Florida Teen Shot

[DanG 1]

Quote

Anyone who supported a trial in this case fully supports the following

Because, because of the media hype and race baiters, there was no doubt this would happen (or anything similar)

Live with it

http://www.baltimoresun.com/...0715,0,5135359.story

....cause you own it

Huh. So much for your belief in personal responsibility. I guess you only believe that individuals are responsible for their own actions when it suits you.

- Dan G

[rushmc 23]

DanG

Quote

Anyone who supported a trial in this case fully supports the following

Because, because of the media hype and race baiters, there was no doubt this would happen (or anything similar)

Live with it

http://www.baltimoresun.com/...0715,0,5135359.story

....cause you own it

Huh. So much for your belief in personal responsibility. I guess you only believe that individuals are responsible for their own actions when it suits you.

Well that is a twist and a stretch and a whole bunch of other stuff

This case was looked at by the police

Political pressure got the chief placed on leave, the grand jury process skipped and a ditz of a special prosicutor put in place to get this show trial on the road because the real investigation determined (before this stupid trial) the same outcome that was the trial

No, nothing to do with personal responcibility as far as zimmerman goes
Now, if you want to talk Obama, Holder, Sharpton and Jackson, you got a point as they all should be dragged into court along with the news org that edited the 911 tape have have thier savings awarded to Zimmerman

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

Added,


If you are really talking about the rioters well of course, they have to pay for what stupidity they are practicing too however, this is what the race baiters and the media wanted
Hell, the dimwits at MSNBC are pushing for civil rights charges

Dumb fuckers

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Gravitymaster 0]

davjohns

Juries are such funny creatures...I would hate to call anything about them 'common'.

I only meant that it's common for them to be divided. I seriously doubt that they commonly begin deliberations in full agreement with each other. That's why it takes days and sometimes weeks before they can come to a consensus.

[davjohns 1]

I understood. I just meant that juries are funny creatures and hard to pigeonhole on anything.

As to civil rights charges...the only way I can think of to bring civil rights charges is to be able to say race was a factor in the case. The FBI (Department of Justice) investigated and said there was no evidence of that. The juror that has spoken out said it was not a factor. I'm curious what the DoJ is contemplating at this point.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[OHCHUTE 0]

It's not until you're out getting exercise, riding your bicycle, unarmed, on a deserted street in DC, at 5 am in darkness, when all of a sudden, a young black guy with a hood comes at you, on his bike who doesn't move slightly out of the way, yet forces you off your path, do you realize, that had you not moved completely out of the way, a crash might have ensued, and a fight started. You might get shot or stabbed.

I doubt few liberals are out getting exercise during these times, (I've not see any along my route.) but this is the reality of having to deal with people you come across on the road at night. Scary.

Of course it is illegal to carry any protection to provide some relief during these experiences.

[ryoder 1,590]

Andy9o8

Jim, I'm tagging this comment as a "reply" to you because I respect your clear head; but it's really directed to everyone.

As I intimated up-thread, this thread has gone so far beyond the absurd, the way so many people here (even ignoring the couple of racist pigs) are firmly declaring either that A was blameless and B was doing evil, or vice-versa. This is a tragedy bred of two guys, each - that's right, each - too eager to confront, getting themselves into the ultimate dick-swinging contest. Problem was, you don't bring a swinging dick to a gunfight; and now one guy is dead, the other guy's life is ruined, and two families are ravaged.

To my fellow males: We all know the kind of shit men really hate the most about women, right? Well, this - this kind of incident here - is exactly the kind of shit that women collectively hate the most about men. As a gender, we should look at this incident and hang our heads in collective shame.

The juror I heard interviewed this morning said something similar:
"Martin could have walked away, and Zimmerman could have stayed in his car."

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[wayneflorida 0]

rushmc

***I thought it was brilliant when O'Mara brought in the chunk of concrete sidewalk during closing statement.

As was the 4 minute wait demo

It showed the jury if TM was really scared, he could have been at his house in about a minute
Instead, he attacked GZ 4 minutes later
All of this was determined by the location and the phone calls

Yes that too.

