Zimmrman case

[dty]

Originally Posted by canadiantdi

Do you realize that I responed to your post with more than "g".. that was just a filler cause you gotta have at least one character in a post.

Yes,
your responses were based on your "thoughts" or opinions. I was pointing out that these thoughts didn't change my statement and asked if you had any information to change my facts which were based on as you stated, the trial and published reports. It was interesting to me that on basically the same information we draw such different conclusions.

[canadiantdi]

Originally Posted by dty

Yes,
your responses were based on your "thoughts" or opinions. I was pointing out that these thoughts didn't change my statement and asked if you had any information to change my facts which were based on as you stated, the trial and published reports. It was interesting to me that on basically the same information we draw such different conclusions.

ahh, I see what you're saying.

[Jamie Black R/T]

Originally Posted by Ryry4

When the verdict comes out the riot will start.

yep...the writing is already on the wall for this...id be shocked if cities dont burn when the acquittal is announced

[rugatika]

Originally Posted by Jamie Black R/T

yep...the writing is already on the wall for this...id be shocked if cities dont burn when the acquittal is announced

and the media will report on that endlessly. They get a twofer...of their own making.

[Okotokian]

Originally Posted by canadiantdi

Well, his girlfriend told Martin to just go home, but he said no. He had the chance to leave.

Exactly the same as the 911 operator who told Zimmerman to drop it and not pursue.

Originally Posted by canadiantdi

I guess it's possible that Zim tried to perform a citiznes arrest.

I think that's highly likely. But what is the logical reaction to someone you don't know and who is not a police officer trying to "arrest you" in the dark in the rain when you don't think you have done anyting wrong?

[Okotokian]

Originally Posted by rugatika

Not sure if you've ever taken note of what age men tend to get in the most fights. Especially, angry young men that call people crazy ass crackers.

Not sure who the angry young man here was. You realize Zimmerman had previously been charged with assaulting a police officer and resisting arrest when in his twenties, less than 7 years before this. Not your usual hijinks, eh? Clearly some anger and temper problems there. Imagine if Martin had been charged with that instead of Zimm? Would have been a "no-good kid who clearly had it coming".

[rugatika]

Originally Posted by Okotokian

Not sure who the angry young man here was. You realize Zimmerman had previously been charged with assaulting a police officer and resisting arrest when in his twenties, less than 7 years before this. Not your usual hijinks, eh? Clearly some anger and temper problems there. Imagine if Martin had been charged with that instead of Zimm? Would have been a "no-good kid who clearly had it coming".

SEVEN years ago...in his early twenties. Exactly my point.

What was it that Mark Twain said...“When I was a boy of 14, my father was so ignorant I could hardly stand to have the old man around. But when I got to be 21, I was astonished at how much the old man had learned in seven years.”

[Grizzly Adams]

Guilty or not, there 's going to be a lynching.

Grizz

[ali#1]

Originally Posted by rugatika

SEVEN years ago...in his early twenties. Exactly my point.

What was it that Mark Twain said...“When I was a boy of 14, my father was so ignorant I could hardly stand to have the old man around. But when I got to be 21, I was astonished at how much the old man had learned in seven years.”

There is a difference between 14 and early 20's.

[rugatika]

Originally Posted by ali#1

There is a difference between 14 and early 20's.

Thanks. It was meant more as a figurative quote about how much a person can change in 7 years, rather than a literal quote about specific attributes at those specific ages. My bad for assuming people would understand that. I should have made that clear. I didn't mean to imply that a Mark Twain quote made over a hundred years ago would directly apply to this situation.

[brownbomber]

At 21 I was quite the drunken fool, at 28 had grown quite mature

[canadiantdi]

Originally Posted by Okotokian

Exactly the same as the 911 operator who told Zimmerman to drop it and not pursue.

I see what you're saying but I guess the reason I tend to believe Zim is the fact he was beat up while Martin was not. If there was some indication that Zim started the physical confrontation, a lot of opinions would be different for sure.

[canadiantdi]

Originally Posted by Okotokian

I think that's highly likely. But what is the logical reaction to someone you don't know and who is not a police officer trying to "arrest you" in the dark in the rain when you don't think you have done anyting wrong?

