George Zimmerman Verdict

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from bostatewarrior. Show bostatewarrior's posts

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    In response to MelWitt's comment:


    You dudes gotta lighten up a bit......I mean what happened to the kid stinks, but relax already...

    Pet The Puppy...but watch out...he's not house broken yet and he just drank a bunch of water...



    You picked on my home state of Florida but you're forgiven because you like dogs :)

     

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

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    Let's face it, in America you can go shoot twenty school children and nothing will change because those who fantasize about their "superior firepower" will ensure nothing is ever done to limit the "right" to own, carry, and use killing machines.  

     

     

     



    The same thing could be done in Canada.

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    You could shoot the kids, but the law already has limited ownership of the kinds of large capacity weapons what's-his-name used to shoot up all those kids.  And whether it has anything at all to do with the gun laws or not, violent gun crime is much rarer up here than it is there. 

     

     

    [/QUOTE]


    But people do own those kinds of weapons there. And somebody who doesn't own them could steal them. So, yeah, it could happen in Canada.

    And the demographics of Canada are vastly different than those of the USA. Apples and oranges.

     

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     


    As I've said, I think the jury was right to acquit because of the lack of evidence, but that doesn't mean that Zimmerman is being truthful.  What is clear to me is that Zimmerman didn't really need to follow Martin or get out of his car with his gun.  By doing that, he seemed to spark a chain of (unclear) events that led to Martin's death.  I can't say whether Zimmerman was legitimately acting in self defense or not when he shot Martin. Neither can anyone else honestly, because none of us was there.  I do know for sure, though, that none of this would have happened if Zimmerman had not followed Martin, and personally, I find his following Martin while armed troubling.  It's not illegal, but I think it should be.  

     

     

     



    You generally make some sense here. See, you can do it. Just put that agenda aside and be objective.

     

     

     

    I'm not sure exactly what law you would want to pass that prohibits someone armed from following somebody though. How would that work?

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I guess I have no more agenda than anyone else does . . . which is not to say I or anyone else doesn't have an agenda . . . everyone has their opinions, after all, and no one I've ever met is completely unbiased and objective.  

     

    As far as legal remedies, the first would be to make it illegal to carry handguns.  I know that runs into Constitutional issues, but the Constitution can be changed and it's not clear that all regulations on guns are unconstitutional.  You have a right to free speech too, but you can't yell "fire" in a crowded theatre. Regulation of the free speech right is possible . . . why not regulation of guns?

    A second solution would be to say that, if you are carrying a weapon, you can use it only if you are attacked and have no chance at any time to retreat and do not in any way initiate contact that could be considered aggressive.  Zimmerman's following Martin could be seen as initiating contact in an aggressive manner.  I think the law should have some way of recognizing that and saying that self defense is legitimate only if you are essentially attacked while doing nothing that might be considered provocative.  

    [/QUOTE]


    Well, explain to me what issues depart yourself from the liberal party line.

    If people have the votes to change the Constitution let them knock themselves out. But that will NEVER happen. You name the 2/3rds of the states that would ratify such a change.

    As far as "regulating" firearms, they are regulated in every state already and at a federal level.

     

    So, in your view, if you use words to "provoke" somebody they can beat the crap out of you and you shouldn't be allowed to defend yourself?

     

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

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

     

    Let's face it, in America you can go shoot twenty school children and nothing will change because those who fantasize about their "superior firepower" will ensure nothing is ever done to limit the "right" to own, carry, and use killing machines.  

     

     

     

     



    The same thing could be done in Canada.

     

     

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    You could shoot the kids, but the law already has limited ownership of the kinds of large capacity weapons what's-his-name used to shoot up all those kids.  And whether it has anything at all to do with the gun laws or not, violent gun crime is much rarer up here than it is there. 

     

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]


    But people do own those kinds of weapons there. And somebody who doesn't own them could steal them. So, yeah, it could happen in Canada.

     

    And the demographics of Canada are vastly different than those of the USA. Apples and oranges.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    People do own them, but only illegally.  And getting caught with a weapon like that is a serious offence (we'll spell it the Canadian way, since we're talking Canadian law).  Look, I'm a gun owner and had to take the Canadian gun test to get a permit to own and carry. If I had a pistol (any pistol -- I couldn't own a large capacity one legally) I'd have to have a rider on my gun permit that said exactly where I could carry that gun (basically between my house and a specified gun club by the most direct route).  Any other carrying of the pistol (or firing it) would be illegal.  Sure, not everyone follows the law, but you just don't see a lot of Canadians violating that law.  The penalties are too severe and it's just not part of the culture anyway. 

