Florida boy killed by Neighborhood Watch (2 Viewers)

[TexanFan02]

If Zimmerman did not have a gun he could have been dead.

Dead from a teenager was walking down a street?

He could have been hit by a car while looking for black thugs in the neighborhood.

 

[Christo]

Sounds just like his dealing with Trayvon.

ETA: "Bias is an inclination to present or hold a partial perspective at the expense of (possibly equally valid) alternatives. Anything biased generally is one-sided, and therefore lacks a neutral point of view."Would also suggest that the judge is plenty neutral and that there are no 'equally valid alternatives' to the fact that Zimmerman is a lying weasel.

The question is what the judge is basing this conclusion on? I thought it was his wife who lied? I thought the judge went a bit overboard on his ruling and displayed a bias.

I'm sure the motion centers around the judge's conclusion that Zimmerman was preparing to flee when there's no direct evidence of that.

well seeing treyvon was stuck with zimmerman as his judge , jury AND executioner zimmy will just have to live with what he has hahaha...walk it off tough guy

Seems to me someone who believes the evidence will prove that Zimmerman is guilty would want to bend over backwards to make sure Zimmerman receives a fair trial.

He is receiving one. He doesn't need a change of the judge.

How do you know?

 

[BustedKnuckles]

How many times has someone gone to jail that is innocent because the state put on a better show than the defense . It works both ways and it happens all the time.Nothing new here. Thats why people spend huge amounts of money to win a case against them, a better lawyer will put on a better show.

How many times has someone been on the receiving end of a violent potentially life-threatening beat down and the victim does not see justice?I speak from experience so I have a really hard time understanding how people can ignore this key piece to this situation. You can argue all you want why you think Zimmerman called the police, followed Martin when advised not to and all of the other insignificant details (in my mind) to this case but it boggles my mind as to how you can ignore the injuries Zimmerman sustained and dismiss it as "he had it coming" and he is a liar so how do we know the beat down was as bad as he says it was.

Treyvon Martin wasnt doing anything wrong, zimmerman never should have approached him . If treyvon was commiting a crime of some sort this wouldnt even be a discussion.People shouldnt have to worry about someone accusing them of doing something wrong just because there have been crimes in a certain area before.If you get out of the safety of your car to follow someone than you are taking on all the resposibility that goes along with that action.Zimmermans injuries were not life threatening, he had 2 cuts that never needed stitches and a ''supposably'' broken nose...there is no official medical record it was broken. He may have been scared because things didnt go the way he pictured but that doesnt give you the right to shoot to kill someone YOU targeted as a potential criminal , that turned out wasnt.

If anyone had the right to stand there ground it was treyvon , who was minding his own business. He didnt walk 100 yards to find zimmy, it was the other way around.

 

[Christo]

Sounds just like his dealing with Trayvon.

ETA: "Bias is an inclination to present or hold a partial perspective at the expense of (possibly equally valid) alternatives. Anything biased generally is one-sided, and therefore lacks a neutral point of view."Would also suggest that the judge is plenty neutral and that there are no 'equally valid alternatives' to the fact that Zimmerman is a lying weasel.

The question is what the judge is basing this conclusion on? I thought it was his wife who lied? I thought the judge went a bit overboard on his ruling and displayed a bias.

I'm sure the motion centers around the judge's conclusion that Zimmerman was preparing to flee when there's no direct evidence of that.

Except for the part where he told his wife to hold onto his extra passport. That they didn't tell the court about. What do you need passports for? Oh yeah, fleeing from prosecution.

You don't understand what direct evidence is, do you?

 

[Christo]

Sounds just like his dealing with Trayvon.

ETA: "Bias is an inclination to present or hold a partial perspective at the expense of (possibly equally valid) alternatives. Anything biased generally is one-sided, and therefore lacks a neutral point of view."Would also suggest that the judge is plenty neutral and that there are no 'equally valid alternatives' to the fact that Zimmerman is a lying weasel.

The question is what the judge is basing this conclusion on? I thought it was his wife who lied? I thought the judge went a bit overboard on his ruling and displayed a bias.

I'm sure the motion centers around the judge's conclusion that Zimmerman was preparing to flee when there's no direct evidence of that.

well seeing treyvon was stuck with zimmerman as his judge , jury AND executioner zimmy will just have to live with what he has hahaha...walk it off tough guy

Seems to me someone who believes the evidence will prove that Zimmerman is guilty would want to bend over backwards to make sure Zimmerman receives a fair trial.

Wrong, im on record in this thread saying although i believe zimmerman is guilty of causing treyvons death and lying about what really happened, i think it would be almost impossible to get a guilty verdict.

Well, then I could see why you'd want a biased judge. Carry on.

 

[TexanFan02]

Sounds just like his dealing with Trayvon.

ETA: "Bias is an inclination to present or hold a partial perspective at the expense of (possibly equally valid) alternatives. Anything biased generally is one-sided, and therefore lacks a neutral point of view."Would also suggest that the judge is plenty neutral and that there are no 'equally valid alternatives' to the fact that Zimmerman is a lying weasel.

The question is what the judge is basing this conclusion on? I thought it was his wife who lied? I thought the judge went a bit overboard on his ruling and displayed a bias.

I'm sure the motion centers around the judge's conclusion that Zimmerman was preparing to flee when there's no direct evidence of that.

Except for the part where he told his wife to hold onto his extra passport. That they didn't tell the court about. What do you need passports for? Oh yeah, fleeing from prosecution.

You don't understand what direct evidence is, do you?

You don't understand what circumstantial evidence is, do you?

 

[timschochet]

The FBI found no racial bias behind George Zimmerman's shooting of Miami Gardens teen Trayvon Martin

shocking that none of the Martin backers are commenting on this

I hadn't read this. Allow me to comment:I'm not surprised. I don't think it would be easy to find racial bias against Zimmerman in this instance unless he admitted to it. And why should he do that?

While there are some witnesses, as the article suggests, who have testified that Zimmerman showed no racial bias in the past, there are other witnesses who suggest that he has. Personally, I think Zimmerman is probably a racist, but as I have explained before, that is a feeling on my part, I don't have any proof, and if I were part of the FBI investigation I would have to reach the same conclusion they did.

The article also reported that the Justice department had not concluded a civil rights investigation and would not do so until after the trial was over. IMO, beyond the issue of Zimmerman's personal biases, there exists an institutionalized racism among law enforcement in our society which makes a black kid like Trayvon Martin more suspicious and more likely to be followed than if he were white. I believe, though I can't prove, if Martin were white Zimmerman would not have been suspicious and followed him. Thus, I believe that Martin's skin color contributed heavily to his murder.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Wrong, im on record in this thread saying although i believe zimmerman is guilty of causing treyvons death and lying about what really happened, i think it would be almost impossible to get a guilty verdict.

