George Zimmerman Trial

[TexasTiger 12,947]

Reasonable doubt. There is plenty.

There is no reasonable doubt about the fact GZ shot TM.

There is no reasonable doubt that TM was innocent and minding his own business until GZ showed up..

GZ is accountable for every action he took that led to the shooting and every thing he did was in his complete control.

That's not necessarily murder, but his willful actions led to a needless death. That sounds at least like manslaughter to me.

Had TM been your son, I bet you would understand this.

of course I would feel differently. that is why his father is not on the jury. you would feel different if GZ was your son.

Sorry, I was referring to empathy for that actual victim in this, not making a statement concerning the trial process.

Apparently you think Zimmerman is deserving of an equal amount of empathy than Trayvon. I disagree. Zimmerman has far more responsibility for what happened based on the simple indisputable facts listed above. His account of what happened does absolutely nothing to change that. Certainly his account doesn't change the basic truth about who was ultimately responsible.

This was not an accident. Everything flowed from a deliberate, conscious decision Zimmerman made. Even if his intent was misplaced, he is accountable for what happened.

I find it interesting that some people cannot see the difference between the legal issues and the moral issues. Legally, if GZ did not shoot TM until he was being pummeled by him, then it does not matter that he got out of his vehicle. If TM had not been outside then he would not have been shot. If GZ had not gotten out of his vehicle then TM would not have been shot. Both actions are equally legal. To say the GZ is guilty because he got out of his vehicle is silly.

I understand that he may not be legally culpable. But I do think be is morally culpable for this young man's death.

[homersapien 11,385]

Reasonable doubt. There is plenty.

There is no reasonable doubt about the fact GZ shot TM.

There is no reasonable doubt that TM was innocent and minding his own business until GZ showed up..

GZ is accountable for every action he took that led to the shooting and every thing he did was in his complete control.

That's not necessarily murder, but his willful actions led to a needless death. That sounds at least like manslaughter to me.

Had TM been your son, I bet you would understand this.

of course I would feel differently. that is why his father is not on the jury. you would feel different if GZ was your son.

Sorry, I was referring to empathy for that actual victim in this, not making a statement concerning the trial process.

Apparently you think Zimmerman is deserving of an equal amount of empathy than Trayvon. I disagree. Zimmerman has far more responsibility for what happened based on the simple indisputable facts listed above. His account of what happened does absolutely nothing to change that. Certainly his account doesn't change the basic truth about who was ultimately responsible.

This was not an accident. Everything flowed from a deliberate, conscious decision Zimmerman made. Even if his intent was misplaced, he is accountable for what happened.

I find it interesting that some people cannot see the difference between the legal issues and the moral issues. Legally, if GZ did not shoot TM until he was being pummeled by him, then it does not matter that he got out of his vehicle. If TM had not been outside then he would not have been shot. If GZ had not gotten out of his vehicle then TM would not have been shot. Both actions are equally legal. To say the GZ is guilty because he got out of his vehicle is silly.

What makes you think I can't see the difference between the moral and legal issues? According to Florida law, he will probably get off.

I am most deliberately arguing the moral issue here.

What I find amazing is how people will excuse what he did based on his account combined with such a fine parsing of the law. Few people seem to agree with me about his ultimate accountability for what happened. I find that disturbing, if not somewhat telling. It's the equivalent of excusing lynchers because a jury acquitted them or excusing OJ Simpson (in slightly more modern times).

If he walks, this will be an absolute failure of the law, as written or as applied.

[alexava 6,973]

Ok homer let me ask you this way. Hypothetically, GZ had stopped trying to follow TM. Got out to look for address to give dispatch. Was returning to truck to meet patrol at the clubhouse or go on to the grocery store(the opposite direction from where TM was headed). TM comes out of nowhere and knocks him down and begins pounding him. GZ yells for help then pulls his gun out and shoots TM. All this is confirmed by unbiased witnesses. What do you feel is the correct finding for this trial and punishment for GZ.

[homersapien 11,385]

Ok homer let me ask you this way. Hypothetically, GZ had stopped trying to follow TM. Got out to look for address to give dispatch. Was returning to truck to meet patrol at the clubhouse or go on to the grocery store(the opposite direction from where TM was headed). TM comes out of nowhere and knocks him down and begins pounding him. GZ yells for help then pulls his gun out and shoots TM. All this is confirmed by unbiased witnesses. What do you feel is the correct finding for this trial and punishment for GZ.

Manslaughter. Your "hypothetical" is not relevant. The incident didn't start with TM knocking him down, even if he did.

Don't really care about the punishment. I expect Zimmerman will be paying for this one way or the other for the the rest of his life. I hope so. Maybe he will eventually come to regret his actions. In fact, if I were him, I'd be looking over my shoulder for the rest of my life.

[ToomersRevenge 284]

Ok homer let me ask you this way. Hypothetically, GZ had stopped trying to follow TM. Got out to look for address to give dispatch. Was returning to truck to meet patrol at the clubhouse or go on to the grocery store(the opposite direction from where TM was headed). TM comes out of nowhere and knocks him down and begins pounding him. GZ yells for help then pulls his gun out and shoots TM. All this is confirmed by unbiased witnesses. What do you feel is the correct finding for this trial and punishment for GZ.

Manslaughter. Your "hypothetical" is not relevant. The incident didn't start with TM knocking him down, even if he did.

Don't really care about the punishment. I expect Zimmerman will be paying for this one way or the other for the the rest of his life. I hope so. Maybe he will eventually come to regret his actions. In fact, if I were him, I'd be looking over my shoulder for the rest of my life.

This is where you lose people homer. In the reality of the situation, sure GZ may be morally or legally (or both) responsible for Trayvon's death. But in the hypothetical where he did nothing more than report suspicious activity and start to leave, and was then violently attacked, he has every right to defend himself up to what he considered the need for deadly force.

[TexasTiger 12,947]

Ok homer let me ask you this way. Hypothetically, GZ had stopped trying to follow TM. Got out to look for address to give dispatch. Was returning to truck to meet patrol at the clubhouse or go on to the grocery store(the opposite direction from where TM was headed). TM comes out of nowhere and knocks him down and begins pounding him. GZ yells for help then pulls his gun out and shoots TM. All this is confirmed by unbiased witnesses. What do you feel is the correct finding for this trial and punishment for GZ.

Manslaughter. Your "hypothetical" is not relevant. The incident didn't start with TM knocking him down, even if he did.

Don't really care about the punishment. I expect Zimmerman will be paying for this one way or the other for the the rest of his life. I hope so. Maybe he will eventually come to regret his actions. In fact, if I were him, I'd be looking over my shoulder for the rest of my life.

This is where you lose people homer. In the reality of the situation, sure GZ may be morally or legally (or both) responsible for Trayvon's death. But in the hypothetical where he did nothing more than report suspicious activity and start to leave, and was then violently attacked, he has every right to defend himself up to what he considered the need for deadly force.

Except what you claim is demonstrably not what GZ did. Report it and leave. Fine. No problem. Perhaps the police question TM, confiscate his loaded Skittles and send him on his way. Had GZ reported it and left, or waited to meet the police by the club house or mail boxes as suggested by the 911 dispatcher, no one would be dead.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

Ok homer let me ask you this way. Hypothetically, GZ had stopped trying to follow TM. Got out to look for address to give dispatch. Was returning to truck to meet patrol at the clubhouse or go on to the grocery store(the opposite direction from where TM was headed). TM comes out of nowhere and knocks him down and begins pounding him. GZ yells for help then pulls his gun out and shoots TM. All this is confirmed by unbiased witnesses. What do you feel is the correct finding for this trial and punishment for GZ.

Manslaughter. Your "hypothetical" is not relevant. The incident didn't start with TM knocking him down, even if he did.

Don't really care about the punishment. I expect Zimmerman will be paying for this one way or the other for the the rest of his life. I hope so. Maybe he will eventually come to regret his actions. In fact, if I were him, I'd be looking over my shoulder for the rest of my life.

This is where you lose people homer. In the reality of the situation, sure GZ may be morally or legally (or both) responsible for Trayvon's death. But in the hypothetical where he did nothing more than report suspicious activity and start to leave, and was then violently attacked, he has every right to defend himself up to what he considered the need for deadly force.

Except what you claim is demonstrably not what GZ did. Report it and leave. Fine. No problem. Perhaps the police question TM, confiscate his loaded Skittles and send him on his way. Had GZ reported it and left, or waited to meet the police by the club house or mail boxes as suggested by the 911 dispatcher, no one would be dead.

Doesn't that work both ways? Was TM prevented from running off? From what I understand (but don't know) TM hid and jumped out at GZ.

[Grumps 3,704]

Reasonable doubt. There is plenty.

There is no reasonable doubt about the fact GZ shot TM.

There is no reasonable doubt that TM was innocent and minding his own business until GZ showed up..

GZ is accountable for every action he took that led to the shooting and every thing he did was in his complete control.

That's not necessarily murder, but his willful actions led to a needless death. That sounds at least like manslaughter to me.

Had TM been your son, I bet you would understand this.

of course I would feel differently. that is why his father is not on the jury. you would feel different if GZ was your son.

Sorry, I was referring to empathy for that actual victim in this, not making a statement concerning the trial process.

Apparently you think Zimmerman is deserving of an equal amount of empathy than Trayvon. I disagree. Zimmerman has far more responsibility for what happened based on the simple indisputable facts listed above. His account of what happened does absolutely nothing to change that. Certainly his account doesn't change the basic truth about who was ultimately responsible.

This was not an accident. Everything flowed from a deliberate, conscious decision Zimmerman made. Even if his intent was misplaced, he is accountable for what happened.

I find it interesting that some people cannot see the difference between the legal issues and the moral issues. Legally, if GZ did not shoot TM until he was being pummeled by him, then it does not matter that he got out of his vehicle. If TM had not been outside then he would not have been shot. If GZ had not gotten out of his vehicle then TM would not have been shot. Both actions are equally legal. To say the GZ is guilty because he got out of his vehicle is silly.

