George Zimmerman Case.

[Armistead]

About all I watch is the news and seems all the news is about this case. I'm glad it's almost over. Seems so many cases become political, tried in the media, causing all sides to become very heated. I found it sad a president would involve himself in this case, making it more heated. I wish they would keep cameras out of the cases and leave it to the jury. All over the internet are calls for riot if GZ isn't convicted. These cases being tried in the media are becoming a danger for us all.

[donna52522]

About all I watch is the news and seems all the news is about this case. I'm glad it's almost over. Seems so many cases become political, tried in the media, causing all sides to become very heated. I found it sad a president would involve himself in this case, making it more heated. I wish they would keep cameras out of the cases and leave it to the jury. All over the internet are calls for riot if GZ isn't convicted. These cases being tried in the media are becoming a danger for us all.


I agree, I flip on CNN to catch the news and all I get is the trial. It turns the whole country into a jury and as you say, win or lose there will be protests and violence.

[Red October1984]

I see these as distractions from real problems... Like the economy and such.

Same as gun control... When that started and the media attacked it, we just got distracted from the economic problems and pretty much everything else for a while.

I'll be glad when this is over too. I thought this was a bogus case to begin with. I don't know all the facts...I'll admit that...mostly because I don't care to.

Court Cases aren't supposed to be blown up like this. :nope:

[Father Goose]

I found it sad a president would involve himself in this case, making it more heated.

Sadly, this president has shown time and time again that he has no idea how to act presidential. :nope:
A lot of that is his ignorance of the history and tradition of the United States. To his credit, he has learned since coming into office that the US consists of 50 states and not 57 states as he stated in his 2008 campaign. :har:

By the way, I agree with Red...this case should never have been brought to trial. :up:

[HW3]

The prosecution knew going in they had no case but, with the DOJ breathing down their neck, among others, they had to go ahead and try it.:nope: Now the riots/looting will begin when GZ is found not guilty.

:/\\:

[Red October1984]

Sadly, this president has shown time and time again that he has no idea how to act presidential. :nope:
A lot of that is his ignorance of the history and tradition of the United States. To his credit, he has learned since coming into office that the US consists of 50 states and not 57 states as he stated in his 2008 campaign. :har:

When the President got involved, it made me so mad. He had no business getting into this.

This has gone too far and for too long. He isn't helping it.

By the way, I agree with Red, this case should never have been brought to trial. :up:

From what I understand, it was a simple self-defense case...but then somebody said the words "Hate Crime" and suddenly the media is attacking GZ and blowing it so out of proportion.

Our legal system is so backed up right now and that doesn't help it.

Same with Casey Anthony...that didn't really need to be majorly publicized either.

*DISCLAIMER - I don't know every little detail about the case. This is just from my perception of the case. FYI, just before anybody calls me out."

[TorpX]

I agree with Goose and Red. I am amazed that the state brought forth their case with so little evidence. IMO, it makes Florida and the county look very bad. The county authorities seem to be anticipating riots soon. What kind of message does this send? :nope:

[Armistead]

What's sad is all the pages, blogs, and other groups such as the Black Panthers
saying GZ will get killed if found innocent. Most agree is GZ is found guilty, he would be killed in jail. Many are calling for mass riots if he's found innocent.

I think GZ was trying to follow TM, but I doubt he attacked him. In the dark, TM being tall and in baggy clothes had to appear much larger. It would be stupid having your loaded gun holstered and physically attack a larger man, knowing he had a good chance to take your gun from you and kill you.

Anyway,lot's of mistakes made by all, but it's sad it's turned so racial and heated. Worse, knowing Obama stirred the pot to a national level.

[Red October1984]

What kind of message does this send? :nope:


GZ is an evil, sick, liar who killed a young boy.

Trayvon Martin was an angel who never did anything wrong in his life.

GZ deserves to rot in the deepest pit of hell the Country has to offer. (They should give him an empty seat in Congress)

Should I continue? :06: :nope:

This is not a good time for America. :doh:

[HW3]

The press was calling it a hate crime the moment it happened because they thought GZ was a White man, not a Hispanic as he turned out to be. They had already "Let the Genie out of the bottle" so to speak so, they had to try and spin it to not make themselves look the fools they really are. NBC getting caught doctoring the 911 tape to make GZ look like the bad guy. Ignoring the photos of GZ's injuries, using pictures of TM when he was 14 instead of more recent photos, and such.:nope:

:subsim:

[Red October1984]

The press was calling it a hate crime the moment it happened because they thought GZ was a White man, not a Hispanic as he turned out to be. They had already "Let the Genie out of the bottle" so to speak so, they had to try and spin it to not make themselves look the fools they really are. NBC getting caught doctoring the 911 tape to make GZ look like the bad guy. Ignoring the photos of GZ's injuries, using pictures of TM when he was 14 instead of more recent photos, and such.:nope:

I remember laughing at one of the first reports.

CBS called GZ "a White Hispanic who gunned down a poor African American boy"

That was basically it.

[Jimbuna]

The press was calling it a hate crime the moment it happened because they thought GZ was a White man, not a Hispanic as he turned out to be. They had already "Let the Genie out of the bottle" so to speak so, they had to try and spin it to not make themselves look the fools they really are. NBC getting caught doctoring the 911 tape to make GZ look like the bad guy. Ignoring the photos of GZ's injuries, using pictures of TM when he was 14 instead of more recent photos, and such.:nope:

:subsim:

Lots of potential for a public backlash :nope:

[WernherVonTrapp]

This case is about one life that has been lost and two families lives' that are forever changed, and the saddest thing of all about it is, none of it should've ever happened. Neighborhood watch is just as the name implies and nothing more. You're the eyes and ears of the community only, not Sonny Crockett tracking down a drug suspect on TV. I think the prosecution dropped the ball here, but I'll be surprised if Zimmerman walks. He shouldn't have left his car and he shouldn't have been tailing Trayvon Martin. He called 9-1-1, the police were on their way and his part should've been finished there, and I can guarantee that the police would not have shot the youth. GZ should've waited for police arrival. The scary thing is, I've met guys like GZ (Cop Wannabes) who go way beyond vigilance and try to take the law into their own hands.

I also think it's sad that race has been brought into the scenario over two people who, acting completely out of fear of each other, ended up in an altercation that resulted in the death of a juvenile. I don't care how big Trayvon Martin appeared, he was just a kid! IMO, I think the case was rushed due to racism and I think the President made a complete fool out of himself by taking sides in an "Innocent Until Proven Guilty" based society.

I believe GZ approached Trayvon Martin from behind because he thought a nearby neighbor (with a flashlight) was a cop. I think this gave him the false assurance that he was safe and he'd be perceived as a good candidate for a LEO. I think he placed his hand on Trayvon Martin's shoulder and that TM spun around and punched GZ, knocking him to the ground and causing GZ to smack his head on the pavement.

Still, the only ones who really know what happened is TM (but he's now dead), GZ (who obviously has a personal interest in avoiding a prison term) and God. I've investigated hundreds of Suspicious Persons calls and they almost always turn out to be "Unfounded" calls.
Just very sad, all around.:nope:

[Tribesman]

In the end it all comes down to one thing, is Zimmerman lying to the court.
Unfortunately for him it is already proven that he has no hesitation when it comes to telling lies in court.

[AVGWarhawk]

In the end it all comes down to one thing, is Zimmerman lying to the court.
Unfortunately for him it is already proven that he has no hesitation when it comes to telling lies in court.

It comes to down to reasonable doubt. The prosecution managed that all by themselves. :doh:


As usual, the court of popular opinion has hung another to dry. In my mind, Zimmerman should not have been out there with a gun. No one should have died that night. This can not be changed. The constant use of white-Hispanic is as necessary as using the term white-African-American for the President. It incites racial tension and was purposely used in this case to do so.

[Armistead]

This case is about one life that has been lost and two families lives' that are forever changed, and the saddest thing of all about it is, none of it should've ever happened. Neighborhood watch is just as the name implies and nothing more. You're the eyes and ears of the community only, not Sonny Crockett tracking down a drug suspect on TV. I think the prosecution dropped the ball here, but I'll be surprised if Zimmerman walks. He shouldn't have left his car and he shouldn't have been tailing Trayvon Martin. He called 9-1-1, the police were on their way and his part should've been finished there, and I can guarantee that the police would not have shot the youth. GZ should've waited for police arrival. The scary thing is, I've met guys like GZ (Cop Wannabes) who go way beyond vigilance and try to take the law into their own hands.

I also think it's sad that race has been brought into the scenario over two people who, acting completely out of fear of each other, ended up in an altercation that resulted in the death of a juvenile. I don't care how big Trayvon Martin appeared, he was just a kid! IMO, I think the case was rushed due to racism and I think the President made a complete fool out of himself by taking sides in an "Innocent Until Proven Guilty" based society.

I believe GZ approached Trayvon Martin from behind because he thought a nearby neighbor (with a flashlight) was a cop. I think this gave him the false assurance that he was safe and he'd be perceived as a good candidate for a LEO. I think he placed his hand on Trayvon Martin's shoulder and that TM spun around and punched GZ, knocking him to the ground and causing GZ to smack his head on the pavement.

Still, the only ones who really know what happened is TM (but he's now dead), GZ (who obviously has a personal interest in avoiding a prison term) and God. I've investigated hundreds of Suspicious Persons calls and they almost always turn out to be "Unfounded" calls.
Just very sad, all around.:nope:

I agree and disagree.I do think GZ profiled TM, but more due to all the crime in his neighborhood, but I agree race played a part of it. However, it isn't against the law to profile or follow someone. It's not against the law to confront them as long as it's with words. As I understand in Florida, even if you start a fight, if in that process your life becomes in danger, you can use deadly force.

I don't believe GZ was following because he saw a flashlight. I believe the neighbor with the light came out after the fight started, not before.

I wouldn't call a 17 year old a kid, in fact with parents permission he could join the marine corp. GZ had no way to know he was 17. When I was 17, I was in the best shaped of my life.

As I said, I doubt GZ would physically attack or grab what appeared to be a bigger man in the dark, that would be crazy, not knowing if he was armed, crazy, etc. Again, it would be crazy to start a fight with a bigger man carrying a holstered loaded gun that could easily be taken from you. As a cop, you know either to keep your distance or have your gun pulled if facing a threat.

The evidence shows his head hit concrete several times, not once, plus one witness saw TM on top of GZ striking him. GZ yelled for the neighbor to help him, but neighbor went back in home and called 911. During the call the shot was fired.

It is very sad. The fact is they both profiled each other. GZ did pass a lie detector test and willingly talked to cops numerous times without a lawyer. Why I think he told the truth, I think he exaggerated some points.

What is clear the police and medical examiner broke every protocol on the crime scene regarding evidence and handling the dead body. Both sides could make great issue with this regarding the outcome. I see lawsuits coming.

If the jury follows the law, GZ should go free, but I think he will get a lessor charge, but that could mean a lot of jail time.

[Sailor Steve]

These cases being tried in the media are becoming a danger for us all.
Back in 1914 the Germans had a battlecruiser in the Meditteranean at the start of the First World War. I won't bore you with the details here, but she escaped, and two British admirals were put on trial, one for incompetence and one for for cowardice. Both were exonerated but both ended up in desk jobs. The British newspapers were all calling for them to be shot. The point is that "trials in the media", like nasty politics and so many other things, have been a part of our lives ever since there have been news media.

I agree that it's a bad thing, but just wanted to point out that it's nothing new.

[Sailor Steve]

I think GZ was trying to follow TM, but I doubt he attacked him. In the dark, TM being tall and in baggy clothes had to appear much larger. It would be stupid having your loaded gun holstered and physically attack a larger man, knowing he had a good chance to take your gun from you and kill youl.

GZ is an evil, sick, liar who killed a young boy.
So now we're putting him on trial here? How is this any different from what you're complaining about?

[AVGWarhawk]

I agree and disagree.I do think GZ profiled TM, but more due to all the crime in his neighborhood, but I agree race played a part of it.


The strange part in this is GZ called 911 before the altercation started. I would speculate most who are actively profiling would not call it in the police. Race played a part, IMO, in that GZ was probably envisioning a black suspect. TM was envisioning a white as indicated by the use of "cracker". It would seem the profiling was demonstrated from both parties.

[Armistead]

It comes to down to reasonable doubt. The prosecution managed that all by themselves. :doh:


As usual, the court of popular opinion has hung another to dry. In my mind, Zimmerman should not have been out there with a gun. No one should have died that night. This can not be changed. The constant use of white-Hispanic is as necessary as using the term white-African-American for the President. It incites racial tension and was purposely used in this case to do so.

He had every right to carry a gun, totally legal. We had several break ins in our neighborhood some years ago, including one during the day against an old lady, robbed and beaten. We had a neighborhood watch, but during this time several of us men patrolled the neighborhood at night, most of us were armed. Turned out it was an actual person living in our hood doing all of this.

[AVGWarhawk]

So now we're putting him on trial here? How is this any different from what you're complaining about?

I believe you have read that out of context. RO was responding what message this might send as questioned by Torpx.

[AVGWarhawk]

He had every right to carry a gun, totally legal. We had several break ins in our neighborhood some years ago, including one during the day against an old lady, robbed and beaten. We had a neighborhood watch, but during this time several of us men patrolled the neighborhood at night, most of us were armed. Turned out it was an actual person living in our hood doing all of this.

I do not argue GZ had a right to carry. He should have let the police do their job after he made the 911 call. GZ chose not to. That is the problem with this case. Did GZ take the law into his own hands by ignoring what the 911 operator said to do?

[Sailor Steve]

I believe you have read that out of context. RO was responding what message this might send as question by Torpx.
I realized that. It looks like reverse psychology to me, and well done. My point is that everyone has an opinion, and everyone seems to be attempting to try the case here, which "court of public opinion" is what the thread is condemning in the first place.

[Armistead]

The strange part in this is GZ called 911 before the altercation started. I would speculate most who are actively profiling would not call it in the police. Race played a part, IMO, in that GZ was probably envisioning a black suspect. TM was envisioning a white as indicated by the use of "cracker". It would seem the profiling was demonstrated from both parties.

I agree. I do think GZ was wary due to the crime there, once two black men actually broke in a single ladies house why she was there, even tried to get to her behind a locked bedroom door. Then the other case of this Frank character where GZ actually saw and reported a break in of another black male. Racist or not, if you have a lot of break ins by back males, very easy to profile.

Most of GZ's neighbors said they were very happy that GZ was so involved in watching the nhood.

[Armistead]

I do not argue GZ had a right to carry. He should have let the police do their job after he made the 911 call. GZ chose not to. That is the problem with this case. Did GZ take the law into his own hands by ignoring what the 911 operator said to do?

911 operators aren't law enforcement, they can only advise, it's up to the person to follow that advice. GZ said he did stop following and on the 911 call said he could no longer see TM. He stated he went looking for an address, then when walking back to his car was approached and asked by TM "why are you following me", in which he replied he wasn't. Then a fight broke out.

[AVGWarhawk]

Most of GZ's neighbors said they were very happy that GZ was so involved in watching the nhood.

That will not have any weight in court though. Sure, some character of HZ plays a small part but it is his actions that are weighed the heaviest. Those actions of ignoring the 911 operator. I still do not know why the prosecution has not focused on that.

[Armistead]

I realized that. It looks like reverse psychology to me, and well done. My point is that everyone has an opinion, and everyone seems to be attempting to try the case here, which "court of public opinion" is what the thread is condemning in the first place.

My issue is with cases being tried in the media and politicians getting involved, not general public opinion. I don't approve of live media coverage.

[Armistead]

That will not have any weight in court though. Sure, some character of HZ plays a small part but it is his actions that are weighed the heaviest. Those actions of ignoring the 911 operator. I still do not know why the prosecution has not focused on that.

He testified he didn't ignore the 911 operator. He said he stopped following when told so, but kept walking another direction to get an address for the cop.
Still, why maybe a mistake to ignore the advise, it wasn't illegal to do so.

[AVGWarhawk]

He testified he didn't ignore the 911 operator. He said he stopped following when told so, but kept walking another direction to get an address for the cop.
Still, why maybe a mistake to ignore the advise, it wasn't illegal to do so.

Ah, ok, I was not aware GZ walked another way.

[AVGWarhawk]

I understand the prosecution is also looking to charging GZ with child abuse. Seems the state is really reaching for anything.

[Red October1984]

I understand the prosecution is also looking to charging GZ with child abuse. Seems the state is really reaching for anything.

I was not aware of that.

But they're getting desperate now. I knew that much so this does not surprise me.

[Armistead]

Well, after watching the case somewhat today, I'm mixed. I do believe GZ profiled TM as a possible criminal. The question is what makes sense. I know if I saw a larger man wearing a hoodie on a dark rainy night, I wouldn't follow him...UNLESS, I had my gun out in the ready. I believe GZ did have his gun out and followed. I'm no longer buying GZ stopped following and went looking for a street name. He was a zealous watchman that constantly walked the neighborhood. There were only 3 streets in his hood, he had to know them all. In fact, he goofed and admitted he knew the street name. He followed and went looking for TM. That in itself isn't illegal or wrong, but I think to better his case, he added some lies for effect. This is very common in these events.

I think he got close to Tray, who asked him why he was following. GZ replied he wasn't and then it appears a fight broke out. GZ was profiling and carrying a gun, it was his responsibility to keep proper distance and identify himself, ask questions. Heck, he would've been better to draw down on him and told him not to move, to wait for the cops.

I think he got too close, gun maybe out or holstered, but Tray saw it and in fear probably attacked. It's possible both thought they were fighting for their life and it was a matter of who killed who first. If Tray would've killed him banging his head, he could easily be in court claiming self defense.

I think GZ made mistakes, he had the greater responsibility profiling and carrying a firearm to keep a proper distance.

Anyway, I hope it remains calm regardless and all this race crap from both sides doesn't turn into a riot.

It was a perfect storm of mistakes on both parts.

[Father Goose]

Child abuse? Really?!!! :rotfl2:
TM was reported to be 5'11" 160. :eek:

The prosecution has lost all credibility. Grasping for anything now. :nope:

[WernherVonTrapp]

The question to ask is: Where do we draw the line between being a neighborhood watch captain as opposed to being judge, jury and executioner all by yourself? What was GM's mindset at the time of the incident? Well, he is known to have made a statement to the effect of "these (expletive) punks, they always get away with it." In this statement alone, his mindset has already convicted TM of being a criminal or potential criminal. Had he waited for the police, he would've found out otherwise. His predisposition toward TM played a vital role in the events that followed.

Now it's up to the jury to decide, and from experience, you never know what the true outcome will be until the verdict is read.

[CaptainHaplo]

The question to ask is: Where do we draw the line between being a neighborhood watch captain as opposed to being judge, jury and executioner all by yourself? What was GM's mindset at the time of the incident? Well, he is known to have made a statement to the effect of "these (expletive) punks, they always get away with it." In this statement alone, his mindset has already convicted TM of being a criminal or potential criminal. Had he waited for the police, he would've found out otherwise. His predisposition toward TM played a vital role in the events that followed.

Now it's up to the jury to decide, and from experience, you never know what the true outcome will be until the verdict is read.


