George Zimmerman Trial

[tgr4lfe 220]

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.

So Trayvon has no right to defend himself from a stranger following him at night?

Why would someone need to defend themselves due to being followed? It is disturbing and appalling that you would feel this way.

Oh get real. It's night. A stranger has been stalking him in his car, then gets out of his car and starts following him. Many people would feel threatened by that.

This kid was walking home minding his own business, and now he's the predator?

As the evidence indicates to me, yes, he is. Someone who feels threatened would leave the scene when given the opportunity. TM had that opportunity and didn't. He chose to stay. Ask yourself why he would do that if he felt threatened.

Maybe he was pissed about being followed and felt he could take the guy following him. Maybe he was just pissed in general and took it out on the guy who was following him. Don't know, don't care.

All anyone knows for sure is that Zimmerman was following him first in a car, then on foot (ignoring a request from the dispatcher not to) for no justifiable reason. Maybe Trayvon did act inappropriately. Maybe Trayvon did throw the first punch. But to excuse Zimmerman for his decisions that led directly to that moment is simply not right.

Trayvon was minding his own business. This would not have happened if Zimmerman had been minding his. This incident started with Zimmerman, not Trayvon. That has got to count for something. If you are going to carry a gun, it can't be OK to actively look for trouble and then claim self-defense when it happens.

Thinking that GZ's actions before the altercation adds culpability to GZ is flat out wrong. TM instigated the "contact" and is just as culpable in the whole ordeal. The moral compass of whether he should or shouldn't have followed TM is a personal choice. Morally I don't think there is anything wrong with following watching a suspicious person in my neighborhood. I'm not gonna engage unless they give me reason, I.e. become a threat to me or others. GZ wasn't looking for trouble, IMO, but trying deter it. It is beyond absurd to say that a person can't claim self defense when they fear for their life just b/c they are legally carrying a firearm.

No it's not. It is flat out correct.

You are just trying to rationalize (armed) stupidity.

Not at all, what GZ or TM did PRIOR to the altercation in b/t the buildings has ZERO bearing...even if TM was scoping housed to break into, it wouldn't matter, only the direct altercation. FL has no intent to carry law as far as I know. What happened in the moments of the altercation are the only thing that can be examined when it comes to self defense, the before hand would matter if GZ had intent to kill (i.e. murder) which his sole intent was to not kill TM. It really doesn't even matter who started the fight. If I stated a fight with a guy b/c he called my wife a bitch, and in the course of the fight I'm bashing his head on the concrete floor, and he is able to get broken bottle, a knife, a brick, a pen, and kills me with it, he is absolutely NOT guilty of murder or manslaughter and self defense applies 100%.

You are choosing to ignore criminal law of intent and instead placing moral code in a manner it can't be. As the facts stand, without evidence that GZ had intent to kill or killed in manner outside self defense, there is nothing that is immoral. It is definitely a shame that TM lost his life and there MOST definitely could have been better decisions made by GZ and TM, and I'm sure GZ feels bad that he had to kill TM, but he did it to protect his life, in his opinion and based on evidence, and for defending himself, he should NOT feel bad for defending himself, but just for the death of a young man.

[alexava 6,973]

I think it does matter who starts the fight. It should.

[SLAG-91 1,483]

Well, the jury has already stopped deliberations for the evening. I truly am not sure what to make of that either way.

A question for the group: If this ends up with a hung jury, what is the likelihood of the state re-trying this?

[alexava 6,973]

100% they still must appease that side.

[TexasTiger 13,020]

100% they still must appease that side.

Which side is that?

[TexasTiger 13,020]

Had a question: Why do all news agencies keep showing this picture of TM and portraying him as some skinny little young kid that looks like an elementary school picture? Everything I have heard and seen show otherwise. Sorry if this has been discussed-got to the thread late and am not about to go through 50 pages.

Because it pushes their agenda?

I'm not certain why they are avoiding the realistic recent "thug" looking picture. I suppose it is because they "know" he was that innocent looking schoolboy craving some Skittles.

