Zimmerman Case

[bell-the-cat]

Re: Zimmerman Case

You can go instigate a confrontation or fight and then kill the other person saying you felt threatened.

Doesn't that also sum up American foreign policy over the last few decades.

..and also the American policy on the killing of its own citizens. "...the killing of US citizens is lawful if they pose an "imminent threat" of violent attack against the US, and capture is impossible. The document adopts a broad definition of imminence, saying no evidence of a specific plot is needed" http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/se...hite_Paper.pdf and http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013...osition-matrix

[Mher]

Re: Zimmerman Case

Well sip this is not a basketball game.....people lives are at stake.



How did you come up with that conclusion, nobody does that and there has not been one case like that in any state. Simply put if someone come at you with a knife you have the right to protect yourself with your knife or a gun. Best situation is to avoid the conflict but the law is with you if you stand your ground instead of running away (if you can).



Just make sure you don't shoot your spouse or your kid. Even in these situations you must act responsibly and only use deadly force if your or your family lives are in danger, also be aware where your shots go and what types of ammo/gun you are using as to not penetrate neighbors house.



Zimmerman was on a neighborhood watch, he had a legal license to carry firearms, it did not matter what race the person is I would have profiled and confronted him as well in those circumstances, however I would have identified myself and keep it professional instead getting into a pissing match.
Both had a chance to avoid the conflict but Trayvon threw the first punch and decided to take Zimmerman out by banging his head against the ground.
So what you want to do, sentence him to 20 years in prison for self defense, have you ever served as a jury in a criminal case and do you understand how the process works and why these laws have worked forever?

Nobody has the facts that the Jurors in this case had, people speak as if they know all the fact.....I am glad that there were six women who came up with this decision and I am sure if it were 6 men it would have been the same verdict why? because it is the right thing to do in this case however with six white men that would have caused more racial problems.

I wonder how many people lost their bets on this trial.....sick, this not entertainment, this not a joke or a game, people's lives and future are at stake

First off, there's no way to know who instigated the fight
second of all, if the kid was the one who started it, he had every right to do so
this zimmerman was nothing but a loser in life, with a hero complex, he wasn't a soldier, he wasn't a cop, he was just a 30 year old nobody, still in community college, with a history of aggression and problems with the law
When you get hassled and stereotyped your whole life based on your race, you have every right to retaliate
not that it even compares to 1% of what blacks go through, but anytime one of my coworkers ask me "how Armenians manage to buy those cars" or "why Armenians behave" like this or that (implying Armenians steal), I don't try to defend Armenians, I make them feel stupid for even having asked the question, so they never ask the same question to someone else. Now imagine that a 100 times over, that's what you get as a black person. So you have every God damn right no retaliate when some nobody loser stereotypes you and decides to go after you based on your race

[Eddo211]

Re: Zimmerman Case

There is an analogy to be made here with NBA rules. If someone is driving towards the basket, you run in front of them, you get called for a foul. But if you are standing with your feet planted and the other player runs into you, you get the "stand your ground protection."

Well sip this is not a basketball game.....people lives are at stake.

The stupidity in Florida is that basically you can run around with a gun and as soon as you feel threatened for your life you can shoot. That is really xxxxin dumb.

How did you come up with that conclusion, nobody does that and there has not been one case like that in any state. Simply put if someone come at you with a knife you have the right to protect yourself with your knife or a gun. Best situation is to avoid the conflict but the law is with you if you stand your ground instead of running away (if you can).

If you are at home with your gun and someone breaks into your house, sure go ahead, shoot them.

Just make sure you don't shoot your spouse or your kid. Even in these situations you must act responsibly and only use deadly force if your or your family lives are in danger, also be aware where your shots go and what types of ammo/gun you are using as to not penetrate neighbors house.

But if you are running around the street looking to "stand your ground", then we run into the sort of vigilante killing that Zimmerman ended up doing. I am sure he was threatened and he probably had a good reason to shoot ... but he should not get blanket protection under this "stand your ground" stupidity. There has to be legal consequences.

Zimmerman was on a neighborhood watch, he had a legal license to carry firearms, it did not matter what race the person is I would have profiled and confronted him as well in those circumstances, however I would have identified myself and keep it professional instead getting into a pissing match.
Both had a chance to avoid the conflict but Trayvon threw the first punch and decided to take Zimmerman out by banging his head against the ground.
So what you want to do, sentence him to 20 years in prison for self defense, have you ever served as a jury in a criminal case and do you understand how the process works and why these laws have worked forever?

