Florida boy killed by Neighborhood Watch (1 Viewer)

[larry_boy_44]

The Onion weighs in.

I know its the Onion, but I've seen it in other places too:

I mean, for the people who are angry at us, you do realize that we can’t just use our own personal ethical guidelines as a basis to determine a defendant’s innocence or guilt, right? That’s not how it works. And if you think that’s how it works, you’re idiots. In many ways, making a judgment based purely on our own moral compass would have been way, way easier to do. This guy pursued an unarmed kid who was doing absolutely nothing wrong and shot him to death. Seems pretty clear-cut to me that the guy should be punished in some way, shape, or form.

I agree he was unarmed... But how can we say for sure he was "doing nothing wrong"??

Isn't it entirely possible that Zimmerman stopped a theft by following him? Or that he was staking out places to go back to later and steal stuff?

 

[Clifford]

In fact, why don't you go find the exact statute and post it here (hint, it's already in this thread) so that we know we're discussing the same thing?

(3) 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.

What is the legal definition of attacked in Florida? Expressly limited to physical violence I assume? Dictionary of course has more definitions but likely not relevant.

So where the Onion is wrong (presumably) is that a person has to be physically attacked, right?

Attack is not defined in this section.

 

[renesauz]

Has Timsochets head exploded yet?

It's about to. Not because of the verdict but because of most of the pro-Zimmerman posts in this thread.

Tim...there is a distinct difference between pro-Zimmerman and pro-right to defend.

Zimmerman was a moron and shouldn't be doing watch patrols...but he was no murderer either. If someone could prove he started the fight, I'd call him guilty of manslaughter...but the evidence suggests that it's more likely Martin started it. Nothing of substance in Zimmerman's story was ever disproven. I can't understand why you and others still pound on him as a worthless POS when the state never came close to a burden of proof, when reasonable doubt isn't just a 5 or 10% chance, but quite possibly well over 50%.

Given just the backgrounds...who was more likely to start a fight? The watch captain, or the 17 yo gang-banger wannabe who BRAGGED ABOUT FIGHTING??

None of Zimmermans mistakes equated to murder, or even manslaughter (although some were monumentally stupid). It all comes down to who started the physical fight....and no reasonable person could conclude with certainty the Zimmerman did, more than a few reasonable persons are relatively confidant in concluding Martin did.

You have many times stated you'd find him innocent. ONce you do that...you have to let go of the "he's guilty"

rhetoric you continue to spout...it makes no sense and you always purport to be more logical than this.

 

[simey]

What Juror B37 said in the CNN interview was pretty outrageous, IMO. She has so much sympathy for GZ it is baffles me.

When asked if she felt sorry for TM she answered that she felt sorry for both of them. ok... Remember one person is an adult who is a free man and the other is a minor and dead. Didn't even hint that TM has it worse than GZ. She said TM attacked GZ because he was angry and fed up with GZ (where is the evidence for that?). She stated GZ's narrative (the defendant!) as completely true - expressing no doubt whatsoever. She said she thinks GZ would have treated any other person of any race the same way. She even said she would have GZ on her neighborhood watch. wow

I haven't been on the side of the Sharptons of the world, but if that attitude doesn't drive home the fact that black life has less meaning then I don't know what does. It's so latently racist it's incredible. No way in hell she gives all of those answers if it was a white middle class 17yo. No damn way.

this is what posted yesterday in this thread....''After watching that juror on CNN im convinced she swayed the 3 other jurors that thought zimmy was guilty,to go the other way.She comes off as a very strong personality ... shes married to an attorney and is privy to how the system works . 2 jurors thought manslaughter and 1 thought murder 2. I also think she knew a lot about the story before she was picked and had already made up her mind about what happened that night. Shes a gun owner and was very sympathetic to zimmy. Just my feeling.''

I thought she (Juror B37) seemed sympathetic to Zimmerman as well, but I don't know if being a gun owner has anything to do with that. I'm a gun owner, and I'm not sympathetic to Zimmerman. I think her saying Zimmerman is guilty of not using good judgement, and he went above and beyond of what he really should have done was putting it very mildly. He killed someone, and his series of choices led to that death.

 

[The Commish]

I agree he was unarmed... But how can we say for sure he was "doing nothing wrong"??

Isn't it entirely possible that Zimmerman stopped a theft by following him? Or that he was staking out places to go back to later and steal stuff?

You can say that using technicalities like the Zimmerman guys are. "Technically" walking between the houses in the rain is not illegal" just like "Technically Zimmerman following this kid wasn't illegal". It's disingenuous to suggest that since they weren't illegal they weren't wrong and didn't contribute to the outcome of the case, but here we are.

 

[jonessed]

The onion piece reflects exactly how I feel about this case

Especially this

Florida has laws that expressly allow anyone to use deadly force against another person if they feel threatened.

Does anyone dispute that this is exactly what the law allows?

Yes. "Feel threatened" and sitting on your chest hitting you in the face are pretty far apart.

Does the law stipulate that someone has to be sitting on your chest and hitting you in the face?

Without that caveat I think Zimmerman goes to jail.

 

[timschochet]

Has Timsochets head exploded yet?

It's about to. Not because of the verdict but because of most of the pro-Zimmerman posts in this thread.

Tim...there is a distinct difference between pro-Zimmerman and pro-right to defend.Zimmerman was a moron and shouldn't be doing watch patrols...but he was no murderer either. If someone could prove he started the fight, I'd call him guilty of manslaughter...but the evidence suggests that it's more likely Martin started it. Nothing of substance in Zimmerman's story was ever disproven. I can't understand why you and others still pound on him as a worthless POS when the state never came close to a burden of proof, when reasonable doubt isn't just a 5 or 10% chance, but quite possibly well over 50%.

Given just the backgrounds...who was more likely to start a fight? The watch captain, or the 17 yo gang-banger wannabe who BRAGGED ABOUT FIGHTING??

None of Zimmermans mistakes equated to murder, or even manslaughter (although some were monumentally stupid). It all comes down to who started the physical fight....and no reasonable person could conclude with certainty the Zimmerman did, more than a few reasonable persons are relatively confidant in concluding Martin did.

