Florida boy killed by Neighborhood Watch (2 Viewers)

[identikit]

 

[jonessed]

So what? Not once did I state there that I believe Zimmerman is legally guilty. The fact is, I don't know one way or another. I certainly believe him to be actually guilty. In researching my quotes here, did you come across the numerous times when I said that if I was on the jury, I would vote to acquit?

How can you be guilty of a major crime, but not legally guilty of that major crime? Seems to me that if you actually broke the law then you legally broke the law. Right? Isn't that kind of what legal means? How can someone legally break the law or illegally not break the law. It makes no sense. You are trying to parse words to get out of something you seem to have clearly said, but why?It vexes me. I'm terribly vexed.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

So what? Not once did I state there that I believe Zimmerman is legally guilty. The fact is, I don't know one way or another. I certainly believe him to be actually guilty. In researching my quotes here, did you come across the numerous times when I said that if I was on the jury, I would vote to acquit?

How can you be guilty of a major crime, but not legally guilty of that major crime? Seems to me that if you actually broke the law then you legally broke the law. Right? Isn't that kind of what legal means? How can someone legally break the law or illegally not break the law. It makes no sense. You are trying to parse words to get out of something you seem to have clearly said, but I don't understand why.

I think he meant Zimmerman is guilty but won't be proven guilty in court..

 

[cstu]

Here you go Tim, making up for more of that institutionalized racism:

Institutionalized racism

Okay I know guys some kids having a bit of fun, everyone does it right...

I am sure you can certainly understand their actions...

Guy looked like he drank too much obviously.. His own fault.. You can't be drunk out of your mind, mindlessly stumbling around.. He made himself a victim.. Where were his friends? None?

He should write them a thank you letter to let them know how sorry he was for being drunk in their neighborhood alone.

 

[fatness]

You did underatnd that your inability to admit facts is clouded by the facts that "white" in FBI statistics include Rabas and Hispanics, right?

I always cite my positions with statistics supported by reputable sources like the FBI.

 

[squistion]

So what? Not once did I state there that I believe Zimmerman is legally guilty. The fact is, I don't know one way or another. I certainly believe him to be actually guilty. In researching my quotes here, did you come across the numerous times when I said that if I was on the jury, I would vote to acquit?

How can you be guilty of a major crime, but not legally guilty of that major crime? Seems to me that if you actually broke the law then you legally broke the law. Right? Isn't that kind of what legal means? How can someone legally break the law or illegally not break the law. It makes no sense. You are trying to parse words to get out of something you seem to have clearly said, but I don't understand why.

I think he meant Zimmerman is guilty but won't be proven guilty in court..

That is what I thought he was trying to say too.Similar to the Casey Anthony case, who was not found legally guilty in a court of law, almost most people believe she was responsible for the death of her child.

 

[BustedKnuckles]

Its so frustrating reading peoples comments about the law and and zimmermans rights and saying he wont be proven guilty based on the laws in florida. How can any reasonable person even question if zimmerman is guilty of killing treyvon martin. Who cares if trey threw the first punch or pushed first .All that matters is he was minding his own business and zimmerman decided trey was doing something other than that. Then acted on it. Which led to treys totally unnecessary death.I couldnt even in good concience argue in zimmermans defense.Its disgusting that people do.Those that do come off like they have such little regard for human life.All they see is the way some words are written by some politician in 2005 and say thats all that matters.How many guilty scumbags go free on a technicality in court ? To many.A resonable person knows what happened the night trey was shot to death and if you dont theres something wrong with the way you`re wired.

Guilty of killing? I'll agree with that. But I don't know where that gets us. People don't necessarily go to jail just because they kill someone.And @ you knowing what happened that night.

Yes, i know what happened that night. It doesnt matter who touched who first, they argued and an altercation ensued,one that could have and should have been advoided had zimmerman minded his own business. Everyone here agrees on the timelines so what dont we know? We even have a eyewitness who heard them talking loudly then fighting. What more do you need to know?

It does matter who touched who first.. It also matters if Zimmerman was in fear of bodily injury.. It also matters if Trayvon was on top of Zimmerman and would not stop and Zimmerman was crying out for help..

i pray you`re never put into the situation that treyvon was

I don't want to be in either of their situations.. If I was being followed by neighborhood watch, I'd either ignore them, or stop, introduce myself, and explain that I was no threat..If I am pinned on the ground and someone is bouncing my head off the concrete, and I have a gun.. Count him a doughnut..

and if you shot him while he was unarmed in any of the states that dont have the stand your ground law you would spend the rest of your life behind bars

 

[fatness]

http://www.colorofcrime.com/colorofcrime2005.pdf

Your Source

Jared Taylor (also known as Samuel Jared Taylor) founded The New Century Foundation, a self-styled think tank known primarily for American Renaissance, a white supremacist journal and companion Website. The journal, which Taylor edits, promotes pseudoscientific studies that attempt to demonstrate the intellectual and cultural superiority of whites and publishes articles on the supposed decline of American society because of integrationist social policies.

 

[timschochet]

So what? Not once did I state there that I believe Zimmerman is legally guilty. The fact is, I don't know one way or another. I certainly believe him to be actually guilty. In researching my quotes here, did you come across the numerous times when I said that if I was on the jury, I would vote to acquit?

How can you be guilty of a major crime, but not legally guilty of that major crime? Seems to me that if you actually broke the law then you legally broke the law. Right? Isn't that kind of what legal means? How can someone legally break the law or illegally not break the law. It makes no sense. You are trying to parse words to get out of something you seem to have clearly said, but I don't understand why.

I think he meant Zimmerman is guilty but won't be proven guilty in court..

Thank you but not quite. Not sure why this is so difficult to understand. Actually I think my detractors DO understand this, but they're eager to catch me in a contradiction. They failed. Once again:1. I believe Zimmerman is guilty of what I consider to be a crime- either murder or manslaughter.2. Under the law, he may not be guilty, because the Stand Your Ground law may mean that he is legally innocent. I detest that law as best I undertstand it, but it's on the books.3. Even if Stand Your Ground doesn't apply, I don't think I could convict Zimmerman due to reasonable doubt. While I believe him to be guilty, this is not the same as I am sure that he is guilty. For me to convict I would have to be sure.

 

[fatness]

I step out of a bar a little drunk and get mugged by some thugs with hammers, who cares how much I had to drink when I start shooting to save my life?

"Intoxicated Man Charged With Shooting Carpenters Renovating Local Tavern."

 

[Christo]

So what? Not once did I state there that I believe Zimmerman is legally guilty. The fact is, I don't know one way or another. I certainly believe him to be actually guilty. In researching my quotes here, did you come across the numerous times when I said that if I was on the jury, I would vote to acquit?

