George Zimmerman Trial

[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.

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.

how old do you think i am?

[TexasTiger 13,019]

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.

how old do you think i am?

I was guessing 13.

[alexava 6,973]

To answer the question i would probably act with emotion, pain ,grief, despair, and take the matter into my own hands. I would not acept the fact that my son or grandson was a bit troubled with drugs and likef to fight. Movef from his moms to dads as a result of the troubles. That there was no way he got cocky and tried to knock the cracker or whatever racially offensive term fit neighborhood watchman out. No way not my boy. Im not able to look past those emotions if this were my kid.

[TexasTiger 13,019]

To answer the question i would probably act with emotion, pain ,grief, despair, and take the matter into my own hands. I would not acept the fact that my son or grandson was a bit troubled with drugs and likef to fight. Movef from his moms to dads as a result of the troubles. That there was no way he got cocky and tried to knock the cracker or whatever racially offensive term fit neighborhood watchman out. No way not my boy. Im not able to look past those emotions if this were my kid.

What if none of those characterizations fit your kid, since they aren't in my hypothetical designed to facilitate an intelligent discussion about process?

[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.

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.

Interesting how you mostly picked out the things about the GZ case that support your stance and left out almost all of the things that would weaken your stance in posing this loaded question. If that's not intellectually dishonest what is?

Of course, your just a cool cucumber watching everyone else become emotionally involved. Lol.

[TexasTiger 13,019]

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.

Interesting how you mostly picked out the things about the GZ case that support your stance and left out almost all of the things that would weaken your stance in posing this loaded question. If that's not intellectually dishonest what is?

Of course, your just a cool cucumber watching everyone else become emotionally involved. Lol.

The question is about process-- what should the responsibilities of someone claiming an affirmative defense be? Your head is stuck on the case in FL. I'm asking a larger question. Perhaps there are some here capable of having that discussion. Perhaps not.

In a given case the facts will point one way or another, but the process of getting there should be the same whether one is ultimately guilty or innocent.

[ToomersRevenge 284]

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.

Interesting how you mostly picked out the things about the GZ case that support your stance and left out almost all of the things that would weaken your stance in posing this loaded question. If that's not intellectually dishonest what is?

Of course, your just a cool cucumber watching everyone else become emotionally involved. Lol.

The question is about process-- what should the responsibilities of someone claiming an affirmative defense be? Your head is stuck on the case in FL. I'm asking a larger question. Perhaps there are some here capable of having that discussion. Perhaps not.

In a given case the facts will point one way or another, but the process of getting there should be the same whether one is ultimately guilty or innocent.

The process is that you don't have to self-incriminate, or put yourself in a situation where that could occur. If you want to testify, fine. But there are plenty of ways that a completely innocent person can be made to look very guilty given the right questions or a simple slip of the tongue/turn of phrase.

[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.

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.

Interesting how you mostly picked out the things about the GZ case that support your stance and left out almost all of the things that would weaken your stance in posing this loaded question. If that's not intellectually dishonest what is?

Of course, your just a cool cucumber watching everyone else become emotionally involved. Lol.

The question is about process-- what should the responsibilities of someone claiming an affirmative defense be? Your head is stuck on the case in FL. I'm asking a larger question. Perhaps there are some here capable of having that discussion. Perhaps not.

In a given case the facts will point one way or another, but the process of getting there should be the same whether one is ultimately guilty or innocent.

Sorry Tex, it's such a silly idea it's hard to follow your thoughts here. Your proposal is absurd. We don't force people to prove their innocence. It's one of the foundations of our legal system that works well. It's better to let a guilty person go than lock an innocent one away based on overzealous gut feelings and having a defendant who may be innocent but not perform well on the stand. It is up to the state to prove guilt, not the defendant to prove innocence. I like it that way.

If there is enough evidence presented against someone they may feel the need to testify, but that is their call.

There is no doubt in my mind that having the "tex" law enacted would result in more innocent people going to jail. There are a lot of hotshot prosecutors out there and a lot of innocent people who can't afford good lawyers to match them.

[TexasTiger 13,019]

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.

