The George Zimmerman Trial.......
- Thread starter Seafever
- Start date
eaglemaniac
Well-Known Member
I'm quite sure Mr. Zimmerman will eventually be properly judged by his peers. It's another sad situation but a situation just the same.
eman
eman
CIVANO
Well-Known Member
High Five per the jury's decision Zimmerman is innocent pure and simple. They decided that as determined by current law. If that is an incorrect decision, the law should be changed. 39% of all black males in the US go to prison - 6 times the norm. They commit a disproportionate amount of the crime. Until that changes, they will be suspect in any setting guilty or not
Last edited by a moderator:
Seafever
Well-Known Member
The defense did a better job of b-essing the jury than the prosecution.
Like the part where they introduce an animated re-enactment of the crime....even though it was totally fictitious and based on 'the best recollections' of Mr.Zimmerman (whose recollections were proven to be erronious and misleading on many an occasion).
Like the FBI's basic toss-off when they said no way they could analyze the "help" voice. Who are they trying to kid?
Like when they brought in the guy who fought in Vietnam and claimed he could recognize any soldier's scream in battle and he recognized the voice as GZ.. I assume he had the entire platoon stand out there one morning and had them all scream hysterically so he'd know who they were when they got shot later......total bazzura.....
Although GZ had MMA training and there were experts who claimed they know what's going on in a fight none of them cottoned on to the fact that Trayvon putting his hand over GZ's mouth (if it actually happened) is the oldest MMA trick in the book.
You do it to slow down the other guy's breathing and make him have a hard time sucking air. Tires the guy out faster.
Then there's the "four minutes" where nobody seems to be able to figure out what Zimmerman was or was not doing.
Then there's the bushes that Zimmerman claimed Martin jumped out from.........but when he took people to the spot to show them what happened...there aren't any bushes there.
Then there's the total of 3 streets in the complex, that, although Zimmerman had been going there for 4 years, could not remember the names of or where they were located.
But of course you are right CIVANO....the Florida "Stand Your Ground" law is an open ticket to unabashed gunplay.
They actually had tougher laws in Tombstone and Dodge City back in the supposed "wild west".
Like the part where they introduce an animated re-enactment of the crime....even though it was totally fictitious and based on 'the best recollections' of Mr.Zimmerman (whose recollections were proven to be erronious and misleading on many an occasion).
Like the FBI's basic toss-off when they said no way they could analyze the "help" voice. Who are they trying to kid?
Like when they brought in the guy who fought in Vietnam and claimed he could recognize any soldier's scream in battle and he recognized the voice as GZ.. I assume he had the entire platoon stand out there one morning and had them all scream hysterically so he'd know who they were when they got shot later......total bazzura.....
Although GZ had MMA training and there were experts who claimed they know what's going on in a fight none of them cottoned on to the fact that Trayvon putting his hand over GZ's mouth (if it actually happened) is the oldest MMA trick in the book.
You do it to slow down the other guy's breathing and make him have a hard time sucking air. Tires the guy out faster.
Then there's the "four minutes" where nobody seems to be able to figure out what Zimmerman was or was not doing.
Then there's the bushes that Zimmerman claimed Martin jumped out from.........but when he took people to the spot to show them what happened...there aren't any bushes there.
Then there's the total of 3 streets in the complex, that, although Zimmerman had been going there for 4 years, could not remember the names of or where they were located.
But of course you are right CIVANO....the Florida "Stand Your Ground" law is an open ticket to unabashed gunplay.
They actually had tougher laws in Tombstone and Dodge City back in the supposed "wild west".
salty-dog
Member
I am not going to weight in on whether Zimmerman was right or wrong. I was not there. I did not see it. I did not hear it. I know about what the media said went down and that is all. Sadly, however, apparently, the media did not expose all the details. As with anything else, it came down to ratings based on selective reporting.
But, I will say that I have been on both ends of a gun barrel.
The first time, I was one the dumb end. Invited to a party at a hotel. By the time I got there, it was in full swing and some folks had gotten out of hand. As I walked towards the building, the manager held a .44 to my head while he questioned me as to why I was there. I was unarmed. Upon learning of what the others were doing, I left.
On the other end, I was robbed while closing shop one day. I had a .32 in the desk. I could have legally dropped the bad guys. I never reached for it. I stayed calm and rationalized that its easy enough to replace the stolen cash. Them boys could not be replaced. Those same boys came back to steal ATV's. I used the gun then. I did not shoot them- just held them until the county cops showed up.
So, based on what I just explained, if you are looking into the flashing end of a gun, stay cool, don't fight unless its for sure it ain't going to end well anyway.
If you are on the trigger end, use common sense and weigh the options.
In the Martin/Zimmerman case, both were at fault and each shared responsibility for the outcome.
Now, do I support the "stand your ground" and "castle doctrine" rules?? I must say I do. Again, use common sense and think clearly.
What are the differences?? Stand your ground represents protecting oneself and others with whatever force is required wherever you may be. The castle Doctrine provides you the ability to protect yourself and your family/visitors while inside your own home.
A particular case involving the castle doctrine is the one regarding Sarah McKinley. She shot and killed one of two intruders inside her home. They were armed, knew she was alone with her babies and that her husband had just recently died. Them boys was up to no good. Did she have the right to protect herself to that extent? Legally, yes. Now, imagine this is your wife and your babies in this case. Do you support her decision to kill??
A recent case involving stand your ground rule: Sherry West is taking her young son for a walk in his stroller. Two young men approach her demanding money. She had none to offer. One of the men shoots her 13 month old son in the face. Sherry is unarmed. OK, now, would you support the stand your ground rule here?? Sherry, had she been armed could have taken out one or both of the men. But, she had no money and no gun. Now, she has no son.
Since coming here, I've been told many times that the US needs to ban guns. That, it is said, will stop crime and all the shootings. But, will it?? Of course not. Anyone that thinks, for one moment, a criminal will give up his weapon because it is illegal to own is foolishly mistaken. All this will do is make every law abiding citizen an easy, unprotected target.
This is not to say that I think everyone should own a gun or should have a CCW. I don't. I think severe penalties for using weapons to commit a crime are in order. Currently, there are laws about this. But, let's face facts: if you get 10-15 years for robbery, is there much difference in committing armed robbery and getting 15-20? They are equal felonies. The biggest difference is early release. In armed cases, the convicted should do 20 years {or more} to the door.
While the rest of the world thinks we should not be permitted to own guns, it must be remembered that the US Constitution grants us that right. Not for street fights and not for crimes, but for hunting and protecting ourselves {even against the government} should the need arise.
Personally, I own weapons. Both here and there. Am I qualified? I would like to think so. I don't know how many marksmanship medals I earned while serving my time in the military. But, being able to shoot straight does not mean you are qualified for possessing a firearm- being of reasonable, calculable mind does.
I thought it odd that this, the most appreciable form of qualification, was never mentioned in the trial. There are too many unqualified, yet legal, people that own weapons. Not just in the US, but everywhere.
But, I will say that I have been on both ends of a gun barrel.
The first time, I was one the dumb end. Invited to a party at a hotel. By the time I got there, it was in full swing and some folks had gotten out of hand. As I walked towards the building, the manager held a .44 to my head while he questioned me as to why I was there. I was unarmed. Upon learning of what the others were doing, I left.
On the other end, I was robbed while closing shop one day. I had a .32 in the desk. I could have legally dropped the bad guys. I never reached for it. I stayed calm and rationalized that its easy enough to replace the stolen cash. Them boys could not be replaced. Those same boys came back to steal ATV's. I used the gun then. I did not shoot them- just held them until the county cops showed up.
So, based on what I just explained, if you are looking into the flashing end of a gun, stay cool, don't fight unless its for sure it ain't going to end well anyway.
If you are on the trigger end, use common sense and weigh the options.
In the Martin/Zimmerman case, both were at fault and each shared responsibility for the outcome.
Now, do I support the "stand your ground" and "castle doctrine" rules?? I must say I do. Again, use common sense and think clearly.
What are the differences?? Stand your ground represents protecting oneself and others with whatever force is required wherever you may be. The castle Doctrine provides you the ability to protect yourself and your family/visitors while inside your own home.
A particular case involving the castle doctrine is the one regarding Sarah McKinley. She shot and killed one of two intruders inside her home. They were armed, knew she was alone with her babies and that her husband had just recently died. Them boys was up to no good. Did she have the right to protect herself to that extent? Legally, yes. Now, imagine this is your wife and your babies in this case. Do you support her decision to kill??
A recent case involving stand your ground rule: Sherry West is taking her young son for a walk in his stroller. Two young men approach her demanding money. She had none to offer. One of the men shoots her 13 month old son in the face. Sherry is unarmed. OK, now, would you support the stand your ground rule here?? Sherry, had she been armed could have taken out one or both of the men. But, she had no money and no gun. Now, she has no son.
Since coming here, I've been told many times that the US needs to ban guns. That, it is said, will stop crime and all the shootings. But, will it?? Of course not. Anyone that thinks, for one moment, a criminal will give up his weapon because it is illegal to own is foolishly mistaken. All this will do is make every law abiding citizen an easy, unprotected target.
This is not to say that I think everyone should own a gun or should have a CCW. I don't. I think severe penalties for using weapons to commit a crime are in order. Currently, there are laws about this. But, let's face facts: if you get 10-15 years for robbery, is there much difference in committing armed robbery and getting 15-20? They are equal felonies. The biggest difference is early release. In armed cases, the convicted should do 20 years {or more} to the door.
While the rest of the world thinks we should not be permitted to own guns, it must be remembered that the US Constitution grants us that right. Not for street fights and not for crimes, but for hunting and protecting ourselves {even against the government} should the need arise.
Personally, I own weapons. Both here and there. Am I qualified? I would like to think so. I don't know how many marksmanship medals I earned while serving my time in the military. But, being able to shoot straight does not mean you are qualified for possessing a firearm- being of reasonable, calculable mind does.
I thought it odd that this, the most appreciable form of qualification, was never mentioned in the trial. There are too many unqualified, yet legal, people that own weapons. Not just in the US, but everywhere.
J-GLOBAL
Well-Known Member
They commit a disproportionate amount of the crime, or they are found guilty a disproportionate amount of the time? Or both?
CIVANO
Well-Known Member
Check out Chicago and Detroit and many other cities where the jury is black, the judge is black, the attorneys are black and the black crime is soaring and so is the incarceration for those not murdered. 70% of black kids are born out of wedlock. They have little chance from the beginning. I believe also in the South that too many are found guilty because they are black. It is sad and the NAACP and Eric Holder and Obama need to address the root issues to remedy the disaster going on in the Black community.
FYI in Georgia 4 black teenagers picked a fight with a white guy they did not know at a filling station. They beat and kicked him to death. Where is the media outrage? Where are the screams of racism? Where is Holder investigating this as a race crime? No- only one way for the left media.
FYI in Georgia 4 black teenagers picked a fight with a white guy they did not know at a filling station. They beat and kicked him to death. Where is the media outrage? Where are the screams of racism? Where is Holder investigating this as a race crime? No- only one way for the left media.
J-GLOBAL
Well-Known Member
Oddly, considering your post, the % of children born out of wedlock is rising much faster in "whites" than "blacks", although the number is higher for blacks. Is that an impending disaster in the white community?
Left Media? Not based on whom owns "the media". "THe Media" reports on what will sell papers or raise viewer #s. So they can charge more for Ads. That's about it.
16000+ murders in the US last year. How many can the "media" be outraged about? (That's 40+/day I think).
Left Media? Not based on whom owns "the media". "THe Media" reports on what will sell papers or raise viewer #s. So they can charge more for Ads. That's about it.
16000+ murders in the US last year. How many can the "media" be outraged about? (That's 40+/day I think).
CIVANO
Well-Known Member
Lets just say the media should equally be outraged about blacks killing blacks and blacks killing whites not just George Zimmerman. This tragedy should not have reached the media outrage except as you say to sell more adds. I want to hear Eric Holder or Al Sharpton or Jessie Jackson show anger about blacks killing a white man or black man or any other man not just rage when a black man gets killed. I want Obama to say if I had a child he would be just like Juan or Ching or Joe not just Trayvon. Do you think it supports justice whe the president says that before the arrest or trial. He lowers the office!
I think kids of any color without a father at home is asking for a lesser chance of success in life
I think kids of any color without a father at home is asking for a lesser chance of success in life
tubber
Well-Known Member
Ouch. Generalities are the ammunition of the flacid debater. Sorry my dad left then died.
Seafever
Well-Known Member
Was watching Anderson Cooper interview a juror last night...
It was very interesting listening to her answers...
She contradicted herself about 4 times......and opnely admitted that Zimmerman should not have been there armed and that he was in large part responsible for what happened.
Then she says she believed his life was in danger.
Zimmerman and the defense claim his head was smacked on the cement 25 times.
If you have your head smacked 25 times on cement , the way they described, you will not be shooting anybody.....you will be out cold and fast asleep.
It was very interesting listening to her answers...
She contradicted herself about 4 times......and opnely admitted that Zimmerman should not have been there armed and that he was in large part responsible for what happened.
Then she says she believed his life was in danger.
Zimmerman and the defense claim his head was smacked on the cement 25 times.
If you have your head smacked 25 times on cement , the way they described, you will not be shooting anybody.....you will be out cold and fast asleep.
CIVANO
Well-Known Member
tubber I am not making a point about Zimmerman shooting Martin. I am simply saying the volumn of national outrage over this is absurd. There should be black leaders and black organizations outraged over the continuing decline of the black community. Their crime rate, incarceration, poverty, single parent family, unemployment are issues where they should show an equal amount of outrage. If Travon was a community watch and killed zimmerman wearing a hoodie, we would be talking about fishing - we would never have known about it. Now I am off this and back to fishing beautiful Vancouver Is. I have bait to brine.
Seafever
Well-Known Member
I don't care for the way Al Sharpton is trying to head the parade on this one by igniting Afro-Americans to a sixties-throwback civil rights debacle.
Zimmerman is Hispanic..........
So I guess we'll never know what the outcome would have been if it was Oriental vs. Hispanic ...or Hispanic vs. red Indian...or...White vs.Oriental....or whatever....
Guys like Sharpton are always looking for a drum to bang.....
Let's face it ...the prosecution did an absolute amateur job in presenting their case IMO.
It really makes me wonder about some trials..
The way the judge will or will not allow certain crucial evidence...
It is becoming more apparent that truth and justice have absolutely nothing to do with the outcome of a trial....
It's all about theatrics,imagination,emotion,manipulation by lawyers,and who can utter the most clever rhetoric.
Zimmerman is Hispanic..........
So I guess we'll never know what the outcome would have been if it was Oriental vs. Hispanic ...or Hispanic vs. red Indian...or...White vs.Oriental....or whatever....
Guys like Sharpton are always looking for a drum to bang.....
Let's face it ...the prosecution did an absolute amateur job in presenting their case IMO.
It really makes me wonder about some trials..
The way the judge will or will not allow certain crucial evidence...
It is becoming more apparent that truth and justice have absolutely nothing to do with the outcome of a trial....
It's all about theatrics,imagination,emotion,manipulation by lawyers,and who can utter the most clever rhetoric.
scott craven
Well-Known Member
i think the wrong charge was applied in this case...
if it had been manslaughter instead of second degree murder
theres a good chance a guilty verdict would apply.
if it had been manslaughter instead of second degree murder
theres a good chance a guilty verdict would apply.
Seafever
Well-Known Member
This will be my last post about this trial:-
But I have to ask:- who was really fighting for their life here?
The jury and others seem to think it's irrelevant about events or what lead up to the confrontation......only that GZ was in a position where he believed his life was in danger.....
BUT......since (they say) it doesn't matter much how they got into the fracas..then.....I believe that T.Martin thought his life was in danger too.
If you are in a tussle with someone and you happen to notice they have a gun...your first thought is:- " he/she might use that on me right now"....and you escalate your response accordingly.
If you are a woman you'd probably just scream a lot and do not much.....
However ( and don't forget we still don't know what actually happened in the entire confrontation...we only have GZ's account and quite frankly I don't believe his version), we have two males here and males tend to re-act differently in fights than women.
The fact that they used an inert dummy to recreate the confrontation is ridiculous.......unless GZ layed there like an inert dummy the entire time ( as well as laying there inertly for the 25 headsmacks) which I'm sure he didn't.
A person that is in fear for their life is not going to be laying there like it was an afternoon at the beach.
So Trayvon may have had the opportunity to see the gun...or GZ could have already had it out and pointing at him (which would be why Trayvon was screaming for help...because he knew he was about to get shot).
If both were in fear for their lives, there would be plenty of grappling, jostling, writhing and jockeying for the upper hand.
Anything uttered vocally before or during a fight is usually "s*it-talk".
Such phrases as "I'm going to kill you , Mofu" and "You're going down, sucka etc..etc." are phrases designed to make the other person think you are going to win.
Happens all the time in fights.......it's calles "psyching the other guy out".
If GZ didn't know that, then what planet has he been living on for his entire life?
The jury came up with an "Aggravated assault " against T.Martin.
How they came to that conclusion, I don't know........for all we know it could have been GZ that threw the first punch...and missed....
I'm quite sure that at some point Mr.Martin realised there was a deadly weapon involved...and was in fear his own life.
But I have to ask:- who was really fighting for their life here?
The jury and others seem to think it's irrelevant about events or what lead up to the confrontation......only that GZ was in a position where he believed his life was in danger.....
BUT......since (they say) it doesn't matter much how they got into the fracas..then.....I believe that T.Martin thought his life was in danger too.
If you are in a tussle with someone and you happen to notice they have a gun...your first thought is:- " he/she might use that on me right now"....and you escalate your response accordingly.
If you are a woman you'd probably just scream a lot and do not much.....
However ( and don't forget we still don't know what actually happened in the entire confrontation...we only have GZ's account and quite frankly I don't believe his version), we have two males here and males tend to re-act differently in fights than women.
The fact that they used an inert dummy to recreate the confrontation is ridiculous.......unless GZ layed there like an inert dummy the entire time ( as well as laying there inertly for the 25 headsmacks) which I'm sure he didn't.
A person that is in fear for their life is not going to be laying there like it was an afternoon at the beach.
So Trayvon may have had the opportunity to see the gun...or GZ could have already had it out and pointing at him (which would be why Trayvon was screaming for help...because he knew he was about to get shot).
If both were in fear for their lives, there would be plenty of grappling, jostling, writhing and jockeying for the upper hand.
Anything uttered vocally before or during a fight is usually "s*it-talk".
Such phrases as "I'm going to kill you , Mofu" and "You're going down, sucka etc..etc." are phrases designed to make the other person think you are going to win.
Happens all the time in fights.......it's calles "psyching the other guy out".
If GZ didn't know that, then what planet has he been living on for his entire life?
The jury came up with an "Aggravated assault " against T.Martin.
How they came to that conclusion, I don't know........for all we know it could have been GZ that threw the first punch...and missed....
I'm quite sure that at some point Mr.Martin realised there was a deadly weapon involved...and was in fear his own life.
3 on the jury wanted manslaughter, 3 voting for acquittal. problem is the 'stand your ground' law in FL had to be followed and that apparently is how he got off. I really believe the guy is guilty of manslaughter at the least but only an attorney can argue that a dead body does not count.
Similar threads
