Zimmerman found not guilty

Some more on the case – criticism of NBC.

Nanban how right you are about saying' angry and abusive'. This is a difficult subject and open to all sort of mis-information and heated debate on various parts. Sadly a young man lost his life - and another young man has shot him and appears to have got away with it. The challenge is, is it because the youth was black? Being Florida probably.

Do not need to re-read Mockingbird. Judge with brains not emotions. There are more comprehensive laws these days.

I think the boy probably overeacted, and probably so did Zimmerman. Good job the jury knew more about it than we do.

We were not there; we didn't hear all the details as did the jury; we cannot make a judgement based on the colour of skin - black man kills white youth; black man kills black youth; white man kills etc. Someone died at the hands of someone else is all that is relevant, and the circumstances. We must not make judgements based on information given out in the media, slanted, interpreted, reported depending on their policies and own prejudices.

We invented the judicial system and must have faith in it and not make individual judgements from the outside looking in.

And getting angry and abusive doesn't win any arguments, just stirs up more anger and abuse.

Granjura You were actually there and did you see and hear everything that happened? If you can't answer 'yes' to that question, then you don't know - you're surmizing and assuming like everyone else.

I didn't insult MOGSSY but as you seem to think I did, well, what can I say. I am deeply offended that you have made that claim.

Great Anno - we are talking about a really serious case here, a young man shot for being black in the wrong place - and your contribution amounts to mocking a spelling mistake made by a furiner. I am disappointed as your are normally the voice of reason and compassion here. A shame.

deaf row?

An interesting article about culture and the witness who was talking on the phone with Treyvon Martin just before the incident.

m.huffpost.com/us/entry/3525805

In the circumstances, in fear for his life against a huge armed man- martin should have been able to file for self-defense ... he would still be on deaf row by now.

This enormous guy followed Martin for quite a while and then apprehended him, for no reason whatsoever than being black in a white area - not armed, not having committed any crime- Martin must have be terrified and in fear for HIS life. What was he supposed to do? Faced with a guy twice his size - he could hardly just hold him at bay by the scruff of his neck, could he?
And of course when he realised the guy was armed, he tried to reach and disarm him!!! What was he supposed to do for goodness sake.

I am quite prepared to accept that Martin may not have been an angel- does that mean that he could just be shot. Unarmed and not doing anything wrong.

Time to re-read 'to kill a mocking bird' and think. How many black people were on the Jury btw?

An insult to MOGGSY, Noodles.

So, "the teenager punched their client, slammed his head into the pavement and reached for Mr Zimmerman's gun." He did n' t intend to be "unarmed" for long did he? Must have been a hard one to judge.

I was in the US last year when this case was receiving saturation coverage on national TV news so I learned a lot from the many programmes that discussed in great detail all aspects. The US doesn't have our rigid sub-judice laws and anything can be discussed openly prior to charging or trial .... or so it seems to me.

There was a lot of incompetence/racism from the outset - Zimmerman claimed this 'standing ground' defence and that was it, dead boy - no charges or investigation, until the Black community protested and then it all became political and the authorities were forced to take action.

Perhaps a charge of manslaughter would have been more successful - who knows.

Was the 'victim' carrying a weapon of any kind? [apologies if it has been mentioned but just rushing in and out and can't read whole thread...]

Thanks Bags

Thanks for that link, noodles. Here it is blued: www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23310953.

What the Harvard law bod says about the differences between a legal right and a moral right (right as opposed to wrong) are particularly interesting.

granjura honestly, you thought that was an insult?

As I said in an earlier post, the jury followed the law. The law needs to be changed. The way to change the law is through the ballot box.

This is a very good walk through:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23310953

I don't know if it was fair (just) or not. I don't have all the facts the jury had. Neither, I suppose, does anyone else. We only have what the media has told us, which is not quite the same as what would stand up in a court of law.

As portrayed by the mainstream media, the case does look bad, but I don't feel I am in a position to judge it or the acquittal.

Noodles, instead of insults, would you mind telling us how you feel (if you do) that this Zimmerman verdict was fair?