"Thug"? What is it about that picture that makes him look like a "thug"? Is it because he isn't smiling?

Do all the unsmiling, individual pictures of our football team reveal "thugs"? After all, they do look pretty tough.

Taken as a whole, your comments could easily be construed as revealing (hopefully) latent racism.

You don't catch much do you? I used the quotes for a reason. I wouldn't necessarily say he looks like a thug in the picture but he definitely looks a lot more like one than he does in his baby pics they used.

It's a combination of his demeanor which looks unfriendly, the pose he is in, and the face and neck tattoos.

If you could bleach him white and give him blue eyes and a wavy blond hairdo I would say the same thing.

I am not a racist and I honestly don't think words can express how little your opinion on that matter means to me.

Own your words or say you made a mistake. You chose them.

[alexava 6,973]

100% they still must appease that side.

Which side is that?

the side that is fueled by emotion but short on facts.

[TexasTiger 13,020]

100% they still must appease that side.

Which side is that?

the side that is fueled by emotion but short on facts.

One of the few undisputed facts is that GZ killed TM. His attorney asserts it was self defense. Do you think when someone has admitted to killing someone, but claims they get to walk free because he was defending himself that he should testify to make that claim and allow cross examination? Otherwise, it seems to me that you're assuming his claim, not even made under oath or subject to cross examination, is all that is necessary to allow someone known to have killed someone to walk free.

[tiger88 934]

Had a question: Why do all news agencies keep showing this picture of TM and portraying him as some skinny little young kid that looks like an elementary school picture? Everything I have heard and seen show otherwise. Sorry if this has been discussed-got to the thread late and am not about to go through 50 pages.

Because it pushes their agenda?

I'm not certain why they are avoiding the realistic recent "thug" looking picture. I suppose it is because they "know" he was that innocent looking schoolboy craving some Skittles.

"Thug"? What is it about that picture that makes him look like a "thug"? Is it because he isn't smiling?

Do all the unsmiling, individual pictures of our football team reveal "thugs"? After all, they do look pretty tough.

Taken as a whole, your comments could easily be construed as revealing (hopefully) latent racism.

You don't catch much do you? I used the quotes for a reason. I wouldn't necessarily say he looks like a thug in the picture but he definitely looks a lot more like one than he does in his baby pics they used.

It's a combination of his demeanor which looks unfriendly, the pose he is in, and the face and neck tattoos.

If you could bleach him white and give him blue eyes and a wavy blond hairdo I would say the same thing.

I am not a racist and I honestly don't think words can express how little your opinion on that matter means to me.

Own your words or say you made a mistake. You chose them.

I explained it thoroughly. Why else would the quote marks have been there? If I wanted to call the kid a straight up thug there would have been no quotes. It certainly wouldn't shock me at all if kid was a thug with his look and all the horrific tattoo work, I'll say that. I would put my ultra profiling skills to work and guess a 60-80 chance of some sort of thuggery (minor or major) in that persons life based on that picture.

If I made a mistake it was expecting some people to realize there was a significance to using the quote marks there.

[TexasTiger 13,020]

Had a question: Why do all news agencies keep showing this picture of TM and portraying him as some skinny little young kid that looks like an elementary school picture? Everything I have heard and seen show otherwise. Sorry if this has been discussed-got to the thread late and am not about to go through 50 pages.

Because it pushes their agenda?

I'm not certain why they are avoiding the realistic recent "thug" looking picture. I suppose it is because they "know" he was that innocent looking schoolboy craving some Skittles.

"Thug"? What is it about that picture that makes him look like a "thug"? Is it because he isn't smiling?

Do all the unsmiling, individual pictures of our football team reveal "thugs"? After all, they do look pretty tough.

Taken as a whole, your comments could easily be construed as revealing (hopefully) latent racism.

You don't catch much do you? I used the quotes for a reason. I wouldn't necessarily say he looks like a thug in the picture but he definitely looks a lot more like one than he does in his baby pics they used.

