Not Applicable

  • News
  • Thread starter WannabeNewton
  • Start date
In summary, George Zimmerman was found not guilty of the murder of Trayvon Martin. The former neighborhood watch leader was charged with second degree murder after he shot and killed the 17-year-old in 2012. The prosecution attempted to prove that the language Zimmerman used on the phone showed that he acted with ill will or spite, elements of the second degree murder charge. However, the jury found Zimmerman not guilty of this charge as well.
  • #106
jim hardy said:
Am I the only one who thinks Martin was a big city hoodlum who jumped the wrong country boy?(duck and cover)

old jim

Nope.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #107
KC_Smallz said:
Nope.
Then you need to read what I posted above.
 
  • #108
reenmachine said:
Didn't follow this case at all , all I know is the murderer is a middle-aged white guy and the victim a black guy and that everybody thinks the killer should be convicted (I'm unaware if there's enough information available for the public to have an informed opinion , is there?).It seems that the interest of this case is very racial in nature.

I say who cares about their race , just give him a fair trial and let the justice system operate like they always do , for better or for worst.

The new trend in social medias with people regrouping and putting other people on their own amateurish trial is starting to worry me to be honest.

He's half Hispanic.
 
  • #109
Evo said:
Then you need to read what I posted above.

Which one?
 
  • #110
russ_watters said:
FYI, for all: There is an awful lot of misinformation flying around here that was fomented by a malicious media. But the Wiki on the case lays the facts and malfeasance out pretty well. A number of NBC employees were fired for editing the 911 call to cut out where the 911 operator asked for a description of Martin and splice together different parts where Zimmerman described him as suspicious and black. And the lawsuit is underway: I expect Zimmerman will win.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin#Misleading_audio_editing_by_NBC

The next section of the wiki is about how another network aired a video of Zimmerman and commented on how it didn't look like he had any injuries when you could clearly see that he had two head wounds.

Given all of the media malfeasance, it should not be surprising that even well educated people on PF have such factually wrong understandings of the facts of this case.
I posted a link previously with a number of the calls Zimmerman made to the police department about "blacks" in the neighborhood. But this isn't about if he was a racist, it's about him being a self appointed vigilante that didn't follow the rules. Do you deny that if he had followed the rules that nothing would have happened and that kid would still be alive? That's what this is about. He broke the rules and needlessly caused the end of the life of that kid. I hope that Trayvon's family sues Zimmerman for wrongful death, they will surely win. I am so disheartened by the people here that seem to miss the tragedy of what happened because of this person that decided to take the law into his own hands, that they even seem happy about it. Disgusting.

Let me repeat, if he had followed the rules, none of this would have happened.
 
Last edited:
  • #111
Evo said:
I posted a link previously with a number of the calls Zimmerman made to the police department about "blacks" in the neighborhood. But this isn't about if he was a racist, it's about him being a self appointed vigilante that didn't follow the rules.

I myself am not racist, but do know that the likely hood of a young black male wearing his hood up in a wealthy neighborhood being up to no good is very high. Not to say that it's because he's black, but you know what I mean. Zimmerman was on neighborhood watch, and there was a shady character in his neighborhood. While he was doing nothing wrong, can you blame him for his suspicion?
 
  • #112
D H said:
This case should never have gone to trial as second degree murder. Classical prosecutorial excess.
The way you phrased that, I can only half agree: IMO the case should not have gone to trial at all. The problem faced by the prosecution in choosing the charges is that the charges have to fit the theory about what happened. If Zimmerman is a racist who hunted down a black man to kill, that really is 2nd degree murder. But the evidence just doesn't support that and the prosecution's case fell apart due to the clear evidence that Zimmerman was on the bottom, so they threw-in involuntary manslaughter at the end as an additional possibility. But involuntary means without malice aforethought and if there was no malice, then why was the prosecution trying to hard to prove malice? I think they threw up a hail mary at the end that probably hurt more than helped.
 
