Zimmerman Finally Charged With 2nd-Degree Murder

Submitted by: kitteh9lives 5 years ago in

Zimmerman, the man who shot Trayvon Martin, has been officially charged with 2nd-degree murder & is presently in custody
There are 328 comments:
Male 41,079
@markust: Are you still playing the IAB drinking game? We have a "rage quit" here, with full-on troll accusations! LOLZ!

QQ, bye-bye!
0
Reply
Male 3,482
[quote]Odd, you suggested they couldn`t tell RED from GREY it was so freaking dark![/quote]
Quote me. Right f*cking now. I dare you to find where I said he couldn`t tell who was on top.

I said it`s pretty difficult to determine whose voice it is during a fight, you ignorant troll.

[quote]I don`t know, I don`t recall reading what caliber it is, even. [/quote]
Than you obviously haven`t read all that much. It was a 9mm Kel-Tec PF-9.

Shows what you actually know... I`m done, you`re a troll, plain and simple.
0
Reply
Male 41,079
[quote]Z`s story has actually changed a few times since all this started.[/quote]
LINK it! I find that difficult to believe since Z hasn`t even SPOKEN about it. I know his father said some stuff, which he later changed, but that`s entirely different. 2nd and 3rd hand reports are NOT `facts` ok?

[quote]seeing someone`s lips moving[/quote]
Odd, you suggested they couldn`t tell RED from GREY it was so freaking dark! Now a handgun is clearly visible to a witness (IF there was one)(but there is not). Do we even KNOW what the gun looks like? Shiny nickle or dull black? I don`t know, I don`t recall reading what caliber it is, even.

Just catching you trying to "work both sides" @Altaru! No ill will intended.
0
Reply
Male 3,482
[quote]Wait, I thought Z had "no reason" to feel his life was threatened?[/quote]
Whether he did or not wouldn`t have mattered if he hadn`t (possibly) caused a situation, and that`s the problem with the law: You can START something, then kill someone when you start losing. How crazy retarded is that sh*t?

[quote]M `seeing the gun` and `defending himself by attacking` is pure speculation, you know that eh?[/quote]
Of course. But `pure speculation` is no better than believing the biased testimony of a possible criminal who claims that Martin jumped him for no reason. And it`s funny, Z`s story has actually changed a few times since all this started.

[quote]Also, how would they "see" the gun, eh @Altaru! lolz! Eagle-eyes![/quote]
You`re equating seeing a relatively large piece of metal in someone`s hand to seeing someone`s lips moving during a fight in the rain?
0
Reply
Male 41,079
[quote]And if someone`s on top of you, pounding dents in your skull, it can be pretty hard to yell for help. Every hit can knock the wind out of you, disorient you, stop your brain ticking for a second... Just getting air in and out of your lungs takes top priority over using that air for anything specific.[/quote]

Wait, I thought Z had "no reason" to feel his life was threatened? lolz! Which is it?

M `seeing the gun` and `defending himself by attacking` is pure speculation, you know that eh?

Your entire arguement sees to be (to me) that Z should have stayed in his car. This is not unreasonable! However it`s not a reason for M to assault Z either.

Now, if a witness should come out and say they SAW Z threaten M with the gun before the fight? THAT is entirely different! But until it happens, fantasy.

Also, how would they "see" the gun, eh @Altaru! lolz! Eagle-eyes!
0
Reply
Male 3,482
[quote]So we are to believe that Trayvon was on top of Zimmerman, beating him AND screaming for help?[/quote]
If Martin saw the gun, then that wouldn`t be unreasonable.

If you knew your opponent had a gun, would you wait until you subdued them then calmly go door to door asking the neighbors for assistance?

And if someone`s on top of you, pounding dents in your skull, it can be pretty hard to yell for help. Every hit can knock the wind out of you, disorient you, stop your brain ticking for a second... Just getting air in and out of your lungs takes top priority over using that air for anything specific.
0
Reply
Male 3,482
[quote]It is however, evidence. [/quote]
It`s evidence that Z was getting his ass kicked.

It doesn`t say anything one way or another about whether he started it or not.
0
Reply
Male 3,482
[quote]There is NOT ONE recording of Trayvon`s voice in existance?[/quote]
Maybe, maybe not.

I`ve been around longer than Martin was, and I don`t know of more than two recordings of my voice, one of which I didn`t know was recorded until I randomly discovered it on Youtube, and the other being one of those voice-recording picture frames I got for my mother... when I was twelve.

Hell, I don`t know of anything beyond a few school pictures that prove I existed over the course of about six years.
0
Reply
Male 41,079
Yes @kitteh9: The father has "changed his mind" also, after discussing it with lawyers...

So we are to believe that Trayvon was on top of Zimmerman, beating him AND screaming for help? While Z was silently getting pounded?
Hummmm.

@Altaru: Now you`re getting trolly, eh?
I never once said it `proved` anything. It is however, evidence.
Standing a few feet away, one can easily see who`s yelling and who`s not.

There is NOT ONE recording of Trayvon`s voice in existance? No phone messages, no video recordings? ZERO?
Unlikely.

So, yes! For all WE know he sounds just like James Earl Jones! Or Kermit The Frog, or Porky Pig...
0
Reply
Male 3,482
[quote]For all we know he had a deep, bass voice![/quote]
THAT`S FUNNY, `cause, you know, HE`S DEAD AND ALL! So I guess we`ll REALLY never know his side of the story, will we? And unless someone comes forth with a recording of his voice, we`ll never know what he sounded like, now will we?

After all, it`s not like he`ll suddenly appear in court to testify. It`s not like he has any rights to a fair trial regarding whether he started it or not. He`s dead. All his rights were taken away with a single bullet from an armed man who followed him and suspected him of wrong-doing when he was just trying to go home with his skittles and tea.

And his killer would have gotten off clean without so much as a proper investigation because of those stupid SYG laws and a controversial prosecutor, had it not been for the public outrage.
0
Reply
Male 3,482
[quote]It`s fairly easy to tell the difference between a grey hoodie and a red & black sweater.[/quote]
So now you can see voices by the clothes the person is wearing?

This guy must have had some super-vision to SEE the voices over their heads, wearing their clothes, and only one screaming for help. Amazing!

Maybe they should put this witness`s vision to the test, if it`s so amazing.

Again, one person being on top of the other proves NOTHING about who started it anyway.
0
Reply
Male 41,079
"...an anonymous witness..."

The police know who he is, so he`s not some nut who `claims` to have seen something! He is an eye-witness, perhaps the only one.

It`s fairly easy to tell the difference between a grey hoodie and a red & black sweater. He was close by, not blocks away. Yes I`ve seen the maps & such, it wasn`t `pitch black` ok?

Of course Z is `biased`, duh! OR he may be telling the truth, duh! We may or may not ever know.

Trayvon`s Father said it wasn`t Trayvon yelling, ok?
Unless those who heard the yelling, or we who listened to various 911 calls, knew both men, it`s silly to claim "it sounds like Trayvon"! For all we know he had a deep, bass voice!
0
Reply
Male 3,482
[quote]I`m certain the cops took ALL of this into account when they decided to NOT charge Z in the first place.[/quote]
AS A MATTER OF FACT...

The homicide detective that first investigated the case DID want to have Z arrested and charged. It was the prosecutor that decided not to.

A prosecutor who`s been involved in more controversial cases than just this one, from what I`ve read.
0
Reply
Male 3,482
[quote]But Z never said he hit M, so...[/quote]
But Z`s also on trial for KILLING SOMEONE. His account is about as unbiased as Fox News.

[quote]It was 7:15 pm, and ever hear of streetlights? [/quote]
It was raining, which decreases visibility, and the fight didn`t go down on a street. It went down on a walk-way between buildings. Have you even looked at maps of the area?

And you`re still relying on an anonymous witness making claims that he saw which one was yelling, against the other people who heard what was going on and said it didn`t sound like Z.

And even if it was Z yelling... What does that prove? That he was losing a fight. Not whether he instigated it or not.

Like I said, I`mma go start a bar fight, hit the ground, yell for help, and shoot the other guy. I yelled for help, right? That means I had the right to "defend myself."
0
Reply
Male 41,079
@FatNinja: Appeals come after a conviction or aquittal, not before the trial! lolz!

@Altaru: I`d like to know that too! But Z never said he hit M, so...
Also: The guy lived in the house right where the fight was happening! He went out, saw them fighting just a few feet away! Not `miles off in the distance` OK? Get it? Literally in his back yard! It was 7:15 pm, and ever hear of streetlights?
I`m certain the cops took ALL of this into account when they decided to NOT charge Z in the first place.

No `facts` have changed here, only politics.
0
Reply
Male 25,416
charged... but their will be an appeal!
0
Reply
Male 3,482
One thing I would like to know is if Martin had any injuries or marks (beside the obvious, of course).

They haven`t released that information, if they even have it. A good medical examiner would be able to find evidence of the struggle on Martin`s body that could have changed the case.

That`s assuming, of course, that they actually went ahead and examined the body before passing it along, which doesn`t seem likely considering they didn`t actually investigate the case at first.
0
Reply
Male 3,482
[quote]Quite. No law is perfect.[/quote]
See those statistics though?

The crime rates didn`t suddenly spike down with the passing of the SYG law in Florida. They were already going down at a pretty steady rate.

But the "justifiable homicide" rate tripled.

Hmm...
0
Reply
Male 3,482
[quote]She "thinks" Trayvon was pushed, but a witness would SEE one way or the other. [/quote]
Yeah, but there are no eye witnesses to that one way or another, except Z who, basic self-preservation logic would hold, is going to cover his ass.
0
Reply
Male 10,338
"After all, all I have to do is end up on the ground, yell for help and I can get away with the perfect murder!"

Quite. No law is perfect.
0
Reply
Male 3,482
Plus, if yelling for help justified shooting someone, then golly gee I`m off to get in a bar fight.

After all, all I have to do is end up on the ground, yell for help and I can get away with the perfect murder!
0
Reply
Female 2,602
[quote]@MacGuffin Also, why don`t you actually go read the Florida "Stand your ground" law before arrogantly correct others. You might find that some of the stuff you have been saying is inaccurate.[/quote]
Why don`t you show it to me, and prove me wrong?
0
Reply
Male 3,482
[quote]Ok? But one witness DID SEE them and said it was Zimmerman yelling.[/quote]
Well call that guy Hawkeye, cause apparently he could read lips during a fight from a distance in the dark to figure out which was was yelling better than any of the other people who heard the same yells and decided they were the yells of a younger man.
0
Reply
Female 2,602
[quote]Wait a sec. Why are you questioning the angle of the photo, and the race of the court officers?

Just curious.[/quote]
I`m questioning it, because I see using predominantly black escorting officers as a rather cynical way for a legal system that`s had to be embarrassed by public pressure into acting in this case, to show that the allegations of racism that were levelled at authorities for failing to act in the first place are unjustified.
0
Reply
Male 10,338
Wait a sec. Why are you questioning the angle of the photo, and the race of the court officers?

Just curious.
0
Reply
Male 599
@MacGuffin Also, why don`t you actually go read the Florida "Stand your ground" law before arrogantly correct others. You might find that some of the stuff you have been saying is inaccurate.
0
Reply
Male 599
@MacGuffin
The `pursuit` is irrelevant to this case. It`s a red-herring.
0
Reply
Female 2,602
Thanks, jendrian.
0
Reply
Male 2,516
@McGuffin:
0
Reply
Female 2,602
The BBC have just posted a video of Zimmerman`s first court appearance (another difference to the UK - we don`t allow cameras in courtrooms here, owing to the potential for influencing potential jurors).

