'Florida'

[Wilber]

For all I know the state didn't make its case and the verdict was correct under the law but a kid was shot to death for doing nothing and that's wrong. Because he was found not guilty, Zimmerman can go out and buy another gun and do the same thing tomorrow with likely the same result and that's wrong.

The last thing Zimmerman should have had was a gun that night. He didn't have the imagination to understand the possible consequences of putting himself in a position where he might have to use it. Result, one dead kid and he a marked man. Armed, he was a menace to himself and anyone else he suspected might do wrong.

I'm with AW in in thinking that he would have been much more likely to take the dispatchers advice instead of doing his best Lone Ranger imitation if he hadn't been armed. It's ironic that the gun which he thought gave him more security has made him much less secure than before he bought it. I have no sympathy for the guy.

[guyser]

The problem with the system of trial by jury is that in order to be fair those people on the jury should have lived in a cave for the past few months or otherwise been totally cut off from all news around them and be acquainted with the case in the trial itself for the first time instead of having heard about it everywhere especially when the media adds its own bias to twist the story to suit its own agenda.

I thinks thats a salient point.

The US system does not utilize publication bans AFAIK

Thus the trial is done in the media first, then the real one a year later.

No one, nobody in that state knew at least half of what happened if not more and finding a jurist who could lie well enbough to get selected is what they got.

Anyone of them probably had some determination before the damn thing started.

[Guest American Woman]

Nope. Even in Canada you're not allowed to physically assault someone because you think they're following you. But if you do, and you break their nose, mount them, and slam their head against the ground, expect them to be frightened for their life and respond accordingly.

So I'll ask again. This is the third time now. What's your take on the fact that Martin had no bruises? Why do you suppose Zimmerman didn't try to fight back? Why didn't he throw any punches? Do you think it's ok to just shoot someone because they punched you in the nose and threw you to the ground? Do you think that's grounds for just shooting someone? What if walking away is an option? Which it was, before it all escalated into a fight.

Edited July 17, 2013 by American Woman

[guyser]

The last thing Zimmerman should have had was a gun that night. He didn't have the imagination to understand the possible consequences of putting himself in a position where he might have to use it. Result, one dead kid and he a marked man. Armed, he was a menace to himself and anyone else he suspected might do wrong.

Oh i think he had the imagination alright. I think he wanted to use the gun.

He comes across to me as some wanna be loser who puffed up his chest when he had said gun. He was a hammer in search of a nail.

His family is apparently quite some piece of work as respects others .

I'm with AW in in thinking that he would have been much more likely to take the dispatchers advice instead of doing his best Lone Ranger imitation if he hadn't been armed.

I agree w you guys, he should have listened but....he didnt and got off.

[Shady]

So I'll ask again. This is the third time now. What's your take on the fact that Martin had no bruises? Why do you suppose Zimmerman didn't try to fight back? Why didn't he throw any punches? Do you think it's ok to just shoot someone because they punched you in the nose and threw you to the ground? Do you think that's grounds for just shooting someone?

My guess would be that he was probably overwhelmed. Martin probably didn't let Zimmerman know he was going to assault him. Yes, I think that if assault somebody to the degree Martin assaulted Zimmerman, using a gun is completely appropriate. Especially if he legitimately feared for his life.

If this was a woman in this situation, would you be saying the same thing? Would you be asking why she didn't fight back? Why she resorted to her gun? If not, why should it be any different for Zimmerman? He's suppose to risk his life, and not use his gun, because you don't think it's appropriate?

[Wilber]

Oh i think he had the imagination alright. I think he wanted to use the gun.

He comes across to me as some wanna be loser who puffed up his chest when he had said gun. He was a hammer in search of a nail.

His family is apparently quite some piece of work as respects others .

I agree w you guys, he should have listened but....he didnt and got off.

I don't think he intended to kill anyone. If so he would have shot him before he got too close. Too risky otherwise.

[dre]

Nope. Even in Canada you're not allowed to physically assault someone because you think they're following you.

We have no idea at all if Martin initiated the physical contact or not.

The story we have heard so far doesnt make much sense. If Zimmerman was following from a safe distance then they dont get close enough for punches to be thrown. If Martin turned around and started closing the distance between the two in a threatening manner, there Zimmerman would have pulled gun sooner. Especially if this situation scared him as much as he said it does.

But thats the convenient thing for Mr Zimmerman....there was to witnesses to whatever happened, and he killed one of them. So now all we are left with is his side of the story.

[dre]

He's suppose to risk his life, and not use his gun, because you don't think it's appropriate?

No... he was supposed to stay in the car and wait for the police to arrive.

[Shady]

I don't think he intended to kill anyone. If so he would have shot him before he got too close. Too risky otherwise.

Come'on, you're using logic and reason. That's not allowed when discussing this subject. Only emotion. That and repeating Skittles and Iced Tea over and over.

[scribblet]

Logic and reason doesn't apply to much of this discussion but it's interesting to note that the Dept. of Justice can't find anything so are going to the public for tips.

The FBI found nothing, but that doesn’t stop them, maybe the public can fabricate a story for them.

[guyser]

I don't think he intended to kill anyone. If so he would have shot him before he got too close. Too risky otherwise.

I agree, but what I tried to say is that he knew he had the equalizer in his pocket and would use it. He wanted to use it....he was looking for a chance to do so.

One thing for sure, Zimmerman couldnt fight his way out of a wet paper bag.

[Guest American Woman]

I don't think he intended to kill anyone. If so he would have shot him before he got too close. Too risky otherwise.

I don't think for a minute that he set out with the intention of killing Martin; I don't think most people thought that - hence the charge of second degree murder with the option of finding him guilty of manslaughter.

Still, I think the fact that he had a gun factored into his decisions that night, and since Martin didn't have any bruises, it doesn't sound as if Zimmerman so much as threw a punch before shooting him. That's what I question - along with Zimmerman's not staying put and letting the police deal with it. This is, after all, someone Zimmerman himself described as "look[ing] like he's up to no good, or he's on drugs or something" and "something's wrong with him."

I have no problem with a "stand your ground" law that enables a person to use a gun in self defense, but only when there are no other options. I don't think the law should protect someone when they put themselves into the situation; when there were other options. In this case, waiting for the police to arrive is the most obvious option. I still wonder at his not giving any bruises to Martin - to me that doesn't seal the self-defense argument, but raises questions as to whether or not he just shot him as a first course of action.

[Guest American Woman]

My guess would be that he was probably overwhelmed. Martin probably didn't let Zimmerman know he was going to assault him. Yes, I think that if assault somebody to the degree Martin assaulted Zimmerman, using a gun is completely appropriate. Especially if he legitimately feared for his life.

If this was a woman in this situation, would you be saying the same thing? Would you be asking why she didn't fight back? Why she resorted to her gun? If not, why should it be any different for Zimmerman? He's suppose to risk his life, and not use his gun, because you don't think it's appropriate?

If he was so overwhelmed as to lack judgement, he should have waited for the police to arrive. Honestly, I don't think a woman would have put herself in that situation - calling the police and then ignoring the advice not to follow him. I think a woman would have waited for the police. I also think Zimmerman might think himself more able to throw an effective punch than a woman would be. Unless you think Zimmerman doesn't have any more strength than a woman? Which, if true, makes it even more stupid for him to have not waited for the police. But I think Zimmerman could have thrown a punch; he doesn't look as if he's lacking in that ability to me. I know if I were in that situation I could have at least put some scratches on the guy.

[Wilber]

Come'on, you're using logic and reason. That's not allowed when discussing this subject. Only emotion. That and repeating Skittles and Iced Tea over and over.

On the other hand, if he had used logic and reason, he would never have put himself in that position in the first place.

[Icebound]

...

......

If this was a woman in this situation, would you be saying the same thing? Would you be asking why she didn't fight back? Why she resorted to her gun? ...

Well gee.... here is a woman who did "resort to her gun" to defend herself against an abusive husband.... and she didn't even hurt anyone....

And guess what? ...she is going to spend 20 years mandatory in jail. Oh, what else?... Well, she is black, but that has nothing to do with it, correct? ,

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57433184/fla-mom-gets-20-years-for-firing-warning-shots/

[Guest American Woman]

Well gee.... here is a woman who did "resort to her gun" to defend herself against an abusive husband.... and she didn't even hurt anyone....

