George Zimmerman Trial

[alexava 6,973]

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.

im not sure the jury will not fear the backlash of a not guilty verdict. outside the courtroom the trial has been more about race and emotion than facts and law.

[homersapien 11,460]

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.

Thanks for clarifying that. Its a very important distinction.

[alexava 6,973]

That is why there were initially no charges made. The da saw it as a waste of time and $ to try a case without enough evidence to convict. The charges came from pressure and tension in the media and black community.

[homersapien 11,460]

That is why there were initially no charges made. The da saw it as a waste of time and $ to try a case without enough evidence to convict. The charges came from pressure and tension in the media and black community.

Gee imagine that.

Your unarmed 17 year-old kid is shot while simply walking home by an armed guy with a wanna-be cop complex. Why would anyone create pressure for the police department to bring charges of at least manslaughter? :-\

So, do you think if Trayvon were white, his family would just let it go?

Your perspective on this is disturbing.

[tgr4lfe 220]

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.

That's just it, GZ wasn't stalking anyone. He followed a suspicious person, but stalking is way over stating it. As to the last question, NO, if you are in a place you have a RIGHT to be and NOT engaged in criminal act, following someone is NOT criminal, btw, then you are the one assaulted and in fear for your life then you have every right to defend yourself and use deadly force, if reasonable. Getting ones head bashed on concrete is reasonable, if that is what happened.

It might have been that GZ's following TM around some infuriated TM, so he double backed on GZ to suprise and confront him. It could have been the opposite that GZ was the instigator from the get go tracking down TM and then confronting, in my opinion, I think the actual truth lies in the middle there, but just b/c GZ was armed doesn't mean he can't check on someone he reasonably believed to be acting suspicious, it doesn't mean he couldn't try to see what TM was doing, if he was in fact lurking in b/t residences and leering at GZ. I'm still trying to catch up on looking and listening to evidence and testimony, but by all accounts prosecution carried out this case b/c of political pressure and they are letting the information that they already knew come out to light. Until I can look and see what I've missed, it is still looking like GZ gets a not guilty verdict.

[TexasTiger 13,053]

That is why there were initially no charges made. The da saw it as a waste of time and $ to try a case without enough evidence to convict. The charges came from pressure and tension in the media and black community.

Gee imagine that.

Your unarmed 17 year-old kid is shot while simply walking home by an armed guy with a wanna-be cop complex. Why would anyone create pressure for the police department to bring charges of at least manslaughter? :-\/>

So, do you think if Trayvon were white, his family would just let it go?

Your perspective on this is disturbing.

This. This plus.

[homersapien 11,460]

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.

That's just it, GZ wasn't stalking anyone. He followed a suspicious person, but stalking is way over stating it. As to the last question, NO, if you are in a place you have a RIGHT to be and NOT engaged in criminal act, following someone is NOT criminal, btw, then you are the one assaulted and in fear for your life then you have every right to defend yourself and use deadly force, if reasonable. Getting ones head bashed on concrete is reasonable, if that is what happened.

It might have been that GZ's following TM around some infuriated TM, so he double backed on GZ to suprise and confront him. It could have been the opposite that GZ was the instigator from the get go tracking down TM and then confronting, in my opinion, I think the actual truth lies in the middle there, but just b/c GZ was armed doesn't mean he can't check on someone he reasonably believed to be acting suspicious, it doesn't mean he couldn't try to see what TM was doing, if he was in fact lurking in b/t residences and leering at GZ. I'm still trying to catch up on looking and listening to evidence and testimony, but by all accounts prosecution carried out this case b/c of political pressure and they are letting the information that they already knew come out to light. Until I can look and see what I've missed, it is still looking like GZ gets a not guilty verdict.

Uh fine. Feel free to substitute "following" (on a rainy night) for "stalking".

Carrying a gun requires strict accountability for it's use. In this case it wouldn't have been used at all had Zimmerman done the sensible thing instead of taking it on himself to needlessly interject himself (is that terminology OK?) in the situation. Trayvon's actions, whatever they were, have nothing to do with that basic fact.

You guys are far too willing to simply accept Zimmerman's story and just wipe-out the accountability associated with Zimmerman's deliberate decision to play cop.

For GZ him to plead self-defense is nothing more than a confirmation of why the decision he made to play cop was so reckless, (literally) ill-advised and just stupid. Stupid doesn't necessarily get him convicted, but add reckless and the specific request by the dispatcher not to get out, and it should.

If he gets off, it will set a terrible precedent.

[AU_Tiger_88 417]

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.

That's just it, GZ wasn't stalking anyone. He followed a suspicious person, but stalking is way over stating it. As to the last question, NO, if you are in a place you have a RIGHT to be and NOT engaged in criminal act, following someone is NOT criminal, btw, then you are the one assaulted and in fear for your life then you have every right to defend yourself and use deadly force, if reasonable. Getting ones head bashed on concrete is reasonable, if that is what happened.