What makes you think I can't see the difference between the moral and legal issues? According to Florida law, he will probably get off.

I am most deliberately arguing the moral issue here.

What I find amazing is how people will excuse what he did based on his account combined with such a fine parsing of the law. Few people seem to agree with me about his ultimate accountability for what happened. I find that disturbing, if not somewhat telling. It's the equivalent of excusing lynchers because a jury acquitted them or excusing OJ Simpson (in slightly more modern times).

If he walks, this will be an absolute failure of the law, as written or as applied.

Manslaughter is a legal term, not a moral term. Also, I don't see people excusing him for his actions. Thinking that he did not break any established laws is not the same thing as excusing him for his actions.

[WarEagle1983 2,185]

Ok homer let me ask you this way. Hypothetically, GZ had stopped trying to follow TM. Got out to look for address to give dispatch. Was returning to truck to meet patrol at the clubhouse or go on to the grocery store(the opposite direction from where TM was headed). TM comes out of nowhere and knocks him down and begins pounding him. GZ yells for help then pulls his gun out and shoots TM. All this is confirmed by unbiased witnesses. What do you feel is the correct finding for this trial and punishment for GZ.

Manslaughter. Your "hypothetical" is not relevant. The incident didn't start with TM knocking him down, even if he did.

Don't really care about the punishment. I expect Zimmerman will be paying for this one way or the other for the the rest of his life. I hope so. Maybe he will eventually come to regret his actions. In fact, if I were him, I'd be looking over my shoulder for the rest of my life.

This is where you lose people homer. In the reality of the situation, sure GZ may be morally or legally (or both) responsible for Trayvon's death. But in the hypothetical where he did nothing more than report suspicious activity and start to leave, and was then violently attacked, he has every right to defend himself up to what he considered the need for deadly force.

Except what you claim is demonstrably not what GZ did. Report it and leave. Fine. No problem. Perhaps the police question TM, confiscate his loaded Skittles and send him on his way. Had GZ reported it and left, or waited to meet the police by the club house or mail boxes as suggested by the 911 dispatcher, no one would be dead.

Doesn't that work both ways? Was TM prevented from running off? From what I understand (but don't know) TM hid and jumped out at GZ.

That's GZ's story...well one of his stories as he's told. I find it interesting that many are so quick to believe his story and not even question it b/c it somewhat "makes sense." Making sense and being the truth are two different things. I doubt we'll ever know who started the fight which is why GZ could likely get off with no accountability for his actions because there is a loophole in laws.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

Ok homer let me ask you this way. Hypothetically, GZ had stopped trying to follow TM. Got out to look for address to give dispatch. Was returning to truck to meet patrol at the clubhouse or go on to the grocery store(the opposite direction from where TM was headed). TM comes out of nowhere and knocks him down and begins pounding him. GZ yells for help then pulls his gun out and shoots TM. All this is confirmed by unbiased witnesses. What do you feel is the correct finding for this trial and punishment for GZ.

Manslaughter. Your "hypothetical" is not relevant. The incident didn't start with TM knocking him down, even if he did.

Don't really care about the punishment. I expect Zimmerman will be paying for this one way or the other for the the rest of his life. I hope so. Maybe he will eventually come to regret his actions. In fact, if I were him, I'd be looking over my shoulder for the rest of my life.

This is where you lose people homer. In the reality of the situation, sure GZ may be morally or legally (or both) responsible for Trayvon's death. But in the hypothetical where he did nothing more than report suspicious activity and start to leave, and was then violently attacked, he has every right to defend himself up to what he considered the need for deadly force.

Except what you claim is demonstrably not what GZ did. Report it and leave. Fine. No problem. Perhaps the police question TM, confiscate his loaded Skittles and send him on his way. Had GZ reported it and left, or waited to meet the police by the club house or mail boxes as suggested by the 911 dispatcher, no one would be dead.

Doesn't that work both ways? Was TM prevented from running off? From what I understand (but don't know) TM hid and jumped out at GZ.

That's GZ's story...well one of his stories as he's told. I find it interesting that many are so quick to believe his story and not even question it b/c it somewhat "makes sense." Making sense and being the truth are two different things. I doubt we'll ever know who started the fight which is why GZ could likely get off with no accountability for his actions because there is a loophole in laws.

I didn't mean to imply that I believed GZ's story. One thing that is very clear to me in all this is that there are two sides to the story and no one here know which is true. How can people get so polarized without any proof to support either side and so much doubt. But we all know what that means and if I was on the jury my vote wouldn't take five minutes.

[TexasTiger 12,947]

Ok homer let me ask you this way. Hypothetically, GZ had stopped trying to follow TM. Got out to look for address to give dispatch. Was returning to truck to meet patrol at the clubhouse or go on to the grocery store(the opposite direction from where TM was headed). TM comes out of nowhere and knocks him down and begins pounding him. GZ yells for help then pulls his gun out and shoots TM. All this is confirmed by unbiased witnesses. What do you feel is the correct finding for this trial and punishment for GZ.

