Zimmerman is not a white man he is a brown man

Innocent until proven guilty. Not proven guilty means innocent. I know you never studied logic. So I hope hhis helps.

 

He didn't kill Martin. A bullet killed Martin. At least that's what the coroner report said. And he didn't speak at the trial, so therefore he didn't say he made the bullet kill Martin. All we know is that Martin is dead and Zimmerman has never committed any crime associated with Martin's death.

 

A court cannot decide if someone is innocent. They can only decide if someone has not committed any crimes. Not guilty = not proven = no crime committed. Innocent = never involved in the transgression in any way. I will post a few one-sentence explanations and then what I thought was a great detailed explanation by a Research Professor at University of Pennsylvania.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_Difference_between_not_guilty_and_innocent
What is the Difference between not guilty and innocent?
Answer: Not guilty means that there was not enough evidence to move a juror beyond a reasonable doubt. Innocent means that one has not committed a crime. A jury doesn't find a person innocent.

http://www.oregoncriminalattorney.com/Criminal-Defense-Overview/Innocent-V-Not-Guilty.shtml
Juries never find defendants innocent. They cannot. Not only is it not their job, it is not within their power. They can only find them "not guilty."

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100601211433AA7vC0S
"Innocent" and "Not Guilty" are not the same thing. The word innocent means that you did not engage in any wrong-doing of any kind. The phrase 'not guilty' simply means that you did not violate the law as they have it charged.



https://www.law.upenn.edu/fac/phrobins/books/notguilty.pdf
'Not Guilty' Isn't Always 'Innocent'
Bernard Goetz shoots five youths who accost him on a subway in New York. His
acquittal of all serious charges brings cheers from some and angry protests from others. After
a high-speed chase and resisting arrest, officers severely beat Rodney King to a degree that
seems clearly excessive. Riots erupt when a jury acquits the officers, but many others agree
with the verdicts. After years of sexual and psychological abuse, Lorena Bobbitt cuts off her
husband's penis as he sleeps. Her acquittal is applauded by some and decried by others.
Has the diversity of our society brought a lack of consensus on what constitutes justice?
Will expected increases in diversity bring increasing disagreements? In a system like ours, of
lay juries, a breakdown in consensus could devastate effective criminal justice. It also could
further aggravate relations between races and genders.
My recent research on lay views of criminal liability and blame gives a more optimistic
view of the cause of the apparent polarization of opinion. The research suggests that, despite
ethnic and gender differences, people have astonishingly similar views of the principle that
ought to govern imposition of criminal liability. Further, lay judgments are amazingly
sophisticated, taking account of minor fact variations to alter the degree of liability assigned.
So why do jury verdicts cause so much dissension? The fault lies largely with the
criminal justice system, and indirectly with the media. The greatest cause of disagreements
and, incidentally, of the absence of meaningful debate and education on principles of justice, is
the criminal justice system's own poor record in formulating and in accurately communicating
its principles of justice to the public. In these three cases, for example, a crucial legal
distinction is largely ignored: the distinction between an acquittal that holds the "conduct
justified" as opposed to one that holds the "defendant excused."
In each of the three cases–Goetz, King and Bobbitt–the defendants' conduct was
probably excused, not justified. Conduct that is right, that we would have repeated again
under similar circumstances in the future, is justified; where an offender's conduct is wrong
but the offender should not be punished for it, the offender is excused. The distinction is
crucial. It tells whether the conduct is condoned or condemned, whether others should follow
the example in similar situations or not.
When Goetz was acquitted, did it mean that the law thought it OK to shoot youths who
accost you on a subway, that such conduct is justified? Or, did it mean the opposite–that such
a shooting is not OK, is a violation of our rules of conduct–but that Goetz was excused because
his error was understandable given the fear of the moment, his past history of being robbed,
and so on? The difference is key to people's perceptions of the justice of the acquittal and to
what the decision means for them.
Unfortunately, the distinction is lost on the news media because it is not emphasized by
the lawyers and professors they use as sources. It is not an oversight. Speakers must speak to
their audience, not over their heads, and the justification-excuse distinction is said to be too
theoretical. But the research suggests that people intuitively understand distinctions more
subtle than this and the distinction is central to understanding trial verdicts.
Recall the conflicting reactions to the first King beating trial. Some people were
outraged by the acquittals because they saw them as condoning improper conduct. "The
verdict tells me that police can do what they want. Everyone in the world saw that man get
whipped and I don't know what the jury was seeing," said David Green, a 32-year-old
northeast Washington construction worker. People were offended that the acquittal seemed to
justify the conduct.
The reality is that some jurors seemed to have only intended to excuse the officers, not
to justify their conduct. Said one, "The cops were . . . afraid King was obviously a dangerous
person, massive size and threatening actions . . .. They're policemen. They're not angels.
They're out there to do a lowdown dirty job."
Because the current American verdict system rarely tells us whether an acquittal is
meant to justify conduct or to excuse the offender, we are left to speculate. Persons already
disaffected by what they see as racial or gender bias in society naturally see the worst in
interpreting the ambiguous acquittal. But if the King beating verdicts had made clear that the
jury condemned the officer's conduct, could it have diffused the negative reaction enough to
avoid the riots?
As with the officers who beat King, one can only wonder if Goetz did the right thing?
Or, did he do the wrong thing but is not to be punished because his error was understandable?
Goetz's acquittal does not tell us, so we are left to speculate. Anyone can disagree with an
acquittal, if they interpret as the alternative that they disapprove of. In deciding, the jurors are
asked only to agree on a verdict; they need not agree on the reasons for it.
Was Bobbitt justified or excused? The insanity verdict is the one instance where the
legal verdict system tries to make the answer clear: Insanity is an excuse; the conduct is
unjustified. If it were justified, there would be no improper conduct that needs to be excused.
Yet the unfamiliarity of the distinction in public debate leaves the issue clouded. Supporters of
the verdict explain, "a life is more important than a penis." They note that, "the acquittal will
help deter wife beating." These are claims of justification, that the conduct was right and may
properly be repeated in similar circumstances in the future.
We as a society do share common intuitions of the rules that ought to guide criminal
liability and blame. Lay notions of justice are more than sophisticated enough to understand
the distinction between justified conduct, which is right, and excused conduct, which is wrong.
If we are to avoid dissension, and worse, juries must decide and trial verdicts must make clear
whether an acquitted defendant's conduct is condoned or condemned.

