Zimmerman: The Prosecution's Gambit? [W:50]

[ttwtt78640]

Re: Zimmerman: The Prosecution's Gambit?

Why are white people so troubled by what other groups do among themselves? Your argument is misguided on several fronts:
1) who says blacks like being killed by other blacks ....blame the media for ignoring those events
2) but let's say they had no reaction when they kill each other .....why is that a bother to whites? This is much like the "N" word ....not for the life of me can I understand why whites are so pained because blacks use the "N" word with each other ....and they (whites) don't get to freely use it!!

But to realistically answer your question here is the rub with Travon case .....you don't want to set a president where vigilantes can walk around with guns ...pick a fight and kill somebody ...and then claim they are standing their ground. And blacks understand ....those laws will never work for them.

The argument is ...no matter Zimmerman's role was ....he had a right to follow Travon with a gun ......DO YOU WANT TO LIVE IN A WORLD LIKE THAT???
In my view view he stalked the kid and Travon was the one standing his ground ....the argument that Zimmerman had injuries ...or was on the ground getting beat up ...is irrelevant!!!

The bolded above is where you completely depart from reality. Being "stalked" (being observed by another while you are moving) is not cause for self defense. Having your nose broken, being knocked to the ground and then being beaten while pinned to the ground is cause for self defense. Whether the actions of GZ were valid for self defense is indeed the only relevant issue.

 

[SMTA]

Re: Zimmerman: The Prosecution's Gambit?

Personally, I think Murder 2 is impossible. If that's true, is Manslaughter a possibility?

I've thought that the jury is going to want to find ZImmerman guilty of SOMETHING. If he's found guilty of Manslaughter, he faces 30 years in prison, as I understand it. From the Florida statutes:



One of the spins out there is that this has been the prosecution's plan all along. I must admit that, without a plan like this, I can't even imagine why charges were brought.

Caveat: While I think this whole incident is a tragedy, I don't think he's guilty of anything. But I think the jury may well want to find him guilty of something... some lesser charge.


What are your thoughts?

(If anyone so much as MENTIONS 50-ft from the T, 10-ft from the T, THE T!!! I will spin myself into the ground, fly out of my computer screen and haunt them.)

The jury has the responsibility of making a determination based solely upon the evidence, not public opinion.

I pray that the jury has the fortitude to make a proper legal decision, and not to play to public opinion.

From what news I have read, it seems that the prosecution has done poorly.

This indicates that the charges were driven by public pressure and not by the legal system.

I have seen nothing yet that shows Zimmerman to be guilty of anything other than some minor post-shooting fiscal bad judgement.

 

[soot]

Re: Zimmerman: The Prosecution's Gambit?

But to realistically answer your question here is the rub with Travon case .....you don't want to set a president where vigilantes can walk around with guns ...pick a fight and kill somebody ...and then claim they are standing their ground. And blacks understand ....those laws will never work for them.

The argument is ...no matter Zimmerman's role was ....he had a right to follow Travon with a gun ......DO YOU WANT TO LIVE IN A WORLD LIKE THAT???
In my view view he stalked the kid and Travon was the one standing his ground ....the argument that Zimmerman had injuries ...or was on the ground getting beat up ...is irrelevant!!!

Awesome comment.

You kinda stole my thunder by making it, but at least it was said.

One of the first things I was taught when I began handling guns a couple decades ago was "Don't go anywhere because you have a gun that you wouldn't go without a gun".

Unfortunately nobody ever gave George Zimmerman that advice.

Zimmerman went looking for trouble because he had a firearm to fall back on.

No gun and Zimmerman never gets out of his car. He simply calls the police and hopes for the best.

I have NO problem at all with self defense, castle doctrine, stand your ground, or simply killing folks who need killing. Accost me or mine while I'm armed and you're going to catch a failure drill to the face and chest and I'm going to sleep like a baby despite it.

I do have a problem with petty, wanna-be superheros who prowl around at night looking for an opportunity to mess with people because they've got their gun muscles on.

In a nutshell that's what George Zimmerman did.

I believe what Zimmerman did is a clear-cut case of culpable negligence.

By creeping around in the dark, stalking Martin, and essentially scaring the **** out of the kid for no good reason Zimmerman recklessly acted without reasonable caution and put another person at risk of injury or death in order to satisfy his ego.

That's manslaughter.

If Zimmerman wasn't doing any of that Martin wouldn't have had any reason to clean his clock.

If Martin wasn't forced to beat Zimmerman's ass, or if Zimmerman just took the beating he instigated like a man, Zimmerman would never have had to play ***** and reach for the gun.

