George Zimmerman Verdict

  1. This post has been removed.

     
  2. 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 TheTinMan's comment:

     

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

     

     

     

     TinMan, in many other Western countries, if you kill someone, your right to claim self-defense is severly limited if you did anything to provoke the person you killed.  You simply can't provoke someone, see if they respond violently, then shoot them for responding that way.  You are held responsible for not provoking violence. 

     

    American culture is more enamoured of "standing one's ground" and using force than many other cultures.  Our laws reflect that as do the opinions of many people you read here.  I don't like that part if American culture and would like to see it changed.  However, more consevative Americans have been actively trying to move the culture in the exact opposite diresction, which is why Florida has abandoned the duty to retreat even in piblic places.  It's a choice we make.

     

     

     



    Prolate--I don't actually disagree with you, especially considering incidents that occur in a public place.  I realize that your argument right now is with how the Florida law is drafted.  However, as I've already said, since TM is dead and all we have is GZ's version of events with no clear forensic contradiction, no one can say whether the law having been drafted differently would have made any difference.  That would be speculative as well.  Assuming that TM struck the first physical blow, we cannot know what his thoughts were or state of mind was at the time--was he just angry at being followed or angry at being questioned, or did he feel sufficiently threatened that he felt he needed to defend himself?  Did GZ knowinglycreate a situation where TM felt threatened?

     

     

    What if TM was just angry at being questioned about why he was where he was, and what he was doing there? Is that questioning--or "confrontation", if you will--something a reasonable man might consider as provocation?  Should GZ have reasonably known that would provoke a physical altercation?  Once GZ was hit, did he even have a chance to withdraw from the situation?  Under those conditions, how would changing the law have changed this outcome?

     


    See Tin, the probelm with your proposition is that Prolate ONLY wants to speculate from the side of TM and ignore the existing facts despite the reality that Court and Jury declared that GZ IS STILL INNOCENT of the crime he was tried for (You know, "INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY"? Never proven gulty so is deemed INNOCENT STILL) he wants to imply conspiracy, or something that has laready proven to be total BS. So, forget about him actually being able to look at what the JURY made their decision on. THERE IS NO SPECULATION ALLOWED ON THE GZ side of this arguement. But I guess there doesn't need to be since the facts proved GZ is STILL INNOCENT and carrying a gun today. Short sightedness is so unbelievable.........

     



    I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you just don't read my posts rather than that you can't understand them, Rally, but I've never once said the jury made the wrong decision.  What I've said is the laws should be different.  

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

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    In response to agcsbill's comment:

    Many of the arguments I see here, depicting Zimmerman as the aggressor, are presented right out of the press and the prosecution.  A lot of ignorance of other facts which support Zimmerman did nothing but observe and follow with Martin initiating a physical altercation.

    I wonder how folks would react if they saw a picture of the 17 year old Martin versus the cherubic 12-13 year old?  Hmmmmmmm....  Lots of stuff about Martin was kept quiet.

    AGCSBill, just a fan havin' fun!!



    So what about his looks made him a criminal?  Please do explain.  

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

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    In response to agcsbill's comment:

    I know I am late to this discussion and it is all over the place, lots of emotion.

    I wish I can recall the website posted to one of my contacts in facebook which provided strictly factual information about this matter with no editorializing.  Very interesting and it provided a lot of information the press DID NOT want the general public to know about what went on.  Some key points:

    1. Zimmerman had all legal rights to observe/follow Martin.  What would you expect from a neighborhood watch person?
    2. The neighborhood has documented evidence of numerous breakins and robberies all committed, unfortunately, by young, African-American youths in recent weeks.
    3. The 911 call did not instruct Zimmerman to "not follow" Martin, they advised him he did not have to do that.
    4. Zimmerman simply reported a "suspicious person: was walking around in his neighborhood, no description given initially to the 911 person.  Only when prompted by the 911 operator did Zimmerman offer the person "may be black".  This is on the tape.
    5. Martin had a storied past, getting kicked out of many HSs and kicked out by his mom to live with his dad.
    6. Zimmerman appears to have no racial motivation towards African-Americans as he tutors many and works with many such groups all the time.
    7. According to testimony, Zimmerman stepped out of his truck to look at a street sign to see where he was in the community.  It was at that time Martin approached him.  MArtin could have simply said " I live at my Dad's GF house right down the street.", but instead Martin proceeded to punch Zimmerman in the nose, breaking it, knocking him to the ground and began his "ground and pound" punching of Zimmerman.  Zimmerman had all the injuries to prove this while Martin's only injuries, other than the gun shot, were bruised knuckles from punching Zimmerman.
    8. Zimmerman shot Martin while he was on the ground with Martin on top, apparently after about 40 seconds or more of getting beaten.
    9. Zimmerman did not "stalk and shoot" Martin as the press has led everyone to believe. 

