Zimmerman not guitly

[alberta cats]

Ok ya it's sad the kid died.
And lots of you say GZ should've waited for the cops... And what if he did. then he did the same thing to a cop an the cop had shot him? Would u say it was ok then? Cops are just people in a pretty blue coats... Criminals/regular people should have the same healthy respect/fear of the average joe as they do for cops....

[canadiantdi]

Originally Posted by Wild&Free

A 911 operator knows police policy better then a neighborhood watch leader. Policy is to not have the public involved in pursuing a suspect. I'm sure that's even Neighborhood Watch policy. Observe and report, not follow and confront.

Police policy? Does that mean that it was illegal for Zimmerman to pursue Martin?

[Big Daddy Badger]

Originally Posted by alberta cats

Ok ya it's sad the kid died.
And lots of you say GZ should've waited for the cops... And what if he did. then he did the same thing to a cop an the cop had shot him? Would u say it was ok then? Cops are just people in a pretty blue coats... Criminals/regular people should have the same healthy respect/fear of the average joe as they do for cops....

What if the kid had killed Zimmerman.
What if the only story heard was his?
What if that story had been... Zimmerman approached me with a gun so I laced him.
Thats why the witness saw me on top beating him up?

What's the point in conjecture?

Its over unless something else pops up.

Regardless of who you feel might have been in the wrong... a fair trail determined that Zimmmerman is not guilty.
That is not the same as innocent but it should be good enough for our purposes here.

A tragedy for sure but at least it wasn't swept under the rug and an effort was made to determine what really occured.
That should be good enough for everyone here.

[riden]

Originally Posted by canadiantdi

Police policy? Does that mean that it was illegal for Zimmerman to pursue Martin?

I am tempted to agree that the 911 operator cannot order him to no follow, they can advise though. He was not at all obligated to follow that advice.

[canadiantdi]

Originally Posted by riden

I am tempted to agree that the 911 operator cannot order him to no follow, they can advise though. He was not at all obligated to follow that advice.

It was sage advice that would have made his life 1000 times easier, but ya, he did what he thought was right.

[alberta cats]

Originally Posted by Big Daddy Badger

What if the kid had killed Zimmerman.
What if the only story heard was his?
What if that story had been... Zimmerman approached me with a gun so I laced him.
Thats why the witness saw me on top beating him up?

What's the point in conjecture?

Its over unless something else pops up.

Regardless of who you feel might have been in the wrong... a fair trail determined that Zimmmerman is not guilty.
That is not the same as innocent but it should be good enough for our purposes here.

A tragedy for sure but at least it wasn't swept under the rug and an effort was made to determine what really occured.
That should be good enough for everyone here.

yeah its good enough for me too!
to awnser your question what if it was the other way around? well i awnser with the same self defense also.

[rwm1273]

Originally Posted by ali#1

If he was a white kid wearing a suit he wouldn't be dead period end of story, Zimmerman judged him based on his race and maybe his clothing and that's fundamentally wrong.

Exactly, and the police noted this too in their report.

"The encounter between George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin was ultimately avoidable by Zimmerman if Zimmerman had remained in his vehicle and awaited the arrival of law enforcement or conversely if he had identified himself to Martin as a concerned citizen and initiated dialog (sic) in an effort to dispel each party's concern. There is no indication that Trayvon Martin was involved in any criminal activity at the time of the encounter."

In that same new paragraph, added in the third of the five drafts released Tuesday and left in each version thereafter, Serino and his bosses faulted Zimmerman for assuming that Trayvon was about to break into a home.

"Zimmerman … made it clear that he had already reached a faulty conclusion as to Martin's purpose for being in the neighborhood," the revised report says.

The Sanford P.D. report did actually categorize the incident as “Homicide-Negligent Manslaughter-Unneccessary Killing to Prevent Unlawful Act.”

[rwm1273]

Originally Posted by alberta cats

Ok ya it's sad the kid died.
And lots of you say GZ should've waited for the cops... And what if he did. then he did the same thing to a cop an the cop had shot him? Would u say it was ok then? Cops are just people in a pretty blue coats... Criminals/regular people should have the same healthy respect/fear of the average joe as they do for cops....

The difference between Zimmerman and a cop is the uniform, and if Martin got into a confrontation with the police, then it would be a justified homicide, and no trial.

Because Zimmerman didn't have a uniform on, Martin had no way to know Zimmerman's position, and this lead to the fight, which ended in his death. Because of this, it made it difficult to know what to charge Zimmerman with. It was not a clear case of self defense, because Zimmerman put himself into harms way on purpose.

If Zimmerman had confronted Martin in Zimmerman's own home, and then shot him, this would not have made the news. It would have been justified, and clearly self defense.

The trial was the right thing to do, as the jury came to the conclusion that Zimmerman had a right to defend himself, but because there was a trial, it also says that vigilante justice is not acceptable either.

[Big Daddy Badger]

Originally Posted by rwm1273

The difference between Zimmerman and a cop is the uniform, and if Martin got into a confrontation with the police, then it would be a justified homicide, and no trial.

