Zimmerman Trial: Verdict Reached!

[DaveTN]

No. Neither was any other member of this forum. All we know is one person was obviously beaten and bloody, while the other person was uninjured until he was shot. As had been mentioned countless times by the State's own witnesses, Zimmerman's account of what happened that night is consistent with the evidence. There is ZERO evidence to suggest Zimmerman physically assaulted Trayvon first. ZERO! Creating a fairytale in your mind is hardly evidence.

The only court that has jurisdiction in this case agrees with you and has put their stamp of approval on what Zimmerman did. In the eyes of the court you are right and those of us that think Zimmerman was reckless are wrong. 

[Grand Torino]

No. Neither was any other member of this forum. All we know is one person was obviously beaten and bloody, while the other person was uninjured until he was shot. As had been mentioned countless times by the State's own witnesses, Zimmerman's account of what happened that night is consistent with the evidence. There is ZERO evidence to suggest Zimmerman physically assaulted Trayvon first. ZERO! Creating a fairytale in your mind is hardly evidence.

I agree with all that. It was my point in the first place....nobody knows so a jury of his peers should be good enough for anyone.

[TripleDigitRide]

How about we teach our children the old line from Robert Heinlein: “An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.”

In those States that allow carry for self defense, teach your children to not assault individuals who may be legally armed, the results just may be death.

Obviously we have some members who teach their children that it's acceptable to physically assault someone for doing something they don't like. And to think these people own guns.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Obviously we have some members who teach their children that it's acceptable to physically assault someone for doing something they don't like. And to think these people own guns.

 

What evidence led you to that conclusion?

[Worriedman]

Good advice for youngsters.

For gun owners the take away should be that the dark alley is just as dangerous now as before you started carrying.

Of course you are correct here.  That is why guns are manufactured and sold. The old saw, "God made man, Samuel Colt made them equal" is as valid today as it was when it was coined.  Pussies, women and the weak of all types are allowed to bear arms in some places, and where they are, it is endemic to understand that your actions have repercussions.

I drive away from mad people on the road ways, I walk away from mad people when I can at Wal-Mart.  I will always try to be non confrontational, but that does not mean that as my 87 year old Aunt leaving the grocery store in Jackson TN at 1:00 on a Tuesday I may not be beaten down by a thug and forced to defend my life.

[DaveTN]

Obviously we have some members who teach their children that it's acceptable to physically assault someone for doing something they don't like. And to think these people own guns.

No, my son would not have run.  And when Zimmerman confronted him I think it would have ended with Zimmerman putting his candy azz back in the truck and waiting on the cops.

[TMF]

Obviously we have some members who teach their children that it's acceptable to physically assault someone for doing something they don't like. And to think these people own guns.

So to say that Zimmerman acted irresponsibly automatically qualifies me as teaching my son to confront and assault someone? Why take this so personal to hurl unfounded accusations on how I raise my kids?

[TripleDigitRide]

Obviously we have some members who teach their children that it's acceptable to physically assault someone for doing something they don't like. And to think these people own guns.

What evidence led you to that conclusion?

Since we are throwing out assumptions, if they feel Trayvon had no duty to retreat, it's safe to assume this is the same advice they'd give their own children. Yes, it is as ridiculous as it sounds.

[TripleDigitRide]

Obviously we have some members who teach their children that it's acceptable to physically assault someone for doing something they don't like. And to think these people own guns.

No, my son would not have run. And when Zimmerman confronted him I think it would have ended with Zimmerman putting his candy azz back in the truck and waiting on the cops.

Yeah, that's probably the same mindset that Trayvon had that night. We see how well that worked out for him.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Since we are throwing out assumptions, if they feel Trayvon had no duty to retreat, it's safe to assume this is the same advice they'd give their own children. Yes, it is as ridiculous as it sounds.

 

There may be outliers, but I gathered the impression that most folks here who don't consider Z a saint of self-defense who can do no wrong, believe there were two dumbasses out in the rain that night.

 

Now me, I'm a coward and I figger the odds of trouble coming my way are high enough that I don't need to go looking for it. :)

[gun sane]

The preamble to the Constitution says that establishing justice is a hallmark of working towards a more perfect union.  This means giving contesting parties their day in an honest and open court with no guarantee of the outcome.  Since the administration of justice in America has never been perfect and never will be as long as humans are involved, it's foolhardy to believe that we'll all reach a satisfactory consensus.  There will always be one side who feels shortchanged.  But it's facts, not feelings, which should decide justice.  Let's not let discriminatory politics decide what's prudent.

