The trial of George Zimmerman - Page 42
Page 42 of 49 FirstFirst ... 324041424344 ... LastLast
Results 411 to 420 of 483

Thread: The trial of George Zimmerman

  1. #411
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Sepra Peratus/Arkansas
    Posts
    1,638
    Quote Originally Posted by ricardo900 View Post
    Jeeesh! I guess there's nothing out there for the people.
    If you want the truth of a story you really have to listen to all the stories, printed or reported. Every news org has their own slant and their own agenda. Every reporter has their own point of view and they're going to report it the way they see it. Then there's the truth. Just the way it is.
    ~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~

  2.   
  3. #412
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Republic of Dead Cell Holler, Occupied Territories of AL, former USA
    Posts
    7,419
    Quote Originally Posted by Kramer1113 View Post
    Hey Blues,
    I agree with much of your statement. The only area that wasn't addressed was the emotional aspect of this.
    It wasn't addressed for a reason though, Kramer. Zimmerman has the law on his side from all the evidence. The jury can't be able to imagine any reasonable hypothesis that points to self defense and still convict him.

    On the other hand, the law is nowhere to be found in the prosecution's case, and it showed in their closing arguments. It was nothing but emotional tearing at the heartstrings. Not one single element of 2nd degree or manslaughter was proven beyond a reasonable doubt, nor was self defense proven to be illegitimate under FL state law.

    I have tried to stick like glue to the facts and the law, and leave emotional arguments out of it, thus, I didn't address it, and will try to continue not to, at least until a verdict is in and the public opinion is all that's left to talk about.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kramer1113 View Post
    Mr. Zimmerman had an emotional attachment to his neighborhood. He gave a fine example of the pride he took in it by becoming a member of the neighborhood watch.
    And how has his emotional pride worked out for the reputation of the Retreat at Twin Lakes now? Better instincts would've gone a lot further in protecting his neighborhood's reputation than shooting and killing a young man who, likewise, had poor instincts on that night. That premise is inherent in what I've been saying.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kramer1113 View Post
    We don't know what is Normal for his neighborhood, but he does. This is why Mr. Martin looked out of place, Abnormal if you will. You know what is normal in your neighborhood and what is not.
    I've not questioned whether or not noticing someone as being out of place was appropriate, I have only questioned his response after taking that note. I think asking the kid if he could help him find an address or something would've deescalated the situation before it ever began. That would've been my instinct to try first. It would not have either expressed an abundance of suspicion on Zimmerman's part, nor automatically triggered an aggressive response on Martin's part. Both of their instincts were not thinking two or three steps ahead of the actions they took on that night though. Their emotions and tunnel vision got the better of them both. I think what Zimmerman did was legal, but I hardly think he is above criticism or scrutiny for not thinking far enough ahead to avoid having to do it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kramer1113 View Post
    I feel as though Mr. Zimmerman took the high number of break-ins in his neighborhood personally. As he stated in the 911 call "These ******* Always get away with it". If it wasn't personal that statement alone would never have been said.
    Well, not to get too awful nit-picky, but that's not exactly what he said, nor is it in the context in which his similar statement was uttered. First, there was no "...with it" at the end of his statement. It was, "These ********** always get away," and the context was that they always got away because the cops' response time was always too long. He said, "Get an officer over here." The dispatcher replied, "Yeah, we got someone on their way." And that's when GZ said what he said, and he clarified either on Hannity or in the cop interview that he was referring to response time, and not really personalizing it towards Martin. It's a minor point, but if we're going to discuss it, we might as well get both the words and the context as accurate as we can, right?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kramer1113 View Post
    I knew my days of "Cop" (And yes, Military Police I know, I know, its different) were over when I was apprehending a shop lifter and as we were struggling I lost my peripheral vision and I tunnel visioned out on the guy.
    Don't you think Zimmerman had tunnel vision about who/what Martin was from the instant he saw him though? He called the cops within seconds of seeing him, and he started out with way more exaggerated levels of suspicion than was warranted just because a guy with a hoodie is walking down the street on a rainy night. At least two of Zimmerman's neighbors who testified are black. Tracy Martin's fiance is black. Presumably those aren't the only three blacks in the neighborhood, and kids with khaki pants and hoodies on is not all that unusual. His instinct was to hyper-drive his suspicion instead of just offering his aid to a visitor to his neighborhood. The evidence all points to George Zimmerman being anything but a racist, but whatever his instinctual rationale for being suspicious of Martin was, it was wrong. Not illegal mind you, but wrong nonetheless, and I personally don't see how anyone who identifies with the neighborhood watch "mindset" (which I definitely do) could see it as inappropriate to criticize him for not foreseeing how bad things could go when he was so wrong in both thought and deed.