Call me cynical, but is there a reason, do you think, why they chose these particular court officers and this particular camera angle for most of the video? :

Link

PS: What`s with the ridiculous limitations on photo sizes, IAB? I`d have liked to post that reasonably-sized photo directly, only I couldn`t because of the 600x400 size restriction.
0
Reply
Female 2,602
[quote]@MacGuffin: The prosecutor has to DIS-prove what Zimmerman says...[/quote]

Given the jumbled, rabid, uncorroborated ramblings I`ve seen you post on here that are clearly based at best on half-remembered `facts`, 5Cats, I know I`m wasting my time trying to explain this to either you or Crakr. However, as I`ve said, all the prosecution needs to do is use the ample available evidence to show that Zimmerman was the instigator here - the evidence already points to the conclusion that he was the one pursuing Martin, not the other way around. They also need to prove Zimmerman pulled the trigger. Both of these things are pretty easy to prove given the clear evidence that exists.

Given those premises, it`s for Zimmerman to establish by counter-argument that he wasn`t pursuing Martin when the altercation took place, if he wants to rely on "standing your ground" as a *defence* for his actions in the face of strong existing evidence to the contrary.
0
Reply
Male 41,079
News Item

The difference between an eye-witness and someone on the phone? She "thinks" Trayvon was pushed, but a witness would SEE one way or the other.
Several people heard the crys for help, but they aren`t certain WHO was yelling. Ok? But one witness DID SEE them and said it was Zimmerman yelling.
0
Reply
Male 41,079
@Altaru & @MacGuffin: The girlfriend said Martin spoke to Zimmerman FIRST.

So, what does that mean? That Z did NOT `confront` M? idk, but there`s no evidence to refute that, is there?

And @MacGuffin: The prosecutor has to DIS-prove what Zimmerman says, not the other way around.
0
Reply
Male 41,079
[quote]If you wanted fairness and justice then you would have called for his arrest after learning of this incident.[/quote]
@madest: Are you being stupid ON PURPOSE?
The LAW says he does NOT need to be arrested for self-defence, ok? IF there`s evidence to disprove that? Then arrest him!
This is exactly what I mean when I say "liberals want to change the law after the event" only when it suits their agenda of course.

But I suppose @madest is really pleased that the key fact in the DA`s case is "his shirt was tucked in!" What more evidence does anyone need, eh @madest?
0
Reply
Female 2,602
...flies in the face of available evidence is true.
0
Reply
Female 2,602
[quote]MacGuffin: Zimmerman doesn`t have to `prove` anything, it`s the state`s obligation to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. You got it backwards.[/quote]
No, it`s you that`s got it backwards, Crakr, as per usual. Zimmerman *does* have to prove that he didn`t instigate this by approaching and shooting Martin, if he wants to rely on "standing your ground" as a defence for his actions. That`s why they call his side of the courtroom "the defence", and standing your ground "a defence".

It`s not called the "entitlement to pursue and shoot children" law. If Zimmerman fails to contradict the significant evidence that exists, that`s exactly what he`ll be convicted of doing. His phonecall to police already establish who was following whom. If Zimmerman wants to later change his story to "yeah, I know I said, on tape, I was following him, but no, actually he was following me", it`s for him to convince a jury that fact that flies in
0
Reply
Male 10,338
@Madest: Maybe so. I seems like they give out mod status these days.
0
Reply
Male 3,482
[quote]What someone SAW, or what they HEARD?[/quote]
Correction: What some Anonymous witness CLAIMS he saw vs. what someone who the phone company could possibly verify was listening CLAIMS she heard.

Besides, all the first one shows is that Zimmerman was losing a fight. Doesn`t mean he didn`t start it.

Again, the only eye witness we have to what happened between Z leaving his vehicle and Z getting his ass beat is Z, and what do you think he`s going to claim?
0
Reply
Male 3,482
[quote]You guys seriously want to repeal a law that allows "Self Defense" as justifiable use of force?[/quote]
Justifiable use of force =/= "justifiable" use of deadly force based on a "reasonable suspicion."

Again, if you think a guy has a gun, and all he has is a hand-warmer, whose rights just became irrelevant? Even in jail you still have more life to live and more rights than the person you just shot dead based on some "reasonable suspicion."

And what about the fact that it allows you to PROVOKE a situation, then claim self-defense if the other person escalates? It`s a f*cking arms race, where the guy with the quickest weapon can walk away clean regardless of who actually started it.
0
Reply
Male 438
auburnjunky,

No I don`t think it warrents an ass beating, I do think it could be argued that Martin was feeling stalked and therefore felt threatened himself. I think the police failed initially to do a proper investigation of vetting Zimmermans story and tried to close the case, now it has spun out of control. The truth is in the details and unfortunately we do not have enough details.
0
Reply
Male 7,378
[quote]Firstly: Audio accounts are not admissible.[/quote] ------------
CrackerJacks gives out law degrees?
0
Reply
Male 10,338
"She`s just as valid a witness as some anonymous "John" who claims to have seen the events of the night."

Firstly: Audio accounts are not admissible.

Secondly: You may be right, but what`s a jury gonna believe? What someone SAW, or what they HEARD?
0
Reply
Male 3,482
And BTW, the girlfriend that you like to discredit?

She`s just as valid a witness as some anonymous "John" who claims to have seen the events of the night. For the duration of that phone call, what she claims to have heard is just as valid as some Anon claiming to have "seen" Z yelling for help, or any of the other people making claims to whose voice was yelling what.

All it would take is for the phone company to confirm that she was the one on the other line. If she wasn`t, there goes her credibility entirely. But if she was, you can`t just throw her away because she "wasn`t in the immediate area."
0
Reply
Male 3,482
[quote]getting out of a car and walking in the same direction warrants an ass beating? [/quote]
But that`s the assumption that that`s ALL Z did, and the only person we have who can give us any account otherwise... Is the accused.

After all, the other party involved is dead. It`s not even like we have two parties arguing over the actual events of the night. All we have is one person who doesn`t want to go to jail telling us what it would take to, you know, NOT go to jail.
0
Reply
Male 40,216

You guys seriously want to repeal a law that allows "Self Defense" as justifiable use of force?

And the next 20 people who are attacked can`t defend themselves because one moron "claimed" self defense ?

Over reacting much?
0
Reply
Male 8,689
auburnjunky-"I just figured it was a no-brainer that serial numbers follow the owners, and for that to happen, a registry must occur. "

To a certain degree. A serial number can usually be traced original purchaser. But no permit is required to actually purchase and/or own a gun.

Plus, I can buy or sell a firearm privately without any registration or tracing of the serial number taking place. Prudently, I will keep on hand a Bill of Sale that has signatures and serial numbers listed, so that when someone askes `what became of this firearm` I can prove that it was sold and no longer in my posession. (Plus will prudently report any thefts for the very same reason, in hope that should my firearm be recoverred, it will be returned to me)
0
Reply
Male 10,338
I can see that Otto, but basically, as you put it, getting out of a car and walking in the same direction warrants an ass beating?

I`m sorry. I don`t think so.
0
Reply
Male 438
"We don`t know if he "confronted" him directly at all."

auburnjunky,

Ok, change `confront` to `got out of his car` when he was under the presuppostion that Martin was drugged up, armed and and up to criminal activity. My point is that a reasonable person would not needlessly put himself in harms way, a reasonable person would wait for assistance and as an investigator this should have been a huge red flag to validate Zimmermans story step by step.

0
Reply
Male 10,338
No no. You probably know better than I do. I just figured it was a no-brainer that serial numbers follow the owners, and for that to happen, a registry must occur.
0
Reply
Male 8,689
auburnjunky-"How do they have a number to cross reference if the handgun has never been registered. "

Here`s a clue: MOST Homeowners know the make, model, calliber and serial number of their firearms. When any are stolen, it is law that it be reported to the police.

ANY gun confiscated by the police have their serial number recorded, even if they are to be kept and/or destroyed. These have been know to find their way back into the public.

Those two catagories comprise a list that the police can check firearms against. If they confiscate a gun, they can check it`s serial against the list of stolen guns.

Sure you want to keep playing? You still have not cited the law you claim exists.
0
Reply
Male 10,338
About the gun laws:

How do they have a number to cross reference if the handgun has never been registered. I would think you have to alert the ATF or some agency so they can track that fire arm.
0
Reply
Male 10,338
"I was just getting out of my vehicle to check the street name," which I believe was Z`s initial claim."

Z`s claim was, he was walking back to his vehicle after following Martin for a time.

I am not gonna debate that Zimmerman should, or shouldn`t have followed Martin. To say he "pursued" him is giving more weight to what he may have done.

I can follow someone for miles if I want. I can walk right behind them, and I have that right. I can be "pursuing" them while I do this, but if there is no running, and no overt hostility, I am simply walking in the same direction as a person. Doesn`t warrant me getting my ass kicked lol.
0
Reply
Male 8,689
auburnjunky-"Also, you still have to have a permit for the gun. That`s a federal law."

No, it`s not. But if you insist, please cite the law.

auburnjunky-"if I have a handgun, and it is not registered with the federal government, and I get caught with it, it gets taken, and I could be charged with holding an unregistered firearm."

You need to bone up on your law. There is no `permit` that is required to own a gun. There is not law that states any gun must be registered with the government.

The only reason a cop would run the numbers on a gun is to check to see if it was stolen and/or used in a crime. I`ve been stopped several times with a gun. They never checked numbers. They did, however, compliment me on my choice of weapon.
0
Reply
Male 3,482
[quote]Also, violent crimes against persons HAVE decreased since stand your ground, in every state that has adopted it.

Crime rates overall will never drop.[/quote]
Violent crime rates in Florida were already dropping. The rate of decrease didn`t accelerate after 2005, it stayed right on course.
0
Reply
Male 3,482
[quote]So we should all be able to carry, and show it off to deter crime. I can get behind that.[/quote]
Exactly.

Instead of waiting until they target people, people just shouldn`t be targets. That`s a stance I`m behind.
0
Reply
Male 3,482
[quote]All we know is he walked behind him, which he had the right to do. [/quote]
We know from his own words during the police call that he was following Martin at first.

Also, have you actually seen any of the maps of what happened floating around? Where altercation occurred doesn`t correspond in the least to "I was just getting out of my vehicle to check the street name," which I believe was Z`s initial claim.
0
Reply
Male 17,511
auburnjunky: Why do criminals feel such a desperate need for money ? Drugs. And why was Treyvon suspended from school ? Drugs.
0
Reply
Male 10,338
Also, violent crimes against persons HAVE decreased since stand your ground, in every state that has adopted it.

Crime rates overall will never drop. Criminals have to have a way to get money. If they can`t mug, they rob.
0
Reply
Male 10,338
"When was the last time you heard about a cop being mugged, though?"

So we should all be able to carry, and show it off to deter crime. I can get behind that.
0
Reply
Male 3,482
[quote]Altaru: Police and security guards carry their weapons visibly and people f*ck with them all the time, just saying.[/quote]
For starters, Police are under a lot more responsibility not to crack under pressure, since they can be punished for shooting first.

