George Zimmerman...

Big Mike

trigs;355898 wroteoh really? taken from the article mole posted:

doesn't sound like to me that zimmerman was in danger and had to defend himself. sounds like he went looking for danger and found it.

Correct, though the exact words of the dispatcher were "ok, we don't need you to do that" which is what they pretty much have to say to avoid liability.

Your point speaks to the validity of a neighborhood watch system, not the charge for which Mr. Zimmerman was acquitted of. Should private individuals watch or follow the activities of suspicious individuals in their community? Doing so is not illegal, really all you're doing is walking on public property.

What IS illegal is punching someone in the face and then getting on top of them and starting to pound their head off of the sidewalk. All available evidence points to this being the first illegal action that took place in this incident. In which case it was Trayvon Martin who went looking for trouble and, tragically, found it.

Big Mike

I work with Young Offenders in a secure custody/detention centre. I can think of quite a few 17 year old "children" who I would most definitely not want to find myself on the wrong end of a ground-and-pound situation in. And as some of you know I'm not a small guy. Mr. Zimmerman is only 5'8" and described as "physically soft" at the time of the incident.
I can very easily understand how he felt (and indeed probably was) in danger of severe bodily harm or death.

trigs

Big Mike;355899 wroteYour point speaks to the validity of a neighborhood watch system, not the charge for which Mr. Zimmerman was acquitted of. Should private individuals watch or follow the activities of suspicious individuals in their community? Doing so is not illegal, really all you're doing is walking on public property.

seriously big mike? i never said it was illegal to follow someone who looks suspicious (see 'black'). however, bringing your gun along and following someone you plan on shooting if/when the situation arises when you've been instructed to leave the person alone does seem to suggest that zimmerman had an agenda and was not just observing. he planned on shooting the black guy if the black guy did anything in which zimmerman disagreed with.

Big Mike;355900 wroteI work with Young Offenders in a secure custody/detention centre. I can think of quite a few 17 year old "children" who I would most definitely not want to find myself on the wrong end of a ground-and-pound situation in. And as some of you know I'm not a small guy. Mr. Zimmerman is only 5'8" and described as "physically soft" at the time of the incident.
I can very easily understand how he felt (and indeed probably was) in danger of severe bodily harm or death.

so you carry a gun with you when you deal with young offenders? you purposely follow these young offenders around late at night in an attempt to protect your neighbourhood and plan on shooting them if they get out of line? majority of my students come from troubled backgrounds, drug addictions, jail time, etc. and i sure as hell wouldn't stereotype the black ones, then follow them around late at night and confront with my gun and then claim my innocence in the situation.

moose

Hellmuth's Mole;355892 wroteSo what? Even if they didn’t mention it by name it was implicit in their self defense um, defense.

Uh no. They waived their right to a pretrial hearing to determine if stand your ground was to be applied in their case. Later during the actual trial they applied to use stand your ground but were denied by the Judge because they did not hold the pretrial hearing so any 'implicit' reference to stand your ground would obviously been objected to by the prosecution and would have led to a mistrial.

moose

trigs;355901 wroteseriously big mike? i never said it was illegal to follow someone who looks suspicious (see 'black'). however, bringing your gun along and following someone you plan on shooting if/when the situation arises when you've been instructed to leave the person alone does seem to suggest that zimmerman had an agenda and was not just observing. he planned on shooting the black guy if the black guy did anything in which zimmerman disagreed with.

so you carry a gun with you when you deal with young offenders? you purposely follow these young offenders around late at night in an attempt to protect your neighbourhood and plan on shooting them if they get out of line? majority of my students come from troubled backgrounds, drug addictions, jail time, etc. and i sure as hell wouldn't stereotype the black ones, then follow them around late at night and confront with my gun and then claim my innocence in the situation.

I think what you say was exactly the basis of the prosecution's case. However they had no evidence of any planning. Carrying a gun is not illegal in the US in many states. Florida does have a concealed carry permit, and Zimmerman did possess such a permit.

Lawful Self-Defense - Weapons - Division of Licensing, FDACS

JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.012.html

Big Mike

As moose says, that's what the prosecution wanted to show, but had essentially no evidence to support their position. Unlike the defense, which had all the evidence showing that Mr. Zimmerman's version of the events was in fact what happened.

