Zimmerman vs. DMX - Boxing Match?

[Woodruff]

Ahh, so many people expecting Zimmerman to be found guilty because those people had already convicted him long before the first witness was ever called.

Expectations=planned disappointments.

Also, emotion, bias, lack of understanding of the law and judicial process, embrace of unethical prosecution practices and a complete inability to see all sides of the incident help contribute to those silly expectations that have led to such disappointment and anger. With a healthy does of coercion from political entities using said people as pawns.

Sad, really.

As I've already stated several times, I'm not disappointed by the verdict...I think it was probably the right one. I am simply highly annoyed at the idea that SOME FOLKS seem to be trying to spread that because he was found "not guilty", that means he wasn't significantly culpable in the situation.

[patches70]

Spoken like a pawn on the other side of the equation.

And what side might that be? The side that simply thinks the judicial process should be left to run it's course?

I made no preconceived judgments. The truth would come out in court, that's what court is for, to figure out what happened and assign punishment if necessary.

but I did think he would be held accountable for initiating this confrontation and use of deadly force.

Did you understand the judges instructions to the jury?
Do you understand the legal use of deadly force?
How can you think Zimmerman would be held accountable for what confrontation? Was the confrontation that you think Zimmerman did unlawful?
What exactly was this confrontation you speak of? And what exactly was unlawful that Zimmerman did? Mind you, point to the specific laws in which Zimmerman broke. Was it illegal for him to have a concealed weapon? Was it illegal for him to get out of his truck? Was it illegal of him to call the police about a (in his mind) a suspicious person? Would it have been illegal for him to ask Martin what he was doing?
Was it legal of Martin to punch Zimmerman in the face?
Was it legal of Martin to get atop of Zimmerman and beat him "MMA style"?
Was it legal of Martin to slam Zimmerman's head into the concrete?
Was Zimmerman in genuine fear for his life at that point?

All those questions (and more!) were asked, and answered, in the trial. It's not my fault people don't accept the answers to those questions after a preponderance of evidence was looked over. Those were all questions no one really knew the answers to until the questions were explored in a court of law.

My side is that those questions have to be looked at and examined first before any judgement of any merit or legality can ever be made in the first place.

My side is the side of law and order, so what's the other side of the equation? Mob justice? Who is for that?

I am simply highly annoyed at the idea that SOME FOLKS seem to be trying to spread that because he was found "not guilty", that means he wasn't significantly culpable in the situation.

Then he was charged with the wrong crime?
What crime should have Zimmerman been charged to hold him accountable for his culpability in the situation?
Can that culpability be further pursued by the Martin family through tort proceedings?
If so, (the answer to that is "yes"), then what are you upset about?
The Martin family will eventually proceed with a wrongful death suit, in which Zimmerman's culpability will be reviewed. So will Martin's as well, so one should be prepared for that. If the two parties are found equally culpable, then I'm pretty certain that you'll be disappointed with that as well. But, time will tell. We'll all see soon enough, I'm sure those who have been pushing this incident for their own agendas will make certain of that.

[lokisgal]

http://www.nydailynews.com/man-shoots-t ... 9345#bmb=1


well that didnt take long did it...

[lokisgal]

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-j ... ershare_fb


and yet more

[thegreekdog]

There was literally another case in Florida where a black woman received 20 year in jail for firing warning shots with her gun at her husband despite her claiming the stand your ground laws.

That's what happens when you have trials... you get different verdicts and different punishments. Perhaps you have a better way?

Actually, the idea is that we WON'T get different verdicts and different punishments...that's what precedence is supposed to resolve. Even if one of those people is a black female instead of a white male.

Actually, we aboslutely should get different verdicts and punishments and precedent is not supposed to give us the same verdicts and punishments. Your understanding of the legal system is lacking, but if your ideal legal system is that the judicial system will render the same decision based upon prior, similar decisions, your ideal legal system is lacking too. Very disturbing.

