George Zimmerman Trial

[alexava 6,973]

Ok homer let me ask you this way. Hypothetically, GZ had stopped trying to follow TM. Got out to look for address to give dispatch. Was returning to truck to meet patrol at the clubhouse or go on to the grocery store(the opposite direction from where TM was headed). TM comes out of nowhere and knocks him down and begins pounding him. GZ yells for help then pulls his gun out and shoots TM. All this is confirmed by unbiased witnesses. What do you feel is the correct finding for this trial and punishment for GZ.

Manslaughter. Your "hypothetical" is not relevant. The incident didn't start with TM knocking him down, even if he did.

Don't really care about the punishment. I expect Zimmerman will be paying for this one way or the other for the the rest of his life. I hope so. Maybe he will eventually come to regret his actions. In fact, if I were him, I'd be looking over my shoulder for the rest of my life.

This is where you lose people homer. In the reality of the situation, sure GZ may be morally or legally (or both) responsible for Trayvon's death. But in the hypothetical where he did nothing more than report suspicious activity and start to leave, and was then violently attacked, he has every right to defend himself up to what he considered the need for deadly force.

Except what you claim is demonstrably not what GZ did. Report it and leave. Fine. No problem. Perhaps the police question TM, confiscate his loaded Skittles and send him on his way. Had GZ reported it and left, or waited to meet the police by the club house or mail boxes as suggested by the 911 dispatcher, no one would be dead.

Doesn't that work both ways? Was TM prevented from running off? From what I understand (but don't know) TM hid and jumped out at GZ.

GZ didn't report it and leave. Now that he's defending himself from a murder charge, he claims TM jumped him.

Do you know TM didn't jump him?

Well, we know that he didn't report it and leave. And that alone makes him accountable for whatever happens next.

It's clear where you place the benefit of doubt. Considering the facts, why is that?

Some of us place the benefit of doubt on "innocent until proven guilty" and "beyond a reasonable doubt". These concepts are kind of a big deal.

But Zimmerman admits to killing the kid... he admits to following him against police orders, he admits to confronting the teen. He admits to more than just bad judgement. He admits to knowingly and willfully disobeying a police order and killing a person who was unarmed and within their rights to defend themselves as well. Zimmerman has the right to carry a firearm but he doesn't have the right to provoke someone (if his story is to be believed) and then kill them. He just doesn't. And if he is found innocent then Florida officially becomes a vigilante state.

he was NOT ORDERED to stop following. he was advised, the PD has explained this.

[TexasTiger 12,949]

Ok homer let me ask you this way. Hypothetically, GZ had stopped trying to follow TM. Got out to look for address to give dispatch. Was returning to truck to meet patrol at the clubhouse or go on to the grocery store(the opposite direction from where TM was headed). TM comes out of nowhere and knocks him down and begins pounding him. GZ yells for help then pulls his gun out and shoots TM. All this is confirmed by unbiased witnesses. What do you feel is the correct finding for this trial and punishment for GZ.

Manslaughter. Your "hypothetical" is not relevant. The incident didn't start with TM knocking him down, even if he did.

Don't really care about the punishment. I expect Zimmerman will be paying for this one way or the other for the the rest of his life. I hope so. Maybe he will eventually come to regret his actions. In fact, if I were him, I'd be looking over my shoulder for the rest of my life.

This is where you lose people homer. In the reality of the situation, sure GZ may be morally or legally (or both) responsible for Trayvon's death. But in the hypothetical where he did nothing more than report suspicious activity and start to leave, and was then violently attacked, he has every right to defend himself up to what he considered the need for deadly force.

Except what you claim is demonstrably not what GZ did. Report it and leave. Fine. No problem. Perhaps the police question TM, confiscate his loaded Skittles and send him on his way. Had GZ reported it and left, or waited to meet the police by the club house or mail boxes as suggested by the 911 dispatcher, no one would be dead.

Doesn't that work both ways? Was TM prevented from running off? From what I understand (but don't know) TM hid and jumped out at GZ.