[GeorgiaDon 362]

Quote

That witness is scheduled to appear on that fucktwat rocket from England tonight on CNN.

I'm not sure what you mean by "fucktwat rocket", but that made me laugh. I get a picture of her strapped to a rocket like Wily E Cyote. CYA!

Quote

I hope they have subtitles.

It's not just the language I can't follow, it's the "disrespect everyone", in-your-face culture. Apparently she's outrage at the acquittal, but if so she should look to herself. No-one could take her testimony seriously, given the attitude she gave.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[GeorgiaDon 362]

ryoder

***Jim, I'm tagging this comment as a "reply" to you because I respect your clear head; but it's really directed to everyone.

As I intimated up-thread, this thread has gone so far beyond the absurd, the way so many people here (even ignoring the couple of racist pigs) are firmly declaring either that A was blameless and B was doing evil, or vice-versa. This is a tragedy bred of two guys, each - that's right, each - too eager to confront, getting themselves into the ultimate dick-swinging contest. Problem was, you don't bring a swinging dick to a gunfight; and now one guy is dead, the other guy's life is ruined, and two families are ravaged.

To my fellow males: We all know the kind of shit men really hate the most about women, right? Well, this - this kind of incident here - is exactly the kind of shit that women collectively hate the most about men. As a gender, we should look at this incident and hang our heads in collective shame.

The juror I heard interviewed this morning said something similar:
"Martin could have walked away, and Zimmerman could have stayed in his car."Yep, there are a dozen ways this could have ended differently. I have no idea who first laid hands on the other, but I'm sure the confrontation could have been avoided, either by both parties keeping their distance or by both parties treating the other in a calm and respectful manner. Zimmerman could have identified himself as Neighborhood Watch, and asked Martin if he lived in the neighborhood. Something as simple as "I don't think I've met you before, are you new here?" Martin could have explained he was staying with his father. A few civil words would have defused the situation. Instead we get a dick-swinging match driven by mutual fear and disrespect. Completely unnecessary, and in that sense tragic.

And no, I don't (and never have) believe that Zimmerman saw Martin from a distance and decided to kill him then and there. I hope the justice department does not pursue civil rights charges in this case.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[normiss 801]

I was referring to the host of the show.

The one that said he was going back to England.

[GeorgiaDon 362]

Quote

I don't know how accurate it was because it was paraphrased. But I heard on the radio a little while ago that the one juror who has talked about it said three wanted to convict of something when they went into the jury room. Then, they read the law and discovered he didn't commit a crime. Pretty funny...and good on them for understanding the difference between their emotional response and reason.

I caught a bit of the interview, including where this issue was discussed. As I understood it, the jurors who initially voted guilty (either manslaughter or murder) did so out of the belief that Zimmerman initiated the conflict by pursuing Martin. However the law only addresses whether or not Zimmerman (in this specific instance) reasonably felt his life was in danger at the instant he shot Martin; the circumstances of how they got to that point are not relevant given how the law is written. They even sent a question to the judge to clarify the point. Once they understood the law as it is written, the only relevant question was whether or not Zimmerman could reasonably have feared for his life (or serious injury) at the instant when he drew his gun and shot Martin.

So it seems the law in Florida allows someone to provoke a confrontation, even to throw the first punch, and then to kill if the fight turns against them. Presumably they could still be accountable for assault for throwing the first punch, but not with murder. Seems like an open invitation for hotheads to me.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[Bolas 5]

GeorgiaDon

I hope the justice department does not pursue civil rights charges in this case.

Don

I hope they do. I hope they take it to court and lose too. Then maybe next time the federal government will stay out of a state, correction, LOCAL matter.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[Andy9o8 2]

davjohns

I understood. I just meant that juries are funny creatures and hard to pigeonhole on anything.

As to civil rights charges...the only way I can think of to bring civil rights charges is to be able to say race was a factor in the case. The FBI (Department of Justice) investigated and said there was no evidence of that. The juror that has spoken out said it was not a factor. I'm curious what the DoJ is contemplating at this point.

I think the Admin decided to have the DOJ say it to float it as a trial balloon and gauge public opinion (re: further charges); then decide based on that.

