No matter the outcome of the verdict, something is wrong when this wimp uses a gun on a teenager and money comes in, in support of this killer. Andy had enough sense to arm Barny Fife with 1 bullet to be carried in his pocket. This is a case where some people should not be allowed to get a concealed weapon's permit as they haven't the skills to carry such. Clearly this wimp of a man would not have ever approached this teenager had he not had a concealed weapon.
Zimmerman Trial
- Thread starter Philth
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: MuzzleFlash40
Originally Posted By: MrOctober44
Originally Posted By: MuzzleFlash40
Originally Posted By: MrOctober44
Originally Posted By: MuzzleFlash40
MrOctober44 said:
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2011
- Messages
- 5,450
As a cop headed to law school I've watched intently. IMHO no way in [censored] did the prosecution come close to proving "beyond a reasonable doubt." Also, the lead prosecutor comes off rather testy in a very arrogant (and not in a I'm the man way but more as a tool) manner.
I'm guessing the state is going to eat it and beg for manslaughter....if so, from the testimony manslaughter fits rather well. He actively pursued the matter and unintentionally ended up in the death of another. The Defendant was the catalyst; he set the actions in motion. Wether you/me agree he decided to act as LE and it went very, very bad.
The one thing that keeps cropping up is why Z did not testify. Guess most people don't get it....his story has been said for him by many others throughout the trial. His side has been pumped out there and the prosecutor really suffered by letting it keep getting out through testimony.
This was suppose to be some of Florida's best prosecution -- end of day they are now squirming caus the political (read racial) backlash will be immense. I believe law schools will use it to prove the adage: Bad cases RIP for a reason!!
I'm guessing the state is going to eat it and beg for manslaughter....if so, from the testimony manslaughter fits rather well. He actively pursued the matter and unintentionally ended up in the death of another. The Defendant was the catalyst; he set the actions in motion. Wether you/me agree he decided to act as LE and it went very, very bad.
The one thing that keeps cropping up is why Z did not testify. Guess most people don't get it....his story has been said for him by many others throughout the trial. His side has been pumped out there and the prosecutor really suffered by letting it keep getting out through testimony.
This was suppose to be some of Florida's best prosecution -- end of day they are now squirming caus the political (read racial) backlash will be immense. I believe law schools will use it to prove the adage: Bad cases RIP for a reason!!
Let's assume acquittal for the sake of argument. Some will claim George Zimmerman deserved punishment and was not punished. Let's forget about what he has gone through over the past year and a half. Where do you think he will be safe in public at this point?
Actions have consequences. He could have avoided the situation, but didn't. That decision carries consequences. So, he may not spend years in prison, but he will not be truly "free" for a long time - maybe ever. I would not want to be looking over my shoulder and constantly worrying that some twisted vigilante was going to take me out.
When stupid collides with stupid good outcomes are rarely the result.
Actions have consequences. He could have avoided the situation, but didn't. That decision carries consequences. So, he may not spend years in prison, but he will not be truly "free" for a long time - maybe ever. I would not want to be looking over my shoulder and constantly worrying that some twisted vigilante was going to take me out.
When stupid collides with stupid good outcomes are rarely the result.
Exactly, the only one on the phone with the cops was GZ.
Someone running around looking for an opportunity to kill thinking they will get away with it using a bogus self defense claim would NOT call the cops prior to the act.
The media focuses too much on GZ taking matters in his own hands and they place no responsibility on TM for his actions when he assaulted GZ.
TM should have called the cops and RAN home. He decided to be opportunistic himself thinking he could lay the MMA beatdown on some "creepy [censored] cracker".
In my mind, had GZ not had a gun, TM would have stayed on top full mount and continued to assault GZ until he was dead. I think smashing someones head into the ground constitutes attempted murder.
The prosecution downplaying the injuries "aww, just a scratch" are avoiding the fact that the intent was to kill GZ.
TM just got shot first. I think that was the only thing that stopped TM. He would have killed GZ for sure.
Would Sharpton have cried if GZ died at the hands of TM? Maybe if they were tears of joy. The one-sided "ok" racism of this case is maddening.
