Zimmerman Found Not Guilty

[thelakelander]

The exploitation of this tragedy is already shameful and growing.  Pierce Morgan on CNN had the young lady friend of Trayvon on his show.  The first thing out of his mouth to her was "You know you are famous now right"?  So it goes.  Politicians and folks looking to profit are all over this right now. 

^Tom Joyner is going to pay to help her finish high school and her tuition for college.  Last night, he mentioned EWC, FAMU, BCC, and Florida Memorial as possibilities through a program he offers for inner city kids. This is one of the resulting storylines that will ultimately be ignored.  She'll have an opportunity to change her economic and environmental situation through continued education.

[NotNow]

Lake,

I agree that negative impacts are a likely result.  "Provoking" can mean a lot of things.  If StephenDare! is following someone down the street calling them an "autistic fugue"  and commences to get pounded to the point of losing his life, does he forfeit his right to self defense of his life by his in ital actions?  (Sorry Dare!, just a recent example )

I can see many situations where the current law would seem to fit, and many where the current law does not seem correct.  Like many areas of law, it is a judgement call.  We can't legislate every detail.  I understand the history of race relations and the need for attention to equal treatment.  It must be tough to try to write these laws to fit in every case.  It must be tough to be a juror in such a case and make a decision to the best of your ability.  Our system has a series of decisions that have to be made before a conviction takes place.  Normally, a Police Officer must feel there is probable cause for arrest.  This decision is reviewed by both Police supervisors and in most cases of violence by the State Attorney's office.  The Prosecutor must agree not only with the probable cause but that there is sufficient evidence for conviction.  The Police and the State Attorney are also responsible for ensuring that any evidence which tends to exonerate the accused is collected and shared as well as any incriminating evidence.  A Grand Jury may be consulted.  A Judge will decide any motions and oversee the selection of a jury of peers.  A fair trial must be held.  A LOT of decisions and a LOT of people must decide before guilt is assigned.  In order for this system to be accepted, the people have to be reasonably certain that the people making the decisions are fair.  The people have to be reasonably certain that the laws are fair and equally apply as written.  This is where we are at.  The jury has spoken in the Zimmerman trial.  But it is apparent that a substantial number of the public does not have confidence in the system, be it the people making the decisions or the fairness and equality of the laws. 

What I am attempting to do here is establish any logical argument against the laws...the applicable Florida State Statutes.  I agree with Lake as to what actual statute applies, but I would hesitate to change the laws.  I recognize that there are many who would disagree with me.  But I am confident in my logic.  I believe that we now have to work on the confidence of the people in the legal system that we have.  I am still willing to entertain any suggested changes in the law as well.

and it would be even more compelling if there was a meteor shower striking earth and we were being invaded by north korea, right?  Laws are not made for the extremes, isnt that what you constantly imply when it comes to limiting gun sales, but apparently when we are considering how to shoot kids, then we must always put ourselves in the most extreme scenario?  Whatever, notnow, this is some of the worst sophistry possible.

I have no idea what you are trying to say.  If you think the laws should be changed, then a useful input would be to suggest what change that should be. 

Please be civil.

[NotNow]

The exploitation of this tragedy is already shameful and growing.  Pierce Morgan on CNN had the young lady friend of Trayvon on his show.  The first thing out of his mouth to her was "You know you are famous now right"?  So it goes.  Politicians and folks looking to profit are all over this right now. 

^Tom Joyner is going to pay to help her finish high school and her tuition for college.  Last night, he mentioned EWC, FAMU, BCC, and Florida Memorial as possibilities through a program he offers for inner city kids. This is one of the resulting storylines that will ultimately be ignored.  She'll have an opportunity to change her economic and environmental situation through continued education.

Good to hear some good that will result from all of this.

[Jameson]

You continue to offer no facts. Just opinion.

simply saying that repeatedly doesnt make it any more true, it just makes you sound like you are in an autistic fugue.

You have resorted to calling me insults in this thread many times and this one is the most disgusting of all.

I dont think anyone has called you 'insults', Jameson.  But Im surprised that you can actually be offended while defending the murder of a child.  But, hey, different strokes, i guess.

Spin spin spin, Stephen. I have not defended the murder of a child. That is simply how you interpret anyone who has a differing opinion from you in regards to any portion of the Zimmerman case.

And in typical liberal fashion, the debate ends with you resorting to name-calling.

Yawn.

So what are you defending Jameson?

Why don't you state that clearly for the record?

Are you kidding? I've been posting since page 18.

I agree with the verdict, yet at the same time I see both sides of it and I think it is a tragedy that a 17 year old died.

That is it in a nutshell. Anyone can see that by my second post in this thread on page 18.

Well good for you then, what are you arguing about if thats all?

Now you're acting aloof and oblivious to anything and everything I've offered to the debate throughout 20 pages of this thread. Not surprising.

