Open Thread on Zimmerman Verdict

  • Thread starter Thread starter sweetcharity
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Cider said:
There is no evidence he was in immediate danger of great bodily harm or death. Martin had no injuries other than the single gun shot wound that happened after he attacked Zimmerman and the right hand he punched Zimmerman with, he had no defensive wounds.
Click to expand...
Again, I agree there is no evidence of Martin being in fear of imminent great bodily harm or death. (at some point he was certainly in danger of it…)

However, while defensive wounds would be evidence of it, the lack of defensive wounds doesn’t disprove the possibility.

It is not a crime to be good at defending yourself. Martin did not have to suffer injury prior to defending himself. For example if he ducked a swing, or rush from Zimmerman and thought this stranger was out to seriously hurt him his actions would have been justified to immediately go on the offensive to counter the threat.

I am not saying that’s what happened – but its the same as Zimmerman’s injuries-- it is not the injuries which justified the use of lethal force in self-defense. It is the reasonableness of the fear of imminent serious bodily harm or death in the circumstance he was in.
 
Carlan said:
For heavens sake, what is the matter with most of you?Does not a teen age boy have a right to defend himself. Peace, Carlan
Click to expand...
Defend himself, yes. Assault someone, pin them to the ground and beat the snot out of them, no.
 
Orogeny said:
No negligence there because there was no obligation on Zimmerman’s part to follow orders from the dispatcher. Zimmerman had as much right to follow Martin as Martin did to be walking down the street. Regardless, manslaughter would have been a more appropriate charge if, in fact, any charge should have been made. Self defense is still a legitimate right and that includes defending against a charge of manslaughter.

Peace

Tim
Click to expand...
Carrying a concealed weapon comes with added responsibility. The dispatcher clearly saw the the danger in asking GZ not to follow. GZ ought to have sensed that danger too, and chosen to stay in his truck.
 
oldcelt said:
One of the jurors talked about the difficulty of sorting through the various laws. On the original poll I voted for manslaughter (before the trial). In my home state he likely would have been convicted of that and received a short term or no jail time.
Click to expand...
I tend to think it wouldn’t have gone to trial. I think the local DA and the police department were correct in their initial assessment that there was insufficient evidence to bring any charges.
 
Cider said:
No, you don’t get to beat someones head into concrete because they looked at you wrong or followed you. It’s not against the law. There is no evidence that Zimmerman physically threatened Martin with great bodily harm or death, until after he was attacked and was trying to defend himself.

If he Zimmerman hadn’t defended himself from the beating he was getting Martin would have been on trial for what he did. Possibly murder if he didn’t stop in time. Those were the two options.
Click to expand...
NO? and no benifit of doubt for a dead young teenager unable to tell his side of the story.
 
je333 said:
Are you then advocating that I and all other pro-life catholics to carry a licensed gun for self defense?
Click to expand...
Nope, I am just repeating the words of Pope John Paul II.

That it is a ‘grave duty’ to defend yourself and any others that you have under your charge.

Do you object to the Pope’s statement in any way?
 
A prosecutor in the Zimmerman trial stopped a Black person from being on the jury because they watched Fox news, it has been revealed on CNN newsroom today.
 
Robert_Sock said:
Carrying a concealed weapon comes with added responsibility. The dispatcher clearly saw the the danger in asking GZ not to follow. GZ ought to have sensed that danger too, and chosen to stay in his truck.
Click to expand...
IIRC, you were offered the actual text of the conversation between the operation and Zimmerman.

At no point did the operator ask him not to follow, only that the operator did not require GZ to follow him.

So please refrain from making factually incorrect statements.
 
Robert_Sock said:
Carrying a concealed weapon come with added responsibility. The dispatcher clearly saw the the danger in asking GZ not to follow. GZ ought to have sensed that danger too, and chosen to stay in his truck.
Click to expand...
That’s where I think habit/procedure/prior experience came into play. Zimmerman had followed (briefly, not a chase or tracking) a couple of times prior to get information dispatchers wanted. The HOA had written a thank you letter to construction workers who followed some suspects resulting in arrests. So, Zimmerman gets out of his truck-- like he has before-- to get the information the dispatcher asked him to provide. When the dispatcher realizes he’s following tells him we don’t need you to do that, and Zimmerman complies.

Even the SPD neighborhood watch supervisor says that not follow doesn’t exclude, follow at a safe distance. No definition of ‘safe distance’.

He’s in the habit of providing the requested information for the dispatcher. So as he heads to his truck, tries to get an address, in an area where they’re hard to see according to the prosecution witness. He’s fallen into that habit pattern. Its worked before. So, I think there’s complacency. In his mind the incident is over, at least his part. The only thing left to do is give the police who arrive the best information he can. Nobody in NW, or Zimmerman in his mind ever defined that bright line you don’t cross, or procedures in the event of losing sight of a suspicious person.
 
styrgwillidar said:
I tend to think it wouldn’t have gone to trial. I think the local DA and the police department were correct in their initial assessment that there was insufficient evidence to bring any charges.
Click to expand...
I was tight in that regard. The fact that a person was dead made for a very difficult call.
 
Robert_Sock said:
All assumptions that TM initiated the confrontation.
Click to expand...
Baloney. FACTS based on the evidence presented at trial. No where did I say that TM started the confrontation. If TM had stopped with punching GZ in the face to get him to back off, that MIGHT have been self-defense. Beating him to the ground and continuing to assault him is attacking the other person.
 
oldcelt said:
I was tight in that regard. The fact that a person was dead made for a very difficult call.
Click to expand...
No, a lot of lawyers were very critical of the affidavit and saw this as an incredibly weak case.

The fact that there was a lot of outside pressure. A lot.

You notice Sharptons comments? He admitted as much- that there was little/no merit to the case but the protest and demonstrations and advocay got the case filed.
 
estesbob said:
I doubt if they file civil rights charges as the FBI investigated this last year and said there was no basis for doing so-but of course if Obama decides that he can score political points by doing so I am sure he can instruct Holder to do so.
Click to expand...
:eek::mad: how dare you put a political spin to the death of a young black boy! as someone who is highly intuitive, you are on the verge of being a racist… actually, i know and am positively sure of that.
 
Dawnia said:
Baloney. FACTS based on the evidence presented at trial. No where did I say that TM started the confrontation. If TM had stopped with punching GZ in the face to get him to back off, that MIGHT have been self-defense. Beating him to the ground and continuing to assault him is attacking the other person.
Click to expand...
Yet again, it could have been that TM saw GZ go for his gun, and everything that followed was in self-defense.
 
Robert_Sock said:
Carrying a concealed weapon comes with added responsibility. The dispatcher clearly saw the the danger in asking GZ not to follow. GZ ought to have sensed that danger too, and chosen to stay in his truck.
Click to expand...
So not having spidey sense that danger was near is a reason to charge the man with manslaughter? Zimmerman had no obligation to follow any requests from the dispatcher, so there is no negligence that you mentioned earlier.

Peace

Tim
 
Brendan said:
Nope, I am just repeating the words of Pope John Paul II.

That it is a ‘grave duty’ to defend yourself and any others that you have under your charge.

Do you object to the Pope’s statement in any way?
Click to expand...
Sort of. There is not a grave duty to defend oneself, though there is a right to do so. There can be a grave duty do defend others. One can always choose the path of self-sacrifice, as did our Lord and many saints after him.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top