Blackman shot Eight Times In The Back While Fleeing Murderous Cop

A few days ago an unarmed Black Man fleeing from a murderous cop was shot eight times in the back in North Charleston, SC. The Blackman was stopped for having a broken tail light. Beware Black Men of America. Having a broken tail light is punishable by death.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/09/us/walter-scott-shooting-video-stopped...

No votes yet

Beck and Rush are probably prepping at this very moment.

And the cop has been rightfully charged. Again, a fact based decision. The cop turned off his body camera, made no effort to pursue, moved evidence and made a false official statement. He will very likely be convicted.

Now there remains more facts still to come so it's not a slam dunk but the facts this far support the murder charge. That's how this works. Look at the facts of each case individually and make an informed decision.

MikeyA

to recognize is one simple fact. If a so-far anonymous citizen had not recorded what happened, this killing almost certainly would have been skewed to ensure that the officer would have been judged to be justified in the shooting.
Until this recording came out, the story was that the unarmed victim attacked the officer and tried to take the officer's Taser. The object that was dropped next to the victim by the officer's apparent partner is assumed to be a Taser. This was done to "prove" that the officer was in danger from a man who had armed himself with the officer's Taser.
In addition, the police reported that they immediately administered CPR to the dying victim, when the recording clearly shows that the first thing the police officer did was to handcuff the victim's hands behind his back, then allowed the victim to lie there, bleeding out for at least a few minutes, before any officer tried to help the victim in any way.
Without the recording, this would have been another in a long line of unjustifiable, "justified" shootings. The victim is dead. The police are usually believed to be telling the truth. So, the officer would have faced no charges and would have received no punishment at all. In fact, he might have been lauded as some kind of hero because he defended himself against an aggressive man who not only had a taillight out, but was behind on his support payments. That deserves the death penalty, administered on the streets -- if the victim is black, of course!
I support police officers who do an extremely difficult, often dangerous, job. A few like this one, make the vast majority of good police officers look bad. Assuming the facts are as they seem on the recording, he should be convicted of murder and spend the rest of his life in prison or get the death penalty, just like any other murderer!

I disagree Dale which is also why I said his conviction is likely and not guaranteed.

Now first, with what we know now this is not a justifiable murder. Now will he be convicted of murder remains to be seen. If the cop has injuries from the altercation prior to the video then no. It's very unlikely he did based on what I saw which is why I'm convinced he is likely to be convicted.

Without the video it's not guaranteed this would have been declared a justifiable shooting. I don't believe a suspect holding a stun gun, even a cops, justifies being shot in the back because tazers are not lethal it does justify pursuit. The only way then to justify the shooting is injuries to the cop, again I doubt he has any which would mean it would be questioned how the suspect got the tazer without any injuries... AND THEN... justify shooting a man in the back vice pursuing. Again, based upon facts. And still the cop turning off his body camera makes this highly questionable and leans towards unjustified if we didn't have this video. It makes it more difficult but the other facts need to be analyzed. With today's technology and forensics faking evidence is tremendously difficult even though this cop definitely tried on multiple fronts.

MikeyA

Everything you state is logical. I would trust you to make a fair judgment.
However, when an African-American is killed, and the killer is an on-duty police officer, and there is no video evidence, do you really believe that any police internal investigation, or any grand jury of his peers will find against that police officer, especially with the trumped-up "evidence?" And, one of his blue buddies could have quickly, and off-camera of course, taken care of giving him personal injuries. If they were willing to drop a Taser near the victim, and lie on their initial report, would you really put it past them to manufacture injuries?

I find your statement here to be naive and insensitive to what it is like to be an American of color. And, that's not to say the same type of cover-up would not have been done if the victim would have been white, especially if that victim were to appear to be obviously poor.
I must add that the vast majority of police officers do their extremely difficult jobs in a most professional way. I worked with many over the years while I was teaching, and I was most impressed with their professional behavior. But, there are some who give them all a bad reputation. Thank heaven, someone recorded this apparent atrocity!

"I find your statement here to be naive and insensitive to what it is like to be an American of color."

Actually you left something out of that.

I was pulled over in one of Toledo's neighboring towns for a "busted license plate light". As a result of that traffic stop, I did not end up injured or dead. There are a number of reasons for that:

1. I don't have pending warrants against me.
2. I didn't disobey the police officers who pulled me over.
3. I didn't fight with the police officers who pulled me over.

So I find your statements here to be naive and insensitive to what it is like to be an American of lesser automobile. You despicable caracist!

"Without the recording, this would have been another in a long line of unjustifiable, "justified" shootings."

How do you know this? You lack the evidence to support that conclusion.

What the video doesn't show, MikeyA, is that the victim was blowing lethal farts from his ass as he fled which justified the policeman to return fire.

I don't know what is sadder. Your consistently abstract logic or your willful ignorance.

MikeyA

There are some jurisdictions in this land that want to make it illegal for citizens to video police. If I'm not mistaken, some have actually succeeded. This case is a perfect example of why citizens should always have the right to video the police.

defend ourselves, we should also have the right to "bear" a video camera and use it at any and all times! Do we need a new Constitutional Amendment to ensure this right?

Maybe such an amendment would be a good idea.

It would be a better idea to have the SCOTUS overturn these issues since it's clearly within the scope of the natural rights of man, to wit, if you're free to travel and observe, then you're free to record audio, video, even take air, water and earth samples for your own edification.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Graber

I totally agree. I fully support being able to monitor government workers and politicians be they cops, administrators, Senators and Presidents. Government should fear the people not the other way around.

MikeyA

"Having a broken tail light is punishable by death."

Firstly, no, since the shooting followed the usual resistance to police authority by a Black male with a rap sheet. Remember Liberals, if Walter Scott had stayed in the car, he'd be alive today, right?

Secondly, no, an unjustified shooting is punishable by a murder charge:

South Carolina Officer Is Charged With Murder of Walter Scott
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/08/us/south-carolina-officer-is-charged-w...

It seems the legal system is working, here.

GZ, I hope you are the only one in your family that is like you. If Walter Scott woiuld have stayed in his car, the blood spatter would have ruined the interior.

No, if Walter Scott had stayed in his vehicle instead of resisting the police officer, he'd be alive today. He was only shot after resisting.

I can't find any laws that says that there ia a death penalty for resisting arrest

Similarly, there's no law that states there's a death penalty for, say, breaking into my house, but if I catch you doing it, I'm gonna shoot you, and one of the likely results of being shot is DEATH. (And I'm gonna get clean away with it, too.)

Anyway, thanks for yet again making no point whatsoever other than to reveal that vocal Liberals are pretty much mentally ill.

You are right GZ, but shoot an intruder in the back and your ass is going to jail for a long time.

Really?

http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2014/11/cleveland_homeowner_sho...

You Liberals keep outing yourselves as being against self defense. I love it when you do that. Do it again, please.

GZ you made me chuckle with this post because it's the same logical thinking that Dale applied to the Trayvon Martin case.

You do correctly note in a previous post that getting out of the vehicle doesn't make this a justifiable shooting and that the legal system is working correctly as the cop has been charged with murder.

But the reverse logic is hilarious and correctly demonstrates the flaw in their logic of the TM case.

MikeyA

So, does having a taillight that is out AND owing support now constitute a capital offense?
And, if the video had not been taken, or if the person with the video had not come forward, the only "eye witness" would have been the killer. And we already know the lies he was concocting to justify the shooting.
And some writing here who are standing tall for the law because the evidence is so clear on the video would be claiming that, based upon witness testimony only, the victim must have attacked the police officer, and that officer must have been in fear for his life when he shot down the unarmed man. According to the article I read, four of the five bullets in the victim's body were in his back. I can hear the excuses now, IF the video did not exist: "Oh, the victim was coming at the officer and was spun around by the first bullet which was in his front. Since the officer stated that the victim was attacking him, this must be so. The officer had good reason to fear for his life. He was being attacked, after all."
This sounds vaguely familiar to me. I wonder why?

"So, does having a taillight that is out AND owing support now constitute a capital offense?"

No, having a rap sheet means having a rap sheet. In addition to his brushes with family court, The Times "reported a 1987 assault-and-battery arrest, and a conviction for possession of a bludgeon in 1991".

The issue is that Black males bring these bad ends on themselves, to wit:

"But Scott ran from Slager, family members said, because he feared the police. One reason was because Scott, who had four children, owed back child support, something that in South Carolina and across the country can carry jail time. “I believe he didn’t want to go to jail again,” Scott’s father said on “The Today Show” on Wednesday morning."