GZ didn't report it and leave. Now that he's defending himself from a murder charge, he claims TM jumped him.

Do you know TM didn't jump him?

Well, we know that he didn't report it and leave. And that alone makes him accountable for whatever happens next.

It's clear where you place the benefit of doubt. Considering the facts, why is that?

Some of us place the benefit of doubt on "innocent until proven guilty" and "beyond a reasonable doubt". These concepts are kind of a big deal.

But Zimmerman admits to killing the kid... he admits to following him against police orders, he admits to confronting the teen. He admits to more than just bad judgement. He admits to knowingly and willfully disobeying a police order and killing a person who was unarmed and within their rights to defend themselves as well. Zimmerman has the right to carry a firearm but he doesn't have the right to provoke someone (if his story is to be believed) and then kill them. He just doesn't. And if he is found innocent then Florida officially becomes a vigilante state.

he was NOT ORDERED to stop following. he was advised, the PD has explained this.

Of course, when advised he said, "OK," so the dispatcher would not have thought it necessary to be more directive.

[homersapien 11,388]

Reasonable doubt. There is plenty.

There is no reasonable doubt about the fact GZ shot TM.

There is no reasonable doubt that TM was innocent and minding his own business until GZ showed up..

GZ is accountable for every action he took that led to the shooting and every thing he did was in his complete control.

That's not necessarily murder, but his willful actions led to a needless death. That sounds at least like manslaughter to me.

Had TM been your son, I bet you would understand this.

of course I would feel differently. that is why his father is not on the jury. you would feel different if GZ was your son.

Sorry, I was referring to empathy for that actual victim in this, not making a statement concerning the trial process.

Apparently you think Zimmerman is deserving of an equal amount of empathy than Trayvon. I disagree. Zimmerman has far more responsibility for what happened based on the simple indisputable facts listed above. His account of what happened does absolutely nothing to change that. Certainly his account doesn't change the basic truth about who was ultimately responsible.

This was not an accident. Everything flowed from a deliberate, conscious decision Zimmerman made. Even if his intent was misplaced, he is accountable for what happened.

I find it interesting that some people cannot see the difference between the legal issues and the moral issues. Legally, if GZ did not shoot TM until he was being pummeled by him, then it does not matter that he got out of his vehicle. If TM had not been outside then he would not have been shot. If GZ had not gotten out of his vehicle then TM would not have been shot. Both actions are equally legal. To say the GZ is guilty because he got out of his vehicle is silly.

What makes you think I can't see the difference between the moral and legal issues? According to Florida law, he will probably get off.

I am most deliberately arguing the moral issue here.

What I find amazing is how people will excuse what he did based on his account combined with such a fine parsing of the law. Few people seem to agree with me about his ultimate accountability for what happened. I find that disturbing, if not somewhat telling. It's the equivalent of excusing lynchers because a jury acquitted them or excusing OJ Simpson (in slightly more modern times).

If he walks, this will be an absolute failure of the law, as written or as applied.

Manslaughter is a legal term, not a moral term. Also, I don't see people excusing him for his actions. Thinking that he did not break any established laws is not the same thing as excusing him for his actions.

Whats your point?

I think "manslaughter" is appropriate from both a legal and a moral standpoint.

So a more succinct characterization of the differences of opinion is between those who thinks he is guilty of manslaughter (me) and those who don't. What do you say?

i think GZ is guilty of using poor judgement. You think he is guilty of manslaughter. Poor judgement alone is not a punishable offense. This isn't complicated; we just disagree.

That's exactly my point. Thank you.

[homersapien 11,388]

Ok homer let me ask you this way. Hypothetically, GZ had stopped trying to follow TM. Got out to look for address to give dispatch. Was returning to truck to meet patrol at the clubhouse or go on to the grocery store(the opposite direction from where TM was headed). TM comes out of nowhere and knocks him down and begins pounding him. GZ yells for help then pulls his gun out and shoots TM. All this is confirmed by unbiased witnesses. What do you feel is the correct finding for this trial and punishment for GZ.