I find it disturbing that you believe it's justice to have a black female sent to prison for 20 years for INTENTIONALLY NOT killing someone while a white male is found not guilty when he DID kill someone. Of course the situations aren't identical, but they are absolutely similar enough for that disparity to not be found under the heading of "that's what happens when you have trials...you get different verdicts and different punishments". Neither one avoided the situation that they had a definite hand in creating. Of course, the black female was an abused woman (at the hands of the man she fired the warning shot for), while the white male was someone policing his neighborhood. Again, the message seems to be that if you're going to be in any situation, kill first and ask questions later. Oh, and don't be black.

I don't know enough about the facts and circumstances to know why the woman was convicted and sent to prison for 20 years. Iliad did not provide that detail nor a link to a news story. Perhaps she had a prior criminal record. Perhaps there was more or additional evidence indicating that she was not protected under Florida law. That's why you can't treat situations identically because there are different facts, different circumstances that dictate what laws apply; further, there are different attorneys, juries, and judges.

Your last two sentences are absurd nonsense. Be less concerned about white man (who is Hispanic by the way... if we're calling our president black) killing a black man and more concerned with the thousands of black men killing other black men.

[Army of GOD]

http://www.nydailynews.com/man-shoots-teen-loud-music-article-1.1209345#bmb=1


well that didnt take long did it...

what in the good f*ck is wrong with people.

[thegreekdog]

Expectations=planned disappointments.

Also, emotion, bias, lack of understanding of the law and judicial process, embrace of unethical prosecution practices and a complete inability to see all sides of the incident help contribute to those silly expectations that have led to such disappointment and anger. With a healthy does of coercion from political entities using said people as pawns.

Spoken like a pawn on the other side of the equation.

Expectations? None, beyond not expecting a murder charge to stand up in court, period. There was no evidence to support it, but I did think he would be held accountable for initiating this confrontation and use of deadly force.

Now that I've seen the post verdict interview by the prosecution, I have to wonder what they were even thinking? She stands at the mic in what looks like a black evening gown & jewelry and speaks to the press as if she were accepting an lifetime achievement award. Bizarre.

I knew a guy who went into a bad neighborhood at night; he was robbed and beaten. The police told him he couldn't press charges because he initiated the confrontation by being in a bad neighborhood. Yeah, yeah, I know... not the same thing. I'm still having trouble with people inferring that Trayvon Martin was justified in beating up a person for following him.

[Doc_Brown]

Allow me to just express my thankfulness for the judicial system we have in the USA. It's by no means perfect, and it sometimes results in unexpected outcomes. But what I see here and elsewhere in the media circus that is the Zimmerman case is a willful blindness to certain facts. Certain claims about Zimmerman's actions and Martin's innocence keep getting reiterated despite evidence to the contrary. All the evidence was presented at the trial, and a jury of six people accepted as impartial by both the prosecution and defense analyzed, debated, and discussed all the evidence at length before coming to the conclusion that they did. They did not reach a snap judgement of either innocent or guilty based on a 30 second soundbite from their favorite entertainment news channel.

Bear in mind that the judicial system is based on the doctrine of "innocent until proven guilty." Zimmerman was not required to justify his actions or prove himself innocent. The standard of justice here requires that the prosecution prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman acted illegally and with malice. It was legally sufficient for Zimmerman's team to raise doubts as to the veracity of the claims. I followed the trial off and on to a reasonable degree. I don't recall any evidence that the prosecution wished to bring up that was denied. Can anyone point to any additional facts helpful to the prosecution that might have changed the verdict? On the other hand, there were multiple additional facts and pieces of evidence that the defense wished to include (such as pictures on Martin's cell phones of what appeared to be him holding a gun, evidence of Martin engaging in fights, etc...). Actually, I just remembered there was one thing the prosecution wished to include: They had an audio expert or two that claimed it was not Zimmerman's voice screaming for help on the tape. The defense had another expert that claimed it was and another that claimed that the audio analysis methods were flawed.

