Any one have an opinion on the trial of Zimmerman? He was found not guilty, And in my opinion, He should have gotten some form of a guilty charge, maybe not murder, but manslaughter, As a CHL holder myself, I believe his action by following Trayvor Martin is what lead to the shooting of the youngster, George Zimmerman was in a unofficial neighborhood watch program, not backed by law enforcement, Followed and at time where running after Trayvor, In watch programs like these, It is my understanding that if anyone see any thing that looks suspicious? they are to report what they see to the Police, Not take matters into there own hands, I believe this all could have been avoided if George Zimmerman would have just followed this simple rule, and just report what he saw, instead of going after Trayvor Martin, Personally, I think the justice system failed Trayvor and his family by finding George Zimmerman completely innocent
Zimmerman was wrong to follow. However, that isn't really a crime. Call the cops, tell them someone is following you. I bet a fiver they will tell you to call back when you got something more substantial. He didn't try to stop Martin, he didn't block his way, he didn't even say anything to him. He was just walking and reporting what he saw. Where is this "taking matters into his own hands" thing coming from?
Martin, noticing this man behind him, took what in my mind is a completely unreasonable action of attacking him, breaking his nose and pounding his head into the pavement. This is not a course of action that could be predicted with any certainty, so there is no way he could have been deliberately provoked into this.
How is shooting someone who just broke your nose and is hitting the pavement with your head manslaughter? What definition do you think applies? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manslaughter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manslaughter)
Really what this is is a case of a couple of guys each making a mistake. The teenager in the scenario made the more dangerous mistake and lost his life. Not unlike going way too fast on his bike. Happens all the time. Tragic.
The investigating police got it right.
The jury got it right.
Zimmerman had the right to be there.
Martin had the right to be there.
Zimmerman had the right to ask Martin what he was doing...like as in free speech... Hey wassup?
Martin over reacted.
Here's the most important point: Martin had no right to attack Zimmerman. Period.
The case should have never gone to trial. All agree, the prosecution was an embarrassment.
Stand your ground. If someone is assaulting you, on top of you, beating your head against the concrete and reaching to take your gun away...shoot the fucker.
Quote from: Pat Conlon on July 14, 2013, 05:37:04 PM
Stand your ground.
The Zimmerman case was not decided on the basis of "Stand Your Ground".
Really? I thought the Florida law was key to Zimmerman's defense.
Please educate me.
Quote from: JPaganel on July 14, 2013, 07:51:30 PM
Quote from: Pat Conlon on July 14, 2013, 05:37:04 PM
Stand your ground.
The Zimmerman case was not decided on the basis of "Stand Your Ground".
Right.
It was decided on FL self-defense law, which is also pretty strong.
Otherwise, I completely agree with Pat (oddly enough) . :biggrin:
Quote from: Pat Conlon on July 14, 2013, 05:37:04 PM
The investigating police got it right.
The jury got it right.
Zimmerman had the right to be there.
Martin had the right to be there.
Zimmerman had the right to ask Martin what he was doing...like as in free speech... Hey wassup?
Martin over reacted.
Here's the most important point: Martin had no right to attack Zimmerman. Period.
The case should have never gone to trial. All agree, the prosecution was an embarrassment.
Stand your ground. If someone is assaulting you, on top of you, beating your head against the concrete and reaching to take your gun away...shoot the fucker.
+1 A jury found him not guilty. He didn't break any law that he was charged with. If you don't like the law then change it. He was found not guilty by a jury selected by the defence and the prosecution. The jury got the facts unlike most of us listening to the news media.
Here in Idaho we have basically the same law as do most states. Sorry someone had to die, but someone had the opportunity to be civil and walk away.
George
Quote from: crzyjarmans on July 14, 2013, 04:20:32 PM
Any one have an opinion on the trial of Zimmerman? He was found not guilty, And in my opinion, He should have gotten some form of a guilty charge, maybe not murder, but manslaughter, As a CHL holder myself, I believe his action by following Trayvor Martin is what lead to the shooting of the youngster, George Zimmerman was in a unofficial neighborhood watch program, not backed by law enforcement, Followed and at time where running after Trayvor, In watch programs like these, It is my understanding that if anyone see any thing that looks suspicious? they are to report what they see to the Police, Not take matters into there own hands, I believe this all could have been avoided if George Zimmerman would have just followed this simple rule, and just report what he saw, instead of going after Trayvor Martin, Personally, I think the justice system failed Trayvor and his family by finding George Zimmerman completely innocent
I was a member of the first Neighborhood Watch program, in Detroit. We were not allowed to carry ANY weapons. We were instructed to not approach any apparent law breaker. Our ONLY function was to report the activity to the police.
When Zimmerman reported to police they told him to NOT follow or attempt to apprehend.
I was not in court. I have not been privy to all the evidence. It seems to me that the only thing Zimmerman was missing was the white hood. I could be wrong.
Arnie
Quote from: Arnie on July 14, 2013, 10:45:10 PM.
When Zimmerman reported to police they told him to NOT follow or attempt to apprehend.
I was not in court. I have not been privy to all the evidence. It seems to me that the only thing Zimmerman was missing was the white hood. I could be wrong.
Arnie
Two points:
1. Police dispatchers are
not LEOs, and no one is obligated to take their directions (thankfully so, as it is sometimes pretty suspect).
2. Before you go making statements like the one above, you really owe it to yourself to do a bit of research. I spent some time last night reading the evidence that was presented to the jury, and I believe that you could not be more wrong.
Quote from: not a lib on July 14, 2013, 10:53:29 PM
Quote from: Arnie on July 14, 2013, 10:45:10 PM.
When Zimmerman reported to police they told him to NOT follow or attempt to apprehend.
I was not in court. I have not been privy to all the evidence. It seems to me that the only thing Zimmerman was missing was the white hood. I could be wrong.
Arnie
Two points:
1. Police dispatchers are not LEOs, and no one is obligated to take their directions (thankfully so, as it is sometimes pretty suspect).
2. Before you go making statements like the one above, you really owe it to yourself to do a bit of research. I spent some time last night reading the evidence that was presented to the jury, and I believe that you could not be more wrong.
That's very unlike Arnie to be so wrong :rofl:
I agree there was an opportunity to walk away by both parties but when he was attacked, Zimmerman did what was in his best interests, too often bleeding hearts would've had the Martin back out on the street so he could do the same thing all over again!!!
When I heard about the Boston bombings I said to friends I hope the person responsible for this does not make it too court as the bleeding hearts will fight tooth and nail to ensure that he never faces the penalty he deserves.
Martin won't have that chance and for that we should be thankful!!
Quote from: Arnie on July 14, 2013, 10:45:10 PM
I was a member of the first Neighborhood Watch program, in Detroit. We were not allowed to carry ANY weapons. We were instructed to not approach any apparent law breaker. Our ONLY function was to report the activity to the police.
Zimmerman did report. He did make the mistake of getting too close, but that's not quite the same as murder.
Quote from: Arnie on July 14, 2013, 10:45:10 PM
When Zimmerman reported to police they told him to NOT follow or attempt to apprehend.
He did not attempt to apprehend.
Quote from: Arnie on July 14, 2013, 10:45:10 PM
I was not in court. I have not been privy to all the evidence. It seems to me that the only thing Zimmerman was missing was the white hood. I could be wrong.
Arnie
That's kind of like "I did not read the book, but I think it's terrible". A two-minute google will get you the pictures of Zimmerman's broken nose and bloody head. You're not suggesting he did that himself?
Zimmerman defense was using the "Stand your ground", But, this is not the point I think most are missing here, forget about the neighborhood watch program, He is not in law enforcement, I believed he over stepped his authorities when he followed and at times he was running, witch indicates to me he might have been chasing Martin, If someone was chasing me, I would most definitely defend myself, Also on this point whether it was Zimmerman or Martin who threw the first punch, It was Zimmerman That should not have followed Martin, My opinion, He should have just reported to the police, gave a description and direction of travel, So even if Martin threw the first punch, I think Zimmerman should have gotten Manslaughter, OR possibly, involuntary manslaughter, For his action that led to the shooting, It is my personal belief, If your going to carry a firearm for defense, Then you need to avoid confrontation when ever possible, I have a carry permit, and carry 100% of the time, I know this is my personal belief and is not law, But I believe everyone should be responsible for what the action led to, Zimmerman's Actions are what led to the shooting, And he should be responsible for that
Quote from: crzyjarmans on July 15, 2013, 09:04:06 AM
Zimmerman defense was using the "Stand your ground",
No, it was not. "Stand Your Ground" applies once you have been attacked. The court deemed the start of attack to be the first punch, after which Zimmerman was pinned down on the ground and whether he could have tried to get away or not was irrelevant.
