Bucket Guild | FUBU BH Forums

1) Do you think Zimmerman was charged with second-degree murder only because of the media shit-storm surrounding this incident... or do you believe this is a legitimate charge?

2) Do you think Zimmerman is going to get a fair trial with all the information (wrong and right) that has been put forward?

3) What do you think will happen if Zimmerman isn't convicted of second-degree murder?

4) Did you make a rush to judgement when the media first started covering this story as White man killed unarmed black kid because the black kid was innocently walking home one night?

5) How did you feel about the Media's character building of Zimmerman and Martin, in the sense that the images and reporting often used were many years old and didn't accurately depict either party accurately?

6) Do you think Zimmerman followed and killed Martin because Martin was black?

7) Do you think the media tried to make this a racial issue by always pointing out race in nearly every report?

We haven't beat this horse to death yet, so let's do it.

The former...though parts of the latter are possible. Allow me to explain.... it could have been police negligence and he should have probably been charged the first time around...but he wasn't. He was only actually charged because of the media shit-storm. Make sense?



I think he should get a fair trial. I think there's so much conflicting evidence that it's going to be difficult to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he wasn't acting in self defense. Things that might stand in the way of this though:

1.) Biased jury. They try to get "neutral" jurors...but in a race issue...you just can't discount that the more black jurors there are, the more likely Zimmerman is to get owned.
2.) Defense fail. In cases where defense seems so simple, your lawyer can often fail (remember how the prosecution failed on the most open and shut case ever with OJ?)
3.) The race card. The prosecution is going to hit it hard. They are going to paint him as a racist who did this maliciously. Good thing Johnny Cochran isn't around anymore coz Zimmerman would be sunk.



Al sharpton and Jesse Jackson will start running their fat mouths. Some black athletes will wear hoodies to show solidarity. There will be tweets. Could be a race riot somewhere. Black people will blame the system and the white man. White guilt will make a triumphant return after being in hibernation since Obama was elected in 2008. Life will go on.



No - in fact I was immediately skeptical (some might argue because I hate black people or something...which isn't true). Really I was skeptical because it just seemed like such a media shit-storm crap story. And, the second Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson start running their mouths on shit...I get REALLY skeptical. It just seemed like other racially charged news stories. Remember the Duke Lacrosse Case? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_lacrosse_case



The media (in general) wanted to demonize Zimmerman and eulogize Martin. Everything they released was part of that.



Yes and no. I think he was suspicious of him initially because he was black (yes I think we have inherent prejudices when it comes to blacks in society, I know I'm guilty of this too.)....but I don't think he decided to follow and kill him...all of a sudden thinking "hmm, I think I want to kill myself a darky today" as a result of him being black. Just doesn't make sense to me. Why just kill an unarmed black kid after being told by the dispatcher to stop following him and leave it alone?



I'll put it this way...I think the sun rises in the east and sets in the west. I think the sky is blue. I think water is wet. I think the media wants to sell papers / advertising / whatever and they'll do whatever they can to do it.



That was fun.

i don't see what's so complicated by this case. man creepily stalks suspicious looking teenager. cops on phone tell man to back off, let them handle it. man disobeys. confronts teenager. teenager obviously becomes irate at being stalked/confronted for walking. decides to beat the shit out of nosy neighborhood watch captain rent-a-cop wannabe (understandable), guy realizes he's in too deep and shoots teenager. did zimmerman look like he was getting the shit beat out of him? no, he had cuts and scratches from falling down and a broken nose from getting punched in the face. guy should go to jail. here, i'll give you a transcription:

GZ: officer, he's walking down the road late at night with a hoodie on
Dispatcher: sir, please just wait where you are and we'll take care of it
GZ: (to himself) they're gonna take too long, i gotta stop this guy NOW
[approaching] GZ: HEY YOU!
[turns around] TM: what do you want?
GZ: what are you doing out here?
TM: walking. you got a problem with that?
GZ: it's late at night and you look suspicious. i'm the neighborhood watch.
[turns around] TM: mind your own business
[grabs TM's arm] GZ: don't you walk away from me! the police are on their way
[turns around] TM: man, you're really starting to piss me off! [punches GM in the nose]
[GZ falls backwards, hits head on pavement]
[TM laughs] TM: what a fucking pussy. i told you to mind your own business [turns around]
[humiliated, GZ pulls out gun, mutters] who's laughing now, nigger?
[shoots TM]

i love how everyone has painted this case as though the minute you disrespect a black man, your life is immediately in danger requiring deadly force. otherwise, they'll literally beat you to death with their 15 year old giant mutant monkey hands.

