TRAYVON Martin??

Innocent until proven guilty. Proven not guilty implies - by induction - innocent. Logic, people. I know nothing of the details of this case but know that looting and rioting will not solve it. I DO respect the peaceful protesters that shut down 288 for 15 mins or so. They allowed an ambulance to proceed but not normal civie cars.

http://abovethelaw.com/2013/07/the-r...icts-are-made/

Mr Zimmerman is an Hispanic of Caucasian origin. I don't know about the possible Jewish aspect. This case highlights that "racism" is far from being a black and white affair. Just wait until the Asian Americans start shooting people!!

You people seem to conveniently forget that he was innocent all along...even throughout the trial...by finding him not guilty, they confirmed his innocence...

You'll continue to cling to any possible hope you have to think of him as guilty...HE'S NOT...get the fuck over it...

Wow, Coolaid , what an appropriate handle. " Walking around on someone else/s private property.....". where did that come from? TM was staying with his father ......and common areas in residential areas are not ""private property" in the sense you are using term. He was a RESIDENT. He was living there! IDIOTS....sorry....I take that back. It's amazing the mischaracterizations people are willing to make to justify TM's death. Originally Posted by lostincypress

I think he was on private property when zimmerman spotted him. He was behind SOMEBODY ELSE'S HOUSE, NOT ON THE SIDEWALK OR THE STREET. I was wrong about it being the middle of the night, it was only like 7:00pm.

Regardless, all that matters is 2 things. 1)Was zimmerman the aggressor? There's NO SOLID EVIDENCE to show he was the aggressor. 2)Was zimmerman in fear of his life? There's NO SOLID EVIDENCE to show he was not in fear of his life.

If you know you have a loaded gun on you and you are getting YOUR ASS WHIPPED, all you will be thinking is "oh shit this dude's about to kill me with my own gun". In that case all you can do is shoot him before he shoots you.

I still don't understand the uproar around all of this though. It should be well understood, if you walk around looking like a hoodlum, on other people's private property expect to get your ass shot. This is just like joe horn. Joe horn saw some hoodlums up to no good ON SOMEONE ELSE'S PRIVATE PROPERTY and he shot the shit out of them. That's exactly what you're supposed to do.

Legal language is very precise. Not Guilty means Not Guilty, period. Meaning, the prosecution could Not Prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Zimmerman's actions were in violation of the laws, as written.

Being found Not Guilty does not mean that Zimmerman is innocent, it means that he could not be proven Guilty. There is a difference.

Had Zimmerman been exonerated, meaning evidence was presented that proved that he had acted in self defense, then his innocence would be proven.

In this case, the verdict does not mean that Zimmerman did not commit a crime, it means that it could not be proven that he did commit a crime.

What is certain is that Zimmerman set the wheels in motion of the sequence of events that ended in the death of Travon Martin. I'd say that Zimmerman is probably guilty, but his guilt could not be proven.

And since the trial meant two things, jack and shit, he's still what he was before he went in...innocent...

Just like Casey Anthony. Originally Posted by chicagoboy

Just like Casey Anthony. Remember, in that case, the State charged her with first-degree murder. However, the State's Medical Examiner testified under oath that he could not determine:

(1) When Calee Anthony died
(2) Where Calee Anthony died
(3) How Calee Anthony died
(4) Who killed Calee Anthony

In addition, there was not one piece of forensic evidence that connected Casey Anthony to her daughter's death..

The State had no chance of proving "beyond a reasonable doubt" that Casey Anthony committed 1st-degree murder given those unknowns. They could have convicted Casey Anthony of being a really crappy mother. There is no question about that. But proving murder was a long-shot. The State of Florida over-reached, again.

And since the trial meant two things, jack and shit, he's still what he was before he went in...innocent... Originally Posted by Wakeuр

No WU, you're wrong. He's still innocent and now publicly hated.

And since the trial meant two things, jack and shit, he's still what he was before he went in...innocent... Originally Posted by Wakeuр

As was OJ Simpson found not guilty in criminal trial, but held liable for the deaths in a civil trial. Zimmerman's probably facing the same fate. And, then there's the court of public opinion.

