George Zimmerman Verdict

  1. 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 RallyC's comment:

     

     

     

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

    In response to RallyC's comment:

     

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

    There's  some funny logic here where people claim  Martin is acting badly if he punched Zimmerman (causing minor injuries) but Zimmerman is fine  to shoot Martin causing death.  There's also a lot of acceptance of Zimmerman's story as unquestionable truth.  I can't say whether he's telling the truth or lying, but he certainly has a motive to lie and not tell the truth if he did attack Martin first.  And Martin's been silenced permanently so we can't hear his side of the story which may be very different from Zimmerman's.  

     

    I mean really?  Aren't you just a little skeptical of Zimmerman given the circumstances?  Or did you believe OJ too when he said that cut he had was from a broken glass?  

     


    OF COURSE, WE ARE ALL "SKEPTICAL" of what really happened!!! But speculation and skepticism is flawed. Its all mental and provides nothing in terms of physical evidence. I'm not defending GZ in the least. I am telling you the truth about the legal aspect of why it turned out the way it did. I have no idea what really happened, AND NEITHER DO YOU. All we know is he was let go because he claimed self defense and his story could not be disproven. NOT GUILTY, GZ killed TM in self defense. If he would have said, "It was an accident." Then GZ goes to jail for manslaughter. That is why he is deemed by the courts as having shot and killed TM in self defense. There is no such thing as the courts saying, "NOT GUILTY" and we don't have any reason for dimissing the fact that you killed a man. Think. YES, maybe he got away with murder. Problem is, the available evidence does not support that, period. Admit it! There is a possiblitliy that GZ was telling the truth too, right? What if he is? Just a thought???????

     

    I've already explained that I think from a legal perspective the jury made the right decision.  Why are you explaining what I've already explained?  Is your reading comprehension weak? I'm moving on to a different point: that I don't think it's a good outcome when someone like Zimmerman can carry around a gun and start pursuing people who he simply suspects of wrongdoing.  Please stop blowing smoke and follow the discourse.  

     

    From the very beginning, I've said the jury probably made the decision they had to make.  I still think the fact that a situation like this can arise in the states is screwed up.  I don't believe that what Zimmerman did (pursuing someone with a gun) should be legal.  I know it is.  It's just crazy that it is.  But of course, in America crazy people can walk around armed too.  It's what Americans like.  A dead black teenager, a few dead school children in CT, a bunch of dead moviegoers in Colorado . . . that's all a small price to pay so that men with ego problems are free to tote around handguns.

     


    Prolate, you are proving yourself to be a PROFESSIONAL Speculator who masters in assumption. WHY are you saying "It's what Americans like" when referring to recent gun related tragedies? You don't know me at all and I am a born, raised, and very proud to be an American. The rest of you inferior Countries out there, yes Canada is one of them, don't seem to mind our AMERICAN guns in time of need now do you? No, because your damned freedom depends on us "AMERICANS". Again, my Canadian friend, stop assuming you know what you are talking about. Thanks to US "AMERICANS" you get to speak your mind freely in these parts. Your welcome, by the way! God Bless America.........I'll stop wasting my time with you now.

     

     

     

     

    Dude, you're assuming I'm not an American.  Your assumption is completely false. 

     

     

     


    Ok, sorry. You're simply a fraud who's ashamed of being Canadian so you say you're American. I got it. Now that thats resolved, I think wiggerjoe is waiting for an answer to his above question. 

     

     
  2. 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 RallyC's comment:

     

     

     

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

    In response to RallyC's comment:

     

    Sorry man, but you are wrong. Once TM hit GZ, TM is no longer the "innocent teenager." Period. I can stand and yell at you in public all I want and if you hit me, I can shoot you if I feared for my life during the incident. Thats just how it works. YOU CAN'T just go hitting folks just becasue you don't like what they are saying. Moral of the story? Be careful who you hit because they may shoot you and get away with it BECAUSE its the Shooter's word against a dead guy's. AND AS WE SEE, DEAD GUYS CAN'T TALK! EOS.

     

     

     



    But if Martin also felt he was in grave danger, he'd have exactly the same right as Zimmerman to fight back in self-defense.  You're assuming that Zimmerman approached him like a girl scout asking if he wanted to buy cookies.  But it's quite possible that Zimmerman (an armed man after all) was far more aggressive. Unfortunately for Martin, however, Zimmerman effectively silenced Martin so we can only hear Zimmerman's version of the events.

     

     

    Regardless, a legal system that permits people to decide you look suspicious to them and then stalk you with a gun is pretty screwed up in my opinion.  I guess you guys would like it if Zimmerman decided you looked suspicious and chased you down too?  

     


    PROLATE, YOU ARE INCORRECT. I AM NOT "ASSUMING" ANYTHING AT ALL. YOU ARE doing every bit of the speculation and assuming here. I am simply going by what the evidence proved out in court. I am not speculating or assuming a single point here. GZ claimed self defense after shooting TM, FACT. The State was pressured to file murder charges against him despite not having ANY EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE CHARGES, FACT. GZ found NOT GUITY of murder due to lack of evidence that he was truly exercising self defense, FACT. THAT IS ALL FACT. Now please SHOW ME where I am "assuming" anything here, please? OR, is it that you are now assuming that I am assuming???? Dude, think before you speak. Please believe I mean no offense to you with what I say here. I've not once said that any of your speculation was factually wrong, have I? I have been eplaining the reasoning behind the verdict. I am not even trying to explain the actual events because I wasn't there, HAVE I? If you say yes to any of my questions, PLEASE SHOW ME WHERE.