None the less, I tried to withhold judgement leading up to the trial, especially once it became clear the rhetoric was becoming way too politicized for reasonable discussion. I was surprised when they opted to charge him with second degree murder. I thought all along that manslaughter was the most likely criminal conviction, but once the evidence started coming out in the trial, I wasn't even sure if that was supported, especially given the legal definition and the instructions given to the jury. Let me also be clear that in a similar case where a black man confronts a white teenager who then proceeds to knock the man to the ground and beat him up only to get shot, I would sincerely hope that the black man is likewise found to have justifiably acted in self defense. Maybe I'm just an optimist to believe that would happen and to assume most people are not racist unless they prove otherwise. I'm sure if you start with the assumption that people from the opposite side of the political spectrum are inherently evil (racist, hate America, hate women, hate the rich, etc...) then you'll expect the opposite. But I'd also say that those purveyors of hate are exactly what is wrong with the country now and are the very root of political and social dysfunction.

As an aside, I know essentially nothing about the case of the abused woman threatening her husband with the gun. Obviously that case didn't become national news, and the trial didn't receive wall-to-wall coverage. I would point out that a jury convicted the woman of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, which caries a minimum sentence of 20 years in Florida. So she received the minimum sentence she could for that conviction. As with the Zimmerman case, since I don't know all the facts, I have to assume that the jury knows a lot more about the case than I and came to a reasonable judgement on the basis of the evidence. It would be the height of arrogance to assume that on the basis of a 5 minute skim of one news article about the case I know better than a jury that sat through many hours of testimony and discussion about the facts of the case. So I withhold judgement.

[thegreekdog]

I would point out that a jury convicted the woman of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, which caries a minimum sentence of 20 years in Florida. So she received the minimum sentence she could for that conviction.

Woodruff - This is what would happen if we "treated similar crimes the same way" - we'd get mandatory minimum sentences. Which, hey!, we already have.

[rishaed]

As my mother always said,
There is usually two sides to the story and the truth is usually somewhere in between.

[rishaed]

I would point out that a jury convicted the woman of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, which caries a minimum sentence of 20 years in Florida. So she received the minimum sentence she could for that conviction.

Woodruff - This is what would happen if we "treated similar crimes the same way" - we'd get mandatory minimum sentences. Which, hey!, we already have.

A point here is that precedents don't expire
So the ruling by the Supreme Court back when Andrew Jackson was President about how the Cherokee get to keep there land, well sorry all you people living in the South they get their land back.
And All you blacks living in the south, don't forget precedents set before the Civil Rights Movement. So don't be angry when a racist young white sees a black guy and a white girl kissing and shoots the black then goes free off of "precedent." Our court system cannot work if rulings are based off of precedent. It allows the juries, the judge, and the prosecutor to ignore the "Innocent until proven guilty doctrine" our legal system is founded on. Instead its "Innocent unless Precedent states otherwise"
Not being racist here but going to the extreme to make my point about Precedent.
Each case must be tried individually, and without bias.
My opinion is that the Verdict is correct, however the death is the fault of both parties. Martin wasn't an ignorant teenager who didn't know his options, and Zimmerman likewise. No clue how old Martin was but if he was 18 or older (voting age) then he is also legally an adult despite is youth.

[notyou2]

http://www.nydailynews.com/man-shoots-teen-loud-music-article-1.1209345#bmb=1


well that didnt take long did it...

Sad isn't it?

Apparently it is now legal to shoot non-white children in Florida if you feel the least bit threatened.

[Teflon Kris]

Are you sure you guys can cope with having more than 2 choices.

Help, help, Merica, we need 2 choices, help, we have too many

We want your wonderful 2-choice freedom too

[jay_a2j]

How did Zimmerman get a broken nose? How did he get a cut on the back of his head?

Just wondering if anyone knows.

Assuming that is true, could it be that he attacked the kid he was fucking stalking, and the kid defended himself?

You guys are clowns.

Assuming that is true?????? THEY HAVE PICS OF IT!!!!!!! Could it be that it happened just like the witnesses said it happened??? WOW!