They also go looking for trouble, because it`s their job.

When was the last time you heard about a cop being mugged, though?
0
Reply
Male 3,482
[quote]I can guarantee that the law has saved way more people than it has killed.[/quote]
Sure. That`s why "justifiable" homicide rates are double those in non SYG states, and nearly tripled in Florida.

But the actual crime rates... Haven`t dropped proportionally.
0
Reply
Male 17,511
MacGuffin: Zimmerman doesn`t have to `prove` anything, it`s the state`s obligation to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. You got it backwards.
0
Reply
Male 17,511
Altaru: Police and security guards carry their weapons visibly and people f*ck with them all the time, just saying.
0
Reply
Female 2,602
[quote]All we know is he walked behind him, which he had the right to do. [/quote]
No, we know way more than that from available evidence. We know that, rather than merely having "walked behind" Martin, Zimmerman was instead actively following him, which signifies an entirely more proactive level of intent on his part than merely "walking behind" someone would. We also know that Zimmerman armed himself beforehand, and, upon concluding Martin to be up to no good (wrongly, as it turned out), he chose to continue pursuing him. Finally, we know that, after making those decisions, Martin ended up dead at Zimmerman`s hand.

It`s for Zimmerman to *prove* that he acted in self-defence given the above premises. It`ll be very difficult for him to do so, since all of the evidence points to the conclusion that the only reason there was an altercation is that Zimmerman chose to pursue Martin; that`s not standing your ground, that`s stalking and killing.
0
Reply
Male 10,338
"So he decides to confronat a drugged up armed criminal when he know cops are on their way."

OH! SHENANIGANS!

We don`t know if he "confronted" him directly at all.

All we know is he walked behind him, which he had the right to do.

Saying he didn`t have that right, is like saying I can attack someone who I don`t know, who is walking behind me on any street, at any time.
0
Reply
Male 3,482
... Even if all he had in his pocket was a hand-warmer.

[quote]I bet you think that if you outlaw guns that criminals would not have guns.[/quote]
I think that if someone is going to have a gun, they shouldn`t be like the criminals they`re trying to ward off. Don`t wait until someone picks a target to pull a game-changer, just don`t be a target in the first place.

If your gun is visible and easy to access, who`s going to f*ck with you?
0
Reply
Male 3,482
[quote]Get rid of a law that allows you to defend yourself if someone is threatening your life?[/quote]
A) I never said "get rid of." You`re getting as bad as 5Cats about making sh*t up as you go.

B) "Shoot first and ask questions later" is not defending yourself, it`s being paranoid.

Before, you were obligated to try and escape first, then resort to force if necessary.

Now, all it takes is "reasonable fear" to shoot first. See: man walking up to you, puts hand in coat pocket, what do you do? He has every right to be on the street, every right to wear his coat, and every right to put his hand in his pocket. (And according to the people on here, every right to confront you.)

Do you have the right to potentially take his life because you`re a paranoid jackass? Or should you try and get away and see if he follows you? Before, you had a responsibility to get away. Now, you can pull a gun and claim self-defense, even if a
0
Reply
Male 10,338
"So he decides to confronat a drugged up armed criminal when he know cops are on their way."

OH! SHENANIGANS!

We don`t know if he "confronted" him directly at all.

All we know is he walked behind him, which he had the right to do.

Saying he didn`t have that right, is like saying I can attack someone who I don`t know, who is walking behind me on any street, at any time.
0
Reply
Male 438
Zimmerman thought Martin was possibly armed and probably on drugs and definately up to no good. So he decides to confronat a drugged up armed criminal when he know cops are on their way. This is all I need to know to question Zimmermans motivation, he obviously on some level wanted and expected a confrontation. This does not make him guilty but as an investigater I certainly would have taken my time to go over his version of events with a fine tooth comb.
0
Reply
Male 10,338
You shouldn`t change "Stand your ground" based on this though. I can guarantee that the law has saved way more people than it has killed.
0
Reply
Male 3,482
[quote]Changing the law AFTER the fact is dratting stupid.[/quote]
Except that I`ve said the law should change all along, dipsh*t. As in, LONG before this case was relevant.

It`s just sad that it takes someone DYING to make a f*cking point.

I know the Constitution says you can`t charge someone based on a change of law after the act, but that doesn`t mean you can`t change the law to avoid it happening again.

Either way... The evidence that`s available shows that an *ARMED* man followed an *UNARMED* *INNOCENT* teenager under the assumption that said teenager was either guilty of something or planning to be(what happened to "innocent until proven guilty" there, hmm?), and that somewhere along the line the two got into a fight, Zimmerman started LOSING said fight, and he shot the teen.

From there, all we have is the statements of witnesses who didn`t see the start and the testimony of someone who doesn`t want to go to jail.
0
Reply
Male 10,338
*so.
0
Reply
Male 10,338
Do do I not know the "facts", or do I choose to find them out for myself, and not rely on the ratings driven media for all my information?

Lazy drats.
0
Reply
Male 10,338
"I suspect that was directed at me."

So you assumed I was directing it at you, which is an assumption, therefore assumptions were made.
0
Reply
Male 7,378
No assumptions were made. You are amongst the cadre of IABers who have done nothing but support Zimmerman w/o knowing the facts. If you wanted fairness and justice then you would have called for his arrest after learning of this incident.
0
Reply
Female 2,602
@auburnjunkie:

From your own link - "Zimmerman says the shooting was self defense. According to information released on the Sanford city website, Zimmerman said he was going back to his SUV when he was attacked by the teen."

Your article contains no independent corroboration that Zimmerman was going back to his car. We just have Zimmerman`s word for that version of events - just as I said.

The fact that a witness saw this pathetic little man getting his arse kicked, *after* he`d been on record as having been following the person giving the arse-kicking, does *not* constitute self-defence. And it doesn`t corroborate Zimmerman`s allegation that he was returning to his car before the altercation took place.

Unless Zimmerman can independently corroborate his allegation that he was not the instigator of this whole situation, he`ll be convicted of murder based on available evidence, and rightly so.
0
Reply
Female 47
I`ve always thought it should be left up to a jury to decide whether he acted out of self defense or not, isn`t that what that whole system is there for? And I`m assuming that a Grand Jury found enough evidence for them to charge him (pretty sure that`s how it works, correct me if I`m wrong).
So I`m happy about it.
0
Reply
Male 10,338
@Madest: <---- so you won`t have to ass-u-me

No. I supported justice and fairness the entire time.

Zimmerman was not getting a fair shake. He was being roasted by a slanderous media, who (admittedly) doctored the facts to make them overwhelmingly in Trayvon`s favor, because it was good for ratings.
0
Reply
Male 7,378
[quote]Not supporting Zimmerman you short sighted twit.
I support justice and fairness.[/quote] -----
I suspect that was directed at me. Your support for justice and fairness came with Zimmerman`s arrest. Up until that point you wished to see him walk free.
0
Reply
Female 74
I don`t get the whole, "We should just let the system do its job" thing. The thing is that it DID "do its job," and it did nothing. If not for the media exposure, there wouldn`t even BE a well-deserved trial.

Here are things that don`t make sense to me given that he claims full innocence:
(1) How was he "attacked" going back to his car when the location where Trayvon`s dead body was found appears to be so much closer Trayvon`s home than any street, road, or parking lot?
(2) Zimmerman broke Neighborhood watch protocol by carrying a gun when acting on their behalf.
(3) Zimmerman confronted a situation he thought to be "suspicious" against Neighborhood Watch guidelines and official advice.

And then coming onto the scene to find a dead, unarmed teen... there`s no way I could let this slide without an extensive investigation and making sure it went through the justice system.
0
Reply
Male 10,338
Not supporting Zimmerman you short sighted twit.

I support justice and fairness.
0
Reply
Male 7,378
@ all the Zimmerman supporters: HA HA!
0
Reply
Male 10,085
Thank god. I am so happy about this news. Because that means we don`t have to hear any more about this total non-story right?
0
Reply
Male 10,338
Why do you think they run the numbers? To see if the gun is registered?

Yep.
0
Reply
Male 40,216

Personally, I think Zimmerman`s a douche, but consider...

A "Crime" is when a written law is violated. It is not about right or wrong, good or bad. So it is possbile for a bad person to do a bad thing and not commit a crime, not be arrested. Yeah, that sucks, but all this drama and media hype only undermines a justice system that is already failing us in so many ways.

"Innocent Until Proven Guilty" ?
Not for George Zimmerman. Members of congress have stood up and proclaimed his guilt {For all the camera`s to catch with snappy 5-second sound byte style sentances.}

"Justice" includes justice for a person accused as well as for a victim.


0
Reply
Male 68
"Had that been the case, I wonder whether he`d have felt the need to follow black 17-year-old`s around, looking for trouble."

Why is following a black 17 y/o who`s in your neighborhood considered `looking for trouble`? Would it still be considered that if the 17 y/o were white?

Also, my best friend follows and talks to people who are in her neighborhood if they don`t look familiar. If they don`t belong she`ll escort them out of the neighborhood. Just sayin.
0
Reply
Male 616
Auburn, I carry conceiled, and none of my weapons are `registered`. I have been pulled for a traffic violation, and as per law, told the state trooper that I was armed. I surrenderd my weapon, he ran the serial numbers, returned it, complimented me on my choice of caliber, and said have a nice day.
0
Reply
Male 663
BTW, I`m 5`10, 180lbs mostly muscle, and I`m not even that large of a person.
0
Reply
Male 663
Just throwing it out there but 6`3 and 170 lbs (That`s right I think?) is a pretty damn skinny kid. On average, for about every inch taller you are, you`re supposed to be about 10 lbs heavier because of larger bones, organs, etc. Doesn`t mean that Martin couldn`t be a threat but he wouldn`t be particularly scary.

Also, to people calling him T-thugz, that doesn`t exactly make you sound unbiased : P

I`m going to try my best to withhold convictions. I think zimmerman is guilty of at least manslaughter honestly, but maybe he isn`t. We`ll see.
0
Reply
Male 10,338
Also, about the "child" thing.

6`3" attacks you. You are 5`10".

You don`t stop him and ask his age before you defend yourself.
0
Reply
Male 10,338
"Because I`ve not seen any interviews with "eye witnesses"."

This is the problem. The media has made this a public lynching.

DO NOT BELIEVE WHAT YOU ARE FED.

Here you go. News story from a local station, that was not reported nationally until the case had been public for more than a week.
0
Reply
Female 2,602
@auburnjunky: link, please, to support what you`re alleging happened. Because I`ve not seen any interviews with "eye witnesses". And the police weren`t there when the shots were fired. I have however heard a tape of Zimmerman speaking to a police Dispatcher, and admitting he was following a child whom he later shot and killed.
0
Reply
Male 10,338
"Yeah, this guy`s screwed no matter what happens."

IKR?! Even if he gets off, Sanford, Florida becomes a smoking rubble, and he will be found and killed later anyway.
0
Reply
Male 5,811
Yeah, this guy`s screwed no matter what happens.
0
Reply
Male 10,338
Don`t forget the eye witness account, and the account of the police, and the account of the Sanford prosecutor, etc etc.

Eye witness accounts trump a girlfriend on a cell phone lol.
0
Reply
Male 10,338
"But the point is that the laws should change"

This sounds like Bloomberg the other day...