     

     

     



    Dude, Zimmerman shot a kid dead.  That's a fact.  No one, not even Zimmerman, denies it.  That's murder unless Zimmerman acted in self defense.  There is no definitive proof that he acted in self defense or that he didn't act in self-defense.  All we have is his word.  And all I'm saying is that his word doesn't convince me that he's not lying.  I agree as I've said all along that given the law and the lack of definitive evidence that he didn't act in self-defense he should have been acquitted as he was.  You are only guilty if you can be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and I agree the state did not prove that.  

     

     

    All I'm saying is that I don't think the law should allow you to so easily claim self-defense if you set in motion a chain of events that eventually leads to you shooting someone.  I believe that Zimmerman did start a chain of events based on his assumption (which I believe to be a false one) that Marin was in the act of committing some kind of a crime.  I think that false assumption and the actions that Zimmerman took afterwards should be relevant and should make self-defense harder to claim.  The law is what it is, and I understand that.  I just don't think the law is good. 

     

    As far as your assumptions, you say this:  

    Once TM hit GZ, TM is no longer the "innocent teenager."

    This is an assumption regardless of your denial.  It assumes that TM attacked GZ and that TM was not acting in self defense when he attacked.  You don't know either of those things.  No one does.  Therefore you are making assumptions.  You can write in capital letters all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that there's an obvious assumption being made. 

     


    Hey stupid, have you heard? Verdict: GZ found not guilty! That is fact not assumption. Therefore it implies GZ told the truth you idiot. Thats how it works. The State failed to disprve GZ's claim that TM attacked him and GZ was forced to shoot TM in self defense. I'm not telling you my opinion here. This is factually what has happened. It was proven in court that GZ did not commit murder/manslaughter. Self defense was proven as the only other option. Damn, You are one stupid Canadian! Thats as definitive as it can be. Dude has his gun back. 

     

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

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    Rally, you're being entirely outrageous. Prolate, as he was repeatedly stated, is an American citizen living in Canada. Whether or not he's also a Canadian citizen, I do not know. 

    _________________

    Let's go Pats!

     
  4. 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:

     

    In response to RallyC's comment:

     

     

     

    And consider that there is not any evidence that there was any threat delivered by GZ but only evidence that GZ was assaulted. The speculation that GZ acted like a vigilanty is what really stunns me. Why would he have called 911 if he planned on shooting TM? Its such BS.........

     

     



    Of course there is no reason to the argument from the politically motivated. They simply follow the party line like cattle with no regard whatsoever for right or wrong.

     

     

    I have no horse in this race. While I wish no harm came to either of them I could absolutely care less if one or the other was black, or part white or anything else.

    The guy defended himself with a gun against a physical attack. Every single person in this thread would have done the same thing once they were beset by that violence.

     

     

     




     

    Some of us wouldn't be carrying guns around or playing police.  That's the problem.  I would not have been "beset by that violence" because I would never have done any of the things Zimmerman did that ended up with him placing himself in a situation where shooting someone was possible.  

    Please, try to think out of your little box for once. 




    What a f'n joke. YOU have me beat by 1,000,000 times on that box thing. LMAO@U

    Do you have ANY CLUE what kind of world people in neighborhoods like that live in? Hell no! You are the LAST person who would "get" that. You sit there pontificating from your white little tundra while other people have to live in these hellholes and try to do something about the predatory world they live in because the cops just don't GAF. Of course YOU would never do such a thing because your liberal standards are so intellectually superior to dirtbags like those in the hood who actually try to clean their cesspool up. Pffft to you.

    I've spent time in the hood dude. It's a nasty place. You don't know what the hell you're talking about.

    Venture out of your little box and go see the real world.

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

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

     

     

    In response to RallyC's comment:

     

     

     

     

    And consider that there is not any evidence that there was any threat delivered by GZ but only evidence that GZ was assaulted. The speculation that GZ acted like a vigilanty is what really stunns me. Why would he have called 911 if he planned on shooting TM? Its such BS.........

     

     

     



    Of course there is no reason to the argument from the politically motivated. They simply follow the party line like cattle with no regard whatsoever for right or wrong.

     

     

     

    I have no horse in this race. While I wish no harm came to either of them I could absolutely care less if one or the other was black, or part white or anything else.

    The guy defended himself with a gun against a physical attack. Every single person in this thread would have done the same thing once they were beset by that violence.

     

     

     

     




     

     

    Some of us wouldn't be carrying guns around or playing police.  That's the problem.  I would not have been "beset by that violence" because I would never have done any of the things Zimmerman did that ended up with him placing himself in a situation where shooting someone was possible.  

    Please, try to think out of your little box for once. 

     




     

    What a f'n joke. YOU have me beat by 1,000,000 times on that box thing. LMAO@U

    Do you have ANY CLUE what kind of world people in neighborhoods like that live in? Hell no! You are the LAST person who would "get" that. You sit there pontificating from your white little tundra while other people have to live in these hellholes and try to do something about the predatory world they live in because the cops just don't GAF. Of course YOU would never do such a thing because your liberal standards are so intellectually superior to dirtbags like those in the hood who actually try to clean their cesspool up. Pffft to you.

    I've spent time in the hood dude. It's a nasty place. You don't know what the hell you're talking about.

    Venture out of your little box and go see the real world.



    Dude you have real anger issues! Why so many personal attacks on poster that are trying to have a converstion?

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

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    Again, quite simply, if Zimmerman hadn't been carrying a weapon and playing cop, this death would have never happened.  I am not talking about Zimmerman's guilt or innocence of the charged crimes.  I am not saying the jury did the wrong thing.  All I'm saying is that Zimmerman's behaviour, legal or not, initiated a chain of events that resulted in a 17 year old being shot dead.  From the very beginning, I've said I find that troublesome.  

    There is no evidence at all that Martin was engaged in any wrongdoing as he was walking home from the convenience store or that Martin would have done anything wrong had Zimmerman simply ignored him.  Zimmerman made an assumption about Martin being engaged in criminal activity, which was, to the extent we know, completely wrong.  Based on that assumption, Zimmerman began following the kid while armed.  In the end, a fatal confrontation occured that never would have occured had Zimmerman (1) not made his assumption about Martin,  (2) not began following him, and (3) not been armed with a pistol.  Guilt or innocence aside, from a public policy perspective, I think it's very problematic that items 1, 2, and 3 above are all not only allowed but to some degree encouraged and lauded by a fairly significant segment of the American population (including many on this board). 

    You are free to disagree of course and many of you obviously do.  But please, Babe and RallyC, cut the silly name-calling and please read what I'm saying more carefully.  Your responses don't speak highly of either your reading comprehension or, I'm afraid, your maturity. 

     

     

     

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from LittleTimmy31. Show LittleTimmy31's posts

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    The jury may have convicted him of manslaughter, if the DA went for that. Obviously Zimmerman is guilty of killing Martin.

     

    Zimmerman may get his punishment when the parents of Martin go after him in a civil suit.

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

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

    There's  some funny logic here where people claim  Martin is acting badly if he punched Zimmerman (causing minor injuries) but Zimmerman is fine  to shoot Martin causing death.  There's also a lot of acceptance of Zimmerman's story as unquestionable truth.  I can't say whether he's telling the truth or lying, but he certainly has a motive to lie and not tell the truth if he did attack Martin first.  And Martin's been silenced permanently so we can't hear his side of the story which may be very different from Zimmerman's.  

     

    I mean really?  Aren't you just a little skeptical of Zimmerman given the circumstances?  Or did you believe OJ too when he said that cut he had was from a broken glass?  



    Zimmerman had a fractured nose, bruised eyeballs, and 2 deep lacerations in the back of his head which required stitches. How is that minor? Additionally the only word we have to go by is Zimmermans in which he said Martin was reaching for his gun. 2 experts confirmed that, in Zimmermans mind at least, he was telling the truth. Now I'm not going to say Martin attacking Zimmerman was acting badly, because I don't know how the events went down, but I'm also not going to say his actions were right either. They both had their choices. Martin could have just as easily run away from the obese Zimmerman or stop and talked with Zimmerman instead of attacking. Martin most likely felt his life was in danger or as most teens wanted to flex his power to authorities and made the wrong choice. Zimmerman could have stayed in his car, but what if Martin was actually a robber who was about to break into someones house and kill or rape those inside? Zimmerman had no clue before he left the car. But, Zimmerman made the wrong choice to leave his car and confront Martin.

    In the end all the evidence points to the fact the Martin wasn't standing up but leaning over when Zimmerman shot him. Which combined with Zimmermans injures is consistent that at the time of the shooting Martin was on top of Zimmerman and attacking. So really the only things we have to go by is Zimmerman made the wrong choice in getting out of his car and Martin made the wrong choice of attacking and beating Zimmerman on the ground. That's it. Two wrong choices lead to the shooting in which Zimmerman felt his life was in danger from a kid beating him and reaching for his gun and Martin we won't know why his reason for beating Zimmerman but it could be that he was standing his ground too in self defense or that he was just another damn the man teenager who had a pention for being a hot head too.

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

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

    But if Martin also felt he was in grave danger, he'd have exactly the same right as Zimmerman to fight back in self-defense.  You're assuming that Zimmerman approached him like a girl scout asking if he wanted to buy cookies.  But it's quite possible that Zimmerman (an armed man after all) was far more aggressive. Unfortunately for Martin, however, Zimmerman effectively silenced Martin so we can only hear Zimmerman's version of the events.



    This is true. If Martin had gotten to Zimmermans gun first and shot Zimmerman dead he could use the same defense. "I was walking home when this guy with a gun started yelling at me and pointed the gun at me. I feared for my life so in self defense and according to stand your ground I attacked, we struggled and I got his gun and shot him to save my own life". It could have easily gone that way if Martin was the one who shot Zimmerman and not the other way around and in this case Martin would get off too because of the same reasons Zimmerman got off.

     

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from portfolio1. Show portfolio1's posts

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    In response to RallyC's comment:

    In response to portfolio1's comment:

     

    In response to RallyC's comment:

     

     

     

    In response to portfolio1's comment:

     

    I'm sorry but I think there is way too much rationalizing going on. I think it is very simple:

    1. teenager goes to store, buys candy, returns to father's house

    2. Self appointed, untrained adult male with a gun decides this teen is dangerous and follows him (characterizing him as a criminal over the phone)

    3. Armed male causes confrontation as teen is threatened and triesd to defend himself

    4. Armed man ends up shooting and killing innocent teen.

    With these facts there is no question that the armed adult caused the events that resulted in the death of an innocent teen. While there might be a legitimate question as to whether the armed adult male was racist there is no question that he caused the events to happen. 

    It is reveiling that so many seem to overlook the teen's right to self defence but demand the right of self defence to the armed adult who caused the events to take place. 

    Further, the injuries sufered by the armed adult were not serious and certainly not life threatening. Yet he chose to use deadly force to defend himself. He did not back off and he did not try to flee. But he chose deadly force.

    There is no question that causing the death of an innocent teen is wrong and deserves some serious consequences. It really is that simple.