You have many times stated you'd find him innocent. ONce you do that...you have to let go of the "he's guilty"

rhetoric you continue to spout...it makes no sense and you always purport to be more logical than this.

Without responding to most of your post (I'll do that later when I'm not on my iPhone) I was referring not to you but to the pro-Zimmerman guys- the ones who, like the crazy juror, would like to see him as part of their Neighborhood Watch, the ones who think he's some sort of hero.

 

[The Commish]

What Juror B37 said in the CNN interview was pretty outrageous, IMO. She has so much sympathy for GZ it is baffles me.

When asked if she felt sorry for TM she answered that she felt sorry for both of them. ok... Remember one person is an adult who is a free man and the other is a minor and dead. Didn't even hint that TM has it worse than GZ. She said TM attacked GZ because he was angry and fed up with GZ (where is the evidence for that?). She stated GZ's narrative (the defendant!) as completely true - expressing no doubt whatsoever. She said she thinks GZ would have treated any other person of any race the same way. She even said she would have GZ on her neighborhood watch. wow

I haven't been on the side of the Sharptons of the world, but if that attitude doesn't drive home the fact that black life has less meaning then I don't know what does. It's so latently racist it's incredible. No way in hell she gives all of those answers if it was a white middle class 17yo. No damn way.

this is what posted yesterday in this thread....''After watching that juror on CNN im convinced she swayed the 3 other jurors that thought zimmy was guilty,to go the other way.She comes off as a very strong personality ... shes married to an attorney and is privy to how the system works . 2 jurors thought manslaughter and 1 thought murder 2. I also think she knew a lot about the story before she was picked and had already made up her mind about what happened that night. Shes a gun owner and was very sympathetic to zimmy. Just my feeling.''

I thought she (Juror B37) seemed sympathetic to Zimmerman as well, but I don't know if being a gun owner has anything to do with that. I'm a gun owner, and I'm not sympathetic to Zimmerman. I think her saying Zimmerman is guilty of not using good judgement, and he went above and beyond of what he really should have done was putting it very mildly. He killed someone, and his series of choices led to that death.

A big difference in Florida is that an aggressor can regain their "innocence" at various points through the event. In SC, to date, that has not been established, so if you are deemed to be the person who started the whole thing, you can't use self defense as your defense. You have to meet for criteria in SC to claim self defense:

1. you must be without fault in bringing on the difficulty;
2. you must actually believe you are in imminent danger of loss of life or serious bodily injury or actually be in such danger;
3. if you believe you are in such danger, you must use deadly force only if a reasonable or prudent man of ordinary firmness and courage would have believed himself to be in such danger, or, if you actually were in such danger, the circumstances were such as would warrant a man of ordinary prudence, firmness and courage to strike the fatal blow in order to save yourself from serious bodily harm or losing your own life
4. you had no other probable means of avoiding the danger of losing your own life or sustaining serious bodily injury than to act as you did in the particular instance.

FWIW...I agree with you 100% though I'll add that TM had some poor decisions that contributed to his death. Did those decisions warrant taking his life? Not sure...we'd have to jump into his mind to know if he was really going to kill (or at the very least beat him to within an inch of his life) Zimmerman like everyone here is suggesting.

 

[GroveDiesel]

In fact, why don't you go find the exact statute and post it here (hint, it's already in this thread) so that we know we're discussing the same thing?

(3) 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.

What is the legal definition of attacked in Florida? Expressly limited to physical violence I assume? Dictionary of course has more definitions but likely not relevant.

So where the Onion is wrong (presumably) is that a person has to be physically attacked, right?

Attack is not defined in this section.

That seems to be the Stand Your Ground law which wasn't used by the defense. But I would still seem to be a long way from merely feeling threatened.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

He killed someone, and his series of choices led to that death.

At what point do people start weighing the choices that Zimmerman made against the choices that Martin made?

If you want to get real technical you could look at the choices that Martin's parent's made but I won't go there.

I already posted 5 distinct choices Martin made that lead to his death, the choices he made were also significantly more troublesome then the choices that Zimmerman made.

The poor choices Zimmerman made were?

1) Get out of his car.

2) Not return to his car immediately when dispatch suggested he did not need to follow Martin.

I use the term "poor" here to appease the pro-Martin crowd. If I missed other poor choices he made, feel free to add them, but something like, "He should have yelled at Martin that he was neighborhood Watch" is not acceptable given what we know (and more importantly DON'T know) about the circumstances that night. Also because someone could equally say Martin should have waved and smiled at Zimmerman as he walked past his car, I think it is safe to assume that is not what happened. Zimmerman could have told Martin he was Neighborhood Watch and that might have pissed Martin off even more, nobody knows.

The poor choices Martin made were?

1) Instead of running away and then returning, he should have kept running or even just walked home or called 911 if he was scared, or knock on a neighbors door - take your pick, I'm not penalizing him 3 times here.

2) When Zimmerman started to scream for Help Martin should have stopped.

3) When John Good interjected himself verbally into the altercation Martin should have stopped.

4) When the other neighbor interjected himself verbally into the altercation Martin should have stopped.

5) If Martin saw Zimmerman had a gun, he should have stopped immediately and stood up. Zimmerman said Martin told him he was going to die tonight mother f'r and then slammed his head one more time. You can argue this did not happen, but we also know due to forensics that Martin did not stand up and put his hands in the air.

There were a number of bad decisions Martin made that night, if he makes the right decision for any one of those 5 we wouldn't have a 400+ page thread right now.

You can blame Zimmerman all day long for the decisions he made, but he did nothing illegal and his poor decisions pale in comparison with the poor decisions Martin made that night.

 

[larry_boy_44]

I guess if some of you think it's cool - even preferable under the right circumstances - for your neighborhood watch to kill people then I got nothing for you.

and you're cool with 17 year old black kids killing neighborhood watch members for noting that they are acting suspicious?

because, according to the evidence we have, that's what Martin said he was going to do (and sitting on someone's chest and punching them in the face, eventually, leads there).