"Our current gun laws promote vigilante justice."

NO! THEY PROMOTE NOT EVERYONE DYING!

If we get rid of the gun laws, only the criminals will have guns. Everyone will become an easy target.

"BUT AJ! ENGLAND HAS GUN RESTRICTIONS AND THE CRIMINALS DON`T HAVE GUNS!"

Yeah, this is true, but when England banned guns, everyone had muskets. ALL OF OUR CRIMINALS ALREADY HAVE SMALL GUNS!
0
Reply
Male 40,216

[quote]"But the point is that the laws should change" [/quote]
Get rid of a law that allows you to defend yourself if someone is threatening your life? Aren`t we overreacting here? What`s next, a law that says a woman cannot fight her rapist? Or why not just require everyone to put targets on their backs to make it easier for criminals.

I bet you think that if you outlaw guns that criminals would not have guns. AmIRight?
0
Reply
Female 2,602
[quote]the available evidence is that an *armed* man, *followed*, in a public place where he had just as much right to be there, an *unarmed* child, who he couldn`t possibly know his age unless he asked, and later shot him to death after the kid jumped him while he was walking back to his car That IS self defense.[/quote]

Really? Where`s the "proof" that he was retreating back to his car? Because so far the only "evidence" I`ve seen of that comes from the self-serving word of a man that nobody disagrees killed an unarmed child.
0
Reply
Male 10,338
"You have a right to keep and bear arms, which does not require a permit."

Dude, if I have a handgun, and it is not registered with the federal government, and I get caught with it, it gets taken, and I could be charged with holding an unregistered firearm.
0
Reply
Male 10,338
the available evidence is that an *armed* man, *followed*, in a public place where he had just as much right to be there, an *unarmed* child, who he couldn`t possibly know his age unless he asked, and later shot him to death after the kid jumped him while he was walking back to his car That IS self defense.
0
Reply
Male 616
A federal gun permit,(FFL)is only required if you are buying\selling firearms. You have a right to keep and bear arms, which does not require a permit. Check your local statutes. It`s always good to know your local laws.
0
Reply
Female 2,602
And if my uncle had tits he`d be my auntie.

Whatever "might have been" if Zimmerman had been a woman, let`s not lose sight of the fact that what *actually* appears to have happened here from the available evidence is that an *armed* man, *followed* an *unarmed* child, and later shot him to death. That`s not self-defence. That`s stalking and murder, whatever gender you are.
0
Reply
Male 10,338
If George had been Georgia, with a gun, and training, there wouldn`t have been a difference.....

Other than there would be no case right now, and the news wouldn`t have touched it.
0
Reply
Male 10,338
"Open carry laws depend on the state you are in, but a permit is not a federal requirement."

A carry permit is not, but that`s not what I was saying.

A federal handgun permit is indeed a federal requirement.
0
Reply
Female 2,602
[quote]Now before some chick calls me sexist for saying that...[/quote]
You honestly couldn`t make up a statement that stupid if you tried.
0
Reply
Female 2,602
[quote]if George had been born a woman named Georgia...[/quote]
Had that been the case, I wonder whether he`d have felt the need to follow black 17-year-old`s around, looking for trouble.
0
Reply
Male 616
Open carry laws depend on the state you are in, but a permit is not a federal requirement.
0
Reply
Male 934
Ok, what`s with the prosecutors appealing to the public like that? This is an announcement of an indictment, not an acceptance speech at the academy awards. "I`d like to thank..." Seriously, you`re supposed to be impartial as a prosecutor...
0
Reply
Male 10,338
"I recall a few of them saying "if Zimmerman is found guilty then I`ll take everything back", so he`s on the first step to be found guilty (or indeed innocent, yes) and still he`s defended to the death."

I think it`s more of a knee jerk reaction to all the "KILL ZIMMERMAN! HE GUILTY! HE GUILTY! HE KILLED THAT KID IN COLD BLOOD FOR NO REASON!" crap.

Let it go to trial, and if the verdict comes out against what you believe, DROP IT AND MOVE ON!

(Waits for a not guilty verdict, and riots.)
0
Reply
Male 10,338
"open carry laws, that allow you to carry a holstered pistol in the open with NO permit"

I think ALL carry laws should be open carry.

Also, you still have to have a permit for the gun. That`s a federal law.
0
Reply
Male 6,227
~Squrlz throws off his Hawaiian shirt and cavorts on the grass in an affirmation of his right to bare arms (and legs, and little squirrel butt)~
0
Reply
Male 616
@DeanoBoz: That`s kind of like owning a book, but not being able to read it outside of a library now isn`t it.
0
Reply
Male 195
@5Cats- Actually, we do have the right to acquire them, just not shoot them ;). From Wikipedia;
Canadian citizens can legally possess registered firearms of any class (non-restricted, restricted & prohibited) within their homes as long as the permit allows for it. Restricted and prohibited have specific rules attached to their ownership, and these firearms can only be fired at shooting ranges.
0
Reply
Male 650
Awww too bad. I saw him more as a vigilante.
0
Reply
Male 1,510
BTW. Most states (not mine) require safety classes before getting a concealed pistol permit. And background checks with no convictions etc.

Also, some states (mine) have open carry laws, that allow you to carry a holstered pistol in the open with NO permit...but if you concealed it you`d be breaking the law. Makes sense right???
0
Reply
Male 17,511
Altaru: I completely disagree with your `self-defense course` proof, in order to carry a gun.

One of the largest growing segments of gun ownership is women. The reason being is that women by nature are not as strong as men and are at a disadvantage. "God made man (and women), but Sam Colt made them equal,"

Now before some chick calls me sexist for saying that, mind you there are exceptions to the rule but they are rare.

I certainly know for a fact that if George had been born a woman named Georgia, there wouldn`t have been any nationwide outcry for `Justice` and the story wouldn`t have been blown out of proportion, as it has been, by the media.
0
Reply
Male 599
@Altaru He said you have to the right to Bare Arms because in Canada you don`t have the right to bear arms. Therefore your arms are bare.
0
Reply
Male 599
@5Cats What about Free-Falling? Last Dance With Mary Jane, and I won`t back Down? Those are the only 3 songs I listen to, but I listen to them a lot.
0
Reply
Male 2,700
I dont think they could get 2md Degree murder. Aggravated Manslaughter at best assuming this guy take a plee deal. But on the counterside, the "Street Justice" this man has had to endure should be on the record when it comes to sentencing. A message needs to be sent to all the hatemongers that handed out his address, bullied is family, terrorized people who others THOUGHT were at his address. In other words a message needs to be sent:

LET THE SYSTEM DO ITS JOB!!!

I wonder, how much Black on Black crime has occurred since this "Murder" that no one is protesting about...

....Goddamn Hypocrites
0
Reply
Male 41,079
[quote]But the point is that the laws should change[/quote]
And that is MY point exactly: "liberals" feel that the "law" does not apply except when they "feel" it does.
Changing the law AFTER the fact is dratting stupid. OK?
0
Reply
Male 3,482
[quote]@Altaru I think you missed the joke...[/quote]
Clearly. Explain?

[quote]However, the law is still what it is, and it will still be applied as-is in the case of Z-Booty Vs T-Thugz.[/quote]
I understand that completely, and it holds no bearing on the case. But the point is that the laws should change, and if it takes cases like this to bring that to light, then that`s further proof of the fact...

[quote]I personally agree with you on more education to be required in order to obtain a concealed-carry permit.(Although not necessarily a lengthy self-defense course)[/quote]
If you`re going to carry a last-resort tool that makes any situation life-or-death (as people on here have said, if you have a gun, you can`t AFFORD to lose), you should have to prove you have more options than "A) kill someone or B) die."
0
Reply
Male 41,079
@ivran: Oh THANKS! I just spewed all over my keybord! Ugh!
Ok, SOME songs by them are OK.
Barely!
Don`t Fear
Godzilla!
0
Reply
Male 599
Now, I`m gonna watch the new episode of South Park, and then it`s off to bed with me(For real this time)!
0
Reply
Male 599
@5Cats I think now would be appropriate time to reveal one of my most passionate guilty pleasure: Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers. I know some of it`s cheesy, but it`s just so awesome!
0
Reply
Male 599
@Altaru If you disagree with the law, that`s all fine and dandy. However, the law is still what it is, and it will still be applied as-is in the case of Z-Booty Vs T-Thugz. I personally agree with you on more education to be required in order to obtain a concealed-carry permit.(Although not necessarily a lengthy self-defense course)
0
Reply
Male 599
@Altaru I think you missed the joke...
0
Reply
Male 41,079
@Altaru: He had a "carry" liscence. What more do you want?
0
Reply
Male 3,482
[quote]Right to Bare Arms[/quote]
A) You spelled "bear" wrong (and it IS "BEAR arms")

B) BEAR ARMS means to CARRY them. Nothing about concealing them. You can carry a gun over your clothing in an underarm holster, or a leg holster... Just because you can`t hide it doesn`t mean you can`t carry it.
0
Reply
Male 41,079
Mirrors
One of the tunes that alerted me to the wonder that is Blue Oyster Cult!
0
Reply
Male 41,079
"Right to Bare Arms"

Right.

Get it?

I so wish we had such rights in Canada! I have NO rights at all in regards to firearms aquisition.
0
Reply
Male 41,079
[quote]Because AC/DC is.[/quote]
Ugh! Oh! Ok, they`re pretty good, I`ll admit that.
But BOC is #1 FOR ME! Bwaaaahahahaha!
And there ain`t nothing you can do about it ;-)
0
Reply
Male 3,482
The only thing that makes guns different from speech and assembly is that they can F*CKING KILL PEOPLE.

But does that sound like something that warrants MORE, or LESS responsibility?

[quote]The right to hide it? It`s a basic American right![/quote]
I`d like to see where the Constitution supports you on THAT one, hmm?

[quote]Changing the "law" AFTER the facts is typical "liberalism" eh?[/quote]
No, I`ve always thought hiding weapons was cowardly bullsh*t. If you don`t want someone mugging you, be a man and show that you`re ready to blow their brains out. Don`t wait until someone picks you as a target, just don`t be a target in the first place.
0
Reply
Male 6,737
Wow. I hadn`t read the last 2 pages (most recent pair) before I posted below.

5Cats it just plain trolling. Not with any goal in mind, from what I can see, other than to try and ruffle the feathers of those with different political views to him.

Oh and only in America would a murder case come down to politics, its a terrible state of affairs if the self-professed "number 1 country" stoops to such lows. Or rather it`s citizens do.
0
Reply
Male 5,192
"Why can`t we all just agree? BOC is the #1 band in all history!"

Because AC/DC is.
0
Reply
Male 3,482
[quote]and it`s hard to physically fight back in a situation like that.[/quote]
Actually, it`s relatively easy if you know how.

And a good self-defense course would teach you how, BTW.

Still, I don`t see how the right to own a gun translates to the right to hide it until you want to yell "surprise!" and shoot someone because you were losing a fight, especially if it`s one you started.

It`s cowardly, to be honest. Sounds like something a Wild West bad guy would do, rather than some "Champion of Justice."

And, expanding on my "rights and responsibilities" spiel... We have the RIGHT to freedom of speech, but a RESPONSIBILITY to not use it to commit slander or libel, correct?