Because Zimmerman didn't have a uniform on, Martin had no way to know Zimmerman's position, and this lead to the fight, which ended in his death. Because of this, it made it difficult to know what to charge Zimmerman with. It was not a clear case of self defense, because Zimmerman put himself into harms way on purpose.

If Zimmerman had confronted Martin in Zimmerman's own home, and then shot him, this would not have made the news. It would have been justified, and clearly self defense.

The trial was the right thing to do, as the jury came to the conclusion that Zimmerman had a right to defend himself, but because there was a trial, it also says that vigilante justice is not acceptable either.

A point lost to many... at the peril of all.

[tri777]

Come on folks, it is clear, he was not guilty because the glove didn't fit..

[rwm1273]

Originally Posted by Big Daddy Badger

Last time they showed up... it consisted of a couple guys walking doing SFA.Didn't stop the right wing media from capitalizing on that though.

Not sure if the BP are behind the riots in Oakland, but there is rioting in Oakland due to the verdict.

http://twitchy.com/2013/07/14/kill-p...t-photosvideo/

Both Chris Rock and Jamie Foxx have been pretty vocal about this trial too, and I think people should boycott these fools. Both are inciting race tension.

[Big Daddy Badger]

Originally Posted by rwm1273

Not sure if the BP are behind the riots in Oakland, but there is rioting in Oakland due to the verdict.

http://twitchy.com/2013/07/14/kill-p...t-photosvideo/

Both Chris Rock and Jamie Foxx have been pretty vocal about this trial too, and I think people should boycott these fools. Both are inciting race tension.

Well they don't need much for an excuse to riot there.

Its Sunday in Oakland... lets riot....

And hey... I'm all for protest and even an uproar if it has purpose but the idiots doen't seem to understand that in almost every instance...riots are counter productive to thier cause.

Way to rienforce the beliefs of every biggot in the world.

[Wild&Free]

Originally Posted by rwm1273

The difference between Zimmerman and a cop is the uniform, and if Martin got into a confrontation with the police, then it would be a justified homicide, and no trial.

Because Zimmerman didn't have a uniform on, Martin had no way to know Zimmerman's position, and this lead to the fight, which ended in his death. Because of this, it made it difficult to know what to charge Zimmerman with. It was not a clear case of self defense, because Zimmerman put himself into harms way on purpose.

If Zimmerman had confronted Martin in Zimmerman's own home, and then shot him, this would not have made the news. It would have been justified, and clearly self defense.

The trial was the right thing to do, as the jury came to the conclusion that Zimmerman had a right to defend himself, but because there was a trial, it also says that vigilante justice is not acceptable either.

Originally Posted by Big Daddy Badger

[/B]


A point lost to many... at the peril of all.

Little bit of devil's advocate here boys, but this can also be taken as acceptance of vigilante justice. Zimmerman, acting in his own capacity tried to enforce the law without being in a position to do so killed a person after a confrontation he started and was acquitted.

A. You can start a fight, kill the guy and claim self defense and be acquitted.
B. You can enforce the law, without being an appointed agent, and not be held accountable for the outcome of your actions.

Not that I don't agree with your points on this, but there's another side to this decision that should be considered. It's a troubling precedent to say the least. Or the chin strap on my tin foil hat is too tight again.

[ali#1]

Originally Posted by Big Daddy Badger

[/B]


A point lost to many... at the peril of all.

I got it.

Hopefully if more of these incidents happen it doesn't become "normal" and nobody bats an eye.

[ali#1]

Originally Posted by Wild&Free

Little bit of devil's advocate here boys, but this can also be taken as acceptance of vigilante justice. Zimmerman, acting in his own capacity tried to enforce the law without being in a position to do so killed a person after a confrontation he started and was acquitted.

A. You can start a fight, kill the guy and claim self defense and be acquitted.
B. You can enforce the law, without being an appointed agent, and not be held accountable for the outcome of your actions.

Not that I don't agree with your points on this, but there's another side to this decision that should be considered. It's a troubling precedent to say the least. Or the chin strap on my tin foil hat is too tight again.

Where were you a few days ago when I was saying this ?

[rwm1273]

Originally Posted by Wild&Free

Little bit of devil's advocate here boys, but this can also be taken as acceptance of vigilante justice. Zimmerman, acting in his own capacity tried to enforce the law without being in a position to do so killed a person after a confrontation he started and was acquitted.

A. You can start a fight, kill the guy and claim self defense and be acquitted.
B. You can enforce the law, without being an appointed agent, and not be held accountable for the outcome of your actions.

Not that I don't agree with your points on this, but there's another side to this decision that should be considered. It's a troubling precedent to say the least. Or the chin strap on my tin foil hat is too tight again.

I would agree if there were more cases like this, but there aren't. SO I think the trial and outcome were what was needed for both sides of the issue.

