George Zimmerman Found Not Guilty

In the killing of Trayvon Martin

Jurors have found George Zimmerman not guilty of second-degree murder in the fatal shooting of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin.

The six-member, all-woman jury deliberated for more than 15 hours over two days before reaching their decision Saturday night.

They had been given the chance to convict Zimmerman of manslaughter but did not do so, despite asking for a clarification of the charge earlier in the evening.

Comments

[americanexile]

Nice of the jury to wait till Saturday night. Let's hope all the twitter rioters are too drunk to be paying attention by now.

[Live Free or Diet]

I hope you're right. I'm not one to count on that. We have good perches, plenty of ammo and kids who know how to hit whatever they can see.

[SweatingGin]

My twitter is nearly silent, amazingly.

[Sanjuro Tsubaki]

You mean, let's hope they're too fall-down drunk or stoned to pay attention or resort to any violence. If they're stone just enough to have even less judgement and tact than useful, then that only makes things worse.

[Jake345]

correct ruling

[Render Unto Caesar]

Nice.

[ohlookMarketthugs]

Oh look, our first racists of the night. As a white person who walks/runs at night, and minds there own business, i dont want to be murdered by authoritarian busybodies.

[Render Unto Caesar]

Their* or maybe his* or her*

Just saying...

[Live Free or Diet]

Grammar nazi!

[Gindjurra]

Grammar Apologist!

[PM]

i dont want to be murdered by authoritarian busybodies.

The cops are going to be hiding under rocks until well after the rioting is over, so don't worry your precious little head.

[Reverendcaptain]

One suggestion is that if you see somebody checking you out, don't jump on them and start beating their head into the ground. In a free society, you never know who might be carrying.

[ohlookMarketthugs]

lol, and that's the best the racists have, a simple type for simple people.

[Jake345]

try writing a coherent thought

[ohlookMarketthugs]

Try not being a racist.

[Jake345]

what statement is racist intellectual lightweight?

[Jake345]

silence from the lightweight..lol..of course

[ohlookMarketthugs]

lol typo

[Render Unto Caesar]

Troll,

The judicial system as a whole would be way more of an absolute mess if by definition it was allowed to make unfounded assumptions about the philosophical underpinnings that drive someone's behavior. This was about whether Zimmerman reasonably could have feared for his life, not whether or not he's an asshole.

[Render Unto Caesar]

Also, I sincerely hope this was your last comment. You pollute the world with your ignorance.

[Rufus J. Firefly]

Correct ruling from what I've read about this story.

Bottom line is, from all accounts according to experts (except Sunny Hostin for some reason) this was a simple, classic case of the prosecution failing to prove beyond reasonable doubt. There just was too many holes to fill.

Sad for Martin and his family but this story should never had gotten the attention it got.

[Harvey_birdman]

Probably not that sad for Martin's family, they got over $1 million from the HOA in exchange for their dead son.

[XM]

The female jurors were probably thinking about Nicole Brown Simpson at some point in the trial.

If the race card prevailed over fractious evidence for the second time, I would have lost ALL faith in the country. Spin in your grave, Johnny Cochran.

[BenDFW]

What if Zimmmerman was also black? What would have happened then?

[PM]

Some racist white Hispanic would have crept up on the scene and shot the both of them. Duh.

[Black Liberty Unchained]

In my opinion it would not have went to trial. Even by some slim chance that it did it would not have received nationwide news coverage. Need proof just google Daniel Adkins.

[BigT]

Black on black crime is so common it would have been ignored. Only man bites dog stories get this much attention.

[JeremyR]

Arguably, he is black. His grandmother was.

[Bill]

That depends on the context and who is deciding if he is black and for what reason. (Not that it should or should even matter).

Back in slavery days and currently with the KKK, one drop of blood was enough. With the federal gov't and affirmative action policies, you need to have more than one drop but not much more.

Thus, the racists on both sides of the collectivist circle (actually not that far apart in other words) like to characterize people by race.

[doingprettygood]

The change of tune on the part of both the right and the left has been funny in the past few years. It's gone from "Just kill the guy!" on the right and "Let's hear the arguments." on the left to the other way around.

[Dan]

You hear the arguments first. You find out if he's guilty or not first. Then you fry the guy if he's guilty. The two are not mutually exclusive.

You're confusing people calling for tougher sentencing and being pro death penalty for serious violent crimes, with people just wanting to fry anyone that's ever accused of a crime.

You're just trying to engage in reductio ad absurdum to try to stir up a pointless political debate that is completely irrelevant.

[Bill]

I'm rarely for the death penalty any more. Too many cases of inept and unethical cops, prosecutors, judges, "expert" witnesses and wrongful convictions being overturned. Way too many cases of wrongful prosecutions with little recourse as you can't sue the prosecutors. I guess you can sue the state sometimes.
And juries, I forgot about them. I have been on several jury pools and on one civil jury. Scary to see who actually gets picked for juries sometimes.

[John C. Randolph]

This is not the outcome I expected, but I am relieved to know that if someone's beating your head into the pavement, notices your concealed weapon and tries to take it, you're allowed to draw first and shoot him.

-jcr

[PM]

I'm just relieved to know that the prosecution actually still has to prove their case, regardless of the amount of racial frenzy the media can conjure up.

[hotsy totsy]

Unless you're married to him, apparently.

[Gindjurra]

Beating someone's head on concrete is a murder attempt. If the murder attempt is already in progress, the intent of the would-be murderer grabbing for a deadly weapon is a no-brainer, he's going to use it because it's a better way to kill than what he's already doing.

[Death Rock and Skull]

This was a fair fight, so the victor should have been acquitted in either possible way the fight could have turned out.

[Gindjurra]

It's a fair fight until it's a murder attempt. Punching? Sure. Kicking? Why not. Hair pulling? If you must.