That's an interesting choice of words. So according to your view of the world he is guilty, but you also believe in society's view of the world he is clearly innocent?

Whether Zimmerman's is found to be innocent or guilty in society's view is not really relevant to whether he is found guilty in a court room. I think today a slight majority of society finds him anything but innocent (see all of the lynch mob comments) but I am not so sure that if we limited he jury pool to just "pro Martin" folks that he could be convicted criminally.

 

[BustedKnuckles]

Wrong, im on record in this thread saying although i believe zimmerman is guilty of causing treyvons death and lying about what really happened, i think it would be almost impossible to get a guilty verdict.

That's an interesting choice of words. So according to your view of the world he is guilty, but you also believe in society's view of the world he is clearly innocent?

Whether Zimmerman's is found to be innocent or guilty in society's view is not really relevant to whether he is found guilty in a court room. I think today a slight majority of society finds him anything but innocent (see all of the lynch mob comments) but I am not so sure that if we limited he jury pool to just "pro Martin" folks that he could be convicted criminally.

there is a difference between being innocent until being proven guilty and being guilty until proven guilty. If zimmerman was accused of shooting martin yet he wasnt even in the area then yes, innocent until proven otherwise. When you are standing over a dead body holding the murder weapon you are guilty until proven othewise....IMO

 

[pittstownkiller]

Florida's law would tell you that you can kill an unarmed man if you feel threatened. I know you're a fighter, and that might be clouding your opinion, but I do not think everyone can defend themselves such as you and a reasonable assumption could be made that Zimmerman was scared. The comparison to OJ isn't quite fair, since the trial hasn't even started and you are all ready saying he will be acquitted; what courtroom circus show has made you come to this conclusion?

I may be able to defend myself better than someone who doesnt train to do so, but ive also never carried a gun.I know people that do and i can promise you they couldnt care less about someone that can fight because they have the security of knowing they can shoot me if they wanted to. So while i may feel confident about my abilities the gun owner feels just as confident if not more.Thats why they own a gun in the first place.How many times has someone gone to jail that is innocent because the state put on a better show than the defense . It works both ways and it happens all the time.Nothing new here. Thats why people spend huge amounts of money to win a case against them, a better lawyer will put on a better show.

Your post causes me to question some of your previous posts: You don't carry a gun because you are confident you can defend yourself, the backside of that is that if you can't defend yourself you might want to think about carrying a gun. If you're carrying a gun and can't defend yourself, why would you get into a close proximity fistfight with someone and possibly lose the only advantage you would have in the situation?If the people you know carry a gun because they know they can defend themselves against a superior aggressor, why don't they carry a knife or some other such weapon? Of course the answer is that a gun maintains a distance of safety; why would Zimmerman willingly lose this advantage?As for Zimmerman and his lawyer, I am sure Zimmerman was contacted by this lawyer to represent him. Zimmerman's lawyer knows what kind of revenues winning, and to a lesser extent losing, this case brings him. I am sure the lawyer has negotiated the story (book and movie) rights to this case in lieu of payment, add this to the publicity he will get for defending this high profile case against a aggressive prosecutor and I assume that Zimmerman will be quite the cash cow for him.

 

[Christo]

Sounds just like his dealing with Trayvon.

ETA: "Bias is an inclination to present or hold a partial perspective at the expense of (possibly equally valid) alternatives. Anything biased generally is one-sided, and therefore lacks a neutral point of view."Would also suggest that the judge is plenty neutral and that there are no 'equally valid alternatives' to the fact that Zimmerman is a lying weasel.

The question is what the judge is basing this conclusion on? I thought it was his wife who lied? I thought the judge went a bit overboard on his ruling and displayed a bias.

I'm sure the motion centers around the judge's conclusion that Zimmerman was preparing to flee when there's no direct evidence of that.

Except for the part where he told his wife to hold onto his extra passport. That they didn't tell the court about. What do you need passports for? Oh yeah, fleeing from prosecution.

You don't understand what direct evidence is, do you?

You don't understand what circumstantial evidence is, do you?

 

[BustedKnuckles]

Florida's law would tell you that you can kill an unarmed man if you feel threatened. I know you're a fighter, and that might be clouding your opinion, but I do not think everyone can defend themselves such as you and a reasonable assumption could be made that Zimmerman was scared. The comparison to OJ isn't quite fair, since the trial hasn't even started and you are all ready saying he will be acquitted; what courtroom circus show has made you come to this conclusion?

I may be able to defend myself better than someone who doesnt train to do so, but ive also never carried a gun.I know people that do and i can promise you they couldnt care less about someone that can fight because they have the security of knowing they can shoot me if they wanted to. So while i may feel confident about my abilities the gun owner feels just as confident if not more.Thats why they own a gun in the first place.How many times has someone gone to jail that is innocent because the state put on a better show than the defense . It works both ways and it happens all the time.Nothing new here. Thats why people spend huge amounts of money to win a case against them, a better lawyer will put on a better show.

Your post causes me to question some of your previous posts: You don't carry a gun because you are confident you can defend yourself, the backside of that is that if you can't defend yourself you might want to think about carrying a gun. If you're carrying a gun and can't defend yourself, why would you get into a close proximity fistfight with someone and possibly lose the only advantage you would have in the situation?If the people you know carry a gun because they know they can defend themselves against a superior aggressor, why don't they carry a knife or some other such weapon? Of course the answer is that a gun maintains a distance of safety; why would Zimmerman willingly lose this advantage?As for Zimmerman and his lawyer, I am sure Zimmerman was contacted by this lawyer to represent him. Zimmerman's lawyer knows what kind of revenues winning, and to a lesser extent losing, this case brings him. I am sure the lawyer has negotiated the story (book and movie) rights to this case in lieu of payment, add this to the publicity he will get for defending this high profile case against a aggressive prosecutor and I assume that Zimmerman will be quite the cash cow for him.

I dont carry a gun for 2 reasons. Im a convicted felon first of all so i cant. Even if i could i wouldnt because i wouldnt want to be in the situation zimmerman is in right now. If you carry a weapon , and you end up in a situation that could easily escalate if you pull a weapon then nothing good can come from it. I dont put myself into situations that will require me to need one.If i cant get out of it with my brains or my fists then it wasnt my day.They didnt call it the wild west for nothing. People who carry guns arent always the brightest bulbs on the tree . Some are responsible gun owners and some arent.Zimmerman is one of the nots .