    Bottom line for me, Kramer, is that I am actively trying to take emotion out of it and just scrutinize the whole thing as objectively as I can. If the jury comes back with a guilty verdict, I will express some anger at the system for whatever went wrong that it didn't allow those jurors to apply the law as-written and intended. Likewise, I will see Zimmerman as a victim of a corrupt system that never had a legal rationale to bring the case to begin with, and I'll express some sympathetic outrage on Zimmerman's behalf because of that. What I won't do though, is succumb to the emotional response that, because his intentions were good, that he did nothing wrong, or worthy of criticism, or his actions can't be scrutinized in the exact same way I would scrutinize my own actions if I had to shoot someone legally, but upon objective scrutiny, realize that there were things I could've done differently to have avoided the need to. Every engagement gets an after-action analysis, and like I said before, it seems to me that George is oblivious to the usefulness and need for such self-scrutiny when he says he doesn't regret anything that happened that night because, he said, it was all in "God's hands" or something close to that.

    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...

  4. #413
    Quote Originally Posted by BluesStringer View Post
    It wasn't addressed for a reason though, Kramer. Zimmerman has the law on his side from all the evidence. The jury can't be able to imagine any reasonable hypothesis that points to self defense and still convict him.

    On the other hand, the law is nowhere to be found in the prosecution's case, and it showed in their closing arguments. It was nothing but emotional tearing at the heartstrings. Not one single element of 2nd degree or manslaughter was proven beyond a reasonable doubt, nor was self defense proven to be illegitimate under FL state law.

    I have tried to stick like glue to the facts and the law, and leave emotional arguments out of it, thus, I didn't address it, and will try to continue not to, at least until a verdict is in and the public opinion is all that's left to talk about.



    And how has his emotional pride worked out for the reputation of the Retreat at Twin Lakes now? Better instincts would've gone a lot further in protecting his neighborhood's reputation than shooting and killing a young man who, likewise, had poor instincts on that night. That premise is inherent in what I've been saying.



    I've not questioned whether or not noticing someone as being out of place was appropriate, I have only questioned his response after taking that note. I think asking the kid if he could help him find an address or something would've deescalated the situation before it ever began. That would've been my instinct to try first. It would not have either expressed an abundance of suspicion on Zimmerman's part, nor automatically triggered an aggressive response on Martin's part. Both of their instincts were not thinking two or three steps ahead of the actions they took on that night though. Their emotions and tunnel vision got the better of them both. I think what Zimmerman did was legal, but I hardly think he is above criticism or scrutiny for not thinking far enough ahead to avoid having to do it.



    Well, not to get too awful nit-picky, but that's not exactly what he said, nor is it in the context in which his similar statement was uttered. First, there was no "...with it" at the end of his statement. It was, "These ********** always get away," and the context was that they always got away because the cops' response time was always too long. He said, "Get an officer over here." The dispatcher replied, "Yeah, we got someone on their way." And that's when GZ said what he said, and he clarified either on Hannity or in the cop interview that he was referring to response time, and not really personalizing it towards Martin. It's a minor point, but if we're going to discuss it, we might as well get both the words and the context as accurate as we can, right?