Do you have something that proves that they used this law?
Quote from: crzyjarmans on July 15, 2013, 09:04:06 AM
But, this is not the point I think most are missing here, forget about the neighborhood watch program, He is not in law enforcement, I believed he over stepped his authorities when he followed and at times he was running, witch indicates to me he might have been chasing Martin,
He got overzealous in his duties, which was a mistake. I'm not sure following someone is a crime, but if it is, I'd guess it's a pretty minor one. I'd be happy if he was prosecuted under whatever statute covers that. Disturbing the peace, maybe?
Quote from: crzyjarmans on July 15, 2013, 09:04:06 AM
If someone was chasing me, I would most definitely defend myself,
If you were to jump someone that was merely following you I don't think you would do well in court. Following and attacking are not the same.
Quote from: crzyjarmans on July 15, 2013, 09:04:06 AM
Also on this point whether it was Zimmerman or Martin who threw the first punch, It was Zimmerman That should not have followed Martin, My opinion, He should have just reported to the police, gave a description and direction of travel,
I already covered this. Find what crime following is, and use the appropriate punishment. I'm guessing it's something minor that gets you a ticket and a fine.
Quote from: crzyjarmans on July 15, 2013, 09:04:06 AM
So even if Martin threw the first punch, I think Zimmerman should have gotten Manslaughter, OR possibly, involuntary manslaughter, For his action that led to the shooting, It is my personal belief, If your going to carry a firearm for defense, Then you need to avoid confrontation when ever possible, I have a carry permit, and carry 100% of the time, I know this is my personal belief and is not law, But I believe everyone should be responsible for what the action led to, Zimmerman's Actions are what led to the shooting, And he should be responsible for that
You can only be responsible for things you can reasonably predict. I don't believe Martin's actions could have been reasonably predicted. I don't think breaking someone's nose is a reasonable response to them walking behind you.
The problem is, Martin was a teenager, and as teenager tend to, he did something without thinking it through. Instead of going straight home where there was a bunch of people that could have helped him (and if he went home, I think there is a very good chance Zimmerman would have just turned around and left) he decided to fight it out with some guy on a dark street. He gambled on his physical abilities and lost.
Read the wiki article I linked to. If you think involuntary manslaughter applies, which of the two subcategories do you think it is, constructive or negligent?
This sad event occurred only 20 miles north of my home, so I've had the issue in my face from the beginning.
The media spun the event from the first reports. The first photos published of the participants were Zimmerman's mug shot from a prior arrest, and Martin's photo at approximately 12 years of age. That was the start of the media circus, further stirred up by the appearance some well-known agitators.
One of the repercussions that affects me personally are that it is no longer safe for me or my girlfriend to visit some of our friends in Sanford. White people are NOT welcome in the black neighborhoods, now more than ever.
I only hope that history does not repeat itself following Zimmerman's acquittal:
Sublime-april 26 1992 w/ lyrics (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZyuIWfnf4Hw#ws)
Racism is DEFINITELY alive and well.
I feel badly for all involved. Sure wouldn't want to have been one of the jurors on THIS trial!
Quote from: baldy3853 on July 15, 2013, 05:44:57 AM
...too often bleeding hearts would've had...
Baldy, that's probably not the best choice of words in this context...
Steve
Quote from: Pat Conlon on July 14, 2013, 05:37:04 PM
The investigating police got it right.
The jury got it right.
Zimmerman had the right to be there.
Martin had the right to be there.
Zimmerman had the right to ask Martin what he was doing...like as in free speech... Hey wassup?
Martin over reacted.
Here's the most important point: Martin had no right to attack Zimmerman. Period.
The case should have never gone to trial. All agree, the prosecution was an embarrassment.
Stand your ground. If someone is assaulting you, on top of you, beating your head against the concrete and reaching to take your gun away...shoot the fucker.
Seems to me, Pat is correct here -"Stand your ground" reference notwithstanding -as has been previously pointed out.
Note that
I added the bold/ underline for emphasis...
Dan
Here's the other thing on this case. Zimmerman (Z) is 5'8" tall and at the time of the shooting. Martin (M) on the other hand, was taller and more muscular. Knowing nothing more than this, how could any reasonable person believe that Z would have/ could have been the first to throw a punch? -What would have been his motivation? According to Z it was M that threw the first punch, and the circumstances seem to support it. Here's the thing: the cops saw this too. Assuming that M threw the first punch, then the case never should have gone to trial. It was a simple case of self defense -tragic for the Martin family as it is. THAT is why the cops did not arrest him. THAT is why the cops said in court that the believed Z's statements. THAT is why Z was not convicted. I see no evidence of racism here.
30,000 people descended on that small community in FL and demanded "Justice for Trevon" -hell even president Obama commented on it -it is my belief that THESE events, and the national attention it drew, pressured the DA to file charges, and the Cops to arrest him. This is simply not how justice is supposed to work -seems to me.
The outrage that Z was not convicted is difficult to swallow when you consider that thousands of kids die every year (many of whom are black) from similar encounters. The difference? the shooter was not "white". There is no such outrage when a black person, who killed another black person (the most common cause of death among black youth) does not go to jail for the crime.
Dan
http://www.ijreview.com/2013/07/65465-the-trayvon-martin-picture-the-mainstream-media-dont-want-you-to-see/ (http://www.ijreview.com/2013/07/65465-the-trayvon-martin-picture-the-mainstream-media-dont-want-you-to-see/)
http://thekansascitian.blogspot.com/2012/05/more-than-bag-of-skittles-trayvon.html?spref=fb (http://thekansascitian.blogspot.com/2012/05/more-than-bag-of-skittles-trayvon.html?spref=fb)
(popcorn)
No one on this planet has the right to do you any kind of harm. You have every right to defend yourself by any means possible.
When I was 15 I had a very painful awakening to how things really are. I feel this contributes to the discussion because I have experienced a "similar" situation.
There were a group of black kids at my school that were trouble makers. They found out I worked at the local Burger King and decided to make a habit of coming in to pick on me and try to get me into trouble.
On one occasion they came in, caused some trouble and just before they left, they lit the trash can in the women's restroom on fire. It was quite obvious they did it as they walked out the door making loud comments on smelling smoke, laughing and such. They came in again a few days later and my manager threw them out. They tried playing the race card and so forth. While being escorted out they made idle threats to me, which I mostly ignored.
Now keep in mind, up until I was about 25 I weighed no more than 130 pounds while still being 6 feet tall.
On my walk home, they were waiting for me at another fast food restaurant. All four of them came out and started hassling me. I just kept walking since I knew there was no way to fight all of them. Finally one of them punched me in the ear from behind. As I staggered around, more punches. Was difficult to fight back since I was being pummeled from every direction. I do remember taking a few swings, but don't remember if I actually hit any of them. Finally not able to stand up anymore I fell to the ground and they proceeded to kick and stomp me. At some point I used that "evil" "N" word. Guess I hoped for a slight pause in the beating to try and get away.. but the beating continued.
After spitting and dumping their beverages on me, they ran off laughing. I managed to get up and make my way to a business that was open to call my father. He came and got me, and before going to the hospital we called the police. Portland Police arrived and since I knew who and where they were, I had to go and ID them before they could be arrested.
Got to the apartment they were at, police said they were under arrest. One of them said "Well Officer, he called us "N-ers". The cop then apologized for disturbing them and wished them a pleasant evening. The cop grabbed my arm and hauled me back to her cruiser. She told me that she should arrest me for what I said. I tried explaining I was having the living shit beat out of me, but it didn't matter. Even one of the other residents (white gal) of the complex called me a piece of shit for using a racist term.
Two Portland cops told me.. "You're white, they are black. You have no rights. They can beat you, mug you, stab you and/or even KILL you and all they have to say is, you called them a racist word and they will get off 100% free".
So there I stand, bleeding, bruised and generally not doing very well and I have two cops bitching me out. When they took me home and bitched out my parents, I thought my dad was going to kill them. Even my mother was so pissed she could hardly talk.
Needless to say all my viewpoints changed that evening.
It's obvious that evidence of Zimmerman's condition after the shooting has either been lost or withheld. The only reason it went to trial is because of the media frenzy. I saw this whole thing as another example of the race card being played and did not pay much attention to it. I was a little surprised he was found not guilty. Guess there is some small hope for the justice system and trial by a jury of your peers.