 

[larry_boy_44]

I agree he was unarmed... But how can we say for sure he was "doing nothing wrong"??

Isn't it entirely possible that Zimmerman stopped a theft by following him? Or that he was staking out places to go back to later and steal stuff?

You can say that using technicalities like the Zimmerman guys are. "Technically" walking between the houses in the rain is not illegal" just like "Technically Zimmerman following this kid wasn't illegal". It's disingenuous to suggest that since they weren't illegal they weren't wrong and didn't contribute to the outcome of the case, but here we are.

I'm not saying what Zimmerman did wasn't dumb or misguided or anything like that...

I'm just pointing out that there is still such a massive push to paint Martin in such a ridiculously positive light. I doubt any of those protesters in California know he was high when he died or that he regularly was in fights at school or had just been suspended for stealing or any of that stuff. They think he was a straight-laced, nice 12 year old kid (because that's all the media is willing to portray him as).

They also think George Zimmerman is 100% white.

 

[The Commish]

He killed someone, and his series of choices led to that death.

At what point do people start weighing the choices that Zimmerman made against the choices that Martin made?

If you want to get real technical you could look at the choices that Martin's parent's made but I won't go there.

I already posted 5 distinct choices Martin made that lead to his death, the choices he made were also significantly more troublesome then the choices that Zimmerman made.

The poor choices Zimmerman made were?

1) Get out of his car.

2) Not return to his car immediately when dispatch suggested he did not need to follow Martin.

I use the term "poor" here to appease the pro-Martin crowd. If I missed other poor choices he made, feel free to add them, but something like, "He should have yelled at Martin that he was neighborhood Watch" is not acceptable given what we know (and more importantly DON'T know) about the circumstances that night. Also because someone could equally say Martin should have waved and smiled at Zimmerman as he walked past his car, I think it is safe to assume that is not what happened. Zimmerman could have told Martin he was Neighborhood Watch and that might have pissed Martin off even more, nobody knows.

The poor choices Martin made were?

1) Instead of running away and then returning, he should have kept running or even just walked home or called 911 if he was scared, or knock on a neighbors door - take your pick, I'm not penalizing him 3 times here.

2) When Zimmerman started to scream for Help Martin should have stopped.

3) When John Good interjected himself verbally into the altercation Martin should have stopped.

4) When the other neighbor interjected himself verbally into the altercation Martin should have stopped.

5) If Martin saw Zimmerman had a gun, he should have stopped immediately and stood up. Zimmerman said Martin told him he was going to die tonight mother f'r and then slammed his head one more time. You can argue this did not happen, but we also know due to forensics that Martin did not stand up and put his hands in the air.

There were a number of bad decisions Martin made that night, if he makes the right decision for any one of those 5 we wouldn't have a 400+ page thread right now.

You can blame Zimmerman all day long for the decisions he made, but he did nothing illegal and his poor decisions pale in comparison with the poor decisions Martin made that night.

If you're going to go all out and suggest what Martin "should have done" in the middle of a fight, you should do the same for Zimmerman. You go down that path you'll see how silly your list is...especially for a kid in the midst of a fight. You were spot on with #1, but should have stopped there.

 

[Witz]

EDIT: Anderson Cooper asks you if you'd have GZ on your neighborhood watch and you don't immediately say "No"? WTF is with that? Yes, please let's have the guy on our streets with a propensity to kill teenagers when he gets into trouble.

I'd like to have GZ on my neighborhood watch. Guy was on top of it. The woman who suffered the home invasion made him sound like a pretty good watch captain.

Really? The guy has made choices that help put him in life/death situations without any means to defend himself other than his gun (if we indeed believe he's an out of shape dough boy with no fighting skills). Why would you want him on your watch?

Hindsight is a wonderful tool and all but what life/death situation did he specifically put himself into?

He lives in this development. He has as much right to be there as Martin (or anyone else for that matter). The individual he called the NEN about wasn't in his view any longer (as he continued the conversation with the NEN operator).

Just curious to hear what you think was a life/death situation (without the benefit of hindsight).

 

[The Commish]

I agree he was unarmed... But how can we say for sure he was "doing nothing wrong"??

Isn't it entirely possible that Zimmerman stopped a theft by following him? Or that he was staking out places to go back to later and steal stuff?

You can say that using technicalities like the Zimmerman guys are. "Technically" walking between the houses in the rain is not illegal" just like "Technically Zimmerman following this kid wasn't illegal". It's disingenuous to suggest that since they weren't illegal they weren't wrong and didn't contribute to the outcome of the case, but here we are.

I'm not saying what Zimmerman did wasn't dumb or misguided or anything like that...

I'm just pointing out that there is still such a massive push to paint Martin in such a ridiculously positive light. I doubt any of those protesters in California know he was high when he died or that he regularly was in fights at school or had just been suspended for stealing or any of that stuff. They think he was a straight-laced, nice 12 year old kid (because that's all the media is willing to portray him as).

They also think George Zimmerman is 100% white.

Should also be noted that I don't speak for anyone but myself here. I am not aware of anyone in this thread that thinks Martin was squeaky clean. There's hyperbole to the effect of "child with a pack of skittles and an Arizona Tea" that pops up, but most understand that Martin made bad choices too. If you want to argue all your "possibilities" do it with those who are making the claims you are responding too.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

He killed someone, and his series of choices led to that death.

At what point do people start weighing the choices that Zimmerman made against the choices that Martin made?

If you want to get real technical you could look at the choices that Martin's parent's made but I won't go there.

I already posted 5 distinct choices Martin made that lead to his death, the choices he made were also significantly more troublesome then the choices that Zimmerman made.

The poor choices Zimmerman made were?

1) Get out of his car.

2) Not return to his car immediately when dispatch suggested he did not need to follow Martin.

I use the term "poor" here to appease the pro-Martin crowd. If I missed other poor choices he made, feel free to add them, but something like, "He should have yelled at Martin that he was neighborhood Watch" is not acceptable given what we know (and more importantly DON'T know) about the circumstances that night. Also because someone could equally say Martin should have waved and smiled at Zimmerman as he walked past his car, I think it is safe to assume that is not what happened. Zimmerman could have told Martin he was Neighborhood Watch and that might have pissed Martin off even more, nobody knows.