Manslaughter. Your "hypothetical" is not relevant. The incident didn't start with TM knocking him down, even if he did.

Don't really care about the punishment. I expect Zimmerman will be paying for this one way or the other for the the rest of his life. I hope so. Maybe he will eventually come to regret his actions. In fact, if I were him, I'd be looking over my shoulder for the rest of my life.

This is where you lose people homer. In the reality of the situation, sure GZ may be morally or legally (or both) responsible for Trayvon's death. But in the hypothetical where he did nothing more than report suspicious activity and start to leave, and was then violently attacked, he has every right to defend himself up to what he considered the need for deadly force.

Except what you claim is demonstrably not what GZ did. Report it and leave. Fine. No problem. Perhaps the police question TM, confiscate his loaded Skittles and send him on his way. Had GZ reported it and left, or waited to meet the police by the club house or mail boxes as suggested by the 911 dispatcher, no one would be dead.

Doesn't that work both ways? Was TM prevented from running off? From what I understand (but don't know) TM hid and jumped out at GZ.

GZ didn't report it and leave. Now that he's defending himself from a murder charge, he claims TM jumped him.

Do you know TM didn't jump him?

Well, we know that he didn't report it and leave. And that alone makes him accountable for whatever happens next.

It's clear where you place the benefit of doubt. Considering the facts, why is that?

Some of us place the benefit of doubt on "innocent until proven guilty" and "beyond a reasonable doubt". These concepts are kind of a big deal.

I thought we settled this. Now you are reintroducing philosophy.

There is no doubt in my mind that GZ shot this kid when he had the more reasonable option of simply physically staying out of the situation. We know that.

That negates the possibility of innocence in my opinion.

If you want to accept GZ's story - which is only his version of what happened since the other side died with TM - and mitigate his responsibility, and do that in the name of "presumption of innocence", you are free to do so. But there are more components to justice than presumption of innocence, such as being held accountable for your deliberate actions.

If he is exonerated from his accountability in this trial, it will be a travesty of justice. But it's happened before.

[homersapien 11,388]

Ok homer let me ask you this way. Hypothetically, GZ had stopped trying to follow TM. Got out to look for address to give dispatch. Was returning to truck to meet patrol at the clubhouse or go on to the grocery store(the opposite direction from where TM was headed). TM comes out of nowhere and knocks him down and begins pounding him. GZ yells for help then pulls his gun out and shoots TM. All this is confirmed by unbiased witnesses. What do you feel is the correct finding for this trial and punishment for GZ.

Manslaughter. Your "hypothetical" is not relevant. The incident didn't start with TM knocking him down, even if he did.

Don't really care about the punishment. I expect Zimmerman will be paying for this one way or the other for the the rest of his life. I hope so. Maybe he will eventually come to regret his actions. In fact, if I were him, I'd be looking over my shoulder for the rest of my life.

This is where you lose people homer. In the reality of the situation, sure GZ may be morally or legally (or both) responsible for Trayvon's death. But in the hypothetical where he did nothing more than report suspicious activity and start to leave, and was then violently attacked, he has every right to defend himself up to what he considered the need for deadly force.

Except what you claim is demonstrably not what GZ did. Report it and leave. Fine. No problem. Perhaps the police question TM, confiscate his loaded Skittles and send him on his way. Had GZ reported it and left, or waited to meet the police by the club house or mail boxes as suggested by the 911 dispatcher, no one would be dead.

Doesn't that work both ways? Was TM prevented from running off? From what I understand (but don't know) TM hid and jumped out at GZ.

GZ didn't report it and leave. Now that he's defending himself from a murder charge, he claims TM jumped him.

Do you know TM didn't jump him?

Well, we know that he didn't report it and leave. And that alone makes him accountable for whatever happens next.

It's clear where you place the benefit of doubt. Considering the facts, why is that?

Some of us place the benefit of doubt on "innocent until proven guilty" and "beyond a reasonable doubt". These concepts are kind of a big deal.