That's from MSNBC. So what you're saying is that people are free to flee police because they're afraid of being jailed. WELL DUH, all criminals fear being jailed. That's why we send police after 'em.

The reality of the matter is that once pulled over, you're being detained, and flight from detainment is a crime. Walter Scott was a criminal. He may well have been illegally slain, but that doesn't alter the fact that Walter Scott was a criminal.

that happened 24 years ago! WOW!! Short "rap" sheet!
I have yet to see you list ANYTHING the victim did for which any punishment close to the death penalty would apply.
And no matter what you post, you'll never convince me that the killer would even face internal discipline from his police department, if that citizen had not been there, recorded the killing, and brought it forward.

Your assumptions about the victim because he happened to be black are the same as too many in our society have. The truth is that we have much more of a male problem with crime than we have a black problem with crime. According to a study of cases between 1997 and 2008 which appeared in the journal "Crime & Delinquency," by the time males reach the age of 23, 49% of black males, 44% of Hispanic males, and 38% of white males have been arrested. There is a statistically significant difference based upon race and/or ethnicity, but it is not outrageously one-sided as you strongly imply, Chicken Little. And if race and/or ethnicity were to be the main factor in arrests, why is it that comparable female statistics show that 20% of whites, 18% of Hispanics, and 16% of blacks had been arrested by the age of 23?

The demagogic inciting of fear of violence is so exaggerated it's ludicrous. Do we have a serious crime problem in this country? Yes! But it is not nearly so serious as fear mongers want us to believe. In fact, the overall rate of violent crimes is about HALF of what it was 20 years ago.
I know. I'm doing it again. I'm stating facts and statistics when so many on this site want to argue on emotion and vacuous opinion instead of evidence. So sorry!

"I have yet to see you list ANYTHING the victim did for which any punishment close to the death penalty would apply."

I see this is the Liberal Narrative for this case. I never said a death penalty applied. I said:

1. This seems to have been an illegal killing.
2. Black men bring these ends on themselves.

I will never be shot by police, since I don't run from police, I don't resist police, and I don't fight with police, among other stupid behaviors exhibited by far too many Black men. If Scott had just remained in the vehicle and just followed police orders, just like you claim George Zimmerman should have, then Scott would be alive today, and totally unharmed.

In other words, when you routinely get into tussles with armed men, eventually you end up shot. Every time a gun is pulled, there's a chance it will be fired. And here's another thing that my history teacher told me a long, long time ago, when he was talking about the Boston Massacre:

"When you throw stones at soldiers, expect to get shot."

Walter Scott may have been killed illegally, but he brought this on himself. The. End.

hate to break the little bubble you're so proud of, but your comparison of Scott and George Zimmerman is ridiculous.

The comparison is ridiculous since the Liberal 'logic' used in the Zimmerman case was ridiculous.

No, it's ridiculous because you're essentially arguing that Scott made the policeman break the law.

It's also ridiculous because you are trying to argue from analogy, without enough similarity to accomplish it effectively. It's like comparing apples to oranges. Just the fact that Zimmerman was a shooter and Scott a victim starts to make your analogy week. I noticed you yourself having a hard time explaining it in one of your posts. It kind of works, but it's a very thin argument because you have to have a policeman breaking the law inorder to make your point.

What you call “liberal logic”, the idea that Martin would not have been shot if Zimmerman stayed in his car, is actually very sound logic. It only follows that George would not have been in a position to pull his trigger if he had left well enough alone and stayed in his car. Disagree?

"No, it's ridiculous because you're essentially arguing that Scott made the policeman break the law."

That's essentially the case Liberals were making when they imply Zimmerman's "stalking" caused Martin to attack him.

I never agreed that Zimmerman should have stayed in his car. Zimmerman was perfectly free to leave his car. But Walter Scott was NOT free to flee the traffic stop. A traffic stop is legally the same as "detention" in our nation. Once the officer pulls you over, you are being detained, and that's a light version of ARREST. You are not free to leave. The officer must first release you. And if you leave before release, that's a crime, for which the officer may be rightfully charged to stop you. Just shooting you down to stop you, however, is not within the rules of engagement commonly used by police departments. That's why Slager may have performed an illegal killing. But Walter Scott still brought all this on himself. "He should have stayed in the car" isn't an opinion... IT'S THE LAW.

Your analogy falls apart again. Zimmerman was going after someone he expected to break the law. Scott was running from someone he expected to keep the law, unless we've turned into a police state.

George already thought he was pursuing a criminal. He reported him to 911. He said Martin “was up to no good”. He was advised not to follow someone he thought was doing wrong. It was good advice he did not follow.

The so-called liberal argument is not that Zimmerman caused Martin to break the law, it's that he put himself in the position of going after someone he thought was already a criminal and got into trouble. He most likely wouldn't have had trouble if he had taken the advice. Chances are no one would have been shot.

By the way, the idea that George would have had less trouble if he had stayed in his car was first put forth by the dispatcher, not the liberals. The liberals just agree with the police dispatcher's advice to George.

Martin should have listened to that big fat woman who told him Zimmerman was going to try to bugger him, because that's what "those people" were into.

Yeah, and look at what happened. Zimmerman followed Martin around in such a way that Martin felt threatened enough to mention it in a call to that woman. Zimmerman was dumb enough to make himself a threat. This is exactly the reason the dispatcher didn't want Zimmerman to get out of his car. The dispatcher knew it could cause a situation in which someone, possibly a criminal, would take Zimmerman as a threat and try to kick his ass, or worse. Thanks for bringing that up.

Careful, PMW. You're perilously close to actually faulting George Zimmerman for being attacked. There are precisely zero ways that you can do that, legally or morally.

"He was advised not to follow someone he thought was doing wrong. It was good advice he did not follow."

False statement. You're applying your narrow ideological views on what's the larger socio-economic metric. Being advised not to investigate is merely advice. It's neither good nor bad since the facts of the case weren't known. In fact, Zimmerman's investigation is more along the lines of citizen duty... hence, has a larger moral basis.

You're pushing the implied Liberal doctrine that says non-Blacks should mind their own business instead of noticing anything Blacks do. Congratulations.

"The liberals just agree with the police dispatcher's advice to George."

They can agree with it all they like. Neither the advice nor the agreement thereof has the force of law, and in fact neither the advice nor the agreement thereof has a public moral basis... since it's socially immoral to impede the free public movement of citizens.

time is the judge of whether advice given was good or bad. It has nothing to do with "force of law" or "the larger socio-economic metric". It doesn't have to be complicated. Eventually we find out how good the advice given was. In the Zimmerman case, it turns out the advice was very good. That is not a false statement.

You do know why the dispatcher would advise George not to follow Martin, right? It's because the police don't want the situation to escalate before they get to the scene, which it did in Zimmerman's case. They also don't want others in the way while they are trying to do their job. They don't have time for “socio-economic metrics” and moral issues during a 911 call. They gave George good advice based on what they know about law enforcement. Anyone trying to argue differently, especially knowing the facts in hindsight, is just being ridiculous.

What about the girlfriends' advice:"run, Travon!" Good advice, or bad? Or perhaps, it was "ignored advice"? If heeded, Martin would be alive today.

Once again, the advice Zimmerman was given was at the very least neutral in nature, but it still has the taint of bad in it since it told a citizen to not perform a citizen duty. Once again, you're linking Zimmerman's leaving the car with the outcome of his being attacked. The only moral link here is that Martin's attack on Zimmerman is linked to his being shot dead for it.

When you follow natural law and observe civil rights, you can't make the errors you've been making in this discussion.

Zero, there's something else that's been bothering me about your post. You are perfectly willing to give Scott's shooter the benefit of the doubt that there may be more details to the story that we don't yet know by saying:

“This seems to have been an illegal killing.”

But, you are quick to blame Scott for 'bringing it on himself ' without knowing any of those same details. And, while you're at it you throw in black males in general.

“Black men bring these ends on themselves.”

Then you wrote:

“I will never be shot by police, since I don't run from police, I don't resist police, and I don't fight with police, among other stupid behaviors exhibited by far too many Black men.”

Why wouldn't you give the same benefit of doubt to Scott as you do to the police? And, how are such comments not racism?

"Why wouldn't you give the same benefit of doubt to Scott as you do to the police? And, how are such comments not racism?"

Because there is video of Scott running it was on the dashcam. It was released almost immediately after the shooting video. It just has not garnered the attention that the other has. Once again, if you look into the case and take a look at the facts you can make an informed judgement.

In that video the officer approaches, takes his info and walks back to the patrol car. Scott then gets out and sprints away from the car.

