George zimmerman.....not guilty!

[Papasito]

But his white instincts tell him that there's a black kid wearing a hoodie walking down your neighborhood probably casing the area. Go check him out. If he does refuse to leave KILL HIM!

Wow, really? Are you serious? Thats some serious anti-white racism there.

Hispanic on Black crime:
http://www.ethniccrimereport.com/cat...spaniconblack/
Black on Hispanic crime:
http://www.ethniccrimereport.com/cat...ackonhispanic/

Shocking as it seems, Hispanic and African Americans DO kill each other. It's not just evil whitey. When are people going to grow up and judge a person by their actions and not their skin color? Not today, evidently.

Remember: Justice For Treyvon!!
But not for US Ambassador Chris Stevens.

RIP

[rb336]

Here's the thing: Zimmerman ​looks white, has a non-hispanic name, etc. The "but he's half hispanic" argument is utter bullshit.

[oladub]

Here's the thing: Zimmerman ​looks white, has a non-hispanic name, etc. The "but he's half hispanic" argument is utter bullshit.

Doesn't Zimmerman define himself as Hispanic? If being half hispanic "is utter bullshit", how does Obama get to define himself as black? The NY Times refined and defined Zimmerman's ethnic status as "white Hispanic". Obama is just as white as Zimmerman; culturally probably even more so having been raised so many years by the Dunhams. If Zimmerman is a "white Hispanic, then Obama must be a "white black" as noted by one commenter. It gets so confusing.

[coracle]

This was a catastrophic event between two minorities of which one group wants to pin it directly on whites while the other is happy to keep their silence and let whites take the blame because the enemy of your enemy is your friend. Racism is alive and well and the Media, their usual minority accomplices and rioters are spreading the crap to make money.. To quote Danny "Welcome to new age" of racists.

[rb336]

Doesn't Zimmerman define himself as Hispanic? If being half hispanic "is utter bullshit", how does Obama get to define himself as black? The NY Times refined and defined Zimmerman's ethnic status as "white Hispanic". Obama is just as white as Zimmerman; culturally probably even more so having been raised so many years by the Dunhams. If Zimmerman is a "white Hispanic, then Obama must be a "white black" as noted by one commenter. It gets so confusing.

It's perception, Ola. pure and simple. There are people out there saying "it wasn't racial profiling because Z is Hispanic." Put it another way: If Zimmerman walked into a store, and you were behind the counter and asked for his ID, you'd never say to yourself "this guy is Hispanic." many EEO forms list "white and not Hispanic." The whole notion of race is BS, but the perception of Zimmerman is that of a white guy. He looks white, his name is George and not Jorge, and his surname is German, and that may have played a role in the decisions of some jurors.

[Jimaz]

... The whole notion of race is BS,....

Which might come as a surprise to many but vetalalumni recently posted an excellent video on this subject that I think explained it very well. It might seem tediously academic but it's well worth watching if only to understand that the notion of race is more subjective than most people believe.

[Cincinnati_Kid]

I think the Martin family should sue Zimmerman. In civil court there is a lower burden of proof and I believe a better chance to win. I would be focusing on making sure Zimmerman doesn't profit from this event. It wouldn't even bother me that I wouldn't be getting a lot of money out of Zimmerman. The Goldman family made life a living hell on OJ by doing this and indirectly lead to OJ finally going to prison.

What OJ went to prison for is has no correlation to the murder trial. He went to prison for trying to rob persons who were selling his memorabilia.

[firstandten]

What OJ went to prison for is has no correlation to the murder trial. He went to prison for trying to rob persons who were selling his memorabilia.

You didn't really understand my point. The Goldman family basically attached any money OJ was trying to make other than his NFL pension which legally they couldn't. OJ had been frustrated for years trying to create income streams only to have the Goldman's snatch it. The whole memorabilla thing started out as another one of OJ's way of trying to make some money and it degenerated into what finally got OJ put away. That's why I said indirectly. Mind you OJ has a 25K per month pension but I guess it wasn't enough for him.