     

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

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    It's interesting how the media latches on to certain cases (some racially divisive, some not). They talked about this case incessantly, but few if any mention the slaughter going on in Chicago this year (34 killed on July 4th weekend). The media deliberately chooses cases that are charged or polarising or have some celebrity associated with them.

    I honestly do not have familiarity with Florida law. Laws differ from state to state. In Colorodo they have the "make my day" laws that involve standing your ground if some unwanted person trespasses on your property, but I have no clue as to how they are applied. It seems like the prosecution went with the big charge (2nd Degree Murder) instead of the lesser charge (Manslaughter 1 or 2) where the burden of proof is not as great. Both charges were on the docket, but in trying to hit it out of the park they may have taken on the greater burden.

    This might sound cynical, but it seems like one suspicious black kid picked a fight with a local neighborhood watchman and lost because the watchman had a gun. Again I am not attributing guilt or innocence to either party it just seems that things escalated very quickly and the kid got shot.

    My educated guesses say that Zimmerman declares bankruptcy and the parents of Martin try to win a cash settlement (and some justice) in a civil wrongful death suit. In the end the litigious trail lawyers win.

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

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

     


    As I've said, I think the jury was right to acquit because of the lack of evidence, but that doesn't mean that Zimmerman is being truthful.  What is clear to me is that Zimmerman didn't really need to follow Martin or get out of his car with his gun.  By doing that, he seemed to spark a chain of (unclear) events that led to Martin's death.  I can't say whether Zimmerman was legitimately acting in self defense or not when he shot Martin. Neither can anyone else honestly, because none of us was there.  I do know for sure, though, that none of this would have happened if Zimmerman had not followed Martin, and personally, I find his following Martin while armed troubling.  It's not illegal, but I think it should be.  

     

     

     

     



    You generally make some sense here. See, you can do it. Just put that agenda aside and be objective.

     

     

     

     

    I'm not sure exactly what law you would want to pass that prohibits someone armed from following somebody though. How would that work?

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I guess I have no more agenda than anyone else does . . . which is not to say I or anyone else doesn't have an agenda . . . everyone has their opinions, after all, and no one I've ever met is completely unbiased and objective.  

     

     

    As far as legal remedies, the first would be to make it illegal to carry handguns.  I know that runs into Constitutional issues, but the Constitution can be changed and it's not clear that all regulations on guns are unconstitutional.  You have a right to free speech too, but you can't yell "fire" in a crowded theatre. Regulation of the free speech right is possible . . . why not regulation of guns?

    A second solution would be to say that, if you are carrying a weapon, you can use it only if you are attacked and have no chance at any time to retreat and do not in any way initiate contact that could be considered aggressive.  Zimmerman's following Martin could be seen as initiating contact in an aggressive manner.  I think the law should have some way of recognizing that and saying that self defense is legitimate only if you are essentially attacked while doing nothing that might be considered provocative.  

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Well, explain to me what issues depart yourself from the liberal party line.

    Hmm . . . we'll I'm all for financially responsible government.  I don't think business is inherently evil.  I like hunting and don't think it should be illegal to do so.  There are plenty of areas where I deviate from "liberal" views.  At the same time, I do think the liberals are closer to right more often than the conservatives.  Nothing wrong with that in my mind.  

    If people have the votes to change the Constitution let them knock themselves out. But that will NEVER happen. You name the 2/3rds of the states that would ratify such a change.

    Probably not.  That's one reason I prefer living in Canada right now. Laughing

    As far as "regulating" firearms, they are regulated in every state already and at a federal level.

     Weakly.  

    So, in your view, if you use words to "provoke" somebody they can beat the crap out of you and you shouldn't be allowed to defend yourself?

    No.  But if you kill someone in "self-defense" you better be able to show that you didn't do anything to provoke a violent encounter when you had the option of walking away.  That includes an option of walking away before things escalate to a point where you may no longer have that option . . . 