 

That would apply if Zimmerman were taken to court to prove he killed Martin but was found not guilty due to lack of evidence. There is no question that Zimmerman killed Martin so the result revolves around Zimmerman being innocent of the charges due to self defense. Zimmerman is innocent of murder in that case.

 

How's that DNA test coming?

 

You used the word "approached" but there is nothing to suggest Zimmerman "approached" Martin. Approaching someone means you go up next to them. Zimmermans testimony and the evidence say that Zimmerman did not approach Martin but simply tried to see from afar where Martin was going/

 

Millions of black have white blood but hate whites. How does this even have anything to do with TM or Zimmerman? Neither were white?

 

Zimmermann has at least as many pigments in his skin, as Trayvon.

Coloured people are killing each others, and the controlled media is instigating hate against white Europeans who do not have anything to do with this incident.

How stupid America has become thanks to the controlled media that makes people colour blind!

 

Do black people not kill each others on a daily basis?

Do black people not call each others "Blacks" on a daily basis?

 

Zimmerman thought he was a White Man until they told him he was a Mexican in the court room.. Rude Awakening.

 

Zimmerman shot Trayvon not killed him, he shot him after Trayvon continue to attack him and would not back off. The jury find the action of Zimmerman in drawing and firing his gun one shot as a last resort.

Trayvon lawyers, parents and supporters are so racist that they forgot that Trayvon lawyers are white men and the reason they failed was because they did not concentrate on the facts in fact IMO or stop and think could it be that the white lawyers (persecutors) of Trayvon have colluded with Zimmerman's lawayers that is why they went after the race issue instead of the facts? Well, to all the black racist think about this???? Maybe they should demand a retrial and demand to have a black persecutor, black judge, and all black jury.

 

That is the thing, the persecutors could not proof anything base on the police statement Zimmerman called 911 reported a suspicious person was told not to follow that person and police will take care of it Zimmerman did not heed the instruction and decided to continue to follow. After ward he park his truck get off his truck approach Trayvon not rush and a conversation for a few seconds or minutes then a fist fight. Clearly Zimmerman did not jump at Trayvon he approach him and it would seem after a few conversation Trayvon threw the first punch.

 

I understand that this is your opinion, but it is not mine, and it is NOT that of millions of people.

The killing of Trayvon Martin was in NO WAY necessary. . .but only triggered by the fact that an extreme coward decided to play vigilante.

No matter how one wants to look at this tragedy, it all comes back to the horrible decision and profiling made by a lifelong looser who also happened to be a sissy and a coward, in addition to being a liar.

 

Yet, hes innocent and basically a Saint now, thanks to his heroic efforts saving that family from inevitable death! I heard the Queen ordered the new Prince to be named George, in his honor. God bless the Queen!

 

Your statement is really funny! Are your actually saying that zimmerman, the admitted coward, liar, and loser is a "saint?"

No wonder religion is losing its attraction with most reasonable people!

the queen actually believes you may be redy for thhe mad house!

 

Sadanie, constantly belittling someone is very uncouth. You don't have to use the Queens English, but its just off putting to be so shrewd to the namesake of the future King!

 

Bump!!!!!

 

The shooting of Trayvon was indeed not necessary if only Trayvon had not been so racist and resented being approach by according to his girlfriend a "crack" white man. The action of Zimmerman is bravery he had the courage to safe guard his neighbourhood disregarding his own safety and putting himself at risk a risk that happen with his encounter with Trayvon.
There is nothing wrong to be a sissy, Zimmerman has demonstrated his bravery by not backing away from the threat and told the truth that the racist Trayvon side have not been able to disproof because they kept lying about the truth.

 

This matters because? I think we are supposed to stay on topic and if you have any personal questions, you pm them.

 

English, French, Spanish, Mandarin, Korean, Japanese, Hindi, etc. does not matter what language the facts remain the same the encounter between Zimmerman and Trayvon was not racial it was about a neighbourhood watchman encounter with a suspicious person and that suspicious person resented being approach by a "white man" which after investigation it turn out Zimmerman was not a white man.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/25/justice/zimmerman-juror-b29-interview/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
He fatally shot Martin in the Sanford, Florida, neighborhood where Zimmerman and Martin's father lived in February 2012. Zimmerman, who is Hispanic, had a confrontation with the unarmed African-American teen after calling police to report a suspicious person, and he said he shot Martin in self-defense.

 

Zimmerman maybe brown, but he's white enough to shoot a black minor and walk free.

 

He is not white enough to shoot a black person that is why the racist supporters of Trayvon kept insisting he is white they want him to be white because as you said only white man can shoot a black person.