Open Thread on Zimmerman Verdict

  • Thread starter Thread starter sweetcharity
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
meltzerboy said:
…

but not in the United States, where firearms are not prohibited. You stated this yourself.
Click to expand...
However, there are areas of the US which prohibit or heavily restrict the ability carry a firearm with you. Or to have it concealed. Heck, in Jersey and New York City some folks have gone to jail because their flights were diverted, their luggage unloaded, and there they are with a hunting rifle in their possession without the proper permits etc.

My state is a discretionary issue state. That means its completely up to the local sheriff who he grants a CCW to and who he doesn’t. In my county, women who’ve been beaten and are being threatened by their attacker to be attacked again are denied. Folks who can donate sufficient funds to the sheriff’s re-election to demonstrate their good judgement are approved. And the politicians. Other counties treat it more like shall issue.

So, CCW isn’t available everywhere and there are many folks who choose what is available, like knives.
 
What about Catholic virtues being largely absent in this CAF’s thread? Just a few: The maxim of turning the other check; The maxim of loving your neighbor as yourself; the maxim of giving someone your cloak too when they ask for your tunic. What would Christ have to say about this whole incident, given the above maxims?
 
Well tm’s parents made out well… nothing like a lawsuit to get over grief :rolleyes:
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...
 
styrgwillidar said:
However, there are areas of the US which prohibit or heavily restrict the ability carry a firearm with you. Or to have it concealed. Heck, in Jersey and New York City some folks have gone to jail because their flights were diverted, their luggage unloaded, and there they are with a hunting rifle in their possession without the proper permits etc.

My state is a discretionary issue state. That means its completely up to the local sheriff who he grants a CCW to and who he doesn’t. In my county, women who’ve been beaten and are being threatened by their attacker to be attacked again are denied. Folks who can donate sufficient funds to the sheriff’s re-election to demonstrate their good judgement are approved. And the politicians. Other counties treat it more like shall issue.

So, CCW isn’t available everywhere and there are many folks who choose what is available, like knives.
Click to expand...
Iowa used to be that way too. Thankfully they changed it a few years ago to Shall issue. Prevents those mini-dictatorships from forming. We still carry knives…most which are under the legal length, but are still just as effective in protecting yourself if need be. Some people get the CCW permit just so they can conceal carry their big knives and have no interest in guns at all.
 
meltzerboy said:
Change “never” to “usually.” Now, what do you think: are White jurors usually immune to the influence of race in contrast to Black jurors?
Click to expand...
I think white jurors are influenced by race as much or more than black jurors, the issue being the opposite of what you may think. I also think defense attorneys would specifically select white jurors for that reason.

A while back “What would you do” had a story showing a waiter questioning a black man how he came to have the white children that were eating in a restaurant with him. Every time they ran the scenario the white patrons of the restaurant became loud and vocal calling the waiter a racist and telling him it was none of his business. When they reversed the role with a white father and black children not once did the restaurant patrons come to the aid of the white father being harassed about why he is with these black children.

And it happens in real life too:

huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/21/virginia-parents-walmart-biracial-daughters_n_3313143.html
 
Robert_Sock said:
What about Catholic virtues being largely absent in this CAF’s thread? Just a few: The maxim of turning the other check; The maxim of loving your neighbor as yourself; the maxim of giving someone your cloak too when they ask for your tunic. What would Christ have to say about this whole incident, given the above maxims?
Click to expand...
Yes, and sadly I find this true in most of the news threads here at C A
 
Dawnia said:
Iowa used to be that way too. Thankfully they changed it a few years ago to Shall issue. Prevents those mini-dictatorships from forming. We still carry knives…most which are under the legal length, but are still just as effective in protecting yourself if need be. Some people get the CCW permit just so they can conceal carry their big knives and have no interest in guns at all.
Click to expand...
My state doesn’t have any restrictions on length. So anything you can fold is legal in to have concealed.

The discretionary issue has been taken to court, been in process for years because there is such a disparity in the way different counties issue.
 
NewEnglandPriest said:
I think the jury got it right.

I think Zimmerman did everything wrong up until he shot Martin. I think he made false assumptions about Martin and was incredibly dumb to get out of his car. I don’t believe he was looking for a street sign. I think Martin acted like many teenagers would if they felt someone was following them: fight them. Once again, a stupid thing to do but Martin was a teenager and teenagers often make adrenaline based decisions.

Zimmerman set in motion a chain of events that never should have been set in motion. Once he called the cops, his job was done. No need to get out the car, no need to follow, no need for anything other than waiting for the cops to arrive.

That being said, I do not find it a reasonable conclusion that Zimmerman would have sat on top of Martin, pulled out a gun and shot him in cold blood. Its a much more reasonable conclusion that they fought, tussled, and Martin wound up on top punching Zimmerman. Would Martin have killed Zimmerman? I doubt it. However, Zimmerman didn’t have 20/20 hindsight, he reasonably thought his life was in danger and shot in self defense.

I think Zimmerman set in motion this tragic chain of events, but I don’t think he’s guilty of murder or manslaughter.
Click to expand...
One of the more sensible posts, which is the way the jury may have considered the chain of events.
 
Robert_Sock said:
What about Catholic virtues being largely absent in this CAF’s thread? Just a few: The maxim of turning the other check; The maxim of loving your neighbor as yourself; the maxim of giving someone your cloak too when they ask for your tunic. What would Christ have to say about this whole incident, given the above maxims?
Click to expand...
He’d say don’t attack people.
 