How can you be guilty of a major crime, but not legally guilty of that major crime? Seems to me that if you actually broke the law then you legally broke the law. Right? Isn't that kind of what legal means? How can someone legally break the law or illegally not break the law. It makes no sense. You are trying to parse words to get out of something you seem to have clearly said, but I don't understand why.

I think he meant Zimmerman is guilty but won't be proven guilty in court..

Thank you but not quite. Not sure why this is so difficult to understand. Actually I think my detractors DO understand this, but they're eager to catch me in a contradiction. They failed. Once again:1. I believe Zimmerman is guilty of what I consider to be a crime- either murder or manslaughter.2. Under the law, he may not be guilty, because the Stand Your Ground law may mean that he is legally innocent. I detest that law as best I undertstand it, but it's on the books.3. Even if Stand Your Ground doesn't apply, I don't think I could convict Zimmerman due to reasonable doubt. While I believe him to be guilty, this is not the same as I am sure that he is guilty. For me to convict I would have to be sure.

 

[fatness]

Okay. I have a few drinks in my backyard and go for a walk and the thugs jump me. I shoot them. Who cares if I had a few drinks?

"Intoxicated Man Shoots Neighbors Approaching Him While Walking."

 

[jonessed]

Its so frustrating reading peoples comments about the law and and zimmermans rights and saying he wont be proven guilty based on the laws in florida. How can any reasonable person even question if zimmerman is guilty of killing treyvon martin. Who cares if trey threw the first punch or pushed first .All that matters is he was minding his own business and zimmerman decided trey was doing something other than that. Then acted on it. Which led to treys totally unnecessary death.I couldnt even in good concience argue in zimmermans defense.Its disgusting that people do.Those that do come off like they have such little regard for human life.All they see is the way some words are written by some politician in 2005 and say thats all that matters.How many guilty scumbags go free on a technicality in court ? To many.A resonable person knows what happened the night trey was shot to death and if you dont theres something wrong with the way you`re wired.

Guilty of killing? I'll agree with that. But I don't know where that gets us. People don't necessarily go to jail just because they kill someone.And @ you knowing what happened that night.

Yes, i know what happened that night. It doesnt matter who touched who first, they argued and an altercation ensued,one that could have and should have been advoided had zimmerman minded his own business. Everyone here agrees on the timelines so what dont we know? We even have a eyewitness who heard them talking loudly then fighting. What more do you need to know?

It does matter who touched who first.. It also matters if Zimmerman was in fear of bodily injury.. It also matters if Trayvon was on top of Zimmerman and would not stop and Zimmerman was crying out for help..

i pray you`re never put into the situation that treyvon was

I don't want to be in either of their situations.. If I was being followed by neighborhood watch, I'd either ignore them, or stop, introduce myself, and explain that I was no threat..If I am pinned on the ground and someone is bouncing my head off the concrete, and I have a gun.. Count him a doughnut..

and if you shot him while he was unarmed in any of the states that dont have the stand your ground law you would spend the rest of your life behind bars

Not really, no. Self-defense would still be a viable defense in most states. You would probably have to prove they attacked you, but if someone is banging your head on the concrete your life is pretty clearly in danger.

 

[Courtjester]

So what? Not once did I state there that I believe Zimmerman is legally guilty. The fact is, I don't know one way or another. I certainly believe him to be actually guilty. In researching my quotes here, did you come across the numerous times when I said that if I was on the jury, I would vote to acquit?

How can you be guilty of a major crime, but not legally guilty of that major crime? Seems to me that if you actually broke the law then you legally broke the law. Right? Isn't that kind of what legal means? How can someone legally break the law or illegally not break the law. It makes no sense. You are trying to parse words to get out of something you seem to have clearly said, but I don't understand why.

I think he meant Zimmerman is guilty but won't be proven guilty in court..

Thank you but not quite. Not sure why this is so difficult to understand. Actually I think my detractors DO understand this, but they're eager to catch me in a contradiction. They failed. Once again:1. I believe Zimmerman is guilty of what I consider to be a crime- either murder or manslaughter.2. Under the law, he may not be guilty, because the Stand Your Ground law may mean that he is legally innocent. I detest that law as best I undertstand it, but it's on the books.3. Even if Stand Your Ground doesn't apply, I don't think I could convict Zimmerman due to reasonable doubt. While I believe him to be guilty, this is not the same as I am sure that he is guilty. For me to convict I would have to be sure.

Okay Tim, that's fair, but then why are you so quick to have him arrested without the investigation being completed? If you believe you couldn't find him guilty of something, then what is the point of arresting him? You understand when the arrest happens, the DA has to charge him within a required time frame? In Colorado, we have 72 hours. They arrest, that clock starts running. To me you are just giving into the mob mentality here.Since YOU believe him to be guilty, would you personally not want a complete investigation to see if they CAN find charges that will stick?The grand jury meets on the 10th, let the system work and stop believing everything you see on tv and read on the internet as the end all truth.

 

[Clinton]

Thank you but not quite. Not sure why this is so difficult to understand. Actually I think my detractors DO understand this, but they're eager to catch me in a contradiction. They failed. Once again:1. I believe Zimmerman is guilty of what I consider to be a crime- either murder or manslaughter.2. Under the law, he may not be guilty, because the Stand Your Ground law may mean that he is legally innocent. I detest that law as best I undertstand it, but it's on the books.3. Even if Stand Your Ground doesn't apply, I don't think I could convict Zimmerman due to reasonable doubt. While I believe him to be guilty, this is not the same as I am sure that he is guilty. For me to convict I would have to be sure.

If you couldn't convict Zimmerman due to reasonable doubt, then why do you believe Zimmerman is guilty of murder or manslaughter? Both of those convictions necessitate belief of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. When the Foreman or Judge read "guilty" it means "guilt without a reasonable doubt". Yet, you seem to have a reasonable doubt.Maybe you should use a term other than "guilty" in Point 1.

 

[Chaos Commish]

Okay. I have a few drinks in my backyard and go for a walk and the thugs jump me. I shoot them. Who cares if I had a few drinks?

"Intoxicated Man Shoots Neighbors Approaching Him While Walking."

I guess you missed the reference.

 

[Christo]

Thank you but not quite. Not sure why this is so difficult to understand. Actually I think my detractors DO understand this, but they're eager to catch me in a contradiction. They failed. Once again:1. I believe Zimmerman is guilty of what I consider to be a crime- either murder or manslaughter.2. Under the law, he may not be guilty, because the Stand Your Ground law may mean that he is legally innocent. I detest that law as best I undertstand it, but it's on the books.3. Even if Stand Your Ground doesn't apply, I don't think I could convict Zimmerman due to reasonable doubt. While I believe him to be guilty, this is not the same as I am sure that he is guilty. For me to convict I would have to be sure.

If you couldn't convict Zimmerman due to reasonable doubt, then why do you believe Zimmerman is guilty of murder or manslaughter? Both of those convictions necessitate belief of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. When the Foreman or Judge read "guilty" it means "guilt without a reasonable doubt". Yet, you seem to have a reasonable doubt.Maybe you should use a term other than "guilty" in Point 1.

