27
   

The State of Florida vs George Zimmerman: The Trial

 
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Sun 14 Jul, 2013 02:16 pm
@ABE5177,
ABE5177 wrote:
can he get retreied on fededral dscrimination cahrges?

No. A local cop could be retried federally, but not a private citizen.

Well, I guess if there were a federal law that applied, a private citizen could be retried federally, but no federal law applies to this case, so the answer is no.
firefly
 
  1  
Sun 14 Jul, 2013 02:16 pm
@Brandon9000,
Quote:
People are actually allowed to defend their lives in the US.


And that would include Trayvon Martin.

When a barely 17 year old kid is watched and followed by some creepy guy, causing him to feel apprehensive about his own safety, that kid is entitled to defend himself.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Sun 14 Jul, 2013 02:20 pm
@firefly,
That's not true; a black man doesn't have the same presumption. That's been proven by this trial.

But I blame the prosecution for failing to bring this issue up during the trial.

0 Replies
 
ABE5177
 
  2  
Sun 14 Jul, 2013 02:22 pm
@oralloy,
sounds liekl theres a federal charge maybe


An investigation had previously been opened by the Justice Department, and the department said Saturday night, "The department continues to evaluate the evidence generated during the federal investigation, as well as the evidence and testimony from the state trial."

ABC News anchor Dan Abrams said it is unlikely the civil rights division will file charges against Zimmerman "because they can't win."
http://abcnews.go.com/US/george-zimmerman-prosecution-petition-overwhelms-naacp-website/story?id=19662189
oralloy
 
  0  
Sun 14 Jul, 2013 02:25 pm
@engineer,
engineer wrote:
I think the idea of who threw the first punch is irrelevant. If Zimmerman pushed Martin then Martin started coming at him with both barrels, Zimmerman may have felt he needed to defend his life.

The question of who initiated the violence is highly relevant.

If someone starts a fight, and then they later kill someone as part of that fight in order to save their own life, that counts as manslaughter.


engineer wrote:
To me this is the real risk is walking around carrying a gun. Zimmerman is overweight and out of shape, but when you put a gun in his hand, he thinks he's the man. I've read of this before, where someone gets a gun and suddenly they go out looking for confrontation. Where before they might cross the street if they saw some questionable people hanging out on a corner, now they go out of their way to walk through them.

Americans aren't required to cower away from people who might choose to attack us. We have the right to carry guns, and we have the right to defend ourselves.

That said, refusing to hide from potential aggressors does not mean someone is looking for confrontation.


engineer wrote:
Do I think Zimmerman went out their with the intent to kill Martin? No. Do I think that he was looking for a confrontation and that he thought he had the upper hand because he was armed. Yes.

Do you have any evidence to support your supposition that Zimmerman was looking for a confrontation?
oralloy
 
  1  
Sun 14 Jul, 2013 02:37 pm
@ABE5177,
ABE5177 wrote:
sounds like theres a federal charge maybe

It's very unlikely.
oralloy
 
  1  
Sun 14 Jul, 2013 02:39 pm
@RABEL222,
RABEL222 wrote:
I am also disappointed. I guess if one wants to get away with murder Flordia is the place to go.

Do you have any evidence that this was a murder?
0 Replies
 
ABE5177
 
  1  
Sun 14 Jul, 2013 02:40 pm
@oralloy,
i expect them to overreach

and

brkeak their necks ha ha
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Sun 14 Jul, 2013 02:44 pm
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:
two more hurdles for Zimmerman. I read a piece that the DOJ was "concerned with the lack of a vigorous and well explained prosecution" that they are studying the evidence to see whether Zimmerman should or hould not be tried under Federal civil rights statutes.

Not much chance of that. Those statutes are for police and government officials who abuse their power.

Zimmerman is a private citizen.


farmerman wrote:
Also, theres a Civil court phase

Really???