[Worriedman]

No, my son would not have run.  And when Zimmerman confronted him I think it would have ended with Zimmerman putting his candy azz back in the truck and waiting on the cops.

What I do not get,and have not since day one, is advice from a parent to their child, that instead of continuing on to their home, (which was very near, seeking safety and sanctuary), that they should in a dark place, under circumstances where they have no idea who or what the other person is, (except they are positive that they are NOT Law Enforcement as they would declare) turn and confront the unknown instead of seeking refuge that is available only seconds away?  Really?

[TripleDigitRide]

Obviously we have some members who teach their children that it's acceptable to physically assault someone for doing something they don't like. And to think these people own guns.

So to say that Zimmerman acted irresponsibly automatically qualifies me as teaching my son to confront and assault someone? Why take this so personal to hurl unfounded accusations on how I raise my kids?

Hey, we're all assuming around here. If someone has a difficult time basing their opinions on the law, common sense and logic, I can't help but question their ability to raise children and own guns. My opinion is no more or less personal than your opinion is of Zimmerman. He just happens to not be here to read what some of you are assuming about him.

[TMF]

The preamble to the Constitution says that establishing justice is a hallmark of working towards a more perfect union. This means giving contesting parties their day in an honest and open court with no guarantee of the outcome. Since the administration of justice in America has never been perfect and never will be as long as humans are involved, it's foolhardy to believe that we'll all reach a satisfactory consensus. There will always be one side who feels shortchanged. But it's facts, not feelings, which should decide justice. Let's not let discriminatory politics decide what's prudent.

At the end of the day the gatekeepers for one's freedom or incarceration are a jury of your peers. They chose not to convict. If I was on the jury I'd most likely come to the same conclusion as those jurors due to lack of evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman broke the law when he killed Martin. I don't celebrate the verdict for the sake of Zimmerman, but for the sake of a fair trial being conducted.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

What I do not get,and have not since day one, is advice from a parent to their child, that instead of continuing on to their home, (which was very near, seeking safety and sanctuary), that they should in a dark place, under circumstances where they have no idea who or what the other person is, (except they are positive that they are NOT Law Enforcement as they would declare) turn and confront the unknown instead of seeking refuge that is available only seconds away?  Really?

 

I'm not a mind reader and all kinds of crazy stuff can "seem like a good idea at the time." Though in retrospect, not really.

 

One possibility in M's thought process, if he thought Z was a local banger or prevert, is that the only person home was M's little brother, and he may not want to lead this suspicious banger/prevert to his house.

 

Alternately, maybe M thought, "I'm gonna kick me some cracker azz." No telling.

 

Why didn't he call 911? Who knows? Neither of these folks were geniuses, and even smart people routinely make bad decisions.

[KKing]

Some of you blow my mind. Please let me get this straight, because Zimmerman exited his vehicle, he deserved (and should have taken without using his firearm) to get his head bashed against concrete until his brains spilled out?

It sure sounds like some here don't have a very strong conviction to preserve life, only about taking life. By that standard, why do you carry a firearm? Do you think it's always going to be someone of legal age, stronger, and bigger that will put you in fear for your life and they will always have a weapon of some sort? Please, help me understand.

I carry a firearm knowing full well I may have to take someone's life some day. They may be "unarmed", they may be underage. But, if they put me in imminent fear of my life, I will be forced to take theirs. No, getting out of my vehicle does not mean I went "looking for trouble" Edited July 14, 2013 by KKing

[TMF]

Hey, we're all assuming around here. If someone has a difficult time basing their opinions on the law, common sense and logic, I can't help but question their ability to raise children and own guns. My opinion is no more or less personal than your opinion is of Zimmerman. He just happens to not be here to read what some of you are assuming about him.

You're right, he isn't. If he were I'd have no problem explaining to him where he went wrong and would love for him to fill in the knowledge gaps that were not cleared up in the trial. But he isn't here.

I am here though and so are you. You just made an accusation on how I raise my kids simply because I believe Zimmerman went looking for trouble. That is a personal attack from you to me for no other reason than having a different opinion to you. It is so incredibly transparent to anyone reading your statement. I can tell you that you are wrong on how I raise my children and I am disgusted that you would stoop to such a low. Absolutely disgusted.

[TripleDigitRide]

Since we are throwing out assumptions, if they feel Trayvon had no duty to retreat, it's safe to assume this is the same advice they'd give their own children. Yes, it is as ridiculous as it sounds.

There may be outliers, but I gathered the impression that most folks here who don't consider Z a saint of self-defense who can do no wrong, believe there were two dumbasses out in the rain that night.