But Zimmerman admits to killing the kid... he admits to following him against police orders, he admits to confronting the teen. He admits to more than just bad judgement. He admits to knowingly and willfully disobeying a police order and killing a person who was unarmed and within their rights to defend themselves as well. Zimmerman has the right to carry a firearm but he doesn't have the right to provoke someone (if his story is to be believed) and then kill them. He just doesn't. And if he is found innocent then Florida officially becomes a vigilante state.

And he actually doesn't regret anything he did. That is an amazing thing to say and very revealing.

[homersapien 11,388]

he was NOT ORDERED to stop following. he was advised, the PD has explained this.

Well to be specific, he was told "we don't need you to do that". (As if it makes a significant difference. :-\ )

But thanks for making my point about the rush to overlook the basic facts to seek mitigating factors.

[Grumps 3,704]

I find it interesting that views on this case seem to follow political philosophies. Those with a more liberal view seem to think that GZ should be found guilty of manslaughter and those with a more conservative view seem to think GZ should not be found guilty. (alexava is an exception to this). I don't see why this case should follow party lines. Could someone explain it for me?

[alexava 6,973]

he was NOT ORDERED to stop following. he was advised, the PD has explained this.

Well to be specific, he was told "we don't need you to do that". (As if it makes a significant difference. :-\ )

But thanks for making my point about the rush to overlook the basic facts to seek mitigating factors.

the fact is the police dispatcher explained in an interview or maybe it was a deposition that it was advice, not an order. they do not give orders from dispatch if they did then they become liable for those orders. so he did not disobey an order, which so many people keep wrongfully pointing out.

[Grumps 3,704]

Ok homer let me ask you this way. Hypothetically, GZ had stopped trying to follow TM. Got out to look for address to give dispatch. Was returning to truck to meet patrol at the clubhouse or go on to the grocery store(the opposite direction from where TM was headed). TM comes out of nowhere and knocks him down and begins pounding him. GZ yells for help then pulls his gun out and shoots TM. All this is confirmed by unbiased witnesses. What do you feel is the correct finding for this trial and punishment for GZ.

Manslaughter. Your "hypothetical" is not relevant. The incident didn't start with TM knocking him down, even if he did.

Don't really care about the punishment. I expect Zimmerman will be paying for this one way or the other for the the rest of his life. I hope so. Maybe he will eventually come to regret his actions. In fact, if I were him, I'd be looking over my shoulder for the rest of my life.

This is where you lose people homer. In the reality of the situation, sure GZ may be morally or legally (or both) responsible for Trayvon's death. But in the hypothetical where he did nothing more than report suspicious activity and start to leave, and was then violently attacked, he has every right to defend himself up to what he considered the need for deadly force.

Except what you claim is demonstrably not what GZ did. Report it and leave. Fine. No problem. Perhaps the police question TM, confiscate his loaded Skittles and send him on his way. Had GZ reported it and left, or waited to meet the police by the club house or mail boxes as suggested by the 911 dispatcher, no one would be dead.

Doesn't that work both ways? Was TM prevented from running off? From what I understand (but don't know) TM hid and jumped out at GZ.

GZ didn't report it and leave. Now that he's defending himself from a murder charge, he claims TM jumped him.

Do you know TM didn't jump him?

Well, we know that he didn't report it and leave. And that alone makes him accountable for whatever happens next.

It's clear where you place the benefit of doubt. Considering the facts, why is that?

Some of us place the benefit of doubt on "innocent until proven guilty" and "beyond a reasonable doubt". These concepts are kind of a big deal.

But Zimmerman admits to killing the kid... he admits to following him against police orders, he admits to confronting the teen. He admits to more than just bad judgement. He admits to knowingly and willfully disobeying a police order and killing a person who was unarmed and within their rights to defend themselves as well. Zimmerman has the right to carry a firearm but he doesn't have the right to provoke someone (if his story is to be believed) and then kill them. He just doesn't. And if he is found innocent then Florida officially becomes a vigilante state.

And he actually doesn't regret anything he did. That is an amazing thing to say and very revealing.

You have no way to know that and are being dishonest by saying so.