    Don't you think Zimmerman had tunnel vision about who/what Martin was from the instant he saw him though? He called the cops within seconds of seeing him, and he started out with way more exaggerated levels of suspicion than was warranted just because a guy with a hoodie is walking down the street on a rainy night. At least two of Zimmerman's neighbors who testified are black. Tracy Martin's fiance is black. Presumably those aren't the only three blacks in the neighborhood, and kids with khaki pants and hoodies on is not all that unusual. His instinct was to hyper-drive his suspicion instead of just offering his aid to a visitor to his neighborhood. The evidence all points to George Zimmerman being anything but a racist, but whatever his instinctual rationale for being suspicious of Martin was, it was wrong. Not illegal mind you, but wrong nonetheless, and I personally don't see how anyone who identifies with the neighborhood watch "mindset" (which I definitely do) could see it as inappropriate to criticize him for not foreseeing how bad things could go when he was so wrong in both thought and deed.

    Bottom line for me, Kramer, is that I am actively trying to take emotion out of it and just scrutinize the whole thing as objectively as I can. If the jury comes back with a guilty verdict, I will express some anger at the system for whatever went wrong that it didn't allow those jurors to apply the law as-written and intended. Likewise, I will see Zimmerman as a victim of a corrupt system that never had a legal rationale to bring the case to begin with, and I'll express some sympathetic outrage on Zimmerman's behalf because of that. What I won't do though, is succumb to the emotional response that, because his intentions were good, that he did nothing wrong, or worthy of criticism, or his actions can't be scrutinized in the exact same way I would scrutinize my own actions if I had to shoot someone legally, but upon objective scrutiny, realize that there were things I could've done differently to have avoided the need to. Every engagement gets an after-action analysis, and like I said before, it seems to me that George is oblivious to the usefulness and need for such self-scrutiny when he says he doesn't regret anything that happened that night because, he said, it was all in "God's hands" or something close to that.

    Blues
    Agree, Agree, Agree, and Agree. Emotion has No Place in Law Enforcement and it is difficult to keep it out. Generally the suppression of emotion is why a lot of cops find themselves at the bottom of a bottle.
    You See, Zimmerman couldn't help himself. He was emotionally charged going in, so clear judgement is out the window.
    And I am sure he tunnel visioned on Martin, again, Tunnel Vision has no place in Law Enforcement. Failing #2.
    *Thank you for the correction on the statement. None the less it was said because of his emotional attachment.

    Hindsight is a great thing. I am sure Mr. Zimmerman second and third and fourth guessed himself until he just had to accept that it was as it was and there was no going back.

    It, Being in Gods hands, then and now are rather interesting statements.
    We to often forget there is a Devil at play.
    It is in Gods hands, everything always is.
    One day Mr. Zimmerman will stand before the Lord no matter what the Jury comes back and says, and he will answer for what is in his heart.

    Despite his faults I find Mr. Zimmerman to be credible, In My Humble Opinion. Other do not. No matter what the Jury comes back with I am pretty sure things went down a lot like what Mr. Zimmerman has said. Just My Opinion.

    I also agree to many stupid things came together that night and added up to a 17 year old laying face down dead in the rain. Stupid, Stupid, Stupid.
    A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,
    the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

  5. #414
    ezkl2230 Guest
    Here is a rundown of the women on the jury; see if any details in the descriptions of these women give you cause for concern about Zimmerman's ability to get a fair trial:

    A look at the jurors for the Zimmerman trial

    BTW, here are the instructions given to the jury regarding a charge of manslaughter:

    MANSLAUGHTER
    To prove the crime of Manslaughter, the State must prove the following two elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
    1. Trayvon Martin is dead.
    2. George Zimmerman intentionally committed an act or acts that caused the death of Trayvon Martin.