  • #113
^Zimmerman claims he was on the ground being beaten. The evidence is not consistent with that. Zimmerman's injuries were insignificant, Martin's has no offensive injuries, blood splatter was not consistent Zimmerman's version, with it is difficult to draw a gun and shoot someone who is onto of you beating you. Even if it happened as Zimmerman describes we have B walking home doing nothing wrong, A mentally ill engaging in vigilante fetish play, A stalkes B in a car, A chases B on foot with gun, B in fear for his like "attacks for no reason" (in fact if there was any attack the reason was fear of death), A despite martial arts training and instigating the attack gets a boo boo, A shoots child dead, months later idiots celebrate. That is a very inclusive definition of self defense. Maybe Zimmerman should not have been convicted, but either way he should be ashamed.


To everyone of legal age now is the time to get tattoo of
$$\large{\mathbb{Z}}$$
on your forehead
surely in five years it will still seem like a good idea
 
  • #114
KC_Smallz said:
I myself am not racist, but do know that the likely hood of a young black male wearing his hood up in a wealthy neighborhood being up to no good is very high. Not to say that it's because he's black, but you know what I mean. Zimmerman was on neighborhood watch, and there was a shady character in his neighborhood. While he was doing nothing wrong, can you blame him for his suspicion?
Zimmerman wasn't on watch that night. It was raining, of course the kid had his hood up. Do you know anything about this case?
 
  • #115
lurflurf said:
Maybe Zimmerman should not have been convicted, but either way he should be ashamed.
These kinds of ill-fated deaths are not uncommon by any means of course because people of various ages are killed all the time; the media certainly glorified this case like crazy to the point of inciting needless riots across the country. But what does it matter in the end; it won't bring the kid back to life. I can't imagine being that kid's parents.
 
  • #116
lugita15 said:
Attached is the portion of the jury instructions dealing with self-defense, so you have some context.
EDIT: Wow, it looks like I missed the very next sentence: "However, if from the evidence you are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that George Zimmerman was not justified in the use of deadly force, you should find him guilty if all the elements of the charge have been proved." So it's just the usual burden of proof for the prosecution.
I do indeed read it the same way you do. That surprises me. I was under the impression that self defense was typically an affirmative defense, but like you said it logically can't be both at the same time. Ie, a 25% chance it was self defense means only a 75% chance it wasn't, which isn't beyond a reasonable doubt.
I don't think there is any precise cutoff for reasonable. In most cases one would not be able to assign a numerical chance. A 25% chance is certainly reasonable. A 1% chance might even be reasonable, but would result in few convictions.
You are correct and I was just using it for illustrative purposes. Still, I'd think 90% would probably be a good standard. At 99% you start getting into some wild theories to fill the last 1%.
 
  • #117
Evo said:
Zimmerman wasn't on watch that night. It was raining, of course the kid had his hood up. Do you know anything about this case?

If you're on neighborhood watch (at least where I'm from) you're always "on watch." I did know it was raining, which makes sense. All I'm saying is see both sides. Trayvon didn't deserve to die. But I also don't think Zimmerman deserves abuse for make a spurt of the moment eat or be eaten decision. Was it the wrong one, yes. Did he try to kill him? That really depends on whose story you believe.
 
  • #118
KC_Smallz said:
If you're on neighborhood watch (at least where I'm from) you're always "on watch." I did know it was raining, which makes sense. All I'm saying is see both sides. Trayvon didn't deserve to die. But I also don't think Zimmerman deserves abuse for make a spurt of the moment eat or be eaten decision. Was it the wrong one, yes. Did he try to kill him? That really depends on whose story you believe.
I agree. The sad thing is that if Zimmerman had followed his neighborhood watch rules, he would have reported it and then gone home. The rules clearly state not to get involved, not to pursue. The Martins have an iron clad wrongful death suit, IMO, based on Zimmerman's actions. Perhaps that was all this should have been, taking the Florida law into account.
 
  • #119
Evo said:
I agree. The sad thing is that if Zimmerman had followed his neighborhood watch rules, he would have reported it and then gone home. The rules clearly state not to get involved, not to pursue.

Yes, he shouldn't have. I just don't see race as a motive. Very sad situation. Although I personally agree with the verdict I immensely sympathize with the Martin family. I can't imagine how difficult their situation is.
 