 

[Christo]

Wrong, im on record in this thread saying although i believe zimmerman is guilty of causing treyvons death and lying about what really happened, i think it would be almost impossible to get a guilty verdict.

That's an interesting choice of words. So according to your view of the world he is guilty, but you also believe in society's view of the world he is clearly innocent?

Whether Zimmerman's is found to be innocent or guilty in society's view is not really relevant to whether he is found guilty in a court room. I think today a slight majority of society finds him anything but innocent (see all of the lynch mob comments) but I am not so sure that if we limited he jury pool to just "pro Martin" folks that he could be convicted criminally.

there is a difference between being innocent until being proven guilty and being guilty until proven guilty. If zimmerman was accused of shooting martin yet he wasnt even in the area then yes, innocent until proven otherwise. When you are standing over a dead body holding the murder weapon you are guilty until proven othewise....IMO

 

[Fennis]

When is the trial?

 

[BustedKnuckles]

When is the trial?

right here , right now haha

 

[BustedKnuckles]

Wrong, im on record in this thread saying although i believe zimmerman is guilty of causing treyvons death and lying about what really happened, i think it would be almost impossible to get a guilty verdict.

That's an interesting choice of words. So according to your view of the world he is guilty, but you also believe in society's view of the world he is clearly innocent?

Whether Zimmerman's is found to be innocent or guilty in society's view is not really relevant to whether he is found guilty in a court room. I think today a slight majority of society finds him anything but innocent (see all of the lynch mob comments) but I am not so sure that if we limited he jury pool to just "pro Martin" folks that he could be convicted criminally.

there is a difference between being innocent until being proven guilty and being guilty until proven guilty. If zimmerman was accused of shooting martin yet he wasnt even in the area then yes, innocent until proven otherwise. When you are standing over a dead body holding the murder weapon you are guilty until proven othewise....IMO

spoken like a talking head lawyer haha

 

[timschochet]

When is the trial?

What trial?

 

[TexanFan02]

Sounds just like his dealing with Trayvon.

ETA: "Bias is an inclination to present or hold a partial perspective at the expense of (possibly equally valid) alternatives. Anything biased generally is one-sided, and therefore lacks a neutral point of view."Would also suggest that the judge is plenty neutral and that there are no 'equally valid alternatives' to the fact that Zimmerman is a lying weasel.

The question is what the judge is basing this conclusion on? I thought it was his wife who lied? I thought the judge went a bit overboard on his ruling and displayed a bias.

I'm sure the motion centers around the judge's conclusion that Zimmerman was preparing to flee when there's no direct evidence of that.

Except for the part where he told his wife to hold onto his extra passport. That they didn't tell the court about. What do you need passports for? Oh yeah, fleeing from prosecution.

You don't understand what direct evidence is, do you?

You don't understand what circumstantial evidence is, do you?

Yeah, your red herring about "direct evidence" being necessary was pretty funny.

 

[Fennis]

When is the trial?

right here , right now haha

I'm thinking of switching sides for the trial.

 

[Christo]

Sounds just like his dealing with Trayvon.

ETA: "Bias is an inclination to present or hold a partial perspective at the expense of (possibly equally valid) alternatives. Anything biased generally is one-sided, and therefore lacks a neutral point of view."Would also suggest that the judge is plenty neutral and that there are no 'equally valid alternatives' to the fact that Zimmerman is a lying weasel.

The question is what the judge is basing this conclusion on? I thought it was his wife who lied? I thought the judge went a bit overboard on his ruling and displayed a bias.

I'm sure the motion centers around the judge's conclusion that Zimmerman was preparing to flee when there's no direct evidence of that.

Except for the part where he told his wife to hold onto his extra passport. That they didn't tell the court about. What do you need passports for? Oh yeah, fleeing from prosecution.

You don't understand what direct evidence is, do you?

You don't understand what circumstantial evidence is, do you?

Yeah, your red herring about "direct evidence" being necessary was pretty funny.

Not at all. The judge said Zimmerman was preparing to flee. He didn't say there is some circumstantial evidence that could indicate Zimmerman was preparing to flee. Those are two very different things. Combine that with the fact that the judge's opinion on the issue was unnecessary for the purpose of his order and it is reasonable to believe the judge has a bias against Zimmerman. He is human like the rest of us, so it's impossible for him not to formulate such opinions. But the fact that he was willing to tell the entire country about his opinion when it was not necessary brings into question his ability to treat Zimmerman fairly for the rest of the trial. A judge not only has the duty to treat the parties before him fairly, he has the duty to appear to be fair.

 

[Borat]

If you carry a weapon , and you end up in a situation that could easily escalate if you pull a weapon then nothing good can come from it.

Except, of course, the minor benefit of saving your own life.

 

[BustedKnuckles]

Sounds just like his dealing with Trayvon.

ETA: "Bias is an inclination to present or hold a partial perspective at the expense of (possibly equally valid) alternatives. Anything biased generally is one-sided, and therefore lacks a neutral point of view."

Would also suggest that the judge is plenty neutral and that there are no 'equally valid alternatives' to the fact that Zimmerman is a lying weasel.

The question is what the judge is basing this conclusion on? I thought it was his wife who lied? I thought the judge went a bit overboard on his ruling and displayed a bias.

I'm sure the motion centers around the judge's conclusion that Zimmerman was preparing to flee when there's no direct evidence of that.

Except for the part where he told his wife to hold onto his extra passport. That they didn't tell the court about. What do you need passports for? Oh yeah, fleeing from prosecution.

You don't understand what direct evidence is, do you?

You don't understand what circumstantial evidence is, do you?

Yeah, your red herring about "direct evidence" being necessary was pretty funny.

Not at all. The judge said Zimmerman was preparing to flee. He didn't say there is some circumstantial evidence that could indicate Zimmerman was preparing to flee. Those are two very different things. Combine that with the fact that the judge's opinion on the issue was unnecessary for the purpose of his order and it is reasonable to believe the judge has a bias against Zimmerman. He is human like the rest of us, so it's impossible for him not to formulate such opinions. But the fact that he was willing to tell the entire country about his opinion when it was not necessary brings into question his ability to treat Zimmerman fairly for the rest of the trial. A judge not only has the duty to treat the parties before him fairly, he has the duty to appear to be fair.

You`re human? I thought you were this cyborg lawyer programed to only think in lawyer terms...hmmm, interesting.

 

[TexanFan02]

Sounds just like his dealing with Trayvon.

