Open Thread on Zimmerman Verdict

  • Thread starter Thread starter sweetcharity
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Robert_Sock said:
No, he could have went for his gun to detain TM, and TM could have seen it as a threat for his life. Why would TM risk life in jail by beating GZ’s head into into the ground? Surly TM must have felt threatened.
Click to expand...
Well, there’s no evidence he drew his gun. No evidence he ever did in any prior incident. He would have known he would be committing multiple felonies by drawing it and attempting to detain someone. If he turned this person over to the police, he’d be the one in jail, fine, prison term, loss of rights like voting, CCW etc. etc. Jeantel’s on the phone at this point-- nothing about a gun by either Z or M, no language to indicate an attempted illegal detention and kidnapping.

Really think he’s going to do that for someone he’s only categorized as suspicious?

Lots of folks commit assaults and risk jail for a variety of reasons. Prove they’re tough, they’re angry at someone, they’re afraid they’ll be caught for something bigger, I can’t read T’s mind, so I really don’t know. I agree, this doesn’t make sense, but there are a lot of things folks do that make no sense to me. Fathers killing their ex-wives and children vice getting on with their lives. Mothers killing their children so they can be with the new man. Serial killers. Just because it makes no sense to me, doesn’t mean folks don’t do it.

Which gets back to- Z could have pulled the gun. Yeah, wouldn’t make sense but could have happened. But no evidence for it, and there is evidence to indicate it didn’t happen that way.
 
2ndcoming said:
:signofcross: i can relate to this anger and emotion… it’s just so maddening that some people are twisting a gesture of obama’s human sympathy and compassion for a death of person as a political ploy. doesn’t he have, as a president and as a human being, a right to do something like that without being seen or perceived as political or taking advantage of the situation? that is why im so mad that some people are looking at this more as political… just my sentiment… that’s all.
Click to expand...
Obama’s “gesture” was the political ploy.
 
Julian_Bashir said:
Assuming you don’t know the meaning of the words “condoning” and “murder,” then yes. I also traded my cow for some magic beans earlier today, ate an apple that made me fall into a deep sleep,only to be awakened with a kiss from prince (made even more awkward when he found out I was a dude), and flew to work today on the back of Falcor from the Neverending Story to avoid traffic.

Yes, all true.
Click to expand...
Can I have my beans back? I only ate half the cow,
 
Robert_Sock said:
No, he could have went for his gun to detain TM, and TM could have seen it as a threat for his life. Why would TM risk life in jail by beating GZ’s head into into the ground? Surly TM must have felt threatened.
Click to expand...
As I indicated in my prior post, the rules of concealed carry have been pointed out to you repeatedly. If Zimmerman had drawn his weapon to detain Martin, that would have been against the law and Zimmerman knew that. You asked why would Martin risk prison by beating Zimmerman. Why would Zimmerman risk prison time to draw his weapon and detain Martin? I’ve also indicated that if Zimmerman drew his weapon, he would be prepared to fire it. So, is it your contention that Zimmerman was just going to shoot Martin outright? If that is not your contention, why do you keep implying that?
 
styrgwillidar said:
Well, there’s no evidence he drew his gun. No evidence he ever did in any prior incident. He would have known he would be committing multiple felonies by drawing it and attempting to detain someone. If he turned this person over to the police, he’d be the one in jail, fine, prison term, loss of rights like voting, CCW etc. etc. Jeantel’s on the phone at this point-- nothing about a gun by either Z or M, no language to indicate an attempted illegal detention and kidnapping.

Really think he’s going to do that for someone he’s only categorized as suspicious?

Lots of folks commit assaults and risk jail for a variety of reasons. Prove they’re tough, they’re angry at someone, they’re afraid they’ll be caught for something bigger, I can’t read T’s mind, so I really don’t know. I agree, this doesn’t make sense, but there are a lot of things folks do that make no sense to me. Fathers killing their ex-wives and children vice getting on with their lives. Mothers killing their children so they can be with the new man. Serial killers. Just because it makes no sense to me, doesn’t mean folks don’t do it.

Which gets back to- Z could have pulled the gun. Yeah, wouldn’t make sense but could have happened. But no evidence for it, and there is evidence to indicate it didn’t happen that way.
Click to expand...
Thank you for this! You did a much better job explaining than I did with my post!👍🙂
 
SwizzleStick said:
I’m guessing what you and “many readers” find most “bothersome” is this part of Lisa’s post?

