Florida boy killed by Neighborhood Watch (2 Viewers)

[TexanFan02]

Ah. So you think he deserved it. Awesome, welcome to the Pro Zimmerman club. It helps if you're a racist too.

You think Trayvon should have killed Zimmerman instead?

I don't think Trayvon would have killed Zimmerman.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Ah. So you think he deserved it. Awesome, welcome to the Pro Zimmerman club. It helps if you're a racist too.

You think Trayvon should have killed Zimmerman instead?

I don't think Trayvon would have killed Zimmerman.

 

[pittstownkiller]

Ah. So you think he deserved it. Awesome, welcome to the Pro Zimmerman club. It helps if you're a racist too.

You think Trayvon should have killed Zimmerman instead?

I don't think Trayvon would have killed Zimmerman.

Do you know if that is the way Zimmerman felt?

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Ah. So you think he deserved it. Awesome, welcome to the Pro Zimmerman club. It helps if you're a racist too.

You think Trayvon should have killed Zimmerman instead?

I don't think Trayvon would have killed Zimmerman.

Do you know if that is the way Zimmerman felt?

Great litmus test there. That's exactly the kind of "thinking" that gets the SYG laws onto the books.

 

[pittstownkiller]

Ah. So you think he deserved it. Awesome, welcome to the Pro Zimmerman club. It helps if you're a racist too.

You think Trayvon should have killed Zimmerman instead?

I don't think Trayvon would have killed Zimmerman.

Do you know if that is the way Zimmerman felt?

Great litmus test there. That's exactly the kind of "thinking" that gets the SYG laws onto the books.

That is the litmus test that is going to be used in court.

 

[timschochet]

I have yet to meet a defender of the "SYG" law in this thread. Even the most vocal Zimmerman defenders have not defended this law, though they correctly state that it is on the books and may end up allowing Zimmerman to walk.

Discussions about gun usage and ownership, like race, are very important, but don't really belong in this thread. I made a mistake earlier in this thread bringing up racial issues, and I've pledged not to do it anymore. I am posting in a separate thread about that issue. This thread really should deal with the Zimmerman case itself. There is certainly enough to talk about without being involved in a wider discussion about guns or racism within our society.

 

[TexanFan02]

Ah. So you think he deserved it. Awesome, welcome to the Pro Zimmerman club. It helps if you're a racist too.

You think Trayvon should have killed Zimmerman instead?

I don't think Trayvon would have killed Zimmerman.

Do you know if that is the way Zimmerman felt?

That's not what you asked.

 

[timschochet]

I would be surprised if there is any more "hard news" in this case for some months now. There's going to be discovery this summer, but I doubt we will be made aware of any of it. The evidentiary hearing will likely be in the fall. That will get a lot of press coverage, will probably even be televised, and we're going to learn a heck of a lot at that time. Because some of the posters here have made very firm predictions, at least some people here are going to have some egg on their face. I may be one of them. We'll see.

 

[pittstownkiller]

Ah. So you think he deserved it. Awesome, welcome to the Pro Zimmerman club. It helps if you're a racist too.

You think Trayvon should have killed Zimmerman instead?

I don't think Trayvon would have killed Zimmerman.

Do you know if that is the way Zimmerman felt?

That's not what you asked.

I didn't ask the first question but my reply seemed like a proper follow up question.

 

[TexanFan02]

Ah. So you think he deserved it. Awesome, welcome to the Pro Zimmerman club. It helps if you're a racist too.

You think Trayvon should have killed Zimmerman instead?

I don't think Trayvon would have killed Zimmerman.

Do you know if that is the way Zimmerman felt?

That's not what you asked.

I didn't ask the first question but my reply seemed like a proper follow up question.

No one but Zimmerman can "know" how he felt. A jury can find whether that feeling was reasonable.

 

[pittstownkiller]

Ah. So you think he deserved it. Awesome, welcome to the Pro Zimmerman club. It helps if you're a racist too.