ETA: "Bias is an inclination to present or hold a partial perspective at the expense of (possibly equally valid) alternatives. Anything biased generally is one-sided, and therefore lacks a neutral point of view."

Would also suggest that the judge is plenty neutral and that there are no 'equally valid alternatives' to the fact that Zimmerman is a lying weasel.

The question is what the judge is basing this conclusion on? I thought it was his wife who lied? I thought the judge went a bit overboard on his ruling and displayed a bias.

I'm sure the motion centers around the judge's conclusion that Zimmerman was preparing to flee when there's no direct evidence of that.

Except for the part where he told his wife to hold onto his extra passport. That they didn't tell the court about. What do you need passports for? Oh yeah, fleeing from prosecution.

You don't understand what direct evidence is, do you?

You don't understand what circumstantial evidence is, do you?

Yeah, your red herring about "direct evidence" being necessary was pretty funny.

Not at all. The judge said Zimmerman was preparing to flee. He didn't say there is some circumstantial evidence that could indicate Zimmerman was preparing to flee. Those are two very different things. Combine that with the fact that the judge's opinion on the issue was unnecessary for the purpose of his order and it is reasonable to believe the judge has a bias against Zimmerman. He is human like the rest of us, so it's impossible for him not to formulate such opinions. But the fact that he was willing to tell the entire country about his opinion when it was not necessary brings into question his ability to treat Zimmerman fairly for the rest of the trial. A judge not only has the duty to treat the parties before him fairly, he has the duty to appear to be fair.

Link?

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

Piece by piece:

Treyvon Martin wasnt doing anything wrong, zimmerman never should have approached him.

Zimmerman has every right to ask a stranger who he is and what his business is in his gated community. If he wasn't doing anything wrong I think you are cleverly forgetting his assault on Zimmerman.

If treyvon was commiting a crime of some sort this wouldnt even be a discussion. People shouldnt have to worry about someone accusing them of doing something wrong just because there have been crimes in a certain area before.

Why would Martin be threatened of a fat older man asking him who he was and why was he in his gated community? Zimmerman could have been security for the community for all Martin knew.

If you get out of the safety of your car to follow someone than you are taking on all the resposibility that goes along with that action.

Including two black eyes, a broken nose, and cuts on the back of his head from getting his head pounded on the sidewalk? Oh right you don't believe any of that happened since there were no stitches.

Zimmermans injuries were not life threatening, he had 2 cuts that never needed stitches and a ''supposably'' broken nose...there is no official medical record it was broken. He may have been scared because things didnt go the way he pictured but that doesnt give you the right to shoot to kill someone YOU targeted as a potential criminal , that turned out wasnt.

You do not know the situation, you are making assumptions because Martin is dead. As previously posted the advantage of having a gun is for protection at distance. For all we know Martin jumped Zimmerman and got the upper hand and was on top of him putting Zimmerman in a very defenseless position. I am sure you understand how disoriented you can become when you get popped in the nose right? Oh right since there are no medical records you are assuming Zimmerman had no broken nose.

If anyone had the right to stand there ground it was treyvon , who was minding his own business. He didnt walk 100 yards to find zimmy, it was the other way around.

Do you know what stand your ground means? I'll give you a hint, stand your ground does not mean assault someone that is asking you questions, whether he should have been asked questions or not, whether he should have been followed or was followed or not. Stand your ground does not mean you can violently attack someone when you are not met with force.

A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

NONE of the bolded applies to Martin so your one off comment there is a joke.

 

[mad sweeney]

Piece by piece:

Treyvon Martin wasnt doing anything wrong, zimmerman never should have approached him.

Zimmerman has every right to ask a stranger who he is and what his business is in his gated community. If he wasn't doing anything wrong I think you are cleverly forgetting his assault on Zimmerman.Too bad he didn't identify himself as neighborhood watch. Of course he didn't just go ask Martin, he followed him around for awhile which would make anyone nervous.

If treyvon was commiting a crime of some sort this wouldnt even be a discussion. People shouldnt have to worry about someone accusing them of doing something wrong just because there have been crimes in a certain area before.

Why would Martin be threatened of a fat older man asking him who he was and why was he in his gated community? Zimmerman could have been security for the community for all Martin knew.Because some (possibly armed) dude was following him around. And Martin would know Zimmerman was security if he'd done the simplest of tasks in identifying himself instead of going straight into hostile questions.

If you get out of the safety of your car to follow someone than you are taking on all the resposibility that goes along with that action.

Including two black eyes, a broken nose, and cuts on the back of his head from getting his head pounded on the sidewalk? Oh right you don't believe any of that happened since there were no stitches. If he'd identified himself instead of being confrontational and/or skulky about things then there probably wouldn't have been any fight. You sensing a theme here?

Zimmermans injuries were not life threatening, he had 2 cuts that never needed stitches and a ''supposably'' broken nose...there is no official medical record it was broken. He may have been scared because things didnt go the way he pictured but that doesnt give you the right to shoot to kill someone YOU targeted as a potential criminal , that turned out wasnt.

You do not know the situation, you are making assumptions because Martin is dead. As previously posted the advantage of having a gun is for protection at distance. For all we know Martin jumped Zimmerman and got the upper hand and was on top of him putting Zimmerman in a very defenseless position. I am sure you understand how disoriented you can become when you get popped in the nose right? Oh right since there are no medical records you are assuming Zimmerman had no broken nose.

If anyone had the right to stand there ground it was treyvon , who was minding his own business. He didnt walk 100 yards to find zimmy, it was the other way around.

Do you know what stand your ground means? I'll give you a hint, stand your ground does not mean assault someone that is asking you questions, whether he should have been asked questions or not, whether he should have been followed or was followed or not. Stand your ground does not mean you can violently attack someone when you are not met with force.

A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

NONE of the bolded applies to Martin so your one off comment there is a joke.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

If Zimmerman did not have a gun he could have been dead.

No freakin' chance'.

 

[pittstownkiller]

If Zimmerman did not have a gun he could have been dead.

No freakin' chance'.

Probably true but life or death is not the threshold that Zimmerman had to cross.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

If Zimmerman did not have a gun he could have been dead.

No freakin' chance'.

Probably true but life or death is not the threshold that Zimmerman had to cross.

Correct. Nobody can know for sure the answer to this question.On the one hand you have a guy trying to keep his neighborhood safe, there are multiple instances of him calling 911 to report suspicious activity. People keep bringing up racial profiling, but he lived in a gated community - how many black families lived in his community? How big was his community? I don't care what color his skin was, if someone asks you who you are and why are you in his neighborhood the correct answer is not to run it just makes you look more suspicious.Martin is dead and it is tragic, it could have been avoided and I will even say both parties were at fault by the way they probably handled the situation. If Zimmerman did not pursue this would not have happened. If Martin did not assault Zimmerman but instead said he was visiting his fiancee this all could have been avoided. Anyone ignoring that has their blinders on.

