George Zimmerman Trial

[TitanTiger 20,510]

The law doesn't determine the essential elements of this case, the jury does. Regardless the law should always be applied in the context of the facts of the case, which is exactly what I am doing.

Discounting secondary actions such as TM's reaction to being stalked, especially when it is based on the one-sided, self-serving testimony of the shooter is most definitely within the spirit and application of the law. So the statement that I base my opinion on an erroneous interpretation of the law is simply wrong.

I'm betting the judge and the jury both see this quite differently. They are not going to see getting out of one's vehicle armed as the fulcrum about which the subsequent happenings pivot.

Now, please show me an example of where I have "tortured" any of your opinions. Maybe I can rephrase my interpretation in a way you can better understand.

It would help if you could get out of the mindset that insists upon interpreting "disobeying a non-order from someone with no authority" means "blame the victim."

[tgr4lfe 220]

Anyone found a sight that has the evidence and/or testimony laid out? I haven't had time to look it up or follow every part of the court proceedings. Didn't the one prosecution witness testify that the lighter skinned person was the one on the bottom and had "arms moving toward their head" or something to that effect?

[alexava 6,973]

Yes

[cptau 169]

Political 3rd world trial. The politicans wanted this trial to just prevent rioting. Their own police department and local prosecutors didn't see a need for a trial and are being honest in backing the defendant.

[ToomersRevenge 284]

Based on testimony today not one person could attest that it was TM yelling for help on the phone; not even TM's own father.

Witnesses saw GM on the bottom being beaten.

Cops say GM was very cooperative when they arrived.

You guys who want to pin this on him getting out of the car at all are just not going to get what you want because that's not the standard you are held to in a court of law.

[WarEagle1983 2,185]

Based on testimony today not one person could attest that it was TM yelling for help on the phone; not even TM's own father.

Witnesses saw GM on the bottom being beaten.

Cops say GM was very cooperative when they arrived.

You guys who want to pin this on him getting out of the car at all are just not going to get what you want because that's not the standard you are held to in a court of law.

There have been several witnesses who have testified to seeing GZ and TM on top. They were fighting so i'm sure at some point both were on top but it comes down to who started the fight which there is no one to testify to so it's only GZ's account which doesn't mean it's truth but means there is some doubt as to actually started. We'll never know who hit who first or who was screaming for help b/c both sides are just going to present witnesses and experts that wash out the other side which can most likely lead to GZ being found not guilty. I think it's messed up he could not be accountable for his choices but that's FL for you.

[tiger88 934]

For what it's worth, TM's toxicology report will be entered into evidence now.

He was all hopped up on a skittles sugar rush. Maybe some chocolate milk too. He was a time bomb whose time came. I feel badly for GZ to have to be the one who dealt with it.

[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.

I have no interest in your excuse. My problem is you said I was "dishonest" for quoting Zimmerman.

That's hardly dishonest.

Here is what you typed: "And he actually doesn't regret anything he did." You simply do not know this to be true, but you typed it anyway. I consider that to be dishonest. If that offends you for me to think that then I am sorry to have offended you.

[homersapien 11,440]

It would help if you could get out of the mindset that insists upon interpreting "disobeying a non-order from someone with no authority" means "blame the victim."

My "mindset" is based on the fact that an armed Zimmerman deliberately and against the request of the dispatcher intervened in a situation that neither required or needed his intervention.

You are apparently willing to give him a pass for this needless and reckless intervention because "we don't need you to do that" wasn't technically a "direct order".

But the fact is, an innocent kid was shot for no reason other than Zimmerman inserting himself into a situation he could and should have avoided.

Claiming that TM should have run, or shouldn't have attempted to defend himself against a stranger stalking him (which is undoubtedly how he would have put it.) is nothing more than accepting a mitigating, self-serving account from the shooter.

Zimmerman decided to stalk and ultimately place himself in a position to shoot an unarmed innocent person (and how many feet from his car was that?). He did so against the request of the dispatcher not to. That alone is enough to hold him accountable for what happened, regardless of how the victim might have reacted to Zimmerman's actions.

You don't see it that way, because you don't want to see it that way.

But if what Zimmerman did was justifiable, then all one has to do to get away with manslaughter - if not murder - is to hide a gun and go look for trouble. If we as a society are going to sanction civilians carrying concealed weapons, then we need to hold persons accountable for using them.

Now, tell me again how "getting out of your car" is not against the law. :-\

[TitanTiger 20,510]

It would help if you could get out of the mindset that insists upon interpreting "disobeying a non-order from someone with no authority" means "blame the victim."

