27
   

The State of Florida vs George Zimmerman: The Trial

 
 
MontereyJack
 
  2  
Mon 16 Sep, 2013 10:29 pm
So what the hell do you think he was telling the woman and the cop, "Help, I've had a bad accident and I need help", or "I'm here to rob you and rape you"? THINK, Bill. /She saw a big black guy, paid no attention to what he must have said, and panicked. The cop did the same. Panic in the absence of any proof, is not sufficient grounds to kill someone. Running toward a cop for aid is not sufficient reason to kill that person. Stereotyping and jumping to a completely wrong conclusion is not sufficient reason to kill someone. Zimmerman was wrong, the cop was wrong. And you're full of it.

And it's strange how many more blacks are the victims of bad shoots than whites. If the cop shot a white guy (and that clearly is not the case here), then he should be charged too. BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT HAPPENED.
MontereyJack
 
  1  
Mon 16 Sep, 2013 10:36 pm
Hey, Hawk, what are you doing talking sense? Keep this up, and the collective might have to revise its opinion of you.
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  0  
Mon 16 Sep, 2013 10:38 pm
@hawkeye10,
Once more size and how he was behaving would likely be the issue more then skin color.

Running toward a cop for "help" instead of a more normal approach was likely his downfall and if you roll onto a scene where someone might had been trying to break into a home and a football player size gentleman was running at you unless you are insane the gun would come out.
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Mon 16 Sep, 2013 10:42 pm
@BillRM,
Quote:
When the first cop car roll on to the scene you" charge/run for help" toward him and we will see how he will react.
absent seeing a gun or a clear bomb I the cop draw my weapon and tell the suspect to stop, then to get down on the ground. if he does not stop I shoot him in the shoulder to get his attention.
BillRM
 
  0  
Mon 16 Sep, 2013 10:43 pm
@MontereyJack,
Quote:
Running toward a cop for aid is not sufficient reason to kill that person.


LOL if the cop have a clue that the person running toward him was to get aid you would be right however as white as my skin happen to be and being far less imposing then a football player I would not run at a cop for any reason.
hawkeye10
 
  2  
Mon 16 Sep, 2013 10:52 pm
@BillRM,
Quote:
LOL if the cop have a clue that the person running toward him was to get aid
running with no known weapons is not a threatening act unless there is some reason to think that we are dealing with a suicide bomber. what's next, I reach my hand out to shake yours and you blow my head off?
BillRM
 
  0  
Mon 16 Sep, 2013 11:09 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
absent seeing a gun or a clear bomb I the cop draw my weapon and tell the suspect to stop, then to get down on the ground. if he does not stop I shoot him in the shoulder to get his attention.


First you never never for any reason try shooting someone in the shoulder if you decide you need to shot you do so in the center of mass and as far as telling someone to stop how must time does it take for an athlete to cover even 40 yards?

It is slightly more then 4 seconds.

Do you think you are dealing with someone using a walker so you have all the time in the world to communicate your wishes for him to stop and get on the ground or whatever?

You would be lucky to get your gun out as the average draw time and fired time is two seconds once you had decided to draw and fired with an NFL football player running at you.

0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  0  
Mon 16 Sep, 2013 11:13 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
running with no known weapons is not a threatening act


So you feel that you would not be harm by being hit by a NFL football player and having such a man charging you is not a threatening act!!!!!!!!

You have seconds and I mean seconds as in two to maybe on the outside five seconds to judge the situation and reacted to it not minutes or hours or whatever.
0 Replies
 
MontereyJack
 
  1  
Mon 16 Sep, 2013 11:16 pm
Great, so you're advocating making bad shoots and killing innocent people because you allegedly don't have time to figure out what's really going on. Or even making an attempt to do so. Thank the gods Charlotte-Mecklenburg PD is a little more rational than you are, and condemns the cop's actions.
BillRM
 
  0  
Mon 16 Sep, 2013 11:30 pm
@MontereyJack,
Cops in Miami just killed a man with a BB rifle due to them not taking the time to make sure the weapon was not real!!!!!!!!

