Zimmerman Found Not Guilty

[Jameson]

Last resort??? where as I have disagreed on a lot of your points none seemed foolish until this one but it is ridiculous.  He had lots of other options including minding his own damn business, firing a warning shot and my favorite don't use a gun in a fist fight.

JeffreyS, last resort as in he's on the ground, being bloodied and pummeled by someone bigger than him, he is obviously losing the fight, and no one is coming to his aid. Would your life not feel threatened if you were in his position? Would you lay there and get beaten unconscious?

No one is disputing the fact that he should have stayed in the car. As I pointed out earlier in this thread, he (and Trayvon) had opportunities to end the situation and neither of them did. It's a tragedy from every angle.

[acme54321]

Last resort??? where as I have disagreed on a lot of your points none seemed foolish until this one but it is ridiculous.  He had lots of other options including minding his own damn business, firing a warning shot and my favorite don't use a gun in a fist fight.

Fire a warning shot?  So you suggest wildy failing a gun around while beating beaten and pulling the trigger at random?

[JayBird]

Some posts on other threads have touched on this and when it passed into law I had a feeling it would only be a matter of time until tragedy happened.

As a disclaimer, I do not own any firearms however I do support people's right to carry. I do not support Stand Your Ground as it is written.

Stand your ground laws are irresponsible gun ownership.

Guns are meant for self-defense. If you are a responsible conceal carry holder, and you are jumped, hit, and you think someone is reaching for your gun... you are defending yourself.

Though I am a proponent of Right to Carry, I do not believe in Stand Your Ground. A study done by a Tampa newspaper proves its faults outweighs its benefits IMO. http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/crime/florida-stand-your-ground-law-yields-some-shocking-outcomes-depending-on/1233133

What are your thoughts? Is this a necessary law? Is it the media just blowing it out of proportion? Is it the conservatives trying to keep votes?

[Cheshire Cat]

dude, guns arent meant to be a negotiation point in day to day living.  To treat them as such is irresponsible, and downright dangerous.

And I would totally suggest that you reconsider your fairly silly claims about my words.  I have said from the beginning that its about another gun owner murdering someone in cold blood, but getting away with it legally.

The race discussion was started by a fairly racist troll, and I responded to him.

Sorry that you are having trigger word issues.

You on page 19: "NO ONE questions the fact that profiling happened, and thats about as racist as it gets."

yes.  your trigger word.  If you don't actually know anything about the case, the context, or what people have actually said, why on earth are you debating this, Jameson?  You arent asking questions, you are making statements, and they don't make you seem either informed or terribly engaged. 

In fact they make you seem the opposite.

Truth is a lot of people are making statements about this case all across the country and beyond who don't know the particulars which is why we have a court of law and a jury.  The jury listened for 5 long weeks to testimony and evidence on both sides and were charged to come up with a verdict under Florida Law.  They did so and rendered a not guilty under the law.  This does not mean they did not think the first error was Zimmermans, they did. 

I was very interested to hear the words of the juror who spoke to Anderson Cooper on CNN last night.  It explains why the jury came up with the verdict and what they thought happened.  At the very least I think people can go to the CNN site and listen to what the jury thought.  That in many ways can bring folks up to speed on what happened in this trial.

[JeffreyS]

Last resort??? where as I have disagreed on a lot of your points none seemed foolish until this one but it is ridiculous.  He had lots of other options including minding his own damn business, firing a warning shot and my favorite don't use a gun in a fist fight.

Fire a warning shot?  So you suggest wildy failing a gun around while beating beaten and pulling the trigger at random?

No I am suggesting he intentionally murdered Trayvon Martin.

[I-10east]

Stephen, please do not use phrases like 'racist troll' just because someone disagrees with you. I know that you are 100% in that liberal media bubble like alot of people are, but speaking facts doesn't make one 'racist'.

[acme54321]

I am glad you are back to making reasonable points. I agree the laws are the biggest problem in this case.

I am still wondering when he cocked that slide? Certainly the contention isn't that he pulled the gun during the fisticuffs (that were in this one magical instance going to lead to death), released the safety, operated the two hand action of the slide but then couldn't execute a warning shot or a leg shot  instead of a perfect "one shot one kill" style shot to the middle of TM's heart.

Serious question:  Have you ever fired a pistol?  Or a firearm? 

[Cheshire Cat]

No one is disputing the fact that he should have stayed in the car.

then thats the end of the story.

Respectfully Stephen, that is not the end of the story.  It should have been but it wasn't and the law cannot convict someone for being stupid enough to follow someone they thought was suspicious. 

[acme54321]

Last resort??? where as I have disagreed on a lot of your points none seemed foolish until this one but it is ridiculous.  He had lots of other options including minding his own damn business, firing a warning shot and my favorite don't use a gun in a fist fight.

Fire a warning shot?  So you suggest wildy failing a gun around while beating beaten and pulling the trigger at random?

No I am suggesting he intentionally murdered Trayvon Martin.