    Unfortunately the press was Zimmerman's greatest enemy.  A too juicy racial story to let go.  If this had been a black on black, hispanic on hispanic, white on white or black on white, we would have never seen this case make the light of day like we did. 

    AGCSBill, just a fan havin' fun!!



    Don't believe everything you read on the internet.  According to everything I've seen and heard (and yes, a lot of it was on the internet, but included footage of the crime scene--so take even this with a grain of salt), TM's body was found in the grass off a walkway that separated the backyards of some townhomes.  That would seem to conflict with #7 on that list, since the altercation did not take place on, in or near any street, and GZ's SUV was reportedly some 70-80 yards away.

     
  5. 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:

     

     

    In many legal codes you would still have a duty to retreat if possible before killing--and even a duty to retreat before the point the conflict escalated.  

     



    Kind of hard to retreat when somebody has you on the ground and is pounding on you.

     

     

     


    It would have been easy for Zimmerman to retreat when Martin was running away or to have simply stayed in his car.  Zimmerman persisted in pursuit which, if Florida law were written to prevent gun violence rather than encourage it, would be taken to mean he passes up a chance to retreat and instead continued to seek confrontation.  if the law were sensible, it would hold Zimmerman at least to some degree responsible for the death he caused by not retreating--and in fact pursuing--when he had the opportunity. Remember, Martin was doing nothing wrong.  Zimmerman imagined him to be a criminal based on nothing more than his looks.  Had Zimmerman witnessed an actual crime continued pursuit would be justified.  But pursuit based on a false assumption made solely based on someone's looks should not be enough to justify continued pursuit. Again, to be clear, I'm not talking about what's allowed or not allowed under current law, I'm talking about the way I believe the law should be written. 

     

     

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

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

     

     The evidence in the case was quite weak, which is why Zimmerman had to be acquitted, but the very weakness of the evidence also means we really don't what happened.  I can't argue with the jury's decision, but I also think anyone who tries to argue that Zimmerman's version of events was close to proven is either biased or feeble-minded.

     

    The verdict, however, isn't what I care about.  What I care about are laws that lower the barriers to using deadly force against another person.

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

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

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

     

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



    So now Zimmerman came at him with a gun? Did trayvon say that to his gf on the phone? I dont think so... did he have a gun yes but from what even the prosecution stated, it was either on his side or back...funny how people create stuff

     
  8. 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 TheTinMan's comment:

     

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

     

     

     

     TinMan, in many other Western countries, if you kill someone, your right to claim self-defense is severly limited if you did anything to provoke the person you killed.  You simply can't provoke someone, see if they respond violently, then shoot them for responding that way.  You are held responsible for not provoking violence. 

     

    American culture is more enamoured of "standing one's ground" and using force than many other cultures.  Our laws reflect that as do the opinions of many people you read here.  I don't like that part if American culture and would like to see it changed.  However, more consevative Americans have been actively trying to move the culture in the exact opposite diresction, which is why Florida has abandoned the duty to retreat even in piblic places.  It's a choice we make.

     

     

     



    Prolate--I don't actually disagree with you, especially considering incidents that occur in a public place.  I realize that your argument right now is with how the Florida law is drafted.  However, as I've already said, since TM is dead and all we have is GZ's version of events with no clear forensic contradiction, no one can say whether the law having been drafted differently would have made any difference.  That would be speculative as well.  Assuming that TM struck the first physical blow, we cannot know what his thoughts were or state of mind was at the time--was he just angry at being followed or angry at being questioned, or did he feel sufficiently threatened that he felt he needed to defend himself?  Did GZ knowinglycreate a situation where TM felt threatened?

     

     

    What if TM was just angry at being questioned about why he was where he was, and what he was doing there? Is that questioning--or "confrontation", if you will--something a reasonable man might consider as provocation?  Should GZ have reasonably known that would provoke a physical altercation?  Once GZ was hit, did he even have a chance to withdraw from the situation?  Under those conditions, how would changing the law have changed this outcome?

     


    See Tin, the probelm with your proposition is that Prolate ONLY wants to speculate from the side of TM and ignore the existing facts despite the reality that Court and Jury declared that GZ IS STILL INNOCENT of the crime he was tried for (You know, "INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY"? Never proven gulty so is deemed INNOCENT STILL) he wants to imply conspiracy, or something that has laready proven to be total BS. So, forget about him actually being able to look at what the JURY made their decision on. THERE IS NO SPECULATION ALLOWED ON THE GZ side of this arguement. But I guess there doesn't need to be since the facts proved GZ is STILL INNOCENT and carrying a gun today. Short sightedness is so unbelievable.........