No, the question to ask is, when GZ pulled the trigger with TM standing over him, striking him, was he reasonably in "fear of bodily injury or death"? If so, then his actions were entirely legal.

While I agree that GZ bears some level of responsibility (and he should have been charged with negligent homicide), his actions were irresponsible regarding his choice of pursuit while armed. That does not, in any way, negate his right to self defense. Nor does it exonerate TM for his choices and actions, which were - at the least - assault and battery based on the evidence presented.

[AVGWarhawk]

That is the problem. GZ took the situation into his own hands. 911 said to stand down. He didn't. Claims of going to find the street name. In a flash TM is on top of GZ and trigger pulled. GZ should have backed down. His overzealous patrolling of the neighborhood got him in this jam and one dead. It is a neighborhood watch. Simply watch and report. GZ got himself in a position that endangered his life. He was not a bystander TM decided to pile drive for no reason. I believed TM was provoked. A cracker was following him as he stated to his friend on the phone. What would your reaction be? Fight or flight? TM chose incorrectly.

[CaptainHaplo]

That isn't "the" problem. Its one of them.

GZ isn't pristine. He isn't free of responsibility.

However - at no point in time do any of his actions remove from him the right to self defense. Thus, he is not guilty of murder or manslaughter under the law.

Did he make errors. Absolutely. He was negligent. That negligence contributed to the death of TM. However, one must ask, with TM sitting on top of him, hammering down or banging his head on concrete, would there have been a fatality that night if GZ had not been armed? That is part of the crux - and why it becomes an issue of self defense.

Here is the reality. GZ had no idea where TM was going. Had TM just gone to his dad's apartment, that would have been the end of it. Instead, he decided to confront this "creepy ass cracker". The only way a confrontation takes place is if TM either stops to ambush/turns to confront or circles around to stalk GZ. Facts are facts.

[Father Goose]

Now it's up to the jury to decide, and from experience, you never know what the true outcome will be until the verdict is read.

No truer words were ever spoken. :know:

[Armistead]

That is the problem. GZ took the situation into his own hands. 911 said to stand down. He didn't. Claims of going to find the street name. In a flash TM is on top of GZ and trigger pulled. GZ should have backed down. His overzealous patrolling of the neighborhood got him in this jam and one dead. It is a neighborhood watch. Simply watch and report. GZ got himself in a position that endangered his life. He was not a bystander TM decided to pile drive for no reason. I believed TM was provoked. A cracker was following him as he stated to his friend on the phone. What would your reaction be? Fight or flight? TM chose incorrectly.

I tend to agree.If you profile and follow carrying a gun, you carry a greater responsibility to keep proper distance unless you see a crime. Still, GZ didn't break the law, just bad judgement. Both could've in their minds been fighting to protect their lives, one won out because he had a gun. How do you punish someone when both made mistakes, both thought they were in the right, both fighting to protect themselves and one had to lose? Again, I think GZ has the greater responsibility because he had a gun, but he was probably a zealous watchman thinking he was protecting his neighbors. Still, he saw no crime.

This is a tough case. I see them getting hung up on the charge of manslaughter.

[CaptainHaplo]

How do you punish someone when both made mistakes, both thought they were in the right, both fighting to protect themselves and one had to lose?

No - one made a mistake - carrying a gun when he shouldn't have. A mistake, not a crime.

The other committed a crime - its called assault.

[Sailor Steve]

No - one made a mistake - carrying a gun when he shouldn't have. A mistake, not a crime.

The other committed a crime - its called assault.
I guess we don't need a trial then, since you already have the truth.

[August]

This is a tough case. I see them getting hung up on the charge of manslaughter.

I don't know about that. As I understand it the manslaughter charge involves proving child abuse. That's a tough sell against the self defense evidence. Aside from the gun shot itself all evidence of abuse, his head lacerations and broken nose, is by Martin against Zimmerman.

I agree with VonTrapp though. You never know what a jury will decide until the verdict is handed down.

[AVGWarhawk]

I don't know about that. As I understand it the manslaughter charge involves proving child abuse. That's a tough sell against the self defense evidence. Aside from the gun shot itself all evidence of abuse, his head lacerations and broken nose, is by Martin against Zimmerman.

I agree with VonTrapp though. You never know what a jury will decide until the verdict is handed down.

I believe the child abuse is part of third degree murder. Don't quote me. As far as the beat up GZ, he was getting a shellacking from TM who just might have felt he was defending himself. Perhaps defending his life. This aspect we will never know. I don't think TM was out looking for trouble. Trouble found him. GZ initiated that trouble IMO.

[mookiemookie]

Here is the reality. TM had no idea what GZ doing. Had GZ just done what the 911 dispatcher told him to do, that would have been the end of it. Instead, he decided to confront this "f-ing punk". The only way a confrontation takes place is if GZ either approaches to ambush/confront or circles around to stalk TM. Facts are facts.

Fixed that for you.

[CaptainHaplo]

I guess we don't need a trial then, since you already have the truth.

No steve, that is what the trial has done, shown us what the facts are. I have watched much of the trial. Given some of the claims here, I doubt many people have.

Its kind of funny - people here are claiming that GZ started the confrontation, yet the prosecution has even backed away from that claim.

Not one credible witness has given testimony that GZ started the fight. Not one bit of evidence suggests that he did so. Yet many here judge him guilty - even to claim that he had his gun out and approached TM. Not one shred of testimony or evidence even suggests it. Yet I am the one accused of "judging truth" without a trial.

I think the prosecution approached this wrong in the first place. As I said before, negligent homicide should have been the charge. He is guilty of actions and decisions that helped create a situation that caused the death of TM and were foreseeable and thus avoidable.

But the claims here in this thread that intentionally ignore the evidence that has been presented in the courtroom are just sad. On the issue of murder/manslaughter - I go where the facts take me. The facts do not take me to a guilty verdict for those charges.

[AVGWarhawk]

As I said before, negligent homicide should have been the charge. He is guilty of actions and decisions that helped create a situation that caused the death of TM and were foreseeable and thus avoidable.



I agree 100%. The case was mishandled from the start.

[soopaman2]

Defense just finished it's closing statements.

(edit: correction O'mara is still going, was just a break)

Very compelling, he had the room sit in silence for 4 minutes to show the time from when Trayvon told Rachel Jeantel he was running to the time of the altercation, then illustrated how far away one could get in that time, which trayvon did not get far. He also showed with an animation, based on a witnesses 911 call (the one with the help being screamed).

I watched alot of this trial, and am not impressed with the prosecutions case.

O'mara is either the ultimate huckster, or George Zimmerman is not guilty.

I am turned around on this case, I hope Zimm sues the living you-know-what out of MSNBC, for the skew they tossed on this, cutting of the 911 tapes, and the misleading pictures.

What really turned me around was the evidence pictures I saw on the HLN site. Georges hands were clean, but both sides of his face were bruised, the back of his head had gashes, consistent with the roll on the sidewalk.

Sad as it is for Trayvons family, this man is walking.

The prosecution overreached, they may have had more sucess with a manslaughter charge, but even then...

GZ screamed help for a long time, before he drew.

He gave the kid a chance to get off.

[AVGWarhawk]

GZ screamed help for a long time, before he drew.

He gave the kid a chance to get off.

GZ, in my opinion, acted like TJ Hooker. He put himself there. What was TM to do? Run? We do not know the outcome if that was to happen. As I stated, fight or flight. TM was confronted with that decision. GZ put him there. Sure, he gave the kid time to get off but you don't know what is going on in TM head as the adrenalin is flowing. Can we say for sure what went through TM mind in that time? He is silent. IMO, it is a neighborhood watch. Not a shoot'em up deputy OK Corral western town.

[soopaman2]

GZ, in my opinion, acted like TJ Hooker. He put himself there. What was TM to do? Run? We do not know the outcome if that was to happen. As I stated, fight or flight. TM was confronted with that decision. GZ put him there. Sure, he gave the kid time to get off but you don't know what is going on in TM head as the adrenalin is flowing.


He had 4 minutes to run, he was a 17 year old football player, gz is mr. stubby. ( he told Rachel Jeantel he was running 4 minutes before the gunshot)

You cannot ignore the injuries on GZ, the extended screams for help, when he had the upper hand on GZ.

I do not think he is guilty of no crime, just not guilty of murder.

I agree with him being zealous, but he was getting his head smashed in the sidewalk, for a good long while. He supposed to lay there and die?


Edit: Live feed, not the bleeped crap that HLN runs.
http://www.nbcnews.com/video/nbcnews.com/52436061/

[Sailor Steve]

No steve, that is what the trial has done, shown us what the facts are. I have watched much of the trial. Given some of the claims here, I doubt many people have.
I certainly haven't. When the verdict is returned I will accept it for what it is.

The only exception I took was with the way you said what you said - one made a mistake, the other committed a crime. Is that a proven fact. It certainly sounds like your summation - that manslaughter should have been the main charge - is correct.

[AVGWarhawk]

He had 4 minutes to run, he was a 17 year old football player, gz is mr. stubby. ( he told Rachel Jeantel he was running 4 minutes before the gunshot)

You cannot ignore the injuries on GZ, the extended screams for help, when he had the upper hand on GZ.

I do not think he is guilty of no crime, just not guilty of murder.

I agree with him being zealous, but he was getting his head smashed in the sidewalk, for a good long while. He supposed to lay there and die?




Again, a fight or fight situation. Mr. Stubby was packing heat and not afraid to use it. TM had no idea what GZ was capable of. Did GZ identify himself as a neighborhood watchman? TM only saw a crazy ass cracker. What did GZ see? A "expletive" that always gets away. GZ pursued. TM reacted. GZ put himself in a life threatening situation. Even after 911 said to back off. TM got the better of him. If it had gone the other way TM would be on the stand. Only difference is the trial would not be on national television.

[soopaman2]

TM got the better of him. If it had gone the other way TM would be on the stand. Only difference is the trial would not be on national television.


I isolated your post because I want to agree with this statement.

As for what I cut out, I addressed with evidence submitted into this case (read above) . Just repeating myself makes me look foolish.

This is about law, and the jury system.

Beyond a reasonable doubt, is the watchwords for today.

There is alot of reasonable doubt, alot of woulda, maybes and couldas with the prosecution.

I came into this trial hating Zimmerman, but from what I seen watching it, I cannot see him convicted. (IMHO of course, sir) :)

Late edit: The defense attourneys computer is a piece of crap, it just messed up for the 3rd time. It would be kinda amusing if it wasn't such a serious setting.

[AVGWarhawk]

I believe he will be convicted of manslaughter(quell the would be riot that will probably happen anyway). He will appeal and get off at that time(a few years from now when things get quiet)

[soopaman2]

I believe he will be convicted of manslaughter(quell the would be riot that will probably happen anyway). He will appeal and get off at that time(a few years from now when things get quiet)

Al Sharpton actually told people on his show that there are no winners in this trial, and to not act violently no matter the verdict.

The attorneys in the case will start their closing arguments (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/11/george-zimmerman-trial-closing-arguments_n_3578798.html?utm_hp_ref=george-zimmerman-trial) on Thursday. Sharpton reflected on the trial, saying on "Politics Nation," "No matter what their decision, there'll be no winners in this case. If the defense wins, Mr. Zimmerman will have to still bear the burden of the accusations and will be known for this throughout his life. If the prosecution wins, the family of Trayvon Martin will not get their child back, their brother back."

(edit took out link, it lead to main page which means Huffpo nuked the story, Thats why I hate linking them)...No hits for you AOL SACK OF CRAP!) ahem ;)
Quote still shows, my apologies :(

( He also defended Paula Deen, his softness is agenda driven of course, but the firebrands on both sides will hopefully heed him, and respect justice, and our constitution.)

This trial would be so much easier if it wasn't "marketed" as some kind of racial tension catylyst.

(Edit: I dislike Sharpton still) But he does have the ear of people.

[soopaman2]

Defense just rested (for real this time)

Prosecution redirect in 10 minutes.

Once again the link is here, live uncensored feed, so you might hear an "f" word or two, pre warned.

http://www.nbcnews.com/video/nbcnews.com/52436061/

Better than HLN, they go to commercial every 2 minutes, such bullcrap, watch it online.

[AVGWarhawk]

Al Sharpton actually told people on his show that there are no winners in this trial, and to not act violently no matter the verdict.


Good for Al. He was integral in getting the people to start biting at the bit after the shooting. No one to blame but himself if there is violence and bloodshed.

[soopaman2]

Good for Al. He was integral in getting the people to start biting at the bit after the shooting. No one to blame but himself if there is violence and bloodshed.

Can I agree with you on this point without undermining my opinion on the outcome of the trial? :03:

It is nice to see, those poor Duke Lacrosse team boys, between this and defending a 30 year old court statement from Paula Deen, I am thinking Mr. Al is searching for forgiveness.

Tawanna Brawley to this day is still looking for money.

As I said, there is an agenda with that scum. :)

[WernherVonTrapp]

No, the question to ask is, when GZ pulled the trigger with TM standing over him, striking him, was he reasonably in "fear of bodily injury or death"? If so, then his actions were entirely legal.

While I agree that GZ bears some level of responsibility (and he should have been charged with negligent homicide), his actions were irresponsible regarding his choice of pursuit while armed. That does not, in any way, negate his right to self defense. Nor does it exonerate TM for his choices and actions, which were - at the least - assault and battery based on the evidence presented.Well that certainly is the question, for the jury. Let's face it, GZ has no choice but to make that claim (if it's not true) or he is virtually assured a murder conviction.
Self defence ethically, does not involve starting a physical altercation, and when you begin to lose the fight, pull out a gun and shoot that person with whom YOU initiated the physical altercation.
Having the security in knowing that you're backed up by a firearm is certainly a catalyst for starting an altercation with a taller or larger person, but it certainly doesn't automatically invoke the "fear of death or bodily injury" defense.
Which brings me back to my original post where, despite my own speculation, I conceded that the only ones who really know what happened is GZ, TM and God.
IMO, I've seen a lackluster performance by the prosecution. Maybe there was no case to begin with, or maybe the case was rushed before there was enough evidence for the prosecution to work with. Personally, despite there being no need for injury in Florida's "Stand Your Ground" self defense laws, I've seen nor heard any facts to indicate GZ's life was in danger. Almost everyone who testified to the medical condition of GZ on the night of the shooting claimed that his injuries were "superficial" and/or non life threatening. The only witness to GZ's level of fear that night is GZ.
So, yes, that is the question for the jury to deliberate.

[soopaman2]

1206 eastern time, prosecution delivering rebuttal.

Someone seems really focused on the power a gun gives, rather than how many bashes it took before he actually pulled it.

[AVGWarhawk]

Can I agree with you on this point without undermining my opinion on the outcome of the trial? :03:

It is nice to see, those poor Duke Lacrosse team boys, between this and defending a 30 year old court statement from Paula Deen, I am thinking Mr. Al is searching for forgiveness.

Tawanna Brawley to this day is still looking for money.

As I said, there is an agenda with that scum. :)

Al only searches for a fist full of dead presidents. The rest of it is smoke and mirrors. He has made his mistakes over time. I think he got a change of heart when he started on MSNBC with his own spot.

[soopaman2]

Al only searches for a fist full of dead presidents. The rest of it is smoke and mirrors. He has made his mistakes over time. I think he got a change of heart when he started on MSNBC with his own spot.


Al wants to go legit! ***bwaaahhhaaaaahhhhaaaa**

Watch out Anderson Cooper!

Ahem

Pardon me, he finally caught wind of the negative reception of his tactics from his own.

I live in a diverse area, and most the folks I interact with find him more destructive than helpful, I think he finally realized that 20 years too late.

[AVGWarhawk]

Al wants to go legit! ***bwaaahhhaaaaahhhhaaaa**

Watch out Anderson Cooper!

Ahem

Pardon me, he finally caught wind of the negative reception of his tactics from his own.

I live in a diverse area, and most the folks I interact with find him more destructive than helpful, I think he finally realized that 20 years too late.

I think you are right!

[Armistead]

Well that certainly is the question, for the jury. Let's face it, GZ has no choice but to make that claim (if it's not true) or he is virtually assured a murder conviction.
Self defence ethically, does not involve starting a physical altercation, and when you begin to lose the fight, pull out a gun and shoot that person with whom YOU initiated the physical altercation.
Having the security in knowing that you're backed up by a firearm is certainly a catalyst for starting an altercation with a taller or larger person, but it certainly doesn't automatically invoke the "fear of death or bodily injury" defense.
Which brings me back to my original post where, despite my own speculation, I conceded that the only ones who really know what happened is GZ, TM and God.
IMO, I've seen a lackluster performance by the prosecution. Maybe there was no case to begin with, or maybe the case was rushed before there was enough evidence for the prosecution to work with. Personally, despite there being no need for injury in Florida's "Stand Your Ground" self defense laws, I've seen nor heard any facts to indicate GZ's life was in danger. Almost everyone who testified to the medical condition of GZ on the night of the shooting claimed that his injuries were "superficial" and/or non life threatening. The only witness to GZ's level of fear that night is GZ.
So, yes, that is the question for the jury to deliberate.

I don´t think having a gun tempts or makes you feel better to start a fight with a bigger man, knowing he could easily take it from you and kill you. As a cop, you know the last thing you would do is physically fight a bigger man, knowing he could go for your gun. You´re trained to keep distance or draw if you have fear of the suspect.

I think GZ did follow, probably had his gun out, got to close and TM went for it. I think during the fight, the reason TM had no injury is because GZ was holding his gun, not punching. Itś possible GZ didn´t want to shoot, but finally did.

Maybe Soap knows, but I think in Florida, even if you start a fight, if you then feel the person is gonna or gonna kill you, you can use deadly force.

I think by evidence and law GZ is innocent, but I think 6 women will feel something needs to be done and charge him with manslaughter. I fear the judge knowing the politics will give him the max, up to 30 years. GZ would get killed in prison, so heĺl end up in solitary 23 hours a day for his protection.

[soopaman2]

Jury is being instructed not to tweet, social network, or talk about the case, they are in recess until 2 pm eastern time, when they will recieve jury instructions.

(app. 2 hours from now)

The prosecutions rebuttal was unremarkably short, and filled with anger in the tone of voice delivered.

He rebutted nothing of the facts presented by the defense, and in America, unlike most others, the burden of proof is on the accuser, not the other way around, as in parliamentary countries.

[Armistead]

All I saw was a bunch of emotional pleading, profiling the hearts, hoping that women will rule based on their emotions, not facts and charge him with manslaughter. And he probably will succeed.

[AVGWarhawk]

GZ would get killed in prison, so heĺl end up in solitary 23 hours a day for his protection.

GZ is a marked man no matter where he goes.

[soopaman2]

GZ is a marked man no matter where he goes.

He will never live safely, and it is sad.

The jury should be the final answer, but in the court of public opinion...

I think he will walk, that is based on if I was a juror.

I came into this thinking GZ was a sack of crap cop wannabe. But actual evidence, shows different ( IMHO, of course)

As I said above, a little too many "coulda woulda shouldas" in the prosecution.

We want justice according to our constitution, not to pacify a frothy mouthed mob.

[WernherVonTrapp]

I don´t think having a gun tempts or makes you feel better to start a fight with a bigger man, knowing he could easily take it from you and kill you. As a cop, you know the last thing you would do is physically fight a bigger man, knowing he could go for your gun. You´re trained to keep distance or draw if you have fear of the suspect.