That fact is that the media, rather than objectively just report facts, did deliberately distort and mislead by editing the 911 tape and presenting grainy video to obscure Zimmerman’s injuries to his head. They “reported” in such a way as to make Zimmerman appear to be a much heavier, white (and later a “white Hispanic” to fit the narrative), aggressive racist who shot an unarmed little 12-year old boy who was simply walking home. Facts and evidence proved most of that to be false. About the only thing the media reported correctly and without bias and spin is that Zimmerman did shoot and fatally wound Martin.
Click to expand...
Thanks very much, I was baffled by the “bothersome” word since the post was mainly about biological facts. Young men have high levels of testosterone which tends to make them aggressive and they also have low impulse control, particularly vis a vis their size and strength. I think Martin was made angry by Zimmerman following him and I think it’s quite understandable. I am sure that he felt he was being targeted for being black because from his perspective and knowing he wasn’t doing anything wrong, why did he draw attention? He understood his meandering behavior as he was apparently talking to Jeantel on the phone. But realize that Zimmerman is not a mind reader. He sees a guy acting oddly, wandering around in the rain. He knows there have been many break ins and burglaries in the neighborhood so someone wandering around aimlessly, appearing to be looking through windows was worth a second look.

Neither knew what the other was up to but in BOTH cases it was behavior that drew the attention, not race, not a desire to shoot someone, nor a desire to rob a home.

As to the media spin, did you notice virtually ALL of the signs and posters carried in the protests show Martin as a child peering out of his little sweatshirt. Obviously the point is to distort the image as that of a ‘child’ gunned down by a “white” Hispanic. The pretzel like twisting of the images and the descriptions, the highly charged words about “this young boy” versus a “cop wannabe” clearly were designed to create a false image.

There were MANY more recent photos of Martin. In fact I saw several minutes of video of him buying the Skittles and Tea. Why not use something the very night of his death? Could it be that he was a tall, athletic looking young man not a sweet little kid?

The real guilty party are the media helped by the race baiters and hucksters like Sharpton who’s congratulating him on getting the case to trial when there was clearly no evidence of a murder.

Lisa
 
:confused: Just wondering…after reading several posts saying it is NOT illegal to follow someone; maybe that is not so correct. Imagine you are alone on your route home, a dark wintry night (say 6:30p.m.), you turn around and see a person behind you, turn at the corner and sure enough, the person is still behind you. Okay, you keep on going but cross to the other side of the street and glance behind you. The other person crosses also and has gotten a little closer. So you step it up a bit and maintain a faster pace for a few minutes. Turn around, same person, now closer. Are we saying that it is legal to pursue a person as long as you don’t catch up? I think it could be rather frightening and if that is the intent - to frighten - then would that not be an illegal act? :eek:
 
theblacksphere.net/2013/07/honor-trayvon-by-ending-the-black-genocide/

americanthinker.com/2013/07/honor_trayvon_by_ending_the_black_genocide.html

I believe this is a Conservative black view.
And Skittles and iced tea or not, 17-year-old Trayvon should never have been lurking about in a hoodie between buildings on a dark rainy night in a townhouse complex. Now, regardless of how or why this boy died, a child is dead and will never have an opportunity to grow out of the typical youthful foolishness which ultimately cost him his life.
Click to expand...
And for every hoodie-wearing thug out there who’s now blaming George Zimmerman for Trayvon’s death, know this: the behavior of those who give good, upstanding young black men a bad name are ultimately much more responsible for Trayvon’s death than one legally-armed American citizen defending himself against an out-of-control teenage boy slamming his “crazy cracka” head against a concrete walk.
Click to expand...
Read more: americanthinker.com/2013/07/honor_trayvon_by_ending_the_black_genocide.html#ixzz2ZEqZtzyi
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook
Click to expand...
 
styrgwillidar said:
Well, there’s no evidence he drew his gun. No evidence he ever did in any prior incident. He would have known he would be committing multiple felonies by drawing it and attempting to detain someone. If he turned this person over to the police, he’d be the one in jail, fine, prison term, loss of rights like voting, CCW etc. etc. Jeantel’s on the phone at this point-- nothing about a gun by either Z or M, no language to indicate an attempted illegal detention and kidnapping.

Really think he’s going to do that for someone he’s only categorized as suspicious?

Lots of folks commit assaults and risk jail for a variety of reasons. Prove they’re tough, they’re angry at someone, they’re afraid they’ll be caught for something bigger, I can’t read T’s mind, so I really don’t know. I agree, this doesn’t make sense, but there are a lot of things folks do that make no sense to me. Fathers killing their ex-wives and children vice getting on with their lives. Mothers killing their children so they can be with the new man. Serial killers. Just because it makes no sense to me, doesn’t mean folks don’t do it.

Which gets back to- Z could have pulled the gun. Yeah, wouldn’t make sense but could have happened. But no evidence for it, and there is evidence to indicate it didn’t happen that way.
Click to expand...
Where’s the evidence that TM initiated the confrontation? Your reasoning in your first paragraph could just as easily apply to GZ.
 
styrgwillidar said:
Again I disagree. I do think the most plausible scenario is that Martin punched Zimmerman starting the altercation.

This more a general observation on the use of lethal force in self-defense. If the conditions exist for lawful use of lethal force in self-defense- it continues to be lawful as long as the threat continues to exist, regardless of the means- be it feet/hands/blunt object/knife/gun.