The logical reaction for me would be to shove and flee I suppose. That's my thought from my couch, obviously could be different if I was actually in the situation or the person had a gun, or they were huge/small etc..

The reason I don't let the citizens arrest scenario sway my opinion is that there isn't any evidence to support it. It very well could have happened, but all we know is that Zim was beat up and Martin was on top. With that information, it isn't hard to believe that he honestly feared for life or limb. And I don't believe you get a free pass to ground and pound someone continuously just because they started a confrontation. Legally or morally.

[ali#1]

Originally Posted by canadiantdi

The logical reaction for me would be to shove and flee I suppose. That's my thought from my couch, obviously could be different if I was actually in the situation or the person had a gun, or they were huge/small etc..

The reason I don't let the citizens arrest scenario sway my opinion is that there isn't any evidence to support it. It very well could have happened, but all we know is that Zim was beat up and Martin was on top. With that information, it isn't hard to believe that he honestly feared for life or limb. And I don't believe you get a free pass to ground and pound someone continuously just because they started a confrontation. Legally or morally.

Not should losing a fight you started be grounds for murder on self defence.

[huntingd]

Wannabe hero bit off more than he could chew then had to shoot his way out of it. My opinion he is guilty.

[canadiantdi]

Originally Posted by ali#1

Not should losing a fight you started be grounds for murder on self defence.

IF he started the fight. There is no evidence to support that Zimmerman physically confronted Martin. There is evidence that Martin assaulted Zim though. Physical injuries and there is a witness who saw Martin on top of Zim.

And even then, assuming he started the fight, like I asked you before, is the other person legally allowed to beat you to death? Are you allowed, at some point, to defend yourself? If he tried to illegally perform a citizens arrest on Martin, and was attacked, is Martin then allowed to beat him? Up until what point? Severe injury? Unconsciousness? Death?

I am not sure of the law concerning this, but it seems unreasonable to me. If he actually tried to perform a citizens arrest, one could argue that Martin feared great bodily harm and therefore was defending himself. If evidence surfaces that this is the case, it could definitely change the result of the trial, but until then??... Is a jury going to convict him because he may have tried to perform a citizens arrest, or he may have attacked first? I suspect not. Again, there is only evidence supporting the fact that Zimmerman was beaten by Martin. I don't even think that the prosecution is trying to argue that Zim attacked first are they?

[ali#1]

Originally Posted by canadiantdi

IF he started the fight. There is no evidence to support that Zimmerman physically confronted Martin. There is evidence that Martin assaulted Zim though. Physical injuries and there is a witness who saw Martin on top of Zim.

And even then, assuming he started the fight, like I asked you before, is the other person legally allowed to beat you to death? Are you allowed, at some point, to defend yourself? If he tried to illegally perform a citizens arrest on Martin, and was attacked, is Martin then allowed to beat him? Up until what point? Severe injury? Unconsciousness? Death?

I am not sure of the law concerning this, but it seems unreasonable to me. If he actually tried to perform a citizens arrest, one could argue that Martin feared great bodily harm and therefore was defending himself. If evidence surfaces that this is the case, it could definitely change the result of the trial, but until then??... Is a jury going to convict him because he may have tried to perform a citizens arrest, or he may have attacked first? I suspect not. Again, there is only evidence supporting the fact that Zimmerman was beaten by Martin. I don't even think that the prosecution is trying to argue that Zim attacked first are they?

It sets a bad precident IMO that you can start a fight (possibly) lose and then kill a guy and say its in self defence, the law was enacted so grannies wouldn't have to flee their homes in a robbery and people who are innocent and attacked can have other options, seems like Zimmerman is gaming the system to me.

[Big Daddy Badger]

Originally Posted by canadiantdi

Following someone and asking them questions isn't reason enough to attack them imo. It's legal to do what Zim did (unless other evidence is presented of course) and he was attacked for it.

I could agree with you in a way, if Zim initially attacked Martin, but as it stands, I can't.