You think Trayvon should have killed Zimmerman instead?

I don't think Trayvon would have killed Zimmerman.

Do you know if that is the way Zimmerman felt?

That's not what you asked.

I didn't ask the first question but my reply seemed like a proper follow up question.

No one but Zimmerman can "know" how he felt. A jury can find whether that feeling was reasonable.

Keeping your previous reply in mind, how could you be so confident that Martin would not of killed Zimmerman, even if only by accident?

 

[TexanFan02]

Ah. So you think he deserved it. Awesome, welcome to the Pro Zimmerman club. It helps if you're a racist too.

You think Trayvon should have killed Zimmerman instead?

I don't think Trayvon would have killed Zimmerman.

Do you know if that is the way Zimmerman felt?

That's not what you asked.

I didn't ask the first question but my reply seemed like a proper follow up question.

No one but Zimmerman can "know" how he felt. A jury can find whether that feeling was reasonable.

Keeping you previous reply in mind how could you be so confident that Martin would not of killed Zimmerman, even if by accident?

17 year olds with non violent records don't just suddenly become killers, most of the time.

 

[renesauz]

Yes, it is absolutely about making laws that discourage rather than encourage people to shoot each other.This is not at all about affecting gun ownership. It is about reforming our laws to actively discourage the improper use of firearms.It is also about drawing a more clear line between vigilantism and self-defense by making objective criteria more heavily weighted than the entirely subjective and unknowable mind of the shooter. Self-defense should not be a "cure all" defense that makes the prosecution's job impossible.We should impose harsher penalties for those that feel their firearm gives them license to act as the police. In the case of the couple held at gunpoint by their neighbors, the neighbors should have been arrested on the spot. Suspecting that a crime is occurring should not give your average gun-owning citizen a right (or a feeling of entitlement) to inject themselves into what they think is a potentially dangerous situation and put themselves and others at risk.If our laws worked as above, Joe Horn would not have shot and killed two people for burglary, same in SoCar, and it is extremely unlikely that Zimmerman would have felt entitled to do anything more than make his initial call, meaning Trayvon would be alive and Zimmerman would have his life back, something he will never get regardless of the verdict.So, for the honest folks, this does not affect them in the least. Responsible and law-abiding gun owners will not feel these laws at all. The folks who will feel them are those that feel their gun makes them Batman, and needlessly endanger themselves and others for the inflation of their ego.

It might surprise you to learn that I pretty much agree with all of this. All of these other cases of "self-defense" are ridiculous and the folks who held their new neighbors at gunpoint should be charged with a crime and their firearms removed. Zimmerman should never have been chasing Trayvon.None of that removes Z's right to use his firearm in self-defense if his story is completely accurate. If Trayvon knocked him down, broke his nose, and was beating his head against the concrete, if T really did say he was gonna die. A big IF that few seem willing to fully contemplate, but there none-the-less.

 

[StrikeS2k]

I would be surprised if there is any more "hard news" in this case for some months now. There's going to be discovery this summer, but I doubt we will be made aware of any of it. The evidentiary hearing will likely be in the fall. That will get a lot of press coverage, will probably even be televised, and we're going to learn a heck of a lot at that time. Because some of the posters here have made very firm predictions, at least some people here are going to have some egg on their face. I may be one of them. We'll see.

He hasn't been arraigned yet. His arraignment is currently set for May 8.

 

[renesauz]

You don't think it's tragic that an unarmed 17 year boy was shot dead? Or are you one of the "he deserved it" crowd?

There's a big difference between "he deserved to die" and "he may have acted in a way that caused his own death. Trayvon might be more to blame for his own death than the man on trial for murder."I realize you're far far to the Pro-Trayvon side, but you could try to look at least a little bit fair in your analyses.

 

[TexanFan02]

You don't think it's tragic that an unarmed 17 year boy was shot dead? Or are you one of the "he deserved it" crowd?