We have a RIGHT to freedom of assembly and protest, but a RESPONSIBILITY to not cause problems for the public with them. It`s not like you can suddenly hold a meeting int the middle of a crowded street.

(Cont.)
0
Reply
Male 5,192
"I 100% agree with you @Markus! However, I see the division as an achievement of "the left" whilke the "right" tries to treat everyone as equals."

0
Reply
Male 6,737
Jesus.

A number of members on this site must be professional trolls.

I recall a few of them saying "if Zimmerman is found guilty then I`ll take everything back", so he`s on the first step to be found guilty (or indeed innocent, yes) and still he`s defended to the death.

Sigh.
0
Reply
Male 41,079
@Altaru: The right to hide it? It`s a basic American right! Perhaps not all States agree, but Florida does! So there!
Changing the "law" AFTER the facts is typical "liberalism" eh?

Kick Out The Jams
0
Reply
Male 3,482
[quote]but our rights are not taken away on the condition that we are physically fit.[/quote]
That`s the problem with "rights" that aren`t tempered by responsibilities. Stupid people get to abuse them, and this kind of crap is the result.

Besides, you have the right to own a gun.

No one said ANYTHING about the right to hide it.
0
Reply
Male 41,079
This Ain`t The Summer Of Love

Why can`t we all just agree? BOC is the #1 band in all history!
0
Reply
Male 599
@Gerry1of1 Actually I think I`ll take a break to bang my wanger around a bit, then I`ll probably go to bed or read, but I`ll check back in once more later. night guys.
0
Reply
Male 41,079
I Agree @Gerry1~
Me 262!
0
Reply
Male 40,216

This whole thread is entirely too serious so I`m
putting this photo up to lighten the mood.
Take a breath, smile, and resume agueing after
a 5 minute break.


0
Reply
Male 599
As told by Z-booty*
Derp, I feel stupid T-Thugz can`t tell the story.
0
Reply
Male 599
@RedOnTheHead
Yea, we all knew that.
0
Reply
Male 599
@Altaru Right, that would have prevented a dead T-thugz, but our rights are not taken away on the condition that we are physically fit. While, we don`t know the details on the altercation between Z-booty and T-thugz, we know the story, as told by T-thugz and the mysterious eyewitness, T-thugz was gettin his ass torn up, and it`s hard to physically fight back in a situation like that.
0
Reply
Male 99
According to this article the arguement that he was told not to follow thus making him the aggressor will not work.

http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/article1222930.ece
0
Reply
Male 41,079
@goaliejerry: I mean no disrespect, but the two are essentially the same thing. At least as it applies to this case.
So dozens of States have "castle" laws, and Florida has "Stand Your Ground". OK?
They`re the same thing! If someone attacks you, you have a "right" to defend yourself!
So: in the Z vs M case: IF Z was attacked OR in fear of his life? Free! Not even close.
IF: Z attacked M? Well, not free! Outside of the law, eh?
Simple really.
Last Days Of May (live)
0
Reply
Male 3,482
Personally, I think anyone applying for a concealed carry permit should have to take self-defense classes, just to prove that they won`t resort to what`s supposed to be a last resort right away.

After all, if some of the people on here are anything to go by, half these gun-toters would shoot first if a guy came up and reached into his coat-pocket for a business card... "I thought he might be reaching for a weapon, and he does looks pretty suspicious!"

Think about it: If Zimmerman could have fought back with his fists, this whole mess could have been avoided with a couple assault charges and some hospital fees.

Instead, it`s a dead teenager, a public spectacle, and a distinct possibility of riots.

And it`s all because of "Big Man Syndrome," when a bitch gets his hands on a gun and thinks he`s in control of every situation because he can shoots his way out if he has to...
0
Reply
Male 599
@goaliejerry That clause does not apply though, since what we are discussing is lethal force. That clause is for non-lethal force.
0
Reply
Male 2,841
Maybe now we can move on to another story. This one was so drating boring.
0
Reply
Male 4,014
"A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force."

That IS the common law standard. That changed NOTHING, just made it clear common law standard remained unchanged.
0
Reply
Male 41,079
You betya! @CrakrJak!
Blue Oyster Cult is my all-time favorite band!
Check out the links below, or this one:


Perfect Water
0
Reply
Male 4,014
5 Cats -

The name "stand your ground" is misleading because the entire law, Fla. Sta. 766012 et seq., is actually reform of several different aspects of self defense law, not just the duty to retreat.

The castle doctrine means you don`t have a duty to retreat in your own home. It`s an exception to the duty to retreat. In American common law, even if you shoot someone in your home, you still could be tried and would have to defend by proving you acted reasonably. Stand your ground removes that problem by creating a presumption that you acted reasonably.

It means this - you can get a murder charge dismissed before trial based on lack of evidence without having to go to the jury. Without the presumption, it would always be a question for the jury, couldn`t dismiss based of defense of self defense. Now, prosecutor has to prove to the judge that your defense is bullcrapmbeforemthencase ever gets to the jury
0
Reply
Male 17,511
5Cats: I see you`re taking my advice about the music. ;-)
0
Reply
Male 41,079
[quote]had no place carrying a gun to begin with.[/quote]
Except @NightHack: that he had a legal permit to do so? You know, obeyed the law? Like most folks do, eh? You got a counter arguement to that? No? Then enjoy my BOC videos!
0
Reply
Male 41,079
"I hate how it divides people."
I 100% agree with you @Markust! However, I see the division as an achievement of "the left" whilke the "right" tries to treat everyone as equals.
While I`m sure you disagree (and it`s your right to!) I see it EVERY DAY in the MSM that the left wishes nothing but evil upon all of us. The "right" has to be better by default! No arguements needed!

Astronomy
0
Reply
Male 4,014
776.012 - reaffirms common law standard for lawful use of self-defense; abrogates common law duty to retreat.

776.013 - creates presumption in the home that reasonal fear of death, etc., exists. In a normal criminal case, evidence is presented against you, and you have to refute it. The presumption shifts the analysis - you`ve proven you acted reasonable, the government has to go further and prove you didn`t. It raises the evidentiary bar, and a court mayndismissmfor failure to overcome the presumption.

776.032 - criminal / civil immunity - also Requires govt to pay atty fees if they prosecute and lose.

776.085 - this one stops the "I shot my robber and he sued me" problem. Not only does the law make the losing plaintiff pay, but if he`s in jail, he also loses privileges!

It`s clearly written to prevent criminal and civil litigation against self-defenders.
0
Reply
Male 99
Anybody heard of Tyler Winstead? Just wondering if it`s news outside the area. A 14 year old black kid shot last week two doors from home. His friend also black says the shooter was a black man with a white beard. The thing is when police went to serve a warrant on his friends house the whole family was gone and nobody`s seen them for about five days. the D.A. isn`t talking and no one knows if they`re hiding because the kid was a witness or if they just took off. They held a candlelight vigil for the kid and buried him yesterday but nobody`s raising hell about it.The kid is just as dead as Treyvon Martin.
0
Reply
Male 400
This poor Zimmerman guy is gonna get crucified because of all the damned liberals. Such a shame
0
Reply
Male 204
Well, it`s about time. the man shot and killed someone. I`m baffled that it took this long to charge him, since he was basically acting as a vigilante and had no place carrying a gun to begin with.
0
Reply
Male 41,079
vv Yes, the whole point of "castle laws" is to PREVENT litigation against the innocent! If YOU get attacked, why should you goto jail? Huh?

Sure it`s possible ther could be `abused`. That`s true of EVERY LAW ever made! Reality, it`s amazingly consistant.

"Lie detecters" (polygraph) and "truth serums" (drugs) are 100% NOT accurate!
My own fater (rest his soul) "beat" the polygraph and while it said he was telling lies? He was telling the 100% truth. (It was a test, back in the 70`s to see if it was true. It was not)

I`ve been subjected to a "police polygraph" and it`s just another form of torture. The bright light, the phone book. I`ll never make that mistake again!
0
Reply
Male 5,192
I give up. You are so deep in the sensational conservative world you can`t see how biased and partisan you are. I`ve been there. I know how crazy opinion media can make a person. It is not a healthy environment. That is why I push so hard for both of the made up sides to give it up. Negativity attracts more negativity. The only hate I have in my heart anymore is for opinion media. I hate what it does to people. I hate how it divides people. I hate how it makes enemies out of people. Some day you will break free from this damaging lifestyle and you will understand.
0
Reply
Male 17,511
davymid: [quote]Let the trial go ahead, and let`s see what drops out.[/quote]

Here is where I have to disagree. If the cops and the DA feel there is not enough evidence to charge a suspect, it is their duty to let them go free.

Charging people who are very likely innocent is wrong. The police used to use `Dragnets` to `see what drops out` and it was found to be unconstitutional. In the USA you`re innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around like it is in Mexico and other countries.

I heard some people on CNN/Nancy Grace calling for a mandatory lie detector test and/or `truth serum` be used on Zimmerman, WTF?!

That`s just so screwed up that it made me livid.
It didn`t help that my ISP was down all damn day because some idiot didn`t call the `call before you dig` hotline and severed their fiber optic cable. >-(
0
Reply
Male 41,079
[quote]5Cats... I despise that particular mod as well.[/quote]
I always knew you are good people @Altaru!
:hugs!:
0
Reply
Male 599
@goaliejerry Also, even if the proportionality issue came into play. It is not evidence for murder.
0
Reply
Male 41,079
VV @crakrJak: I have indeed noticed that! Although not with the times involved.
I tend to submit "in bunches" and sometimes many get approved, other times they VANISH!
So: why do they vanish at all? What`s up with that?
What possible `rational` explaination could be offered?
If @FancyLad said: "Oh I deleted those because they`re boring" I`d be OK with that. It`s HIS site after all! BUT I`ve complained, and others have too, about ONE particular `mod` to no effect.

It "burns my soul" eh?

@markust: Well I agree that "the media is playing us for fools". But to ME that means they`re trying to spoon-feed us "liberal pablum". I do understand that you`re no fan of the MSM and prefer a free-thinking approach. That still doesn`t account for the millions of sheeple who believe every word the DNC spouts...
0
Reply
Male 599
deadly force. The common law you speak of does not apply in this case since the Stand your Ground law explicitly permits deadly force in said life-threatening situation. There is no mention of proportionality. Deadly force is deadly force.
0
Reply
Male 599
@goaliejerry First of all, I didn`t go to law school. Secondly, here is the section of Florida`s "stand your ground" law that defines defending one`s person:
776.012&#8195;Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:

(1)&#8195;He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
(2)&#8195;Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.

The law states the person is "justified in using deadly force". A gun is dead
0
Reply
Male 1,510
The problem with the disproportionate force argument is that Z had a gun. So if he was assaulted until he was knocked out, that gun could have been used against him. Guns escalate violence, unfortunately for Travon.

It`s not very hard to find the actual law for Stand Your Ground:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand-your-ground_law#Florida

Here`s the important part:
"a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself"

What`s reasonable fear? What`s great bodily harm? Still subjective.
But there is nothing about matching forces or the like.
0
Reply
Male 41,079
@goaliejerry: you`ve utterly FAILED to understand the "castle laws" which "stand your ground" is based on.
Here in Canada, I kid you not, if I `show a rifle` to a home invader armed with a knife, I WILL GOTO JAIL! srsly! It has happened hundreds of times. I will be a "criminal" for waving a .22 and he will be a "victem" after smashing down my door, and threatening to stab me.