30 years in prison sounds fair.

 

[joko104]

Re: Zimmerman: The Prosecution's Gambit?

I suppose it's not surprising that some people want to ignore actual law and instead send people who disagree with them to prison as their way of creating what they want as their protest of law.

Those same people it seems basically worship violence in their fantascies, taking the view that if anyone calls the police on you or follows you then you get to beat that person to death. All that is irrational in my opinion, very irrational, and sounds like couch potato men who want to fantasize that they are tough - while paranoid that someone might be watching or following them.

 

[joko104]

Re: Zimmerman: The Prosecution's Gambit?

I think the witness saying he heard Martin tell Zimmerman "you're going to die" followed by Martin slamming Zimmerman's head into the concrete would eliminate any justificration for a conviction. However, the government picked the jury pool and it is extremely pro-prosecution in this instance, including two PETA types. The prosecution only needs 4 to convict.

I don't think many people grasp that in Florida a person can be summarily arrested and held under a million dollar and, no grand jury involved and just the DA wants to get you - and then after you are jailed a year or two the government only has to get 4 of 6 people from a jury pool the government picks to send you to prison for the rest of your life.

 

[nota bene]

Re: Zimmerman: The Prosecution's Gambit?

This trial is clearly showing that he isn't guilty of anything. The whole case is a joke. If he is found guilty for ANYTHING I have lost all faith in the American Justice System.

I want to hear all the evidence. I had forgotten until yesterday when somebody posted about this how one network edited the 9-11 call. Professional race-baiters wanted to foment trouble, and that network aided in this.

I have great faith in the jury system. I can't say that I understand why Florida requires only six jurors when the charge is any kind of murder, and despite having heard talking-heads across the channels touting women as superior jurors (more attentive to detail, more reasonable, etc.), I also don't understand why there isn't at least one man on the jury.

 

[davidtaylorjr]

Re: Zimmerman: The Prosecution's Gambit?

I want to hear all the evidence. I had forgotten until yesterday when somebody posted about this how one network edited the 9-11 call. Professional race-baiters wanted to foment trouble, and that network aided in this.

I have great faith in the jury system. I can't say that I understand why Florida requires only six jurors when the charge is any kind of murder, and despite having heard talking-heads across the channels touting women as superior jurors (more attentive to detail, more reasonable, etc.), I also don't understand why there isn't at least one man on the jury.

More politics.

 

[nota bene]

Re: Zimmerman: The Prosecution's Gambit?

I don't know that that's true. Jury pools are what they are.

 

[thinkforyoursel]

Re: Zimmerman: The Prosecution's Gambit?

The bolded above is where you completely depart from reality. Being "stalked" (being observed by another while you are moving) is not cause for self defense. Having your nose broken, being knocked to the ground and then being beaten while pinned to the ground is cause for self defense. Whether the actions of GZ were valid for self defense is indeed the only relevant issue.

OK buddy....when I have some free time ...I'll just get my gun and follow you around!!:doh

 

[thinkforyoursel]

Re: Zimmerman: The Prosecution's Gambit?

Awesome comment.

You kinda stole my thunder by making it, but at least it was said.

One of the first things I was taught when I began handling guns a couple decades ago was "Don't go anywhere because you have a gun that you wouldn't go without a gun".

Unfortunately nobody ever gave George Zimmerman that advice.

Zimmerman went looking for trouble because he had a firearm to fall back on.

No gun and Zimmerman never gets out of his car. He simply calls the police and hopes for the best.

I have NO problem at all with self defense, castle doctrine, stand your ground, or simply killing folks who need killing. Accost me or mine while I'm armed and you're going to catch a failure drill to the face and chest and I'm going to sleep like a baby despite it.

I do have a problem with petty, wanna-be superheros who prowl around at night looking for an opportunity to mess with people because they've got their gun muscles on.

In a nutshell that's what George Zimmerman did.

I believe what Zimmerman did is a clear-cut case of culpable negligence.

By creeping around in the dark, stalking Martin, and essentially scaring the **** out of the kid for no good reason Zimmerman recklessly acted without reasonable caution and put another person at risk of injury or death in order to satisfy his ego.

That's manslaughter.

If Zimmerman wasn't doing any of that Martin wouldn't have had any reason to clean his clock.

If Martin wasn't forced to beat Zimmerman's ass, or if Zimmerman just took the beating he instigated like a man, Zimmerman would never have had to play ***** and reach for the gun.

30 years in prison sounds fair.

My point exactly.....no gun ...and Zimmerman would have stayed in his car (as a minimum). Zimmerman knew there key facts before he attacked the kid....he's black, he was un-armed, and he (Zimmerman) had a gun!! Take away any of these 3 key facts ...and there would have been no incident....that's the elephant in the room being ignored.


I not guessing here ....but no white person would want a black guy following them around with a gun!! To argue that this was OK in this case ...is only because we live in a racist society. Zimmerman had a shaved head with a goatee .....I take one look at that guy and I'm thinking ...SKIN-HEAD ...not a dam police officer!
The argument that Zimmerman had injuries ...or Travon was on top during the fight is meaningless in my view .....he stalked the kid ...who had every right to stand his ground.

 

[ecofarm]

Re: Zimmerman: The Prosecution's Gambit?

OK buddy....when I have some free time ...I'll just get my gun and follow you around!!:doh

Who cares? Do it all day, every day and no one will give a ****. If anything, you'll have the police called on you. That's no skin off anyone's ass.

 

[Oceandan]

Re: Zimmerman: The Prosecution's Gambit?

OK buddy....when I have some free time ...I'll just get my gun and follow you around!!:doh

Uhm in any state that has "concealed carry" there are people following us every day with guns.

 

[thinkforyoursel]

Re: Zimmerman: The Prosecution's Gambit?

Who cares? Do it all day, every day and no one will give a ****. If anything, you'll have the police called on you. That's no skin off anyone's ass.

Whatever.....you people see are hypocrites arguing to preserve a double standard.

I'm not guessing here ....no white person would want to live in a country where black people are free to follow them around with guns.

When whites in America today say ...they had nothing to do with slavery .....issues like this shatter that myth!! This is what whites inherited from the slave legacy!!!

A society with a baked-in inequalities (based on race) that favors whites .... and the whites ...they fight to portray this society as equal!!

This is always the elephant in the room in the American society ....touch that ...and boy do you touch a nerve!!

 

[ecofarm]

Re: Zimmerman: The Prosecution's Gambit?

Whatever.....you people see are hypocrites arguing to preserve a double standard.

What double standard? Anyone can get their gun and follow people around. Who cares?

 

[soot]

Re: Zimmerman: The Prosecution's Gambit?

Who cares? Do it all day, every day and no one will give a ****. If anything, you'll have the police called on you. That's no skin off anyone's ass.

As a 42-year-old man I agree with you 110%.

Follow me around these days and almost without exception my response would be to get to someplace "safe" as quickly as possible and I'd be on the phone with the police while I was moving. These days I have what we refer to as "common sense", and I've got too much to lose (a house, a family, obligations that require I not be in prison, etc...) to be running around getting in altercations with strangers.

But when I was a "kid", say between the ages of 16 and 25?

Zimmerman got off easy. I would have come out from behind the bush with a paving stone in my hand and any "furtive movement" by Zimmerman would have gotten his skull caved in.

Seriously.

I've both given and received some hellacious beatings in my day and almost all of them were precipitated by far less than some freaky looking little troll of a man stalking me on a rainy night.

 

[ecofarm]

Re: Zimmerman: The Prosecution's Gambit?

As a 42-year-old man I agree with you 110%.

Follow me around these days and almost without exception my response would be to get to someplace "safe" as quickly as possible and I'd be on the phone with the police while I was moving. These days I have what we refer to as "common sense", and I've got too much to lose (a house, a family, obligations that require I not be in prison, etc...) to be running around getting in altercations with strangers.

But when I was a "kid", say between the ages of 16 and 25?

Zimmerman got off easy. I would have come out from behind the bush with a paving stone in my hand and any "furtive movement" by Zimmerman would have gotten his skull caved in.

Seriously.

I've both given and received some hellacious beatings in my day and almost all of them were precipitated by far less than some freaky looking little troll of a man stalking me on a rainy night.

So your entire explanation is based on a M behaving hysterically paranoid, irrational and eventually criminally. And you want to blame someone else?

 

[soot]

Re: Zimmerman: The Prosecution's Gambit?

Uhm in any state that has "concealed carry" there are people following us every day with guns.

Really?

It happens to you everyday that some freaky little weirdo follows you through your neighborhood on a rainy night?

That's facinating.

I've spent plenty of time in concealed carry states and I can't remember it ever happening.

Now, I'll concede that there was a tremendous likelyhood that at some point the guy in line behind me at the Food Lion was probably carrying concealed.

But then again, Trayvon Martin didn't turn around and start beating the snot out of some guy in line at the grocery store.

You're just making a really irrational attempt to rationalize this. It obviously failed.

 

[ecofarm]

Re: Zimmerman: The Prosecution's Gambit?

freaky little weirdo

I believe the proper term is 'creepy ass cracker'.

 

[thinkforyoursel]

Re: Zimmerman: The Prosecution's Gambit?

Really?

It happens to you everyday that some freaky little weirdo follows you through your neighborhood on a rainy night?

That's facinating.

I've spent plenty of time in concealed carry states and I can't remember it ever happening.

Now, I'll concede that there was a tremendous likelyhood that at some point the guy in line behind me at the Food Lion was probably carrying concealed.

But then again, Trayvon Martin didn't turn around and start beating the snot out of some guy in line at the grocery store.

You're just making a really irrational attempt to rationalize this. It obviously failed.

Don't even bother arguing with these people dude. When you here a guy saying ...it's OK to be followed around by armed men.....you know it's the silly season.

 

[thinkforyoursel]

Re: Zimmerman: The Prosecution's Gambit?

I believe the proper term is 'creepy ass cracker'.

A bald-headed dude ...with a goatee ....as a teenager that would be a "creepy ass cracker"!!
Take a look at a SKIN-HEAD ....and look at Zimmerman's picture then!!

 

[ecofarm]

Re: Zimmerman: The Prosecution's Gambit?

A bald-headed dude ...with a goatee ....as a teenager that would be a "creepy ass cracker"!!
Take a look at a SKIN-HEAD ....and look at Zimmerman's picture then!!

An Hispanic skin head?

It's so funny how those who will scream "Z profiled!" are grotesquely engaged in demonizing Z via profiling.

 

[soot]

Re: Zimmerman: The Prosecution's Gambit?

So your entire explanation is based on a M behaving hysterically paranoid, irrational and eventually criminally. And you want to blame someone else?

That's actually an awesom description of George Zimmerman's behavior.

And all I really blame on Zimmerman is his own behavior.

What he did was straight up freakin' weird.

Was Martin's behavior any better?

I don't think so, and if their roles were reversed and Zimmerman were dead because Martin reacted by caving in his skull with a paving stone I'd argue that he was guilty of manslaughter.

Bottom line is that people just can't run around killing each other after behaving like retards.

The old adage, "It takes two to tango" didn't become an adage because it fails to make an awful lot of sense.

Martin was not out looking for trouble the night Zimemrman gunned him down. As far as we can tell he wasn't commiting any kind of trouble or crime at all. He was literally just walking through his neighborhood.

The fact that Zimmerman was hysterically paranoid, suspecting him of a crime for no logical reason, isn't Martin's fault.

The fact that Zimmerman acted irrationally by stalking him isn't Martin's fault.

The fact that Zimmerman, after a profound display of poor judgement, creepiness, and ego eventually behaved criminally may be partially Martin's fault.

Maybe Martin put Zimmerman up to manslaughter by not "giving up ground" when he had the chance.

Maybe the law should be that you don't have a right to "stand your ground" unless you have a gun.

If so, Martin was guilty of it.

 

[soot]

Re: Zimmerman: The Prosecution's Gambit?

I believe the proper term is 'creepy ass cracker'.

If the shoe fits...

 

[ecofarm]

Re: Zimmerman: The Prosecution's Gambit?

That's actually an awesom description of George Zimmerman's behavior.

And all I really blame on Zimmerman is his own behavior.

What he did was straight up freakin' weird.

Was Martin's behavior any better?

I don't think so, and if their roles were reversed and Zimmerman were dead because Martin reacted by caving in his skull with a paving stone I'd argue that he was guilty of manslaughter.

But the old adage, "It takes two to tango" didn't become an adage because it fails to make an awful lot of sense.

Martin was not out looking for trouble the night Zimemrman gunned him down. As far as we can tell he wasn't commiting any kind of trouble or crime at all. He was literally just walking through his neighborhood.

The fact that Zimmerman was hysterically paranoid isn't Martin's fault.

The fact that Zimmerman acted irrationally by stalking him isn't Martin's fault.

The fact that Zimmerman, after a profound display of poor judgement, creepiness, and ego eventually behaved criminally may be partially Martin's fault.

Maybe Martin put Zimmerman up to manslaughter by not "giving up ground" when he had the chance.

Maybe the law should be that you don't have a right to "stand your ground" unless you have a gun.

If so, Martin was guilty of it.

It's no one else's fault that M turned out to be a hysterical coward who jumped out of darkness to subdue the victims of his paranoid delusion.

 

[Gina]

Re: Zimmerman: The Prosecution's Gambit?

Moderator's Warning:

Just a reminder to keep it cool and on topic guys.