Well, that should be how the vast majority of the gun-toting population behaves. I think there have been enough cases in the News, among cops and the general public, to indicate that not everyone behaves rationally all the time.:up:

Maybe Soap knows, but I think in Florida, even if you start a fight, if you then feel the person is gonna or gonna kill you, you can use deadly force.
I don't know for certain, but I wouldn't be surprised to find that the law doesn't actually state it that way. It gives way too much latitude for the use of deadly force.

[Ducimus]

Haven't read the 5 pages of on topic and derailment, and honestly, I haven't been following the George Zimmerman case even though I probably should.

My 2 cent's is this:
Zimmerman was on the side of wrong the instant he pursued (whatever the dudes name was that he killed). His royal pooch screw was twofold. One, as a CFP holder, your first and foremost priority is to GET AWAY from confrontations. Seriously, no joke. If your carrying concealed, you should be doing everything in your power to avoid ANY altercation. The instant you leave home with a handgun, your entire attitude has to change of non confrontation, defusion, and avoidance. Finally, for his second pooch screw, he ignored the advice of the 911 operator and pursued anyway.

Anyone who carries should flush their head of this "Sheepdog Mentality". (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AldptFMs2AM)

[Platapus]

My 2 cent's is this:
Zimmerman was on the side of wrong the instant he pursued (whatever the dudes name was that he killed). His royal pooch screw was twofold. One, as a CFP holder, your first and foremost priority is to GET AWAY from confrontations. Seriously, no joke. If your carrying concealed, you should be doing everything in your power to avoid ANY altercation. The instant you leave home with a handgun, your entire attitude has to change of non confrontation, defusion, and avoidance. Finally, for his second pooch screw, he ignored the advice of the 911 operator and pursued anyway.

Anyone who carries should flush their head of this "Sheepdog Mentality". (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AldptFMs2AM)

Very well put.

As the person carrying the gun, it is their responsibility not to escalate the situation. That includes running away crying like a little girl if that is what it takes. A gun is to be used as an absolute last resort. That does not mean last resort after they escalated.

I fear that there are too many gun owners that allow personal pride (I am macho) to dictate what they do while carrying.

Whether Zimmerman violated any Florida Statute is up to the jury to decide. In my opinion, he acted totally irresponsibly. He not only failed to deescalate, but his actions escalated the situation. If it were up to me (which it ain't) I would not allow Zimmerman to own a gun. He is not, in my opinion, the type of person who should have a gun. He gives responsible gun owners/carriers a bad name.

Just my $0.015. (inflation you know) :D

[soopaman2]

So Ducimus, if you were getting your head nailed into the pavement, and punched in the face multiiple times, with soneone on top of you pounding you....


You would just lay there and take it, maybe even die from head trauma?

Or use your legally owned gun, you went to classes in order to hold, to protect yourself.

Like it or not, it is fact Zimmerman was getting his head mashed into concrete and screaming for help for 45 plus seconds, before he pulled.

Based on witness 911 accounts

I am so sure you would have been able to reason with him in that situation.

Too bad it wasn' t you, got all the answers!

On monday morning.

Never had your life threatened have ya?

[AVGWarhawk]

So Ducimus, if you were getting your head nailed into the pavement, and punched in the face multiiple times, with soneone on top of you pounding you....


You would just lay there and take it, maybe even die from head trauma?

Or use your legally owned gun, you went to classes in order to hold, to protect yourself.

Like it or not, it is fact Zimmerman was getting his head mashed into concrete and screaming for help for 45 plus seconds, before he pulled.

Based on witness 911 accounts

I am so sure you would have been able to reason with him in that situation.

Too bad it wasn' t you, got all the answers!

On monday morning.

Never had your life threatened have ya?

But that is the issue. GZ should have let the law handle when told to stand down. He didn't. This resulted in head smashing by TM.

[soopaman2]

201 pm eastern, feed back on, jury instructions most likely.

Live feed at ,
http://www.nbcnews.com/video/nbcnews.com/52436061/

[soopaman2]

But that is the issue. GZ should have let the law handle when told to stand down. He didn't. This resulted in head smashing by TM.


The law will handle it, I see your gripe.:up:

It has also been told that 911 operators instructions are to avoid lawsuits, it is standard.

He (GZ-TM) deserves justice, guilty or innocent.

[soopaman2]

Listen to the judge explain second degree murder....

He did not do so

Watch the damn trial, stop reading the media. stop being lazy, and commenting

[Platapus]

I don't know how it is in Florida, but in every self-defense class (marital arts and handgun) I have taken over the past 30+ years, they emphasize that the first step in self-defense is avoiding situations where you need to apply self-defense techniques. :yep:

A testament to my trainers (martial arts and weapons) is that I have not placed myself in a situation where I needed that training.

Yes, there is always the chance of the random encounter. But luck favours the person with their wits about them, has good situation awareness and the judgement to avoid potential hazards, even when it is inconvenient.


There is a reason why most (all?) neighbourhood watches prohibit their members from carrying weapons while on duty.

[Ducimus]

So Ducimus, if you were getting your head nailed into the pavement, and punched in the face multiiple times, with soneone on top of you pounding you....


You would just lay there and take it, maybe even die from head trauma?

Or use your legally owned gun, you went to classes in order to hold, to protect yourself.

If I was in that situation, it means I screwed up somewhere. I should not have allowed myself to get into that situation to begin with.



Like it or not, it is fact Zimmerman was getting his head mashed into concrete and screaming for help for 45 plus seconds, before he pulled.

Based on witness 911 accounts

A situation that by his own actions, he allowed to occur. A CFP is not a badge, nor does being on a neighborhood watch authorize you to chase people down. Report most certainly, but not to pursue. That's why Police get paid.




Never had your life threatened have ya?

Oh ye who doth know nothing about me, or what I've experienced in life. I've had my life threatened by individuals and instances more times then I care to have occurred. On an individual level, the best defense, is to not allow yourself to be put into a bad spot to begin with. With one exception, every time I was in a bad way, it was because I did something stupid.

EDIT:

By the way, I really have no vested interested in the outcome of the zimmerman trial. I don't care what the Jury finds. I' just tossed in my 2 cents worth out of boredom. Regardless of what I think, the jury and court will go one way or the other. Which ever way they go, I haven't found a reason to give a crap about it. Seriously, I don't even know the guy. He's just another name in another headline to me, nothing more.

[soopaman2]

I just assumed Ducimus, because you seem to think the dead one is the loser.

Trayvon had 4 minutes since he told Rachel Jeantel he was running, yet he turned around, I am 35 years old, you know how far I can run in 4 minutes?

The 17 year old, judging his twitter, was a freaking tough guy? You didn't read that did ya?

Although the pile of police reports of burglaries from the neighborhood, that the defense entered into evidence, says that he was right to profile, considering it was black males who committed the crimes.

This is entered into evidence, and not objected to by prosecution, which means they do no dispute it.

Leave your personal feelings out of this, a mistake I made before I watched this entire trial.

[Ducimus]

I

The 17 year old, judging his twitter, was a freaking tough guy? You didn't read that did ya?
.

I'm 39, I grew up in Southern Californa. The place was full of "tough guys"s, Cholo's, Gang banger's etc. I knew which colors not to wear, which style of clothes not to wear. Where not to be. I learned the hard way, if you mess with one bean, you get the whole freaking burrito. (EDIT: Yes i know that sounds bad. Racial slur not intended) I've been the target of gangs', been in the wrong place at the wrong time and almost became one of those innocent bystanders at one of seven drive by shootings at my high school while i was there. (and I went to the good school, the other was worse.) Then I joined the military.

Yeah, I know about tough guys.

[Armistead]

I think we have to keep in mind that GZś hood had several crime issues, including home invasion of a occupied house. I think the police got there in time for one or two arrest. I think he had a zeal to protect his hood, didn´t trust the police, stating these ¨punks always get away.¨ He didn´t break the law by carrying or following, even profiling or confronting. Legally, the issue is that of who attacked who and who felt they needed to defend their life.

[Ducimus]

You know, regardless of the outcome, Zimmerman is boned. No matter where he goes, he's going to be a target. Prison will be tantamount to a death sentence, and the tough guy's hommies will be out for some payback, which may also end up in death. His only hope is to move far far away and start over if found not guilty.

[soopaman2]

I think we have to keep in mind that GZś hood had several crime issues, including home invasion of a occupied house. I think the police got there in time for one or two arrest. I think he had a zeal to protect his hood, didn´t trust the police, stating these ¨punks always get away.¨ He didn´t break the law by carrying or following, even profiling or confronting. Legally, the issue is that of who attacked who and who felt they needed to defend their life.

Jury will decide.


But no one will respect their decision, be it pro or con.

GZ guilty or innocent will always be a villain, and TM will be a hero.

Thanks MSNBC, and the edited 911 tapes you released, and the 12 yo trayvon stock picture you all chose.

this case was skewed against GZ before the trial even started.

I hope GZ sues that liberal crap rag into oblivion

(coming from a (kinda) lib, kill them!)

[Red October1984]

I'm 39, I grew up in Southern Californa. The place was full of "tough guys"s, Cholo's, Gang banger's etc. I knew which colors not to wear, which style of clothes not to wear. Where not to be. I learned the hard way, if you mess with one bean, you get the whole freaking burrito. (EDIT: Yes i know that sounds bad. Racial slur not intended) I've been the target of gangs', been in the wrong place at the wrong time and almost became one of those innocent bystanders at one of seven drive by shootings at my high school while i was there. (and I went to the good school, the other was worse.) Then I joined the military.

Yeah, I know about tough guys.

That is one reason I'm glad I don't live in, around, or near big cities.

The biggest city within 30 minutes has like 30-40K people and it's along I-55 and the Mississippi River. You couldn't pay me to go to school at the Central High School there. Terrible place, it is.


Btw, I didn't know you joined the military. What did you do? :06:

Thanks MSNBC, and the edited 911 tapes you released, and the 12 yo trayvon stock picture you all chose.

There's a guy on talk radio named Mark Levine who refers to MSNBC as MSLSD. :har:

[AVGWarhawk]

MSNBC should be shut down. They are beyond awful.

[Ducimus]

That is one reason I'm glad I don't live in, around, or near big cities.

The biggest city within 30 minutes has like 30-40K people and it's along I-55 and the Mississippi River. You couldn't pay me to go to school at the Central High School there. Terrible place, it is.


Btw, I didn't know you joined the military. What did you do? :06:



There's a guy on talk radio named Mark Levine who refers to MSNBC as MSLSD. :har:

I love Utah. I don't contend with any of that stuff anymore. Up until i moved here, I was still in the habit of checking over my shoulder, or guaging people by what their wearing. Not because anyone was after me, but because that's how i was conditioned growing up/living there. Interesting thing is when in the Service, i learned to look someone in their eye when you talk to them. But living in California, I unlearned that. Direct eye contact is avoided there. If you look at someone directly in the eye, the reaction your liable to get is, "WTF is your problem?!?" Living in Utah, people look you in the eye when they talk to you, so now i've been having to unlearn the habit of avoiding direct eye contact.

As for what i did in the miltary, you know it doesn't really matter. I've learned over the years that nothing I ever did mattered or made a bit of difference to anyone except to the people i served with.

[soopaman2]

Ducimus, I wasn't trying to call ya out on experiences, We know little of one another, but you know how things could escalate.

Just trying to prove that some asshats cannot be reasoned with, and trying to convey the desperation of having the living crap beat out of you.

I understand your point, but the defense showed he had adequate time to get away from fat George. Who never brandished his gun, or even turned to it until he was on the brink.

I woulda pulled too, most likely alot earlier than Zimm, I would not have screamed for help as long as him (zimm).

GZ has alot less pride than me, my opinions are based on watching the trial, and the evidence submitted.

[Armistead]

MSNBC should be shut down. They are beyond awful.

I agree, I´m somewhat liberal and I find them disgusting, nothing to do with news.

I also liked when that lawyer on CNN referred to HLN as the hysterical ladies network...:haha:

[Red October1984]

I love Utah. I don't contend with any of that stuff anymore. Up until i moved here, I was still in the habit of checking over my shoulder, or guaging people by what their wearing. Not because anyone was after me, but because that's how i was conditioned growing up/living there. Interesting thing is when in the Service, i learned to look someone in their eye when you talk to them. But living in California, I unlearned that. Direct eye contact is avoided there. If you look at someone directly in the eye, the reaction your liable to get is, "WTF is your problem?!?" Living in Utah, people look you in the eye when they talk to you, so now i've been having to unlearn the habit of avoiding direct eye contact.

As for what i did in the miltary, you know it doesn't really matter. I've learned over the years that nothing I ever did mattered or made a bit of difference to anyone except to the people i served with.

California is somewhere I definitely wouldn't like living. I'm sure it isn't all like what you experienced but it's just somewhere I don't want to be.

And for your military service, it does matter. You deserve just as much respect as any other member of the military. You stepped up to help defend your country. That's good enough for me. It matters to more people than you think. A salute to your service.

:salute: :salute: :salute: :salute:

[Armistead]

Ducimus, I wasn't trying to call ya out on experiences, We know little of one another, but you know how things could escalate.

Just trying to prove that some asshats cannot be reasoned with, and trying to convey the desperation of having the living crap beat out of you.

I understand your point, but the defense showed he had adequate time to get away from fat George. Who never brandished his gun, or even turned to it until he was on the brink.

I woulda pulled too, most likely alot earlier than Zimm, I would not have screamed for help as long as him (zimm).

GZ has alot less pride than me, my opinions are based on watching the trial, and the evidence submitted.

If I was gonna follow a bigger suspect on a dark rainy night in a hood with lots of crime, my gun would´ve been out at the ready or I would´ve stayed in my car...

[Ducimus]

Just trying to prove that some asshats cannot be reasoned with, and trying to convey the desperation of having the living crap beat out of you.


It is true that some people, cannot be reasoned with. If someone means you harm for whatever reason, they're gonna find a way to do it. I try to avoid those people, or avoid situations where i might end up meeting those people.

Now, if i was jumped from out of nowhere and had some guy giving me a beat down or trying to curb stomp me, that's a horse of another color. If I can't get away, It will be time to introduce the scumbag to my two best friends, Mr Smith and Mr. Wesson. However, if i thought that getting jumped was a possiblity, I wouldn't go down X street to begin with. My ass would go around.

[soopaman2]

MSNBC should be shut down. They are beyond awful.

From your lips to gods ears!


Ducimus,sir, I only state my opinions, and as a disclaimer never think I am always right.

May we not be utter enemies if we disagree?

A case like this has alot of room for dissention.

Only 2 people know truly what happened.

[Ducimus]

Dude, the only reason why I am posting in this thread, is because I'm bored. I really have no vested interest in this topic. But rather then troll, i figured, what the hell, ill toss in my 2 cents worth for giggles and grins. I really don't care about George Zimmerman. He's just another name, in another headline to me. Although, i do have some sympathy for the guy, because it sure sucks to be him right now. No matter how this trial ends, he's got a big target painted on his back. Guilty, or innocent, the wrong kind of people are going to be looking for him.

[soopaman2]

Dude, the only reason why I am posting in this thread, is because I'm bored. I really have no vested interest in this topic. But rather then troll, i figured, what the hell, ill toss in my 2 cents worth for giggles and grins. I really don't care about George Zimmerman. He's just another name, in another headline to me. Although, i do have some sympathy for the guy, because it sure sucks to be him right now. No matter how this trial ends, he's got a big target painted on his back. Guilty, or innocent, the wrong kind of people are going to be looking for him.

I'd give ya a manhug if I could :O:

I am grateful for jury trials. no matter the outcome.
Initially, my opinion, was based on initial feelings and media reports then GZ is a sack of...Uhhh "stuff"

But watching the trial...I watched my initial beliefs shattered.

MSNBC should be sued into bankruptcy. Irresponsible, and a crime to the citizenry.

People get pissy about Snowden but give our horrid press a pass.

[Stealhead]

I don't know how it is in Florida, but in every self-defense class (marital arts and handgun) I have taken over the past 30+ years, they emphasize that the first step in self-defense is avoiding situations where you need to apply self-defense techniques. :yep:

A testament to my trainers (martial arts and weapons) is that I have not placed myself in a situation where I needed that training.


It is the same here as far as I am aware.I cant speak for every single place that offers concealed carry classes but the one I was in and of others that I have heard about the goal is to avoid a bad situation in the first place not to be aggressive the guys teaching my class spent lots of time on how to avoid needing to use your weapon.

The problem is not every person walks away with the mentality that the instructor instructed if someone is a overly paranoid they still will be after a course in any self defense course.

The entire problem with GZ for me is that he placed himself in what he deemed a hazardous situation of his own free will that is the polar opposite of self defense.

[Ducimus]

We should run a friendly bet as to what the Jury decides.

Now, I have not been following the trial, evidence or what not. The most I have read within the last month, is the headline on CNN and Foxnews. Now, based purely on the foxnews headline of "six women panel" (bleeding mother's heart and all that), and the whole pursuit thing, I'm gonna give a scientific wild ass guess, that they find him guilty.

Any takers?

[soopaman2]

Feed is back, though nothing good is coming, Jury will take a few days IMHO.

http://www.nbcnews.com/video/nbcnews.com/52436061/

HLN constant pauses, hot morning chick though, (better than Nancy Graces fat overweight rump, and her bitterness. Nancy grace is so slappable. The live feed does not bleep out cusswords, which in some cases is relevant to the case.

Plus no Slobbo Grace, the angry ex manhating feminist piggy wannabe (ex) prosecuter.

Nancy should be eating rice cakes and not steaks, at least if you want to be on tv.

She really is a vapid and uninformed knee jerk moron, typical prosecutor, everyone is guilty.

[soopaman2]

We should run a friendly bet as to what the Jury decides.

Now, I have not been following the trial, evidence or what not. The most I have read within the last month, is the headline on CNN and Foxnews. Now, based purely on the foxnews headline of "six women panel" (bleeding mother's heart and all that), and the whole pursuit thing, I'm gonna give a scientific wild ass guess, that they find him guilty.

Any takers?

5 bucks American to subsim from me if you are right (in your name for a guilty verdict)

Not guilty, 5$ american to subsim from you, in my name.

Either way, we all win.

Ya down?:salute:

Even a dollar if 5 is too much, it goes to the site regardless.:)

If not, we can bet pushups, or something.

Maybe even shame? I do not want to force money on anyone.

[Armistead]

I bet manslaughter. I think they will see the evidence and feel he is innocent, but will emotionally give the family manslaughter, thinking it's a light sentence. Then the judge, getting instructions from some higher up will smack GZ with 20-30 years.

A political compromise.

[soopaman2]

I bet manslaughter. I think they will see the evidence and feel he is innocent, but will emotionally give the family manslaughter, thinking it's a light sentence. Then the judge, getting instructions from some higher up will smack GZ with 20-30 years.

A political compromise.


Kinda like how OJ simpson was given a murder type sentence for armed robbery?

That is disingenuous and a farce to the legal system, convict him and sentence him fairly, or exonerate him outright.

Freaking pedophiles get a fairer chance than zimm has.