[alexava 6,973]

I find it interesting that views on this case seem to follow political philosophies. Those with a more liberal view seem to think that GZ should be found guilty of manslaughter and those with a more conservative view seem to think GZ should not be found guilty. (alexava is an exception to this). I don't see why this case should follow party lines. Could someone explain it for me?

me too. I keep waiting for the paula deen thread to start just to test your theory farther.

[homersapien 11,388]

I find it interesting that views on this case seem to follow political philosophies. Those with a more liberal view seem to think that GZ should be found guilty of manslaughter and those with a more conservative view seem to think GZ should not be found guilty. (alexava is an exception to this). I don't see why this case should follow party lines. Could someone explain it for me?

me too. I keep waiting for the paula deen thread to start just to test your theory farther.

I consider my perspective on individual accountability to be quite conservative.

[homersapien 11,388]

he was NOT ORDERED to stop following. he was advised, the PD has explained this.

Well to be specific, he was told "we don't need you to do that". (As if it makes a significant difference. :-\ )

But thanks for making my point about the rush to overlook the basic facts to seek mitigating factors.

the fact is the police dispatcher explained in an interview or maybe it was a deposition that it was advice, not an order. they do not give orders from dispatch if they did then they become liable for those orders. so he did not disobey an order, which so many people keep wrongfully pointing out.

A distinction which is irrelevant in any case, which is my point.

Furthermore, while I can't speak for them, I don't think the people who have made the mistake of calling it an "order" attach any significance to that terminology. It's just much easier to say "order" or "request" (for that matter) than repeating the phrase "we don't need for you to that".

The point is, GZ ignored it, whether a request, order or suggestion.

[ToomersRevenge 284]

I've been debating this from the legal standpoint, having watched a solid amount of this trial and kept up with it.

[Grumps 3,704]

I find it interesting that views on this case seem to follow political philosophies. Those with a more liberal view seem to think that GZ should be found guilty of manslaughter and those with a more conservative view seem to think GZ should not be found guilty. (alexava is an exception to this). I don't see why this case should follow party lines. Could someone explain it for me?

me too. I keep waiting for the paula deen thread to start just to test your theory farther.

I consider my perspective on individual accountability to be quite conservative.

I agree, and I agree with your perspective except it has nothing to do with the law.

[TexasTiger 12,949]

I find it interesting that views on this case seem to follow political philosophies. Those with a more liberal view seem to think that GZ should be found guilty of manslaughter and those with a more conservative view seem to think GZ should not be found guilty. (alexava is an exception to this). I don't see why this case should follow party lines. Could someone explain it for me?

me too. I keep waiting for the paula deen thread to start just to test your theory farther.

I consider my perspective on individual accountability to be quite conservative.

Yes- the old-school conservatism I was raised with. Act responsibly. Pretty simple.

[homersapien 11,388]

Ok homer let me ask you this way. Hypothetically, GZ had stopped trying to follow TM. Got out to look for address to give dispatch. Was returning to truck to meet patrol at the clubhouse or go on to the grocery store(the opposite direction from where TM was headed). TM comes out of nowhere and knocks him down and begins pounding him. GZ yells for help then pulls his gun out and shoots TM. All this is confirmed by unbiased witnesses. What do you feel is the correct finding for this trial and punishment for GZ.

Manslaughter. Your "hypothetical" is not relevant. The incident didn't start with TM knocking him down, even if he did.

Don't really care about the punishment. I expect Zimmerman will be paying for this one way or the other for the the rest of his life. I hope so. Maybe he will eventually come to regret his actions. In fact, if I were him, I'd be looking over my shoulder for the rest of my life.

This is where you lose people homer. In the reality of the situation, sure GZ may be morally or legally (or both) responsible for Trayvon's death. But in the hypothetical where he did nothing more than report suspicious activity and start to leave, and was then violently attacked, he has every right to defend himself up to what he considered the need for deadly force.

