Is there a place for a reasonable discussion here about whether it's okay to insert yourself in situations where you might need to use your gun, if you are armed?
I agree that as the law is written, Zimmerman is indeed not guilty. But should there be a higher responsibility to those who carry weapons, to attempt to avoid situations where they will need to use them? Can such a responsibility be written into law in a fair way?
If I ask Scotty Pippen for an autograph, should I carry a pistol?
Except Zimmerman had no might about it until Martin decided to attack him. Whether or not Zim had a gun doesn't change that fact. Martin is the one who initiated that fight, and as far as I know, being followed by a creepy ass cracker doesn't legally allow you to start a fistfight.
Grizz wrote: Except Zimmerman had no might about it until Martin decided to attack him. Whether or not Zim had a gun doesn't change that fact. Martin is the one who initiated that fight, and as far as I know, being followed by a creepy ass cracker doesn't legally allow you to start a fistfight.
Technically the court couldn't prove who started the fight. Anything else is conjecture.
In reply to poopshovel:
Nostalgia for racism. Those shiny happy people want it to exist on the same scale it did prior to the 70s so they can be relevant, wield influence, and make money. Since it doesn't they try to make it look like it does.
Makes me angry to think about honestly.
Fueled by Caffeine wrote:Grizz wrote: Except Zimmerman had no might about it until Martin decided to attack him. Whether or not Zim had a gun doesn't change that fact. Martin is the one who initiated that fight, and as far as I know, being followed by a creepy ass cracker doesn't legally allow you to start a fistfight.Technically the court couldn't prove who started the fight. Anything else is conjecture.
Thanks FbC . . . Many people glossed over that.
In reply to Fueled by Caffeine:
Or common sense, but sure, ok.
bastomatic wrote: If I ask Scotty Pippen for an autograph, should I carry a pistol?
Maybe, but, first you have to ask yourself why having the signature of some guy who plays with balls for a living is worth something to you.
Hard to prove who started it when no one is talking. But im sure mean words were said, punk kid didnt like them and then started the fight. Or. Gz tried to stop punk kid. Words were said. Gz touched punk kid and the punk kid responded. Or. Gz waved a gun ordered punk kid to stop at close range. Punk kid defended himself. either way, lots of horrible choices with no consideration of how others will react.
The0retical wrote: In reply to poopshovel: Nostalgia for racism. Those shiny happy people want it to exist on the same scale it did prior to the 70s so they can be relevant, wield influence, and make money. Since it doesn't they try to make it look like it does. Makes me angry to think about honestly.
Had the same discussion about those shiny happy people, Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. Singling out cases and playing the race angle up and dividing everyone up. And like the puppets we are, we argue about a case.
Strike_Zero wrote:Fueled by Caffeine wrote:Thanks FbC . . . Way too Many people here and elsewhere glossed over that.Grizz wrote: Except Zimmerman had no might about it until Martin decided to attack him. Whether or not Zim had a gun doesn't change that fact. Martin is the one who initiated that fight, and as far as I know, being followed by a creepy ass cracker doesn't legally allow you to start a fistfight.Technically the court couldn't prove who started the fight. Anything else is conjecture.
Re: the bolded section - FTFY
With it's initial investigation, the Sanford police department reached the same conclusion. Those who claimed to be seeking justice demanded more investigation, an arrest and a trial. They succeeded with all three goals.
And, yet, they fail to realize that there was never enough evidence to prove what they want to believe. And part of what they want to believe is that only a single person was responsible for a tragic event. The state's premise that the defendant approached the decedent with "malice" and "intent" was wrong-headed from the start. If justice were to be served, the charges should have been limited to manslaughter.
Denial is more than a river in Egypt.
Anti-stance wrote:The0retical wrote: In reply to poopshovel: Nostalgia for racism. Those shiny happy people want it to exist on the same scale it did prior to the 70s so they can be relevant, wield influence, and make money. Since it doesn't they try to make it look like it does. Makes me angry to think about honestly.Had the same discussion about those shiny happy people, Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. Singling out cases and playing the race angle up and dividing everyone up. And like the puppets we are, we argue about a case.
Crap tons of people out there that seem bound and determined to always make it "us and them" kind of a situation. If some of these people have their way we will end up with a damn race war.
oldsaw wrote:Strike_Zero wrote:Re: the bolded section - FTFY With it's initial investigation, the Sanford police department reached the same conclusion. Those who claimed to be seeking justice demanded more investigation, an arrest and a trial. They succeeded with all three goals. And, yet, they fail to realize that there was never enough evidence to prove what they want to believe. And part of what they want to believe is that only a single person was responsible for a tragic event. The state's premise that the defendant approached the decedent with "malice" and "intent" was wrong-headed from the start. If justice were to be served, the charges should have been limited to manslaughter. Denial is more than a river in Egypt.Fueled by Caffeine wrote:Thanks FbC . . . Way too Many people here and elsewhere glossed over that.Grizz wrote: Except Zimmerman had no might about it until Martin decided to attack him. Whether or not Zim had a gun doesn't change that fact. Martin is the one who initiated that fight, and as far as I know, being followed by a creepy ass cracker doesn't legally allow you to start a fistfight.Technically the court couldn't prove who started the fight. Anything else is conjecture.
So what.
The standard is not "who started it".
The standard is "reasonable doubt".
The prosecution failed to prove Zimmerman was guilty of the charges beyond a reasonable doubt.
That is all.
The take away for me is the dangers of charging someone with a crime based on political/"community" pressure. A murder charge was NEVER there under the circumstances. There was absolutely no way they could ever prove malice/intent beyond a reasonable doubt. If there is a civil suit (and there probably will be) I assure you they will stress the mistakes Zimmerman made in not following dispatcher instructions, not going home, etc. This trial MIGHT have been winnable if it had been about those issues. Trying to convert a tragedy into malicious killing because the media/race pimps called it that did a disservice to Zimmerman, Martin's family and society as a whole. Had the situation been presented as an avoidable tragedy and the jury asked only to hold Zimmerman responsible for his part in that tragedy, its possible the jury might have convicted him of the manslaughter charge.
As a career prosecutor, one of the harder things I've done over the years is tell someone who clearly thinks they are a victim that either they aren't (To quote a friend of mine, "Losing the fight does not magically make you a victim") or I can't prove that they are. People get mad, they make threats ("I'll have your job" is a favorite), etc., etc. Inevitably, though, taking the heat for doing the right thing up front is better than dealing with it after the jury has rejected a weak case that never should have been filed in the first place. Had they simply sucked it up and issued an appropriate charge, there may have been a different outcome to this case.
I'm wondering if they should go after the prosecutor for Nifonging it up....
In reply to kazoospec:
Thanks for putting into words what I have been thinking . . .
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/07/14/zimmerman-verdict-protesters-calif/2515569/
California, knows how to party....
Fueled by Caffeine wrote:Grizz wrote: Except Zimmerman had no might about it until Martin decided to attack him. Whether or not Zim had a gun doesn't change that fact. Martin is the one who initiated that fight, and as far as I know, being followed by a creepy ass cracker doesn't legally allow you to start a fistfight.Technically the court couldn't prove who started the fight. Anything else is conjecture.
100% nail on the head.
2 people knew what exactly happened that night, and only one of them lived to tell his story.
it certainly sounded like zimmerman power tripped into going after the kid and starting everything, but i wasn't there. as someone who has carried a gun before, i believe the most responsible thing to do is to keep yourself out of situations where it would be necessary to use it, not go looking for them.
and where i come from, being followed by a creepy figure in the dark can certainly put you in fear for your life, which would have justified Trayvon "standing his ground" before zimmerman ever had a right to use that law to hide behind
racerfink wrote: Wow. Such ignorant remarks from some people. When Zimmerman ends up in this same situation in less than three years, what will you say then?