If someone wants to believe the prosecutions case, then I can't change their mind. If anyone says that the jury should have come to a different decision based on the evidence presented to them? That's only possible if the standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt" is completely ignored.

Milo

trigs;355901 wroteseriously big mike? i never said it was illegal to follow someone who looks suspicious (see 'black'). however, bringing your gun along and following someone you plan on shooting if/when the situation arises when you've been instructed to leave the person alone does seem to suggest that zimmerman had an agenda and was not just observing. he planned on shooting the black guy if the black guy did anything in which zimmerman disagreed with.

Except that Zimmerman was NOT "instructed" to do anything. As Big Mike said, the Dispatcher's words were, "We don't need you to do that . . ." That is a far cry from a direct order NOT to pursue. As for Zimmerman's "agenda", are you the new Miss Cleo? Can you read minds?

so you carry a gun with you when you deal with young offenders? you purposely follow these young offenders around late at night in an attempt to protect your neighbourhood and plan on shooting them if they get out of line? majority of my students come from troubled backgrounds, drug addictions, jail time, etc. and i sure as hell wouldn't stereotype the black ones, then follow them around late at night and confront with my gun and then claim my innocence in the situation.

But many people, myself included, have participated in Neighbourhood Watch programs at one point or another. A neighbourhood that looks out for itself generally has fewer reasons to contact Police, as the citizens living there are more attuned to what is going on, and the "bad guys" know it, so they look for softer targets.

Milo

Big Mike;355906 wroteAs moose says, that's what the prosecution wanted to show, but had essentially no evidence to support their position. Unlike the defense, which had all the evidence showing that Mr. Zimmerman's version of the events was in fact what happened.

I would amend this to say that Mr. Zimmerman's version of events is closer to the truth than the prosecution's. We cannot know if it was 100% accurate.

If someone wants to believe the prosecutions case, then I can't change their mind. If anyone says that the jury should have come to a different decision based on the evidence presented to them? That's only possible if the standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt" is completely ignored.

See bolded. As stated above, based on the case that was presented, a Not Guilty verdict was almost a certainty. I have read up on a bunch of what transpired, including that the local DA did not want to prosecute the case. You see things like that here sometimes, where charges are withdrawn by the Crown as "there is little likelihood of a conviction". One of the problems with an elected judiciary is that somebody is always willing to try and make a name for themselves in order to further their career. Look at the evidence that is out now about the Prosecutorial misconduct in the withholding of evidence from the Defence . . .

This thing was a clusterfuck from the moment Zimmerman pulled the trigger.

DrTyore

Take out the courts.

A kid is dead because of an altercation with this guy. This kid is dead because this guy shot him. Does anyone think things would be different if

A: GZ did not have a gun
B: GZ did not - for whatever reasons - decide to follow this kid

Someone is going to say the the kid could have gone and raped someone / stolen something / mugged and murdered, because hey, maybe he was looking suspicious (beyond just pigmentation). Here's a fun video that I think puts some things into perspective, namely (and ironically everyone who plays poker with more than a passing interest), people are fucking terrible at being unbiased, and not seeing only what they want to see sometimes.

This article linked to the woman who's getting 20 years? How are people not furious? Get rid of the legal trickeries around "well this law that law" and look at it in base terms. One man killed a kid claimed self defense and is found believable because there were injuries and witnesses (NOTE I AM NOT CLAIMING THIS IS TRUE / FALSE / IRRELEVANT). One woman who had legal documentation showing that she feared for her safety from this man she didn't even injure, and she's getting 20 years. Once again, just look at that, and tell me how it makes sense (further note, to the fucker who's about to point out a bit about different charges, or different legal defense, I just said to take that out of the equation, and thank you for proving my point that people suck at removing themselves from their own perspectives).

Mark

Milo

I agree with you that woman who got 20 years is a RIDICULOUS outcome, but lets stay on track, as that is an apples to oranges comparison anyway.

Milo

DrTyore;355922 wroteTake out the courts.

A kid is dead because of an altercation with this guy.
True.
This kid is dead because this guy shot him.
Technically correct. He is dead because Zimmerman, in the course of defending himself from assault, fatally shot him. At least, that is the conclusion one is forced to accept based on the verdict at trial.
Does anyone think things would be different if

A: GZ did not have a gun. Duh . . . but we might then be talking about a black kid getting "screwed over by the System".

