George Zimmerman Verdict

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from GEAUX-TIGRES. Show GEAUX-TIGRES's posts

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    Was he asked to heed by police officers or a non dispatcher officer?

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    In response to GEAUX-TIGRES' comment:

     

    With no bias, I can clearly ask how did Travon know Z had a gun until they were grappling on the ground. How did Z threaten this young man? Believe that Twas the first to ask a question. No one was there to see what actual evolved and what's with these prosecutions aiming for the sky and getting nothing? They changed their position 3 times during the course of the trial, even having Travon on top of Z in a final ditch effort. I don't get it. From the evidence, I found him not guilty and six women, maybe with children of their own, acquitted him.

     




     

    With Martin dead and no witness who saw the whole encounter, we can't know.  What we do know is that Zimmerman was carrying a gun, thought Martin was a criminal, followed Martin in his car, and at some point got out of his car.  Martin was unarmed and there is no evidence at all that he was doing anything wrong when Zimmerman decided to pursue him. 

    Zimmerman suffered some injuries, but what we can't know for sure is who started the scuffle that left Zimmerman with some minor injuries and Martin with a bullet through his heart. Regardless, it seems absolutely clear to me that if Zimmerman had not pursued Martin with a gun none of this would have happened.  

     
  3. This post has been removed.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from Muzwell. Show Muzwell's posts

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    ....

    Martin was unarmed and was clearly approached by an armed man.  The fact that Martin may have fought back to defend himself makes the other guy able to claim self-defense after shooting Martin through the heart?  Wow.  



    The law is essentially the same throughout the country. You may use non-deadly force to defend yourself in all circumstances where you may be injured; and deadly force if you reasonably fear grave injury or death. That's according to the Supreme Court, it's not a Florida thing.

    The bottom line is this: Who approached who and how it all started is simply not relevant to the question of self defense. Everyone who wanted to see Zimmerman convicted seems to ignore or gloss over this, but there's no getting around it. It was a bad case that should not have been brought and it wouldn't have been had there not been external pressure on the DA (and had she not caved to said pressure).

    The discussion of stand-your-ground was a red herring. Florida has a stand-your-ground law, which means there is no duty to retreat (where you must leave the scene rather than use deadly force if you reasonably can), but that wasn't a factor in this case because he couldn't leave once Martin was on top of him.

    A number of states have similar laws. Most (including Mass) only allow you to stand your ground if you're in your home.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from fourjays30. Show fourjays30's posts

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict


    I think the outcome was exactly what the prosecution was looking for. They put on a poor case with not enought evidence to convict. The only reason they brought the case was because of the public pressure. I honestly believe that there is not one iota of diffrence between GZ and the Sandford police department. If they truly wanted a conviction they would of resisted the public pressure and sweated GZ to get what they needed to get a conviction.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    In response to Muzwell's comment:

     

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

     

     

    ....

    Martin was unarmed and was clearly approached by an armed man.  The fact that Martin may have fought back to defend himself makes the other guy able to claim self-defense after shooting Martin through the heart?  Wow.  

     

     



    The law is essentially the same throughout the country. You may use non-deadly force to defend yourself in all circumstances where you may be injured; and deadly force if you reasonably fear grave injury or death. That's according to the Supreme Court, it's not a Florida thing.

     

     

    The bottom line is this: Who approached who and how it all started is simply not relevant to the question of self defense. Everyone who wanted to see Zimmerman convicted seems to ignore or gloss over this, but there's no getting around it. It was a bad case that should not have been brought and it wouldn't have been had there not been external pressure on the DA (and had she not caved to said pressure).

    The discussion of stand-your-ground was a red herring. Florida has a stand-your-ground law, which means there is no duty to retreat (where you must leave the scene rather than use deadly force if you reasonably can), but that wasn't a factor in this case because he couldn't leave once Martin was on top of him.

    A number of states have similar laws. Most (including Mass) only allow you to stand your ground if you're in your home.