It might have been that GZ's following TM around some infuriated TM, so he double backed on GZ to suprise and confront him. It could have been the opposite that GZ was the instigator from the get go tracking down TM and then confronting, in my opinion, I think the actual truth lies in the middle there, but just b/c GZ was armed doesn't mean he can't check on someone he reasonably believed to be acting suspicious, it doesn't mean he couldn't try to see what TM was doing, if he was in fact lurking in b/t residences and leering at GZ. I'm still trying to catch up on looking and listening to evidence and testimony, but by all accounts prosecution carried out this case b/c of political pressure and they are letting the information that they already knew come out to light. Until I can look and see what I've missed, it is still looking like GZ gets a not guilty verdict.

Uh fine. Feel free to substitute "following" (on a rainy night) for "stalking".

Carrying a gun requires strict accountability for it's use. In this case it wouldn't have been used at all had Zimmerman done the sensible thing instead of taking it on himself to needlessly interject himself (is that terminology OK?) in the situation. Trayvon's actions, whatever they were, have nothing to do with that basic fact.

You guys are far too willing to simply accept Zimmerman's story and just wipe-out the accountability associated with Zimmerman's deliberate decision to play cop.

For GZ him to plead self-defense is nothing more than a confirmation of why the decision he made to play cop was so reckless, (literally) ill-advised and just stupid. Stupid doesn't necessarily get him convicted, but add reckless and the specific request by the dispatcher not to get out, and it should.

If he gets off, it will set a terrible precedent.

So answer this question: If the account is somewhat accurate, wouldn't TM be alive today if he just went home? You seem to put the all the blame on GZ. Yes he made some bad decisions but the situation was escalated with TM engaging in the fight. The media played this way over the top. By putting a picture of TM when he was really young and saying that GZ murdered him without taking into account our self defense law here in FL. They all but ignored the injuries on GZ. They were in such a rush to and drooling over trying to get laws against guns out there....

[AUcivE09 582]

That is why there were initially no charges made. The da saw it as a waste of time and $ to try a case without enough evidence to convict. The charges came from pressure and tension in the media and black community.

Gee imagine that.

Your unarmed 17 year-old kid is shot while simply walking home by an armed guy with a wanna-be cop complex. Why would anyone create pressure for the police department to bring charges of at least manslaughter? :-\

So, do you think if Trayvon were white, his family would just let it go?

Your perspective on this is disturbing.

The problem is they didnt want manslaughter charges - they wanted murder/hate crime charges. This is why GZ is going to walk free. They cannot prove murder. If I remember correctly Casey Anthony was similar in that they went for too high a charge to prove.

I guess it is worth asking - is manslaughter still on the table for GZ. I am sure that he will at least end up in civil court after this.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

That is why there were initially no charges made. The da saw it as a waste of time and $ to try a case without enough evidence to convict. The charges came from pressure and tension in the media and black community.

Exactly!!!! That may be the truest statement in this whole thread.

[WarEagle1983 2,185]

That is why there were initially no charges made. The da saw it as a waste of time and $ to try a case without enough evidence to convict. The charges came from pressure and tension in the media and black community.

Gee imagine that.

Your unarmed 17 year-old kid is shot while simply walking home by an armed guy with a wanna-be cop complex. Why would anyone create pressure for the police department to bring charges of at least manslaughter? :-\

So, do you think if Trayvon were white, his family would just let it go?

Your perspective on this is disturbing.

The problem is they didnt want manslaughter charges - they wanted murder/hate crime charges. This is why GZ is going to walk free. They cannot prove murder. If I remember correctly Casey Anthony was similar in that they went for too high a charge to prove.

I guess it is worth asking - is manslaughter still on the table for GZ. I am sure that he will at least end up in civil court after this.

In the state of FL lesser charges are included so GZ could be found guilty on those charges. Casey Anthony had lesser charges as well but got off. I watched that trail from start to finish as well. That case was all on the jury not understanding circumstantial evidence and how it applies to the case and instruction in which they could convict her. They were so focused on where is the DNA and hard evidence when many times cases are just simply circumstantial evidence like Scott Peterson's case. Many cases are not CSI and Law & Order cases wrapped up in a pretty bow to present to a jury. Because of what happend with Casey Anthony a few states passed Caylee's Law so a similar event would occur again.

[homersapien 11,460]

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.

That's just it, GZ wasn't stalking anyone. He followed a suspicious person, but stalking is way over stating it. As to the last question, NO, if you are in a place you have a RIGHT to be and NOT engaged in criminal act, following someone is NOT criminal, btw, then you are the one assaulted and in fear for your life then you have every right to defend yourself and use deadly force, if reasonable. Getting ones head bashed on concrete is reasonable, if that is what happened.