The poor choices Martin made were?

1) Instead of running away and then returning, he should have kept running or even just walked home or called 911 if he was scared, or knock on a neighbors door - take your pick, I'm not penalizing him 3 times here.

2) When Zimmerman started to scream for Help Martin should have stopped.

3) When John Good interjected himself verbally into the altercation Martin should have stopped.

4) When the other neighbor interjected himself verbally into the altercation Martin should have stopped.

5) If Martin saw Zimmerman had a gun, he should have stopped immediately and stood up. Zimmerman said Martin told him he was going to die tonight mother f'r and then slammed his head one more time. You can argue this did not happen, but we also know due to forensics that Martin did not stand up and put his hands in the air.

There were a number of bad decisions Martin made that night, if he makes the right decision for any one of those 5 we wouldn't have a 400+ page thread right now.

You can blame Zimmerman all day long for the decisions he made, but he did nothing illegal and his poor decisions pale in comparison with the poor decisions Martin made that night.

If you're going to go all out and suggest what Martin "should have done" in the middle of a fight, you should do the same for Zimmerman. You go down that path you'll see how silly your list is...especially for a kid in the midst of a fight. You were spot on with #1, but should have stopped there.

Go ahead, tell me what Zimmerman should have done differently in the middle of a fight based on what his statement stated as well as any of the witnesses testified as to seeing.

 

[simey]

He killed someone, and his series of choices led to that death.

At what point do people start weighing the choices that Zimmerman made against the choices that Martin made?

If you want to get real technical you could look at the choices that Martin's parent's made but I won't go there.

I don't know why you are going where you are now. My post was in reference to Juror B37, and some things she said.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

He killed someone, and his series of choices led to that death.

At what point do people start weighing the choices that Zimmerman made against the choices that Martin made?

If you want to get real technical you could look at the choices that Martin's parent's made but I won't go there.

I don't know why you are going where you are now. My post was in reference to Juror B37, and some things she said.

I didn't mean to single you out, but most of the people in this thread that are Pro-Martin continue to repeat that Zimmerman should not have gotten out of his car and "Zimmerman's series of choices led to Zimmerman killing Martin" - that was the point of your post that I quoted, right?

 

[The Commish]

EDIT: Anderson Cooper asks you if you'd have GZ on your neighborhood watch and you don't immediately say "No"? WTF is with that? Yes, please let's have the guy on our streets with a propensity to kill teenagers when he gets into trouble.

I'd like to have GZ on my neighborhood watch. Guy was on top of it. The woman who suffered the home invasion made him sound like a pretty good watch captain.

Really? The guy has made choices that help put him in life/death situations without any means to defend himself other than his gun (if we indeed believe he's an out of shape dough boy with no fighting skills). Why would you want him on your watch?

Hindsight is a wonderful tool and all but what life/death situation did he specifically put himself into?

He lives in this development. He has as much right to be there as Martin (or anyone else for that matter). The individual he called the NEN about wasn't in his view any longer (as he continued the conversation with the NEN operator).

Just curious to hear what you think was a life/death situation (without the benefit of hindsight).

Not sure I follow your question...what do you mean? He was walking around with a gun looking for someone he had never seen before. With those two elements alone, it's not very difficult to come up with a variety of ways this could go bad and end up in that situation, especially if you put it on the backdrop of deciding to stay in the security of your car as the alternative. If you're attempting to argue he couldn't predict what the future was going to be, go for it. That completely misses my point.

 

[The Commish]

He killed someone, and his series of choices led to that death.

At what point do people start weighing the choices that Zimmerman made against the choices that Martin made?

If you want to get real technical you could look at the choices that Martin's parent's made but I won't go there.

I already posted 5 distinct choices Martin made that lead to his death, the choices he made were also significantly more troublesome then the choices that Zimmerman made.

The poor choices Zimmerman made were?

1) Get out of his car.

2) Not return to his car immediately when dispatch suggested he did not need to follow Martin.

I use the term "poor" here to appease the pro-Martin crowd. If I missed other poor choices he made, feel free to add them, but something like, "He should have yelled at Martin that he was neighborhood Watch" is not acceptable given what we know (and more importantly DON'T know) about the circumstances that night. Also because someone could equally say Martin should have waved and smiled at Zimmerman as he walked past his car, I think it is safe to assume that is not what happened. Zimmerman could have told Martin he was Neighborhood Watch and that might have pissed Martin off even more, nobody knows.

The poor choices Martin made were?

1) Instead of running away and then returning, he should have kept running or even just walked home or called 911 if he was scared, or knock on a neighbors door - take your pick, I'm not penalizing him 3 times here.

2) When Zimmerman started to scream for Help Martin should have stopped.

3) When John Good interjected himself verbally into the altercation Martin should have stopped.

4) When the other neighbor interjected himself verbally into the altercation Martin should have stopped.

5) If Martin saw Zimmerman had a gun, he should have stopped immediately and stood up. Zimmerman said Martin told him he was going to die tonight mother f'r and then slammed his head one more time. You can argue this did not happen, but we also know due to forensics that Martin did not stand up and put his hands in the air.

There were a number of bad decisions Martin made that night, if he makes the right decision for any one of those 5 we wouldn't have a 400+ page thread right now.

You can blame Zimmerman all day long for the decisions he made, but he did nothing illegal and his poor decisions pale in comparison with the poor decisions Martin made that night.

If you're going to go all out and suggest what Martin "should have done" in the middle of a fight, you should do the same for Zimmerman. You go down that path you'll see how silly your list is...especially for a kid in the midst of a fight. You were spot on with #1, but should have stopped there.

Go ahead, tell me what Zimmerman should have done differently in the middle of a fight based on what his statement stated as well as any of the witnesses testified as to seeing.

Why would I do that? I've already said it's a silly exercise just as it is to rattle off what Martin should have done in the middle of the fight....it's monday morning QBing at it's finest.

 

[The Commish]

He killed someone, and his series of choices led to that death.

