The trial of George Zimmerman - Page 20
Page 20 of 49 FirstFirst ... 10181920212230 ... LastLast
Results 191 to 200 of 483

Thread: The trial of George Zimmerman

  1. #191
    i think the defense could of spent more than a passing moment on the fact the george made the shot and that stopped the aggression towards him and reholstered and restrained him instead of continuing to shoot.the state made a opposite point saying that why would you reholster if someone was a threat.

    i thought the defense was going to pounce on that one and show george did not intend to kill but to stop the threat and it showed that he stopped using deadly force when deadly force stopped being used against him.
    Last edited by recithree; 07-02-2013 at 09:16 AM. Reason: spelling ability

  2.   
  3. #192
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    The Great State of Texas "Remember the Alamo"
    Posts
    2,825

    Thumbs up

    Quote Originally Posted by Rhino View Post
    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.
    Exactly right on! The best post on this entire thread so far imvho.
    Fascist's are Magicians...They can make our Property, our Freedom's & even our Children 'Disappear'.
    ~Outlaw~

  4. #193

    The trial of George Zimmerman

    ^ I agree
    Excellent post!
    If it doesn't fit, FORCE it! If it breaks then it needed to be replaced anyway.


  5. #194
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    State of Confusion
    Posts
    7,733
    Quote Originally Posted by Rhino View Post
    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.
    While your statements are true this situation hits a grey area. This is precisely why most intro-level PP courses teach the first responses are avoidance, deterrence, de-escalation an retreat. Every community policing program I've ever seen teaches DO NOT FOLLOW anyone (avoidance). Watch means watch... and call. Most communities have some literature on how to create a watch program. But not everything legal is smart to do. Stupidity, while legal, can have devastating consequences for all. Both parties could have avoided this incident by simply communicating. When he met with TM, GZ could have de-escalated the confrontation by stating who he was and what he was doing. That's part of any neighborhood watch program - IDENTIFY YOURSELF. And most recommend having I.D. or perhaps even a windbreaker denoting "Community Watch." Lastly he could have just waited for the police in his car as they suggested (retreat). His job is not to pinch (collar) the perp.
    .
    Now some compare this to blaming rape on a victim and other unrelated issues. This is also very wrong. While no woman should be raped, any woman who willingly chooses to walk down a known bad, dark area, wrought with crime, at night in the rain is surely not behaving in a prudent manner and yes, she has contributed to her own peril. In doing so she violates the first rule of "avoidance." This is not the same as blaming the victim. Under civil law there are such things as comparative negligence or contributory negligence. Now I think GZ is probably not guilty, but if this were my neighborhood he would not have been on the watch program. Too overzealous. I can't imagine anyone following my guests and not meeting with my objection. The HOA would be directly addressed. And if following my guests persisted I would have obtained a court injunction stopping it.
    .
    Once again, I tell people to run this by an attorney before joining a watch program. Tell him you're starting a neighborhood watch program. You will actively follow people, carry a gun, have no armed security training, no security license, no insurance, no HOA identification card, are not indemnified by the HOA and are not bonded. If your lawyer tells you to go ahead find a new lawyer. In fact, I challenge anyone to produce neighborhood watch guidelines from any municipality that tells untrained/unlicensed persons to pro-actively follow a suspect.
    .
    So, "innocent" does not equal "not responsible." He'll be found not guilty of a crime. And I do honestly believe he's not guilty after seeing the prosecution case. I don't even need to see the defense case. I told my wife last night "this thing is already over and the defense hasn't even started their case yet." She intimated her belief that following someone and scaring them justifies getting punched out. She even brought-up how many times I did it in a bar fight during our younger/wilder days. If I thought a confrontation was going to go bad I opened-up on you first. And there are times when a pre-emptive strike is legal. But I tried to make her understand that following someone in a public or private place is perfectly legal unless the purpose is to cause fear or annoyance, in which case it's a form of harassment. The charges should never have been brought against GZ. But his actions were the major contributing factor to the incident.
    .
    I think this thing is headed to federal court on a civil rights suit, something the FL statutes cannot stop. State stand-your-ground civil provisions are not withstanding federal civil rights law. thus a suit is possible and this thing is possibly far from over. If GZ loses this case he'll be sued in FL Civil Supreme for wrongful death. If he's found not guilty he'll be sued in federal court for a federal civil rights violation. Consider how the Klan was shutdown despite no guilty verdicts for decades.
    .
    Has anyone learned anything from this case? Was the cost to Zimmerman worth protecting some stranger's property from burglary? Would any of you have willingly traded places with him and incurred that six-figure legal bill, jail time, a looming lawsuit and the ruination of their life?
    GOD, GUNS and GUITARS

  6. #195
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    2,348
    Blog Entries
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by Kasper View Post
    So then how do they write a check or sign their name?
    They don't. They swipe a debit card until they are so far in the hole their bank cuts them off. Then they open another account at another bank and do it again. I was watching my 18 yo sister in law check out at walmart, she writes her name in capitals. Sad. She doesn't know how to read cursif. And it looks exactly the same!