  • #120
Evo said:
The 911 calls from witnesses say that two men were arguing, then started to wrestle and that one started to scream for help and was shot. Listen to these calls. There is not one person saying that one was beating the other.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/03/what-happened-trayvon-martin-explained
Evo, you just can't take a March article from Mother Jones (!) at face value. The media is *lying to you* and you are buying it. At trial, that just isn't how it went:
Two witnesses called by the prosecution today described George Zimmerman as being on the losing end of a fight with Trayvon Martin in the moments before Zimmerman shot the Florida teenager.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/george-zim...tion-witnesses/story?id=19517236#.UeTYFfnVD9U
Did you read the experts testimony on his lack of injuries that I posted?
Yes, I did. She said the injuries were not life threatening. You do understand that the injuries don't have to be life threatening in order for Zimmerman to feel his life is threatened, right?
Zimmerman's injuries could be that he was punched in the nose and fell backwards and hit his head.
Could be, yes. Is "could be" good enough to get a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt?
Zimmerman's injuries were very minimal, not at all representative of a beating.
I've bumped my head a number of times without drawing blood and still felt like i got my bell rung. I can't see considering a bump on the head that is hard enough to draw blood to not be considered "a beating".
http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/...man-medical-examiner-20130702,0,1358679.story

Lets not assume that Zimmerman is telling the truth when live calls to 911 don't corroborate his story.
I'm really not clear on what you are claiming there, Evo. Qualitative labeling is not how you make a case: The fact of the matter is that Zimmerman had multiple wounds sustained at the hands of Martin, who was in a position of dominance. That's completely consistent with the factual content of Zimmerman's testimony.
 
  • #121
russ_watters said:
Evo, you just can't take a March article from Mother Jones (!) at face value. The media is *lying to you* and you are buying it. At trial, that just isn't how it went:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/george-zim...tion-witnesses/story?id=19517236#.UeTYFfnVD9U
Yes, I did. She said the injuries were not life threatening. You do understand that the injuries don't have to be life threatening in order for Zimmerman to feel his life is threatened, right?
Could be, yes. Is "could be" good enough to get a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt? I've bumped my head a number of times without drawing blood and still felt like i got my bell rung. I can't see considering a bump on the head that is hard enough to draw blood to not be considered "a beating".
I'm really not clear on what you are claiming there, Evo. Qualitative labeling is not how you make a case: The fact of the matter is that Zimmerman had multiple wounds sustained at the hands of Martin, who was in a position of dominance. That's completely consistent with the factual content of Zimmerman's testimony.

This is why I think the verdict was correct. He shot him out of self defense.
 
  • #122
Evo said:
Do you deny that if he had followed the rules that nothing would have happened and that kid would still be alive? That's what this is about...
If Zimmerman had shown better judgement, Martin would still be alive. And if Martin had shown better judgement, he would still be alive. But neither of those things automatically mean a crime was committed.
 
  • #123
russ_watters said:
Evo, you just can't take a March article from Mother Jones (!) at face value. The media is *lying to you* and you are buying it. At trial, that just isn't how it went:
Uhm, Russ, did you listen to the 911 calls? That's what I posted it for. I didn't post it for the article. They don't corroborate later "testimony". It has nothing to do with media reports, it's the live calls from eye witnesses as it happened.

The things said later don't match the live calls.

Listen to the live calls.
 
  • #124
Evo said:
The 911 calls from witnesses say that two men were arguing, then started to wrestle and that one started to scream for help and was shot. Listen to these calls. There is not one person saying that one was beating the other.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/03/what-happened-trayvon-martin-explained

If you look at the pictures of Zimmerman after he was taken in that night, he had a tiny scratch on the bridge of his nose and two very tiny superficial scratches on the back of his head. Did you read the experts testimony on his lack of injuries that I posted?

Zimmerman's injuries could be that he was punched in the nose and fell backwards and hit his head. Zimmerman's injuries were very minimal, not at all representative of a beating.

This doesn't look very insignificant: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:George_Zimmerman_front_of_head.jpg
How does that look minimal to you?

According to the wikipedia page on the trial itself, the EMT on the scene, Stacy Livingston, testified that
she treated Zimmerman at the scene, who had a swollen, bleeding nose and two cuts on the back of his head. When [she was] asked if Zimmerman should have been concerned with his medical well-being because of his injuries, Livingston said, "Possibly."

