Zimmerman Found Not Guilty!

[gurneyhalleck1]

Go back and actually read the post. She said the tone is racist AND I appear to be one. Read it again, MM. And you know what, maybe she can learn something from US AS WELL! Did you ever consider that? We all have our experiences. They're just that--experiences. I'm tired of everyone thinking they can educate us. I've grown up around black folks, Mexican community, Asians, you name it. And I don't think I have "bad ideas about race."

When I get called a racist, you're dang right I come out mad! And when there's even the implication, which this is more than mere implication, then I'm gonna let people know I'm not ok with it!

Yes, it is permissible to criticize the black community without being a grand dragon. Yes, I happen to think Zimmerman was innocent along with a lot of other nice folks in here who aren't being likened to Archie Bunker! The black community makes mistakes just like the white community.

I still have yet to meet a "semi-racist." I don't know what's worse---the ridiculous nature of such an allegation or the fact that it's a nicer way of calling me a bigot? What's a semi-racist? A person who is a part-time hater?

If that poster or yourself took the time to go back and read my stuff, I thought Trayvon was the innocent victim and Zimmerman the guilty party for some time. My friend and I at work jumped the gun and really thought Zimmerman was guilty. We came out strong on it. Then as I took the time to read into it, I changed my mind. So this wasn't some Gurney race bandit mania....I have a brain and I thought it through.

You should be angrier at someone who charges someone with racism without even getting to know them, MM. That would bother me a great deal.

You, for example. I don't know you from the man in the moon. And I wouldn't accuse of you squat at this point. We don't know each other. And if I disagreed with you, you can bet I won't charge you with bigotry and ignorance. I'd try to get to know you and have an extended talk with you, possibly IM you, make sure I "get you," and even then I wouldn't probably call you a racist in an open forum. It's just not how I roll....

Sensitive? When called a racist? You bet!

Gurney, she didn't make "KKK charges" against you, she said you (read: your tone) come off as semi-racist. There's a world of difference. Good people like yourself can have bad ideas about race without being monsters. Try not to be so sensitive, because there's a lot to learn when we stop plugging our ears to the black experience and start listening and learning.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

If they're under age I would assume they cannot obtain a permit to carry. So that might not be sound advice. Secondly, the evidence showed Zimmerman was assaulted by Martin, not vice versa. So maybe the real moral of the story is that everyone should just allow people to assault them, do nothing about burglars, disban the neighborhood watch, and just let the thugs take over!

And if they're going to shoot first, they better hit what they're aiming at...

Hopefully the black youth of Florida have learned from Martins error. Always go armed, always shoot first.

 

[Brooklyn Knight]

Hopefully the black youth of Florida have learned from Martins error. Always go armed, always shoot first.

Create another Chi-raq, Murder City?

 

[MikeK]

If they're under age I would assume they cannot obtain a permit to carry. So that might not be sound advice.

The other option might be death. Best to shoot first. A defensive shooting's legality does not hinge on whether a person is legally allowed to carry a firearm.

Secondly, the evidence showed Zimmerman was assaulted by Martin, not vice versa. So maybe the real moral of the story is that everyone should just allow people to assault them, do nothing about burglars, disban the neighborhood watch, and just let the thugs take over!

The "thugs" who in this instance are "taking over" by peaceably walking through a neighborhood? Yes, they are welcome to take over. I will not follow them in my car, and I certainly will not follow them on foot to confront them. And yes, unless you have very good reason to believe that a person who is assaulting you is going to cause you grave harm or death, you shouldn't use deadly force against them. If there exists an opportunity to retreat, or even to ward off an attack until help arrives, you should do so.

 

[jpcedotal]

retreat and ward off an attack?

nah, that's not in my DNA. Police better get there in time to pull me off

 

[Cosmic Charlie]

For self-defense, there doesn't need to be any injuries. Just the fear. And if Zimmerman was getting beaten up and his head banged on the sidewalk, and no one was coming to stop it even though he was screaming for help--who is to say that he didn't fear that the next blow would be his final--or a least result in the torn ligaments and the hematoma (and that "shaken baby syndrome" where the brain is all bruised up.)

Yeah.

When I fell off that bar stool I was talk about, that was my feeling too.

I got up, pulled my .40 Caliber Glock out and pumped three into that bar stool.

They tried to throw me out of the bar and make me pay for damages but
I got out of it,

I was able to show in court using the bar stool's Facebook page that it was a violent, anger bar stool that had been suspended from the bartending school that owned it for marijuana abuse.

So it should have been at the bartending school not hanging out at the corner bar I was in.

I haven't fallen off of a bar stool since than.

Those bar stools know better then to mess with me.

 

[BBCath]

Go back and actually read the post. She said the tone is racist AND I appear to be one. Read it again, MM. And you know what, maybe she can learn something from US AS WELL! Did you ever consider that? We all have our experiences. They're just that--experiences. I'm tired of everyone thinking they can educate us. I've grown up around black folks, Mexican community, Asians, you name it. And I don't think I have "bad ideas about race."

