Has anyone been keeping up with the Zimmerman trial?

[joseephuss]

Him not wanting to tell the dispatcher his address doesn't mean anything because he claims he was going to get the address of where he currently was. Supposedly he was going to have the cops meet him at this address (I guess, I don't know what else he would do with it) but for some reason he never gave an address, even when asked a direct question about the house he was in front of. To top it off, he then asks to have the police call him so he can tell them where he was.

Essentially, he supposedly wasn't following him but was looking for an address. After getting out of his truck and looking for this address he then describes the location of his truck to the dispatcher cause that's where they were going to meet, apparently making the entire address hunt useless. When asked for a specific address after that he can't give one and then he changes things up again by asking to be called so he can tell them where he would be.
.

Zimmerman didn't make much of a neighborhood watch person. I would want someone who is part of a neighborhood watch program to have a better knowledge of what streets are part of the neighborhood. It shouldn't be a difficult task to know where you are located at any given moment when you are on watch or patrol of a neighborhood. The guy isn't patrolling an entire city or anything. I can understand a random resident not knowing every street in their neighborhood, but a person who is part of a neighborhood watch program should.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

To what extent does this apply?

If I go up and sucker punch someone and they start getting the upper hand I can shoot them and just claim self defense based on a subjective feeling of my life being in danger?

Under Florida Law, yes you can.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Of course its not against the law to get out of your vehicle. Im saying you're trying to play dumb and say both the fact that Trayvon left his house that night to go get a snack at a local convenience store and that GZ followed him when he was told not to are both the same situation. Its not.

One of them was told specifically by a police dispatcher not to do something, and he did it anyway.. its not extreme at all to expect him to do what he's told when he calls the police.

No, your completely wrong here. I'm not playing dumb and if you can not distinguish that, then we need to stop this discussion now.

I'm saying that you can play what if all day but in the end, all that matters is what the Law says. If you deviate from that, then you have nothing.

Under Florida Law, Zimmerman was not guilty. I don't know what else to say.

 

[Wheeltax]

If you start a fight and then kill someone, you are at fault - the whole issue is who is the aggressor. I don't think anyone really believes that Zimmerman made the first aggressive act. When you boil it down to "This guy attacked that guy and was banging his head on the ground, and the guy who was the victim at that point shot his attacker" then it's pretty easy, and that's what the case ultimately comes down to. That's the story, the witnesses, police, and EMTs all had testimony that supported that story, and the Prosecution failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that that's not what happened.

Case closed.

There is room for a civil suit, and that's fine. That's how the system works.

 

[iceberg]

If you start a fight and then kill someone, you are at fault - the whole issue is who is the aggressor. I don't think anyone really believes that Zimmerman made the first aggressive act. When you boil it down to "This guy attacked that guy and was banging his head on the ground, and the guy who was the victim at that point shot his attacker" then it's pretty easy, and that's what the case ultimately comes down to. That's the story, the witnesses, police, and EMTs all had testimony that supported that story, and the Prosecution failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that that's not what happened.

Case closed.

There is room for a civil suit, and that's fine. That's how the system works.

and WHAM...

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/storie...ME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2013-07-14-16-02-34

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Justice Department says it is looking into the shooting death of Trayvon Martin to determine whether federal prosecutors should file criminal civil rights charges now that George Zimmerman has been acquitted in the state case.

The department opened an investigation into Martin's death last year but stepped aside to allow the state prosecution to proceed.

(if this is crossing the political border, please feel free to delete)

 

[Hoofbite]

This 8 minute video pretty much sums up the reality of the case.

Except the reality of the case is that it was social networks that pretty much picked up the case and brought it to the spotlight before the main stream media so claiming that people are "brainwashed" is ignorant to how the whole thing unfolded.

 

[Hoofbite]

And the whole premise of that video is one that is getting played out. "Why are they so upset about this one instance out of many?" You see this all the time when the public gains interest in a specific event. There's always someone who's trying to label people as hypocrites because they didn't stand up on behalf of all these other events of varying degrees of similarity.

Why does it even matter? So now people have to rally on the behalf of every single case of similar or dissimilar circumstances that they may or may not know of? Sort of like how PETA does when they go out in public with some of the far fetched stuff they do, only to be called attention seeking profiteers?

By the same thought process, I'm beginning to wonder if this guy made a video pointing out that all the people who were upset with the Casey Anthony situation aren't out there putting forth the same effort advocating for justice for all the other kids who die needlessly worldwide. Where's his video on that? Did he make one?

I dunno if he did which brings me to my next point. Just because you don't see something happening doesn't mean that people aren't out there making an effort. I haven't witnessed one person or been told of one person who has donated to cancer research in the last year. Should just assume that nobody is donating to cancer research? What any person sees in their narrow little world perspective isn't even close to a fraction of what is actually happening so making some stupid video about how people shouldn't buy into a media frenzy (when it's possible these people were on board before the media got ahold of the story) is a complete waste of effort.

The media picked up the Zimmerman story because enough people made enough noise and drew enough attention to it. Simple as that. Saying people are brainwashed because the media covered a topic that had national interest is just flat out ridiculous.