"only because"? No. Trayvon Martin died. I think, without eyewitnesses, a trial is fair and legitimate. I think the delay stemmed from a realization from prosecution that the case is likely a loser.



He will get a fair trial that hinges on a questionable law. People can hate this law, but can't blame Zimmerman's defense for applying it here.



Some bellyaching, but the release of medical reports was pretty damaging to the prosecution. I think Zimmerman haters know what is coming and this waiting period has taken a lot of the edge off.



Initially, it sure sounded bad for Zimmerman. My reaction was (and still is really), "Why didn't he stay in the car, as the dispatcher instructed him?"



This is a classic example of media generating news instead of reporting facts. News reporting is entertainment now and these guys rarely let the facts get in the way of a good story. The manipulation of the 9-11 tapes, the posting of outdated photos of Martin and Zimmerman, and calling Zimmerman "white" when his mother is Peruvian and Zimmerman identifies as Hispanic all prove this.



While Martin's race was almost certainly a factor, I think Zimmerman followed him because Martin was a stranger to him walking through the gated community. I do not think Zimmerman shot Martin because he was black, but because Martin was kicking his ass.



Of course, but to be fair, race likely played a large role.



After following this case for a while, my beliefs are that we have a wanna-be cop thug patrolling the neighborhood with his gun like some sort of Charles Bronson vigilante who came across a young, tough, volatile thug who wasn't going to put up with any shit. When Zimmerman got out of the car to follow Martin between the units, Martin started beating his ass. Zimmerman went from thinking he was tough to scared shitless and shot Martin. Zimmerman will hide behind the no-retreat law, and get out of this, but I still think he is to blame for the outcome. This law might not protect him in civil court, though. Tuhl might be able to address this. Just my opinion.

Boredalt - 80 Dwarf Priest - Dissension

I'm sorry...what?





Lol really man? Really? I like how you put the racial epithet in there to complete the painted picture of this racist guy. You also put GZ as the person initiating the physical altercation by grabbing the kids' arm.



I'm sorry, who has painted this case that way? Have I? Has the media? Surely not. Then who, exactly?




Fair enough...then you say:



Okay, but is this really relevant in a case where the question is: "Was it self defense?" Should Zimmerman have followed the kid? No. He should have listened to the dispatcher. He should not have confronted the kid. Agreed. Was any of that "illegal" though?



Here's where the case falls flat.

1. Teenager "obviously" becomes irate
2. Decides to "beat the shit out of nosy neighborhood watch captain" ("understandable")
3. Guy "realizes he's in too deep" (IE: gets scared, possibly fearful for his life) and shoots teenager

Looks like self defense to me. You yourself have described it as such. If he had shot Trayvon before any physical altercation occurred, it would be murder...open/shut. But because he was attacked, it qualifies as self defense under Florida law. Whether or not the attack was "understandable" is irrelevant.


Bottom line. Was Zimmerman an asshat? Yes. Did he do a dumb dumb thing by ignoring the dispatcher? Yes. Was he suspicious of Martin because he was black? Yes.

Was it self defense?

Unfortunately, yes.

Dotzilla - Your account of what happened isn't anything like what I've read. Care to share your source of this 'timeline'?

The beautiful irony of this is that many states (e.g., Texas) have laws allowing you to shoot someone in pre-emptive self-defense (if one believes he is threatened), but not punch someone in pre-emptive self-defense.

Punching a man who made a point of harassing him is being considered here as an excuse for the harasser to commit murder.

But if the kid was an adult and pulled a gun and shot Zimmerman cold dead, he could argue, quite correctly as it has turned out (he was killed by the person in question) that he was acting within his right - but do you think anyone would believe a black man saying that?