Zimmerman is going to have a hard time finding a job. Very few people will want to touch him. Profiting off of the trial will be a easy way of getting cash. If I were part of the Martin family I wouldn't want to see that happen

[Papasito]

Saw this meme floating around this morning on a few sites



AND THIS ONE

[Pam]

Zimmerman apologist bingo:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023264247

[noise]

Only when Bush was President. They stayed silent when Obama extended and expanded it. They should be RAGING. Everyone should be.

You have a very guarded, myopic view.

[noise]

Wow, really? Are you serious? Thats some serious anti-white racism there.

No, it's not.

[JBMcB]

So let's break down the verdict:

Is it legal to follow someone around in your car? Yep, as long as you aren't harassing them.

Is it legal to approach someone in the street? Yep.

Is it legal to talk to random people in the street and ask them questions? Yep.

So between that point and Zimmerman shooting Martin is what the jury had to figure out.

There was a prosecution witness saying they saw Martin beating up Zimmerman.

There were a couple of detectives testifying for the prosecution that said they found Zimmerman's account believable.

There was so little actual evidence of racism on the part of Zimmerman that the judge didn't allow the prosecution to accuse him of it.

So now the juror's had to conclude, beyond reasonable doubt, that Zimmerman shot Martin for little or no reason, and not in self defense.

I'm not saying any of the above was factually correct, but that's what the jury had to go on. The important thing to take away is that many of the prosecution's own witnesses were pretty damaging to it's case.

Martin's family could sue for wrongful death, or whatever the equivalent may be in Florida. They might have a better chance of winning, if for no other reason their lawyer could see what didn't work in the first trial. They'd have to get a lawyer working pro-bono, because I don't think they'd be getting much money out of Zimmerman.

The federal government could try a civil rights case against Zimmerman, but the burden of proof is pretty high in those cases, and there wasn't even enough evidence in the first trial to allow it.

[noise]

It's perception, Ola. pure and simple. There are people out there saying "it wasn't racial profiling because Z is Hispanic." Put it another way: If Zimmerman walked into a store, and you were behind the counter and asked for his ID, you'd never say to yourself "this guy is Hispanic." many EEO forms list "white and not Hispanic." The whole notion of race is BS, but the perception of Zimmerman is that of a white guy. He looks white, his name is George and not Jorge, and his surname is German, and that may have played a role in the decisions of some jurors.

Zimmerman's MySpace page had a lot of anti-Mexican comments on it, for what it's worth.

[bailey]

So let's break down the verdict:

Is it legal to follow someone around in your car? Yep, as long as you aren't harassing them.

Is it legal to approach someone in the street? Yep.

Is it legal to talk to random people in the street and ask them questions? Yep.

So between that point and Zimmerman shooting Martin is what the jury had to figure out.

There was a prosecution witness saying they saw Martin beating up Zimmerman.

There were a couple of detectives testifying for the prosecution that said they found Zimmerman's account believable.

There was so little actual evidence of racism on the part of Zimmerman that the judge didn't allow the prosecution to accuse him of it.

So now the juror's had to conclude, beyond reasonable doubt, that Zimmerman shot Martin for little or no reason, and not in self defense.

I think that is a completely accurate summation. However, I can also see how people can feel a correct verdict did not do "justice".

Happens all the time. for instance, Michigan is the only state in the country where people can not sue drug manufacturers if they are injured by a faulty drug. If one has a kid that is killed by a tainted med they will lose if they bring suit....and it will be the legal and correct ruling. However, is it "just"? I tend to think not.

[coracle]

It's perception, Ola. pure and simple. There are people out there saying "it wasn't racial profiling because Z is Hispanic." Put it another way: If Zimmerman walked into a store, and you were behind the counter and asked for his ID, you'd never say to yourself "this guy is Hispanic." many EEO forms list "white and not Hispanic." The whole notion of race is BS, but the perception of Zimmerman is that of a white guy. He looks white, his name is George and not Jorge, and his surname is German, and that may have played a role in the decisions of some jurors.