     

    [/QUOTE]


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

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     


    People do own them, but only illegally.  And getting caught with a weapon like that is a serious offence (we'll spell it the Canadian way, since we're talking Canadian law).  Look, I'm a gun owner and had to take the Canadian gun test to get a permit to own and carry. If I had a pistol (any pistol -- I couldn't own a large capacity one legally) I'd have to have a rider on my gun permit that said exactly where I could carry that gun (basically between my house and a specified gun club by the most direct route).  Any other carrying of the pistol (or firing it) would be illegal.  Sure, not everyone follows the law, but you just don't see a lot of Canadians violating that law.  The penalties are too severe and it's just not part of the culture anyway. 

     

     



    Apples and oranges. The demographics are vastly different.

     

    As a matter of fact, you will find for the most part the northernmost tundra-like US states have the lowest homicide rates. That's because like Canada it's too damned cold for much of the year to go around killing people ;).

     

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

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    But if you kill someone in "self-defense" you better be able to show that you didn't do anything to provoke a violent encounter when you had the option of walking away.

     

     



    That might not go over well here. Even the libs here still ascribe to the requirement of the government having to prove guilt rather than the individual having to prove innocence.

     

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

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    Oh Canada!

    You know what?  The good old USA is imperfect.  It's an easy target for people in other countries who like to shake their heads and feel superior.   Look around the globe.  Show me the perfect country.

    The USA has assimilated a more disparate population (ethnicity/race/religion) better than any other country.  Has it been perfect?   Far from it.  But it's still the case that people are literally dying near the border (or stopped) trying to get in.  Students come for the colleges and universities and don't return home when their visas are up.  

    It's been said we have the worst form of government (democracy) - except for all the rest.  The judicial system is imperfect too.   Jury of your peers?  Flawed too, to be sure.  But if I were ever accused of something I'd rather take my chance with the "average Joes" than a judge who was a political appointee, subject to a bribe, etc.

    As for Canada.  Very nice country to visit.  Been there many times for business and pleasure.  But all I need to know about Canada is that 49% of Quebec wanted out when it came to a vote on secession in the 90's.  Think about this - the population of Quebec is approximately the same percentage as all the states west of the rockies:  CA, AZ, UT, WA, NV, ID, OR.  

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    Hmm . . . we'll I'm all for financially responsible government.

    Everybody here is for financially responsible government. They just don't want their thing cut.

     

    I don't think business is inherently evil.  

    Neither do libs here, more or less.

     

    I like hunting and don't think it should be illegal to do so.

    Most but the extreme PETA types of libs here aren't against hunting.

     

    There are plenty of areas where I deviate from "liberal" views.  At the same time, I do think the liberals are closer to right more often than the conservatives.  Nothing wrong with that in my mind.

     

    So you really are party line all the way.



     
  11. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to RallyC's comment:

     

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

     

     

     

    In response to russgriswold's comment:

     

     

     

     

     

     

    Any juror who doesn't to that conclusion, at least that much, is a moron.

     

     

     



    Is English a second language for you dumbkoff?

     

     

     

     

     


    Why are you so hard core, man?

     

     

     

     




    Because this imbecile does exactly the same thing to other people all the time.

    Why would you possibly care what sin I punish Rusty for and then ignore his 1000 insults a day to other posters? Hmmm?

     

     

    [/QUOTE]
    NO, no, no......come on man, don't go there again, Babe. Have you ever tried to see what it would be like to have some type of truce with Rusty? I think that you guys have gone at it for so long that maybe there could be a willingness to try change and shoot for some sort of reconcilliation. Babe, You are well respected by many here, and it seems to me that many follow your lead. Rusty seems to be forced into a type of isolation and has become very defensive over time. Maybe most of it iss self imposed, but I figure, what the hell. I could at least give it a try and broker a shot at it. As you see, I've given it some efort on my own behalf with several of you. So, any chance, Rusty, Babe? I imagine at least one of you will tell me to eff-off now, right????

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

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    I'm missing how this is a "race" thing. Zim was "mixed race" (part black). So is Obama, but they call him "the first black Prez". These "race" claims are rather dubious.

     

     http://img.exs.lv/tmp/gif_193x113_39ce6f.gif

     

     

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

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    In response to bostatewarrior's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to RallyC's comment:

     

    In response to bostatewarrior's comment:

     

    In response to RallyC's comment:

     

     

     

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

     

     

     



    What the hell are you talking about??? Fllow me here...... If there is a killing, and the man who shot him is known, then it MUST be MURDER, MANSLAUGHTER, or assumed SELF DEFENSE. In this case, It was deemed self defense. The burden of proof for the other two are upon the State and they couldn't do it. Self defense does not have to be proved, it is by default assumed. Additionally, there is no ruling stated for the finding of NOT GUILTY so why are you now just making shyte up? They don't say nor do they record it as "NOT GUILTY due to self defense". IT IS ASSUMED. That is what the State is tasked with disproving so what in the world are you talking about? Damn man, stop!

     

     

     


    Rally, I heard the replay this afternoon.  They said " not guilty".  They polled the jury and each person said "not guilty"

     

     

     


    OK, I'm with ya. NOT GUILTY automatically rules that GZ was acting in self defense.  They all had to agree "NOT GUILTY" or we'd still be at it.....What are you implying?

     



    Actually, not implying anything.  It just seemed to be a point of discussion ands I thought I could help.  Now I'll correct myself; after the deputy reads the jury verdict of "not guilty" the jury is polled and asked if that is their verdict and the answer "yes"

     

    I have heard that no one is ever found "innocent", just "not guilty".   

    [/QUOTE

    Gotcha, thanks man....

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

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    But if you kill someone in "self-defense" you better be able to show that you didn't do anything to provoke a violent encounter when you had the option of walking away.

     

     

     



    That might not go over well here. Even the libs here still ascribe to the requirement of the government having to prove guilt rather than the individual having to prove innocence.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    It's just a stricter interpretation of the self-defense defense.  Everyone knows Zimmerman shot Martin.  He's admitted to that.  All I'm saying is that if you're going to claim you killed someone in self defense you better be able to also show that you didn't pursue the person before shooting him when you could simply have walked away.  It's similar to pleading insanity.  If you're going to say you should be acquitted because you were insane, you really better be insane.  Self defense when you pursue someone for twenty minutes before an encounter takes place seems a bit lame to me.  Zimmerman may indeed have had to defend himself at the very moment he shot, but he had ample opportunity never to get involved at all and instead insisted on pursuing the kid.  I think that's dubious.  Just like someone who gets off because he has ADD or something . . . 

     

     

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

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

     

    So you really are party line all the way.





    Well if the party is right, then sure . . . 

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

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

     

    I'm missing how this is a "race" thing. Zim was "mixed race" (part black). So is Obama, but they call him "the first black Prez". These "race" claims are rather dubious.

     

     http://img.exs.lv/tmp/gif_193x113_39ce6f.gif

     

     

     


    Briefly put, It became a race thing when Civil Rights Activists took what police initially classified as an open and shut "self defense" shooting and demanded murder charges be brought against the shooter. It took gaining support from several civil rights organizations along with heavy political influence to get it done. 
    That is how it became a race issue. In the end, the police have been proven right with their first insticts on how it shoulda been handled. 

     

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

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

     

     

     

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

     

     

     

     

    But if you kill someone in "self-defense" you better be able to show that you didn't do anything to provoke a violent encounter when you had the option of walking away.

     

     

     

     

     



    That might not go over well here. Even the libs here still ascribe to the requirement of the government having to prove guilt rather than the individual having to prove innocence.

     

     

     

     

     

     



    It's just a stricter interpretation of the self-defense defense.  Everyone knows Zimmerman shot Martin.  He's admitted to that.  All I'm saying is that if you're going to claim you killed someone in self defense you better be able to also show that you didn't pursue the person before shooting him when you could simply have walked away.  It's similar to pleading insanity.  If you're going to say you should be acquitted because you were insane, you really better be insane.  Self defense when you pursue someone for twenty minutes before an encounter takes place seems a bit lame to me.  Zimmerman may indeed have had to defend himself at the very moment he shot, but he had ample opportunity never to get involved at all and instead insisted on pursuing the kid.  I think that's dubious.  Just like someone who gets off because he has ADD or something . . . 

     

     

     

     

     

    I do agree with what your saying here.......

     

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

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    In response to RallyC's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    I'm missing how this is a "race" thing. Zim was "mixed race" (part black). So is Obama, but they call him "the first black Prez". These "race" claims are rather dubious.

     

    Briefly put, It became a race thing when Civil Rights Activists took what police initially classified as an open and shut "self defense" shooting and demanded murder charges be brought against the shooter. It took gaining support from several civil rights organizations and political influence to get it done. In the end, the police have been proven right with their first insticts on how to handle it. That is how it became a race issue.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Maybe, but I think a lot of people were wondering why (1) Zimmerman assumed Martin was suspicious when the kid was apparently just walking down the street and (2) why the police were so quick to accept Zimmerman's statement that he was attacked by Martin.   A lot of people concluded (probably rightly) that if Martin hadn't been a young black male, there would have been more questions about whether Zimmerman was right to assume Martin was a threat and whether Zimmerman really was justified in shooting Martin.  

    If Martin had been a white businessman walking home from a convenience store with an iced tea and candy, Zimmerman would probably not have been suspicious of him and the police probably would have been less willing to simply accept Zimmerman's story if Zimmerman had shot him.  The fact that Martin was a young black man almost certainly weighed into a lot of people's assumptions about him and about Zimmerman's story. 

     

     

     
  20. 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 pezz4pats' comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I


    Z

    How do you know and why do you keep saying he was an innocent 17yo?

    How do you know he wasn't planning another burglary and acting suspicious in doing so?

    There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that Martin was committing a crime or planning to commit a crime at the time Zimmerman shot him?  Whether or not he had done something bad in the past is completely irrelevant. 

    As far as what was in his backpack at school, it has no bearing on this particular event.  And, in fact, the Boston Globe reported this about the jewelry:

    SANFORD, Fla.—Women's jewelry and a watch found in Trayvon Martin's school backpack last fall could not be tied to any reported thefts, the Miami-Dade Police Department said Tuesday.

    The conservative web site you refer to does not seem to be a very reliable source, but even if Martin had broken the law in the past, it's completely irrelevant to what happened when he was shot because there's no evidence at all that he was committing a crime then.   

     

     




    Well, the Miami Herald reported the same jewelry was found but did not tie it to the burglary, just blocks away. Regardless, the incident was kept internally and never disclosed.

     

     

    The police did not tie it to the burglary either.  The police department has stated that none of the items were reported stolen.  Maybe they were stolen.  But no charges were laid and no trial was ever held.  You are convicting Martin on evidence even more flimsy than that against Zimmerman (who's fingerprints were the only ones on the gun used to kill Martin) and without any trial at all.  Is only Zimmerman given the protection of being innocent unless proven guilty?  It seems like you've convicted Martin based on flimsy newspaper articles . . .  and decided that a death sentence isn't too much.   

    Sorry but wedding bands and diamond earrings along with a long flat head are not usually items 16 yr olds carry in their backpack and there is plenty reason to suspect a crime but it was never pursued.   It was also never reported to his parents.  Wouldn't you be asking questions if you found your child to be in possession of those.  Would you accept that an unnamed friend gave them to him?

    Would I think my kid deserved to be shot because he had jewelry?  How 'bout you?  If your kid came home from school with some jewelry, would you think it were okay if some guy decided to shoot him dead?  

    It's very possible that his past has everything to do with the case as the items were found in trying to find the marking instrument as he was also seen on film "acting suspiciously", hiding and ducking, and ultimately caught committing a crime as a result and suspended.

    The initial call to 911 paints a similar scenario and as reported, there was a current problem with break-ins in the area. 

    Did Martin commit those break ins?  Of is suspicion enough to kill someone just because a crime has happened that that person may or may not have been involved in?  You're basically arguing that killing Martin was justified because someone (likely no him) had broken into someone's house.  

    He was doing what he always did in an attempt to deter a crime.  He was a law abiding citizen with a license to carry a gun.  What is the problem with that?

    Well he shot a teenager dead who apparently was not in the act of committing a crime.  I think that's problematic.  I'm really delighted to find out though how many Americans really don't find any problem with it at all.  Great place that country has become.  I assume you also think Newtown was just something that happens . . . price we pay for the freedom to tote around guns . . . 

    There is also evidence as another poster stated that he did stop the pursuit, after being told to, and Martin came back to him. 

    The evidence is pretty weak both ways, which is why it was probably right to acquit Zimmerman. But Zimmerman's acquittal  hardly means that Martin was convicted. 

    So what do you do then?  Let the guy bash your head in and reach for your gun?