My two cents from personal experience..
For all who listen to just the news. Stop and do some of your own independent research on this. What the media fed us was a whole lot of propaganda from the start of this.
Here is a great piece from the movie "Hero" which depicts just how this whole story got so blown out of proportion. This was not a race crime. This was a guy who is tired of getting ripped off and decided to do something other than complain and play victim.
Looking for the truth - Buscando la verdad (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFFb-okcIiY#ws)
CraigO
People spend way TOO much time watching network news... The Lamestream media, Jesse Jackoff, and Al Not-So-Sharpton created the whole controversy, with help from the Illegal Pres and his cronies. Zimmerman never should have gone to trial to begin with!
There was NO justice, just a damned Kangaroo court.....
Zim will own NBC by the time the dust settles, and because he was defending himself, the family will NOT be able to bring a civil suit, based on FL law.
The take-home message for many Americans is that someone can fallow you, provoke you into a fight while consealing a deadly weapon, and then shoot you dead. It is important to remember that this can happen to you. I hate to see our "stand your ground" laws turn into" sucker someone into a fight, and then kill them" laws. Both Zimmerman and Martin will have to stand before their maker and account for their actions. I would not like to be either when that time comes.
(popcorn)
With the exception of occasional netflix, the history channel, and the discovery channel, I have been happy to live without watching much TV for the last 1.5 years so I have not been "up to date" on this subject and no offense, but not very interested in following it. This sort of thing happens constantly through out the world whether it is racism or not. Though I have read this whole thread and think it is interesting seeing different views on the topic.
I am a firm believer in standing up for yourself and self defense but there is definitely a line that needs to be be crossed before using lethal force to subdue someone, and my line is when my life or more importantly another innocent life is in danger of death or serious physical harm (dismemberment and such) and that's when lethal force should be used (no I have not killed anyone). Whether or not Zimmerman crossed the line I don't know, and nor do I think anyone but Zimmerman himself (and God) will know. But this is a perfect example of how to stay out of trouble on both ends. Do not do what either Zimmerman or Martin did. It is better to avoid confrontation 99% of the time and this is proof. Yes Zimmerman was probably tired of stuff being stolen or whatever and maybe Martin was tired of being follow by white Nazis, but the bottom line is that on both ends it didn't turn out well, obviously worse for Martin.
Quote from: JCainFJ on July 15, 2013, 11:35:34 PM
The take-home message for many Americans is that someone can fallow you, provoke you into a fight while consealing a deadly weapon, and then shoot you dead. It is important to remember that this can happen to you. I hate to see our "stand your ground" laws turn into" sucker someone into a fight, and then kill them" laws. Both Zimmerman and Martin will have to stand before their maker and account for their actions. I would not like to be either when that time comes.
Jon, love ya buddy, but you really need to read at least some of the trial transcripts.
It's obvious that you've only watched the MSM's version of what happened down there.
There's a lot to this that they deliberately did not present.
I guess what I learned from all this is....
If a black dude decides to kick the chit out of you or kill you let him. Heaven help you if you fight back.
Quote from: JCainFJ on July 15, 2013, 11:35:34 PM
The take-home message for many Americans is that someone can fallow you, provoke you into a fight while consealing a deadly weapon, and then shoot you dead.
Perhaps I'm not American enough. My takeaway is more like "don't follow people at night, they get upset" and "don't break people's noses, you might get shot".
What is "provoking into a fight"? Unless someone grabs or hits you, you always have the option to walk away.
Quote from: JCainFJ on July 15, 2013, 11:35:34 PM
It is important to remember that this can happen to you.
I am neither in the habit of following people at night, nor in the habit of punching people in the face. I'd say the likelihood of such a situation is pretty low for me.
Jon, love ya buddy, but you really need to read at least some of the trial transcripts.
I have.
It's obvious that you've only watched the MSM's version of what happened down there.
And it is obvious that some people only watch Ted Nugent for their news.
There's a lot to this that they deliberately did not present.
Yes, you are correct, both sides have spun this.
This whole thing is very sad, Martin is dead and Zimmerman may never be safe. I think that's a loose, loose, and the only people getting anything from this are the lawyers.
Quote from: JCainFJ on July 16, 2013, 11:01:18 PM
This whole thing is very sad, Martin is dead and Zimmerman may never be safe. I think that's a loose, loose, and the only people getting anything from this are the lawyers.
Amen.
.
Quote from: JCainFJ on July 16, 2013, 11:01:18 PM
And it is obvious that some people only watch Ted Nugent for their news.
You know, I've tried my damnedest to be respectful to everyone in this thread. I'm not going to take that bait. :pardon:
Quote from: JCainFJ on July 15, 2013, 11:35:34 PM
The take-home message for many Americans is that someone can fallow you, provoke you into a fight while consealing a deadly weapon, and then shoot you dead...
Save it. There is no possible way to construe what Zimmerman did as provocation for a pounding into the concrete. Trayvon was a young hothead and it got him killed.
Some people want the case to fit that original media circus story (white man, racial hate, murder, black child) so bad that even though the facts showed it was 100% baloney - continuing with their slogans and nonsense as if the facts did not come out.. But it's all crap, we know what happened now. Should never have been a trial.
Attacking someone is attacking someone.
Self-defense is self-defense.
Who you are doesn't matter.
Quote from: not a lib on July 17, 2013, 08:42:41 AM
Quote from: JCainFJ on July 16, 2013, 11:01:18 PM
And it is obvious that some people only watch Ted Nugent for their news.
You know, I've tried my damnedest to be respectful to everyone in this thread. I'm not going to take that bait. :pardon:
I find this last statement very interesting, in light of this earlier post...
"It's obvious that you've only watched the MSM's version of what happened down there."
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn2/988252_543137162390006_933363161_n.jpg)
Again, don't look at the media circus. Do your own research into this if it's that important.
To quote Hillary Clinton "At this point what difference does it make"
Funny her commenting on this case but no remorse for what happened in Benghazi.
CraigO
Quote from: JCainFJ on July 16, 2013, 11:01:18 PM
Quote from: jcainfj
And it is obvious that some people only watch Ted Nugent for their news.
Quote from: not a lib
You know, I've tried my damnedest to be respectful to everyone in this thread. I'm not going to take that bait. :pardon:
I find this last statement very interesting, in light of this earlier post...
"It's obvious that you've only watched the MSM's version of what happened down there."
Because your original post on the subject was exactly the BS that the MSM has posted on the subject, which is contrary to what the eyewitness testimony said (both prior to and during the trial) and also was why the Police didn't want to charge Zimmerman (the Police Chief lost his job over it, at least temporarily) and why the original County Prosecutor did not want to bring charges.
'Stand-your-ground' didn't apply, and wasn't even used in the trial, because it didn't apply.
Zimmerman didn't provoke Martin into a fight, Martin attacked him, charging him out of the dark after threatening him, tackled Zimmerman to the ground, and sat on him, proceeding to pound his head repeatedly into the concrete. For this, Zimmerman shot Martin, just as I (or several others here, probably) would have, given the same circumstance. Had he not been armed, Zimmerman would have, at the very least, suffered life-changing injuries, if not been killed at the hands of Martin, and it didn't matter if Martin was black, brown, white, or purple.
No, this didn't come from Ted Nugent, it came from looking at the evidence presented at trial,
actually reading the pertinent parts of the trial transcript, which, given your earlier statement, you obviously
have not done.
I'm through with you, and any other uninformed soul who cares to argue otherwise.
Quote from: JCainFJ on July 16, 2013, 11:01:18 PM
This whole thing is very sad, Martin is dead and Zimmerman may never be safe. I think that's a loose, loose, and the only people getting anything from this are the lawyers.
I'm pretty sure nobody disputes this.
Quote from: ddlewis on July 17, 2013, 11:13:35 AM
There is no possible way to construe what Zimmerman did as provocation for a pounding into the concrete.
There is always a way, if one tries hard enough. Especially after the fact.
Quote from: ddlewis on July 17, 2013, 11:13:35 AM
Trayvon was a young hothead and it got him killed.
Precisely. Happens to teenagers all the time.
This is some "inside" info, it starts with part 3, scroll down for parts 2 & 1. Mas Ayoob is a nationally recognized expert on self defense, and has acted as an expert witness in MANY trials. He explains why he wasn't a witness for this trial in part 1.