I thought Florida did away with wrongful death lawsuits in cases of self defense.
revelette
 
  2  
Sun 14 Jul, 2013 03:10 pm
@mysteryman,
He had just turned 17 21 days before in February, before prom and he was a junior in high school. Still wasn't old enough to buy a gun to defend himself if he felt under attack.
0 Replies
 
firefly
 
  3  
Sun 14 Jul, 2013 03:11 pm
@oralloy,
Quote:

Americans aren't required to cower away from people who might choose to attack us. We have the right to carry guns, and we have the right to defend ourselves.

That said, refusing to hide from potential aggressors does not mean someone is looking for confrontation.

That's true, Trayvon Martin had every right to defend himself from someone he believed might pose a danger to his life. Just because he didn't run and hide didn't mean he was looking for a confrontation. He was on his way home. He had a legitimate right to be in that place at that time.

Quote:
Do you have any evidence to support your supposition that Zimmerman was looking for a confrontation?

How about the fact he didn't remain in his car?

How about the fact that there was never a need for him to get out of his car?

How about the fact that his neighborhood watch responsibilities ended when he called the police non-emergency number, and that everything he did after that was motivated by his own need to be a vigilante, since the police dispatcher told him the police didn't need him to do anything else?

How about the fact that the phone conversation reported by Rachel Jeantel indicated it was Zimmerman who approached and confronted Martin, without even identifying himself to Martin, and that was after Martin was already apprehensive about why this creepy guy had been watching and following him?

Why didn't Zimmerman just continue going to Target after he called the police? That was his destination that night when he happened to spot and profile Martin. So, after he discharged his neighborhood watch responsibilities, by calling the police to report a "suspicious" character, who wasn't doing much of anything beside walking around and trying to dodge the train, why didn't Zimmerman just continue driving to Target?

Someone not looking for a confrontation would have simply remained in his car and waited for the police to show up and do their job. Or he would have driven off, continued his trip to Target, and left the police to handle it when they showed up. He had not witnessed any sort of crime in progress, there was nothing urgent occurring, so there was no reason for him to hang around there, the police didn't need him to do that either.

Where's your evidence that Zmmerman wasn't looking for a confrontation, since the evidence just cited suggests otherwise?
oralloy
 
  -1  
Sun 14 Jul, 2013 03:12 pm
@firefly,
firefly wrote:
For the rest of his life, Zimmerman will have to worry that someone might be watching and following him, with malice in their heart, and a gun in their waistband, and he'll know how Trayvon Martin felt that night over and over again...

That's going to be the reality of his life.

One more round of self defense and I'm sure that even you lesser lights will learn to stop harassing him.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -1  
Sun 14 Jul, 2013 03:13 pm
@engineer,
engineer wrote:
My point was that even IF Zimmerman was the aggressor that doesn't invalidate the self defense argument.

Actually, it does. That would make it manslaughter.


engineer wrote:
There is actually evidence of that in that the person Martin was on the phone with testified that Martin said "get off of me" implying some contact, but once again, that is beside the point.

Not a credible witness.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Sun 14 Jul, 2013 03:14 pm
@mysteryman,
mysteryman wrote:
I don't know if Zimmerman was guilty or not, I don't know if it was murder or not, but I do know that the system worked exactly the way it is supposed to work.
Like it or not, you must accept the verdict and support it.

I think it is OK for people to speak out in disagreement with a verdict, although I would recommend that they have evidence and a persuasive argument on hand when they do so, just so they can present a credible case for their position.
firefly
 
  2  
Sun 14 Jul, 2013 03:30 pm
@oralloy,
Quote:
Zimmerman is a private citizen.

And private citizens can be charged and prosecuted under federal hate crime/civil rights violations laws.
Quote:
I thought Florida did away with wrongful death lawsuits in cases of self defense.

Like everything else you say, that comment simply reveals your ignorance.

An acquittal in a criminal case does not mean that Zimmerman cannot be charged with wrongful death in a civil action. Nor does that criminal acquittal mean that he won't be found guilty of causing a wrongful death in a civil suit. Different evidence can be introduced in the civil suit, witnesses can be better prepared, the standard of proof is different in a civil suit, etc.