It might have been that GZ's following TM around some infuriated TM, so he double backed on GZ to suprise and confront him. It could have been the opposite that GZ was the instigator from the get go tracking down TM and then confronting, in my opinion, I think the actual truth lies in the middle there, but just b/c GZ was armed doesn't mean he can't check on someone he reasonably believed to be acting suspicious, it doesn't mean he couldn't try to see what TM was doing, if he was in fact lurking in b/t residences and leering at GZ. I'm still trying to catch up on looking and listening to evidence and testimony, but by all accounts prosecution carried out this case b/c of political pressure and they are letting the information that they already knew come out to light. Until I can look and see what I've missed, it is still looking like GZ gets a not guilty verdict.

Uh fine. Feel free to substitute "following" (on a rainy night) for "stalking".

Carrying a gun requires strict accountability for it's use. In this case it wouldn't have been used at all had Zimmerman done the sensible thing instead of taking it on himself to needlessly interject himself (is that terminology OK?) in the situation. Trayvon's actions, whatever they were, have nothing to do with that basic fact.

You guys are far too willing to simply accept Zimmerman's story and just wipe-out the accountability associated with Zimmerman's deliberate decision to play cop.

For GZ him to plead self-defense is nothing more than a confirmation of why the decision he made to play cop was so reckless, (literally) ill-advised and just stupid. Stupid doesn't necessarily get him convicted, but add reckless and the specific request by the dispatcher not to get out, and it should.

If he gets off, it will set a terrible precedent.

So answer this question: If the account is somewhat accurate, wouldn't TM be alive today if he just went home? You seem to put the all the blame on GZ. Yes he made some bad decisions but the situation was escalated with TM engaging in the fight. The media played this way over the top. By putting a picture of TM when he was really young and saying that GZ murdered him without taking into account our self defense law here in FL. They all but ignored the injuries on GZ. They were in such a rush to and drooling over trying to get laws against guns out there....

Sure. And if TM never left home to begin with, he wouldn't have gotten killed either.

TM was the (unarmed) victim here. GZ was the shooter. That's where one needs to start in placing responsibility.

And if you are really worried about "laws against guns" you should be more interested in establishing the concept of strong accountability for using one. Strong accountability only strengthens the right to carry. Weak accountability serves to threaten that right.

[AU_Tiger_88 417]

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.

That's just it, GZ wasn't stalking anyone. He followed a suspicious person, but stalking is way over stating it. As to the last question, NO, if you are in a place you have a RIGHT to be and NOT engaged in criminal act, following someone is NOT criminal, btw, then you are the one assaulted and in fear for your life then you have every right to defend yourself and use deadly force, if reasonable. Getting ones head bashed on concrete is reasonable, if that is what happened.

It might have been that GZ's following TM around some infuriated TM, so he double backed on GZ to suprise and confront him. It could have been the opposite that GZ was the instigator from the get go tracking down TM and then confronting, in my opinion, I think the actual truth lies in the middle there, but just b/c GZ was armed doesn't mean he can't check on someone he reasonably believed to be acting suspicious, it doesn't mean he couldn't try to see what TM was doing, if he was in fact lurking in b/t residences and leering at GZ. I'm still trying to catch up on looking and listening to evidence and testimony, but by all accounts prosecution carried out this case b/c of political pressure and they are letting the information that they already knew come out to light. Until I can look and see what I've missed, it is still looking like GZ gets a not guilty verdict.

Uh fine. Feel free to substitute "following" (on a rainy night) for "stalking".

Carrying a gun requires strict accountability for it's use. In this case it wouldn't have been used at all had Zimmerman done the sensible thing instead of taking it on himself to needlessly interject himself (is that terminology OK?) in the situation. Trayvon's actions, whatever they were, have nothing to do with that basic fact.

You guys are far too willing to simply accept Zimmerman's story and just wipe-out the accountability associated with Zimmerman's deliberate decision to play cop.

For GZ him to plead self-defense is nothing more than a confirmation of why the decision he made to play cop was so reckless, (literally) ill-advised and just stupid. Stupid doesn't necessarily get him convicted, but add reckless and the specific request by the dispatcher not to get out, and it should.

If he gets off, it will set a terrible precedent.

So answer this question: If the account is somewhat accurate, wouldn't TM be alive today if he just went home? You seem to put the all the blame on GZ. Yes he made some bad decisions but the situation was escalated with TM engaging in the fight. The media played this way over the top. By putting a picture of TM when he was really young and saying that GZ murdered him without taking into account our self defense law here in FL. They all but ignored the injuries on GZ. They were in such a rush to and drooling over trying to get laws against guns out there....

Sure. And if TM never left home to begin with, he wouldn't have gotten killed either.

TM was the (unarmed) victim here. GZ was the shooter. That's where one needs to start in placing responsibility.

And if you are really worried about "laws against guns" you should be more interested in establishing the concept of strong accountability for using one. Strong accountability only strengthens the right to carry. Weak accountability serves to threaten that right.

Here is where I will agree and disagree....both folks were at fault here. 1. GZ shouldn't have followed the kid. 2. TM shouldn't have confronted GZ I agree about accountability, carry permits, training but GZ is being held accountable for his use of a gun. He is on trial.