@davymid: that has not been my observation here at IAB (nevermind the `real world`!). Sweet dreams and best of luck!

Facts:
Trayvon MArtin: 6`2", 160+ on suspension for drugs.
Zimmerman: 5`9" 170, champion of black people`s rights.

The facts DO NOT MATTER to the "liberals" ok? All that matters is the "cause".
0
Reply
Male 3,482
5Cats...

I despise that particular mod as well. He`s as much of an imbecile and bigot as OldOllie, on the opposite end of the spectrum.

I have yet to figure out how the hell he became a mod in the first place. He has always openly displayed bias, and even outright malice, which are NOT good traits for someone who is supposed to be an impartial moderator.

And I do have a question for the mods: Are you guys allowed to approve your own submissions? If so, it would explain how so many of THAT mod`s retarded alien posts get through...
0
Reply
Male 5,192
5Cats, you completely missed my point. Step back and take a look at yourself.
0
Reply
Male 4,014
"Disproportionate force doesn`t exist in Florida`s stand-your-ground laws."

Stand your ground laws abrogated the common law duty to retreat before using lethal force in self-defense. They also created a presumption that a person using deadly force in self defense in any place they had a right to be was in reasonable apprehension of imminent death, great bodily harm, or rape. And they abrogate the American rule that all litigants bear their own costs by the amazingly unusual provision that someone found innocent by lawful use of self-defense has their attorney fees paid by the state!

They DID NOT abrogate the common law regarding use of disproportionate force in self-defense.

Where did you go to law school? Show me the citation to Florida authority holding that the stand your ground law abrogated the common law duty to not use disproportionate force in self-defense.

I`ll wait.
0
Reply
Male 5,192
"They do it heavily on the televised stories. The bias still exists in the online stories, but it is more subtle."

That is exactly why I do not watch cable news. When a story is spun to the point where it no longer resembles the original story that to me is a lie.

It is a lot harder to get away with lies in the written form. That is why I only read my news.
0
Reply
Male 17,511
5Cats: I believe that submissions with a conservative viewpoint have a better degree of success if they are submitted at a certain time of the day. I believe that to be the time that a certain mod isn`t logged in. Overnight and early morning are the worst times, statistically.

Fairer minded mods seem to be around just after lunch, pacific time.
0
Reply
Male 1,510
<sarcasm>

Because the liberals identify with T-thug, just trying to do a little burglarizing with assault on the side and some bastard shoots them.

And the conservatives identify with Z-cracker just out to protect the neighborhood and suddenly gets attacked and like a hero shoots the thug.

</sarcasm>
0
Reply
Male 41,079
[quote]You`re smarter than that 5Cats.[/quote]
Well THANKS @markust! I`m really honoured by that! srsly: my heart is all warm and fuzzy now.

I`ve submitted several posts which show that:
-the MSM has "whitened" Zimmerman`s photo
-the MSM has "edited" the 911 call to make Zimmerman sound racist.
-the MSM has ONLY shown pictures of 14 year-old Martin, despite more recent pictures being available.

ANY ONE of these would amount to bias. All combined? A witch hunt? Excessive bigotry? There isn`t a term of this sort of one-sided "reportage" on a subject.
0
Reply
Male 599
@markust123 They do it heavily on the televised stories. The bias still exists in the online stories, but it is more subtle. Recently it seems that CNN(I think that`s the right one) has been trying to stay neutral with this story due to the egregious "editing error" in the phone call with the police. IMO, I think that should be grounds for a slander case, but nothing will ever come of it.
0
Reply
Male 12,138
Let the trial go ahead, and let`s see what drops out. If the man is declared innocent, then he`s innocent in my book. If he`s guilty, then let the dice roll that way.

If I met OJ Simpson in the street, I wouldn`t accost him for either being a murdering bastard nor a poor victim. The courts found him innocent. Why should this case be any different?

And with that, I`m off to bed. Have to draw an "X" on the map tomorrow on where my company should drill a $250 million deepwater oil well. No pressure.
0
Reply
Male 12,138
[quote]See, that`s what differentiates the Z from the M sides. The M side DOES NOT WAIT for a "trial" with stuff like "laws" and "facts". THEY KNOW 100% what happened and "truth" need not apply![/quote]
No. Just no. 5Cats, Dude, stop. Not everyone who has a different political viewpoint from yours is automatically a liar and a hypocrite. I think it was Markust first pointed it out (correct me if I`m wrong), but the MSM, and yes I include Fox News in that, as very much Mainstream Media, gets their business out of dividing society. This partisanship is kinda sad, and is pretty much an American phenomenon.
0
Reply
Male 4,014
Listen, his case is simple, and those discussing it don`t generally understand self-defense law. Even right wingers who should know better ignore this basic precept of self defense law.

YOU CAN ONLY USE FORCE IN SELF DEFENSE PROPORTIONATE TO THE THREAT.

The righty nut jobs say "ohhhhhh he was attacked! He was attacked! Therefore, um, he can shoot an unarmed man (see, you can`t even say that and feel good about yourself).

But here is the law.

If a 100 pound woman is attacked by a 200 lbs man, she can shoot - the threat is very large compared to her ability to defend herself. But a 200 lbs man attacked by a 200 lbs man cannot pull a gun.

Know where I learned this? AN NRA HANDBOOK ON SELF DEFENSE I RECIEVED WHEN I JOINED.

You can`t stab someone who slaps you. See how that rule applies to Zimmerman?
0
Reply
Male 5,192
"I don`t think it`s so much gun-rights as it is self-defense rights. Also, the left-wing media turning this into a racial issue definitely helped stir up the right-winged opposition."

The right also played up race trying as hard as they could to paint Trayvon as a gangster. Everyone is guilty of blowing this one way out of proportion. Again it is the media playing us all for fools.
0
Reply
Male 3,482
[quote]@Altaru He also said he was kidding[/quote]
I figured he was kidding about the parts after that, about the Black Panthers paying legal fees and all...

Or does no one else ever open sarcasm with a genuine statement? I do it all the time.
0
Reply
Male 41,079
[quote]I was looking at the Live Submission page and one of my submissions wasn`t there.[/quote]
@ivran: sometimes that means it was approved and removed from the pool. However: it could also mean a Mod looked at it and: a) thought it was a repost. b) thought it was crap.
OR in the case of "you know who" (madest) HE decided for us that it was BAD and deleted it!

Hooray! For liberalism! THEY decide FOR YOU what you should and should not see! Heaven forbid you should see the truth and form your own opinions!

Since I`ve been recording MY submissions for a while now, I know for a fact that `several` have vanished from the pool and NOT been on IAB.
Even one that I submitted twice.

I still :heart: IAB. It`s a wonderful place, all things considered. Still I do wish certain "mods" were no able to impose THEIR viewpoint on us all by deleting ANY opposing opinions.

Just me. Wishfully thinking.
0
Reply
Male 5,192
"However, the MSM has ONLY presented ONE side. THAT to me is a disgrace."

I read CNN.COM, Foxnews.com and MSNBC.com most every day to help me better come to the truth of the news. I stay completely away from cable news including clips. Your MSM statement is absolute BS. All three sites have been reporting pretty much the same thing. It just makes you sound like you only get your news from once source. It makes you sound ignorant. You`re smarter than that 5Cats.
0
Reply
Male 599
@goaliejerry If this had happened in a state like Alabama, then, yes he would be guilty(Not of murder necessarily, but definitely manslaughter).
0
Reply
Male 599
@goaliejerry
Disproportionate force doesn`t exist in Florida`s stand-your-ground laws.
0
Reply
Male 4,014
While he is guilty (I support stand your ground laws, but he used disproportionate force even if he was attacked by an unarmed man), I feel bad that he won`t be able to get a fair trial due to the huge amount of publicity.
0
Reply
Male 599
guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
0
Reply
Male 41,079
Hi @davymid! *friendly wave!*

I`ve been so busy listening to BOC I fell behind at the IAB! lolz!

[quote]suffice to say that it was predictable.[/quote]
By me too, but I`d bet for entirely different reasons...
[quote]If he`s convicted, then I`ll call him a criminal.[/quote]
See, that`s what differentiates the Z from the M sides. The M side DOES NOT WAIT for a "trial" with stuff like "laws" and "facts". THEY KNOW 100% what happened and "truth" need not apply!
0
Reply
Male 599
@markust123 I don`t think it`s so much gun-rights as it is self-defense rights. Also, the left-wing media turning this into a racial issue definitely helped stir up the right-winged opposition.
0
Reply
Male 599
@davymid It is somewhat reasonable. However, my outlook on the case is going to be determined by the evidence revealed in the case. To convict someone of MURDER, you have to prove it without a shadow of a doubt. That`s one of the reasons why Casey and her booty-call OJ didn`t get convicted with anything. Sure, it was a reasonable accusation in the Anthony case to claim that Casey was at least somewhat responsible for her child`s death. Most people(including her parents after a while) agreed on that. However, since there was not enough proof to convict her of MURDER, she was let off. That`s how the American legal system works, and that`s how this court case works. If evidence comes out that prooves that Zimmerman was the one beating Treyvon up "just because he was black", then sure, I`ll see him being convicted as justice. However, if no further evidence is revealed than what we have now, I`m not going to accept the verdict as fair, as the evidence we have now does not prove
0
Reply
Male 5,192
"it was very predictable who would be pro-Z and pro-J. The former being American right-wing conservatives and the latter being American left-wing liberals."

I have been saying all along that this is the perfect media storm. Conservatives have to support the gun rights at all cost and liberals have to support the minority at all costs. There is no winning with this one, no backing down, and the media knows it. We have all been played for fools, and continue to be played for fools.
0
Reply
Male 12,138
[quote]@davymid I don`t support Zimmerman, I support the media and general public not making harsh accusations towards him before more evidence gets released and before the official verdict from the jury.[/quote]
In that case, we wholeheartedly agree.
0
Reply
Male 41,079
"There are red flags on both sides of this story."
I actually agree 100% @markust! It`s true enough, and I believe I`ve said that from the get-go.
However, the MSM has ONLY presented ONE side. THAT to me is a disgrace.

Blue Oyster Cult:
White Flags
ETI
Astronomy
0
Reply
Male 599
@markust123
Why would it? T-Thugz isn`t on trial. No one is trying to prove him guilty of anything.
0
Reply
Male 599
@davymid I don`t support Zimmerman, I support the media and general public not making harsh accusations towards him before more evidence gets released and before the official verdict from the jury.
0
Reply
Male 12,138
Also, to quote yourself from earlier in this thread:

[quote]But that`s the "liberal rule" eh? If you don`t like the law, just ignore it![/quote]
I can see where this court case is going. If Z is convicted by lawful trial, the right-wingers will say it was a trial by media, and it was unfair.

But, I say, let`s not all be armchair judge, jury and executioner, let`s see what happens in court. If he`s convicted, then I`ll call him a criminal. If he`s exonerated, then I`ll call him an innocent man who defended himself.

Surely that`s not an unreasonable position?
0
Reply
Male 5,192
"Innocent until proven guilty. A proper STFU to you all..."