     



    That's not totally true.  If Zimmerman had initiated the fight (i.e., assaulted Martin), he could not claim self defense.  The whole case turns on whether Zimmerman started the actual fight or Martin did.  No one was there to witness that, other than Martin and Zimmerman, and Martin is dead. This does make the acquittal just (technically) because there is no evidence to condradict Zimmerman's story. But I find it deeply troubling that Martin was killed by an armed man who was under no threat initially from Martin and who could have easily avoided the whole fatal confrontation by simply not pursuing Martin. 

     

     

     

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

     

     And remember there is absolutely no evidence that Martin was doing anything wrong when he fell under Zimmerman's suspicion.  Would you think justice was done if you were walking down the street, some guy with a gun ran up to you and tried to detain or question you, you turned around and punched him, he then shot you and, when he was tried, walked scott free?  The notion's absurd, but somehow a lot of people seem to think it was okay.  Is it because Martin was wearing a hoodie?  If so, I know a certain football coach who better fear for his life.  Really, though, we all know why it is okay in this case: Martin was a black teenage man and everybody thinks it's just normal to assume they might be criminals.  If Martin were a white man in a business suit would it have turned out the same way?  Of course not.  

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from Muzwell. Show Muzwell's posts

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    That's not totally true.  If Zimmerman had initiated the fight (i.e., assaulted Martin), he could not claim self defense.  The whole case turns on whether Zimmerman started the actual fight or Martin did.  No one was there to witness that, other than Martin and Zimmerman, and Martin is dead. This does make the acquittal just (technically) because there is no evidence to condradict Zimmerman's story. But I find it deeply troubling that Martin was killed by an armed man who was under no threat initially from Martin and who could have easily avoided the whole fatal confrontation by simply not pursuing Martin. 

     

     



    Yes and no. These cases are all fact specific, of course. There is an exception to the stand-your-ground law in Florida. The aggressor in a fight can no longer stand his ground (so to speak), but rather he must retreat if possible.  

    However, if retreat is impossible (as it was here), then he can still use justifiable deadly force. So the only thing that matters at the moment Zimmerman fired the shot, is what was in his mind? Did he reasonably fear grave injury or death. That's it. That would be the case even if he had sucker punched Martin one minute before.

     

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    In response to Muzwell's comment:

     

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

     

     

    That's not totally true.  If Zimmerman had initiated the fight (i.e., assaulted Martin), he could not claim self defense.  The whole case turns on whether Zimmerman started the actual fight or Martin did.  No one was there to witness that, other than Martin and Zimmerman, and Martin is dead. This does make the acquittal just (technically) because there is no evidence to condradict Zimmerman's story. But I find it deeply troubling that Martin was killed by an armed man who was under no threat initially from Martin and who could have easily avoided the whole fatal confrontation by simply not pursuing Martin. 

     

     

     

     



    Yes and no. These cases are all fact specific, of course. There is an exception to the stand-your-ground law in Florida. The aggressor in a fight can no longer stand his ground (so to speak), but rather he must retreat if possible.  

     

     

    However, if retreat is impossible (as it was here), then he can still use justifiable deadly force. So the only thing that matters at the moment Zimmerman fired the shot, is what was in his mind? Did he reasonably fear grave injury or death. That's it. That would be the case even if he had sucker punched Martin one minute before.

     

     



     

    I'm not going to pretend to have passed the bar in Florida, but I doubt that you can attack someone and if, at any point during your attack, you feel that retreat is impossible and you fear grave injury, you can then shoot the person you are attacking dead.  If this were the case an intruder to  your house could claim self defense if he shot you before you shot him, simply because he could not retreat fast enough to get away and you were going to shoot him if he didn't get away.  

    In most states, self-defense is a near-impossible legal defence if you kill someone while you are in  the act of committing a violent crime yourself. I'm no expert in Florida law, but if this is not the case in Florida, then Florida is more screwed up than I believed possible.

     

     

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    In response to MelWitt's comment:


    None of us were there...the state did a horrible job in prosecuting the case...that ME should be fired for being a total cretin......that BEEEEUUUTIFUL gf of Trayvon's was a total waste of time, and if she and the ME were the case it was lost before the trial....

