Why does "No justice, No peace" mean guilty before the trial?

[Dieval]

The dead kid and the circumstances under which he became dead establish probable cause to arrest Zimmerman.

"probable cause" to what? He's already admitted shooting him...that's never been in question.

[sulh-i-kul]

What I am asking is why such assertions of guilt as the only "justice" that will result in peace are acceptable

I don't want to speak for those who assert guilt, especially since I don't know anything about the case but perhaps I can help you with generalities since I have myself on occasion asserted things about murder cases (like "it was self-defense") without any evidence.
If you don't trust the judicial system (recall they're saying "no justice") to handle such cases in a halfway decent manner, the rational response is to behave as if the killer was a murderer. If you don't, you encourage further attacks on the victim's community. And if you the killer is punished, it will also send a message. The actual facts of the case are irrevelant. In the absence of a credible investigation, what matters is perception. So it's rational to pretend to know more than you do or even to lie.
If you are of the "ends never justifies the means" school, you won't approve of such behavior. If you have less rigid principles and don't trust the authorities to punish the guilty and protect everyone, you might approve.

[Apeman81]

I don't want to speak for those who assert guilt, especially since I don't know anything about the case but perhaps I can help you with generalities since I have myself on occasion asserted things about murder cases (like "it was self-defense") without any evidence.
If you don't trust the judicial system (recall they're saying "no justice") to handle such cases in a halfway decent manner, the rational response is to behave as if the killer was a murderer. If you don't, you encourage further attacks on the victim's community. And if you the killer is punished, it will also send a message. The actual facts of the case are irrevelant. In the absence of a credible investigation, what matters is perception. So it's rational to pretend to know more than you do or even to lie.
If you are of the "ends never justifies the means" school, you won't approve of such behavior. If you have less rigid principles and don't trust the authorities to punish the guilty and protect everyone, you might approve.

If I don's trust the authorities, I march and speak out against the authorities.

I don't march demanding outcome before investigation.

I don't support independent bounties placed on people's heads.

I don't support lying about things like who was told by who not to do something unless he was actually told not to, not simply advised that it was needed for him to do it.

I don't support ignoring all evidence that does not support the established position. Some news outlets still do not report the eye witness account of Martin atop Zimmerman hitting him.

I don't support media outlets claiming the voice heard calling for help belongs to a person that is not identified as being the shouter. Especially after a Father stated the voice is not his son's.

I don't support the lies.

[Senor Hoint]

If you've ever assumed that Al Qaeda was guilty of carrying out 9/11....you are guilty of the exact same thing you're condemning.

[LetThereBe]

If you've ever assumed that Al Qaeda was guilty of carrying out 9/11....you are guilty of the exact same thing you're condemning.

...didn't they eagerly claim responsibility?

[The Decider]

What "evidence"? What clearly demonstrates that Zimmerman's claim is false? What have the police seen that should change their decision not to arrest him?

A whole separate thread is dedicated to addressing, and refuting, your underlying claims about Zimmerman. Let's not rehash those battles here. Some of the last posts in that thread present evidence of sloppy police work at best and criminal obstruction by someone in the Sanford Police Department at worst. It also was pointed out that more than one Sanford police officer and detective associated with the case wanted Zimmerman charged with manslaughter that night after reviewing the evidence you say doesn't exist. At least admit that the Sanford Police Department itself is on trial, not just Zimmerman.

And that last point goes to your OP. "No Justice No Peace" means that if the justice system can't provide Trayvon with a competent police investigation and a trustworthy DA review then why should anyone trust the upholders of justice in their communities, specifically affected minority communities? Not a few black residents of Sanford have publicly expressed fear of walking the streets of their city at night without being targeted by some gun toting Neighborhood Watch zealot. Zimmerman was ARMED, Ape Man, a blatant violation of NW and Sheriff Department protocols. If the justice system allows that kind of vigilantism, if indeed it was vigilantism, then how can there be "peace?" No justice, no peace. When the authorities follow there own rules, maybe citizens will be more inclined to do the same.

That said, some activists such as those in the Black Panther Party, may assume guilty before trial and council some form of "revolutionary justice" in the streets. They are a tiny minority. "No Justice No Peace" in the Civil Rights era targeted the lack of equal protection more than some guilty-until-proven-innocent feeling. After all, it was the KKK who preached the latter and lynched thousands of untried or shabbily tried black people in southern states. Blacks, the vast majority anyway, don't want to recreate KKK "justice."

[Jack]

I cannot recall an instance in which this mantra was invoked in which those shouting did not assume guilt, demanding the subject of their ire be assumed and treated as guilty.

There are also those who have already tried and convicted Martin in their own minds, deciding he got what he deserved. Both sides are presuming a judgement that in this country should only be made by a court. One way or another this case will have to be subjected to judicial review and I only hope the country can accept the decision as a just one even if they don't agree with it. The OJ verdict was just as controversial and somehow the country managed to not slip into complete anarchy when he was acquitted.

[Angry Citizen]

Not a few black residents of Sanford have publicly expressed fear of walking the streets of their city at night without being targeted by some gun toting Neighborhood Watch zealot.

Jesus fucking christ. I'm getting out of this country. Between the type of person who would seriously claim that they fear walking down the street because of the great chance of dying at the hands of "gun toting neighborhood watch zealot[s]", and the type of person who thinks Zimmerman should be given a medal, my faith in humanity is quickly ebbing. EVERYONE here is acting completely ludicrous and hyperbolic, and it makes me stabby.

If the justice system allows that kind of vigilantism, if indeed it was vigilantism

That's precisely the point. How in blue-balls-jesus do you know anything about this case? Everything you've heard - EVERYTHING - has been spun by the media into their respective favored stances due to the political nature of the incident. You haven't the slightest idea what went on. Indeed, the only piece of raw, unfiltered evidence I have at my disposal suggests that it was the black guy who came towards the >>>>HISPANIC<<<< (AKA not white) guy, not the other way around.

[sulh-i-kul]

The details of the case are largely irrelevant. People are evidently reacting not to impartial information about the case but to their beliefs about the autorities and racism. These beliefs have been formed by their experiences and ideologies over many years. Incidents such as this one can ignite conflicts but you can be sure any number of other sparks could have had the same result.
Based on what you're all saying, it seems that the authorities and the media aren't behaving responsibly given the circumstances and are actually provocating a conflict. Whoever cares about the interests of the public in the US anymore?

[Chris the Chees]

Indeed, the only piece of raw, unfiltered evidence I have at my disposal suggests that it was the black guy who came towards the >>>>HISPANIC<<<< (AKA not white) guy, not the other way around.

Really, and what is that 'evidence? The fact is that there is no evidence - none - that Martin approached Zimmerman, beyond Zimmerman's word. And Zimmerman's account is entirely at odds with the physical geography of the scene. Zimmerman claimed to have returned to his vehicle when he was then approached from behind by Martin. Yet we know this cannot be correct, because the shooting occured on a pedestrian path between a row of houses dozens of yards from Zimmerman's car. The only other reasonable explaination is that Zimmerman followed the fleeing Martin behind the houses cutting him off half way down.

[Yarn]

Not that it isn't important that the mob not prejudice judicial precedings, as they did in the case of Terry Schiavo, but it is pretty rare that there is this much popular political pressure involved. To fret over it is kind of like fretting over the death penalty even though it kills almost no one. i.e. I am glad someone bothers to fret over it so it doesn't get out of hand, but I prefer looking at the big picture. Racially prejudiced killing itself highlights a more common, and hence more important problem.

[lsbskins1]

Jesus fucking christ. I'm getting out of this country. Between the type of person who would seriously claim that they fear walking down the street because of the great chance of dying at the hands of "gun toting neighborhood watch zealot[s]", and the type of person who thinks Zimmerman should be given a medal, my faith in humanity is quickly ebbing. EVERYONE here is acting completely ludicrous and hyperbolic, and it makes me stabby.



That's precisely the point. How in blue-balls-jesus do you know anything about this case? Everything you've heard - EVERYTHING - has been spun by the media into their respective favored stances due to the political nature of the incident. You haven't the slightest idea what went on. Indeed, the only piece of raw, unfiltered evidence I have at my disposal suggests that it was the black guy who came towards the >>>>HISPANIC<<<< (AKA not white) guy, not the other way around.

Let's try this again...it is easy to look up and know, but seems to be an inconvenient thing to do for some people...you can be white and Hispanic, black and Hispanic, Asian and Hispanic or Native American and Hispanic. Hispanic is not NOT white. You can most certainly be a non-Hispanic white, but being Hispanic does not make you NOT white. Really, it's true.

And the evidence I have suggests that the black guy tried to get away from the white Hispanic guy and the white Hispanic guy tried to cut him off from "getting away like they always do". Trayvon ran away from Zimmerman, Zimmerman himself said this in the 911 tape. Zimmerman went to cut off his escape route. That is what is in the evidence, not that Martin "came towards" Zimmerman. Martin was attempting to "move away", so Zimmerman made that impossible by going after Martin. That is closer to the "raw, unfiltered" evidence. It is the logical inference from where Zimmerman left his car, where they ended up and what Zimmerman said himself. None of us saw it, but the people on the jury never do either, absent the rare instance of a live film of the crime. We all have to make logical inferences.