If someone attacks me, and it degenerates into hand-to-hand and I get the advantage- like Martin, mounted on top of my opponent- I can utilize that advantage up until there is no longer a threat of serious bodily harm/death. I do not have to give up my advantage. So, yes in a self-defense situation you can pin someone to the ground and (I wouldn’t say attack) rain blows on them, continue to use lethal force. Advantage in a fight can be momentary, if my opponent continues to struggle they may regain it.

I can’t keep using lethal force when the threat ceases. Consistent with the catholic churches teaching- when the threat to my life stops, I stop. I don’t chase, I don’t seek retribution, I used force only as long as necessary to preserve my life.
Click to expand...
You’re right you can. And that is why Zimmerman was found not guilty. That is what he did.
 
SwizzleStick said:
That fact is that the media, rather than objectively just reporting facts, did deliberately distort and mislead by editing the 911 tape to make Zimmerman appear racist and did present grainy video to obscure Zimmerman’s injuries to his head. They “reported” in such a way as to make Zimmerman appear to be a much heavier, white (and later a “white Hispanic” to fit the narrative), aggressive racist who shot an unarmed little 12-year old boy who was simply walking home. Facts and evidence proved most of that to be false. About the only thing the media reported correctly and without bias and spin is that Zimmerman did shoot and fatally wound Martin.
Click to expand...
Here’s the way the case looks to those who were watching this through the filter of the mainstream media/prosecution:

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
It’s possible that the court in being kind to some offenders and in this case, both Trayvon and Zimmerman may have done a disservice. With the kind of rap sheet Zimmerman has, even if he wasn’t convicted for those crimes, his father’s occupation being a low-level judge, George Zimmerman may have gotten away with what he was charged with per knowing the system. It’s not an angle that is mentioned but perhaps he should not have been able to pass a background check for a Conceal and Carry permit if he would have had a conviction on his record. We can say he didn’t do anything illegal but there is plenty to question about his conduct.
 
grotto said:
:confused: Just wondering…after reading several posts saying it is NOT illegal to follow someone; maybe that is not so correct. Imagine you are alone on your route home, a dark wintry night (say 6:30p.m.), you turn around and see a person behind you, turn at the corner and sure enough, the person is still behind you. Okay, you keep on going but cross to the other side of the street and glance behind you. The other person crosses also and has gotten a little closer. So you step it up a bit and maintain a faster pace for a few minutes. Turn around, same person, now closer. Are we saying that it is legal to pursue a person as long as you don’t catch up? I think it could be rather frightening and if that is the intent - to frighten - then would that not be an illegal act? :eek:
Click to expand...
No, you have a situation that does not rise to a level that would justify use of force, much less lethal force. Perhaps this person is lost and wants to catch up to you and ask directions? They happen to be headed the same way and they normally walk faster than you, or are in more of a hurry because of the cold? They follow in your footsteps because of the snow on the ground, following you is easier than walking on unbroken snow, or gets less snow in their low-cut shoes?

If they’re doing it with the intent to frighten or intimade, that’s a question for a lawyer. But certainly from a self-defense viewpoint it doesn’t justify any level of force.
 
styrgwillidar said:
I disagree. Assuming GZ does’nt just back off after being hit. If GZ turned it physical, than Martin would be justified in continuing to use force until there is no longer a threat. Dead, unconcious/incapacited, or clearly given up. The witnesses stated it was an ongoing struggle with no indication at any point that one party was trying to withdraw from the conflict or had ‘surrendered’. (Yes, hard to withdraw from a conflict when mounted, incredibly risky to try and ‘tap out’ or ‘surrender’ and trust the other party will stop also.)
Click to expand...
Interesting. :hmmm: Are you saying that someone pinned to the ground, screaming for help and unable to put up an attack is still a threat?
 
Joe_5859 said:
I haven’t been following this story closely enough to know every detail. I guess I figured the jury was in a better position to sort it all out than I would be. 🤷

But it is interesting to me how stories like this get latched onto and then we attach some sort of meta-significance to them as though the outcome irrefutably acts as a benchmark for race relations in the United States.
Click to expand...
Well they are sold to the public by the media and by special interest groups to further their own cause. Look at Obama, the verdict came down and he said we should respect it and then immediately talked about tighter gun control. They will use anything they can to further their bigger plan.
 
Carlan said:
NO? and no benifit of doubt for a dead young teenager unable to tell his side of the story.
Click to expand...
He gets the benefit of the doubt, though he is dead and it won’t do him a lot of good.
As far as trials go, there has to be enough proof to reasonably show that Zimmerman was defending himself as he claimed he was.

The case was pretty much a slam dunk, when decided on the evidence.
In the country racially charged along the Holder/Obama fault lines, ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ is not necessary for proof, so Zimmerman stands condemned among the Obama electorate for sure.

That is good news for the Democrats. It is not as if they can run on successful foreign policy or a good news economy. If they were not winning the race-baiting campaign, there would be no good news at all for them.
To win elections though, race baiting will suffice.

So take heart. Martin did not die in vain. Four more years of Democratic misrule await.🙂
Holder for President!!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top