Trying to inflict a 100% reliably fatal injury? That's when it stops being a fair fight and starts being an unfair murder. Since Trayvon was in the process of killing Zimmerman, Zimmerman was justified in using equal force.

When Zimmerman shot Trayvon, it turned an unfair murder attempt back into a fair fight. Just because someone touches you doesn't usually give you the right to kill them.

[BigT]

An open/shut case made ugly by race-hustlers.

[Some Jerk]

Yes, because blacks are physically incapable of mustering outrage unless Jesse Jackson tells them to.

[Black Liberty Unchained]

Well heads are exploding over at the democratic underground.

Have lived this Shit all my life. Fuck George Zimmerman and his whole RACIST KLAN....Bitches!!!!! His Entire family is a family of Hatemongers. He will never be safe in America. I don't give a fuck what happens to his ass. They are worried about people threatening that foul ass bitch. Who gives a fuck except his shitty mama.

never have been safe. Birmingham church bombing in 1963-Trayvon Martin murder 2013. Same outcome for racist pigs....killed a .....Oh the racist are popping champagne corks in the democrat party, rethug party, tea party, klan and other racist pig parties. What a sham this trial was. But having lived for 65 years with 'american justice', I am not surprised.

I can't believe 5 mothers didn't think about their children walking home at 7:15 at night and being stalked, then shot by a vigilante cop wannabe.

The court has ruled not guilty... but I cannot rule Mr. Zimmerman to be innocent. The jury was given specific and narrow instructions to follow. So for now, Mr. Zimmerman still has this cloud over him, and this is not the end of this case.

[XM]

Tee hee

[PM]

That's the most cogent posting I've ever read from DU.

[OneOut]

What child are you referring to ?

There were no children involved in the Martin/Zimmerman case.

Everyone has been living this shit all our lives, not just you.

Do you also get so worked up about those young black children killed every weekend in Chicago or Detroit ?

I didn't think so.

A Hispanic, who was first called white, killing a young black man is way worse to you than dozens of young black men getting killed by other young black men in Chicago and Detroit on a regular basis.

That's the shit we live with. Black and liberal hypocrisy, lies, and self delusion in
what is just another attempt to play the race card.

[hotsy totsy]

Well, at least he included the democrats.

[Gindjurra]

Zimmerman: Member of neighborhood watch in a gated community, sees a non-resident walking around at night while concealing his face (hoodie).

Martin: Talks on phone about a cracker following him around, then shortly thereafter attempts to kill said 'cracker' and is killed by his would-be victim instead.

Now, somehow that doesn't seem to indicate that Zimmerman was a racist. It seems to indicate Martin was though.

[Kevin47]

So, does the Obama administration do the NAACP's bidding and bring civil charges? I can't imagine a scenario in which they don't try.

[Tom]

I could tell the verdict from the disgusted look Judge Debra Nelson gave when she looked at the verdict before it was read out loud. If Zimmerman could get a not guilty verdict with Nelson presiding, we should all be grateful for the presumption of innocence.

[MKH]

It's amazing. The same people who were saying "GZ illegally STALKED that young child!" are now talking about forming a hoodie-wearing mob to follow him around wherever he goes. The rage and hypocrisy of these people...

[Gindjurra]

Stalked? Sure, for certain values of stalked.

It's the JOB of the neighborhood watch to keep an eye on non-residents wandering around the neighborhood, follow and observe them if they act suspiciously (such as hiding their face while walking around at night) and call the police if they do something illegal.

But by the standard of stalking people are applying to Zimmerman...misbehaving children are stalked by their parents, police stalk criminals and campaign donators are stalked by politicians.

[TheTreeOfLiberty]

As expected the New York Times comments are truly a sight to behold. The usual "stand your ground" strawmen, appeals to the true "Americans of Goodwill" and "Right-Thinking People" who just know this was murder, silly storylines about children being murdered by grown men with scary guns, and real gems like this:

"Zimmerman may have been acquitted by the jury, but in the minds of many people, myself included, he is guilty of murder. It would have been better for him to have served some time in jail simply to make people feel that some kind of justice had been served and he could have moved on with his life without so much stigma. Now he is considered a bully and a murderer who was set free by a white jury because of racism. He doesn't face much of a future in this country."

Just to paraphrase that "Despite all the evidence along with the jury's verdict pointing to innocent, my mind says he's guilty so we should send him to jail for a few years to make people like me FEEL better. And obviously bullies and racism, just because."

Honestly, someone actually said that. I'm not making this up, and it's a top comment, check for yourself. And these clowns fancy themselves the arbiters of reason and intellectualism. God help us.

[Libertarius]

The epistemology behind this aspect you have identified--subjectivism--should give pause to all the Austrians and Rothbardians and anarchists among us.

Subjectivism is a self-defeating farce.

[MKH]

It's like the Twilight Zone out there. And these are the same people who organized last year's anti-bullying campaign. I guess getting jumped in the dark by a stranger who's taller and fitter doesn't count as bullying if the metrics of marginalization don't compute in your favor?

[XM]

Behold, this reaction from the LAT:

http://www.latimes.com/local/l.....3391.story

Some highlights, emphasis mine:

"While I am still having trouble accepting that you can follow a hoodie-clad black teenager on his way home, CONFRONT him, PROVOKE a fight, shoot him through the heart and get away with it, I have to accept the jury's verdict."

"Had he not disregarded the ADIVCE of a non-emergency police operator, gotten out of his car and followed the teenager, Martin would still be alive"

The police dispatcher testifying that he didn't command Zimmerman NOT to follow Martin can be found online.

We know the media just follows the dominant narrative instead of doing actual reporting, but it's disturbing to see it actually happen.

[MKH]

Ok, you're the neighborhood watch guy, and you see a stranger that's suspicious; you call it in while keeping watch. Suspect gets out of your eye-line and what do you do? Keep watching to see where he went. If that means getting out of your car with a flashlight, that's just part of the fucking job. (What's not part of the job is letting the suspect beat you to death with their fists.)