Now I personally don't make cause/effect relationships where I don't believe they exist. So I haven't made a statement that Scott would be alive if he had stayed in his car. Also I don't say that Martin would be alive if Zimmerman had stayed in his car. Both scenario's make assumptions to link as a cause/effect that IMO is not there.

MikeyA

No one can say for 100% sure what would have happened, but the most likely outcomes seem quite obvious. Martin would be alive if Zimmerman had followed proper procedure and direct advice, and not left his vehicle. I think that it's important to point out that, even if he had a "right" to leave his vehicle, that action led to the ruination of Zimmerman's life.
But, also, Scott would be alive today if HE had stayed in HIS car. And, it is important to point out, that Scott's killer's life is in total ruins as well.

These are examples of two unnecessary killings. FOUR people had their lives ruined by these two killings -- not only the two who died, but their killers as well. Unless it is an obvious case of self-defense, such as home invasion, an attempted robbery, etc., BOTH THOSE WHO ARE KILLED AND THOSE WHO KILL, LOSE!! As a society, we have to find better ways to settle our disputes other than who is armed, or who is better at using a gun! No one wins in these types of scenarios.

First it's wrong because the action is too far removed from the death.a lot happened after it.

Second there was no proper procedure. GZ was not bound by any procedure. Advice is advice not an order, meaning it does not have to be followed.

No I don't believe the trope that Scott would be alive today if he had stayed in his car. Again the action is too far removed from the definitive moment to make a declarative statement about it. I don't believe Scott should have gotten out of his car and ran but I won't hinge the murder on the action.

TM's death was necessary. It became necessary the moment he began slamming Zimmermans head into the ground. If you believe it was unnecessary the fault lies on Martin alone because GZ restrained his gun's use until the moment his life was threatened. Restrained use through the verbal confrontation and through the standing fist fight.

MikeyA

I am floored by the fact that Zimmerman was a full adult, but far from old. He outweighed Martin by at least 40 pounds. How could this much smaller, unarmed teenager turn it around so that Zimmerman was, supposedly, getting his head cracked open?

Of course, we do not have video of the alleged "attack" by Martin. And we only have Zimmerman's testimony about how he got injured. Martin isn't around to testify. It could never have been that, once he discovered that Martin was only armed with Skittles, Zimmerman busted his own head against the ground to make it look as though the much smaller, unarmed teenager had been beating Zimmerman to a pulp! Now could it? Just like the police officer lying about Scott and planting a Taser by his dead body. It would have worked, too, if the shooting and attempted cover-up had not been recorded and if that recording had not been turned over to authorities.

Your second paragraph displays your conclusion is not based upon facts. All of the forensics support that TM was on top of GZ during the shooting. Add in GZ's injuries, which logicially are likely from someone on top ramming their head into the ground and the scenario goes from possible to probable. The first paragraph is irrelevant as you see smaller people overpower larger people from time to time. Especially when you cannot see who's behavior is more aggressive. I've seen small women beat up large men who refuse to fight back in force.

"It would have worked, too, if the shooting and attempted cover-up had not been recorded and if that recording had not been turned over to authorities."

Again I find it doubtful. Because of the forensics. Let's say Scott had taken the taser and was running away. That's still not a lawful use of lethal force. A taser is not a lethal weapon. The forensics would support that the shooting took place with Scott over 20 feet away, thus meaning there was no immediate threat of serious injury and thus no need to use deadly force.

Amazing how the forensic evidence produces facts.

MikeyA

small women beat up large men who refuse to fight back in force." Yeah. Like Zimmerman, who saw Martin as "suspicious" would refuse to fight back.
ZIMMERMAN OUTWEIGHED MARTIN BY AT LEAST 40 POUNDS, AND MAYBE AS MUCH AS 60 POUNDS. AND ZIMMERMAN WAS A YOUNG ADULT SUPPOSEDLY FIGHTING A TEENAGER!

Now, you may argue that Zimmerman was a wimp. OK. So he was a wimp who was emboldened to leave his vehicle because he had the backup of a gun on his person.
What a wuss!

You can call him whatever you like it really doesn't matter.

What matters is he had a right to leave his vehicle. That he left his vehicle didn't cause TM to be shot. What caused TM to be shot was straddling GZ and hitting his head to the ground.

I believe a person who isn't confident in their ability to defend themselves physically should highly consider being armed. Like women who are afraid of being raped, elderly people, or people who carry a lot of cash. But that's me just believing in the 2nd Amendment and all.

MikeyA

He was a well-built, young man, who went looking for trouble. Let me know the next time some woman or someone elderly sees someone they deem to be "suspicious," then leaves his/her vehicle to follow the "suspicious" person. It's called looking for trouble. Sadly, Martin is dead, and Zimmerman's life will never be the same.
Don't ever forget the devastating effects Zimmerman's actions have had on his own life. If you don't think that he often wonders, himself, why he left his vehicle, or that he often wishes that he had never left that vehicle that fateful night, you're not as intelligent as I think you are.

My examples were in addition to your description of him as a "wuss".

It's everyones right to walk around armed. For those who do not feel secure in their ability to handle themselves physically I'd recommend them to highly consider it.

MikeyA

(It's amusing when Dale countermands his own statements and he doesn't even realize it.)

Zimmerman was looking for trouble, yes. That's what you always do when you're on a security patrol: Look. For. Trouble.

And when you find trouble, you put a stop to it.

I'm sure you're implying that Zimmerman wanted to CAUSE trouble, but there's nothing in the physical evidence or witness statements that support that conclusion. And it makes you Liberals mad as hell, but you sure do cry a lot about it, and your bitter tears of helpless rage are just delicious for the rest of us.

Zimmerman was searching for his hero's badge, and instead he ended up killing an unarmed teenage boy.

"Zimmerman was searching for his hero's badge"

You have no evidence for that.

"instead he ended up killing an unarmed teenage boy"

Yes, he legally defended himself against an attacker.

Liberals are against self defense. Just admit it already.

I' m against right-wingers who take the position that anyone they mistreat doesn't have a right to defend themselves or subdue an attacker. According to right-wingers, a person of color is always at fault. You should know that because all your posts regarding people of color blame the people of color, even when they are unarmed and trying to flee a murderous cop. I'm surprised the cop didn't put a couple rounds into the victim's back while he was laying on the ground.

ZC doesn't understand that straddling someone slamming their head into the ground is not defensive.

MikeyA

"Martin would be alive if Zimmerman had followed proper procedure and direct advice, and not left his vehicle."

How can you seriously say that? Martin attacked Zimmerman; clearly this indicates his willingness to attack people. So if Zimmerman had waited in his car, assuming the police would have showed up while Martin was in the area, then Martin could have attacked a police officer... ending up shot.

That's certainly not part of the Liberal Narrative surrounding the case. Nowhere in the Liberal Narrative is there any room to blame Martin, despite the physical evidence and testimony that clearly establishes it was his fault.

He could have attacked with his Skittles and ice tea! Good thing George got there first.

I don't think they ever really proved Martin attacked. It could very well have been self defense on Martins part, but a jury can convict with only half the story.

"I don't think they ever really proved Martin attacked."

Well, you sure didn't think about it, since it's Logic 101, but Liberals are ideologically unable to follow that.

The NOT GUILTY verdicts for murder or manslaughter automatically mean that the shooting was justified. You can justifiably shoot in your self defense. You're defending yourself when you're attacked. THEREFORE, Martin must have attacked.

We have little things called "colleges" and "universities" where you can learn things like basic logic, PMW. Look into those for yourself.

credentials? What a joke! Thanks for the laugh!

Ask experts. The most difficult crime to prosecute is murder, because the deceased is often the only witness who could give testimony contrary to that presented by the killer. Remember, there were no cameras recording what happened that night.

Being found "Not Guilty" is not the same as being innocent of a crime. Zimmerman must forever live with his real memories of that night. I truly feel sorry for the man. But, he went looking for trouble that fateful night, and one person is dead, and he must live with the consequences of his choices. I guess he found trouble.

I wonder how many here on Swampbubbles think O.J. Simpson was really innocent of his charges.

Zero, this is one of your most uninformed posts to date. The not guilty verdicts does not automatically mean the shooting was justified. You know nothing about law to make the statements you are making.

Learn from this:
There are times when there is just not enough evidence to convict, happens all the time. Lack of evidence is not proof. "Lack" means "not there", something doesn't exist. Logic 101 tells us we can not conclude from evidence that does not exist.

Then it's deuced odd that this "unjustified" shooting wasn't able to be prosecuted for civil charges. After all, that's a primary requirement for filing a civil charge even if you lose the criminal case: The shooting wasn't justified.

