wei, took some cash from my kids room. My wife came home and the culprit sprinted out the back and over the fence. We were lucky. I totally profiled the suspect as a dirtbag meth head to fucked up to work for his drugs.

My friend nearby was hit with the same MO, he had cameras with motion detectors in the house and got a good shot of him. Dirtbag white dude, skinnish with a worn face, maybe thirty. A neighbor saw this man with a bag of stuff in the alley and called the cops. I think he did some kind of plea bargain and did some time in the county lock up. The prosecutor used my friends pics to nail him.

I don't think you need to walk the streets at night with a gun to stop burglaries.

It was satisfying. Nobody died, not yet anyway because as a result the guy with the camera bought a glock 9mm.
 
I wonder if the legal criteria for manslaughter or second degree murder are the same as those for murder? That's the main thing about this case I have wondered, although I also have not read it. Why was Zimmerman charged with murder, not manslaughter or second degree murder, when the lawyers knew there were at least some grounds for claiming self defense? Guilty in the media, innocent in court. (I actually kind of agree with The's assessment. scary.)
 
I wonder if the legal criteria for manslaughter or second degree murder are the same as those for murder? That's the main thing about this case I have wondered, although I also have not read it. Why was Zimmerman charged with murder, not manslaughter or second degree murder, when the lawyers knew there were at least some grounds for claiming self defense? Guilty in the media, innocent in court. (I actually kind of agree with The's assessment. scary.)

He wasn't charged with first degree murder. The original charge was 2nd degree murder and then the prosecution requested that the jury consider manslaughter since they had such a weak case.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: cvp12gh5
The Constitutional right to face your accuser is undermined by the "stand your ground" laws in Florida. You shouldn't get off a murder charge because the person you shot dead is too dead to testify against you because you shot them dead - see the paradox?
 
I wonder if the legal criteria for manslaughter or second degree murder are the same as those for murder? That's the main thing about this case I have wondered, although I also have not read it. Why was Zimmerman charged with murder, not manslaughter or second degree murder, when the lawyers knew there were at least some grounds for claiming self defense? Guilty in the media, innocent in court. (I actually kind of agree with The's assessment. scary.)

Well in general for it to be murder they would have to prove that Zimmerman knew Martin before the encounter and was planning to kill him all along.

Edit: and on that note, 2nd degree murder is more of an "on the spot" thing, such as getting in a fight with somebody without prior intent and then killing them out of malice (not self defense)

Manslaughter (voluntary) is like 2nd degree murder except the killer is under circumstances that would have made any reasonable person very angry or distressed, but the killing is still malicious (not self defense)
 
Last edited:
I think that the idea that Mr. Zimmerman followed Mr. Martin and then proceeded to initiate a confrontation by Mr. Martin should, in a reasonable society, preclude self-defense. That is the crux of the turmoil as I see it. The ACTTIONS determined the outcome, this was a clear case of "BUT FOR" consequences. Mr. Zimmerman should of not been allowed to use the Stand Your Ground as an affirmative defense. The rest of the crap got piled up and things became confused which aided in Mr. Zimmerman's defense. I think if the prosecutor had harped on this one fact alone, no reasonable jury would of acquitted Mr. Zimmerman.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rawr
I think that the idea that Mr. Zimmerman followed Mr. Martin and then proceeded to initiate a confrontation by Mr. Martin should, in a reasonable society, preclude self-defense. That is the crux of the turmoil as I see it. The ACTTIONS determined the outcome, this was a clear case of "BUT FOR" consequences. Mr. Zimmerman should of not been allowed to use the Stand Your Ground as an affirmative defense. The rest of the crap got piled up and things became confused which aided in Mr. Zimmerman's defense. I think if the prosecutor had harped on this one fact alone, no reasonable jury would of acquitted Mr. Zimmerman.

Yes.
I see this as also being an issue with gated communities. Being effectively enclaves causes the people within to not mind their own business.

You have to think that for example in my town (not gated) people walk around at all hours for their own personal reasons and nobody bothers them. I walk around at night, too. But in a gated community, especially with a neighborhood watch, you end up with people like Zimmerman going around and looking for people who "aren't supposed to be there". So the insular and exclusive nature of gated communities towards outsiders can almost lead to a form of paranoia in some cases - "This person is walking around and I don't know them so they must be doing something wrong."
 
Gated or not (although I acknowledge your point there [MENTION=6917]sprinkles[/MENTION]) I think that it is a sad day when someone can follow you, with their actions (directly contrary to 911--official recommendation) cause a confrontation and then a jury can say they weren't complicit in the result is scary and wrong. I personally believe that Zimmerman was well aware that Martin was a young kid and he deliberately wanted to play "Mr. Big Man" and that is why he confronted Martin.
 
Travon should have ran away. There was no reason to strike Mr Zimmerman. He should have just out ran him. If Zimmerman shot him in the back that would have been something. Getting into a physical confrontation with someone is the last resort. It's too bad cooler heads did not prevail. No one had to die....​
 
Travon should have ran away. There was no reason to strike Mr Zimmerman. He should have just out ran him. If Zimmerman shot him in the back that would have been something. Getting into a physical confrontation with someone is the last resort. It's too bad cooler heads did not prevail. No one had to die....​
I think that some people aren't imbued with the "flight" response over the "fight" response, especially if the color of your skin already makes them feel like a target. I can see your point but it still smacks of victim blaming. The confrontation was pointless and nobody had to die, but Treyvon Martin didn't cause what happened, Zimmerman did.