There's a big difference between "he deserved to die" and "he may have acted in a way that caused his own death. Trayvon might be more to blame for his own death than the man on trial for murder."I realize you're far far to the Pro-Trayvon side, but you could try to look at least a little bit fair in your analyses.

I'm pretty sure that's not true. Trayvon didn't shoot himself.

 

[timschochet]

I would be surprised if there is any more "hard news" in this case for some months now. There's going to be discovery this summer, but I doubt we will be made aware of any of it. The evidentiary hearing will likely be in the fall. That will get a lot of press coverage, will probably even be televised, and we're going to learn a heck of a lot at that time. Because some of the posters here have made very firm predictions, at least some people here are going to have some egg on their face. I may be one of them. We'll see.

He hasn't been arraigned yet. His arraignment is currently set for May 8.

Yeah but nothing of importance should happen then, right? He'll plead not guilty, dates will be set, and that's it.

 

[StrikeS2k]

I would be surprised if there is any more "hard news" in this case for some months now. There's going to be discovery this summer, but I doubt we will be made aware of any of it. The evidentiary hearing will likely be in the fall. That will get a lot of press coverage, will probably even be televised, and we're going to learn a heck of a lot at that time. Because some of the posters here have made very firm predictions, at least some people here are going to have some egg on their face. I may be one of them. We'll see.

He hasn't been arraigned yet. His arraignment is currently set for May 8.

Yeah but nothing of importance should happen then, right? He'll plead not guilty, dates will be set, and that's it.

I dunno. Didn't expect him to take the stand Friday either.

 

[SacramentoBob]

Hi, anything new in here?

 

[Witz]

You don't think it's tragic that an unarmed 17 year boy was shot dead? Or are you one of the "he deserved it" crowd?

There's a big difference between "he deserved to die" and "he may have acted in a way that caused his own death. Trayvon might be more to blame for his own death than the man on trial for murder."I realize you're far far to the Pro-Trayvon side, but you could try to look at least a little bit fair in your analyses.

I'm pretty sure that's not true. Trayvon didn't shoot himself.

Now I am absolutely positive you are fishing in the thread.

 

[renesauz]

You don't think it's tragic that an unarmed 17 year boy was shot dead? Or are you one of the "he deserved it" crowd?

There's a big difference between "he deserved to die" and "he may have acted in a way that caused his own death. Trayvon might be more to blame for his own death than the man on trial for murder."I realize you're far far to the Pro-Trayvon side, but you could try to look at least a little bit fair in your analyses.

I'm pretty sure that's not true. Trayvon didn't shoot himself.

Not sure what you're getting at.My point is that someone can say the shooting is Trayvon's own fault without saying that he "deserved to die". Likewise, someone could say the shooting is Zimmerman's fault without saying he's "a murderer who should hang."

The truth is almost certainly something in between. It's unfair to characterize those who think Trayvon has some culpability in the events as haters who think he deserved what he got.

 

[Clifford]

I have yet to meet a defender of the "SYG" law in this thread. Even the most vocal Zimmerman defenders have not defended this law, though they correctly state that it is on the books and may end up allowing Zimmerman to walk. Discussions about gun usage and ownership, like race, are very important, but don't really belong in this thread. I made a mistake earlier in this thread bringing up racial issues, and I've pledged not to do it anymore. I am posting in a separate thread about that issue. This thread really should deal with the Zimmerman case itself. There is certainly enough to talk about without being involved in a wider discussion about guns or racism within our society.

Yo, been here since this was in single digits and if this isn't a place to talk about gun laws then what is?Or do you prefer the far more interesting endless conjecture series (which I admit participating in)?So quit trying to shut down the first interesting discussion on this thread in 100+ pages.

 

[TexanFan02]

You don't think it's tragic that an unarmed 17 year boy was shot dead? Or are you one of the "he deserved it" crowd?