Someone running around looking for an opportunity to kill thinking they will get away with it using a bogus self defense claim would NOT call the cops prior to the act.
The media focuses too much on GZ taking matters in his own hands and they place no responsibility on TM for his actions when he assaulted GZ.
TM should have called the cops and RAN home. He decided to be opportunistic himself thinking he could lay the MMA beatdown on some "creepy [censored] cracker".
In my mind, had GZ not had a gun, TM would have stayed on top full mount and continued to assault GZ until he was dead. I think smashing someones head into the ground constitutes attempted murder.
The prosecution downplaying the injuries "aww, just a scratch" are avoiding the fact that the intent was to kill GZ.
TM just got shot first. I think that was the only thing that stopped TM. He would have killed GZ for sure.
Would Sharpton have cried if GZ died at the hands of TM? Maybe if they were tears of joy. The one-sided "ok" racism of this case is maddening.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: LeakySeals
Love that movie
Love that movie
Originally Posted By: GreeCguy
Originally Posted By: LeakySeals
Love that movie
Me too, just watched it the other day!
Originally Posted By: LeakySeals
Love that movie
Me too, just watched it the other day!
Waiting for the libel suits to set him for the rest of his life.
Originally Posted By: MuzzleFlash40
Originally Posted By: GreeCguy
Originally Posted By: LeakySeals
Love that movie
Me too, just watched it the other day!
Yes, good movie.
Originally Posted By: GreeCguy
Originally Posted By: LeakySeals
Love that movie
Me too, just watched it the other day!
Yes, good movie.
I'm going with hung jury.
I wonder if the Jury would be scared to acquit GZ.
They would have to look over their shoulders for the rest of their lives as well.
They may wrongly convict him based on fear of racial retaliation.
They would have to look over their shoulders for the rest of their lives as well.
They may wrongly convict him based on fear of racial retaliation.
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2006
- Messages
- 29,558
Zimmerman-not guilty hands down.
Originally Posted By: Falken
I wonder if the Jury would be scared to acquit GZ.
They would have to look over their shoulders for the rest of their lives as well.
They may wrongly convict him based on fear of racial retaliation.
That would be sad and, to me, the best definition of the phrase "travesty of justice" that I have experienced in my 48 years.
I honestly doubt this will be an issue, but if it is, what little reverence I have for our "jury of your peers" system will be gone forever.
Here's a sad fact. If I were one of the potential jurors, I would have said something like, "I don't like black people." It is not true at all, but that would be one jury I would avoid like the plague.
I like SMART people. I do not care what color they are. Sadly, there aren't too many of them around these days.
I wonder if the Jury would be scared to acquit GZ.
They would have to look over their shoulders for the rest of their lives as well.
They may wrongly convict him based on fear of racial retaliation.
That would be sad and, to me, the best definition of the phrase "travesty of justice" that I have experienced in my 48 years.
I honestly doubt this will be an issue, but if it is, what little reverence I have for our "jury of your peers" system will be gone forever.
Here's a sad fact. If I were one of the potential jurors, I would have said something like, "I don't like black people." It is not true at all, but that would be one jury I would avoid like the plague.
I like SMART people. I do not care what color they are. Sadly, there aren't too many of them around these days.
Guilty of murder.
Facts of the case are that the defendant shot an unarmed kid dead.
Had defendant minded his own business, instead of acting tough because he was carrying and the victim wasn't, there would have been no homicide and no case.
Now, having written the above, this case stinks on both sides.
I doubt that the victim was just a naive kid who posed no apparent threat and was only on his way home from the candy store.
I also doubt that Zimmerman was in any physical danger unless he put himself there by acting agressively toward this kid.
Who really knows?
Only the dead victim and Zimmerman himself.
The problem may lie with Florida's everybody's a vigilante law.
There should be no such state statutes in a civilized society.
I don't think that any responsible gun owner wants to see this type of event encouraged or allowed.
Remember, the victim could just as easily have been your son or mine.
A guy with a weapon out looking for trouble is a hazard to us all.
Giving him a state statute to use as a ruse is a really bad idea.
Facts of the case are that the defendant shot an unarmed kid dead.
Had defendant minded his own business, instead of acting tough because he was carrying and the victim wasn't, there would have been no homicide and no case.
Now, having written the above, this case stinks on both sides.
I doubt that the victim was just a naive kid who posed no apparent threat and was only on his way home from the candy store.
I also doubt that Zimmerman was in any physical danger unless he put himself there by acting agressively toward this kid.
Who really knows?
Only the dead victim and Zimmerman himself.
The problem may lie with Florida's everybody's a vigilante law.
There should be no such state statutes in a civilized society.
I don't think that any responsible gun owner wants to see this type of event encouraged or allowed.
Remember, the victim could just as easily have been your son or mine.
A guy with a weapon out looking for trouble is a hazard to us all.
Giving him a state statute to use as a ruse is a really bad idea.
With my media tainted bias and personal opinion instead of from the trial's evidences, I'd say manslaughter and deserve 2-4 years.
I don't think he intended to go around hunting down people he doesn't like, but he is definitely not doing all he could to avoid confrontation and escalate the situation to a point that he has a huge responsibility for, and in the end shooting the other guy out of anger.
We'll never know as the other guy is dead and couldn't speak.
I don't think he intended to go around hunting down people he doesn't like, but he is definitely not doing all he could to avoid confrontation and escalate the situation to a point that he has a huge responsibility for, and in the end shooting the other guy out of anger.
We'll never know as the other guy is dead and couldn't speak.
Originally Posted By: Falken
He was under the belief that he was to protect his small community, with the support of that community. He was in a position of authority.
But he isn't law enforcement or hired security to do the job that are trained to deal with confrontation and has procedure to follow. He's just a hot head going around the block for his own ego trip.
Originally Posted By: Falken
Exactly, the only one on the phone with the cops was GZ.
Someone running around looking for an opportunity to kill thinking they will get away with it using a bogus self defense claim would NOT call the cops prior to the act.
The media focuses too much on GZ taking matters in his own hands and they place no responsibility on TM for his actions when he assaulted GZ.
TM should have called the cops and RAN home. He decided to be opportunistic himself thinking he could lay the MMA beatdown on some "creepy [censored] cracker".
In my mind, had GZ not had a gun, TM would have stayed on top full mount and continued to assault GZ until he was dead. I think smashing someones head into the ground constitutes attempted murder.
The prosecution downplaying the injuries "aww, just a scratch" are avoiding the fact that the intent was to kill GZ.
TM just got shot first. I think that was the only thing that stopped TM. He would have killed GZ for sure.
Would Sharpton have cried if GZ died at the hands of TM? Maybe if they were tears of joy. The one-sided "ok" racism of this case is maddening.
You cannot just start a fight, then losing the fight and pull a gun out and call it self defense. Just because he call the cops doesn't mean he is doing all he could to avoid escalating an avoidable scenario to a point of no return with 1 dead (either GZ or TM).
This is the main reason I do not like to visit stores that have customers carrying guns, you never know what kind of nut jobs they are and pull the gun out for emotion instead of appropriate self defense. This is also the main reason untrained security (non law enforcement, non paid armed security) should not be used for security duty (armed volunteer in neighborhood watch should have some law enforcement training and screening, enough to pass armed security job requirement).
GZ has no excuse of getting into this mess and now he is in it, he need to take responsibility of 2nd amendment gone wrong. This is like being drunk is not an excuse in raping someone else that's drunk, or get you out of trouble in vandalism or bar fights.
He was under the belief that he was to protect his small community, with the support of that community. He was in a position of authority.
But he isn't law enforcement or hired security to do the job that are trained to deal with confrontation and has procedure to follow. He's just a hot head going around the block for his own ego trip.
Originally Posted By: Falken
Exactly, the only one on the phone with the cops was GZ.
Someone running around looking for an opportunity to kill thinking they will get away with it using a bogus self defense claim would NOT call the cops prior to the act.
The media focuses too much on GZ taking matters in his own hands and they place no responsibility on TM for his actions when he assaulted GZ.
TM should have called the cops and RAN home. He decided to be opportunistic himself thinking he could lay the MMA beatdown on some "creepy [censored] cracker".
