Open Thread on Zimmerman Verdict

  • Thread starter Thread starter sweetcharity
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
SamH said:
This makes me question my position on this subject more than anything posted by the people here that think the jury got it wrong.
Click to expand...
If Carter thinks the jury got it right, I have to question my conclusions now as well.

:hmmm:
 
Robert_Sock said:
We need to stop this type of senseless violence! Carrying concealed weapons needs to be outlawed. Where are people’s Catholic virtues when we Catholics condone such senseless violence in the name of self defense? We are headed to an era of wild gunslingers.
Click to expand...
It is outlawed many places, you know, like Chicago. Highest rate of gun violence in the nation.

It will be interesting to see how that changes since SCOTUS decided that yes in fact the 2nd Amendment is incorporated as a limitation on state governments as well as feds. Illinois was ordered to come up with a CCW methodology. We’ll see how it works out.

You do not lower crime by disarming the victims. Quite the opposite.
 
SamH said:
I thought it was “Do you have a problem?”
Click to expand...
I think Zimmerman said that Martin asked that right before Martin answered his own question with "You do now " and Martin then proceeded to attack Zimmerman.

I’m tired of going in circles, so I’m getting off this merry-go-round for awhile. Making I’ll come back later if the thread is still open then.
 
I feel like it was unjust and unfair. But then again there wasn’t enough evidence to convict him. They needed more evidence.
 
Robert_Sock said:
Assumption that GZ went for his gun in self defense. To assume such is to insinuate that TM deserved to die. Again, my main point is that Florida state law put a concealed weapon in the hands of an amateur law enforcement personal. The vigilante attitude of GZ is the real blame of the shooting death of TM. To call it self defense is a misnomer.
Click to expand...
Wrong again.

Not an assumption but a fact of law as determined by a jury of peers who could not convict on murder or manslaughter charges furthermore it does not insinuate anything. TM died because he went MMA on a man with a gun.
 
Robert_Sock said:
Assumption that GZ went for his gun in self defense. To assume such is to insinuate that TM deserved to die. Again, my main point is that Florida state law put a concealed weapon in the hands of an amateur law enforcement personal. The vigilante attitude of GZ is the real blame of the shooting death of TM. To call it self defense is a misnomer.
Click to expand...
For your theory to work, GZ would have had to call the police, set up a place to meet them, expect them to be there soon, and then decide to go and shoot TM. That really doesn’t make any sense.

I realize life would have been easier if GZ would have just locked his doors and thought only of himself and making life easier for himself, but the evidence showed that GZ actually cared about his neighbors and his neighborhood. My goodness, what a dangerous “vigilante.”
 
Holly3278 said:
I feel like it was unjust and unfair. But then again there wasn’t enough evidence to convict him. They needed more evidence.
Click to expand...
They needed to try the case as manslaughter from the very start. The prosecution should have had the foresight that the second degree murder charge was a gross product of the imagination.
 
lcburgundy said:
For your theory to work, GZ would have had to call the police, set up a place to meet them, expect them to be there soon, and then decide to go and shoot TM. That really doesn’t make any sense.

I realize life would have been easier if GZ would have just locked his doors and thought only of himself and making life easier for himself, but the evidence showed that GZ actually cared about his neighbors and his neighborhood. My goodness, what a dangerous “vigilante.”
Click to expand...
In the history of crime in America has a murderer ever called the police and arranged for their arrival before committing a race motivated murder?

Just wondering.
 
SwizzleStick said:
Okay. I stand corrected. I think it was Jeantel’s testimony where she said something along these lines: “Why are you following me?” (Martin) “What are you doing up here?” or similar (Zimmerman). I didn’t find her very credible, so I didn’t put much stock in any of her testimony or pay much attention to her.
Click to expand...
I believe Zimmerman noted in his police report the same thing you had incorrect.
 
lcburgundy said:
For your theory to work, GZ would have had to call the police, set up a place to meet them, expect them to be there soon, and then decide to go and shoot TM. That really doesn’t make any sense.

I realize life would have been easier if GZ would have just locked his doors and thought only of himself and making life easier for himself, but the evidence showed that GZ actually cared about his neighbors and his neighborhood. My goodness, what a dangerous “vigilante.”
Click to expand...
Again, my main point is that Florida state law put a concealed weapon in the hands of an amateur law enforcement personal. And again, the vigilante attitude of GZ is the real blame of the shooting death of TM. To call it self defense is a misnomer.
 
Robert_Sock said:
They needed to try the case as manslaughter from the very start. The prosecution should have had the foresight that the second degree murder charge was a gross product of the imagination.
Click to expand...
Actually doing as they did allowed them to present the case for manslaughter without the defense defending against it. They had no evidense to present that supported the lessor charge either.
 
Robert_Sock said:
Again, my main point is that Florida state law put a concealed weapon in the hands of an amateur law enforcement personal. And again, the vigilante attitude of GZ is the real blame of the shooting death of TM. To call it self defense is a misnomer.
Click to expand...
Evidence of this “vigilante” attitude? Do vigilantes usually call the police and arrange for them to handle the situation?

Do you know what vigilante means?
 
Cider said:
The HOA didn’t HAVE to settle. They chose to. Mostly likely because it would cost more to pay for the lawyers to defend them than the 1 million dollars that the family wanted. So the Martin family got a million dollars and and the HOA admitted no wrong doing as part of the settlement. By the way, settlements are very common, people sue for all kinds of things and get settlements because the cost benefit ratio makes it the cheaper way to go. Especially when insurance companies are usually the ones paying the bill.
Click to expand...
Of course they didn’t have to settle. They may have thought GZ acted irresponsibly as well. It’s pure speculation really except the fact they did settle.
 
Conceal and Carry, Self-Defense laws work well, once in a while, you may have a bad case but for the most part, I think Conceal and Carry Laws help preserve the well-being of the public.

Criminals have illegal guns, not law abiding citizens.
 
vig·i·lan·te (vj-lnt)
n.
  1. One who takes or advocates the taking of law enforcement into one’s own hands.
  2. A member of a vigilance committee.
I don’t see anything about “One that calls the police to report suspicious behavior”.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top