Not Guilty and Innocent are not necessarily one and the same unless you are exonerated, meaning your innocence was proven. Ziimerman's innocence was not proven, but he was found not guilty.

Legal language is very precise. Not Guilty means Not Guilty, period. Meaning, the prosecution could Not Prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Zimmerman's actions were in violation of the laws, as written.

Being found Not Guilty does not mean that Zimmerman is innocent, it means that he could not be proven Guilty. There is a difference.

Had Zimmerman been exonerated, meaning evidence was presented that proved that he had acted in self defense, then his innocence would be proven.

In this case, the verdict does not mean that Zimmerman did not commit a crime, it means that it could not be proven that he did commit a crime.

What is certain is that Zimmerman set the wheels in motion of the sequence of events that ended in the death of Travon Martin. I'd say that Zimmerman is probably guilty, but his guilt could not be proven. Originally Posted by StinkyFingers

You're right, legal language is precise. The jurors only had three options in their instructions: (1) Guilty of 2nd Degree Murder, (2) Guilty of Manslaughter, (3) Not Guilty.

There were no options to explicitly say: (a) Innocent or (b) Guilty but Not Proven. In this trial,

Not Guilty includes a finding of Innocent. There is no distinction.

Legal language is very precise. Not Guilty means Not Guilty, period. Meaning, the prosecution could Not Prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Zimmerman's actions were in violation of the laws, as written. Originally Posted by StinkyFingers

Which, in turn means innocent. Since the basis of American law is INNOCENT until proven guilty!

Legal language is very precise. Not Guilty means Not Guilty, period. Meaning, the prosecution could Not Prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Zimmerman's actions were in violation of the laws, as written.

Being found Not Guilty does not mean that Zimmerman is innocent, it means that he could not be proven Guilty. There is a difference.

Had Zimmerman been exonerated, meaning evidence was presented that proved that he had acted in self defense, then his innocence would be proven.

In this case, the verdict does not mean that Zimmerman did not commit a crime, it means that it could not be proven that he did commit a crime.

What is certain is that Zimmerman set the wheels in motion of the sequence of events that ended in the death of Travon Martin. I'd say that Zimmerman is probably guilty, but his guilt could not be proven. Originally Posted by StinkyFingers

You're right, legal language is precise. The jurors only had three options in their instructions: (1) Guilty of 2nd Degree Murder, (2) Guilty of Manslaughter, (3) Not Guilty.

There were no options to explicitly say: (a) Innocent or (b) Guilty but Not Proven. In this trial,

Not Guilty includes a finding of Innocent. There is no distinction. Originally Posted by TheJudge69

In the good of USA the verdict is either "not guilty" or "guilty". The verdict is never "innocent".

As was OJ Simpson found not guilty in criminal trial, but held liable for the deaths in a civil trial. Zimmerman's probably facing the same fate. And, then there's the court of public opinion.

Not Guilty and Innocent are not necessarily one and the same unless you are exonerated, meaning your innocence was proven. Ziimerman's innocence was not proven, but he was found not guilty. Originally Posted by StinkyFingers

You have to be found "guilty" of a crime first before you can be exonerated (innocent) of it.

No WU, you're wrong. He's still innocent and now publicly hated. Originally Posted by TheJudge69

And that public hatred is a massive illustration of how all these moron sheep in our society are fucked in the head...like I said...they need to go back into their holes until the next time we tell them what to think about something...

You're right, legal language is precise. The jurors only had three options in their instructions: (1) Guilty of 2nd Degree Murder, (2) Guilty of Manslaughter, (3) Not Guilty.

There were no options to explicitly say: (a) Innocent or (b) Guilty but Not Proven. In this trial,

Not Guilty includes a finding of Innocent. There is no distinction. Originally Posted by TheJudge69

I agree, on a strictly legal basis, the verdict is correct. Now, as a practical matter, the boy is dead, and I suspect that Zimmerman's actions were negligent, at a minimum, and I suspect with a certain malice, but that cannot be proven, just IMHO. The problem with this case is that the actions of Martin and Zimmerman at the commencement of the physical altercation are indeterminate, save Zimmerman's version of events.