Except what you claim is demonstrably not what GZ did. Report it and leave. Fine. No problem. Perhaps the police question TM, confiscate his loaded Skittles and send him on his way. Had GZ reported it and left, or waited to meet the police by the club house or mail boxes as suggested by the 911 dispatcher, no one would be dead.

Doesn't that work both ways? Was TM prevented from running off? From what I understand (but don't know) TM hid and jumped out at GZ.

GZ didn't report it and leave. Now that he's defending himself from a murder charge, he claims TM jumped him.

Do you know TM didn't jump him?

Well, we know that he didn't report it and leave. And that alone makes him accountable for whatever happens next.

It's clear where you place the benefit of doubt. Considering the facts, why is that?

Some of us place the benefit of doubt on "innocent until proven guilty" and "beyond a reasonable doubt". These concepts are kind of a big deal.

But Zimmerman admits to killing the kid... he admits to following him against police orders, he admits to confronting the teen. He admits to more than just bad judgement. He admits to knowingly and willfully disobeying a police order and killing a person who was unarmed and within their rights to defend themselves as well. Zimmerman has the right to carry a firearm but he doesn't have the right to provoke someone (if his story is to be believed) and then kill them. He just doesn't. And if he is found innocent then Florida officially becomes a vigilante state.

And he actually doesn't regret anything he did. That is an amazing thing to say and very revealing.

You have no way to know that and are being dishonest by saying so.

Well, that's what he said when asked directly by Sean Hannity. Go back and listen to it.

And maybe you should have looked that up before calling me dishonest. It makes you sound "uninformed".

[Grumps 3,704]

Ok homer let me ask you this way. Hypothetically, GZ had stopped trying to follow TM. Got out to look for address to give dispatch. Was returning to truck to meet patrol at the clubhouse or go on to the grocery store(the opposite direction from where TM was headed). TM comes out of nowhere and knocks him down and begins pounding him. GZ yells for help then pulls his gun out and shoots TM. All this is confirmed by unbiased witnesses. What do you feel is the correct finding for this trial and punishment for GZ.

Manslaughter. Your "hypothetical" is not relevant. The incident didn't start with TM knocking him down, even if he did.

Don't really care about the punishment. I expect Zimmerman will be paying for this one way or the other for the the rest of his life. I hope so. Maybe he will eventually come to regret his actions. In fact, if I were him, I'd be looking over my shoulder for the rest of my life.

This is where you lose people homer. In the reality of the situation, sure GZ may be morally or legally (or both) responsible for Trayvon's death. But in the hypothetical where he did nothing more than report suspicious activity and start to leave, and was then violently attacked, he has every right to defend himself up to what he considered the need for deadly force.

Except what you claim is demonstrably not what GZ did. Report it and leave. Fine. No problem. Perhaps the police question TM, confiscate his loaded Skittles and send him on his way. Had GZ reported it and left, or waited to meet the police by the club house or mail boxes as suggested by the 911 dispatcher, no one would be dead.

Doesn't that work both ways? Was TM prevented from running off? From what I understand (but don't know) TM hid and jumped out at GZ.

GZ didn't report it and leave. Now that he's defending himself from a murder charge, he claims TM jumped him.

Do you know TM didn't jump him?

Well, we know that he didn't report it and leave. And that alone makes him accountable for whatever happens next.

It's clear where you place the benefit of doubt. Considering the facts, why is that?

Some of us place the benefit of doubt on "innocent until proven guilty" and "beyond a reasonable doubt". These concepts are kind of a big deal.

But Zimmerman admits to killing the kid... he admits to following him against police orders, he admits to confronting the teen. He admits to more than just bad judgement. He admits to knowingly and willfully disobeying a police order and killing a person who was unarmed and within their rights to defend themselves as well. Zimmerman has the right to carry a firearm but he doesn't have the right to provoke someone (if his story is to be believed) and then kill them. He just doesn't. And if he is found innocent then Florida officially becomes a vigilante state.

And he actually doesn't regret anything he did. That is an amazing thing to say and very revealing.

You have no way to know that and are being dishonest by saying so.

Well, that's what he said when asked directly by Sean Hannity. Go back and listen to it.