Oh, please. This is ridiculous. Tim asked for a link to where he stated that he was convinced Zimmerman was legally guilty. I gave multiple examples. Now he's trying to claim that from statement like these:

I believe Zimmerman is guilty of murder or manslaughter and I would like to see him arrested and on trial.

I believe he's guilty of a major crime, so I'm hoping that he goes to prison for it.

we're supposed to understand that he means this:

1. I believe Zimmerman is guilty of what I consider to be a crime- either murder or manslaughter.2. Under the law, he may not be guilty, because the Stand Your Ground law may mean that he is legally innocent. I detest that law as best I undertstand it, but it's on the books.3. Even if Stand Your Ground doesn't apply, I don't think I could convict Zimmerman due to reasonable doubt. While I believe him to be guilty, this is not the same as I am sure that he is guilty. For me to convict I would have to be sure.

Give me a break.

 

[timschochet]

Thank you but not quite. Not sure why this is so difficult to understand. Actually I think my detractors DO understand this, but they're eager to catch me in a contradiction. They failed. Once again:1. I believe Zimmerman is guilty of what I consider to be a crime- either murder or manslaughter.2. Under the law, he may not be guilty, because the Stand Your Ground law may mean that he is legally innocent. I detest that law as best I undertstand it, but it's on the books.3. Even if Stand Your Ground doesn't apply, I don't think I could convict Zimmerman due to reasonable doubt. While I believe him to be guilty, this is not the same as I am sure that he is guilty. For me to convict I would have to be sure.

If you couldn't convict Zimmerman due to reasonable doubt, then why do you believe Zimmerman is guilty of murder or manslaughter? Both of those convictions necessitate belief of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. When the Foreman or Judge read "guilty" it means "guilt without a reasonable doubt". Yet, you seem to have a reasonable doubt.Maybe you should use a term other than "guilty" in Point 1.

Oh, please. This is ridiculous. Tim asked for a link to where he stated that he was convinced Zimmerman was legally guilty. I gave multiple examples. Now he's trying to claim that from statement like these:

I believe Zimmerman is guilty of murder or manslaughter and I would like to see him arrested and on trial.

I believe he's guilty of a major crime, so I'm hoping that he goes to prison for it.

we're supposed to understand that he means this:

1. I believe Zimmerman is guilty of what I consider to be a crime- either murder or manslaughter.2. Under the law, he may not be guilty, because the Stand Your Ground law may mean that he is legally innocent. I detest that law as best I undertstand it, but it's on the books.3. Even if Stand Your Ground doesn't apply, I don't think I could convict Zimmerman due to reasonable doubt. While I believe him to be guilty, this is not the same as I am sure that he is guilty. For me to convict I would have to be sure.

Give me a break.

No breaks for you.

 

[timschochet]

So what? Not once did I state there that I believe Zimmerman is legally guilty. The fact is, I don't know one way or another. I certainly believe him to be actually guilty. In researching my quotes here, did you come across the numerous times when I said that if I was on the jury, I would vote to acquit?

How can you be guilty of a major crime, but not legally guilty of that major crime? Seems to me that if you actually broke the law then you legally broke the law. Right? Isn't that kind of what legal means? How can someone legally break the law or illegally not break the law. It makes no sense. You are trying to parse words to get out of something you seem to have clearly said, but I don't understand why.

I think he meant Zimmerman is guilty but won't be proven guilty in court..

Thank you but not quite. Not sure why this is so difficult to understand. Actually I think my detractors DO understand this, but they're eager to catch me in a contradiction. They failed. Once again:1. I believe Zimmerman is guilty of what I consider to be a crime- either murder or manslaughter.2. Under the law, he may not be guilty, because the Stand Your Ground law may mean that he is legally innocent. I detest that law as best I undertstand it, but it's on the books.3. Even if Stand Your Ground doesn't apply, I don't think I could convict Zimmerman due to reasonable doubt. While I believe him to be guilty, this is not the same as I am sure that he is guilty. For me to convict I would have to be sure.

Okay Tim, that's fair, but then why are you so quick to have him arrested without the investigation being completed? If you believe you couldn't find him guilty of something, then what is the point of arresting him? You understand when the arrest happens, the DA has to charge him within a required time frame? In Colorado, we have 72 hours. They arrest, that clock starts running. To me you are just giving into the mob mentality here.Since YOU believe him to be guilty, would you personally not want a complete investigation to see if they CAN find charges that will stick?The grand jury meets on the 10th, let the system work and stop believing everything you see on tv and read on the internet as the end all truth.

I would like to see him arrested. I would like it if it's done quickly. I THINK, but I do not know, that the Sanford police had enough to arrest him in the first place. I base this on the fact that the lead inspector in this case apparently recommended his arrest. That is why I wrote that I think the fact that he has not been arrested is outrageous, based on what I know. However, I don't KNOW any of this. It may be that there really isn't enough to arrest him. If that's the case, then he won't be arrested and that also would be right. I have stated this several times in the thread as well. Based on what I've read about her, I have a lot of confidence in the special prosecutor now on this case. Whatever she decides will satisfy me.

 

[timschochet]

Thank you but not quite. Not sure why this is so difficult to understand. Actually I think my detractors DO understand this, but they're eager to catch me in a contradiction. They failed. Once again:1. I believe Zimmerman is guilty of what I consider to be a crime- either murder or manslaughter.2. Under the law, he may not be guilty, because the Stand Your Ground law may mean that he is legally innocent. I detest that law as best I undertstand it, but it's on the books.3. Even if Stand Your Ground doesn't apply, I don't think I could convict Zimmerman due to reasonable doubt. While I believe him to be guilty, this is not the same as I am sure that he is guilty. For me to convict I would have to be sure.

If you couldn't convict Zimmerman due to reasonable doubt, then why do you believe Zimmerman is guilty of murder or manslaughter? Both of those convictions necessitate belief of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. When the Foreman or Judge read "guilty" it means "guilt without a reasonable doubt". Yet, you seem to have a reasonable doubt.Maybe you should use a term other than "guilty" in Point 1.

That's why I keep using the phrase "legally guilty". Guilty of murder or manslaughter? IMO, based on what I know, yes. (And it's a pretty overwhelming yes- not sure how anyone could think otherwise.) Legally guilty of murder or manslaughter? IMO, based on what I know, I have no idea. I lean toward no.

 

[cstu]

So what? Not once did I state there that I believe Zimmerman is legally guilty. The fact is, I don't know one way or another. I certainly believe him to be actually guilty. In researching my quotes here, did you come across the numerous times when I said that if I was on the jury, I would vote to acquit?

