George Zimmerman Verdict

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

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    The problem is that no one knows what TM's thought process or state of mind was when the altercation began.  Was he just some angry teen that didn't want anybody hassling him?  Or was he striking to defend himself against someone following him at night and who was carrying a gun?

    Yes, I know that the gun was apparently not in GZ's hand, but I believe (and yes, I am aware that is an assumption on my part) that TM could tell GZ was armed--otherwise why would he have known to reach for the gun, as GZ claims TM was doing?

    Before any one goes off on me saying that I'm ignoring that TM struck first, and therefore was the one that "started it", I would suggest you check the general definition for the crime of "assault".

    I have to say, again, however, that since we cannot know TM's state of mind, nor his side of the story, and barring any forensics that clearly disprove GZ's story, there really was nothing to base a conviction on.

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

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    In response to TheTinMan's comment:

     

    The problem is that no one knows what TM's thought process or state of mind was when the altercation began.  Was he just some angry teen that didn't want anybody hassling him?  Or was he striking to defend himself against someone following him at night and who was carrying a gun?

    Yes, I know that the gun was apparently not in GZ's hand, but I believe (and yes, I am aware that is an assumption on my part) that TM could tell GZ was armed--otherwise why would he have known to reach for the gun, as GZ claims TM was doing?

    Before any one goes off on me saying that I'm ignoring that TM struck first, and therefore was the one that "started it", I would suggest you check the general definition for the crime of "assault".

    I have to say, again, however, that since we cannot know TM's state of mind, nor his side of the story, and barring any forensics that clearly disprove GZ's story, there really was nothing to base a conviction on.

     


    The problem, TinMan, is that this event should never have been forced into the courts at the demands of civil rights activists. There are no witnesses except for the parties involved and only one of them is alive to talk. EVERYTHING beyond what GZ explained is mere speculation. GZ is deemed to be telling the truth unless it can be proven false. Nobody can prove what he said is a lie and offer any real explanation. All the State could present was speculation, which will never convince any jury to take a person's freedom away. As the only living witness to the events, GZ was NOT GULTY based on what he provided as the only available evidence in support of self defense. 

     

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

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

     

    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?  

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from RallyC. Show RallyC'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?  

     



    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???????

     

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

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    Rally--no argument from me.  Like I said above, there was no way to hear TM's side of the story, and without some forensic evidence to contradict GZ's story, there was nothing on which to base a conviction.  And frankly, I think the prosecutors knew it as well.

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

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    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?  

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

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    In response to TheTinMan's comment:

    Rally--no argument from me.  Like I said above, there was no way to hear TM's side of the story, and without some forensic evidence to contradict GZ's story, there was nothing on which to base a conviction.  And frankly, I think the prosecutors knew it as well.



    I see it the same exact way.

     
  8. 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:

     

     

    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???????

     




    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.

     
  9. 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:

     

    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.

     

     
  10. 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:

     

    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???????

     

     

    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.

     

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from raptor64d. Show raptor64d's posts

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    Lets see, he should have never been charged, the lead investigator knew this was self defense based on all the evidence. Then Obummer had to chime in and make sure they keep the "America is racist" story alive and got involved along the the other race hustlers Al not so Sharpden and Jesse Jaaaaackson and the media of course convicted the white hispanic (what the heck is that anyway before the knew the facts. when the facts didn't fit what they were already saying they doctored the 911 phone calls. Then after the kangaroo court the six lady's on the jury found him not guilty that any sane person wouls see within 10 minutes of seeing the evidence. Besides all that I have no opinion. :)

    One shot one kill! The object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other guy die for his.

    George S Patton Jr

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

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    In response to raptor64d's comment:

     

    Lets see, he should have never been charged, the lead investigator knew this was self defense based on all the evidence. Then Obummer had to chime in and make sure they keep the "America is racist" story alive and got involved along the the other race hustlers Al not so Sharpden and Jesse Jaaaaackson and the media of course convicted the white hispanic (what the heck is that anyway before the knew the facts. when the facts didn't fit what they were already saying they doctored the 911 phone calls. Then after the kangaroo court the six lady's on the jury found him not guilty that any sane person wouls see within 10 minutes of seeing the evidence. Besides all that I have no opinion. :)

    One shot one kill! The object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other guy die for his.

    George S Patton Jr

     


    No need to fear when speaking the truth. 

     

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

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

    Well, we really don't know how the fight started and the fact that Martin apparently was getting the better of Zimmerman doesn't mean anything unless Martin has no right to self-defense.

    What are you talking about here? No witness saw Martin being attacked.

     

     What we do know is that Zimmerman was following Martin for twenty minutes before anything happened.  Following someone is a threatening act in itself.  I certainly would be creeped out if some guy were following me around for blocks and then got out of his car apparently to confront me.  If he got near me, I might punch him too.

    Following somebody isn't a threat in a legal sense. Your saying that if somebody followed you and got near you would probably be met by physical violence by you is a criminal perspective.

     

     

     

     It's not like Zimmerman was wearing a police uniform.  Martin very easily could have thought Zimmerman was approaching him to beat or rob him and may have felt threatened.  If Zimmerman could shoot Martin because Zimmerman felt threatened, why couldn't Martin punch Zimmerman if Martin felt threatened?

    Zimmerman didn't shoot Martin because he felt threateded. He shot him because Martin was beating the crap out of him!!!

     

    Really, the fact that Zimmerman followed the kid around calling him an assh*le is what disturbs me.

    Shyte happens. I don't think we're going to be able to police people "following" or calling other people names very well. It's when words are answered with violence that disturbs me.

     

     Zimmerman clearly formed an unjustified conclusion about Martin, then acted upon it, and eventually killed the kid.

