George Zimmerman Trial

[homersapien 11,450]

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?

Yeah, that's relevant. :-\

[homersapien 11,450]

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.

On the other hand, in a case like this, it could clinch the deal for the defense, especially if his story is true.

[homersapien 11,450]

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?

If someone packs a gun and then "goes looking for" any random, innocent person, for whatever reason, claiming self-defense is a specious excuse for shooting them.

[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.

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

ok, I will try again. yes I would want him to take the stand. I would want him to trip and fall on his face. I would want the DA to make him confess like Kevin Bacon did Jack Nicholson in "A Few Good Men".

[AURaptor 1,126]

So, if acquitted, do we have any odds on who'll be the first 'black leader' to claim that it's open season on young black males ?

Because apparently what's taken place in Chicago hasn't warranted any such declaration.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

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.

You continue to sling your mud rather than admit you lied. As you could note, I invited any mod to say on the open board here that they have sent me a PM, as you state, telling me to cool it any time this year let alone recently as you suggested. No mod has responded. So what does that tell you and anyone else. I think you are misunderstanding Golf because you keep saying something about me responding with my work history. Let me try my best, calmly and politely, to help you out. Last March, I noticed a thread pinned to the top of the board inviting older members to tell more about themselves. When I saw it the threads already had several pages of posts. I typed a post with the intent of putting it in that thread. The intended post did contain some of my work history with NASA because others were including this kind of thing in their posts. Instead of hitting the post button I unknowingly hit the "report to mods" button so they all got it and I'm sure they were confused why. I then got a PM from mod RAVAD telling me I apparently hit the wrong button and I told her yes. That was the end of it. There was nothing more to it. NO ONE told me to cool it as you stated because it didn't involve anything of a bad nature. So you now ask Golf to look back at my messages and see the one from RAVAD dated March 28 . You can also PM RAVAD and ask her about it. Then come back and admit to the open board here that you lied and have slung a bunch of mud and venom over something that you know is not true. Are you man enough to do that?

[telling tiger 156]

Let me know when you are finished reading it big man and I will remove the link. The link to the conversation was posted for 5 minutes, if you didn't read it, let me know, I'll be more than happy to post it for you again.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

Let me know when you are finished reading it big man and I will remove the link.

When I click on the link, I get a message saying I don't have permission to read it. How do you have permission? You are welcome to post anything here about me that wasn't a PM. If it is a PM then have a mod to send it to me. Some mod must be violating board rules if he is giving you access to my PMs or any PMs to me. But once again I challenge you to produce the message from a mod that you keep referring to.

[TitanTiger 20,511]

It is not possible to read some else's PM's unless they forward it to your inbox or you copy and paste it in a post.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

It is not possible to read some else's PM's unless they forward it to your inbox or you copy and paste it in a post.

What you don't see is he apparently did somehow. He posted the link, said he would leave it up for 5 minutes and take it down which he did .I have not exchanged PMs with him. I tried to do so to take the mud slinging off the board but he has me blocked. So he couldn't see a PM from me in his inbox. See my PM to you.

[TitanTiger 20,511]

No, he didn't. If you or anyone else clicked on it you see a message that you don't have permissions to view it. The only way to share a PM is to either cut and paste it in a post or forward the PM to someone else. You cannot provide a link to the PM itself to share it.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

No, he didn't. If you or anyone else clicked on it you see a message that you don't have permissions to view it. The only way to share a PM is to either cut and paste it in a post or forward the PM to someone else. You cannot provide a link to the PM itself to share it.

So what was the link he posted that he said would embarrass me, left up for 5 minutes, then deleted? See post #557 on page 62. Ask him to show it to you the link please. Is it possible for another mod to help him do it? He mentions Golf by name in post #523 on p. 59. He seems to even know what the mods are discussing among themselves.

[tgr4lfe 220]

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?

If someone packs a gun and then "goes looking for" any random, innocent person, for whatever reason, claiming self-defense is a specious excuse for shooting them.

