The State of Florida vs George Zimmerman: The Trial

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

This case was definitely racial profiling at its worst. Zimmerman said (on the record) "those assholes get away all the time."

So if you see a kid in the rain looking at homes and going off the sidewalk to do so and you think he might be up to no good that is racial profiling?

An if you are unhappy the police is taking their time in showing up and state the assholes always get away that somehow mean black assholes not kids who might had broken into homes of whatever color?

Quote:

After he called the police, he had no business following Trayvon

He have every right and business to keep following if he care to do so and the police dispatcher did not tell him not to do so and a police dispatcher is not a cop and have no right to order him not to follow Trayvon in any case.

Nor is any of this a license for Trayvon to attacked him nor did any of this take away Zimmerman rights of self defense.

The only one who was at fault for Trayvon death was Trayvon no one else except maybe his parents who did not teach him not to attack people who might had annoyed him.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

Okay, here's the record of what happened.

Quote:

911 Dispatcher: "Ok, which entrance is that that he's head towards?"

*sounds of Zimmerman continuing to run*

Zimmerman: "The back entrance..."

*more running sounds*

Zimmerman (under his breath): "It's ***ing cold."

911 Dispatcher: "Are you following him?"

Zimmerman: "Yeah"

911 Dispatcher: "Ok, we don't need you to do that.

Do you know the rules for Neighborhood Watch?
1. You're not supposed to carry a gun
2. You're supposed to call the police if you see any crime

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

National neighborhood watch rules.

Quote:

Definition
Citizens around the nation have formed Neighborhood Watch groups, sometimes called crime watch groups, dedicated to preventing crime and vandalism in their communities. Group members are not vigilantes; the goal is crime prevention through education and organization, reporting crimes to the police when they occur.

Read more: http://www.ehow.com/about_5377683_rules-information-neighborhood-watch.html#ixzz2ZMnR2GPU

Report crimes to the police when crimes occur - not before.

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

Report crimes to the police when crimes occur - not before.

So if you see someone who is acting suspect as a member of crime watch you are forbidden to report him or her to the police but can only report an on going crime?

God you are silly.......

2 Replies

@BillRM,

"Acting suspect" was totally in Zimmerman's mind only. Nobody is a good judge of others to be a suspect by just watching a kid walking home from the store with candy.

Are you trying to say Zimmerman alone has that ability?

1 Reply

@BillRM,

I'm not silly, but you're stupid.
Those are Neighborhood Watch RULES. Not mine.

I thought for a second there might be some hope for you, but you're still too dumb to understand simple words.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

If you're a witness to a crime, would you call 911 and let the police handle it, or will you intervene when they tell you to stay in your car, because the police is on their way?

To me, that would depend on the nature of the crime.
I would not sit in my car and wait if the crime was a rape, or an assault on a child, or any other crime where the victim couldn't defend themselves, but that's just me.

As for the "stand your ground " laws, I think that any attempt to repeal them would be a mistake.
Those laws do more good than harm. It should never be a crime for anyone to defend themselves from an attack, especially when they fear for their lives or the lives of others.
Any attempt to repeal those laws would make self defense a crime.

HOWEVER, I do believe those laws do need to be tweaked to make it harder to claim self defense in all cases.
You should never be able to claim self defense if you instigate the attack.

This case has exposed a flaw in the law, but lets fix the law, not repeal it.

1 Reply

@mysteryman,

mysteryman wrote:

Any attempt to repeal those laws would make self defense a crime.

Self-defence is a right here in Germany - though we don't have "stand your ground laws" anymore since we got a criminal code some hundred years ago.

Quote:

Section 32
Self-defence
(1) A person who commits an act in self-defence does not act unlawfully.
(2) Self-defence means any defensive action that is necessary to avert an imminent unlawful attack on oneself or another.

Section 33
Excessive self-defence
A person who exceeds the limits of self-defence out of confusion, fear or terror shall not be held criminally liable.

Section 34
Necessity
A person who, faced with an imminent danger to life, limb, freedom, honour, property or another legal interest which cannot otherwise be averted, commits an act to avert the danger from himself or another, does not act unlawfully, if, upon weighing the con icting interests, in particular the affected legal interests and the degree of the danger facing them, the protected interest substantially outweighs the one interfered with. This shall apply only if and to the extent that the act committed is an adequate means to avert the danger.

Section 35
Duress
(1) A person who, faced with an imminent danger to life, limb or freedom which cannot otherwise be averted, commits an unlawful act to avert the danger from himself, a relative or person close to him, acts without guilt. This shall not apply if and to the extent that the offender could be expected under the circumstances to accept the danger, in particular, because he himself had caused the danger, or was under a special legal obligation to do so; the sentence may be mitigated pursuant to section 49(1) unless the offender was required to accept the danger because of a special legal obligation to do so.
(2) If at the time of the commission of the act a person mistakenly assumes that circumstances exist which would excuse him under subsection (1) above, he will only be liable if the mistake was avoidable. The sentence shall be mitigated pursuant to section 49(1).

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

"Acting suspect" was totally in Zimmerman's mind only. Nobody is a good judge of others to be a suspect by just watching a kid walking home from the store with candy.

Walking slowly in the rain and going off the sidewalk onto other people property looking at homes is indeed acting suspect to most anyone,.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

'm not silly, but you're stupid.
Those are Neighborhood Watch RULES. Not mine.

Sorry I do not buy that those are neighborhood watch rules for a moment as such rules would be nonsense on their face,

But feel free to give links to such "rules".