    He was in a fight for his life with a not so innocent person.

    He claims that.  Maybe.  Maybe not.  The problem is there is no evidence either way other than Zimmerman's testimony.  And let's face it, Zimmerman might have a reason to lie, no?  

    I really doubt he would have used it otherwise.

    Yeah, people who walk around with guns, call the police and say a kid walking down the street looks suspicious, then tell the police "these assh*les always get away," then pursues the kid for 20 minutes, then gets out of his car to confront the kid certainly couldn't be looking for trouble.  No, I'm sure Zimmerman had no idea why he was carrying that gun. Shooting someone with it never entered his mind. 

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Sorry Z but the guy was not killed because he had stolen jewelry but followed because he acted suspicious.  If he were merely walking home at a normal pace, I don't think he would have been looked at as suspicious.

    Whether he was justified in following him, none of us can say.  You would have to be in that position.  I don't see why you are assuming he was innocent.  He wasn't reported for merely walking home.

    Zimmerman committed no crime.  It is not illegal to carry a gun as a law abiding citizen.  It is not illegal to follow a person you feel is suspicious nor is it to confront him.  It is not illegal to protect yourself while being attacked.

    All the evidence proves that he was attacked, not the other way around.  There were wounds on Martins hands from punching and none on Zimmerman's.  There was a broken nose and a cracked skull and blood coming from Z's ears, not Martins.  There were no blows to Martins body, therefore he was not attacked.  There were eye witness accounts saying Martin was on top and doing all the punching. 

    The only person who committed a crime here is Martin.  Right or wrong, that's the truth of the matter.  He was the  only one with blood on his hands prior to the shooting.

    Yes, it could have all been avoided if Zimmerman just waited for the police but the police ARE slow in responding to these types of calls and a lot of the times, they simply take a report and the guys do get away.

    While catching shoplifters, I was sometimes in the office for two hours with them, waiting for the cops.  They weren't the ones in danger.  I was, for simply doing my job.

    Apparently, so was he.

     

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

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    In response to RallyC's comment:

     

    NO, no, no......come on man, don't go there again, Babe. Have you ever tried to see what it would be like to have some type of truce with Rusty? I think that you guys have gone at it for so long that maybe there could be a willingness to try change and shoot for some sort of reconcilliation. Babe, You are well respected by many here, and it seems to me that many follow your lead. Rusty seems to be forced into a type of isolation and has become very defensive over time. Maybe most of it iss self imposed, but I figure, what the hell. I could at least give it a try and broker a shot at it. As you see, I've given it some efort on my own behalf with several of you. So, any chance, Rusty, Babe? I imagine at least one of you will tell me to eff-off now, right????

     



    It's not that anybody follows my lead around here. The facts stand for themselves and people see that.

    If he stops talking like a madman we could get along just fine. I'm not going to stand for him saying it's all Brady's fault.

    He never criticizes anybody but Brady. It's ludicrous.

     

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

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:

     



     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Sorry Z but the guy was not killed because he had stolen jewelry but followed because he acted suspicious.  If he were merely walking home at a normal pace, I don't think he would have been looked at as suspicious.

    Zimmerman said he was acting suspicious.  But there's no evidence the kid was doing anythning but walking down the street.  

    Whether he was justified in following him, none of us can say.  You would have to be in that position.  I don't see why you are assuming he was innocent.  He wasn't reported for merely walking home.

    Reported by whom?  Zimmerman jumped to a conclusion about the kid.  

    Zimmerman committed no crime.  It is not illegal to carry a gun as a law abiding citizen.  It is not illegal to follow a person you feel is suspicious nor is it to confront him.  It is not illegal to protect yourself while being attacked.

    Sure. He did kill a 17 year old though...and could have avoided doing so if he merely minded his own business.    

    All the evidence proves that he was attacked, not the other way around.

    No it doesn't "prove" that.  The evidence is ambiguous.  That's why Zimmerman was acquitted and why Martin probably would (or should) have been acquitted if Zimmerman had ended up dead. 

    There were wounds on Martins hands from punching and none on Zimmerman's.  There was a broken nose and a cracked skull and blood coming from Z's ears, not Martins.  There were no blows to Martins body, therefore he was not attacked.  There were eye witness accounts saying Martin was on top and doing all the punching. 

    Martin was shot through the heart.  Whose injuries were more serious again?  Eye witnesses said conflicting things and no one witnessed the start of the fight.  And Zimmerman's skull wasn't "cracked."  He had cuts.  There very likely was a scuffle.  But it's not clear at all that Zimmerman didn't initiate it.  Maybe Martin was acting in self defense and Zimmerman then decided to shoot.  

    The only person who committed a crime here is Martin.  Right or wrong, that's the truth of the matter.  He was the  only one with blood on his hands prior to the shooting.

    Martin wasn't convicted of anything.  Innocent until proven guilty, no?  Or does that only apply to Zimmerman?

    Yes, it could have all been avoided if Zimmerman just waited for the police but the police ARE slow in responding to these types of calls and a lot of the times, they simply take a report and the guys do get away.

    So.  That doesn't mean people should shoot kids walking home from convenience stores because they look suspicious to the shooter. 

    While catching shoplifters, I was sometimes in the office for two hours with them, waiting for the cops.  They weren't the ones in danger.  I was, for simply doing my job.

    Did you shoot them?  

    Apparently, so was he.

     

    [/QUOTE]


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

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    I am so glad this is over. I can't believe this has been made a race thing. As i have mentioned in other threads, my aunt, whom was white, was murdered by a half black half hispanic man. He was found guilty of manslaughter after he waited in her truck for her to get out of work and then slit her throat. He waited for her... and was found guilty of manslaughter. What kind of bs is that? We never made it a race thing, but we did start a scholarship fund for nursung students in her name.

    I don't know if Zimmerman did it, but the evidence was iffy and I am ok with it. Makes me sick...

    __________________________________________________

    Come on if you think you can take us on
    You and whose army?
    You and your cronies.
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    But if you kill someone in "self-defense" you better be able to show that you didn't do anything to provoke a violent encounter when you had the option of walking away.

     

     

     

     



    That might not go over well here. Even the libs here still ascribe to the requirement of the government having to prove guilt rather than the individual having to prove innocence.

     

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    It's just a stricter interpretation of the self-defense defense.  Everyone knows Zimmerman shot Martin.  He's admitted to that.  All I'm saying is that if you're going to claim you killed someone in self defense you better be able to also show that you didn't pursue the person before shooting him when you could simply have walked away.  It's similar to pleading insanity.  If you're going to say you should be acquitted because you were insane, you really better be insane.  Self defense when you pursue someone for twenty minutes before an encounter takes place seems a bit lame to me.  Zimmerman may indeed have had to defend himself at the very moment he shot, but he had ample opportunity never to get involved at all and instead insisted on pursuing the kid.  I think that's dubious.  Just like someone who gets off because he has ADD or something . . . 

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]


    You just love your apples and oranges. Insanity must be proved because the defense is asking their client not be subjected to the trial. Of course if they want to curcumvent that entire process they must show their claim is real. What you're asking for is not even close to the same thing.

    You say Zimmerman should have not accosted Martin, but by the same token Martin could have simply not attacked Zimmerman and all would have probably been okay. I have to draw the line at where it should be drawn. Physical assault. Martin crossed that line and Zim defended himself, as far as we know.

     

    How in the world your proposed "provoking" law could be applied is unfathomable. Giant can of worms.

     

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

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to RallyC's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    NO, no, no......come on man, don't go there again, Babe. Have you ever tried to see what it would be like to have some type of truce with Rusty? I think that you guys have gone at it for so long that maybe there could be a willingness to try change and shoot for some sort of reconcilliation. Babe, You are well respected by many here, and it seems to me that many follow your lead. Rusty seems to be forced into a type of isolation and has become very defensive over time. Maybe most of it iss self imposed, but I figure, what the hell. I could at least give it a try and broker a shot at it. As you see, I've given it some efort on my own behalf with several of you. So, any chance, Rusty, Babe? I imagine at least one of you will tell me to eff-off now, right????

     

     



     

    It's not that anybody follows my lead around here. The facts stand for themselves and people see that.

    If he stops talking like a madman we could get along just fine. I'm not going to stand for him saying it's all Brady's fault.

    He never criticizes anybody but Brady. It's ludicrous.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    OK. Thats fair enough. Lets see if he responds and is willing to try.  If not, then it is what it is. Thanks, Babe

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share