     

     



    I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you just don't read my posts rather than that you can't understand them, Rally, but I've never once said the jury made the wrong decision.  What I've said is the laws should be different.  

     



    Fair enough  thanks Prolate. And please excuse my sometimes overly personal comments. 

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

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    In response to russgriswold's comment:

     

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

     

     

    In response to RallyC's comment:

     

     

     

     

    In response to TheTinMan's comment:

     

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

     

     

     

     TinMan, in many other Western countries, if you kill someone, your right to claim self-defense is severly limited if you did anything to provoke the person you killed.  You simply can't provoke someone, see if they respond violently, then shoot them for responding that way.  You are held responsible for not provoking violence. 

     

    American culture is more enamoured of "standing one's ground" and using force than many other cultures.  Our laws reflect that as do the opinions of many people you read here.  I don't like that part if American culture and would like to see it changed.  However, more consevative Americans have been actively trying to move the culture in the exact opposite diresction, which is why Florida has abandoned the duty to retreat even in piblic places.  It's a choice we make.

     

     

     



    Prolate--I don't actually disagree with you, especially considering incidents that occur in a public place.  I realize that your argument right now is with how the Florida law is drafted.  However, as I've already said, since TM is dead and all we have is GZ's version of events with no clear forensic contradiction, no one can say whether the law having been drafted differently would have made any difference.  That would be speculative as well.  Assuming that TM struck the first physical blow, we cannot know what his thoughts were or state of mind was at the time--was he just angry at being followed or angry at being questioned, or did he feel sufficiently threatened that he felt he needed to defend himself?  Did GZ knowinglycreate a situation where TM felt threatened?

     

     

    What if TM was just angry at being questioned about why he was where he was, and what he was doing there? Is that questioning--or "confrontation", if you will--something a reasonable man might consider as provocation?  Should GZ have reasonably known that would provoke a physical altercation?  Once GZ was hit, did he even have a chance to withdraw from the situation?  Under those conditions, how would changing the law have changed this outcome?

     


    See Tin, the probelm with your proposition is that Prolate ONLY wants to speculate from the side of TM and ignore the existing facts despite the reality that Court and Jury declared that GZ IS STILL INNOCENT of the crime he was tried for (You know, "INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY"? Never proven gulty so is deemed INNOCENT STILL) he wants to imply conspiracy, or something that has laready proven to be total BS. So, forget about him actually being able to look at what the JURY made their decision on. THERE IS NO SPECULATION ALLOWED ON THE GZ side of this arguement. But I guess there doesn't need to be since the facts proved GZ is STILL INNOCENT and carrying a gun today. Short sightedness is so unbelievable.........

     

     

     

     



    I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you just don't read my posts rather than that you can't understand them, Rally, but I've never once said the jury made the wrong decision.  What I've said is the laws should be different.  

     

     

     

     

     



    He and the others don't agree with that and think Zimmerman was "within his rights" to leave his car and handle police business, personally, while armed and unidentified.

     

     

     

     


    As strange as that may seem to you Rss, that is correct. The law is clear. GZ was within his legal rights AT ALL TIMES.  The evidence was never there to warrant a charge or a trial as the lack of evidence and outcome have proven. Man, how much clearer can it be? The race card is a sad sad red herring in this instance. An example of crying wolf. 

     

     
  10. 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 prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

     

     

     

    In many legal codes you would still have a duty to retreat if possible before killing--and even a duty to retreat before the point the conflict escalated.  

     

     



    Kind of hard to retreat when somebody has you on the ground and is pounding on you.

     

     

     

     

     


    It would have been easy for Zimmerman to retreat when Martin was running away or to have simply stayed in his car.

     



    Ahh, there was nothing to retreat from at those junctures. Duh.

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

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    In response to russgriswold's comment:

     

    In response to RallyC's comment:

     

     

     

    In response to russgriswold's comment:

     

     

     

     

    In response to RallyC's comment:

     

     

     

     

     

     

    In response to russgriswold's comment:

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    In response to RallyC's comment:

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    In response to russgriswold's comment:

     

    In response to seawolfxs' comment:

     

     

     

    Just a few questions...

    So if I live in an area that has crime and the cops aren't stopping it, that I am suppose to stay in my house and do nothing? go outside with just my bare hands? Or do I let it become like Chicago?