How can you be guilty of a major crime, but not legally guilty of that major crime? Seems to me that if you actually broke the law then you legally broke the law. Right? Isn't that kind of what legal means? How can someone legally break the law or illegally not break the law. It makes no sense. You are trying to parse words to get out of something you seem to have clearly said, but I don't understand why.

I think he meant Zimmerman is guilty but won't be proven guilty in court..

Thank you but not quite. Not sure why this is so difficult to understand. Actually I think my detractors DO understand this, but they're eager to catch me in a contradiction. They failed. Once again:1. I believe Zimmerman is guilty of what I consider to be a crime- either murder or manslaughter.2. Under the law, he may not be guilty, because the Stand Your Ground law may mean that he is legally innocent. I detest that law as best I undertstand it, but it's on the books.3. Even if Stand Your Ground doesn't apply, I don't think I could convict Zimmerman due to reasonable doubt. While I believe him to be guilty, this is not the same as I am sure that he is guilty. For me to convict I would have to be sure.

Okay Tim, that's fair, but then why are you so quick to have him arrested without the investigation being completed? If you believe you couldn't find him guilty of something, then what is the point of arresting him? You understand when the arrest happens, the DA has to charge him within a required time frame? In Colorado, we have 72 hours. They arrest, that clock starts running. To me you are just giving into the mob mentality here.Since YOU believe him to be guilty, would you personally not want a complete investigation to see if they CAN find charges that will stick?The grand jury meets on the 10th, let the system work and stop believing everything you see on tv and read on the internet as the end all truth.

I would like to see him arrested. I would like it if it's done quickly. I THINK, but I do not know, that the Sanford police had enough to arrest him in the first place. I base this on the fact that the lead inspector in this case apparently recommended his arrest. That is why I wrote that I think the fact that he has not been arrested is outrageous, based on what I know. However, I don't KNOW any of this. It may be that there really isn't enough to arrest him. If that's the case, then he won't be arrested and that also would be right. I have stated this several times in the thread as well. Based on what I've read about her, I have a lot of confidence in the special prosecutor now on this case. Whatever she decides will satisfy me.

IMO there's enough for him to be charged, but do you really want him to go to trial knowing it will be extremely difficult for him to be convicted?

 

[Christo]

Thank you but not quite. Not sure why this is so difficult to understand. Actually I think my detractors DO understand this, but they're eager to catch me in a contradiction. They failed. Once again:1. I believe Zimmerman is guilty of what I consider to be a crime- either murder or manslaughter.2. Under the law, he may not be guilty, because the Stand Your Ground law may mean that he is legally innocent. I detest that law as best I undertstand it, but it's on the books.3. Even if Stand Your Ground doesn't apply, I don't think I could convict Zimmerman due to reasonable doubt. While I believe him to be guilty, this is not the same as I am sure that he is guilty. For me to convict I would have to be sure.

If you couldn't convict Zimmerman due to reasonable doubt, then why do you believe Zimmerman is guilty of murder or manslaughter? Both of those convictions necessitate belief of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. When the Foreman or Judge read "guilty" it means "guilt without a reasonable doubt". Yet, you seem to have a reasonable doubt.Maybe you should use a term other than "guilty" in Point 1.

That's why I keep using the phrase "legally guilty". Guilty of murder or manslaughter? IMO, based on what I know, yes. (And it's a pretty overwhelming yes- not sure how anyone could think otherwise.) Legally guilty of murder or manslaughter? IMO, based on what I know, I have no idea. I lean toward no.

Murder and manslaughter are legal terms. When you say you believe he is guilty of manslaughter or murder you are saying he is legally guilty.

 

[parasaurolophus]

So what?

Not once did I state there that I believe Zimmerman is legally guilty. The fact is, I don't know one way or another. I certainly believe him to be actually guilty. In researching my quotes here, did you come across the numerous times when I said that if I was on the jury, I would vote to acquit?

How can you be guilty of a major crime, but not legally guilty of that major crime? Seems to me that if you actually broke the law then you legally broke the law. Right? Isn't that kind of what legal means? How can someone legally break the law or illegally not break the law. It makes no sense. You are trying to parse words to get out of something you seem to have clearly said, but I don't understand why.

I think he meant Zimmerman is guilty but won't be proven guilty in court..

Thank you but not quite. Not sure why this is so difficult to understand. Actually I think my detractors DO understand this, but they're eager to catch me in a contradiction. They failed. Once again:1. I believe Zimmerman is guilty of what I consider to be a crime- either murder or manslaughter.

2. Under the law, he may not be guilty, because the Stand Your Ground law may mean that he is legally innocent. I detest that law as best I undertstand it, but it's on the books.

3. Even if Stand Your Ground doesn't apply, I don't think I could convict Zimmerman due to reasonable doubt. While I believe him to be guilty, this is not the same as I am sure that he is guilty. For me to convict I would have to be sure.

I was very sure that he was guilty of manslaughter, at the very least. I'm even more sure now. Hmmmm...Where did I read that?

 

[identikit]

Thank you but not quite. Not sure why this is so difficult to understand. Actually I think my detractors DO understand this, but they're eager to catch me in a contradiction. They failed. Once again:

1. I believe Zimmerman is guilty of what I consider to be a crime- either murder or manslaughter.

2. Under the law, he may not be guilty, because the Stand Your Ground law may mean that he is legally innocent. I detest that law as best I undertstand it, but it's on the books.

3. Even if Stand Your Ground doesn't apply, I don't think I could convict Zimmerman due to reasonable doubt. While I believe him to be guilty, this is not the same as I am sure that he is guilty. For me to convict I would have to be sure.

If you couldn't convict Zimmerman due to reasonable doubt, then why do you believe Zimmerman is guilty of murder or manslaughter? Both of those convictions necessitate belief of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. When the Foreman or Judge read "guilty" it means "guilt without a reasonable doubt". Yet, you seem to have a reasonable doubt.Maybe you should use a term other than "guilty" in Point 1.

That's why I keep using the phrase "legally guilty". Guilty of murder or manslaughter? IMO, based on what I know, yes. (And it's a pretty overwhelming yes- not sure how anyone could think otherwise.) Legally guilty of murder or manslaughter? IMO, based on what I know, I have no idea. I lean toward no.

Murder and manslaughter are legal terms. When you say you believe he is guilty of manslaughter or murder you are saying he is legally guilty.

Exactly.Was just going to post this.

 

[BustedKnuckles]

Here ya go Zimmerman fans...make difference

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/06/11056075-trayvon-martin-shooting-website-to-raise-funds-for-george-zimmerman-defense?lite&ocid=ansmsnbc11

donate some for his defense

 

[Clinton]

You did underatnd that your inability to admit facts is clouded by the facts that "white" in FBI statistics include Rabas and Hispanics, right?

I always cite my positions with statistics supported by reputable sources like the FBI.