Dr. Vincent Di Maio, a forensic pathologist and gunshot wound expert, testified that
Zimmerman had at least six injuries from the struggle: two head lacerations, two wounds to his temples and wounds on his nose and forehead. Di Maio said those injuries were consistent with Zimmerman having his head banged into a sidewalk, and that such injuries can be dangerous. Di Maio stated it's possible to receive trauma without visible wounds, testifying that, "You can get severe trauma to the head without external injuries, actually."' Di Maio said Zimmerman's nose may have been fractured, which was consistent with Zimmerman being punched in the nose.

Also, John Good's testimony:
Jonathan (John) Good, a neighbor at the retreat, testified that he heard a faint noise outside and he could not tell the direction. As the noises grew louder, he looked outside through his blinds. He opened his door and looked out and saw "some sort of tussle" where the participants were on the ground. He called out "what's going on" and "stop it" as he started to step outside. Good said the participant wearing "dark or black" was on top, and the person wearing "red or white" was on the bottom, and the person on the bottom had lighter skin. He described the person on top had their legs straddling the person on the bottom, who was face up.

He could not hear any pounding or hitting, but did see "downward arm motion, multiple times" that "looked like punches" from the person on top. He heard a "help" from the person on the bottom, and Good said "cut it out", and that he was going to call 9-1-1. He went back inside to call 9-1-1, but he heard a gunshot before the call was completed. Good's call to 911 was played for the jury.

It sounds like he's describing Trayvon on top of Zimmerman either punching him of slamming his head into the ground, which seems entirely consistent with Zimmerman's story.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_of_George_Zimmerman
 
  • #125
lurflurf said:
^Zimmerman claims he was on the ground being beaten. The evidence is not consistent with that.
False.
Zimmerman's injuries were insignificant...
Er, well, "insignificant" is qualitative. The fact is, he had injuries.
Martin's has no offensive injuries...
False. That's another lie often repeated in the media. Here's the truth:
The medical examiner found two injuries on Martin’s body: the fatal gunshot wound on his chest and broken skin on his knuckles, according to WFTV.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...uckles-report-article-1.1079190#ixzz2ZBTz9clE
...blood splatter was not consistent Zimmerman's version...
The lack of blood spatter is not telling evidence considering it was raining when the incident happened.
...with it is difficult to draw a gun and shoot someone who is onto of you beating you.
But not impossible.
 
  • #126
russ_watters said:
If Zimmerman had shown better judgement, Martin would still be alive. And if Martin had shown better judgement, he would still be alive. But neither of those things automatically mean a crime was committed.
Martin was walking home when some nutbag self appointed vigilante decided not to wait for the real police. He didn't even have any reason to call the police because as it has been pointed out, only "suspicious" behavior is to be reported, such as peering into windows. He was wrong to even report Martin's presence. I can't believe that you are defending that nuts actions. Are you wanting us to take you seriously? On what grounds do you think Zimmerman's actions were warranted? Based on the neighborhood watch rules. I want to know.
 
Last edited:
  • #127
Well there'll probably be another media circus over this:

776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.—
(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,
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0776/0776.html

I don't know what to make of it. I guess Florida won't entertain a civil suit .
 
  • #128
Evo said:
Uhm, Russ, did you listen to the 911 calls? That's what I posted it for. I didn't post it for the article. They don't corroborate later "testimony". It has nothing to do with media reports, it's the live calls from eye witnesses as it happened.

The things said later don't match the live calls.

Listen to the live calls.
Ok... in that case then you are willfully, selectively ignoring eyewitness testimony during the trial. You're right: I can't blame that on Mother Jones.

Just to be clear: are you claiming the only available eyewitness testimony came from the 911 calls? Are you saying there were no additional witnesses and that those who called 911 reported absolutely everything they saw in the 911 calls?
 