As long as that goes for both sides of this story.
0
Reply
Male 599
@5Cats
I was looking at the Live Submission page and one of my submissions wasn`t there. I thought it was a pretty good one too! (My past submissions have been pretty dumb, I admit)
0
Reply
Male 12,138
[quote]@davymid: Bandwaon jumping? Not from the "Saint Trayvon" side eh? THEY didn`t ignore facts and expect emotion to outweigh `law` heck no!

It`s what the so-called "pro-Zimmerman" side has been saying all along: let the facts speak for this case[/quote]

To be serious for a moment, it was very predictable who would be pro-Z and pro-J. The former being American right-wing conservatives and the latter being American left-wing liberals. I don`t see any particular distinction in one side being more reasonable than the other, so partisan is American politics. Let me add that I don`t particularly understand why it was so predictable who would support whom, suffice to say that it was predictable.
0
Reply
Male 41,079
Dang! My Blue Oyster Cult linky got cutoff!
Lolz!
Oh well, the click still works!

Why don`t we say his name?
Because he BANHAMMERS those who disagree with him! That`s why.

And while I could change my name from "5Cats" to "1Cat" (sadly) I choose NOT to!
0
Reply
Male 17,511
I believe there is way too much reasonable doubt to prove 2nd degree murder, even proving a lesser charge of manslaughter was over reaching.

As far as Angela Corey`s claim that community pressure didn`t have anything to do with their decision to prosecute, She`s lying out her ass.

Also, screw Nancy Grace. She makes it nearly impossible for a fair impartial jury to be found. Grace puts people on trial, lies, distorts and spreads rumors.
0
Reply
Male 41,079
@DuckBoy: He`s a pot-smoking Scientologist? I totally missed the Scientology part of his "bio".
I don`t really care what his beliefs are, HE has offended ME on so many occasions that it`s a blood fued now. idk what I ever did to him! Really I don`t!

@DingDingDong: Rim jobs don`t work on the IAB mods: either they`re honest folks (most of them) or sickening perverts (@FancyLad) (I have photos!) OR they`re so dead set in their `liberal` ways they`re never going to change (TWO of them who shall remain nameless).

That was a good song, not bad at all.


U2

Argent
Bl
Male 5,192
There are red flags on both sides of this story. It will be interesting to see what the trial produces. The people who are so sure of their sides innocence are cracking me up. You are so blinded by your ideology you can`t open your eyes or ears for a second. How can you learn and grow if you can`t listen?
0
Reply
Male 1,510
I remember him gloating about how he cleanses the submissions of 5cats posts. Why don`t you guys say his name? I forget who it is and I want to know who the fascist is.
0
Reply
Male 3,667
Yeah, 5Cats, I know about "the mod who believes that aliens have visited Earth on multiple occasions yet unrelentlessly mocks those who believe in an omnipotent Guy in the sky".

Though I didn`t realize people were still submitting things in the case as I didn`t know there were developments, sans this one.
0
Reply
Male 452
Innocent until proven guilty. A proper STFU to you all...
0
Reply
Male 41,079
@davymid: Bandwaon jumping? Not from the "Saint Trayvon" side eh? THEY didn`t ignore facts and expect emotion to outweigh `law` heck no!

It`s what the so-called "pro-Zimmerman" side has been saying all along: let the facts speak for this case.

Welcome to the "right side" @davymid! We have milk and cookies!

@DuckBoy87: The "submissions" have been dieing down because MY (and others`) submissions have been deleted from the "live submissions" database.
By "persons unknown".

And by that I mean: A particular "mod" who has claimed on several occasions he deletes MY submissions sight unseen.

Yeah, that`s "vey liberal" of IAB for shure...
0
Reply
Male 1,510
-Sees that davymid is red, so he`s a mod, clicks his bio, sees that his favorite song is Chris Cornell Seasons, that`s one of my favs, find it on youtube, now reminiscing of mid 90s music:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TksqEIl1uxU

</buttkissingIABmod>
0
Reply
Male 321
@davymid

Or we could hunt him down, string him up, and dance around his funeral pyre that we`ll make out of his most treasured belongings.
0
Reply
Male 3,667
I do agree with you, davy, but the submissions on the subject have been dying down, so it`s not as bad anymore.
0
Reply
Male 1,510
@davymid I`ll just say that I enjoy "debating" it here and I`ve changed some of my views from writing my own comments and reading others. Like how I now think a trial is a good thing; it will be a much more constructive forum for determining what actually happened than what`s coming from the media and race baiters.
Also arguing on the internet is like running in the special olympics...I`m not going to finish that line.
0
Reply
Male 599
@davymid Because that is no fun. This site is supposed to cure boredom, is it not? Doing this kills my boredom(aka my productivity).
0
Reply
Male 12,138
Here`s a radical idea: how about we all moderate a bit and see what the court case comes up with rather than us all jumping on the bandwagon one way or the other? Which is exactly what many (sensible) I-A-Bers were advocating from the get-go...
0
Reply
Male 1,510
I`ll kill the 2nd Degree Murder debate now...
From the actual Zimmerman Issue Capias text:
"...evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life, although without any premeditated..."

Yeah, he sounded so depraved on that 911 call just itching to kill some kids. (that was sarcasm for the people how can`t tell when I`m kidding ;)

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Sections/NEWS/120411_Zimmerman_Capias.pdf
0
Reply
Male 10,338
If Zimmerman does get off, Sharpton and Jackson will call for a riot.

If it doesn`t happen, they will both just disappear.
0
Reply
Male 41,079
Even I noticed he was kidding...

IF there is more evidence then yes it is entirely possible Zimmerman is going to jail. It`s just that based on what I`ve seen so far? He walks.

This DA bimbo is looking to score a famous case, but like the Duke Lacross case, she`ll eat crow eventually, in my opinion.
0
Reply
Male 1,510
@Altaru obviously I was being sarcastic...
But I really do want to know if what I "think" happened, based on the evidence that has been released so far, is correct or not. That`s why I want a trial, to see all the "new" evidence that shows an "evil intent" (murder2) to kill this unfortunate skittles-eating child. Because I haven`t seen any evidence to support that so far. But if it`s shown during trial, then yeah I`ll change my opinion of what I think happened.
Being impartial and already having a theory based off current evidence are not exclusive.
0
Reply
Male 599
@Altaru He also said he was kidding
0
Reply
Male 3,482
[quote]And I want to know.
Then all the race baiters will see that it was clearly self-defense[/quote]
You say you want to know, as if you were trying to remain impartial, then in the next sentence show that you`ve already pre-judged the case...?
0
Reply
Male 3,482
[quote]I knew I should have gone with "you were sleeping with my wife, and I caught you in the act" instead of the "road rage" take when I posted that. [/quote]
That`s still not quite right.

2nd-degree is more like ramming the back of an old enemy`s car (maybe the guy that slept with your wife!), which causes them to smash their face on the steering wheel, which forces their nose back into their brain, killing them.

You didn`t just do it spur of the moment, you already hated him. And whether you intended to kill him or not, you committed an action that, while not guaranteed to kill him, had a chance and did.

2nd-degree basically involves proving that you already wanted to harm the person, but you didn`t plan to kill them.

I believe 2nd-degree is also used in cases when you`re committing some other crime, like burglary, and end up killing someone as a result. Could be wrong about that, though.
0
Reply
Male 3,667
Not that I agree with it, but maybe this will quiet down the black KKK, AKA the black panthers.
0
Reply
Male 1,510
@Giardia He has some TV Lawyer representing him now. Probably for free because he wants the attention.

Actually I hope it does go to trial; because then it would be very clear what actually happened. And I want to know.
Then all the race baiters will see that it was clearly self-defense and they will offer up apologies for prejudging Zimmerman. And the Black Panthers will use that bounty money to help pay Zimmerman`s legal bills. LOLZ, I kid, even if he is clearly found not guilty, they will race bait even more and riot and steal.
0
Reply
Male 37
DingDingDong, in light of the fact that his first legal representation publicly disowned themselves from this case, I think that his main concern right now is with his current legal representation.

Have a great day!
0
Reply
Male 37
Thanks Ivran! I was struggling to come up with a quick scenario for it.

I knew I should have gone with "you were sleeping with my wife, and I caught you in the act" instead of the "road rage" take when I posted that.

Have a great day!
0
Reply
Male 10,338
@Ivran: Trayvon`s of course.
0
Reply
Male 1,510

I just hope he gets a good judge. Because Florida`s stand your ground law allows pretrial testimony about self-defense. And if there is sufficient evidence for self-defense, then the judge is required to throw out the case.

Which, from what I`ve read in actual police reports, 911 recordings and witness statements, it is clear that Zimmerman was defending himself from "great bodily harm", which is all that is required by law for self-defense.
0
Reply
Male 599
@auburnjunky "Nancy Grace is loving this!"
Not surprising. Whose side is she on this time?
0
Reply
Male 10,338
I just read that Zimmerman`s new attorney has stated that they will not plead down the charge.

Good luck Prosecution. You`re gonna need it.

Nancy Grace is loving this!
0
Reply
Male 37
Gerry, just FYI it is still possible for a U.S. citizen to be tried twice for one crime. If you are enlisted or commissioned in the US Armed Forces you can be tried and sentenced under the UCMJ, and then turned over to local civilian authority (depending on the local Status of Forces Agreement - and in the US ya damn right you get turned over).

Just thought you might find that interesting.

Have a great day!
0
Reply
Female 1,566
oh that`s my bad Aubs, I should backread more before I post.
0
Reply
Male 10,338
...it COULD be justifiable manslaughter.
0
Reply
Male 10,338
"That`s self-defense and you wouldn`t be charged for anything."

Agreed Leesah. I was just trying to counter the point.
0
Reply
Female 1,566
"I am walking in a neighborhood, and someone jumps me. They begin to beat me about the face, and head. I pull out my gun, and shoot them to end the beating. That is also manslaughter."

That`s self-defense and you wouldn`t be charged for anything.
0
Reply
Male 599
@Giardia
"2nd-deg murder is not murder committed in the heat of passion."
"To prove murder in the 2nd-deg, the state must establish that the perpetrator committed the killing with malice."
-From squirrels definition.
0
Reply
Male 1,510
@auburnjunky I`m sure manslaughter is still on the table; and the jury will be able to choose during trial.
Yeah, maybe she wants him to plead down to manslaughter. Because murder 2 is way excessive.
0
Reply
Male 10,338
@Giardia:

I am walking in a neighborhood, and someone jumps me. They begin to beat me about the face, and head. I pull out my gun, and shoot them to end the beating. That is also manslaughter.
0
Reply
Male 37
Not quite DingDingDong. Squirlz post a few below is awesome, but here`s what it says in a nutshell (heh)...

These are all hypothetical situations for illustrative purposes.

1st degree murder - I am going to kill you. I get my gun, find out where you live, travel there, stalk you, BANG dead. This is premeditation.

2nd degree murder - You cut me off in traffic, and a road rage incident occurs. During the fight, I end up breaking your neck. I didn`t want you dead, I just wanted to kick your ass. No premeditation, atrocity, or cruelty.

Manslaughter - I am operating a crane at work. It fails, and the load I was hoisting flattens your car while you are driving to work. An investigation shows I failed to properly inspect my crane that day. My negligence directly killed you, therefore manslaughter. Sorry, old bean. Bad form on my part.

Keep in mind that these definitions vary from state to state. I am only making the broadest generalizations of the
0
Reply
Male 10,338
Neither do I, which would probably mean that the prosecutor over-reached. She won`t get a conviction on the greater charge, and it will be all over with him walking free.

