The trial of George Zimmerman - Page 19
Page 19 of 49 FirstFirst ... 9171819202129 ... LastLast
Results 181 to 190 of 483

Thread: The trial of George Zimmerman

  1. #181
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    State of Confusion
    Posts
    7,733
    Quote Originally Posted by Gallstones View Post
    Rachel Jeantel is still in High School. She's not the only one adverse to script hand writing, I have encountered many adults who say they hate it, can't read it or won't read or use it.
    Can you imagine someday you hand your worker some hand-written instructions and he can't read them? Never been taught? That's happening in NYS schools. Looking to eliminate cursive writing from elementary education as we speak.
    GOD, GUNS and GUITARS

  2.   
  3. #182
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Sepra Peratus/Arkansas
    Posts
    1,638
    Quote Originally Posted by BC1 View Post
    Man, that's dead-on. I still have my 1962 stainless steel cap-gun action six-shooters with that little size 14 waist holster. I had cowboy boots, hat and a vest to match. We also played army with plastic helmet, M1 Carbine and 1911. Dad was always the enemy and would attack us. Scouting too! We had the standard issue Boy Scout (or Swiss Army) knife, a mess-kit with real utensils. We camped and learned to shoot pellet guns. Then there was the boys club. Run by a group of volunteer fathers, it had dodge-ball, basketball, indoor archery and an indoor range for .22 shorts. All of these things are gone. Except for my Godsons. Their dad, my best friend, who buys the kids Airsoft, slingshots, pellet guns and video games. I bought the 12-year-old a Henry Golden Boy .22 for his recent 12th birthday. They are on the dean's list every semester for good grades.
    You left out Racoon hats, flintlock rifles and pistols. Daniel Boone Fan Club, Howdy Doody, Roy Rogers and Trigger, Lone Ranger, Rin Tin Tin, Lassie and The Hardy Boys, those were the days! All adults were Yes Sir and Mam, Thank you and Please are Dad got the belt off. Things were very different in the 50's.
    ~Responsible people who understand that their personal protection is up to them, provide themselves with protection. Those that don't have only themselves to blame.~Proud NRA ~SAF~GoA Member~

  4. #183
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Santa Fe Area, New Mexico
    Posts
    3,487
    Quote Originally Posted by BluesStringer View Post
    As of this writing, there is zero evidence to support that conclusion. His story is that he was still out of his vehicle looking for an address to give the cops to go to when Martin confronted him after Zimmerman thought he was long gone.



    Yep, also in his own neighborhood that a SPD records-keeper testified today had been plagued by burglaries in recent weeks/months. He was not patrolling as the Neighborhood Watch member, but on his way to (or maybe coming back from) the grocery store when he saw someone he didn't recognize walking around on a rainy night. It is not illegal to observe or follow anyone, whether licensed to CC or not, though he denies that he continued to follow the subject after being told "we don't need you to do that" in any case.



    Wrong. He was on a grocery run for his ol' lady.



    Even if he was the one who could be heard screaming for help on the neighbor's 911 tape, and who the only witness to the fight says he was, indeed, the one screaming for help? Around 40 seconds of the altercation is caught on that 911 tape. Presumably it lasted longer than that or the neighbor would've had no reason to call. No matter what you believe, even if Zimmerman did confront Martin verbally, or even if he actually started the fight, once he tried to disengage and made that clear by screaming for help, he had no obligation to continue having his head beat against the concrete according to the law. That has nothing to do with whether I, you, or anyone else thinks that he was in error for ever getting out of his vehicle, the law says that if he was in grave danger after trying to disengage, he was justified in shooting.



    This case has absolutely nothing to do with laws regulating armed security guards. Nothing whatsoever.



    Your opinion(s) are meaningless when they are contradicted by the law, and in this case, they are.



    The law I cited above, 776.041, concerning use of force by aggressor, was revised in 2012.



    Wrong again. You're lumping together laws concerning the regulation of armed security guards with the acts of citizens observing the goings-on in their own neighborhoods. The only presumptions here are those that are supported by statute, and decided as having been abided by or violated by Zimmerman based only on evidence, witness testimony and the jury's conclusions about the strength and credibility of same.



    Only if it was, and can be proven to a reasonable doubt, actual aggression. Asking someone what they're doing here is not aggression according to the law, and today's "star" witness said that is all she heard Zimmerman say before she could hear the phone rustling around in the grass and then losing the connection, suggesting that the fight was on immediately after Zimmerman's question. There is still zero evidence that Zimmerman was aggressive in any way that would fall under any FL statute that he is charged with violating.



    It sounds as though you are saying he should voluntarily take responsibility for murdering someone whom he says he justifiably defended himself against with deadly force. Could I possibly be reading that right? If so, I have to ask, have you ever heard of a little piece of sheepskin parchment called "The Constitution?"



    And again, your opinions are contradicted by the law.