If read with an UNbiased mind, it explains a lot about the whole damn thing......
http://backwoodshome.com/blogs/MassadAyoob/ (http://backwoodshome.com/blogs/MassadAyoob/)
(popcorn)
OK, None of us where there, So, None of us can say "This is what really happened", Evidence was provided with a 911 operator and Zimmerman, operator asked if he was running after Martin hearing him breath heavy, said "we don't need you to do that", Some one posted that Zimmerman was on his way back to his vehicle, Not sure how he knows this for fact, Sense he wasn't there, One man alive, One man dead, Only Zimmerman and Martin know the real story, Even the witnesses had difference in what happened, So, I will have to stay with my own opinion, Zimmerman did chase after Martin, You, I can not say with certainty, That he didn't actually catch up to Martin by the time the operator said "We don't need you to do that", Zimmerman, In my opinion over reach what he should have done, And that's what stated everything, I don't know who actually threw the first punch, Might have been Martin, Maybe he was bashing his head into the pavement and Zimmerman needed to shot him to defend himself, This is why I don't think he should have gotten Murder, But I do believe his actions should hold some blame on this case, He shouldn't be able to get off Scott free, Wrongful death? something!
Quote from: crzyjarmans on July 17, 2013, 11:20:49 PM
OK, None of us where there, So, None of us can say "This is what really happened", Evidence was provided with a 911 operator and Zimmerman, operator asked if he was running after Martin hearing him breath heavy, said "we don't need you to do that", Some one posted that Zimmerman was on his way back to his vehicle, Not sure how he knows this for fact, Sense he wasn't there, One man alive, One man dead, Only Zimmerman and Martin know the real story, Even the witnesses had difference in what happened, So, I will have to stay with my own opinion, Zimmerman did chase after Martin, You, I can not say with certainty, That he didn't actually catch up to Martin by the time the operator said "We don't need you to do that", Zimmerman, In my opinion over reach what he should have done, And that's what stated everything, I don't know who actually threw the first punch, Might have been Martin, Maybe he was bashing his head into the pavement and Zimmerman needed to shot him to defend himself, This is why I don't think he should have gotten Murder, But I do believe his actions should hold some blame on this case, He shouldn't be able to get off Scott free, Wrongful death? something!
So by your own post there is reasonable doubt. You can't convict on this.
CraigO
Quote from: craigo on July 17, 2013, 12:23:34 PM
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn2/988252_543137162390006_933363161_n.jpg)
Again, don't look at the media circus. Do your own research into this if it's that important.
To quote Hillary Clinton "At this point what difference does it make"
Funny her commenting on this case but no remorse for what happened in Benghazi.
CraigO
I believe that pic of Trayvon Martin is when he was 14 years old.....more disingenuous behavior on the part of the media. The latest cover of Rolling Stone magazine just further proves the mainstream media is filled with scumbag motherF'rs.
Quote from: crzyjarmans on July 17, 2013, 11:20:49 PM
This is why I don't think he should have gotten Murder, But I do believe his actions should hold some blame on this case, He shouldn't be able to get off Scott free, Wrongful death? something!
Would you listen to yourself? "I don't know what he's guilty of, but I want him convicted of something" Sounds like the crowd gathered to see a hanging in the Middle Ages. The more things change, the more they stay the same...
"Wrongful death" is not a criminal offense. It is a term for assigning liability in a civil action, meaning a lawsuit for some monetary compensation.
And I wouldn't consider him being scot-free. Sure, he escaped prison. He has been dragged through the media circus and the courts, he has to live with someone's death on his conscience, he has to deal with threats from some unstable "avengers". It's a life-changing experience.
Quote from: JPaganel on July 18, 2013, 10:58:52 AM
And I wouldn't consider him being scot-free. Sure, he escaped prison. He has been dragged through the media circus and the courts, he has to live with someone's death on his conscience, he has to deal with threats from some unstable "avengers". It's a life-changing experience.
Amen. :yes:
Quote from: JPaganel on July 18, 2013, 10:58:52 AM
Quote from: crzyjarmans on July 17, 2013, 11:20:49 PM
This is why I don't think he should have gotten Murder, But I do believe his actions should hold some blame on this case, He shouldn't be able to get off Scott free, Wrongful death? something!
Would you listen to yourself? "I don't know what he's guilty of, but I want him convicted of something" Sounds like the crowd gathered to see a hanging in the Middle Ages. The more things change, the more they stay the same...
"Wrongful death" is not a criminal offense. It is a term for assigning liability in a civil action, meaning a lawsuit for some monetary compensation.
And I wouldn't consider him being scot-free. Sure, he escaped prison. He has been dragged through the media circus and the courts, he has to live with someone's death on his conscience, he has to deal with threats from some unstable "avengers". It's a life-changing experience.
As he cant be tried for the same crime, That why I said "wrongful Death", Lets just agree to disagree, And drop the subject, You can have your opinion, And I can have mine
Quote from: crzyjarmans on July 18, 2013, 07:34:47 PM
As he cant be tried for the same crime, That why I said "wrongful Death",
So you just want him screwed for life financially. How generous of you.
Quote from: crzyjarmans on July 18, 2013, 07:34:47 PM
Lets just agree to disagree, And drop the subject, You can have your opinion, And I can have mine
I have not once said you could not have your opinion. I just asked you a couple of questions about it and pointed out how your opinion is baseless. You didn't answer any of the questions and you keep calling for the guy's head on a platter based on pretty much nothing more than your gut feeling. As for dropping the subject, I can certainly do that. However I would like to point out that if you start a discussion on a controversial subject in a public venue, you should be prepared for people to question your opinions.
More then my gut tells me that Zimmerman took a gun on a neighborhood watch pertrole, he got out of his vehicle and chased a "suspicious" person, he ignored directions given to him in a call to 911 and he confronted the "suspicious" person. How many stupid decisions does Zimmerman get to make before he is held accountable for his actions?
I am all for gun rights, I have more then a few guns and I have had my CCDW training. Stupid people are playing right into the hands of the people who want to take away our rights and our guns.
If they give Zimmerman back his gun , is the state of Florida going to give Casey Marie Anthony a baby?
As a bystander from the UK,
hasn't this thread run it's course?
I follow a couple of U.S. bike forums and this forum is the only one that is running with this subject.
And, this topic is posted in a section that say's talk about anything apart from guns.
Now shoot me down if you want, but ain't it about time to wrap this up?
Good God, if i had a gun........ :bomb:
I agree 100%!
Quote from: FJ111200 on July 19, 2013, 01:06:43 PM
As a bystander from the UK,
hasn't this thread run it's course?
I follow a couple of U.S. bike forums and this forum is the only one that is running with this subject.
And, this topic is posted in a section that say's talk about anything apart from guns.
Now shoot me down if you want, but ain't it about time to wrap this up?
Good God, if i had a gun........ :bomb:
Quote from: Thmsdoyle on July 19, 2013, 01:09:49 PM
I agree 100%!
The whole reason this forum was started
in this type of format was so that people didn't have to look at threads in which they had no interest.
Whether or not it's miscategorized (by now you already know if the title didn't clue you in) if
you have no interest in the thread
then don't open it.Pretty simple.
So where's the Gun Section?
It is the next to last board at the bottom of the Home page. You will have to sign in.
Thanks Cain.
Wish i had a gun at times.
Quote from: FJ111200 on July 19, 2013, 02:41:21 PM
Thanks Cain.
Wish i had a gun at times.
I carry three at all times. Two are always on stand by and one is always loaded :sarcastic:
Quote from: JCainFJ on July 19, 2013, 12:51:25 PM
More then my gut tells me that Zimmerman took a gun on a neighborhood watch pertrole,
How is this a problem? Why should a neighborhood watch member, a person who performs a community service and potentially places himself in harm's way, without pay and backing of the police union, be defenseless? And how is it different from anyone else being armed outside their house?
Quote from: JCainFJ on July 19, 2013, 12:51:25 PMhe got out of his vehicle and chased a "suspicious" person, he ignored directions given to him in a call to 911 and he confronted the "suspicious" person. How many stupid decisions does Zimmerman get to make before he is held accountable for his actions?
The first is not at all criminal, just less than prudent. The second isn't true ("you don't have to do that" is not a direction). The third one I am not so sure about, since, as I've mentioned a few times here, I don't see how what he did warrants being physically attacked. He did get his nose broken for it, though.
The action that may or may not be criminal is the actual shooting. The jury determined it is not.
Quote from: JCainFJ on July 19, 2013, 12:51:25 PM
I am all for gun rights, I have more then a few guns and I have had my CCDW training. Stupid people are playing right into the hands of the people who want to take away our rights and our guns.
That's like saying "I have a Jewish friend" to prove you are not anti-Semitic. Seriously, how can you be for gun rights and say that the mere fact of him having a gun was a "stupid decision"?
Quote from: JCainFJ on July 19, 2013, 12:51:25 PM
If they give Zimmerman back his gun , is the state of Florida going to give Casey Marie Anthony a baby?
That is an absolutely ridiculous comparison. Do I even really need to explain why?
There are guidelines ( from a national chief of police association) for neighborhood watch pertroles.
1. 2 people on every pertrole.
2. Never chase a suspicious person.
3. Never confront a suspicious person.
4. Report suspicious persons to the police (911 in this case) and wait for the police to respond.
5. No guns on pertrole.
And many more I'm sure, but these are the relevant ones.
Zimmerman ignored every one of these guidelines and the advice from the 911 person. That is stupid, just plain stupid. If Zimmerman had fallowed these guidelines he would not have been attacked and Martin would be alive today.
I will stand by my pro gun statement, I have guns, I have invested lots of time and money for training, and I believe that every American (who is not a felon, mentally ill or stupid) should be able to legally own and carry a gun. I did not say that the mere fact that Zimmerman has a gun was a "stupid decision". I did say that taking a gun on a neighborhood watch pertrole was a " stupid decision" and it looks like the police chiefs association agrees with me.
I hate to tell you guys this and I really don't care but I like to join the convo too, but I don't think that this is going everywhere. I mean , even when I think to myself about the situation I tell myself that it was stupid for Zimmerman to follow him (mentioned in a previous post how I don't know the story)but if Martin took something or whatever I would follow him too and I know many other people would as well. but I know if I were Martin, I would not have acted in the same way at all. I mean, he was on the phone right? why wasn't he talking to 911 as well? idk, I really don't even know enough to be talking, but im going by what has been said on this thread from both sides. Lets just hope none of us gets involved in this kind of situation
State of mind has bearing....we know Zimmerman's, he is alive.
It's hard to know Martin's state of mind, he's dead....but wait a minute.....check out his cell phone.
Look at his most recent texts, look at the recent pictures.
Looking at the texts from Martin is very informative on his angry state of mind....shame the press does not report it.....shame the court did not allow it into evidence.
Google it, see for yourself.
Quote from: JCainFJ on July 19, 2013, 11:04:15 PM
There are guidelines ( from a national chief of police association) for neighborhood watch pertroles.
1. 2 people on every pertrole.
2. Never chase a suspicious person.
3. Never confront a suspicious person.
4. Report suspicious persons to the police (911 in this case) and wait for the police to respond.
5. No guns on pertrole.
And many more I'm sure, but these are the relevant ones.
Guidelines are not rules. Some police brass association are not the people I would be listening to.You may not be aware of this, but what police brass and rank and file officers think usually differs, and the chiefs would kill concealed carry in a hot minute, if they could. They regularly oppose pro-gun legislation, while the rank and file officers that are actually working on the street support it.
At any rate, I asked for your opinion, not some political appointees. Can you explain why guns on patrol are a bad idea, but CCW at other times is not?
Quote from: JCainFJ on July 19, 2013, 11:04:15 PM
Zimmerman ignored every one of these guidelines and the advice from the 911 person. That is stupid, just plain stupid. If Zimmerman had fallowed these guidelines he would not have been attacked and Martin would be alive today.
Following that just a hair further, had he not not been on patrol at all, this wouldn't be an issue. Perhaps neighborhood patrols are just a bad idea?
Quote from: HARTLESS on July 19, 2013, 11:24:24 PM
I mean, he was on the phone right? why wasn't he talking to 911 as well?
That one is actually easy. He was a black teenager, and police aren't known for being very friendly towards black teenagers. I've never been a black teenager, but even my experiences with police haven't instilled a great amount of confidence in me.
Also, teenagers tend to do stupid things. Occasionally what they do gets them killed.
QuoteQuote from: HARTLESS on Today at 09:24:24 PM
I mean, he was on the phone right? why wasn't he talking to 911 as well?
That one is actually easy. He was a black teenager, and police aren't known for being very friendly towards black teenagers. I've never been a black teenager, but even my experiences with police haven't instilled a great amount of confidence in me.
Also, teenagers tend to do stupid things. Occasionally what they do gets them killed.
right, It was more of a statement directed toward the fact that everyone says what should or shouldn't have happened in a "perfect world", and I think that's what some people need to understand. People make mistakes but there is a point at which a mistake turns in to more than just a mistake. I think that the more notable mistake here was Martin Smashing Zimmermans head into the concrete, whether or not he was defending himself or attacking Zimmerman, because when it comes down to it, MOST LIKELY (we will never know) if he would have just kept walking, he would probably still be alive today...but on the other hand, if Zimmerman wouldn't have followed Martin its the same deal. Now, saying that, Zimmerman had ever right to follow that guy if he thought he was a theft suspect or whatever and to my knowledge did not break any laws in doing so (like I said, I don't know the whole story). So I guess what I meant is that basically this thread is a moral dilemma for some people because they probably cant grasp the concept of law vs. opinion.
Quote from: JPaganel on July 18, 2013, 07:48:31 PM
Quote from: crzyjarmans on July 18, 2013, 07:34:47 PM
As he cant be tried for the same crime, That why I said "wrongful Death",
So you just want him screwed for life financially. How generous of you.
Quote from: crzyjarmans on July 18, 2013, 07:34:47 PM
Lets just agree to disagree, And drop the subject, You can have your opinion, And I can have mine
I have not once said you could not have your opinion. I just asked you a couple of questions about it and pointed out how your opinion is baseless. You didn't answer any of the questions and you keep calling for the guy's head on a platter based on pretty much nothing more than your gut feeling. As for dropping the subject, I can certainly do that. However I would like to point out that if you start a discussion on a controversial subject in a public venue, you should be prepared for people to question your opinions.
Actually I did answer your question, but I think you didn't like my answer, I have a concealed weapons license, And It is my duty to avoid any possible negative contact with another, Although this isn't always possible, So,If I think someone is acting in a suspicious manner, I would call the police and give a description as best as I could and direction of travel, And let them handle the rest, I would not follow, because this could lead to a fight where I might be forced to use deadly force, I would what to avoid this, Zimmerman didn't think about "What might happen if I follow this person", My hole opinion on this case would be drastically different if Zimmerman was just walking down the street minding his own business and Martin had jumped him, But this is not what had happened, I think it was you who posted, And I might be wrong if it was you, "Martin was walking through the grass in-between the buildings, Who does this", well, Me when I was his age, Doesn't mean I was up to no good, Just young, Now, I don't think Zimmerman should get murder, 1st or 2nd degree, Because I do think his life was in jeopardy, And to save his life he needed to do what he did, Now, before you say "It's not illegal to follow someone", As this is a correct statement, His actions is what ignited the shooting, If Martin was committing a violent act, Like, Rape, Or something in this nature, I could understand, But just because Martin had a Hoodie on, And was black, I can't agree with what he did, Rainy night, I might have had a hoodie on as well, I shouldn't have to worry about being shot over it, some are saying, " Martin had been suspended for fighting, So what, I been suspended for fighting when I was I kid in school, What does that have to do with anything? I'll have to stick with my opinion that Zimmerman should have received a sentence of Involuntary Manslaughter, If you still can not understand my reason of thinking, That's OK, We will just have to agree we have difference's of opinion
Quote from: FJ111200 on July 19, 2013, 01:39:03 PM
So where's the Gun Section?
Although this isn't about guns,The gun section is in-between forum suggestions and non fj - jokes/humor
Quote from: crzyjarmans on July 20, 2013, 09:44:07 AM
Quote from: JPaganel on July 18, 2013, 07:48:31 PM
Quote from: crzyjarmans on July 18, 2013, 07:34:47 PM
As he cant be tried for the same crime, That why I said "wrongful Death",
So you just want him screwed for life financially. How generous of you.
Quote from: crzyjarmans on July 18, 2013, 07:34:47 PM
Lets just agree to disagree, And drop the subject, You can have your opinion, And I can have mine
I have not once said you could not have your opinion. I just asked you a couple of questions about it and pointed out how your opinion is baseless. You didn't answer any of the questions and you keep calling for the guy's head on a platter based on pretty much nothing more than your gut feeling. As for dropping the subject, I can certainly do that. However I would like to point out that if you start a discussion on a controversial subject in a public venue, you should be prepared for people to question your opinions.
Actually I did answer your question, but I think you didn't like my answer, I have a concealed weapons license, And It is my duty to avoid any possible negative contact with another, Although this isn't always possible, So,If I think someone is acting in a suspicious manner, I would call the police and give a description as best as I could and direction of travel, And let them handle the rest, I would not follow, because this could lead to a fight where I might be forced to use deadly force, I would what to avoid this, Zimmerman didn't think about "What might happen if I follow this person", My hole opinion on this case would be drastically different if Zimmerman was just walking down the street minding his own business and Martin had jumped him, But this is not what had happened, I think it was you who posted, And I might be wrong if it was you, "Martin was walking through the grass in-between the buildings, Who does this", well, Me when I was his age, Doesn't mean I was up to no good, Just young, Now, I don't think Zimmerman should get murder, 1st or 2nd degree, Because I do think his life was in jeopardy, And to save his life he needed to do what he did, Now, before you say "It's not illegal to follow someone", As this is a correct statement, His actions is what ignited the shooting, If Martin was committing a violent act, Like, Rape, Or something in this nature, I could understand, But just because Martin had a Hoodie on, And was black, I can't agree with what he did, Rainy night, I might have had a hoodie on as well, I shouldn't have to worry about being shot over it, some are saying, " Martin had been suspended for fighting, So what, I been suspended for fighting when I was I kid in school, What does that have to do with anything? I'll have to stick with my opinion that Zimmerman should have received a sentence of Involuntary Manslaughter, If you still can not understand my reason of thinking, That's OK, We will just have to agree we have difference's of opinion
involuntary manslaughter :
The act of unlawfully killing another human being unintentionally.
here is the problem with what you are saying (and the court agrees with me), there were no illegal acts prior to to Martin bashing Zimmermand head in to the ground, and I'm pretty sure if you were getting your head bashed in you would do the same.you cam not go by anything prior to Martin attacking, because of that fact. Maybe he shouldn't have followed, but in all reality all you can for sure say is that Martin should not have attacked Zimmerman. Period. whether or not its right or wrong in your eyes or anyone's eyes it doesn't matter because the law doesn't care, the law sees black and white only and there is no in-between
.... I believe, the 17y/o was stalking Zimmerman!!
At the beginning, when Zimmerman [in his vehicle] and the 17y/o had a long eye to eye contact, Remember, when Zimmerman said,....[He is checking Me out, to the non-emergency operator, not the police].... I believe, at that point, the 17y/o created a attitude, toward Zimmerman. [thinking he is calling the police on him]
And when the 17y/o ran/jogged?? in between the homes. and looking back and seeing Zimmerman getting out of his vehicle and coming his way. He decided to hiding and wait. So, if that is a possibility, Who was stalking who??...... The 17y/o lived 80 yards away from that point [that is in evidence]. what was he doing for that period time, in the dark in the rain?? [4 minutes]
And when, the non-emergency operator said, [We do not need for you to do that] when Zimmerman said, he was following the 17y/o. The operator said that because, he could be responsible/liable for anything bad that could possibly happen.
So, when Zimmerman started his walk on the sidewalk [looking for the 17y/o] going to the next street-over. Waiting for the police to come, and then started back toward his vehicle and then, when the 17y/o came out from the bushes and hit Zimmerman in his face and he went down. And started screaming for help, And when that Mr.Good heard the screaming, and came out-side of his home and being feet away. and saying, I am going to call the police and Zimmerman said, No, I need help now. Instead of going back in-side of his house and calling 911, he should have had a set of balls and pulled the 17y/o off of Zimmerman.
....................... Guess what???? No GUN SHOOT............
If he would have done that, that 17y/o would be home right now smoking a joint!!
.......[It is in evidence, that he had H?? marijuana in his system]
Quote from: crzyjarmans on July 20, 2013, 09:44:07 AM
Actually I did answer your question, but I think you didn't like my answer,
I don't believe you said what type of manslaughter you think it is.
Quote from: crzyjarmans on July 20, 2013, 09:44:07 AM
I would not follow, because this could lead to a fight where I might be forced to use deadly force, I would what to avoid this, Zimmerman didn't think about "What might happen if I follow this person",
You can't say that with certainty. Perhaps he did, but getting his nose broken and his head hit with concrete was not something he reasonably expected.
Quote from: crzyjarmans on July 20, 2013, 09:44:07 AMI think it was you who posted, And I might be wrong if it was you, "Martin was walking through the grass in-between the buildings, Who does this", well, Me when I was his age, Doesn't mean I was up to no good, Just young,
Wasn't me. I don't think that matters.
Quote from: crzyjarmans on July 20, 2013, 09:44:07 AMNow, I don't think Zimmerman should get murder, 1st or 2nd degree, Because I do think his life was in jeopardy, And to save his life he needed to do what he did,
By law, if your life is in jeopardy, and you kill someone defending it, you get what he got - a "not guilty" verdict.
Quote from: crzyjarmans on July 20, 2013, 09:44:07 AMHis actions is what ignited the shooting,
You know this now, after the fact. To determine whether he is responsible or not you have to determine if what happened was reasonably predictable. Could GZ know at the time that this was what was going to happen? I don't think so. People follow other people every day, often unintentionally, and as far as I'm concerned, unless at the very least threaten you verbally (and we have no information that GZ threatened TM), it is not reasonable to break their noses for it.
Quote from: crzyjarmans on July 20, 2013, 09:44:07 AMIf Martin was committing a violent act, Like, Rape, Or something in this nature, I could understand, But just because Martin had a Hoodie on, And was black, I can't agree with what he did, Rainy night, I might have had a hoodie on as well, I shouldn't have to worry about being shot over it,
He was not shot for his hoodie, for the skittles, or for the iced tea. He was shot for breaking a man's nose and trying to crack his skull on concrete. Is that not a violent act?
Quote from: crzyjarmans on July 20, 2013, 09:44:07 AMsome are saying, " Martin had been suspended for fighting, So what, I been suspended for fighting when I was I kid in school, What does that have to do with anything?
Not a damn thing. Does not matter at all.
Quote from: crzyjarmans on July 20, 2013, 09:44:07 AMZimmerman should have received a sentence of Involuntary Manslaughter
Ok. I'll ask again. What kind of Involuntary Manslaughter?
There are four kinds:
Constructive manslaughter
Criminally negligent manslaughter
Vehicular or intoxication manslaughter
Assisted suicide
Definitions are here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manslaughter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manslaughter)
This is clearly not vehicular, intoxicated, or assisted suicide. So, is it Constructive, or Criminally Negligent?
Quote from: Brook on July 20, 2013, 01:18:45 PM
.... I believe, the 17y/o was stalking Zimmerman!!
I don't think I'd go quite that far.
I do think that in the situation at hand the best choice for Martin would have been to keep going home.
..... 4 minutes???
involuntary is its own manslaughter in some states, wiki is the worst source ever btw. it depends on what state you are in...
Quote from: HARTLESS on July 20, 2013, 02:32:15 PM
involuntary is its own manslaughter in some states, wiki is the worst source ever btw. it depends on what state you are in...
This article seems to be pretty decent. It's more human-readable than the actual statutes.
If anybody else wants to provide a definition, I'm game. For now, that's the one I found and that's the one I'm asking about.
Quote from: JPaganel on July 20, 2013, 02:37:56 PM
Quote from: HARTLESS on July 20, 2013, 02:32:15 PM
involuntary is its own manslaughter in some states, wiki is the worst source ever btw. it depends on what state you are in...
This article seems to be pretty decent. It's more human-readable than the actual statutes.
If anybody else wants to provide a definition, I'm game. For now, that's the one I found and that's the one I'm asking about.
i already did, and its from a law book.
Quote from: HARTLESS on July 20, 2013, 02:57:07 PM
i already did, and its from a law book.
Fair enough. What you gave was very general, but I will roll with it. There is no possible way the situation fits that definition.
"The act of unlawfully killing another human being unintentionally."
Zimmerman never claimed it was an accident, or that he did not mean to pull the trigger. So, it's not unintentional. What it is, is justifiable, justified by the fact that he had a broken nose and had his head bounce off of concrete. He was taking physical damage and reacted to it. The court ruled it lawful.
Quote from: JPaganel on July 20, 2013, 03:20:55 PM
Quote from: HARTLESS on July 20, 2013, 02:57:07 PM
i already did, and its from a law book.
Fair enough. What you gave was very general, but I will roll with it. There is no possible way the situation fits that definition.
"The act of unlawfully killing another human being unintentionally."
Zimmerman never claimed it was an accident, or that he did not mean to pull the trigger. So, it's not unintentional. What it is, is justifiable, justified by the fact that he had a broken nose and had his head bounce off of concrete. He was taking physical damage and reacted to it. The court ruled it lawful.
Right......which is why I posted it. Lol.
IF, by following him, TM was made fearful of an attack by GZ, then GZ had committed an assault (by definition).
As such, using your reasoning (and the 'stand your ground' law of this cowboy state), he was entitled to defend himself using (up to) deadly force. Since TM had no "weapon", he defended himself with his hands against GZ. His fear was proved correct when he was shot.
GZ's only legal action was to have reported the "suspicious" person to the police. All his actions after this occurred were extra-legal, and prohibited within his role as a neighborhood watch volunteer, as was his being armed.
Arnie
Quote from: Arnie on July 20, 2013, 08:51:36 PM
IF, by following him, TM was made fearful of an attack by GZ, then GZ had committed an assault (by definition).
Let's see.
Quote
Title XLVI
CRIMES
Chapter 784
ASSAULT; BATTERY; CULPABLE NEGLIGENCE
784.011 Assault.—
(1) An "assault" is an intentional, unlawful threat by word or act to do violence to the person of another, coupled with an apparent ability to do so, and doing some act which creates a well-founded fear in such other person that such violence is imminent.
I don't see how just following can create such a fear.
Quote from: Arnie on July 20, 2013, 08:51:36 PM
As such, using your reasoning (and the 'stand your ground' law of this cowboy state), he was entitled to defend himself using (up to) deadly force. Since TM had no "weapon", he defended himself with his hands against GZ. His fear was proved correct when he was shot.
Martin was not entitled to defend himself. Zimmerman did not attack him. You have to be attacked to be entitled to defense. Are you claiming that following is the same as attacking?
Also, why do you say "cowboy" like it's a bad thing? Aren't cowboys traditionally the good guys? :blum1:
Quote from: Arnie on July 20, 2013, 08:51:36 PM
GZ's only legal action was to have reported the "suspicious" person to the police. All his actions after this occurred were extra-legal, and prohibited within his role as a neighborhood watch volunteer, as was his being armed.
Arnie
I doubt neighborhood watch regulations have the force of law, and I'm pretty sure violating them does not remove anyone's right to self defense. And I'd really like to know where it says that having committed a non-violent act such as following someone suddenly makes everything after a crime.
I'm getting ready to lock down this topic.
Shawn, if you want more discussion or to argue further...take it to PM or off line.
Quote from: Pat Conlon on July 20, 2013, 10:40:57 PM
I'm getting ready to lock down this topic.
Shawn, if you want more discussion or to argue further...take it to PM or off line.
I've already posted "let agree to disagree and drop the subject", I didn't realize this was in "argument" I thought it was just a discussion, I'm not angry with anyone's post that shows a ifference of opinion than mine, But sence you singled me out, and you feel I have been argumentative? By all means, Close the thread
Thank You Pat
Quote from: Pat Conlon on July 20, 2013, 10:40:57 PM
I'm getting ready to lock down this topic.
Shawn, if you want more discussion or to argue further...take it to PM or off line.
Why, because of certain people who are tired of it, but just can't resist opening the thread anyway? :unknown:
I was thinking we were keeping things pretty civil. I mean, there hasn't been a single mention of anyone's mother... :blum1:
Quote from: Sabre093 on July 21, 2013, 08:48:34 AM
Thank You Pat
+1....PS, hope you get thru the fires unscathed
Thanks Scott....you guys have been civilized, what the hell...
Quote from: JPaganel on July 21, 2013, 09:28:35 AM
I was thinking we were keeping things pretty civil. I mean, there hasn't been a single mention of anyone's mother... :blum1:
I agree, I'm not angry with anyone, but if some are up-set about this topic, I apologize, It was certainly not my intention to offend anyone
Haha if this isn't civil, then I don't think I've ever had a civil conversation in my life lol
This is a pretty good breakdown of things: http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/2013/07/22/on-profiling-and-stand-your-ground/ (http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/2013/07/22/on-profiling-and-stand-your-ground/)
Larry is a bit less polite than I would be, but he is very much to the point.
Quote from: JPaganel on July 22, 2013, 09:47:48 AM
This is a pretty good breakdown of things: http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/2013/07/22/on-profiling-and-stand-your-ground/ (http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/2013/07/22/on-profiling-and-stand-your-ground/)
Larry is a bit less polite than I would be, but he is very much to the point.
Excellent Read. Thought provoking on many levels. Thanks.
(popcorn) (popcorn)
Regarding the question: 'who threw the first punch', as in my mind this is where the law was first broken in the encounter. It seems that some of the 'haters' seem to think it may have been Zimmerman. I find this absurd. As evidence, one must, in my mind, merely ask themselves one simple question: What sort of an idiot carries a gun and starts throwing punches?
Answer: pretty much no one.
Dan
Quote from: JPaganel on July 22, 2013, 09:47:48 AM
This is a pretty good breakdown of things: http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/2013/07/22/on-profiling-and-stand-your-ground/ (http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/2013/07/22/on-profiling-and-stand-your-ground/)
Larry is a bit less polite than I would be, but he is very much to the point.
I cannot believe a sitting President would say such dumb shit. I have lost what little respect I had for the fella after reading that article. I am not discounting the black experience but .....really?? Why doesn't he talk about Fast and Furious, Benghazi, the IRS, stalling key components of his healthcare plan etc etc. Topics that beg for his input.
Next thing you know he will be reviewing movies for us. :rofl2:
Recognise this guy
(http://fjowners.com/gallery/5/630_24_07_13_6_12_05.jpeg)
Very enlightening
Five years on the streets and in the hood will certainly age a kid----
Recognize this guy? Even Fox News doesn't use this photo.
ATT00002.jpeg
Do you know who this is?
It is Little Trayvon Martin . . . at 17 yrs of age!
For those of us who thought we were well informed and weren't . . . this is quite a realty check. That old adage applies here: "There are two sides to every story."
The liberal controlled media all continue to show pictures of 12 year old Trayvon -- NOT 17 year old Trayvon – who, at the time of his death, stood almost 6'2" tall and weighed 175 muscular pounds. He had numerous run-ins with authorities (both at school and with local police), had been stopped and almost arrested two days before his death for smacking a bus driver in the face, because the driver refused to let him ride for free.
He was released because the driver was told by the bus company not to press charges and to continue on his route.
When "little Trayvon" was suspended at school, it was not only because he tried to bring a little marijuana in with him, he was in possession of wedding rings, watches, and other jewellery that he said he "found on the way to school that day," along with a large screwdriver. The jewellery was turned over to the Police by the school.
I am not trying to say this was a good shooting.
I am not trying to say this kid deserved to die.
I am saying the media in the USA is controlled by liberals who twist and distort what you see and hear in order for you to see things their way.
Not a single paper has printed RECENT photos of this kid (in which he exhibits a mouthful of gold teeth and all of his tattoos) or admitted that he was a marijuana dealer, because it would change your opinion in this case. His friends on Facebook all say he had the "best plants."
President Obama looked at the FIVE YEAR OLD PHOTO the media chose to show the Nation and said, "If I had a son . . . he would look like Trayvon."
From that comment we can assume he did not bother to look for the facts in this shooting.
Or, should we assume he would want a son who is a 17 year old drug dealing, gold toothed, tattooed thug whose name on one of his facebook profiles was "Wild Nigga," who 'finds' jewellery and burglary tools on the way to school?
A fair and impartial news media in the USA ? One that does not follow the preconceived liberal agenda? One that is NOT looking to further divide this already fractured Nation?
(I didn't compose this. I'm only passing it on.)
Trayvon at 12 yrs of age.....how he was shown to us!
(http://fjowners.com/gallery/5/630_24_07_13_6_16_11.jpeg)
B60B204BB9C94493978F2C80035E3FBD@richardPC
Amazing, isn't it?
A. John Gallichon
President
Gallichon Associates
Tel: 1.603.888.2790
Fax: 1.603.897.1099
Skype: john.gallichon
Other than here, I have never heard of this case nor am I interested, but I have got the gist of it.
I don't believe it has anything to do with a politically manipulated media.
I imagine the media over there is the same as here or anywhere else. The get a hard on every time something like this happens. They adopt the most controversial view and then proceed to report it in the most inflammatory way and then milk it for all it's worth. They do this out self interest. Every player sees a chance to lift their profile, every paper, magazine and news service sees ratings. Every time it looks like losing momentum, they throw the public another bone or seek opinions from increasingly influential and high profile people to keep it alive. They drag up previous similar cases and chew them over again. They interview an ever widening group of people with increasingly tenuous connections to the victim and perpetrator. They speculate, fabricate scenarios, tell us what might have been going through their mind at the time, anything to keep it going. They reveal new information "that has just come to hand" that they've had for weeks just waiting for slow spot.
Once the media adopts a view, the "facts" are from that moment on skewed and selectively reported to that end.
The problem is we, for the most part, only have the information they give us to form an opinion from, which is rarely unbiased or complete.
I have a friend (yes, really) who, if not directly involved in similar media frenzy cases, knows the people that are.
Most of the similar cases here are held in open courts with the media having access to all the facts to report. They choose not to. They report, with some embellishments, only the facts that support their view.
The extent of this distortion, often to the detriment of good people involved, is scurrilous.
The only party here that is guilty beyond reasonable doubt is the media. They have manipulated public opinion, created division, fuelled social unrest etc all in the interest of their own self promotion.
Quote from: The General on July 24, 2013, 07:21:31 AM
Recognise this guy
(http://fjowners.com/gallery/5/630_24_07_13_6_12_05.jpeg)
Very enlightening
Five years on the streets and in the hood will certainly age a kid----
Recognize this guy? Even Fox News doesn't use this photo.
ATT00002.jpeg
Do you know who this is?
It is Little Trayvon Martin . . . at 17 yrs of age!
For those of us who thought we were well informed and weren't . . . this is quite a realty check. That old adage applies here: "There are two sides to every story."
The liberal controlled media all continue to show pictures of 12 year old Trayvon -- NOT 17 year old Trayvon – who, at the time of his death, stood almost 6'2" tall and weighed 175 muscular pounds. He had numerous run-ins with authorities (both at school and with local police), had been stopped and almost arrested two days before his death for smacking a bus driver in the face, because the driver refused to let him ride for free.
He was released because the driver was told by the bus company not to press charges and to continue on his route.
When "little Trayvon" was suspended at school, it was not only because he tried to bring a little marijuana in with him, he was in possession of wedding rings, watches, and other jewellery that he said he "found on the way to school that day," along with a large screwdriver. The jewellery was turned over to the Police by the school.
I am not trying to say this was a good shooting.
I am not trying to say this kid deserved to die.
I am saying the media in the USA is controlled by liberals who twist and distort what you see and hear in order for you to see things their way.
Not a single paper has printed RECENT photos of this kid (in which he exhibits a mouthful of gold teeth and all of his tattoos) or admitted that he was a marijuana dealer, because it would change your opinion in this case. His friends on Facebook all say he had the "best plants."
President Obama looked at the FIVE YEAR OLD PHOTO the media chose to show the Nation and said, "If I had a son . . . he would look like Trayvon."
From that comment we can assume he did not bother to look for the facts in this shooting.
Or, should we assume he would want a son who is a 17 year old drug dealing, gold toothed, tattooed thug whose name on one of his facebook profiles was "Wild Nigga," who 'finds' jewellery and burglary tools on the way to school?
A fair and impartial news media in the USA ? One that does not follow the preconceived liberal agenda? One that is NOT looking to further divide this already fractured Nation?
(I didn't compose this. I'm only passing it on.)
Trayvon at 12 yrs of age.....how he was shown to us!
(http://fjowners.com/gallery/5/630_24_07_13_6_16_11.jpeg)
B60B204BB9C94493978F2C80035E3FBD@richardPC
Amazing, isn't it?
A. John Gallichon
President
Gallichon Associates
Tel: 1.603.888.2790
Fax: 1.603.897.1099
Skype: john.gallichon
That picture with the facial tattoos has been proven to be a hoax...
http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/m/MARTIN-PHOTO.htm#.Ue_pFNKTiSo (http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/m/MARTIN-PHOTO.htm#.Ue_pFNKTiSo)
However, this video is worth a watch:
http://pjmedia.com/blog/the-lynching/ (http://pjmedia.com/blog/the-lynching/)
Quote from: ribbert on July 24, 2013, 08:39:37 AM
Other than here, I have never heard of this case nor am I interested, but I have got the gist of it.
I don't believe it has anything to do with a politically manipulated media.
I imagine the media over there is the same as here or anywhere else. The get a hard on every time something like this happens. They adopt the most controversial view and then proceed to report it in the most inflammatory way and then milk it for all it's worth. They do this out self interest. Every player sees a chance to lift their profile, every paper, magazine and news service sees ratings. Every time it looks like losing momentum, they throw the public another bone or seek opinions from increasingly influential and high profile people to keep it alive. They drag up previous similar cases and chew them over again. They interview an ever widening group of people with increasingly tenuous connections to the victim and perpetrator. They speculate, fabricate scenarios, tell us what might have been going through their mind at the time, anything to keep it going. They reveal new information "that has just come to hand" that they've had for weeks just waiting for slow spot.
Once the media adopts a view, the "facts" are from that moment on skewed and selectively reported to that end.
The problem is we, for the most part, only have the information they give us to form an opinion from, which is rarely unbiased or complete.
I have a friend (yes, really) who, if not directly involved in similar media frenzy cases, knows the people that are.
Most of the similar cases here are held in open courts with the media having access to all the facts to report. They choose not to. They report, with some embellishments, only the facts that support their view.
The extent of this distortion, often to the detriment of good people involved, is scurrilous.
The only party here that is guilty beyond reasonable doubt is the media. They have manipulated public opinion, created division, fuelled social unrest etc all in the interest of their own self promotion.
The only thing I disagree with, Noel, is the 'only party' part.
There is clear evidence that this US Department of Justice and the President added to the frenzy by transporting 'protesters' to Sanford within 48 hours of the shooting.
This, after the initial evidence failed to support an arrest, according to the County Prosecutor and Chief of Police. Both were replaced, and charges were eventually brought anyway.
IMO, the media the President, and the USDOJ are equally culpable in this abuse of the criminal justice system.
OK, I concede. My opinion was based on media reports and not full and accurate reporting of what happened. I was wrong. If the facts are as Bill Whittle claims, and they certainly appear to be, then IMO George Zimmerman had reason to act as he did to defend his own life.
Arnie
Hey Arnie,
I was kinda wondering what the media is like down your way with the responses you had posted.
Really way off base considering the facts.
And if the media can lie about this little story, what else have they told us as gospel that are outright spins. Gotta do independent research to keep these guys honest. And call BS when you see it.
CraigO
Quote from: not a lib on July 24, 2013, 10:00:18 AM
The only thing I disagree with, Noel, is the 'only party' part.
There is clear evidence that this US Department of Justice and the President added to the frenzy by transporting 'protesters' to Sanford within 48 hours of the shooting.
This, after the initial evidence failed to support an arrest, according to the County Prosecutor and Chief of Police. Both were replaced, and charges were eventually brought anyway.
IMO, the media the President, and the USDOJ are equally culpable in this abuse of the criminal justice system.
I'm sure there are many other facts pertinent to this particular case but it has never been reported here (Aus) and I have taken no interest in it on the forum.
I was just having a general swipe at the media and it's irresponsible reporting and the 'only party' reference was a bit of a throw away line.
Noel
Quote from: craigo on July 24, 2013, 11:14:30 AM
I was kinda wondering what the media is like down your way with the responses you had posted. Really way off base considering the facts.
And if the media can lie about this little story, what else have they told us as gospel that are outright spins. Gotta do independent research to keep these guys honest. And call BS when you see it.
CraigO
The broadcast 'media' here is variable. There are a lot of stories from the US, probably because they can just run the footage already produced, sometimes with a lead in. As with 'media' eveywhere, the difference between the story broadcast and the facts are frequently miles (or kms) apart. In addition, I think Rupert owns 80% of the print media, and a significant part of the broadcast. Fine if you like everything slanted so far to the right it scrapes that elbow, but not very enlightening.
Still, I think we can find a relatively more balanced presentation and with much more international scope than in the US. So far, Fox News (huge misnomer) is not all pervasive.
Arnie