[Jameson]

Lake,

I agree that negative impacts are a likely result.  "Provoking" can mean a lot of things.  If StephenDare! is following someone down the street calling them an "autistic fugue"  and commences to get pounded to the point of losing his life, does he forfeit his right to self defense of his life by his in ital actions?  (Sorry Dare!, just a recent example )

I can see many situations where the current law would seem to fit, and many where the current law does not seem correct.  Like many areas of law, it is a judgement call.  We can't legislate every detail.  I understand the history of race relations and the need for attention to equal treatment.  It must be tough to try to write these laws to fit in every case.  It must be tough to be a juror in such a case and make a decision to the best of your ability.  Our system has a series of decisions that have to be made before a conviction takes place.  Normally, a Police Officer must feel there is probable cause for arrest.  This decision is reviewed by both Police supervisors and in most cases of violence by the State Attorney's office.  The Prosecutor must agree not only with the probable cause but that there is sufficient evidence for conviction.  The Police and the State Attorney are also responsible for ensuring that any evidence which tends to exonerate the accused is collected and shared as well as any incriminating evidence.  A Grand Jury may be consulted.  A Judge will decide any motions and oversee the selection of a jury of peers.  A fair trial must be held.  A LOT of decisions and a LOT of people must decide before guilt is assigned.  In order for this system to be accepted, the people have to be reasonably certain that the people making the decisions are fair.  The people have to be reasonably certain that the laws are fair and equally apply as written.  This is where we are at.  The jury has spoken in the Zimmerman trial.  But it is apparent that a substantial number of the public does not have confidence in the system, be it the people making the decisions or the fairness and equality of the laws. 

What I am attempting to do here is establish any logical argument against the laws...the applicable Florida State Statutes.  I agree with Lake as to what actual statute applies, but I would hesitate to change the laws.  I recognize that there are many who would disagree with me.  But I am confident in my logic.  I believe that we now have to work on the confidence of the people in the legal system that we have.  I am still willing to entertain any suggested changes in the law as well.

I'm sorry, but Stephen the liberal doesn't see calling someone an "autistic fugue" as an insult. You now owe him an apology.

[NotNow]

It would place fear in me if I were being followed by an unknown person in a vehicle on a lonely dark night.  Zimmerman's decision to "follow" what he thought was a suspicious person, even to the point of dismounting and walking, places some responsibility on him in my eyes.  While Martin certainly should not have responded by going to immediate blows, his age and lack of experience while in fear would explain such a decision to me.  A CCW should be aware of what situations they are entering into. 

The jury has spoken in this case.  I did not hear all of the testimony and this is just my two cents.

[Jameson]

You continue to offer no facts. Just opinion.

simply saying that repeatedly doesnt make it any more true, it just makes you sound like you are in an autistic fugue.

You have resorted to calling me insults in this thread many times and this one is the most disgusting of all.

I dont think anyone has called you 'insults', Jameson.  But Im surprised that you can actually be offended while defending the murder of a child.  But, hey, different strokes, i guess.

Spin spin spin, Stephen. I have not defended the murder of a child. That is simply how you interpret anyone who has a differing opinion from you in regards to any portion of the Zimmerman case.

And in typical liberal fashion, the debate ends with you resorting to name-calling.

Yawn.

So what are you defending Jameson?

Why don't you state that clearly for the record?

Are you kidding? I've been posting since page 18.

I agree with the verdict, yet at the same time I see both sides of it and I think it is a tragedy that a 17 year old died.

That is it in a nutshell. Anyone can see that by my second post in this thread on page 18.

Well good for you then, what are you arguing about if thats all?

Now you're acting aloof and oblivious to anything and everything I've offered to the debate throughout 20 pages of this thread. Not surprising.

Dude, I clearly asked you to state your points.  You did.  Do you need some time to finish your post or something?

I have been posting my points for 20+ pages! If you choose to act aloof like you haven't read them and haven't responded to them, then that is your issue.

[Cheshire Cat]

Lake,

I agree that negative impacts are a likely result.  "Provoking" can mean a lot of things.  If StephenDare! is following someone down the street calling them an "autistic fugue"  and commences to get pounded to the point of losing his life, does he forfeit his right to self defense of his life by his in ital actions?  (Sorry Dare!, just a recent example )