[WernherVonTrapp]

I've been watching the trial, and personally involved in more trials than I can recall, in NJ. I grew up in the city of Paterson (population 146,427, last census) where I'd been involved in more street fights than most people would believe possible. Got my clock cleaned most of the time. I know well the injuries that one well placed punch can cause. Have had more than one person knock me to the ground with a punch, and then lean over me and taunt me about it. I suppose if I pointed at arm's length and shot one of them while they were leaning over me laughing, I could've claimed I shot him while he was on top of me, barring any witnesses of course.

No one can tell with complete continuity what happened between GZ and TM that night. Just because a prosecutor (or defense attorney) fails to object to something, doesn't mean he's conceding that the other is correct/right. There's a reason for everything done by attorneys in a court of law. For instance, if the defense went into TM's past to show specific facts or tendencies, the prosecution might have tried to show that GZ had a propensity for violence and had to attend an anger management course as part of a plea deal after assaulting a police officer.

Someone who isn't afraid to assault an officer of the law sounds like someone who isn't afraid of starting an altercation with anyone. I see more consistencies between GZ and violence than I do with TM and violence. Why didn't TM have a gun and GZ did? Why did GZ attend MMA classes and then, coincidentally, use the term "ground & pound" in his description of TM's alleged attack on him? Why did GZ attend a "Use of Deadly Force" class in order to learn when to shoot/don't-shoot?

Despite my strong suspicions about GZ and dealing with guys like him personally, I don't know what actually happened, because the other eyewitness is dead and I wasn't there. Now, in reiteration, it's in the jury's hands and I'll respect whatever decision they render; no doubt a difficult decision either way.
And Platapus is right, the first thing you're taught in a self-defence or martial arts class is self control and abstinence.

I can't even wager a guess.

[soopaman2]

Patterson NJ!

Kudos to you!

I thought I was hard coming up in Asbury Park.

One of 4 white guys in my grade, my younger life was chock full of bullying.

Freaking Patterson, take it from a Jersey guy, that is pretty hardcore. Patterson may as well be little Chicago with the street violence.

edit: (let us hope justice is accepted by all, no matter who "wins" this case will spawn a crap storm.) :(

Freaking Paterson, your out that pit now right? (if ya don't mind me asking?)

[soopaman2]

Jury just asked to adjourn until 9am tomorrow. Just now.

This will be a few days I am thinking.

[WernherVonTrapp]

Freaking Paterson, your out that pit now right? (if ya don't mind me asking?)Yeah, I'm out now. Moved out during my 2nd year as a LEO when I was 29. Moved to Sussex, NJ for a time and then learned that both my daughters were Autistic. Soooo, the wife wanted to move back down near the city where our access to medical/neurological treatments and schooling would be better suited. Lived in Bergen County (Elmwood Park, formerly East Paterson) before retiring and moving to PA.

[soopaman2]

Yeah, I'm out now. Moved out during my 2nd year as a LEO when I was 29. Moved to Sussex, NJ for a time and then learned that both my daughters were Autistic. Soooo, the wife wanted to move back down near the city where our access to medical/neurological treatments and schooling would be better suited. Lived in Bergen County (Elmwood Park, formerly East Paterson) before retiring and moving to PA.

Off topic, sorry, just always happy to see a jersey boy here:D

Face it, not too many want to admit it ;)

Glad ya got out, I considered PA myself just for tax relief, but I work in N jersey, and my old lady works here in central jersey, meh.

Best wishes to you and yours Wernher.

Be back at 9am est

[Father Goose]

B29: Hispanic female with eight children who works at a nursing home, living in Chicago when the Trayvon Martin shooting occurred. She said that she worked nights with Alzheimer’s patients, moved to Seminole county four months prior to the start of the trial, and said, “I don’t like watchin the news period…I don’t read any newspapers, don’t watch the news.” She added she didn’t like crime shows on television. She said that she knew that with regard to the Trayvon Martin case, a “little boy had passed away,” who she thought was “a kid, 12 or 13,” and termed Martin a “child who died.” She had previously been arrested, and told the lawyers that she would have no problem voting “not guilty” if there was a reasonable doubt in her mind.

B76: White female of middle age who knew about case from the news, says she wants a “fair trial,” and said it was a “great opportunity” to serve on the jury. She said that she knew that someone had been shot and that Zimmerman was injured. She said she didn’t “believe what I hear on TV.” She has two children and has been married for 30 years, and said that she had used the Neighborhood Watch program in her neighborhood. She asked why “a kid was out at night getting candy” and said “If I saw someone beating a child I would definitely get involved, I’d push the person down if I needed to, to protect the child.”

B37: White woman in her 30s owns a variety of pets (3 dogs, 4 cats, parrot, crow with one wing, two lizards), rescues wildlife, works in a chiropractor’s office, and says she does not watch television. She told attorney’s that the burden of proof lay with the state, and thinks concealed and carry weapons training is inadequate, although she said she had once had a concealed firearm license. She has two children. She said that the best use for newspapers was lining her parrot’s cage, and said she did not trust the media. She called the Trayvon Martin protests “rioting” and said she remembered that Zimmerman had been in a fight late at night and a “boy of color” had been killed.

B51: White retired woman, unmarried, who admitted she had an opinion on the case, and admitted that she had heard Zimmerman had been told not to follow Zimmerman (false) but that he declined to do so. She also stated it was “good to know we can consider bias.” She said that Zimmerman’s participation in Neighborhood Watch was something “he was supposed to be doing.” She said that Zimmerman might have done something wrong in not waiting for police, stating, “No. Perhaps he did. Yes.” She said that she thought the Chief of Police of Sanford had lost his job thanks to not arresting Zimmerman quickly enough.

E6: White mid-30s female who worked in financial services; defense attempted to preemptory challenge her but the judge denied the challenge. She said she didn’t know enough facts to have an opinion on the case. She has two children and had been previously arrested on a domestic violence charge. She said she didn’t follow the case closely, and said, ‘I don’t put much stock to what’s in the news, it’s so speculative.” She said she’d seen a picture of Zimmerman’s face bloodied, and that she had guns in the home. She told her children when she heard about the shooting not to dress or act to give a “false impression” while out at night. She seemed quite familiar with the concept of reasonable doubt, and asked specific questions about it.

E40: White middle-aged female who called herself a lawyer at heart, said she could help tell jurors to only consider evidence presented in court, and said that citizens have “responsibility if you bear arms.” She is a safety officer, and has one child. She said she heard about a teenager being killed and “didn’t have time” to follow the case.

[WernherVonTrapp]

Off topic, sorry, just always happy to see a jersey boy here:D

Face it, not too many want to admit it ;)

Glad ya got out, I considered PA myself just for tax relief, but I work in N jersey, and my old lady works here in central jersey, meh.

Best wishes to you and yours Wernher.

Be back at 9am est
Thanks, and I've been to Asbury Park, Long Branch, etc.; it's no cake walk. There's even parts of AC where I wouldn't want to walk alone at night.:03:

[Madox58]

Off topic myself here.
Only thing I really hate about New Jersey?
I get in for free but have to pay a ransom to get out!
:huh:
What the heck is that all about?
:haha:

[Platapus]

I get in for free but have to pay a ransom to get out!
:huh:
What the heck is that all about?
:haha:

Do you think anyone would pay to get IN to New Jersey??

[Stealhead]

B29: Hispanic female with eight children who works at a nursing home, living in Chicago when the Trayvon Martin shooting occurred. She said that she worked nights with Alzheimer’s patients, moved to Seminole county four months prior to the start of the trial, and said, “I don’t like watchin the news period…I don’t read any newspapers, don’t watch the news.” She added she didn’t like crime shows on television. She said that she knew that with regard to the Trayvon Martin case, a “little boy had passed away,” who she thought was “a kid, 12 or 13,” and termed Martin a “child who died.” She had previously been arrested, and told the lawyers that she would have no problem voting “not guilty” if there was a reasonable doubt in her mind.

B76: White female of middle age who knew about case from the news, says she wants a “fair trial,” and said it was a “great opportunity” to serve on the jury. She said that she knew that someone had been shot and that Zimmerman was injured. She said she didn’t “believe what I hear on TV.” She has two children and has been married for 30 years, and said that she had used the Neighborhood Watch program in her neighborhood. She asked why “a kid was out at night getting candy” and said “If I saw someone beating a child I would definitely get involved, I’d push the person down if I needed to, to protect the child.”

B37: White woman in her 30s owns a variety of pets (3 dogs, 4 cats, parrot, crow with one wing, two lizards), rescues wildlife, works in a chiropractor’s office, and says she does not watch television. She told attorney’s that the burden of proof lay with the state, and thinks concealed and carry weapons training is inadequate, although she said she had once had a concealed firearm license. She has two children. She said that the best use for newspapers was lining her parrot’s cage, and said she did not trust the media. She called the Trayvon Martin protests “rioting” and said she remembered that Zimmerman had been in a fight late at night and a “boy of color” had been killed.

B51: White retired woman, unmarried, who admitted she had an opinion on the case, and admitted that she had heard Zimmerman had been told not to follow Zimmerman (false) but that he declined to do so. She also stated it was “good to know we can consider bias.” She said that Zimmerman’s participation in Neighborhood Watch was something “he was supposed to be doing.” She said that Zimmerman might have done something wrong in not waiting for police, stating, “No. Perhaps he did. Yes.” She said that she thought the Chief of Police of Sanford had lost his job thanks to not arresting Zimmerman quickly enough.

E6: White mid-30s female who worked in financial services; defense attempted to preemptory challenge her but the judge denied the challenge. She said she didn’t know enough facts to have an opinion on the case. She has two children and had been previously arrested on a domestic violence charge. She said she didn’t follow the case closely, and said, ‘I don’t put much stock to what’s in the news, it’s so speculative.” She said she’d seen a picture of Zimmerman’s face bloodied, and that she had guns in the home. She told her children when she heard about the shooting not to dress or act to give a “false impression” while out at night. She seemed quite familiar with the concept of reasonable doubt, and asked specific questions about it.

E40: White middle-aged female who called herself a lawyer at heart, said she could help tell jurors to only consider evidence presented in court, and said that citizens have “responsibility if you bear arms.” She is a safety officer, and has one child. She said she heard about a teenager being killed and “didn’t have time” to follow the case.

They never release such information on jurors so I can say 100% beyond a shadow of a doubt that the quoted post is 1,000,000+1% Malarkey.

Hopefully this was all in jest though you did not make any clear indication that is was(:03:,:D,:sunny:)

[Armistead]

I've been watching the trial, and personally involved in more trials than I can recall, in NJ. I grew up in the city of Paterson (population 146,427, last census) where I'd been involved in more street fights than most people would believe possible. Got my clock cleaned most of the time. I know well the injuries that one well placed punch can cause. Have had more than one person knock me to the ground with a punch, and then lean over me and taunt me about it. I suppose if I pointed at arm's length and shot one of them while they were leaning over me laughing, I could've claimed I shot him while he was on top of me, barring any witnesses of course.

No one can tell with complete continuity what happened between GZ and TM that night. Just because a prosecutor (or defense attorney) fails to object to something, doesn't mean he's conceding that the other is correct/right. There's a reason for everything done by attorneys in a court of law. For instance, if the defense went into TM's past to show specific facts or tendencies, the prosecution might have tried to show that GZ had a propensity for violence and had to attend an anger management course as part of a plea deal after assaulting a police officer.

Someone who isn't afraid to assault an officer of the law sounds like someone who isn't afraid of starting an altercation with anyone. I see more consistencies between GZ and violence than I do with TM and violence. Why didn't TM have a gun and GZ did? Why did GZ attend MMA classes and then, coincidentally, use the term "ground & pound" in his description of TM's alleged attack on him? Why did GZ attend a "Use of Deadly Force" class in order to learn when to shoot/don't-shoot?

Despite my strong suspicions about GZ and dealing with guys like him personally, I don't know what actually happened, because the other eyewitness is dead and I wasn't there. Now, in reiteration, it's in the jury's hands and I'll respect whatever decision they render; no doubt a difficult decision either way.
And Platapus is right, the first thing you're taught in a self-defence or martial arts class is self control and abstinence.

I can't even wager a guess.

Several of the court watchers said 3 of the women were crying why pretty boy prosecutor gave his final close....not good for GZ.

It's tough because so many things don't add up. I'm sure you have seen people that thought they were right exaggerate or lie to better protect themselves.

One thing, one witness stated Tray asked the guy why he was being followed and the fight broke out shortly after that, pushing the theory he was being followed. I think to the time I thought someone was following me home when I was walking the lake trails behind my old house. I had several paths I took to get home, he followed about 50 yards back. If I took a path, he took a path. I was carrying my gun concealed then. The last path I took, I stepped behind a tree and hid, had my gun out by my side. He took the path, when he got about 20 ft, I stepped out and asked him why he was following me, gun by my side. He got scared, big guy, said " you scared the chit out of me" He said he thought I was heading back to the clubhouse. I told him the clubhouse was 5 miles on the other side of the lake. He said he was lost and went the other way.

Why didn't TM go home, is it possible he did as I did, wait and approach the guy asking why he was being followed. People do it all the time, not that it's smart.

Anyway, I think GZ's goose is cooked as far as manslaughter with 6 women.

[Father Goose]

They never release such information on jurors so I can say 100% beyond a shadow of a doubt that the quoted post is 1,000,000+1% Malarkey.

Hopefully this was all in jest though you did not make any clear indication that is was(:03:,:D,:sunny:)

I thought since there was so much interest on this topic that a few would be interested in "meeting the jury", the women who would be soon deciding the fate of George Zimmerman.

Stealhead, let me help you connect the dots for once again I have to take in consideration you're from Florida. :D

1) Your quote jumps to a conclusion that "they never release such information". Who is they? And who said my information came from them?

2) Are you aware the 9-day jury selection was open to the public?

3) Are you aware the public was allowed to take notes?

4) The identities of the jurors are protected but their background is not.

Dots connected. :know:

So if you can come to a faulty conclusion and can "say 100% beyond a shadow of a doubt", then I'm glad you're not on the jury. :har:

[Armistead]

Often when it's cool, windy or rainy, I wear my hoodie and cover my head when walking. I'm gonna rethink it. Think I will get some bright orange ones and print front and back on it.

I"M WHITE
INNOCENT
DON'T SHOOT ME
OR MY DOG
YOU CRAZY CRACKER

[August]

Often when it's cool, windy or rainy, I wear my hoodie and cover my head when walking. I'm gonna rethink it. Think I will get some bright orange ones and print front and back on it.

I"M WHITE
INNOCENT
DON'T SHOOT ME
OR MY DOG
YOU CRAZY CRACKER

http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/degrassi/images/9/90/Thats-racist.gif

[Ducimus]

5 bucks American to subsim from me if you are right (in your name for a guilty verdict)

Not guilty, 5$ american to subsim from you, in my name.

Either way, we all win.

Ya down?:salute:

Even a dollar if 5 is too much, it goes to the site regardless.:)

If not, we can bet pushups, or something.

Maybe even shame? I do not want to force money on anyone.

Hey now, I said a Friendly bet.

I'll give you 20 pushup's if i lose though. :O:

[soopaman2]

Hey now, I said a Friendly bet.

I'll give you 20 pushup's if i lose though. :O:

20 pushups it is! :up:

No proof needed, you can even make someone else do them. :haha:

I would rather win the powerball lotto myself.:O:

[Armistead]

Hey now, I said a Friendly bet.

I'll give you 20 pushup's if i lose though. :O:

Like you could do 20 legit push ups. I want it on video.

Back to the case. I don't see how they could legally charge him with murder or manslaughter, but emotions may get manslaughter. Racial politics came into play with the murder charge. They should've charge GZ with negligent homicide, which could get 15 years.

[soopaman2]

Like you could do 20 legit push ups. I want it on video.

Back to the case. I don't see how they could legally charge him with murder or manslaughter, but emotions may get manslaughter. Racial politics came into play with the murder charge. They should've charge GZ with negligent homicide, which could get 15 years.

That is possible, not as far of a reach as murder 2. Prosecution lost when they folded to skewed MSNBC coverage. (edited tapes. old pictures of TM, not reporting GZ injuries)

But the jury can only convict based on what instruction the judge gives.

She defines the parameters, and the jury must adhere to them, also the burden of proof is on the state.

For our Euro readers, we are innocent until proven guilty . So all cases must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

IMHO, there is alot of reasonable doubt

[August]

But the jury can only convict based on what instruction the judge gives.

She defines the parameters, and the jury must adhere to them, also the burden of proof is on the state.

For our Euro readers, we are innocent until proven guilty . So all cases must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

IMHO, there is alot of reasonable doubt

I don't know if it's been posted here yet but this is a link to the judges instructions to the jury:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/153354467/George-Zimmerman-Trial-Final-Jury-Instructions

[soopaman2]

I don't know if it's been posted here yet but this is a link to the judges instructions to the jury:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/153354467/George-Zimmerman-Trial-Final-Jury-Instructions


Thank you August.:up:

It is to the evidence introduced in this trial, and to it alone, that you are to look for thatproof.

Judge Debra Nelson

Not "what you feel"

[Platapus]

In order to understand what the jury is up against, it is important to understand the specific Florida Statutes. Every state has different statutes (laws) concerning homicide. Fortunately, Florida publishes not only the current but the past statutes. Since this incident took place in 2012, it is necessary to only consider the statutes as they were written in 2012.

Florida Statute 782.4 defines the crimes of homicide.

We can forget First Degree Murder, as Zimmerman was never charged with that crime. In reading the statutes, First Degree Murder would not apply to this case.

Second Degree Murder is defined as

The unlawful killing of a human being, when perpetrated by any act imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life, although without any premeditated design to effect the death of any particular individual, is murder in the second degree and constitutes a felony of the first degree, punishable by imprisonment for a term of years not exceeding life or as provided in s. 775.082 (http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0775/Sections/0775.082.html), s. 775.083 (http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0775/Sections/0775.083.html), or s. 775.084 (http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0775/Sections/0775.084.html).

I am not sure this would be the appropriate crime to charge Zimmerman with. :nope: There was nothing that Zimmerman said, or any evidence of what Zimmerman did that would indicate "a depraved mind regardless of human life".

Remember, that in order to garner a fair conviction, ALL elements of the crime must be demonstrated. Words are important!

Third Degree Murder is defined as


The unlawful killing of a human being, when perpetrated without any design to effect death, by a person engaged in the perpetration of, or in the attempt to perpetrate, any felony other than any:
[list of types of felonies that does not affect this post]

The problem with Third Degree Murder is that Zimmerman did intend to effect death. That's the whole crux of self-defense in this case. So it should not be possible to get a conviction of Third Degree Murder.

So what else is there?

There is Manslaughter (782.07)

Manslaughter is defined as


The killing of a human being by the act, procurement, or culpable negligence of another, without lawful justification according to the provisions of chapter 776 and in cases in which such killing shall not be excusable homicide or murder, according to the provisions of this chapter, is manslaughter, a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 (http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0775/Sections/0775.082.html), s. 775.083 (http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0775/Sections/0775.083.html), or s. 775.084 (http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0775/Sections/0775.084.html).

Words are important. Did you catch the change of wording from the definitions of Murder to the definition of Manslaughter?

The murder crimes used the term "unlawful killing" Manslaughter used the term "killing" .

Since Martin was 17, a sub-definition of Manslaughter applies

A person who causes the death of any person under the age of 18 by culpable negligence under s. 827.03 (http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0800-0899/0827/Sections/0827.03.html)(2)(b) commits aggravated manslaughter of a child, a felony of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 (http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0775/Sections/0775.082.html), s. 775.083 (http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0775/Sections/0775.083.html), or s. 775.084 (http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0775/Sections/0775.084.html).

The crux of the case concerns section 776. And that's where it gets fuzzy.

Section 776 - Justifiable Use of Force.


776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if (1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013 (http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.013.html).

776.013 pertains to defending the home and is not applicable in this case


776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who (1) (does not apply)
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless (a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

This is what the prosecution is working on.

Who provoked the use of force?
Did Zimmerman exhaust "every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force..."?

That's what the jury needs to rule on. And this is important because:


782.11 Unnecessary killing to prevent unlawful act.—Whoever shall unnecessarily kill another, either while resisting an attempt by such other person to commit any felony, or to do any other unlawful act, or after such attempt shall have failed, shall be deemed guilty of manslaughter, a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 (http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0775/Sections/0775.082.html), s. 775.083 (http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0775/Sections/0775.083.html), or s. 775.084 (http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0775/Sections/0775.084.html).

The fuzzy aspect is when did the "incident" first occur?

It is considered starting when Martin punched Zimmerman, that's one thing
If it is considered starting when Zimmerman did not exhaust all reasonable means to escape...., that's another thing.

In my opinion, these are the two questions that will decide the case.

Did Zimmerman provoke the use of force against himself?
Was the killing of Martin "unnecessary" because Zimmerman did not exhaust all reasonable means to escape the situation without using deadly force?


But in any case, if we are to have a reasonable discussion on this case, it is important that everyone know exactly what the statutes say.

[soopaman2]

It has been proven in this case Zimmerman was being straddled and beaten.

A fact not even disputed by the prosecution.

What is the problem?

So he sucks at fighting, he's pudgy, give him a break.

I just love how Trayvon could not outrun fatboy, in 4 minutes, someone turned around to fight. Trayvon intended harm.

While the other was simply monitoring his location for the police, as any watchman should.

[Platapus]

It has been proven in this case Zimmerman was being straddled and beaten.

A fact not even disputed by the prosecution.

What is the problem?

The problem is that it, in itself, does not prove anything in the case.

You can't assume that the person on top started the fight, only that they were a better fighter.

Whether Travon or Zimmerman instigated the altercation (how ever that is going to be defined), the observed fact that Travon was on top, does not reduce the uncertainty of who started it.

That is why it is not disputed by the prosecution

[soopaman2]

The problem is that it, in itself, does not prove anything in the case.

You can't assume that the person on top started the fight, only that they were a better fighter.

Whether Travon or Zimmerman instigated the altercation (how ever that is going to be defined), the observed fact that Travon was on top, does not reduce the uncertainty of who started it.

That is why it is not disputed by the prosecution

But it does bring self defense into the equation.

Listen to the eyewitness 911 call, he screamed help in blood curdling screams for a long time before he drew.

The "intention to kill" was not there.

[August]

I've never known or heard of anyone that was armed with a pistol to start a fight with his fists.

[Platapus]

Crikey! It will be a long weekend. The 24/7 news services are giving us updates.. of nothing happening. :/\\!!

http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/13/justice/zimmerman-trial/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/07/13/zimmerman-jurors-to-begin-2nd-day-deliberations/

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/07/13/19442498-zimmerman-jury-begins-second-day-of-deliberations?lite

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23290306

(don't bother clicking on these links, they are all reporting that there is nothing to report.) :nope:


I don't think anyone can argue that this is not a media circus. :nope:

[soopaman2]

Crikey! It will be a long weekend. The 24/7 news services are giving us updates.. of nothing happening. :/\\!!

http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/13/justice/zimmerman-trial/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/07/13/zimmerman-jurors-to-begin-2nd-day-deliberations/

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/07/13/19442498-zimmerman-jury-begins-second-day-of-deliberations?lite

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23290306

(don't bother clicking on these links, they are all reporting that there is nothing to report.) :nope:


I don't think anyone can argue that this is not a media circus. :nope:

Slow news day, gotta keep the fires stoked!

No matter who you think is right or wrong, the press is vile, and no longer serves the public interest, but has taken the route of US weekly, and became a tabloid rag.

I open the New York Post, or the NY Daily News, and see more pics of stars or Bikini clad women than actual hard hitting news. They always get the info on tha Kardashians right, but the Boston bombers, ehh not so much.

The news that is there is delivered with a clear partisan slope. (far right in the cases of those 2 papers)

Yeah, thank god for the internet.

[Platapus]

Since nothing is happening, I have a question I have been pondering.

What happens when two Bill of Rights are in conflict with each other?

At what point does the Freedom of the Press (First Amendment) infringe on the rights of "the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury..." (Sixth Amendment).

If it can be demonstrated that pre-trial news reporting has tainted the potential jurors, which right takes precedence?

Should the news media even care about their effects on the Sixth Amendment?

This will only get worse. News media are "trying" cases even before the investigations are complete... all in the name of "journalism".

Should there be a limit? It is not in the best interest if the news media to self-regulate. But if the news media won't self-regulate, is there anything the government can/should do?

Are some constitutional rights just worth more than others???

[soopaman2]

At what point does the Freedom of the Press (First Amendment) infringe on the rights of "the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury..." (Sixth Amendment).




As long as there are advertisers, they are in bussiness.


At what point do we put a stop to corporations deciding what we should know, and when will the press work for the people and not to sell commercial space?

[Tribesman]

I've never known or heard of anyone that was armed with a pistol to start a fight with his fists.
.
Maybe you should meet more people.

[CaptainHaplo]

Platapus,

In cases like that, the rights of the individual would have to take precedence. The freedom of the press only affects a person's ability to do their job, whereas the rights to a speedy trial can affect the rights of an individual to life and liberty.

On the issue of this case - for those that feel that GZ is guilty of murder/manslaughter - I have 3 questions.

Since the state of mind of the person choosing to use self defense is the point - and we know he was on the ground, with TM on top of him, beating him (either punching his face or pounding his head into pavement) how can you NOT say it is reasonable for GZ to have been in fear of bodily harm?

Also - if it was reasonable for him to be in fear since he was undergoing a beating (per testimony and evidence), yet he is guilty, he must by definition have lost his right to self defense. So at what point does GZ loose his right to self defense?

Finally, if he could not have been reasonably in fear of bodily injury or death while being pinned and pounded on, at what point would it have been reasonable for him to have such fear?

[Platapus]

Platapus,

In cases like that, the rights of the individual would have to take precedence. The freedom of the press only affects a person's ability to do their job, whereas the rights to a speedy trial can affect the rights of an individual to life and liberty

I would hope so. But is this happening?

That is the problem with writing a "bill of rights" that both covers individuals and an industry.

Personally, I would like the courts to start ruling on reasonable restrictions on pre-trial reporting. A free press is good for reporting on the government. However, I do not feel that the public is best served when news media "pre-tries" citizens.

Trial by jury (an impartial jury) is one of our most important rights.

Do we really want juries to consist of people who don't read newspapers, watch news programs, or monitor internet news services?

Of course, this may be a situation, where a cure (restrictions on first amendment) may be worse then the disease.

[Tribesman]

Finally, if he could not have been reasonably in fear of bodily injury or death while being pinned and pounded on, at what point would it have been reasonable for him to have such fear?
The point at which it would have been reasonable to have such fear is when he was sitting in his car, before he decided to go ahead anyway and start stalking someone he considered a dangerous criminal.

[WernherVonTrapp]

The point at which it would have been reasonable to have such fear is when he was sitting in his car, before he decided to go ahead anyway and start stalking someone he considered a dangerous criminal.
That is the focal point.

[CaptainHaplo]

The point at which it would have been reasonable to have such fear is when he was sitting in his car, before he decided to go ahead anyway and start stalking someone he considered a dangerous criminal.

Well then tribesman, if you are correct, then he could have reasonably been in fear of his life while sitting in his vehicle - thus shooting out his window at TM from yards away, killing him. He would have, according to your claim, been well within his rights of self defense to do so. Somehow, I don't think others will agree that would be reasonable. I know I sure don't.

[Armistead]

The point at which it would have been reasonable to have such fear is when he was sitting in his car, before he decided to go ahead anyway and start stalking someone he considered a dangerous criminal.

Yep, but not against the law to do so. He may have been negligent, but that's not the charge. Often people do follow or watch suspects and stop serious crime. What if GZ followed and he was a criminal and trying to force himself into a door and stopped possible harm. The issue is was he defending his life.

[Tribesman]

Well then tribesman, if you are correct, then he could have reasonably been in fear of his life while sitting in his vehicle - thus shooting out his window at TM from yards away, killing him. He would have, according to your claim, been well within his rights of self defense to do so. Somehow, I don't think others will agree that would be reasonable. I know I sure don't.
Miss the point much?:yep:
What you wrote makes no sense at all in relation to what was written.


Yep, but not against the law to do so. He may have been negligent, but that's not the charge.
If you are negligent then your negligence weighs heavily on any negative outcome you encounter from your actions, to the extent that it makes you primarily responsible for the problems you have brought upon yourself.

What if GZ followed and he was a criminal and trying to force himself into a door and stopped possible harm.
But that wasn't what happened was it

The issue is was he defending his life.
The issue is did he choose to put himself in a stupid situation.
Someone who chooses to put themselves in a stupid situation is in a different category than someone who just finds themselves in the same situation.

[CaptainHaplo]

Miss the point much?:yep:
What you wrote makes no sense at all in relation to what was written.

On the contrary. The issue is the state of mind necessary to use deadly force. I asked when that state of mind was "reasonable" - and you chimed in with your view. Your view was that it was reasonable for him to fear for his life or fear great bodily harm when he was in his car. That was the point in which it would be acceptable - under the law - to use deadly force in defense of his safety. Thus, you state he should have been able to use that force from his car. I find that position unreasonable - as I am sure most others do.

Your intent was to twist the conversation, yet you stuck your foot in your mouth and proved once again your foolishness. Have fun looking like a moron. I'm back to ignoring your idiocy.

[WernherVonTrapp]

Looks like 2nd Degree Murder might be off the table, though no big surprise there. The jury is asking questions about the "Manslaughter" charge.

[Armistead]

I bet he gets manslaughter, but it will be based on emotions, not the facts.

"If George was hit, you must acquit."

[donna52522]

NOT GUILTY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[CaptainHaplo]

The system worked. Criminally he is not guilty.

Now we will watch what the civil side of things says.
In that he does have some culpability.

[Red October1984]

GZ better watch his back.

He's out with a target on his forehead and there's a bunch of pissed off people out there.

I hope this doesn't escalate. It's a ridiculous thing to riot and fight about.

[WernherVonTrapp]

The system worked. Criminally he is not guilty.


Yes it did. The jury says he's "Not Guilty", so he's not guilty.

[Father Goose]

B29: Hispanic female with eight children who works at a nursing home, living in Chicago when the Trayvon Martin shooting occurred. She said that she worked nights with Alzheimer’s patients, moved to Seminole county four months prior to the start of the trial, and said, “I don’t like watchin the news period…I don’t read any newspapers, don’t watch the news.” She added she didn’t like crime shows on television. She said that she knew that with regard to the Trayvon Martin case, a “little boy had passed away,” who she thought was “a kid, 12 or 13,” and termed Martin a “child who died.” She had previously been arrested, and told the lawyers that she would have no problem voting “not guilty” if there was a reasonable doubt in her mind.

B76: White female of middle age who knew about case from the news, says she wants a “fair trial,” and said it was a “great opportunity” to serve on the jury. She said that she knew that someone had been shot and that Zimmerman was injured. She said she didn’t “believe what I hear on TV.” She has two children and has been married for 30 years, and said that she had used the Neighborhood Watch program in her neighborhood. She asked why “a kid was out at night getting candy” and said “If I saw someone beating a child I would definitely get involved, I’d push the person down if I needed to, to protect the child.”

B37: White woman in her 30s owns a variety of pets (3 dogs, 4 cats, parrot, crow with one wing, two lizards), rescues wildlife, works in a chiropractor’s office, and says she does not watch television. She told attorney’s that the burden of proof lay with the state, and thinks concealed and carry weapons training is inadequate, although she said she had once had a concealed firearm license. She has two children. She said that the best use for newspapers was lining her parrot’s cage, and said she did not trust the media. She called the Trayvon Martin protests “rioting” and said she remembered that Zimmerman had been in a fight late at night and a “boy of color” had been killed.

B51: White retired woman, unmarried, who admitted she had an opinion on the case, and admitted that she had heard Zimmerman had been told not to follow Zimmerman (false) but that he declined to do so. She also stated it was “good to know we can consider bias.” She said that Zimmerman’s participation in Neighborhood Watch was something “he was supposed to be doing.” She said that Zimmerman might have done something wrong in not waiting for police, stating, “No. Perhaps he did. Yes.” She said that she thought the Chief of Police of Sanford had lost his job thanks to not arresting Zimmerman quickly enough.

E6: White mid-30s female who worked in financial services; defense attempted to preemptory challenge her but the judge denied the challenge. She said she didn’t know enough facts to have an opinion on the case. She has two children and had been previously arrested on a domestic violence charge. She said she didn’t follow the case closely, and said, ‘I don’t put much stock to what’s in the news, it’s so speculative.” She said she’d seen a picture of Zimmerman’s face bloodied, and that she had guns in the home. She told her children when she heard about the shooting not to dress or act to give a “false impression” while out at night. She seemed quite familiar with the concept of reasonable doubt, and asked specific questions about it.

E40: White middle-aged female who called herself a lawyer at heart, said she could help tell jurors to only consider evidence presented in court, and said that citizens have “responsibility if you bear arms.” She is a safety officer, and has one child. She said she heard about a teenager being killed and “didn’t have time” to follow the case.

They never release such information on jurors so I can say 100% beyond a shadow of a doubt that the quoted post is 1,000,000+1% Malarkey.

Hopefully this was all in jest though you did not make any clear indication that is was(:03:,:D,:sunny:)

I hope Stealhead heard the jury roll call after the verdict so he could hear all of the above jurors ID numbers called out. "Thus endeth the lesson." :know:

As you can tell, Stealhead calling my post "1,000,000+1% malarkey" got the Goose's feathers ruffled...especially when so many of my other posts are so more deserving of that honor. :har:

Good verdict...which is somewhat surprising. :hmmm:

[August]

Civil suit will be next I bet.

[Armistead]

As I stated at the start, politics pushed this, Obama should be ashamed. This should've never turned into a civil rights issue. The jury saw through it, really surprised me, but I think justice was done.

[Armistead]

Civil suit will be next I bet.

Yep, Al Sharpton leading the charge.

[Bubblehead1980]

The system worked.Good guys-1 Scumbags-0 Stand your Ground worked well here.Hopefully more thugs like Martin will take notice and think twice before pulling the crap that little punk did the night in 2012, doubt it, but we can hope.

[Red October1984]

The system worked.Good guys-1 Scumbags-0 Stand your Ground worked well here.Hopefully more thugs like Martin will take notice and think twice before pulling the crap that little punk did the night in 2012, doubt it, but we can hope.

That's like hoping for World Peace.

It'll never happen and both you and I know that. Even if it does happen, you can't maintain it. :dead:

[CaptainMattJ.]

"thugs like martin".

As if anybody here was at the scene witnessing what happened. Zimmerman lied to police, had holes in his story, and pursued trayvon when told not to. All Trayvon did was walk in his neighborhood, which triggered Zimmerman to treat him as a potential threat.

Personally i think Zimmerman's case to me was much too weak to have claimed self defense in such a way. Everything about his claims seemed farfetched and unlikely. I believe he was more than likely guilty of using unnecessary force.

But I, like all of you, were not there and cant say for certain. You portray Marvin as a thug but you weren't there. Making such rash assumptions based off of accounts that have been changed multiple times, are full of holes, and come from the only guy who survived the encounter, is frankly ridiculous.

In addition to assumptions, you say this is a "victory for stand your ground". Who knows. In the same way that innocent men can be thrown in jail, guilty men can walk free. To take a case where the only first hand accounts come from the man doing the shooting, with other testimonials shedding little hard light on the case, and portray it as a victory for an already touchy law is also ridiculous.

The 911 tapes are still disputed as to whether or not is was zimmerman or treyvon, and we dont KNOW anything. The only person that says TM was on top of him beating him into the ground was zimmerman. Which, considering his position, should never be considered as fact. Again, no one saw the altercation take place, and so the only hard testimony comes from Zimmerman, which could easily be twisting the truth as well as telling it straight. The thing is we don't KNOW. Just because Zimmerman was found not guilty based on beyond a reasonable doubt doesn't mean he didn't use unnecessary force, or twist the facts of the situation. Doesn't mean that hes guilty either. I have my opinion, but its just that, an opinion. To paint martin as a thug is making judgements based on incomplete data. To paint zimmerman as a trigger-happy murderer is similarly making judgments based on incomplete data.

[Nippelspanner]

The system worked.Good guys-1 Scumbags-0 Stand your Ground worked well here.Hopefully more thugs like Martin will take notice and think twice before pulling the crap that little punk did the night in 2012, doubt it, but we can hope.

Ohhh, boy... :/\\!!

[mookiemookie]

Ohhh, boy... :/\\!!

Don't feed the trolls!

[Nippelspanner]

Don't feed the trolls!

Yeah I know... :oops:

[Onkel Neal]

I have not been tracking this case very closely, but it sounds like the jury got it right. Let's be honest, would there be this much interest in this case if Martin had been a young white boy? Eh? I know Al Sharpton and his puppets wouldn't have thought twice about it.

http://www.arcamax.com/currentnews/newsheadlines/s-1330035?fs

One of Martin's cell phone pictures shows two teens about to square off against one another as a third stands in the middle like a referee. Martin said he fought a rival who "snitched on me." Martin: "I lost da 1st round :) but won da 2nd nd 3rd." Friend: "Ohhh So It Wass 3 Rounds? Damn well at least yu wonn lol but yuu needa stop fighting." Martin: "Nay im not done with fool..... he gone hav 2 see me again." Friend: "Nooo... Stop, yuu waint gonn bee satisified till yuh suspended again, huh?" Martin told another friend at the time that his mother wanted him to move in with his dad after he was suspended. "Da police caught me outta skool," Martin wrote.
Read more at http://www.arcamax.com/currentnews/newsheadlines/s-1330035?fs#E1fzdXJSqQhTtVD9.99

Sounds like young Martin was on his way to being a thug and messed with the wrong guy.

[soopaman2]

Kudos to the jury.

On a side note, any money GZ might lose in the civil suit, he can get from his own lawsuit against NBC News, and the NY Times, for turning this into a racial issue, rather than a confrontation gone wrong.

[Nippelspanner]

Sounds like young Martin was on his way to being a thug and messed with the wrong guy.

Correct - that's what it sounds like...
We will never know what happened exactly that night and why, all we know is the outcome.
I too have the impression Martin was kind of a "thug" - but I don't know, how would I? Same goes for everyone on this board...