    If I am describing some one I see in the neighborhood who is acting strange to me and I call 911 and they ask me to describe the person - I am not to say what color that person is?

    I can legally carry a gun but i am never supposed to use it?

    Maybe GZ  should have carried a TASER instead? maybe not?

    Do you realize that this neighborhood is mixed racially?

    Did you know that a very high % of Blacks have used the Stand Your Ground Defense?

    Does anyone ever think that GZ, thinking TM might be a criminal, that GZ just might think that the criminal might also have a gun? (something the prosecutors couldn't imagine)

    Has it been lost that GZ was not in his car when the 911 operator - asked GZ where the suspect was, then in a little bit told GZ it wasn't a good idea to follow and GZ said OK and stopped?

    Does any one think that GZ called 911, knew the cops were coming and then went out to kill the black? Really? or do you think like the prosecutors?

    The facts show that TM lost GZ thru the houses and 4 minutes after the last TM phone call that then TM and GZ met again?

    Does anyone seriously believe that TM couldn't run faster then GZ?

    Do you realize TM could have been home in a minute or less?

    Isn't it possible that Miss Jentile put the fear of a Gay Rapist in TM's head and that could be why TM beat the hell out of GZ?

    Did you know the prosecutors hid evidence - like data on TM's cell?

    Since we know that the cops can track cell phone movements , why don't we have that evidence? or is this more stuff that the procesutors have hidden?

    Did you know that GZ thru lawyers tried to convey their sorrow to the Martins in the very beginning and the TM lawyers refused to allow it?

    Aren't the Media, the race hustlers and the Pols responsible for this whole trial getting out of hand? Aren't they the only winners in this whole mess?

    When did we become mob rule? with the NAACP ,Sharpton, Jackson demanding a criminal charge with out probable cause ? - just like the 1st trial?

    Wouldn't that mean that every shooting between races would have to be tried by the FEDS? - or only when a black gets shot? as the Justice Department seems to do

    Did you know that the TM family has already received $1M from the Homeowners ASSoc?

    Who doesn't believe that this is and was a tragedy? Rhetorical question I hope

     

     




    What is this "become like Chicago" crap?  Some people are clueless. I lived there for 5 years, never had one issue.   Every big city has their fair share of brutal crimes. 

     

     

    Please leave home and travel and get some culture and context before babbling about things you know little about. You sound ridiculous.

    Bottom line is Zimmertool thinks he is a cop, initiated a confrontation because the cops weren't there within 2 minutes and he took matters into his own hands, wielding a firearm in the process.

    See, our legal system is about money.  Racists donated to Zimmertool's cause, thrilled that a black kid is dead, and off he goes with no accounatbility in murdering a child.  Super.

    Babe probably donated to his cause with his King James at the ready at Magnolia Manor.

     


    Russ, this post is outrageous, nonsensical, and simply inflamatory. Come on man, don't let folks push you off the deep end like this. Yo don't need anymore negative PR, Dude.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     




    How is it inflammatory? I'll be honest with you...My dad is a raging right winger and it's become embarrassing. He also thinks most blacks are up to no good, criminals, etc. 

     

     

     

     

     

     

    There is a clear tone by some here on this thread that would indicate they're bigots as well, and I just don't think that is a good way to lead your life.  

    Look at Babe.  Many here are old man white Republican types who are very likely bigots as well and don't admit it or play off like they aren't.  It's the truth.  Behind his comments is a bigoted old, VERY CONSERVTIVE grumpy man.

    I will say on the flipside, the black people who are marching and protesting wouldn't be out there if Martin was Asian, White, or Hispanic.  So, their racial intentions aren't innocent either here.  This isn't necessarily about race, but the racists want it to be.  That's my issue with some of the comments I am reading here.

    It should be about fact, reality and principle. The fact is, this tool (Zimmerman) thought he was a cop and has the right to approach a kid, asking questions and deciding himselfly  how to handle a situation. THAT in itself should be flat out ILLEGAL to do in our society.  Period. No debate.  The fact Zimmertool did that and is not held accountable tells any tool with a gun he can do the same thing in this country, and that's wrong. Flat out wrong and not defensible.

    The reason people keep babbling about Chicago (that city has been top 3 in murder rate for like 80 years) is because Obama is from there and Obama is black.  Gee, let's blame Obama for 80+ years of South Side violence in Chicago during the Great Recession not created by Obama! Yay!

    Otherwise, why do people keep mentioning CHicago when murder and crime come up in a discussion?

    I live in a city, where per capita, no lie, it has to be top 5 in the country with crime and murder with the segregrated part of this city. Great little city to live in, but it has its dark side, which all cities pretty much do.   Do people reference this city (Durham, NC) as a high crime city? Nope. It's always Chicago or Detroit.  What about New Orleans? LA? Dallas? You can't even go dowtown in Dallas, it's so limited due to safety issues.