I just noticed this. Interesting catch. The statements seem incongruous, but they're not.The Uniform Crime Reports are published by the United States Department of Justice Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program. The UCR Program is a nationwide, cooperative statistical effort of over 18,000 city, university and college, county, state, tribal, federal, and other law enforcement agencies who voluntarily report data on crimes brought to their attention. Since 1930, the FBI has administered the UCR Program. The program's primary objective is to generate reliable information for use in law enforcement administration, operation, and management. However, over the years, UCR data have become one of the country's leading social indicators.

Since so many law enforcment agencies use the exact same categories to report crime, nearly all crime reports are affected by the same restrictions and deficiencies. Thus, while the FBI stats have the same level of unreliability as any individual municipality reporting, the FBI statistics are cumulative of the entire country. That large sample size should, theoretically, be the average statistics of America and would give you a truer reflection what's going on nationally rather than just focusing on one specific region like other crime reports do.

The above referenced criticms of the UCR are:

Critics of the UCR note they do not accurately reflect crime rates in that they can only list crimes reported to law enforcement agencies. Also, should a number of crimes be connected, they only list the most serious one. For instance, if someone were murdered during a car theft, they would only list murder. The UCR also fails to include child abuse in its list of violent crimes. Lastly, the list is biased in the reporting of rape. The UCR defines forcible rape as, "the carnal knowledge of a female forcibly and against her will." It does not list rapes against men, nor does it list same-sex rape.

The UCR itself warns that it reflects crime reports by police, not later adjudication by coroner, medical examiner, district attorney, grand jury, trial judge, petit jury or appellate court. For instance, manslaughter or assault later adjudicated as justifiable self-defense normally will be listed on the initial police report as a criminal act and entered in the crime statistics.

Many people feel that the racial classifications used by the UCR skew the numbers. Criminals of Middle Eastern decent, along with those of non-white/non-black Hispanic decent are all lumped into the "white" category. This erroneously inflates the number of crimes attributed to people of European descent.

 

[fatness]

There is no law that requires you to mind your own business. Kicking someone's ### because they annoy you is not justification.

What about shooting someone because they annoy you?

 

[fatness]

It does matter who touched who first.. It also matters if Zimmerman was in fear of bodily injury.. It also matters if Trayvon was on top of Zimmerman and would not stop and Zimmerman was crying out for help..

It does matter who touched who first.. It also matters if Martin was in fear of bodily injury.. It also matters if Zimmerman was on top of Martin and would not stop and Martin was crying out for help.

 

[timschochet]

Thank you but not quite. Not sure why this is so difficult to understand. Actually I think my detractors DO understand this, but they're eager to catch me in a contradiction. They failed. Once again:1. I believe Zimmerman is guilty of what I consider to be a crime- either murder or manslaughter.2. Under the law, he may not be guilty, because the Stand Your Ground law may mean that he is legally innocent. I detest that law as best I undertstand it, but it's on the books.3. Even if Stand Your Ground doesn't apply, I don't think I could convict Zimmerman due to reasonable doubt. While I believe him to be guilty, this is not the same as I am sure that he is guilty. For me to convict I would have to be sure.

If you couldn't convict Zimmerman due to reasonable doubt, then why do you believe Zimmerman is guilty of murder or manslaughter? Both of those convictions necessitate belief of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. When the Foreman or Judge read "guilty" it means "guilt without a reasonable doubt". Yet, you seem to have a reasonable doubt.Maybe you should use a term other than "guilty" in Point 1.

That's why I keep using the phrase "legally guilty". Guilty of murder or manslaughter? IMO, based on what I know, yes. (And it's a pretty overwhelming yes- not sure how anyone could think otherwise.) Legally guilty of murder or manslaughter? IMO, based on what I know, I have no idea. I lean toward no.

Murder and manslaughter are legal terms. When you say you believe he is guilty of manslaughter or murder you are saying he is legally guilty.

Whatever. Who cares? You know exactly what I mean. If I'm not using the exact correct terminology what the hell difference does it make to you or anyone? It's not possible that you don't understand what I am trying to say here.

 

[fatness]

You did underatnd that your inability to admit facts is clouded by the facts that "white" in FBI statistics include Rabas and Hispanics, right?

I always cite my positions with statistics supported by reputable sources like the FBI.

I just noticed this. Interesting catch. The statements seem incongruous, but they're not.

Actually, they are. You cite reputable sources to back up your positions. Except when they don't back up your positions, you know. Then you cite any other sources that back up your positions.There aren't any statistics anywhere that would change your position. When you post statistics it's like a meth addict putting on a tie.

 

[identikit]

Thank you but not quite. Not sure why this is so difficult to understand. Actually I think my detractors DO understand this, but they're eager to catch me in a contradiction. They failed. Once again:1. I believe Zimmerman is guilty of what I consider to be a crime- either murder or manslaughter.2. Under the law, he may not be guilty, because the Stand Your Ground law may mean that he is legally innocent. I detest that law as best I undertstand it, but it's on the books.3. Even if Stand Your Ground doesn't apply, I don't think I could convict Zimmerman due to reasonable doubt. While I believe him to be guilty, this is not the same as I am sure that he is guilty. For me to convict I would have to be sure.

If you couldn't convict Zimmerman due to reasonable doubt, then why do you believe Zimmerman is guilty of murder or manslaughter? Both of those convictions necessitate belief of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. When the Foreman or Judge read "guilty" it means "guilt without a reasonable doubt". Yet, you seem to have a reasonable doubt.Maybe you should use a term other than "guilty" in Point 1.

That's why I keep using the phrase "legally guilty". Guilty of murder or manslaughter? IMO, based on what I know, yes. (And it's a pretty overwhelming yes- not sure how anyone could think otherwise.) Legally guilty of murder or manslaughter? IMO, based on what I know, I have no idea. I lean toward no.

Murder and manslaughter are legal terms. When you say you believe he is guilty of manslaughter or murder you are saying he is legally guilty.

Whatever. Who cares? You know exactly what I mean. If I'm not using the exact correct terminology what the hell difference does it make to you or anyone? It's not possible that you don't understand what I am trying to say here.

Words mean things.The 'You know what I mean' excuse doesn't take away from your statements you post, then later saying that you never said that.

 

[fatness]

"Shaken Baby Syndrome" was cited on Friday in the defense of George Zimmerman, the Sanford, Florida, man who shot and killed unarmed black teenager Trayvon Martin, in a case that has sparked a widespread public outcry.

"We're familiar with the Shaken Baby Syndrome," said Uhrig on the CBS This Morning program. "You shake a baby, the brain shakes around inside the skull. You can die when someone's pounding your head into the ground."

link

 

[Christo]

Thank you but not quite. Not sure why this is so difficult to understand. Actually I think my detractors DO understand this, but they're eager to catch me in a contradiction. They failed. Once again:1. I believe Zimmerman is guilty of what I consider to be a crime- either murder or manslaughter.2. Under the law, he may not be guilty, because the Stand Your Ground law may mean that he is legally innocent. I detest that law as best I undertstand it, but it's on the books.3. Even if Stand Your Ground doesn't apply, I don't think I could convict Zimmerman due to reasonable doubt. While I believe him to be guilty, this is not the same as I am sure that he is guilty. For me to convict I would have to be sure.

If you couldn't convict Zimmerman due to reasonable doubt, then why do you believe Zimmerman is guilty of murder or manslaughter? Both of those convictions necessitate belief of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. When the Foreman or Judge read "guilty" it means "guilt without a reasonable doubt". Yet, you seem to have a reasonable doubt.Maybe you should use a term other than "guilty" in Point 1.

That's why I keep using the phrase "legally guilty". Guilty of murder or manslaughter? IMO, based on what I know, yes. (And it's a pretty overwhelming yes- not sure how anyone could think otherwise.) Legally guilty of murder or manslaughter? IMO, based on what I know, I have no idea. I lean toward no.

Murder and manslaughter are legal terms. When you say you believe he is guilty of manslaughter or murder you are saying he is legally guilty.

Whatever. Who cares? You know exactly what I mean. If I'm not using the exact correct terminology what the hell difference does it make to you or anyone? It's not possible that you don't understand what I am trying to say here.

It's somewhat easier now that you've provided us with a three point plan for interpreting what you said.

 

[identikit]

Thank you but not quite. Not sure why this is so difficult to understand. Actually I think my detractors DO understand this, but they're eager to catch me in a contradiction. They failed. Once again:1. I believe Zimmerman is guilty of what I consider to be a crime- either murder or manslaughter.2. Under the law, he may not be guilty, because the Stand Your Ground law may mean that he is legally innocent. I detest that law as best I undertstand it, but it's on the books.3. Even if Stand Your Ground doesn't apply, I don't think I could convict Zimmerman due to reasonable doubt. While I believe him to be guilty, this is not the same as I am sure that he is guilty. For me to convict I would have to be sure.

If you couldn't convict Zimmerman due to reasonable doubt, then why do you believe Zimmerman is guilty of murder or manslaughter? Both of those convictions necessitate belief of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. When the Foreman or Judge read "guilty" it means "guilt without a reasonable doubt". Yet, you seem to have a reasonable doubt.Maybe you should use a term other than "guilty" in Point 1.

That's why I keep using the phrase "legally guilty". Guilty of murder or manslaughter? IMO, based on what I know, yes. (And it's a pretty overwhelming yes- not sure how anyone could think otherwise.) Legally guilty of murder or manslaughter? IMO, based on what I know, I have no idea. I lean toward no.

Murder and manslaughter are legal terms. When you say you believe he is guilty of manslaughter or murder you are saying he is legally guilty.

Whatever. Who cares? You know exactly what I mean. If I'm not using the exact correct terminology what the hell difference does it make to you or anyone? It's not possible that you don't understand what I am trying to say here.

It's somewhat easier now that you've provided us with a three point plan for interpreting what you said.

Tim's high maintenance.

 

[timschochet]

Thank you but not quite. Not sure why this is so difficult to understand. Actually I think my detractors DO understand this, but they're eager to catch me in a contradiction. They failed. Once again:1. I believe Zimmerman is guilty of what I consider to be a crime- either murder or manslaughter.2. Under the law, he may not be guilty, because the Stand Your Ground law may mean that he is legally innocent. I detest that law as best I undertstand it, but it's on the books.3. Even if Stand Your Ground doesn't apply, I don't think I could convict Zimmerman due to reasonable doubt. While I believe him to be guilty, this is not the same as I am sure that he is guilty. For me to convict I would have to be sure.

If you couldn't convict Zimmerman due to reasonable doubt, then why do you believe Zimmerman is guilty of murder or manslaughter? Both of those convictions necessitate belief of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. When the Foreman or Judge read "guilty" it means "guilt without a reasonable doubt". Yet, you seem to have a reasonable doubt.Maybe you should use a term other than "guilty" in Point 1.

That's why I keep using the phrase "legally guilty". Guilty of murder or manslaughter? IMO, based on what I know, yes. (And it's a pretty overwhelming yes- not sure how anyone could think otherwise.) Legally guilty of murder or manslaughter? IMO, based on what I know, I have no idea. I lean toward no.

Murder and manslaughter are legal terms. When you say you believe he is guilty of manslaughter or murder you are saying he is legally guilty.

Whatever. Who cares? You know exactly what I mean. If I'm not using the exact correct terminology what the hell difference does it make to you or anyone? It's not possible that you don't understand what I am trying to say here.

It's somewhat easier now that you've provided us with a three point plan for interpreting what you said.

Oh BS. You're not an idiot. You knew exactly what I meant all along. You just enjoyed trying to catch me in a misapplication of teminology. And you did. Happy?

 

[Christo]

Murder and manslaughter are legal terms. When you say you believe he is guilty of manslaughter or murder you are saying he is legally guilty.

Most everything is a legal term but has a non-legal definition and usage. Murder especially has a very common parlance definition.I haven't read the last 78 pages but it seems Tim is trying to say what I said 78 pages ago that whether or not Zimmerman could be found to have violated the Florida statutes governing murder and self-defense, he is responsible for killing Martin. Regardless of the label which gets stuck to it, Zimmerman created a situation where none existed. Boiled to its essence, he was in the wrong and Martin is dead because of it.

Great. But you don't go to prison for doing something that is perceived by some to be wrong. You go to prison when you've broken the law.

 

[timschochet]

Murder and manslaughter are legal terms. When you say you believe he is guilty of manslaughter or murder you are saying he is legally guilty.

Most everything is a legal term but has a non-legal definition and usage. Murder especially has a very common parlance definition.I haven't read the last 78 pages but it seems Tim is trying to say what I said 78 pages ago that whether or not Zimmerman could be found to have violated the Florida statutes governing murder and self-defense, he is responsible for killing Martin. Regardless of the label which gets stuck to it, Zimmerman created a situation where none existed. Boiled to its essence, he was in the wrong and Martin is dead because of it.

Great. But you don't go to prison for doing something that is perceived by some to be wrong. You go to prison when you've broken the law.

Who suggested anything different?

 

[Clinton]

You did underatnd that your inability to admit facts is clouded by the facts that "white" in FBI statistics include Rabas and Hispanics, right?

I always cite my positions with statistics supported by reputable sources like the FBI.

I just noticed this. Interesting catch. The statements seem incongruous, but they're not.

Actually, they are. You cite reputable sources to back up your positions. Except when they don't back up your positions, you know. Then you cite any other sources that back up your positions.There aren't any statistics anywhere that would change your position. When you post statistics it's like a meth addict putting on a tie.

Whoa! Why did we just get personal? I thought we were just discussing how crime is recorded. But you're totally wrong on the bolded. My position was your position -- denial of the facts I cite and incredulity for anyone raising them. My position changed specifically because of exposure to statistics. Show me numerous exhibits of statistics that counter the statistics I've seen, and I'd be more than willing to reassess my position after weighing the credibility and totality of the evidence.

