George Zimmerman's Trial/acquittal/DOJ charges

[The Grey Wolf]

Yes, he did a drive by shooting on Martin.

No, but he was told by the 911 operator to stay in his car and wait for the police. The real police, you know.

911 operators are not the police.

[Choronzon]

No, but he was told by the 911 operator to stay in his car and wait for the police. The real police, you know.

911 operators are not the police.

Holy fuck

[Electroconvulsive Glee]

If your head is being pounded into the ground and you feel pain as well as notice you are bleeding from the back of your head, it doesn't matter that the wounds turn out to be minor.
Thats more than enough to justify immediate action on your part. You may have no idea on the status of the wounds being minor.
You have no idea what damage is being done to your brain at this point, or may be done if the attack continues.
The fact that the wounds turned out to be minor doesn't seem relevant.

Assuming one is in a situation described your first sentence is true, you do realize that is not necessarily -- at least as matter of law -- "more than enough to justify" use of deadly force, right?

Moreover, having "no idea" how one is being injured is a far cry from reasonably believing one faces imminent death or great bodily harm. And nothing you post says one in that situation would reasonably believe it was necessary to use deadly force to defend oneself. Then there is the question of whether you provoked the attack or fight or were engaged in criminal activity.

[Ashmoria]

zimmerman had minor wounds at best.

but... as long as i can show ANY wounds its ok to end a fight with killing the other guy?

I don't know if I would call a broken nose minor, not life threatening, but beyond minor.
But, its not the actual severity of the injuries it is how Zimmerman perceived the situation.

i dont think it was broken. it was swollen and the swelling went away by the next day.

he got hit in the face. probably one punch, maybe 2, no more. he wasnt pummelled. he didnt have black eyes or broken teeth or bruises all over his face.

he ended up on the ground but whether he fell from being hit or because he tripped there is no way to know. the ME testified that the scrapes on the back of his head could have been from one time hitting the concrete, maybe 2.

be that as it may, our friend suggested that it is OBVIOUSLY ok to shoot the other guy to death if you are in a fight.

[Cannot think of a name]

No, but he was told by the 911 operator to stay in his car and wait for the police. The real police, you know.

911 operators are not the police.

Were you under the impression that the poster was implying that the 911 operator was going to send more 911 operators and not the police?

[The UK in Exile]

following Trevon in his car before Climbing out of his car and pursuing Trevon causing him to fear for his life and lash out in self-defense.

Following someone in your car is not starting fight.
Nor is pursuit starting a fight.
It would possibly justify Treyvon starting the fight if he were up on assault charges, on the grounds he was "scared for his life." (Something you have no idea whether or not is true and are pulling out of nowhere)

These are public areas.
Zimmerman is within his rights to walk them or drive through them.

not pursue someone through them, which he admits doing on the 911 call. If your chasing someone, that chase has a logical conclusion.

we know he was scared enough to call someone, and scared enough to try and lose his tail, from martins call.

[United Dependencies]

How do those who are convinced that George Zimmerman not only should be acquitted but did nothing wrong or should not have been prosecuted -- let alone is a "hero" -- reconcile this view with his refusal to testify as to his version of events?

As a matter of law, this is irrelevant. He retains the legal presumption of innocence. His exercise of his right not to testify should raise no inference against him.

As a matter of legal strategy, this makes some sense.

But, it has been repeatedly emphasized that none of you are jurors and whether your opinions relate to the relevant law or actual evidence is irrelevant to this discussion. So, in that non-legal context, why do you believe someone's version of events that they will not tell under oath? Why do you believe someone who will not be cross-examined?

Add to that that Mr. Zimmerman out of court statements have been contradictory, that his motive for lying is pretty obvious, he publicly deceived the court in this case, he admittedly lied to his own attorneys, and his prior record of violence. Why is it so clear that Mr. Zimmerman is telling the truth and, separately, is blameless?

I fully understand that whether or not one knows the relevant law or the trial evidence one can believe Mr. Zimmerman should be acquitted, presuming he is innocent, or withholding judgment. I do not understand, however, the insistence that he is clearly innocent both legally and otherwise, that he should have been charged, etc.

Are there any other charges the Jury could find Mr. Zimmerman guilty of?