     

     



    But you left out very important details:

    Teen is walking through an area of homes that had recently experienced several break ins and robberies. Evidence showed that teen struck man who was LEGALLY carrying a gun. At that point, the "innocent, young teen" as you describe him, is no longer innocent. Armed man shoots bigger, stronger 17-yr old APPARENTLY IN SELF DEFENSE as the jury deemed. Jury finds legally armed man, Not Guilty. Again, I am not a fan of GZ or how he handled the situation, BUT I am a fan of our legal system. Lastly, if you truly think it "really is that simple" as you say in closing above, then you are dillusional........And that really is that simple.

     

     



    Rally, I am sorry but - respectfully - there are serious problems with your response. 

     

     

    1. whether there had been recent crimes does not change any of the specific facts I pointed out. At all. Further, this teen was not and has not been accusedf let alone charged with any of those crimes. That this point you bring up gives reason to the desire or perhaps need for patroling the neighborhood is reasonable. But it also raises the questions of the difference between a trained and empowered police officer and a wanna be policeman/vigilante.

    2. I am sorry but your remark that the teen CANNOT defend HIMSELF when confronted by a guy scary to HIM, an older, larger and armed guy who had been following him - in the eyes of this teen stalking is a legitimate perception - is just not at all consistent with your insistence that self defense is legitimate. 

    3. Many - including yourself (and Babe for example) did not (as far as I have read this thread and I have admittedly not read every post) have ignored one important option Zimmerman had - to keep his distance or walk or even run away from a fight. Even the police dispatch told him not to engage... in fact I think they told him not to follow, just to give them info. But Zimmerman followed (perhaps stalked in the eyes of the teen), closed the distance, and confronted. And he did this with a mindset that this teen was a creep and one of those thugs who "always get away with it".

    On this last point, I was advised many years ago by a man who among other things used to train marines in self defense. His advice after showing me some techniques in self defense: your first move should be to walk away from a fight. Only when there are no other options do you engage. Zimmerman is no hero. He is just a small man who wants to be important. Small enough to be judge, jury and executioner.

    I do not say any of the above to insite but I hope you and others read it and pause to at least consider the points.

    Again, while there are all kinds of points to be made, the fundamentals, the underlying basic facts are that:

    1. teenager goes to store, buys candy, returns to father's house

    2. Self appointed, untrained adult male with a gun decides this teen is dangerous and follows him (characterizing him as a criminal over the phone)

    3. Armed male causes confrontation as teen is threatened and tries to defend himself 

    4. Armed man ends up shooting and killing innocent teen.

    That there are additional points to consider in determining degree of moral and legal crime by armed, larger adult male is legitimate in presenting but there is nothing that takes him off the hook altogether. An innocent teen was killed. It is not unfortunate. It is wrong.

     



    Sorry man, but you are wrong. Once TM hit GZ, TM is no longer the "innocent teenager." Period. I can stand and yell at you in public all I want and if you hit me, I can shoot you if I feared for my life during the incident. Thats just how it works. YOU CAN'T just go hitting folks just becasue you don't like what they are saying. Moral of the story? Be careful who you hit because they may shoot you and get away with it BECAUSE its the Shooter's word against a dead guy's. AND AS WE SEE, DEAD GUYS CAN'T TALK! EOS.

     



    Please tell me why it is ok to defend yourself with a gun but not your hands? 

    If a 17 year old girl is jogging through a park and a large adult male is following her and she feels threatened does she have a right to at least try to defend herself with what she has... her hands and feet? If the answer is yes then the large adult male, being the initiating person - the aggresor who caused the confrontation to take place, is certainly and clearly limited in using "self defense" as an aliby for his actions (even if his intentions were not to kill the 17 year old girl).

    The point of law - and of morality here - is that an "initial aggressor" status limits the use of self defense as a justification.

    Again, tell me why a PERSON, like your daughter of wife or a boy, or anyone, including your very self, is an "aggressor" when using your bare hands in self defense?

     

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

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

     

     Eng, as I've said repeatedly, I'm not arguing with the jury.  Events easily could have transpired the way Zimmerman described them or some other way.  The state did not and probably could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman did not act in self-defense.  

     

    That doesn't mean, however, that one has to believe that Zimmerman's actions were good or that the law should allow people to carry guns and act like cops.  Maybe there should be stronger rules about when an untrained citizen can play cop? Police work maybe should be left to trained, competent professionals, rather than people like Zimmerman.  My argument is about piblic policy, not the jury's decision.

     

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from portfolio1. Show portfolio1's posts

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    What so many people seem to ignore or overlook is that an "initial aggressor", the person who caused the confrontation, is significantly limited in their ability to claim self defense. 

     

    "Initial aggressor" is NOT who threw the first punch. Zimmerman followed the teen. He forced the situation by continuiing to dog the teen until the teen was forced to choose between flight or fight. Apparently, even according to Zimmerman the teen initially chose flight (Zimmerman says in phone that he ran away from him). Zimmerman continued the chase (notice I am not being critical of Zimmerman's stated purpose of being neighborhood watch) until Martin is again made to choose between flight or fight. This time he may have chosen fight (we do nto know for sure exactly how the physical part of the confrontation started) but IT WAS ZIMMERMAN who FORCED THE ISSUE, making Martin choose flight or fight. Zimmerman is in this legal aspect the "inital aggressor" and so should have had morally and legally limited recourse to claims of self defense.

    If it had been a black adult male following doggedly a young white girl would the girl at least have the right to defend herself with whatever she has available inclduing her hands and feet? And if so how could the adult black male later claim self defense?

     

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

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

     Eng, as I've said repeatedly, I'm not arguing with the jury.  Events easily could have transpired the way Zimmerman described them or some other way.  The state did not and probably could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman did not act in self-defense.  

     

    That doesn't mean, however, that one has to believe that Zimmerman's actions were good or that the law should allow people to carry guns and act like cops.  Maybe there should be stronger rules about when an untrained citizen can play cop? Police work maybe should be left to trained, competent professionals, rather than people like Zimmerman.  My argument is about piblic policy, not the jury's decision.

