George Zimmerman Trial

[homersapien 11,453]

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.

BS.

What do you call not bringing charges against a wanna-be cop for killing an unarmed kid with no witnesses? I suppose you would just accept his excuse and declare "case closed".

[homersapien 11,453]

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?!?

If you really want a piece of me, come up with something that's worthy.

[homersapien 11,453]

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.

WOW, REALLY?

You mean those jurors aren't reading this thread and all that work I have put in to express my opinion (multiple times) is not going to determine the outcome???

Damn, I am crushed. Thanks so much for enlightening me. I only wish you had done it sooner.

[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.

WOW, REALLY?

You mean those jurors aren't reading this thread and all that work I have put in to express my opinion (multiple times) is not going to determine the outcome???

Damn, I am crushed. Thanks so much for enlightening me. I only wish you had done it sooner.

Did you forget to take your meds again?

You say "if he get's off it will establish a much lower standard of accountability than is appropriate." At the same time, you understand he may rightfully get off due to reasons of self-defense. How would GZ's aquital establish anything? Is it your belief that GZ would be the first person to be aquitted of a charge brought by a situation similar to this one?

[AUGradinTX 0]

Wow! The state now wants to argue 3rd degree murder on the basis of child abuse... This is crazy!

[Grumps 3,704]

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.

BS.

What do you call not bringing charges against a wanna-be cop for killing an unarmed kid with no witnesses? I suppose you would just accept his excuse and declare "case closed".

I don't what case you are referring to. The GZ/TM case has witnesses. For this case the answer to your question might be: "reviewing the evidence and taking the appropriate course of action." Or do you think that charges were not originally filed because the cops are all racist?

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

Wow! The state now wants to argue 3rd degree murder on the basis of child abuse... This is crazy!

The political pressure on them and the judge must be horrendous. I even heard a black lawyer say on TV this morning he believed there was a lot of political pressure to get something other than acquittal.

[alexava 6,973]

Wow! The state now wants to argue 3rd degree murder on the basis of child abuse... This is crazy!

The political pressure on them and the judge must be horrendous. I even heard a black lawyer say on TV this morning he believed there was a lot of political pressure to get something other than acquittal.

this is my concern. the jurors might be feeling this.

[alexava 6,973]

it might serve GZ better to get manslaughter and a short sentence rather than an acquittal, for his own well being. however I think it will and should be an acquittal.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

Wow! The state now wants to argue 3rd degree murder on the basis of child abuse... This is crazy!

The political pressure on them and the judge must be horrendous. I even heard a black lawyer say on TV this morning he believed there was a lot of political pressure to get something other than acquittal.

this is my concern. the jurors might be feeling this.

It's sad to say or even think it but in this time of so much corruption in the DOJ, I would not be shocked to learn that the jurors have been paid to convict him as charged.

[AUGradinTX 0]

Wow! The state now wants to argue 3rd degree murder on the basis of child abuse... This is crazy!

The political pressure on them and the judge must be horrendous. I even heard a black lawyer say on TV this morning he believed there was a lot of political pressure to get something other than acquittal.

It tells me the state thinks their case is weak.

[TeBoneAU 89]

Wow! The state now wants to argue 3rd degree murder on the basis of child abuse... This is crazy!

The political pressure on them and the judge must be horrendous. I even heard a black lawyer say on TV this morning he believed there was a lot of political pressure to get something other than acquittal.

this is my concern. the jurors might be feeling this.

It's sad to say or even think it but in this time of so much corruption in the DOJ, I would not be shocked to learn that the jurors have been paid to convict him as charged.

I can't even entertain such a corruptive thought unless I am watching a movie for entertainment. As a father of 3 and law abiding citizen of society...there is no amount of MONEY that would cause ME to sell my soul. We have a judicial system...is it perfect NO but to think that ANYONE can be bought off just to please ones desires is fictitious.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

Wow! The state now wants to argue 3rd degree murder on the basis of child abuse... This is crazy!

The political pressure on them and the judge must be horrendous. I even heard a black lawyer say on TV this morning he believed there was a lot of political pressure to get something other than acquittal.

this is my concern. the jurors might be feeling this.

It's sad to say or even think it but in this time of so much corruption in the DOJ, I would not be shocked to learn that the jurors have been paid to convict him as charged.

I can't even entertain such a corruptive thought unless I am watching a movie for entertainment. As a father of 3 and law abiding citizen of society...there is no amount of MONEY that would cause ME to sell my soul. We have a judicial system...is it perfect NO but to think that ANYONE can be bought off just to please ones desires is fictitious.

Unfortunately it has happened before. Look at the history of Chicago.

[AUGradinTX 0]

If GZ did not have a firearm with him that night, what would the likely outcome have been?

[ToomersRevenge 284]

If GZ did not have a firearm with him that night, what would the likely outcome have been?

If he still reported and got out of his truck, then Trayvon Martin would likely go to jail for assault.