Personal attacks, however, aren't going to get me to change my position. I'm very fact-oriental.

 

[Christo]

Thank you but not quite. Not sure why this is so difficult to understand. Actually I think my detractors DO understand this, but they're eager to catch me in a contradiction. They failed. Once again:1. I believe Zimmerman is guilty of what I consider to be a crime- either murder or manslaughter.2. Under the law, he may not be guilty, because the Stand Your Ground law may mean that he is legally innocent. I detest that law as best I undertstand it, but it's on the books.3. Even if Stand Your Ground doesn't apply, I don't think I could convict Zimmerman due to reasonable doubt. While I believe him to be guilty, this is not the same as I am sure that he is guilty. For me to convict I would have to be sure.

If you couldn't convict Zimmerman due to reasonable doubt, then why do you believe Zimmerman is guilty of murder or manslaughter? Both of those convictions necessitate belief of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. When the Foreman or Judge read "guilty" it means "guilt without a reasonable doubt". Yet, you seem to have a reasonable doubt.Maybe you should use a term other than "guilty" in Point 1.

That's why I keep using the phrase "legally guilty". Guilty of murder or manslaughter? IMO, based on what I know, yes. (And it's a pretty overwhelming yes- not sure how anyone could think otherwise.) Legally guilty of murder or manslaughter? IMO, based on what I know, I have no idea. I lean toward no.

Murder and manslaughter are legal terms. When you say you believe he is guilty of manslaughter or murder you are saying he is legally guilty.

Whatever. Who cares? You know exactly what I mean. If I'm not using the exact correct terminology what the hell difference does it make to you or anyone? It's not possible that you don't understand what I am trying to say here.

It's somewhat easier now that you've provided us with a three point plan for interpreting what you said.

Oh BS. You're not an idiot. You knew exactly what I meant all along. You just enjoyed trying to catch me in a misapplication of teminology. And you did. Happy?

No, you are making this into something that it's not. You asked me to provide a link to where you had said he was legally guilty. I did. The fact that you explained what you meant to say afterwards doesn't change that.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Here you go Tim, making up for more of that institutionalized racism:

Institutionalized racism

Okay I know guys some kids having a bit of fun, everyone does it right...

I am sure you can certainly understand their actions...

Guy looked like he drank too much obviously.. His own fault.. You can't be drunk out of your mind, mindlessly stumbling around.. He made himself a victim.. Where were his friends? None?

He should write them a thank you letter to let them know how sorry he was for being drunk in their neighborhood alone.

I'm not saying they aren't #### heads, punks, etc.. Bad people.. My point is, he didn't know his surroundings, so he shouldn't have been blitzed, by himself, in an area he didn't know.. Not very smart.. There are bad people everywhere you go, be smart, don't make yourself a victim.. This guy wasn't being very smart..

 

[timschochet]

Thank you but not quite. Not sure why this is so difficult to understand. Actually I think my detractors DO understand this, but they're eager to catch me in a contradiction. They failed. Once again:1. I believe Zimmerman is guilty of what I consider to be a crime- either murder or manslaughter.2. Under the law, he may not be guilty, because the Stand Your Ground law may mean that he is legally innocent. I detest that law as best I undertstand it, but it's on the books.3. Even if Stand Your Ground doesn't apply, I don't think I could convict Zimmerman due to reasonable doubt. While I believe him to be guilty, this is not the same as I am sure that he is guilty. For me to convict I would have to be sure.

If you couldn't convict Zimmerman due to reasonable doubt, then why do you believe Zimmerman is guilty of murder or manslaughter? Both of those convictions necessitate belief of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. When the Foreman or Judge read "guilty" it means "guilt without a reasonable doubt". Yet, you seem to have a reasonable doubt.Maybe you should use a term other than "guilty" in Point 1.

That's why I keep using the phrase "legally guilty". Guilty of murder or manslaughter? IMO, based on what I know, yes. (And it's a pretty overwhelming yes- not sure how anyone could think otherwise.) Legally guilty of murder or manslaughter? IMO, based on what I know, I have no idea. I lean toward no.

Murder and manslaughter are legal terms. When you say you believe he is guilty of manslaughter or murder you are saying he is legally guilty.

Whatever. Who cares? You know exactly what I mean. If I'm not using the exact correct terminology what the hell difference does it make to you or anyone? It's not possible that you don't understand what I am trying to say here.

It's somewhat easier now that you've provided us with a three point plan for interpreting what you said.

Oh BS. You're not an idiot. You knew exactly what I meant all along. You just enjoyed trying to catch me in a misapplication of teminology. And you did. Happy?

No, you are making this into something that it's not. You asked me to provide a link to where you had said he was legally guilty. I did. The fact that you explained what you meant to say afterwards doesn't change that.

No you didn't. You provided links where I wrote something that YOU interpret as legally guilty. But that was never my intent, and if you read what I wrote in full context each time I wrote it, it is clear that it was not my intent even if I misapplied some terms. From the very beginning I made it perfectly clear exactly what I have thought about this case.

 

[Christo]

Murder and manslaughter are legal terms. When you say you believe he is guilty of manslaughter or murder you are saying he is legally guilty.

Most everything is a legal term but has a non-legal definition and usage. Murder especially has a very common parlance definition.I haven't read the last 78 pages but it seems Tim is trying to say what I said 78 pages ago that whether or not Zimmerman could be found to have violated the Florida statutes governing murder and self-defense, he is responsible for killing Martin. Regardless of the label which gets stuck to it, Zimmerman created a situation where none existed. Boiled to its essence, he was in the wrong and Martin is dead because of it.

Great. But you don't go to prison for doing something that is perceived by some to be wrong. You go to prison when you've broken the law.

Highlight the part where I said, "and Zimmerman is going to go to prison"?TIA

We're talking about what Tim said. And he said he believes Zimmerman should go to prison.

 

[timschochet]

Murder and manslaughter are legal terms. When you say you believe he is guilty of manslaughter or murder you are saying he is legally guilty.

Most everything is a legal term but has a non-legal definition and usage. Murder especially has a very common parlance definition.I haven't read the last 78 pages but it seems Tim is trying to say what I said 78 pages ago that whether or not Zimmerman could be found to have violated the Florida statutes governing murder and self-defense, he is responsible for killing Martin. Regardless of the label which gets stuck to it, Zimmerman created a situation where none existed. Boiled to its essence, he was in the wrong and Martin is dead because of it.

Great. But you don't go to prison for doing something that is perceived by some to be wrong. You go to prison when you've broken the law.

Highlight the part where I said, "and Zimmerman is going to go to prison"?TIA

We're talking about what Tim said. And he said he believes Zimmerman should go to prison.

Only if convicted. Stop it please.

