zimmerman's rights are our rights.

[+DieChecker]

Yes, he had a CW license, but equally true and more relevant is that in his role working as Neighborhood Watch captain, the rules say NW should not be carrying.

And he should be thrown out of the NW. Yet nothing he did was technically illegal. What would you convict him based on? Emotion?

[+DieChecker]

It was not met in this situation because the reckless behavior of Zimmerman, being armed when he should not have been, and disregarding advice from the authorities, resulted in the death of another.

Armed when he should not have been? He was on his way to the market... Not out patrolling the neighborhood. If you mean he should have stopped and disarmed himself first, leaving his gun in the truck. I would agree. But, he did not, and not doing so was not illegal.

You'd have everyone in the NW, regardless of CW license being unarmed whenever they are in their own neighborhood?

Zimmerman's rights are our rights, and his crimes are our crimes, thanks to a jury with no idea at all of what justice is.

Luckly the jury did what they were supposed to and followed the LAW rather then following an emotional sense of Justice.

[+DieChecker]

If so, then it's a frivolous lawsuit because the tamperers got fired.

I thought NBC admitted that it happened. Otherwise they wouldn't have fired anyone.

[Babe Ruth]

I can't recall where I read it, but I'm pretty certain that the Neighbourhood Watch rules were suggestions, not hard-and-fast rules. In other words, they don't recommend the carrying of a weapon, but it isn't expressly forbidden. In other words, he wasn't breaking any rules. And yes, if Z had listened to the police and not followed TM then there would be no problem. However, it is not against the Law to not listen to a dispatcher. Which brings me neatly to your next comment:

With your attitude I'd hope that the screening process would have filtered you out of any prospective jury, because you are essentially admitting that you would ignore the law and condemn a man innocent of murder to the crime of murder. As I've said elsewhere, Zimmerman's only crime was being stupid, but being stupid isn't against the law.

I very seldom cite the bible, but St. Paul in his 2 Corinthians addressed this issue of the sanctity of the law. The spirit of the law gives life, but the letter of the law gives death. He makes a real good point, because I know that in my lifetime, more bad laws than good laws have been passed. A complete listing would be impossible.

No, being stoopid isn't against the law, but killing a man as a result of actions you began, lays the guilt on you. Individual responsibility and all that, eh? Common sense in judging is always a good thing. If only the government allowed it....

[Babe Ruth]

Armed when he should not have been? He was on his way to the market... Not out patrolling the neighborhood. If you mean he should have stopped and disarmed himself first, leaving his gun in the truck. I would agree. But, he did not, and not doing so was not illegal.

You'd have everyone in the NW, regardless of CW license being unarmed whenever they are in their own neighborhood?

Luckly the jury did what they were supposed to and followed the LAW rather then following an emotional sense of Justice.

DC

If one does not like one's neighborhood, one should move out. I would not like living in a neighborhood where everybody must carry.

But you're exactly right, and I've admitted the point many times before--Z was not breaking any law being where he was when he was, none. Though he was not breaking any law, he did take action, physical acts, that began a series of events which terminated in the death of another man. Who just happened to be minding his own business on his way back to his father's house.

As a juror, I am obligated to study the entire event, from start to finish. It's what my hero Sherlock Holmes would do, ya know?

[danielost]

I very seldom cite the bible, but St. Paul in his 2 Corinthians addressed this issue of the sanctity of the law. The spirit of the law gives life, but the letter of the law gives death. He makes a real good point, because I know that in my lifetime, more bad laws than good laws have been passed. A complete listing would be impossible.

No, being stoopid isn't against the law, but killing a man as a result of actions you began, lays the guilt on you. Individual responsibility and all that, eh? Common sense in judging is always a good thing. If only the government allowed it....

No, killing a person because of your actions is not illegal. Killing someone because of your actions, which could result in someones death is illegal. Thus carrying a gun is not illegal, but driving drunk is.

[+DieChecker]

DC

If one does not like one's neighborhood, one should move out. I would not like living in a neighborhood where everybody must carry.

Maybe someone should explain that to the millions of urban poor....

But you're exactly right, and I've admitted the point many times before--Z was not breaking any law being where he was when he was, none. Though he was not breaking any law, he did take action, physical acts, that began a series of events which terminated in the death of another man. Who just happened to be minding his own business on his way back to his father's house.

