I'm saddened.

I know guns are for self defense, they're legal, what George Zimmerman did was legal, blah blah, etc...

Isn't it excessive to bring a gun to a fist fight? It reminds me of this scene in Raiders of the Lost Ark (minus the sword).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anEuw8F8cpE

A guy has his fists in my face, and I can just simply shoot him dead because I feel threatened.

Visit the Basement

Are you quoting someone other than Whipper? I reread his original several times, just to reassure myself that these old eyes weren't playing tricks on me, and I still found no mention of a head being slammed into concrete?

A fist can maim or kill in one punch.

Did Grandma start a fight or she is defending herself?

Inept prosecution, clever defense, and same-old same-old in Dixie.

Most of Florida is definitely not "Dixie."

Luckily for Zimmerman he wasn't tried in most of it.

I've been to Sanford and would not even consider that to be near your Dixieland of lore. Bottom line, James, is that there is no place in the U.S. that would have given the verdict YOU want.

...and that, my dear friend, is truly sad.

Dave

I'd bet there are a lot of places where the outcome of the trial would have resulted in a black man being on death row if the white guy had been murdered instead of the black guy in identical circumstances.

Jim.

Just ask Marissa Alexander.

Alexander would have gotten off cleanly if she had not returned to the interior instead of calling the police. She was out of immediate, life threatening danger, something not mentioned at the forefront by the media. The court felt that she re-entered the residence and discharged the firearm in a manner deemed reckless without need.

She did not take the plea bargain of 3 years. Instead, the judge gave her the minimum for her offense which is admittedly very high in Florida and perhaps elsewhere. An important point: Alexander's 20 year sentence has nothing to do with Stand Your Ground.

It is sad...because the verdict wanted disregards the evidence.

Allen,

You're referring to the law as it stands and was administered in this case. I was referring to the justness of the situation, as I always do, irrespective of the law. If laws are unjust, then they need to be changed, not supported.

Dave

I understand the legal difficulties the prosecution faced, but:-`

We are never going to hear Martin's side of the story, and Zimmerman knew that.

Zimmerman has a history of violence.

He was carrying the weapon in contravention of Neighbourhood Watch guidelines.

His Neighbourhood Watch job was done when he made the 911 call. He should have left it to the police. Would he have done so if he wasn't armed?

*Beyond a reasonable doubt* Only the jurors had access to the trial information, not you or I.

Zimmerman was told, "don't get out of the car".
He did, now a young man is dead.
Denbeau

Oh, good grief already. I've seen a couple of incidents where innocent people were beat-up for whatever reason was in the attackers mind. I say kill them; the world will be a better place without them. And if the attacker "did not really mean to do it, you just killed another harmless person", then let God bless their sweet, harmless, innocent soul straight to He-Even.

Acadia

Wow,just wow.

Americans have really lost it,what a nation of paranoid ,gun toting rednecks.

Bullying and threatening the rest of the World to do what your screwed up idea of democracy means.

Why not just build a huge fence around the U.S. and stay in it?

You'd be doing us a favor,so pathetic.

Not a bad idea...maybe we should start with this forum and quit supporting it. I have paid as much as 5% of a fundraiser drive in the past. That's one-twentieth of a fund drive in a forum with thousands of members and less than a hundred active. I must be a fool to do so. Not that I expect some royal treatment for that or for my nationality. I damn sure don't ask it. But your anti-Americanism is now over-the-top and getting very offensive.

Think I'll follow my brother and and others and let you have it to yourself. Then I (a southern ex-Republican turned centrist) will be doing the world a favor!

To be fair, Allyn, the previous two posts kind of cancel each other out in over the topness. Both, apparently, were done in the heat of the moment and, hopefully, without much consideration. I've spit up a few things here I later regretted.

Although, you're right about the depth of vehemence displayed during the invariable blanket condemnation of all things American by one member. Even I have cringed on occasion. Maybe there's history.

Yeah, "wow" about says it.

But that nonsense is the brain fart of an individual. It cannot and does not incriminate all Americans. We have jackasses here in Canada, too. Thankfully, at present, most are isolated to pockets in Alberta.

So far, out of all the American responses in this thread, I've counted only 1.5 that I think qualify as being genuinely redneck.

So we're all supposed to just let the bullies and muggers work us over? Sheesh, what a wimpy-spined nation we've become. We had a home invasion just blocks from us a couple of months ago. If someone breaks into my home and goes after my family they're dead and I'll be damn proud of behaving like our founder fathers would have.

Acadia

I'm sure you'd give it your best shot. I'm also sure that if faced with a similar situation so would most, including (hopefully) myself.

It was just that the "kill them all" thingamabob in your previous post had a sour taste to it.

Anyhow, I suspect your founding fathers (if they are still tuned in) would be sorta worried about where the racist vigilante types are taking their great experiment in liberty and justice for all. And about the boneheaded laws your legislators are passing that encourage muderous behavior.

Are you actually implying that the teenager who was shot and killed was a bully and a mugger? Seems to me he was the victim, and Zimmerman was clearly the bully. If the kid was defending himself, which seems pretty clear to me, any damage he did to Zimmerman could not be realistically referred to as a mugging.

Dave

I thought we were talking about defending oneself and family against violence in general. If this entire thread was about just that one case then I apologize.

Acadia

Unfortunately, the way Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law is written, Zimmerman is justified in using deadly force if - at any point in the confrontation - he felt his life was at risk.

Let's say Zimmerman's recounting was mostly true and the following happened: He left he car (after 911 told him not to), wandered around, and he and Trayvon saw each other. Given his past history might have said a few threatening things to try to scare the kid away. Maybe Trayvon reacted badly. A shouting match ensued and turned physical, getting out of control. Zimmerman wound up on the ground under Trayvon. Fearing his life might be at risk, he pulls out his gun and fires.

Was that shooting justified? If you start a confrontation, it spirals out of control, and your life becomes at risk, is deadly force justified? Most places would say no. Otherwise, you could get away with murder by verbally provoking a person into attacking you first. (Or even by attacking them first but in a non-lethal manner, letting it escalate to the point where you fear for your life.)

Sadly, in Florida, that's the Stand Your Ground law. You can start a fight and, if you wind up at the losing end and fear for your life, you can shoot your opponent and be legally justified. The jury made the "right" verdict as far as the established law was concerned. The problem is that the established law has major issues.

(This doesn't even get into the inconsistent application of the law. A black woman, fearing for her life, fired a warning shot to scare away her abusive husband, and was sentenced to 20 years in prison because it was ruled that "Stand Your Ground" didn't apply.)

Remind me again which one of the pair had a history of violence.

I've read that incoherent ramble several times now, and I still don't get what it's trying to say, but I have a strong feeling that it's not very nice.

Who is it suggesting should be killed? The victim/s? (because that's the literal interpretation). The perpetrator/s? (Death penalty for all assaults?). Vigilante action? What?

sure brought the lefties out.

Along with the intelligentsia.

If you had actually read my post instead of mouthing off based on who the poster is you would have realised I wasn't questioning the verdict. In light of the available evidence I always believed that legally it would be extremely difficult to establish his guilt.

However, I equally have no doubt about his moral guilt. He left his car looking for trouble.

And how do you know that the reason he left his car is that he was "looking for trouble"? You seem to have amazing psychic abilities.

Les

Because the police told him not to.

We DID, and DO have access. It was all filmed. There eventually will be a public transcript.

Oh yeah, I forgot you saw all the autopsy photos and other items and were sitting in the sequestered jury room.

QUOTE:

I understand the legal difficulties the prosecution faced, but:-`

We are never going to hear Martin's side of the story, and Zimmerman knew that.

Zimmerman has a history of violence.

He was carrying the weapon in contravention of Neighbourhood Watch guidelines.

His Neighbourhood Watch job was done when he made the 911 call. He should have left it to the police. Would he have done so if he wasn't armed?

---

Paul D



Your post is well stated Paul.
He should not have been carrying a Gun. A neighborhood watcher is supposed to watch and then report any thing suspicious to police and then leave it up to them to handle it.
He did report it to Police and they told him NOT to pursue the other guy anymore.
that should have been the end of it. He should have went home and let police handle it. But apparently he did continue to follow the other guy(Trayvon) after the police call and that eventually lead to a scuffle of some kind and then as we all know the Shooting and Death of Trayvon.

I am not absolutely convinced the thing was racially motivated
but Zimmerman did break some rules... and it resulted in a death of a person who was not guilty of anything before the scuffle started and the scuffle would not have happened if Zimmerman had listened to police and went home and let Police handle things.
SO I believe Zimmerman should be held accountable in some way for carrying a weapon into the situation that should have been left up to the Police to deal with.

  

I expect there will now be a civil suit, just as there was following OJ Simpson's criminal trial.

The burden of proof in a civil suit is much lower than the standards in a criminal case. The un-convicted murderer's problems are probably far from over.

Jim.

I think the felt threatened/stand your ground law shouldn't apply because he went against instructions to stay in the car, he was armed and following the kid, and probably initiated contact. More likely he felt empowered by being armed and having called 911.

Zimmerman ignored the police request to NOT get out of his car and confront Travyon. That puts Zimmerman as the instigator, and likely the guilty party. When harassed, I don't see how Travyon could be guilty for standing up for himself. Forget the legal jargon, he's guilty and will ultimately pay the price for his obviously bigoted aggression.

Dave

Just to keep the record straight:

Zimmerman was never ordered to not follow Martin, or to stay in his car. The dispatcher had no authority to give such orders, and so is vehicle carefully worded.

That stated, Zimmerman used poor judgment and excessive force because I believe he was a fool and a coward who got in over his head.

I believe there will be a federal violation of civil rights case against Zimmerman, as there was in the Rodney King case in California. This case was initiated even before the Florida trial and placed on hold when the trial was scheduled. Since it is a different federal charge it does not affect Double Jeopardy statutes.

Further, realize that the trial was held in a small very conservative town of Sanford, not the town in which the incident occurred. almost any jury in that town would not have felt comfortable finding against second Amendment or self defense laws in that community. The judge also forbid any mention of racial profiling to be mentioned during the trial.

Shelly

I can't recall the exact wording, Shelly, but I do remember Zimmerman being told not to follow, but to wait for the police to arrive.

Dave

Poor judgement is right. I don't care if I'm armed or not, if I was in a neighborhood at night with a potential "scary bad guy" that I just reported to 911, I'd stay in my car ready for a quick getaway. He had no way of knowing that Trayvon wasn't a heavily armed thug or an unarmed teen. Common sense would have dictated that you assume the person is armed and you steer clear (after spotting and reporting to the police).

Surely whether it was an order or sound advice from a qualified person (I assume 911 dispatchers receive training) is irrelevant.

The kindest thing that can be said about Zimmerman is that he is an idiot with a total lack of understanding of his role as a Neighbourhood Watch person and delusions of adequacy in his (self-perceived) role as a law enforcement officer. And that idiocy has needlessly cost a person his life.

Zimmerman also never identified himself as a neighborhood watch person to Martin.

Shelly