John Adams Posted July 15, 2013 Share Posted July 15, 2013 (edited) Actually, the prosecution did add the charge of manslaughter to the list of possible charges Zimmerman could've been convicted of. And that didn't stick either. I also find it really strange that everyone's saying Zimmerman was stupid for calling the police and following Martin. Isn't that what neighborhood watches are SUPPOSED to be doing, watching and reporting suspicious activity to police, just like GZ did? Yeah, people are claiming that he was stalking TM even after he was told not to, but the evidence doesn't support those claims -- they don't support anything other than GM was looking for a street sign to report back to the police. That part really confuses me. The bumbling prosecution added the manslaughter as the case closed. What that means is that the prosecution did NOT set the case up as manslaughter, but instead spent the entire case trying to get at Zimmerman's frame of mind, which was required for Murder 2. The jury (probably) didn't buy that Zimmerman was a nutjob. I gotta tell you--if the prosecution doesn't prove what it spent 2 weeks trying to prove, adding a lesser charge at the 12th hour usually won't stick because the jury thinks the prosecution failed. Zimmerman was not stupid for calling the cops. He was stupid for leaving his car. He didn't have a duty to stay in his car. He did not have to listen to the dispatcher. He was just being dumb, but dumb doesn't equal murderer. Edited July 15, 2013 by John Adams Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 15, 2013 Share Posted July 15, 2013 The bumbling prosecution added the manslaughter as the case closed. What that means is that the prosecution did NOT set the case up as manslaughter, but instead spent the entire case trying to get at Zimmerman's frame of mind, which was required for Murder 2. The jury (probably) didn't buy that Zimmerman was a nutjob. I gotta tell you--if the prosecution doesn't prove what it spent 2 weeks trying to prove, adding a lesser charge at the 12th hour usually won't stick because the jury thinks the prosecution failed. Zimmerman was not stupid for calling the cops. He was stupid for leaving his car. He didn't have a duty to stay in his car. He did not have to listen to the dispatcher. He was just being dumb, but dumb doesn't equal murderer. Why is that so hard for people to understand? Yeah, a kid died, because Zimmerman was dumb. Dumb doesn't equal criminal liability. Or racism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted July 15, 2013 Share Posted July 15, 2013 (edited) Why is that so hard for people to understand? Yeah, a kid died, because Zimmerman was dumb. Dumb doesn't equal criminal liability. Or racism. I worked for a few years as security at various jobs. My fellow security guards were the biggest bunch of Chernobyl survivors I ever saw. Almost all were dumber than a jar of mayonnaise. Edited July 15, 2013 by John Adams Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted July 15, 2013 Share Posted July 15, 2013 http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/15/us/in-zimmerman-case-self-defense-was-hard-to-topple.html "Mr. Zimmerman had the power of self-defense laws on his side..." How dare they pass laws that allow people to defend themselves! I understand on face value where you are coming from w/the battle between victim and criminal. Zimmerman was not a victim. He was an agitator, instigator. Zimmerman instigated/agitator. This is why "stand your ground" has everything to do w/this case, indirectly of course, and has turned self-defense laws on its head. All one has to do is instigate AND make sure the other ends up dead, so as not to tell their side of the story. These laws won't lead to less crime, just more escalation. Next time, the smart "Trayvon" carries a gun to a gun fight. Let the best man win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 15, 2013 Share Posted July 15, 2013 I understand on face value where you are coming from w/the battle between victim and criminal. Zimmerman was not a victim. He was an agitator, instigator. Zimmerman instigated/agitator. This is why "stand your ground" has everything to do w/this case, indirectly of course, and has turned self-defense laws on its head. All one has to do is instigate AND make sure the other ends up dead, so as not to tell their side of the story. These laws won't lead to less crime, just more escalation. Next time, the smart "Trayvon" carries a gun to a gun fight. Let the best man win. "Agitated" sounds like quite the exaggeration. Even "instigated" - the only factually supported argument for that is that he set up the situation by getting out of his car and walking through the backyards himself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted July 15, 2013 Share Posted July 15, 2013 I understand on face value where you are