1 Reply

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

oralloy wrote:
I make no distinction between a gun control advocate and a 9/11 hijacker.

That includes Obarmy and Bidet.

Yes.

0 Replies

@BillRM,

That's why the prosecution fucked up Bill. The very rules of the local and National town watches were all available to everyone. I can see why the defense would NOT want to discuss these rules to the jury. Itd snafu up the "innocent self defense " story that they perped.

Whetjer you think these rules are stupid or not, you are required to live by them as a member of any town watch.

2 Replies

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

In Florida, black parents should teach their children to shoot so they can kill the racial profiler first and then claim self-defense. Sure, this may sound insane. But under Florida's current laws around standing your ground and defending yourself, that's the logical next step.

If the police investigation doesn't show that the defender was under attack from the defendee, such a course of action is likely to lead to a first degree murder conviction and a death penalty.

0 Replies

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

I asked before but there has been no respose so I'll give it another go. Why was FOX News so obsessed with the case. And why have the owners of FOX News removed CBS News from its usual spot of oo.30 hours on Sky News and banished it to the middle of the night?

I would hazard a guess that their level of interest was in line with all the other US cable news outlets.

0 Replies

@FOUND SOUL,

FOUND SOUL wrote:

This pisses me off in some ways.

In as much as, why the hell have a Jury, a Trial, a Case, when it's evident that due to the "laws" none of the Jury can really control the verdict and walk way with this horrible feeling inside, as they had to comply only with the law, the rules.

I understand that laws are in place for a reason.

But, I think these laws are totally in-adequate and wrong.

Based on the answers I got when I queried about the evidence, it seems clear that there is no evidence that Zimmerman is guilty of anything.

Why is it a problem that the law requires a not guilty verdict when there is no evidence of guilt?

Do we want to become a society that finds people guilty without evidence? I hope not.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

In Australia CI, they are called Neighbourhood Watch Groups too. They work closely with the Police, I am sure there is a feeling of importance there, they work with Police. But, yes, they DO report what they see has occurred, not what they think will occur however, having said that, there is nothing wrong with reporting what they think, because then the Police can check it out. Mr Z, Judge as a Father, wants to compete, be as good as Dad, if not better, already 31 good luck, was the Police, he decided to ignore "don't get out of the car" you've reported it.

Well said.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

Whetjer you think these rules are stupid or not, you are required to live by them as a member of any town watch.

First link to those rules please and second those rules have no force of law on anyone the worst someone who is not obeying those rules punishment would be to take that person crime watch membership away.

You do not need to be a crime watch member to report suspect actions to the police and you have a right to go anywhere on the public sidewalks.

Nor does following someone give that person the right to assault you or take away your right of self defense if they do assault you.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Quote:

Do we want to become a society that finds people guilty without evidence? I hope not.

We have already reached the point where people are charge with crimes without evidence to meet a public demand to do so.

0 Replies

@BillRM,

Quote:

First link to those rules please and second those rules have no force of law on anyone the worst someone who is not obeying those rules punishment would be to take that person crime watch membership away.

.

Youre trying to make an argument out of not agreeing with whatare the "rules of conduct" for Town Watch members. Whether its got a power of law or not, it would have made an excellent bit of basis of conduct for the town watchers to follow, and thus , a reason for being "ewxcommunicated for cause " from the body of the organization NO?

How can you deny what IS a FACT?

My argument here is in support of CI(to whom you seem to spend most of your time in mutual insult rather than debate).
His point was accurate and my point was that the prosecution was further delinquent in providing a focused compelling case . They missed several bits of facts, evidence, and something like this ,which was
"A town watcher who doesn't even obey hos own organizations rules . Which, to me is tantamount to engaging in stalking of an innocent kid who you and Dave are trying to cast as the villain.

The decision is in , and , subject to a civil rights inquiry and a possible civil suit by Martins parents (I don't believe that any civil suit by Zimmerman has legs enough to make it past a newspaper article), the case is over.
Zimmerman was found NOT GUILTY, which, of course, does not mean that hes innocent. The prosecutor could not make the case adequately(And unlike you and DAve, I don't believe its for lack OF a case to make)

Prosecution's Opportunities were missed so much that Fla may be considering disciplinary actions.

Noone explained to the jury in a fashion that was understandable, what the jury may deliberate wrt thedegree of the crime. Manslaughter was just plopped on the table with minimal instruction from the judge and with the counsels debating it with the jury excused.
Its like a bunch of doctors talking about your case while ignoring you.

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

I must agree, with enthusiasm.
We need to tweak the statute so that when an innocent citizen like Zimmy kills in successful self defense,
he will be immune to any such harassment as was inflicted upon him
by the Republican Governor of Florida.

It is bad enuf when a citizen has to defend himself
from man or beast, without government making it WORSE
by going into partnership with the predator, Travon, against the innocent victim.

The existing stand your ground laws were already designed to do that as much as is possible (note the way Zimmerman is immune to a civil lawsuit, and can even force the other side to pay his legal bills if they try to sue him). I'm not sure how easy it would be to do even more without impeding legitimate charges against actual murderers.

Perhaps suing Florida in federal court for violating his civil rights under color of law (ironically the same charges that some wish to falsely prosecute Zimmerman on) would be a remedy that Zimmerman could pursue. But since he was acquitted I'm not sure there would be much in the way of damages.

0 Replies

The State of Florida vs George Zimmerman: The Trial

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know