Zimmerman found not guilty

Thanks for that link, Jingle. It certainly sounds like he did say it under his breath. I would expect the jury heard that, too, and receive direction from the judge as to whether his racist comment was relevant to the killing. Sadly, it's not the first time I have heard defending barristers deal with what appears to be cut and dried proof. 'Your honour, jury, he might be a racist bastard, but is he a murdering racist bastard?' (My words, but you know what I mean)

Point taken, jings. I had read something about other parts of the call that were edited (spliced together) so that things were out of context, e.g. Z's comment, when asked, that the youth was black. There is nothing ambiguous about "fucking coons."

Nice one whenim - and quite right too.

Yep- not a term of endearment is it?

Sorry J08, I didn't meant to imply you are racist, but maybe ignorant of US history.

I am white, middle-class, and have never ever been at the wrong hand of racim. I hate the overplay of the racist card actually. If Martin had managed, in absolute self-defence, as he was pursued and apprehended for no reason, by a big guy who reached for a concealed item, which was clearly a gun, to reach for said gun and shot Zimmerman, he would be on death row by now. The 'stand my ground' and self-defence plea would have been very unlikely to stand. And we all know why.

The police 'we don't need you to do that' on the tape clearly means 'don't' - but he ignored it, because he couldn't bear to think that a 'f***ing co*on' could 'get away'. Get away from getting home with his bad of skittles and can of pop, with his hoodie to protect him from the heavy rain.

Err no Granjura!!! Not at all ignorant of US history!

I think the bag of Skittles and can of pop thing is being a bit overplayed. Not relevant.

It is relevant - he was not armed and had gone out to buy a bag of Skittle and can of pop. It gives very relevant context imho.

Yes, I do see that. But maybe the jury believed that Zimmerman thought Martin was going for his (Zimmerman's) gun at the time of the shooting and that the reason for Z chasing M was not the relevant thing even though it is obvious to us now that he was not out to commit a crime.

This is too hard! I'm giving up.

I think if I was faced with a guy with a gun, I might have tried to disarm him. On 'stand my ground and self-defence'.

Although what Treyvon was carrying is not relevant to the acquittal I think it's a relevant pointer to Zimmerman's attitude.

Treyvon had every right not to be under suspicion when he had just popped-out to buy sweets and a drink, was not carrying say, a holdall, and was simply on his way home - there's no suggestion that he was walking around aimlessly or idling.

I find myself comparing this to the murder of Stephen Lawrence. Those racist thugs were definitely out to kill. Was Zimmerman?

There must be a lesser offence they could have charged him with. Manslaughter? Would he have got off scot free in this country? I don't think he would have.

Even our new self defence law states "reasonable force". The boy wasn't armed.

So long as Zimmerman stopped Matin from getting his gun, he should have been able to restrain him without shooting.

I'm thinking "aloud" here.

Have the guts to say what you think, don't try to get lost in the incessant, prattle of others, don't complain if you don't understand english, or at least much of it. Refrain from referring to other blogs, that you just happen to have come across,as if you aren't being nasty, and the contents are not just what you are thinking.
Mog... you'll find that some,will complain about you to HQ, feeling they have been slighted, because something you have said, in general, or in innocence, that appears to relate to them. Not at all aware that you couldn't care less about them or their recently acquired opinions.Opinions tailored to fit in with the niceties they associate with the majority.
As for the subject, I haven't bothered to read much that has been said earlier, Attack that if you will, but if it is that in the area concerned their are few, if any blacks, and most of the crime is proved to be committed by the aforesaid, and that many are gun carrying, and do not worry about using them it is quite natural to get you retaliation in first.
If that assumption is wrong then elsewhere is the place to look, but the jury thinks otherwise. Do we trust the jury or not?
It makes you think when you hear some of the things that have been espoused here.

Oh for God's sake!!!

Could we have that again in Queen's English?

Nuff said, was I right?
Or should I have said," enough said,and am I proven correct"?
The majority of people ,In a recent survey said they had some form of weapon or other deterrent in the home ,often by the bed , and would not hesitate to use them if necessary, and leave it to the court to decide if a reasonable amount of force had been used. At least, if it was proved that excessive force was used, they would be alive to appeal. Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing right, a couple of Katanas strategically placed about the house would not come amiss.
Be honest, when you are approached by an elderly lady, someone of apparently your own age and gender, are you as apprehensive as an approach by a hoodie, a gang of youths , who appear to be wearing, possibly gang colours? Granted you may have misconstrued,but the initial fear is palpable.

Zimmerman was the one doing the approaching.

P.S.
Can't play all day,as some appear to be able to do, ironing to do in spite of the heat.
Lets see who imagines they are,"some"

deserving none of us is spoiling for a fight - just trying to express opinions on a controversial case.

Well, I've got my Game of Thrones to read. Did the ironing first thing.

Bye bye Deserving.

Btw - "Nuff said, was I right?
Or should I have said," enough said,and am I proven correct"?"

What was the question again?

Deserving there is a huge difference between protecting your family and yourself, using force if necessary(which I would have done without hesitation to save my family's life, but not property perhaps) and what happened there. Zimmerman was the one armed, the one that followed Martin even though he was told by police not too - Martin was freaked out and should have ignored Zimmerman, but he didn't. He was no angel I am sure, but he didn't deserve to be shot for being young and black and wearing a hoodie- because he fitted the stereotype. There was wrong on both sides, but initiated by Zimmerman, partly because he was racist, and partly because he was a wannabe vigilante- and he was armed with a concealed weapon, Martin was not.

Nobody has answered yet - had Martin been able to get hold of Z's gun, in self defense and according to 'stand my ground' law, and shot him -
would he have walked? According to Florida law, which the jury followed to acquit Z, he should have? But would he - or would he be on death row by now?

Deserving there is a huge difference between protecting your family and yourself, using force if necessary(which I would have done without hesitation to save my family's life, but not property perhaps) and what happened there. Zimmerman was the one armed, the one that followed Martin even though he was told by police not too - Martin was freaked out and should have ignored Zimmerman, but he didn't. He was no angel I am sure, but he didn't deserve to be shot for being young and black and wearing a hoodie- because he fitted the stereotype. There was wrong on both sides, but initiated by Zimmerman, partly because he was racist, and partly because he was a wannabe vigilante- and he was armed with a concealed weapon, Martin was not.

Nobody has answered yet - had Martin been able to get hold of Z's gun, in self defense and according to 'stand my ground' law, and shot him -
would he have walked? According to Florida law, which the jury followed to acquit Z, he should have? But would he - or would he be on death row by now?

So being black, wearing a hoodie and walking in a predominantly white neighbourhood is a valid reason for being pursued and confronted is it deserving? Zimmerman wasn't "approached" by Martin - it was the other way round.

If that had happened Granjura, then Martin would have had a hard time proving that he took Z' s gun and shot Z in self defence. I think.

It all comes back to their stupid gun laws.