In my mind, had GZ not had a gun, TM would have stayed on top full mount and continued to assault GZ until he was dead. I think smashing someones head into the ground constitutes attempted murder.
The prosecution downplaying the injuries "aww, just a scratch" are avoiding the fact that the intent was to kill GZ.
TM just got shot first. I think that was the only thing that stopped TM. He would have killed GZ for sure.
Would Sharpton have cried if GZ died at the hands of TM? Maybe if they were tears of joy. The one-sided "ok" racism of this case is maddening.
You cannot just start a fight, then losing the fight and pull a gun out and call it self defense. Just because he call the cops doesn't mean he is doing all he could to avoid escalating an avoidable scenario to a point of no return with 1 dead (either GZ or TM).
This is the main reason I do not like to visit stores that have customers carrying guns, you never know what kind of nut jobs they are and pull the gun out for emotion instead of appropriate self defense. This is also the main reason untrained security (non law enforcement, non paid armed security) should not be used for security duty (armed volunteer in neighborhood watch should have some law enforcement training and screening, enough to pass armed security job requirement).
GZ has no excuse of getting into this mess and now he is in it, he need to take responsibility of 2nd amendment gone wrong. This is like being drunk is not an excuse in raping someone else that's drunk, or get you out of trouble in vandalism or bar fights.
Last edited:
Panda, he broke no rules legally by being Neighborhood Watch.
TM had no wounds from GZ. None.
TM had no legal right to attack. TM had the right to call the Police or Hired Security himself.
It may all be technicalities but they aren't in TM favor.
Just saying.
I don't want to be confused with being a "Crazy assed Cracker" myself, and I don't carry a gun.
If someone punched me out, mounted me, and started trying to kill me by smashing my brains out, I doubt the Doughnut Patrol would be there in time to help me.
The prosecution hasn't been able to come up with any other charges to lay on Zimmerman.
What TM was doing was Attempted Murder by trying to split GZ's skull open.
The only thing that prevented TM from upgrading his crime from Attempted Murder to Murder was a bullet.
If you remove all the grey areas this is a fairly cut and dry case.
TM had no wounds from GZ. None.
TM had no legal right to attack. TM had the right to call the Police or Hired Security himself.
It may all be technicalities but they aren't in TM favor.
Just saying.
I don't want to be confused with being a "Crazy assed Cracker" myself, and I don't carry a gun.
If someone punched me out, mounted me, and started trying to kill me by smashing my brains out, I doubt the Doughnut Patrol would be there in time to help me.
The prosecution hasn't been able to come up with any other charges to lay on Zimmerman.
What TM was doing was Attempted Murder by trying to split GZ's skull open.
The only thing that prevented TM from upgrading his crime from Attempted Murder to Murder was a bullet.
If you remove all the grey areas this is a fairly cut and dry case.
Panda, TM started the actual fight. GZ broke no law. What he did defied common sense, but it wasn't technically illegal.
If I was allowed to split anyone's head open in the East End of Montreal who made me feel watched and uncomfortable, I'd be sure to have a daily workout.
If TM was scared he should have gone home. He was not being held by GZ. Was he scared? Apparently not if he calls a girl to discuss it.
I agree though, 2 jerks met up one night, and one is alive to tell the story. It doesn't have an ending everyone would like to hear, but that is the story of 2 jerks.
If I was allowed to split anyone's head open in the East End of Montreal who made me feel watched and uncomfortable, I'd be sure to have a daily workout.
If TM was scared he should have gone home. He was not being held by GZ. Was he scared? Apparently not if he calls a girl to discuss it.
I agree though, 2 jerks met up one night, and one is alive to tell the story. It doesn't have an ending everyone would like to hear, but that is the story of 2 jerks.
From what I have learned about Florida's "stand your ground" law is you can claim self defense even if you are the one who instigated the fight.
Any way you look at the case it sucks, a kid is dead, and someone who thought they were doing a good thing is forever demonized. However to be guilty it must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. I just don't see the prosecution doing this until something magic comes out in the next day or two.
Any way you look at the case it sucks, a kid is dead, and someone who thought they were doing a good thing is forever demonized. However to be guilty it must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. I just don't see the prosecution doing this until something magic comes out in the next day or two.
- Status