[alexava 6,973]

That is why there were initially no charges made. The da saw it as a waste of time and $ to try a case without enough evidence to convict. The charges came from pressure and tension in the media and black community.

Gee imagine that.

Your unarmed 17 year-old kid is shot while simply walking home by an armed guy with a wanna-be cop complex. Why would anyone create pressure for the police department to bring charges of at least manslaughter? :-\

So, do you think if Trayvon were white, his family would just let it go?

Your perspective on this is disturbing.

No they would not let it go but we would never hear about it. it is disturbing to you and when GZ is acquitted you will be even more disturbed. you have your mind made up that no matter what TM did all the blame lies on GZ. I'm quite certain you will not change your mind on this. nothing about GZ points to him wanting to confront TM himself, he was simply reporting suspicious behavior and trying to keep a visual until LE arrived. then he was attacked and beaten by an "unarmed 17year old". that is the evidence we have. that is self defense. that is why the DA and LE did not initially bring charges. that is why this trial is wasted. so we must appease the people on tv holding the race cards. I'm sorry this disturbs you, but it is the absolute truth.

[homersapien 11,460]

That is why there were initially no charges made. The da saw it as a waste of time and $ to try a case without enough evidence to convict. The charges came from pressure and tension in the media and black community.

Gee imagine that.

Your unarmed 17 year-old kid is shot while simply walking home by an armed guy with a wanna-be cop complex. Why would anyone create pressure for the police department to bring charges of at least manslaughter? :-\

So, do you think if Trayvon were white, his family would just let it go?

Your perspective on this is disturbing.

No they would not let it go but we would never hear about it. it is disturbing to you and when GZ is acquitted you will be even more disturbed. you have your mind made up that no matter what TM did all the blame lies on GZ. I'm quite certain you will not change your mind on this. nothing about GZ points to him wanting to confront TM himself, he was simply reporting suspicious behavior and trying to keep a visual until LE arrived. then he was attacked and beaten by an "unarmed 17year old". that is the evidence we have. that is self defense. that is why the DA and LE did not initially bring charges. that is why this trial is wasted. so we must appease the people on tv holding the race cards. I'm sorry this disturbs you, but it is the absolute truth.

That didn't help.

Race is a side issue. It's not a complete "red herring" as it could have theoretically made the difference between murder and manslaughter. And it seems obvious that for a non-black person to shoot an unarmed, young, black man (after "following" him) the possibility of race as a motive will be brought up.

But to suggest race is a key factor in the reason Zimmerman was charged for manslaughter is disturbing. First, it is not a "necessary" hypothesis considering the simple and known facts. Secondly - and much more ironically - it reflects the same sort of utilization of race to influence opinion that (I assume) you would decry.

[AU_Tiger_88 417]

That is why there were initially no charges made. The da saw it as a waste of time and $ to try a case without enough evidence to convict. The charges came from pressure and tension in the media and black community.

Gee imagine that.

Your unarmed 17 year-old kid is shot while simply walking home by an armed guy with a wanna-be cop complex. Why would anyone create pressure for the police department to bring charges of at least manslaughter? :-\

So, do you think if Trayvon were white, his family would just let it go?

Your perspective on this is disturbing.

No they would not let it go but we would never hear about it. it is disturbing to you and when GZ is acquitted you will be even more disturbed. you have your mind made up that no matter what TM did all the blame lies on GZ. I'm quite certain you will not change your mind on this. nothing about GZ points to him wanting to confront TM himself, he was simply reporting suspicious behavior and trying to keep a visual until LE arrived. then he was attacked and beaten by an "unarmed 17year old". that is the evidence we have. that is self defense. that is why the DA and LE did not initially bring charges. that is why this trial is wasted. so we must appease the people on tv holding the race cards. I'm sorry this disturbs you, but it is the absolute truth.

That didn't help.

Race is a side issue. It's not a complete "red herring" as it could have theoretically made the difference between murder and manslaughter. And it seems obvious that for a non-black person to shoot an unarmed, young, black man (after "following" him) the possibility of race as a motive will be brought up.

But to suggest race is a key factor in the reason Zimmerman was charged for manslaughter is disturbing. First, it is not a "necessary" hypothesis considering the simple and known facts. Secondly - and much more ironically - it reflects the same sort of utilization of race to influence opinion that (I assume) you would decry.

Face it...there was the race card played high and low....the media even called GZ white which is untrue...the race card was played even by the president...so just stop...that pressure brought the arrest and charges period. when you have marching in your town by outside influences playing the race card and using pictures of when the kid was much younger on TV generating racist remarks about GZ and celebrities tweeting out addresses and phone #s this was racial no two ways about it....it also had the gun agenda behind it...those two factors alone pushed for the charges. Scott had no choice but to pull the trigger why...because of political clout....it is politics pure and simple....

[tgr4lfe 220]

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 you were wondering...here's his killer..http://www.nbcchicag...-214473711.htmlIf 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.

