Open Thread on Zimmerman Trial

[Jeanne_S]

A gunslinger is somebody who wants blood more so than justice.

Anybody who carries a gun ought to be willing to suffer the consequences if they were in any way negligent. Being negligent should suffice for a conviction of manslaughter.

Wow!

 

[BroomWagon]

As someone who has a CC permit, let me explain how I carry.

I also have a holster that clips inside my pants/skirt, and is a “back” holster. That means I carry it, just behind my hip. I do not carry in the “back.”

First, no one carries back by their spine. Think about it. If you sit down, the weapon would be pressing against your spine. That would be painful. Also, you would have to reach all the way back there if you ever need to draw your weapon.

So, you (the general public, you) carry at your back, but toward the side. And if you are on the ground, the weapon would either push forward, or you would push your body up off of the ground. (It would be like lying on a brick.)

So, if I were to carry and I somehow end up on my back, my gun wouldn’t be under me.

Yes, I think we understand this, close to the wallet position of men.

 

[Dawnia]

A gunslinger is somebody who wants blood more so than justice.

Anybody who carries a gun ought to be willing to suffer the consequences if they were in any way negligent. Being negligent should suffice for a conviction of manslaughter.

Negligence is specifically stated in the jury instructions as ruling out manslaughter.

George Zimmerman cannot be guilty of manslaughter by committing a merely negligent act or if the killing was either justifiable or excusable homicide.

 

[St_Francis]

Martin’s actions in beating Zs head against the cement would be justified if Zimmerman attacked him first.

There is not only no evidence that Zimmerman attacked Martin, there is an absence of evidence. There is not a mark on Martin.

Moreover, Zimmerman’s attacking Martin makes no sense, 1. considering that he knew the police were on their way (which Martin probably did not know), and 2. considering that Martin was taller than Zimmerman and a possible bad guy (which is what started this all up in the first place).

It would be self-defense.

Self-defense does not go on indefinitely. It is for the purpose of defusing the aggression against one. If you punch an attacker in the nose and he falls to the ground and you straddle him, you do not have to beat his head against the sidewalk. You would have to prove why you were still in so much fear that it was reasonably justified.

Where is the evidence that actually occurred?

Exactly. We can only go on the evidence which exists. However, what really matters is what was happening at the time Zimmerman shot Martin, and just seconds before, a witness saw Martin pounding Zimmerman, and the wounds indicate that Martin did beat Zimmerman’s head against the sidewalk, which would put a person in reasonable fear of imminent injury or death.

Therein lies the problem, and why, whatever the verdict, it will be unsatisfying because we can not know with certainty.

Well, the way I see the evidence, it seems pretty clear that Zimmerman acted in self-defense, and that he should not be found guilty. And the initial prosecutors refrained from charging him, due to lack of evidence.

One could imagine a scenario in which Zimmerman were guilty, but there seems to be no evidence for that scenario.

 

[estesbob]

It would mean that GZ is lying in an attempt to safe his butt. It would also support my contention that GZ may be a gunslinger who was always out for blood.

Zimmerman never made that claim in any of the interviews with this police.

 

[St_Francis]

It would mean that GZ is lying in an attempt to safe his butt. It would also support my contention that GZ may be a gunslinger who was always out for blood.

There is no evidence for your contention, and yet you cling to it! Why do you want Zimmerman to be out for blood over justice? What bothers you about the idea that Zimmerman shot Martin because he was in reasonable fear for imminent harm or death?

 

[St_Francis]

I have a question.
Suppose a jury rules a man guilty, and then they find out about some exculpatory info which was excluded from the trial.

So they all go to the judge and tell the judge if they had known that, they wouldn’t have voted guilty.

What would happen?

Thanks

 

[Robert_Sock]

There is no evidence for your contention, and yet you cling to it! Why do you want Zimmerman to be out for blood over justice? What bothers you about the idea that Zimmerman shot Martin because he was in reasonable fear for imminent harm or death?

Again, GZ was very negligent, which would warrant a conviction of manslaughter. I said that he may be a gunslinger who was out for blood over justice. I never implied that I thought he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt on the second degree murder charge.

 

[SwizzleStick]

Again, GZ was very negligent, which would warrant a conviction of manslaughter. I said that he may be a gunslinger who was out for blood over justice. I never implied that I thought he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt on the second degree murder charge.

Has it occurred to you that Zimmerman was not negligent at all, that he simply acted to save his own life, that he instead might be the deceased if he did not have his weapon with him?

 

[BroomWagon]

I have a question.
Suppose a jury rules a man guilty, and then they find out about some exculpatory info which was excluded from the trial.

So they all go to the judge and tell the judge if they had known that, they wouldn’t have voted guilty.

What would happen?

Thanks

What has a bearing to your comment is that threshold of having to find someone guilty “beyond a shadow of doubt” and I think that is hard to fulfill in this case.

 

[MaryT777]

Zimmerman never made that claim in any of the interviews with this police.

Those claims depend on how credible you think Zimmerman has been.
I don’t believe he’s been credible with the beginning at the bond hearing to the end
with his knowledge of self defense laws in his state which he claimed not to know of.

That said, I know your opinion differs.

 

[St_Francis]

Again, GZ was very negligent, which would warrant a conviction of manslaughter. I said that he may be a gunslinger who was out for blood over justice. I never implied that I thought he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt on the second degree murder charge.

Has it occurred to you that Zimmerman was not negligent at all, that he simply acted to save his own life, that he instead might be the deceased if he did not have his weapon with him?

Yes, I am not seeing how he was negligent either.

 

[Robert_Sock]

Has it occurred to you that Zimmerman was not negligent at all, that he simply acted to save his own life, that he instead might be the deceased if he did not have his weapon with him?

What led up to the deadly confrontation? I just happen to align myself with the prosecution that GZ was indeed negligent in allowing himself to get into the confrontation in the first place. Witnesses have already testified that GZ had no reason to get out of his car. More specifically, he could clearly see the addresses from his car and he already knew the name of the street (there are only three streets within the condo complex and GZ was supposed to have been very familiar with them.) GZ also stated to the dispatcher that the f**king punk is getting away, which leads one to believe that he was intent on following TM. This is why I’m saying that GZ is guilty of manslaughter even if his life at some point was in jeopardy.

 

[St_Francis]

What has a bearing to your comment is that threshold of having to find someone guilty “beyond a shadow of doubt” and I think that is hard to fulfill in this case.

Well, I was thinking about this case, obviously, so the question came up in my mind and then I wondered about the question in a generic way, so asked in a generic way.

I guess I should have asked in the Back Room or something rather than here

 

[styrgwillidar]

Again, GZ was very negligent, which would warrant a conviction of manslaughter. I said that he may be a gunslinger who was out for blood over justice. I never implied that I thought he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt on the second degree murder charge.

How was he negligent?

If Zimmerman was attacked by Martin, you are as MaryT777 put it, blaming the victim. Seemingly, your major problem is he actually legally had the means to defend himself against that attack. How is it negligent to be prepared? Am I negligent for donning a helmet, gloves, jacket (with protective inserts), and riding boots every time I get on motorcycle if someone hits me?

 

[SwizzleStick]

What led up to the deadly confrontation? I just happen to align myself with the prosecution that GZ was indeed negligent in allowing himself to get into the confrontation in the first place. Witnesses have already testified that GZ had no reason to get out of his car. More specifically, he could clearly see the addresses from his car and he already knew the name of the street (there are only three streets within the condo complex and GZ was supposed to have been very familiar with them.) GZ also stated to the dispatcher that the f**king punk is getting away, which leads one to believe that he was intent on following TM. This is why I’m saying that GZ is guilty of manslaughter even if his life at some point was in jeopardy.

Yes, it is an established fact that had Zimmerman stayed in his truck, the whole incident would not have occurred. But, it seems to me that Zimmerman is being blamed, and may ultimately be held responsible for not being prescient. Hindsight is always 20/20, but how in the world could he have begun to guess that the young man he saw would jump him and pummel him, and pound his head on concrete because he dared to exit his truck (and was trying to go back to it when he was jumped)?

By that logic, ANYONE who carries and ends up having to shoot someone to defend self or others is negligent. I don’t buy that.

 

[BroomWagon]

The point being, maybe Zimmerman shouldn’t have followed Martin but is that actually illegal? There is no law he needed to stay in his car in the apartment complex he lived at.

 

[Cider]

What has a bearing to your comment is that threshold of having to find someone guilty “beyond a shadow of doubt” and I think that is hard to fulfill in this case.

But it’s not beyond a shadow of a doubt. It’s reasonable doubt. Hardly the same thing.

 

[MaryT777]

The point being, maybe Zimmerman shouldn’t have followed Martin but is that actually illegal? There is no law he needed to stay in his car in the apartment complex he lived at.

When you begin to profile someone as a “suspect” and talk about these Blanks always getting away you have a mentality as such you should be following no one.

 

[Tucker_R]

Gunslinger ? More like tm tried to beat him to death and got killed himself. Charges hopefully will be dropped.

It would mean that GZ is lying in an attempt to safe his butt. It would also support my contention that GZ may be a gunslinger who was always out for blood.