Manslaughter. Your "hypothetical" is not relevant. The incident didn't start with TM knocking him down, even if he did.

Don't really care about the punishment. I expect Zimmerman will be paying for this one way or the other for the the rest of his life. I hope so. Maybe he will eventually come to regret his actions. In fact, if I were him, I'd be looking over my shoulder for the rest of my life.

This is where you lose people homer. In the reality of the situation, sure GZ may be morally or legally (or both) responsible for Trayvon's death. But in the hypothetical where he did nothing more than report suspicious activity and start to leave, and was then violently attacked, he has every right to defend himself up to what he considered the need for deadly force.

Except what you claim is demonstrably not what GZ did. Report it and leave. Fine. No problem. Perhaps the police question TM, confiscate his loaded Skittles and send him on his way. Had GZ reported it and left, or waited to meet the police by the club house or mail boxes as suggested by the 911 dispatcher, no one would be dead.

Doesn't that work both ways? Was TM prevented from running off? From what I understand (but don't know) TM hid and jumped out at GZ.

GZ didn't report it and leave. Now that he's defending himself from a murder charge, he claims TM jumped him.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

Ok homer let me ask you this way. Hypothetically, GZ had stopped trying to follow TM. Got out to look for address to give dispatch. Was returning to truck to meet patrol at the clubhouse or go on to the grocery store(the opposite direction from where TM was headed). TM comes out of nowhere and knocks him down and begins pounding him. GZ yells for help then pulls his gun out and shoots TM. All this is confirmed by unbiased witnesses. What do you feel is the correct finding for this trial and punishment for GZ.

Manslaughter. Your "hypothetical" is not relevant. The incident didn't start with TM knocking him down, even if he did.

Don't really care about the punishment. I expect Zimmerman will be paying for this one way or the other for the the rest of his life. I hope so. Maybe he will eventually come to regret his actions. In fact, if I were him, I'd be looking over my shoulder for the rest of my life.

This is where you lose people homer. In the reality of the situation, sure GZ may be morally or legally (or both) responsible for Trayvon's death. But in the hypothetical where he did nothing more than report suspicious activity and start to leave, and was then violently attacked, he has every right to defend himself up to what he considered the need for deadly force.

Except what you claim is demonstrably not what GZ did. Report it and leave. Fine. No problem. Perhaps the police question TM, confiscate his loaded Skittles and send him on his way. Had GZ reported it and left, or waited to meet the police by the club house or mail boxes as suggested by the 911 dispatcher, no one would be dead.

Doesn't that work both ways? Was TM prevented from running off? From what I understand (but don't know) TM hid and jumped out at GZ.

GZ didn't report it and leave. Now that he's defending himself from a murder charge, he claims TM jumped him.

Do you know TM didn't jump him?

[TexasTiger 12,947]

Ok homer let me ask you this way. Hypothetically, GZ had stopped trying to follow TM. Got out to look for address to give dispatch. Was returning to truck to meet patrol at the clubhouse or go on to the grocery store(the opposite direction from where TM was headed). TM comes out of nowhere and knocks him down and begins pounding him. GZ yells for help then pulls his gun out and shoots TM. All this is confirmed by unbiased witnesses. What do you feel is the correct finding for this trial and punishment for GZ.

Manslaughter. Your "hypothetical" is not relevant. The incident didn't start with TM knocking him down, even if he did.

Don't really care about the punishment. I expect Zimmerman will be paying for this one way or the other for the the rest of his life. I hope so. Maybe he will eventually come to regret his actions. In fact, if I were him, I'd be looking over my shoulder for the rest of my life.

This is where you lose people homer. In the reality of the situation, sure GZ may be morally or legally (or both) responsible for Trayvon's death. But in the hypothetical where he did nothing more than report suspicious activity and start to leave, and was then violently attacked, he has every right to defend himself up to what he considered the need for deadly force.

Except what you claim is demonstrably not what GZ did. Report it and leave. Fine. No problem. Perhaps the police question TM, confiscate his loaded Skittles and send him on his way. Had GZ reported it and left, or waited to meet the police by the club house or mail boxes as suggested by the 911 dispatcher, no one would be dead.

Doesn't that work both ways? Was TM prevented from running off? From what I understand (but don't know) TM hid and jumped out at GZ.

GZ didn't report it and leave. Now that he's defending himself from a murder charge, he claims TM jumped him.

Do you know TM didn't jump him?

No, GZ killed the only other witness.

[alexava 6,973]

Ok homer let me ask you this way. Hypothetically, GZ had stopped trying to follow TM. Got out to look for address to give dispatch. Was returning to truck to meet patrol at the clubhouse or go on to the grocery store(the opposite direction from where TM was headed). TM comes out of nowhere and knocks him down and begins pounding him. GZ yells for help then pulls his gun out and shoots TM. All this is confirmed by unbiased witnesses. What do you feel is the correct finding for this trial and punishment for GZ.

Manslaughter. Your "hypothetical" is not relevant. The incident didn't start with TM knocking him down, even if he did.