So?  I'm questioning where you said one of his alternate options would have been to fire a warning shot.

[Jameson]

dude, guns arent meant to be a negotiation point in day to day living.  To treat them as such is irresponsible, and downright dangerous.

And I would totally suggest that you reconsider your fairly silly claims about my words.  I have said from the beginning that its about another gun owner murdering someone in cold blood, but getting away with it legally.

The race discussion was started by a fairly racist troll, and I responded to him.

Sorry that you are having trigger word issues.

You on page 19: "NO ONE questions the fact that profiling happened, and thats about as racist as it gets."

yes.  your trigger word.  If you don't actually know anything about the case, the context, or what people have actually said, why on earth are you debating this, Jameson?  You arent asking questions, you are making statements, and they don't make you seem either informed or terribly engaged. 

In fact they make you seem the opposite.

Really, Stephen? Because on Page 2 of this thread you link to and quote and article from HuffPo in reply to no one about Zimmerman and his family being a bunch of racists.

[Cheshire Cat]

Last resort??? where as I have disagreed on a lot of your points none seemed foolish until this one but it is ridiculous.  He had lots of other options including minding his own damn business, firing a warning shot and my favorite don't use a gun in a fist fight.

Fire a warning shot?  So you suggest wildy failing a gun around while beating beaten and pulling the trigger at random?

No I am suggesting he intentionally murdered Trayvon Martin.

The jury who listened to the evidence thought he did not Jeffrey.  To say that he did is an assumption especially not having had been privy to all the testimony and facts.  No one disputes the fact that Zimmerman got out of the car and that he shot Trayvon and that Zimmerman's initial actions opened the door to a final confrontation, so in that way he has fault, but those actions are not illegal.  Floridians and society need to look at our laws at this point because the whys and hows behind Trayvon's death and Zimmermans actions cannot be undone.  I would also remind everyone that Trayvon's family will be suing Zimmerman in civil court and the outcome there may be very different in that testimony not given in this trial as to character and background can and will come out and Zimmerman if called, must testify.  Remember OJ Simpson was found not guilty in criminal court but guilty in civil court and civil action can include jail time. 

[JeffreyS]

I am glad you are back to making reasonable points. I agree the laws are the biggest problem in this case.

I am still wondering when he cocked that slide? Certainly the contention isn't that he pulled the gun during the fisticuffs (that were in this one magical instance going to lead to death), released the safety, operated the two hand action of the slide but then couldn't execute a warning shot or a leg shot  instead of a perfect "one shot one kill" style shot to the middle of TM's heart.

Serious question:  Have you ever fired a pistol?  Or a firearm? 

Shotguns many times, a rifle twice and the only hand guns were for BBs and pellets.  Clay pigeons and a few failed hunting trips.

My question was serious as well is that not a two hand action gun?

[JeffreyS]

Last resort??? where as I have disagreed on a lot of your points none seemed foolish until this one but it is ridiculous.  He had lots of other options including minding his own damn business, firing a warning shot and my favorite don't use a gun in a fist fight.

Fire a warning shot?  So you suggest wildy failing a gun around while beating beaten and pulling the trigger at random?

No I am suggesting he intentionally murdered Trayvon Martin.

The jury who listened to the evidence thought he did not Jeffrey.  To say that he did is an assumption especially not having had been privy to all the testimony and facts.

We are not in the jury's shoes living life often requires making reasonable assumptions. I believe he did I stated it as such.

[JayBird]

No one is disputing the fact that he should have stayed in the car.

then thats the end of the story.

Respectfully Stephen, that is not the end of the story.  It should have been but it wasn't and the law cannot convict someone for being stupid enough to follow someone they thought was suspicious.

Respectfully Diane. 

In the conversation with Jameson over why Zimmerman should have been tried and/or convicted, if no one disagrees that Zimmerman should have stayed in the car, then everything that happens after that is Zimmermans responsibility.  End of story.

So you are subscribing to the mind my own business and if its not my house they're breaking into I know nothing attitude?

[Traveller]

So, you are walking down the street and some stalker walks up and grabs you in your privates.  You resist and you hit the guy in the face.  He pulls a legal gun and shoots you.  Today there is a very good chance he will get away with it.

Not under the language of the "stand your ground" statute as I understand it.

A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony. Section 776.013(3), Florida Statutes.

I would argue grabbing someone else's privates without their consent constitutes an unlawful activity, rendering the stand-your-ground defense inapplicable.

The offense of battery occurs when a person actually and intentionally touches or strikes another person against the will of the other. Section 784.03(1)(a)1., Florida Statutes.

Granted, without living witness, how can the state prove that the shooter committed the initial battery?  Under the prosecutorial immunity provision of Section 776.032, the police can't even question the shooter once he claims self defense unless they have probable cause that shows otherwise.  This is the statute that demands revision in my opinion.  Under centuries of common law, the burden was on the defendant to prove self-defense based on a preponderance of the evidence.  Now, the state must prove lack of self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt.  This burden is nearly impossible to meet without a living witness to testify.