And for chrissakes, TM was exactly the type of person Zimmerman was training himself to protect his neighbors from: a burglar. So if it WAS profiling, then he pretty much nailed it.

[Death Rock and Skull]

OK, you're the neighborhood watch guy, and acting like it's a real job is part of the fucking job. You are a permanent wiener. Nobody ever shows up to your monthly meetings. How does that make you feel?

[Gindjurra]

So what about a non-resident walking around a secure, gated community at night while concealing his face strikes you as not suspicious?

[jamesrk]

Then there is this...
http://cheezburger.com/7624941056

[Stephdumas]

Is it a bit politically incorrect to play Gordon Lightfoot's song "Black day in July"? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPXL3iEVnCM

[KalkiDas]

Stephdumas: any day is good for Gordon Lightfoot. Saw him in Keene a year ago -- he's up there in age, but a great show.

[Jackand Ace]

The jury reached its verdict...so be it.

But I have a question for the folks here. I wonder...do you think it is OK for an adult to follow a child, bearing in mind the adult is armed and the child is not? And the adult does this, he is not a police officer, and he follows the child simply because that child looks suspicious? Is that OK? Should just that action alone be allowed? Would you be OK if some strange adult selected your kid out as suspicious, and followed him? The kid could be 17, 16, 15, 14, whatever? And maybe the kid is a girl?

All that OK?

[Jackand Ace]

Because so far, that is what we are left with.

[triclops]

You are a terrible racist.
If the roles reversed, and a black man was jumped by a physically superior"white Hispanic" (lol at that trusted phrase), and the black man shoot and killed him, everyone at Reason would feel exactly as they do today. Only resist assholes like you would feel differently depending on who was which race.
So kindly go fuck yourself.

[triclops]

Too many typos to list, but resist should be racist.

[Jackand Ace]

No problem on the typo...I do it all the time. Was just curious about opinions on this. Why so angry? Being a tough guy behind a keyboard is a bit childish, though.

[Jackand Ace]

By the way, I'm not a racist. In fact, I think it was a mistake to portray this case at all about race. To me, it was always about protection of our children on the streets.

[M.O.]

That's your mistake right there. What it was about was your right to defend yourself when your head is getting bashed in.

[Jackand Ace]

And like I said, the jury has spoken...so be it. They agreed with you, and they heard more evidence than either of us.

But there is now a residual...and that is that armed adults are allowed to select children for suspicion and follow them. You have no idea who the armed adult is, nor what he is capable of. But he is allowed to follow your child with a weapon.

If you feel that can be applied to your kids anywhere, then so be it.

[M.O.]

There has been no change in the law regarding following. That's just melodramatic nonsense. It is perfectly legal to follow someone, just as it was before this case.

[Jackand Ace]

Indeed. But I am asking what YOU want, M.O. Do YOU want your own children to be selected for suspicion by ANY adult anywhere...even in front of your own house. And then followed with a weapon.

Its a simple question that all better wrestle with, because right now that is legal in Florida, and it just was upheld as OK, even when it resulted in tragedy. Nothing has changed. You are right...that's the law.

The question is whether you think your own children should be susceptible for the same treatment.

[triclops]

JA thinks children who can kick your ass and children who cannot should be treated the same, as in no that at all. JA, do children ever rape? So are you okay with a woman testing a child who can overpower her the same as a child who cannot, in all situations, at all times?
Thought not.

[Wolfvayne]

Travyon was not a "child." He was a year under from being a full-fledged adult. He was old enough to serve in the military. He he was a young strapping man who could (and did!) beat the crap out of another man.

Zimmerman claimed that Travyon pinched his nose shut, smashed his head repeatedly into the concrete, and attempted to grab his gun. We had a witness testify that he saw Zimmerman on the bottom of the scuffle.

This is not a picture of an adult hunting down a child. This is a picture of an assault that had Zimmerman on the losing end.

If Travyon was going for Zimmerman's gun, then logic and survival instinct mandates that you must be the one to shoot first if you hope to live. This is a simple case of Stand Your Ground, and the correct verdict was given.

[Jackand Ace]

I get that. But the point remains that he was still a "child" in mot eyes, and the next time this happens...a child followed by an armed adult resulting in tragedy...it could a 16 year old, a 15 year old. It could be a female. That's what we are left with.

[Wolfvayne]

If you're not okay with armed adults following children, then we should disarm cops, security personnel, military, Secret Service, and any parents who own guns.

[wwhorton]

An armed adult? You mean like a cop? Or is it the concealed weapon? In which case I trust you've spoken out against undercover police and sky marshals. Because, otherwise, methinks you're suffering from a little bit of cognitive dissonance.

[Jackand Ace]

WW- for the record, I have no problem with police being armed, nor with detectives being armed with a gun in a holster. Its kind of the price society has agreed upon for safety from crime. If you would like to do away with armed policemen, then have at it...Britain already does that. I don't think it would work here.

Like I said, I do have a problem with any adult anywhere deciding to follow my child, and to do so while carrying a gun. Hey, I don't like them following my child without a gun!

But you are OK with your children being treated like that...not me.

[wwhorton]

Then keep your kids inside. Streets are public property, and communal areas of neighborhoods are just that: communal. You don't get to legislate your paranoia onto the rest of us.

[mgd]

Intent doesn't matter, Jackand Ace? Do I want anyone following my child, armed or not, for the intent of causing them harm? Absolutely not. Do I want my child being followed by a neighborhood watch member, for the purpose of making sure they are not going to break into anyone's property? Have it--mine won't be.

If they're too young to know how to deal with that, then they are too young for me to allow them to wander around alone at night. Once they're 17, they know how to handle a situation such as this. It wouldn't involve attacking the guy following them.

[M.O.]

It was a simple case of self-defense, not of "Stand Your Ground".