My "mindset" is based on the fact that an armed Zimmerman deliberately and against the request of the dispatcher to intervene in a situation that neither required or needed his intervention.

This still does not rise to the level of making him culpable for having to use his weapon later when he was in what he perceived to be a life threatening situation.

You are apparently willing to give him a pass for his needless and reckless intervention because "we don't need you to do that" wasn't technically a "direct order". An innocent kid was shot for no reason other than Zimmerman inserting himself into a situation he could and should have avoided.

This is not enough legally to charge someone with murder or manslaughter.

Claiming that TM should have run, or shouldn't have attempted to defend himself against a stranger stalking him (which is undoubtedly how he would have put it.) is nothing more than accepting a mitigating, self-serving account from the shooter.

Unless Zimmerman was confronting him at that moment, he had nothing to defend himself against. Is there some proof I haven't seen where Zimmerman had him cornered and threatened him in some way that forced TM into a physical confrontation?

Zimmerman decided to stalk and ultimately place himself in a position to shoot an unarmed innocent person (and how many feet from his car was that?). He did so against the request of the dispatcher not to. That alone is enough to hold him accountable for what happened, regardless of how the victim might have reacted to Zimmerman's actions.

No, it's not. Not under the law. And unfortunately the victim's actions matter because Zimmerman's perception of what was happening matters.

You don't see it that way, because you don't want to see it that way.

If you bothered to read the things I say you'd understand how utterly ridiculous this statement is. I mean, mind-numblingly ridiculous.

But if what Zimmerman did was justifiable, then all one has to do to get away with manslaughter - if not murder - is to hide a gun and go look for trouble. If we as a society are going to sanction civilians carrying concealed weapons, then we need to hold persons accountable for using them.

I'm sorry that cases like this are more complex than you'd wish them to be. But it's simply not a matter of "he followed him" or "he got out of the car with a loaded weapon when a dispatcher told him not to" that automatically makes him culpable for any and all possible bad actions that come later.

Now, tell me again how "getting out of your car" is not against the law. :-\

If I did tell you that, it'd be the first time, no "again" to it. This is just another demonstration of your poor reading comprehension skills or the failure of our public schools.

[homersapien 11,440]

Here is what you typed: "And he actually doesn't regret anything he did." You simply do not know this to be true, but you typed it anyway. I consider that to be dishonest. If that offends you for me to think that then I am sorry to have offended you.

That's cutting it pretty fine, dotcha think? :-\

But to your point, if you really want to delve into the meaning of dishonest, I suppose one could make an argument we are all dishonest since none of us actually know anything to be absolutely fact. And, as you suggest, quoting anyone as evidence of their beliefs would be dishonest, since we don't know for sure they aren't being deceptive. Heck, the very idea of truth could be a metaphysical illusion....

I was paraphrasing what Zimmerman said.

Quoting someone as evidence of their beliefs is not "dishonest". :-\

Have you considered that it would be a lot easier to simply admit that instead of doubling down on it? After all, it would make you sound much less like a petty weasel. Might even gain you some respect. Who knows?

(And I will apologize in advance if any of the above offends you. )

[homersapien 11,440]

My "mindset" is based on the fact that an armed Zimmerman deliberately and against the request of the dispatcher to intervene in a situation that neither required or needed his intervention.

This still does not rise to the level of making him culpable for having to use his weapon later when he was in what he perceived to be a life threatening situation.

I disagree. It absolutely does.

And you are simply assuming that he was in a life threatening situation. You don't know that for sure. But even if he thought it was life threatening he still put himself there.

If I conceal a weapon and start deliberately stalking people at night, on foot and someone throws me down in a misguided effort to defend themselves shouldn't I be held accountable for shooting them? I think so.

[homersapien 11,440]

You are apparently willing to give him a pass for his needless and reckless intervention because "we don't need you to do that" wasn't technically a "direct order". An innocent kid was shot for no reason other than Zimmerman inserting himself into a situation he could and should have avoided.

This is not enough legally to charge someone with murder or manslaughter.

I disagree. That is more than enough to charge someone with at least manslaughter if they are strangers to each other. Murder if they aren't strangers or there is some other connection or motivation involved.

Apparently the DA thought so, as did the judge.

[Grumps 3,704]

Here is what you typed: "And he actually doesn't regret anything he did." You simply do not know this to be true, but you typed it anyway. I consider that to be dishonest. If that offends you for me to think that then I am sorry to have offended you.

That's cutting it pretty fine, dotcha think? :-\

But to your point, if you really want to delve into the meaning of dishonest, I suppose one could make an argument we are all dishonest since none of us actually know anything to be absolutely fact. And, as you suggest, quoting anyone as evidence of their beliefs would be dishonest, since we don't know for sure they aren't being deceptive. Heck, the very idea of truth could be a metaphysical illusion....