Zimmerman was not found "innocent" of any responsibility for Martin's death, he was simply found "not guilty" of the criminal charges against him at that particular trial, based on some possibility that he might have acted in self-defense. In other courts, like federal court, or civil court, a different verdict might well be returned because the charges against him would be different.

oralloy
 
  -1  
Sun 14 Jul, 2013 03:30 pm
@firefly,
firefly wrote:
oralloy wrote:
Do you have any evidence to support your supposition that Zimmerman was looking for a confrontation?

How about the fact he didn't remain in his car?

Leaving a car hardly means someone seeks a confrontation.


firefly wrote:
How about the fact that there was never a need for him to get out of his car?

Has no bearing on whether he was seeking a confrontation.


firefly wrote:
How about the fact that his neighborhood watch responsibilities ended when he called the police non-emergency number, and that everything he did after that was motivated by his own need to be a vigilante, since the police dispatcher told him the police didn't need him to do anything else?

Baseless suppositions (also unsupported by evidence) do not count as evidence that he was seeking confrontation.


firefly wrote:
How about the fact that the phone conversation reported by Rachel Jeantel indicated it was Zimmerman who approached and confronted Martin, without even identifying himself to Martin, and that was after Martin was already apprehensive about why this creepy guy had been watching and following him?

Far from a reliable witness.


firefly wrote:
Why didn't Zimmerman just continue going to Target after he called the police? That was his destination that night when he happened to spot and profile Martin. So, after he discharged his neighborhood watch responsibilities, by calling the police to report a "suspicious" character, who wasn't doing much of anything beside walking around and trying to dodge the train, why didn't Zimmerman just continue driving to Target?

Silly questions do not count as evidence that Zimmerman sought a confrontation.


firefly wrote:
Someone not looking for a confrontation would have simply remained in his car and waited for the police to show up and do their job. Or he would have driven off, continued his trip to Target, and left the police to handle it when they showed up.

Nonsense. People who do not seek a confrontation are not constrained to those activities. People who do not seek a confrontation are allowed to do many things.


firefly wrote:
He had not witnessed any sort of crime in progress, there was nothing urgent occurring, so there was no reason for him to hang around there, the police didn't need him to do that either.

That does not constitute evidence that he sought a confrontation.


firefly wrote:
Where's your evidence that Zmmerman wasn't looking for a confrontation, since the evidence just cited suggests otherwise?

I don't need any. I am not making a claim that he wasn't looking for a confrontation.
oralloy
 
  -1  
Sun 14 Jul, 2013 03:42 pm
@firefly,
firefly wrote:
oralloy wrote:
Zimmerman is a private citizen.

And private citizens can be charged and prosecuted under federal hate crime/civil rights violations laws.

Nope. The civil rights law in question only applies to police and government officials.

Even if this could be characterized as a hate crime (fat chance), it is unlikely that federal hate crimes statutes would apply to this case.


firefly wrote:
oralloy wrote:
I thought Florida did away with wrongful death lawsuits in cases of self defense.

Like everything else you say, that comment simply reveals your ignorance.

Not likely. The usual pattern is that you are the one who doesn't have the slightest idea what they are talking about. No reason to think it is different this time.
firefly
 
  2  
Sun 14 Jul, 2013 03:45 pm
@oralloy,
Quote:
I would recommend that they have evidence and a persuasive argument on hand when they do so, just so they can present a credible case for their position


Why don't you follow your own advice?

Where is your evidence, and persuasive argument, to support the contention that an unarmed teen, a middle class high school student, simply on his way home from a trip to the store, suddenly decided to attack a total stranger for no logical reason at all?

Where is your evidence, and persuasive argument, to explain why Zimmerman didn't just remain in his car, or continue his trip to Target, after calling the police, if he didn't have a personal need to play vigilante, or a desire to have a confrontation with his profiled "suspect"?
firefly
 
  1  
Sun 14 Jul, 2013 03:53 pm
@oralloy,
http://www.cracked.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/clueless.jpg
firefly
 
  1  
Sun 14 Jul, 2013 03:55 pm
@oralloy,
http://rlv.zcache.com/bird_brain_crow_hat-rb97fc767cc3c4ce192011b09be26108d_v9wfy_8byvr_512.jpg
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 04/19/2024 at 06:34:54