That's just it, GZ wasn't stalking anyone. He followed a suspicious person, but stalking is way over stating it. As to the last question, NO, if you are in a place you have a RIGHT to be and NOT engaged in criminal act, following someone is NOT criminal, btw, then you are the one assaulted and in fear for your life then you have every right to defend yourself and use deadly force, if reasonable. Getting ones head bashed on concrete is reasonable, if that is what happened. It might have been that GZ's following TM around some infuriated TM, so he double backed on GZ to suprise and confront him. It could have been the opposite that GZ was the instigator from the get go tracking down TM and then confronting, in my opinion, I think the actual truth lies in the middle there, but just b/c GZ was armed doesn't mean he can't check on someone he reasonably believed to be acting suspicious, it doesn't mean he couldn't try to see what TM was doing, if he was in fact lurking in b/t residences and leering at GZ. I'm still trying to catch up on looking and listening to evidence and testimony, but by all accounts prosecution carried out this case b/c of political pressure and they are letting the information that they already knew come out to light. Until I can look and see what I've missed, it is still looking like GZ gets a not guilty verdict.

Uh fine. Feel free to substitute "following" (on a rainy night) for "stalking".Carrying a gun requires strict accountability for it's use. In this case it wouldn't have been used at all had Zimmerman done the sensible thing instead of taking it on himself to needlessly interject himself (is that terminology OK?) in the situation. Trayvon's actions, whatever they were, have nothing to do with that basic fact. You guys are far too willing to simply accept Zimmerman's story and just wipe-out the accountability associated with Zimmerman's deliberate decision to play cop. For GZ him to plead self-defense is nothing more than a confirmation of why the decision he made to play cop was so reckless, (literally) ill-advised and just stupid. Stupid doesn't necessarily get him convicted, but add reckless and the specific request by the dispatcher not to get out, and it should. If he gets off, it will set a terrible precedent.

So answer this question: If the account is somewhat accurate, wouldn't TM be alive today if he just went home? You seem to put the all the blame on GZ. Yes he made some bad decisions but the situation was escalated with TM engaging in the fight. The media played this way over the top. By putting a picture of TM when he was really young and saying that GZ murdered him without taking into account our self defense law here in FL. They all but ignored the injuries on GZ. They were in such a rush to and drooling over trying to get laws against guns out there....

Sure. And if TM never left home to begin with, he wouldn't have gotten killed either.TM was the (unarmed) victim here. GZ was the shooter. That's where one needs to start in placing responsibility.And if you are really worried about "laws against guns" you should be more interested in establishing the concept of strong accountability for using one. Strong accountability only strengthens the right to carry. Weak accountability serves to threaten that right.

maybe you should go preach that in Chicago....http://www.huffingto..._n_3550469.html Where is the outcry for Jaden's (an unarmed 5 year old) shooter while playing in a park???http://www.complex.c...of-july-weekend Gets better as over 70 were shot, 12 dead this past weekend.

[WarEagle1983 2,185]

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 you were wondering...here's his killer..http://www.nbcchicag...-214473711.htmlIf 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.

That's just it, GZ wasn't stalking anyone. He followed a suspicious person, but stalking is way over stating it. As to the last question, NO, if you are in a place you have a RIGHT to be and NOT engaged in criminal act, following someone is NOT criminal, btw, then you are the one assaulted and in fear for your life then you have every right to defend yourself and use deadly force, if reasonable. Getting ones head bashed on concrete is reasonable, if that is what happened. It might have been that GZ's following TM around some infuriated TM, so he double backed on GZ to suprise and confront him. It could have been the opposite that GZ was the instigator from the get go tracking down TM and then confronting, in my opinion, I think the actual truth lies in the middle there, but just b/c GZ was armed doesn't mean he can't check on someone he reasonably believed to be acting suspicious, it doesn't mean he couldn't try to see what TM was doing, if he was in fact lurking in b/t residences and leering at GZ. I'm still trying to catch up on looking and listening to evidence and testimony, but by all accounts prosecution carried out this case b/c of political pressure and they are letting the information that they already knew come out to light. Until I can look and see what I've missed, it is still looking like GZ gets a not guilty verdict.

Uh fine. Feel free to substitute "following" (on a rainy night) for "stalking".Carrying a gun requires strict accountability for it's use. In this case it wouldn't have been used at all had Zimmerman done the sensible thing instead of taking it on himself to needlessly interject himself (is that terminology OK?) in the situation. Trayvon's actions, whatever they were, have nothing to do with that basic fact. You guys are far too willing to simply accept Zimmerman's story and just wipe-out the accountability associated with Zimmerman's deliberate decision to play cop. For GZ him to plead self-defense is nothing more than a confirmation of why the decision he made to play cop was so reckless, (literally) ill-advised and just stupid. Stupid doesn't necessarily get him convicted, but add reckless and the specific request by the dispatcher not to get out, and it should. If he gets off, it will set a terrible precedent.

