George Zimmerman's Trial/acquittal/DOJ charges

[Choronzon]

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.

I always assumed you were.

Guess why?

[United Dependencies]

Obviously you have never been to the South.

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

North Carolina?

[Greed and Death]

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.

You want my opinion of the race it is not that people are giving Zimmerman the presumption of innocence. It is rather that African Americans do not get that presumption, even in incidents involving two African Americans.

Justin Peters wrote a piece here discussing it.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/2013/0 ... _walk.html

[Choronzon]

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

North Carolina?

Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, and Oklahoma.

I'm kind of cheating. I've only driven through the Carolinas and made brief stops.

[United Dependencies]

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 more urban areas do better.

[United Dependencies]

North Carolina?

Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, and Oklahoma.

I'm kind of cheating. I've only driven through the Carolinas and made brief stops.

Well you're not missing much in SC, but NC is (for the moment) ok.

[The UK in Exile]

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.

lets just say I find it unlikely that you would be so understanding if you were being followed by someone late a night who got out of his car to chase you when you tried to escape.

[Choronzon]

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.

lets just say I find it unlikely that you would be so understanding if you were being followed by someone late a night who got out of his car to chase you when you tried to escape.

No no no, see Ostro is the height of logic and rationality, and would calmly analyze the situation and then ask "Excuse me good sir, but why are you following me and may I assist you in some way?"

He has said as much in other threads, so it has to be true.

[Ostroeuropa]

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.

lets just say I find it unlikely that you would be so understanding if you were being followed by someone late a night who got out of his car to chase you when you tried to escape.

I thought I was being followed once the other night.
I was wrong.
See, the thing is there is a finite number of routes. Sometimes, yours and another persons are strikingly similar.]
We've all had the situation happen to us where we've been using the same route as someone else for an uncomfortably long amount of time.
But thats all it is.
Discomfort. There isn't anything that can be done about it.
Because of these instances, it's entirely fucking unreasonable to suddenly lose your shit and start attacking people.
If it were allowable, there would be a bloodbath outside every train station and bus station.

[The UK in Exile]

lets just say I find it unlikely that you would be so understanding if you were being followed by someone late a night who got out of his car to chase you when you tried to escape.

No no no, see Ostro is the height of logic and rationality, and would calmly analyze the situation and then ask "Excuse me good sir, but why are you following me and may I assist you in some way?"

He has said as much in other threads, so it has to be true.

Oh, friend! you appear to have accidently mislaid your knife in my chest cavity, I say friend! I appear to have inadvertently dirtied you blade with my arterial blood.

[The Grey Wolf]

North Carolina?

Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, and Oklahoma.

I'm kind of cheating. I've only driven through the Carolinas and made brief stops.

We're referring to two different "South's." The South you described, and the South I described. (Kentucky, Tennessee, Georgia, Florida, etc.)
BTW, Zimmerman was in Florida.

[United Dependencies]

lets just say I find it unlikely that you would be so understanding if you were being followed by someone late a night who got out of his car to chase you when you tried to escape.

No no no, see Ostro is the height of logic and rationality, and would calmly analyze the situation and then ask "Excuse me good sir, but why are you following me and may I assist you in some way?"

He has said as much in other threads, so it has to be true.

"Why yes, I was wondering if you could come take a ride with me in my automobile here."

"No my good sir I don't think I could do that this fine evening."

"Oh well, see you around then."

[Fartsniffage]

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.

I'm sorry but I simply don't believe you.

If I had some nutjob following me in a car and then getting out to pursue me on foot then the very least I'd do is turn around and confront them. And I'm a big, scary adult male with plenty of life experience and decent judgement, not just a kid.

[Ostroeuropa]

lets just say I find it unlikely that you would be so understanding if you were being followed by someone late a night who got out of his car to chase you when you tried to escape.

No no no, see Ostro is the height of logic and rationality, and would calmly analyze the situation and then ask "Excuse me good sir, but why are you following me and may I assist you in some way?"

He has said as much in other threads, so it has to be true.

Actually you are right.
Your first response SHOULD be to turn around and say "Why are you following me?"
You're entirely right.

[Choronzon]

Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, and Oklahoma.

I'm kind of cheating. I've only driven through the Carolinas and made brief stops.

We're referring to two different "South's." The South you described, and the South I described. (Kentucky, Tennessee, Georgia, Florida, etc.)
BTW, Zimmerman was in Florida.

I've been to those southern states, not the southwest. Reread the exchange with UD.

And it turns out I've been to Florida the most.

[The UK in Exile]

lets just say I find it unlikely that you would be so understanding if you were being followed by someone late a night who got out of his car to chase you when you tried to escape.

I thought I was being followed once the other night.
I was wrong.
See, the thing is there is a finite number of routes. Sometimes, yours and another persons are strikingly similar.]
We've all had the situation happen to us where we've been using the same route as someone else for an uncomfortably long amount of time.
But thats all it is.
Discomfort. There isn't anything that can be done about it.
Because of these instances, it's entirely fucking unreasonable to suddenly lose your shit and start attacking people.
If it were allowable, there would be a bloodbath outside every train station and bus station.

except the inside of your car and a footpath are something of an unlikely combination, Martin tried to shake Zimmerman, and couldn't, guess why?

[Choronzon]

No no no, see Ostro is the height of logic and rationality, and would calmly analyze the situation and then ask "Excuse me good sir, but why are you following me and may I assist you in some way?"

He has said as much in other threads, so it has to be true.

Actually you are right.
Your first response SHOULD be to turn around and say "Why are you following me?"
You're entirely right.

Which he did.

And then Zimmerman attacked him.

[The UK in Exile]

No no no, see Ostro is the height of logic and rationality, and would calmly analyze the situation and then ask "Excuse me good sir, but why are you following me and may I assist you in some way?"

He has said as much in other threads, so it has to be true.

Actually you are right.
Your first response SHOULD be to turn around and say "Why are you following me?"
You're entirely right.

which is exactly what he did.

[The Grey Wolf]

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

I always assumed you were.

Guess why?

Because I don't agree with you?

[Electroconvulsive Glee]

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.

What about not seeking a "stand your ground" hearing? (see my amended post)

Also, you did not address any of the "add in" factors.

I am unclear as to why (alleged) legal reasons justify non-legal conclusions in favor of Mr. Zimmerman. I am even more unclear as to how legal reasons are relevant to questions to which people have repeatedly asserted the actual law (and evidence) is irrelevant. Finally, even if strategy advises against testifying, how is that itself proof that out-of-court, self-serving stories of dubious credibility?

[Ostroeuropa]

Actually you are right.
Your first response SHOULD be to turn around and say "Why are you following me?"
You're entirely right.

Which he did.

And then Zimmerman attacked him.

Martin has Zero wounds.
I'm calling bullshit.

[Ostroeuropa]

Actually you are right.
Your first response SHOULD be to turn around and say "Why are you following me?"
You're entirely right.

which is exactly what he did.

And then what happened, in your opinion?
How do you know he did that?
Assuming a lot aren't you?

[Choronzon]

I always assumed you were.

Guess why?

Because I don't agree with you?

People disagree with me all the time without being racist. You should learn that skill.

[Ashmoria]

Actually you are right.
Your first response SHOULD be to turn around and say "Why are you following me?"
You're entirely right.

Which he did.

And then Zimmerman attacked him.

and zimmerman never did the one (other) thing that might have avoided a fight--he didnt identify himself as neighborhood watch and ask martin who he was.

[Electroconvulsive Glee]

which is exactly what he did.

And then what happened, in your opinion?
How do you know he did that?
Assuming a lot aren't you?

The chutzpah is killing me . . .