    Finally, it's also HIGHLY comical to me, that Babe has called you Rusty here for months and he's now trying to align with you, acknowledging you are in fact a different person. lol

    So, be careful who you aling with here. He's a cuckoo bird.

     

     

     

     

     



    Russ, Babe has obviously been around for some time. He has a legit perspective on these issues. Just because he and others including myself are looking from the perspective of what the Court system has been forced to do and adjudicate, and agree with the decision that was made BASED ON THE EVIDENCE, FACTS AVAILABLE shouldn't make you and others upset. You said in your above post:

     

     

     

     

     

    "It should be about fact, reality and principle. The fact is, this tool (Zimmerman) thought he was a cop and has the right to approach a kid, asking questions and deciding himselfly  how to handle a situation. THAT in itself should be flat out ILLEGAL to do in our society.  Period. No debate.  The fact Zimmertool did that and is not held accountable tells any tool with a gun he can do the same thing in this country, and that's wrong. Flat out wrong and not defensible."

    Here's where your argument is criticall flawed:

    Fact, reality and principle cannot be lumped together and simultaneously used to interpret information when addressing this issue. FACT AND REALITY are what is physically proven and are unchangeable constants, while PRINCIPLE is SUBJECTIVE to an individual person's preferences, judgments, and experiences in life. PRINCIPLES vary from one neighborhood and culture to the next.  You imply that "fact is, this tool (Zimmerman) thought he was a cop". How can you say what you think GZ was thinking and on tip of it insist it is a fact? None of us can read minds. What you mean is what you think GZ was thinking.  The entire paragraph is BS but it is waht your arguemnt has been from the beginning. I have seen you argue points in the past without using such crap and weak rhetoric. The FACTS PROVED THAT GZ IS STILL INNOCENT. YOU CAN DEBATE IT, BUT THEJURY AND THE DECISIN SPEAKS THE TRUTH AS WE KNOW THE FACTS. It really is that simple.  Eveyone is going to speculate and I don't like what GZ did. Too bad for me too.........................

     

     

     

     



     

     

     

     

    Did Zimmerman leave is car after he called 911 or not?  I agree it doesn't matter what Zimmertool was thinking, nor what Martin was thinking, but if he leaves his car to engage, that's all I want to know.

    I agree there is no proof who physically attacked who first, so that's not even in the discussion.

    Zimmerman, his own defense team, said he left his car.  That's all I need to know for Murder 2.  I don't think he intended to kill him. I don't. I don't even think this was a racial situation. I think we have a tool who thinks he's a wannabe cop and went above the law, with a gun going off, and someone dying.

    On principle alone, he has to go to jail. Murder 2, 10 years.  When you get out, maybe earlier on good behavior, you can move on and maybe lecture young people on the dangers of carrying guns and engaging strangers on the streets when you aren't licensed to be doing that in first place.

    But, at minimum, at minimum, he's going to jail for a death.  

    You can't run someone over hammered and not go to jail, well, unless you pay off the court like Stallworth did. 

    Defending these injustices is ridiculous.

     

     

     


    Russ, YOU ARE DEAD WRONG. There is proof that TM hit GZ first. It was presented in the court. You can specualte that it isn't the truth, but the jury MUST go by what the evidence shows. Like it or not, THAT IS FACT. GZ did leave his car to tail TM. That is not illegal. PERIOD. You like some others here think GZ is wrong for being concerned, and that is all that was proven, HE WAS CONCERNED and them got hit by someone who thinks like you do, that TM had the righ tto hit GZ. THINK MAN.

     

     

     

     

     



    I didn't say it was illegal to leave one's car and follow someone, but it would explain why Martin was defending himself.

     

     

    If someone got out of a car, after asking you questions, and followed you on foot, would you not defend yourself as you reached to call 911?????  Of course you would! Who does stuff like this or thinks that stuff is normal?

    Who are you kidding here? You make the worst argument ever. Martin being proactive in self defense, wondering what on god's green earth a toadwart tool is doing stalking him and following him, is not Martin initiating anything.

    Zimmertool was not announcing himself as an undercover cop, presenting a badge, nothing. 

    No citizen or civilian has any business confronting another, especially at night like that, while armed.

    Period.

    You're acting like Zimmertool stole Martin's gun from him in order to defend himself, which is completely false.

    The second that tool left his car to take it upon himself to play police officer is the second he proved himself the aggressor in the incident. End of story.