Like you say Racial Profiling notions are just bull shit. I'm confident Martin "racially profiled" Zimmerman on sight as not black. He wouldn't know his name was George, however unless he was wearing his name tag, or that he had a German connection unless he said something like "Halt! Wer da". As for race perception, I'm very white and Zimmerman definitely doesn't look at all white to me; he looks very Hispanic, If he walked into my store I'd see immediately he was Hispanic and if he wasn't wearing a hoodie it wouldn't occur to me to ask for his ID

[firstandten]

So let's break down the verdict:

Is it legal to follow someone around in your car? Yep, as long as you aren't harassing them.

Is it legal to approach someone in the street? Yep.

Is it legal to talk to random people in the street and ask them questions? Yep.

So between that point and Zimmerman shooting Martin is what the jury had to figure out.

There was a prosecution witness saying they saw Martin beating up Zimmerman.

There were a couple of detectives testifying for the prosecution that said they found Zimmerman's account believable.

There was so little actual evidence of racism on the part of Zimmerman that the judge didn't allow the prosecution to accuse him of it.

So now the juror's had to conclude, beyond reasonable doubt, that Zimmerman shot Martin for little or no reason, and not in self defense.

I'm not saying any of the above was factually correct, but that's what the jury had to go on. The important thing to take away is that many of the prosecution's own witnesses were pretty damaging to it's case.

Martin's family could sue for wrongful death, or whatever the equivalent may be in Florida. They might have a better chance of winning, if for no other reason their lawyer could see what didn't work in the first trial. They'd have to get a lawyer working pro-bono, because I don't think they'd be getting much money out of Zimmerman.

The federal government could try a civil rights case against Zimmerman, but the burden of proof is pretty high in those cases, and there wasn't even enough evidence in the first trial to allow it.

Good points I been on juries and they take there jobs seriously.On a legal level I understand the decision, on an emotional level I feel that Zimmerman started the chain of events that lead to TM''s death with makes the outcome frustrating for me and I'm sure for others to deal with.

[JBMcB]

I think that is a completely accurate summation. However, I can also see how people can feel a correct verdict did not do "justice".

Agreed. The problem is, how would you rectify it? You could change the rules on evidence, but that would open a can of worms. I don't think it can be rectified.

The greatest fault, I think, was with the prosecutors. They clearly didn't have enough for murder 2, and after seeing their witnesses they barely had enough for man 2. They should have gone for a lesser charge, possibly even a misdemeanor, but politics prevented that. The results were Zimmerman got off scott free.

[rb336]

Agreed. The problem is, how would you rectify it? You could change the rules on evidence, but that would open a can of worms. I don't think it can be rectified.

The greatest fault, I think, was with the prosecutors. They clearly didn't have enough for murder 2, and after seeing their witnesses they barely had enough for man 2. They should have gone for a lesser charge, possibly even a misdemeanor, but politics prevented that. The results were Zimmerman got off scott free.

no, change the rules on "stand your ground" AND change the law so that, if you start something via stalking, you can not claim self defense.

[Papasito]

Lets see how that works on law enforcement and community watch programs. It's going to be like the the military... military servicemen and police officers dead before they protect themselves because in the heat of the moment every move they made will be micromanaged and overanalyzed by a bunch of people who have never been in their shoes.

What a overcomplicated world we live in.
A world where, because of this case, a victim will have so much burden on their decisions, they will be afraid to preserve their own lives.

Why don't we admit the truth? Everyone was hoping Zimmerman was the bad racist lilly white guy who blasted a black youth on the street for no reason whatsoever except for seething hate, and when it didn't turn out that way, people have been raging angry and have been trying to bend the facts and the story to match the story that the media and their personal experiences created in their minds.

People also wanted to use this incident as the flagship and rally cry for new massive gun legislation. Even though the defense in this case did not use the stand your ground law as their sole basis for Mr. Martin's death, the media and politicians are sure acting like it was.