You Liberals will never accept that Zimmerman justifiably shot Martin. When you defend yourself, you can justifiably harm your attacker, since force is used.

And here's another tidbit for you: There's always uncertainty about legal inputs and outputs. "There could be more evidence later" isn't reason to conclude that the legal decision is wrong at this moment. So for this moment, the legal decision is clear: It was a justified shooting, since Zimmerman didn't perform manslaughter or murder.

Finally, here's yet another nugget of wisdom: Logic tells you to conclude from the evidence you have, not the evidence you wanted to have. Wanting to have other evidence, brings ideology into the legal process, where it precisely does NOT belong.

The blind spot that Liberals have about the Zimmerman-Martin case is large enough to shade the entire Earth from the sun.

It's not that Martin's family couldn't have filed a civil charge, it's that The Stand Your Ground Law could have caused the case to get dismissed. That still doesn't prove the shooting justified.

They could have filed. Stand your ground does not apply in the case of GZ because SYG means you don't have to attempt to retreat to use deadly force. GZ could not have retreated because it is well documented that TM was on top of GZ and thus retreat was not an option so the SYG law does not apply.

MikeyA

You Liberals continue to bring up SYG in that case, but it was never a factor. The shooting was a simple issue of self defense.

The civil charge I mentioned was the advertised option of the Dept. of Justice. They refused to return Zimmerman's gun since it was retained for that advertised option of pursuing a civil case. This went on for over a year... if you had been paying attention.

Did you EVER read about the case outside of postings on Democratic Underground or Daily Kos? Apparently not.

The base rule for this case remains the same: Zimmerman wasn't guilty of manslaughter or murder, and so the shooting is justified. There's no such legal thing as a "not-manslaughter, not-murder, but still unjustified" shooting. What's the real trouble here is that Liberals are ideologically unable to admit Zimmerman shot his attacker in self defense and that's 100% legal regardless of the age of the attacker, the armament of the attacker, and so on. Liberals are against simple self defense since their diversity pets can be easily and legally killed by it.

his gun when leaving his car, Martin had never attacked a police officer before, so it is hard to imagine he would have done so that night.
In addition, professional police officers are trained for situations like those of that fateful night. Do police officers always do the right thing to defuse volatile situations? No! But, they couldn't have done any worse than Zimmerman did! And most police officers do serve in a professional way!

the friends of all four people involved in these two killings.

Wait a minute- think about your answer on that one, Mikeya. There is video of both Scott and the policeman doing something they shouldn't have done. Yet, by your answer, you explain why one gets the benefit of doubt before all facts are known and the other doesn't? Do you really want to give a reason why they shouldn't be treated equally? What ever happened to "innocent until proven guilty"?

No I have always been on the side of giving benefit of doubt to the side who has sworn to give order. I then reserve final judgement to facts.

In this case both made wrong moves. However, the cop lost benefit of doubt for me when he moved evidence. If there was no video I'd want to see a medical report detailing the cops injuries, of which I've heard there are none, thus I would have eventually come to the same conclusion as a taser is not a lethal weapon and alone does not warrant lethal force. Plus the forensics will show that Scott was out of taser range.

MikeyA

George getting out of his vehicle did, in fact, lead to Martin's death.
You can argue till you're blue in the face about "cause and effect"; but in the end, the sequence of events leading up to the shooting of Trayvon Martin include George Zimmerman leaving his vehicle and following Martin after being advised not to do so. It is part of that case's timeline. That is a fact.

If that was the case why did no one else die any other time GZ got out of his vehicle armed?

MikeyA

Now you're just being silly, Mikey!

Then explain why the question is silly.

MikeyA

It's too stupid for me to explain.
Can you?

No stupid is your line of logic. As I pointed out it's significantly flawed.

MikeyA

MikeyA, didn't you know if a Black Man defends himself from a stalker it's the Black Man's fault if he gets killed. Did you know if a Black Man flees a dangerous situation and gets shot in the back eight times, it's the Black Man's fault. I believe that the best way to win a fight is to walk away, but when you get cornered you have no choice but to fight if you are in danger.

How is straddling a person and bashing their head into the ground constitute a defensive pose?

MikeyA

You are a military person. If you are attacked by the enemy, don't you destroy the enemy when you get the upper hand, or do you let the enemy continue to hurt you by whatever means he has left? How about if the enemy surprises you? I guess you wait until the enemy launches an attack and then you respond. I'm so glad I'm not in the same military unit you are in.

I am followed routinely in this country. I am not allowed to get into a fight over it.

And you are wrong. There are plenty of times where we are not allowed to attack an armed enemy unless they first attack us.

Are you ever going to answer my questions?

MikeyA

It's obvious you think that Martin trying to subdue his attacker and keeping him from continuing to attack him was stupid. At the end of WW II the Japanese were negotiating to surrender to the United States. Result? The United States dropped the A-bomb.

nm

MikeyA

If the only time George ever got out of his vehicle was to follow someone he thought was a criminal in the dark, you might have a point. Come on Mikeya! You're better than that. You don't have to go all obtuse on me.

Like these times where GZ reported suspicious activity and observed the situation. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/03/22/george-zimmerman-s-hist...

No one ended up dead in those instances. But I'm willing to bet the instance with TM is the only one where he ended up with a man on top of him bashing his skull into the concrete.

MikeyA

is a wuss!

It doesn't matter if he observed and reported a million disturbances, every case is totally different and has its own timeline. By the way, I didn't see in any of your examples where George pursued anyone. Was there supposed to be one where he got out of his truck and went after someone? I might have missed it.

Not "suspicious looking" enough?

If GZ was as out to shoot someone as the people on this thread have implied then he hand several ample opportunities to follow people and use his weapon.

What's clear from these instances is GZ was used to keeping an eye on suspicious people. The difference between those cases and this is this is the only one where he ended up on the ground with his head slammed into the ground.

MikeyA

By a teenager he outweighed by at least 40 pounds...the wuss!

[W]hile you're at it you throw in black males in general.
[H]ow are such comments not racism?

I threw in Black males in general, and that's not racism, since it's based upon FBI crime statistics, and the larger cultural understanding of the social practices of Black males.

We all understand what it means for neighborhoods to have roving packs of Black males. It means the neighborhood is falling into ruin. That's why people flee (White OR Black) if they have the credit lines or money to do so.

This is the core reason I was tossed off "the other board". Everyone knows having Black males wandering your neighborhood is a bad thing. Black males bring crime. Nobody wants that, except the Black males who benefit from "ghettoization".

Identifying social trends isn't racism. It's reality. And all you can really do about it is throw a guy like me off your message board for saying it.

Whoa....I don't know what the "other board" is, but I can see why you were kicked off it.

All he did was turn over evidence of a crime.
Here's the link:
http://news.yahoo.com/scott-south-carolina-police-shooting-witness-erase...

Fox news is Saying that the officer shot Scott because Scott was running after someone to hurt them. The twists and lies in the story are starting to surface. Let's face it. It's fair game for law enforcement to kill African American males for spitting on the sidewalk.

You must enjoy watching FoxNews.

MikeyA

ZC -- As long as no one records the killing...

"It's fair game for law enforcement to kill African American males for spitting on the sidewalk."

If it's fair game, then why was the officer charged with murder in short order?

You Liberals are nuts. I'm surprised squirrels don't chase you around during the day.

Obvious to me he was charged with murder because there is a video showing the officer's murderous act. If that video didn't exist the officer would have been hailed as a hero by his comrades and free to murder some more.

Wait, this is a little strange... you're saying the officer was charged because of evidence?

Weird. Our legal system doesn't usually act on evidence.

[END OF SARCASM]

Yeah, evidence. The stuff that police will fabricate to make a case against Black people and hide, if they can, when a White person commits a crime against a Black person. This time the police got busted for shooting an unarmed man in the back, and, the video shows other police trying to cover-up the crime. I will admit that the video may not be enough to convict the murderer. Look what happened in the Rodney King case. The evidence clearly showed the police relentlessly beating Mr. King and he wasn't resisting arrest. An all White jury, however, acquitted the goons who beat him. The attitude in White America seems to be: Black people don't have a right to protect themselves. Let's add to that..Black people don't have the right to flee from a cop whose intent is to kill them.

Do you have any evidence that police are performing a widespread falsification of evidence?

Hint: The answer rhymes with "no".

Liberals like you are 100% driven by a self-destructive, feel-good ideology. No wonder America is rejecting Liberalism more and more.

"The attitude in White America seems to be: Black people don't have a right to protect themselves."

You don't need "protection" from police when you don't flee the traffic stop (like Walter Scott did). You don't need "protection" from police when you don't resist the police. You don't need "protection" from police when don't fight with police. You just don't need "protection" from police when you behave like a civilized adult.

"a cop whose intent is to kill them"

You have no evidence of that. We don't know Slager's intent. I marvel still at how Liberals have this mental power to discern the intent in people's minds.

Mr. GZ you are obviously always going to blame the Black person. If you are a Black person in this country the police will eventually harass you or hurt you.

Clarification: I am always going to blame a person who puts themselves illogically, illegally or immorally into a bad position. Walter Scott is to blame for fleeing the traffic stop. The officer is to blame if his shooting of Mr Scott is deemed illegal. At the worst, two people are to blame in this event. At best, it's only one... Mr Scott.

So we must repeat: To live through a traffic stop, don't flee the officer, don't resist the officer, and don't fight with the officer. Hopefully the lesson learned by Walter Scott in those final seconds will be learned indirectly by many other men, largely Black, who would seek to duplicate his error otherwise.

I want to know what part of the word "HALT" don't people understand?

I must give the police some credit.. A White man in California fled arrest on horseback . When he fell off the horse he was tasered and restrained. The police proceeded to kick, punch and bludgeon the man while he was face down. Oh, I forgot to say, they didn't shoot him in the back.

ZC -- Point well made!

Let's just face it--all white cops are trained to shoot black men.

Chris Rock has his unjustified police stops recorded. People of color, especially black males, are targeted for harassment by SOME police officers.
The few bad police officers make a most difficult job, that much harder for their professional peers, because the bad police officers breed contempt and non-cooperation out in the neighborhoods.

When I was working in retail, we had a regular customer who was a (at the time) middle aged woman with the first name Clyde. She was a nurse by profession. She was stopped by police for a minor traffic violation, and was arrested, even though she fully complied with all police directives, because they didn't believe that her driver's license, with her name and description on it, which included the fact that she was, indeed, female, was really hers because it had a "man's" name. I do not think that it was a coincidence that Clyde was African-American. Of course, she was eventually exonerated, but it was a horrible experience for her.
It is so easy for people who are walking around with white skin to state how they will never be arrested or shot at by a police officer, because they will do whatever the police officer says. Did you see the video I posted showing the abuse a foreign-born LEGAL cabby got from a police officer, even though the cabby was as meek as one could imagine anyone being? According to that police officer, he was almost arrested even though he was very respectful. Walk a mile in someone else's shoes before you are so quick to condemn!

"It is so easy for people who are walking around with white skin to state how they will never be arrested or shot at by a police officer, because they will do whatever the police officer says."

My GAWD, you've finally got it! When you don't commit crimes, and you obey police, and you don't resist police, and you don't fight police, then you don't end up shot.

I never expected one of you vocal Liberals to actually catch on, but BY JOVE, you've finally grasped the essence of it.

Shouldn't we "run a mile in another mans' shoes" instead?

No, since I don't run from police.

That makes sense, since if I was fishing in Lake Erie, I'd learn how to hook Perch.

I am prepared to stipulate at this point that "the White Guy did it", and call it a day. Sounds good to me.

You should also stipulate that this type of murder is an epidemic in this country. To the Black Community the police are not there to protect and serve, they are there to harass and kill. Anti-police sentiment by the Black Community has been around for many, man years. The one that readily comes to mind is the formation of the Black Panther Party for Self Defense. For years citizens of Oakland, California lobby ed for a traffic signal at a dangerous intersection because many kids were getting plowed-downed by motorist. When the city refused the community sent Black citizens to the intersection to direct traffic to reduce the number of children injured and killed. Result. The police beat and arrested the people directing traffic and the Black Panther Party For Self Defense was born

"the community sent Black citizens to the intersection to direct traffic"

No, when there's already a traffic indicator at an intersection, anyone trying to override that indicator and/or placing themselves in the roadway, are an interfering hazard. The police are tasked to remove interference and hazards.

After all, every intersection has a signal, an indicator, or a rule. The signal is obvious. The indicator is a STOP or YIELD sign. And the rule only applies to "T" intersections; when you come up the leg of the "T", you naturally have a STOP requirement, if there's no signal or indicator.

This is how you run a civilization, using rules, education and obedience... not by mobs of angry idiots seeking to make every perceived shortcoming into some ideological score-keeping event.

to the teeth, employing vigilante justice, because you perceive that our violent crime rate is beyond the control of law enforcement officers, even though, statistically, the rate of violent crimes is now HALF of what it was about 20 years ago.
So, when do you want to follow the rule of law, and when is it fine to be a vigilante, Chicken Little? After all, "The sky is falling." Right?

BTW -- Still waiting for my NRA-member son-in-law and/or his father to inform me about the Feds taking their guns away.
Still waiting...
Still waiting...
Still waiting...
Still...

Some major problems with your point of view: It's legal to be armed, and it's legal to investigate things happening in the public space, but it's still illegal to block traffic and interfere with the flow of traffic.

Learn to use good examples of citizen action in society, not bad ones.

If racist Whites can kill Black folks willy nilly, with no fear of legal sanctions, why are there well over thirty million Black People alive in the US today? That is some feat, considering the vast majority of Whites are gun toting, racist, bigoted homophobes, most of whom wake up each morning thinking where can I find Black People to kill?

Gman I am currently in a country where real racism exists. I've seen people removed from establishments because of their ethnicity. I have never seen the type of treatment in the US that I see routinely here. The problems in the US are small in comparison.

MikeyA

If nothing else this thread has shown ZC has a clear lack of understanding for the law. Too funny.

MikeyA

Maybe MikeyA doesn't have a clear understanding of reality.

HA HA HA! Hilarious.

MikeyA

Laugh all you want, my pea brained friend. The law and reality doesn't always match.

MikeyA, are you in an African Country? Middle East?

Technically it's the Middle East.

MikeyA

What more can we say?

Well I can say it's a country very friendly to the US. It is begining to take a more aggressive stance towards extremists in the ME. It is looking to expand on it's close relationship to the US.

Currently it's involved militarily in all of the conflicts in the ME.

I'm happy to talk about it one on one but I won't disclose it nor what I'm doing publicly due to operational security reasons.

MikeyA

Thank you for your service!!

MikeyA said: "ZC doesn't understand that straddling someone slamming their head into the ground is not defensive."

Oh, he understands it alright. But he needs to blame Whites and Hispanics and in fact everybody other than Blacks for the unavoidable crime statistics that demonstrate that violent crime in this nation has a color, and that color is black.

The Liberals have been proven wrong in the Zimmerman-Martin case, but they invested so much of their reputations in the media war over it, that they can't just back out now, regardless of all the evidence that shows they were wrong. Like with most Liberalism, they doubled-down on their failures.

This is why Liberalism is dying off. Anything with that much energy, that dies, thrashes around a lot in its death throes. Liberalism is going to make a lot more noise before it is finally kicked out of legislatures (or at least kicked to the "back benches" to use the British phrase). Liberals are going to re-double their efforts even from today, to demonize self defense, guns, and most particularly the assumption that if you're White and have a stable view of things, you're just a demon who needs to be removed from public places by force if necessary. Liberals have been promoting "non-White" rallies lately, if you can believe that one. All that sort of crap will become much worse than today's absurdities.

Zeyadcharles said: "I'm against right-wingers who take the position that anyone they mistreat doesn't have a right to defend themselves or subdue an attacker."

1. Martin wasn't being mistreated.

2. Zero evidence exists that shows Martin was defending himself.

3. Lots of evidence exists that shows Zimmerman was defending himself.

You Liberals lost. Give up.

There is no evidence convicting Martin posthumously of anything. All evidence used as such could also be used in his defense, since it could very well indicate it was Martin struggling for his life.

We do know for a fact that George lied and changed his story several times. There are many places you can find the documentation of this. Here is only one: https://youtu.be/barj90NOCC8

The video compares George's reenactment of events to his interrogation interview and the 911 tape. Many inconsistencies exist in his story of events.

Just because George wasn't convicted doesn't mean Martin attacked him.

The evidence shows us Martin was on top, in an offensive position, smashing GZ's head to the ground. GZ's story is irrelevant: the forensic evidence shows us what occurred.

MikeyA

The evidence does not indicate state of mind. Martin could very well have been "standing his ground" against an attacker in the form of GZ. George, in fact, had been following him, an aggressive action. We will never know what really happened. And, since we will never know, it is wrong to convict Martin posthumously.

Again, George Zimmerman's not guilty verdict is not a conviction of Martin. Those making it such are wrong. You are wrong.