As a juror, I am obligated to study the entire event, from start to finish. It's what my hero Sherlock Holmes would do, ya know?

Yet, anyone could start a series of events that ends in someone's death. A kid might look in a window on his way home. Or a guy driving to the store sees a kid that matches the description of a local robber. A girl on a phone might tell someone that a crazy cracker wants to rape someone and he needs to run, instead of just saying, "Whats up?".

It is easy to go backward and blame someone based on the final result, but it is not easy to see the result minutes before it happens.

[+Link of Hyrule]

I very seldom cite the bible, but St. Paul in his 2 Corinthians addressed this issue of the sanctity of the law. The spirit of the law gives life, but the letter of the law gives death. He makes a real good point, because I know that in my lifetime, more bad laws than good laws have been passed. A complete listing would be impossible.

No, being stoopid isn't against the law, but killing a man as a result of actions you began, lays the guilt on you. Individual responsibility and all that, eh? Common sense in judging is always a good thing. If only the government allowed it....

"killing a man as a result of actions you began, lays the guilt on you".

Not according to the law. Zimmerman shouldn't have followed Martin. That's an admitted fact. But he did. Martin reacted, which put Zimmerman in a position where he felt his life was at stake. Ergo, self defence.

You can campaign to change the law if you like, though I'm not sure how successful you would be, it would have to be an amendment to the self defence law somehow. What you cannot do is sit on a jury and convict him when the evidence points against that.

[Yamato]

I thought NBC admitted that it happened. Otherwise they wouldn't have fired anyone.

Okay.

No, being stoopid isn't against the law, but killing a man as a result of actions you began, lays the guilt on you. Individual responsibility and all that, eh? Common sense in judging is always a good thing. If only the government allowed it....

If we had more watchful citizens following suspicious behavior in this country we'd prevent a lot more crime than we do. Police arriving at a crime scene 20 minutes too late to fill out paperwork isn't going to prevent it. If Martin was the kind of person that was so violent and racist that he couldn't tolerate a creepy cracker following him without turning around and physically assaulting him for it, that's even more reason to justify Zimmerman's actions that led up to it.

Where is this code of behavior for what actions Neighborhood Watches should be able to take? And if the answer is, there is none, then what's the solution? To nerf the Watch and say they can't do anything but call the police on the phone?

You keep speculating the best case scenario for Martin ("he was just minding his own business" et al) and the worst for Zimmerman ("if he had just done what he was supposed to do" et al) but the weight of the circumstances was already weighed by the court.

Zimmerman probably wanted to find out where Martin was going. Martin probably didn't want Zimmerman to know where he was going. I think that's the real difference that led to the confrontation regardless of all the other sensationalized characteristics of this event the media has drummed into our heads.

[Babe Ruth]

Maybe someone should explain that to the millions of urban poor....

Yet, anyone could start a series of events that ends in someone's death. A kid might look in a window on his way home. Or a guy driving to the store sees a kid that matches the description of a local robber. A girl on a phone might tell someone that a crazy cracker wants to rape someone and he needs to run, instead of just saying, "Whats up?".

It is easy to go backward and blame someone based on the final result, but it is not easy to see the result minutes before it happens.

A kid might look in a window and that would lead to the death of another person? WTF kind of a crazy and irrelevant hypothetical is that? On this thread I'm not really discussing trivial hypotheticals, I'm discussing "Zimmerman's rights & Zimmerman's crimes".

I'm posting as though I was sitting as a juror in that specific trial, which is hypothetical enough. In that role, I have an obligation to view the entire series of events culminating in the shooting of Martin.

Those series of events were put into play by Z when he did not follow the orders of those for whom he was supposedly working, the Sanford Police.

His careless and deliberate actions led to the death of another. I would be happy to convict of manslaughter, just as if it had been done with a vehicle instead of with a pistol, but the guilt rests with Z, not with M.

That's the only point. The jury lived out St. Paul's warnings to the Corinthians--the letter of the law brings death. In this case, the letter of the law, and the jury's failure to seek justice, brought a grave miscarriage of justice. The wrong thing was done, not the right thing.

[Babe Ruth]

"killing a man as a result of actions you began, lays the guilt on you".

Not according to the law. Zimmerman shouldn't have followed Martin. That's an admitted fact. But he did. Martin reacted, which put Zimmerman in a position where he felt his life was at stake. Ergo, self defence.

You can campaign to change the law if you like, though I'm not sure how successful you would be, it would have to be an amendment to the self defence law somehow. What you cannot do is sit on a jury and convict him when the evidence points against that.

If I may borrow from one of Charles Dickens' characters, "the law, sir, is an ass". Certainly this might be the best modern demonstration of that simple wisdom. I would say "the law CAN BE an ass".

You're very wrong on what the jury can do. It can do whatever it wants, including flying in the face of the evidence for an acquittal OR a conviction.

But a jury can often deliver injustice, just as it did here.

And if you had been reading the posts PA, you would have noticed my statement wherein I said "I support SYG statutes". Yes, I do, and have since they were written.

However, as the vigilante stalker and initiator of the final series of events, Zimmerman was not entitled to invoke that statute. He was careless and reckless, and his deliberate actions resulted in the death of an innocent man. Not a perfect man, not an angel, but an innocent man.

Lynch mobs are a beautiful thing, eh?

[danielost]

You cannot rely on the police arriving in time to save your life. Or trust in god but tie up your horse.

[+DieChecker]

A kid might look in a window and that would lead to the death of another person?

Yes. In our country, going around looking in people's windows is enough to draw a homeowner to fell threatened.

I'm posting as though I was sitting as a juror in that specific trial, which is hypothetical enough. In that role, I have an obligation to view the entire series of events culminating in the shooting of Martin.

First you'd need to be picked, which you wouldn't because you are too opinionated and bias.

His careless and deliberate actions led to the death of another. I would be happy to convict of manslaughter, just as if it had been done with a vehicle instead of with a pistol, but the guilt rests with Z, not with M.

And are you familiar with the particular Florida law about manslaughter? What evidence the Jury saw convinced you that GZ needs to be imprisioned? What Evidence, not opinion, or emotion mind you.

In this case, the letter of the law, and the jury's failure to seek justice, brought a grave miscarriage of justice.

That is opinion. You're ignoring the lack of evidence in what happened, and focusing on what you personnally think happened. To many people GZ got Justice by being found innocent. What makes you right and them wrong?

Edited July 21, 2013 by DieChecker

[+DieChecker]

However, as the vigilante stalker and initiator of the final series of events, Zimmerman was not entitled to invoke that statute. He was careless and reckless, and his deliberate actions resulted in the death of an innocent man. Not a perfect man, not an angel, but an innocent man.

Neither had the right to invoke SYG, and thus GZs "Self Defense" defense was successful.

[ninjadude]

Zimmerman probably wanted to find out where Martin was going. Martin probably didn't want Zimmerman to know where he was going.

because Martin was going to commit some horrible crime with his Skittles and soda?

[Yamato]

because Martin was going to commit some horrible crime with his Skittles and soda?

As it turns out, with his racism and his fists. Stop defending violent criminals.

[danielost]

because Martin was going to commit some horrible crime with his Skittles and soda?

Zimmerman didn't know what he was carring. All he knew was the guy was pounding his head into the sidewalk and saying your going to die.

[Odin11]

Zimmerman probably wanted to find out where Martin was going. Martin probably didn't want Zimmerman to know where he was going. I think that's the real difference that led to the confrontation regardless of all the other sensationalized characteristics of this event the media has drummed into our heads.

If you were walking down the road and someone started following you for, as it seems to you, no reason fight or flight would kick in, no mater who you are. I know I would have freaked out if I was Martin,but I would have ran and called the cops (but like some of you are so fond of saying; “you can’t rely on cops to get there in time”).

I know there are a lot of people out there that would have done the same thing as Martin did. In fact the way a lot of you guys talked in past gun topics if I had played out a scenario with a guy doing what Zimmerman did with you playing the roll of Martin, I’d be willing to bet that that most of you would have gotten all macho like you like to do and say something along the lines of you shooting Zimmerman.

[danielost]

I can't speak for anyone but me. I would have asked if he was lost or needed help.

[+DieChecker]

The only people I've ever run from had either guns or knives in their hands, and I knew for a fact they wished me great bodily harm. If I saw GZ just looking at me weird, I'd certainly not run, even if he started following me. I'd probably yell over at him from 30 to 50 feet. "Can I help you?". Or some such. I'd not feel like I had to run over and bust his nose, that is for sure. I'm about 99% sure that I'd realize he did not have a gun in the pocket of his jeans.