[Gindjurra]

In places without Stand Your Ground laws, you're not ALLOWED to engage in self-defense until after your attempt to run away has failed.

So yeah, it actually IS about Stand Your Ground.

[hotsy totsy]

I just can't buy Trayvon as a child. Children don't have girlfriends.

[OneOut]

Your dramatic hysteria raises the question:

Should we convict an innocent man in order to set a precedent that has no bearing on the issue at hand ?

[anon]

To me, it was always about protection of our children on the streets.

Then please, go kill yourself now. Thanks.

[Death Rock and Skull]

If Martin killed Zimmerman, every reason commenter should feel indifferent. All that matters is that two guys voluntarily had a row, and one guy lost. The self defense-defense is a-ok with me for either guy.

[BigT]

A 6 ft tall child, yes. 3 ft, no. Keeping an eye on children is ok because they can be destructive. Shooting kids who break your nose and are slamming your head into the concrete ok.

[Jackand Ace]

Remember the qualifier though, the adult is armed with a concealed weapon. That still OK?

[M.O.]

Why shouldn't it be? As a legal permit holder he's entitled to carry the weapon with him wherever he goes, with some exceptions. Why shouldn't he do it when he's reporting on a suspicious young man?

[Jackand Ace]

Then you better understand this, M.O....the age, other than he was still a child in most eyes, matters little...he could have been a 16 year old, 15 year old, 14 year old...whatever...all are now susceptible to being followed by an armed man simply because he deems the kid was suspicious.

[M.O.]

So what? There are a lot of armed men out there. That's sort of the point of concealed carry laws. A man with a legally carried and holstered gun "following" a suspicious young man so the police can find him is not the problem here. That young man thinking he has license to bash the man's head in is the problem.

[Jackand Ace]

Thanks, you feel it is OK. I don't, but you probably could have guessed that. I don't like the idea of any armed adult being allowed by the law to follow my children because they might look suspicious. But that's just me,

[M.O.]

We are talking about a criminal case here not personal comfort levels.

Ask yourself this. Did Trayvon Martin have the right to assault and murder George Zimmerman? Because that's what it means if you think George didn't have the right to defend himself. Did he?

[Jackand Ace]

Of course anyone has a right to defend themselves, and that is extended further in Florida with stand your ground. And I can't say it enough, the jury has spoken and agree with you. I'm not arguing that result...it is what it is.

I told you I do not want adults following my children with a gun. Period. I think the law should protect my law abiding children from such treatment. I take it you do not feel the same about your own children. To each his own.

[M.O.]

What I asked was if you thought Trayvon had the right to assault Zimmerman.

[Jackand Ace]

No one...Trayvon, you or me, has a right to assault anyone. And you should know that there is no proof anywhere of who assaulted who first. The victim is dead and all we are left with is one opinion. You can believe he assaulted GZ, but no one knows. But if he did, he had no right to.

That does not eliminate my question...its still valid. Do we as a society want to allow armed adults to follow children anywhere.

[Wolfvayne]

Yes, absolutely. Someone needs to protect children and protect others from violent, racist children.

[Jackand Ace]

OK, you agree with just about 100% here that an armed adult following a child anywhere is OK. I am surprised at how many are OK with it...congrats, you are in the majority.

[hotsy totsy]

Like any jury would not convict someone who was following an innocent CHILD. Had Trayvon actually been the smiling 14 year old in the photo used by the press, the verdict would almost certainly been very different.

And like you really believe that now, after this verdict, thousands of armed predators will be stalking

[M.O.]

OK, if Trayvon did not have the right to assault Zimmerman (and the evidence says that's exactly what he did, you are wrong about that), then Zimmerman had every right to use force to defend himself. End of story. It doesn't matter what actions anybody took leading up to that.

[John C. Randolph]

Do we as a society want to allow armed adults to follow children anywhere.

Why do you want to abolish the police? Are you some kind of anarchist?

-jcr

[PM]

We are talking about a criminal case here not personal comfort levels.

Dumbfuck hasn't been able to figure that out despite having it pointed out multiple times over the course of the last week or so.

[anon]

Remember the qualifier though, the adult is armed with a concealed weapon. That still OK?

I don't give a fuck how old the asshole is that's breaking my nose; if you break my nose and keep slamming my head into the concrete, I'm going to do my level best to draw a weapon and shoot you. If you die, it's not a problem for my conscience.

[Mike A.]

Yes. Following someone on a public street is not against the law, nor should it be.

[Jackand Ace]

Thanks for letting me know...was just curious.

[Jim in Denver]

How, pray tell, could Zimmerman have known Martin wasn't armed? So what relevance does Zimmerman being armed have?

Also, yes an adult watching the activities of a youth, in view of the public, is absolutely acceptable. The fact that the adult was part of a community supported neighborhood watch only reinforces that.

Did you have a large grey bowel movement this morning... was it wrinkley and oblong? You might want to go retreive that...

[Jackand Ace]

Thanks...you think its OK for armed adults to follow children. Was just curious about your opinion...no need for the phony tough guy stuff...its always easy when you are behind a keyboard.

[M.O.]

It's silly to keep calling the 17 yr old Trayvon a child. He may have been a legal minor, but "child" is hardly a fair descriptive term.

[Jackand Ace]

Its a child in most eyes. But if your point a 17 year old is capable of adult crime, you are right. So is a 16 year old, a 15 year old, a 14 year old.

The next time this happens it could be a 14 year old...Martin's age was never evident to GZ.

The question still remains, are you willing to let your own kids be selected by ANY adult for suspicion, and to then be followed with a weapon?

[M.O.]

It's not up to me, but following is not a crime. If someone follows, with out without a weapon, they are only a potential harm, not an actual one. They would have to actually do something before you could take action against them.

[Jackand Ace]

Fair enough..thanks for a reasoned discussion. Seems hard to do here.

[Brian Macker]

Yes, what is your problem.