When I get called a racist, you're dang right I come out mad! And when there's even the implication, which this is more than mere implication, then I'm gonna let people know I'm not ok with it!

Yes, it is permissible to criticize the black community without being a grand dragon. Yes, I happen to think Zimmerman was innocent along with a lot of other nice folks in here who aren't being likened to Archie Bunker! The black community makes mistakes just like the white community.

I still have yet to meet a "semi-racist." I don't know what's worse---the ridiculous nature of such an allegation or the fact that it's a nicer way of calling me a bigot? What's a semi-racist? A person who is a part-time hater?

If that poster or yourself took the time to go back and read my stuff, I thought Trayvon was the innocent victim and Zimmerman the guilty party for some time. My friend and I at work jumped the gun and really thought Zimmerman was guilty. We came out strong on it. Then as I took the time to read into it, I changed my mind. So this wasn't some Gurney race bandit mania....I have a brain and I thought it through.

You should be angrier at someone who charges someone with racism without even getting to know them, MM. That would bother me a great deal.

You, for example. I don't know you from the man in the moon. And I wouldn't accuse of you squat at this point. We don't know each other. And if I disagreed with you, you can bet I won't charge you with bigotry and ignorance. I'd try to get to know you and have an extended talk with you, possibly IM you, make sure I "get you," and even then I wouldn't probably call you a racist in an open forum. It's just not how I roll....

Sensitive? When called a racist? You bet!

Sir, I don't know you personally. I said your words were offensive to me, and you come off as semi-racist. Again, I don't know you so I can't call you a racist. However, your words are telling me that it's a possibility.

The fact that you discount how I feel is enough for me. I ignored you when you insulted my intelligence in your earlier rant because I don't care anymore.

May God bless you and keep you!

 

[LoAmmi]

For self-defense, there doesn't need to be any injuries. Just the fear. And if Zimmerman was getting beaten up and his head banged on the sidewalk, and no one was coming to stop it even though he was screaming for help--who is to say that he didn't fear that the next blow would be his final--or a least result in the torn ligaments and the hematoma (and that "shaken baby syndrome" where the brain is all bruised up.)

Why was the body found 25 ft. away from the concrete then? It seems that the shot was fired at a time when the head to concrete wasn't a possibility.

 

[Needing_Grace]

Why was the body found 25 ft. away from the concrete then? It seems that the shot was fired at a time when the head to concrete wasn't a possibility.

Never let the facts stand in the way of assumptions.

 

[LoAmmi]

Never let the facts stand in the way of assumptions.

Do I think he should have been convicted based upon the trial? No, the prosecution did a terrible job. My dead grandmother could have done a better job and she's dead.

Do I think it was self-defense? I don't know but I don't like what happened regardless. I think if Zimmerman didn't have a gun he wouldn't have been tailing this kid. He would have stayed in his car. Gun enthusiasts are going to disagree with me, but I see this odd Wild West mentality showing up and getting worse in our culture and I don't like it.

Texas has a law that you can shoot someone who's robbing you and so a man was acquitted of murder because he believed when he hired an escort it meant he got sex and when she refused she was "robbing him". He shot her in the back while she was getting into a car. How can a place have a law that you can shoot someone who poses no threat to you just because you believe you were robbed? It's just insane.

 

[Needing_Grace]

Do I think he should have been convicted based upon the trial? No, the prosecution did a terrible job. My dead grandmother could have done a better job and she's dead.

Do I think it was self-defense? I don't know but I don't like what happened regardless. I think if Zimmerman didn't have a gun he wouldn't have been tailing this kid. He would have stayed in his car. Gun enthusiasts are going to disagree with me, but I see this odd Wild West mentality showing up and getting worse in our culture and I don't like it.

This seems the most likely scenario and I don't like it.

Texas has a law that you can shoot someone who's robbing you and so a man was acquitted of murder because he believed when he hired an escort it meant he got sex and when she refused she was "robbing him". He shot her in the back while she was getting into a car. How can a place have a law that you can shoot someone who poses no threat to you just because you believe you were robbed? It's just insane.

Bu-bu-bu-bu...Texas is soooo pro-life!

Yeah. These kinds of laws do this to the credibility of pro-lifers, especially when the so-called pro-lifers call for laws that allow this kind of travesty.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-s8iie0zZ-g

 

[MikeK]

Sir, I don't know you personally. I said your words were offensive to me, and you come off as semi-racist. Again, I don't know you so I can't call you a racist. However, your words are telling me that it's a possibility.

The fact that you discount how I feel is enough for me. I ignored you when you insulted my intelligence in your earlier rant because I don't care anymore.

May God Bless you richly for your example of patience here. You were not out-of-line to make the observation you did, others agreed with you (and I did too, fwiw). The poster you're addressing has a habit of reacting to criticisms in just the way he's demonstrated here. Don't let him get you down

 

[Davidnic]

Why was the body found 25 ft. away from the concrete then? It seems that the shot was fired at a time when the head to concrete wasn't a possibility.