That is why some gentlepeople should just stop bubbling bull telling us that justice has been done when all they know is jack.

[Mittelwaechter]

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57433184/fla-mom-gets-20-years-for-firing-warning-shots/

...would there be this much interest in this case if Martin had been a young white boy?There never was a social racist problem versus 'white young men' in the US.

And imagine Zimmerman to be black, shooting a young white boy.

[Tribesman]

On a side note, any money GZ might lose in the civil suit, he can get from his own lawsuit against NBC News, and the NY Times, for turning this into a racial issue, rather than a confrontation gone wrong.
Will he have any money left to bring a civil suit after he has stumped up for the upcoming perjury hearing?

[August]

The only person that says TM was on top of him beating him into the ground was zimmerman.

Not true. At least one eye witness put Martin on top of Zimmerman. Then there is the physical evidence. Cuts on the back of Zimmermans head, grass stains, gunshot pattern in the clothing. All consistent with his story.

Now maybe you feel that Zimmerman didn't prove his innocence but that's not how it works. The prosecution failed in their effort to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. If you ever sit in a defendants chair I think you will appreciate and value the difference.

[nikimcbee]

The prosecution failed in their effort to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. If you ever sit in a defendants chair I think you will appreciate and value the difference.

This.

When I did grand jury duty, we got the DA to drop a case, because there were 5 different versions of what happened. I don't think the DA wanted to be made a fool of, so he dropped the case.

[Sailor Steve]

The system worked.Good guys-1 Scumbags-0 Stand your Ground worked well here.Hopefully more thugs like Martin will take notice and think twice before pulling the crap that little punk did the night in 2012, doubt it, but we can hope.
Yes, the system worked. The jury heard the evidence and made a decision. Zimmerman's guilt was not proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

The rest is your slanted, biased opinion and marks you once again as the troll you've been repeatedly called.

[August]

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57433184/fla-mom-gets-20-years-for-firing-warning-shots/

http://www.scribd.com/doc/89763383/States-Motion-in-Opposition-of-Defendants-Motion-for-Immunity

There are significant differences between the Zimmerman case and this one. You just need to hear both sides of the story.

[Red October1984]

I have not been tracking this case very closely, but it sounds like the jury got it right. Let's be honest, would there be this much interest in this case if Martin had been a young white boy? Eh? I know Al Sharpton and his puppets wouldn't have thought twice about it.

Sounds like young Martin was on his way to being a thug and messed with the wrong guy.

+1

If it had been a white boy, it would've made the county news and then forgotten.

[nikimcbee]

The illuminati of American society have spoken.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/celebs_react_to_george_zimmerman_MgfQk0yd4SN854227 0W7eI

[soopaman2]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/

Look at this farce of a headline, no respect for the jury, maybe even slanderous.

In case this rag changes its front page, (which it does alot)I will type it out here.


Not Guilty * (yes an asterick)

*picture of a smiling George Zimmerman*

* (once again the asterick) But not innocent.

Nice of them to lay unfounded accusations on a man proven to have acted in a lawful manner by a jury of his peers.

I am utterly disgusted:/\\!!

[Sammi79]

Nice of them to lay unfounded accusations on a man proven to have acted in a lawful manner by a jury of his peers.

I am utterly disgusted:/\\!!

Well, actually no. As August recently pointed out, it is not his innocence that was proven, it is his guilt that was not proven. He may well have acted in an unlawful manner, but after considering the case presented by the prosecution, and the defense, the jury ruled that his guilt could not be proven beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore he was quite rightly acquitted, but that does not indicate innocence.

The purpose of innocence until proof of guilt is the necessary protection of the innocent, unfortunately it means sometimes guilty people walk free. Who said; 'Better that 100 guilty men go free, than 1 innocent man hang.' ? if you believe in the rule of law as do I then this is the price we willingly pay.

As much as I honestly think that had the skin colours been reversed a lot would have happened very differently, from the reporting through the arrest/detention to the verdict not to mention the media coverage I have to say there should be a line drawn under this particular case now.

[soopaman2]

I just believe our law system is good.

The judge conducted the trial professionally, not grandstanding.

I just think it is unfair the stigma of this will follow GZ for the rest of his life, considering the charges were trumped up by a biased media looking to sensationalize (yellow journalism).

The Police supervisor who was let go for not filing charges on GZ initially, what about his life, now that it has been proven that his initial instict was right?

I maintain the same mantra, the press is repulsive, I am glad it did not taint the jury.

[Sammi79]

I just believe our law system is good.

:cool: me too. On this side of the pond it is all we have got.

The judge conducted the trial professionally, not grandstanding.

Well that should be a given. Credit where credit is not due.

I just think it is unfair the stigma of this will follow GZ for the rest of his life, considering the charges were trumped up by a biased media looking to sensationalize (yellow journalism).

I think it is not only fair but absolutely necessary, we do not know he was innocent. A very close eye should be kept on him in my opinion.

The Police supervisor who was let go for not filing charges on GZ initially, what about his life, now that it has been proven that his initial instict was right?

I disagree - again his instinct was not proven right, it was not proven wrong. It could still be wrong. Like I said had the skin colours been reversed the accused would likely have been charged immediately which is exactly what should have happened here as there was evidently some contention over the events themselves. Enough at least to be tried in court.

I maintain the same mantra, the press is repulsive, I am glad it did not taint the jury.

Wholeheartedly agree with that statement. :up:

[CaptainHaplo]

I think it is not only fair but absolutely necessary, we do not know he was innocent. A very close eye should be kept on him in my opinion.

In the US, society decided long ago that Justice would operate on the principle of assumed innocence. We may not "know" he was innocent, but by our standards he is innocent until proven guilty. Since he was not proven guilty, he is deemed - innocent. That is the way it works in the US.

I disagree - again his instinct was not proven right, it was not proven wrong. It could still be wrong.

This basically is saying that "well, the court could have gotten it wrong". Anything is possible, so maybe we should just bypass giving people their day in court because the court may screw it up? Not only that, this statement totally negates the "Innocent until proven guilty" foundation that our law system operates on. The police chief and DA both lost their jobs over this - and the court case has proven them right - there was NOT enough evidence for a guilty verdict. Neither future recriminations against GZ or the loss of the jobs of those 2 individuals are right or proper.

[nikimcbee]

Any riots yet?

[garren]

Good riddance to racist trash like Trayvon. He called Zimmerman the C-word according to Traygone's own girlfriend. I'm glad justice prevailed in this case and Zimmerman was found innocent. Hope Trayvon is rotting in hell where evil crap like him belongs. Stupid thug got what he deserved.

And the media is still showing pictures of him when he was like 12 years old. Pathetic. I hope Zimmerman sues the pants off all the liberal news outlets like CBS, ABC, NBC, and CNN. I hope he sues Obama and Eric Holder for putting his life at risk by pre-judging him and being racists crap themselves. I hope Obama and Eric Holder get removed from office for inciting riots in the US that have already kicked off because blacks are angry that Zimmerman was found innocent. I hope the Special prosecutor that had Zimmerman arrested and violated his rights gets debarred and prosecuted as well because they had no right to arrest him or put him on trial to begin with! Their entire case was based on trying to calm the state of Florida down for not arresting Zimmerman and not because they actually thought Zimmerman had done anything wrong. They let racist black outrage steer them right into breaking the law by prosecuting an innocent man who was simply defend his life from a savage animal who brutally attacked him and tried to kill him. Hopefully Zimmerman has them debarred and prosecuted themselves so that no other stupid prosecutors in the future have the stones to attempt to prosecute other innocent people or risk the same fate. They knew they didn't have a case and it showed in court. Was a total circus show and completely unconstitutional.

And what's even more pathetic is the racist blacKKK panthers who hide under the guise of the NAACP and who've made death threats against Zimmermen like a bunch of domestic terrorists are demanding Eric Holder and the federal government sue Zimmerman for violating Trayvon's right to life. What an f-ing joke! What about Zimmerman's right to life you racist bigots!? What a bunch of flipsters you are to spin the truth around to support your very ugly and racist views against whites so that blacks can just go up and beat on any white person they feel is profiling them without a shred of evidence to support that claim. But we do know that Trayvon was a racist because his girlfriend testified he was by calling Zimmerman a racist name. "Creepy white C-word" Uh, HELLO!?!

[Sammi79]

In the US, society decided long ago that Justice would operate on the principle of assumed innocence. We may not "know" he was innocent, but by our standards he is innocent until proven guilty. Since he was not proven guilty, he is deemed - innocent. That is the way it works in the US.



This basically is saying that "well, the court could have gotten it wrong". Anything is possible, so maybe we should just bypass giving people their day in court because the court may screw it up? Not only that, this statement totally negates the "Innocent until proven guilty" foundation that our law system operates on. The police chief and DA both lost their jobs over this - and the court case has proven them right - there was NOT enough evidence for a guilty verdict. Neither future recriminations against GZ or the loss of the jobs of those 2 individuals are right or proper.

I suggest you read my two replies to soopaman, rather than jumping on whatever strawman you are jumping on.

[garren]

Any riots yet?


Yep. There've been several riots across the US since the verdict, mostly out in California in Los Angeles. It's mostly been attacks on police cars, some fires started on government and white people's property, and vandalism of government and white people's property. it hasn't grown to the level of the LA riots from the 90s but it's still early and will probably get bigger as blacks spread their hate for whites around in the coming days and weeks over this trial. But yes, they are already rioting in some places, including Sanford.

[Tchocky]

Give it a rest garren.

[Jimbuna]

No riots here please...opinions so long as they are within the parameters of the forum rules are fine...but no riots.

[kranz]

I've read the wiki article about GZ, a few articles over the Internet and 80% of the posts here but I'm still missing one thing:
how did Zimmerman explain the way he was knocked down and got all the bruises?

[nikimcbee]

No riots here please...opinions so long as they are within the parameters of the forum rules are fine...but no riots.

:up: The press has been predicting race riots if the case didn't go their way. They lost, now what?

[nikimcbee]

I think the prosecution lost the second they put her on the stand.

http://media1.policymic.com/site/articles/51459/3_article_photo.jpg

[CaptainHaplo]

Sammi - you said that Zimmerman should be watched closely and that he wasn't innocent, merely "not guilty".

Let me quote you:
Well, actually no. As August recently pointed out, it is not his innocence that was proven, it is his guilt that was not proven. He may well have acted in an unlawful manner, but after considering the case presented by the prosecution, and the defense, the jury ruled that his guilt could not be proven beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore he was quite rightly acquitted, but that does not indicate innocence.

In the US - you are assumed innocent unless you are proven guilty. Thus - the acquittal does indicate his innocence. If he is not proven guilty, he is innocent. Simple as that. You may not agree - but that is how the system works. Therefore, any "watching him" or negative repercussions taken by outsiders over this - are actions taken against an innocent man.

This does not negate him being help accountable in civil court - but the standards there are significantly different.

[nikimcbee]

This does not negate him being help accountable in civil court - but the standards there are significantly different.


Any questions? See OJ case.:down::shifty:

[Tribesman]

The press has been predicting race riots if the case didn't go their way. They lost, now what?
Ask Fox.

I do like the way some people are reacting, did they have the same happy faith in the system when OJ got found not guilty?:rotfl2:

[Jimbuna]

:up: The press has been predicting race riots if the case didn't go their way. They lost, now what?

I doubt they were referring to SubSim...behave yersel or better still go and give thanks to the God of the Barmy Army.

[CaptainHaplo]

Any questions? See OJ case.:down::shifty:

Believe it or not, I don't think that a civil case against him will have much of a shot. The reason? Trayvon's actions - and character - will come up in a civil case. Self defense has already been established. Believe it or not, if his parents sue GZ, he is likely to countersue since they failed to control their kid, bring him up with any morals and instead allowed him to act like (if not be) a "thug" who was committing felonious assault on GZ at the time of his death.

Civilly - while GZ does hold some culpability - I can see him escaping that on the grounds of TM's own actions and the inaction / bad parenting of TM's parents.

Or at least the claims of it all.....

For those that don't think TM was a "thug" - just check out the contents of his cell phone.
Pictures of him holding a semiautomatic gun *gasp* (which under the law he should not have had access to)
Pictures of jewelry and marijuana (remember he was suspended from school for drug use and theft)
Texts about a "3 round fight" with a "snitch" in which he bragged he won and would have another go at the "snitch".
Pictures of nude, underage girls. At 17, that would qualify him as a pedophile in many states.....

[nikimcbee]

Believe it or not, I don't think that a civil case against him will have much of a shot. The reason? Trayvon's actions - and character - will come up in a civil case. Self defense has already been established. Believe it or not, if his parents sue GZ, he is likely to countersue since they failed to control their kid, bring him up with any morals and instead allowed him to act like (if not be) a "thug" who was committing felonious assault on GZ at the time of his death.

Civilly - while GZ does hold some culpability - I can see him escaping that on the grounds of TM's own actions and the inaction / bad parenting of TM's parents.

Or at least the claims of it all.....

Do you think they will pursue a civil case?

[CaptainHaplo]

I doubt it really - since doing so will tarnish the memory of TM. Plus, as of right now, GZ has no money to speak of. They might after he settles his own civil actions against the media for making him look like a racist and in doing so make all this happen....

[nikimcbee]

God of the Barmy Army
Buna be praised. Buna akhbar!
http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQRrOxDkwylz2gcM2mxeoGKu-sSvW4qGKJLN5rsLUP9N600sqhicPbREQix

[nikimcbee]

I doubt it really - since doing so will tarnish the memory of TM. Plus, as of right now, GZ has no money to speak of. They might after he settles his own civil actions against the media for making him look like a racist and in doing so make all this happen....
:haha: True.

[em2nought]

Give it a rest garren.

Why can only whites be called racist? The fact that Zimmerman is hispanic just makes this farce that much funnier! :har:

[soopaman2]

Believe it or not, I don't think that a civil case against him will have much of a shot. The reason? Trayvon's actions - and character - will come up in a civil case. Self defense has already been established. Believe it or not, if his parents sue GZ, he is likely to countersue since they failed to control their kid, bring him up with any morals and instead allowed him to act like (if not be) a "thug" who was committing felonious assault on GZ at the time of his death.

Civilly - while GZ does hold some culpability - I can see him escaping that on the grounds of TM's own actions and the inaction / bad parenting of TM's parents.

Or at least the claims of it all.....

For those that don't think TM was a "thug" - just check out the contents of his cell phone.
Pictures of him holding a semiautomatic gun *gasp* (which under the law he should not have had access to)
Pictures of jewelry and marijuana (remember he was suspended from school for drug use and theft)
Texts about a "3 round fight" with a "snitch" in which he bragged he won and would have another go at the "snitch".
Pictures of nude, underage girls. At 17, that would qualify him as a pedophile in many states.....


Great point Haplo, his texts, and facebook messages were declared inadmissable in the trial. Alot of violent tidbits, even fight vids.

But in a civil hearing, his character will come under much more scrutiny.

[Tribesman]

Why can only whites be called racist?
They can't, that's just a complaint white racists use a hell of a lot.

[em2nought]

They can't, that's just a complaint white racists use a hell of a lot.

I'm not racist, I dislike pretty much everybody. :D

[soopaman2]

I'm not racist, I dislike pretty much everybody. :D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8CvfeUbpoFg

We still love you though! *smooch and runs*

Scwewwy wabbit!

[Sammi79]

Sammi - you said that Zimmerman should be watched closely and that he wasn't innocent, merely "not guilty".

In the US - you are assumed innocent unless you are proven guilty. Thus - the acquittal does indicate his innocence. If he is not proven guilty, he is innocent. Simple as that. You may not agree - but that is how the system works. Therefore, any "watching him" or negative repercussions taken by outsiders over this - are actions taken against an innocent man.

It is directly because of the principle of innocence until proven guilty, that innocence is never proven, only guilt.

I never said Zimmerman 'wasn't innocent' so again I'll ask you kindly stop with the strawman. I said we don't know because that is not what is tried in court. The key word in the principle is 'assumed' - he is assumed innocent, not proven. New evidence might change that verdict in the future. Or it might not. You may have noticed that I commended the actions of the court.

I never advocated negative repercussions (another strawman), only that if Zimmerman lived in my neighborhood I would watch him like a hawk and encourage others to do the same, as far as it did not interfere with his rights of course. Vigilantes arouse my suspicion, they are not trained to deal with situations like law enforcement officers, and the recording of Zimmerman to the police dispatcher; 'He's going to get away, they always get away.' implies a certain amount of prejudice on his part toward a young man whom he had observed not committing any crime.

That is my opinion, and I'll thank you to take it for what it is rather than shoehorning what it isn't into your replies.

Peace.

[Sailor Steve]

New evidence might change that verdict in the future. Or it might not.
Just a technical point: New evidence might indicate that he was less than innocent. It won't change the verdict. He cannot be tried on those charges again.

[soopaman2]

Sammi, I do not mean this in a nasty way, but I sense butthurt.

You are doing what thankfully the jury did not do, Rule your opinion on emotion, rather than the letter of the law.

I made that mistake too. Look at the old Zimmerman thread, I was in Trayvons corner all the way.

But I watched the trial, and used my own judgement to weigh the facts according to the law, what we live by.

You can always go protest, then pepper sprayed like the OWS people were.


But we live under the rule of law, you can lobby the state of Florida to change it, collect signatures and ask for a measure to allow mens heads to be bashed into the pavement, and just lay there and die, to not offend anyone.

Political correctness makes me sick, if we were honest with each other the world would be an easier place.

The press in this whole thing...

I hate Fox News, but they were the most honest in this situation.

The liberal stations crucified GZ before he even got charged, they even caused him to be charged.

GZ will get rich from this, and you can thank NBC, NYtimes, and Huffington post for that.

[Sammi79]

@Sailor Steve, good point. I am not implying I think that new evidence will surface in this particular case. I do worry about future situations involving Zimmerman, may he prove me wrong.

@Soopaman,

You are absolutely correct in your first sentence and no I don't find that nasty at all. The thing is I get 'butthurt' when people patronise and misrepresent me. You may note that besides our different opinions we agreed on more than we disagreed, and we are both clear on and supportive of the law. The thing is, I don't presume to know. I do know that above all the law is not perfect, nor is it always applied perfectly. Guilty people do go free, and just occasionally innocent people are unjustly punished. It would be a lot worse (for innocent people) without the overarching principle, and it is the best we can do.

I am happy with the due process that has occurred as I have said twice, now three times. As per the implications of my previous paragraph, my suspicion will remain however.

Thank you for a reasonable reply. :03:

[nikimcbee]

Political correctness makes me sick, if we were honest with each other the world would be an easier place.

The press in this whole thing...

I hate Fox News, but they were the most honest in this situation.

The liberal stations crucified GZ before he even got charged, they even caused him to be charged.

GZ will get rich from this, and you can thank NBC, NYtimes, and Huffington post for that.

Just for you:D

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2013/07/13/Media-Zimmerman-Coverage-Rap-Sheet

I just thought of this, the media played the race card and lost. :har: Maybe there is some hope afterall. I finally saw the movie "Idiocracy". The way the US media conducts itself now, I'd say idiocracy is pretty damn close to the way we are going to be if the media ran things.


http://daily.greencine.com/Idiocracy-Fox-News.jpg

http://images.tdaxp.com/tdaxp_upload/idiocracy_supreme_court_md.jpg

Artist deepickshun of soupermann stating his case before the subsimz.

http://www.goldismoney2.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=7484&d=1303476367&thumb=1

He be from da new jerseyz. He guilty!

http://memecrunch.com/image/508471aeafa96f52b00000c9.jpg

Wut?

