343 replies to this topic

[tsukiji]

This trial was a farce. I no longer have faith in the florida justice system. That child was murdered in cold blood. Period. No one walks away from an argument, calls the cops, gets told to leave the kid alone, goes and gets a gun, follows the kid and starts it up again and would consider for a second that he was "defending himself" in California. 

 

This is a horrific miscarriage of justice.

 

So so sad for those poor parents. 

 

And God what this says about our justice system in that only a man whose parent was a judge could have gotten away with this murder.

 

I disagree. It seems this should never have gone to trial but for the inappropriate influence of the Administration. Even the prosecutors, it seems, didn't think they had a legal case --- seems like they brought whatever case they could driven by political pressure: http://www.foxnews.c...immerman-trial/

 

It doesn't seem like TM was a child or a kid. Drug user? Drug dealer? Drug maker? Forced out of school? 5"11, 160lbs? Doesn't sound like a kid to me. Imagine that this person (who sounds bent on violence as a solution) killed someone in a drug deal (not far fetched in my mind) -- would you think he should be tried as a child? Or an adult? I would say the latter.

 

Yes, your scenario could happen in CA. That's why CA sucks and is one of the last bastions of idiocy on this and related topics in the country. Guess where the notable riots occurred last night. Not in Sanford. Not even in Florida or DC. Here, in the land of lunatics.

 

What reasoning do you have for not considering this self defense? I'd like to hear opposing arguments.

[The Average Joe]

Since 2001, nearly 5000, yes, 5000 people have been shot dead in Chicago (those strict gun laws sure are working!). Do you know the name of a single one?

Last weekend? 72 shot, 12 killed in Chicago. Want to know why there is not a peep of it outside local news? Most of it is black on black crime, which doesn't seem to matter to the race baiters who only come out when the assailant is white. Another potential reason (and a good one I think) is that it exposes the failed political policies held dear by our President and liberal leaders. i.e. gun control, big union teachers, government as parent/benefactor, etc.

You've got the head of the Dept of Justice who has repeatedly held to the idea that there can be no hate crime without historical oppression (therefore black on white hate crime doesn't exist in his world). He has also referred to the struggles of "his people."

 

You have the President getting spiritual counsel FOR YEARS from a Reverend who called out "whitey" for the ills of America.

 

You have liberal leadership CONSTANTLY pulling out the race card where there is no racism to end debate.

 

And yet, We have a 2 term black President, the Attorney general is black, there are 47 black members of congress, we've had 2 black Secretaries of State in the last decade, several states traditionally seen as racist have elected black leadership, etc.

 

While there is certainly racism still alive America, we have diminished it substantially from when I was younger. As a child I went to a grade school where there were few whites. I can assure you that there was racism directed at us. We are on the right path, but claiming there is no reverse racism helps no one. I think that the next generation (not yet born) will see racism fall to the point where the effects will be negligible. At least I hope so. In the big picture, it doesn't really matter because in a hundred years, or maybe two hundred, it will be hard to judge most people's race due to mingling of races and cultures.

[supermom]

Take away his skin color. take away his problems at school. take away the fact that he was 17 year old boy who was probably just as cocky and scared s---less as any 17 year old would be-

 

Just like you would take away the mini skirt on a rape victim who happened to be a stripper.....

 

 

No one can say this guy was "standing his ground" since he came back to the fight with a weapon. The artcile is terrible. The defense didnt even try to use that argument. 

 

What they did use was self defense. 

 

When he returned with a gun after being told by the police to walk away...That is when it was no longer self defense and became premeditated intent to commit a misdemeanor that resulted in manslaughter with a lethal weapon. (which he wasnt licensed with, and he wasnt a licensed security guard).

 

 

This was a prime example of Jury Nullification... not a lawful nor just rendering of a judgement by peers. Not at all.

[The Average Joe]

This trial was a farce. I no longer have faith in the florida justice system. That child was murdered in cold blood. Period. No one walks away from an argument, calls the cops, gets told to leave the kid alone, goes and gets a gun, follows the kid and starts it up again and would consider for a second that he was "defending himself" in California.

 

 

Um, your theoretical scenario has no basis in reality. Did you hear any of the evidence?

 

There was no original argument. It started with a call to 911. martin ran from Zimmerman, Zimmerman followed, was told not to by 911, he complied. He lost sight of Martin, and was returning to his vehicle. MARTIN returned, Zimmerman went for his cell phone and a verbal then physical altercation ensued. Witnesses and physical evidence corroborate Zimmerman's version with Martin on top of him beating him before he was shot.

 

So to review your points:

There was no walking away from an argument.

He wasn't told to leave the kid alone, he was told not to follow him. He complied.

He did not "go and get a gun." He had a license to carry.

He did not "follow the kid" and "start it up again."

he was on his back getting beaten. At what point in your world can one defend himself?

[supermom]

This trial was a farce. I no longer have faith in the florida justice system. That child was murdered in cold blood. Period. No one walks away from an argument, calls the cops, gets told to leave the kid alone, goes and gets a gun, follows the kid and starts it up again and would consider for a second that he was "defending himself" in California.