You REALLY need to watch this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZX197OIyTU

[rishaed]

I got a laugh out of your vid, not because hes wrong but because hes exactly right.....
I got a laugh out of the Jon Stewart daily show, because its comedy for idiots at its height.
That and the fact that what the real issue is is that Obama found something to distract the general public from his spying issues, (britain has probably done the same thing by now....) Moscow has effectively issued a gag order for Snowden if he wants to stay in Russia...

[Phatscotty]

http://www.nydailynews.com/man-shoots-teen-loud-music-article-1.1209345#bmb=1


well that didnt take long did it...

Sad isn't it?

What? That nobody gives a single crap about the 94% of blacks who are murdered by other blacks, and only care about the 6% of blacks killed by non-blacks?

[Phatscotty]

http://www.nydailynews.com/man-shoots-teen-loud-music-article-1.1209345#bmb=1


well that didnt take long did it...

what in the good f*ck is wrong with people.

Sure it wasn't a drug deal gone wrong? Cuz you don't usually report that part to the police or the media. You have to make something up....

The thing that is missing in this case and the Trayvon Martin case is respect for elders and a respect for the peace of others.

[Jdsizzleslice]

http://www.nydailynews.com/man-shoots-teen-loud-music-article-1.1209345#bmb=1


well that didnt take long did it...

This is ridiculous. This guy should get the death penalty.

[Woodruff]

I am simply highly annoyed at the idea that SOME FOLKS seem to be trying to spread that because he was found "not guilty", that means he wasn't significantly culpable in the situation.

Then he was charged with the wrong crime?

That's a good question. Certainly, the prosecution over-reached themselves in a way that I find astounding. As to whether he should have been charged at all is even questionable in my opinion. I think a good argument could be made either way.

What crime should have Zimmerman been charged to hold him accountable for his culpability in the situation?

Culpability in creating the situation isn't necessarily criminal...you realize that, right?

Can that culpability be further pursued by the Martin family through tort proceedings?

Possibly...I honestly don't know the answer to that. I've heard that in Florida, an individual is free from civil court if they are found not guilty in criminal court, but I have no idea if that's actually true or not.

If so, (the answer to that is "yes"), then what are you upset about?

I thought I mentioned that. <smile>

The Martin family will eventually proceed with a wrongful death suit, in which Zimmerman's culpability will be reviewed. So will Martin's as well, so one should be prepared for that. If the two parties are found equally culpable, then I'm pretty certain that you'll be disappointed with that as well.

Why would I necessarily be disappointed in that?

[Woodruff]

There was literally another case in Florida where a black woman received 20 year in jail for firing warning shots with her gun at her husband despite her claiming the stand your ground laws.

That's what happens when you have trials... you get different verdicts and different punishments. Perhaps you have a better way?

Actually, the idea is that we WON'T get different verdicts and different punishments...that's what precedence is supposed to resolve. Even if one of those people is a black female instead of a white male.

Actually, we aboslutely should get different verdicts and punishments and precedent is not supposed to give us the same verdicts and punishments. Your understanding of the legal system is lacking, but if your ideal legal system is that the judicial system will render the same decision based upon prior, similar decisions, your ideal legal system is lacking too. Very disturbing.

I find it disturbing that you believe it's justice to have a black female sent to prison for 20 years for INTENTIONALLY NOT killing someone while a white male is found not guilty when he DID kill someone. Of course the situations aren't identical, but they are absolutely similar enough for that disparity to not be found under the heading of "that's what happens when you have trials...you get different verdicts and different punishments". Neither one avoided the situation that they had a definite hand in creating. Of course, the black female was an abused woman (at the hands of the man she fired the warning shot for), while the white male was someone policing his neighborhood. Again, the message seems to be that if you're going to be in any situation, kill first and ask questions later. Oh, and don't be black.

I don't know enough about the facts and circumstances to know why the woman was convicted and sent to prison for 20 years. Iliad did not provide that detail nor a link to a news story.

I did, however.