One can deduce what happened based upon the evidence and the actions by those involved.

People on here believe that GZ was looking for a fight. Well he was in similar circumstances before and did not use his weapon. In the fight he didn't use his weapon until he was in a situation where his life was significantly threatened.

Also the only injuries to Martin were the gunshot wound and wounds on his knuckles consistent with punching. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/autopsy-shows-trayvon-martin-in... Whereas GZ's wounds were all consistent with getting punched repeated or having your had thrown against concrete. From that we can deduce who was the aggressor.

MikeyA

Ever been in a fight, Mikeya? I know you're in the military, but I'm talking about a hand- to- hand street fight where it is you against someone that outweighs you. Believe me, if you get any temporary advantage and find yourself on top, you wail away hoping they won't be able to get up again. This would be especially true if you noticed the person you were fighting was armed. Martin could very well have been fighting for his life. There is no evidence to prove this scenario false. In fact, all the evidence would equally support this scenario as well. We do not know what really happened. We only have George's story, and that changed many times. Whether you like it or not, It is wrong to convict Martin posthumously.

Watch these videos:
Part1 https://youtu.be/TUsyaRClIyQ

Part2 https://youtu.be/rsyNUoH4PHE

You are ignoring forensic evidence. Every piece of it shows Martin as the aggressor. Outside of the gunshot and knuckle bruising there are no other wounds. GZ has several receiving wounds. This does not suggest a temporary advantage.

MikeyA

George's wounds, to his nose and head, could very well have been received in a scenario in which Martin was fighting for his life. Again, you cannot without a doubt prove that Martin was the aggressor. The not guilty verdict of Zimmerman does not constitute an automatic guilty verdict against Martin.

"George's wounds, to his nose and head, could very well have been received in a scenario in which Martin was fighting for his life." Not without Martin sustaining wounds in at least a defensive nature.

MikeyA

GZ outweighed TM by at least 40 pounds.

The wuss probably sustained his injuries because he was fumbling to get out his gun, rather than fighting like a man against a teenager he outweighed significantly and who was armed with only Skittles!
GZ waited for TM to attack him. All you have to do is listen to GZ's interview. He stood in the rain, rather than returning to his vehicle. Duh!

Whine, whine, whine.
Do you conservatives do anything but whine?

"wuss" "probably" both of these show you made a decision on this based upon feelings and not evidence.

If he was fumbling for his gun then why does he have injuries to his face? If I were in close combat with someone who was pulling a gun their injuries should be over the gun and thus on the hands and arms indicating a struggle for the weapon.

As you correctly note GZ outweighed TM. Thus it should have been rather easy for him to inflict damage upon TM. Yet, there is none. Why?

There's no whining here. The legal system did it's due process and came to a correct conclusion. What we are doing is showing how liberals make decisions opposite of the facts and solely upon prepossessed feelings.

MikeyA

Guilty." With your logic, you must believe that OJ is innocent.
The system proves that.
Right, Mikey?

That is not the line of logic I used and no I don't believe that.

MikeyA

Since WHEN is "not guilty" the same as "innocent"?

that view has been expressed by others right here on this website!

To me, OJ is a definitely a murderer. GZ was probably guilty of what is often called "Voluntary Manslaughter."
A finding of "Not Guilty" is not the same as being innocent. A "Not Guilty" verdict is only the admission that, to one set of jury members, the prosecution was unable to prove the case beyond a "reasonable doubt."

I believe in our jury system, with all of its flaws. It was Benjamin Franklin, misquoting the great British jurist Sir William Gladstone who stated, "Better that 100 guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer." Franklin had changed the original number of 10 to 100!
This is a gross exaggeration, but it emphasizes the consensus among our Founding Fathers that, under British rule, too many innocent people ended up suffering from a variety of unfair punishments. Our Founding Fathers wanted to err on the side of finding an accused person, "Not Guilty," rather than sending innocent people to jail or to the gallows.

Then why your complaints, ad nauseam? Deal with it.

But he was found "Not Guilty," so I guess I'm wrong.
OJ must have been innocent. Right?

"We will never know what really happened. And, since we will never know, it is wrong to convict Martin posthumously."

It is equally wrong to convict Zimmerman on that basis. You just admitted you don't know what happened. Therefore you don't know it was manslaughter or murder.

The Liberal Narrative on this case is one of the most boldly dysfunctional pieces of propaganda that I've ever seen. We poke huge holes in its 'logic' time and time again, and yet you continue to defend it.

It is equally wrong to convict Zimmerman on that basis.

Exactly! That is a big part of why Zimmerman was not convicted (that and the Stand Your Ground Law). It could not be proved who started the fight, or whether Zimmerman was fearing for his life. Therefore, he was not convicted. Unfortunately, a lot of illogical people assume that just because Zimmerman couldn't be convicted it means that Martin is automatically to blame. The non-liberal narrative on this usually tends to be that Martin was the aggressor simply because Zimmerman was acquitted. Such people don't think things through.

Thank you for thinking logically on this one.

"The non-liberal narrative on this usually tends to be that Martin was the aggressor simply because Zimmerman was acquitted."

No, our narrative is to look at the evidence, ALL of it, and conclude therefrom. The physical evidence supports the idea that Martin attacked Zimmerman. We simply can't know objectively why that attack took place.

Since the matter was politically dragged into court, the only logic that counts is that a legal decision must be the outcome. And that legal decision was NOT GUILTY, which automatically means the shooting was justified. If there's contrary evidence found or brought later, then that decision can change. Until then, there's only one rational narrative: A justified shooting.

Liberals can't stand that. It keeps them awake at night, greys their hair and shortens their lives from the stress alone. Those are good outcomes for our society, since Liberalism is a cultural sickness.

I do NOT! I believe that OJ is a murderer.
However, by your logic, GZ aka Chicken Little, since a jury found OJ to be "Not Guilty," and since, in OJ's case, he was never proved to be at the scene according to the jury's finding, OJ is innocent in your eyes? (Who can forget, "If the gloves don't fit, you must acquit?")

Let us know. You may believe that the killings of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman were, in your words, "justified." Clue us in, please.

You're forgetting to be fair and objective.

The physical evidence supports the idea that Martin attacked Zimmerman.

It can also support the theory that Martin was fighting for his life. Unless we can use the evidence to prove one way or the other, we must remain objective and admit we just don't know. I know it drives you crazy, but that's just the real world in America. If you want to go to some other country, I'm sure we could find you one where they are not objective when it comes to evidence. Me, I agree with the ideology of the Founding Fathers. They believed in innocent until proven guilty.

"we must remain objective and admit we just don't know"

The outcome is essentially the same. So Zimmerman was found NOT GUILTY. Therefore the shooting was justified. Surely you agree... because if the shooting was unjustified, then Zimmerman must be guilty of murder or manslaughter. You just can't have it both ways, bro.

"They believed in innocent until proven guilty."

But your side in this has been screaming that Zimmerman can't possibly be innocent. Can you explain that discrepancy?

The Liberal Narrative has tried like hell to create a third finding, neither innocent nor guilty, and that's what I'll contemptuously call "mob guilty". Liberals never value procedures and laws when they want to "get" someone. They rely on mobs to target people.

question?
If being found "Not Guilty" is proof that a killing was "justified" and the accused is therefore innocent, is OJ a murderer or an innocent man? I say he is a murderer. What say you?

The OJ case wasn't about self defense. OJ simply denied performing the killings. There's no test of "justified" there.

You Liberals are so desperate to demonize Zimmerman that you'd draw any invalid inference to do it.

"Not Guilty" is "Not Guilty."
You are a hypocrite!

I can't disagree more Dale.

In a self-defense trial not guilty means justifiable killing. Because ... it's in defense.

In a non self-defense trial not guilty means not guilty or "innocent" depending how one defines the subjective term innocent.

I have to agree with GZ you keep bringing up the OJ trial in a false equivalency. It was not a self defense trial. It would be just as false equivalency as a trial for a serial killer.

MikeyA

If one is found "Not Guilty" and you and Chicken Little believe that in the GZ trial this means that GZ was justified in killing TM, then a "Not Guilty" verdict in the OJ trial, where the prosecution could not even place OJ at the scene of the crime (and the gloves did not fit) makes OJ just as innocent of committing murder as GZ is in your eyes. Remember, there is no argument by anyone whether or not GZ killed TM. He admitted that. OJ denies killing ANYBODY!