 

[BustedKnuckles]

If Zimmerman did not have a gun he could have been dead.

No freakin' chance'.

Probably true but life or death is not the threshold that Zimmerman had to cross.

Correct. Nobody can know for sure the answer to this question.On the one hand you have a guy trying to keep his neighborhood safe, there are multiple instances of him calling 911 to report suspicious activity. People keep bringing up racial profiling, but he lived in a gated community - how many black families lived in his community? How big was his community? I don't care what color his skin was, if someone asks you who you are and why are you in his neighborhood the correct answer is not to run it just makes you look more suspicious.Martin is dead and it is tragic, it could have been avoided and I will even say both parties were at fault by the way they probably handled the situation. If Zimmerman did not pursue this would not have happened. If Martin did not assault Zimmerman but instead said he was visiting his fiancee this all could have been avoided. Anyone ignoring that has their blinders on.

you really dont know what you are talking about do you? i can tell you have only skimmed the details of this event.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

If Zimmerman did not have a gun he could have been dead.

No freakin' chance'.

Probably true but life or death is not the threshold that Zimmerman had to cross.

Correct. Nobody can know for sure the answer to this question.On the one hand you have a guy trying to keep his neighborhood safe, there are multiple instances of him calling 911 to report suspicious activity. People keep bringing up racial profiling, but he lived in a gated community - how many black families lived in his community? How big was his community? I don't care what color his skin was, if someone asks you who you are and why are you in his neighborhood the correct answer is not to run it just makes you look more suspicious.Martin is dead and it is tragic, it could have been avoided and I will even say both parties were at fault by the way they probably handled the situation. If Zimmerman did not pursue this would not have happened. If Martin did not assault Zimmerman but instead said he was visiting his fiancee this all could have been avoided. Anyone ignoring that has their blinders on.

you really dont know what you are talking about do you? i can tell you have only skimmed the details of this event.

can you be more vague?

 

[BustedKnuckles]

Piece by piece:

Treyvon Martin wasnt doing anything wrong, zimmerman never should have approached him.

Zimmerman has every right to ask a stranger who he is and what his business is in his gated community. If he wasn't doing anything wrong I think you are cleverly forgetting his assault on Zimmerman.Too bad he didn't identify himself as neighborhood watch. Of course he didn't just go ask Martin, he followed him around for awhile which would make anyone nervous.

If treyvon was commiting a crime of some sort this wouldnt even be a discussion. People shouldnt have to worry about someone accusing them of doing something wrong just because there have been crimes in a certain area before.

Why would Martin be threatened of a fat older man asking him who he was and why was he in his gated community? Zimmerman could have been security for the community for all Martin knew.Because some (possibly armed) dude was following him around. And Martin would know Zimmerman was security if he'd done the simplest of tasks in identifying himself instead of going straight into hostile questions.

If you get out of the safety of your car to follow someone than you are taking on all the resposibility that goes along with that action.

Including two black eyes, a broken nose, and cuts on the back of his head from getting his head pounded on the sidewalk? Oh right you don't believe any of that happened since there were no stitches. If he'd identified himself instead of being confrontational and/or skulky about things then there probably wouldn't have been any fight. You sensing a theme here?

Zimmermans injuries were not life threatening, he had 2 cuts that never needed stitches and a ''supposably'' broken nose...there is no official medical record it was broken. He may have been scared because things didnt go the way he pictured but that doesnt give you the right to shoot to kill someone YOU targeted as a potential criminal , that turned out wasnt.

You do not know the situation, you are making assumptions because Martin is dead. As previously posted the advantage of having a gun is for protection at distance. For all we know Martin jumped Zimmerman and got the upper hand and was on top of him putting Zimmerman in a very defenseless position. I am sure you understand how disoriented you can become when you get popped in the nose right? Oh right since there are no medical records you are assuming Zimmerman had no broken nose.

If anyone had the right to stand there ground it was treyvon , who was minding his own business. He didnt walk 100 yards to find zimmy, it was the other way around.

Do you know what stand your ground means? I'll give you a hint, stand your ground does not mean assault someone that is asking you questions, whether he should have been asked questions or not, whether he should have been followed or was followed or not. Stand your ground does not mean you can violently attack someone when you are not met with force.

A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

NONE of the bolded applies to Martin so your one off comment there is a joke.

Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, who was the chief executive of the state who signed the law into effect, was critical of Zimmerman as he defended the "stand your ground" law. At the University of Texas at Arlington, Bush said, "This law does not apply to this particular circumstance. Stand your ground means stand your ground. It doesn't mean chase after somebody who's turned their back."

 

[BustedKnuckles]

If Zimmerman did not have a gun he could have been dead.

No freakin' chance'.

Probably true but life or death is not the threshold that Zimmerman had to cross.

Correct. Nobody can know for sure the answer to this question.On the one hand you have a guy trying to keep his neighborhood safe, there are multiple instances of him calling 911 to report suspicious activity. People keep bringing up racial profiling, but he lived in a gated community - how many black families lived in his community? How big was his community? I don't care what color his skin was, if someone asks you who you are and why are you in his neighborhood the correct answer is not to run it just makes you look more suspicious.Martin is dead and it is tragic, it could have been avoided and I will even say both parties were at fault by the way they probably handled the situation. If Zimmerman did not pursue this would not have happened. If Martin did not assault Zimmerman but instead said he was visiting his fiancee this all could have been avoided. Anyone ignoring that has their blinders on.

you really dont know what you are talking about do you? i can tell you have only skimmed the details of this event.

can you be more vague?

yes

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

If Zimmerman did not have a gun he could have been dead.

No freakin' chance'.

Probably true but life or death is not the threshold that Zimmerman had to cross.

Correct. Nobody can know for sure the answer to this question.On the one hand you have a guy trying to keep his neighborhood safe, there are multiple instances of him calling 911 to report suspicious activity. People keep bringing up racial profiling, but he lived in a gated community - how many black families lived in his community? How big was his community? I don't care what color his skin was, if someone asks you who you are and why are you in his neighborhood the correct answer is not to run it just makes you look more suspicious.Martin is dead and it is tragic, it could have been avoided and I will even say both parties were at fault by the way they probably handled the situation. If Zimmerman did not pursue this would not have happened. If Martin did not assault Zimmerman but instead said he was visiting his fiancee this all could have been avoided. Anyone ignoring that has their blinders on.

you really dont know what you are talking about do you? i can tell you have only skimmed the details of this event.

can you be more vague?

yes

With responses like that you just come across as a troll.