    Clearly? There is very little that is clear about this incident. What conclusion did Zimmerman draw? That Martin should be questioned as to what he was doing by a crime watch member?

     

     I don't see him as any kind of role model.  I think he's a creep.

    I have no opinion on the man because I don't have enough facts to come to one.

     And I think the laws should be revised to make (1) playing police illegal and (2) it harder to claim self-defense if you do something provocative like follow someone around for twenty minutes.

    I doubt a majority of people would share your feelings that you can just physically attack somebody because they followed you and if the defend themselves from the physical attack they are denied the right of self defense. That perspective in a word is madness.

     Citizens who want to "arrest" other people should do so knowing that if they end up killing the person they are trying to arrest they won't have an easy time getting off scot free.  It might help prevent misguided vigilantism like we saw with Zimmerman. 

     There is no evidence whatsoever that Zimmerman acted as a vigilante. He as far as we know was just watching the guy. There are many such watch groups in high crime areas and they do help a lot. The cops can't do what they do.

     

    I know, everything's too difficult.  Much better to just let kids die.  Same thing you said about Newtown.  

    I will say the same thing about anything you propose that stomps on person's rights.

    People have the right to defend themselves if they are physically attacked and they have the right to bear arms.

     

    If you want to cry about the loss of innocent life why don't you cry about the murder of innocent children with drones? Oh yeah, that would cast a bad light on your heroes. Can't do that.

     



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

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    In response to RallyC's comment:

     

    Lets see, he should have never been charged, the lead investigator knew this was self defense based on all the evidence. Then Obummer had to chime in and make sure they keep the "America is racist" story alive

     



    Of course. It diverts attention away from his long list of scandals.

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

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    So you really are party line all the way.



     



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

     

    [/QUOTE]


    And for you the party is ALWAYS right it seems. Which shows you have no objectivity and are just a party ho. It's "right" because the party says it is.

     

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

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    In response to TSWFAN's comment:


    Don't you think we have heard enough from an "American" who probably went north to escape the draft?

     



    He's okay. He's just brainwashed and incapable of free thought.

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

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    In response to portfolio1's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    Let me try to talk talk reason with you here.

     

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

    No crime there.

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

    No crime there. And he merely said he was "suspicious". That's a far cry from characterizing him as a "criminal".

    3. Armed, large, untrained adult male causes confrontation as teen is threatened and triesd to defend himself

    Attacking somebody physically because they threatened you is NOT defending yourself. It is assaulting somebody.

    4. Armed, large untrained adult male ends up shooting and killing innocent teen.

    A person who attacks you because you said something to them is not "innocent".

     You could add some things that reflect Zimmerman's wanna be vigilante cop and trigger happy juumping to conclusions but it is not necessary in reflecting on the above 4 points.

    Moot.

    Bottom line is that when you just focus on the basics an armed, large, untrained adult male followed and killed an innocent teen. That is all that happened and that is both morally and legally disgusting.

    Wrong. Put correctly, an armed, large, untrained adult male followed an innocent teen and when the teen physically attacked him he shot the attacker dead.

     

     

    I just don't get how some of you can't understand the difference in magnitude between a threat and an attack. It is possible a verbal threat could mitigate the consequences for a person who resorts to violence in reaction to the verbal threat, but having the physical reaction go completely unpunished would be very rare. Look it up.




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




    I think you would find if witnesses didn't see Martin on top of Zimmerman pounding on him and causing blood to flow when Martin was shot, Zimmerman would have been easily convicted of murder.

    There is no way a reasonable person, from the evidence we know of, could conclude that murder was committed "beyond a reasonable doubt".

    The problem in this discussion is...... you aren't reasonable.

     

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

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

     

    In response to portfolio1's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    Let me try to talk talk reason with you here.

     

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

    No crime there.

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

    No crime there. And he merely said he was "suspicious". That's a far cry from characterizing him as a "criminal".

    3. Armed, large, untrained adult male causes confrontation as teen is threatened and triesd to defend himself

    Attacking somebody physically because they threatened you is NOT defending yourself. It is assaulting somebody.

    4. Armed, large untrained adult male ends up shooting and killing innocent teen.

    A person who attacks you because you said something to them is not "innocent".

     You could add some things that reflect Zimmerman's wanna be vigilante cop and trigger happy juumping to conclusions but it is not necessary in reflecting on the above 4 points.

    Moot.

    Bottom line is that when you just focus on the basics an armed, large, untrained adult male followed and killed an innocent teen. That is all that happened and that is both morally and legally disgusting.

    Wrong. Put correctly, an armed, large, untrained adult male followed an innocent teen and when the teen physically attacked him he shot the attacker dead.

     

     

    I just don't get how some of you can't understand the difference in magnitude between a threat and an attack. It is possible a verbal threat could mitigate the consequences for a person who resorts to violence in reaction to the verbal threat, but having the physical reaction go completely unpunished would be very rare. Look it up.




     

     

    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 himself if he planned on shooting TM? Its such BS.........all forced speculation and rationalization, zero evidence. 

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

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    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.

     

     

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

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

     

    In response to RallyC's comment:

     

     

     

    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.

     

     

     


    Agreed. i'm watching two jurors on CNN this very moment and they both stated that Race Never entered their deliberation in the jury room. Its so sad when civil rights groups force events to become rallying points for black, white division yet claim that their motivation is to improve on and build racial harmony. Let it go, already. 

     

     
  22. 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:

     

    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. 

     
  23. 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:

     

    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. 

     

     

     
  24. 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 RallyC's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    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.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]


    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. 

     
  25. This post has been removed.

     

Share