     

    That being said...it's pretty obvious that GZ is a complete and utter puzzy who was making up for his lack of a penile instrument by carrying a gun...one of the few "men" in the world with peeeenus envy...this guy is lucky to be alive....he better run and hide for the rest of his life.....could you ever imagine him as a fed. marshall? That's what he said he wanted to be when he "grew up"...he should have never had a gun...he should have kept his puzzy butt in the car...he looked for trouble and he found it...Trayvon being dead is what happens when you bring a bag of skittles to a fight when the guy with the teeny weenie peenie brings a gun...




    There are a lot of people who carry guns.  It doesn't make them wimpy.  I have my CCW and, depending on where I'm going, I bring my Glock.  It's for safety, not to feel manly.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from JAGUAR23. Show JAGUAR23's posts

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    When Zimmerman got out of his vehicle and followed a 17 year old with Skittles and an Iced tea that is when the confortation started, so at that point he became the aggressor.

    In the 911 initial phone conversation, Zimmerman was asked was he following Travon and he repied 'Yes". At that point the Police Operator replied "there is no need to follow him.

    If he did not have a weapon would he have followed Travon? NO, NO, NO,NO. He would have kept phone contact with the Operator.

    If he follows these instructions Travon would be alive and if any crime was commited then the Police should have been the deciding factor, not a person who is not Law Enforcement connected.

     

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from Muzwell. Show Muzwell's posts

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    No, that's different. If you're committing a crime, all bets are off, generally speaking you forfeit your rights to self defense and are responsible for everything that happens (to a point) after that. 

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    CNN summarizes the Florida self defense laws as follows.  Note the bold statement.  If Zimmerman assaulted Martin, the self defense argument would have failed, assuming this summary is accurate. There was, of course, no evidence that Zimmerman had assaulted Martin because there were no witnesses to the beginning of the encounter.  Still, it's quite clear any encounter could easily have been avoided had Zimmerman not pursued Martin.  I also strongly believe that Zimmerman acted irresponsibly in pursuing Martin against the advice of the dispatcher (and in general, even without that advice). Irresponsibility is not necessairily criminality, but I cannot say that there is nothing to be concerned about when a teenager doing nothing wrong is pursued by someone who simply thinks the teen looks suspicious and who then kills the teen.  Are you okay with that? I know I find it very troubling.  

     

    Duty to retreat: No

    What's allowed: You are justified in using deadly force, with no duty to retreat, when you reasonably believe that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to yourself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony

    Where it's allows: Anywhere you legally have the right to be, so long as you are not engaged in unlawful conduct.

     

     

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from RallyC. Show RallyC's posts

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    bumped

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from Muzwell. Show Muzwell's posts

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    ....  Still, it's quite clear any encounter could easily have been avoided had Zimmerman not pursued Martin.  I also strongly believe that Zimmerman acted irresponsibly in pursuing Martin against the advice of the dispatcher (and in general, even without that advice). Irresponsibility is not necessairily criminality, but I cannot say that there is nothing to be concerned about when a teenager doing nothing wrong is pursued by someone who simply thinks the teen looks suspicious and who then kills the teen.  Are you okay with that? I know I find it very troubling.  

     



    This is definitely a tragic set of circumstances. Zimmerman should have listened to the 911 dispatcher and stayed away. But he didn't and he was free to ignore that advice. Stupid, but stupid isn't a crime. Not sure what the legislature can do to address stupid.

    The thing that I find troubling is why we're even talking about this case. If it was a black on black or white on white situation, it never goes to trial, and if it somehow does it certainly doesn't make the national news.  

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from pezz4pats. Show pezz4pats's posts

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    In response to Muzwell's comment:

     

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

     

     

    ....

    Martin was unarmed and was clearly approached by an armed man.  The fact that Martin may have fought back to defend himself makes the other guy able to claim self-defense after shooting Martin through the heart?  Wow.  

     

     



    The law is essentially the same throughout the country. You may use non-deadly force to defend yourself in all circumstances where you may be injured; and deadly force if you reasonably fear grave injury or death. That's according to the Supreme Court, it's not a Florida thing.