At what point do people start weighing the choices that Zimmerman made against the choices that Martin made?

If you want to get real technical you could look at the choices that Martin's parent's made but I won't go there.

I don't know why you are going where you are now. My post was in reference to Juror B37, and some things she said.

What you post rarely has anything to do with the response he provides...just an FYI.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

EDIT: Anderson Cooper asks you if you'd have GZ on your neighborhood watch and you don't immediately say "No"? WTF is with that? Yes, please let's have the guy on our streets with a propensity to kill teenagers when he gets into trouble.

I'd like to have GZ on my neighborhood watch. Guy was on top of it. The woman who suffered the home invasion made him sound like a pretty good watch captain.

Really? The guy has made choices that help put him in life/death situations without any means to defend himself other than his gun (if we indeed believe he's an out of shape dough boy with no fighting skills). Why would you want him on your watch?

Hindsight is a wonderful tool and all but what life/death situation did he specifically put himself into?

He lives in this development. He has as much right to be there as Martin (or anyone else for that matter). The individual he called the NEN about wasn't in his view any longer (as he continued the conversation with the NEN operator).

Just curious to hear what you think was a life/death situation (without the benefit of hindsight).

Not sure I follow your question...what do you mean? He was walking around with a gun looking for someone he had never seen before. With those two elements alone, it's not very difficult to come up with a variety of ways this could go bad and end up in that situation, especially if you put it on the backdrop of deciding to stay in the security of your car as the alternative. If you're attempting to argue he couldn't predict what the future was going to be, go for it. That completely misses my point.

I believe the M.I.T. security guard was armed and he was no less safe staying in his car. Keep preaching hindsight to us, you'll eventually convince us we were wrong all along.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

Why would I do that? I've already said it's a silly exercise just as it is to rattle off what Martin should have done in the middle of the fight....it's monday morning QBing at it's finest.

You have been preaching hindsight the entire thread, your entire attack on Zimmerman is hindsight, stop being a buffoon.

 

[The Commish]

EDIT: Anderson Cooper asks you if you'd have GZ on your neighborhood watch and you don't immediately say "No"? WTF is with that? Yes, please let's have the guy on our streets with a propensity to kill teenagers when he gets into trouble.

I'd like to have GZ on my neighborhood watch. Guy was on top of it. The woman who suffered the home invasion made him sound like a pretty good watch captain.

Really? The guy has made choices that help put him in life/death situations without any means to defend himself other than his gun (if we indeed believe he's an out of shape dough boy with no fighting skills). Why would you want him on your watch?

Hindsight is a wonderful tool and all but what life/death situation did he specifically put himself into?

He lives in this development. He has as much right to be there as Martin (or anyone else for that matter). The individual he called the NEN about wasn't in his view any longer (as he continued the conversation with the NEN operator).

Just curious to hear what you think was a life/death situation (without the benefit of hindsight).

Not sure I follow your question...what do you mean? He was walking around with a gun looking for someone he had never seen before. With those two elements alone, it's not very difficult to come up with a variety of ways this could go bad and end up in that situation, especially if you put it on the backdrop of deciding to stay in the security of your car as the alternative. If you're attempting to argue he couldn't predict what the future was going to be, go for it. That completely misses my point.

I believe the M.I.T. security guard was armed and he was no less safe staying in his car. Keep preaching hindsight to us, you'll eventually convince us we were wrong all along.

see simey....i have no idea what this means, but I don't think it has anything to do with what I posted.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

especially if you put it on the backdrop of deciding to stay in the security of your car as the alternative.

I believe the M.I.T. security guard was armed and he was no less safe staying in his car. Keep preaching hindsight to us, you'll eventually convince us we were wrong all along.

see simey....i have no idea what this means, but I don't think it has anything to do with what I posted.

You should look at what you post next time.

 

[The Commish]

Why would I do that? I've already said it's a silly exercise just as it is to rattle off what Martin should have done in the middle of the fight....it's monday morning QBing at it's finest.

You have been preaching hindsight the entire thread, your entire attack on Zimmerman is hindsight, stop being a buffoon.

Isn't that what you're doing with your "Martin should have done x,y,z" stuff? I don't have a problem looking at this stuff in hindsight. It can be very valuable and I'm sure Zimmerman has learned a ton by doing so. My "attack" here is simply that if you're going to look at Martin in hindsight, you might as well look at Zimmerman in hindsight, right? You read what you want and ignore what you want. There's probably been a half dozen posts of mine in this thread that state both guys had poor errors in judgment, but I guess you missed those right? Hell, I even give you credit for actually making a valid point and you insist on pounding on that straw man. Have at it dude...good luck.

 

[Witz]

EDIT: Anderson Cooper asks you if you'd have GZ on your neighborhood watch and you don't immediately say "No"? WTF is with that? Yes, please let's have the guy on our streets with a propensity to kill teenagers when he gets into trouble.

I'd like to have GZ on my neighborhood watch. Guy was on top of it. The woman who suffered the home invasion made him sound like a pretty good watch captain.

Really? The guy has made choices that help put him in life/death situations without any means to defend himself other than his gun (if we indeed believe he's an out of shape dough boy with no fighting skills). Why would you want him on your watch?

Hindsight is a wonderful tool and all but what life/death situation did he specifically put himself into?

He lives in this development. He has as much right to be there as Martin (or anyone else for that matter). The individual he called the NEN about wasn't in his view any longer (as he continued the conversation with the NEN operator).

Just curious to hear what you think was a life/death situation (without the benefit of hindsight).

Not sure I follow your question...what do you mean? He was walking around with a gun looking for someone he had never seen before. With those two elements alone, it's not very difficult to come up with a variety of ways this could go bad and end up in that situation, especially if you put it on the backdrop of deciding to stay in the security of your car as the alternative. If you're attempting to argue he couldn't predict what the future was going to be, go for it. That completely misses my point.

Sorry for not being clearer - you noted he put himself in life/death situations and I wanted to find out what you were specifically referring to.

You noted about him walking around with a gun which was something he had done numerous times before so unto itself just stating that his carrying of a gun constitutes a life and death situation doesn't have any merit unfortunately.

The person he had observed from his car had run off and wasn't in his view any longer (while in the car nor while out of the car while on the phone with the NEN operator). If you're arguing that being in the vicinity of someone he didn't know but was suspicious of constitutes a life/death situation, I'd love to hear more on that.

Again - just asking you to explain what your comment.

 

[The Commish]

especially if you put it on the backdrop of deciding to stay in the security of your car as the alternative.

I believe the M.I.T. security guard was armed and he was no less safe staying in his car. Keep preaching hindsight to us, you'll eventually convince us we were wrong all along.

see simey....i have no idea what this means, but I don't think it has anything to do with what I posted.

You should look at what you post next time.

We have plenty of examples....no need for any more...thanks

 

[simey]

He killed someone, and his series of choices led to that death.

At what point do people start weighing the choices that Zimmerman made against the choices that Martin made?

If you want to get real technical you could look at the choices that Martin's parent's made but I won't go there.

I don't know why you are going where you are now. My post was in reference to Juror B37, and some things she said.

I didn't mean to single you out, but most of the people in this thread that are Pro-Martin continue to repeat that Zimmerman should not have gotten out of his car and "Zimmerman's series of choices led to Zimmerman killing Martin" - that was the point of your post that I quoted, right?

The point of my post is I think Juror B37 doesn't grasp the severity of what Zimmerman did, which is why I said she put it mildly. I think that Martin more than likely made some bad choices too. However, I think Zimmerman set off the chain of events that led to an unnecessary death. I also think Zimmerman has been less than honest about what happened, but we'll never know. I never said he did something illegal, and I never said I didn't agree with the verdict.

 

[The Commish]

EDIT: Anderson Cooper asks you if you'd have GZ on your neighborhood watch and you don't immediately say "No"? WTF is with that? Yes, please let's have the guy on our streets with a propensity to kill teenagers when he gets into trouble.

I'd like to have GZ on my neighborhood watch. Guy was on top of it. The woman who suffered the home invasion made him sound like a pretty good watch captain.

Really? The guy has made choices that help put him in life/death situations without any means to defend himself other than his gun (if we indeed believe he's an out of shape dough boy with no fighting skills). Why would you want him on your watch?

Hindsight is a wonderful tool and all but what life/death situation did he specifically put himself into?

He lives in this development. He has as much right to be there as Martin (or anyone else for that matter). The individual he called the NEN about wasn't in his view any longer (as he continued the conversation with the NEN operator).

Just curious to hear what you think was a life/death situation (without the benefit of hindsight).

Not sure I follow your question...what do you mean? He was walking around with a gun looking for someone he had never seen before. With those two elements alone, it's not very difficult to come up with a variety of ways this could go bad and end up in that situation, especially if you put it on the backdrop of deciding to stay in the security of your car as the alternative. If you're attempting to argue he couldn't predict what the future was going to be, go for it. That completely misses my point.

Sorry for not being clearer - you noted he put himself in life/death situations and I wanted to find out what you were specifically referring to.

You noted about him walking around with a gun which was something he had done numerous times before so unto itself just stating that his carrying of a gun constitutes a life and death situation doesn't have any merit unfortunately.

The person he had observed from his car had run off and wasn't in his view any longer (while in the car nor while out of the car while on the phone with the NEN operator). If you're arguing that being in the vicinity of someone he didn't know but was suspicious of constitutes a life/death situation, I'd love to hear more on that.

Again - just asking you to explain what your comment.

I said he made choices that HELPED put him into a life/death situation. Specifically the decision to follow Martin and the decision to respond to Martin once confronted are two choices he made. To your assertion that he'd walked around with a gun many times before and there were no problems, that's true, but it doesn't make carrying the gun any more/less safe (just because I hit heads 10 times out of 10 on a coin flip doesn't make the possibility of tails any greater than 50% on the next flip) But my perspective is very different on guns I guess. My feeling is, you shouldn't own one or carry one unless you're willing to use it. That assessment should be considered every time you pick it up and put it on your person. I feel that's what a responsible gun owner will do. They'll understand that just because they walked out the door 100 times with no issue doesn't mean trip 101 is going to be problem free.

 

[Spanky267]

The onion piece reflects exactly how I feel about this case

Especially this

Florida has laws that expressly allow anyone to use deadly force against another person if they feel threatened.

Does anyone dispute that this is exactly what the law allows?

Yes I dispute it. Because it is an over simplification of the law as it is written in my home state. It is essentially an extension of the Castle doctrine. I have a right to feel safe in my person. I also have a right to defend myself. If someone comes and attacks me I have the right to defend myseld. What this law does is it removes my obligation to flee. It doesnt mean that I cant or shouldnt if I have the ability. But if I feel that I cant flee I have a right to defend myself, wherever I am.

However that law has little to nothing to do with the Zimmerman case. Based on the facts in evidence this was a case of simple self defense which is the law in every state in the U.S. You have an obligation to flee the scene but if you can't you have a right to meet force with force.up to and including deadly force. Zimmerman alleges he was pinned to the ground. There is some evidence that supports his claim. Unable to retreat he is allowed to meet force with force.

The Onion may be witty but in this case it is wrong.

 

[larry_boy_44]

I agree he was unarmed... But how can we say for sure he was "doing nothing wrong"??

Isn't it entirely possible that Zimmerman stopped a theft by following him? Or that he was staking out places to go back to later and steal stuff?

You can say that using technicalities like the Zimmerman guys are. "Technically" walking between the houses in the rain is not illegal" just like "Technically Zimmerman following this kid wasn't illegal". It's disingenuous to suggest that since they weren't illegal they weren't wrong and didn't contribute to the outcome of the case, but here we are.

I'm not saying what Zimmerman did wasn't dumb or misguided or anything like that...

I'm just pointing out that there is still such a massive push to paint Martin in such a ridiculously positive light. I doubt any of those protesters in California know he was high when he died or that he regularly was in fights at school or had just been suspended for stealing or any of that stuff. They think he was a straight-laced, nice 12 year old kid (because that's all the media is willing to portray him as).