And guess what? ...she is going to spend 20 years mandatory in jail. Oh, what else?... Well, she is black, but that has nothing to do with it, correct? ,

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57433184/fla-mom-gets-20-years-for-firing-warning-shots/

Her husband is Black too. So you think that's why she shot at him? Because he's Black? It was a racist crime?

Edited July 18, 2013 by American Woman

[The_Squid]

Her husband is Black too. So you think that's why she shot at him? Because he's Black? It was a racist crime?

No. different sentences... Different "justice". Probably a different level of defense council... Lots of differences due to race.

[jacee]

http://m.thespec.com/news-story/3895472-george-zimmerman-juror-loses-book-deal-after-online-uproar/

Meanwhile, Attorney General Eric Holder assailed Stand Your Ground laws on Tuesday, suggesting they encourage violence and "undermine public safety."

Under the law, an aggressor can claim self-defence in the middle of an altercation and use deadly force if deemed necessary."

It's time to question laws that senselessly expand the concept of self-defence and sow dangerous conflict in our neighbourhoods," Holder said in a speech to the NAACP. "These laws try to fix something that was never broken."

So that's why Zimmerman walked:

Apparently "stand your ground" means you can assault someone and when they move to strike back you can legally shoot them dead.

That's a law that needs some 'refinement' I think.

[Shady]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vi4929rHdYE

[kimmy]

Her husband is Black too. So you think that's why she shot at him? Because he's Black? It was a racist crime?

It's the motivation of the prosecutor in question, not the motivation of the criminal.

If a white woman had fired a warning-shot to scare off an abusive white husband, do you think it's likely that she would be charged with a crime that would result in a mandatory 20 year sentence? I think it's a reasonable question. I find it astounding that anybody, regardless of race, was charged with such a crime for firing a warning-shot, especially in a state where "stand your ground laws" are in effect. It's mind-boggling.

That prosecutor is truly scum. I don't know how she can sleep at night. I suspect she probably tells herself the same thing Carmen Ortiz does.

-k

[kimmy]

That's a law that needs some 'refinement' I think.

If this is a good verdict, then this is a bad law.

-k

[dre]

If this is a good verdict, then this is a bad law.

-k

I think its just a bad CASE. I believe even in states without "stand your ground" laws, you could use a firearm if you were actually being assaulted.

The problem here is that there isnt a lot of physical evidence that shows what really happened, and one of the only two witnesses was killed by the other leaving us with only one side of the story, and the sole living witness did not take the stand to be questioned.

So the jurors have to either take Zimmermans lawyers account of what happened, or they have to guess and speculate.

[bleeding heart]

For all I know the state didn't make its case and the verdict was correct under the law but a kid was shot to death for doing nothing and that's wrong. Because he was found not guilty, Zimmerman can go out and buy another gun and do the same thing tomorrow with likely the same result and that's wrong.

The last thing Zimmerman should have had was a gun that night. He didn't have the imagination to understand the possible consequences of putting himself in a position where he might have to use it. Result, one dead kid and he a marked man. Armed, he was a menace to himself and anyone else he suspected might do wrong.

I'm with AW in in thinking that he would have been much more likely to take the dispatchers advice instead of doing his best Lone Ranger imitation if he hadn't been armed. It's ironic that the gun which he thought gave him more security has made him much less secure than before he bought it. I have no sympathy for the guy.

I'm inclined to agree. I think there's a common opinion, probably correct, that the prosecutor blew this case; perhaps the potential sentences shouldn't have been murder or manslaughter in the first place, but something lesser, to hold Zimmerman accountable.

Whatever Martin's behavior (and let's remember that his "aggression" remains speculative), Zimmerman's eager foolishness is what brought the death about in the first place.

[jbg]

You guys and gals should have made a separate Zimmerman-Trevon thread. It's got little to do with the thread title and what was meant by using the term 'Florida'.

I did. It was deleted.

[jbg]

The problem here is that there isnt a lot of physical evidence that shows what really happened, and one of the only two witnesses was killed by the other leaving us with only one side of the story, and the sole living witness did not take the stand to be questioned.

So the jurors have to either take Zimmermans lawyers account of what happened, or they have to guess and speculate.

The eyewitnesses did see Martin on top of Zimmerman. Once things get to that stage, literally anything can happen and there is no clarity to events. That yields the result of reasonable doubt.