The bottom line is: any "Not Guilty" finding by a jury IS NOT EQUIVALENT to a finding of innocent OR justifiable killing. Juries make errors. These are two cases where juries erred. IMHO, OJ is a murderer. IMHO, GZ is at least guilty of manslaughter. The facts that prosecutors in each case could not convince the members of those two specific juries that either man was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt calls attention to either inadequate prosecutors, excellent defense attorneys, or both.
Now, why would you and Chicken Little try so hard to differentiate between the two cases?
Hmmm...

Your whole post is predicated on the term "innocent" as I pointed out that is a subjective term and how one defines it means if it is correct or not.

You use the OJ case as a false equivalency because OJ was still found responsible for the murders via civil court. So, is he innocent now? Again, it depends upon how one defines "innocent".

Now justifiable killing is different. Justifiable killing can only be determined in two types of cases, self defense and in enforcement of law and order. In the GZ case it's self defense.

"could not convince the members of those two specific juries that either man was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt calls attention to either inadequate prosecutors, excellent defense attorneys, or both." This was not a case of a hung jury. This was not a dismissed case on a technicality. This was a case where 12 people said he did not break the law. That equals justifiable.

Now, you disagree. Ok, give me your argument as to why it was not justifiable.

It's not a question of the prosecution couldn't prove it because there is no evidence that exists that proves it. In truth the case should not have even come to trial but did so only for political reasons.

MikeyA

There are many documented cases where juries have found defendants who committed crimes against Blacks not guilty even though the evidence clearly showed the defendant was guilty..Found not guilty is not the same thing as innocent.

Murder is the hardest crime to prove in a court of law.
Only GZ knows the truth. One day he may come clean. Unless that time comes, or until that time comes, GZ has to live with what he knows the truth to be. One way or the other, he knows that his actions killed an unarmed teenager, when all he had to do was stay in his vehicle.
Do you not think that GZ would like to have a "do over" on his actions that night? He killed TM and ruined his own life by his actions.

"The only eye witness to refute GZ's testimony is dead!"

Firstly, you don't know his testimony would refute Zimmerman's.

Secondly, we relied on the physical evidence, other witnesses (who largely only heard things), and lastly on Zimmerman's own testimony. That's a LOT, really. And it all pointed to one outcome, which the jury unanimously agreed with: Martin attacked Zimmerman.

The only real thing we don't know about the case is why exactly Martin attacked Zimmerman. There just doesn't seem to be valid reason for his doing so, since no witness statement or physical evidence supports the idea that Zimmerman attacked Martin... which would be the ONLY legal justification for laying hands on another person. It's called "self defense"; the only legal means of using force upon a person.

The facts of this case were amply obvious to the police on that dark night. That's where this case should have ended. You Liberals shrieked like little girls and made this case into a national farce. Then you lost, and you can't even admit that much. You lost, you should have never brought this case to the national scene. It's just another example of a violent young Black male doing what violent young Black males are prone to do. Liberals are so dumb today that they can't even fit that example into their tiny heads. The Zimmerman-Martin case only proves why we need neighborhood patrols, why we need the Second Amendment, and why we need to keep young Black males under observation.

IMHO, OJ is a murderer.
And, Zimmerman admits to being a killer.
Juries err.

When one shoots another in self defense he may well be a killer, but not a murderer. Read a Law Dictionary for once in your life.

Zimmerman himself answers this very question:

The only real thing we don't know about the case is why exactly Martin attacked Zimmerman.

Check out the post I put up about walking in Martin's shoes. You will get the answer to why Martin acted in self defense when he "attacked" Zimmerman. Check it out.

Please.

Eyewitness testimony is never a slam dunk. Look at all the eyewitness testimony in the Ferguson case and half of those were proven to be outright lies of people who didn't witness but gave conflicting statements.

It's forensic evidence that is irrefutable. That is the primary basis that the jury and myself base their decision of this case upon. That is why I've been able to answer so many questions in this thread that have been posed about this case and why you all, especially ZC, refuse to answer questions.

I don't know what GZ thinks. He has the right to his opinion either way. It's inconsequential. What we know is his actions that night were justified. It was as law enforcement calls it "a clean kill".

MikeyA

No evidence supports Zimmerman's statements that Martin smashed Zimmerman's head against the pavement so many times that Zimmerman had no choice but to defend himself with a gun. The evidence includes the fact that Zimmerman only required a couple of bandages for his [life threatening?] injuries. If someone gets his/her banged against pavement several times, so much that the person fears for his/her life, there are large bumps and bruises on that person's head, and, often severe wounds which require a LOT more than just a couple of bandages. Remind me, Mikey. How many weeks did GZ spend in a hospital? Or was it days? Refresh my memory. Use some of your "evidence," please.
The truth is that Zimmerman changed his story to fit a scenario which he was encouraged to claim happened, in order to give Zimmerman cover for killing an unarmed teenager whom he outweighed by at least 40 pounds. IMHO -- Zimmerman is a wuss and a coward, hiding behind a gun and the fact that he is the only eye witness to the killing.

Once again I state, wouldn't Zimmerman like a do-over on that night? Doesn't he wish every waking hour of his life that he had listened to the sage advise from the police dispatcher, and followed the rules of his neighborhood watch program, and just stayed in his vehicle?

There is no test of "justified" in the killings in the OJ case. What is wrong with you (other than the obvious, that being the mental poison known as Liberalism)?

That's what you conservatives do best!

But your side in this has been screaming that Zimmerman can't possibly be innocent.

I personally have never said Zimmerman cannot be innocent! I'm not even arguing the trial's outcome. What I have maintained is that you cannot convict Martin posthumously based on the outcome of the trial.

I do also maintain that Zimmerman had a lot to do with the events that led up to the fight, and that he could have prevented the whole thing had he just left Martin alone.

"I personally have never said Zimmerman cannot be innocent! I'm not even arguing the trial's outcome. What I have maintained is that you cannot convict Martin posthumously based on the outcome of the trial." The problem is you get people like Dale who equate GZ getting out of his truck to being the reason TM is dead. Then you get ZC who argues that TM was just defending himself. Neither of these is supported by the evidence in any way and when taken the evidence in totality seem to go counter to it.

MikeyA

That's why I said "your side". It's plain English.

And we HAVE convicted Martin posthumously, since it was a justified shooting. Zimmerman fired in self defense. Therefore Martin attacked him.

Zimmerman isn't guilty of manslaughter or murder. Those are facts that your side cannot change. But your side certainly likes to bloviate (blogiate?) about it. Here we are, years later, and the pain in your posterior still troubles you about it.

"he could have prevented the whole thing had he just left Martin alone"

All crooks can just run free using that logic. You made no point whatsoever.

And it's not even a case of letting all crooks run free to avoid a few innocent men getting shot in the chest or back. Trayvon Martin wasn't innocent. He attacked a man who was forced to defend himself. The only reason Martin isn't in jail today is that he's dead. Liberals who are bothered by that need to point the finger at the causative agent: Young Black males. Not Whites. Not Hispanics. Not gun ownership, not nighttime patrols, not anything like that. Liberals need to blame the actors in this tragedy: Young Black males.

There is one huge problem with your comment:

"All crooks can just run free using that logic. You made no point whatsoever"

Martin was not a crook. He was minding his own business the night he was shot. If Zimmerman hadn't gone near him, the kid would have never been in a fight with Zimmerman's stupid ass.

"Martin was not a crook."

Of course he was. The shooting against him was justified. Therefore he attacked Zimmerman without cause. That's illegal.

Trayvon Martin was obviously going to end up in jail eventually. Zimmerman just saved us the trouble of paying an average of $25K/yr to house, clothe and feed Martin.

You will never win in this argument, since you can never overturn the justified nature of Zimmerman's shooting... unless you you can come up with evidence that shows it was not justified. Get cracking on that, willya?

And taxpayers would also have to pay for a sex change operation had he demanded one!

You obviously don't understand that there are times in legal proceedings where you just can't tell beyond doubt what really happened. You are applying your own "mob guilty" on Trayvon Martin when you convict him posthumously.

by at least 40 pounds...the wuss!

Martin got his licks in, at first.

Wow, anyone wanting to know about the Zimmerman case needs to hear these two videos. It's the investigators talking with George while listening to the 911 tapes. They are letting George explain what is happening, and he is falling apart trying to make it all work out. This is actual true stuff, and very telling.

Part1 https://youtu.be/TUsyaRClIyQ

Part2 https://youtu.be/rsyNUoH4PHE

"There is no evidence convicting Martin posthumously of anything."

False. There's Zimmerman's testimony. That's evidence.

"Just because George wasn't convicted doesn't mean Martin attacked him."

