Zimmerman Found Not Guilty

[Jameson]

When some psychotic white guy kills classrooms full of small children, we are told not to worry:  its just a psycho---not typical, not rational, doesnt pertain to the rest of responsible gun owners.

And people, while hesitant, reluctantly decide on the side of reasonableness and optimism and acquiesce.

But here is an example of a person who has shot another child to death, a person who we are now being assured is a reasonable, typical, and rational gun owner, and what are we being told about the child killing?

He deserved to die, and the killer should have no consequences.

In a country where reasonable people are already uneasy about these murders happening with accelerating frequency, its really shocking how tone deaf the radicals are.

The Aurora Movie theater shootings and the Newtown shootings were both committed by mentally unstable people.

In Aurora, they already had the strictest gun laws. Holmes knew that when he stood up and started shooting in the theater that there was going to be no one shooting back at him. Do you think he would have attempted the same stunt if the possibility was there of 3-4 people might have opened fire back at him? No. He wouldn't. Because he is a coward.

A week after Aurora, this happened. A "gun nut" saved lives:

http://www.abc4.com/content/about_4/bios/story/conceal-and-carry-stabbing-salt-lake-city-smiths/NDNrL1gxeE2rsRhrWCM9dQ.cspx

In Newtown, Adam Lanza killed his mother and stole her guns to commit his disgusting act. He was a crazy person who obtained his guns illegally - by killing someone else and taking guns from their home. How would stricter gun laws have prevented that? It wouldn't. He was mentally ill. And just like Holmes, he knew that when he got to his destination, that there would be no one there to stop him. No resource officer, no security, nothing. And when he started to hear police sirens, he off'd himself. Coward.

The real issue in regards to Holmes and Lanza is mental illness. How many times have people come out after the fact and said "I wish I would have said something"? It is up to us to be aware of our surroundings and report odd behavior if we see it. Along with that, no one seems to want to talk about the side effects of the medications they were on. Nope. Because it's all about guns.

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.

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?

Just last week, a 16 year old was shot dead for refusing to join a gang. (Did Chicago hold a rally to show their disdain about his senseless killing? No. But they did have a rally to protest the Zimmerman verdict over 1,000 miles away.)

You say: "But here is an example of a person who has shot another child to death, a person who we are now being assured is a reasonable, typical, and rational gun owner, and what are we being told about the child killing? He deserved to die, and the killer should have no consequences.[/b]"

Maybe I've missed something in the 30+ pages of this thread, but at NO point have I read anyone say that Trayvon "deserved to die". People pointing out facts about Trayvon's past (just like you have done to Zimmerman as far back as page 2) does not mean that the kid deserved to die.

It's a tragedy. No one wins.

[Jameson]

When some psychotic white guy kills classrooms full of small children, we are told not to worry:  its just a psycho---not typical, not rational, doesnt pertain to the rest of responsible gun owners.

And people, while hesitant, reluctantly decide on the side of reasonableness and optimism and acquiesce.

But here is an example of a person who has shot another child to death, a person who we are now being assured is a reasonable, typical, and rational gun owner, and what are we being told about the child killing?

He deserved to die, and the killer should have no consequences.

In a country where reasonable people are already uneasy about these murders happening with accelerating frequency, its really shocking how tone deaf the radicals are.

The Aurora Movie theater shootings and the Newtown shootings were both committed by mentally unstable people.

In Aurora, they already had the strictest gun laws. Holmes knew that when he stood up and started shooting in the theater that there was going to be no one shooting back at him. Do you think he would have attempted the same stunt if the possibility was there of 3-4 people might have opened fire back at him? No. He wouldn't. Because he is a coward.