     



    The funny thing is the cities with the highest gun restrictions tend to have the most gun violance (Chicago, Detriot, Washington D.C.) yet the cities that have more concealed permits have lower amounts of gun related crime. The reason being simply, the threat of someone fighting back. If you doubt this look at Australia right after they banned long guns and destroyed them all. House break ins and violant crime immediately rose by ~70% in break ins and ~35% in violant crimes, most coming from break ins. There are many incidents in which the threat of someone fighting back was enough to bring crime down in high crime areas yet that isn't reported by the media because it doesn't encite emotional responses the way these stories do. As sad as it is to say tragedies like this aren't even a fraction of a % of gun related deaths. With over 80% of gun deaths commited by criminals using illegally acquired guns. Cases like this are big media news but don't reflect the real issue in the US and that is that criminals are criminals and police for the most part only appear after the crime is commited. Not their fault as they can't be everywhere at once. But, if you remove the citizens means to fight back you are playing with fire. Again look at Chicago, most restrictive gun control laws but highest gun related death rate in the country.

    btw, who said Zimmermans actions were good? Getting out of his car was a mistake but in a crime area as part of the neighborhood watch following someone you don't recognize cutting through people yards in the rain isn't bad either. Again Zimmerman was wrong trying to confront Martin to see what he was doing. Martin was wrong to attack Zimmerman causing enough damage that most people would fear for their lives from an unknown assualtant. They were both in the wrong in both cases. If Zimmerman never got out of his car this wouldn't have happened. However, if Martin didn't attack Zimmerman and just explained he was heading to his uncles house and where it was than chances are this wouldn't have happened either. Both acted wrongly but that doesn't mean either acted badly either. In Zimmermans case as far as he knew Martin could have been a robber where if he was in someones house could have easily resulted in the home owner getting beaten or dead. He acted in a manner he thought was protecting his neighborhood who had a history of crime. And trust me most robbers have some form of weapon to attack you, they don't want to go to jail. So, having a gun is the best means of defense if these are the people you may be going against. In Martins case an unknown guy was following him and tried to stop him, he could have easily felt threatened and decided to attack before being attacked especially if he saw the gun. Neither is bad or good but both were the wrong decisions.

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

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    In response to portfolio1's comment:

    What so many people seem to ignore or overlook is that an "initial aggressor", the person who caused the confrontation, is significantly limited in their ability to claim self defense. 

     

    "Initial aggressor" is NOT who threw the first punch. Zimmerman followed the teen. He forced the situation by continuiing to dog the teen until the teen was forced to choose between flight or fight. Apparently, even according to Zimmerman the teen initially chose flight (Zimmerman says in phone that he ran away from him). Zimmerman continued the chase (notice I am not being critical of Zimmerman's stated purpose of being neighborhood watch) until Martin is again made to choose between flight or fight. This time he may have chosen fight (we do nto know for sure exactly how the physical part of the confrontation started) but IT WAS ZIMMERMAN who FORCED THE ISSUE, making Martin choose flight or fight. Zimmerman is in this legal aspect the "inital aggressor" and so should have had morally and legally limited recourse to claims of self defense.

    If it had been a black adult male following doggedly a young white girl would the girl at least have the right to defend herself with whatever she has available inclduing her hands and feet? And if so how could the adult black male later claim self defense?

     



    you are missing the point that unless you are actually confronted with physical damage you can't hit someone. I can follow you all I want until you enter private property. Zimmerman saw Martin as a suspecious person and when confronted Martin fleed, which is something most criminals do. You can't tell me that a high school kid in good shape can't out run a obese short guy. What if Zimmerman said "Neighborhood watch what are you doing here?" and Martin took off running, you wouldn't call that suspecious behavior? No one is saying Martin didn't have the right to defend himself but that just as long as Zimmerman identified himself Martin then becomes the aggressor for throwing the first physical attack. Think of it like the Dennard case in a way. The cop Dennard punched was undercover. He followed Dennard, identified himself and told Dennard to turn around. Dennard can't just throw a punch and claim self defense. It doesn't work that way. Unless you are actually being assualted or the person is using a weapon in the threatening manner you can't physically attack someone. You can yell and scream all you want and say whatever you want but you can't touch the person unless you have just cause that your life is in danger. So, unless Zimmerman had his gun drawn when he confronted Martin, Martin couldn't punch him. Once Martin was pounding Zimmermans head into the ground causing a fractured nose, lacerations, and bruised eyeballs while reaching for Zimmermans weapon this now gives Zimmerman reason for self defense. If Martin pushed Zimmerman and ran and Zimmerman shot him than that's not self defense but there is little question given the injures and evidence that Martin was still on top of Zimmerman when he was shot that Zimmerman honestly feared for his life at that moment which gives him self defense rights. 

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

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    In response to portfolio1's comment:

     

    In response to RallyC's comment:

     

     

     

    In response to portfolio1's comment:

     

    In response to RallyC's comment:

     OMG, Not even close to the same scenario.

    Not a smaller female being followed.

    Not on a bike path.  There were homes all around.

    If the female were being attacked, I would hope she would defend herself.

    What I wouldn't expect her to do is hide in the bushes and attack the follower, pushing him to the ground and proceed to bash his head in.

    What I would expect her to do is run to a nearby home or simply get on her phone and call 911 or cry for help.

    So, if Martin felt threatened by a creepy cracker (with a gun) following him, why didn't he just call 911?.  He had ample time to do so and report it to the police, just as GZ did.