[Concerned Citizen]

"Child" my ass. Here in central Ohio it's the thugs younger than Trayvon shooting everything up, because they know that as "children" they won't face any consequences. Record sealed once they turn 18, no father in the home, they join gangs and fuck with white people for kicks, or as gang initiation.

[Jim in Denver]

Phony tough guy? Did I make any threats? No I just called you a brainless twat, you brainless twat.

[Brian Macker]

It is ok. Especially if they are on the phone with police.

[Mark22]

This was private property and Martin was not a resident. Of course, it was OK for Zimmerman to call the police, follow Martin and ask him what he was doing there. And it would have been OK regardless of age, race, or gender. Why is that even a question?

[PM]

I wonder...do you think it is OK for an adult to follow a child, bearing in mind the adult is armed and the child is not?

Yep

And the adult does this, he is not a police officer, and he follows the child simply because that child looks suspicious?

Yep

Is that OK?

Yep

Should just that action alone be allowed?

Yep

Would you be OK if some strange adult selected your kid out as suspicious, and followed him?

Yep

The kid could be 17, 16, 15, 14, whatever?

Irrelevant to the question, but doesn't change any of the answers.

And maybe the kid is a girl?

Also irrelevant to the question, and still doesn't change any of the answers.

Goddamn, that was nearly as easy as the "are you a libertarian?" test.

I'm stunned it took Nancy Grace blowing her mouth off on TV 23 hours a day for Jackand Ace to find out that in America, you can indeed follow somebody you think is suspicious. Get this: we live in a country where anybody - ANYBODY - any armed yahoo at all - can not only follow somebody they find suspicious, but also... talk to them! Isn't that fuckin' scary?!?! People just able to walk wherever the fuck they like, and talk to whoever the fuck they want?! MADNESS

[Gindjurra]

Random adults following children? Maybe, it depends on the situation.

A member of a neighborhood watch in a gated community following a non-resident who is walking around it night, concealing his face?

You bet it's OK for him to do that. It's not unreasonable if the person is acting suspicious.

And for the record, a 17 year old isn't exactly a little kid. If he's bigger than the watchman and disguising his face, how would an observer know he's only 17?

In the end, he demonstrated quite well that 17 is old enough to attempt to murder someone. Bashing someone's brains out on a concrete curb is invariably lethal, after all.

A teenager got killed by his victim while in the act of murdering that victim? Justice.

[melpee]

There was no crime committed by Zimmerman as he observed and followed Trayvon, but being punched and savaged while on the ground is a crime. The shot fired was thought to be a life saver.

[Jackand Ace]

OK then. Do you think it SHOULD be a crime for any adult to deem a child as suspicious and then follow that child with a gun. The child could be anywhere, on the street, in his own neighborhood, maybe in front of his own home (GZ never knew the kid lived there nor where is home was). If your OK with your own children being susceptible to that, so be it

[Concerned Citizen]

My child won't have gold teef, a record, and a nickname - no limit nigga.

[Jim in Denver]

You keep asking that question here and you'll get the same answer or generally be ignored.

The gun is irrelevant. Why not inquire about a knife? A rock? Fists?

Ignorant brainless twat.

Adults are entitled to observe children in public regardless of what weapon they may carry.

[Jackand Ace]

You could not be clearer...thanks.

[Brian Macker]

Plus you can follow a child, talk with the child, ask the child questions, etc. Anything you can do legally without the gun you can do in possession of the gun.

[wwhorton]

Christ almighty, troll elsewhere. It doesn't matter how often you say the word "child". Armed adults follow minors they believe to be suspicious all the time: they're called police. And, yeah, I'm fine with someone following a suspicious-looking teenager wandering around my neighborhood at night if my neighborhood's been hit by break-ins. I could've used some of that following last year when someone walked around my house at night peeking in the windows.

[Jackand Ace]

Posting an opinion that makes you a tad uncomfortable is not trolling. Not everyone agrees with WW. But you have made yourself clear. Thanks.

[wwhorton]

What makes me uncomfortable is the almost embarrassing way that you continue to mischaracterize this event. It's like someone repeating the punchline to a joke hoping that, eventually, someone will laugh.

But, what the hell, lets play your game. If Trayvon Martin was a defenseless, innocent "child", how did he manage to put Zimmerman on his back, keep him down, and beat him to the point where Martin's own hands suffered damage from the impact?

But it's all about age, right? So a 17-year-old in your estimation has more in common from a physical perspective with a 9-year-old than a 19-year-old. So you've got some magic age up until which a "child" is incapable of causing harm to anyone, then, right? Then here's your question: how old does a "child" have to be before you're permitted to defend yourself against him? If a 14-year-old is walking around my house at night, do I get to ask him what he's doing? Or do I have to wait until he's 18 for that?

Ps. Posting an opinion is not trolling. Posting the same opinion in virtually the same phrasing over and over again while failing to address conflicting arguments in a meaningful way is trolling.

[PM]

But he's emoting really hard! That means he's super cereal! And he's so concerned. How can you not be as concerned as he is? Don't you care about teh CHILDRUNZ!!!!

[space junk]

People keep making a statement about TM being a child stalked by a guy (GZ) with a gun. I think it is important to remember that the gun was not pulled or brandished in any way prior to the fight that TM started.

Also, TM was not some 10 year old. He was 17 years old (almost old enough to vote, purchase a firearm....) 5' 11" tall and 158 lbs. I am 40 years old and 5' 11" and 165 lbs. If I put on a hoodie and started taking strange paths behind houses at night, people would probably think I am some creepy adult stalker or would be adult burglar.

The first illegal act was committed by a guy who was tall and strong. It sucks that this kid got killed. But he started a fist fight with an armed individual and things escalated from there.

So in closing, I think your characterization of him as a 'child' is somewhat misleading due to the fact that even a 10 or 5 year old can be a child as well. He was a 17 year old minor. And in some states, he could be tried as an adult at that age for certain crimes.