So answer this question: If the account is somewhat accurate, wouldn't TM be alive today if he just went home? You seem to put the all the blame on GZ. Yes he made some bad decisions but the situation was escalated with TM engaging in the fight. The media played this way over the top. By putting a picture of TM when he was really young and saying that GZ murdered him without taking into account our self defense law here in FL. They all but ignored the injuries on GZ. They were in such a rush to and drooling over trying to get laws against guns out there....

Sure. And if TM never left home to begin with, he wouldn't have gotten killed either.TM was the (unarmed) victim here. GZ was the shooter. That's where one needs to start in placing responsibility.And if you are really worried about "laws against guns" you should be more interested in establishing the concept of strong accountability for using one. Strong accountability only strengthens the right to carry. Weak accountability serves to threaten that right.

maybe you should go preach that in Chicago....http://www.huffingto..._n_3550469.html Where is the outcry for Jaden's (an unarmed 5 year old) shooter while playing in a park???http://www.complex.c...of-july-weekend Gets better as over 70 were shot, 12 dead this past weekend.

Chicago is war zone! Only thing that is going to help them is the military. Seriously....it just makes no sense the amount of violence that's going on there. I know several organizations and people outside the gov't are trying their best to curb some of the violence but it's just putting a very small dent into the issue. Something very drastic is going to have to be done to change things in Chicago and no laws anyone can come up with are going to help IMO.

[alexava 6,973]

True

[homersapien 11,460]

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.

That's just it, GZ wasn't stalking anyone. He followed a suspicious person, but stalking is way over stating it. As to the last question, NO, if you are in a place you have a RIGHT to be and NOT engaged in criminal act, following someone is NOT criminal, btw, then you are the one assaulted and in fear for your life then you have every right to defend yourself and use deadly force, if reasonable. Getting ones head bashed on concrete is reasonable, if that is what happened.

It might have been that GZ's following TM around some infuriated TM, so he double backed on GZ to suprise and confront him. It could have been the opposite that GZ was the instigator from the get go tracking down TM and then confronting, in my opinion, I think the actual truth lies in the middle there, but just b/c GZ was armed doesn't mean he can't check on someone he reasonably believed to be acting suspicious, it doesn't mean he couldn't try to see what TM was doing, if he was in fact lurking in b/t residences and leering at GZ. I'm still trying to catch up on looking and listening to evidence and testimony, but by all accounts prosecution carried out this case b/c of political pressure and they are letting the information that they already knew come out to light. Until I can look and see what I've missed, it is still looking like GZ gets a not guilty verdict.

Uh fine. Feel free to substitute "following" (on a rainy night) for "stalking".

Carrying a gun requires strict accountability for it's use. In this case it wouldn't have been used at all had Zimmerman done the sensible thing instead of taking it on himself to needlessly interject himself (is that terminology OK?) in the situation. Trayvon's actions, whatever they were, have nothing to do with that basic fact.

You guys are far too willing to simply accept Zimmerman's story and just wipe-out the accountability associated with Zimmerman's deliberate decision to play cop.

For GZ him to plead self-defense is nothing more than a confirmation of why the decision he made to play cop was so reckless, (literally) ill-advised and just stupid. Stupid doesn't necessarily get him convicted, but add reckless and the specific request by the dispatcher not to get out, and it should.

If he gets off, it will set a terrible precedent.

So answer this question: If the account is somewhat accurate, wouldn't TM be alive today if he just went home? You seem to put the all the blame on GZ. Yes he made some bad decisions but the situation was escalated with TM engaging in the fight. The media played this way over the top. By putting a picture of TM when he was really young and saying that GZ murdered him without taking into account our self defense law here in FL. They all but ignored the injuries on GZ. They were in such a rush to and drooling over trying to get laws against guns out there....

Sure. And if TM never left home to begin with, he wouldn't have gotten killed either.

TM was the (unarmed) victim here. GZ was the shooter. That's where one needs to start in placing responsibility.

And if you are really worried about "laws against guns" you should be more interested in establishing the concept of strong accountability for using one. Strong accountability only strengthens the right to carry. Weak accountability serves to threaten that right.

Here is where I will agree and disagree....both folks were at fault here. 1. GZ shouldn't have followed the kid. 2. TM shouldn't have confronted GZ I agree about accountability, carry permits, training but GZ is being held accountable for his use of a gun. He is on trial.

And if he get's off it will establish a much lower standard of accountability than is appropriate in my opinion.

And there are others on this forum that believe he shouldn't even be on trial. I find that appalling.

[homersapien 11,460]

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 you were wondering...here's his killer..http://www.nbcchicag...-214473711.htmlIf 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.