It's a combination of his demeanor which looks unfriendly, the pose he is in, and the face and neck tattoos.

If you could bleach him white and give him blue eyes and a wavy blond hairdo I would say the same thing.

I am not a racist and I honestly don't think words can express how little your opinion on that matter means to me.

Own your words or say you made a mistake. You chose them.

I explained it thoroughly. Why else would the quote marks have been there? If I wanted to call the kid a straight up thug there would have been no quotes. It certainly wouldn't shock me at all if kid was a thug with his look and all the horrific tattoo work, I'll say that. I would put my ultra profiling skills to work and guess a 60-80 chance of some sort of thuggery (minor or major) in that persons life based on that picture.

If I made a mistake it was expecting some people to realize there was a significance to using the quote marks there.

If tattoos make a thug, you have a low opinion of much of Auburn's roster.

[alexava 6,973]

Tatoos dont make you a thug, but most thugs are covered in them.

[tiger88 934]

100% they still must appease that side.

Which side is that?

the side that is fueled by emotion but short on facts.

One of the few undisputed facts is that GZ killed TM. His attorney asserts it was self defense. Do you think when someone has admitted to killing someone, but claims they get to walk free because he was defending himself that he should testify to make that claim and allow cross examination? Otherwise, it seems to me that you're assuming his claim, not even made under oath or subject to cross examination, is all that is necessary to allow someone known to have killed someone to walk free.

Complete BS. So now you are saying he must prove he is innocent as opposed to being proven guilty. Let's rewrite our legal system to please Tex in the GZ case. What a freaking joke. Any attorney that wanted to win the case would be a fool to let GZ on the stand. As weak as this case is, he has nothing to prove, the state does.

[tiger88 934]

Had a question: Why do all news agencies keep showing this picture of TM and portraying him as some skinny little young kid that looks like an elementary school picture? Everything I have heard and seen show otherwise. Sorry if this has been discussed-got to the thread late and am not about to go through 50 pages.

Because it pushes their agenda?

I'm not certain why they are avoiding the realistic recent "thug" looking picture. I suppose it is because they "know" he was that innocent looking schoolboy craving some Skittles.

"Thug"? What is it about that picture that makes him look like a "thug"? Is it because he isn't smiling?

Do all the unsmiling, individual pictures of our football team reveal "thugs"? After all, they do look pretty tough.

Taken as a whole, your comments could easily be construed as revealing (hopefully) latent racism.

You don't catch much do you? I used the quotes for a reason. I wouldn't necessarily say he looks like a thug in the picture but he definitely looks a lot more like one than he does in his baby pics they used.

It's a combination of his demeanor which looks unfriendly, the pose he is in, and the face and neck tattoos.

If you could bleach him white and give him blue eyes and a wavy blond hairdo I would say the same thing.

I am not a racist and I honestly don't think words can express how little your opinion on that matter means to me.

Own your words or say you made a mistake. You chose them.

I explained it thoroughly. Why else would the quote marks have been there? If I wanted to call the kid a straight up thug there would have been no quotes. It certainly wouldn't shock me at all if kid was a thug with his look and all the horrific tattoo work, I'll say that. I would put my ultra profiling skills to work and guess a 60-80 chance of some sort of thuggery (minor or major) in that persons life based on that picture.

If I made a mistake it was expecting some people to realize there was a significance to using the quote marks there.

If tattoos make a thug, you have a low opinion of much of Auburn's roster.

*snicker*

I am fairly certain we have some thugs on the team, if so I hope it's a tiny number. Just going by historical data there.

There are plenty of non thugs with tattoos. Although, facial tattoos are becoming slightly more popular, that does raise the likelihood of potential thuggery/rebelliousness in my book.

Loved the Sonic commercial that joked on that issue. It was hilarious.

[alexava 6,973]

100% they still must appease that side.

Which side is that?

the side that is fueled by emotion but short on facts.