[Jackand Ace]

OK, so tell me at what age you think it should be unlawful for an armed adult to follow a child?

[space junk]

All situations are different. Putting an age on following an individual while armed would intellectually dishonest. Some people grow faster than others, some are 'little people' (not trying to be offensive with that).

And what if GZ was following a 6 year old child at night? What if GZ thought the child might be lost? Should he cease to follow the child and help him get to safety because he is armed? Should he just call the police and let them handle it? If so, should he try to get an address for the police so they know where to look when they get there?

We can come up with endless scenarios. Each scenario has its distinct attributes that need logic and reason to be applied not some blanket age restriction.

[Jackand Ace]

Well, thanks for a reasoned response. You gave my a sliver of hope that you thought maybe we could at least say 10 and under should be protected from that. But I fear we are left with, at least in Florida, that any armed adult can follow children for looking suspicious, and they can do it anywhere even in front of the child's house. I cannot say this enough...if I lived there I would not be happy with that being legally protected. The state allowing that to happen is as far from libertarianism as possible.

[wwhorton]

"The state allowing that to happen is as far from libertarianism as possible."

You mean the state "allowing" someone to follow someone else in his own neighborhood? Your statement is as far from libertarianism as possible.

[Dunphy (the real one)]

Um, following somebody (within reason... we are not talking for hours on end) is and should be entirely legal. People have the right to observe from places they are lawfully at, just like cops I might add, and ime non-cops acting as eyes and ears in their neighborhood help us solve an immense percentage of the crimes we do solve.

People should be active in their community in being good witnesses and I fully support their right to follow somebody and OBSERVE.

[Jackand Ace]

Fair enough, Dunphy. Thanks.

[Dunphy (the real one)]

Cheers.

[space junk]

No worries. Its nice to be able to talk to people about something without hostility. Such a rarity for this incident on other sites.

[John C. Randolph]

When did you stop beating your wife?

-jcr

[OneOut]

I would say around 98. Once you start getting up past 98, 99 the knees begin to get stiff and the prostrate can be a problem if their are no restrooms handy.

Following a child into a restroom isn't cool. It's OK to follow them to the restroom, but not into the restroom.

OK, since you require a firm answer I'll go with 98.

[Gindjurra]

The difference, legally, between a police officer and a member of the neighborhood watch is that the police officer is paid to do what he does, and the neighborhood watchman is only allowed to make arrests for felonies.

Other than that, there is no legal difference. Well, there's the statistic that you are 8 times more likely to be shot in error by a police officer than by a concealed weapons permit holder, but that's not really a legal difference.

So why are you okay with police officers carrying out their duty, but not okay with neighborhood watch members doing the same thing?

[hotsy totsy]

Again, what the fuck does this have to do with Trayvon, who was NOT A CHILD. Jesus.

[XM]

If there's no intent to commit murder, then you can follow my 17 year old son (if I had one) for the purposes of observation.

The gun was for self defense purposes. I think you need to figure out what's criminal stalking with a weapon and what isn't.

[BLEEDINELL]

If I had a son, he would look like George Zimmerman.

[[e-mail]]

One must put aside the media fluff and trust that the jury, having heard the testimony which the vast majority did not, have reached a verdict based upon the facts that were presented. To do otherwise is to question the entire jury system.

Those that condemn the verdict condemn the system.

[Dunphy (the real one)]

No, they don't. And I for one both support the verdict, and I predicted it.

One can believe in the system, while still believing its imperfect, and also that jurors are forced to decide on imperfect information.

I believe some verdicts are wrong (see: OJ. The first time). Probably everybody here has seen jury decisions they disagree with.

Again, believing the system is imperfect and sometimes comes to the wrong conclusion is not condemning the system. It's being pragmatic and recognizing that it is imperfect.

Having to use deadly force is an awful thing. It will haunt him for a long time. Trayvon Martin put himself in the situation where deadly force was JUSTIFIED against him. This reminds me of SO many police deadly force cases in that regards, how the person shot creates their own demise by acting either incredibly stupidly or violently when they easily could have simply done the right thing and avoided getting shot.

[Death Rock and Skull]

OJ was rightfully not guilty the first time. That trial sucked balls. Your balls. The bitch and her buddy were fiends and OJ ran afoul of typical coked up celebrity wife/girlfriend/fuckbuddy craziness and could have easily gotten killed himself. See Kurt Cobain, John Belushi, and Phil Hartman- for example. All victims of cocaine benders supplied by Andy Dick.

[Dunphy (the real one)]

Way to go JURY!

In self defense cases, ime , they usually get it right. And as somebody who is placed in the position of having to make deadly force decisions on occasion, I am so glad to live in a country (and especially my state which offers greater protection than florida to those acting in self defense or defense of others) that respects self defense, and gives the benefit of the doubt to the person using deadly force, placing a burden on the state (in my state, their burden is to DISPROVE self defense or pay lawyer fees and back wages).

Justice has been served. Good for Zimmerman. Taking a life is an awful thing to have to do. I feel for him.

[Dunphy (the real one)]

Our nation is rather unique in the extent to which is extends the benefit of the doubt to those using force in self defense, and Zimmerman can thank God he didn't live in any # of countries that don't extend that similar respect, let alone let him carry a firearm. He did not act perfectly, but the law does not require that.

Looking at the totality of the circumstances and what *he* reasonably perceived from his POV, the correct conclusion is deadly force- NO CHARGEs. The system is shown as imperfect by the mere fact that he was charged in the first place (and remember the initial decision by cops/prosecutors was NOT to charge), but especially because he was charged with murder (shades of Diallo), a charge that is not remotely supported by the fact pattern.

[space junk]

Speaking about GZ not acting perfectly, there were operational mistakes made by both GZ and TM.

TM was walking around the back of houses in the dark in a hoodie. He should have known this would draw attention.