     

     

    The bottom line is this: Who approached who and how it all started is simply not relevant to the question of self defense. Everyone who wanted to see Zimmerman convicted seems to ignore or gloss over this, but there's no getting around it. It was a bad case that should not have been brought and it wouldn't have been had there not been external pressure on the DA (and had she not caved to said pressure).

    The discussion of stand-your-ground was a red herring. Florida has a stand-your-ground law, which means there is no duty to retreat (where you must leave the scene rather than use deadly force if you reasonably can), but that wasn't a factor in this case because he couldn't leave once Martin was on top of him.

    A number of states have similar laws. Most (including Mass) only allow you to stand your ground if you're in your home.

     



    That's not totally true.  If Zimmerman had initiated the fight (i.e., assaulted Martin), he could not claim self defense.  The whole case turns on whether Zimmerman started the actual fight or Martin did.  No one was there to witness that, other than Martin and Zimmerman, and Martin is dead. This does make the acquittal just (technically) because there is no evidence to condradict Zimmerman's story. But I find it deeply troubling that Martin was killed by an armed man who was under no threat initially from Martin and who could have easily avoided the whole fatal confrontation by simply not pursuing Martin. 

     

     

     




    z

    I understand what you are saying, a guy was killed and it is tragedy.  No doubt, it wouldn't have happened if he weren't pursued!

    However this is what Z did on a constant basis and had the support of his community and was praised for helping to keep crime down.  To my knowledge, no other action resulted in an assault and death.  He did call the police to report suspicious activity as he had many times before.

    Now you can blame him for following when the 911 dispatcher told him that he didn't need to be doing that.  However, typically, police response times in such matters tend to be slow and judging from his own comments; "he didn't want to see another one get away."

    There is compelling evidence that Z was attacked and not the other way around.  The gun was never drawn until after he had his nose broken and head bashed on the ground, repeatedly and Martin went for the gun that was in his holster.

    Now you can call it "profiling" but do you or any ones else know this to be true?

    Is suspicious activity not enough to be concerned? 

    In my very younger days, I was employed by a company as a store detective.

    What I was taught was 3 things.

    1, 40% of your customers are going to steal from you.  Race has nothing to do with it.

    2, there are certainly activities to look for.  Is the person looking around too much, maybe for cameras or store personnel?  There are a lot of things to tip you off, all to do with action

    3.  If you suspect someone, due to the actions, NEVER let him/her out of your sight

    As a result of those simple rules, I caught a white police woman, a white congressman's wife a black preacher and a 78 year old black women, a white guy who had multiple warrants out for his arrest and who did try to fight me because if caught, was going straight to jail....  Many, many more.

    Now, I wasn't there but I feel like there was probably reason for suspicion.

    Wasn't Martin there in the neighborhood (with his uncle as a result of a 10 day suspension) as a result of being found with the goods in a nearby burglary, because  the school he attended made an attempt to cover that up as a matter of policy?  (In order to make themselves look better.)

    Couldn't you say he wouldn't have been killed if the school had acted appropriately, too?

    Just sayin, there's a lot of blame to go around.

    Maybe we're all victims and maybe we're all at fault at the same time

     

     

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    In response to Muzwell's comment:

     

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

     

     

    ....  Still, it's quite clear any encounter could easily have been avoided had Zimmerman not pursued Martin.  I also strongly believe that Zimmerman acted irresponsibly in pursuing Martin against the advice of the dispatcher (and in general, even without that advice). Irresponsibility is not necessairily criminality, but I cannot say that there is nothing to be concerned about when a teenager doing nothing wrong is pursued by someone who simply thinks the teen looks suspicious and who then kills the teen.  Are you okay with that? I know I find it very troubling.  

     

     

     



    This is definitely a tragic set of circumstances. Zimmerman should have listened to the 911 dispatcher and stayed away. But he didn't and he was free to ignore that advice. Stupid, but stupid isn't a crime. Not sure what the legislature can do to address stupid.

     

     

    The thing that I find troubling is why we're even talking about this case. If it was a black on black or white on white situation, it never goes to trial, and if it somehow does it certainly doesn't make the national news.  