  7. #196
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Santa Fe Area, New Mexico
    Posts
    3,487
    Quote Originally Posted by BC1 View Post
    Has anyone learned anything from this case? Was the cost to Zimmerman worth protecting some stranger's property from burglary? Would any of you have willingly traded places with him and incurred that six-figure legal bill, jail time, a looming lawsuit and the ruination of their life?
    My point exactly. But even though his empowerment was a positional authority, I do think, as stated before, that he was to observe and report not to engage. He exited his car for the intent purpose to follow and to continue to observe. He decision to do that meant he escalated the event. Again, JMHO. I'm sure there are many.
    "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)

  8. #197
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Santa Fe Area, New Mexico
    Posts
    3,487
    Quote Originally Posted by Rhino View Post
    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.
    I never stated that I fear "them", but the rest of your statement "then our rights are gone" has almost come to fruition.

    My earlier posts concerning this event has been merely my opinion. I would not ever throw anyone under anyone's bus to satisfy some bastardized version of the Bill of Rights. That's whether it's at a local, state or Federal level.
    =
    My input is that I feel he could have avoided this by staying in his car. All the other what ifs and maybes your reference is absurd and down right demeaning.
    " Are you to some extent guilty if you venture out of your house and insert yourself into situations that, although perfectly legal, are more likely to result in a physical confrontation with a criminal? That's basically the premise some are arguing?"
    Friggin ludicrous, REALLY? Either your shorts are too tight, you don't have enough ruffage in your diet or ya need to put down the pipe. NEVER in any of my posts would I have ever inferred that nor is it my beliefs.
    =
    If your above post made ya feel good, then I'm happy for ya. Anyone with anytime on this site knows my stance on most issues. I just take exception to this thread as George had a way out, IF HE CHOOSE TO.
    "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)

  9. #198
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Southwest Ohio
    Posts
    3,348
    Quote Originally Posted by Firefighterchen View Post
    Technology is the future...And the older generations are all ready lost. The blind is leading the blind.
    Until the power goes out. I'm probably what you'd consider an older generation, but I'm quite familiar with technology. I make my living working with it. But unlike the newest generation, I also make my living by knowing what to do when the technology stops working. So keep relying solely on all that new technology, and we'll see who's blind when the lights go out.
    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. #199
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Southwest Ohio
    Posts
    3,348
    Quote Originally Posted by BC1 View Post
    While your statements are true this situation hits a grey area. This is precisely why most intro-level PP courses teach the first responses are avoidance, deterrence, de-escalation an retreat.
    Absolutely. That's the first response to a THREAT. That's not a response to observing a suspicious person.

    Every community policing program I've ever seen teaches DO NOT FOLLOW anyone (avoidance). Watch means watch... and call.
    I'm not quoting the rest, not because I'm ignoring it, but just for brevity. Watch does mean watch, and that's exactly what George was trying to do. He was trying to maintain visual contact only. He wasn't trying to approach Martin. He wasn't trying to follow him, at least not in the sense of going to the same location Martin was going. Zimmerman had just gotten off the 911 call. The last part of that conversation involved where he was going to meet the cops so he could point out the suspicious person. To do that, he needed to be able to see him. Not follow him. Just see him. He simply tried to maintain sight of Martin. He had no idea Martin had hidden in the bushes and was waiting for him. Some say he should have anticipated that, but that's the common mantra of the Monday morning quarterback. There are millions of violent crime victims who would love to give these Monday morning quarterbacks a piece of their mind about what they should have had ESP about so they could have anticipated. The average American doesn't go around anticipating violent attack around every corner, even while watching someone in a neighborhood at night. Even the bloviating Monday morning quarterbacks don't do that, as much as they may claim to.

    Zimmerman wasn't carrying a gun as part of his watch program, so it's disingenious to try and tie that in where there is no connection. Every person with a concealed carry license who also happens to be in a neighborhood watch program is not carrying a gun as part of his neighborhood watch function, unless you're an overzealous prosecutor trying to railroad an innocent man into prison.

    And identifying yourself is not part of any neighborhood watch program. I used to run a neighborhood watch. We were supposed to make no contact with those observed at all, so identification would never be an issue. Zimmerman never intended any contact either. You just assume he did because you're confusing observation with following someone.

    Has anyone learned anything from this case?
    I've learned that it's amazing how many concealed carriers are willing to abandon a man who defends himself against a deadly thgreat.

    Was the cost to Zimmerman worth protecting some stranger's property from burglary?
    Are you serious? You actually think Zimmerman was trying to defend someone's property when he shot Martin? Or do you think it wasn't worth it for him to save his own life?

    Would any of you have willingly traded places with him and incurred that six-figure legal bill, jail time, a looming lawsuit and the ruination of their life?
    When my head is getting bashed in? You're da&n right! Maybe your head is hard enough that you'd just ignore the attack. I'm not that stupid.
    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

  11. #200
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Southwest Ohio
    Posts
    3,348
    Quote Originally Posted by mappow View Post
    I never stated that I fear "them", but the rest of your statement "then our rights are gone" has almost come to fruition.

    My earlier posts concerning this event has been merely my opinion. I would not ever throw anyone under anyone's bus to satisfy some bastardized version of the Bill of Rights. That's whether it's at a local, state or Federal level.
    =
    My input is that I feel he could have avoided this by staying in his car. All the other what ifs and maybes your reference is absurd and down right demeaning.
    Point taken, and I should have worded it differently. I made it personal when it was really the concept of indifference and defeatism itself that had my dander up. I apologize for directing it at you personally. I hope you can see past my poor choice of wording and understand the concept itself that I was trying to get across.
    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

Page 20 of 49 FirstFirst ... 10181920212230 ... 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