There's a big difference between "he deserved to die" and "he may have acted in a way that caused his own death. Trayvon might be more to blame for his own death than the man on trial for murder."I realize you're far far to the Pro-Trayvon side, but you could try to look at least a little bit fair in your analyses.

I'm pretty sure that's not true. Trayvon didn't shoot himself.

Not sure what you're getting at.My point is that someone can say the shooting is Trayvon's own fault without saying that he "deserved to die". Likewise, someone could say the shooting is Zimmerman's fault without saying he's "a murderer who should hang."

The truth is almost certainly something in between. It's unfair to characterize those who think Trayvon has some culpability in the events as haters who think he deserved what he got.

Not in all cases.

 

[BroadwayG]

You don't think it's tragic that an unarmed 17 year boy was shot dead? Or are you one of the "he deserved it" crowd?

There's a big difference between "he deserved to die" and "he may have acted in a way that caused his own death. Trayvon might be more to blame for his own death than the man on trial for murder."I realize you're far far to the Pro-Trayvon side, but you could try to look at least a little bit fair in your analyses.

I'm pretty sure that's not true. Trayvon didn't shoot himself.

We cannot rule that out. Both fingers could have been on the trigger.

 

[Clifford]

Yes, it is absolutely about making laws that discourage rather than encourage people to shoot each other.This is not at all about affecting gun ownership. It is about reforming our laws to actively discourage the improper use of firearms.It is also about drawing a more clear line between vigilantism and self-defense by making objective criteria more heavily weighted than the entirely subjective and unknowable mind of the shooter. Self-defense should not be a "cure all" defense that makes the prosecution's job impossible.We should impose harsher penalties for those that feel their firearm gives them license to act as the police. In the case of the couple held at gunpoint by their neighbors, the neighbors should have been arrested on the spot. Suspecting that a crime is occurring should not give your average gun-owning citizen a right (or a feeling of entitlement) to inject themselves into what they think is a potentially dangerous situation and put themselves and others at risk.If our laws worked as above, Joe Horn would not have shot and killed two people for burglary, same in SoCar, and it is extremely unlikely that Zimmerman would have felt entitled to do anything more than make his initial call, meaning Trayvon would be alive and Zimmerman would have his life back, something he will never get regardless of the verdict.So, for the honest folks, this does not affect them in the least. Responsible and law-abiding gun owners will not feel these laws at all. The folks who will feel them are those that feel their gun makes them Batman, and needlessly endanger themselves and others for the inflation of their ego.

It might surprise you to learn that I pretty much agree with all of this. All of these other cases of "self-defense" are ridiculous and the folks who held their new neighbors at gunpoint should be charged with a crime and their firearms removed. Zimmerman should never have been chasing Trayvon.None of that removes Z's right to use his firearm in self-defense if his story is completely accurate. If Trayvon knocked him down, broke his nose, and was beating his head against the concrete, if T really did say he was gonna die. A big IF that few seem willing to fully contemplate, but there none-the-less.

Z likely was firing in self-defense and should go free according to the law, unless there is some serious evidence being withheld by the prosecution.While he should not be found guilty of manslaughter (barring further evidence) this just highlights how incomplete the law is. We can almost all agree that had Zimmerman not taken upon himself to "investigate" that Tray would be alive, and he would be living his normal life. So a society that totally exonerates someone whose poor judgment cost a young man his life is a pretty f'ed up one in my opinion, and my hope for this case is that it causes a change in our society so that wannabe Rambos like Zimmerman do not feel completely free to bring themselves and their guns into situations where they are not needed.

 

[TexanFan02]

You don't think it's tragic that an unarmed 17 year boy was shot dead? Or are you one of the "he deserved it" crowd?

There's a big difference between "he deserved to die" and "he may have acted in a way that caused his own death. Trayvon might be more to blame for his own death than the man on trial for murder."I realize you're far far to the Pro-Trayvon side, but you could try to look at least a little bit fair in your analyses.

