Zimmerman trial

[Chip]

I don't think armed civilians should be out trying to prevent crimes from occurring.

To be fair, he *was* the neighborhood watch guy. Watching the neighborhood is what that volunteer job entails.

A person should only act in defense of themselves or others once a threat is made, not because they think someone could be a threat, or looks like someone who might be a threat.

I think the evidence pointed towards him doing just that -acting in defense only after a threat was made.

Martin did literally nothing to make Zimmerman suspicious of him.

This is where I agree with you. Mostly. The neighborhood had a string of break-ins though, and he saw a guy that wasn't from the neighborhood. Did his skin color and hoodie fuel GZ's suspicion? Probably. That's not a crime though, nor is profiling, and nor is following someone.

Why did Zimmerman feel the need to arm himself and follow Martin?

I don't think he "armed himself." He was already carrying a gun (legally). If I am wearing pants, I am too. LOTS of people do in this country, and very few of us kill people with them. It's a different culture than Canada, for sure.

 

[Nova_C]

To be fair, he *was* the neighborhood watch guy. Watching the neighborhood is what that volunteer job entails.

Not exactly. A neighborhood watch is to simply watch, as it says in the title, not to follow or pursue. He called the cops because someone he thought was suspicious was walking down the street. That is the extent of what people should be doing as neighborhood watch. Leaving your home to pursue someone is not part of that.

 

[Lennycorn]

Your logic is flawed! Talking circles doesn't change anything.

If TM had a gun and was attacked by GZ, then under the law he would have the right to defend himself.

I'm wondering if TM killed GZ would TM be innocent too.

 

[Rich Z]

This is so fascinating. There are greys, Nanci. It's not a choice between shooting anyone who makes you feel afraid or letting anyone have their way with you.

I think the notion that if someone claims self-defense, it is up to the prosecution to show beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not feel afraid for their life is insane. How do you prove that? It's incredibly hard to 'prove' someone's state of mind.

I think the notion that there is no duty to retreat before engaging lethal force is insane.

And I think concealed (And even open) carry is insane, but that comes from a very different perspective, and I'm never going to convince anyone that it's a bad idea if they do not already think so, so we'll leave that one. I'm just including it as part of my reaction to this case.

Self-defense, even lethal self-defense, is perfectly reasonable. But it should be up to the defendant to prove that there was a legitimate threat to their life, not up to the prosecution to prove that there wasn't.

I think that highlighted phrase you made pretty much defines your position. But other statements you made in the next breath contradict it. How can you claim that self defense if "perfectly reasonable" yet the means to effect such defense via carrying a firearm is "insane"? By what means do you suggest that someone attacked should be able to defend themselves from such an attack? Sharp verbal rebukes and forceful slaps to the cheeks?

Personally I believe that the Florida law I quoted above is imminently sensible and well thought out. No, it's not perfect, but it goes a hell of a long way towards attempting to put real criminals at a disadvantage instead of making innocent people subject to extreme legal and civil jeopardies because they had the audacity to successfully defend themselves from an attack.

SELF defense begins with your SELF, where ever you may legally be, doing what ever you are legally doing. Quite frankly the entire premise that you MUST retreat, giving ground and advantage to a perpetrator of violent intentions before being able to adequately defend yourself, is, in my humble opinion, QUITE insane. Nearly as insane as cases where criminals have been injured by someone provably legally defending themselves and then have to be subjected to expensive civil suits afterwards by the injured party or surviving relatives.

Can such a law be abused? Well of course. What law cannot be abused? But from what I understand of the basic premise behind laws in the USA, it is better to have one person who is guilty go free, than to have one person who is innocent to be charged and penalized as being guilty. I believe this law adequately addresses that basic premise.

 

[Rich Z]

Not exactly. A neighborhood watch is to simply watch, as it says in the title, not to follow or pursue. He called the cops because someone he thought was suspicious was walking down the street. That is the extent of what people should be doing as neighborhood watch. Leaving your home to pursue someone is not part of that.

According to testimony that was not disputed via any presented evidence, Zimmerman tried to follow Martin so he could direct the police to his location. When Zimmerman lost sight of Martin, he was then returning to his vehicle where he had parked it to await the police. Zimmerman was apparently attacked by Martin while on the way back to his vehicle.

There was no evidence presented that Zimmerman intended to actually confront Martin nor do anything other than try to observe Martin's whereabouts. Anything that claims otherwise is simply a fabrication. Zimmerman was trying to watch Martin and was in a situation where he could no longer do that from his vehicle. So he apparently decided to go the extra mile to try to keep Martin in sight to relay that information to the police. If Zimmerman had had his gun in his hand at that time while looking for Martin, then yes, I would agree with the possibility of malicious intent. But that was not the case according to any evidence presented.

 

[Nanci]

I'm wondering if TM killed GZ would TM be innocent too.

You mean if TM was so scared of GZ he attacked him and beat his head into the sidewalk until he died? I would guess not. Once he knocked GZ down and stunned him, he could have called 911. Or left. GZ was NOT committing any crime by following him.

 

[Lennycorn]

You mean if TM was so scared of GZ he attacked him and beat his head into the sidewalk until he died? I would guess not. Once he knocked GZ down and stunned him, he could have called 911. Or left. GZ was NOT committing any crime by following him.

I don't think...beating his head into the sidewalk or TM attacked GZ was proven but yes scared for his life and defended himself. Would he be able to Stand his Ground.

Your statement say "Once he knocked GZ down and stunned him, he could have called 911. Or left. GZ "

GZ could of said I'm the Neighborhood Watch captin or called 911 again or left too.

The law protected who again??

 

[starsevol]

The stinking media has this country so riled up and divided right now, and I know that Zimmerman's life is pretty much over, it has been since this thing began. His life is destroyed, and if he is still breathing 10 years from now it will be a miracle. The media has murdered HIM.

 

[starsevol]

I don't think...beating his head into the sidewalk or TM attacked GZ was proven but yes scared for his life and defended himself. Would he be able to Stand his Ground.

Your statement say "Once he knocked GZ down and stunned him, he could have called 911. Or left. GZ "

GZ could of said I'm the Neighborhood Watch captin or called 911 again or left too.

The law protected who again??

Dave, GZ was walking back to his car, when TM ambushed him and attacked him. TM was high and not thinking clearly but he assaulted the wrong person that night. TM pounding GZ's head into the pavement was witnessed by others and honestly, TM was on a bad path and either headed for jail or death.

 

[Chip]

GZ could of said I'm the Neighborhood Watch captin or called 911 again or left too.

Which is what he did, according to the evidence.

The law protected who again??

The victim of assault. Are you suggesting that if TM was the neighborhood watch guy and trailed GZ, then was jumped, & this whole story was reversed that the law would have been applied differently?

Dave, GZ was walking back to his car, when TM ambushed him and attacked him. TM was high and not thinking clearly but he assaulted the wrong person that night. TM pounding GZ's head into the pavement was witnessed by others and honestly, TM was on a bad path and either headed for jail or death.

Good reading: http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/20...dont-act-like-trayvon-martin/?fb_source=pubv1

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2013/07/13/Media-Zimmerman-Coverage-Rap-Sheet

 

[Nova_C]

Dave, GZ was walking back to his car, when TM ambushed him and attacked him. TM was high and not thinking clearly but he assaulted the wrong person that night. TM pounding GZ's head into the pavement was witnessed by others and honestly, TM was on a bad path and either headed for jail or death.

Wow. This is a remarkable post.

I guess innocent until proven guilty is not applied evenly?

 

[Lennycorn]

I didn't watch the trial so I must of missed all those facts that you have mention.

From what little I have heard/seen none of that was highlighted.

 

[Nanci]

A member of the prosecution team went to the defense team with evidence from TMs cell phone which may have been pertinent to the case, which the prosecution was hiding. He got fired Saturday, after the jury had gone into deliberation, when it was too late for his firing to inpact the case.

 

[Chip]

Yes, it's Fox News, but John Lott has an interesting editorial: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/07/14/never-should-have-witnessed-zimmerman-trial/

 

[Nanci]

If you had _watched_ the trial, you'd have seen all the evidence from both sides that was not allowed. Just because it wasn't allowed didn't mean it didn't speak to whatever kind of person either man was.

 

[Lennycorn]

Sorry...I had to work so I couldn't watch TV.
Just want to know what proven facts that the jury based the verdict on.
Still don't seem right.

 

[Nova_C]

Sorry...I had to work so I couldn't watch TV.
Just want to know what proven facts that the jury based the verdict on.
Still don't seem right.

When it comes down to it, Zimmerman acted in a lawful manner. Whatever you feel about what he did, as far as the trial is concerned, this was the most likely and most appropriate outcome.

The worst part is that it was all so unnecessary.

 

[Chip]

Ain't that the truth. One life is lost and another ruined. And racial tensions are up. Nothing good came from this shooting or trial.

 

[Nanci]

Theoretically, yes, there are many paths this could have taken that would not have resulted in a death. However, when one party resorted to violence, a peaceable outcome was no longer possible.

"You got a problem, homey?" "Hello. I'm the neighborhood watch guy. We've had several break ins in this neighborhood." "oh, my dad lives right over there. I'm staying with him for a while. My name is TM." "GZ, nice to meet you."

Instead of "You got a problem, homey?" "No..." "Well you do now."

 

[Lennycorn]

When it comes down to it, Zimmerman acted in a lawful manner.

Did Martin act in a lawful manner. Did he stand his ground ????
Maybe they are both guilty.

The worst part is that it was all so unnecessary.

Oh so true.