You do not cause cops to have reasonable fear for their life and safety and if you do then the results are on you not them.

An NFL sized football player charging you is cause for reasonable fear and for him to be running at the cop is as insane as the gentleman who did not drop his BB gun at once when order to do so.
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  0  
Mon 16 Sep, 2013 11:41 pm
@MontereyJack,
Quote:
Thank the gods Charlotte-Mecklenburg PD is a little more rational than you are, and condemns the cop's actions.


Jury will throw it out if it get that far as cops do not need to risk their lives then someone is doing something stupid enough to place them in fear for their lives such as charging them or not dropping a BB gun at once for that matter.
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  0  
Tue 17 Sep, 2013 12:25 am
By the way I just remember once being stop by a cop for having a light out and getting out of my car and approaching him in too rapid a manner.

He had his hand on his gun and order me to return to my car and after writing the ticket told me never to approach a cop in that manner in the future.

Once more, I was not running at him, there was no report of a possible crime happening and I am neither black or as imposing as a former football player.

To run at a cop just rolling up to a possible attempted home break in is far more stupid then my getting out of my car and walking to the cop car instead of waiting for him at least in my opinion.

Giving the cop seconds to decide what the situation happen to be and under those conditions is risking your life no matter what your skin color happen to be.
0 Replies
 
firefly
 
  3  
Tue 17 Sep, 2013 03:41 am
Quote:
Sep 12, 2013
Take his guns away, already: Why the George Zimmermans are so protected

What exactly does it take for a man with domestic abuse complaints and a fatal shooting to lose access to weapons?
By Katie Mcdonough

Exactly what happened on Monday between George Zimmerman and his estranged wife, Shellie, in Lake Mary, Fla., is still in doubt — but seeing the words “Zimmerman,” “gun” and “altercation” strung together once again has turned Zimmerman into a lightning rod for questions regarding gun violence and domestic abuse in the United States.

Based on the initial report, Shellie called the police that day claiming Zimmerman, brandishing his firearm, was threatening her, daring her to “step closer” to him. “I don’t know what he’s capable of. I’m really, really scared,” she told the emergency dispatcher. He violently destroyed her iPad, she said, allegedly cutting through the device with his pocketknife. He also apparently came to blows with her father, and allegedly exhibited the complete lack of self-control and dangerously poor judgment for which the public has come to know him.

But because Shellie changed her story only hours later — saying she never saw a firearm, and that she wouldn’t press charges — there was no domestic violence report filed. Absent that, the police didn’t pursue a warrant to search Zimmerman’s vehicle for the gun he may or may not have used to threaten Shellie.

Whether or not Zimmerman had a gun on him that day, one thing remains clear: The gun he used to kill Trayvon Martin may still be lawfully returned to him. And he is, according to recent reports, looking to buy more.

Which invites the question: What does a person have to do in this country to get a gun taken away? Or lose the right to a concealed carry permit? And, more specifically, what does a man with a noted history of both domestic violence complaints and a willingness to use deadly force, who is currently in the news for what may still turn out to be another such incident, have to do?

Turns out: quite a terrifying lot. Because, put mildly, the laws in Florida and elsewhere regulating gun ownership among domestic abusers and men suspected of domestic violence are, shall we say, permissive.

“In our country, and in most states, the scales have been very, very heavily tipped toward the individual rights of gun owners,” Dr. Daniel Webster, director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research, tells Salon. “United States policy almost always gives the benefit of the doubt to the gun owner,” and things are no different in cases of domestic violence.

According to recent data, more than 60 percent of women killed by a firearm in 2010 were murdered by a current or former intimate partner. The presence of a firearm during a domestic violence incident increases the likelihood of a homicide by an astounding 500 percent. In general, guns are very, very bad for women’s health.

But in spite of all of the evidence identifying a strong and deadly correlation between gun deaths and violence against women, our policies to protect women (victims of intimate partner-related gun violence are, overwhelmingly, female) are full of holes.

For an example of this, look no further than Florida. In Zimmerman’s home state, as a result of federal law, it is illegal for a person subjected to a protective order to own or purchase firearms, and it is a crime for that person to refuse to surrender them to law enforcement. This is a good law that, when effectively enforced, can save women’s lives. “There are actually three studies now published in scientific journals showing how this policy [barring people subjected to restraining orders from owning or purchasing firearms] is associated with a significant reduction in risk of intimate partner homicide — ranging from a 6 to 19 percent reduction,” Webster notes.

But because the law does not explicitly compel courts to authorize police to take the firearms away, many people who are subjected to domestic violence-related restraining orders are still able to keep and carry their guns, undeterred. And those who do have their guns taken away will just as soon have them returned at the expiration of that order. “The minute it expires,” Webster says, “the person who has been under the order can legally possess as many guns as they like. And in places like Florida, this person can also carry a concealed and loaded gun more or less wherever they want.”

Zimmerman is a perfect example of this. In 2005, the same year he faced felony charges for battering a police officer, Zimmerman was subject to a temporary restraining order after his ex-fiancée accused him of striking, shoving and groping her on several occasions. During the duration of the order, Zimmerman was prohibited from owning or purchasing firearms. But after it expired in 2006, he was once again eligible to possess a gun — and obtain a concealed carry permit.

“There are places, like the state of New York and New Jersey, for example, that give law enforcement some discretion in denying [concealed carry permits]. So someone may not fit the letter of the law with regard to prohibition, but if law enforcement looks at their background and sees something akin to what Zimmerman’s record looks like, they have more discretion to deny the application,” Webster says.

Applying additional scrutiny, specifically in the form of tightened and mandatory background checks or longer wait times regarding when and how guns are returned to an abuser, is an incredibly limited encroachment on someone’s ability to own a firearm. (Or multiple firearms, as is the case with Zimmerman.) But, as with so many other proposals for moderate gun regulation, pushback from the gun lobby leaves such measures dead in the water.

The failure is “largely a matter of political maneuvering,” Lindsay Nichols, a staff attorney with the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, tells Salon. “Bills that would strengthen the laws in these common-sense ways often don’t make it out of committee” because of powerful political interests.

As federal law currently stands, there is nothing short of a misdemeanor domestic violence conviction or a permanent protective order that can bar an abuser from owning or purchasing additional firearms. But the trouble with these requirements is that so many domestic violence cases never go to trial, and even fewer end in conviction. As a result, women remain vulnerable, and abusers who have evaded criminal charges remain free to keep their firearms and do real harm.

We don’t know what the outcome of the current Zimmerman case will be. Florida law does not require the consent of a victim to pursue domestic violence charges against an alleged abuser, and, according to recent reports, police are currently considering the possibility of doing so. But with the iPad containing video evidence of what transpired destroyed beyond repair, that may not happen. And Zimmerman will remain, as ever, an evasively “law-abiding” citizen.

And unless something changes at the policy level, our laws will, as ever, remain grossly inadequate at protecting women from violence, and the number of women who are shot and killed by intimate partners will remain unacceptably high.

There are practical steps that can change this. “Prohibit the possession of a gun when someone is subject to a protective order. This has to be a state law,” Nichols says. “And the state needs to have a procedure in place to require the removal of guns when a protective order is issued.”

“The reality [of gun policies] is really messy,” Webster also says. “You’ve got all kinds of George Zimmermans and everything in between there who fall through the cracks of our exclusions. But if you ask any reasonable person how comfortable they are with an individual like that running around with a concealed, loaded gun, the vast majority would say they are not.”

http://www.salon.com/2013/09/12/take_his_guns_away_already_why_the_george_zimmermans_are_so_protected/
0 Replies
 
MontereyJack
 
  3  
Tue 17 Sep, 2013 08:39 am
I think that statistic bears repeating:

Quote:
According to recent data, more than 60 percent of women killed by a firearm in 2010 were murdered by a current or former intimate partner. The presence of a firearm during a domestic violence incident increases the likelihood of a homicide by an astounding 500 percent. In general, guns are very, very bad for women’s health.



Thank you, NRA, for your support of violence against women (sarcasm alert).
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Tue 17 Sep, 2013 09:26 am

So much for Europe's draconian gun laws....