I'm pretty sure that's not true. Trayvon didn't shoot himself.

We cannot rule that out. Both fingers could have been on the trigger.

Zimmerman sure was a sucker for admitting to it then.

 

[BroadwayG]

You don't think it's tragic that an unarmed 17 year boy was shot dead? Or are you one of the "he deserved it" crowd?

There's a big difference between "he deserved to die" and "he may have acted in a way that caused his own death. Trayvon might be more to blame for his own death than the man on trial for murder."I realize you're far far to the Pro-Trayvon side, but you could try to look at least a little bit fair in your analyses.

I'm pretty sure that's not true. Trayvon didn't shoot himself.

We cannot rule that out. Both fingers could have been on the trigger.

Zimmerman sure was a sucker for admitting to it then.

You said yourself he's a nutcase.

 

[TexanFan02]

You don't think it's tragic that an unarmed 17 year boy was shot dead? Or are you one of the "he deserved it" crowd?

There's a big difference between "he deserved to die" and "he may have acted in a way that caused his own death. Trayvon might be more to blame for his own death than the man on trial for murder."I realize you're far far to the Pro-Trayvon side, but you could try to look at least a little bit fair in your analyses.

I'm pretty sure that's not true. Trayvon didn't shoot himself.

We cannot rule that out. Both fingers could have been on the trigger.

Zimmerman sure was a sucker for admitting to it then.

You said yourself he's a nutcase.

Good point.

 

[timschochet]

I have yet to meet a defender of the "SYG" law in this thread. Even the most vocal Zimmerman defenders have not defended this law, though they correctly state that it is on the books and may end up allowing Zimmerman to walk. Discussions about gun usage and ownership, like race, are very important, but don't really belong in this thread. I made a mistake earlier in this thread bringing up racial issues, and I've pledged not to do it anymore. I am posting in a separate thread about that issue. This thread really should deal with the Zimmerman case itself. There is certainly enough to talk about without being involved in a wider discussion about guns or racism within our society.

Yo, been here since this was in single digits and if this isn't a place to talk about gun laws then what is?Or do you prefer the far more interesting endless conjecture series (which I admit participating in)?So quit trying to shut down the first interesting discussion on this thread in 100+ pages.

I'm not trying to shut it down. I'd love to have this discussion. Please start a new thread, and I will gladly post my opinions. I have a lot of them on this issue.

 

[Warrior]

Ah. So you think he deserved it. Awesome, welcome to the Pro Zimmerman club. It helps if you're a racist too.

You think Trayvon should have killed Zimmerman instead?

I don't think Trayvon would have killed Zimmerman.

Do you know if that is the way Zimmerman felt?

That's not what you asked.

I didn't ask the first question but my reply seemed like a proper follow up question.

No one but Zimmerman can "know" how he felt. A jury can find whether that feeling was reasonable.

Keeping you previous reply in mind how could you be so confident that Martin would not of killed Zimmerman, even if by accident?

17 year olds with non violent records don't just suddenly become killers, most of the time.

28 year olds with non violent records also don't just suddenly become killers, most of the time.Your argument doesn't hold water.

 

[SacramentoBob]

Ah. So you think he deserved it. Awesome, welcome to the Pro Zimmerman club. It helps if you're a racist too.

You think Trayvon should have killed Zimmerman instead?

I don't think Trayvon would have killed Zimmerman.

Do you know if that is the way Zimmerman felt?

That's not what you asked.

I didn't ask the first question but my reply seemed like a proper follow up question.

No one but Zimmerman can "know" how he felt. A jury can find whether that feeling was reasonable.

Keeping you previous reply in mind how could you be so confident that Martin would not of killed Zimmerman, even if by accident?

17 year olds with non violent records don't just suddenly become killers, most of the time.