     



    I think it is significant for two reasons:  

     

    1.  The recent expansion of self-defense laws and right to carry laws makes such encounters more likely.

    2.  I think that race remains an issue, because young Black men are still viewed by many (including other Blacks often) as criminals.  Note that I said race is an issue, not racism.  Back when I lived in Chicago, a good friend of mine who is black and I would go out together.  He was wealthy (owned his own investment business) and lived in a fancy Gold Coast condo.  I was a student and lived in a marginal neighborhood just outside a ghetto.  I could flag a cab when we got out of a nightclub, he couldn't.  Many of the cabbies who wouldn't pick him up were black too, so it wasn't nevessarily racism that resulted in my friend's inability to get a cab.  But his race did lead many--including many blacks--to make assumptions about him.  This friend was a very smart guy with a very easy going personality, so he just laughed it off, but I can easily see how it can be very frustrating when people make all sorts of assumptions about you because of your skin colour.   In Martin's case, I think Zimmerman made assumptions based on Martin's looks (including his black skin) and the cops probably did too.  If Zimmerman had shot a well-to-do white businessman like me, I  bet the stereotypical perceptions would have been quite different.  In that case I'd be presumed innocent and the poorer hispanic guy would be looked at suspiciously.  To deny those kind of stereotypes are at work is foolish in my opinion. It's not necessarily racism, but it is human nature.  

     

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from Muzwell. Show Muzwell's posts

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    Self defense cases happen every single day. They don't get much coverage because usually they don't fit the media's agenda. They typically involve someone shooting a bad guy who was robbing or raping them or otherwise causing them harm. But the media doesn't want to expose cases where guns save lives, only where they are used by bad guys or in sensational cases like this.

    The race thing, whatever. It's old frankly. Everybody's a victim. Do something about it besides asking for more handouts. That approach is clearly not working.  Let's talk about inner city crime (how many black on black shootings have there been in Chicago in the last few years?) or the number of out-of-wedlock black kids. When do people stop being victims of society and start being the cause of their own problems? Maybe you need to find better role models than Sharpton and Jackson.

    It's like Muslims complaining because they get a bad rap. Well, do something about it. Have some balls, speak out, take a stand. Or shut up about being treated unfairly. It's not society's fault that 10% of Islam is about killing innocent people. It's your damn fault because you let it happen.

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    In response to Muzwell's comment:

    Self defense cases happen every single day. They don't get much coverage because usually they don't fit the media's agenda. They typically involve someone shooting a bad guy who was robbing or raping them or otherwise causing them harm. But the media doesn't want to expose cases where guns save lives, only where they are used by bad guys or in sensational cases like this.

    The race thing, whatever. It's old frankly. Everybody's a victim. Do something about it besides asking for more handouts. That approach is clearly not working.  Let's talk about inner city crime (how many black on black shootings have there been in Chicago in the last few years?) or the number of out-of-wedlock black kids. When do people stop being victims of society and start being the cause of their own problems? Maybe you need to find better role models than Sharpton and Jackson.

    It's like Muslims complaining because they get a bad rap. Well, do something about it. Have some balls, speak out, take a stand. Or shut up about being treated unfairly. It's not society's fault that 10% of Islam is about killing innocent people. It's your damn fault because you let it happen.



    I assume when white people commit crimes you think it's your fault too?

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from RallyC. Show RallyC's posts

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    In response to APpats21's comment:

     

    Obviously very off topic and i apologize but im just curious as to what you guys think about GZ being found Not Guilty. Thoughts?

     



    OH AP, see what you started? OK, I will play:

     

    I am a minority class American. Early in my life, I went to mostly black elementary and middle schools as the son of a carreer US Navy sailor. I watched the entirety of the proceedings having what I think is a sympathetic perspective toward the prosecution. That said, I feel that it is ABSOLUTELY OUTRAGEOUS that anyone could have expected anything other than a "NOT GUILTY" verdict based on the fact that there was NO REAL EVIDENCE proving that Zimmerman was guilty of anything but voluntary community service and self defense as the verdict has determined. It is pathetic that many prefer to make this an issue about race and therefore expect additional consideration beyond the factual evidnece. EEO special consideration applies to jobs, not legal proceedings and the laws are clear. The laws dont change to give bias for race, regardless of what the victim is.  I too feel for the Martin family, but if not for neighborhood watch groups throughout the US, I believe that violent crime would be even higher than it already is and that such watch groups are essential to many Americans' safety and security. 