I was paraphrasing what Zimmerman said.

Quoting someone as evidence of their beliefs is not "dishonest". :-\

Have you considered that it would be a lot easier to simply admit that instead of doubling down on it? After all, it would make you sound much less like a petty weasel. Might even gain you some respect. Who knows?

(And I will apologize in advance if any of the above offends you. )

Okay, I admit to being a petty weasel, but please answer this for me: Do YOU think that George Zimmerman has any regrets about causing the death of Trayvon Martin?

[homersapien 11,440]

Claiming that TM should have run, or shouldn't have attempted to defend himself against a stranger stalking him (which is undoubtedly how he would have put it.) is nothing more than accepting a mitigating, self-serving account from the shooter.

Unless Zimmerman was confronting him at that moment, he had nothing to defend himself against. Is there some proof I haven't seen where Zimmerman had him cornered and threatened him in some way that forced TM into a physical confrontation?

The only "proof" of anything in this case are the records and the fact that Zimmerman left his car.

Again, you are trying to make the victim guilty for his own killing by turning this into a simple case of assault and self defense. It's not.

Even if TM did initiate physical contact, it was clearly in response to being stalked by a stranger late at night. There is nothing about TM's behavior that absolves Zimmerman's responsibility for creating the situation in the first place.

[homersapien 11,440]

Zimmerman decided to stalk and ultimately place himself in a position to shoot an unarmed innocent person (and how many feet from his car was that?). He did so against the request of the dispatcher not to. That alone is enough to hold him accountable for what happened, regardless of how the victim might have reacted to Zimmerman's actions.

No, it's not. Not under the law. And unfortunately the victim's actions matter because Zimmerman's perception of what was happening matters.

I doubt either you are qualified to argue the law, but if that's not enough to hold GZ accountable then I disagree with the law.

Apparently, I have a higher personal standard of accountability than you do.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

You are apparently willing to give him a pass for his needless and reckless intervention because "we don't need you to do that" wasn't technically a "direct order". An innocent kid was shot for no reason other than Zimmerman inserting himself into a situation he could and should have avoided.

This is not enough legally to charge someone with murder or manslaughter.

I disagree. That is more than enough to charge someone with at least manslaughter if they are strangers to each other. Murder if they aren't strangers or there is some other connection or motivation involved.

Apparently the DA thought so, as did the judge.

No, the DA at the time had to be replaced because he wouldn't pursue charges. It took 44 days to bring charges. Why so long? Pure speculation on my part but I think political and media pressure forced charges to be made because of the racial picture. The state has presented a very inept prosecution. Are they that bad or just going thru the motion of a trial to satisfy some people. We will never know.

[homersapien 11,440]

You don't see it that way, because you don't want to see it that way.

If you bothered to read the things I say you'd understand how utterly ridiculous this statement is. I mean, mind-numblingly ridiculous.

Well I am very sorry if I have "numbed" your mind.

(But it does explain a lot about the quality of your responses. )

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

Zimmerman decided to stalk and ultimately place himself in a position to shoot an unarmed innocent person (and how many feet from his car was that?). He did so against the request of the dispatcher not to. That alone is enough to hold him accountable for what happened, regardless of how the victim might have reacted to Zimmerman's actions.

No, it's not. Not under the law. And unfortunately the victim's actions matter because Zimmerman's perception of what was happening matters.

I doubt either you are qualified to argue the law, but if that's not enough to hold GZ accountable then I disagree with the law.

Apparently, I have a higher personal standard of accountability than you do.

For sure you have a higher opinion of yourself than most folks here.

[homersapien 11,440]

Now, tell me again how "getting out of your car" is not against the law. :-\

If I did tell you that, it'd be the first time, no "again" to it. This is just another demonstration of your poor reading comprehension skills or the failure of our public schools.

"Demonstrating failure of our public schools"? :-\

Ooooh, that's a good one!

I wish I could have gone to a really expensive private school like you. If so, I could have retired even earlier than age 50.

[homersapien 11,440]

Here is what you typed: "And he actually doesn't regret anything he did." You simply do not know this to be true, but you typed it anyway. I consider that to be dishonest. If that offends you for me to think that then I am sorry to have offended you.

That's cutting it pretty fine, dotcha think? :-\

But to your point, if you really want to delve into the meaning of dishonest, I suppose one could make an argument we are all dishonest since none of us actually know anything to be absolutely fact. And, as you suggest, quoting anyone as evidence of their beliefs would be dishonest, since we don't know for sure they aren't being deceptive. Heck, the very idea of truth could be a metaphysical illusion....