28 year olds with non violent records also don't just suddenly become killers, most of the time.Your argument doesn't hold water.

Is there a 3rd person involved here?

 

[TexanFan02]

Ah. So you think he deserved it. Awesome, welcome to the Pro Zimmerman club. It helps if you're a racist too.

You think Trayvon should have killed Zimmerman instead?

I don't think Trayvon would have killed Zimmerman.

Do you know if that is the way Zimmerman felt?

That's not what you asked.

I didn't ask the first question but my reply seemed like a proper follow up question.

No one but Zimmerman can "know" how he felt. A jury can find whether that feeling was reasonable.

Keeping you previous reply in mind how could you be so confident that Martin would not of killed Zimmerman, even if by accident?

17 year olds with non violent records don't just suddenly become killers, most of the time.

28 year olds with non violent records also don't just suddenly become killers, most of the time.Your argument doesn't hold water.

Yes it does.

 

[TexanFan02]

I have yet to meet a defender of the "SYG" law in this thread. Even the most vocal Zimmerman defenders have not defended this law, though they correctly state that it is on the books and may end up allowing Zimmerman to walk.

Discussions about gun usage and ownership, like race, are very important, but don't really belong in this thread. I made a mistake earlier in this thread bringing up racial issues, and I've pledged not to do it anymore. I am posting in a separate thread about that issue. This thread really should deal with the Zimmerman case itself. There is certainly enough to talk about without being involved in a wider discussion about guns or racism within our society.

Yo, been here since this was in single digits and if this isn't a place to talk about gun laws then what is?Or do you prefer the far more interesting endless conjecture series (which I admit participating in)?

So quit trying to shut down the first interesting discussion on this thread in 100+ pages.

I'm not trying to shut it down. I'd love to have this discussion. Please start a new thread, and I will gladly post my opinions. I have a lot of them on this issue.

 

[renesauz]

28 year olds with non violent records also don't just suddenly become killers, most of the time.

Your argument doesn't hold water.

Is there a 3rd person involved here?

No...but calling Z's record non-violent is fair...or at least every bit as fair as calling T's record non-violent.

 

[TexanFan02]

28 year olds with non violent records also don't just suddenly become killers, most of the time.

Your argument doesn't hold water.

Is there a 3rd person involved here?

No...but calling Z's record non-violent is fair...or at least every bit as fair as calling T's record non-violent.

No it's not.

 

[Witz]

28 year olds with non violent records also don't just suddenly become killers, most of the time.

Your argument doesn't hold water.

Is there a 3rd person involved here?

No...but calling Z's record non-violent is fair...or at least every bit as fair as calling T's record non-violent.

No it's not.

Since it was Martin that broke Zimmermans nose and caused the injuries to the back of his head, your crusade to call Martin non-violent has lost all merit. Next.

 

[renesauz]

28 year olds with non violent records also don't just suddenly become killers, most of the time.

Your argument doesn't hold water.

Is there a 3rd person involved here?

No...but calling Z's record non-violent is fair...or at least every bit as fair as calling T's record non-violent.

No it's not.

Probably not worth going back over, but I find the evidence of violence in Z's past no more compelling than the evidance of violence and problems in T's past.If you think it's fair to call Z violent, I'm OK with that,or at least, I would be if you than evaluate T just as strictly...something you have refused to do.

Zimmerman is 28. The incident twith the GF is very sketchy, with a darn good chance he was innocent. The incidence with the cop is 1 incident...with a PLAIN CLOTHES COP....YEARS ago. His more recent history shows no hints of violence.

ETA: Either they both had a prediliction towards violence, or neither did....don't think you can fairly have it both ways.

 

[SacramentoBob]

28 year olds with non violent records also don't just suddenly become killers, most of the time.

Your argument doesn't hold water.

Is there a 3rd person involved here?

No...but calling Z's record non-violent is fair...or at least every bit as fair as calling T's record non-violent.