coming from w/the battle between victim and criminal. Zimmerman was not a victim. He was an agitator, instigator. Zimmerman instigated/agitator. This is why "stand your ground" has everything to do w/this case, indirectly of course, and has turned self-defense laws on its head. All one has to do is instigate AND make sure the other ends up dead, so as not to tell their side of the story. These laws won't lead to less crime, just more escalation. Next time, the smart "Trayvon" carries a gun to a gun fight. Let the best man win. Except you think people will want or seek out this game - if convicted he faced 30 years with the gun escalators on manslaughter. There's pretty high deterrent to rolling the dice, even of some guys get off due to lack of evidence. In this case, GZ might have been incredibly lucky it was a dark stormy night and no one saw (or incredibly unlucky depending on the truth). You'd have to be insane to intentionally pick a fight, with intention to shoot a guy, then claim SYG. The terrible coverage of these laws and media screaming "free pass to shoot guys" on the other hand..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted July 15, 2013 Share Posted July 15, 2013 "Agitated" sounds like quite the exaggeration. Even "instigated" - the only factually supported argument for that is that he set up the situation by getting out of his car and walking through the backyards himself. He was Chris Neil of the police world. Neighborhood watch? LoL. Maybe that is giving him too much credit. Neil can skate and score! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted July 15, 2013 Share Posted July 15, 2013 These laws won't lead to less crime, just more escalation. Next time, the smart "Trayvon" carries a gun to a gun fight. Let the best man win. Just like conceal and carry was supposed to lead to wild west shootouts in the streets? Didn't see that happen and you won't see these escalations you speak of either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted July 15, 2013 Share Posted July 15, 2013 Except you think people will want or seek out this game - if convicted he faced 30 years with the gun escalators on manslaughter. There's pretty high deterrent to rolling the dice, even of some guys get off due to lack of evidence. In this case, GZ might have been incredibly lucky it was a dark stormy night and no one saw (or incredibly unlucky depending on the truth). You'd have to be insane to intentionally pick a fight, with intention to shoot a guy, then claim SYG. The terrible coverage of these laws and media screaming "free pass to shoot guys" on the other hand..... Sure they will seek out this game... You hear JA, his buddies in security are dumber than a jar of mayonaise. Now mix in the other idiots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted July 15, 2013 Share Posted July 15, 2013 So far I've seen friends post 3 "Boycott Florida" sign-ups on Facebook. Might be the time to book a trip to Disney World. I'll be there in a week and a half. I agree, everyone (else) boycott Florida! You all should take the time to read this quick essay by Tim Wise. I know most of you won't but here is the link: http://www.timwise.o...to-my-daughter/ An excerpt: If you're interpreting it that way, in a similar vein, a black man could start a fight with a white teenager, wait to get his ass kicked, and then pull out a gun and shoot the white teenager. to be fair, there was an arrest in the burglaries before he was shot... so odds are that has more to do with it. that and i imagine everyone stayed far away from back alleys in that hood for a bit. he couldve been a part of it but im not loving the "im not saying but im kind of saying" approach to that one. I read that several burglars had been caught and were black. I understood that items in his locker were linked to burglaries. He might have been casing the area from the description on the transcript of the 911 call. The MSM went to great lengths in their speculation about Zimmerman's racism. Speculation can be made about T.O.'s motives for his behavior that night too. We'll never know unless it's brought up in another trial. Wait, what? Actually, the prosecution did add the charge of manslaughter to the list of possible charges Zimmerman could've been convicted of. And that didn't stick either. I also find it really strange that everyone's saying Zimmerman was stupid for calling the police and following Martin. Isn't that what neighborhood watches are SUPPOSED to be doing, watching and reporting suspicious activity to police, just like GZ did? Yeah, people are claiming that he was stalking TM even after he was told not to, but the evidence doesn't support those claims -- they don't support anything other than GM was looking for a street sign to report back to the police. That part really confuses me. I agree. As a neighborhood watch person, his duty it to check out suspicious behavior. And from all indication, he was following TM and got out of the car, but TM chose to leave the vicinity/safety of his father's house and confront/assault GZ. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted July 15, 2013 Share Posted July 15, 2013 Just like conceal and carry was supposed to lead to wild west shootouts in the streets? Didn't see that happen and you won't see these escalations you speak of either. Apples and oranges. Gotta blend the CC w/SYG for the full effect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted July 15, 2013 Share Posted July 15, 2013 Why is it so hard for some of you to understand that getting 'outraged' over what happened between a couple idiots I never met fills the moral and emotional void in my life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted July 15, 2013 Share Posted July 15, 2013 all the talk of the attempt to add a manslaughter charge brought this little gem to mind: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted July 15, 2013 Share Posted July 15, 2013 Apples and oranges. Gotta blend the CC w/SYG for the full effect. For the umpteenth time, SYG was never part of this case. It was only part of the media story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted July 15, 2013 Share Posted July 15, 2013 (edited) I understand on face value where you are coming from w/the battle between victim and criminal. Zimmerman was not a victim. He was an agitator, instigator. Zimmerman instigated/agitator. Zimmerman idiot is all you know for sure. And all the jury knew for sure. You don't know what happened when he saw Martin. None of us do. Maybe he called him a n**er and bragged that he banged his mom. Maybe he was walking to see the street sign and Martin instigated the confrontation. The truth is: No one knows and there was no proof to say Zimmerman instigated anything or had the frame of mind required for murder. None. And that's why the murder case sucked balls. Martin's death was unnecessary and tragic. Zimmerman is a grade A f***tard. Still not murder. Edited July 15, 2013 by John Adams Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted July 15, 2013 Share Posted July 15, 2013 In a state where the defendant has to prove self-defense as an affirmative defense its burden is preponderance of the evidence. In most cases when the "victim" was on top of the shooter pumping his face with his fist when he got shot you've got a pretty good case. Especially when all it appears he did to provoke the attack is report the other guy to the police. Of course if the "victim" has some cute childhood pictures & skittles all bets are off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted July 15, 2013 Share Posted July 15, 2013 Of course if the "victim" has some cute childhood pictures & skittles all bets are off. So do you think the iced tea actually hurt Martin's chances at "justice?" I mean, if it was a Slurpee or a can of pop, that seems more innocent than a can of iced tea, doesn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted July 15, 2013 Share Posted July 15, 2013 For the umpteenth time, SYG was never part of this case. It was only part of the media story. I know. Zimmerman idiot is all you know for sure. And all the jury knew for sure. You don't know what happened when he saw Martin. None of us do. Maybe he called him a n**er and bragged that he banged his mom. Maybe he was walking to see the street sign and Martin instigated the confrontation. The truth is: No one knows and there was no proof to say Zimmerman instigated anything or had the frame of mind required for murder. None. And that's why the murder case sucked balls. Martin's death was unnecessary and tragic. Zimmerman is a grade A f***tard. Still not murder. You are preaching to the choir JA. I know it wasn't murder. So do you think the iced tea actually hurt Martin's chances at "justice?" I mean, if it was a Slurpee or a can of pop, that seems more innocent than a can of iced tea, doesn't it? Ice tea goes good w/vodka? Huh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted July 15, 2013 Share Posted July 15, 2013 So do you think the iced tea actually hurt Martin's chances at "justice?" I mean, if it was a Slurpee or a can of pop, that seems more innocent than a can of iced tea, doesn't it? It turns out we were lied to about the tea; it was actually watermelon punch. That distinction might be what swayed the jury. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted July 15, 2013 Share Posted July 15, 2013 It turns out we were lied to about the tea; it was actually watermelon punch. That distinction might be what swayed the jury. Black English Venacular? Everything juice in white speak becomes "drink." Grape juice, apple juice, etc... Becomes purple drink, yellow drink... Oh my! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts