George Zimmerman not guilty

[HARTLESS]

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.

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

[Brook]

.... 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]   

[JPaganel]

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.

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.

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,

Wasn't me. I don't think that matters.

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,

By law, if your life is in jeopardy, and you kill someone defending it, you get what he got - a "not guilty" verdict.

His 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.

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,

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?

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?

Not a damn thing. Does not matter at all.

Zimmerman 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

This is clearly not vehicular, intoxicated, or assisted suicide. So, is it Constructive, or Criminally Negligent?

[JPaganel]

.... 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.

[Brook]

..... 4 minutes???

[HARTLESS]

involuntary is its own manslaughter in some states, wiki is the worst source ever btw. it depends on what state you are in...

[JPaganel]

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.

[HARTLESS]

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.

[JPaganel]

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.

[HARTLESS]

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.

[Arnie]

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
 

[JPaganel]

IF, by following him, TM was made fearful of an attack by GZ, then GZ had committed an assault (by definition).

Let's see.

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.

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? 

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.

[Pat Conlon]

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.

[crzyjarmans]

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

[Sabre093]

Thank You Pat