This is itself racist. Hispanics and blacks don't get along just because they're both not white. In CA prisons, the two groups are usually segregated from each other for that reason.

Hispanic just means "Spanish speaking" and there are a lot of white people in Peru, especially fascists (in Peru as with much of South America, white people tend to be more wealthy because of the long shadow of Spanish colonialism and thus support right-wing dictatorships preventing land and government reform), many of which left the country and came to America after the American-backed military dictatorship fell in 1975.

Zimmerman identifying as "Hispanic" doesn't prove he's not racist. Hell, I "identify" as Hispanic on paper for employment etc, since my "mother" is Puerto Rican. And if my use of that self-identification is too flawed, it's certainly not for my half-brother, who is definitely my mother's son and certainly doesn't look non-white.



Do we even know this?

Were there any witnesses other than Zimmerman? Who threw the first punch? Hell, maybe the wounds were self-inflicted. We don't know it was self-defense, and given the phone conversation proving he decided to pick a fight, it seems unlikely.



It's not self-defense if you pick a fight, either in terms of common sense or the law. Self-defense does not apply to violence that is the result of defense against violence that was the result of actions that would be considered by most people likely to elicit violence.

Generally, this falls under the legal designation of "fighting words" or "breach of the peace".

Example. Guy walks up to you. He begins physically obstructing you, or calling you names, or otherwise harassing you. You get tired of it and bitch slap him. He can't then pull a gun and shoot you and claim it was self-defense.

Proof, again, that this is racist. Isn't that a conceivable sequence of events for most people? Is there really nothing that some random guy could do to get you to punch him in the face? So why not hold the black guy to the same standard?

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

You're right Aestu - we DON'T know if Zimmerman threw the first punch. We don't know exactly what was said. We don't know if Trayvon threw the first punch. We simply don't know. We weren't there.

Doesn't the prosecution have to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Zimmerman did NOT act in self defense? That this was murder, plain and simple?

Quite frankly, the accounts/evidence I've seen so far does not offer conclusive evidence that this was a cut and dry murder case, nor does it offer conclusive evidence that it is a cut and dry self defense case. We can thank law enforcement for screwing that part of it up.


The issue here is that so many, notably the Media, crucified Zimmerman and decided he was guilty. He's guilty in the court of public opinion. Read Dotzilla's imaginative recount of what happened. He's not the only person who imagines that things occurred in such a way. So many people just decided to paint a picture of a killer, and make the events fit that picture. It's just a problem with our sensationalist society.

Did racism, or at least prejudice have an impact on the events between Zimmerman/Trayvon? Absolutely. But is Zimmerman a murderer beyond a reasonable doubt? Is he a racist who simply snapped and decided to kill an innocent black kid?

That's for the courts to decide. I just don't think it's a slam dunk case...and I think too many people have decided Zimmerman is guilty before getting all the facts straight, which is impossible when you have sensationalized media stories running round the clock on it.

Would love for Tuhl to weigh in on this.

Reasonable doubt on this point has already been defeated. It's a fact that Zimmerman walked up to someone who posed no threat to him or anyone else and started shit. That objective fact is all that is needed to defeat "self-defense".

Even more so that it's a fking kid. This kid could not have been a threat requiring self-defense with a gun (such that just running away, calling for help, or just beating the shit out of him would not have been sufficient).

Self-defense against an unarmed kid by shooting him in cold blood only appears plausible because the kid was black.



Where and when has the media done this? I'd say they've gone to pains to - as with the OJ case and that white woman who committed infanticide (name escapes me) - to paint what is pretty damn obvious murder as a horse race.

He wasn't crucified by the media; the facts of the case - the phone transcript - did that. And the only reason that is not enough is racism.

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

You'd be a good lawyer. The "kid" was 17...one year away from being considered an "adult." Again you're painting a picture of this monster stepping out of his car and shooting at a little 10 year old on a bicycle. Again you're allowing the media to shape your perception. Aren't you the one always charging people to challenge the status quo and question what you're told?



Anyway, you're ignoring Florida law: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand-your-ground_law



It's funny how you ignore media bias and sensationalism when it's inconvenient for you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_o ... a_coverage





Those are just a few examples.