Quote:
(Reuters) - A suspected poacher shot dead three policemen and a paramedic in Austria, then barricaded himself in his farmhouse and opened fire on special forces outside, police and media said.

The man first shot two policemen as they tried to arrest him in woodland in the province of Lower Austria near Vienna late on Monday, a police spokesman told Reuters.

He also killed a paramedic who was treating a wounded officer at the scene, the spokesman added.

The force said the man then fled in a stolen police car to his home near the city of Melk, about 70 km (40 miles) away, taking a third policeman with him as a hostage.

That officer was later found dead in the car, the Austria Press Agency reported, though the force was not immediately available to confirm the report.

Dozens of Cobra special forces were surrounding the building where the man had opened fire, the police spokesman said.

"The gunman keeps shooting at the Cobra forces ... The Cobra forces are working very slowly and carefully," he told Reuters.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/17/us-austria-shooting-hostage-idUSBRE98G0PP20130917
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Tue 17 Sep, 2013 09:41 am
@MontereyJack,
MontereyJack wrote:
Great, so you're advocating making bad shoots and killing innocent people because you allegedly don't have time to figure out what's really going on. Or even making an attempt to do so. Thank the gods Charlotte-Mecklenburg PD is a little more rational than you are, and condemns the cop's actions.

Speaking of controversial police shootings:

"BREAKING: Judge grants new trial for ex-New Orleans police convicted in notorious Danziger Bridge slayings after Hurricane Katrina..."
http://twitter.com/NOLAnews/status/379987685957718016


(Actually, I'd like to know why those murdering doctors haven't been prosecuted yet.)
0 Replies
 
trying2learn
 
  2  
Tue 17 Sep, 2013 09:59 am
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:
Most Jurors seems willing to give the benefit of the doubt when it come to police officers feeling that they need to act in self defense. That is an opinion of mine as to why those trials do end for the most part end with acquittals.
Well if that is your opinion, I will respect that. It isn't my opinion and I base my opinion on being at the scene and actually witnessing what happened.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Wed 18 Sep, 2013 02:05 am
@RABEL222,
RABEL222 wrote:
Only if he had a gun in his paw.
Its paranoids like you that think its O K to kill anything, anytime, for any reason.
As a true liberal, your characterization distorts reality.
The concept is self defense. Guns can be beneficially applied to that purpose.
Paranoia is not necessary to self defense.





David
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Wed 18 Sep, 2013 04:44 am
@RABEL222,
RABEL222 wrote:
Police kill unarmed man after car accident

An officer is charged with manslaughter in the shooting of an ex-athlete who may have [speculative guesswork]
been running to him for help. » Shot multiple times

Injured black man goes to white womans house for help.

Paranoid woman calls cops and reports black man trying to break into her house.
HOW did u render your diagnosis of paranoia, Dr. Rabel??
Anyway, if anyone feels in danger from blacks trying to break in,
thay r perfectly within their rights to call the police whom thay finance thru their taxes.
Let the police EARN their pay. The homeowner has no duty to try to protect the blacks from police.




RABEL222 wrote:
When cops arrive black man runs toward cops seeking help.
Cop fears for his life because black man has hands so cop shoots him 4 or 5 times.
Was that enuf??




RABEL222 wrote:
Not to worry, this happened in Flordia so he can claim stand your ground law.
OK.


RABEL222 wrote:
Wonder how many more times this is going to happen?
Wait n see.



RABEL222 wrote:
O K gun nuts. Start making excuses for more murders.
The burden of proof is on the prosecution.

The police officer probably felt threatened, the same as the home owner.
(Sometimes, its better not to threaten the police.)
The old saying is: "its better to be tried by 12 men
than carried by 6."





David
BillRM
 
  1  
Wed 18 Sep, 2013 07:02 am
@OmSigDAVID,
One wonder how many men and women will be willing to serve the nation as police officers if decisions that need to be done in seconds and under pressure to use or not to use deadly force routinely lead to manslaughter charges.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 07/10/2025 at 01:26:09