Do you think Zimmerman will be convicted of murder?

@OmSigDAVID,

David:
Zimmerman was in fear of his life while he was STILL in his truck.

He got out of the truck.

If you were Martin, you might think you were being pursued as you, as Martin, were rightfully on the property, but this man, who for some odd reason had been staring at you for some minutes, now gets out of his truck and starts looking around apparently for you.

Now, if Martin was like you, he'd have pulled out his pistol and said to Zimmerman, "Hold it right there, don't move."

That's the America you want. A nice shoot-out in the rain and the dark.

Joe(More like Somalia)Nation

3 Replies

@georgeob1,

Why talk "in general" when you can refer to the ACTUAL law as I did? Or is that just being pedantic?

1 Reply

@Joe Nation,

Quote:

ANNNND they are on Bill's side. I wonder where he's going to send his check to support them. They must be incurring expenses.
~~

LOL and I mean LOL by that thinking the New Black Panther is on your side so are you sending them funds???????????

I guess anyone who is concern over the high likelihood of riots happening if the legal case go the "wrong" way base on past history must be a Nazis.

When the outcomes of the hearings and jury verdict, assuming there will be a trial , is coming out and police departments all over Florida go on high alert for possible civil unrest, I assume you are going to charge them with being Nazis also?

At this point you are going into my ignore list as someone not worth the time to read.

By the way as I went to ignore you, I took note that this worthless post of your got all of five votes up.

Humans are amazing however that is still surprising.

1 Reply

@Joe Nation,

Joe Nation wrote:

David:
Zimmerman was in fear of his life while he was STILL in his truck.

He got out of the truck.

If so, he must have been brave.

Joe Nation wrote:

If you were Martin, you might think you were being pursued as you, as Martin, were rightfully on the property, but this man, who for some odd reason had been staring at you for some minutes, now gets out of his truck and starts looking around apparently for you.

Now, if Martin was like you, he'd have pulled out his pistol and said to Zimmerman, "Hold it right there, don't move."

The only time that I 've actually drawn a gun out for defensive use,
was after I had already been shot at.
The advent of my (.44 stainless steel mirror) revolver
put a quick end to predatory activity.

Joe Nation wrote:

That's the America you want.
A nice shoot-out in the rain and the dark.

Joe(More like Somalia)Nation

Whereas the America that U want
is one wherein a MONOPOLY of POWER rests in the hands of the evil predator,
bearing in mind that every predatory event is a CONTEST OF POWER.

I defend GOOD, and u defend evil.

Accordingly, the America of YOUR preference
is one in which EVIL always WINS, and GOOD always loses. From that, I dissent.

David

2 Replies

@Joe Nation,

Joe,
Do u think that criminally violent predators
are rightfully entitled to an O.S.H.A. rule that on-the-job,
thay shud be immune from the defenses of their victims
such that victims cannot invoke the 2nd Amendment, while evil predators are actually on-the-job??

If their victims are going to DEFEND themselves,
while criminal predators are working, then that makes for an UNsafe worksite for those predators, right ????

Do u plan to complain to your Congressman???????

David

0 Replies

@Joe Nation,

David just doesn't care, though, how the unarmed guy felt. If Zimmerman's guilty of a crime, it might place restrictions on what David can do in the future, so Zimmerman MUST NOT be guilty.

It doesn't matter how Trayvon or Zimmerman felt... what matters is that David is terrified that they'll take his guns away.

1 Reply

@DrewDad,

DrewDad wrote:

David just doesn't care, though, how the unarmed guy felt.

Was either of them unarmed??
One of them was armed with the cement sidewalk and the other was armed with a gun
(a little, feeble one, admittedly, but better than nothing).

DrewDad wrote:

If Zimmerman's guilty of a crime,
it might place restrictions on what David can do in the future,
so Zimmerman MUST NOT be guilty.

Zimmy simply did NOTHING rong. He was admirable.

YES. It is imperative for ALL of us
that all principles of self defense be secure for ever.

DrewDad wrote:

It doesn't matter how Trayvon or Zimmerman felt...

True; very true. Feelings r unimportant.
Objective realities are what count.

DrewDad wrote:

what matters is that David is terrified that they'll take his guns away.

DD is among several charlatans in A2K
who pretend to have enuf telepathic ability
to discern what others think n feel. DD instills me with little confidence.

I fear nothing (especially not with HELLER and McDONALD v. CHICAGO in the bank).

The same way that the USSC cud never throw out the FREEDOM of ROE v. WADE,
so also it cud not throw out HELLER nor McDONALD.

David

0 Replies

Reading this thread is almost worth the price of joining A2K.

0 Replies

@BillRM,

Bill (can you see me?): 'twas you who first claimed on these pages that those against Zimmerman's side of things were liberal and Nazis. I gave you several chances to revise those remarks, withdraw them, apologize for the smear and move on. You never did.
Turns out you were wrong.
Apparently, and again it was you who brought this to our attention, persons who consider themselves Nazis and Nationist Socialists, whatever that is, are on the same side as you. They and you back Zimmerman.

That's unfortunate for you because are not nice people and every once in awhile there is a glimmer of humanity about you, Bill, weak, but still there.
So, here's another opportunity for you to denounce the presence of actual Nazis and withdraw your remarks about the liberals on this forum as being Nazis. Do both at the same time.

It's a sure thing that I'll accept your apology.
Joe(It's how I am built)Nation

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Joe Nation wrote:

Quote:

David:
Zimmerman was in fear of his life while he was STILL in his truck.

He got out of the truck.

David wrote:

Quote:

If so, he must have been brave.

No, as you well know, Councillor, the prosecutor will say it shows that he was not, in fact, in fear of his life. So much for the "I took the action out of fear" defense. poof.

He had no reason to get out of the truck. He had already called in his report. If his story about Martin circling his truck is true, he would have been easily able to identify Martin to police as the person he suspected as being unlawfully on the property, had he waited for police to arrive.

There was no urgency, he hadn't reported that he had witnessed Martin doing anything more than walking around looking at the buildings. That could be "casing the joint" or it could be, since in every complex I've ever been to, all the buildings look alike, an attempt to find his father's apartment.

David, you have an odd method of discerning who is defending what.
Good and evil?? pphhpptt.
Where is your defense of Martin's right to be where he was that night and his right to walk to his father's house without being accosted. You have that right, what about the rest of us? Are we all to be subjected to the Zimmerman's of the world and their suspicions?

You have this one backwards, yes, this was a contest of power between an innocent passerby and an armed predator (or if not, predator, a self-appointed judge and jury) and the innocent victim now lies dead.

We are all going to learn much more about this case before it's over, if I am wrong about where I presently stand, I will be the first to admit it and say so here on these pages. I hope you and (if he ever sees this) BillRM will pledge to do the same.

Joe(when I say "Liberty and Justice for All, I mean it.)Nation

2 Replies

@Joe Nation,

Quote:

No, as you well know, Councillor, the prosecutor will say it shows that he was not, in fact, in fear of his life. So much for the "I took the action out of fear" defense. poof.

He had no reason to get out of the truck. He had already called in his report. If his story about Martin circling his truck is true, he would have been easily able to identify Martin to police as the person he suspected as being unlawfully on the property, had he waited for police to arrive.

There was no urgency, he hadn't reported that he had witnessed Martin doing anything more than walking around looking at the buildings

Apart from the fact that someone in fear, or who felt menaced, would not likely get out of the truck, since they'd be safer remaining in the truck, with the doors locked and, just waiting for the police, why would they then choose to get out of the truck and actively pursue that person they feel might be a danger to them? And, if they intentionally put themselves in the path of a person they feel is a danger to them, and, in doing that, provoked an aggressive response from that person, can they then claim self-defense under Stand Your Ground for killing that person? That's very questionable because of the reckless judgment involved. That's like stretching out on the railroad tracks and then trying to sue the railroad because the train hit you.

So Zimmerman's alleged fear, based on Martin allegedly circling the truck, is inconsistent with what he did next--following Martin and allowing for a face-to face confrontation.

Then there is also the fact that Zimmerman never mentioned this truck circling behavior to the 911 operator--a significant omission, in terms of the urgency of asking for a police response. And that does suggest that this version of what happened may have been fabricated, after the shooting, as part of his self defense justification.

These sorts of inconsistencies are likely part of what made the lead investigator feel unconvinced by Zimmerman's self defense story that night.

Certainly plausible is the possibility that Martin was frightened by Zimmerman's behavior in staring at and following him--he had no idea what Zimmerman was up to--and he had more reason to want to get away from Zimmerman than to want to confront or attack him--Martin knew he was unarmed, and he had no reason to attack Zimmerman except if he was the one acting in self defense, to protect himself from Zimmerman.

Both David and BillRM seem to be basing their gung-ho 100% support of Zimmerman more on how they feel about their own guns, and their rights to use them, than on a complete appraisal of all the facts, and circumstances, and evidence, of this particular case--they haven't even heard or read all of the info yet, it's yet to come out.

0 Replies

Zimmerman fate is almost a secondary issue as my main concern is protecting my wife right to defense herself if someday she is knocked down and assaulted by a poor unarmed teenager on the public street, even with deadly force if need be.

Not having her claimed used of bad judgment in shopping in that area or being in that area at that hour or she might had said something or did something that might had annoy her attacker thereby granting her attacker a license to attack her and having her also losing the right to defend herself.

Of course if her attacker was trying to sexually assault her I am assuming that the Fireflies of the world would maybe allow her to defense herself but who can know for sure, when the argument that Zimmerman had used bad judgment before he was attacked seems to them in someway to be relevant to his rights of self defense.

1 Reply

There are all kinds of examples of this "I was defending myself" defense falling apart when it becomes obvious that there was no threat or the supposed victim acted, ala Zimmerman, as if there were no threat.

Two drivers in a road rage case.
Driver A gets cut off by Driver B.
Driver A then passes Driver B and yells something as he passes.
At the next stoplight, Driver B gets out of his car saying he "felt threatened."
Driver B approaches Driver A's driver's side door and bangs on the roof of the car with his fist.
Driver A pushes his car door open abruptly and throws Driver B off-balance. Driver A strikes Driver B again with the door causing Driver B to bend over, as Driver B begins to stand up he is struck on the left side of his jaw by Driver A, knocking him unconscious and causing him to lose two teeth.
~~
Driver B sues Driver A for damages.

Driver B is laughed out of court.

~~ How is Zimmerman any different than Driver B except he was able to kill Martin?
Joe(hmmmm)Nation

1 Reply

@Joe Nation,

civil actions dont require unanimity in a jury wheras criminal cases do.

However, the logic that Bill seems to be touting is, from my vantage point, silly and without ANY merit.

all the steps that led up to T's murder (And it was a murder, not a justifiable homicide) are unable to back up Z's claims.

The only thing Zimmy has going for him now is the presumption of innocense. (WHich, I think, wont be too difficult to overturn)

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

I defend GOOD, and u defend evil.

THats bullshit. You defend guns without any distinguishing usage criteron. If a gun's involved youre for the gunner and the gunnee must have been goading the gunner on,yes?

1 Reply

@BillRM,

Quote:

Zimmerman fate is almost a secondary issue as my main concern is protecting my wife right to defense herself if someday she is knocked down and assaulted by a poor unarmed teenager on the public street, even with deadly force if need be.

But, precisely because I think you see Zimmerman's fate as connected to holding onto your wife's rights regarding self defense, you are championing him rather blindly.

We are not "all Zimmerman"--Zimmerman may not have acted either lawfully or appropriately, and I don't think he should be held up as either an example of a responsible concealed carry person, or as an example of someone who should have immunity under Stand Your Ground, because we still have too many unanswered questions and too little in the way of evidence--we have to have more, and hopefully we will get more, when this plays out in court. I can understand your sending him money for his defense, but I can't understand how you can be 100% convinced, at this stage of the game, that his killing of Martin was legally justified.

And. were your wife to be knocked down and assaulted by a teenager some day, it would likely be because they were in the process of trying to commit a crime against her, like robbing her, or sexually assaulting her, and she might have grounds to use deadly force if she felt her life was imminently threatened, or she was in danger of great bodily harm. I'm not sure you have a right to shoot and kill someone, particularly an unarmed person, if they just knock you down and they are only trying to grab your purse, and a better case might certainly be made in the case of a violent sexual assault.

But, in the Zimmerman case, we have no evidence that Martin was trying to commit a crime against Zimmerman, like rob him, or steal his truck, and we don't know who provoked the fatal confrontation, or made the first aggressive move, and Martin could have been trying to defend himself, and his own life, from Zimmerman when he was shot. And that's why judgment about this case should be withheld until we have more evidence.

0 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

Why talk "in general" when you can refer to the ACTUAL law as I did? Or is that just being pedantic?

You didn't refer to the ACTUAL law. Yuor reference was a private attorney's interpretation of it. Your sweeping conclusion was not consisttent with what he wrote. I'll agree his headline appeared to possibly support your thesis, but if you had read the qualifiers that followed you would see that what he wrote was entirely consdistent with my original post.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

My my it was a murder how interesting that conclusion happen to be and I assume that you would feel that way if your wife or some other love one was having their head pounded into the sidewalk and they then used deadly force to end the attack.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

My my it was a murder how interesting that conclusion happen to be and I assume that you would feel that way if your wife or some other loved one was having their head pounded into the sidewalk and they then used deadly force to end the attack.

I thawt u put that rather well, Bill!

David

0 Replies

@farmerman,

DAVID wrote:

I defend GOOD, and u defend evil.

farmerman wrote:

THats bullshit. You defend guns without any distinguishing usage criteron.
If a gun's involved youre for the gunner and the gunnee must have been goading the gunner on, yes?

NO. I question the sincerity of your post.
By your reasoning, I 'd support robbers
and I 'd have supported the attempted murderer of Ronald Reagan,
to say nothing of the guy who took a shot at ME.

David

0 Replies

Do you think Zimmerman will be convicted of murder?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know