There's also the reporting of "Fucking Coons", where Zimmerman is suspected of saying, "Fucking Coons" in reference to Trayvon Martin. CNN did a bit with Anderson Cooper where they used an audio expert to enhance the audio. Then, two weeks later, CNN re-examined the audio with another expert and a higher method of analysis and... well...

"It's Fucking Cold", on an unseasonably cold, rainy and windy night... seems pretty possible.

Mind you, this "Fucking Coons" was going to net Zimmerman some hate-crime charges or whatever other nonsense.

Overzealous wannabe cop sees trouble where none exists, pursues a suspect (in his own mind) of a vague and yet to be named crime, suspect realizes he's being followed, attacks Zimmerman, scuffle ensues, guy with a gun wins.

All these gated community morons saying that it's not okay to attack someone are correct, if we're talking about a white picket fence neighborhood where people leave their houses and cars unlocked and have nothing to worry about.

Trayvon I'm sure was not a goddamn saint, but last I checked being a saint wasn't a prerequisite for being permitted to go about your business.

Trayvon felt threatened by being pursued and questioned by a total stranger with no authority and no right to question him. If you had any idea of what lies beyond the comfort of your own neighborhood, the idea of preemptively attacking someone who has been following you would not sound so crazy.

Zimmerman had the intention of making the streets safer, sure. That's not at all the end result however, and now two people have likely lost their lives (Zimmerman in the form of imprisonment) as a result of his desire to be a hero.

It's tragic. I don't think Zimmerman set out intending to kill anyone, but he did, and it didn't have to happen.

Brawlsack

Taking an extended hiatus from gaming

I thought i heard there was a reason zimmerman was pursuing the guy. like there was a breakin that had just been called in or something, but I can't remember for sure. I haven't really paid attention to this nothing of a case.

That's never stopped prosecutors in the past. Unless the Sanford Prosecutor's Office is staffed by a bunch of pussies (seems obvious, considering how much pressure it took for them to act), they'd have had Zimmerman taking a plea bargain for manslaughter with 15 years within days of the incident. The delay can also be attributed to the "bungling" by the police who initially stopped Zimmerman.




Two things. First off, it's impossible for him to get a fair trial. Everyone knows the background of this case. He can't get an impartial jury. It will be packed with angry people who want whitey's blood, and with angry people think that uppity nigger got what was coming to him. Not a one of them will reach a decision based on the facts presented. With any luck, the jury selection process will screen enough of the people who are really bad at pretending to be impartial, so at least it won't look like a farce.

The Zimmerman defense team can apply the Stand Your Ground law all it wants. I'd certainly use it if I were his lawyer. Problem is, it's not nearly as airtight as you seem to think. You're allowed to use deadly force when:

776.013
(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and
(b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.

(2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person

That's the first hitch. Martin had a right to be in the area, so the presumption of imminent peril is lost. The statute does not mention state of mind; that Zimmerman thought Martin was there illegally is irrelevant. Martin was legally on the premises, so Zimmerman is precluded from asserting imminent peril. Additionally, but perhaps however:

776.032
(1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless [etc etc, not relevant to this particular section of discussion].

776.041
The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

If Martin did in fact assault Zimmerman (I don't try the facts, a jury does that), Zimmerman provoked the use of force against him. I am not a doctor, and I've never been in a fight. I'd venture, however, that a broken nose isn't "imminent danger of death or great bodily harm" and that Zimmerman did not pursue any other reasonable means of breaking off the contact. The reasonable person standard (despite how it sounds) is objective, not subjective. Getting your ass kicked sucks, I'd wager, but it's not enough to make the "reasonable person" think I need to shoot this kid right now or I'm a dead man.




Like I said above, he'll hide behind the Stand Your Ground, but it won't be enough. And the family can, of course, pursue him in civil court. The outcome of the criminal case, whatever it may be, will not affect a wrongful death suit. Just look at Hattori v. Peairs. Guy was acquitted (wrongfully, as much of the lawyering world likes to point out) in criminal court, but lost in civil court because no matter how "innocent" he was per the criminal code, the kid he shot was still dead.

If destruction exists, we must destroy everything.
Shuruppak Yuratuhl
Slaad Shrpk Breizh