     

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from RallyC. Show RallyC's posts

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    In response to russgriswold's comment:

     

    In response to APpats21's comment:

     

     

     

    In response to Not-A-Shot's comment:

     

     

     

     

    Not enough evidence to convict.  I don't know if he was guilty or not.

     

     

     




    You live in Florida right? What is being said over there?

     

     

     

     

     




    NAS lives in Florida? lol

     

     

    What is with the morons who get on juries in Florida? Casey Anthony, now this? HOw is not at minimum, manslaughter?

    Someone died. We know it was Zimmerman's gun, so at least it has to be manslaughter. If you kill someone with a car, it has to be manslaughter if you're at fault, like drunk or whatever.

    It's legally impossible for the jury to not find him guilty of at least manslaughter.

    Finally, why are these neighborwood watch things legal? They should be made to be illegal, nationwide, immediately. This isn't the wild west with this private justice type of a concept.

     

     


    Russ, you are wrong. It is only manslaughter if it can be proVed "Beyong a reasonable doubt" that GZ wasn't exercising self defense when he shot TM. The prosecution never even came close to proving that because the evidence, not speculation, proved otherwise. Based on the evidence available going in, this case shouldve never gone to trial and was a waste of tax payer dollars only to satisfy civil rights activists. PERIOD. There was never enough evidence to try the charges in the first place. But now, regardless of the legal system submitting to the sociogical pressure by trying the case, now "They can't handle the truth!"

     

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from CatfishHunter. Show CatfishHunter's posts

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    In response to russgriswold's comment:

     

    It's legally impossible for the jury to not find him guilty of at least manslaughter.

     



    So you're saying that "not guilty" being an option on the verdict form was a typo?  Sounds like it will be overturned on review.

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from TSWFAN. Show TSWFAN's posts

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    In response to bostatewarrior's comment:

     

    Very good discussion.   What a terrible tragedy this is.  There was not evidence to convict, especially under FL law.  Some strange cases have come up since "stand your ground"

    Also, in Florida,under the castle doctrine, a 70 year old lawyer  was found not guilty of killing his young wife 's lover.   He said he thought she was being raped.

    The compelling piece of evidence in the Zimmerman case were the pictures of his bloody head.  It supported what Zimmerman said.

    There is something wrong with neighborhood watch people carrying guns and confronting people.  But it's legal.   Something has to change.

     



    Good post.  I think given the law and the evidence presented, the jury probably did the right thing in acquitting Zimmerman.  However, I can't say the outcome seems just.  Martin was unarmed and apparently doing nothing wrong.  Zimmerman was carrying a weapon, thought Martin looked suspicious, seemed to jump to a conclusion that Martin was a criminal who would get away, and then apparently followed Martin, got out of his car against the advice of the police and apparently initiated the contact with Martin.  Now Martin may indeed have attacked Zimmerman after that, but none of us was there, and it's impossible to hear Martin's side of the story since he's been silenced forever.  Martin may also have simply been defending himself against a guy chasing him with a gun.  It seems to me that Martin was innocent of any wrongdoing (at least prior to Zimmerman's pursuit of him) and his death could have been completely avoided had Zimmerman not been chasing him with suspicion in his mind and a gun in his hand. Yet, under Florida law, Zimmerman has no criminal liability for an unnecessary death he caused.  That's not a great result in my opinion. 

     

     

     

     

     



    if Zimmerman had been killed by Martin would his have been an unnecessary death ?

    AND would it have been racist, since Martin was only killing a Cracker ?

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from sportsbozo1. Show sportsbozo1's posts

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    In response to jimmytantric's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

     

     

    What I find troubling is that you can apparently pursue an unarmed person with a gun in Florida and if they fight back when you approach them with your gun, you can shoot them and claim self-defense.  From what I've read, based on Florida law and the lack of proof that Zimmerman hadn't acted in "self-defense", they had to acquit this guy, but the law is absurd in my opinion.  Basically, if I want to kill you in Florida, I just have to threaten you and if you react to my threat with physical force, I can shoot you and claim I was defending myself.  It's just absurd.