[The Grey Wolf]

Let's be honest, if the races were reversed there wouldn't be any hubbud. Al Sharpton would probably still intervene about them prosecuting Trayvon Martin, so there might be a little splash.

To be clear, I'm calling you a PC racist. A racists who pats themselves on the back for how not racist they are.

This should be fun.


What about what I said was racist?

Because a White/Hispanic guy shoots a black guy in self.defense, you play the race care to silence anyone who believes Zimmerman is innocent.
You people only see color.

[Ostroeuropa]

If your head is being pounded into the ground and you feel pain as well as notice you are bleeding from the back of your head, it doesn't matter that the wounds turn out to be minor.
Thats more than enough to justify immediate action on your part. You may have no idea on the status of the wounds being minor.
You have no idea what damage is being done to your brain at this point, or may be done if the attack continues.
The fact that the wounds turned out to be minor doesn't seem relevant.

Assuming one is in a situation described your first sentence is true, you do realize that is not necessarily -- at least as matter of law -- "more than enough to justify" use of deadly force, right?

Moreover, having "no idea" how one is being injured is a far cry from reasonably believing one faces imminent death or great bodily harm. And nothing you post says one in that situation would reasonably believe it was necessary to use deadly force to defend oneself. Then there is the question of whether you provoked the attack or fight or were engaged in criminal activity.

If your head is being slammed into the concrete repeatedly, it's entirely reasonable to think it's necessary to use deadly force to stop that happening.
Had the attacks continued, it's possible that Zimmerman could have suffered brain damage or died.
Brain Damage would, I think, be enough bodily harm to justify deadly force.
It's enough of a consideration to believe that someone can be in genuine fear for their life at that moment.

[Choronzon]

This should be fun.


What about what I said was racist?

Because a White/Hispanic guy shoots a black guy in self.defense, you play the race care to silence anyone who believes Zimmerman is innocent.
You people only see color.

No, I play the "race card" in response to obvious racism.

[Ashmoria]

This should be fun.


What about what I said was racist?

Because a White/Hispanic guy shoots a black guy in self.defense, you play the race care to silence anyone who believes Zimmerman is innocent.
You people only see color.

i dont see color i see a dead teen who had been minding his own freaking business.

[Fartsniffage]

Following someone in your car is not starting fight.
Nor is pursuit starting a fight.
It would possibly justify Treyvon starting the fight if he were up on assault charges, on the grounds he was "scared for his life." (Something you have no idea whether or not is true and are pulling out of nowhere)

These are public areas.
Zimmerman is within his rights to walk them or drive through them.

Would you really be making the same argument if this were a 6 foot white chap who stalked a 5 foot white woman (let's get away from race for a minute) and the woman turned around a hit him?

Would you really argue that the woman should have waited for the guy to throw the first punch?

[The Grey Wolf]

following Trevon in his car before Climbing out of his car and pursuing Trevon causing him to fear for his life and lash out in self-defense.

Silly UK in Exile, negros don't have a right to self defense in the south.

Obviously you have never been to the South.

[Ostroeuropa]

Following someone in your car is not starting fight.
Nor is pursuit starting a fight.
It would possibly justify Treyvon starting the fight if he were up on assault charges, on the grounds he was "scared for his life." (Something you have no idea whether or not is true and are pulling out of nowhere)

These are public areas.
Zimmerman is within his rights to walk them or drive through them.

Would you really be making the same argument if this were a 6 foot white chap who stalked a 5 foot white woman (let's get away from race for a minute) and the woman turned around a hit him?

Would you really argue that the woman should have waited for the guy to throw the first punch?

Yes.
If the following occurs over a longer period of time, with multiple instances, it can be a crime.
A single instance of being followed does NOT justify violence.

[Choronzon]

Silly UK in Exile, negros don't have a right to self defense in the south.

Obviously you have never been to the South.

I have actually been to every southern state except for 4.

[The Grey Wolf]

Because a White/Hispanic guy shoots a black guy in self.defense, you play the race care to silence anyone who believes Zimmerman is innocent.
You people only see color.

No, I play the "race card" in response to obvious racism.

How am I being racist?

[The Grey Wolf]

Obviously you have never been to the South.