[OHCHUTE 0]

GeorgiaDon

******Jim, I'm tagging this comment as a "reply" to you because I respect your clear head; but it's really directed to everyone.

As I intimated up-thread, this thread has gone so far beyond the absurd, the way so many people here (even ignoring the couple of racist pigs) are firmly declaring either that A was blameless and B was doing evil, or vice-versa. This is a tragedy bred of two guys, each - that's right, each - too eager to confront, getting themselves into the ultimate dick-swinging contest. Problem was, you don't bring a swinging dick to a gunfight; and now one guy is dead, the other guy's life is ruined, and two families are ravaged.

To my fellow males: We all know the kind of shit men really hate the most about women, right? Well, this - this kind of incident here - is exactly the kind of shit that women collectively hate the most about men. As a gender, we should look at this incident and hang our heads in collective shame.

The juror I heard interviewed this morning said something similar:
"Martin could have walked away, and Zimmerman could have stayed in his car."Yep, there are a dozen ways this could have ended differently. I have no idea who first laid hands on the other, but I'm sure the confrontation could have been avoided, either by both parties keeping their distance or by both parties treating the other in a calm and respectful manner. Zimmerman could have identified himself as Neighborhood Watch, and asked Martin if he lived in the neighborhood. Something as simple as "I don't think I've met you before, are you new here?" Martin could have explained he was staying with his father. A few civil words would have defused the situation. Instead we get a dick-swinging match driven by mutual fear and disrespect. Completely unnecessary, and in that sense tragic.

And no, I don't (and never have) believe that Zimmerman saw Martin from a distance and decided to kill him then and there. I hope the justice department does not pursue civil rights charges in this case.

Don
Yep, both at fault. The more law abiding citizens stayed clear of criminals the better off they'll be. Including attending NFL and NBA games. Plus people might avoid continually voting criminals to office over and over again such as the former Mayor of DC Marion Barry who now as councilman is accused of accepting bribes. He has a rap sheet as long as a freighter ship yet continually gains political office.

People, run away!

[ryoder 1,590]

GeorgiaDon

And no, I don't (and never have) believe that Zimmerman saw Martin from a distance and decided to kill him then and there.

People who try to claim that was the case are overlooking the obvious:

If you have just called the police and know they are on their way, the *last* thing you want them to find is you standing over a dead body with a smoking gun. Hell, even if you run before they arrive, they know you were there, so you will be the prime suspect.

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[OHCHUTE 0]

Andy9o8

***I understood. I just meant that juries are funny creatures and hard to pigeonhole on anything.

As to civil rights charges...the only way I can think of to bring civil rights charges is to be able to say race was a factor in the case. The FBI (Department of Justice) investigated and said there was no evidence of that. The juror that has spoken out said it was not a factor. I'm curious what the DoJ is contemplating at this point.

I think the Admin decided to have the DOJ say it to float it as a trial balloon and gauge public opinion (re: further charges); then decide based on that.

And what we learned, Zim exercised his Second Amendment right to defend himself. Perhaps if more people were allowed to be armed, dealing with these hooded thugs would become a thing of the past as if hooded thugs knew you were armed would deter their actions. As it stands now, hooded thugs are the ones packing mostly where law abiding citizens are unarmed. Pretty obvious TM had no idea Zim could defend himself otherwise he might not have lashed out to the point of attempting to beat Zim to death.

[linebckr83 3]

I think Zimmerman is lucky that TM didn't know he was carrying. People say that TM would have definitely ran away in fear, but lets be honest, if you have any experience with these kinds of people (criminal thugs) you know that they never run from a fight. He would have gone home and got his own gun.

I can see where jurors would get the idea that getting out of your car makes you guilty. That's what the news portrayed and that's why about half the country thinks it right now. Sadly none of these people will educate themselves on the evidence and law like the jury did.

"Are you coming to the party?
Oh I'm coming, but I won't be there!"
Flying Hellfish #828
Dudist #52

[skypuppy 1]

davjohns

I understood. I just meant that juries are funny creatures and hard to pigeonhole on anything.

As to civil rights charges...the only way I can think of to bring civil rights charges is to be able to say race was a factor in the case. The FBI (Department of Justice) investigated and said there was no evidence of that. The juror that has spoken out said it was not a factor. I'm curious what the DoJ is contemplating at this point.

The only way Z profiled Martin was he said he was acting weird and seemed to be on drugs. From what I understand, it seems like Martin WAS on drugs, seems like they believe he did some drugs after leaving the store and before returning home, so Z was absolutely correct.

I also understand that the candy and drink were not for his brother, but to make a drug cocktalk called LEAN, which mixes them with something like robitussin to get you high...

If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead.
Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

[skypuppy 1]

GeorgiaDon

Quote

I don't know how accurate it was because it was paraphrased. But I heard on the radio a little while ago that the one juror who has talked about it said three wanted to convict of something when they went into the jury room. Then, they read the law and discovered he didn't commit a crime. Pretty funny...and good on them for understanding the difference between their emotional response and reason.

I caught a bit of the interview, including where this issue was discussed. As I understood it, the jurors who initially voted guilty (either manslaughter or murder) did so out of the belief that Zimmerman initiated the conflict by pursuing Martin. However the law only addresses whether or not Zimmerman (in this specific instance) reasonably felt his life was in danger at the instant he shot Martin; the circumstances of how they got to that point are not relevant given how the law is written. They even sent a question to the judge to clarify the point. Once they understood the law as it is written, the only relevant question was whether or not Zimmerman could reasonably have feared for his life (or serious injury) at the instant when he drew his gun and shot Martin.

So it seems the law in Florida allows someone to provoke a confrontation, even to throw the first punch, and then to kill if the fight turns against them. Presumably they could still be accountable for assault for throwing the first punch, but not with murder. Seems like an open invitation for hotheads to me.

Don

Again, following someone is not provoking a confrontation, it is not illegal unless it is serial and menacing, and much of the time Z was out of the car, he was actually talking on the phone, which I doubt anyone could consider menacing. So he did not provoke the confrontation.

And again, when there is an epidemic of break-ins and home invasions going on in the neighborhood, it is perfectly reasonable for a resident, noticing someone acting strange, to notify police and if necessary attempt to see where the stranger is going by following at a distance?

It was not Z's only choice to follow him, but it was certainly reasonable.

If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead.
Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

[skypuppy 1]

Andy9o8

***I understood. I just meant that juries are funny creatures and hard to pigeonhole on anything.

As to civil rights charges...the only way I can think of to bring civil rights charges is to be able to say race was a factor in the case. The FBI (Department of Justice) investigated and said there was no evidence of that. The juror that has spoken out said it was not a factor. I'm curious what the DoJ is contemplating at this point.

I think the Admin decided to have the DOJ say it to float it as a trial balloon and gauge public opinion (re: further charges); then decide based on that.

It's great to have a gov't that will run it's legal system based on public opinion. Maybe we should do away with trials altogether. Throw them in the water. If they float, they're witches!

If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead.
Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

[devildog 0]

GeorgiaDon

So it seems the law in Florida allows someone to provoke a confrontation, even to throw the first punch, and then to kill if the fight turns against them. Presumably they could still be accountable for assault for throwing the first punch, but not with murder. Seems like an open invitation for hotheads to me.

Don

Negative. Well, at least according to a former detective that did my CCP class a while back. You can't bait someone into attacking you by starting a fight and walk away clean. It might not be 1st degree (though if they could prove you intended to kill them via a "self defense claim" they could), but you'd get manslaughter at least as you physically started a fight that resulted in death.

You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions.

[normiss 801]

Just like the older man in Tampa that was just convicted after trying to do just this.
He even "flashed" his gun at the man he killed.

I hope the jury system always looks at cases seriously and carefully. Most of the time it seems to work.

[billvon 2,991]

>It's not until you're out getting exercise, riding your bicycle, unarmed, on a deserted
>street in DC, at 5 am in darkness, . . . .

>I doubt few liberals are out getting exercise during these times,

You're right. We're biking to work during those times; we're not just riding in circles.

[normiss 801]

Stevie Wonder?

I don't think he saw all the evidence.

He's got 23 or 24 states he won't be touring in now I suppose.