And maybe you should have looked that up before calling me dishonest. It makes you sound "uninformed".

I know that he said under oath, "I am sorry for the loss of your son". I realize that does not mean that he regrets shooting TZ. I also realize that GZ did not say "I do not regret shooting TZ." And even if he SAID it (which he didn't) that does not mean that he doesn't regret it. If my doubting your knowledge of what is in GZ's heart makes me uninformed, then I admit to being uninformed. But it is FACT that you don't know if GZ regrets shooting TZ.

[TexasTiger 12,949]

Ok homer let me ask you this way. Hypothetically, GZ had stopped trying to follow TM. Got out to look for address to give dispatch. Was returning to truck to meet patrol at the clubhouse or go on to the grocery store(the opposite direction from where TM was headed). TM comes out of nowhere and knocks him down and begins pounding him. GZ yells for help then pulls his gun out and shoots TM. All this is confirmed by unbiased witnesses. What do you feel is the correct finding for this trial and punishment for GZ.

Manslaughter. Your "hypothetical" is not relevant. The incident didn't start with TM knocking him down, even if he did.

Don't really care about the punishment. I expect Zimmerman will be paying for this one way or the other for the the rest of his life. I hope so. Maybe he will eventually come to regret his actions. In fact, if I were him, I'd be looking over my shoulder for the rest of my life.

This is where you lose people homer. In the reality of the situation, sure GZ may be morally or legally (or both) responsible for Trayvon's death. But in the hypothetical where he did nothing more than report suspicious activity and start to leave, and was then violently attacked, he has every right to defend himself up to what he considered the need for deadly force.

Except what you claim is demonstrably not what GZ did. Report it and leave. Fine. No problem. Perhaps the police question TM, confiscate his loaded Skittles and send him on his way. Had GZ reported it and left, or waited to meet the police by the club house or mail boxes as suggested by the 911 dispatcher, no one would be dead.

Doesn't that work both ways? Was TM prevented from running off? From what I understand (but don't know) TM hid and jumped out at GZ.

GZ didn't report it and leave. Now that he's defending himself from a murder charge, he claims TM jumped him.

Do you know TM didn't jump him?

Well, we know that he didn't report it and leave. And that alone makes him accountable for whatever happens next.

It's clear where you place the benefit of doubt. Considering the facts, why is that?

Some of us place the benefit of doubt on "innocent until proven guilty" and "beyond a reasonable doubt". These concepts are kind of a big deal.

But Zimmerman admits to killing the kid... he admits to following him against police orders, he admits to confronting the teen. He admits to more than just bad judgement. He admits to knowingly and willfully disobeying a police order and killing a person who was unarmed and within their rights to defend themselves as well. Zimmerman has the right to carry a firearm but he doesn't have the right to provoke someone (if his story is to be believed) and then kill them. He just doesn't. And if he is found innocent then Florida officially becomes a vigilante state.

And he actually doesn't regret anything he did. That is an amazing thing to say and very revealing.

You have no way to know that and are being dishonest by saying so.

Well, that's what he said when asked directly by Sean Hannity. Go back and listen to it.

And maybe you should have looked that up before calling me dishonest. It makes you sound "uninformed".

I know that he said under oath, "I am sorry for the loss of your son". I realize that does not mean that he regrets shooting TZ. I also realize that GZ did not say "I do not regret shooting TZ." And even if he SAID it (which he didn't) that does not mean that he doesn't regret it. If my doubting your knowledge of what is in GZ's heart makes me uninformed, then I admit to being uninformed. But it is FACT that you don't know if GZ regrets shooting TZ.

True. We only know what he says in that regard and he does lack credibility.

[alexava 6,973]

I find it interesting that views on this case seem to follow political philosophies. Those with a more liberal view seem to think that GZ should be found guilty of manslaughter and those with a more conservative view seem to think GZ should not be found guilty. (alexava is an exception to this). I don't see why this case should follow party lines. Could someone explain it for me?

me too. I keep waiting for the paula deen thread to start just to test your theory farther.