 

 

Um, your theoretical scenario has no basis in reality. Did you hear any of the evidence?

 

There was no original argument. It started with a call to 911. martin ran from Zimmerman, Zimmerman followed, was told not to by 911, he complied. He lost sight of Martin, and was returning to his vehicle. MARTIN returned, Zimmerman went for his cell phone and a verbal then physical altercation ensued. Witnesses and physical evidence corroborate Zimmerman's version with Martin on top of him beating him before he was shot.

 

So to review your points:

There was no walking away from an argument.

He wasn't told to leave the kid alone, he was told not to follow him. He complied.

He did not "go and get a gun." He had a license to carry.

He did not "follow the kid" and "start it up again."

he was on his back getting beaten. At what point in your world can one defend himself?

Not true. Certainly not in the original complaint. Nor by the witnesses who were not allowed to testify. This trial was a farce. If there is a riot in that city; it will have been wholly earned by all involved in that trial. 

[Carl G]

Take away his skin color. take away his problems at school. take away the fact that he was 17 year old boy who was probably just as cocky and scared s---less as any 17 year old would be-

 

Just like you would take away the mini skirt on a rape victim who happened to be a stripper.....

 

 

No one can say this guy was "standing his ground" since he came back to the fight with a weapon. The artcile is terrible. The defense didnt even try to use that argument. 

 

What they did use was self defense. 

 

When he returned with a gun after being told by the police to walk away...That is when it was no longer self defense and became premeditated intent to commit a misdemeanor that resulted in manslaughter with a lethal weapon. (which he wasnt licensed with, and he wasnt a licensed security guard).

 

 

This was a prime example of Jury Nullification... not a lawful nor just rendering of a judgement by peers. Not at all.

 

With all due respect, I think your suggestion of the facts is just wrong.  TM had four minutes to "get away" from GZ.  Four minutes!  TM circled around and started the fight, and for that he paid with his life.  It is as simple as that.  There is zero evidence that GZ started anything.  Mark O'Mara poised an interesting argument.  Suppose TM had lived, he would have been charged with aggravated assault.

 

I hate to quote Legally Blonde quoting Aristotle, but "the law is reason free from passion".  Take away the passion and you're left with a horrible tragedy.  Anyone involved with this case will walk away with life-long scares, especially TM parents who loved their child very much.

[nomad]

"It is what it is..."

 

[The Average Joe]

You are entitled to opinion Supermom, but not your own facts. Your entire premise is based off of what? Errors in fact. Come back with EVIDENCE of your positions.

 

Fact: Zimmerman did have a concealed carry permit and it was presented during interview.    page 23

 

He didn't "return to Martin" or "come back to the fight".

 

The defense didn't bring up the stand your ground law because the prosecution didn't. The prosecution didn't bring it up because it was a losing argument for them.

 

If anything, the jury was led away from acquittal. Martin was a punk.  All the texts talking about getting illegal guns, drugs and fighting were inadmissible, as were his getting busted with burglary tools, but they sure showed a disposition toward a certain lifestyle and behavior.

 

http://www.scribd.co...erman-documents

[Judge Smails]

[quote name="nomad" post="463269" timestamp="1373836557"]"It is what it is..."
 

Excellent commentary. Skittles and ice tea for everyone.

[Homer]

[quote name="nomad" post="463269" timestamp="1373836557"]"It is what it is..."
 

Excellent commentary. Skittles and ice tea for everyone.

 

Yup, Its all about skittles and ice tea. Nothing to do with thug pop culture what-so ever.

[supermom]

its about subduing and not allowing witnesses to testify and alllowing a one sided story to become "facts" in a murder trial. Sick anyone believes this story.

[Carl G]

"It is what it is..."

 

 

I can't help but think this person is the owner of the business.

[Carl G]

its about subduing and not allowing witnesses to testify and alllowing a one sided story to become "facts" in a murder trial. Sick anyone believes this story.

 

Supermom - can you explain what witnesses were not allowed to testify?  I know there was past acts of both GZ and TM that were not allowed because of prejudicial reasons.  I personally think the background should be let it.  If GZ is a girlfriend beating, cop jumping person, I want the jury to know that.  If TM is a pot smoking, gun wielding, fight club wannabe, I want the jury to know that.  Do you think that if true for both parties that could much better explain the incident that night?  I do.  Let the jury make the decision.

[chris v]

Not true. Certainly not in the original complaint. Nor by the witnesses who were not allowed to testify. This trial was a farce. If there is a riot in that city; it will have been wholly earned by all involved in that trial. 

You and all those people who are rioting are exactly why I own guns. It doesn't matter what you think and the system is not broken. A jury acquitted him, that is our system working whether you agree with it or not. People don't get to destroy others property because they disagree with a verdict. We don't live in an anarchist society. I'm happy to know that there is a landmark case where one shot another in self defense and was not charged with anything.

[supermom]

This was a landmark case in nothing more than one MORE case of racial motivated hatred that turned into rage and created an opportunity to kill. There was no reason for these actions to have happened at all.

 

That man got away with murder and people want to hail this as a reason to celebrate gun rights. The morality of that logic is base.