One of the few undisputed facts is that GZ killed TM. His attorney asserts it was self defense. Do you think when someone has admitted to killing someone, but claims they get to walk free because he was defending himself that he should testify to make that claim and allow cross examination? Otherwise, it seems to me that you're assuming his claim, not even made under oath or subject to cross examination, is all that is necessary to allow someone known to have killed someone to walk free.

he has told his story enough. He has been wrongfully labeled a racist. He has bee accused of having been fueled by hate and ill will that was not evident on tape. He has been accused of not following an "order" of LE when he was not given one. He talked to police and fully cooperated for the investigation and was not charged until national attention was brought on. This is all EMOTION, not fact.

[TexasTiger 13,020]

100% they still must appease that side.

Which side is that?

the side that is fueled by emotion but short on facts.

One of the few undisputed facts is that GZ killed TM. His attorney asserts it was self defense. Do you think when someone has admitted to killing someone, but claims they get to walk free because he was defending himself that he should testify to make that claim and allow cross examination? Otherwise, it seems to me that you're assuming his claim, not even made under oath or subject to cross examination, is all that is necessary to allow someone known to have killed someone to walk free.

he has told his story enough. He has been wrongfully labeled a racist. He has bee accused of having been fueled by hate and ill will that was not evident on tape. He has been accused of not following an "order" of LE when he was not given one. He talked to police and fully cooperated for the investigation and was not charged until national attention was brought on. This is all EMOTION, not fact.

Your response was all emotion and not a rational response to my question. So much for your arrogance and condescension toward those who disagree with you.

He hasn't told his story at trial. You can't provide a well reasoned response.

[TexasTiger 13,020]

100% they still must appease that side.

Which side is that?

the side that is fueled by emotion but short on facts.

One of the few undisputed facts is that GZ killed TM. His attorney asserts it was self defense. Do you think when someone has admitted to killing someone, but claims they get to walk free because he was defending himself that he should testify to make that claim and allow cross examination? Otherwise, it seems to me that you're assuming his claim, not even made under oath or subject to cross examination, is all that is necessary to allow someone known to have killed someone to walk free.

Complete BS. So now you are saying he must prove he is innocent as opposed to being proven guilty. Let's rewrite our legal system to please Tex in the GZ case. What a freaking joke. Any attorney that wanted to win the case would be a fool to let GZ on the stand. As weak as this case is, he has nothing to prove, the state does.

Prove what? He's claiming an excuse for killing. Shouldn't he be required to prove his claim?

You're all emotion.

[tiger88 934]

100% they still must appease that side.

Which side is that?

the side that is fueled by emotion but short on facts.

One of the few undisputed facts is that GZ killed TM. His attorney asserts it was self defense. Do you think when someone has admitted to killing someone, but claims they get to walk free because he was defending himself that he should testify to make that claim and allow cross examination? Otherwise, it seems to me that you're assuming his claim, not even made under oath or subject to cross examination, is all that is necessary to allow someone known to have killed someone to walk free.

Complete BS. So now you are saying he must prove he is innocent as opposed to being proven guilty. Let's rewrite our legal system to please Tex in the GZ case. What a freaking joke. Any attorney that wanted to win the case would be a fool to let GZ on the stand. As weak as this case is, he has nothing to prove, the state does.

Prove what? He's claiming an excuse for killing. Shouldn't he be required to prove his claim?

You're all emotion.

You have gone completely delusional Tex. No, he shouldn't. Many people that claim self defense killing never go to court at all. He probably shouldn't be in court now.

You are projecting with your emotional claims here lately. You are staying calm on the outside, but your nearly complete irrationality in this case tells a different story. Let's rewrite how the justice system works based on tex's need to convict GZ based on his gut feelings. Beyond hilarious. Be sure and chastise everyone else for not being open minded. Lol.

[TexasTiger 13,020]

100% they still must appease that side.

Which side is that?

the side that is fueled by emotion but short on facts.

One of the few undisputed facts is that GZ killed TM. His attorney asserts it was self defense. Do you think when someone has admitted to killing someone, but claims they get to walk free because he was defending himself that he should testify to make that claim and allow cross examination? Otherwise, it seems to me that you're assuming his claim, not even made under oath or subject to cross examination, is all that is necessary to allow someone known to have killed someone to walk free.