[soopaman2]

Just for you:D

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2013/07/13/Media-Zimmerman-Coverage-Rap-Sheet

I just thought of this, the media played the race card and lost. :har: Maybe there is some hope afterall. I finally saw the movie "Idiocracy". The way the US media conducts itself now, I'd saw idiocracy is pretty damn close to the way we are going to be if the media ran things.

Andrew Brietbart is a bit of a firebrand, but he serves his purpose as being somewhat outside the Mainstream Media.

As a liberal in most beliefs, I place the blame for this witchunt on the liberal news sources, wanting to stoke some kind of sensationalist race war, and it is not the first time.

[CaptainHaplo]

It is directly because of the principle of innocence until proven guilty, that innocence is never proven, only guilt.

Ok - I can agree with that.

I never said Zimmerman 'wasn't innocent' so again I'll ask you kindly stop with the strawman. I said we don't know because that is not what is tried in court. The key word in the principle is 'assumed' - he is assumed innocent, not proven. New evidence might change that verdict in the future. Or it might not. You may have noticed that I commended the actions of the court.

Ok, I see what your saying. However - since the presumption is his innocence, I fail to see what is accomplished by saying he wasn't "proven" innocent - he doesn't have to prove it! He IS innocent - unless proven otherwise. Why even bring up "proving innocence" if your aware that he doesn't have to?

I never advocated negative repercussions (another strawman), only that if Zimmerman lived in my neighborhood I would watch him like a hawk and encourage others to do the same, as far as it did not interfere with his rights of course.

So feeling like you need to observe him more than any other person isn't a negative repercussion? After all - your "watching him" why? If you have accepted the premise that he was not proven guilty - and thus is innocent - you have no reason to observe him more....

Vigilantes arouse my suspicion, they are not trained to deal with situations like law enforcement officers, and the recording of Zimmerman to the police dispatcher; 'He's going to get away, they always get away.' implies a certain amount of prejudice on his part toward a young man whom he had observed not committing any crime.

Ahh - so here we get to the reality. You call him a vigilante - someone who takes the law into their own hands. In your view, he is guilty - not innocent. After all, you wouldn't call him a vigilante and saddle him with an "implied amount of prejudice" if you accepted the ruling of the court. So this isn't really about whether or not he is innocent or whether or not he "proved it" - its about you feeling he is a vigilante. You condemn him for an action that has not been proven - so you refuse to presume him innocent.

That is my opinion.

Yes it is. Peace to you as well.

[soopaman2]

@Sailor Steve, good point. I am not implying I think that new evidence will surface in this particular case. I do worry about future situations involving Zimmerman, may he prove me wrong.

@Soopaman,

You are absolutely correct in your first sentence and no I don't find that nasty at all. The thing is I get 'butthurt' when people patronise and misrepresent me. You may note that besides our different opinions we agreed on more than we disagreed, and we are both clear on and supportive of the law. The thing is, I don't presume to know. I do know that above all the law is not perfect, nor is it always applied perfectly. Guilty people do go free, and just occasionally innocent people are unjustly punished. It would be a lot worse (for innocent people) without the overarching principle, and it is the best we can do.

I am happy with the due process that has occurred as I have said twice, now three times. As per the implications of my previous paragraph, my suspicion will remain however.

Thank you for a reasonable reply. :03:

Thank you for a reasonable and civilized debate :)

Your a "good egg" Sammi :salute:

Edit:Thanks for making fun of my spelling problem Niki ;)

(trust me I am aware of it)

Good natured!

[CaptainMattJ.]

Ok - I can agree with that.



Ok, I see what your saying. However - since the presumption is his innocence, I fail to see what is accomplished by saying he wasn't "proven" innocent - he doesn't have to prove it! He IS innocent - unless proven otherwise. Why even bring up "proving innocence" if your aware that he doesn't have to?



So feeling like you need to observe him more than any other person isn't a negative repercussion? After all - your "watching him" why? If you have accepted the premise that he was not proven guilty - and thus is innocent - you have no reason to observe him more....



Ahh - so here we get to the reality. You call him a vigilante - someone who takes the law into their own hands. In your view, he is guilty - not innocent. After all, you wouldn't call him a vigilante and saddle him with an "implied amount of prejudice" if you accepted the ruling of the court. So this isn't really about whether or not he is innocent or whether or not he "proved it" - its about you feeling he is a vigilante. You condemn him for an action that has not been proven - so you refuse to presume him innocent.



Yes it is. Peace to you as well.
In the eyes of the law he is innocent. The law never has been perfect, and while i hold my faith in the system i understand that just because he is not proven guilty doesnt mean he is proven innocent. To say something along the lines of "The law says hes innocent, therefore he is undoubtedly innocent" is outwardly denying the, in this case, very real possibility that zimmerman acted unlawfully. Even if zimmerman was getting hit, it couldve still been zimmerman's provocation. Just because Treyvon didn't have a weapon doesn't mean he has no right to self defense of his own. Zimmerman couldve been putting Treyvon's life in danger, and he could've been trying to save himself.

It is because this case is very lacking in hard, indisputable evidence evidence for both sides that in reality just because the law says hes innocent doesn't automatically make it so.

As ive said before however, i do not presume to know anything for certain. If i lived in his neighborhood id watch out too, he seems like a vigiliante type who is a little too jumpy. He could just as well be perfectly innocent as guilty. We might never know.

The law did just as it was supposed to, whether or not that was truly the right decision only Zimmerman knows.

[CaptainHaplo]

It is because this case is very lacking in hard, indisputable evidence evidence for both sides that in reality just because the law says hes innocent doesn't automatically make it so.

As ive said before however, i do not presume to know anything for certain. If i lived in his neighborhood id watch out too, he seems like a vigiliante type who is a little too jumpy. He could just as well be perfectly innocent as guilty.

So the structure our society has set up to deal with these issues - aka the Justice system - has declared him not guilty - which with the presumption of innocence means he is innocent. Yet "just because the law says he is innocent doesn't make it so" - is the same rational that someone who decides to murder GZ over this would make. Basically what your saying is that regardless of the findings of law, you still have judged him differently and would thus treat him differently. If everyone did that - what would be the use of a justice system to start with?

People need to recognize that while the system may not be perfect, neither is their individual judgments.

Can I see treating GZ differently than others? Sure - but that is based on known facts - not conjecture about what "may have happened" or "he seems like a vigilante". The facts that have been proven is that he acted irresponsibly by choosing to place himself in a foreseeably dangerous situation while carrying a gun. That is a known, proven fact. Based on that I wouldn't be in favor of him even keeping his CCP, but the laws in Florida may not allow for his CCP to be pulled.

What is ironic about this - is people who want to claim he "may have come at trayvon with a gun" or "he seems like a vigilante" are doing the exact same thing they accuse him of - profiling someone they don't know.

Treat people based on what they show by their actions - not your suppositions.

[soopaman2]

Even post verdict, some do not understand the media bias they have been under.

The 911 call George Zimmerman made on the night of Martin’s death is perhaps the most crucial piece of evidence cited by the media to drive the narrative that Zimmerman attacked Martin. Yet listening to reporters and talking heads discuss the case, it is as though not a single one of them has ever bothered to listen to the full call. In fact, as Breitbart.com has already revealed (http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV?id=%7b8EB805C2-3775-4B44-AC19-98E82FF5CA23%7d&title=NBC-Deceptively-Edits-Zimmerman-911-Call), NBC deceptively edited the tape of the 911 call to make it look like Zimmerman was motivated by racial animosity or bias, something that has been widely reported as factual from the beginning.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/04/02/911-call-shows-zimmerman-stopped-following-martin-after-dispatchers-request-corroborates-story/#ixzz2Z3NRexOd

Pre trial report, the producer who doctored the tapes was also fired, but never identified by name.

GZ had the world against him, all emotion driven, and not based on facts or law.

If you feel he commited a crime, then that is a personal problem, as the law of the United States of America found him an innocent man.

Deal with it, or revolt against a 250 year old amendment promising fair trials.

[mookiemookie]

The Justice Department says it is looking into the shooting death of Trayvon Martin to determine whether federal prosecutors should file criminal civil rights charges now that George Zimmerman has been acquitted in the state case.

http://www.chron.com/news/politics/article/Justice-Dept-Zimmerman-case-under-review-4664825.php?cmpid=hpbn

That should cause some sputtering anger with some people. :rotfl2:

[soopaman2]

http://www.chron.com/news/politics/article/Justice-Dept-Zimmerman-case-under-review-4664825.php?cmpid=hpbn

That should cause some sputtering anger with some people. :rotfl2:

LOL double jeopardy.

Yeah that is not legal either, keep reaching. (not you Mook, your source info)

[Red October1984]

Anybody read Obama's statement?

The death of Trayvon Martin was a tragedy. Not just for his family, or for any one community, but for America. I know this case has elicited strong passions. And in the wake of the verdict, I know those passions may be running even higher. But we are a nation of laws, and a jury has spoken. I now ask every American to respect the call for calm reflection from two parents who lost their young son. And as we do, we should ask ourselves if we're doing all we can to widen the circle of compassion and understanding in our own communities. We should ask ourselves if we're doing all we can to stem the tide of gun violence that claims too many lives across this country on a daily basis. We should ask ourselves, as individuals and as a society, how we can prevent future tragedies like this. As citizens, that's a job for all of us. That's the way to honor Trayvon Martin.

[CaptainHaplo]

I rarely agree with the current President, but in this case I do.

Edit - Minus the gun control bit....

[BrucePartington]

Anybody read Obama's statement?
We should ask ourselves if we're doing all we can to stem the tide of gun violence that claims too many lives across this country on a daily basis. We should ask ourselves, as individuals and as a society, how we can prevent future tragedies like this. As citizens, that's a job for all of us. That's the way to honor Trayvon Martin. (snif snif) You smell that?:hmmm:

[Jimbuna]

(snif snif) You smell that?:hmmm:

Not sure....what do you think you can smell?

[BrucePartington]

Not sure....what do you think you can smell?
As you remember, Obama's administration has been trying hard to ban guns in the US.

[AVGWarhawk]

Anybody read Obama's statement?

This is what he should have said a year ago. :doh:

[soopaman2]

(snif snif) You smell that?:hmmm:

Smells alot like a gun ban, which is right where my liberal ends, and conservative begins.

Catch my drift?

[Jimbuna]

As you remember, Obama's administration has been trying hard to ban guns in the US.

Yes but my sense of smell fails me...here in the UK guns are generally banned anyway.

[Sailor Steve]

LOL double jeopardy.
Not at all. Violation of civil rights is a different charge. Or have you forgotten OJ?

[soopaman2]

Not at all. Violation of civil rights is a different charge. Or have you forgotten OJ?


I was referring to Mooks post about the Feds wanting to retry him, not the civil case, which GZ will make more than enough from the NYtimes, huffpo, and msnbc to pay off 3 thugs families.

[Red October1984]

I rarely agree with the current President, but in this case I do.

Edit - Minus the gun control bit....

I don't agree with him either...

As far as gun control, I can't change your opinion but I know where I stand. :arrgh!:

(snif snif) You smell that?:hmmm:

Smells like Hell's Sewers. :O:

[soopaman2]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CdotXaB56kQ

If you smelllllllllllllllll, what the Bam is cooking.

(smells kinda like rotting cabbage)

[Sailor Steve]

I was referring to Mooks post about the Feds wanting to retry him, not the civil case, which GZ will make more than enough from the NYtimes, huffpo, and msnbc to pay off 3 thugs families.
I know exactly what you meant, and that's what I responded to. Maybe you should have read the article a little more closely.
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Justice Department said Sunday it is looking into the shooting death of Trayvon Martin to determine whether federal prosecutors will file criminal civil rights charges now that George Zimmerman has been acquitted in the state case...

"Experienced federal prosecutors will determine whether the evidence reveals a prosecutable violation of any of the limited federal criminal civil rights statutes within our jurisdiction," the statement said. Justice added that it will determine "whether federal prosecution is appropriate in accordance with the department's policy governing successive federal prosecution following a state trial."

[Bubblehead1980]

"thugs like martin".

As if anybody here was at the scene witnessing what happened. Zimmerman lied to police, had holes in his story, and pursued trayvon when told not to. All Trayvon did was walk in his neighborhood, which triggered Zimmerman to treat him as a potential threat.

Personally i think Zimmerman's case to me was much too weak to have claimed self defense in such a way. Everything about his claims seemed farfetched and unlikely. I believe he was more than likely guilty of using unnecessary force.

But I, like all of you, were not there and cant say for certain. You portray Marvin as a thug but you weren't there. Making such rash assumptions based off of accounts that have been changed multiple times, are full of holes, and come from the only guy who survived the encounter, is frankly ridiculous.

In addition to assumptions, you say this is a "victory for stand your ground". Who knows. In the same way that innocent men can be thrown in jail, guilty men can walk free. To take a case where the only first hand accounts come from the man doing the shooting, with other testimonials shedding little hard light on the case, and portray it as a victory for an already touchy law is also ridiculous.

The 911 tapes are still disputed as to whether or not is was zimmerman or treyvon, and we dont KNOW anything. The only person that says TM was on top of him beating him into the ground was zimmerman. Which, considering his position, should never be considered as fact. Again, no one saw the altercation take place, and so the only hard testimony comes from Zimmerman, which could easily be twisting the truth as well as telling it straight. The thing is we don't KNOW. Just because Zimmerman was found not guilty based on beyond a reasonable doubt doesn't mean he didn't use unnecessary force, or twist the facts of the situation. Doesn't mean that hes guilty either. I have my opinion, but its just that, an opinion. To paint martin as a thug is making judgements based on incomplete data. To paint zimmerman as a trigger-happy murderer is similarly making judgments based on incomplete data.

True, none of us were there BUT Zimmerman had the injuries to back up his story, his timeline fit, the holes in his story was nothing but falsehoods from the media and the persecution, i mean the prosecution. Martin's record of getting in trouble, his "cracker" comment his girlfriend admitted to etc paints an accurate photo of a cocky, aggressive, young wannabe "thug", typical.Nothing to do with him being black, plenty of white boys like that as well. Zimmerman saw a stranger in his neighborhood and his suspicions were aroused as there had been burglaries etc in his neighborhood, he should not have been so overt in his tailing him, but he committed no crime. Martin became annoyed at this "creepy ass cracker" as he put it, and being the cocky, aggressive wannabe thug he attacked.Zimmerman had the injuries to show it and i am sorry, if someone has slammed your head in the pavement, attacked you etc, you are an idiot if you have a gun and do not use it in that situation, it is your right to do just that.

Zimmerman was cleared initially until the meddling of Obama, the ignorant masses etc got involved, going on emotion and put this man through the ringer when Florida law supported his actions. The evidence is there, this was a lynching but fortunately, it worked out for Zimmerman.However, his life will never be the same and it is sad.

Now, they will go after him civilly and no i don't see him found liable there as once again, Trayvon's actions caused this.Will the tyrannical "Justice" Department of Obama go after him for so called civil rights violation, possible but hope they are not that radical.Then again, obama and holder are pretty racist and have no problem abusing their power, so wont shock me.

[nikimcbee]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CdotXaB56kQ

If you smelllllllllllllllll, what the Bam is cooking.

(smells kinda like rotting cabbage)

You mean presedente Camacho?


Never waste a crisis...crisis...crisis...

Must...fan...race...flames...


Anywhoo, what'z up with the Royal baby (not thebamster, the English one, no not Steed,) dammit, nevermind.:dead:

[Sailor Steve]

True, none of us were there BUT
But you're once again going to tell everybody how you know better than anybody else.

typical.
Yes, typical of your biased, opinionated thinking.

Zimmerman saw a stranger in his neighborhood and his suspicions were aroused as there had been burglaries etc in his neighborhood, he should not have been so overt in his tailing him, but he committed no crime. Martin became annoyed at this "creepy ass cracker" as he put it, and being the cocky, aggressive wannabe thug he attacked.
I thought you said you weren't there. How do you know so much about what they were thinking?

Zimmerman was cleared initially until the meddling of Obama
And again your true colors come out. It's not about the case, it's about the politics. If you really cared about the law, really cared about justice, then you would leave your personal opinions and politics out of it. But you can't, can you? Once again you are every bit as blindly biased as the people you condemn, but you don't see it. Or maybe you do.

After all this time you still don't get it.

[CaptainMattJ.]

So the structure our society has set up to deal with these issues - aka the Justice system - has declared him not guilty - which with the presumption of innocence means he is innocent. Yet "just because the law says he is innocent doesn't make it so" - is the same rational that someone who decides to murder GZ over this would make. Basically what your saying is that regardless of the findings of law, you still have judged him differently and would thus treat him differently. If everyone did that - what would be the use of a justice system to start with?

People need to recognize that while the system may not be perfect, neither is their individual judgments.

Can I see treating GZ differently than others? Sure - but that is based on known facts - not conjecture about what "may have happened" or "he seems like a vigilante". The facts that have been proven is that he acted irresponsibly by choosing to place himself in a foreseeably dangerous situation while carrying a gun. That is a known, proven fact. Based on that I wouldn't be in favor of him even keeping his CCP, but the laws in Florida may not allow for his CCP to be pulled.

What is ironic about this - is people who want to claim he "may have come at trayvon with a gun" or "he seems like a vigilante" are doing the exact same thing they accuse him of - profiling someone they don't know.

Treat people based on what they show by their actions - not your suppositions.
Except that i have a feeling that he did it. I never said he was guilty of anything, or that he should've been convicted, or that the justice system got it wrong. The opposite in fact. Because thankfully gut feelings don't and shouldn't have anything to do with the law and the upholding of the law. I have more suspicion to believe he did it but i don't condemn him and i am not saying he did it, because that's just my feeling and i wasn't there. If you read more closely you'll see that i said that i still hold my faith in our system and think its correct, but i understand that realistically just because someone is not proven guilty, doesn't mean they are proven innocent. In the eyes of the law (to which i have no qualms with, and i stand by the jury's decision based on how our system works) he is innocent. Whether or not he IS innocent only George Zimmerman knows.

If i was in his neighborhood, yes id feel more cautious around him. After an incident such as this, where my feelings lead me to believe that there was more going on than what was said, i'd be more cautious and feel a little differently around him. I certainly wouldn't call it profiling. What he did to martin was profiling. Martin wasn't doing anything suspicious, he was walking down the street with snacks. Zimmerman on the other hand has already gone through an incident whose circumstances are vague and ended in the death of a teenager. Whether or not hes innocent or guilty i have absolutely no idea. But id be careful around him after something like this. His neighbors weren't saying very positive things about him anyways, about how he conducted his neighborhood watch and how he behaved.

That's just my opinion, of course.

[Onkel Neal]

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57433184/fla-mom-gets-20-years-for-firing-warning-shots/

There never was a social racist problem versus 'white young men' in the US.

And imagine Zimmerman to be black, shooting a young white boy.

