George Zimmerman makes initial court appearance in Trayvon Martin shooting, will plead not guilty

  • Thread starter Thread starter SwizzleStick
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
mtbender said:
Confrontations are not illegal… reasonability lies with who started the altercation.
Click to expand...
Oh, but they can be illegal, especially if you end up shooting the person you confront. Then it can be murder, but we do not yet know if that is the case.
 
I’m hearing of a possible apology to the Martin’s by Zimmerman; sounds like genuine remorse for whatever transpired, but if he’s going to do that his defenders touring the networks need to chill.
 
mtbender said:
If senselessness was illegal we would have to make all of Texas a prison… :o
Click to expand...
Senselessness that is manifested in reckless conduct, which then results in death is a crime; involuntary manslaughter, or negligent homicide, depending on the state.
 
pnewton said:
Senselessness that is manifested in reckless conduct, which then results in death is a crime; involuntary manslaughter, or negligent homicide, depending on the state.
Click to expand...
I believe the arrest would be for involuntary manslaughter (or any of the other examples you used) in that case, not senselessness… Senselessness in its self is not a crime. I will concede that what derives from it may be in some cases.
 
seekerz said:
:confused: It seemed like the sky was falling last year when Casey Anthony and the jurors who acquitted her were being hounded by some very angry people. It didn’t fall then, and the world didn’t end, so I’m not sure what you’re trying to say.

:shrug:This isn’t the first case surrounded by great passion - the only difference from the Anthony case is that it seemed like the condemnation was almost uniform. Very few people spent time online supporting her AND there as no conclusive evidence that she even caused her child’s death.
Click to expand...
I was being slightly sarcastic. I do remember the L.A. riots.
 
pnewton said:
I have just the opposite perspective. I can’t imagine getting out of the car* with* a gun. That’s what the bad guys do. .
Click to expand...
Well that’s your decision, but don’t say the I, and everyone else who carries, is a bad guy.
 
mtbender said:
Of course none of this matters if Martin initiated the physical altercation and Zimmerman did in fact react in fear for his life while being beat by Martin.

All Zimmerman’s legal actions leading up to the altercation are just as irrelevant as Marin buying Skittles.

As it has been said before, Zimmerman did not commit a crime by carrying a weapon or by pursuing Martin. Bad judgment is not a crime or culpability.
Click to expand...
catharina said:
Bad judgment can result in crimes and culpability.
There’s a reason why law enforcement tells watch-folks:
observe, do not follow. George has learned that - maybe.
Click to expand...
The situation reminds me of a woman who walks alone, at night, in a seedy part of the town. She exercises bad judgment, but if she gets attacked and raped and robbed, the law will prosecute the attacker and the woman will not suffer any legal consequences, even though she exercised bad judgment. Also, if this woman carries a gun and shoots her attacker, she is not held guilty.

If Zimmerman’s story is true, if Martin walked up to him and punched him in the nose and beat him up, then Martin was the attacker, pure and simple, and Zimmerman is not guilty of anything. In that case, let’s face it, Martin was a thug who attacked and tried to kill Zimmerman, and Zimmerman was fully justified to defend himself. The only real question is, is Zimmerman’s story true? Was Martin a thug who attacked him, punched him in the nose, beat him up, and tried to kill him?
 
Calgar said:
Well that’s your decision, but don’t say the I, and everyone else who carries, is a bad guy.
Click to expand...
I didn’t say that* only* the bad guys carry guns and confront others. Police also do this. I would never say that everyone who carries a gun is a bad guy.
 
L_piperatus said:
The situation reminds me of a woman who walks alone, at night, in a seedy part of the town. She exercises bad judgment, but if she gets attacked and raped and robbed, the law will prosecute the attacker and the woman will not suffer any legal consequences, even though she exercised bad judgment. Also, if this woman carries a gun and shoots her attacker, she is not held guilty.

If Zimmerman’s story is true, if Martin walked up to him and punched him in the nose and beat him up, then Martin was the attacker, pure and simple, and Zimmerman is not guilty of anything. In that case, let’s face it, Martin was a thug who attacked and tried to kill Zimmerman, and Zimmerman was fully justified to defend himself. The only real question is, is Zimmerman’s story true? Was Martin a thug who attacked him, punched him in the nose, beat him up, and tried to kill him?
Click to expand...
Great analogy…
 
mtbender said:
Great analogy…
Click to expand...
Except that Martin was not a rapist or robber. That is a significant difference in this analogy. He was walking to the store with no known criminal intent. Even if he did punch Zimmerman, he did not initiate the altercation.
edited better analogy out so not to offend women here.
 
OrdinaryMelkite said:
I’m late to this response, but I was working…:p:shrug:

All I’m saying is I agree with you…we don’t know diddly, we can only think we know what happened.

Like I said, I’m willing to keep an open mind and change it if needed and the evidence comes along.

One thing, though:

You are absolutely right. We don’t know if GZ did racially profile TM. But we don’t know he didn’t, either.

Just because he does not look like (fill in what you want here) does not mean he isn’t. Some people are natural born actors without actually acting. I’m sure you and I can convince people of our sincerity in certain matters by facial means without actually being sincere. Same with psychopaths.
They could look at you in the face dead-pan and tell you a straight lie and you would totally believe it.

NOT saying GZ is like that. personally, I have my opinions, but I was just commenting on the assumption BOTH (again, BOTH) “sides” are making about BOTH persons ivolved here. Just like GZ may or may not have attacked and stalked TM, TM may or may not have attacked and stalked GZ.

It is just the CERTAINTY some people have around here that “so and so happened” that get me here.

I.E.----“when TM attacked GZ…” See? Same with cetain things about GZ.

Sorry, but i just get the feeling that some here have already made up their minds here against TM, rightly or worngly. If I’m wrong, I apologize.

Let’s wait till the trial, folks.

Like i have said, I ahve opinions too, but AT LEAST I’m willing to not be so CERTAIN abot them. I’m willing to come in here and say I was wrong if proven wrong after the trial.

Fair, right?

BTW, I KNOW you are being fair. I was just answering your question about “hoodies.” And being hypothetical in asking you about your experience with them.

I also wear them, btw…I’m bald, and look like a bald Unabomber-type. Go figure. 🤷
That’s all. Bless you and everybody else here.👍
Click to expand...
well we are finally on the same page regarding no one knows what happened and that we all need to peacefully sit back and see how the justice system handles this.

as to the racial point you made, forgive me, but it’s silly. we have NO evidence that he was a racist or that he was racially profiling. of course he could be a talented actor and so you could or i, but without ANY evidence to point to such, it just isn’t right to question or wonder if someone is. those accusations are very damaging and as you can see, they are being used to fan the flames of a race war. the comments i have heard coming from various racial groups have been shocking and down right scary.

why would you wonder, when there is no evidence? should i wonder aloud or insinuate that you or anyone here on caf might hate the elderly or women? no! clearly that would be wrong without any evidence. the guys life has been put in danger over these accusations.

so again, we have NO evidence that he was a racist or that he racially profiled trayvon. what we DO have is black people sticking up for him saying that he had black friends and that he mentored a black family. there also is reporting that he used his free time to hand out flyers trying to seek justice for the black homeless man that was beat.

he may or may not be guilty in the death of trayvon, but let’s leave racial accusations out of it, until we have some evidence. nobody wants a race war.

blessings to you as well and thanks for the laugh. i now am visualizing a discussion with the unabomber gone bald! 😃

long live the hoodie! i think they look best on Franciscan friars though.
 
pnewton said:
Except that Martin was not a rapist or robber. That is a significant difference in this analogy.
Click to expand...
Basics are the same – person A (women or Zimmerman) exercises what could be considered bad judgment. Person A is attacked by person B (Robber or Martin – if you believe Zimmerman’s account). Person A defends themselves… I can see the parallel here -
 
pnewton said:
I have just the opposite perspective. I can’t imagine getting out of the car* with* a gun. That’s what the bad guys do. I have gone back and forth on this ovet the years and have arrived at the personal decision not to carry a gun to prevent the very type of thing that happened here. When I carried a gun, I never felt comfortable being out with it and would avoid as much public contact as I could. Without a gun, I am much more comfortable dealing with problematic people, even in confrontational situations.

There is a good reason why neighborhood watch should never try and approach a suspect. This goes a million times more for an armed neighborhood watch person.
Click to expand...
That might work for you, but it would not for me. I am older and smaller. I have had a CCP for many years in three different states. Fortunately, I have never felt threatened. But I travel to dog shows all over the country and frequently drive alone and stay in motels alone. When I am out walking my dog at 5:00 in the morning, even though most of the people in the motels are dog people as well, I would not feel safe without my gun in my pocket. I am not trigger-happy, not a cowboy, and not looking for trouble. Perhaps that was the case with Zimmerman, but despite all the conecture throughout this thread, we are really not privvy to the facts.
 
mtbender said:
Basics are the same – person A (women or Zimmerman) exercises what could be considered bad judgment. Person A is attacked by person B (Robber or Martin – if you believe Zimmerman’s account). Person A defends themselves… I can see the parallel here -
Click to expand...
I am sure that will be the case Mr. Zimmerman will attepmt to make.
 
pnewton said:
Except that Martin was not a rapist or robber. That is a significant difference in this analogy. He was walking to the store with no known criminal intent. Even if he did punch Zimmerman, he did not initiate the altercation.
edited better analogy out so not to offend women here.
Click to expand...
how do you know he did not initiate the altercation? if gz walked up to him and asked him a question that is not initiating an altercation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top