That's just it, GZ wasn't stalking anyone. He followed a suspicious person, but stalking is way over stating it. As to the last question, NO, if you are in a place you have a RIGHT to be and NOT engaged in criminal act, following someone is NOT criminal, btw, then you are the one assaulted and in fear for your life then you have every right to defend yourself and use deadly force, if reasonable. Getting ones head bashed on concrete is reasonable, if that is what happened. It might have been that GZ's following TM around some infuriated TM, so he double backed on GZ to suprise and confront him. It could have been the opposite that GZ was the instigator from the get go tracking down TM and then confronting, in my opinion, I think the actual truth lies in the middle there, but just b/c GZ was armed doesn't mean he can't check on someone he reasonably believed to be acting suspicious, it doesn't mean he couldn't try to see what TM was doing, if he was in fact lurking in b/t residences and leering at GZ. I'm still trying to catch up on looking and listening to evidence and testimony, but by all accounts prosecution carried out this case b/c of political pressure and they are letting the information that they already knew come out to light. Until I can look and see what I've missed, it is still looking like GZ gets a not guilty verdict.

Uh fine. Feel free to substitute "following" (on a rainy night) for "stalking".Carrying a gun requires strict accountability for it's use. In this case it wouldn't have been used at all had Zimmerman done the sensible thing instead of taking it on himself to needlessly interject himself (is that terminology OK?) in the situation. Trayvon's actions, whatever they were, have nothing to do with that basic fact. You guys are far too willing to simply accept Zimmerman's story and just wipe-out the accountability associated with Zimmerman's deliberate decision to play cop. For GZ him to plead self-defense is nothing more than a confirmation of why the decision he made to play cop was so reckless, (literally) ill-advised and just stupid. Stupid doesn't necessarily get him convicted, but add reckless and the specific request by the dispatcher not to get out, and it should. If he gets off, it will set a terrible precedent.

So answer this question: If the account is somewhat accurate, wouldn't TM be alive today if he just went home? You seem to put the all the blame on GZ. Yes he made some bad decisions but the situation was escalated with TM engaging in the fight. The media played this way over the top. By putting a picture of TM when he was really young and saying that GZ murdered him without taking into account our self defense law here in FL. They all but ignored the injuries on GZ. They were in such a rush to and drooling over trying to get laws against guns out there....

Sure. And if TM never left home to begin with, he wouldn't have gotten killed either.TM was the (unarmed) victim here. GZ was the shooter. That's where one needs to start in placing responsibility.And if you are really worried about "laws against guns" you should be more interested in establishing the concept of strong accountability for using one. Strong accountability only strengthens the right to carry. Weak accountability serves to threaten that right.

maybe you should go preach that in Chicago....http://www.huffingto..._n_3550469.html Where is the outcry for Jaden's (an unarmed 5 year old) shooter while playing in a park???http://www.complex.c...of-july-weekend Gets better as over 70 were shot, 12 dead this past weekend.

Where's the outrage (over this unrelated incident)!!!!

I just love that argument, it's so vacuous. :-\

But it is revealing.

[tgr4lfe 220]

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 you were wondering...here's his killer..http://www.nbcchicag...-214473711.htmlIf 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.

That's just it, GZ wasn't stalking anyone. He followed a suspicious person, but stalking is way over stating it. As to the last question, NO, if you are in a place you have a RIGHT to be and NOT engaged in criminal act, following someone is NOT criminal, btw, then you are the one assaulted and in fear for your life then you have every right to defend yourself and use deadly force, if reasonable. Getting ones head bashed on concrete is reasonable, if that is what happened. It might have been that GZ's following TM around some infuriated TM, so he double backed on GZ to suprise and confront him. It could have been the opposite that GZ was the instigator from the get go tracking down TM and then confronting, in my opinion, I think the actual truth lies in the middle there, but just b/c GZ was armed doesn't mean he can't check on someone he reasonably believed to be acting suspicious, it doesn't mean he couldn't try to see what TM was doing, if he was in fact lurking in b/t residences and leering at GZ. I'm still trying to catch up on looking and listening to evidence and testimony, but by all accounts prosecution carried out this case b/c of political pressure and they are letting the information that they already knew come out to light. Until I can look and see what I've missed, it is still looking like GZ gets a not guilty verdict.

Uh fine. Feel free to substitute "following" (on a rainy night) for "stalking".Carrying a gun requires strict accountability for it's use. In this case it wouldn't have been used at all had Zimmerman done the sensible thing instead of taking it on himself to needlessly interject himself (is that terminology OK?) in the situation. Trayvon's actions, whatever they were, have nothing to do with that basic fact. You guys are far too willing to simply accept Zimmerman's story and just wipe-out the accountability associated with Zimmerman's deliberate decision to play cop. For GZ him to plead self-defense is nothing more than a confirmation of why the decision he made to play cop was so reckless, (literally) ill-advised and just stupid. Stupid doesn't necessarily get him convicted, but add reckless and the specific request by the dispatcher not to get out, and it should. If he gets off, it will set a terrible precedent.

So answer this question: If the account is somewhat accurate, wouldn't TM be alive today if he just went home? You seem to put the all the blame on GZ. Yes he made some bad decisions but the situation was escalated with TM engaging in the fight. The media played this way over the top. By putting a picture of TM when he was really young and saying that GZ murdered him without taking into account our self defense law here in FL. They all but ignored the injuries on GZ. They were in such a rush to and drooling over trying to get laws against guns out there....

