ZIMMERMAN VERDICT IS IN - NOT GUILTY

Post Reply New Topic

You are going to have to find a more productive way of dealing with that which doesn't involve using the same tactics.

Maybe, but he has a constitutionally protected right to say dumb things just as strong as our right to keep and bear arms. And, in the end, he can think and say whatever he wants and it won't change that.

guns dont kill people; neighborhood watchmen with superhero complex's do

My question was only if he understands what he says. Like I said I'll debate something but I need to be able to see their point of view. Not sure if this guy is doing it on purpose or if he really believes what he says. I may have come off insulting but that wasnt my intent just frustrated. I'll drop it for the sake of this thread.

Ha see now THAT makes sense!

Ditto.

someone was going to use that old cliche,might as well be me

I didn't mention any names, I merely posted an image that I can argue contains several subjects. Frog legs are better when breaded and fried but that’s a fish, not a frog.



How do I support murder? Or, in your mind, is every firearm inflicted death a murder?


Who’s us? And if the alternative to being a barbarian is having radical protectionist values then I’m happy to be a barbarian.

^^^^I have already acknowledged that I am near sighted and that it is a fish in an earlier post.
I hope you are not eating those imported Chinese frog legs.Please spare me the frog gigging stories.If I want to ride around in a boat at night I don't want to spear the frogies.I'd just like to ride in the boat,and drink beer,and listen to the frogs.I've never ate a frog leg in my life,but I will eat fried oysters or shrimp.

1- Really? You seriously have this childish notion Z is a criminal mastermind who meticulously planned all of this -and- there is some sort of ultra secret society conspiracy at work here. The fate of the world depended on snuffing someone wearing a hoodie that night.

2- in any other country he would probably be in a hospital bed with brain damage from the beating he got. Why? They don't allow their citizens to own and carry firearms.

3 (or 2nd 2 whichever you prefer)- Again, it shows you did not even bother to watch the trial. AGAIN: T. was the one that CONFRONTED Z. There was no provocation at all. The first time T and Z exchanged words was at T's initiating contact.



How about you watch the trial? He did not ignore the advice. When he was told not to follow him, he stopped his car right after T. ran from view and spoke with the dispatcher for a good few minutes. It makes NO sense for someone to get out of the car to follow someone who is already out of view and if you had bothered to look into the subject at hand and seen the map of the area you would realize that is more than enough time for someone to LEAVE the neighborhood on foot. Finally, it was Z's JOB/duty as neighborhood watch to keep an eye out for strangers in the neighborhood. Following them for a short time to see who they are is part of the job.

T. came back to challenge Z. T. was the violent aggressor...forensic evidence backs this up.

I really can't dumb this down further for you.



...and you and tens of thousands of people that do not bother to think for themselves and lap up the media circus and howl/riot for punishment to be put upon a man found innocent of the charges against him... is not mob justice?



The problem is the prosecution failed to pursue that charge. Personally I think it was at T's parents insistence this happened. Even if he was found guilty of manslaughter he would've received a very light sentence because of the circumstances.

I haven't read everything.


I'd like to think I don't eat ANYTHING from China. I won't even buy rawhide chews for my dog if they are from China.


Ride around in the boat and drink the beer while others do the work, eh?


How are bullfrog legs that different?

I'll let you get back to sticking pins in your Zimmerman voodoo doll now.

^^^^Maybe you need glasses,I quoted Thomas81.The fish issue is mentioned there.
The last time I was in a canoe I did all the work,ditzy person in the front,me in the back trying to tell them which side to paddle on.Id like to think the electric trolling motor will do all the work.And I like frogs.I have a pet toad and a African clawed frog.Both will eat out of my hand.And as for the Z Voodoo doll,I don't have any of his hair,finger nail clippings,or anything to work with

That's the optimistic view. From the evidence that has been presented - it's unclear to me whether or not Martin would have let up before Zimmerman was severely injured or dead.



To be fair, the only evidence of that was Zimmerman's own version of events - there is no other evidence to corroborate or disprove that claim. In my mind, that means that it can't be taken as fact. However, in our criminal justice system, doubt favors the defendant.



To be fair, we don't know what Zimmerman was doing while talking to the dispatcher. His explanation that he was attempting to look for an address to give to the dispatcher as his location is somewhat flimsy - but, again, there's no evidence to suggest he wasn't doing just that.



This is exactly what gets me - Martin had more than enough opportunity to get to his home and avoid a conflict entirely. So Zimmerman got out of his car and followed Trayvon (at least for some amount of time), and Trayvon decided to confront him. Stupid on both parts.



No, it isn't. As a citizen your duty is to intervene in serious crimes that are currently taking place (see: Citizens Arrest), and leave probable cause to the police.



Not entirely, what the forensic evidence backs is that there was a fight between Martin and Zimmerman, and Zimmerman suffered injuries. Eye witness evidence backs that, shortly before Martin was shot, he was on top of Zimmerman and the eye witness was apparently concerned enough to call the police about the fight.




Actually, the prosecution did pursue the charge as a lesser included charge to Murder 2. The jury had the opportunity to convict Zimmerman of Manslaughter, and they did not. Had Zimmerman been convicted, minimum sentencing rules would have forced the judge to sentence Zimmerman to 20-30 years.

True.

Well, we know that:

[1] Z followed T.

[2] T either waited for Z behind the building or went back to run into him.

We don't know who confronted neither who started the fight. But the behaviour of Z, [1], can be explained with no requirement of confrontation: he was watching Z, that is the expected protocol in a neighborhood watch.

The behaviour of T, [2], however, makes much less sense out of the confrontation option. If he was not intended to confront Z, which was his purporse? If there was another purpose, it's not an evident one.

We don't know what happened. But no doubt that it's far more likely that it was T who confronted Z.

Besides that, no injuries have been reported in T except the shot. That leads to think that Z didn't start kicking T (though this case T would have some marks of it).

So, in resume, even if we don't know what happened, it's much more likely that both T confronted Z and T started the fight.

the prosecution opted for voluntary manslaughter which like as already said carries a long sentence in a high security facility.to much reasonably doubt for that.2nd degree or involuntary manslaughter defined as reckless conduct leading to a homicide.well jury foreperson already said they virtualy convicted him of that.by there statement that he made mistakes but intent to kill wasnt proven.

reckless use of your knowledge of your having a gun could constitute criminaly negligent homicide.meaning your cant just go talk s**t to the biggest meanest guy knowing a gun means your will ultimatley prevail.as a gun owner myself i am extra carefull not to start trouble or hurt the feeling of someone when handling a firearm as to not bait someone into forcing me to play the final trump card.i have no hand guns but if i am at the rifle range if someone starts something with me i would leave imediatley even if they were clearly in the wrong and call the club president later.like if someone is drinking at the range or smoking pot i would leave and call deb the club president i would not confront rule breakers with guns around.