[ali#1]

If Zimmerman wasn't trying to be a vigilante and stayed in his truck martin would be alive and he would be able to live a normal life, The tragedy of this isn't just Trayvon is dead Zimmerman and his family will never be able to live a normal life either.

[Wild&Free]

Originally Posted by ali#1

Where were you a few days ago when I was saying this ?

Speculation was the game in the other thread. This is about the actual outcome. If he was found guilty, I'd still play devil's advocate by the way. Call it a personality flaw.

The jury was most likely compelled by their mandate to decide in the way that they did. Well they can speculate on the outcome of their decision, and the precedent they leave they ultimately cannot decide upon a mans fate on that alone. They must consider the current laws that the accused was operating under and the circumstances of the incident in question. I'm sure some of them will look back and say they thought they should of went the other way (regardless of the outcome) but at the time, with what they knew it was the only decision they could make in good conscience.

[ali#1]

Originally Posted by Wild&Free

Speculation was the game in the other thread. This is about the actual outcome. If he was found guilty, I'd still play devil's advocate by the way. Call it a personality flaw.

The jury was most likely compelled by their mandate to decide in the way that they did. Well they can speculate on the outcome of their decision, and the precedent they leave they ultimately cannot decide upon a mans fate on that alone. They must consider the current laws that the accused was operating under and the circumstances of the incident in question. I'm sure some of them will look back and say they thought they should of went the other way (regardless of the outcome) but at the time, with what they knew it was the only decision they could make in good conscience.

I respect the courts decision even though I don't agree with it, The problem with the whole story is A young man is dead and there are no witnesses so the perpetrator gets off with it. But the burden of proof is on the accuser so it is what it is.

[Wild&Free]

Originally Posted by rwm1273

I would agree if there were more cases like this, but there aren't. SO I think the trial and outcome were what was needed for both sides of the issue.

All I'm saying is the precedent is there now. What becomes of it, well that's for the people of Florida to decide.

[ali#1]

Originally Posted by Wild&Free

All I'm saying is the precedent is there now. What becomes of it, well that's for the people of Florida to decide.

I am just speculating but I would guess the next election someone will make promises to either get rid of it or change it at least.

[Wild&Free]

Originally Posted by ali#1

I respect the courts decision even though I don't agree with it, The problem with the whole story is A young man is dead and there are no witnesses so the perpetrator gets off with it. But the burden of proof is on the accuser so it is what it is.

Accept what you cannot change, or change what you cannot accept. I think the former is the situation for us up here in Canada on a decision down in Florida, A'merka.

[ali#1]

Originally Posted by Wild&Free

Accept what you cannot change, or change what you cannot accept. I think the former is the situation for us up here in Canada on a decision down in Florida, A'merka.

I would say this is a strike against open carry, It makes people have false bravado and go into situations they wouldn't without.

[Wild&Free]

Originally Posted by ali#1

I would say this is a strike against open carry, It makes people have false bravado and go into situations they wouldn't without.

Devil's Advocate here again,

It could give all them freedom loving gun toting rednecks a reason to get out and vote and keep them good ol boys who wrote "stand your ground" in office.

Also, where did open carry come into the discussion?

[rwm1273]

Originally Posted by ali#1

I would say this is a strike against open carry, It makes people have false bravado and go into situations they wouldn't without.

Or perhaps a reason to have better laws governing who can carry.

[ali#1]

Originally Posted by Wild&Free

Devil's Advocate here again,

It could give all them freedom loving gun toting rednecks a reason to get out and vote and keep them good ol boys who wrote "stand your ground" in office.

Also, where did open carry come into the discussion?

Well he was carrying, Who knows if it was open or not. who knows what will happen in the next election it could go either way but I bet it comes up and gets debated.

[ali#1]

Originally Posted by rwm1273

Or perhaps a reason to have better laws governing who can carry.

True.

[Wild&Free]

Originally Posted by rwm1273

Or perhaps a reason to have better laws governing who can carry.

True, and in Florida that might be doable. We all know that most crimes aren't committed by lawful gun owners though.

[ali#1]

With the amount of weight Zimmerman has put on since the beginning maybe he killed Trayvon for his skittles ?.

[canadiantdi]

Originally Posted by Wild&Free

Little bit of devil's advocate here boys, but this can also be taken as acceptance of vigilante justice. Zimmerman, acting in his own capacity tried to enforce the law without being in a position to do so killed a person after a confrontation he started and was acquitted.

A. You can start a fight, kill the guy and claim self defense and be acquitted.
B. You can enforce the law, without being an appointed agent, and not be held accountable for the outcome of your actions.

Not that I don't agree with your points on this, but there's another side to this decision that should be considered. It's a troubling precedent to say the least. Or the chin strap on my tin foil hat is too tight again.

What law was he trying to enforce? Did he actually start the fight?

If he started the fight, then Martin defending himself would make more sense and GZ would likely have gotten at least manslaughter. This case doesn't set the precedents you say, I don't believe, because he wasn't enforcing any laws and we don't know if he started the fight.