  • #129
Evo said:
I can't believe that you are defending that nuts actions. Are you wanting us to take you seriously? On what grounds do you think Zimmerman's actions were warranted? Based on the rules. I want to know.
:confused::confused: Did you not read what I wrote? I said Zimmerman showed poor judgement. He should not have gotten out of his car and followed Martin. Are you not able to compartmentalize the different actions Zimmerman took and judge them separately? Don't lump me into that black and white world.
 
  • #130
russ_watters said:
:confused::confused: Did you not read what I wrote? I said Zimmerman showed poor judgement. He should not have gotten out of his car and followed Martin. Are you not able to compartmentalize the different actions Zimmerman took and judge them separately? Don't lump me into that black and white world.
So you agree that this whole incident is the result of willfull defiance of the neighborhood watch rules, and that Zimmerman acted wrongfully.

This has nothing to do with the court case. Just that Zimmerman is at fault for causing the entire incident.
 
  • #131
daveyrocket said:
How does that look minimal to you?
Yep minimal. If you had to sustain Zimmermans's injuries or Martin's which would you prefer? I wish Zimmerman had more injuries, Martin might still be alive.
 
  • #132
Evo said:
So you agree that this whole incident is the result of willfull defiance of the neighborhood watch rules, and that Zimmerman acted wrongfully.

This has nothing to do with the court case. Just that Zimmerman is at fault for causing the entire incident.

Zimmerman is guilty of being annoying. He's a self-appointed neighborhood watch guy with no real training. Even your better neighborhood watch groups aren't official in any way. They can receive some helpful tips from real police departments who certainly fear Zimmerman-Martin type incidents as much as they appreciate the help from neighborhood watch groups.

Still, it isn't a crime to ask neighborhood residents what they're doing and where they're going. If he's doing this on dark, rainy night and I don't know he's the neighborhood watch guy, I might suspect drugs or mental illness and call the police to come check on him for his own good, but it's still not a crime.

I have my doubts as to whether Zimmerman really backed off when reprimanded by the police dispatcher. I think Zimmerman knew the dispatcher had no authority and could only suggest. In fact, a few parts of Zimmerman's story were questionable even if the evidence backed up most of his story.

To find him guilty of manslaughter, I think they had to prove how the confrontation started and how it went from verbal to physical. They didn't do that. I know as little about how the confrontation started after the trial as I did before the trial.

The trial did show that Martin was winning the confrontation and the trial did show that Zimmerman almost certainly shot Martin while Martin was still leaning over Zimmerman. Unless you can prove Zimmerman started the physical confrontation, that's self defense. (He's defending himself even if he did start the confrontation, but you don't get off scott free just because you started something and had it go horribly wrong.)

As to how Zimmerman got his gun out? Well, he obviously did. In fact, one part of Zimmerman's story that I had trouble believing was the part where Zimmerman thought he'd missed Martin with his shot. That suggested some separation between Martin and Zimmerman. Then the forensic evidence showed Martin was almost certainly shot while still on top of Zimmerman, which made one wonder how Zimmerman could have possibly thought he missed? If both the evidence and Zimmerman's story are true, Zimmerman probably did have trouble getting his gun out and probably wasn't even sure he was pointing it at Martin when he pulled the trigger. After some thought, it made Zimmerman's story even more believable.
 
  • #133
It comes down to whether or not Travon Martin was defending himself, i.e., he was 'standing his ground' in an unprovoked attack by an armed assailant, Zimmerman. If some stranger pursued me in my neighborhood and became more aggressive, I might be inclined to 'defend' myself if I felt I could not get away and call the police.

It seems there is agreement that Zimmerman initiated the altercation, whatever the reason/motive.

Zimmerman was not authorized to take the action he did. It was only necessary to notify the police and have them deal with it. It would seem Zimmerman crossed the line and forced an action that deprived Martin of due process and ultimately his life.
 
  • #134
It's interesting to compare this case to another recent judgement in Florida, where a person who *didn't* kill (or even hurt) anyone with a warning shot got 20 years.

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/soci...rs-firing-warning-shot-while-george-zimmerman

The case was clearly different, but the most glaring thing to me is that the defendant was a black woman. Didn't matter that the man she was trying to warn off was her abusive husband against whom she had a restraining order. She still got 20 years, while Zimmerman walks free after killing a black kid.

