Open Thread on Zimmerman Verdict

[Robert_Sock]

When does the threat end when someone has a gun; when they shoot you? If he needed to kill Zimmerman to save his life he did indeed have that right.

 

[Yerusalyim]

No, he did not have the right–your right to self defense *ends *when the threat ends. Just as someone does not have the right to shoot an attacker in the back as the attacker runs away, so Martin did not have the right to continue bashing Zimmerman’s head into the sidewalk once it was clear that Zimmerman was under his control.

TM didn’t have the right to hit GZ to begin with. Being followed does NOT present a threat…and when the person being followed sneaks up on and attacks the person he thinks is following him…it’s even worse.

 

[Yerusalyim]

When does the threat end when someone has a gun; when they shoot you? If he needed to kill Zimmerman to save his life he did indeed have that right.

There is absolutely ZERO evidence of this scenario.

 

[adrift]

And please relate the carrying of concealed weapons to Christian morals. For example:
*
Matthew 26:52
Then Jesus saith to him: Put up again thy sword into its place: for all that take the sword shall perish with the sword.

Matthew 5:44
Love your enemies:… *

36 He said to them, "But now one who has a money bag should take it, and likewise a sack, and one who does not have a sword should sell his cloak and buy one.

 

[Yerusalyim]

No testimony because GZ shoot and killed TM. My contention is that GZ is guilty of manslaughter because he was negligent in profiling and following TM.

Again, let’s get back to my main claim that the real crime is in the Florida state for allowing an amateur law enforcement personnel to carry a concealed weapon. With the privilege to carry a concealed weapon, comes added responsibility, such as not profiling and tracking someone. Do we really want a society full of gunslinging vigilantes?

GZ broke no laws…it is not against the law to follow someone…and GZ broke off following TM before TM confronted him. TM was not "profiled.
"

 

[St_Francis]

When does the threat end when someone has a gun; when they shoot you? If he needed to kill Zimmerman to save his life he did indeed have that right.

Hmmm, interesting addition to the scenario…

Martin, a young man minding his own business, notices a smaller man apparently eying him and talking on a cell phone. Martin runs away and can no longer see the man. His friend on the phone suggests this might be a “that way” rapist, so Martin feels unsafe and in fear for his future step-brother as well so he avoids returning home.

He then decides to *return *to where he had seen Zimmerman, and hang out in a very dark area.

Suddenly, he is menaced by Zimmerman with a gun!!! Rather than going for the gun, he bangs Zimmerman’s head against the sidewalk, allowing Zimmerman to shoot him.

And wasn’t Zimmerman polite about letting Martin get those blows in before shooting him!

No, Mary, I don’t think Martin was fighting in self-defense against the gun.

Nor does this cover Zimmerman’s reaction of Thank God when told there might be a video of the event. Not the reaction I would have if I were lying to the police to convince them I had acted in self-defense when I had really just suddenly decided to go out and shoot someone.

 

[lcburgundy]

Only one case that made national news.

Please back up your claims with trustworthy statistics. I’ll bet that there is not one bit of data that show that we would live in a more peaceful society if more concealed permits were issued, and I’ll bet there is not a bit of data directly showing that folks with concealed weapons are the most law abiding and peaceful segments of society. Try comparing those stats to those in the clergy.

Here’s one analysis from 2000.

http://www.ncpa.org/images/1593.gif

It’s all I have handy at this point, but I think it gets the point across.

And please relate the carrying of concealed weapons to Christian morals. For example:
*
Matthew 26:52
Then Jesus saith to him: Put up again thy sword into its place: for all that take the sword shall perish with the sword.

Matthew 5:44
Love your enemies:… *

The CCC already speaks to the appropriate use of self-defense, which oddly enough you did not quote first. I am not founding a Protestant church where I have to deduce everything from first principles I read in the Bible.

 

[MaryT777]

Why the sensitivity, Mary? Do you really think that homosexuality was not implied when Rachel Jeantel said: RACHEL JEANTEL: Yes. Definitely after I say may be a rapist, for every boy, for every man, every — who’s not **that kind of way, **seeing a grown man following them, would they be creep out?

And people need to understand, he didn’t want that creepy *** cracker going to his father or girlfriend’s house to go get — mind you, his little brother was there. You know — now, mind you, I told you — I told Trayvon [Zimmerman] might have been a rapist.

And of course every young man would want to protect his younger future stepbrother from a male *heterosexual *rapist. That makes perfect sense! Homosexuality did not enter into this *at all, *of course Martin wouldn’t be so politically incorrect as to **profile **Zimmerman as a homosexual… rapist…

And there’s not a chance in the world that Martin did not go back to the dark area where he had seen the man whom he profiled as a homosexual to *leap out of the bushes and start using MMA tactics to beat the living *** out of him–no, this * never **could be the explanation for Martin’s having gone, not to a place of safety, well-lit, away from Zimmerman, but instead *returned *to where he had last seen Zimmerman, to a dark place…

Curiouser and curiouser…

In short to this post I don’t believe homosexuality had anything to do with this case nor do I recall it being an issue in the trial or written testimonies. I’m happy to review evidence and not speculation though if this was an issue I missed.