Don't really care about the punishment. I expect Zimmerman will be paying for this one way or the other for the the rest of his life. I hope so. Maybe he will eventually come to regret his actions. In fact, if I were him, I'd be looking over my shoulder for the rest of my life.

This is where you lose people homer. In the reality of the situation, sure GZ may be morally or legally (or both) responsible for Trayvon's death. But in the hypothetical where he did nothing more than report suspicious activity and start to leave, and was then violently attacked, he has every right to defend himself up to what he considered the need for deadly force.

Except what you claim is demonstrably not what GZ did. Report it and leave. Fine. No problem. Perhaps the police question TM, confiscate his loaded Skittles and send him on his way. Had GZ reported it and left, or waited to meet the police by the club house or mail boxes as suggested by the 911 dispatcher, no one would be dead.

Doesn't that work both ways? Was TM prevented from running off? From what I understand (but don't know) TM hid and jumped out at GZ.

That's GZ's story...well one of his stories as he's told. I find it interesting that many are so quick to believe his story and not even question it b/c it somewhat "makes sense." Making sense and being the truth are two different things. I doubt we'll ever know who started the fight which is why GZ could likely get off with no accountability for his actions because there is a loophole in laws.

I didn't mean to imply that I believed GZ's story. One thing that is very clear to me in all this is that there are two sides to the story and no one here know which is true. How can people get so polarized without any proof to support either side and so much doubt. But we all know what that means and if I was on the jury my vote wouldn't take five minutes.

you just explained why I feel the way I do. we don't know what happened, I certainly don't. but when this first became a story it was all about a white man killing a black kid because he "looked black" and was in the wrong place. I was compelled to be on the side of this poor black kid that did absolutely nothing but get chased down and killed by a wanna be cop and racist who disobeyed a direct order to leave the kid alone. then details start surfacing and it was sensationalized that way to stir interest and ratings. the killer is a minority as well. the media left out several details that would have made this much less of a story. ive read and heard enough to realize GZ is not your classic bigot and had no ill intent. ive seen enough to think it is very possible even likely GZ was attacked by TM. Not a fan of GZ. I don't pack heat to go to the grocery store and I don't think any of my friends do either. It's ridiculous and why we are here now. It is legal to conceal a weapon, it is legal to walk in your neighborhood with it, it is for protection. If he is telling the truth and we cant prove he isn't, then he used his gun to protect himself from an attack and beating that was really not that bad but one good fist to the temple or throat could have changed that. I don't think I am polarized as I have been on both sides of this. One side is all hell bent on convicting no matter what the details are and that bothers me.

[homersapien 11,385]

Reasonable doubt. There is plenty.

There is no reasonable doubt about the fact GZ shot TM.

There is no reasonable doubt that TM was innocent and minding his own business until GZ showed up..

GZ is accountable for every action he took that led to the shooting and every thing he did was in his complete control.

That's not necessarily murder, but his willful actions led to a needless death. That sounds at least like manslaughter to me.

Had TM been your son, I bet you would understand this.

of course I would feel differently. that is why his father is not on the jury. you would feel different if GZ was your son.

Sorry, I was referring to empathy for that actual victim in this, not making a statement concerning the trial process.

Apparently you think Zimmerman is deserving of an equal amount of empathy than Trayvon. I disagree. Zimmerman has far more responsibility for what happened based on the simple indisputable facts listed above. His account of what happened does absolutely nothing to change that. Certainly his account doesn't change the basic truth about who was ultimately responsible.

This was not an accident. Everything flowed from a deliberate, conscious decision Zimmerman made. Even if his intent was misplaced, he is accountable for what happened.

I find it interesting that some people cannot see the difference between the legal issues and the moral issues. Legally, if GZ did not shoot TM until he was being pummeled by him, then it does not matter that he got out of his vehicle. If TM had not been outside then he would not have been shot. If GZ had not gotten out of his vehicle then TM would not have been shot. Both actions are equally legal. To say the GZ is guilty because he got out of his vehicle is silly.

What makes you think I can't see the difference between the moral and legal issues? According to Florida law, he will probably get off.

I am most deliberately arguing the moral issue here.

What I find amazing is how people will excuse what he did based on his account combined with such a fine parsing of the law. Few people seem to agree with me about his ultimate accountability for what happened. I find that disturbing, if not somewhat telling. It's the equivalent of excusing lynchers because a jury acquitted them or excusing OJ Simpson (in slightly more modern times).

If he walks, this will be an absolute failure of the law, as written or as applied.

Manslaughter is a legal term, not a moral term. Also, I don't see people excusing him for his actions. Thinking that he did not break any established laws is not the same thing as excusing him for his actions.

Whats your point?

I think "manslaughter" is appropriate from both a legal and a moral standpoint.

So a more succinct characterization of the differences of opinion is between those who thinks he is guilty of manslaughter (me) and those who don't. What do you say?