I do find it very interesting that the judge and "this court" has put the finding of 'not guilty' at the bottom of the list of jury findings in their instructions sheets when not guilty is supposed to be the default finding for a person in court. Starting with guilty makes me feel like it puts that burden directly on the defendant.

[telling tiger 156]

All states, except West Virginia and Texas, have a jury charge pattern and the instructions are given the same way every time.

[SLAG-91 1,483]

Judge is not allowing 3rd degree murder based on child abuse to be considered. Correct ruling, imo. On the other hand, she did ask of the defense "Can you show the law that says it's not against the law to follow someone?", essentially asking them to prove a negative...head-scratcher, to be sure.

Looks like it's murder 2, manslaughter or acquit.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

All states, except West Virginia and Texas, have a jury charge pattern and the instructions are given the same way every time.

I just called a retired judge in Alabama who is a friend of mine and he says this is not true. Got any facts to support your statement?

[telling tiger 156]

Bless your heart, you really are laughable. Do you really find it reasonable that a state court system will leave itself open to appeal of every case because the jury could be charged in a different way each time? The states do vary according to state law, but each state does it in the same manner every time. http://www.wisegeek.com/what-are-pattern-jury-instructions.htm I call BS on your claim, if he said it, no wonder he is retired or then you could have met at the cognitive reasoning clinic. You are in serious need of treatment.

[ToomersRevenge 284]

I don't doubt that this is the way it is, but it just seems disingenuous to me. Especially since people have a natural tendency to think that the first thing listed is the "best" choice in a given situation.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

Bless your heart, you really are laughable. Do you really find it reasonable that a state court system will leave itself open to appeal of every case because the jury could be charged in a different way each time? The states do vary according to state law, but each state does it in the same manner every time. http://www.wisegeek....nstructions.htm I call BS on your claim, if he said it, no wonder he is retired or then you could have met at the cognitive reasoning clinic. You are in serious need of treatment.

I'd rather be laughable than FOS. You apparently have a serious comprehension problem. Go back and look at ToomerRevenge's post (#390 above) that you responded to. He didn't say anything about pattern instructions per se. He questioned putting the finding of "not guilty" at the bottom of the list. That's what I discussed with my judge friend. There is NOTHING in your link to wiseGeek that addresses the location of the "not guilty" finding in the instructions to the jury. Instructions "in the same manner" does not mean in the "exact same order". I challenge you to show me a link saying exactly where the finding of "not guilty" has to be in the instructions and that all states except West Virginia and Texas require it that way.

[TexasTiger 13,026]

Bless your heart, you really are laughable. Do you really find it reasonable that a state court system will leave itself open to appeal of every case because the jury could be charged in a different way each time? The states do vary according to state law, but each state does it in the same manner every time. http://www.wisegeek....nstructions.htm I call BS on your claim, if he said it, no wonder he is retired or then you could have met at the cognitive reasoning clinic. You are in serious need of treatment.

I'd rather be laughable than FOS.

It's not an either/or.

[telling tiger 156]

That assumes everyone is as simplistic as you are. Thank goodness it is not so. Completely hilarious, the only people to give it a moments thought is this thread. The options are read in the same way every time, given case particulars, IE. degrees of criminality. So the complaints were where in the other 1.3 million cases deliberated in Florida over the last few decades? Yeah that is what I thought. EVERY STATE judiciary has a system of standardized jury charges at opening and at deliberations, the exceptions I mentioned earlier, they even have bounds for those exceptions. My answer to ToomersRevenge was correct and your lack of cognitive ability has no bearing. Normal course of events.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

That assumes everyone is as simplistic as you are. Thank goodness it is not so. Completely hilarious, the only people to give it a moments thought is this thread. The options are read in the same way every time, given case particulars, IE. degrees of criminality. So the complaints were where in the other 1.3 million cases deliberated in Florida over the last few decades? Yeah that is what I thought. EVERY STATE judiciary has a system of standardized jury charges at opening and at deliberations, the exceptions I mentioned earlier, they even have bounds for those exceptions. My answer to ToomersRevenge was correct and your lack of cognitive ability has no bearing. Normal course of events.

I'll leave it to ToomerRevenge to decide if your response satisfied his "surprise." But for the record, you still ramble around with yada yada about the nature of the instructions but can't produce a shred of info that says the instructions have to be given in the same order every time. All you can do is sling insults. And I note you still can't resist responding to my posts because you didn't get this one on someone else's post as was your last excuse.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

Bless your heart, you really are laughable. Do you really find it reasonable that a state court system will leave itself open to appeal of every case because the jury could be charged in a different way each time? The states do vary according to state law, but each state does it in the same manner every time. http://www.wisegeek....nstructions.htm I call BS on your claim, if he said it, no wonder he is retired or then you could have met at the cognitive reasoning clinic. You are in serious need of treatment.

I'd rather be laughable than FOS.

It's not an either/or.

Let me get this straight Tex.......you are saying he is both? (LOL). Dang all this bickering is getting ridiculous.. Hurry up August 31.