 

[BustedKnuckles]

If Zimmerman did not have a gun he could have been dead.

No freakin' chance'.

Probably true but life or death is not the threshold that Zimmerman had to cross.

Correct. Nobody can know for sure the answer to this question.On the one hand you have a guy trying to keep his neighborhood safe, there are multiple instances of him calling 911 to report suspicious activity. People keep bringing up racial profiling, but he lived in a gated community - how many black families lived in his community? How big was his community? I don't care what color his skin was, if someone asks you who you are and why are you in his neighborhood the correct answer is not to run it just makes you look more suspicious.Martin is dead and it is tragic, it could have been avoided and I will even say both parties were at fault by the way they probably handled the situation. If Zimmerman did not pursue this would not have happened. If Martin did not assault Zimmerman but instead said he was visiting his fiancee this all could have been avoided. Anyone ignoring that has their blinders on.

you really dont know what you are talking about do you? i can tell you have only skimmed the details of this event.

can you be more vague?

yes

With responses like that you just come across as a troll.

im not going to do the research for you...get ALL the facts then come back so we can have a nice chat about the case

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, who was the chief executive of the state who signed the law into effect, was critical of Zimmerman as he defended the "stand your ground" law. At the University of Texas at Arlington, Bush said, "This law does not apply to this particular circumstance. Stand your ground means stand your ground. It doesn't mean chase after somebody who's turned their back."

I posted this a few pages ago, you must have had your blinders on.

In sum: there is not a shred of support for the claim that Florida law protects, or has protected Zimmerman, if he unlawfully attacked Martin. If Zimmerman’s story is true (Martin attacked him, putting him in imminent peril of grave bodily injury, with no opportunity to retreat), then Zimmerman’s self-defense claim would be valid under the laws of Florida, New York, or any other Anglo-American jurisdiction. The particular legal changes resulting from Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” and “Castle Doctrine” laws (deadly force in the home/automobile; no duty to retreat in public places; Fourth Amendment arrest standard affirmation; protection from civil suits) simply have nothing to do with whether Zimmerman’s actions were or were not lawful.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

Wrong, im on record in this thread saying although i believe zimmerman is guilty of causing treyvons death and lying about what really happened, i think it would be almost impossible to get a guilty verdict.

That's an interesting choice of words. So according to your view of the world he is guilty, but you also believe in society's view of the world he is clearly innocent?

Whether Zimmerman's is found to be innocent or guilty in society's view is not really relevant to whether he is found guilty in a court room. I think today a slight majority of society finds him anything but innocent (see all of the lynch mob comments) but I am not so sure that if we limited he jury pool to just "pro Martin" folks that he could be convicted criminally.

When I say society's view I am referring to what the courtroom will decide. I will be shocked if it is any other way. Just because lynch mob comments speak the loudest, I'd be surprised if the "majority" thinks he is really guilty of 2nd degree murder.Rasmussen good enough? 24% agree with you

 

[mad sweeney]

If Zimmerman did not have a gun he could have been dead.

No freakin' chance'.

Probably true but life or death is not the threshold that Zimmerman had to cross.

Correct. Nobody can know for sure the answer to this question.On the one hand you have a guy trying to keep his neighborhood safe, there are multiple instances of him calling 911 to report suspicious activity. People keep bringing up racial profiling, but he lived in a gated community - how many black families lived in his community? How big was his community? I don't care what color his skin was, if someone asks you who you are and why are you in his neighborhood the correct answer is not to run it just makes you look more suspicious.

Martin is dead and it is tragic, it could have been avoided and I will even say both parties were at fault by the way they probably handled the situation. If Zimmerman did not pursue this would not have happened. If Martin did not assault Zimmerman but instead said he was visiting his fiancee this all could have been avoided. Anyone ignoring that has their blinders on.

Yeah, like the ominous threat of kids playing in the street. He's a wannabe cop with a bunch of prescriptions who went way beyond neighborhood watch and was tired of these "#######s" always getting away. If Zimmerman had just said he was with the neighborhood watch then none of this would've been avoided. Or if he did what the cops advised. There's a whole lot more on Zimmermean for things he could've done to avoid this than there are on Martin.

 

[Chaos Commish]

Not at all. The judge said Zimmerman was preparing to flee. He didn't say there is some circumstantial evidence that could indicate Zimmerman was preparing to flee. Those are two very different things. Combine that with the fact that the judge's opinion on the issue was unnecessary for the purpose of his order and it is reasonable to believe the judge has a bias against Zimmerman. He is human like the rest of us, so it's impossible for him not to formulate such opinions. But the fact that he was willing to tell the entire country about his opinion when it was not necessary brings into question his ability to treat Zimmerman fairly for the rest of the trial. A judge not only has the duty to treat the parties before him fairly, he has the duty to appear to be fair.

Link?

Bottom of page 6. If you haven't read it, you should. I thought the judge did the right thing revoking bond and doing so with an indignant beat down. O'Mara (incompetent) and Zimmerman (crooked) deserved it. But the judge seems almost unhinged in the 2nd bond order. He may want to recuse himself. He may deny the motion and let an appellate court remove him, but I can't imagine him staying with this case.

Even those who agree with everything Lester wrote should understand the impropriety of a judge having written some of it. Well, I guess common sense is high hopes for this crowd, so maybe not, but Lester is toast. I suspect he'll drink a toast to O'Mara for helping him get out of this mess.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

Not at all. The judge said Zimmerman was preparing to flee. He didn't say there is some circumstantial evidence that could indicate Zimmerman was preparing to flee. Those are two very different things. Combine that with the fact that the judge's opinion on the issue was unnecessary for the purpose of his order and it is reasonable to believe the judge has a bias against Zimmerman. He is human like the rest of us, so it's impossible for him not to formulate such opinions. But the fact that he was willing to tell the entire country about his opinion when it was not necessary brings into question his ability to treat Zimmerman fairly for the rest of the trial. A judge not only has the duty to treat the parties before him fairly, he has the duty to appear to be fair.

Link?

Bottom of page 6. If you haven't read it, you should. I thought the judge did the right thing revoking bond and doing so with an indignant beat down. O'Mara (incompetent) and Zimmerman (crooked) deserved it. But the judge seems almost unhinged in the 2nd bond order. He may want to recuse himself. He may deny the motion and let an appellate court remove him, but I can't imagine him staying with this case.