Granjura - thanks for posting the guardian article, I always enjoy Gary Younge's articles and this one was excellent. America really is a foreign country isn't it. Shackling pregnant shop lifters, or drug users for example. I am not complacent about the justice system in this country, and share the concern about the fact young black men are much more likely to be subject to stop and search etc. However, the USA's ridiculous approach to gun law, and continued racism towards the ancestors of slaves is something I find truly shocking.

I think this is a terrible miscarriage of justice.

Enviousamerican
Tell that to black Americans living in former slave states. It is a relatively few years since George Wallace defied the law by refusing to allow American citizens who happened to have a skin pigment imported from Africa for the benefit of white, mainly, but not exclusively English aristocrats to ensure their fabulous lifestyle. Most died of sicknesses and cruelty on their way to a life of slavery and abject misery. Noodles, how dare you refer to my honest lifetime belief in socialist beliefs as pseudo socialism, feel free not to read my posts, its a pity cos you might just, one day realize this is an unjust world populated by the have and have nots. It so happened with my salary i was an have, does that make me wrong to continue to fight for the basic human rights of the have nots???
Live long and enjoy your complacency
Peter

MOGGSY77, there is no such thing as Southern state law.

After this verdict , I do hope things remain calm.

Excellent article from the Guardian:

Sunday 14 July 2013 09.28 EDT

Open season on black boys after a verdict like this

Calls for calm after George Zimmerman was acquitted of murdering Trayvon Martin are empty words for black families

Trayvon Martin, who was shot dead in February last year. Photograph: Reuters
Gary Younge in Chicago
Let it be noted that on this day, Saturday 13 July 2013, it was still deemed legal in the US to chase and then shoot dead an unarmed young black man on his way home from the store because you didn't like the look of him.
The killing of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin last year was tragic. But in the age of Obama the acquittal of George Zimmerman offers at least that clarity. For the salient facts in this case were not in dispute. On 26 February 2012 Martin was on his way home, minding his own business armed only with a can of iced tea and a bag of Skittles. Zimmerman pursued him, armed with a 9mm handgun, believing him to be a criminal. Martin resisted. They fought. Zimmerman shot him dead.
Who screamed. Who was stronger. Who called whom what and when and why are all details to warm the heart of a cable news producer with 24 hours to fill. Strip them all away and the truth remains that Martin's heart would still be beating if Zimmerman had not chased him down and shot him.
There is no doubt about who the aggressor was here. It appears that the only reason the two interacted at all, physically or otherwise, is that Zimmerman believed it was his civic duty to apprehend an innocent teenager who caused suspicion by his existence alone.
Appeals for calm in the wake of such a verdict raise the question of what calm there can possibly be in a place where such a verdict is possible. Parents of black boys are not likely to feel calm. Partners of black men are not likely to feel calm. Children with black fathers are not likely to feel calm. Those who now fear violent social disorder must ask themselves whose interests are served by a violent social order in which young black men can be thus slain and discarded.
But while the acquittal was shameful it was not a shock. It took more than six weeks after Martin's death for Zimmerman to be arrested and only then after massive pressure both nationally and locally. Those who dismissed this as a political trial (a peculiar accusation in the summer of Bradley Manning and Edward Snowden) should bear in mind that it was politics that made this case controversial.
Charging Zimmerman should have been a no-brainer. He was not initially charged because Florida has a "stand your ground" law whereby deadly force is permitted if the person "reasonably believes" it is necessary to protect their own life, the life of another or to prevent a forcible felony.
Since it was Zimmerman who stalked Martin, the question remains: what ground is a young black man entitled to and on what grounds may he defend himself? What version of events is there for that night in which Martin gets away with his life? Or is it open season on black boys after dark?
Zimmerman's not guilty verdict will be contested for years to come. But he passed judgement on Trayvon that night summarily.
"Fucking punks," Zimmerman told the police dispatcher that night. "These assholes. They always get away."
So true it's painful. And so predictable it hurts.