Do you think Zimmerman will be convicted of murder?

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

Killing someone who is slamming your head against the street
is an eminently legal and admirable thing to do.

Like I say, I'd have just broken one of his arms off and called it even, but I certainly do not begrudge somebody without the experience in judo contests the use of a firearm in such a situation.

0 Replies

@BillRM,

Quote:

Sorry if someone knock me down and try to pound my brain out on the sidewalk I would have no problem using lethal force and somehow finding a jury who think otherwise should be tall task indeed, even with a threat of a riot hanging over them if they come to the 'wrong" verdict.

While George Zimmerman had an injury to the back of his head, it was fairly minor. We have EMTs treating it (both they and the police acknowledge that George Zimmerman was treated in the back of a police vehicle). There is the questionable video showing some sort of marking on the back of his head. It did not appear to have the level of force of a pounding though. If he had had his head pounded into the sidewalk, he'd have either been killed or would most likely be in a bed somewheres comatose right about now.

At some point George Zimmerman made mistakes, most notably:

He got out of a vehicle. Since he had contacted the police, help was on its way, which means he could have stayed put. Upon their arrival he could have indicated the direction the 'suspect' went. There was never any reason for George Zimmerman to exit his vehicle.

2 Replies

@Sturgis,

Quote:

He got out of a vehicle. Since he had contacted the police, help was on its way, which means he could have stayed put. Upon their arrival he could have indicated the direction the 'suspect' went. There was never any reason for George Zimmerman to exit his vehicle.

Yup.

Joe(He'd better get ready to plead)Nation

1 Reply

@Sturgis,

So it is your position that you would need to wait until someone possible lethal attack had been more successful in causing you harm before you are allow to act?

How must harm must you allow to be done to yourself before you are allow to act in self defense?

Would more surface damage be the cut off point or a mild concussion be your cut off point or major brain damage only allow you to act?

Sorry the threat of severe harm or death is the legal measure of where someone is allow to act with lethal force not how must harm the attacker had done at the point you stop his attack.

If you pull a knife on me within 20 feet or so and give me reason to think that you are planning to harm me with that knife it would be in my right to shoot you dead as I have zero obligation to allow you to first place the blade into my body.

Zimmerman was also under not obligation moral or legal to allow Trayvon to severely harm him first before he is allow to stop Trayvon possible lethal attack on him.

3 Replies

@Joe Nation,

Quote:

He got out of a vehicle. Since he had contacted the police, help was on its way, which means he could have stayed put. Upon their arrival he could have indicated the direction the 'suspect' went. There was never any reason for George Zimmerman to exit his vehicle.

Joe Nation wrote:

Yup.

Joe(He'd better get ready to plead)Nation

What u wrote implies that it is a criminal act for Zimmy to get out of his car,
which means that America is lost & forgotten as a FREE country.

I dissent from your analysis, noting, incidentally
that the result is the same before the Stand Your Ground Law was enacted.

David

2 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

Not only the act of getting out of a car but following Trayvon on the public streets is also an act that people here are trying to sell allow Trayvon to try to kill Zimmerman and would cause Zimmerman to had lost the right of self defense.

Then if Zimmerman stop a possible lethal attack on him before grave harm had been done to him that somehow also mean that he should be charge with murder.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

Quote:

How must harm must you allow to be done to yourself before you are allow to act in self defense?

Would more surface damage be the cut off point or a mild concussion be your cut off point or major brain damage only allow you to act?....

Figured out why people call them "libtards" yet?

0 Replies

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

So it is your position that you would need to wait until someone possible lethal attack had been more successful in causing you harm before you are allow to act?

How must harm must you allow to be done to yourself before you are allow to act in self defense?

Would more surface damage be the cut off point or a mild concussion be your cut off point or major brain damage only allow you to act?

Sorry the threat of severe harm or death is the legal measure of where someone is allow to act with lethal force not how must harm the attacker had done at the point you stop his attack.

If you pull a knife on me within 20 feet or so and give me reason to think that you are planning to harm me with that knife it would be in my right to shoot you dead as I have zero obligation to allow you to first place the blade into my body.

Zimmerman was also under not obligation moral or legal to allow Trayvon to severely harm him first before he is allow to stop Trayvon possible lethal attack on him.

Bill, u r 1OO% right!
Even without the knife that u mentioned,
if there is just a struggle, within a small fraction of a second
the bad guy can jab his finger thru your eye and the BEST hospital cannot fix that.

The victim NEEDS to assume the worst, fight for his life, kill the threat AS FAST AS HE POSSIBLY CAN.
When u r fighting for your life, that is NOT the time to fool around.

In regard to the people who demand criminal prosecution of the GOOD GUY here (Zimmy),
it woud be very interesting to see how thay 'd address similar criminal violence, in Zimmy 's situation; just begging, maybe ???
That is very intensely unAmerican; the antithesis of Americanism.

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

That is very intensely unAmerican; the antithesis of Americanism.

But it works for libtards...

0 Replies

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

Not only the act of getting out of a car but following Trayvon on the public streets is also an act that people here are trying to sell allow Trayvon to try to kill Zimmerman and would cause Zimmerman to had lost the right of self defense.

Yeah; by their reasoning,
if I see someone following me down the street (which happens all the time, especially in Manhattan)
its OK for me to turn around and kill him. I 've never done that. (I never even considered it.)

When I was practicing law, I hired private detectives to follow people, without thinking 2ice about it.

BillRM wrote:

Then if Zimmerman stop a possible lethal attack on him before grave harm had been done to him
that somehow also mean that he should be charge with murder.

That HAPPENED in Texas, soon after its self defense law was enacted.
The case got a lot of local press; I think he was acquitted,
after Texan liberals demanded his prosecution for homicide.

The assailant beat him, in his vehicle, so bad that
(if I remember) he lost an eye and deaf in one ear from being beaten
b4 he was finally killed by gunfire. Permanent injuries.
Weak self defense laws possibly can generate a "chilling effect"
upon exercise of the right of self defense, allowing the bad guy to survive, exposing us all to his danger.

On the contrary: people who defensively kill dangers to the decent people shud get GOOD tax credits for several years.

Zimmy shud be granted 1OO% IMMUNITY from any taxation,
in consideration of valuable services rendered.

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Well if Trayvon had manage to killed Zimmerman the cost of locking up a 17 years old up for life would be around 2.5 millions so Zimmerman by not allowing Trayvon to kill him save the taxpayers that cost.

0 Replies

@BillRM,

Quote:

Sorry the threat of severe harm or death is the legal measure of where someone is allow to act with lethal force not how must harm the attacker had done at the point you stop his attack.

So why was Marissa Alexander convicted of three counts of aggravated assault, in Florida, for firing a warning shot at her ex-husband, who had beaten her badly in the past, after he threatened to kill her? And she was in her home--where Stand Your Ground should certainly apply. She faces 20 years and she didn't injure anyone.
http://www.firstcoastnews.com/topstories/article/254070/483/Marissa-Alexanders-Sentencing-Delayed
And the state attorney, who just charged Zimmerman with second degree murder, was also involved in the Alexander case.

So, if the police feel threatened, by unarmed civilians, and fear they might suffer severe harm, you want them to shoot and kill also, and not be held accountable for their actions?

And every bar fight would justify the use of deadly force because you might be severely harmed?

2 Replies

Don't forget, David.
There's a question for you.

David (sadly enough) replied:

Quote:

R u defining that alleged right to include IMMUNITY from free speech, in the streets?
U think that no one can legally speak to him ?????

I'm saying, and I would expect you to agree with me, that Americans have the right to walk around their country unmolested. If you or I were walking through my neighborhood and someone shouted something or asked something, as long as we believe we are rightfully able to be in that area, we have the right to completely ignore the shouts or questions.

Don't we? I do it every day and I bet you do too.

Joe(It's a small piece of being in what is known as the land of the [purportedly]free)Nation

1 Reply

@Joe Nation,

Joe Nation wrote:

Don't forget, David.
There's a question for you.

I won't forget, Jon. Nice of u to remind me.

Joe Nation wrote:

David (sadly enough) replied:

DAVID wrote:

R u defining that alleged right to include IMMUNITY from free speech, in the streets?
U think that no one can legally speak to him ?????

Joe Nation wrote:

I'm saying, and I would expect you to agree with me,
that Americans have the right to walk around their country unmolested.

Will u favor us with a fuller definition
of "molestation" in your mind ?

Joe Nation wrote:

If you or I were walking through my neighborhood and someone shouted something or asked something, as long as we believe we are rightfully able to be in that area, we have the right to completely ignore the shouts or questions.

Don't we?

No. We DO. Of that, I am certain.

Joe Nation wrote:

I do it every day and I bet you do too.

I don 't get much shouting n people tend to leave me undisturbed.

I believe that the heart of the question in the Zimmy case is:
WHO grabbed whom first??? Neither party had a right to get physical.
(We do not address considerations of citizen's arrest,
because no one has alleged that this was involved in this case.)

David

0 Replies

Quote:

I believe that the heart of the question in the Zimmy case is:
WHO grabbed whom first??? Neither party had a right to get physical.
(We do not address considerations of citizen's arrest,
because no one has alleged that this was involved in this case.)

Yes. That is correct. And I am willing to bet you a bowl of chicken soup at the deli of your choice that, in the end, it will be shown that Zimmerman (please, could we stop with the "Zimmy" bullshit, it's beneath you.) acted aggressively, physically accosted Martin, that Martin resisted, momentarily got the upper hand and Zimmerman shot him.

Joe("They always get away.")Nation

2 Replies

@Joe Nation,

Actually, if all Zimmerman did was put his hand on Martin and tell him to stay put, because the police were on the way, I think Martin would have been justifed in slugging him--he didn't know who the hell Zimmerman was, or what he was up to, and he knew he hadn't done anything wrong.

2 Replies

@firefly,

firefly wrote:

Actually, if all Zimmerman did was put his hand on Martin and tell him to stay put, because the police were on the way, I think Martin would have been justifed in slugging him--he didn't know who the hell Zimmerman was, or what he was up to, and he knew he hadn't done anything wrong.

Agreed. Unlawful detention... what's the legal name for that? I believe it's "Kidnapping." As far as Martin knew, he was being stalked by a complete stranger. Martin was never under any obligation to obey any commands by Zimmerman. Certainly, he'd have a right to fight being unlawfully detained.

Further, and I think this demands repeating, no crime had been reported such that any person could justifiably be considered a suspect. That Zimmerman arrived at the conclusion that Martin was "suspicious," when no crime was reported, speaks to the depravity and recklessness.

A
R
T

1 Reply

@firefly,

Strange is it not that you are trying to claim that being unarmed mean that one can not kill even those throughout history humans had been killing other humans without the aid of any weapon of any kind.

Of course a hard sidewalk can be consider a weapon for that matter and if a police officer had been knocked down and was having his hear pounded into the sidewalk he surely would have a right to kill the person doing so just as Zimmerman did have that right.

But keep trying to sell your nonsense.

0 Replies

@failures art,

Let see being follow on the public streets by someone you do not know is ground for killing or trying to kill another person however having your head pounded into the sidewalk is not ground for doing so.

Love the strange and I mean very very strange attempts to justify Trayvon attempted to murder Zimmerman and Zimmerman lost of the right to stop Trayvon from doing so.

2 Replies

@BillRM,

there's a forest in them there trees, bill...

0 Replies

Do you think Zimmerman will be convicted of murder?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know