    Blues
    Thanks for all the background info. I really appreciate the diligence you've shown. BUT I still say, IMHO, that this could have been completely averted. Again, JMHO!
    Do you engage or not? It's each an individual choice. As always, IT's up to you to decide. Hope most have a CDA on retainer. You'll need it.
    "The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities." --author and philosopher Ayn Rand (1905-1982)

  5. #184
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    State of Confusion
    Posts
    7,733
    Quote Originally Posted by gejoslin View Post
    You left out Racoon hats, flintlock rifles and pistols. Daniel Boone Fan Club, Howdy Doody, Roy Rogers and Trigger, Lone Ranger, Rin Tin Tin, Lassie and The Hardy Boys, those were the days! All adults were Yes Sir and Mam, Thank you and Please are Dad got the belt off. Things were very different in the 50's.
    Yeah, but now they have Lil' Wayne, JayZ and that other guy... ahh Enema? No, wait, Eminem. That's it.
    .
    They got carpel-tunnel syndrome from the video controller and 892 channels. We had nine. Man, when nothing was on... nothing was on. There wasn't any flipping around nine channels. Plus, you had to keep gettin' up. When I was a kid my father would have me stand next to the TV and flip around a few times. I was his remote control. But they're banging that TV remote until they get tendonitis of the radial collateral ligament. Fulfill that addiction to spontaneous entertainment. They're banging out texts with lightening speed as they take Adderall for ADHD. If we brought them home a Howdy Doody doll they'd go upstairs and tweet what schmucks we are.
    GOD, GUNS and GUITARS

  6. #185
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Southwest Ohio
    Posts
    3,348
    Quote Originally Posted by mappow View Post
    Thanks for all the background info. I really appreciate the diligence you've shown. BUT I still say, IMHO, that this could have been completely averted. Again, JMHO!
    Do you engage or not? It's each an individual choice. As always, IT's up to you to decide. Hope most have a CDA on retainer. You'll need it.
    All confrontations could probably be avoided if we never left our houses, or at least drastically avoided anyway. Are you to some extent guilty if you venture out of your house and insert yourself into situations that, although perfectly leagal, are more likely to result in a physical confrontation with a criminal? That's basically the premise some are arguing, that some guilt must be laid at Zimmerman's feet if he committed any action that he didn't need to commit, that may have put himself on a path to confrontation. You could take that argument to any extreme. And yes, the legal principle, once established, can apply to any and all actions. Maybe Zimmerman should be convicted for joining the neighborhood watch. Obviously that was a step that led to his confrontation with Martin. Maybe he should be convicted for buying the vehicle he was in. Maybe we should blame rape victims for venturing into dark parking lots at night. Why does no one seem to grasp the incredible absurdity of blaming an innocent person for engaging in legal behavior? Zimmerman did nothing to instigate the confrontation. He was completely surprised to be confronted by Martin. All he was doing was trying to observe. You know, to "watch", as in Neighborhood WATCH? He did nothing illegal, nothing wrong and he wasn't looking for a confrontation. And the more willing we are to throw our fellow citizens under the bus for exercising their rights and doing nothing wrong, or for being scared to exercise our own rights for fear of an overzealous and power hungry government, then the less deserving we are of those rights in the first place. You can cower in fear of big bother government if you want, with your lawyer waiting in the wings in case you accidentally offend the righteous and all powerful. I'd rather be an American citizen and exercise my rights in freedom. We aren't supposed to fear our government. They're supposed to fear us, not because we threaten them, but because they work for us instead of the other way around. As soon as we start fearing them as you seem to be advising, then our rights are gone.
    Posterity: you will never know how much it has cost my generation to preserve your freedom. I hope you will make good use of it.--- John Quincy Adams
    Condensed Guide To Ohio Concealed Carry Laws

  7. #186
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Tacoma, Washington
    Posts
    475
    Quote Originally Posted by Gallstones View Post
    Rachel Jeantel is still in High School. She's not the only one adverse to script hand writing, I have encountered many adults who say they hate it, can't read it or won't read or use it.
    So then how do they write a check or sign their name?

  8. #187
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Republic of Dead Cell Holler, Occupied Territories of AL, former USA
    Posts
    7,419
    Quote Originally Posted by mappow View Post
    Thanks for all the background info. I really appreciate the diligence you've shown. BUT I still say, IMHO, that this could have been completely averted. Again, JMHO!
    The bold part I agree with wholeheartedly, mappow, and I've said the same thing many times on this forum, just using slightly different words. I don't know if you're miunderstanding me, or I'm misunderstanding you, but the way I see it, the #1 way to have avoided the confrontation was for Zimmerman to have stayed in his vehicle. I always agree with anyone who says the whole thing could've been avoided if he'd had the wisdom to make that wise tactical decision. But flawed tactical decisions require a different kind of scrutiny than flawed legal decisions, and in discussing the trial, and everything leading up to it after Zimmerman was charged, my focus has remained on scrutinizing and evaluating the legal case. Tactically, getting out of the car was a bad decision, but was it illegal in any way? If not, then that bad tactical decision cannot be held against him in a court of law, and I won't hold it against him when discussing the legal case either when commenting on the trial, which is what we're discussing in this thread.