Interesting how you mostly picked out the things about the GZ case that support your stance and left out almost all of the things that would weaken your stance in posing this loaded question. If that's not intellectually dishonest what is?

Of course, your just a cool cucumber watching everyone else become emotionally involved. Lol.

The question is about process-- what should the responsibilities of someone claiming an affirmative defense be? Your head is stuck on the case in FL. I'm asking a larger question. Perhaps there are some here capable of having that discussion. Perhaps not.

In a given case the facts will point one way or another, but the process of getting there should be the same whether one is ultimately guilty or innocent.

The process is that you don't have to self-incriminate, or put yourself in a situation where that could occur. If you want to testify, fine. But there are plenty of ways that a completely innocent person can be made to look very guilty given the right questions or a simple slip of the tongue/turn of phrase.

If there is no dispute that you killed a guy, asserting self defense is the opposite of incriminating yourself. If you say, "I didn't kill him," then the state has to prove you did and you don't have to do a thing. Self defense is saying, "Sure, I killed the guy, but I'm not guilty because..." "I did it, but I'm not accountable because..."

[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.

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.

how old do you think i am?

I was guessing 13.

a 13 year old grandfather? Ok that makes sense.

[TexasTiger 13,019]

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.

Interesting how you mostly picked out the things about the GZ case that support your stance and left out almost all of the things that would weaken your stance in posing this loaded question. If that's not intellectually dishonest what is?

Of course, your just a cool cucumber watching everyone else become emotionally involved. Lol.

The question is about process-- what should the responsibilities of someone claiming an affirmative defense be? Your head is stuck on the case in FL. I'm asking a larger question. Perhaps there are some here capable of having that discussion. Perhaps not.

In a given case the facts will point one way or another, but the process of getting there should be the same whether one is ultimately guilty or innocent.

Sorry Tex, it's such a silly idea it's hard to follow your thoughts here. Your proposal is absurd. We don't force people to prove their innocence. It's one of the foundations of our legal system that works well. It's better to let a guilty person go than lock an innocent one away based on overzealous gut feelings and having a defendant who may be innocent but not perform well on the stand. It is up to the state to prove guilt, not the defendant to prove innocence. I like it that way.

If there is enough evidence presented against someone they may feel the need to testify, but that is their call.

There is no doubt in my mind that having the "tex" law enacted would result in more innocent people going to jail. There are a lot of hotshot prosecutors out there and a lot of innocent people who can't afford good lawyers to match them.

See above. It isn't silly for thinking people, but if you don't want to engage in the discussion then don't.

[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.

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.

how old do you think i am?

I was guessing 13.

a 13 year old grandfather? Ok that makes sense.

Lol. Tex is pissy when he gets upset.

[TexasTiger 13,019]

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.

how old do you think i am?

I was guessing 13.

a 13 year old grandfather? Ok that makes sense.

My question was posed to the board-- generic hypotheticals require one to put himself in another's shoes.

[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.

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.

Interesting how you mostly picked out the things about the GZ case that support your stance and left out almost all of the things that would weaken your stance in posing this loaded question. If that's not intellectually dishonest what is?

Of course, your just a cool cucumber watching everyone else become emotionally involved. Lol.

The question is about process-- what should the responsibilities of someone claiming an affirmative defense be? Your head is stuck on the case in FL. I'm asking a larger question. Perhaps there are some here capable of having that discussion. Perhaps not.

In a given case the facts will point one way or another, but the process of getting there should be the same whether one is ultimately guilty or innocent.

Sorry Tex, it's such a silly idea it's hard to follow your thoughts here. Your proposal is absurd. We don't force people to prove their innocence. It's one of the foundations of our legal system that works well. It's better to let a guilty person go than lock an innocent one away based on overzealous gut feelings and having a defendant who may be innocent but not perform well on the stand. It is up to the state to prove guilt, not the defendant to prove innocence. I like it that way.

If there is enough evidence presented against someone they may feel the need to testify, but that is their call.

There is no doubt in my mind that having the "tex" law enacted would result in more innocent people going to jail. There are a lot of hotshot prosecutors out there and a lot of innocent people who can't afford good lawyers to match them.