     

     




    END OF YOUR RIDICULOUS STORY, HOPEFULLY.  Your story isn't close to reality.

     

    Why don't you learn some FACTS, like the guys name age and evidence.

    Here's a fact for you.  Martin NEVER called 911 (if he would have, it would have been a priority call.  SOMEONE FOLLOWING WITH A GUN)  That never happened!

    Instead he called is girl friend..........????????!!!!!!!!!

    Does that sound like something a person in fear of his life would do?  Call his GF?

    We all know you wouldn't call your GF, as you never had one.

    So who would you call?  911 OR 211 OR 411?

    Or maybe you could call one of your imaginary screen names.  Isn't it their purpose... to help you out?

    So why didn't he call 911?  Guilty people probably don't call 911, nor does someone planning to jack someone up and take the law into HIS own hands and teach that creepy a22 cracker a lesson.

    Lesson learned.... eh?

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

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

     The evidence in the case was quite weak, which is why Zimmerman had to be acquitted, but the very weakness of the evidence also means we really don't what happened.  I can't argue with the jury's decision, but I also think anyone who tries to argue that Zimmerman's version of events was close to proven is either biased or feeble-minded.

     

    The verdict, however, isn't what I care about.  What I care about are laws that lower the barriers to using deadly force against another person.




    Of course that's what you really care about. It drips from your every word. I think you have made your political ho agenda very clear.

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

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

     I can't argue with the jury's decision, but I also think anyone who tries to argue that Zimmerman's version of events was close to proven is either biased or feeble-minded.

     

     



    I haven't seen a single person arguing that the GZ version of events other than that which there was evidence for was proven. Could you please point out an instance of that?

     

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

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

     

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

     

     

    I can't argue with the jury's decision, but I also think anyone who tries to argue that Zimmerman's version of events was close to proven is either biased or feeble-minded.

     

     

     

     


    Prolate, GZ was "INNOCENT until PROVEN GUILTY". There was no burden of proof on GZ to prove his story, the state was required to disprove it. THATS IT...PERIOD. It doesn't work the way you want it too, that being that GZ must prove his story. The STATE accused him, therefore they must show why and were tasked with proving that GZ didn't tell the truth. There was never ANY evidence that GZ committed murder or manslaughter. He acted in self defense and THE STATE only CHARGED GZ because of "civil rights" pressure, and THEY WERE FORCED TO TRY and PROVE WHAT THEY DECIDED TO FILE AGAINST GZ. GZ entered the court waiting for the State to put up or shut up. He owed them nothing at all...............THEY COULDN'T PUT UP from day one. Shouldn't have been arrested based on available evidence, PERIOD. THAT IS HOW IT WORKS.

     

     
  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:

     

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

     

     

     

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

     

     

     

     

     

    In many legal codes you would still have a duty to retreat if possible before killing--and even a duty to retreat before the point the conflict escalated.  

     

     

     



    Kind of hard to retreat when somebody has you on the ground and is pounding on you.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     


    It would have been easy for Zimmerman to retreat when Martin was running away or to have simply stayed in his car.

     

     

     



    Ahh, there was nothing to retreat from at those junctures. Duh.

     



    Man, you are dense.  Under current Florida law he has no duty to retreat anyway.  As I keep saying I'm talking about what I think the law should be, not what it is.  

     
  16. 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:

     

     

     I can't argue with the jury's decision, but I also think anyone who tries to argue that Zimmerman's version of events was close to proven is either biased or feeble-minded.

     

     

     



    I haven't seen a single person arguing that the GZ version of events other than that which there was evidence for was proven. Could you please point out an instance of that?

     



    It seems like a lot of people are firmly convinced that Zimmerman was walking back toward his truck and was "jumped" by Martin.  He may have been, but there's no evidence that "proves" that.  

     
  17. 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 prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

     

     

    I can't argue with the jury's decision, but I also think anyone who tries to argue that Zimmerman's version of events was close to proven is either biased or feeble-minded.

     

     

     

     


    Prolate, GZ was "INNOCENT until PROVEN GUILTY". There was no burden of proof on GZ to prove his story, the state was required to disprove it. THATS IT...PERIOD. It doesn't work the way you want it too, that being that GZ must prove his story. The STATE accused him, therefore they must show why and were tasked with proving that GZ didn't tell the truth. There was never ANY evidence that GZ committed murder or manslaughter. He acted in self defense and THE STATE only CHARGED GZ because of "civil rights" pressure, and THEY WERE FORCED TO TRY and PROVE WHAT THEY DECIDED TO FILE AGAINST GZ. GZ entered the court waiting for the State to put up or shut up. He owed them nothing at all...............THEY COULDN'T PUT UP from day one. Shouldn't have been arrested based on available evidence, PERIOD. THAT IS HOW IT WORKS.