     

     

    In response to portfolio1's comment:

     

    I'm sorry but I think there is way too much rationalizing going on. I think it is very simple:

    1. teenager goes to store, buys candy, returns to father's house

    2. Self appointed, untrained adult male with a gun decides this teen is dangerous and follows him (characterizing him as a criminal over the phone)

    3. Armed male causes confrontation as teen is threatened and triesd to defend himself

    4. Armed man ends up shooting and killing innocent teen.

    With these facts there is no question that the armed adult caused the events that resulted in the death of an innocent teen. While there might be a legitimate question as to whether the armed adult male was racist there is no question that he caused the events to happen. 

    It is reveiling that so many seem to overlook the teen's right to self defence but demand the right of self defence to the armed adult who caused the events to take place. 

    Further, the injuries sufered by the armed adult were not serious and certainly not life threatening. Yet he chose to use deadly force to defend himself. He did not back off and he did not try to flee. But he chose deadly force.

    There is no question that causing the death of an innocent teen is wrong and deserves some serious consequences. It really is that simple.

     

     



    But you left out very important details:

    Teen is walking through an area of homes that had recently experienced several break ins and robberies. Evidence showed that teen struck man who was LEGALLY carrying a gun. At that point, the "innocent, young teen" as you describe him, is no longer innocent. Armed man shoots bigger, stronger 17-yr old APPARENTLY IN SELF DEFENSE as the jury deemed. Jury finds legally armed man, Not Guilty. Again, I am not a fan of GZ or how he handled the situation, BUT I am a fan of our legal system. Lastly, if you truly think it "really is that simple" as you say in closing above, then you are dillusional........And that really is that simple.

     

     



    Rally, I am sorry but - respectfully - there are serious problems with your response. 

     

     

    1. whether there had been recent crimes does not change any of the specific facts I pointed out. At all. Further, this teen was not and has not been accusedf let alone charged with any of those crimes. That this point you bring up gives reason to the desire or perhaps need for patroling the neighborhood is reasonable. But it also raises the questions of the difference between a trained and empowered police officer and a wanna be policeman/vigilante.

    2. I am sorry but your remark that the teen CANNOT defend HIMSELF when confronted by a guy scary to HIM, an older, larger and armed guy who had been following him - in the eyes of this teen stalking is a legitimate perception - is just not at all consistent with your insistence that self defense is legitimate. 

    3. Many - including yourself (and Babe for example) did not (as far as I have read this thread and I have admittedly not read every post) have ignored one important option Zimmerman had - to keep his distance or walk or even run away from a fight. Even the police dispatch told him not to engage... in fact I think they told him not to follow, just to give them info. But Zimmerman followed (perhaps stalked in the eyes of the teen), closed the distance, and confronted. And he did this with a mindset that this teen was a creep and one of those thugs who "always get away with it".

    On this last point, I was advised many years ago by a man who among other things used to train marines in self defense. His advice after showing me some techniques in self defense: your first move should be to walk away from a fight. Only when there are no other options do you engage. Zimmerman is no hero. He is just a small man who wants to be important. Small enough to be judge, jury and executioner.

    I do not say any of the above to insite but I hope you and others read it and pause to at least consider the points.

    Again, while there are all kinds of points to be made, the fundamentals, the underlying basic facts are that:

    1. teenager goes to store, buys candy, returns to father's house

    2. Self appointed, untrained adult male with a gun decides this teen is dangerous and follows him (characterizing him as a criminal over the phone)

    3. Armed male causes confrontation as teen is threatened and tries to defend himself 

    4. Armed man ends up shooting and killing innocent teen.

    That there are additional points to consider in determining degree of moral and legal crime by armed, larger adult male is legitimate in presenting but there is nothing that takes him off the hook altogether. An innocent teen was killed. It is not unfortunate. It is wrong.

     



    Sorry man, but you are wrong. Once TM hit GZ, TM is no longer the "innocent teenager." Period. I can stand and yell at you in public all I want and if you hit me, I can shoot you if I feared for my life during the incident. Thats just how it works. YOU CAN'T just go hitting folks just becasue you don't like what they are saying. Moral of the story? Be careful who you hit because they may shoot you and get away with it BECAUSE its the Shooter's word against a dead guy's. AND AS WE SEE, DEAD GUYS CAN'T TALK! EOS.

     

     

     



    Please tell me why it is ok to defend yourself with a gun but not your hands? 

     

     

    If a 17 year old girl is jogging through a park and a large adult male is following her and she feels threatened does she have a right to at least try to defend herself with what she has... her hands and feet? If the answer is yes then the large adult male, being the initiating person - the aggresor who caused the confrontation to take place, is certainly and clearly limited in using "self defense" as an aliby for his actions (even if his intentions were not to kill the 17 year old girl).

    The point of law - and of morality here - is that an "initial aggressor" status limits the use of self defense as a justification.

    Again, tell me why a PERSON, like your daughter of wife or a boy, or anyone, including your very self, is an "aggressor" when using your bare hands in self defense?

     

     




     

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

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    In response to fourjays30's comment:

     


    Dude you have real anger issues! Why so many personal attacks on poster that are trying to have a converstion?

     



    There was no personal attack.

    Anger? I would characterize my reaction to liberals who sit in their lily white suburbs and pontificate about how good people in the hood should behave in confronting the incessant crime they face as being affronted rather than angered.

     

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

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    Again, quite simply, if Zimmerman hadn't been carrying a weapon and playing cop, this death would have never happened.




    Again, quite simply, if TM had not physically attacked GZ this death would not have happened.

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

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    In response to portfolio1's comment:

    What so many people seem to ignore or overlook is that an "initial aggressor", the person who caused the confrontation, is significantly limited in their ability to claim self defense. 