She should have went for manslaughter from the get go.
0
Reply
Male 599
@auburnjunky I don`t really see Zimmerman pleading guilty for anything at this point.
0
Reply
Male 10,338
(I posted too early.) 2nd degree murder is a huge over charge.
0
Reply
Male 10,338
Here`s my take.

The prosecutor is pushing 2nd degree murder, hoping Zimmerman will plead down to manslaughter.

They don`t want this to go to trial. They want a guilty plea.

0
Reply
Male 40,216

Prosecutor is overreaching. Murder? really!
Manslaughter would be easier to prove, but an intent to kill the kid ? How can she prove that?

I hope it`s a televised trial. Some judges don`t allow that but the media will have a fit if they kick the cameras out.
0
Reply
Female 1,566
It`s going to be a mistrial by hung jury. There`s rarely/never a retrial because of mistrial by hung jury, and double jeopardy will kick in at that point, letting him walk. There were just too many things leaked about this case, the jury will never be able to agree on what to ignore and what to consider, they`ll never reach a definite conclusion.
0
Reply
Male 3,745
why does everyone have to be a douche when they were asked to keep praying? if you didn`t pray to begin with then that doesn`t apply to you...
0
Reply
Female 2,674
ivran, reason for popularity is irrelevant when my point was that they were able to get a fair jury for Casey Anthony despite the case being extremely well known.

"Do they televise trials in FL? "
They televised Casey Anthony`s trial, so yeaah.
0
Reply
Male 1,510

So 2nd Degree Murder means the prosecutor thinks Zimmerman INTENDED on killing him. So she must have evidence proving his intent that he wanted him to die...not that he was just protecting himself from getting beat.

Do they televise trials in FL?
0
Reply
Male 10,440
"We ask that you continue to pray"

Two words. F*ck. You.
0
Reply
Male 1,510
@Gerry1of1 I guess I`m saying what the constitution protects when it comes to Double Jeopardy. But we all know that the constitution doesn`t mean anything anymore. So I agree, the government does what they want. I hope they aren`t watching me type this, they`d probab...afejaeofoaj HELP!fjewj.........
0
Reply
Male 40,216

[quote]"Double Jeopardy is based on the ACTIONS of the defendant, not what you are charged with. So he couldn`t be tried twice for the killing." [/quote]
Double Jeopardy is the noble concept that you will not be tried twice for the same crime. If found not guilty you can still be tried a second time for the crime, they just shuffle the charges around. It IS Double Jeopardy, no matter what they call it.

It`s not dissimilar from Spousal Privelage. They cannot force spouces to testify against each other, but the regularly black-mail spouses into doing just that by offering to bring trumped up charges against a wife if she doesn`t. Or threaten to take their children away if they don`t.

The concept of "Justice" has died in the U.S.
It`s all theatre now. Show trials to keep the unwashed masses quiet.
0
Reply
Male 6,227
From USLegal.com (slightly edited for space):

[quote]2nd-deg murder is a death that results from an assault that is likely to cause death. Distinguished from 1st-deg murder, which is a premeditated killing or results from a vicious crime such as arson or armed robbery. 2nd-deg murder is not murder committed in the heat of passion. May be considered a crime that falls between 1st-deg murder and voluntary manslaughter. Murder in the 2nd-deg includes homicides committed with malice aforethought, that lack deliberate premeditation, extreme atrocity, or cruelty. To prove murder in the 2nd-deg, the state must establish that the perpetrator committed the killing with malice. As with murder in the 1st deg, malice means an intent to inflict grievous bodily injury without legal justification, or an intent to act in a manner likely to cause death or serious injury. Laws defining 2nd-deg murder vary by state.[/quote]
0
Reply
Male 955
Not surprising people don`t understand the meaning of double-jeopardy.
0
Reply
Male 1,510

Double Jeopardy is based on the ACTIONS of the defendant, not what you are charged with. So he couldn`t be tried twice for the killing.
0
Reply
Male 599
@LillianDulci Also, the story was popular not for the trial itself, but for the hunt for evidence and the little girl(they had no idea what even happened for the longest time).
0
Reply
Male 226
"The cops in the Rodney King beating were found not guilt and went to jail anyway.

no Double Jeapordy is a myth. They change the name of the charge, but they are still gonna punish you for the same act you`re found "not guilty" of."

Yes and no. There are cases where they can be tried for a `lesser included offense`. Which means if he`s on trial for Murder 1 and they decide it wasn`t premeditated, he can be found guilty of Manslaughter.

Unless there is A LOT of evidence that hasn`t been released to the public though, I can`t fathom an impartial jury finding Zimmerman guilty of Murder 2.
0
Reply
Female 2,674
ivran, duh in Florida. The jury should come from Florida, right? That`s why I mentioned how the Casey Anthony incident happened *near* the Trayvon Martin incident. Same state, and they were able to find a jury for Casey Anthony, so they should be able to find one for Zimmerman.
0
Reply
Male 599
@LillianDulci Maybe in Florida. It was on Nancy Bitchface a lot, but I don`t remember seeing it as consistently as this case. I knew a few people that had never heard of it.
0
Reply
Female 2,674
"@LillianDulci I don`t think the Casey Anthony even was as widespread as this. People didn`t pull the race card on that trial."

It was extremely well known, her face was plastered on the tv constantly. It didn`t cause quite as much anger but it was a very very well known case from the very beginning (when a woman reports her daughter missing after a month of being missing) to the trial.
0
Reply
Male 1,510

Prosecutors usually charge with the highest possible crime (Murder 2) and give the jury an option for lesser charges, like manslaughter. That may be the case here, I`m not sure about FL law, but I bet the prosecutor will have a manslaughter option.
0
Reply
Female 8,043
letting everyone know that this is her case."
0
Reply
Female 8,043
ivran, in Florida, the decision on whether to indict someone in capital cases must be made by a grand jury, but in all lesser cases, the decision to file charges is routinely made by prosecutors. In highly controversial or difficult cases, prosecutors often defer to a grand jury, leaving the politically fraught decision to a panel of citizens.
Corey said previously that she had never used a grand jury to decide on charges in a justifiable homicide case.
"We do a thorough investigation. We make that decision ourselves," she said.
Sunny Hostin, legal analyst for CNN network HLN, said she was not surprised by Corey`s decision.
"As a former prosecutor, I typically made my own charging decisions," she said. "Many, many seasoned prosecutors use their judgment and make charging decisions, don`t necessarily punt the ball to lay people, to a grand jury."
Corey`s decision was "the smart thing to do," she said. "Now Angela Corey is
0
Reply
Male 599
@LillianDulci I don`t think the Casey Anthony even was as widespread as this. People didn`t pull the race card on that trial.
0
Reply
Male 5,192
"But that`s the "liberal rule" eh? If you don`t like the law, just ignore it!"

Angela Corey is a Republican with a tough stance on crime. How is this decision in any way a liberal one?
0
Reply
Female 2,674
About damn time. Also I watched him enter jail live due to my local news station stalking the vans and recording everything (they literally admitted "we`ve been following these vans for ____ (time)). He was wearing something to cover his head which made me laugh tbh.

"Going to be hard to find a jury who hasn`t already made up their minds."
Not really. Casey Anthony event happened not far form this and even after so long they were still able to find a fair jury for her.
0
Reply
Male 599
"The special prosecutor really must feel confident then. Interesting. " Or just doing what the mob wants her to.
0
Reply
Male 40,216

The cops in the Rodney King beating were found not guilt and went to jail anyway.

no Double Jeapordy is a myth. They change the name of the charge, but they are still gonna punish you for the same act you`re found "not guilty" of.
0
Reply
Male 40,216

Feds have already said they are standing by ready with civil liberties charges. That means if Zimmerman is found not guilty, he will be charged with violating Treyvon Martins rights... in other words "One way or another you are going to jail MoFo!" Double-Jeapordy be damned.
0
Reply
Male 3,445
"No, if he`s acquitted, he`s home free:
http://tinyurl.com/ck4pkoh "

Ah, of course. The special prosecutor really must feel confident then. Interesting.
0
Reply
Male 599
This video makes me extremely suspicious of the validity of their accusations. It seems like the prosecutor herself is trying to stir people up by doing things like telling people to pray for Trayvon`s family and her and all that garbage. If she had a legitimate case, there would be no reason for her to pull this stuff.
0
Reply
Male 41,079
Nothing about this case is "based on the evidence" except for the initial decision to NOT charge Zimmerman.

But that`s the "liberal rule" eh? If you don`t like the law, just ignore it!
0
Reply
Male 226
"I have a legal question. If Zimmerman is acquitted of 2nd degree murder, can he still be convicted of manslaughter? Would he have to be charged again?

Anyone know the answer to that?"

No, if he`s acquitted, he`s home free:
http://tinyurl.com/ck4pkoh
0
Reply
Male 599
@Scuzoid That or they are going to try to abuse the system. Why would she have cancelled the grand jury if she had reasonable evidence?
0
Reply
Male 599
@FoolsPrussia I don`t believe so. I`m pretty sure this case is it, unless it is appealed.
0
Reply
Male 1,268
Zimmerman self inflicted wounds? Sounds like the "help" cries are going to be confirmed by multiple experts as travon`s. No way can anyone say this killing wasn`t "heat of the moment" based on what we know, which would make a 2nd murder charge void. They MUST have something beyond what we`ve seen. That`s all there is to it.
0
Reply
Male 3,445
"If he is charged with 2nd degree murder there must be some kind of evidence we don`t know about."

I have a legal question. If Zimmerman is acquitted of 2nd degree murder, can he still be convicted of manslaughter? Would he have to be charged again?

Anyone know the answer to that?
0
Reply
Male 1,008
@dindingdong, the bail amount will tell alot about what you said, if its in the millions its a public opinion move, if its a normal amount probably evidence based
0
Reply
Male 5,192
"guilty=celebratory riots"
"not guilty="justice" riots"

You forgot one:
Hung Jury=black penis jokes
0
Reply
Male 21,000
I wonder if they`ll go out of county to find jurors--a few people have already commented on it, but there`s no way the people in the immediate area haven`t been swayed one way or the other by the media`s coverage. I wouldn`t call this OJ-level of case notoriety, but I`m sure 75 percent of everyone in Florida know of this case.
0
Reply
Male 1,008
and it seems like they should have charged hm with manslaughter, murder2 will be alot harder to prove
0
Reply
Male 122
finally. there can be a trial by jury... rather than trial by media.
0
Reply
Male 1,008
it really doesnt matter anymore, people are so worked up and there will be riots.

guilty=celebratory riots
not guilty="justice" riots
0
Reply
Male 5,192
For the people who are saying, "There`s no way he will get a fair trial" you really overestimate the intelligence in the US. Not everyone watches or reads the news, and a lot less get sucked into sensationalist stories like this one, and even less are into opinion media. They should be able to find a jury out of a pool of 75.
0
Reply
Male 1,510

0
Reply
Male 1,510

A publicly elected Governor assigns an elected State Attorney (Angela Corey) to take over the case. She then cancels the grand jury and charges Zimmerman with Murder.

Seems to me that Zimmerman is being charged based off public opinion rather than the law, which the less partial Grand Jury would have based their decision from. This is sad.
0
Reply