- This topic is empty.
-
AuthorPosts
-
July 14, 2013 at 2:36 am #608220
WFMembergeorge zimmerman is GUILTY of bad judgement that resulted in the unnecessary death of a young man.
July 14, 2013 at 3:03 am #793547
miwsParticipantWell I suppose, considering the verdict that the jury reached, your statement is inaccurate.
In his moment of “bad judgement”, he chose to pull the trigger on a firearm, which killed Trayvon, so by default should have been guilty of manslaughter (or whatever charge).
Mike
July 14, 2013 at 3:45 am #793548
WFMemberthe bad judgement was not keeping his distance in the first place! after contacting the authorities he should have simply stayed a distance away and let the police do their job.
July 14, 2013 at 3:49 am #793549
funkietooParticipantAt the very least it was manslaughter. I wonder if the Prosecutor really ‘wanted’ to try this case.
If Trayvon had been ‘walking while white’, I don’t think Zimmerman would have bothered him. But Trayvon is dead. The man that killed him and set up the entire scenario is free. This happens far too often in our country. When are we going to wake up and change?
July 14, 2013 at 3:57 am #793550
JanSParticipantfunkietoo…agreed…I watched a good bit of the trial (home recovering), and a good amount of it was farce. No one ever brought up that if he had listened and stayed in his car and not followed Trayvon, none of this would have happened. And he chose not to testify , presumably because he knew he get tripped up. Yes, I’m guessing at that, but…how does he sleep at night?
July 14, 2013 at 5:26 am #793551
WFMemberjans that is the bad judgement point that he is very GUILTY of.
hopefully he has nightmares at night waking up in a cold sweat!
July 14, 2013 at 5:50 am #793552
JKBParticipantYeah, maybe. How many of you have been jurors?
What I know for sure is that there was a lot of publicity, and eventually the jurors returned a verdict. They actually heard the evidence; we heard what the media made of it.
I still sometimes think about the verdict I was part of returning. Was it right? Those of you on the sidelines don’t even get to question it.
July 14, 2013 at 6:12 am #793553
WFMemberjkb good point! my issue is that george should have stayed back after contacting authorities and thus avoid the confrontation in the first place.
once the confrontation happened the jury heard the evidence and made judgement
July 14, 2013 at 9:14 am #793554
SmittyParticipantI’m with you WF.
He “should” have stayed in his car when police asked him to do so, and stopped the pursuit. The fact he didn’t is bad judgement on his part, but irrelevant to the law. Once he was getting the bejesus beat out of him(proven, over and over), he was within the law to shoot.
The only reason this is such a big deal is because it is a fake (he is hispanic) white on black case. Where is all the outrage concerning “black on black” crime? Why aren’t these activists on CNN? This “white” hispanic stuff is BS media hype that has worked to fan the flames.
Get ready for two weeks of “no justice, no peace” over, and over, and over……..from people who are not looking at facts, but reacting to hype.
July 14, 2013 at 1:18 pm #793555
JoBParticipantSmitty..
if you buy the premise that Zimmerman was getting beaten..
have you wondered whether Travon was standing his ground against a predator?
and have you asked yourself how a gun that was supposedly kept in the back of Zimmerman’s pants found it’s way out to shoot Travon Martin if it wasn’t already pulled before he hit the ground?
At the least, Zimmerman was guilty of the equivalent of stalking while drunk with the power of the concealed handgun he carried.
will you look at the people around you a little differently next time you walk the city’s streets?
perhaps you should.
July 14, 2013 at 2:03 pm #793556
anonymeParticipantI agree with JoB. What about Trayvon’s right to defend himself against an armed stalker? Just because Zimmerman got a beating as the result of an altercation HE provoked doesn’t give him a license to murder. The problem with armed vigilantes is that they’re primed, ready and eager to find an excuse to use that firearm. If it weren’t for the gun, he would have stayed in the car as told. I’m stunned at this verdict.
July 14, 2013 at 2:06 pm #793557
anonymeParticipantThe only reassuring (and somewhat ironic) aspect of this verdict is that Zimmerman will now face years, if not the rest of his life, looking over his shoulder for vigilantes who’d love to hunt him down the way he hunted Trayvon. Good luck with that, Georgie…
July 14, 2013 at 2:36 pm #793558
miwsParticipantIf it weren’t for the gun, he would have stayed in the car as told.
This.
I saw a similar comment elsewhere, and came here to make the point.
Also, Stand Your Ground may have given Zimmerman the confidence to use the gun, knowing he could use the law to justify his actions.
Mike
July 14, 2013 at 2:57 pm #793559
littlebrowndogParticipantOK, so let’s say I am a woman walking down an isolated street in Florida. I hear footsteps behind me. I walk faster. The footsteps are coming faster. I start to run. The footsteps run. I look around but nowhere can I see a safe place. I am trained in martial arts. I stop and turn. There is a man rushing towards me. His intent, which has not been announced to anybody else, is to rape me. His total body language communicates aggression. I use my martial arts skills in an attempt to protect myself. I have him on the ground. My intent is to disable him and run. He feels now like his life is in danger, so he pulls a gun and shoots and kills me. There are no witnesses. People who heard me screaming called 9-1-1. The police arrive right as he shoots me. He tells them he feared for his life and had no choice. Nobody knows he was planning on raping me. A check of my background shows I am trained in martial arts and Ihappen to have a diagnosis of bipolar disorder. Should he get set free because it was self defense from a violent crazy woman? Under Florida laws, with no witnesses could he successfully make that claim?
