Do you think Zimmerman will be convicted of murder?

trial will decide, but given the lack of witnesses, Zimmerman's account will stand uncontested.
That great if he was a victim and terrible if he is a murderer.

No one should have the state come down on them unless there is every indication
that a case can be proven to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt and not
because of some media driven public outcry to have him arrested.

Second, if Zimmerman was acting in self defense which seem very likely indeed
he is the victim here and Trayvon is the dead criminal.

Yes; is it my imagination, or
did u at first support the OTHER side in this??

George is out of jail. No word yet if Florida agreed to let him leave the state per the judges instructions. Hopefully some wealthy NRA member will in a few hours have him as their guest out West on some large well protected property in the Rockies. A private jet would be a nice touch.

He was only arrested to satisfy the hysteria of the blacks and the left.

David I am sure you would consider me far left from your viewpoints on most matters

and yet I had problems with this story and the calls to had Zimmerman arrested no matter what.

Second the Al Sharptons of this world do not speak for the majority of blacks and some very brave black men
did come out early on to refuted that he was a racist.

The problem we seems to be having is the media who love to paint blacks as the underdogs and whites as racists
when ever there is a conflict that have whites on one side and blacks on the other no matter what the facts seems to be.

If an innocent kid had been kill going to a 7/11 because some racist gun carrying white had assume that he was a criminal and just shoot him down that would indeed be an outrage and the media love those kinds of stories as they love the story of a black young single mother and college student being rape by racist and rich college students or a hard working maid being rape by the head of the IMF.

That is a LIBERTARIAN position and therefore: it is CONSERVATIVE

engineer wrote:

You have no way of knowing that he isn't a murderer

With all respect, its just NOT plausible
that Zimmy, while driving, is gonna say:
"AHA! There 's a total stranger! I will murder him, for no reason, and for no profit,
but first, before I do, I will call the police
so that thay will come and find me with the murdered corpse and smoking gun,
and (depending on how close thay r now) thay might SEE the actual killing,
when I do it, but if not them, then any number of residents hereof, or guests
who happen to be looking this way can see the killing and testify against me."

I respect your right to think that 's plausible, if u wanna, Engineer.

engineer wrote:

just as a jury has no way of knowing if he was acting in self defense.
Certainly the information that has come out so far suggests he was
aggressively pursuing a confrontation

R u suggesting that Zimmy had NO right to speak to him??
Please explain Y not?????

engineer wrote:

but was that enough to arrest him?

It obviously was NOT, unless u claim
that this was a contract killing,
that he was being stalked for that reason.
If u claim that there is anything immoral or illegal
about following anyone, then please tell us what it IS??

engineer wrote:

Don't know. I haven't seen all the evidence (nor am I even in the country to read the press reports). A trial will decide, but given the lack of witnesses, Zimmerman's account will stand uncontested. That great if he was a victim and terrible if he is a murderer.

The IMPORTANT PRINCIPLE for all American citizens to bear in mind
is that if u fall victim to the predatory violence of man or beast,
u need to defend yourself as energetically as possible
to END the threat as soon as possible,
with NO CONCERN with the well-being of the violent predator,
i.e., your own government that u nourish with your taxes,
will not go into partnership with the evil one
and avenge him upon u, neither civilly, nor criminally
and that u need not stand in terror of accumulating lawyers' fees
(in defense of either civil or criminal litigation) that can wipe out your life savings,
setting u back financially to where u were in high school, just because a predator picked on YOU.

engineer wrote:

Just out of curiosity, how come you are not arguing that the person killed
should have been armed to protect himself?

I think I already did that,
but I'd have to re-read the thread to be sure.

Since u bring it up, I 'll do it now:
All American citizens who have the strength to lift a gun
shud arm themselves in self defense.
It is better to HAVE a gun and not need it
than it is to NEED a gun and not have it; that can be embarrassing.

In some First Amendment cases, the USSC
has negatively commented upon actions of governments
that generate an unConstitutional "chilling effect" upon the citizens' use
of those rights. This anti-chilling effect principle applies with at least equal force to defense of your life and other property.





David

Oh yes, the evidence was just oozing out of tree and blade of grass and at every corner of Sanford Florida and there was so darn much of it they didn't even have the confidence of presenting it to a grand jury.

re :david
Trayvon quite justifiably felt under threat of grievous bodily harm from Zimmerman
who had been stalking him (as a predator stalks its prey).

And most probably it was Zimmerman who made the first threatening move.

Trayvon under Florida law was therefore justified in anything he did to defend himself.

It's too bad the predator had the gun.