     

    "Initial aggressor" is NOT who threw the first punch. Zimmerman followed the teen. He forced the situation by continuiing to dog the teen until the teen was forced to choose between flight or fight. Apparently, even according to Zimmerman the teen initially chose flight (Zimmerman says in phone that he ran away from him). Zimmerman continued the chase (notice I am not being critical of Zimmerman's stated purpose of being neighborhood watch) until Martin is again made to choose between flight or fight. This time he may have chosen fight (we do nto know for sure exactly how the physical part of the confrontation started) but IT WAS ZIMMERMAN who FORCED THE ISSUE, making Martin choose flight or fight. Zimmerman is in this legal aspect the "inital aggressor" and so should have had morally and legally limited recourse to claims of self defense.

    If it had been a black adult male following doggedly a young white girl would the girl at least have the right to defend herself with whatever she has available inclduing her hands and feet? And if so how could the adult black male later claim self defense?

     




    What is this mumbo jumbo you are spewing here?

    You don't have the right to "fight" someone for "following" you!

    Physically attacking someone for following or even threatening you is breaking the law.

    There is no "self defense" for being followed or threatened. Following or threatening is not a physical attack. The law requires a person to reply with "equal force" when attacked. There was no attack by GZ.

     

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

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    In response to portfolio1's comment:

     

    In response to RallyC's comment:

     

     

     

    In response to portfolio1's comment:

     

    In response to RallyC's comment:

     

     

     

    In response to portfolio1's comment:

     

    I'm sorry but I think there is way too much rationalizing going on. I think it is very simple:

    1. teenager goes to store, buys candy, returns to father's house

    2. Self appointed, untrained adult male with a gun decides this teen is dangerous and follows him (characterizing him as a criminal over the phone)

    3. Armed male causes confrontation as teen is threatened and triesd to defend himself

    4. Armed man ends up shooting and killing innocent teen.

    With these facts there is no question that the armed adult caused the events that resulted in the death of an innocent teen. While there might be a legitimate question as to whether the armed adult male was racist there is no question that he caused the events to happen. 

    It is reveiling that so many seem to overlook the teen's right to self defence but demand the right of self defence to the armed adult who caused the events to take place. 

    Further, the injuries sufered by the armed adult were not serious and certainly not life threatening. Yet he chose to use deadly force to defend himself. He did not back off and he did not try to flee. But he chose deadly force.

    There is no question that causing the death of an innocent teen is wrong and deserves some serious consequences. It really is that simple.

     

     



    But you left out very important details:

    Teen is walking through an area of homes that had recently experienced several break ins and robberies. Evidence showed that teen struck man who was LEGALLY carrying a gun. At that point, the "innocent, young teen" as you describe him, is no longer innocent. Armed man shoots bigger, stronger 17-yr old APPARENTLY IN SELF DEFENSE as the jury deemed. Jury finds legally armed man, Not Guilty. Again, I am not a fan of GZ or how he handled the situation, BUT I am a fan of our legal system. Lastly, if you truly think it "really is that simple" as you say in closing above, then you are dillusional........And that really is that simple.

     

     



    Rally, I am sorry but - respectfully - there are serious problems with your response. 

     

     

    1. whether there had been recent crimes does not change any of the specific facts I pointed out. At all. Further, this teen was not and has not been accusedf let alone charged with any of those crimes. That this point you bring up gives reason to the desire or perhaps need for patroling the neighborhood is reasonable. But it also raises the questions of the difference between a trained and empowered police officer and a wanna be policeman/vigilante.

    2. I am sorry but your remark that the teen CANNOT defend HIMSELF when confronted by a guy scary to HIM, an older, larger and armed guy who had been following him - in the eyes of this teen stalking is a legitimate perception - is just not at all consistent with your insistence that self defense is legitimate. 

    3. Many - including yourself (and Babe for example) did not (as far as I have read this thread and I have admittedly not read every post) have ignored one important option Zimmerman had - to keep his distance or walk or even run away from a fight. Even the police dispatch told him not to engage... in fact I think they told him not to follow, just to give them info. But Zimmerman followed (perhaps stalked in the eyes of the teen), closed the distance, and confronted. And he did this with a mindset that this teen was a creep and one of those thugs who "always get away with it".

    On this last point, I was advised many years ago by a man who among other things used to train marines in self defense. His advice after showing me some techniques in self defense: your first move should be to walk away from a fight. Only when there are no other options do you engage. Zimmerman is no hero. He is just a small man who wants to be important. Small enough to be judge, jury and executioner.

    I do not say any of the above to insite but I hope you and others read it and pause to at least consider the points.

    Again, while there are all kinds of points to be made, the fundamentals, the underlying basic facts are that:

    1. teenager goes to store, buys candy, returns to father's house

    2. Self appointed, untrained adult male with a gun decides this teen is dangerous and follows him (characterizing him as a criminal over the phone)

    3. Armed male causes confrontation as teen is threatened and tries to defend himself 

    4. Armed man ends up shooting and killing innocent teen.

    That there are additional points to consider in determining degree of moral and legal crime by armed, larger adult male is legitimate in presenting but there is nothing that takes him off the hook altogether. An innocent teen was killed. It is not unfortunate. It is wrong.

     



    Sorry man, but you are wrong. Once TM hit GZ, TM is no longer the "innocent teenager." Period. I can stand and yell at you in public all I want and if you hit me, I can shoot you if I feared for my life during the incident. Thats just how it works. YOU CAN'T just go hitting folks just becasue you don't like what they are saying. Moral of the story? Be careful who you hit because they may shoot you and get away with it BECAUSE its the Shooter's word against a dead guy's. AND AS WE SEE, DEAD GUYS CAN'T TALK! EOS.

     

     

     



    Please tell me why it is ok to defend yourself with a gun but not your hands? 