I consider my perspective on individual accountability to be quite conservative.

I do too. I have little tolerance for crime. But I do give the benefit of the doubt to a man who didn't break a law and found himself in a position to defend himself from an attack and beating. Following a person does not give that person the right to beat the hell out of you.

[TexasTiger 12,949]

I find it interesting that views on this case seem to follow political philosophies. Those with a more liberal view seem to think that GZ should be found guilty of manslaughter and those with a more conservative view seem to think GZ should not be found guilty. (alexava is an exception to this). I don't see why this case should follow party lines. Could someone explain it for me?

me too. I keep waiting for the paula deen thread to start just to test your theory farther.

I consider my perspective on individual accountability to be quite conservative.

I do too. I have little tolerance for crime. But I do give the benefit of the doubt to a man who didn't break a law and found himself in a position to defend himself from an attack and beating. Following a person does not give that person the right to beat the hell out of you.

IF TM assessed GZ's unnecessary following of him to be threatening to his well being, he was right.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

I find it interesting that views on this case seem to follow political philosophies. Those with a more liberal view seem to think that GZ should be found guilty of manslaughter and those with a more conservative view seem to think GZ should not be found guilty. (alexava is an exception to this). I don't see why this case should follow party lines. Could someone explain it for me?

me too. I keep waiting for the paula deen thread to start just to test your theory farther.

I consider my perspective on individual accountability to be quite conservative.

I do too. I have little tolerance for crime. But I do give the benefit of the doubt to a man who didn't break a law and found himself in a position to defend himself from an attack and beating. Following a person does not give that person the right to beat the hell out of you.

IF TM assessed GZ's unnecessary following of him to be threatening to his well being, he was right.

We don't know that. GZ's following of him could have ended with a conversation with the police at his truck or the clubhouse and TM safely back at the place he was staying had TM decided to stay hidden and not confront him.

[TexasTiger 12,949]

I find it interesting that views on this case seem to follow political philosophies. Those with a more liberal view seem to think that GZ should be found guilty of manslaughter and those with a more conservative view seem to think GZ should not be found guilty. (alexava is an exception to this). I don't see why this case should follow party lines. Could someone explain it for me?

me too. I keep waiting for the paula deen thread to start just to test your theory farther.

I consider my perspective on individual accountability to be quite conservative.

I do too. I have little tolerance for crime. But I do give the benefit of the doubt to a man who didn't break a law and found himself in a position to defend himself from an attack and beating. Following a person does not give that person the right to beat the hell out of you.

IF TM assessed GZ's unnecessary following of him to be threatening to his well being, he was right.

We don't know that. GZ's following of him could have ended with a conversation with the police at his truck or the clubhouse and TM safely back at the place he was staying had TM decided to stay hidden and not confront him.

Please. If GZ had actually waited for police that could have happened. He didn't.

[bigbird 60,567]

so your both saying, if neither had done anything nothing would have happened. However, both did do something.

[TexasTiger 12,949]

so your both saying, if neither had done anything nothing would have happened. However, both did do something.

Yeah, one bought Skittles.

[alexava 6,973]

I find it interesting that views on this case seem to follow political philosophies. Those with a more liberal view seem to think that GZ should be found guilty of manslaughter and those with a more conservative view seem to think GZ should not be found guilty. (alexava is an exception to this). I don't see why this case should follow party lines. Could someone explain it for me?

me too. I keep waiting for the paula deen thread to start just to test your theory farther.

I consider my perspective on individual accountability to be quite conservative.

I do too. I have little tolerance for crime. But I do give the benefit of the doubt to a man who didn't break a law and found himself in a position to defend himself from an attack and beating. Following a person does not give that person the right to beat the hell out of you.

IF TM assessed GZ's unnecessary following of him to be threatening to his well being, he was right.

We don't know that. GZ's following of him could have ended with a conversation with the police at his truck or the clubhouse and TM safely back at the place he was staying had TM decided to stay hidden and not confront him.

or it could have ended with TM asking" hey man wtf are you following me?" not busting him in the head and beating him.