 

[tunahelper]

and WHAM...

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/storie...ME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2013-07-14-16-02-34

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Justice Department says it is looking into the shooting death of Trayvon Martin to determine whether federal prosecutors should file criminal civil rights charges now that George Zimmerman has been acquitted in the state case.

The department opened an investigation into Martin's death last year but stepped aside to allow the state prosecution to proceed.

(if this is crossing the political border, please feel free to delete)

I wonder if anyone consider that the racist wasnt the hispanic/jewish "white" guy. Maybe it was the guy saying the crazy *** cracker? Maybe that racist was the aggressor? Because we are told to accept anyone that is a racist would commit violent crime.

Prosecution never proved Zimmerman followed or was the aggressor. Justice was met with the a correct verdict.

 

[Wheeltax]

Yeah I guess someone who mentored poor black youth, had a black grandmother, and whose high school prom date was a black girl must be a total racist and hate black people.

Or maybe there are some situations that actually just aren't about race? I know that'd probably be weird to imagine for a lot of the race-baiters who make their money off of such a thing.

 

[DejectedFan1996]

bottom line.........2 men but neither of them handled it like adults.........which then led to the sad end, unneeded ending.......

Trayvon was not an adult.

 

[TheCount]

If I go up and sucker punch someone and they start getting the upper hand I can shoot them and just claim self defense based on a subjective feeling of my life being in danger?

Not neccesarily, but if you trip the right wires, you could go free. Preferably, when you shoot the person, it's better if you kill them than wound them or miss them entirely.

JACKSONVILLE, Florida - A Florida woman who fired warning shots against her allegedly abusive husband has been sentenced to 20 years in prison.

If you read up on the way Florida handled shooting cases, you'll find that there in no consistent interpretation of their Stand your Ground law, and I'd imagine it's the same in most places that have similar laws.

 

[Hoofbite]

Not neccesarily, but if you trip the right wires, you could go free. Preferably, when you shoot the person, it's better if you kill them than wound them or miss them entirely.

The law actually does have a stipulation about being the agressor and using deadly force. It would only apply in two cases it seems. The agressor initiates but the two are then separated and the agressor has made it clear he's backing down but the other party who was initially attacked continues to attack. The other instance is similar to the original wording but it does include "that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant".

If you read up on the way Florida handled shooting cases, you'll find that there in no consistent interpretation of their Stand your Ground law, and I'd imagine it's the same in most places that have similar laws.

Seems awfully subjective.

 

[TheCount]

The law actually does have a stipulation about being the agressor and using deadly force. It would only apply in two cases it seems. The agressor initiates but the two are then separated and the agressor has made it clear he's backing down but the other party who was initially attacked continues to attack. The other instance is similar to the original wording but it does include "that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant".

I can't dig for it right now, but I read a story about a case where two men confronted each other, got in a scuffle and one pulled out a gun. The other guy left, went home, got his own gun, came back and killed the guy that pulled his gun originally. He walked due to the Stand your Ground law.

I'd say subjective is just the start of it.

 

[5Stars]

I can't dig for it right now, but I read a story about a case where two men confronted each other, got in a scuffle and one pulled out a gun. The other guy left, went home, got his own gun, came back and killed the guy that pulled his gun originally. He walked due to the Stand your Ground law.

I'd say subjective is just the start of it.

I think that was when two men got into a car wreak. They argued and the one guy pulled out his gun (i think he fired it in the air, maybe not). So, since the other guy's house was just a few yards away, he went home and got his gun and came back to the accident and killed the other guy.

 

[RoyTheHammer]

I don't think the evidence ever really supported convicting him in criminal court. I just didn't see "beyond a reasonable doubt" in the evidence.

However, in a civil court setting? Where it's just a 50+1 proposition? Yeah. Good luck with that.

I agree.. im not sure how the case even went to trial.

 

[iceberg]

I agree.. im not sure how the case even went to trial.

politics.

 

[RoyTheHammer]

No, your completely wrong here. I'm not playing dumb and if you can not distinguish that, then we need to stop this discussion now.

I'm saying that you can play what if all day but in the end, all that matters is what the Law says. If you deviate from that, then you have nothing.

Under Florida Law, Zimmerman was not guilty. I don't know what else to say.

No argument here. He's definitely guilty, imo.. just not in the criminal court system that we have now. The stand your ground law is one of the stupidest things i've ever heard of, too.

 

[iceberg]

No argument here. He's definitely guilty, imo.. just not in the criminal court system that we have now. The stand your ground law is one of the stupidest things i've ever heard of, too.

if you judge this law by this instance, you gloss over why this law may have been put into place. maybe another trial al sharpton didn't push led to rational decision of how this law came into being. to say it doesn't "fit" here - well, did you research why it was created? events that brought it to life? or do you just apply the unknown to the media driven?

 

[Passepartout]

Well glad it is over and done. Hopefully that it is. As Florida wants it to be over. With two back to back trials of Zimmerman and Anthony!

 

[Tabascocat]

While watching TV tonight, a street full of people went by(Los Angeles) screaming stuff about justice, etc carring signs. Must have been 500+ strong and I hope it doesn't get worse than this.