Well the evidence pretty much showed he was on top of Zimmerman at the time. Because of the gun being against the sweat shirt but away from the skin. The evidence of that was pretty strong.

Now, that does not address should he have been following him, who attacked first or a dozen other things.

But for evidence was pretty clear that Martin was on top of Zimmerman or over him when the shot was fired.

People can debate if it would have happened if Zimmerman would not have followed, what defines instigation and many other things. But what does not seem to be in serious doubt is that when the shots were fired Zimmerman was underneath Martin and believed he was in danger of death.

For me...Zimmerman was not guilty of what he was charged with. But that does not mean he was innocent of wrongdoing. I do not think he is guilty of a civil rights crime since the bar on that is higher than the one of which he was found not guilty.

The problem is he was not charged with any crime relating directly to the choice of following Martin and setting up the confrontation by that act. The prosecution overreached and presented a pretty bungled case where their own witnesses did them more harm than good. The defense showed that he was in fear of his life and was in a compromised and threatened position when the shot was fired. Legally that was what they had to prove to the jury.

That does not make him innocent of wrong doing in a moral and or common sense way , but it does make him not guilty of second degree murder or manslaughter under the law.

Zimmerman's' choices led to a possibility of confrontation. By a choice of one of the two men or both that confrontation engaged. And as a result a human being made in the Image of God is dead.

There are choices we know that led to what happened and choices we do not that happened between the two men.

Responsible for an outcome does not mean guilty of a crime. Found not guilty in a court does not mean innocent of all responsibility in what happened.

What it means is that under the law making poor choices that lead to death is not always criminal.

For many that is morally unsatisfying. But legally it is what it is.

 

[LoAmmi]

David,

I guess the question is at what point does self-defense get negated? If someone comes over to me and slugs me in the face and we begin to tussle and I get the upper hand, can he shoot me because I've started winning the fight and he fears for his life? I'm not sure.

I don't think it went down with that, it's just a legal question.

 

[Miss Shelby]

What a complete waste of time it's been discussing this topic. No one listens to the opposing view, people get automatically offended and do nothing but react. Everyone here has been guilty of that, for the most part.

 

[Miss Shelby]

not to mention the charge of racism being thrown around carelessly. As if it's nothing to accuse someone of that.

 

[Brooklyn Knight]

David,

I guess the question is at what point does self-defense get negated? If someone comes over to me and slugs me in the face and we begin to tussle and I get the upper hand, can he shoot me because I've started winning the fight and he fears for his life? I'm not sure.

I don't think it went down with that, it's just a legal question.

Problem is we don't know who in fact traded blows first. Had Zimmerman initiated contact first, maybe the case turns out differently...maybe.

What a complete waste of time it's been discussing this topic. No one listens to the opposing view, people get automatically offended and do nothing but react. Everyone here has been guilty of that, for the most part.

Just ignore those kinds of posts.

You did bring up a good point with White.

 

[Davidnic]

David,

I guess the question is at what point does self-defense get negated? If someone comes over to me and slugs me in the face and we begin to tussle and I get the upper hand, can he shoot me because I've started winning the fight and he fears for his life? I'm not sure.

I don't think it went down with that, it's just a legal question.

I think that self defense is judged, in most places legally by the application of equal force. If someone hits me, I can not (in most places) just shoot. But if they start beating me to the point where I think I am going be be beaten to death...then the law (most places) lets me defend with deadly force with what I have at hand. In some places I must make every effort to flee, in others I can stand my ground. Hence the name of the Florida law.

The problem is it is tied to the perception of the person.

I've, sadly, been in fights. And unless you are used to them things blur and judgements are hardly clear. If you've never been punched in the face a few times...you likely think you are in danger of serious harm.

I have seen fights and broken them up when it was basically a slap fight and the two people in it...to them it was Ali vs Frazier. But in reality it was two people who could not have hurt each other on purpose to save their lives but they thought it was an epic battle.

And that is a problem. What is necessary is the person thinks and really believes they are in mortal danger. And if you are not a fighter your ability to judge that is really not perfect or even good. But there also needs to be a reasonable reality of believing that rationally.

So it is possible that someone could think it, take a life and the evidence show they had no reasonable reason to think it...even though they fully and totally did think it.

For Zimmerman they showed the physical mismatch and injuries as they were happening would indeed lead someone in his position to reasonably fear for their life.

If they had not shown that, it might have gone differently. The prosecution did bring a witness to call his injuries insignificant. The defense countered that with their own.

 

[Miss Shelby]

You did bring up a good point with White.

Which was completely ignored, except by you. Wonder why?

 

[LoAmmi]

I think the events leading up to the confrontation should be a consideration. In my opinion, you forfeit your right to a self-defense defense were you the instigator of the violence. In other words, the guy that came up and punched me without provocation does not get to claim self-defense later because I should be the one able to claim self-defense.

The law doesn't really agree with me, but it's just what I view.