Complete BS. So now you are saying he must prove he is innocent as opposed to being proven guilty. Let's rewrite our legal system to please Tex in the GZ case. What a freaking joke. Any attorney that wanted to win the case would be a fool to let GZ on the stand. As weak as this case is, he has nothing to prove, the state does.

Prove what? He's claiming an excuse for killing. Shouldn't he be required to prove his claim?

You're all emotion.

You have gone completely delusional Tex. No, he shouldn't. Many people that claim self defense killing never go to court at all. He probably shouldn't be in court now.

You are projecting with your emotional claims here lately. You are staying calm on the outside, but your nearly complete irrationality in this case tells a different story. Let's rewrite how the justice system works based on tex's need to convict GZ based on his gut feelings. Beyond hilarious. Be sure and chastise everyone else for not being open minded. Lol.

It's a philosophical question about what should someone claiming an affirmative defense to a crime be required to do. I know you don't engage in intellectual discourse, but it is somewhat sadly amusing watching you go off on an emotional tirade in response to the question. Out of meds?

[alexava 6,973]

100% they still must appease that side.

Which side is that?

the side that is fueled by emotion but short on facts.

One of the few undisputed facts is that GZ killed TM. His attorney asserts it was self defense. Do you think when someone has admitted to killing someone, but claims they get to walk free because he was defending himself that he should testify to make that claim and allow cross examination? Otherwise, it seems to me that you're assuming his claim, not even made under oath or subject to cross examination, is all that is necessary to allow someone known to have killed someone to walk free.

he has told his story enough. He has been wrongfully labeled a racist. He has bee accused of having been fueled by hate and ill will that was not evident on tape. He has been accused of not following an "order" of LE when he was not given one. He talked to police and fully cooperated for the investigation and was not charged until national attention was brought on. This is all EMOTION, not fact.

Your response was all emotion and not a rational response to my question. So much for your arrogance and condescension toward those who disagree with you.

He hasn't told his story at trial. You can't provide a well reasoned response.

there is no need for him to subject himself to cross when the state has not proven him guilty. I didnt know we were arguing the law that allows him not to testify. I didnt write it and have no opinion on it. I have stated facts as i see them. I do not mean to come across as arrogant or condensing.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

Own your words or say you made a mistake. You chose them.

I hope telling tiger reads this

[tgr4lfe 220]

100% they still must appease that side.

Which side is that?

the side that is fueled by emotion but short on facts.

One of the few undisputed facts is that GZ killed TM. His attorney asserts it was self defense. Do you think when someone has admitted to killing someone, but claims they get to walk free because he was defending himself that he should testify to make that claim and allow cross examination? Otherwise, it seems to me that you're assuming his claim, not even made under oath or subject to cross examination, is all that is necessary to allow someone known to have killed someone to walk free.

Complete BS. So now you are saying he must prove he is innocent as opposed to being proven guilty. Let's rewrite our legal system to please Tex in the GZ case. What a freaking joke. Any attorney that wanted to win the case would be a fool to let GZ on the stand. As weak as this case is, he has nothing to prove, the state does.

Prove what? He's claiming an excuse for killing. Shouldn't he be required to prove his claim?

You're all emotion.

by U.S. law, no he doesn't have to prove it....it's called the 5th amendment.

[TexasTiger 13,020]

100% they still must appease that side.

Which side is that?

the side that is fueled by emotion but short on facts.

One of the few undisputed facts is that GZ killed TM. His attorney asserts it was self defense. Do you think when someone has admitted to killing someone, but claims they get to walk free because he was defending himself that he should testify to make that claim and allow cross examination? Otherwise, it seems to me that you're assuming his claim, not even made under oath or subject to cross examination, is all that is necessary to allow someone known to have killed someone to walk free.

he has told his story enough. He has been wrongfully labeled a racist. He has bee accused of having been fueled by hate and ill will that was not evident on tape. He has been accused of not following an "order" of LE when he was not given one. He talked to police and fully cooperated for the investigation and was not charged until national attention was brought on. This is all EMOTION, not fact.