 

[lcburgundy]

In short to this post I don’t believe homosexuality had anything to do with this case nor do I recall it being an issue in the trial or written testimonies. I’m happy to review evidence and not speculation though if this was an issue I missed.

It was in one of Rachel’s post-trial interviews. She likes to keep adding things to her stories.

 

[MaryT777]

TM didn’t have the right to hit GZ to begin with. Being followed does NOT present a threat…and when the person being followed sneaks up on and attacks the person he thinks is following him…it’s even worse.

Sure he did if he felt his life was threatened by a gun. Z said two versions

He reached for it
He touched it.

TM certainly saw it if he did either of those two things. That said Z says he has a bad memory so he can’t remember the streets in his neighborhood so that explains why he doesn’t know which version for sure. Bad memory issues are not good.

 

[lcburgundy]

Sure he did if he felt his life was threatened by a gun. Z said two versions

He reached for it
He touched it.

Yeah, you can’t claim you’re threatened by a holstered gun and try to take it from the person as a form of “self defense.” Try that one with a police officer sometime and let me know how far you get.

 

[Robert_Sock]

The CCC already speaks to the appropriate use of self-defense, which oddly enough you did not quote first. I am not founding a Protestant church where I have to deduce everything from first principles I read in the Bible.

Please quote the CCC and try directly relating it to advocating the use of concealed weapons as a means to self-defense in untrained citizens.

*Matthew 5:39
But I say to you not to resist evil: but if one strike thee on thy right cheek, turn to him also the other: *

What’s the use of having a bible if you do not intend to follow its maxims?

 

[MaryT777]

It was in one of Rachel’s post-trial interviews. She likes to keep adding things to her stories.

Ok thanks for the info; Reminds me of the ole saying…the tale grows taller on down the line…

 

[St_Francis]

Ok thanks for the info; Reminds me of the ole saying…the tale grows taller on down the line…

She also testified to this at the trial, under oath. Not the “that way” aspect, altho if Martin was worried about his future step-brother, that must have been part of the equation, no?

 

[MaryT777]

She also testified to this at the trial, under oath. Not the “that way” aspect, altho if Martin was worried about his future step-brother, that must have been part of the equation, no?

She seemed to me really confused and frightened underneath her “tough” exterior which I think projected itself into an “attitude” problem.

How’s that for facts…that’s my opinion.

I don’t have the family dynamics down enough to know future step-brother issues I openly state.

No, I don’t believe that was part of the equation.

 

[MaryT777]

Yeah, you can’t claim you’re threatened by a holstered gun and try to take it from the person as a form of “self defense.” Try that one with a police officer sometime and let me know how far you get.

Great point; a police officer not a citizen is the operative word. A police officer would never have shot TM.

… and actually if you see a gun you can do as such in the state Z was in.

 

[St_Francis]

She seemed to me really confused and frightened underneath her “tough” exterior which I think projected itself into an “attitude” problem.

How’s that for facts…that’s my opinion.

I don’t have the family dynamics down enough to know future step-brother issues I openly state.

No, I don’t believe that was part of the equation.

I don’t think you understood that my putting “if” in there meant the “that way” issue would only be an issue if Jeantel was correct/accurate in saying Martin was afraid for his future step-brother (the son of Martin’s father’s fiancee) as a reason for Martin’s not going home instead of returning to the area where Zimmerman was.

 

[BroomWagon]

I can not vouch this “blog” is authentic for Zimmerman’s attorney Mark O’Mara but I don’t see why it would not be.

omaralawblog.com/index.php/8-blog/7-why-zimmerman-juror-b-29-is-a-model-juror

This juror who is spoken about seems to be of Puerto Rican heritage, I guess “black Hispanic” and mother of 8 children I gather. So, from what little I know, it does seem she did her duty.

Interesting reading.

gzlegalcase.com/ Related

 

[lcburgundy]

Please quote the CCC and try directly relating it to advocating the use of concealed weapons as a means to self-defense in untrained citizens.

*Matthew 5:39
But I say to you not to resist evil: but if one strike thee on thy right cheek, turn to him also the other: *

What’s the use of having a bible if you do not intend to follow its maxims?

The CCC does not advocate police officers use guns either. Not sure what you’re getting at.

2321 The prohibition of murder does not abrogate the right to render an unjust aggressor unable to inflict harm. Legitimate defense is a grave duty for whoever is responsible for the lives of others or the common good.

I leave Bible quoting wars to those who feel they need to deduce their morality from first principles. I’d rather digest and use 2000 years of accumulated knowledge instead.

 

[MaryT777]

I don’t think you understood that my putting “if” in there meant the “that way” issue would only be an issue if Jeantel was correct/accurate in saying Martin was afraid for his future step-brother (the son of Martin’s father’s fiancee) as a reason for Martin’s not going home instead of returning to the area where Zimmerman was.

I think that’s speculation but an interesting one at that.