GZ got out of his car. He is safer in the car. Also, to my knowledge, there was nothing on his car indicating that he was 'Community Watch' and wasn't wearing a shirt that indicated that either.

Not that the above actions are illegal, but had they chosen a different presentation of themselves that night, this would have likely amounted to nothing more than a conversation between the two.

Maybe the good thing to come of this will be local law enforcement and communities identifying more refined protocols for community watches in order to avoid this type of thing in the future.

But TM still started the fight in the end. That was the most egregious act of the night.

[DarrenM]

TM was walking around the back of houses in the dark in a hoodie. He should have known this would draw attention.

I'd wager he did know. I see this behaviour quite a bit from teens. It's like those guys who walk slowly across the street against a red light, or crank up their radio to deafening levels just to annoy others in the vicinity. He was basically daring someone to do something about it. He got pissed someone would dare to challenge him, which is when he made his mistake.

[Death Rock and Skull]

I would say it is not a mistake to challenge authoritah.

[Some Jerk]

"TM was walking around the back of houses in the dark in a hoodie."

Wow, remind me not to wear hoodies or take the back alley to my house ever again.

[Gindjurra]

That's not what got him shot. It got him investigated by the neighborhood watch, and if he'd kept his fists to himself that's all it would have remained.

But TM decided to beat the hell out of the 'creepy cracker' (his words) that was following him. Not only was he winning the fight, he had (on at least some level) decided to murder that 'cracker'.

Then he noticed that the 'cracker' was armed, and tried to grab the weapon. He was already in the middle of a murder attempt (bashing someone's brains out on concrete being fatal 100% of the time), so his intent in grabbing for a pistol was quite clear -- had he gotten ahold of it, it would have been TM on trial for shooting GZ.

TM made his own fate. And then suffered it.

[Ecdysis]

The outcome of the trial couldn't possibly have had anything to do with race. Let's assume for the sake of argument that it is proven that Zimmerman was Grand Dragon leader or whatever of the KKK, he got out of his car to follow Martin, walked up to Martin because he doesn't like black people in his neighborhood, just to launch racial slurs at him.

As long as the prosecution can't prove beyond a reasonable doubt he started the physical altercation, he still would have a valid self-defense claim. The law doesn't say you can claim self-defense unless your not a racist.

[Ecdysis]

*The law does not say you can claim self-defense unless your a racist.

[mgd]

Well, not yet, it doesn't. Be patient.

[triclops]

I'm fairly certain at this point that JA is just anonbot v2.0. He keeps posting the same thing over and over and doesn't respond to points made against his position.

I especially like his random accusations of others claiming to be keyboard tough guys. His algorithms are impressive though.

[OneOut]

I agree. His "thank yous" and "point well made" were a little too kind.

Very impressive and scary from my point of view.

[MKH]

So I hear the Homeowners' Association at Retreat View was successfully sued by TM's family. Do they have a clear shot at civil charges against Zimmerman, too?

Also, the NAACP wants in on the action - they're pushing for a Federal Civil Rights indictment. It's never gonna end for this poor guy, is it?

[space junk]

They will probably file a wrongful death suit. I dont think there is enough there to prove racial malice in order to bring a federal hate crime suit. But maybe there is more than we see right now.

GZ would do well to get back his passport and take his family out of the country for a while (if not permanently). He speaks spanish. His mother is Peruvian. Maybe they can move to somewhere south of the border and start over. He will always be looking over his shoulder in this country.

And yeah, his family got about $1 million from the HOA.

[Death Rock and Skull]

There's no country called "Peruvia" anywhere on the map.

[OneOut]

what do you call someone from Peru ?

[Gindjurra]

Peruite? Peruan? Pervect?

No, Peruvian seems to be the best choice.

[M.O.]

The HOA's insurance company settled. They may have calculated that it was cheaper than defending, although it's hard to see how that could be true.

Florida law provides a civil immunity for people acting in self-defense. Martin's family probably won't get far with that.

[M.O.]

The FBI already investigated and decided Zimmerman was not racist. They probably won't get far with the Thoughtcrime charge.

[Brian Macker]

THus should never have went to trial, and the media should never have distorted the evidence in reporting on this.

[DeJarvis Floyd]

Their is no way in hell George Zimmerman should have been acquitted on all charges. Check this out!!! http://www.dejarvisfloyd.com George Zimmerman vs O.J. (They both Got Away With it!!!)

[M.O.]

Don't bother checking that out. It's stupid.

[PM]

Inorite? OJ's self defense was just as strong as Zimmerman's...

[Gindjurra]

Somehow, I can't imagine OJ being held down and pummeled half to death before turning it around and killing his attacker.

[Greendogo]

And yet again, a verdict which does NOT satisfy everybody. Thank you statist Judicial system.

I'm happy that a man was not punished by the state today, regardless of his guilt or innocence, because it is not the state's job to exist or to affect us in any fucking way.

However, it's clear that from this verdict, Zimmerman is going to look like the White Hispanic OJ, from the point of view of many in the country. His life is pretty much 100% fucked now.

It's also clear that our statist system of government contributed to Trayvon Martin's death, which IS a tragedy.

In a free and voluntary system of justice, Zimmerman would have brokered Justice in a private court between himself and Martin's family, and it would've concerned only them and himself. No national outcry, no outcome that would leave Zimmerman stigmatized for life or Martin's family unhappy over the outcome and disaffected.

[anon]

And yet again, a verdict which does NOT satisfy everybody.

Uh, yeah; usually criminals aren't satisfied with a guilty verdict, while victims usually aren't satisfied with an innocent one. Someone's always going to be pissed; c'est la vie.

I'm happy that a man was not punished by the state today, regardless of his guilt or innocence, because it is not the state's job to exist or to affect us in any fucking way.

Wrong.

It's also clear that our statist system of government contributed to Trayvon Martin's death, which IS a tragedy.

Hah! Wrong.