No it's not.

Probably not worth going back over, but I find the evidence of violence in Z's past no more compelling than the evidance of violence and problems in T's past.If you think it's fair to call Z violent, I'm OK with that,or at least, I would be if you than evaluate T just as strictly...something you have refused to do.

Zimmerman is 28. The incident twith the GF is very sketchy, with a darn good chance he was innocent. The incidence with the cop is 1 incident...with a PLAIN CLOTHES COP....YEARS ago. His more recent history shows no hints of violence.

So it doesn't count b/c you think it was sketchy. He had several violent run-ins and has been arrested and charged before. The only sketchy evidence of violence was about Martin. Not documented arrests and charges, but comments on Twitter pages.

 

[SacramentoBob]

Being arrested = thin evidence, probably nothing to it

Making a comment on a Twitter page = rock solid proof

 

[renesauz]

28 year olds with non violent records also don't just suddenly become killers, most of the time.

Your argument doesn't hold water.

Is there a 3rd person involved here?

No...but calling Z's record non-violent is fair...or at least every bit as fair as calling T's record non-violent.

No it's not.

Probably not worth going back over, but I find the evidence of violence in Z's past no more compelling than the evidance of violence and problems in T's past.If you think it's fair to call Z violent, I'm OK with that,or at least, I would be if you than evaluate T just as strictly...something you have refused to do.

Zimmerman is 28. The incident twith the GF is very sketchy, with a darn good chance he was innocent. The incidence with the cop is 1 incident...with a PLAIN CLOTHES COP....YEARS ago. His more recent history shows no hints of violence.

So it doesn't count b/c you think it was sketchy. He had several violent run-ins and has been arrested and charged before. The only sketchy evidence of violence was about Martin. Not documented arrests and charges, but comments on Twitter pages.

Since "several" = 2, one of which I have ignored, than yes, one incident several years ago is not enough to proclaim a history of violence.FTR...I haven't proclaimed Trayvon violent either. I've come to the conclusion that he was heading towards that road based on the sketchy evidance we've seen, but it's not enough to conclude he was already zooming 100 mph down that road.

 

[BroadwayG]

Being arrested = thin evidence, probably nothing to itMaking a comment on a Twitter page = rock solid proof

What about the empty pot baggie and the backpack full of stolen jewelry?

 

[Da Guru]

Hi, anything new in here?

Still try to figure out what happened....

 

[SacramentoBob]

Being arrested = thin evidence, probably nothing to itMaking a comment on a Twitter page = rock solid proof

What about the empty pot baggie and the backpack full of stolen jewelry?

What does that have to do with a violent history? And the jewelry wasn't linked to any theft that I recall.

 

[BroadwayG]

Being arrested = thin evidence, probably nothing to itMaking a comment on a Twitter page = rock solid proof

What about the empty pot baggie and the backpack full of stolen jewelry?

What does that have to do with a violent history? And the jewelry wasn't linked to any theft that I recall.

Getting into fistfights is plenty normal, not violent. Just ask TexasFan.Zimmerman had a normal history, not a violent one.

 

[Christo]

I still have no idea what "introduce the changing story" means.

That's your fault. Christo and most reading this know exactly what it means.Here, Otis.

Ah yes. The latest offerings from dissentingjustice.blogspot.com and dailykos.com. How could I not have spotted this before.

There's over a million hits on that search. Which is sort of the point. The lie/error/controversial story change went viral.It was explained clearly by me from one pov and clearly by Christo from another. Do you understand the changing story yet?

You don't know that he's changing his story. At least you'd know that if you actually read what I wrote.

I read what you wrote and told you it was baloney which made you laugh. Keep up, punk. How's this? The known story changed from George being spot on about his age to thinking he was much older. Another question for you. It appeared the prosecution was limited to questioning Zimmerman about his current remarks on the stand. Why would they not touch the age thing? It would have made for much better theater than this thread.

The known story is irrelevant. This is what happens when people don't know the whole story. They call people liars because they want them to be liars not because they know they are liars. One of two reasons the prosecution didn't cross him on the issue: (1) they weren't prepared or (2) they know he wasn't lying.

3. The judge wouldn't let them bring in evidence that wasn't on the charging affidavit. Because it was just a bond hearing.

It was an evidentiary hearing, the other side is allowed to cross examine a witness on any issue raised by the witness, including impeaching the witness.

Wrong. The Prosecution tried to cross examine a witness, the defense objected that they were cross examining and the Judge upheld the objection. But don't let facts get in your way.

 

[TexanFan02]

Being arrested = thin evidence, probably nothing to itMaking a comment on a Twitter page = rock solid proof

What about the empty pot baggie and the backpack full of stolen jewelry?

What does that have to do with a violent history? And the jewelry wasn't linked to any theft that I recall.

He was black and had a twitter account. He was clearly a murderous thug, duh.

 

[Christo]

And fwiw, I've been one of the biggest doubters of Trayvon and supporters of Zimmerman in this thread. I just think that apology was a sh#### thing to do. If it served a purpose to help Zimmerman, then I think his attorney is a tool. It was unnecessary. This case shouldn't be that difficult.

The lawyer was never going to let Zimmerman say he was sorry for what he did. Never. Everyone would take it as him admitting he did something wrong. Anyone who thought he would apologize for his actions is a fool. I'm sure Zimmerman wanted to say something. So this is how they decided to phrase it. There is nothing wrong with Zimmerman saying he is sorry for their loss. Anyone who is mad about that is just looking for a reason to stay mad.

So, you wouldn't find it chicken#### if you were in those parents' shoes if someone said their were sorry for your loss, but not their actions?ETA: And tacky. Really, really tacky.

It isn't Zimmerman's attorney's job to mollify Martin's parents. You should know that.

 

[Christo]

What's funny is the only thing the prosecution was allowed to question Zimmerman about was his statement. So they went all goofy on the apology. Did you apologize before? Why did you wait so long? Bla bla bla. Why didn't they nail Zimmerman on contradicting the information (your changing story Otis) in the phone call. If they could ask about other apologies they could surely ask if he always thought he was older than late teens, right?

I think it is rehersed, but not a lie. As I have said before I think part of the evidence of inconsistency in Zimmerman's statements is to the age of Martin in his statements vs the call to police. Allowing Zimmerman to restate what he said after the shooting without the prosecution being able to call him out on it while on the stand was genius. It's either that or Zimmerman went completely against his lawyer's wishes at which point there is no way I think his attorney would represent him anymore.

It was a well rehearsed lie, intended to bolster the Zimmerman supporters, which it has. Nothing to see here.

You are full of ####. No attorney is going to let him get on the stand and lie.

Some states you don't have a choice.

I have no idea what that means.

 

[renesauz]

Being arrested = thin evidence, probably nothing to itMaking a comment on a Twitter page = rock solid proof

What about the empty pot baggie and the backpack full of stolen jewelry?

What does that have to do with a violent history? And the jewelry wasn't linked to any theft that I recall.

Absolutely nothing...except that violent criminals usually START with non-violent crimes. And to the idea that the jewelry was aquired honestly.Look....I have no idea what this kid's future looked like, but I think it's intellectually dishonest to assume it looked good based on what little evidance of his life is out there. Meanwhile....Zimmerman was by all accounts a decent guy who wanted to help his neighbors. He was not some POS who sought out a kid to harrass and ultimately kill. The events of that night are a tragedy, but it's simply biased to call Z "violent" based on one incident years ago and yet give the kid a pass.

 

[SacramentoBob]

Absolutely nothing...except that violent criminals usually START with non-violent crimes. And to the idea that the jewelry was aquired honestly.

What does any of this have to do with whether or not Martin had a violent history or not?