     



    Why do you keep repeating the same inaccurate things?  I'm not saying GZ has to prove anything.  I know how the legal system works.  I'm just saying that I don't think Zimmerman's version of the events were "proven." Sure, he could have described things exactly as they happened, but he just as easily could have been lying and there's no way to tell because there isn't sufficient evidence.   If you think the evidence is sufficient to "prove" Zimmerman's story is absolutely true you are either predisposed to accepting what Zimmerman said (i.e., biased) or feeble-minded (because you don't know how to distinguish between adequate evidence and inadequate evidence).  Of course, as I said, a lack of evidence (to either prove or disprove Zimmerman's story) makes acquittal necessary, since the prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the crime was committed.  In the absence of sound evidence it's not possible to do that. Capisce?

     

     
  18. 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:

     

     

     The evidence in the case was quite weak, which is why Zimmerman had to be acquitted, but the very weakness of the evidence also means we really don't what happened.  I can't argue with the jury's decision, but I also think anyone who tries to argue that Zimmerman's version of events was close to proven is either biased or feeble-minded.

     

    The verdict, however, isn't what I care about.  What I care about are laws that lower the barriers to using deadly force against another person.

     




    Of course that's what you really care about. It drips from your every word. I think you have made your political ho agenda very clear.

     



    So have you.  MIne's just smarter and better. 

     
  19. 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:

     

     

     

    I can't argue with the jury's decision, but I also think anyone who tries to argue that Zimmerman's version of events was close to proven is either biased or feeble-minded.

     

     

     

     


    Prolate, GZ was "INNOCENT until PROVEN GUILTY". There was no burden of proof on GZ to prove his story, the state was required to disprove it. THATS IT...PERIOD. It doesn't work the way you want it too, that being that GZ must prove his story. The STATE accused him, therefore they must show why and were tasked with proving that GZ didn't tell the truth. There was never ANY evidence that GZ committed murder or manslaughter. He acted in self defense and THE STATE only CHARGED GZ because of "civil rights" pressure, and THEY WERE FORCED TO TRY and PROVE WHAT THEY DECIDED TO FILE AGAINST GZ. GZ entered the court waiting for the State to put up or shut up. He owed them nothing at all...............THEY COULDN'T PUT UP from day one. Shouldn't have been arrested based on available evidence, PERIOD. THAT IS HOW IT WORKS.

     

     

     



    Why do you keep repeating the same inaccurate things?  I'm not saying GZ has to prove anything.  I know how the legal system works.  I'm just saying that I don't think Zimmerman's version of the events were "proven." Sure, he could have described things exactly as they happened, but he just as easily could have been lying and there's no way to tell because there isn't sufficient evidence.   If you think the evidence is sufficient to "prove" Zimmerman's story is absolutely true you are either predisposed to accepting what Zimmerman said (i.e., biased) or feeble-minded (because you don't know how to distinguish between adequate evidence and inadequate evidence).  Of course, as I said, a lack of evidence (to either prove or disprove Zimmerman's story) makes acquittal necessary, since the prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the crime was committed.  In the absence of sound evidence it's not possible to do that. Capisce?

     

     

     

     


    Unlike you, i have been firmly certain of my position and have delivered a consistant message all thread long. In the meantime your position on the facts has slowly but but surely changed partly due to my repetitious message that has finally penetrated your very thick skull. the de-evolution of your position since your first few posts here is obvious. And, though you are still somewhat in denial by not competely saying you were wrong on your initial position, at least you've proven to several here that you now know you weren't right with how much that position has changed in a manner that is pretty typical of the watered down weak, Canadian way. 

     

     
  20. 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 prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

    In response to RallyC's comment:

     

     

     

     

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

     

     

    I can't argue with the jury's decision, but I also think anyone who tries to argue that Zimmerman's version of events was close to proven is either biased or feeble-minded.

     

     

     

     


    Prolate, GZ was "INNOCENT until PROVEN GUILTY". There was no burden of proof on GZ to prove his story, the state was required to disprove it. THATS IT...PERIOD. It doesn't work the way you want it too, that being that GZ must prove his story. The STATE accused him, therefore they must show why and were tasked with proving that GZ didn't tell the truth. There was never ANY evidence that GZ committed murder or manslaughter. He acted in self defense and THE STATE only CHARGED GZ because of "civil rights" pressure, and THEY WERE FORCED TO TRY and PROVE WHAT THEY DECIDED TO FILE AGAINST GZ. GZ entered the court waiting for the State to put up or shut up. He owed them nothing at all...............THEY COULDN'T PUT UP from day one. Shouldn't have been arrested based on available evidence, PERIOD. THAT IS HOW IT WORKS.