Sure, we can argue legalistic semantics about how the two cases cannot be compared, but ask yourself this: when you look at the two verdicts, do you really *feel* the cause of justice is being served down there in Florida? I sure as heck don't. :rolleyes:
 
  • #135
So the story of Zimmerman provoking Martin is what exactly?

Zimmerman, who was a racist, negro-hating white/Hispanic supremacist, armed with a loaded gun, stalked Martin and... what? He was armed with a gun but picked a fist-fight with his "prey" and then was losing? A guy with a loaded gun, stalking another individual and then picking a fist fight but not even landing a punch on the other person, and not even taking the gun out until he was losing the fight?

How did Zimmerman force Martin to attack him?

lurflurf said:
Yep minimal. If you had to sustain Zimmermans's injuries or Martin's which would you prefer? I wish Zimmerman had more injuries, Martin might still be alive.

No, not minimal. Head injuries have potential to be very serious. Comparison of their injuries is irrelevant. The question is did Zimmerman have reason to believe that his life was in danger. The jury thought that he did. If Zimmerman didn't have a gun, he might have suffered brain damage or death, and then Martin would probably be in jail for assault or possibly second degree murder.
 
  • #136
Curious3141 said:
http://www.opposingviews.com/i/soci...rs-firing-warning-shot-while-george-zimmerman
Sure, we can argue legalistic semantics about how the two cases cannot be compared, but ask yourself this: when you look at the two verdicts, do you really *feel* the cause of justice is being served down there in Florida? I sure as heck don't. :rolleyes:

That case really about mandatory minimums for gun crimes not 'stand your ground'. She was offered a 3 year sentence but turned it down and was hit by the mandatory minimum times when found guilty.
 
  • #137
Curious3141 said:
It's interesting to compare this case to another recent judgement in Florida, where a person who *didn't* kill (or even hurt) anyone with a warning shot got 20 years.

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/soci...rs-firing-warning-shot-while-george-zimmerman

The case was clearly different, but the most glaring thing to me is that the defendant was a black woman. Didn't matter that the man she was trying to warn off was her abusive husband against whom she had a restraining order. She still got 20 years, while Zimmerman walks free after killing a black kid.

Sure, we can argue legalistic semantics about how the two cases cannot be compared, but ask yourself this: when you look at the two verdicts, do you really *feel* the cause of justice is being served down there in Florida? I sure as heck don't. :rolleyes:

Well, the wikipedia description of that case:
In May 2012, Corey prosecuted 31-year-old Marissa Alexander and obtained a mandatory minimum sentence of 20 years in prison. Alexander had a restraining order issued against her ex husband at the time and, during the day of the incident, had returned to their old home to collect clothes and some possessions thinking he was not there. Her ex husband was there, with their children, and they began to argue. After the argument became heated, Marissa Alexander returned to her car, picked up her firearm, and returned inside the house where she threatened him with the handgun before firing a warning shot into the wall. She was charged with reckless endangerment of children and threatening with a deadly weapon. Despite being offered a 3 year sentence and later a probational sentence with time served, Alexander chose to attempt a SYG defence at trial. She was found guilty and according to Floridas gun laws (where 10 years can be added for committing a crime while carrying a firearm, with an added 10 years for discharging a firearm during a crime) was sentenced to 20 years.

What stands out for me here is that she left the house, went to her car, got her gun and came back in and threatened her ex-husband by firing a warning shot, while her three children were in the house. The charges of reckless endangerment of children and threatening with a deadly weapon seem appropriate.

What really stands out for me is that there are a lot of news sources that seem to think it's okay to leave out important details of a case in order to write a sensational article about racism. And what really really stands out for me is how people think they can read a few articles on the internet and think that they can make better judgments about cases than a jury who has been presented with the entire body of relevant evidence.
 
  • #138
Curious3141 said:
It's interesting to compare this case to another recent judgement in Florida, where a person who *didn't* kill (or even hurt) anyone with a warning shot got 20 years.

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/soci...rs-firing-warning-shot-while-george-zimmerman

The case was clearly different, but the most glaring thing to me is that the defendant was a black woman. Didn't matter that the man she was trying to warn off was her abusive husband against whom she had a restraining order. She still got 20 years, while Zimmerman walks free after killing a black kid.