If you want to find a true instance of obvious white hate, try these:

WHITE ON BLACK CRIME

Minor’s blood was detected in Abuelazam’s luggage, which was seized when he tried to flee the United States for Israel. Facing such overwhelming DNA evidence, defense lawyers tried to convince jurors that he was insane and under the control of demons during the stabbing spree. But three experts hired by prosecutors interviewed Abuelazam and found he wasn’t mentally ill or incapable of understanding the criminal acts.

A Johnsonville man pleaded guilty Wednesday to a violation of the federal hate crime statute in connection with the 2010 assault of a black teenager, the U.S. Attorney’s Office announced today.

During his plea hearing Wednesday, McClary admitted he approached Brown and struck him multiple times with the jagged end of a broken coffee mug because of the victim’s race. The attack resulted in severe injuries to the victim’s head, face and neck.
“Motivated by hate, the defendant attacked a teenager and scarred him for life. No one should have to endure such an abhorrent act of criminal violence,” said Thomas E. Perez, assistant attorney for the Civil Rights Division. “The Justice Department will vigorously prosecute cases of bias motivated violence to the full extent of the law.”

On Thursday, the Cumberland County jury convicted the former 82nd Airborne Division paratrooper of murdering two people on a deserted city street on a night he went out hunting blacks.

James N. Burmeister, 21, was charged with shooting Jackie Burden and Michael James to death on Dec. 7, 1995.

Source: http://www.ethniccrimereport.com/cat.../whiteonblack/

If you want a witch hunt, pick a different case where the story is clear.

[rb336]

1) Zimmerman WAS NOT A REAL NEIGHBORHOOD WATCH MEMBER.He was a self-appointed thug.

2) We don't know if Zimmerman is or isn't racist.

3) Zimmerman followed Martin FOR NO REASON WHATSOEVER after the police dispatch told him not to [[for all you idiots out there "we don't need you to do that" is polite speak for DON'T)

4) WE DON'T KNOW WHAT REALLY HAPPENED. Zimmerman's wounds weren't all that heinous, there was NO EVIDENCE OF MARTIN ON THE GUN, which is IMPOSSIBLE if Zimmerman shot him while Martin was on top of him

[JBMcB]

no, change the rules on "stand your ground"

Stand your ground didn't apply in this case.
http://www.tampabay.com/news/courts/...d-laws/2131629

AND change the law so that, if you start something via stalking, you can not claim self defense.

So, a universal anti-stalking law? Nobody is allowed to follow anyone else around? Because, if you did so and some sort of violence ensued for any reason, you would be automatically liable?

Some creep is checking out kids by a school - I start following him while calling 911. He turns around and starts beating me up. That's my fault?

[firstandten]

In the Detroit News an interview with the Chief of Homicide for the Macomb County Prosecutors office clarified some issues that I had. He said in Michigan the outcome may have been different. By statute and precedent if you are the aggressor in a fight you cannot claim self defense when you use deadly force. It doesn't make any difference who threw the first punch. Based on Zimmermans actions leading up to the fight he would still be considered the aggressor. The Florida office of Angela Corey prosecutor has a history of overcharging defendents. There was no way she could make a second degree murder charge stick and folks say she should have known that. Manslaughter became her fall back position when she realized second degree murder wasn't going to happen. She should have focused on the manslaughter charges in the beginning. To top that she got that poor woman in Jacksonville 20years for firing a warning shot. I hope once the media spotlights began to hit her office she will soon be out of a job.

[rb336]

Some creep is checking out kids by a school - I start following him while calling 911. He turns around and starts beating me up. That's my fault?

More like you follow him around, he confronts you [[turns out he was just watching HIS kid) and you get in a fight and you shoot him.

[JBMcB]

More like you follow him around, he confronts you [[turns out he was just watching HIS kid) and you get in a fight and you shoot him.

So if he *was* a creep checking out little kids, and we got in a fight, that would be kosher? Or not? The intent of the victim is now in play?

This is going to be a rather convoluted law.