Even those who agree with everything Lester wrote should understand the impropriety of a judge having written some of it. Well, I guess common sense is high hopes for this crowd, so maybe not, but Lester is toast. I suspect he'll drink a toast to O'Mara for helping him get out of this mess.

I did not know what a CVSA test was until I read that.

Today, the Florida State Attorney’s Office released a version of Sanford Police Department’s original report in the Trayvon Martin George Zimmerman case, which includes additional information that was previously redacted in other versions. One highlight of this report is the results of the Computerized Voice Stressed Analysis (CVSA) test, which is basically a “lie detector” or polygraph test that George Zimmerman took on 2/27/2012.

During the test, Investigator W. Erwin asked George Zimmerman to answer two relevant questions regarding the night he killed Trayvon Martin:

ERWIN: Did you confront the guy you shot?

ZIMMERMAN: No.

ERWIN: Were you in fear for your life, when you shot the guy?

ZIMMERMAN: Yes.

According to the results of the test, deception in Zimmerman’s answers was “not indicated.” In other words, he passed the “lie detector” test.

 

[TexanFan02]

Not at all. The judge said Zimmerman was preparing to flee. He didn't say there is some circumstantial evidence that could indicate Zimmerman was preparing to flee. Those are two very different things. Combine that with the fact that the judge's opinion on the issue was unnecessary for the purpose of his order and it is reasonable to believe the judge has a bias against Zimmerman. He is human like the rest of us, so it's impossible for him not to formulate such opinions. But the fact that he was willing to tell the entire country about his opinion when it was not necessary brings into question his ability to treat Zimmerman fairly for the rest of the trial. A judge not only has the duty to treat the parties before him fairly, he has the duty to appear to be fair.

Link?

Bottom of page 6. If you haven't read it, you should. I thought the judge did the right thing revoking bond and doing so with an indignant beat down. O'Mara (incompetent) and Zimmerman (crooked) deserved it. But the judge seems almost unhinged in the 2nd bond order. He may want to recuse himself. He may deny the motion and let an appellate court remove him, but I can't imagine him staying with this case.

Even those who agree with everything Lester wrote should understand the impropriety of a judge having written some of it. Well, I guess common sense is high hopes for this crowd, so maybe not, but Lester is toast. I suspect he'll drink a toast to O'Mara for helping him get out of this mess.

Interesting reads, thanks. The context of the statement where the judge expressed concern over Zimmerman preparing to flee was actually in his explanation for setting a higher bail. I disagree with your bolded statement though, he cited the proper law. I did find it interesting that Zimmerman wanted to testify but not be cross examined, and when told "no" decided not to testify.

 

[TexanFan02]

Not at all. The judge said Zimmerman was preparing to flee. He didn't say there is some circumstantial evidence that could indicate Zimmerman was preparing to flee. Those are two very different things. Combine that with the fact that the judge's opinion on the issue was unnecessary for the purpose of his order and it is reasonable to believe the judge has a bias against Zimmerman. He is human like the rest of us, so it's impossible for him not to formulate such opinions. But the fact that he was willing to tell the entire country about his opinion when it was not necessary brings into question his ability to treat Zimmerman fairly for the rest of the trial. A judge not only has the duty to treat the parties before him fairly, he has the duty to appear to be fair.

Link?

Bottom of page 6. If you haven't read it, you should. I thought the judge did the right thing revoking bond and doing so with an indignant beat down. O'Mara (incompetent) and Zimmerman (crooked) deserved it. But the judge seems almost unhinged in the 2nd bond order. He may want to recuse himself. He may deny the motion and let an appellate court remove him, but I can't imagine him staying with this case.

Even those who agree with everything Lester wrote should understand the impropriety of a judge having written some of it. Well, I guess common sense is high hopes for this crowd, so maybe not, but Lester is toast. I suspect he'll drink a toast to O'Mara for helping him get out of this mess.

I did not know what a CVSA test was until I read that.

Today, the Florida State Attorney’s Office released a version of Sanford Police Department’s original report in the Trayvon Martin George Zimmerman case, which includes additional information that was previously redacted in other versions. One highlight of this report is the results of the Computerized Voice Stressed Analysis (CVSA) test, which is basically a “lie detector” or polygraph test that George Zimmerman took on 2/27/2012.

During the test, Investigator W. Erwin asked George Zimmerman to answer two relevant questions regarding the night he killed Trayvon Martin:

ERWIN: Did you confront the guy you shot?

ZIMMERMAN: No.

ERWIN: Were you in fear for your life, when you shot the guy?

ZIMMERMAN: Yes.

According to the results of the test, deception in Zimmerman’s answers was “not indicated.” In other words, he passed the “lie detector” test.

Yeah, they also asked him if he'd ever violated the speed limit in his life. Answer: No. Pathological liars can easily beat those tests.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

Psychopaths Can’t Beat A Polygraph Test

Polygraph examiners test psychopaths all the time. Psychopaths make up a large segment of the criminal population (including white-collar criminals). Many of the personality traits of a psychopath lead some people to believe that they can “beat” a polygraph test at will. Psychopaths are pathological liars, they don’t have any remorse or guilt for their crimes or empathy for their victims, and they don’t accept responsibility for their own actions. They’re not particularly concerned about the bad things that they do, especially when those bad things bring them money or power.

How do we know that psychopaths can’t beat a polygraph test? We do a little scientific research. One of the handy things about research is that it cuts through theoretical arguments and gets down to the essential basic question which, in this case, is “Can psychopaths pass a polygraph test when they’re lying?”

The answer to that question is a resounding “No”. Research scientists have published the results of experiments in journals such as Psychophysiology, The Journal of Applied Psychology, and The Journal of Research In Personality. In all of these studies, we find that psychopaths and others with antisocial personalities are detected in their lies at the same rate as everybody else. In fact, some of the physiological reactions of psychopaths are actually stronger than other people when taking a polygraph test.

So, how do we explain this counterintuitive reality? Psychopaths may be pathological liars, but they have the same fear of detection and its consequences as anybody else. The reactivity of our autonomic nervous system is so strong that it simply can’t be overridden, even by somebody with no conscience.

 

[TexanFan02]

Psychopaths Can’t Beat A Polygraph Test

Polygraph examiners test psychopaths all the time. Psychopaths make up a large segment of the criminal population (including white-collar criminals). Many of the personality traits of a psychopath lead some people to believe that they can “beat” a polygraph test at will. Psychopaths are pathological liars, they don’t have any remorse or guilt for their crimes or empathy for their victims, and they don’t accept responsibility for their own actions. They’re not particularly concerned about the bad things that they do, especially when those bad things bring them money or power.

How do we know that psychopaths can’t beat a polygraph test? We do a little scientific research. One of the handy things about research is that it cuts through theoretical arguments and gets down to the essential basic question which, in this case, is “Can psychopaths pass a polygraph test when they’re lying?”

The answer to that question is a resounding “No”. Research scientists have published the results of experiments in journals such as Psychophysiology, The Journal of Applied Psychology, and The Journal of Research In Personality. In all of these studies, we find that psychopaths and others with antisocial personalities are detected in their lies at the same rate as everybody else. In fact, some of the physiological reactions of psychopaths are actually stronger than other people when taking a polygraph test.

So, how do we explain this counterintuitive reality? Psychopaths may be pathological liars, but they have the same fear of detection and its consequences as anybody else. The reactivity of our autonomic nervous system is so strong that it simply can’t be overridden, even by somebody with no conscience.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Wrong, im on record in this thread saying although i believe zimmerman is guilty of causing treyvons death and lying about what really happened, i think it would be almost impossible to get a guilty verdict.

That's an interesting choice of words. So according to your view of the world he is guilty, but you also believe in society's view of the world he is clearly innocent?

Whether Zimmerman's is found to be innocent or guilty in society's view is not really relevant to whether he is found guilty in a court room. I think today a slight majority of society finds him anything but innocent (see all of the lynch mob comments) but I am not so sure that if we limited he jury pool to just "pro Martin" folks that he could be convicted criminally.

When I say society's view I am referring to what the courtroom will decide. I will be shocked if it is any other way. Just because lynch mob comments speak the loudest, I'd be surprised if the "majority" thinks he is really guilty of 2nd degree murder.Rasmussen good enough? 24% agree with you

Might want to try again.

 

[BustedKnuckles]

Psychopaths Can’t Beat A Polygraph Test

Polygraph examiners test psychopaths all the time. Psychopaths make up a large segment of the criminal population (including white-collar criminals). Many of the personality traits of a psychopath lead some people to believe that they can “beat” a polygraph test at will. Psychopaths are pathological liars, they don’t have any remorse or guilt for their crimes or empathy for their victims, and they don’t accept responsibility for their own actions. They’re not particularly concerned about the bad things that they do, especially when those bad things bring them money or power.

How do we know that psychopaths can’t beat a polygraph test? We do a little scientific research. One of the handy things about research is that it cuts through theoretical arguments and gets down to the essential basic question which, in this case, is “Can psychopaths pass a polygraph test when they’re lying?”

The answer to that question is a resounding “No”. Research scientists have published the results of experiments in journals such as Psychophysiology, The Journal of Applied Psychology, and The Journal of Research In Personality. In all of these studies, we find that psychopaths and others with antisocial personalities are detected in their lies at the same rate as everybody else. In fact, some of the physiological reactions of psychopaths are actually stronger than other people when taking a polygraph test.

So, how do we explain this counterintuitive reality? Psychopaths may be pathological liars, but they have the same fear of detection and its consequences as anybody else. The reactivity of our autonomic nervous system is so strong that it simply can’t be overridden, even by somebody with no conscience.

Jojo the circus boy is the result of combining jon mx and carolina hustler`s dna.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

When you can't make a valid counter argument just insult the poster. /brilliant

 

[Charlie Frown]

Wrong, im on record in this thread saying although i believe zimmerman is guilty of causing treyvons death and lying about what really happened, i think it would be almost impossible to get a guilty verdict.

That's an interesting choice of words. So according to your view of the world he is guilty, but you also believe in society's view of the world he is clearly innocent?

Whether Zimmerman's is found to be innocent or guilty in society's view is not really relevant to whether he is found guilty in a court room. I think today a slight majority of society finds him anything but innocent (see all of the lynch mob comments) but I am not so sure that if we limited he jury pool to just "pro Martin" folks that he could be convicted criminally.

there is a difference between being innocent until being proven guilty and being guilty until proven guilty. If zimmerman was accused of shooting martin yet he wasnt even in the area then yes, innocent until proven otherwise. When you are standing over a dead body holding the murder weapon you are guilty until proven othewise....IMO

 

[Christo]

Wrong, im on record in this thread saying although i believe zimmerman is guilty of causing treyvons death and lying about what really happened, i think it would be almost impossible to get a guilty verdict.

That's an interesting choice of words. So according to your view of the world he is guilty, but you also believe in society's view of the world he is clearly innocent?

Whether Zimmerman's is found to be innocent or guilty in society's view is not really relevant to whether he is found guilty in a court room. I think today a slight majority of society finds him anything but innocent (see all of the lynch mob comments) but I am not so sure that if we limited he jury pool to just "pro Martin" folks that he could be convicted criminally.

there is a difference between being innocent until being proven guilty and being guilty until proven guilty. If zimmerman was accused of shooting martin yet he wasnt even in the area then yes, innocent until proven otherwise. When you are standing over a dead body holding the murder weapon you are guilty until proven othewise....IMO

It really is dumbfounding, isn't it?

 

[BustedKnuckles]

Wrong, im on record in this thread saying although i believe zimmerman is guilty of causing treyvons death and lying about what really happened, i think it would be almost impossible to get a guilty verdict.

That's an interesting choice of words. So according to your view of the world he is guilty, but you also believe in society's view of the world he is clearly innocent?

Whether Zimmerman's is found to be innocent or guilty in society's view is not really relevant to whether he is found guilty in a court room. I think today a slight majority of society finds him anything but innocent (see all of the lynch mob comments) but I am not so sure that if we limited he jury pool to just "pro Martin" folks that he could be convicted criminally.

there is a difference between being innocent until being proven guilty and being guilty until proven guilty. If zimmerman was accused of shooting martin yet he wasnt even in the area then yes, innocent until proven otherwise. When you are standing over a dead body holding the murder weapon you are guilty until proven othewise....IMO

Im not speaking in court terms. Let me put into a context that explains this better. If you live with a roomate and its only you and him in the APT one day and you look in your wallet and notice 40 bucks missing , then the door bell rings and its some dude delivering around 40 bucks in chinese food, who are you going to think stole your money? You didnt see him take it but he is guilty until he can prove he didnt take it. Now if he had 2 friends over it wouldnt be so obvious, he would be innocent until you found out who stole it. Its not rocket science. Zimmerman even said he shot the unarmed kid. Hes guilty of taking a life .

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

People sure do like the sling the "M" word around to cover all types of homicide, and by people I mean BustedKnuckles, and by "M" word I mean murder.

The world is not black and white, neither is the law, there are many shades of gray.