False. Being found NOT GUILTY of manslaughter or murder, the shooting was therefore justified. Therefore it was self defense. Therefore Martin attacked Zimmerman... just like Zimmerman said.

You Liberals have been following the same faulty play ever since we found out about the case:

1. Don't believe anything Zimmerman says.
2. Keep insisting that Martin being unarmed means anything legally.
3. Finally insist that Zimmerman is guilty since another Black kid died.

It is always the Black guys' fault. For instance, I have been in many discussions about slavery. The White view was that Blacks created slavery in the America's. How you may ask? According to some White participants slavery in the America's was because African tribes who were at war with other would sell their captives to the Europeans. Obviously, there was a market these tribes could accommodate by supplying the Bible toting Christians and Jews who conveniently classified Black People as sub-human, like a horse or mule, and therefore their greed and sexual deviance would be okay in the eyes of God. In the Scott case some are now saying that a Black policeman was complicit in the crime. It might appear that way, but I'm willing to gamble that the Black policeman feared for his life if he tried to help Scott. And, then there is the Thin Blue Line. Cops don't rat on other cops.

That makes that Black cop a coward, or a "tom", pure and simple.

That makes him smart enough to know that the other White officers will will make sure he disappears if he opens his mouth.

Yeah, but in that case, the cop can always say"feets don't fail me now".

Only to later run into the embracing arms of the other murderous cops.

"It is always the Black guys' fault."

No, but since Blacks are responsible for half of the violent crime in the nation, then it's often the Black guy's fault. Four times more often, in fact, than what one would expect from demographics.

"The White view was that Blacks created slavery in the America's."

No, the proper view is that slavery has been long over and it's long past the time to point fingers and assign blame, since everyone and the institutions who had been involved are long dead or re-organized.

Slavery just isn't a factor in anything, and it's been that way for generations. The liability is zero. When will Liberals accept it?

Black people did not sell anything to Whites or Jews. They sold each other to Moslem slave traders, who then sold them to various buyers.

Next, you'll be claiming that the slave owners in the United States were Muslim. I can understand why you would think that. You only have access to historical events through the distorted White explanation, not the truth.

Of course they weren't Moslems.

It is clear that Zimmerman was playing CYA with the recorded interview. We can hear his voice stating that he only left his vehicle to get an address. Then we hear his voice as he exclaims that the "suspect" is running. The dispatcher then asks if Zimmerman is chasing the "suspect." Zimmerman answers, "Yes." Then, he states to the interviewing police officers that he, indeed, stopped running and headed back to his car. But he stopped short of his vehicle because he didn't want to proceed beyond an area where there was light without a flashlight to guide him back over ground he had just covered. One officer even asks Zimmerman if his story is that he stood there, in the rain, getting wet, mainly because he wanted to light his way back to his vehicle. Then, Zimmerman states, as I heard it, that, "I wanted to catch the bad guy." And, according to the police doing the interview with Zimmerman, Martin wasn't considered by them to be a "bad guy." He had a relatively clean record. One officer states that attacking Zimmerman seemed out of character for Martin from the information he had gathered about Martin. I surmised, from what I heard, that the police interviewers were trying to get Zimmerman to say some things to help his situation, and Zimmerman seemed to not be taking their cues. Admittedly, this is a judgment on my part based upon hearing the actual interview.
Now, you whiny apologists can claim that the not guilty verdict means that Zimmerman is innocent. He sounds like a vigilante to me. He went looking for trouble, and when he couldn't subdue a MUCH SMALLER person, who also happened to be an unarmed teenager, the wuss brought out his gun and whacked the guy.
I still feel sorry for Zimmerman. He has to live with the truth that only he knows. He has to live with taking another human's life for no good reason. Don't you think that if he had to do it all over again, he would have stayed in his vehicle?

Dale, I think it was the cop talking at that point.

The point you're talking about is where Zimmerman is caught lying about going back to his truck. He tells them he needs a flashlight because he is worried about going back without light. But, in another interview he told them he had brought a flashlight to begin with. I'll listen again, but I think it was the cop filling in George's lack of an answer by suggesting to George "you wanted to catch the bad guy", as in that would be the only reason to explain Zimmerman not just going back to his truck. Knowing he was caught in a lie, George had to admit to having a flashlight, but didn't want to come right out and admit that he was looking for Martin with it. He was lying, and the police knew it.

So Zimmerman was looking (stalking) for Martin. The question we all should have is, why is Zimmerman looking for the bad guy when there was no bad guy? There is only a Black teenager walking down the street eating skittles and consuming a soft drink. I guess assaulting skittles and a soft drink is a crime.

PMW -- You're correct. My bad.
Based upon GZ's statements, it is the assumption of one of the police officers questioning GZ that GZ, "wanted to get the 'bad guy.'"

Zedacharles, please understand that during the interview the police state that Martin did not fit the profile of "a bad guy". The police weren't judging Martin. They were putting the idea out to George that he(Zimmerman) was thinking of Martin as a bad guy, as a reason to follow him. They were playing "good cop/ bad cop" , as a way to get the truth out of him.

To me Zimmerman fits the profile of someone who wants to be a hero. Instead, he is a total idiot.

The interview is irrelevant. There are hard objective facts that can be used to deduce what happened. A subjective one side story is not a deciding factor but rather a sideshow. The medical report and forensic evidence give you all you need to know and they are hard truths not open to interpretation.

MikeyA

The evidence proves only that there was a fight, not who started it.

Actually Mikeya, if you study the case a little you will find that Zimmerman's head wounds were not consistent with the type of trauma that would result from having one's head bashed against concrete. Even the police noted this. He was treated at the scene and did not need hospitalization. It was the same for his nose. Even still, those wounds could have very easily been received in a scenario in which Martin was fighting for his life. Nothing about the hard evidence proves that Martin attacked. All it does is prove there was a fight.

Try to prove it yourself. Using only hard evidence, prove beyond doubt who started the fight.

If there was a fight with mutual aggression it stands to reason that both would have injuries of it. Yet there isn't any.

MikeyA

There is no way to determine for sure who was, or was not, the aggressor based on injuries sustained. For all we know, George could have been going for his gun and Martin punched him to the ground in total fear. Such a scenario would leave George with physical injuries that weren't mutual.

In your scenario if we concede your assumption that GZ was pulling his gun from the beginning and TM punched him out of fear then there would be no reason for the continued punches, and bruising to the back of GZs head.

In that scenario it's reasonable to assume that the struggle would then come over the gun. Yes TM may have punched GZ to gain leverage but to argue that they wouldn't struggle over the gun from then on is ludicrous.

Such a struggle would have caused bruising on GZ arm/hands. Also it's highly likely that M would have gotten GZ's skin underneath his fingernails. So why does GZ have the cuts on the back of his head?

There is no evidence supporting this scenario. There is evidence of repeated punches by TM to GZ and of slamming GZ's head to the ground.

I don't believe the bulk of GZ's testimony because it's highly biased in his favor. What I do believe is the final moments where he said as his head was being repeatedly hit his jacket came up and his gun exposed. When TM saw it, they both reached for it and the gun went off. This is highly plausible because it is supported by the forensic and medical evidence.

MikeyA

If Martin had none of Zimmerman's DNA on him, how can we even say he punched Z over and over and smashed his head on the concrete? He should have had Zimmerman's DNA all over him from those acts?

Why would they test for DNA? They know who attacked who.

Notice I said there was no skin under TM's nails and GZ had no scratches. I did not mention DNA as because there was no skin under the nails there's nothing to prove there.

Now had they needed to prove the two were in a fight because one of them fled, they most definitely would have tested for DNA.

MikeyA

So why does GZ have the cuts on the back of his head?

How are they just cuts and not big giant abrasions with scuff marks and huge black and blue rising bumps? I mean we're talking repeated slamming on concrete here! The back of George's melon should have looked like hell for a long time after, but instead we see him in his reenactment video the next day with little butterfly bandages and no other signs of damage. Plus, his injuries were treated at the scene and needed no hospitalization. What's up with that?

There are several reasons why. As Dale has noted GZ outweighed TM. Even when on the ground in a defensive pose you can still mitigate the damage done to you. You can do this by deflecting his attack, by putting resistance against his force, etc. I never suggested GZ lied there and took it.

What is not deniable is he had cuts to the back of his head.

This supports that TM was either on top in the offensive pose or hit him from behind while fleeing. Now if we take the limited part of GZ's testimony that can be used to actually give insight to the medical facts we can see that it supports his testimony that TM was on top and in the offense. The rest of the testimony can be ignored as biased but this part clearly is supported by facts and gives us insight as to who was aggressive.

MikeyA

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.