 

[BustedKnuckles]

Murder and manslaughter are legal terms. When you say you believe he is guilty of manslaughter or murder you are saying he is legally guilty.

Most everything is a legal term but has a non-legal definition and usage. Murder especially has a very common parlance definition.I haven't read the last 78 pages but it seems Tim is trying to say what I said 78 pages ago that whether or not Zimmerman could be found to have violated the Florida statutes governing murder and self-defense, he is responsible for killing Martin. Regardless of the label which gets stuck to it, Zimmerman created a situation where none existed. Boiled to its essence, he was in the wrong and Martin is dead because of it.

my sentiments exactly

 

[Christo]

Murder and manslaughter are legal terms. When you say you believe he is guilty of manslaughter or murder you are saying he is legally guilty.

Most everything is a legal term but has a non-legal definition and usage. Murder especially has a very common parlance definition.I haven't read the last 78 pages but it seems Tim is trying to say what I said 78 pages ago that whether or not Zimmerman could be found to have violated the Florida statutes governing murder and self-defense, he is responsible for killing Martin. Regardless of the label which gets stuck to it, Zimmerman created a situation where none existed. Boiled to its essence, he was in the wrong and Martin is dead because of it.

Great. But you don't go to prison for doing something that is perceived by some to be wrong. You go to prison when you've broken the law.

Who suggested anything different?

I believe he's guilty of a major crime, so I'm hoping that he goes to prison for it.

 

[Christo]

No you didn't. You provided links where I wrote something that YOU interpret as legally guilty. But that was never my intent, and if you read what I wrote in full context each time I wrote it, it is clear that it was not my intent even if I misapplied some terms. From the very beginning I made it perfectly clear exactly what I have thought about this case.

When you say someone is guilty of a major crime and you hope they go to prison for it hth are people supposed to understand you don't think they are legally guilty?

 

[BustedKnuckles]

Here you go Tim, making up for more of that institutionalized racism:

Institutionalized racism

Okay I know guys some kids having a bit of fun, everyone does it right...

I am sure you can certainly understand their actions...

Guy looked like he drank too much obviously.. His own fault.. You can't be drunk out of your mind, mindlessly stumbling around.. He made himself a victim.. Where were his friends? None?

He should write them a thank you letter to let them know how sorry he was for being drunk in their neighborhood alone.

I'm not saying they aren't #### heads, punks, etc.. Bad people.. My point is, he didn't know his surroundings, so he shouldn't have been blitzed, by himself, in an area he didn't know.. Not very smart.. There are bad people everywhere you go, be smart, don't make yourself a victim.. This guy wasn't being very smart..

I guess the same could be said about treyvon martin. He should`nt have been walking alone with someone like zimmerman in that area. If he only knew what was in store for him.

 

[Christo]

Murder and manslaughter are legal terms. When you say you believe he is guilty of manslaughter or murder you are saying he is legally guilty.

Most everything is a legal term but has a non-legal definition and usage. Murder especially has a very common parlance definition.I haven't read the last 78 pages but it seems Tim is trying to say what I said 78 pages ago that whether or not Zimmerman could be found to have violated the Florida statutes governing murder and self-defense, he is responsible for killing Martin. Regardless of the label which gets stuck to it, Zimmerman created a situation where none existed. Boiled to its essence, he was in the wrong and Martin is dead because of it.

Great. But you don't go to prison for doing something that is perceived by some to be wrong. You go to prison when you've broken the law.

Highlight the part where I said, "and Zimmerman is going to go to prison"?TIA

We're talking about what Tim said. And he said he believes Zimmerman should go to prison.

Only if convicted. Stop it please.

Then say it!

 

[timschochet]

Murder and manslaughter are legal terms. When you say you believe he is guilty of manslaughter or murder you are saying he is legally guilty.

Most everything is a legal term but has a non-legal definition and usage. Murder especially has a very common parlance definition.I haven't read the last 78 pages but it seems Tim is trying to say what I said 78 pages ago that whether or not Zimmerman could be found to have violated the Florida statutes governing murder and self-defense, he is responsible for killing Martin. Regardless of the label which gets stuck to it, Zimmerman created a situation where none existed. Boiled to its essence, he was in the wrong and Martin is dead because of it.

Great. But you don't go to prison for doing something that is perceived by some to be wrong. You go to prison when you've broken the law.

Who suggested anything different?

I believe he's guilty of a major crime, so I'm hoping that he goes to prison for it.

I'm not contradicting you. I believe he committed a very bad action. (I won't use the words "guilty" or "crime" any more since you regard them as legal terms.). Because he committed this very bad act, I hope he goes to prison. But only if he's convicted of breaking the law. And I have no idea if he's guilty of breaking the law.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Its so frustrating reading peoples comments about the law and and zimmermans rights and saying he wont be proven guilty based on the laws in florida. How can any reasonable person even question if zimmerman is guilty of killing treyvon martin. Who cares if trey threw the first punch or pushed first .All that matters is he was minding his own business and zimmerman decided trey was doing something other than that. Then acted on it. Which led to treys totally unnecessary death.I couldnt even in good concience argue in zimmermans defense.Its disgusting that people do.Those that do come off like they have such little regard for human life.All they see is the way some words are written by some politician in 2005 and say thats all that matters.How many guilty scumbags go free on a technicality in court ? To many.A resonable person knows what happened the night trey was shot to death and if you dont theres something wrong with the way you`re wired.

Guilty of killing? I'll agree with that. But I don't know where that gets us. People don't necessarily go to jail just because they kill someone.And @ you knowing what happened that night.

Yes, i know what happened that night. It doesnt matter who touched who first, they argued and an altercation ensued,one that could have and should have been advoided had zimmerman minded his own business. Everyone here agrees on the timelines so what dont we know? We even have a eyewitness who heard them talking loudly then fighting. What more do you need to know?

It does matter who touched who first.. It also matters if Zimmerman was in fear of bodily injury.. It also matters if Trayvon was on top of Zimmerman and would not stop and Zimmerman was crying out for help..

i pray you`re never put into the situation that treyvon was

I don't want to be in either of their situations.. If I was being followed by neighborhood watch, I'd either ignore them, or stop, introduce myself, and explain that I was no threat..If I am pinned on the ground and someone is bouncing my head off the concrete, and I have a gun.. Count him a doughnut..

and if you shot him while he was unarmed in any of the states that dont have the stand your ground law you would spend the rest of your life behind bars

You are wrong..A self defense claim without 'stand your ground' would come into play.. The only difference between 'Stand your ground' and 'Self Defense claim' from what I understand is the 'duty to retreat'.. You have to make a reasonable attempt to stop the altercation, and or retreat from it.. If you can not get away, and you feel your life is in danger, or fear serious bodily harm, you can use deadly force without the 'stand your ground law'.. Stand your ground only means you don't have the 'duty to retreat'..