Your response was all emotion and not a rational response to my question. So much for your arrogance and condescension toward those who disagree with you.

He hasn't told his story at trial. You can't provide a well reasoned response.

there is no need for him to subject himself to cross when the state has not proven him guilty. I didnt know we were arguing the law that allows him not to testify. I didnt write it and have no opinion on it. I have stated facts as i see them. I do not mean to come across as arrogant or condensing.

A guy sees your grandson walking home one night at 7pm, calls the cops and says he doesn't like the looks of him. When the cops arrive he is standing over your grandson's dead body and says he got out his car and had to protect himself against your unarmed grandson so he shot him in a manner guaranteed to kill him. He clearly killed him, but claims he's not guilty because he feared your grandson might hurt him. Case closed? It's too much to ask him to be questioned under oath? And I'm not saying what the law is, but what should it be? If someone just wants to rant the same old rant, don't bother. Asking what is truly just is a valid question among civilized and decent people.

[telling tiger 156]

Own your words or say you made a mistake. You chose them.

I hope telling tiger reads this

I did read it, the only difference between us , is that when I read something, I can understand it and comprehend it. It was Golf I had that conversation with back then and today. It was even discussed on the mod board about your Nasa work history because as a response to another admin, you sent it to them too. I've frankly have tried to spare you the embarrassment, but apparently you don't recognize when you need to be embarrassed or you would long ago, have shut the hell up. Now if you will unblock your pm, I'll be happy to send it to you, there are more than a few choice words about you from me, that I will be more than happy for you to read.

[TexasTiger 13,020]

Own your words or say you made a mistake. You chose them.

I hope telling tiger reads this

I did read it, the only difference between us , is that when I read something, I can understand it and comprehend it. It was Golf I had that conversation with back then and today. It was even discussed on the mod board about your Nasa work history because as a response to another admin, you sent it to them too. I've frankly have tried to spare you the embarrassment, but apparently you don't recognize when you need to be embarrassed or you would long ago, have shut the hell up. Now if you will unblock your pm, I'll be happy to send it to you, there are more than a few choice words about you from me, that I will be more than happy for you to read.

Both of you guys need to give it a rest.

[tiger88 934]

100% they still must appease that side.

Which side is that?

the side that is fueled by emotion but short on facts.

One of the few undisputed facts is that GZ killed TM. His attorney asserts it was self defense. Do you think when someone has admitted to killing someone, but claims they get to walk free because he was defending himself that he should testify to make that claim and allow cross examination? Otherwise, it seems to me that you're assuming his claim, not even made under oath or subject to cross examination, is all that is necessary to allow someone known to have killed someone to walk free.

Complete BS. So now you are saying he must prove he is innocent as opposed to being proven guilty. Let's rewrite our legal system to please Tex in the GZ case. What a freaking joke. Any attorney that wanted to win the case would be a fool to let GZ on the stand. As weak as this case is, he has nothing to prove, the state does.

Prove what? He's claiming an excuse for killing. Shouldn't he be required to prove his claim?

You're all emotion.

You have gone completely delusional Tex. No, he shouldn't. Many people that claim self defense killing never go to court at all. He probably shouldn't be in court now.

You are projecting with your emotional claims here lately. You are staying calm on the outside, but your nearly complete irrationality in this case tells a different story. Let's rewrite how the justice system works based on tex's need to convict GZ based on his gut feelings. Beyond hilarious. Be sure and chastise everyone else for not being open minded. Lol.

It's a philosophical question about what should someone claiming an affirmative defense to a crime be required to do. I know you don't engage in intellectual discourse, but it is somewhat sadly amusing watching you go off on an emotional tirade in response to the question. Out of meds?

You are misreading my emotion levels, but it helps build your angle so more power to you. You'll have to do much better to get under my skin.