Sure. And if TM never left home to begin with, he wouldn't have gotten killed either.TM was the (unarmed) victim here. GZ was the shooter. That's where one needs to start in placing responsibility.And if you are really worried about "laws against guns" you should be more interested in establishing the concept of strong accountability for using one. Strong accountability only strengthens the right to carry. Weak accountability serves to threaten that right.

maybe you should go preach that in Chicago....http://www.huffingto..._n_3550469.html Where is the outcry for Jaden's (an unarmed 5 year old) shooter while playing in a park???http://www.complex.c...of-july-weekend Gets better as over 70 were shot, 12 dead this past weekend.

Chicago is war zone! Only thing that is going to help them is the military. Seriously....it just makes no sense the amount of violence that's going on there. I know several organizations and people outside the gov't are trying their best to curb some of the violence but it's just putting a very small dent into the issue. Something very drastic is going to have to be done to change things in Chicago and no laws anyone can come up with are going to help IMO.

I know what will do it, stricter gun laws in Chicago! Right, homer?!? ?

[tgr4lfe 220]

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.

That's just it, GZ wasn't stalking anyone. He followed a suspicious person, but stalking is way over stating it. As to the last question, NO, if you are in a place you have a RIGHT to be and NOT engaged in criminal act, following someone is NOT criminal, btw, then you are the one assaulted and in fear for your life then you have every right to defend yourself and use deadly force, if reasonable. Getting ones head bashed on concrete is reasonable, if that is what happened.

It might have been that GZ's following TM around some infuriated TM, so he double backed on GZ to suprise and confront him. It could have been the opposite that GZ was the instigator from the get go tracking down TM and then confronting, in my opinion, I think the actual truth lies in the middle there, but just b/c GZ was armed doesn't mean he can't check on someone he reasonably believed to be acting suspicious, it doesn't mean he couldn't try to see what TM was doing, if he was in fact lurking in b/t residences and leering at GZ. I'm still trying to catch up on looking and listening to evidence and testimony, but by all accounts prosecution carried out this case b/c of political pressure and they are letting the information that they already knew come out to light. Until I can look and see what I've missed, it is still looking like GZ gets a not guilty verdict.

Uh fine. Feel free to substitute "following" (on a rainy night) for "stalking".

Carrying a gun requires strict accountability for it's use. In this case it wouldn't have been used at all had Zimmerman done the sensible thing instead of taking it on himself to needlessly interject himself (is that terminology OK?) in the situation. Trayvon's actions, whatever they were, have nothing to do with that basic fact.

You guys are far too willing to simply accept Zimmerman's story and just wipe-out the accountability associated with Zimmerman's deliberate decision to play cop.

For GZ him to plead self-defense is nothing more than a confirmation of why the decision he made to play cop was so reckless, (literally) ill-advised and just stupid. Stupid doesn't necessarily get him convicted, but add reckless and the specific request by the dispatcher not to get out, and it should.

If he gets off, it will set a terrible precedent.

So answer this question: If the account is somewhat accurate, wouldn't TM be alive today if he just went home? You seem to put the all the blame on GZ. Yes he made some bad decisions but the situation was escalated with TM engaging in the fight. The media played this way over the top. By putting a picture of TM when he was really young and saying that GZ murdered him without taking into account our self defense law here in FL. They all but ignored the injuries on GZ. They were in such a rush to and drooling over trying to get laws against guns out there....

Sure. And if TM never left home to begin with, he wouldn't have gotten killed either.

TM was the (unarmed) victim here. GZ was the shooter. That's where one needs to start in placing responsibility.

And if you are really worried about "laws against guns" you should be more interested in establishing the concept of strong accountability for using one. Strong accountability only strengthens the right to carry. Weak accountability serves to threaten that right.

Here is where I will agree and disagree....both folks were at fault here. 1. GZ shouldn't have followed the kid. 2. TM shouldn't have confronted GZ I agree about accountability, carry permits, training but GZ is being held accountable for his use of a gun. He is on trial.

And if he get's off it will establish a much lower standard of accountability than is appropriate in my opinion.

And there are others on this forum that believe he shouldn't even be on trial. I find that appalling.

That's because you are trying to attach criminal culpability where there may be none.

[AUGradinTX 0]

And if he get's off it will establish a much lower standard of accountability than is appropriate in my opinion.

And there are others on this forum that believe he shouldn't even be on trial. I find that appalling.

Maybe he get's off because he was the victim of a vicious beating... Regardless of your opinion, that very well be the case. And since we are a country of laws, that is how he is being judged, not on why you think he is accountable.

[ToomersRevenge 284]

And the prosecution's rebuttal witness was let off the stand because they were going to try to impeach him.

They were going to impeach their own witness (they called him earlier in the case).