I can see many situations where the current law would seem to fit, and many where the current law does not seem correct.  Like many areas of law, it is a judgement call.  We can't legislate every detail.  I understand the history of race relations and the need for attention to equal treatment.  It must be tough to try to write these laws to fit in every case.  It must be tough to be a juror in such a case and make a decision to the best of your ability.  Our system has a series of decisions that have to be made before a conviction takes place.  Normally, a Police Officer must feel there is probable cause for arrest.  This decision is reviewed by both Police supervisors and in most cases of violence by the State Attorney's office.  The Prosecutor must agree not only with the probable cause but that there is sufficient evidence for conviction.  The Police and the State Attorney are also responsible for ensuring that any evidence which tends to exonerate the accused is collected and shared as well as any incriminating evidence.  A Grand Jury may be consulted.  A Judge will decide any motions and oversee the selection of a jury of peers.  A fair trial must be held.  A LOT of decisions and a LOT of people must decide before guilt is assigned.  In order for this system to be accepted, the people have to be reasonably certain that the people making the decisions are fair.  The people have to be reasonably certain that the laws are fair and equally apply as written.  This is where we are at.  The jury has spoken in the Zimmerman trial.  But it is apparent that a substantial number of the public does not have confidence in the system, be it the people making the decisions or the fairness and equality of the laws. 

What I am attempting to do here is establish any logical argument against the laws...the applicable Florida State Statutes.  I agree with Lake as to what actual statute applies, but I would hesitate to change the laws.  I recognize that there are many who would disagree with me.  But I am confident in my logic.  I believe that we now have to work on the confidence of the people in the legal system that we have.  I am still willing to entertain any suggested changes in the law as well.

Good information Not Now. 
Also, for the record, I have been informed that there is indeed no jail time adjudicated in a civil trial.  That's what I get for listening to a pseudo law professional.  lol

[Cheshire Cat]

You continue to offer no facts. Just opinion.

simply saying that repeatedly doesnt make it any more true, it just makes you sound like you are in an autistic fugue.

You have resorted to calling me insults in this thread many times and this one is the most disgusting of all.

I dont think anyone has called you 'insults', Jameson.  But Im surprised that you can actually be offended while defending the murder of a child.  But, hey, different strokes, i guess.

Spin spin spin, Stephen. I have not defended the murder of a child. That is simply how you interpret anyone who has a differing opinion from you in regards to any portion of the Zimmerman case.

And in typical liberal fashion, the debate ends with you resorting to name-calling.

Yawn.

So what are you defending Jameson?

Why don't you state that clearly for the record?

Are you kidding? I've been posting since page 18.

I agree with the verdict, yet at the same time I see both sides of it and I think it is a tragedy that a 17 year old died.

That is it in a nutshell. Anyone can see that by my second post in this thread on page 18.

Well good for you then, what are you arguing about if thats all?

Now you're acting aloof and oblivious to anything and everything I've offered to the debate throughout 20 pages of this thread. Not surprising.

Let it go please.  Others are reading your posts and you have had some valuable views in my opinion. 

[Cheshire Cat]

There is value in everyone's opinion in my view Stephen. I value yours.  You don't have to agree with the view being pro offered but the views of each individual play a part in the overall picture of why this trial has been received the way it has and why it seems to be so difficult to discuss issues like race.  I learned a long time ago that what may seem preposterous for me because of my values, experience and thought process may not seem that way to another perfectly reasonable human being because their values, experience and thought process is different than mine.  That is what is at the core of much dispute on a variety of issues.  We can only share our view and hope others may see the value in it.  Lambasting their view really doesn't make them more likely to listen to ones own.  At least that has been my experience. 

[thelakelander]

The jury could only speak on what the particular issue they were tasked to address was about.  From what I understand, that issue was if GZ had a legal right to kill TM at the moment he thought his life was in fear.  Nothing else involving the incident really mattered.

In those other threads most who took great issue with the outcome of the trial defined Zimmerman as the aggressor.  Meaning that the act of following someone deemed suspicious is enough to warrant the label as "aggressor".  IMHO the only modification to the law would be to more clearly define aggressor.

Good point.  I had not looked at it from this angle.

[JeffreyS]

I don't think I will move on until the laws are changed so that murders similar to the one GZ committed are punished as criminal behavior. 

How, exactly, would you rewrite the law?

Exactly is a bit much to ask as laws need to be carefully crafted seems like there are always unintended consequences.  However what I would like to get to is some protection or additional consideration for someone who sees a situation as dangerous, creepy, sketchy ect.. and  tries to leave the area as a means resolve these feelings.  I think if you do this and trouble (or reasonably perceived trouble) stays on your heels it should constitute some form of harassment.

As it would apply to this case is that if Zimmerman's gun were used as a result of harassing TM then it wold not be justifiable for him to use deadly force during the commission of this crime.

Now I also don't want to make it easier for criminals to commit crimes.  I think we could set up parameters for reasonable watching out.   Obviously someone running off with your stereo in their arms or having just committed an assault should not be afforded this protection.

I think that if we let people bird dog 17 year olds that we can expect some of them to over react.  Really I think lots of people might over react perhaps their fight instinct kicks in, perhaps they run to their car and dangerously drive off in a panic or a million other bad decisions someone could make if they feel like they avoiding trouble didn't work.

I find it reasonable for people who choose to leave trouble alone to be left alone.

[JayBird]

It would place fear in me if I were being followed by an unknown person in a vehicle on a lonely dark night.  Zimmerman's decision to "follow" what he thought was a suspicious person, even to the point of dismounting and walking, places some responsibility on him in my eyes.  While Martin certainly should not have responded by going to immediate blows, his age and lack of experience while in fear would explain such a decision to me. A CCW should be aware of what situations they are entering into. 

The jury has spoken in this case.  I did not hear all of the testimony and this is just my two cents.

+1


Also keep in mind that SYG played no part in the Zimmerman case as they did not use it as the defense. However using examples from the case to make your point though is fine IMO. And yes, changing the law to more accurately define "aggressor" could very well be all that needs to be done. When I read some of the cases that that Tampa newspaper found, I was appalled. People getting shot in the back, people shooting two or more unarmed people, and all getting away with it.

[Jameson]

I'm sorry, but Stephen the liberal doesn't see calling someone an "autistic fugue" as an insult. You now owe him an apology.

hmm. if you think im going to react to this angle, you are sadly mistaken.  In fact, if you are implying that I think you sound like the worst, most insulting kind of way to call someone a retard, I certainly wouldnt mind if you repeated that.

So I dont know where that leaves you Jameson.

Now do you still need some time to sum up what it is that you are debating, because Im sure I don't know (and it sounds like you might not either)

If you cant, then I think we can go back to assuming this is about your need to blame Trayvon for his own murder.

You think I'm trying to get a reaction out of you? Hardly. I'm simply pointing out that you choose to use a term so loosely to insult someone on a message board that so many find offensive - especially those with mentally handicapped children, friends, etc. I find it offensive. It's disgusting.

But at the same time, I'm not at all surprised. Throughout years of discussion and debating liberals, I've found that in the end, they seem to always resort to name-calling and insults.

As for what I'm debating, I'm still waiting for you to answer the questions I asked on page 37:

Would stricter gun laws have stopped Herman Pickens from killing Robert Sutton at Mojo No.4 a couple of weeks ago? He was a convicted felon who has been arrested every year of his adult life who used a stolen gun.

Or to give me an example of how stricter gun laws would stop all of the murders in Chicago:

Chicago has the strictest gun laws in the country yet 54 people were shot dead during the Zimmerman trial. The majority of their murders are gang, robbery, or drug related. You think that gang members go through background checks to obtain their weapons?

Again, the fact that will ignore the illegal gun exploits of people like Herman Pickens and Chicago gang members while at the same time trying to lump people like Adam Lanza, James Holmes, GZ, and Joe Anybody who happens to be a law-abiding citizen with a concealed weapons permit who is a gun enthusiast who only uses his guns at the range or to go hunting and has never been accused or convicted of any crime - much less one involving a gun - together into the same category to fit your "gun nut" argument is not only ridiculous, but stereotypical.

[Cheshire Cat]

There is value in everyone's opinion in my view Stephen. I value yours.  You don't have to agree with the view being pro offered but the views of each individual play a part in the overall picture of why this trial has been received the way it has and why it seems to be so difficult to discuss issues like race.  I learned a long time ago that what may seem preposterous for me because of my values, experience and thought process may not seem that way to another perfectly reasonable human being because their values, experience and thought process is different than mine.  That is what is at the core of much dispute in a variety of issues.  We can only share our view and hope others may see the value in it.  Lambasting their view really doesn't make them more likely to listen to ones own.  At least that has been my experience. 

Well, knowing Jameson in real life, I suspect he could probably not give a flying rats ass about race.  He's mostly a disgruntled libertarian politically, and he prefers more latitude in people's sense of personal liberties, even to be offensive if they want. (a belief that we share, although we differ on respecting social rules in different settings, I suspect)

I also suspect that he is having the race discussion because he believes in gun rights, isn't really educated on the history of the ALEC sponsored 'stand your ground' laws, and thinks that any infringement on guns is an infringement on the second amendment.

No matter how recent or egregious those laws might be.

Many people think that an anti gun agenda is being furthered by a racial discourse, not realizing that they are two separate issues that are being combined into one issue with this case.

Finally I would predict that Jameson didnt bother to read our early commentary on these exact subjects in the beginning of the thread, jumped in at a trigger word, and finds himself in the position of arguing issues that he would rather not be pigeonholed on.

Not being able to find a graceful exit, hes attempting to man his way out of the conversation with a few gruff words.

I understand Stephen, but he has a right to his voice and people can give value to his words as it suits them.  The same goes for anything we post as well.  A few of us know several of the other posters personally and may even have opinions of them, but the majority who read here likely do not.  I think it is only fair to let each persons statements stand on their own.