     

     

    If a 17 year old girl is jogging through a park and a large adult male is following her and she feels threatened does she have a right to at least try to defend herself with what she has... her hands and feet? If the answer is yes then the large adult male, being the initiating person - the aggresor who caused the confrontation to take place, is certainly and clearly limited in using "self defense" as an aliby for his actions (even if his intentions were not to kill the 17 year old girl).

    The point of law - and of morality here - is that an "initial aggressor" status limits the use of self defense as a justification.

    Again, tell me why a PERSON, like your daughter of wife or a boy, or anyone, including your very self, is an "aggressor" when using your bare hands in self defense?

     

     



    This is very easy. It is OK to defend yourself in any legal way possible. Regardless, YOU CANNOT PURPOSELY PUT YOUR HANDS ON ANOTHER PERSON UNLESS IT CAN BE PROVEN THAT IT IS IN SELF DEFENSE. PERIOD. Where do you see/hear that GZ ever touched TM until he had to defend himself AFTER TM hit him? Why aren't you getting this part? According to the verdict, the jury belieed that TM beat on GZ and then GZ shot TM. Think SEQUENCE. Please, stop making this so hard when the verdict tells you what the jury believed. This had nothing to do with what WE believe.

     

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

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    In response to portfolio1's comment:

     

    What so many people seem to ignore or overlook is that an "initial aggressor", the person who caused the confrontation, is significantly limited in their ability to claim self defense. 

     

    "Initial aggressor" is NOT who threw the first punch. Zimmerman followed the teen. He forced the situation by continuiing to dog the teen until the teen was forced to choose between flight or fight. Apparently, even according to Zimmerman the teen initially chose flight (Zimmerman says in phone that he ran away from him). Zimmerman continued the chase (notice I am not being critical of Zimmerman's stated purpose of being neighborhood watch) until Martin is again made to choose between flight or fight. This time he may have chosen fight (we do nto know for sure exactly how the physical part of the confrontation started) but IT WAS ZIMMERMAN who FORCED THE ISSUE, making Martin choose flight or fight. Zimmerman is in this legal aspect the "inital aggressor" and so should have had morally and legally limited recourse to claims of self defense.

    If it had been a black adult male following doggedly a young white girl would the girl at least have the right to defend herself with whatever she has available inclduing her hands and feet? And if so how could the adult black male later claim self defense?

     

     


    NO! The girl has no right to touch the man, regardless, unless he attmepts to grab, hit her!!! She can run and scream all she wants if she THINKS she is in danger. YOU CAN'T HIT ANYONE FOR ANY REASON unless it can be proven that they are physically attacking you or are in the process of attacking someone else. If someone points a gun at you, or pulls a knife, or swings a bat at you, now that is the same thing as them putting their hands on you. GZ was never accused/nor convicted of doing any of that until AFTER TM PUT HIS HANDS ON HIM IN AN ACT OF VIOLENCE! DAMN!!! Some folks are just as THICK AS A BRICK!  Look at it this way....If my 25-yr old daughter "THINKS" some guy is following her through the park, YOU think she can just turn around and gauge his eyes out with her car keys? NO! "But Your HONOR, he was walking really fast and I THINK he was gonna grab me." WON'T keep her outta jail for assault!!! Period. 

     

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

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    Well

    now maybe we ahve a reason why TM attacked GZ

    at first he thouhgt him to be a cop type

    but then R Jentill told him it could be a rapist who was

    going to rape home and then his brother if he went home

    All said at trial and last nite on CNN

    So, He was beating someone he thought was gay

    Makes sense to me


    Pat's Fan lost in Jet Land

     
  22. 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:

     

    Again, quite simply, if Zimmerman hadn't been carrying a weapon and playing cop, this death would have never happened.




     

    Again, quite simply, if TM had not physically attacked GZ this death would not have happened.



    Whatever mistakes Martin may have made, Zimmerman made the first. 

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from seattlepat70. Show seattlepat70's posts

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

    Again, quite simply, if Zimmerman hadn't been carrying a weapon and playing cop, this death would have never happened.




     

    Again, quite simply, if TM had not physically attacked GZ this death would not have happened.



    How exactly could TM have attacked GZ if GZ kept away from TM... just as he was told by the 911 operator?

    His decision to engage TM within physical reach, while carrying a gun, was what led to the situation that caused someone to die. I doubt he would have gotten that close if he did not carry that gun. 

     

     
  24. 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:

     

     

     

     

     

    Again, quite simply, if Zimmerman hadn't been carrying a weapon and playing cop, this death would have never happened.

     

     

     

     

     

     

    Again, quite simply, if TM had not physically attacked GZ this death would not have happened.

     

     



    Whatever mistakes Martin may have made, Zimmerman made the first. 

     

     

    Not true. If GZ hadn't been legally carrying a gun, then TM may have beaten GZ and left him for dead. TM beat GZ, THEN GZ shot TM IN SELF DEFENSE. I see where you are coming from though! You, like your Canadian bretheren, think that GZ should've minded his own business and turned the other way when he saw a suspicious person in his neighborhood where crime is outta control. YUP, lets not get involved. Like you did! You didn't believe in fighting for your own freedom, so instead moved to Canada so that you didn't have to and let us AMERICANS make sure you get to be free. You didn't want to get involved, huh? Sorry dude, GZ was "NOT GUILTY" of ANYTHING WRONG. And you can't change that. Are you really as ignorant as you are trying to be?

     

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

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    The latest news that has popped up from the talk show circuit is the prosecutions *star* witness slipping that the possibility of Zimmerman being attacked because they though he was gay. Nice. Rachel Jeantel, the gift that keeps on giving.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share