You either know nothing about the law or don't care. Some states have to cover 'intent to carry' where if the prosecution can prove a person went armed looking for trouble then they can charge them in that regard. FL doesn't have that law the prosecution has to have proved that GZ killed TM with culpable negligence with no other justification to or prove manslaughter. For nursed conviction they would have to show:

"(2) The unlawful killing of a human being, when perpetrated by any act imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life, although without any premeditated design to effect the death of any particular individual, is murder in the second degree and constitutes a felony of the first degree, punishable by imprisonment for a term of years not exceeding life or as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

(3) When a human being is killed during the perpetration of, or during the attempt to perpetrate, any:

(a) Trafficking offense prohibited by s. 893.135(1),

( Arson,

© Sexual battery,

(d) Robbery,

(e) Burglary,

(f) Kidnapping,

(g) Escape,

(h) Aggravated child abuse,

(i) Aggravated abuse of an elderly person or disabled adult,

(j) Aircraft piracy,

(k) Unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb,

(l) Carjacking,

(m) Home-invasion robbery,

(n) Aggravated stalking,

(o) Murder of another human being,

(p) Aggravated fleeing or eluding with serious bodily injury or death,

(q) Resisting an officer with violence to his or her person, or

® Felony that is an act of terrorism or is in furtherance of an act of terrorism,

by a person other than the person engaged in the perpetration of or in the attempt to perpetrate such felony, the person perpetrating or attempting to perpetrate such felony commits murder in the second degree, which constitutes a felony of the first degree, punishable by imprisonment for a term of years not exceeding life or as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084."

And for manslaughter:

"782.07 Manslaughter; aggravated manslaughter of an elderly person or disabled adult; aggravated manslaughter of a child; aggravated manslaughter of an officer, a firefighter, an emergency medical technician, or a paramedic.—

(1) The killing of a human being by the act, procurement, or culpable negligence of another, without lawful justification according to the provisions of chapter 776 and in cases in which such killing shall not be excusable homicide or murder, according to the provisions of this chapter, is manslaughter, a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

(3) A person who causes the death of any person under the age of 18 by culpable negligence under s. 827.03(2)( commits aggravated manslaughter of a child, a felony of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084."

Now tell us that the prosecution has proved shown anything to prove this?

[homersapien 11,450]

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?

If someone packs a gun and then "goes looking for" any random, innocent person, for whatever reason, claiming self-defense is a specious excuse for shooting them.

You either know nothing about the law or don't care. Some states have to cover 'intent to carry' where if the prosecution can prove a person went armed looking for trouble then they can charge them in that regard. FL doesn't have that law the prosecution has to have proved that GZ killed TM with culpable negligence with no other justification to or prove manslaughter. For nursed conviction they would have to show:

"(2) The unlawful killing of a human being, when perpetrated by any act imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life, although without any premeditated design to effect the death of any particular individual, is murder in the second degree and constitutes a felony of the first degree, punishable by imprisonment for a term of years not exceeding life or as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

(3) When a human being is killed during the perpetration of, or during the attempt to perpetrate, any:

(a) Trafficking offense prohibited by s. 893.135(1),

(  Arson,

© Sexual battery,

(d) Robbery,

(e) Burglary,

(f) Kidnapping,

(g) Escape,

(h) Aggravated child abuse,

(i) Aggravated abuse of an elderly person or disabled adult,

(j) Aircraft piracy,

(k) Unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb,

(l) Carjacking,

(m) Home-invasion robbery,

(n) Aggravated stalking,

(o) Murder of another human being,

(p) Aggravated fleeing or eluding with serious bodily injury or death,

(q) Resisting an officer with violence to his or her person, or

® Felony that is an act of terrorism or is in furtherance of an act of terrorism,

by a person other than the person engaged in the perpetration of or in the attempt to perpetrate such felony, the person perpetrating or attempting to perpetrate such felony commits murder in the second degree, which constitutes a felony of the first degree, punishable by imprisonment for a term of years not exceeding life or as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084."

And for manslaughter:

"782.07 Manslaughter; aggravated manslaughter of an elderly person or disabled adult; aggravated manslaughter of a child; aggravated manslaughter of an officer, a firefighter, an emergency medical technician, or a paramedic.—

(1) The killing of a human being by the act, procurement, or culpable negligence of another, without lawful justification according to the provisions of chapter 776 and in cases in which such killing shall not be excusable homicide or murder, according to the provisions of this chapter, is manslaughter, a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

(3) A person who causes the death of any person under the age of 18 by culpable negligence under s. 827.03(2)( commits aggravated manslaughter of a child, a felony of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084."