Edited July 22, 2013 by DieChecker

[Yamato]

If you were walking down the road and someone started following you for, as it seems to you, no reason fight or flight would kick in, no mater who you are. I know I would have freaked out if I was Martin,but I would have ran and called the cops (but like some of you are so fond of saying; “you can’t rely on cops to get there in time”).

I know there are a lot of people out there that would have done the same thing as Martin did. In fact the way a lot of you guys talked in past gun topics if I had played out a scenario with a guy doing what Zimmerman did with you playing the roll of Martin, I’d be willing to bet that that most of you would have gotten all macho like you like to do and say something along the lines of you shooting Zimmerman.

Everyone in my neighborhood is asked to do what Zimmerman did. I was walking down a neighboring street in the middle of the night with a flashlight last month after a tornado (and resulting wind damage) caused widespread power outages and the few cars that drove past me slowed down and stared at me to assess the threat that I might pose. If someone turned around or stopped me and asked what I was doing, I would say that I was walking down the street to determine if any progress had been made on removing the tree(s) that fell across downed power lines so that line repairs could begin and the power could be restored.

I wouldn't have sucker punched them and tackled them in an MMA ground and pound. Is that really what's appropriate to you? It's not how someone might feel in that situation, it's their actions that matter.

[Babe Ruth]

If you were walking down the road and someone started following you for, as it seems to you, no reason fight or flight would kick in, no mater who you are. I know I would have freaked out if I was Martin,but I would have ran and called the cops (but like some of you are so fond of saying; “you can’t rely on cops to get there in time”).

I know there are a lot of people out there that would have done the same thing as Martin did. In fact the way a lot of you guys talked in past gun topics if I had played out a scenario with a guy doing what Zimmerman did with you playing the roll of Martin, I’d be willing to bet that that most of you would have gotten all macho like you like to do and say something along the lines of you shooting Zimmerman.

Exactly!

In this land of the great conservatives whose mantra is "individual responsibility", the great conservatives are unwilling to oblige Zimmerman for taking responsibility for his actions that began the process that ended with a shooting.

In the land of the great conservatives, Z can invoke 'self defense', but M cannot. So much hogwash.

The simple fact remains that if Zimmerman had done what he was told by the police dispatcher, the confrontation would never have happened and Martin's wrongful death would not have happened.

The rationalization shown by the Zimmerman defenders is quite similar to that shown by a hypothetical lynch mob, angry that some black boy had the temerity to confront a stalker. Not exactly pretty, but oh so human.

[danielost]

Wrong both had a right to self defense. The problem is zimmerman did not poss a threat by just following trayvon. Trayvon possed a threat when he started pounding zimmermans head into the sidewalk, saying your going to die.

[Kowalski]

The only people I've ever run from had either guns or knives in their hands, and I knew for a fact they wished me great bodily harm. If I saw GZ just looking at me weird, I'd certainly not run, even if he started following me. I'd probably yell over at him from 30 to 50 feet. "Can I help you?". Or some such. I'd not feel like I had to run over and bust his nose, that is for sure. I'm about 99% sure that I'd realize he did not have a gun in the pocket of his jeans.

Everyone in my neighborhood is asked to do what Zimmerman did. I was walking down a neighboring street in the middle of the night with a flashlight last month after a tornado (and resulting wind damage) caused widespread power outages and the few cars that drove past me slowed down and stared at me to assess the threat that I might pose. If someone turned around or stopped me and asked what I was doing, I would say that I was walking down the street to determine if any progress had been made on removing the tree(s) that fell across downed power lines so that line repairs could begin and the power could be restored.

I wouldn't have sucker punched them and tackled them in an MMA ground and pound. Is that really what's appropriate to you? It's not how someone might feel in that situation, it's their actions that matter.

Exactly! And if Martin felt threatened by Zimmerman, he had a cell phone, why not call the police? He wasn't very far from his home, why didn't he run home? Why attack Zimmerman? If you think going MMA on someone is a way to solve your problems, I suggest you go visit a psychologist. You might have some mental issues....

Because here in the adult world, getting violent only makes a situation worse. I think another thing people fail to realize also, is had Martin survived this encounter with Zimmerman, Martin would have been charged with assault.

[preacherman76]

Confronting a staker, and beating someone into the ground, are 2 different things.