B: GZ did not - for whatever reasons - decide to follow this kid Ditto.

Someone is going to say the the kid could have gone and raped someone / stolen something / mugged and murdered, because hey, maybe he was looking suspicious (beyond just pigmentation). Here's a fun video that I think puts some things into perspective, namely (and ironically everyone who plays poker with more than a passing interest), people are fucking terrible at being unbiased, and not seeing only what they want to see sometimes.

Not going to say that at all, but yes, people are TERRIBLE at getting past their personal biases. Why do you think so many African Americans are so upset? They have biases, too, after all.

This article linked to the woman who's getting 20 years? How are people not furious? Get rid of the legal trickeries around "well this law that law" and look at it in base terms. One man killed a kid claimed self defense and is found believable because there were injuries and witnesses (NOTE I AM NOT CLAIMING THIS IS TRUE / FALSE / IRRELEVANT). One woman who had legal documentation showing that she feared for her safety from this man she didn't even injure, and she's getting 20 years. Once again, just look at that, and tell me how it makes sense (further note, to the fucker who's about to point out a bit about different charges, or different legal defense, I just said to take that out of the equation, and thank you for proving my point that people suck at removing themselves from their own perspectives).

Mark

In the abstract, it is a ludicrous outcome, but the law deals in what can be proven.

Milo

Watched the video, and "NO" those actors were NOT dressed similarly.

800OVER

The problem is a law that allows a man to carry a concealed weapon and enter into an altercation with another without declaring himself armed. IF in fact Trevon started the altercation.....do we think this would have occured if while following Trevon that Zimmerman had declared himself armed and that he was a member of neighbourhood watch and that he had called the police?

The law allows for Zimmerman to follow Trevon while armed knowing he has an "out" in a gun should anything go wrong. (what Mark said)

The law in Florida says if you are robbed....you can leave the robber, walk into your house, walk back out and chase down the robber and shoot him in the back. That's insanity.

Milo

800OVER;355934 wroteThe problem is a law that allows a man to carry a concealed weapon and enter into an altercation with another without declaring himself armed. IF in fact Trevon started the altercation.....do we think this would have occured if while following Trevon that Zimmerman had declared himself armed and that he was a member of neighbourhood watch and that he had called the police?

Zimmerman, as a civilian, is under no obligation to do any of those things, nor should he be, as he has no "official" status viz. law enforcement.

The law allows for Zimmerman to follow Trevon while armed knowing he has an "out" in a gun should anything go wrong. (what Mark said)

So? Not personally my thing, but others would like to be able to carry a firearm for personal protection. Some States allow it. citizens in those States should consider that when approaching a stranger.

The law in Florida says if you are robbed....you can leave the robber, walk into your house, walk back out and chase down the robber and shoot him in the back. That's insanity.

As for your last bit, I am going to ask for a link, please. My understanding of the "Stand Your Ground" statutes is that there is no requirement to retreat, as there is here. I think it has to be in the "heat of the moment", as it were.

Milo

Here is the text of Florida's law:
[INDENT]A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.

So, no, you would not be able to use this law to do what you suggested in an earlier post, 800.
[/INDENT]

[deleted]

Milo;355929 wroteWatched the video, and "NO" those actors were NOT dressed similarly.

That's a pretty racist comment.

Both actors are wearing baggy clothes, and a turned backwards chapeau.

wildbill7145

Wat.jpg

compuease

wildbill7145;355964 wroteWat.jpg

No, it's GABBO...

Milo

unexploitable;355960 wroteThat's a pretty racist comment.

Both actors are wearing baggy clothes, and a turned backwards chapeau.

Sorry, but to me, the white dude looks to be wearing what used to be called "relaxed fit", as opposed to the black kid who seems to be wearing the stereotypical saggy pants.

[deleted]

Milo;355967 wroteSorry, but to me, the white dude looks to be wearing what used to be called "relaxed fit", as opposed to the black kid who seems to be wearing the stereotypical saggy pants.

"white dude" and "black kid" :frown:

RE: the trial

I have a question:

If a black man were to shoot and kill a white child, walking down the street eating skittles, do you think the verdict would be any different?

« Previous Page Next Page »