Your last two sentences are absurd nonsense. Be less concerned about white man (who is Hispanic by the way... if we're calling our president black) killing a black man and more concerned with the thousands of black men killing other black men.

Hispanic IS WHITE. Hispanic is not a race. Hispanic is an ethnicity. How many times must this be explained?

And no, I don't believe those two statements are absurd nonsense. I really wish they were.

[Woodruff]

Expectations=planned disappointments.

Also, emotion, bias, lack of understanding of the law and judicial process, embrace of unethical prosecution practices and a complete inability to see all sides of the incident help contribute to those silly expectations that have led to such disappointment and anger. With a healthy does of coercion from political entities using said people as pawns.

Spoken like a pawn on the other side of the equation.

Expectations? None, beyond not expecting a murder charge to stand up in court, period. There was no evidence to support it, but I did think he would be held accountable for initiating this confrontation and use of deadly force.

Now that I've seen the post verdict interview by the prosecution, I have to wonder what they were even thinking? She stands at the mic in what looks like a black evening gown & jewelry and speaks to the press as if she were accepting an lifetime achievement award. Bizarre.

I knew a guy who went into a bad neighborhood at night; he was robbed and beaten. The police told him he couldn't press charges because he initiated the confrontation by being in a bad neighborhood. Yeah, yeah, I know... not the same thing. I'm still having trouble with people inferring that Trayvon Martin was justified in beating up a person for following him.

I haven't seen those inferences...could you point to them?

[Lootifer]

http://www.nydailynews.com/man-shoots-teen-loud-music-article-1.1209345#bmb=1


well that didnt take long did it...

what in the good f*ck is wrong with people.

Sure it wasn't a drug deal gone wrong? Cuz you don't usually report that part to the police or the media. You have to make something up....

The thing that is missing in this case and the Trayvon Martin case is respect for elders and a respect for the peace of others.

Yeh and in the gas station case those kids sure got a good lesson in respect! Amirite?!

[thegreekdog]

I would point out that a jury convicted the woman of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, which caries a minimum sentence of 20 years in Florida. So she received the minimum sentence she could for that conviction.

Woodruff - This is what would happen if we "treated similar crimes the same way" - we'd get mandatory minimum sentences. Which, hey!, we already have.

A point here is that precedents don't expire
So the ruling by the Supreme Court back when Andrew Jackson was President about how the Cherokee get to keep there land, well sorry all you people living in the South they get their land back.
And All you blacks living in the south, don't forget precedents set before the Civil Rights Movement. So don't be angry when a racist young white sees a black guy and a white girl kissing and shoots the black then goes free off of "precedent." Our court system cannot work if rulings are based off of precedent. It allows the juries, the judge, and the prosecutor to ignore the "Innocent until proven guilty doctrine" our legal system is founded on. Instead its "Innocent unless Precedent states otherwise"

Precedent changes all the time. It changes when Congress or a state legislature passes a law. It changes when a court makes a decision overruling itself or a lower court.

[Lootifer]

Also question about self defense laws in the US:

Are you entitled to use lethal force in self defense when you are not threatened with lethal force (i.e. is ok mto shoot someone if they are clearly attacking you with only their bare hands)?

I know you can argue that bare hands is more than sufficient to kill someone, but lets, for arguments sake, assume that you know full well that you are not at risk of death, can you still use lethal force in self defense?

If you are, what are the limitations on this? Can you shoot someone because they swear at you (that's still technically causing harm)?

[Woodruff]

I would point out that a jury convicted the woman of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, which caries a minimum sentence of 20 years in Florida. So she received the minimum sentence she could for that conviction.

Woodruff - This is what would happen if we "treated similar crimes the same way" - we'd get mandatory minimum sentences. Which, hey!, we already have.

So your argument is that we shouldn't treat similar crimes the same way because...nothing would change if we did? Did that make sense when you typed it or am I missing something obvious?

The minimum sentence is an important point, and I'm glad Doc_Brown brought it up. Minimum sentences are a travesty of justice as well. They're akin to zero-tolerance stupidity.