I have actually been to every southern state except for 4.

You know, for some reason, I doubt that very much.

[Greed and Death]

How do those who are convinced that George Zimmerman not only should be acquitted but did nothing wrong or should not have been prosecuted -- let alone is a "hero" -- reconcile this view with his refusal to testify as to his version of events?

As a matter of law, this is irrelevant. He retains the legal presumption of innocence. His exercise of his right not to testify should raise no inference against him.

As a matter of legal strategy, this makes some sense.

But, it has been repeatedly emphasized that none of you are jurors and whether your opinions relate to the relevant law or actual evidence is irrelevant to this discussion. So, in that non-legal context, why do you believe someone's version of events that they will not tell under oath? Why do you believe someone who will not be cross-examined?

Add to that that Mr. Zimmerman out of court statements have been contradictory, that his motive for lying is pretty obvious, he publicly deceived the court in this case, he admittedly lied to his own attorneys, and his prior record of violence. Why is it so clear that Mr. Zimmerman is telling the truth and, separately, is blameless?

I fully understand that whether or not one knows the relevant law or the trial evidence one can believe Mr. Zimmerman should be acquitted, presuming he is innocent, or withholding judgment. I do not understand, however, the insistence that he is clearly innocent both legally and otherwise, that he should have been charged, etc.

Non legal, because being cross examined sucks. Those law talking guys are very good at making everyone look like a liar.

But I do not think Zimmerman is morally in the clear I think his actions were clearly morally wrong so I am not certain you were addressing me. who here is saying that he is a hero ?

I think it is unfair to ask for a nonlegal reasons as to why legal action should not be filed.
Alan Dershowitz, has presented his opinion that the affidavit was lacking for Probable cause, I don't necessarily think he was right he is a little more pro defendant than even I am.

[Choronzon]

I have actually been to every southern state except for 4.

You know, for some reason, I doubt that very much.

See, I tend to think the people who weep big crocodile tears over us meanies calling the south racist have never been there.

Because its super fucking racist.

[The UK in Exile]

Would you really be making the same argument if this were a 6 foot white chap who stalked a 5 foot white woman (let's get away from race for a minute) and the woman turned around a hit him?

Would you really argue that the woman should have waited for the guy to throw the first punch?

Yes.
If the following occurs over a longer period of time, with multiple instances, it can be a crime.
A single instance of being followed does NOT justify violence.

should they wait till their being dragged into the bushes, or do they need to wait till their assailant has verbally conveyed his intentions?

[The Grey Wolf]

You know, for some reason, I doubt that very much.

See, I tend to think the people who weep big crocodile tears over us meanies calling the south racist have never been there.

Because its super fucking racist.

Unlike you, I've actually been to the South. Hell, I've lived there all my life.

[Choronzon]

Yes.
If the following occurs over a longer period of time, with multiple instances, it can be a crime.
A single instance of being followed does NOT justify violence.

should they wait till their being dragged into the bushes, or do they need to wait till their assailant has verbally conveyed his intentions?

I'm pretty sure hes lying. I seriously doubt that Ostro actually believes that.

Its just if he said otherwise, his obvious, and racist, double standard would be revealed.

[Ostroeuropa]

Yes.
If the following occurs over a longer period of time, with multiple instances, it can be a crime.
A single instance of being followed does NOT justify violence.

should they wait till their being dragged into the bushes, or do they need to wait till their assailant has verbally conveyed his intentions?

As soon as someone lays a hand on you you have the right to respond with force.
If they verbally convey their intention, it's good enough to justify force.
It is unreasonable to initiate violence for simply being followed.

[The UK in Exile]

See, I tend to think the people who weep big crocodile tears over us meanies calling the south racist have never been there.

Because its super fucking racist.

Unlike you, I've actually been to the South. Hell, I've lived there all my life.

well you know what they say about wood and trees.

[Ostroeuropa]

should they wait till their being dragged into the bushes, or do they need to wait till their assailant has verbally conveyed his intentions?

I'm pretty sure hes lying. I seriously doubt that Ostro actually believes that.

Its just if he said otherwise, his obvious, and racist, double standard would be revealed.

What have I said that is racist? Where is the double standard?