They also think George Zimmerman is 100% white.

Should also be noted that I don't speak for anyone but myself here. I am not aware of anyone in this thread that thinks Martin was squeaky clean. There's hyperbole to the effect of "child with a pack of skittles and an Arizona Tea" that pops up, but most understand that Martin made bad choices too. If you want to argue all your "possibilities" do it with those who are making the claims you are responding too.

I'm just pointing out that the media is utterly ridiculous (well, and Tim and possibly Clifford)...

That's all, carry on

 

[Spanky267]

I guess if some of you think it's cool - even preferable under the right circumstances - for your neighborhood watch to kill people then I got nothing for you.

do you not think people have a right to defend themselves or is your right to self defense abrogated when you join the neighborhood watch?

 

[timschochet]

I want to clarify some points I tried to make earlier:

1. I believe that George Zimmerman initiated the confrontation between himself and Trayvon Martin. Even if he did not, I believe that George Zimmerman was the person responsible for that confrontation.

2. I do not believe George Zimmerman was ever seriously injured. I do not believe he ever reasonably feared for his life, or feared serious injury.

These two points are the main reasons I believe Zimmerman committed manslaughter. If Martin was the one who confronted Zimmerman, and Zimmerman truly an reasonably believed his life or serious injury was at risk, then he had the right to defend himself- I want to make clear that I do NOT dispute this argument- only the facts of what exactly happened here.

 

[drummer]

I , I

1. I , I

2. I . I

I

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=StfLy3pzno0

 

[DougGlatt]

Was there only 1 shot fired? If I'm on the bottom of a beating, maybe I pull the trigger and get out from the bottom. But if I'm out to kill someone, I don't call the cops or shoot only once. If I want to kill someone, I shoot 2-3 times at the very least.

 

[timschochet]

Also want to point out regarding the accusation that some in the media regarding the jurors as racist:

To suggest that someone who is not black cannot truly understand what it is to be black, and therefore may be lacking proper empathy in this case- that is NOT a racist argument IMO. It is a very controversial argument, and one which I'm not sure I agree with (frankly, sometimes I agree with it, sometimes I don't- in the case of the Zimmerman trial I probably don't agree with it.) But anyone who makes this argument is not calling the jurors racist.

 

[jon_mx]

I said with gun-owning women on the jury there was no chance of a conviction. If there was one place the prosecution blew it, it was not the over-charge, it was jury selection. Remove the gun owners and put a couple of blacks on the jury and they convict despite the facts and the instructions.

 

[timschochet]

I , I

1. I , I

2. I . I

I

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=StfLy3pzno0

You used to have more to offer. Lately you've become a one-trick pony.

 

[Gawain]

EDIT: Anderson Cooper asks you if you'd have GZ on your neighborhood watch and you don't immediately say "No"? WTF is with that? Yes, please let's have the guy on our streets with a propensity to kill teenagers when he gets into trouble.

I'd like to have GZ on my neighborhood watch. Guy was on top of it. The woman who suffered the home invasion made him sound like a pretty good watch captain.

Really? The guy has made choices that help put him in life/death situations without any means to defend himself other than his gun (if we indeed believe he's an out of shape dough boy with no fighting skills). Why would you want him on your watch?

What choices? I don't think getting out of his car is a big deal. I don't think it's a big deal even if he followed Martin and asked him what he was up to. You;d prefer a watch captain that didn't look out for potential crimes?

 

[phrozen]

I , I

1. I , I

2. I . I

I

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=StfLy3pzno0

funny - when I read tim's post I pictured this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ss2hULhXf04

 

[RCon]

I want to clarify some points I tried to make earlier:

1. I believe that George Zimmerman initiated the confrontation between himself and Trayvon Martin. Even if he did not, I believe that George Zimmerman was the person responsible for that confrontation.

2. I do not believe George Zimmerman was ever seriously injured. I do not believe he ever reasonably feared for his life, or feared serious injury.

These two points are the main reasons I believe Zimmerman committed manslaughter. If Martin was the one who confronted Zimmerman, and Zimmerman truly an reasonably believed his life or serious injury was at risk, then he had the right to defend himself- I want to make clear that I do NOT dispute this argument- only the facts of what exactly happened here.

I just don't get your #1 here. There is literally no evidence that Zimmerman initiated the physical confrontation. Zero. So why do you keep on insisting that's what you believe happened?

If your argument is that Zimmerman just seems shady, and that you don't believe anything he says, I guess that's OK. If that's the case, however, I think that says more about your tunnel vision on the topic than about him, frankly.

 

[Joe McGee]

I , I

1. I , I

2. I . I

I

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=StfLy3pzno0

You used to have more to offer. Lately you've become a one-trick pony.

It made me laugh.

 

[Clifford]

He killed someone, and his series of choices led to that death.

At what point do people start weighing the choices that Zimmerman made against the choices that Martin made?

If you want to get real technical you could look at the choices that Martin's parent's made but I won't go there.

I already posted 5 distinct choices Martin made that lead to his death, the choices he made were also significantly more troublesome then the choices that Zimmerman made.

The poor choices Zimmerman made were?

1) Get out of his car.

2) Not return to his car immediately when dispatch suggested he did not need to follow Martin.

I use the term "poor" here to appease the pro-Martin crowd. If I missed other poor choices he made, feel free to add them, but something like, "He should have yelled at Martin that he was neighborhood Watch" is not acceptable given what we know (and more importantly DON'T know) about the circumstances that night. Also because someone could equally say Martin should have waved and smiled at Zimmerman as he walked past his car, I think it is safe to assume that is not what happened. Zimmerman could have told Martin he was Neighborhood Watch and that might have pissed Martin off even more, nobody knows.

The poor choices Martin made were?

1) Instead of running away and then returning, he should have kept running or even just walked home or called 911 if he was scared, or knock on a neighbors door - take your pick, I'm not penalizing him 3 times here.

2) When Zimmerman started to scream for Help Martin should have stopped.

3) When John Good interjected himself verbally into the altercation Martin should have stopped.

4) When the other neighbor interjected himself verbally into the altercation Martin should have stopped.