See above

I'm not looking for anything. Just pointing out the silliness of your new "philisophical" endeavors. Take a step back from the trees and see above yourself and you might see the silliness of what you're trying to accomplish here. You can try to pretend like it is totally disassociated from this case and that would fit right in with your irrationality in this thread.

[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.

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.

how old do you think i am?

I was guessing 13.

a 13 year old grandfather? Ok that makes sense.

My question was posed to the board-- generic hypotheticals require one to put himself in another's shoes.

Lol. You quote him directly, which means your response is directed at him, and use the phrase "your" and then claim you were addressing the entire board. Your dishonesty grows my friend.

Why use grandson? Why would you assume everyone reading would relate to having a grandchild?

You do realize many people here think rationally and don't believe something just because tex said it, right?

[TexasTiger 13,019]

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.

Interesting how you mostly picked out the things about the GZ case that support your stance and left out almost all of the things that would weaken your stance in posing this loaded question. If that's not intellectually dishonest what is?

Of course, your just a cool cucumber watching everyone else become emotionally involved. Lol.

The question is about process-- what should the responsibilities of someone claiming an affirmative defense be? Your head is stuck on the case in FL. I'm asking a larger question. Perhaps there are some here capable of having that discussion. Perhaps not.

In a given case the facts will point one way or another, but the process of getting there should be the same whether one is ultimately guilty or innocent.

Sorry Tex, it's such a silly idea it's hard to follow your thoughts here. Your proposal is absurd. We don't force people to prove their innocence. It's one of the foundations of our legal system that works well. It's better to let a guilty person go than lock an innocent one away based on overzealous gut feelings and having a defendant who may be innocent but not perform well on the stand. It is up to the state to prove guilt, not the defendant to prove innocence. I like it that way.

If there is enough evidence presented against someone they may feel the need to testify, but that is their call.

There is no doubt in my mind that having the "tex" law enacted would result in more innocent people going to jail. There are a lot of hotshot prosecutors out there and a lot of innocent people who can't afford good lawyers to match them.

See above

I'm not looking for anything. Just pointing out the silliness of your new "philisophical" endeavors. Take a step back from the trees and see above yourself and you might see the silliness of what you're trying to accomplish here. You can try to pretend like it is totally disassociated from this case and that would fit right in with your irrationality in this thread.

I realize you're probably drunk, but I clearly said this was for folks who want to have the discussion, not those that just want to rant. I don't recall you ever engaging in meaningful discussion and I've hardly insisted that you do so now. You're monotonous and tiring. Knock yourself out if you wish, but I'm done with your angry childish behavior tonight. Good night.

[ToomersRevenge 284]

If there is no dispute that you killed a guy, asserting self defense is the opposite of incriminating yourself. If you say, "I didn't kill him," then the state has to prove you did and you don't have to do a thing. Self defense is saying, "Sure, I killed the guy, but I'm not guilty because..." "I did it, but I'm not accountable because..."

For ease of reading I'm starting the quotes over. That train was too long.

Anyway, I'm not sure what your point here is. That's what Zimmerman's lawyers are there to argue. My client killed X in self defense, this is the story, these are the witnesses, etc. Putting that client on the stand doesn't do anything to prove their story, but it does put them up against people who make careers out of tripping up people or using their words against them. It's very easy to take a simple statement and turn it against someone.

[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.

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.

Interesting how you mostly picked out the things about the GZ case that support your stance and left out almost all of the things that would weaken your stance in posing this loaded question. If that's not intellectually dishonest what is?

Of course, your just a cool cucumber watching everyone else become emotionally involved. Lol.

The question is about process-- what should the responsibilities of someone claiming an affirmative defense be? Your head is stuck on the case in FL. I'm asking a larger question. Perhaps there are some here capable of having that discussion. Perhaps not.

In a given case the facts will point one way or another, but the process of getting there should be the same whether one is ultimately guilty or innocent.

Sorry Tex, it's such a silly idea it's hard to follow your thoughts here. Your proposal is absurd. We don't force people to prove their innocence. It's one of the foundations of our legal system that works well. It's better to let a guilty person go than lock an innocent one away based on overzealous gut feelings and having a defendant who may be innocent but not perform well on the stand. It is up to the state to prove guilt, not the defendant to prove innocence. I like it that way.

If there is enough evidence presented against someone they may feel the need to testify, but that is their call.

There is no doubt in my mind that having the "tex" law enacted would result in more innocent people going to jail. There are a lot of hotshot prosecutors out there and a lot of innocent people who can't afford good lawyers to match them.

See above. It isn't silly for thinking people, but if you don't want to engage in the discussion then don't.

I did engage in the discussion beevis. I stated your idea was absurd to me and offered up the why part of it.

[homersapien 11,447]

I don't buy the hide and attack claim of Zimmerman. I don't think TM changed his strategy. Maybe he hid hoping GZ would leave him alone. He told his friend on the phone he thought he lost him. Maybe he didn't want the strange guy following him to know where he lived. I think GZ got out of his car looking for TM and found him.

If GZ did go looking for TM and found him and then TM attacked him out of irrational fear causing GZ to defend himself in fear of his life would that be a crime by GZ?

Because GZ was packing and he shot TM, absolutely. It would at least be manslaughter.

Okay, so using your "logic" presented above anytime an armed person shoots someone it is a criminal offense of manslaughter. Thanks for validating your irrationality on this subject once again.

What a absurd way of characterizing what I said. I didn't say that, and everyone reading this carefully knows it.

Do you think everyone reading this is stupid or are you just trying to appeal to those who are?

[homersapien 11,447]

and Trayvon was a saint

well, he didn't kill anyone. Just bought some Skittles-- that bothers you somehow?

You are killing me with the "innocent skittle buyer" routine. Team you up with Homer's "he exited the car, he must live behind bars", Johnny Cochran style tag line, and the two of you are a Prosecution Dream Team!

Then die and go away already.

Are you seriously trying to argue that Trayvon's character or history is justification for shooting him?

And your last sentence infers a racial component to your thinking, which I suppose is at least consistent with the premise that Trayvon's past should be a consideration. Zimmerman was clearly "profiling" him.

Your thoughts here are ludicrous, and your conclusions afa my thoughts are way off.

Saying that I am indicating Trayvon's past is grounds for shooting him is ridiculous on your part.

Actually, it was not a statement. It was a question. That means you get to answer it. So try to at least observe the basics of debate. I am not really interesting in exchanging insults, (at least witless ones).

My point is that it took two to tango that night. I don't believe that GZ had the intent to track and kill him. I believe that TM did some things that brought about his own demise that he EASILY could have avoided. To continuously refer to him as some kind of innocent little Skittle Buyer is beyond amusing and weakens someones argument that they think they are strengthening.

Afa as you playing the race card on my last sentence, that is unfounded. The only possible reason to do that is I mentioned Johnny Cochran and the mention had nothing to do with his race. I'm not sure why you would think it did.

Because I think that a lot of people supporting Zimmerman's case exhibit latent or subliminal racism. The reference to Cochran may or may not have been such a reference, but it struck me as that way. It's not as blatant as AU Raptor (for example) but it is what it is.

Now, having said that, I will be the first to say that we all, including me, have a little racism in our "makeup". But when people start flashing it, I don't have a problem with acknowledging it. You can call it playing the "race card" if you want. I am just pointing out what seems obvious to me.

[homersapien 11,447]

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.

Right. Those "quotes" make all the difference. :-\

So what was your point then? You accused the media of avoiding that picture.

So do you think the picture is prejudicial or what? If it's not, why would the media avoid it? If it is, why is it?

(And I could care less about what any of my opinions mean to you.)

[homersapien 11,447]

100% they still must appease that side.

What does that mean?

[homersapien 11,447]

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.

That doesn't sound like something an "open-minded" person would write. It sounds more like a rhetorical, ad hominem argument - or more accurately, rant - to me

[homersapien 11,447]

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.

Especially when so many random people decide to start carrying guns.

[homersapien 11,447]

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.

You seem to want to take this discussion personally. That may or may not be an emotionally-linked response, but it is misplaced IMO.