    George Zimmerman cannot be guilty of manslaughter by committing a merely negligent act or if the killing was either justifiable or excusable homicide:
    Each of us has a duty to act reasonably toward others. If there is a violation of that duty, without any conscious intention to harm, that violation is negligence.
    The killing of a human being is justifiable homicide and lawful if necessarily done while resisting an attempt to murder or commit a felony upon George Zimmerman, or to commit a felony in any dwelling house in which George Zimmerman was at the time of the killing.

    The killing of a human being is excusable, and therefore lawful, under any one of the following three circumstances:
    1. When the killing is committed by accident and misfortune in doing any lawful act by lawful means with usual ordinary caution and without any unlawful intent, or
    2. When the killing occurs by accident and misfortune in the heat of passion, upon any sudden and sufficient provocation, or
    3. When the killing is committed by accident and misfortune resulting from a sudden combat, if a dangerous weapon is not used and the killing is not done in a cruel or unusual manner.

    In order to convict of manslaughter by act, it is not necessary for the State to prove that George Zimmerman had an intent to cause death, only an intent to commit an act that was not merely negligent, justified, or excusable and which caused death.

    If you find George Zimmerman committed Manslaughter, and you also find beyond a reasonable doubt that during the commission of the Manslaughter, George Zimmerman carried, displayed, used, threatened to use, or attempted to use a firearm, you should check the appropriate box on the verdict form which I will discuss with you later in these instructions.

    Zimmerman jury asks for 'clarificaton' on manslaughter charge

  6. #415
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Republic of Dead Cell Holler, Occupied Territories of AL, former USA
    Posts
    7,419
    I'm listening to some pundits say that the jury is likely "past" the murder 2 charge, and on to the manslaughter charge because of taking the instructions in chronological order. They say that it's possible that they don't understand that if self defense applied to murder 2, it likewise applies to manslaughter. I thought O'Mara was as clear on that point as he could be, even if the instructions weren't. I seriously doubt that self defense is still on the table. I hope I'm wrong, but if it is still on the table, that necessarily means that they don't fully understand the law. I don't see how that can help Zimmerman.

    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...

  7. #416
    OH MY, Did you just hear that Guy on FOX news say that he has "Insight" on this and he said its 5 to 1, 5 for acquittal and one is now looking at manslaughter. I sure hope this guy just didn't poop on this case.
    A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,
    the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

  8. #417
    nothing against nancy grace as a person but she just said it again. "what was he doing carrying a gun ,loaded, with bullets" she finds it so unusual to carry a gun out running errands.are we suppose to carry only when we are going somewhere dangerous?you avoid those areas and carry whenever you can.period.

  9. #418
    Quote Originally Posted by recithree View Post
    nothing against nancy grace as a person but she just said it again. "what was he doing carrying a gun ,loaded, with bullets" she finds it so unusual to carry a gun out running errands.are we suppose to carry only when we are going somewhere dangerous?you avoid those areas and carry whenever you can.period.
    Nancy Grace is a complete moron.
    You can have good intentions and not be right.

  10. #419
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    United Socialist Republic of New York
    Posts
    369
    Quote Originally Posted by Kramer1113 View Post
    OH MY, Did you just hear that Guy on FOX news say that he has "Insight" on this and he said its 5 to 1, 5 for acquittal and one is now looking at manslaughter. I sure hope this guy just didn't poop on this case.
    We are ready for the riots to hit should he be acquitted. The verdict coupled with an ethnic parade and celebration that always causes a lot of issues once the liquor soaks in should make tomorrow the worst day on my calendar. Hope it is a one shift day as scheduled but something tells me I'm not going home at 3 like I think I am.....

  11. #420
    ezkl2230 Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by recithree View Post
    nothing against nancy grace as a person but she just said it again. "what was he doing carrying a gun ,loaded, with bullets" she finds it so unusual to carry a gun out running errands.are we suppose to carry only when we are going somewhere dangerous?you avoid those areas and carry whenever you can.period.
    I would think it more unusual if he had been carrying a gun, unloaded, without bullets.

    But that's probably just me.

Page 42 of 49 FirstFirst ... 324041424344 ... 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