5) If Martin saw Zimmerman had a gun, he should have stopped immediately and stood up. Zimmerman said Martin told him he was going to die tonight mother f'r and then slammed his head one more time. You can argue this did not happen, but we also know due to forensics that Martin did not stand up and put his hands in the air.

There were a number of bad decisions Martin made that night, if he makes the right decision for any one of those 5 we wouldn't have a 400+ page thread right now.

You can blame Zimmerman all day long for the decisions he made, but he did nothing illegal and his poor decisions pale in comparison with the poor decisions Martin made that night.

You left out

1. Assumed Martin was a criminal for no reason at all

 

[The Commish]

I guess if some of you think it's cool - even preferable under the right circumstances - for your neighborhood watch to kill people then I got nothing for you.

do you not think people have a right to defend themselves or is your right to self defense abrogated when you join the neighborhood watch?

Speaking for myself, I think "self defense" should be out the window when you set the event in motion, but I stated that early on and that it would be hard to get me away from that opinion. That doesn't matter much to Florida law though and I'd have given the non guilty verdict because the law requires me to. For me, it had nothing to do with him being on neighborhood watch.

 

[Spanky267]

I want to clarify some points I tried to make earlier:

1. I believe that George Zimmerman initiated the confrontation between himself and Trayvon Martin. Even if he did not, I believe that George Zimmerman was the person responsible for that confrontation.

2. I do not believe George Zimmerman was ever seriously injured. I do not believe he ever reasonably feared for his life, or feared serious injury.

These two points are the main reasons I believe Zimmerman committed manslaughter. If Martin was the one who confronted Zimmerman, and Zimmerman truly an reasonably believed his life or serious injury was at risk, then he had the right to defend himself- I want to make clear that I do NOT dispute this argument- only the facts of what exactly happened here.

Timslation:: I dont dispute Zimmerman's story, I just dispute it.

See the thing about fear of grave bodily injury or death is that it is in the eye of the beholder. I wouldnt have been afraid of Trayvon Martin. But I'm not a shrimp like Zimmerman. However, if Micheal Clarke Duncan confronted me in a situtation similar to the events of this case then I would be afraid of grave bodily injury or death.

 

[timschochet]

I want to clarify some points I tried to make earlier:

1. I believe that George Zimmerman initiated the confrontation between himself and Trayvon Martin. Even if he did not, I believe that George Zimmerman was the person responsible for that confrontation.

2. I do not believe George Zimmerman was ever seriously injured. I do not believe he ever reasonably feared for his life, or feared serious injury.

These two points are the main reasons I believe Zimmerman committed manslaughter. If Martin was the one who confronted Zimmerman, and Zimmerman truly an reasonably believed his life or serious injury was at risk, then he had the right to defend himself- I want to make clear that I do NOT dispute this argument- only the facts of what exactly happened here.

I just don't get your #1 here. There is literally no evidence that Z initiated the physical confrontation. Zero. So why do you keep on insisting that's what you believe happened?

Well first off, I do notice how careful you are to insert the word "physical", which I did not. There is no evidence as to who started the physical confrontation, outside of Zimmerman's self-serving testimony. However, so long as my point #2 is correct I would argue that Zimmerman is guilty of manslaughter IF

1. Zimmerman physically assaulted Martin first, OR

2. Zimmerman initiated a confrontation which led to Martin physically assaulting Zimmerman, OR

3. Zimmerman chose to follow Martin which caused Martin to turn around and confront Zimmerman.

If any of the 3 happened, and if Zimmerman's injuries were not serious and he was not in reasonable fear of his life and/or serious injury, then he is guilty of manslaughter. Also, even if Zimmerman did reasonably fear serious injury or death, he is STILL guilty of manslaughter if he initiated the confrontation, physical or otherwise.

 

[timschochet]

I want to clarify some points I tried to make earlier:

1. I believe that George Zimmerman initiated the confrontation between himself and Trayvon Martin. Even if he did not, I believe that George Zimmerman was the person responsible for that confrontation.

2. I do not believe George Zimmerman was ever seriously injured. I do not believe he ever reasonably feared for his life, or feared serious injury.

These two points are the main reasons I believe Zimmerman committed manslaughter. If Martin was the one who confronted Zimmerman, and Zimmerman truly an reasonably believed his life or serious injury was at risk, then he had the right to defend himself- I want to make clear that I do NOT dispute this argument- only the facts of what exactly happened here.

Timslation:: I dont dispute Zimmerman's story, I just dispute it.

See the thing about fear of grave bodily injury or death is that it is in the eye of the beholder. I wouldnt have been afraid of Trayvon Martin. But I'm not a shrimp like Zimmerman. However, if Micheal Clarke Duncan confronted me in a situtation similar to the events of this case then I would be afraid of grave bodily injury or death.

No I DO dispute Zimmerman's story- I dispute it greatly. I don't necessarily dispute his argument. In other words, if you were to describe Zimmerman's narrative to me and ask, "Suppose this happened- would this guy be guilty of a crime?" My answer would be no.

 

[derek245583]

Also want to point out regarding the accusation that some in the media regarding the jurors as racist:

To suggest that someone who is not black cannot truly understand what it is to be black, and therefore may be lacking proper empathy in this case- that is NOT a racist argument IMO. It is a very controversial argument, and one which I'm not sure I agree with (frankly, sometimes I agree with it, sometimes I don't- in the case of the Zimmerman trial I probably don't agree with it.) But anyone who makes this argument is not calling the jurors racist.

I am not sure if this is the right spot to put it...but how can people say "everyone's the same, we are all equal" then turn around and say "You dont know what its like to be such and such type of person, so cut them some slack...you werent raised that way"

If I treat everyone equally and on the same level playing field, then when they do something wrong they are going to be judged on that same level playing field.

I am honestly having a hard time understanding that. Help please.

 

[drummer]

I , I

1. I , I

2. I . I

I

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=StfLy3pzno0

You used to have more to offer. Lately you've become a one-trick pony.

Says the guy who posts more "I"s here than in a song about finding solace from his isolation through the TV and radio.