July 14, 2013 at 3:23 pm #793560
JoBParticipantlittlebrowndog..
he could make that claim even if you were a mild mannered accountant who just happened to have a superman suit underwear.
July 14, 2013 at 4:29 pm #793561
EdSaneParticipantIf I were on the jury I would have acquitted Zimmerman of all charges.
It is not a crime to follow someone in a public place. Nor are you required to follow a Dispatchers advice (it is not a lawful order). It is also not a crime to approach suspicious persons and ask them why they are there. It is a crime to strike someone without legal provocation. Which is what Martin did.
If you strike someone in the face repeatedly a reasonable person could fear for their own life or great bodily harm. Zimmerman acting on this fear was legally allowed to shoot Martin in defense of himself.
We may disagree with Zimmerman’s tactics on that night. Even believe he was not morally just in shooting Martin. Legally however he was completely justified.
…..
Until he physically strikes you or makes some form of verbal communication to make you afraid you could not lawfully strike him in a public place. The law allows you to protect yourself if you reasonable fear for your safety and the safety of those around you. Also, Florida or WA, the outcome for this trial would have been the same. The prosecution never overcame reasonable doubt.
July 14, 2013 at 4:54 pm #793562
WFMemberthis whole scenario was the result of george not listening and staying in his vehicle. a young man is now dead and the shooter is free. this is not right.
i believe that a person has a right to defend themselves (if someone breaks into my home I would not hesitate to use my baseball bat to protect myself and family); but when a person instigates a confrontation in a public place and then can claim self defense is ludicrous.
edsane you are potentially correct in your assessment; the issue is BAD judgement. it is just not smart to confront a person as zimmerman did; especially when he was specifically instructed (not a legal requirement, but the smart thing to do) to stay in his vehicle
if i was trayvon and was simply walking on a street and someone approached me without cause i too would get very annoyed and can see the situation escalate very quickly.
zimmermam was the instigator and is guilty of instigating the the confrontation. once the confrontation occurred it escalated and resulted in the death of a young man.
trayvon’s parents should sue for killing their son in civil court (i believe the burden of proof is less) for every cent zimmerman has and make him live the rest of his miserable life in poverty (and looking over his shoulder, see post #12)
July 14, 2013 at 5:22 pm #793563
miwsParticipantLegally however he was completely justified.
And the law that made this so, is severely flawed, if someone simply feels threatened, and because of that can shoot the person.
Will Zimmerman have an even itchier trigger finger, since he’s getting his gun back, and having to watch over his shoulder?
Will he mistake the actions of a black person that truly means no harm, because he (Zimmerman) feels threatened, due to the paranoia he’s quite likely to feel?
What if Zimmerman unknowingly drops his wallet, and a someone is running up from behind, yelling “Hey! Hey! in an attempt to return it, and he turns around and shoots them?
Mike
July 14, 2013 at 5:26 pm #793564
miwsParticipantthis whole scenario was the result of george not listening and staying in his vehicle
This argument is getting tiring.
It really has nothing to do with him not listening, even without be told to stay in his car, he should have just stayed in his damn car!
The “he didn’t listen” argument, almost seems to be trying to shift at least a little of the responsibility for his actions off of him.
Mike
July 14, 2013 at 5:33 pm #793565
EdSaneParticipantCome on Mike,
Reasonable fear. This is where the court steps in. You have to convince a jury of your peers that you had a reasonable fear for your life. Zimmerman’s injuries were consistent with his statements and honestly this had nothing to do with a stand your ground law (which he did not invoke either).
You can lawfully carry a concealed pistol in the state of WA with a permit. You can also open carry a pistol (no permit required). If you are attacked you are allowed to use that weapon when you’re in fear for your life. However, if a jury doesn’t believe that your fear was reasonable then the shooting would not be justified.
July 14, 2013 at 5:52 pm #793566
anonymeParticipantIt makes no sense to me to base an acquittal solely on what was happening at the exact moment the shot was fired, with no regard as to what led up to it. Trayvon was not the initial aggressor; that should make all the difference in the world. Why should the aggressor get away with murder due to the simple fact that the victim dared to fight back? The scenario endorsed by this jury is one in which a gun-toting Zimmerman can challenge anyone who “doesn’t look right” to him, and that person must respond only with “yes boss, no boss, sorry I was walking while black, boss”.
In addition to being unjust and illogical, I believe this sets a very dangerous precedent. I do hope the family sues in civil court. It may be the only way they get some justice, as in the OJ case.
July 14, 2013 at 5:59 pm #793567
dobroParticipant“You have to convince a jury of your peers that you had a reasonable fear for your life.”
Too bad Martin isn’t around to convince the jury that when an unknown man holding a gun approached him that he feared for his life and reacted accordingly. I wonder why it’s so difficult for so many people to see the situation from that side.
“If you are attacked you are allowed to use that weapon when you’re in fear for your life.”
If so, then why would it be wrong to use your hands (or anything else at hand) to protect yourself from a stranger brandishing a gun?
July 14, 2013 at 6:01 pm #793568
snaParticipantRemember that 11 presumably unbiased people sat through the entire case, without watching the sensational news, and came to a unanimous conclusion of not guilty. Also remember, not guilty doesn’t mean “he did nothing wrong” only that there is reasonable doubt.
July 14, 2013 at 6:23 pm #793569
WFMemberactually i believe it was 6 jurors and 3 alternates.
and civil court can be used to sue for wrongful death
July 14, 2013 at 6:46 pm #793570
DunnoParticipantFact is, if you watched the trial, Travon came back and confronted Zimmerman. He easily could have high tailed it to his dad’s house and been there within 20 sec. What a shame.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.