Robert_Sock said:
What facts are you talking about? WE DO NOT KNOW WHO THE AGGRESSOR WAS.
Click to expand...
All the evidence suggests that Treyvon initiated the meeting and the violence, but even if he didn’t, it is illegal to continue fighting after the aggressor is no longer a threat. George was on the ground screaming for help for a good while, but sweet baby Trey wouldn’t stop. No matter how it started this was self defense on the part of George Zimmerman.
Cider said:
I think it’s also a belief that the person still alive must be the guilty party. How dare they live.
Click to expand...
Brings a new meaning to “survivor’s guilt”.
meltzerboy said:
No, because generally people don’t carry concealed knives and there is no proliferation of the number of knives in our society. But there was talk about the role that race played in the jury’s decision.
Click to expand...
There is a saying around here: “The only excuse for not carrying a knife is that your dress doesn’t have pockets.” Not only do I carry multiple knives on my person, but they are always concealed in my pockets when not in use.
 
SamH said:
He’d say don’t attack people.
Click to expand...
He’d also likely restate the maxims I have listed, but people on this thread basically ignore. Again, where are people’s Catholic virtues on this thread?

You’re making this thread into a mockery.
 
Robert_Sock said:
What about Catholic virtues being largely absent in this CAF’s thread? Just a few: The maxim of turning the other check;
Click to expand...
TO the point of death?
The maxim of loving your neighbor as yourself;
Click to expand...
Again, to the point of death?
the maxim of giving someone your cloak too when they ask for your tunic.
Click to expand...
Are you trying to say that Martin was robbing Zimmerman? Or that Zimmerman was?
What would Christ have to say about this whole incident, given the above maxims?
Click to expand...
He would tell Martin not to attack another human being. 👍
 
MaryT777 said:
We do know that Z had a restraining order against him for trolling her around as well.

.
Click to expand...
No we do not know this. It was claimed in an article not in court. It seems the court considered it mutual as it ordered them to stay away from each other not just him. Both were issued a restraining order.
 
Robert_Sock said:
What about Catholic virtues being largely absent in this CAF’s thread? Just a few: The maxim of turning the other check; The maxim of loving your neighbor as yourself; the maxim of giving someone your cloak too when they ask for your tunic. What would Christ have to say about this whole incident, given the above maxims?
Click to expand...
Go look at all the posts about self-defense.

Christ said to turn the other cheek, take a blow, without immediately responding in kind. He didn’t say to allow yourself to be killed. There is in fact a difference. How many blows was Zimmerman supposed to take? He’s screaming his head off and his attacker isn’t letting up. 2, 5, 10, 25?

I don’t know if you caught the post a while back. There is a legal concept that the aggressor can change during a fight- you are allowed to defend yourself as long as there is a threat. When the threat ends, your right to defend ends because its not defense anymore.

So, despite all the evidence and testimony, let’s imagine Zimmerman attacked first, Martin defends himself and in one punch knocks out Z… Martin can’t continue and tap dance on top of Z. He’s out cold, he’s no longer a threat. If Martin continues he becomes the aggressor.

Now let’s say instead of knocking him out, Martin only stuns Z who turns and runs away screaming. Martin can’t pursue and re-engage him physically. He can’t chase him, and start pummeling him again and claim self-defense. When Z ran he was no longer a threat (there is a state which allows pursuit in these circumstance if its necessary for the safety of the initial victim. Hard to imagine where that would be the case).

Ok so far?

Now in something closer to the actual scenario, Martin and Z end up on the ground with Martin in the dominant position. If Z covers his head with his arms and yells I give up, I give up!! Is he no longer a threat? If so, Martin legally should stop.

In the actual scenario, we have Martin on top of Z (admittedly still struggling ineffectively), but with Z screaming for help for an extended period of time. Is it reasonable for Martin to be in fear of imminent serious bodily harm or death at this point? If not, then his claim to self-defense isn’t valid or legal. He shouldn’t have continued to pummel Z after the point Z is no longer a threat- ETA: regardless of how it started.

The point being in this last scenario, if you think the threat ended- Martin has shifted from being the victim to the aggressor, giving Zimmerman grounds for self-defense himself. something the jury may have considered.
 
Carlan said:
Oh Robert, we are simly not going to win with some of these people on the gun issues, God bless you for giving it the best try. We pray. Peace, Carlan
Click to expand...
As several posters have noted, at least Carlan is honest enough to admit that the issue is guns rather than the trial or even the verdict. Thank you for being honest about your actual agenda regarding this case.

As to meltzerboy’s attempt to equate this with the OJ case, yes clearly race WAS a factor. Most legal beagles believe that had the Mark Fuhrman comments not surfaced, OJ would have been found guilty. The decision was no based on the evidence but on a desire for retribution.

That being said, Kim Kardashian gets the Stupid Celebrity Award of the day for claiming Martin did not get justice, conveniently forgetting HER FATHER’S role in getting a guilty man off after brutally murdering his former wife and an innocent man who was trying to help her. It’s so funny how easy it is to see real agendas when one’s ox is being gored.

This is about guns to Robert and others, not about what evidence exists, nor the testimony, nor the predictions by virtually everyone that Zimmerman would not be found guilty. Further even Sharpton admitted that the case was "created’ by public unrest, not by the facts and evidence.

I admit to being furious about the Casey Anthony verdict. To me the evidence indicated she was responsible for her child’s death. But those, like me, who advocate for abused children did not riot in the streets or make up lies or use the case for political advantage.

Both of these cases point to the destruction of our society through broken homes, a lack of faith in the lives of those engaged in self destructive and violent behavior. Instead of focusing on what is NOT a factor and there is virtually no evidence of racism or racial profiling, why not focus on the cause of aimless youth involved in drugs and crimes and a gangsta rap mentality? Much of the evidence that could not be admitted due to inability to verify such as text messages, social media demonstrated young people without a sense of purpose or responsibility.

Lisa
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top