Sure, we can argue legalistic semantics about how the two cases cannot be compared, but ask yourself this: when you look at the two verdicts, do you really *feel* the cause of justice is being served down there in Florida? I sure as heck don't. :rolleyes:

When Iread the title of that news story, you know what I think? I think, "Gee, I'm glad I'm getting an unbiased, full account of the story here. Yup, that's what's happening"

Or maybe not. Anyway, here's the other side of the story
http://www.scribd.com/doc/89763383/States-Motion-in-Opposition-of-Defendants-Motion-for-Immunity
 
  • #139
daveyrocket said:
If Zimmerman didn't have a gun, he might have suffered brain damage or death, and then Martin would probably be in jail for assault or possibly second degree murder.
Possibly not. We'll never know what might have transpired had Zimmerman ended up being the one who died, but I suspect Martin would also have been found not guilty on the grounds of self defense.
 
  • #140
I don't have that same suspicion. I think that if Zimmerman didn't have a gun, Martin would have had a much more difficult time showing in court that he had reason to believe that his life was in danger, considering that before he was shot the only injury M sustained was on his knuckles from beating Z.
 
<h2>1. What does "Not Applicable" mean?</h2><p>"Not Applicable" is a term used to indicate that something is not relevant or does not apply to a particular situation or context. It is often used in forms or surveys as an option for questions that do not pertain to the individual.</p><h2>2. When should I use "Not Applicable"?</h2><p>"Not Applicable" should be used when a question or statement does not apply to you or your situation. It is important to be honest and accurate when selecting this option, as it helps to provide clear and accurate data.</p><h2>3. Can I leave a question blank instead of selecting "Not Applicable"?</h2><p>It is best to select "Not Applicable" if the question does not apply to you. Leaving a question blank may cause confusion and affect the accuracy of the data being collected. If you are unsure, you can always ask for clarification or provide a brief explanation in the comments section.</p><h2>4. Is "Not Applicable" the same as "Not Available"?</h2><p>No, "Not Applicable" and "Not Available" have different meanings. "Not Applicable" means that something is not relevant or does not apply, while "Not Available" means that something is not accessible or not obtainable.</p><h2>5. Why is "Not Applicable" sometimes abbreviated as "N/A"?</h2><p>"Not Applicable" is often abbreviated as "N/A" for brevity and convenience. It is a commonly used abbreviation in forms and surveys to indicate that a question does not apply to the individual. However, it is important to ensure that the meaning of "N/A" is clearly defined in the context it is being used in.</p>

1. What does "Not Applicable" mean?

"Not Applicable" is a term used to indicate that something is not relevant or does not apply to a particular situation or context. It is often used in forms or surveys as an option for questions that do not pertain to the individual.

2. When should I use "Not Applicable"?

"Not Applicable" should be used when a question or statement does not apply to you or your situation. It is important to be honest and accurate when selecting this option, as it helps to provide clear and accurate data.

3. Can I leave a question blank instead of selecting "Not Applicable"?

It is best to select "Not Applicable" if the question does not apply to you. Leaving a question blank may cause confusion and affect the accuracy of the data being collected. If you are unsure, you can always ask for clarification or provide a brief explanation in the comments section.

4. Is "Not Applicable" the same as "Not Available"?

No, "Not Applicable" and "Not Available" have different meanings. "Not Applicable" means that something is not relevant or does not apply, while "Not Available" means that something is not accessible or not obtainable.

5. Why is "Not Applicable" sometimes abbreviated as "N/A"?

"Not Applicable" is often abbreviated as "N/A" for brevity and convenience. It is a commonly used abbreviation in forms and surveys to indicate that a question does not apply to the individual. However, it is important to ensure that the meaning of "N/A" is clearly defined in the context it is being used in.

Similar threads

Replies
45
Views
6K
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • General Discussion
Replies
9
Views
5K
Replies
64
Views
15K
  • General Discussion
Replies
5
Views
4K
Replies
28
Views
7K
  • Programming and Computer Science
Replies
29
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
4K
Replies
15
Views
7K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Back
Top