You mean like Rodney King?
BTW Treyvon wasn't a 12 year old kid like you see in the "non-prejudicial" pictures mostly used by the media. And the mug shot of Zimmerman wasn't the only shot of him out there, but that's almost all you saw before the trial.
Couple of things- and I won't read or post on this thread anymore...
First, glancing through some of the results, it's kind of confirmed some previous posts and opinons of some posters. Kind of sad based on how they try to come across otherwise, but people's true character comes out at odd times.
Second, IMHO, "stand your ground" laws have a major flaw- the loser never gets to use that reason. Only the winner can justify the win via "stand your ground". For instance, what if there was just a fight with Zimmerman keeping the gun the whole time? Could TM say that he was in fear of his life, so he initiated the fight?
Worse yet- two guys each have a gun, challenge each other to a duel. Winner can always use "Stand Your Gound" since the other had deadly force available. Perhaps we need to dig out the duelling pistols? Or first to draw wins? Very Wild West.
Datsun1500 wrote: My guess is Treyvon was tired of getting hassled for no reason, he had every right to be in that neighborhood. I'm sure it gets pretty old getting asked "what are you doing here" when you are doing nothing wrong. I'm also guessing Zimmerman was a cop wannabe that liked hassling people, and liked to feel like he had some authority. The paths crossed, and I'm sure both were in the wrong, we will never know. I do think it sucks that a 17 year old kid who did nothing more than walk to the store down the street, never came home. Both families have to live with hat for the rest of their lives. I'm sure there are so many "if only" questions that will never be answered. If one one of them was delayed for 30 seconds for any reason, it would have just been a normal day in that neighborhood.
Do a little more research on Treyvon or look at his Facebook page and you'll completely change your mind about him.
carguy123 wrote:Datsun1500 wrote: My guess is Treyvon was tired of getting hassled for no reason, he had every right to be in that neighborhood. I'm sure it gets pretty old getting asked "what are you doing here" when you are doing nothing wrong. I'm also guessing Zimmerman was a cop wannabe that liked hassling people, and liked to feel like he had some authority. The paths crossed, and I'm sure both were in the wrong, we will never know. I do think it sucks that a 17 year old kid who did nothing more than walk to the store down the street, never came home. Both families have to live with hat for the rest of their lives. I'm sure there are so many "if only" questions that will never be answered. If one one of them was delayed for 30 seconds for any reason, it would have just been a normal day in that neighborhood.Do a little more research on Treyvon or look at his Facebook page and you'll completely change your mind about him.
I have . . . And I'm still opined he shouldn't have been killed.
Are we to say that my FB page means I'm a douche/mouth breather because I decide to live a lifestyle different than the world? If that's the case all of us should be apalled with E36 M3 we did as a kid.
His FB pages has nothing to do with the night he died. If we use that logic, GZ ain't no saint either, if I recall.
Solution.... All ccw applications, hell, all gun sales should require an affidavit by the wife, gf, sister or some female in applicant's life. One question - is applicant a dumbass with good intentions?
Think of the lives that could be saved. I'd buy a boat with the money i'd save on ammo.
Isn't murder with malice a for thought ?. The murder charge was wrong from the start.
REASONABLE DOUBT
/thread
I think. I figure. I suppose. All bullE36 M3 words for I do not berkeleying know what happened. Sweet berkeleying Jesus on a fat cock, be glad you can't be convicted on heresay and move the berkeley on.
In reply to iceracer:
That was a lot of the problem. Just like they did with the Casey Anthony trial they let emotions lead them to charges that they couldn't prove.
Friday I had been warned by some people at work that if I get caught in anything that may happen after the verdict not to take it personally. Thankfully nothing did happen but the fact that people didn't think that was wrong bothered me a bit.
You'll need to log in to post.