    Quote Originally Posted by mappow View Post
    Do you engage or not?
    I guess if we want to understand each other, you need to define your understanding of the word "engage." Is it engaging someone to open your car door after they've moved beyond your field of vision? Is it engaging someone to walk past where you last saw someone to try to find the closest address to that location to tell the cops where you last saw the subject? Is it engaging someone to turn around and head back towards your car after completing making arrangements for how/where cops can contact you? All of those things are part of GZ's chronolgy of events that took place after he'd lost sight of Martin. So far, there are three interviews with two different cops plus a whole reenactment video with both of those same cops where Zimmerman doesn't deviate at all from that chronology, all on the court record now. The "conventional wisdom" is that the interview with Hannity will come in this week too, and that interview is likewise 100% consistent with that chronolgy up to that point.

    After that point, there are very minor inconsistencies in what GZ says, but both SPD investigators handling the investigation said on the stand today that they were so minor, that they thought (literally) nothing of them. But also, that is the point at which GZ says TM emerged from behind bushes or out of the darkness (one of the minor inconsistencies), asked him if he had a problem, and when GZ said he didn't have a problem, he replied with something to the effect of, "Well you have a problem now" and punched him in the nose, breaking it. I don't think anyone would disagree that engagement was taking place from then on until the shot was fired, and I have no problem agreeing that, but for Zimmerman exiting his vehicle, nothing that started at that point would've happened at all, but at the point he thought there was a possibility that he could lose consciousness from the beating he was taking, he still had the legal right to defend himself with force strong enough to stop that threat, and he did.

    Quote Originally Posted by mappow View Post
    It's each an individual choice.
    Zimmerman's only individual choice at the time at which he fired his weapon was to lay on his back and take it while a mounted Martin rained "ground and pound MMA-style" blows down on him, or fire his weapon. That is the legal question in the trial, whether or not the eye-witness told the truth about who he saw doing what and in which position. Zimmerman's poor judgment in getting out of his vehicle has no bearing on that legal question unless and until prosecutors can show that he actually attacked Martin, as opposed to just observing him. In other words, if the law means anything, GZ had no choice in whether or not to engage if he wanted to stay alive or avoid grave bodily injury.

    Quote Originally Posted by mappow View Post
    As always, IT's up to you to decide.
    I strongly disagree. The overwhelming majority of us would never "decide" to fire our weapons unless we had a good faith belief that our attacker took the choice out of our hands. I believe that's exactly what Martin did.

    Quote Originally Posted by mappow View Post
    Hope most have a CDA on retainer. You'll need it.
    That's probably decent advice for anyone who carries a weapon after having made the decision that if/when the time comes, they are prepared to take another human being's life to defend themselves or others. Whether good advice or not though, or whether or not anyone who thinks it is good advice would ever follow it, it has nothing to do with the legal questions surrounding the George Zimmerman trial. And if the jury believes Zimmerman's version of events, "engagement" in a legal sense of the word, began with Martin. If prosecutors hadn't succumbed to outside pressure from Sharpton, Jackson, the NAACP and others, GZ would've never needed a CDA because FL law provides immunity from both civil and criminal penalties when cops and prosecutors deem it a legitimate case of self defense, which they both did at first.

    Blues
    No one has ever heard me say that I "hate" cops, because I don't. This is why I will never trust one again though: You just never know...

  9. #188
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Southwest Ohio
    Posts
    3,348
    Quote Originally Posted by Kasper View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Gallstones View Post
    Rachel Jeantel is still in High School. She's not the only one adverse to script hand writing, I have encountered many adults who say they hate it, can't read it or won't read or use it.
    So then how do they write a check or sign their name?
    A check? That's so 1990s, man. They use their debit cards for everything now. God help the current generation if technology ever fails them. They'll be completely lost.
    Posterity: you will never know how much it has cost my generation to preserve your freedom. I hope you will make good use of it.--- John Quincy Adams
    Condensed Guide To Ohio Concealed Carry Laws

  10. #189
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Pasco, Washington, United States
    Posts
    6,271
    Quote Originally Posted by Rhino View Post
    A check? That's so 1990s, man. They use their debit cards for everything now. God help the current generation if technology ever fails them. They'll be completely lost.
    Technology is the future...And the older generations are all ready lost. The blind is leading the blind.
    “One of the illusions of life is that the present hour is not the critical, decisive one.” – Ralph Waldo Emerson

  11. #190
    Based on all the evidence so far and the lead detectives testimony; this trial is a complete waste if time and money.

    Where's the race baiters Sharpton and Jackson now?

    I'll bet the Home Owners Association are regretting paying that $1 Million guilt fee to Little Skittles parents
    If it doesn't fit, FORCE it! If it breaks then it needed to be replaced anyway.


Page 19 of 49 FirstFirst ... 9171819202129 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast