Do you think Zimmerman will be convicted of murder?

@BillRM,

Quote:

Zimmy is a fine fellow, admirable in many respects!!!

BillRM wrote:

He surely is as he took his time over years to make his community
more secure then it would had been otherwise.

YES. Morally, the community whose safety he was protecting
shud rise to Zimmy 's defense.
Memorial Day is to celebrate people who had THE SPIRIT OF ZIMMY!!!

BillRM wrote:

He also make waves when he felt that the police did not act in a proper manner including when they arrested a black homeless man
when the homeless man was in fact the victim of an assault.

All in all he seems to be an outstanding citizen.

I ' m reminded of a (former) black trial judge who said of a demented black litigant:
"she said that I am not black enough."

0 Replies

@firefly,

Quote:

Hawkeye am I the only one wishing for a magic wand that would allow placing the spin queen in Zimmerman place that night and see if she would had just allow Trayvon to had pound away at her or if she would had shot the not so little SOB herself.

firefly wrote:

Having considerably better judgment, and impulse control, than either you or Zimmerman, after calling 911, I would have remained in my locked car and simply waited for the police to arrive.

Using one's brain is far better than using a gun. I'm smart enough to have avoided the totally needless confrontation altogether.

Yeah, me too.
I did not give the proverbial rat's ass about anyone getting burgled.
I just stayed home, watched TV, oiled n cleaned my guns.

David

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

By the way I know Firefly would love to narrow down the right to used lethal force but you have the right to used lethal force not only if you feel that you are in danger of imminent death but of great harm also.

Given that the evidence seems to show that Zimmerman head was being slam on the sidewalk that fear of possible great harm seems fully justify as if was found to be in a Florida police shooting I had already posted about here.

2 Replies

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

By the way, I know Firefly would love to narrow down the right to use lethal force but you have the right to use lethal force
not only if you feel that you are in danger of imminent death but of great harm also.

I vaguely remember a Texas case.
I think it was in the 1990s.
A hapless motorist was in a minor collision,
whose other participant was slamming him in the head,
while the victim remained behind the wheel, inside his truck,
before he fatally shot the offender. If my memory is accurate,
he lost an eye and permanent deafness of the attacked ear,
among other injuries, because HE WAITED TOO LONG to kill the bad guy.

He was later prosecuted for manslaughter, as I recall; acquitted.
Does anyone remember that case?
Maybe one of our Texan members?

David

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

firefly wrote:
Having considerably better judgment, and impulse control, than either you or Zimmerman, after calling 911, I would have remained in my locked car and simply waited for the police to arrive.

Using one's brain is far better than using a gun. I'm smart enough to have avoided the totally needless confrontation altogether.

David Firefly seems to think we all have an obligation to hide behind lock doors so predators will not attack us as we go about our lawful lives.

However unless you are never going to leave your home a person with such a low level of being annoy is likely to be trigger by any number of factors beside someone following him and even Firefly could find her self being attacked by a Trayvon type person.

As I posted about on this website I once was going about my lawful life when I bumped into a car on a Home Depot parking lot with a shopping cart by accident. Oh no harm was done to the car.

The woman however got out of her car and told me she was going to kill me in fact follow me home and kill me.

Now I just stood there letting her run her month off but I was also watching her hands to see if she was going to pull a weapon.

Now as a male if she had pull a gun/knife I would had a good chance of being able to knock her silly and not need to use lethal force but I was under no moral or legal obligation to place my life at that level of risk to save hers and as I stood there I decided if she did pull a weapon after her threats I was going to kill her.

Trayvon put Zimmerman is a similar situation and he have every right in the world to used lethal force just as I would had have if the woman had pull a knife or a gun.

2 Replies

@BillRM,

Well, Sam Colt made men equal;
(including the female ones).

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

Well, Sam Colt made men equal;
(including the female ones).

As close as the woman was to me a knife would had been a more dangerous weapon then a gun to me.

In my younger days I did things like fly ultralight aircrafts and sky dive and when things would go wrong I would go into what I call computer mode.

Running through all possible courses of actions that might solved the problem and get me safety on the ground.

That computer got switch on when this emotional female nut case was issuing her threats.

Strange feelings needing to weight using lethal force or trying to use non-legal force on a Home Depot parking lot without any warning if she would had pull a weapon.

I was very happy when she just ran down and drove off to say the least.

In any case Trayvon put Zimmerman in that position just as I was face with that possible choice by an unknown emotionally unstable woman on that parking lot.

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

There is a hearing to determine whether the stand-you-ground law applies.

Stand-your-ground is an affirmative defense, just like self defense. Zimmerman has to convince a judge that he's covered under stand-your-ground.

So, again, the prosecutor doesn't have to prove that Zimmerman is lying; Zimmerman (or his lawyers) have to convince a judge that he did the right thing.

And neither side has to prove anything "beyond a reasonable doubt" in that hearing; it's more like a civil trial, where the standard is "more likely."

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
He could have avoided the entire encounter--he chose not to.

As was his legal right.

Under the law, he lost his ability to claim self defense when he initiated the encounter.

0 Replies

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

By the way I know Firefly would love to narrow down the right to used lethal force but you have the right to used lethal force not only if you feel that you are in danger of imminent death but of great harm also.

Unless you are a young black male wearing a hoodie. Then you can't defend yourself if you fear harm.

0 Replies

Quote:

Under the law, he lost his ability to claim self defense when he initiated the encounter.

Shampoo, rinse, repeat.....

Joe(for as long as necessary)Nation

0 Replies

@BillRM,

Quote:

David Firefly seems to think we all have an obligation to hide behind lock doors so predators will not attack us as we go about our lawful lives.

You're the paranoid nut case who is afraid to walk around without a gun.

And I think children have a right to walk the streets, in a perfectly lawful manner, without being unjustifiably pursued by gun-toting adults,

By no stretch was Trayvon Martin a "predator"--except in your twisted mind. He was a 17 year old high school junior, returning home after a trip to a convenience store, who was wrongly targeted as being a "suspicious" criminal, by a hot-headed vigilante, because of the color of his skin. And that hot-head couldn't control himself long enough for the police to show up and evaluate the situation--even though the kid was doing nothing more than talking on his cell phone and trying to take shelter from the rain as he made his way home. And those facts are not in dispute.

That this unstable gun-toting nut, with a past history of run-ins with the law over his poor control of aggressive impulses, continued to pursue an innocent child in a predatory manner, until he finally provoked a fatal confrontation, explains why criminal charges were justified in this case, and why they should have been lodged the night of the shooting.

That you chose to defend a man like Zimmerman, who displayed such obviously bad judgment in pursuing, and frightening, and then confronting, a kid who wasn't doing anything that merited any real "suspicions", and who then wound up killing this child he may well have forced into fighting for his own life, says a lot about you and your own lack of regard for the value of human life. That you are choosing to exclusively blame the child victim of the shooting, for a needless and avoidable tragedy, that was set into motion by the actions of an impulsive, adult nut, with poor judgment, reveals just how warped and narrow-minded your thinking is.

This child had a right to safely go to a store, and safely return home, without being targeted and stalked by an adult vigilante nut with a history of calling the police to report "suspicious" black males in his housing complex. This child had a right not to be endangered by a gun-toting adult who was on psychiatric medication for poor impulse control.

If Zimmerman manages to escape criminal punishment for this needless, avoidable, and tragic, homicide, it will be because of badly written Florida law, that was never intended to shield actions of this sort, and not because anything he did was "right". And. hopefully, those poorly written laws will be revised because of this tragedy.

1 Reply

@firefly,

So when you tell us that we should wait for a trial and the presention of both the evidence and the defense before we make up our minds about guilt, you mean only us and not you...right?

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

So when you tell us that we should wait for a trial and the presention of both the evidence and the defense before we make up our minds about guilt, you mean only us and not you...right?

There is no question that George Zimmerman is guilty of shooting and killing Trayvon Martin, an unarmed minor.

There is no question that this tragic, and needless, killing could have been entirely avoided had George Zimmerman simply waited for the police to respond after he placed his 911 call to report a "suspicious" person. The fatal confrontation was made possible only because Zimmerman continued to pursue Martin for his own reasons, despite the fact Martin was not engaged in any criminal activity.

The only legal issues are whether, under Florida law, Zimmerman can escape criminal and civil punishment, by successfully arguing a case for self defense, or, if he fails in doing that, whether the state will be able to convict him of second degree murder or manslaughter. And, right now, we don't have enough evidence to answer those questions.

2 Replies

@firefly,

Quote:

There is no question that George Zimmerman is guilty of shooting and killing Trayvon Martin, an unarmed minor.

True.

Quote:

There is no question that this tragic, and needless, killing could have been entirely avoided had George Zimmerman simply waited for the police to respond after he placed his 911 call to report a "suspicious" person. The fatal confrontation was made possible only because Zimmerman continued to pursue Martin for his own reasons, despite the fact Martin was not engaged in any criminal activity.

Maybe, maybe not.
Who knows? If George Zimmerman hadn't been there, perhaps Trayvon Martin would have hung out in an alleyway between houses and someone else would have shot him dead. (highly unlikely; yet, not impossible as a scenario which could have played out)

Your statement instead of saying "the fatal confronation..." should have been "THIS fatal confrontation..." as there could have been another.

Quote:

The only legal issues are whether, under Florida law, Zimmerman can escape criminal and civil punishment, by successfully arguing a case for self defense, or, if he fails in doing that, whether the state will be able to convict him of second degree murder or manslaughter. And, right now, we don't have enough evidence to answer those questions.

That is the main point here. We on the outside don't have enough evidence.

2 Replies

@Sturgis,

Quote:

Your statement instead of saying "the fatal confronation..." should have been "THIS fatal confrontation..." as there could have been another.

Obviously, I was only discussing the fatal confrontation which did occur, and George Zimmerman's role in bringing about that confrontation.

0 Replies

@firefly,

If George is found not guilty you claim that he will have escaped punishment for a wrong that you are convinced that he committed. It would be nice if you would skip the long song and dance and admitt that your have pre-judged George, you don't feel the need to wait for evidence, or the defense. You are not only a habitual liar, but a hypocrite as well.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

If George is found not guilty you claim that he will have escaped punishment for a wrong that you are convinced that he committed.

Not if he's found not guilty after a trial at which the state has presented the evidence to support their charges. Right now, I don't know what that evidence is. I might find the state's evidence unconvincing.

I do think criminal charges against Zimmerman were warranted.

The main thing that Zimmerman did wrong was to pursue Martin rather than wait for the police to show up. It was Zimmerman's impulsiveness that set the wheels of a tragedy in motion and resulted in a senseless, and needless, death. That may, or may not, have a bearing on the legal outcome of this case, but the confrontation was avoidable.

1 Reply

@firefly,

If the main thing George did wrong was to not follow the hint of a police dispatcher (or 911 operator) then you are admitting that George did no great criminal wrong, because is has zero criminal liability for not doing what the person on the other ende of the phone would have done....or what you would have done. There was never anything even close to a lawful order to not confront Martin.

2 Replies

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

If the main thing George did wrong was to not follow the hint of a police dispatcher (or 911 operator) then you are admitting that George did no great criminal wrong,

Except he didn't just not follow their advice. He shot and killed someone while not following their advice.

Your argument makes as much sense as arguing that someone that opens a door to the bank isn't guilty of robbing it because opening the door isn't a crime.

0 Replies

Do you think Zimmerman will be convicted of murder?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know