A week after Aurora, this happened. A "gun nut" saved lives:

http://www.abc4.com/content/about_4/bios/story/conceal-and-carry-stabbing-salt-lake-city-smiths/NDNrL1gxeE2rsRhrWCM9dQ.cspx

In Newtown, Adam Lanza killed his mother and stole her guns to commit his disgusting act. He was a crazy person who obtained his guns illegally - by killing someone else and taking guns from their home. How would stricter gun laws have prevented that? It wouldn't. He was mentally ill. And just like Holmes, he knew that when he got to his destination, that there would be no one there to stop him. No resource officer, no security, nothing. And when he started to hear police sirens, he off'd himself. Coward.

The real issue in regards to Holmes and Lanza is mental illness. How many times have people come out after the fact and said "I wish I would have said something"? It is up to us to be aware of our surroundings and report odd behavior if we see it. Along with that, no one seems to want to talk about the side effects of the medications they were on. Nope. Because it's all about guns.

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.

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?

Just last week, a 16 year old was shot dead for refusing to join a gang. (Did Chicago hold a rally to show their disdain about his senseless killing? No. But they did have a rally to protest the Zimmerman verdict over 1,000 miles away.)

You say: "But here is an example of a person who has shot another child to death, a person who we are now being assured is a reasonable, typical, and rational gun owner, and what are we being told about the child killing? He deserved to die, and the killer should have no consequences.[/b]"

Maybe I've missed something in the 30+ pages of this thread, but at NO point have I read anyone say that Trayvon "deserved to die". People pointing out facts about Trayvon's past (just like you have done to Zimmerman as far back as page 2) does not mean that the kid deserved to die.

It's a tragedy. No one wins.

thank you for proving my post, literally point by point.

Because I point out the fact that your chest-pounding for stricter gun laws would have prevented none of the above because the issue is much deeper than that? Got it.

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.

But hey, stereotypes are a real time-saver.

[KenFSU]

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.

+1

Let's say Zimmerman had been simply sitting on a park bench hanging out and Martin approached him, threatened his life ("you're going to die tonight"), and attacked him. If Zimmerman found himself being strangled, assaulted to the point of fearing for his life, or had reasonable suspicion that Martin was armed with a deadly weapon, I'd have zero problem with Zimmerman using deadly force to stop the attack. Conversely, let's say that on that tragic evening, Zimmerman had instigated the physical confrontation with Martin after following him through the neighborhood. If Martin would have been in legitimate fear for his life, I'd have no problem with him using deadly force either. If you instigate a sustained physical attack without provocation, particularly on a stranger, or if you break into someone's home or vehicle, I don't think you deserve the benefit of the doubt.

It's Zimmerman initial pursuit that muddies everything to me in this case, and the reason that "aggressor" needs to be more clearly defined to take provocation into account before further similar incidents can take place.

Even then though, there are just so many shades of gray, and so much room for misinterpretation and he-said/she-said, that these things really need to be handled on a case-by-case basis.

[Cheshire Cat]

Boy .... lots of discussion since I've dropped by.  The killing and the verdict is all over the media .... all over the world.

It's good though .... raises issues needing discussion and resolution.

Too bad there is no clear evidence at this point to convict GZ.  Maybe someone, out of the blue, will come forth as a witness, or will come up with a good video of the events ...  with sound ....  so that a jury can convict based on what actually happened.  As we've seen, its difficult to convict based on assumptions or emotional aspects.  And I am so happy for all citizens that murder convictions cannot be based on assumptions, but must rely on facts and on clear evidence.

Even without a conviction, the movers and shakers can now work on needed changes in any laws about guns and stuff.... and maybe about related societal problems.

I still think that the FBC had something to do with this thing.     

More info will come about about the character of everyone involved during the civil trial and the burden of proof will be much different. 

[Jameson]

But hey, stereotypes are a real time-saver.

youve summed up your position perfectly, and its the very reason why your point of view makes us less safe, not more safe.

Im sorry Jameson, but you sound irresponsible and reckless with other people's lives.

You continue to offer no facts. Just opinion.

[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.

[duvalbill]

Boy .... lots of discussion since I've dropped by.  The killing and the verdict is all over the media .... all over the world.

It's good though .... raises issues needing discussion and resolution.

Too bad there is no clear evidence at this point to convict GZ.  Maybe someone, out of the blue, will come forth as a witness, or will come up with a good video of the events ...  with sound ....  so that a jury can convict based on what actually happened.  As we've seen, its difficult to convict based on assumptions or emotional aspects.  And I am so happy for all citizens that murder convictions cannot be based on assumptions, but must rely on facts and on clear evidence.

Even without a conviction, the movers and shakers can now work on needed changes in any laws about guns and stuff.... and maybe about related societal problems.

I still think that the FBC had something to do with this thing.     

More info will come about about the character of everyone involved during the civil trial and the burden of proof will be much different. 

Assuming there is one.

It doesn't make much sense to sue someone that doesn't have money.

[thelakelander]

Lake,

I would ask you the same question...how, exactly, would you rewrite the law?

I'd probably start here. 

776.041?Use of force by aggressor.(a)?Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or

(b)?In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

These are the statutes that I believe apply to civilians.  To see all of Chapter 776:

http://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2012/Chapter776

[Cheshire Cat]

Simms, I'm not sure of how hard it was raining or if the rain started after he was already away from home but wearing a hoodie on a cold rainy night in February is appropriate attire.

if you are a young black male (wearing a hoodie at night in a targeted neighborhood walking in backyards as opposed to the sidewalk, in the rain I might add) I would be extra careful to avoid confrontation and make your presence and intentions known

If GZ was a uniformed officer, this would make sense. While we all know who GZ is, due to the media, he was nothing more than a street thug up to no good that night, from the victim's perspective.

According to his lady friend on the phone with him at the time, GZ was a creep seeking to mug or rape him. He even quickened his pace to get away, only to have GZ quicken his to follow. Well-placed words in that situation (remember, GZ's a thug to the victim at this point) aren't going to do anything.

TM was also visiting his dad, who lived in this gated community. I don't know if anyone is aware that he knew neighborhood vigilantes were over zealously profiling black youths in the area. Perhaps if he did, the situation would have ended up differently.  Unfortunately, we'll never know.

Maybe laws need to be changed, but this so far has been an issue that further divides people rather than unites them.

From my perspective, the laws need to be changed and yes, it divides people rather than unites, but it's something that has to be addressed sooner or later.

Not sure about being aware of other "vigilantes" in the community profiling Blacks comment Ennis.   This is a racially mixed community with Blacks in residence.  Unless you have proof of their being "vigilantes" in that community perhaps that descriptive is unfair.  During and after the trial several month's of reports detailing criminal activity in the community were presented into evidence.  In one case, a woman from that community testified to the case which directly impacted her, which had to do with two teenage Black kids who broke into her home while she was in it.  One of the teens was caught and charge and as it turned out he lived in the self same neighborhood.  It also turns out that the other crimes also had young Blacks as the perp and this is a matter of record.  In that light, I don't think we can truly claim there were
vigilante attitudes at work here and Zimmerman was feeding into them.  I think many in the neighborhood were on alert to suspicious behavior, especially after the break in with the woman and child home alone.  As it turns out the police got there in time and grabbed the offender.

[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.

[Cheshire Cat]

GZ was told not to pursue TM but he did anyway. Funny how people seem to forget this.

No one has forgotten this and it has be discussed at length here on the forum.  He was asked by police if he was following the person he thought suspicious.  He answered that he was the police told him "we don't need you to do that".  He was not directly told to stop following him.  I think what may have helped push him forward is that the officer then asked him twice about where Trayvon was located and for a street name.

I have yet to hear anyone say that Zimmerman getting out of the car to follow was not what set all of this in motion.  It did.

[thelakelander]

Not sure about being aware of other "vigilantes" in the community profiling Blacks comment Ennis.   This is a racially mixed community with Blacks in residence.  Unless you have proof of their being "vigilantes" in that community perhaps that descriptive is unfair.

 

Maybe, but what else do you call an over zealous neighborhood watch person who keeps going after someone they've personally profiled despite being told not too?  Nevertheless, by the same token, there's no proof that the victim (who was not a permanent resident) knew black youth were being profiled by people like GZ.  All the documented evidence suggests the victim thought GZ was a creepy guy following him to do bodily harm.

Btw, how did GZ get the position of neighborhood watch guy?  Was he elected or appointed by some home owner's association or did a few guys in the area take this task upon themselves?

During and after the trial several month's of reports detailing criminal activity in the community were presented into evidence.  In one case, a woman from that community testified to the case which directly impacted her, which had to do with two teenage Black kids who broke into her home while she was in it.  One of the teens was caught and charge and as it turned out he lived in the self same neighborhood.  It also turns out that the other crimes also had young Blacks as the perp and this is a matter of record.  In that light, I don't think we can truly claim there were
vigilante attitudes at work here and Zimmerman was feeding into them.  I think many in the neighborhood were on alert to suspicious behavior, especially after the break in with the woman and child home alone.  As it turns out the police got there in time and grabbed the offender.

This doesn't suggest that the victim knew anything about this.  All he had was a weird guy, he did not know, following him on a dark rainy and cold night in a little country town he wasn't as familiar with.

[Cheshire Cat]

I'm gonna say my unpopular, and unbiased take on this whole Zimmerman thing for the last time, because I don't see colors unlike alot of people. To be honest, I'm sick and tired of this entire situation. I'm aware of Seminole County's history of racism, the reason that Duval had to take over, although IMO this was the wrong case at the wrong time, and a mountain was made out of a molehill, thanks to the 'gotcha' media, and the outrage. Duval, or Seminole, the outcome would still be the same.

This was a railroad attempt from the get-go; CSX, Norfolk Southern, and Union Pacific all together don't have the track mileage that this Zimmerman railroad attempt has. Why you ask? Because Angela Corey clearly withheld key evidence, Trayvon's capability in MMA ie punch in the nose, and mount & ground and pound (from his cell phone). Like it or not, that was evidence that was supposed to be turned over. What's a more significant event, getting out of a car (which isn't illegal) not following through a comment from a dispatcher (again not illegal) or getting blasted in the face, mounted and beaten the crap out of? Enough of that. People say that 'Angela Corey should've pursued manslaughter'. Well, in this railroad attempt, the judge put manslaughter on the table at the last minute along with the original charge murder 2. So I don't get why people are mad with Corey on that, I don't believe that this methodical jury was 'confused' whatsoever.

I don't see any additional charges on Zimmerman. Eric Holder from the NAACP pretty much conceded that in the Orlando convention (Federal charges) as he focused on 'changing laws' to keep the masses in check. What laws changed? I dunno. Besides, the Feds already looked through this case. Regarding a civil case, a self defense case (which this is, don't know why some or talking 'stand your ground') Zimmerman should have immunity. These protests are classic 'selective outrage' from the black community. Hundreds and hundreds of Trayvon's are murdered in black on black violence throughout the US, yet this Zimmerman thing (which can be argued either way, and that evidence pointing mainly ONE way) remains the focal point. I'm done with this overblown trial, SMH...

Actually, your view is shared by many and most of the points you are pointing to are points with which I agree.  I think the Zimmerman case has become a dumping ground for long felt injustices that are valid at their core but are not bred of this case as much as this case has been tied to a legacy of past hurts, outrages and victimization.

[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.

[thelakelander]

I think what may have helped push him forward is that the officer then asked him twice about where Trayvon was located and for a street name.

If you're neighborhood watch guy, shouldn't you be familiar with your neighborhood?  One would think, someone familiar with their neighborhood would be able to answer those questions immediately and without any type of movement on their part.