I was paraphrasing what Zimmerman said.

Quoting someone as evidence of their beliefs is not "dishonest". :-\

Have you considered that it would be a lot easier to simply admit that instead of doubling down on it? After all, it would make you sound much less like a petty weasel. Might even gain you some respect. Who knows?

(And I will apologize in advance if any of the above offends you. )

Okay, I admit to being a petty weasel, but please answer this for me: Do YOU think that George Zimmerman has any regrets about causing the death of Trayvon Martin?

Now that wasn't all that hard was it?

As you point out, no one but Zimmerman knows for certain if he has regrets. If he does, he obviously doesn't want to admit it. So he is either in denial (by convincing himself he has no reason to regret anything) or he is cynically trying to reinforce the "self-defense" story, which puts him at least half-way to being a sociopath. Either way, he is unwilling to accept his own responsibility for what happened.

Taking him for his word in either case is not being "dishonest" on my part.

[homersapien 11,440]

Zimmerman decided to stalk and ultimately place himself in a position to shoot an unarmed innocent person (and how many feet from his car was that?). He did so against the request of the dispatcher not to. That alone is enough to hold him accountable for what happened, regardless of how the victim might have reacted to Zimmerman's actions.

No, it's not. Not under the law. And unfortunately the victim's actions matter because Zimmerman's perception of what was happening matters.

I doubt either you are qualified to argue the law, but if that's not enough to hold GZ accountable then I disagree with the law.

Apparently, I have a higher personal standard of accountability than you do.

For sure you have a higher opinion of yourself than most folks here.

Are you saying I have a higher opinion of myself than other's do of me, or a higher opinion of myself than others do of themselves?

Regardless you are changing the subject.

[homersapien 11,440]

You are apparently willing to give him a pass for his needless and reckless intervention because "we don't need you to do that" wasn't technically a "direct order". An innocent kid was shot for no reason other than Zimmerman inserting himself into a situation he could and should have avoided.

This is not enough legally to charge someone with murder or manslaughter.

I disagree. That is more than enough to charge someone with at least manslaughter if they are strangers to each other. Murder if they aren't strangers or there is some other connection or motivation involved.

Apparently the DA thought so, as did the judge.

No, the DA at the time had to be replaced because he wouldn't pursue charges. It took 44 days to bring charges. Why so long? Pure speculation on my part but I think political and media pressure forced charges to be made because of the racial picture. The state has presented a very inept prosecution. Are they that bad or just going thru the motion of a trial to satisfy some people. We will never know.

Well personally I think it will be a sad day for justice in Florida if Zimmerman is completely exonerated, but if those officials felt there wasn't enough evidence or known facts to bring charges of at least manslaughter in the first place is far, far worse than sad. It's shameful. That sounds more like the Jim Crow era.

If the original DA really didn't want to pursue charges, I think the political concerns were valid ones considering the history of the area concerning racial justice. Sweeping this under the rug would have been outrageous and I am sure a lot of Florida politicians, judges and DA's in Florida agree.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

You are apparently willing to give him a pass for his needless and reckless intervention because "we don't need you to do that" wasn't technically a "direct order". An innocent kid was shot for no reason other than Zimmerman inserting himself into a situation he could and should have avoided.

This is not enough legally to charge someone with murder or manslaughter.

I disagree. That is more than enough to charge someone with at least manslaughter if they are strangers to each other. Murder if they aren't strangers or there is some other connection or motivation involved.

Apparently the DA thought so, as did the judge.

No, the DA at the time had to be replaced because he wouldn't pursue charges. It took 44 days to bring charges. Why so long? Pure speculation on my part but I think political and media pressure forced charges to be made because of the racial picture. The state has presented a very inept prosecution. Are they that bad or just going thru the motion of a trial to satisfy some people. We will never know.

Well personally I think it will be a sad day for justice in Florida if Zimmerman is completely exonerated, but if those officials felt there wasn't enough evidence or known facts to bring charges of at least manslaughter in the first place is far, far worse. That sounds more like the Jim Crow era.

If the original DA really didn't want to pursue charges, I think the political concerns were valid ones considering the history of the area concerning racial justice. Sweeping this under the rug would have been outrageous and I am sure a lot of Florida politicians, judges and DA's in Florida agree.

I'm just on the fence with this whole thing and will be glad when it's over. I don't care which way it goes. I will accept the verdict of the jury.

[TitanTiger 20,510]

I misspoke. Of course the DA can charge Zimmerman with manslaughter or murder or whatever based on what happened. What I don't think is that based on what we've seen in the trial...the evidence that we have...that it warrants a conviction.