     

     

     



    Why do you keep repeating the same inaccurate things?  I'm not saying GZ has to prove anything.  I know how the legal system works.  I'm just saying that I don't think Zimmerman's version of the events were "proven." Sure, he could have described things exactly as they happened, but he just as easily could have been lying and there's no way to tell because there isn't sufficient evidence.   If you think the evidence is sufficient to "prove" Zimmerman's story is absolutely true you are either predisposed to accepting what Zimmerman said (i.e., biased) or feeble-minded (because you don't know how to distinguish between adequate evidence and inadequate evidence).  Of course, as I said, a lack of evidence (to either prove or disprove Zimmerman's story) makes acquittal necessary, since the prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the crime was committed.  In the absence of sound evidence it's not possible to do that. Capisce?

     

     

     

     


    Unlike you, i have been firmly certain of my position and have delivered a consistant message all thread long. In the meantime your position on the facts has slowly but but surely changed partly due to my repetitious message that has finally penetrated your very thick skull. the de-evolution of your position since your first few posts here is obvious. And, though you are still somewhat in denial by not competely saying you were wrong on your initial position, at least you've proven to several here that you now know you weren't right with how much that position has changed in a manner that is pretty typical of the watered down weak, Canadian way. 

     

     



    What you've proved is that you either don't listen to other people or don't have very good reading comprehension.

     

    Here is my first post again:

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

     

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

     

    Note the sentence in bold which was and continues to be my main point.  

    Also, just a bit of advice: writing in capital letters is silly once you're older than 14.

     

     

     
  21. 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 prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

     

     

     

     The evidence in the case was quite weak, which is why Zimmerman had to be acquitted, but the very weakness of the evidence also means we really don't what happened.  I can't argue with the jury's decision, but I also think anyone who tries to argue that Zimmerman's version of events was close to proven is either biased or feeble-minded.

     

    The verdict, however, isn't what I care about.  What I care about are laws that lower the barriers to using deadly force against another person.

     

     




    Of course that's what you really care about. It drips from your every word. I think you have made your political ho agenda very clear.

     

     

     



    So have you.  MIne's just smarter and better. 

     




    No I don't. My views on issues vary so I don't conform to any political ho template such as yourself. And yours is the dumbest of the dumb, but granted, not by a lot.

     

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

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

    Also, just a bit of advice: writing in capital letters is silly once you're older than 14.

     

     



    Is this the famous "tolerance" that liberals boast about? You are obviously a "caps basher"!

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

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

     I also think anyone who tries to argue that Zimmerman's version of events was close to proven is either biased or feeble-minded.

     



    Your bias is blatatly obvious. It always is.

     

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from Inokea4coolaid. Show Inokea4coolaid's posts

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    The silly drama.  The state MUST PROVE that GZ is guilty.  Jurors decided that, based on the evidence presented in the court of law, GZ is NOT GUILTY.

    It's as simple as that. End of story. GZ gets too keep his firearm.

     
  25. 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:

     

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

     

     

     

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

     

     

     

     

     

     The evidence in the case was quite weak, which is why Zimmerman had to be acquitted, but the very weakness of the evidence also means we really don't what happened.  I can't argue with the jury's decision, but I also think anyone who tries to argue that Zimmerman's version of events was close to proven is either biased or feeble-minded.

     

    The verdict, however, isn't what I care about.  What I care about are laws that lower the barriers to using deadly force against another person.

     

     

     




    Of course that's what you really care about. It drips from your every word. I think you have made your political ho agenda very clear.

     

     

     

     

     



    So have you.  MIne's just smarter and better. 

     

     

     




    No I don't. My views on issues vary so I don't conform to any political ho template such as yourself. And yours is the dumbest of the dumb, but granted, not by a lot.

     



    You're such a child.  I have a very consistent world view, which has nothing to do with any political party, though much of it would be labeled by those who prefer labels to actual thought, "liberal."  You have your own world view, which actually is very consistent (and quite predictable) too.  It leans pretty heavily toward libertarianism (and skepticism).  I bet if you were to vote (and I know you don't), you'd probably lean toward candidates like Ron Paul.  Of course, your general skepticism means you tend to actually withdraw from politics.  There is, of course, no party that exactly mirrors your views.  Why would there be?  People with your views tend not to vote.  Having a political party to represent people who don't vote would be an exercise in futility, wouldn't it?

     

     

     

     

     

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share