[homersapien 11,385]

Ok homer let me ask you this way. Hypothetically, GZ had stopped trying to follow TM. Got out to look for address to give dispatch. Was returning to truck to meet patrol at the clubhouse or go on to the grocery store(the opposite direction from where TM was headed). TM comes out of nowhere and knocks him down and begins pounding him. GZ yells for help then pulls his gun out and shoots TM. All this is confirmed by unbiased witnesses. What do you feel is the correct finding for this trial and punishment for GZ.

Manslaughter. Your "hypothetical" is not relevant. The incident didn't start with TM knocking him down, even if he did.

Don't really care about the punishment. I expect Zimmerman will be paying for this one way or the other for the the rest of his life. I hope so. Maybe he will eventually come to regret his actions. In fact, if I were him, I'd be looking over my shoulder for the rest of my life.

This is where you lose people homer. In the reality of the situation, sure GZ may be morally or legally (or both) responsible for Trayvon's death. But in the hypothetical where he did nothing more than report suspicious activity and start to leave, and was then violently attacked, he has every right to defend himself up to what he considered the need for deadly force.

Except what you claim is demonstrably not what GZ did. Report it and leave. Fine. No problem. Perhaps the police question TM, confiscate his loaded Skittles and send him on his way. Had GZ reported it and left, or waited to meet the police by the club house or mail boxes as suggested by the 911 dispatcher, no one would be dead.

Doesn't that work both ways? Was TM prevented from running off? From what I understand (but don't know) TM hid and jumped out at GZ.

GZ didn't report it and leave. Now that he's defending himself from a murder charge, he claims TM jumped him.

Do you know TM didn't jump him?

Well, we know that he didn't report it and leave. And that alone makes him accountable for whatever happens next.

It's clear where you place the benefit of doubt. Considering the facts, why is that?

[homersapien 11,385]

...... One side is all hell bent on convicting no matter what the details are and that bothers me.

And the other side is willing to overlook the basic truths and hold GZ accountable for what he did. And what he did starts from the beginning, or to put it another way, from the point when GZs actions became targeted toward TM.

Instead, they would rather let details - primarily supplied by the shooter - to mitigate the deliberate actions the shooter took to put himself in the position that would make a physical attack even possible. And that bothers me.

It sounds to me like there is not much support for attaching accountability to wielding and using deadly force.

[Grumps 3,704]

Reasonable doubt. There is plenty.

There is no reasonable doubt about the fact GZ shot TM.

There is no reasonable doubt that TM was innocent and minding his own business until GZ showed up..

GZ is accountable for every action he took that led to the shooting and every thing he did was in his complete control.

That's not necessarily murder, but his willful actions led to a needless death. That sounds at least like manslaughter to me.

Had TM been your son, I bet you would understand this.

of course I would feel differently. that is why his father is not on the jury. you would feel different if GZ was your son.

Sorry, I was referring to empathy for that actual victim in this, not making a statement concerning the trial process.

Apparently you think Zimmerman is deserving of an equal amount of empathy than Trayvon. I disagree. Zimmerman has far more responsibility for what happened based on the simple indisputable facts listed above. His account of what happened does absolutely nothing to change that. Certainly his account doesn't change the basic truth about who was ultimately responsible.

This was not an accident. Everything flowed from a deliberate, conscious decision Zimmerman made. Even if his intent was misplaced, he is accountable for what happened.

I find it interesting that some people cannot see the difference between the legal issues and the moral issues. Legally, if GZ did not shoot TM until he was being pummeled by him, then it does not matter that he got out of his vehicle. If TM had not been outside then he would not have been shot. If GZ had not gotten out of his vehicle then TM would not have been shot. Both actions are equally legal. To say the GZ is guilty because he got out of his vehicle is silly.

What makes you think I can't see the difference between the moral and legal issues? According to Florida law, he will probably get off.

I am most deliberately arguing the moral issue here.

What I find amazing is how people will excuse what he did based on his account combined with such a fine parsing of the law. Few people seem to agree with me about his ultimate accountability for what happened. I find that disturbing, if not somewhat telling. It's the equivalent of excusing lynchers because a jury acquitted them or excusing OJ Simpson (in slightly more modern times).

If he walks, this will be an absolute failure of the law, as written or as applied.

Manslaughter is a legal term, not a moral term. Also, I don't see people excusing him for his actions. Thinking that he did not break any established laws is not the same thing as excusing him for his actions.

Whats your point?

I think "manslaughter" is appropriate from both a legal and a moral standpoint.

So a more succinct characterization of the differences of opinion is between those who thinks he is guilty of manslaughter (me) and those who don't. What do you say?

i think GZ is guilty of using poor judgement. You think he is guilty of manslaughter. Poor judgement alone is not a punishable offense. This isn't complicated; we just disagree.

[Grumps 3,704]

Ok homer let me ask you this way. Hypothetically, GZ had stopped trying to follow TM. Got out to look for address to give dispatch. Was returning to truck to meet patrol at the clubhouse or go on to the grocery store(the opposite direction from where TM was headed). TM comes out of nowhere and knocks him down and begins pounding him. GZ yells for help then pulls his gun out and shoots TM. All this is confirmed by unbiased witnesses. What do you feel is the correct finding for this trial and punishment for GZ.

Manslaughter. Your "hypothetical" is not relevant. The incident didn't start with TM knocking him down, even if he did.

Don't really care about the punishment. I expect Zimmerman will be paying for this one way or the other for the the rest of his life. I hope so. Maybe he will eventually come to regret his actions. In fact, if I were him, I'd be looking over my shoulder for the rest of my life.

This is where you lose people homer. In the reality of the situation, sure GZ may be morally or legally (or both) responsible for Trayvon's death. But in the hypothetical where he did nothing more than report suspicious activity and start to leave, and was then violently attacked, he has every right to defend himself up to what he considered the need for deadly force.

Except what you claim is demonstrably not what GZ did. Report it and leave. Fine. No problem. Perhaps the police question TM, confiscate his loaded Skittles and send him on his way. Had GZ reported it and left, or waited to meet the police by the club house or mail boxes as suggested by the 911 dispatcher, no one would be dead.

Doesn't that work both ways? Was TM prevented from running off? From what I understand (but don't know) TM hid and jumped out at GZ.

GZ didn't report it and leave. Now that he's defending himself from a murder charge, he claims TM jumped him.

Do you know TM didn't jump him?

Well, we know that he didn't report it and leave. And that alone makes him accountable for whatever happens next.

It's clear where you place the benefit of doubt. Considering the facts, why is that?

Some of us place the benefit of doubt on "innocent until proven guilty" and "beyond a reasonable doubt". These concepts are kind of a big deal.

[AUMed 0]

Ok homer let me ask you this way. Hypothetically, GZ had stopped trying to follow TM. Got out to look for address to give dispatch. Was returning to truck to meet patrol at the clubhouse or go on to the grocery store(the opposite direction from where TM was headed). TM comes out of nowhere and knocks him down and begins pounding him. GZ yells for help then pulls his gun out and shoots TM. All this is confirmed by unbiased witnesses. What do you feel is the correct finding for this trial and punishment for GZ.

Manslaughter. Your "hypothetical" is not relevant. The incident didn't start with TM knocking him down, even if he did.

Don't really care about the punishment. I expect Zimmerman will be paying for this one way or the other for the the rest of his life. I hope so. Maybe he will eventually come to regret his actions. In fact, if I were him, I'd be looking over my shoulder for the rest of my life.

This is where you lose people homer. In the reality of the situation, sure GZ may be morally or legally (or both) responsible for Trayvon's death. But in the hypothetical where he did nothing more than report suspicious activity and start to leave, and was then violently attacked, he has every right to defend himself up to what he considered the need for deadly force.

Except what you claim is demonstrably not what GZ did. Report it and leave. Fine. No problem. Perhaps the police question TM, confiscate his loaded Skittles and send him on his way. Had GZ reported it and left, or waited to meet the police by the club house or mail boxes as suggested by the 911 dispatcher, no one would be dead.

Doesn't that work both ways? Was TM prevented from running off? From what I understand (but don't know) TM hid and jumped out at GZ.

GZ didn't report it and leave. Now that he's defending himself from a murder charge, he claims TM jumped him.

Do you know TM didn't jump him?

Well, we know that he didn't report it and leave. And that alone makes him accountable for whatever happens next.

It's clear where you place the benefit of doubt. Considering the facts, why is that?

Some of us place the benefit of doubt on "innocent until proven guilty" and "beyond a reasonable doubt". These concepts are kind of a big deal.

But Zimmerman admits to killing the kid... he admits to following him against police orders, he admits to confronting the teen. He admits to more than just bad judgement. He admits to knowingly and willfully disobeying a police order and killing a person who was unarmed and within their rights to defend themselves as well. Zimmerman has the right to carry a firearm but he doesn't have the right to provoke someone (if his story is to be believed) and then kill them. He just doesn't. And if he is found innocent then Florida officially becomes a vigilante state.

[weagl1 1,785]

Having listened to a lot of the testimony, I think manslaughter would be the appropriate finding. But, I also have a problem with how much the judge has favored the prosecution. They have done a really terrible job.

[Grumps 3,704]

Ok homer let me ask you this way. Hypothetically, GZ had stopped trying to follow TM. Got out to look for address to give dispatch. Was returning to truck to meet patrol at the clubhouse or go on to the grocery store(the opposite direction from where TM was headed). TM comes out of nowhere and knocks him down and begins pounding him. GZ yells for help then pulls his gun out and shoots TM. All this is confirmed by unbiased witnesses. What do you feel is the correct finding for this trial and punishment for GZ.

Manslaughter. Your "hypothetical" is not relevant. The incident didn't start with TM knocking him down, even if he did.

Don't really care about the punishment. I expect Zimmerman will be paying for this one way or the other for the the rest of his life. I hope so. Maybe he will eventually come to regret his actions. In fact, if I were him, I'd be looking over my shoulder for the rest of my life.

This is where you lose people homer. In the reality of the situation, sure GZ may be morally or legally (or both) responsible for Trayvon's death. But in the hypothetical where he did nothing more than report suspicious activity and start to leave, and was then violently attacked, he has every right to defend himself up to what he considered the need for deadly force.

Except what you claim is demonstrably not what GZ did. Report it and leave. Fine. No problem. Perhaps the police question TM, confiscate his loaded Skittles and send him on his way. Had GZ reported it and left, or waited to meet the police by the club house or mail boxes as suggested by the 911 dispatcher, no one would be dead.

Doesn't that work both ways? Was TM prevented from running off? From what I understand (but don't know) TM hid and jumped out at GZ.

GZ didn't report it and leave. Now that he's defending himself from a murder charge, he claims TM jumped him.

Do you know TM didn't jump him?

Well, we know that he didn't report it and leave. And that alone makes him accountable for whatever happens next.

It's clear where you place the benefit of doubt. Considering the facts, why is that?

Some of us place the benefit of doubt on "innocent until proven guilty" and "beyond a reasonable doubt". These concepts are kind of a big deal.

But Zimmerman admits to killing the kid... he admits to following him against police orders, he admits to confronting the teen. He admits to more than just bad judgement. He admits to knowingly and willfully disobeying a police order and killing a person who was unarmed and within their rights to defend themselves as well. Zimmerman has the right to carry a firearm but he doesn't have the right to provoke someone (if his story is to be believed) and then kill them. He just doesn't. And if he is found innocent then Florida officially becomes a vigilante state.

Did he admit to manslaughter? Did he admit to breaking the law? Do you REALLY think that the reason that the police did not initially arrest GZ is because they are corrupt, as opposed to because they did not see any evidence of illegality? Stories like this happen every day and nobody cares. This time it was publicized because someone thought GZ was white.

[TexasTiger 12,947]

Ok homer let me ask you this way. Hypothetically, GZ had stopped trying to follow TM. Got out to look for address to give dispatch. Was returning to truck to meet patrol at the clubhouse or go on to the grocery store(the opposite direction from where TM was headed). TM comes out of nowhere and knocks him down and begins pounding him. GZ yells for help then pulls his gun out and shoots TM. All this is confirmed by unbiased witnesses. What do you feel is the correct finding for this trial and punishment for GZ.

Manslaughter. Your "hypothetical" is not relevant. The incident didn't start with TM knocking him down, even if he did.

Don't really care about the punishment. I expect Zimmerman will be paying for this one way or the other for the the rest of his life. I hope so. Maybe he will eventually come to regret his actions. In fact, if I were him, I'd be looking over my shoulder for the rest of my life.

This is where you lose people homer. In the reality of the situation, sure GZ may be morally or legally (or both) responsible for Trayvon's death. But in the hypothetical where he did nothing more than report suspicious activity and start to leave, and was then violently attacked, he has every right to defend himself up to what he considered the need for deadly force.

Except what you claim is demonstrably not what GZ did. Report it and leave. Fine. No problem. Perhaps the police question TM, confiscate his loaded Skittles and send him on his way. Had GZ reported it and left, or waited to meet the police by the club house or mail boxes as suggested by the 911 dispatcher, no one would be dead.

Doesn't that work both ways? Was TM prevented from running off? From what I understand (but don't know) TM hid and jumped out at GZ.

GZ didn't report it and leave. Now that he's defending himself from a murder charge, he claims TM jumped him.

Do you know TM didn't jump him?

Well, we know that he didn't report it and leave. And that alone makes him accountable for whatever happens next.

It's clear where you place the benefit of doubt. Considering the facts, why is that?

Some of us place the benefit of doubt on "innocent until proven guilty" and "beyond a reasonable doubt". These concepts are kind of a big deal.

But Zimmerman admits to killing the kid... he admits to following him against police orders, he admits to confronting the teen. He admits to more than just bad judgement. He admits to knowingly and willfully disobeying a police order and killing a person who was unarmed and within their rights to defend themselves as well. Zimmerman has the right to carry a firearm but he doesn't have the right to provoke someone (if his story is to be believed) and then kill them. He just doesn't. And if he is found innocent then Florida officially becomes a vigilante state.

Did he admit to manslaughter? Did he admit to breaking the law? Do you REALLY think that the reason that the police did not initially arrest GZ is because they are corrupt, as opposed to because they did not see any evidence of illegality? Stories like this happen every day and nobody cares. This time it was publicized because someone thought GZ was white.

Really? Everyday a kid goes to buy some Skittles and is walking home talking on the phone and winds up shot dead by some over eager wannabe cop? Got a link to these everyday occurrences?

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

Really? Everyday a kid goes to buy some Skittles and is walking home talking on the phone and winds up shot dead by some over eager wannabe cop? Got a link to these everyday occurrences?

Do you honestly believe this trial would be receiving the attention it is if Zimmermann was also black.?

[TexasTiger 12,947]

Really? Everyday a kid goes to buy some Skittles and is walking home talking on the phone and winds up shot dead by some over eager wannabe cop? Got a link to these everyday occurrences?

Do you honestly believe this trial would be receiving the attention it is if Zimmermann was also black.?

The attention it recieves is not my concern.

What Zimmerman did was outrageous and that would be true whether or not the media was obsessed with the case.