I wouldn't have gotten out of the truck and followed the guy. You never know what they guy is gonna do, what he's on, his frame of mind etc. I think most people think this way, and that's part of the reason they are against Zim.

If someone is walking down the alley behind my house, looking into my backyard, and my concerned neighbour goes out there to ask him what he's doing and gets attacked, he should be able to defend himself imo. If Zim gets murder or manslaughter just because he made initial contact and followed, doesn't that open up a nasty door? I don't think Zim getting off will open up a nasty door, as you still need to fear life and limb to defend yourself, you can't just fear that someone is following you asking questions and MAY hurt you.

But walking home from a convenience store is a good excuse for an armed wierdo to follow you home and then accost you and start asking you questions that are none of his damn bussiness.... right?

It is wasn't a concerned neighbour stepping out of his home and making an enquirey.
It was some guy that shadowed him first in a vehicle and then on foot.

THAT would creep anyone out.
THAT is why dads here give their daughters pepper spray and why some folks want to be alllowed to CCW.
Guaranteed if that happend to me on my way home from 7-11... in good old Edmonton... someone would be risking their teeth.

Especially as I do have a faimily and I don't want some freak tailing me to my home.
I have a natural dislike for being... hunted .... odd as that might be to some folks here.
And I know that the guy that starts the fight... wins it.

[brownbomber]

Originally Posted by Big Daddy Badger

But walking home from a convenience store is a good excuse for an armed wierdo to follow you home and then accost you and start asking you questions that are none of his damn bussiness.... right?

It is wasn't a concerned neighbour stepping out of his home and making an enquirey.
It was some guy that shadowed him first in a vehicle and then on foot.

THAT would creep anyone out.
THAT is why dads here give their daughters pepper spray and why some folks want to be alllowed to CCW.
Guaranteed if that happend to me on my way home from 7-11... in good old Edmonton... someone would be risking their teeth.

Especially as I do have a faimily and I don't want some freak tailing me to my home.
I have a natural dislike for being... hunted .... odd as that might be to some folks here.
And I know that the guy that starts the fight... wins it.

That's a pretty close analysis to how I feel about it, if some clown without a badge any kind of actual real aurhority and zero credentials is following me and confronts me about why I'm in my neighbourhood then he's likely getting told to pound sand, if he persists he's likely getting one in the jaw. But in the end the kids dead and zim won't be able to live a normal life. He will be looking over his shoulder for the rest of his days.
I don't get that people think that he feared for his life because he was getting filled in, in the butt kickings I've received I've never feared for my life just thought oh boy this is gonna hurt. Then I've never been strapped in a fight either and had to worry about somebody taking it away from me.

[canadiantdi]

Originally Posted by Big Daddy Badger

But walking home from a convenience store is a good excuse for an armed wierdo to follow you home and then accost you and start asking you questions that are none of his damn bussiness.... right?

No, it's not a good excuse, but its NOT illegal. Should you really have to get ground and pounded because of it? Some say yes, some say no.

[canadiantdi]

Originally Posted by ali#1

It sets a bad precident IMO that you can start a fight (possibly) lose and then kill a guy and say its in self defence, the law was enacted so grannies wouldn't have to flee their homes in a robbery and people who are innocent and attacked can have other options, seems like Zimmerman is gaming the system to me.

It wouldn't set a precedent that you can start a fight and then shoot your way out of it, I don't think. It would though, if we knew, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Zim physically attacked Martin, then started to get a beatdown, and then shot him.

But because we don't know for sure about Zim attacking first, I don't think that any future trials will allow someone to do what Zim possibly did.

[Pincherguy]

We do not know how close Zimmerman was at any specific time to Martin while he was following him. Zimmerman obviously had an reason to follow him that included bad vibes and I would suspect some racial profiling. He is the only one that can answer these questions. They both had the opportunity to get out of it and neither did. Personally I think when Martin was that close to home he should of gone there as quickly as possible. I think, and it is just my opinion, that he was a punk that thought he was tough and he was not going to allow someone to get in his face or crowd his space. Zimmerman was a local watch captain and on duty or not he was fulfilling his obligations to the community. While doing this his job was to report criminal activity not confront the perpetrator. The way it turned out they are both losers and it is a shame that it had to happen the way it did.

[trooper]

Originally Posted by Pincherguy

The kid was beating his head on the sidewalk. He has a broken nose and lacerations to his head. The kid had no wounds that were inflicted in a fight.
I have been following this pretty much from the beginning and the majority of evidence points to self defence. He probably should not have been there and apparently he was headed back to his truck when he was confronted by the kid. The prosecution will wrap up their side of the trial on Friday and the defence should only take a couple of days for their side. So far I am leaning towards not guilty and I don't see too much proving other wise. Manslaughter may be on the table but hardly likely, the only problem I see is an all woman jury.

Can you send me a link?

[Pincherguy]

Originally Posted by trooper

Can you send me a link?

the only link I have is you tube, should all be there

[Big Daddy Badger]

Originally Posted by Pincherguy

We do not know how close Zimmerman was at any specific time to Martin while he was following him. Zimmerman obviously had an reason to follow him that included bad vibes and I would suspect some racial profiling. He is the only one that can answer these questions. They both had the opportunity to get out of it and neither did. Personally I think when Martin was that close to home he should of gone there as quickly as possible. I think, and it is just my opinion, that he was a punk that thought he was tough and he was not going to allow someone to get in his face or crowd his space. Zimmerman was a local watch captain and on duty or not he was fulfilling his obligations to the community. While doing this his job was to report criminal activity not confront the perpetrator. The way it turned out they are both losers and it is a shame that it had to happen the way it did.

I disagree.

The kid may have simply been satnding his ground.
Further it is the job of neighbourhood watch to form a presance and to watch and report. It is not their job to pursue and confront.
His obligation was to be in that area to form a deterent by his presance and not to act like a junior g-man and create a greater danger to people by his actions.
As far as the whole neighbourhood watch thiung goes... the boy was not suspected of a specific crime and we have no reson to believe that he would not have simply gone home as planned if he had not encountered Zimmerman.
Now he's dead.

Good job of keeping the streets safe for residents in that neighbourhood George.... not.

[Pincherguy]

Originally Posted by Big Daddy Badger

I disagree.

The kid may have simply been standing his ground.
Further it is the job of neighborhood watch to form a presence and to watch and report. It is not their job to pursue and confront.
His obligation was to be in that area to form a deterrent by his presence and not to act like a junior g-man and create a greater danger to people by his actions.
As far as the whole neighborhood watch thong goes... the boy was not suspected of a specific crime and we have no reason to believe that he would not have simply gone home as planned if he had not encountered Zimmerman.
Now he's dead.

Good job of keeping the streets safe for residents in that neighborhood George.... not.

I totally agree, his job was to observe and report not to proceed further. The boy had a chance to go home he decided not to for what ever reason. Unfortunately we will never know exactly what happened as the boy is no more. He had the chance to run home and did not take it. Sad.

[Big Daddy Badger]

Originally Posted by Pincherguy

I totally agree, his job was to observe and report not to proceed further. The boy had a chance to go home he decided not to for what ever reason. Unfortunately we will never know exactly what happened as the boy is no more. He had the chance to run home and did not take it. Sad.

Indeed.

Might just come down to two fantasy prone young men... making a series of poor choices that ended in the death of one of them.

Either way... the kid is gone and Zimmermans life will never be the same.

[Pincherguy]

Originally Posted by Big Daddy Badger

Indeed.

Might just come down to two fantasy prone young men... making a series of poor choices that ended in the death of one of them.

Either way... the kid is gone and Zimmermans life will never be the same.

Indeed poor choices on both sides, a little common sense would have prevented this tragedy. No winners just losers here,

[Matt L.]

Originally Posted by Pincherguy

Indeed poor choices on both sides, a little common sense would have prevented this tragedy. No winners just losers here,

That's about the best comment yet. Everything else, no matter whose "side" you're on, is wild speculation at best.

[brownbomber]

Originally Posted by Matt L.

That's about the best comment yet. Everything else, no matter whose "side" you're on, is wild speculation at best.

X2, can't see how sonething as crappy as this has become politicized as this.