I can imagine that. Can't remember seeing the white outrage, though.

http://www.chron.com/news/politics/article/Justice-Dept-Zimmerman-case-under-review-4664825.php?cmpid=hpbn

That should cause some sputtering anger with some people. :rotfl2:

Lol, that sure reminds me of the Bush/Gore recounts, keep trying till you get something to go your way. ;)

We should ask ourselves if we're doing all we can to stem the tide of gun violence that claims too many lives across this country on a daily basis. We should ask ourselves, as individuals and as a society, how we can prevent future tragedies like this. As citizens, that's a job for all of us.

Well, maybe if some of us would stop idolizing the thug underworld and modeling ourselves after criminals and gangbangers, that would help. And it does not matter if they are black, white, or whatever, who wants this at their back door? (http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/local&id=9170882)

[Armistead]

We profile that which is true or we think is true.

[Red October1984]

Well, maybe if some of us would stop idolizing the thug underworld and modeling ourselves after criminals and gangbangers, that would help. And it does not matter if they are black, white, or whatever, who wants this at their back door? (http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/local&id=9170882)

Well said. :yeah:

If somebody comes into my house, I feel sorry for them. In Missouri, we have the Castle Doctrine. If somebody is on your property and you fear for your life you have the legal right to bust the cap.

I don't know how it is in other states...and GZ's case didn't happen on his private property...but I know that if anybody kicks in my door they'll come out under a sheet or wishing they were. Nobody gets my family or steals from us.

[Onkel Neal]

Yeah, it's pretty simple. You don't like the idea you may get shot robbing someone... don't rob them.

[Onkel Neal]

NAACP already calling for the justice department to launch investigations into civil rights violations against Trayvon Martin. What about all the other black kids shot by other black kids in Chicago! Were their civil rights not violated just as equally!:hmmm:

[Red October1984]

NAACP already calling for the justice department to launch investigations into civil rights violations against Trayvon Martin. What about all the other black kids shot by other black kids in Chicago! Were their civil rights not violated just as equally!:hmmm:

Well most people don't hear about that when they turn on the TV. GZ was built up to be a horrible person. They want justice one way or another. I really don't think anybody cares about Chicago at this point. There's so much violence there and it's going unnoticed by media...because they have a bigger story to work on. The Big Bad Zimmerman.

I really don't think he is a bad guy. I think Trayvon should not get this kind of idolization. Trayvon was a criminal. If it wasn't GZ now, who's to say it wouldn't be Jimbob Joe down the street in a home invasion defense?

There is no reason at all to bring any more charges against GZ. It's done. He's not guilty according to a jury of his peers.

Civil Rights Violations? Really?

What happens if a black man shoots a white man? Nothing.

Black man shoots black man? Nothing.

3 Hispanics dead in shooting by Black man? Nothing.

White man shoots a black man? Well....GZ found out what happens.

I think it's the dumbest thing. It shouldn't matter at all. A criminal is a criminal no matter the color, creed, gender, or size. This criminal found out the hard way why we have the right to defend ourselves.


---

Back when there was the gun control bill and stuff...and the days of the Harlem Shake...Me and my Dad came up with the "Chicago Shuffle"

All you do is jump around...but you have to dodge the bullets as an added challenge. :har:

---

This is such a big unnecessary mess at this point. Let the man walk, sheesh.

[Stealhead]

I really don't think he is a bad guy. I think Trayvon should not get this kind of idolization. Trayvon was a criminal. If it wasn't GZ now, who's to say it wouldn't be Jimbob Joe down the street in a home invasion defense?

I fail to see how you can classify that Martin was a criminal he may or may not have been a punk or a gangsta wanna be(which is not a crime). But he had no history of being charged with any crime as far as I am aware certainly not any form of violent crime.To be a criminal you must be proven of having violated a criminal code.

I think though I do not know either person that the whole thing was an encounter between to overzealous(in attitude) people that ended badly for all persons involved.

I agree that the media likes to idolize one person and make the other out to be evil all the time.In this case I think it was two rather mediocre people.
I agree that the media and certain groups like to play the race card.

In fact if you look a the two persons criminal history Zimmerman has the worse record assault on a police officer that is pretty serious he got pre-trail intervention which means basically you plead guilty and where placed on probation for a certain time span after that you are clear but your record still is seen by LE and they will know that you showed violent behavior towards a LE officer in the past.You could get prison time for assault on an LE.

Like I said before my problem with GZ is that he placed himself willingly in a situation he claims to have felt was hazardous when he very easily could have gone home he knew that the police where coming why place yourself in possible danger for no reason.If TM had walked up to his car and tossed him out and attacked him that would be true self defense but following someone into danger when you have every option not to enter a bad situation is just asking for trouble and that is what happened.

It is very possible that TM did attack GZ but GZ placed himself willingly into the situation if he had gone home or even stayed in his vehicle nothing would have happened.

It most likely really was "self defense" but only becuase one person placed themselves in a place they had no need to if they as GZ claimed "felt that they where danger".

[Red October1984]

I fail to see how you can classify that Martin was a criminal he may or may not have been a punk or a gangsta wanna be(which is not a crime). But he had no history of being charged with any crime as far as I am aware certainly not any form of violent crime.To be a criminal you must be proven of having violated a criminal code.

I think though I do not know either person that the whole thing was an encounter between to overzealous(in attitude) people that ended badly for all persons involved.

I agree that the media likes to idolize one person and make the other out to be evil all the time.In this case I think it was two rather mediocre people.
I agree that the media and certain groups like to play the race card.

In fact if you look a the two persons criminal history Zimmerman has the worse record assault on a police officer that is pretty serious he got pre-trail intervention which means basically you plead guilty and where placed on probation for a certain time span after that you are clear but your record still is seen by LE and they will know that you showed violent behavior towards a LE officer in the past.You could get prison time for assault on an LE.

Like I said before my problem with GZ is that he placed himself willingly in a situation he claims to have felt was hazardous when he very easily could have gone home he knew that the police where coming why place yourself in possible danger for no reason.If TM had walked up to his car and tossed him out and attacked him that would be true self defense but following someone into danger when you have every option not to enter a bad situation is just asking for trouble and that is what happened.

It is very possible that TM did attack GZ but GZ placed himself willingly into the situation if he had gone home or even stayed in his vehicle nothing would have happened.

It most likely really was "self defense" but only becuase one person placed themselves in a place they had no need to if they as GZ claimed "felt that they where danger".


I have stated before that I didn't follow the case... I don't know every detail...

Based on what I believe, GZ isn't a bad guy. He just made a poor decision which was followed by a poor decision by TM that ended badly for all involved.

I've also said before that I hate the media...and that still stands too. :shifty: Why can't we have an unbiased, non-political, trustworthy mainstream news source?

---

A thing about criminal records though...

Criminal Records only have what you got caught for. Who knows what kind of stuff TM did or didn't do.

[CaptainHaplo]

I fail to see how you can classify that Martin was a criminal he may or may not have been a punk or a gangsta wanna be(which is not a crime). But he had no history of being charged with any crime as far as I am aware certainly not any form of violent crime.To be a criminal you must be proven of having violated a criminal code.

Not very familiar with the law, are you?
TM was a minor - so any juvenile criminal record would usually be sealed. However, your right - he "technically" was not a criminal leading up to the shooting - only because the police department had been instructed to lower arrest rates in the schools. He had been suspended more than once for things that - had he been an adult - would have resulted in his being charged (and likely convicted since evidence was plentiful).

Let's see:
1) There was his suspension for vandalism (caught on video).
2) There was his suspension for possession of drugs and drug paraphernalia.
3) There was him being caught with burglary tools and a dozen pieces of women's jewelry (including wedding bands and diamond earrings) along with a watch that he also didn't own.

Any of those - had he not been a student in school - would have resulted in his arrest and charges - instead of just suspensions.

Or shall we go into his video of fighting, his texts bragging about beating up someone and his intent to do so again (video proof of assault and text proof of communicating threats.)?

Perhaps we should talk about his possession of child pornography? He had nude pictures of underage girls on his phone at the time of his death. At 17, that is a felony criminal action.

Those aren't conjecture, every one of the above has been documented by the press from school, court and police records. Criminal acts are criminal acts - and those that intentionally commit them are criminals, regardless of age.

And lest we forget - TM is dead because he engaged in felonious assault against an armed "victim" - but I think he paid the price for that criminal act.

[Red October1984]

Not very familiar with the law, are you?
TM was a minor - so any juvenile criminal record would usually be sealed. However, your right - he "technically" was not a criminal leading up to the shooting - only because the police department had been instructed to lower arrest rates in the schools. He had been suspended more than once for things that - had he been an adult - would have resulted in his being charged (and likely convicted since evidence was plentiful).

Let's see:
1) There was his suspension for vandalism (caught on video).
2) There was his suspension for possession of drugs and drug paraphernalia.
3) There was him being caught with burglary tools and a dozen pieces of women's jewelry (including wedding bands and diamond earrings) along with a watch that he also didn't own.

Any of those - had he not been a student in school - would have resulted in his arrest and charges - instead of just suspensions.

Or shall we go into his video of fighting, his texts bragging about beating up someone and his intent to do so again (video proof of assault and text proof of communicating threats.)?

Perhaps we should talk about his possession of child pornography? He had nude pictures of underage girls on his phone at the time of his death. At 17, that is a felony criminal action.

Those aren't conjecture, every one of the above has been documented by the press from school, court and police records. Criminal acts are criminal acts - and those that intentionally commit them are criminals, regardless of age.

And lest we forget - TM is dead because he engaged in felonious assault against an armed "victim" - but I think he paid the price for that criminal act.


I had heard about these things but was unsure if they were true.

This is why I had thought TM to be a criminal...because that's just simply what he is in my opinion.

[kranz]

I had heard about these things but was unsure if they were true.

This is why I had thought TM to be a criminal...because that's just simply what he is in my opinion.

love that kind of logic.
Did GZ know that he was chasing TM and did he know he had a criminal record?
Yes or no?

since my question from page 10(12?) hasn't been answered yet, I'm gonna ask once again:
how did GZ describe they way he was knocked down and bruised by TM? (I mean the period between leaving his car and the fatal shot). Any links to his testimony?


EDIT:
@CaptainHaplo
you forgot to mention GZ's criminal record.
but it doesn't really matter, right? :)

[Sailor Steve]

What happens if a black man shoots a white man? Nothing.
Really? Another famous case has been mentioned in this thread. A black man was accused of hacking his ex-wife and a friend - both white - to death. He was tried and found not guilty. Then a civil trial ensued, and he was told he had to pay millions to their families.

Yes, it happens.

[soopaman2]

Just confirmed by Robert Zimmerman on the Opie and Anthony show, his brother is suing NBC. :up:

He says he is well, and resting, this really exhausted him. he also states he is in hiding.

Not guilty, and have to fear for your life, really sad.

Full interview will be on you tube by tommorrow I am sure, these guys are cool about clips of the show on you tube.

[kranz]

Not guilty, really sad.


indeed.

[kranz]

Are there any legal constrains/regulations/ or anything concerning taking part in a Neighborhood watch?
I mean - do you have to follow any rules or you can just pep pew?

[soopaman2]

indeed.


I see what you did there.:O:

[Erich_Raeder]

That Zimmerman....

[August]

Are there any legal constrains/regulations/ or anything concerning taking part in a Neighborhood watch?
I mean - do you have to follow any rules or you can just pep pew?

I imagine it would vary from state to state.

[Subnuts]

That Zimmerman....

I agree.

[August]

It most likely really was "self defense" but only becuase one person placed themselves in a place they had no need to if they as GZ claimed "felt that they where danger".

While supporting your post in general I think the evidence says that both of them did this.

Zimmerman for following and Martin for turning back and laying in wait for him.

[Packlife]

I watched the trial an I gotta say it wasnt just a simple self defense case, the problem for the prosecution is the police did little to no investigation, they pretty much asked GZ what happened talked to ppl who couldnt see much of anything at least not the most important parts an called it a wrap. A better investigation would of helped the state's case, the cops didnt even know Trayvon martin was on the phone w/ a friend at the time, I mean GZ did not have to get out of his car an follow the kid, TM had a right to defend him self from a guy who'd been following him for blocks. The jury wanted to know about manslaughter but the judge wouldnt break it down for them, which kinda made it sound like in the end since they couldnt get a overview of manslaughter they didnt just want to hit him w/ it so they went not guilty. Worse part is there is another case just like this 1 in Florida getting ready to start but this 1 is a slam dunk for the prosecution, dude shoots a teenager for sitting in a car w/ the music too loud, smh

[CaptainHaplo]

@kranz

you can see the police walkthrough - that was used as evidence in the court hearing, here:

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/george-zimmerman-walks-police-through-shooting-of-trayvon-martin-full-tape-played-in-court/

As for the "criminal background" of GZ, I hardly consider a speeding ticket and mutual restraining orders (with no criminal charges) comparable to intentional assault, theft and drugs. While GZ had been accused of crimes in the past, those incidents never led to charges.

I have been arrested before - does that make me a criminal? I have never been convicted of a crime - the charges were shown to be a false claim. Yet does the arrest alone make me a criminal? If so - again what is the use of a court system?

If you are doing something wrong and their is proof - then you get arrested, get your day in court - and the proof is used against you. Unless your a minor - then you just get a suspension. Being a minor doesn't make anyone less of a criminal.

Edit:
Packlife - so your saying you have the right to assault someone just because they follow you?
TM had a right to defend him self from a guy who'd been following him for blocks.
If someone is following you but not placing you in any kind of physical danger - what are you "defending" yourself from? There is no evidence that GZ presented any threat to TM. Between GZ being significantly smaller than TM - and the fact that TM said he was "running home" and yet 4 minutes later had not even gone the length of a football field - shows he was not in any kind of fear for his safety. Think about it - someone is following you and it frightens you - your within a quick sprint to your home - and yet you don't go there, but instead - minutes later - are confronting the person who followed you. Your on top of them after breaking their nose - and without a mark on you from any kind of attack by them.

With your logic - you could walk down any main street in America for a few blocks, turn around and attack anyone who had been "following you" down the street the same way.

[Armistead]

I keep hearing "How do we stop future tragedies like this from happening" People are talking more gun laws, remove some laws, sue GZ, etc...
How about stop assaulting people.

Getting sick of certain media outlets saying" this child was murdered" after he was found innocent. The fact is he had a legal gun and only used it when he was getting his head slammed into concrete.

GZ may have profiled a criminal, but I don't think he was racist. On top of being charged the FBI profiled GZ with their racism test. Simply they talk to about 30 of your friends or coworkers for several years to determine your level of racism. They found not a hint of racism in GZ.

[CaptainHaplo]

GZ may have profiled a criminal, but I don't think he was racist. On top of being charged the FBI profiled GZ with their racism test. Simply they talk to about 30 of your friends or coworkers for several years to determine your level of racism. They found not a hint of racism in GZ.

Which is why if the DoJ pursues anything, they are going to simply prove again how politically motivated they are - and the outcome will be the same as the last verdict. It is not illegal for a private individual to profile a person - either based on what they wear or the color of their skin. It is only illegal if they are operating under color of law (meaning as an officer of the state) or if they are a business.

The whole issue of race stems not from the case itself - but from NBC editing the 911 tapes.

[soopaman2]

Eric Holder throwing stones?

Most scandalous and controversial AG of this countrys history, yet the most useless. *wink wall street pillagers walked*

Obama should have never gave his "if I had a son..." diatribe.

He had no business speaking on this subject, and it shows an agenda.

As obvious by this "double jeopardy" looking into from the DOJ.

No respect for the jury trial...

[kranz]

@kranz

you can see the police walkthrough - that was used as evidence in the court hearing, here:

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/george-zimmerman-walks-police-through-shooting-of-trayvon-martin-full-tape-played-in-court/

As for the "criminal background" of GZ, I hardly consider a speeding ticket and mutual restraining orders (with no criminal charges) comparable to intentional assault, theft and drugs. While GZ had been accused of crimes in the past, those incidents never led to charges.

I have been arrested before - does that make me a criminal? I have never been convicted of a crime - the charges were shown to be a false claim. Yet does the arrest alone make me a criminal? If so - again what is the use of a court system?

If you are doing something wrong and their is proof - then you get arrested, get your day in court - and the proof is used against you. Unless your a minor - then you just get a suspension. Being a minor doesn't make anyone less of a criminal.

Edit:
Packlife - so your saying you have the right to assault someone just because they follow you?

If someone is following you but not placing you in any kind of physical danger - what are you "defending" yourself from? There is no evidence that GZ presented any threat to TM. Between GZ being significantly smaller than TM - and the fact that TM said he was "running home" and yet 4 minutes later had not even gone the length of a football field - shows he was not in any kind of fear for his safety. Think about it - someone is following you and it frightens you - your within a quick sprint to your home - and yet you don't go there, but instead - minutes later - are confronting the person who followed you. Your on top of them after breaking their nose - and without a mark on you from any kind of attack by them.

With your logic - you could walk down any main street in America for a few blocks, turn around and attack anyone who had been "following you" down the street the same way.

Thank you for the link.
Unfortunately, the crucial moment when he talks about his gun is muted. I can hear "...grabbed it. I grabbed my firearm..."
strange.
Why I say 'crucial' - I read somewhere that he changed his testimony several times concerning his gun.
here is a better quality version, without muted parts:
http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/06/21/watch-video-shows-george-zimmerman-reenacting-fight-with-trayvon-martin/

The reason why I mentioned their criminal records is the fact that from GZ's perspective it really didn't matter if TM was a thug (as many people, or at least a few, repeated in this thread).
The fact that TM had already had a criminal record before he was shot didn't make him more suspicious for GZ at the time he decided to follow him.

@Armistead
How about stop making false assumptions ('he's up to no good, or he's on drugs or something; these as-sholes always get away')?

@August

I see.
I asked because it's pretty strange to me (as a non-US citizen) that people can do 'neighbor patrols' and be so unprofessional as Zimmerman was.
After watching the police walkthrough, what GZ said and how he behaved smells even worse.

[soopaman2]

With all due respect kranz, being from another country I can forgive your opinion.

You are speaking with your emotions, based on a severe skew given by liberal media. Which is being sued by the way.

Here the burden of proof is put on the prosecution, it has worked for 250 years, and while not perfect (as no system is) it has done right by us.

The jury was specifically instructed not to let emotion influence you, but the evidence, and the letter of the law, which is what we live by.

evidence shows GZ was being assaulted for a good long while. Not like he walked up to him, called him an "n" word and shot him.

The jury asked for clarification on manslaughter, which is vastly lower than the original murder 2, which shows they did due dilligence, in judging this case.

Why is this decision not being respected?

Emotions.

Was ok when OJ got off, but not now?

[nikimcbee]

Eric Holder throwing stones?

Most scandalous and controversial AG of this countrys history, yet the most useless. *wink wall street pillagers walked*

Obama should have never gave his "if I had a son..." diatribe.

He had no business speaking on this subject, and it shows an agenda.

As obvious by this "double jeopardy" looking into from the DOJ.

No respect for the jury trial...

Your attitude has been noted by the NSA.

Why is there a van parked across the street from your house? One week to deliver a pizza?:hmmm:


http://www.chud.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/PizzaVan.jpg


http://soshable.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/KGB.jpg

Obama is listening.