     

    Martin was unarmed and was clearly approached by an armed man.  The fact that Martin may have fought back to defend himself makes the other guy able to claim self-defense after shooting Martin through the heart?  Wow.  

     

     




    You make a good point --it is absurd the way the law reads. Thats why I live in Idaho. Besides Florida there are other states I would nevr live in Like Texas and Calif. In Idaho a lot of people have weapons so people pretty much don't start stupid sh-t or do a lot of home break-ins because they know what's behind those doors!!!!

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    If Zimmerman was acting in self-defense, wasn't Martin also acting in self-defense?  It seems like Florida law simply favours the person with the better weapon . . . last man standing wins.

     

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]Prolate there was no evidence presented which showed that George Zimmerman followed him anywheres. There was speculation that he did so by the prosecution, but never once did they show him following him, also Trayvon was staying at his Father's house which was 185 feet (approximately) from where the altercation ended, why didn't he just go home and continue to babysit his younger brother as he was supposed to be doing? He had 4 minutes from his first interaction with George Zimmerman and he had time to go home lock the door and call 911, he chose to become an aggressor! Never and I mean never attack anyone in Florida unless you know for a fact they are unarmed, as for George Zimmerman's part in all of this, he was just doing what he always did he was watching his neighborhood and trying too keep others safe from being harmed or robbed. I watched the entire trial from start too finish as I'm retired and have plenty of time to disect evidence and heresay and supposition doesn't cut it evidentiary wise. DOJ wants to get involved after the fact because there is a Black AG,Black President, and a bunch of manipulating black (so-called clergymen) trying to swing everything in this situation into a racial bias type thing. I will end this reply like this: We The People Of the Great State of Florida have spoken, so please all of the antagonists butt out.


     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from RallyC. Show RallyC's posts

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    In response to TSWFAN's comment:

     

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

     

     

    In response to bostatewarrior's comment:

     

    Very good discussion.   What a terrible tragedy this is.  There was not evidence to convict, especially under FL law.  Some strange cases have come up since "stand your ground"

    Also, in Florida,under the castle doctrine, a 70 year old lawyer  was found not guilty of killing his young wife 's lover.   He said he thought she was being raped.

    The compelling piece of evidence in the Zimmerman case were the pictures of his bloody head.  It supported what Zimmerman said.

    There is something wrong with neighborhood watch people carrying guns and confronting people.  But it's legal.   Something has to change.

     



    Good post.  I think given the law and the evidence presented, the jury probably did the right thing in acquitting Zimmerman.  However, I can't say the outcome seems just.  Martin was unarmed and apparently doing nothing wrong.  Zimmerman was carrying a weapon, thought Martin looked suspicious, seemed to jump to a conclusion that Martin was a criminal who would get away, and then apparently followed Martin, got out of his car against the advice of the police and apparently initiated the contact with Martin.  Now Martin may indeed have attacked Zimmerman after that, but none of us was there, and it's impossible to hear Martin's side of the story since he's been silenced forever.  Martin may also have simply been defending himself against a guy chasing him with a gun.  It seems to me that Martin was innocent of any wrongdoing (at least prior to Zimmerman's pursuit of him) and his death could have been completely avoided had Zimmerman not been chasing him with suspicion in his mind and a gun in his hand. Yet, under Florida law, Zimmerman has no criminal liability for an unnecessary death he caused.  That's not a great result in my opinion. 

     

     

     

     

     

     

     



    if Zimmerman had been killed by Martin would his have been an unnecessary death ?

     

     

    AND would it have been racist, since Martin was only killing a Cracker ?

     


    The right answer is:

     

    It would never had made it to trial because the existing evidence could not prove that he wasnt acting in self defense. PERIOD. See, there wouldn't have been a civil rights activated uprising to force a trial and the shooter in your scenario wouldn't have been tried. PERIOD. Ya know why? Because there would have been a civil rights uprising against it for lack of evidence!  Sad, but true. 

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share