In a free and voluntary system of justice, Zimmerman would have brokered Justice in a private court between himself and Martin's family, and it would've concerned only them and himself. No national outcry, no outcome that would leave Zimmerman stigmatized for life or Martin's family unhappy over the outcome and disaffected.

Wow, troll much? What the fuck is a "free and voluntary system of justice?"

I suspect you're the liberal troll from earlier that has no concept of what Liberty or libertarianism actually is.

[Gindjurra]

Despite what voluntaryists want you to believe, not everybody would voluntarily submit to the system.

Despite what sovereign citizens would have you believe, there really are only two natural laws -- The right to kill anything you want and the right to die if something bigger than you wants what you have.

Neither one would result in anything like the Utopia the adherents of those philosophies envision. Somalian-style anarchy is probably the best end either of them could achieve in the real world.

[madilynbrady6]

my classmate's aunt makes $81 hourly on the computer. She has been without a job for five months but last month her income was $15694 just working on the computer for a few hours. Read more on this web site Go to site and open Home for details
http://WWW.JOBS31.COM

[What's that smell?]

PLEASE READ THIS IMPORTANT AND MOVING LETTER
Fists of Love not Hate by the Reverend Phil McKracken

Dear Friends,

By now you have all heard and have had some time to digest the verdict in the George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martian case. While some of you may have accepted the verdict and rationalized it as "the system worked" or "they didn't prove beyond a reasonable doubt" many of you however, especially those in the political and entertainment realm, are angry and upset by this ruling. And rather than submit to the idea that Zimmerman, like all Americans enjoys the right of the presumption of innocence, and that the jurors listened carefully to all the evidence, shed the blinders of racial bias and reached a just verdict on the facts and rule of law, you want vengeance.

[What's that smell?]

I ask; please stop. Stop the hate. Stop stoking the flames of racism and join me in raising your fists not in hate but in love. I am proposing a rally of all Americans, black, white, white-black, white-Hispanic, just plain Hispanic, black-Hispanic, Hispanic-black, Asian, white- Asian, black-Asian, Asian-white Asian (ah, you get it. Do I have to go through Eskimo and Native American and all variations therein?).

Let us all join together and raise our fists in love; self-love. For what greater love is there than to love thyself? None. That's why I am proposing a national day to come together and "Masturbate for Trayvon!" (copyrighted and trademarked.)

What greater tribute, what greater bonding, what greater display of unity, love, peace, and joy, than to, as a nation, lie back and whack off together?

I envision all men, women, and children (especially children) masturbating in unison while picturing Trayvon and chanting; "Creepy-ass Cracker, Creepy-ass Cracker, Creepy-ass Cracker" mentally bonding together all three major races as we climax in a aura of self-love and self-satisfaction. Then we rest.

We rest with satisfaction, exhaustion, peace and understanding.

[What's that smell?]

So on Friday July 26 at 10pm eastern time, join me as we raise our fists, drop our pants, spread our legs and Masturbate For Trayvon!

May God, Al Sharpton, Eric Holder, and Barack Obama be with you.

Remember: If President Obama masturbates to the image of a male teen, that male teen would look like Trayvon!

With Love,
The Reverend Phil McKracken PhD.

Please spread the word!!!

[Death Rock and Skull]

I feel that both of them were punks and thugs. I also feel that had either one or the other of them done the killing of the counterpart with everything else being equal, fuck the state's attorneys for bringing such a shoddy case to trial. Prosecutors are the biggest punks and thugs.

[John in GA]

From the point of view of the Left, this was never intended to be a "trial" in the sense that the verdict is undetermined until the facts and testimony are evaluated in the context of the applicable law. This trial was supposed to be nothing more than a procedural hoop to jump through on the way to the George Zimmerman lynching. And now liberals are outraged -- outraged! that the jury made a decision based solely on the facts presented and the law and not on the racially-charged narrative created by the media and professional race-baiters. "What??? you based your decision on the evidence and witness testimony? My 'racist wannabe-cop hunted down a black kid and murdered him for buying skittles' tweet summed it all up for you. What else did you need to know?"

[MKH]

You're right - and MAN, is that mob howling mad.

[Gindjurra]

Mobs have gone way down in quality since the days when you could settle them down with a whiff of grapeshot. Now anybody can form a mob.

[scottstams]

This has not been a banner year for the DOJ's black supremacist agenda. First the voting rights act, now this.

[Some Jerk]

Completely un-surprised by the tone of the comments here. American "Libertarians" have traditionally given fuck all about the personal liberty of black citizens. The property rights of slave-owners and segregationists were sacrosanct.

If/when the U.S finally finishes the transition to full-blown Fascism and pursues internal ethnic cleansing policies, I fully expect about half of Reason's subscribers to be manning the concentration camp towers.

[Gindjurra]

Actually, historically it's been Democrats who were most in favor of keeping the 'colored races' down.

Go look it up. Lincoln was not atypical for a Republican, and the Libertarians are mostly an outgrowth of Republicans.

Libertarians want freedom, race is irrelevant to that. Just because someone wears a Libertarian tag on his forehead, doesn't make him one.

I'd rather expect that half of Reason's subscribers would be dynamiting those concentration camp towers -- Ideally with racists like you in them.

[MKH]

Again with the race-baiting. This was a trial POLLUTED by racial bias. The actual incident before the docket had nothing to do with color and everything to do with self-preservation.

[Sevo]

Some Jerk| 7.15.13 @ 5:24AM |#
..."American "Libertarians" have traditionally given fuck all about the personal liberty of black citizens. The property rights of slave-owners and segregationists were sacrosanct."...

Bot offshoot of HufPo?
Random ignoramus?
Troll?

[jili5]

I was worried an innocent man would go to jail all because angry Al (Sharpton that is) and the other actual racists in the media wanted to make money off a false Angry White Racist narrative. I'm glad the jury had the good sense to realize what happened.