Now tell us that the prosecution has proved shown anything to prove this?

If someone packs a gun and then "goes looking for" any random, innocent person, for whatever reason, claiming self-defense is a specious excuse for shooting them.

I don't know what sort of point you are trying to make, but I have every right to feel that way. I wasn't citing the law of any particular state. I was citing my opinion. Understand?

Oh, and you might want to consider decaff.....

[Wareagletd 0]

Not guilty.

[Dual-Threat Rigby 8,751]

Well riots are most definitely coming from somewhere

[cole256 17,084]

So, if acquitted, do we have any odds on who'll be the first 'black leader' to claim that it's open season on young black males ?

Because apparently what's taken place in Chicago hasn't warranted any such declaration. :gofig:/>

This is like your third time saying this. Hasn't been funny yet. And if you don't know that people have addressed that situation then that means you really haven't taken any time to look anything up or really find out you are really trying to make a sarcastic joke about death.

And the fact you keep saying it means you have thought about it yourself, because that view is obvious. I've seen more than a couple of cases of a white person shooting up a school or a theater I guess that means in your mind if there is ever a white victim nobody should ever speak up about it we should focus on the horrible instances of violence that occurred in the past

[cole256 17,084]

Interesting that this is receiving zero coverage.

http://www.examiner.com/article/media-blackout-georgia-man-killed-black-on-white-hate-crime-attack

Wouldn't it be a shame if the guys that killed him walked off scott free?

[WarEagle1983 2,185]

So, if acquitted, do we have any odds on who'll be the first 'black leader' to claim that it's open season on young black males ?

Because apparently what's taken place in Chicago hasn't warranted any such declaration. :gofig:/>

This is like your third time saying this. Hasn't been funny yet. And if you don't know that people have addressed that situation then that means you really haven't taken any time to look anything up or really find out you are really trying to make a sarcastic joke about death.

And the fact you keep saying it means you have thought about it yourself, because that view is obvious. I've seen more than a couple of cases of a white person shooting up a school or a theater I guess that means in your mind if there is ever a white victim nobody should ever speak up about it we should focus on the horrible instances of violence that occurred in the past

+1

[bigman334 56]

Well riots are most definitely coming from somewhere

I havent heard any mentions of a riot. why would you think that? did you want to see riots?

[SLAG-91 1,483]

I don't think any right-minded person wanted to see any rioting, maybe more of a cynical expectation based on the way the trial has been framed as a referendum on race relations by some media outlets, or at the minimum a significant point of emphasis. I know I am very glad to see that the protestations of the verdict have, to my knowledge, been violence-free. The race-baiting, flame throwing stuff on both sides has seemingly been contained to twitter and facebook so far and I pray it stays that way.

[WarEagle1983 2,185]

Guess I'm going to have to have yet another conversation with my son and daughter. Mike Dunn (Jordan Davis) has got his free stay out of jail card b/c of this. There's certainly a differece btw justice and law.

[tiger88 934]

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?

My bad, that was unfair. The only error in my last conclusion was leaving out the stipulation that GZ went looking for TM, which is what I would guess happened. I don't think that makes any difference if it is the case. The only thing that would make GZ guilty to anything above involuntary manslaughter to me would be if there were real evidence that he initiated the physical confrontation. I know you feel differently.

[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.

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

I didn't take anything personally until Tex's typical jabs in his last statement in this quoted string, and as I stated he'd have to do better to get under my skin. If you're saying my response was unwarranted after he jabbed me with "never engaging in intellectual discourse" and being "off my meds" (I'm not on meds) then I'd say your way off base. I'm not quite certain how you could say those comments weren't made to get under someone's skin, but if you're comfortable with making that statement, go for it.

The angle I was accusing him of playing was of me being all emotion, which he has hit on several times and is inaccurate. I really do feel his idea of forcing testimony is what I stated it was, "complete bs", "beyond hilarious" etc. If that makes me all "emotional" to you guys then we'll just agree to disagree.

[tiger88 934]

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.

Your question could easily be interpreted as rhetorical, which I did.

You are overplaying the race card.