Nobody has the facts that the Jurors in this case had, people speak as if they know all the fact.....I am glad that there were six women who came up with this decision and I am sure if it were 6 men it would have been the same verdict why? because it is the right thing to do in this case however with six white men that would have caused more racial problems.

I wonder how many people lost their bets on this trial.....sick, this not entertainment, this not a joke or a game, people's lives and future are at stake

[MrHyeSev]

Re: Zimmerman Case

I am contributing

Nothing, I get it... You just wanted to start a thread and pretend to contribute to discussion here.

[MrHyeSev]

Re: Zimmerman Case

I agree,people get shot every day (sadly) but it went to the courts because it was a murder.

This case should have never maded to the courts, it wasted tax payers money for special interest groups who want to start a race war.

You know what is the best think about the outcome of this......he gets to have his gun back.

[Siggie]

Re: Zimmerman Case

There is an analogy to be made here with NBA rules. If someone is driving towards the basket, you run in front of them, you get called for a foul. But if you are standing with your feet planted and the other player runs into you, you get the "stand your ground protection."

The stupidity in Florida is that basically you can run around with a gun and as soon as you feel threatened for your life you can shoot. That is really xxxxin dumb. If you are at home with your gun and someone breaks into your house, sure go ahead, shoot them. But if you are running around the street looking to "stand your ground", then we run into the sort of vigilante killing that Zimmerman ended up doing. I am sure he was threatened and he probably had a good reason to shoot ... but he should not get blanket protection under this "stand your ground" stupidity. There has to be legal consequences.

That's a good analogy. That's what the problem is with how they changed the self-defense law. You can go instigate a confrontation or fight and then kill the other person saying you felt threatened. That's crap.

Just look at the kind of xxxx happening in Florida... You have this moron shooting at an SUV full of teens because he didn't like their "thug music" . He's claiming he thought he saw a gun in the window.
Police officers and military have training and that training is invaluable in being able to quickly assess a situation and even they are vulnerable to making grave mistakes such as in the case of Amadou Diallo where police opened fire on an unarmed man on his own front porch because they thought the wallet he pulled from his jacket was a gun. We cannot have civilians running around as vigilantes opening fire on shoplifters and youth playing rap music.

[Sip]

Re: Zimmerman Case

There is an analogy to be made here with NBA rules. If someone is driving towards the basket, you run in front of them, you get called for a foul. But if you are standing with your feet planted and the other player runs into you, you get the "stand your ground protection."

The stupidity in Florida is that basically you can run around with a gun and as soon as you feel threatened for your life you can shoot. That is really xxxxin dumb. If you are at home with your gun and someone breaks into your house, sure go ahead, shoot them. But if you are running around the street looking to "stand your ground", then we run into the sort of vigilante killing that Zimmerman ended up doing. I am sure he was threatened and he probably had a good reason to shoot ... but he should not get blanket protection under this "stand your ground" stupidity. There has to be legal consequences.

[Siggie]

Re: Zimmerman Case

No, I know where my shots go.....doesn't matter where you stand on this, you come across social engineer Adam or not, a danger to our God given rights (Inalienable rights) and the constitution and the second amendment that is already under attack.

Do you really think that my summary reflects something about my views about the second amendment?

[Eddo211]

Re: Zimmerman Case

I hope you aren't referring to me personally, because you don't know me from Adam... See, what happens when you shoot first and think or ask questions later is that you make errors. You disagreed with me without even bothering to learn my position first. You obviously didn't even read my second paragraph. The self-defense was indeed changed -- by Florida in 2005.
.

No, I know where my shots go.....doesn't matter where you stand on this, you come across social engineer Adam or not, a danger to our God given rights (Inalienable rights) and the constitution and the second amendment that is already under attack.

[Mher]

Re: Zimmerman Case

Thank you. I had to dig through the statutes and check the jury instructions used because the media was misreporting the stand your ground issue saying it didn't apply in this case and such.

Jury selection is tricky. During voir dire both sides typically have a limited number of peremptory challenges where they can get rid of any potential juror without a specific reason. No one better suspect it's race though, because that's the one thing that's not allowed. This is pretty easy to work around in practice though because they just name some other reason. Then the can challenge people for cause if they think that person is unable to be unbiased, but they would have to convince the judge that whatever characteristic, experience, belief or whatever about that person makes them so. That can be tough; it would have to an obvious prejudice or bias. Gun-ownership wouldn't work.

Ya even if race can't be the official reason you remove somebody, I think as a black person you are automatically at a disadvantage because the opponent can potentially remove every potential black juror, but you can never come close to removing every white juror. Ultimately there are many times more whites than blacks, and hence, you're never going to get an equally split jury. You would be lucky to get one or two black at best.