Did you watch the trial? I did. I work at home and had the trial going on as I worked. I’m sure I saw at least 3/4 of the trial live and heard playbacks of anything important that I missed. If I had been in the jury, I would have voted to acquit him as well.

Do I think George Zimmerman is a racist? Well, yes and no. He’s not your classic Ku Klux Klanner. The state never turned up any blatantly racial statements he had ever made. He did lament to a police operator once that “The assholes always get away.” Some people are reading those words as implicitly racial, but there is no supporting evidence for that assumption.

He had even volunteered in programs that mainly benefited black youth!

At the same time, I think there is little doubt that he profiled the victim, Trayvon Martin. I’m not sure he profiled him because he was black. I think perhaps he would have profiled any male teen walking along in Zimmerman’s neighborhood who had the hood of his hoodie up.

I think the initial mistake was in charging Zimmerman in the first place. The local police decided there was no case and decided not to prosecute. It was only after a clamor orchestrated by Trayvon’s family attorney that the state Attorney General stepped in and forced a prosecution that Zimmerman was charged.

The problem the prosecution faced was that the only eye-witness to the fight between Martin and Zimmerman supported Zimmerman’s story that Trayvon was on top, pounding Zimmerman’s head on the concrete sidewalk. And Zimmerman did have a broken nose. All Martin had was a bullet through the heart, which is allowed in Florida (and in most states, even ones without specific Stand Your Ground laws) if Zimmerman had reason to feel his life was in danger.

In final summations, where generally it is the prosecution explaining the letter of the law and how to apply it, while the defense often appeals to the jury’s feelings rather than their intellect, it was reversed. It was the defense explaining in detail how to apply the law while it was the prosecutors shouting and foaming at the mouth about the injustice of Trayvon Martin’s death. That alone signaled that the prosecution really didn’t trust their own case.

In retrospect, it appears that the local police were right. And, in fact, during cross examination, the lead local investigator admitted that he personally believed Zimmerman’s story based on the facts he discovered. While the judge ordered the jury not to consider that opinion (because it’s an opinion and not a fact), “You can’t un-ring a bell.”

This case should have all of us thinking about assumptions we make regarding young people and especially young black males. Perhaps Florida will reconsider it’s “Stand Your Ground” law which makes it easier to defend oneself with lethal force based merely on a belief that one is in danger of death or severe bodily harm.

I don’t know what actually happened leading up to the shooting death of Trayvon Martin. Only George Zimmerman knows that. Did he profile Trayvon? I think he did. Did he profile him racially? The evidence doesn’t support that. Trayvon was probably profiled more as a young male than as a black male. Under his hoodie, his race may not have been evident.

Profiling may be a bad thing but it isn’t an illegal thing. And Zimmerman wasn’t on trial for profiling, but for murder. The state had to prove that Zimmerman had hate in his heart, and that they didn’t do.

The verdict, as dissatisfying as it may be, was the right one based on the facts.

Tags: George, Martin, Trayvon, Zimmerman, profiling, race

Views: 2864

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

A pie?  But you all have guns, what's the matter with you?

Pies send a temporary message, guns send a permanent one.

She wasn't deemed worth the cost of a round of ammunition.

Arch: "How many documented marks - cuts, bruises, abrasions - indicating a physical response by Zimmerman, did Martin sustain?  Does anyone have photos of those?"

GM: "None are necessary."

So am I to understand that Zimmerman sustained bruises, cuts and abrasions, while Martain sustained none, yet you "find it delightfully ironic that you assert without evidence the 'fact' of who assaulted whom"?

Exactly. How do you know Zimmerman didn't start the confrontation by assaulting Martin first (in a non-physical way)? Or is it a fact that Martin assaulted Zimmerman first because you just know it is?

RE: "If Zimmerman so much as touched Martin, got up in his face, stared him down menacingly, or spoke in a threatening manner, it's assault." - and your evidence that this happened is --?

I didn't say it happened. I said we don't know what happened because there's no evidence.

RE: "got up in his face" - I'm curious, how close does the law state one can get to another person's face without committing assault? If I'm jam-packed in an elevator full of people, and my face passes beyond your "invisible" barrier, can I be arrested for assault? Inquiring minds want to know --

You know perfectly well what the statute means. It's not about innocent proximity. It's about instilling fear of imminent physical harm in another person. Standing close by necessity in a crowded elevator is one thing. Getting up into someone's face in a menacing manner is another.

RE: "How do you know Zimmerman didn't start the confrontation by assaulting Martin first (in a non-physical way)?" - show me the evidence --

RE: "It's not about innocent proximity. It's about instilling fear of imminent physical harm in another person." - isn't that what Martin did to Zimmerman?

RE: "we don't know what happened because there's no evidence." - yes, there is, just not evidence to support your point of view - by George, I think you've made my case.

You continue to say, "we're done here," and yet you return.

RE: "How do you know Zimmerman didn't start the confrontation by assaulting Martin first (in a non-physical way)?" - show me the evidence --

That burden lies with the person making the claim, not with the person questioning the claim as I'm doing above. In this case, it's Unseen claiming as 'fact' that Martin assaulted Zimmerman first. He hasn't supplied the evidence to support the assertion that Martin started the confrontation with a physical assault, versus Zimmerman starting the confrontation with a non-physical assault. I haven't seen any evidence to draw that conclusion one way or the other.

RE: "we don't know what happened because there's no evidence [regarding who assaulted whom first]." - yes, there is, just not evidence to support your point of view - by George, I think you've made my case.

My point of view is there is no evidence regarding who assaulted whom first.

"Yes there is!"

That's it? Not producing the actual evidence? Just gainsaying?

Dismissed, with extra diss.

RE: "It's not about innocent proximity. It's about instilling fear of imminent physical harm in another person." - isn't that what Martin did to Zimmerman?

If you believe Zimmerman, no. He said Martin came out of nowhere and sucker-punched him, so that would be felony battery: actual harm, not simply instilling fear of imminent physical harm. 

But as for who assaulted whom first and who stood whose ground first? I don't know. I haven't seen any evidence to draw that conclusion one way or the other. Whoever started it first, Martin got the best of Zimmerman quickly.

You continue to say, "we're done here," and yet you return.

Thanks for the reminder. We are done. Unless you say something interesting or reply with something substantial. But you won't.

"We are done. Unless you say something interesting or reply with something substantial. But you won't."

Actually, you're right, because your lack of logic bores me. When you first came on this board, my first thought, paraphrasing Douglas Adams, was, "Wow, that is one cool frood!" but you have deteriorated to the point where I hardly know you.

(I)t's Unseen claiming as 'fact' that Martin assaulted Zimmerman first. He hasn't supplied the evidence to support the assertion that Martin started the confrontation with a physical assault, versus Zimmerman starting the confrontation with a non-physical assault. I haven't seen any evidence to draw that conclusion one way or the other.

There you go being silly again. Using bits and pieces of your own arguments, a verbal assault may technically be an assault under the law, however mere talk, however aggressive and/or rude, doesn't rise to ANY level of physical harm or death. 

Martin has a gunshot wound; Zimmerman has a broken nose, lacerations and contusions. That makes it pretty clear who initiated the physical imbroglio, your attempt to place a highly-unlikely interpretation on it notwithstanding.

I'm guessing you didn't watch the trial.

I strongly suspect that Gallup's Mirror, spends most of his time gazing into Gallup's Mirror - and kissing.

I am trying to decide what to think of the fact that Unseen, Archaeopteryx and I all seem to agree on something not directly related to atheism/theism issues. 

That's got to be a first.

Actually, anytime I agree with the UnOne on ANYthing, scares me to death, and I'm fearless.

Though it's a rarity, once in a great while, the planets do align.

RSS

Forum

A relapse.....

Started by Belle Rose in Small Talk. Last reply by Unseen 10 minutes ago. 3 Replies

The Elephant in the Room...

Started by Belle Rose in Small Talk. Last reply by Belle Rose 35 minutes ago. 19 Replies

How do you cure Insanity???

Started by Belle Rose in Advice. Last reply by Pope Beanie 7 hours ago. 60 Replies

An awakening.....radical acceptance.....

Started by Belle Rose in Crime and Punishment. Last reply by Belle Rose 11 hours ago. 1 Reply

Services we love!

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

In need a of a professional web site? Check out the good folks at Clear Space Media

© 2014   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service