Now me, I'm a coward and I figger the odds of trouble coming my way are high enough that I don't need to go looking for it. :)

Right. Would I have gotten out of my vehicle to see which direction Trayvon was headed? Probably not. With that being said, there was nothing against the law about his decision to do so. And there certainly is no evidence to indicate that Zimmerman had any intention of harming Trayvon.

My issue is not that some think he was stupid for getting out of his vehicle. My issue is with those who think he deserved to spend even a single day of his life in prison for getting out of his vehicle that night.

[Grand Torino]

I'm not a mind reader and all kinds of crazy stuff can "seem like a good idea at the time." Though in retrospect, not really.

 

One possibility in M's thought process, if he thought Z was a local banger or prevert, is that the only person home was M's little brother, and he may not want to lead this suspicious banger/prevert to his house.

 

Alternately, maybe M thought, "I'm gonna kick me some cracker azz." No telling.

 

Why didn't he call 911? Who knows? Neither of these folks were geniuses, and even smart people routinely make bad decisions.

Yup...it he felt threatened why didn't he call 911?

[DaveTN]

What I do not get,and have not since day one, is advice from a parent to their child, that instead of continuing on to their home, (which was very near, seeking safety and sanctuary), that they should in a dark place, under circumstances where they have no idea who or what the other person is, (except they are positive that they are NOT Law Enforcement as they would declare) turn and confront the unknown instead of seeking refuge that is available only seconds away?  Really?

He did that! And Zimmerman chased him down. Fight or flight. If Zimmerman had not chased him down; it would have been over. (And that’s a lot more logical to me than Martin should have run home). We don’t know if Martins fears caused him to turn from flight to flight. We can’t ask him; he’s dead.

But I agree with you; Zimmerman had a gun so he won. Doesn’t matter what Martins rights were, all he had to defend himself with was his fists; and it cost him his life.

[Grand Torino]

Some of you blow my mind. Please let me get this straight, because Zimmerman exited his vehicle, he deserved (and should have taken without using his firearm) to get his head bashed against concrete until his brains spilled out?

It sure sounds like some here don't have a very strong conviction to preserve life, only about taking life. By that standard, why do you carry a firearm? Do you think it's always going to be someone of legal age, stronger, and bigger that will put you in fear for your life and they will always have a weapon of some sort? Please, help me understand.

I carry a firearm knowing full well I may have to take someone's life some day. They may be "unarmed", they may be underage. But, if they put me in imminent fear of my life, I will be forced to take theirs.

I know right? I'm failing to understand all this as well. Great post.

[Worriedman]

I'm not a mind reader and all kinds of crazy stuff can "seem like a good idea at the time." Though in retrospect, not really.

 

One possibility in M's thought process, if he thought Z was a local banger or prevert, is that the only person home was M's little brother, and he may not want to lead this suspicious banger/prevert to his house.

 

Alternately, maybe M thought, "I'm gonna kick me some cracker azz." No telling.

 

Why didn't he call 911? Who knows? Neither of these folks were geniuses, and even smart people routinely make bad decisions.

Strategically thinking, he would have had a lot better chance of defending his little brother behind a locked door, with the heat on the phone (if that were the possible intent to confront). 

[TMF]

Some of you blow my mind. Please let me get this straight, because Zimmerman exited his vehicle, he deserved (and should have taken without using his firearm) to get his head bashed against concrete until his brains spilled out?

It sure sounds like some here don't have a very strong conviction to preserve life, only about taking life. By that standard, why do you carry a firearm? Do you think it's always going to be someone of legal age, stronger, and bigger that will put you in fear for your life and they will always have a weapon of some sort? Please, help me understand.

I carry a firearm knowing full well I may have to take someone's life some day. They may be "unarmed", they may be underage. But, if they put me in imminent fear of my life, I will be forced to take theirs.

The problem is that folks like yourself will read words but only interpret what you want to believe, not the intent of the author. No one can help you with that problem except for yourself.

Did Zimmerman deserve to get his head smashed in for getting out of his truck? The statement you made suggests I think it was a punitive action by using the word "deserve". No, of course he doesn't "deserve" that at all. Just like someone who BASE jumps off a cliff doesn't deserve to smack into the side of the mountain and die in a terrible heap on impact, but that is a very likely outcome when you engage in such activities, and I'm not going to feel bad for them.

Does someone "deserve" to get AIDS because they shared a needle while injecting themselves with heroin? No, but they don't deserve my sympathy. Does someone "deserve" to get breast cancer? No, but that person absolutely will get my sympathy. You see how that works?

We all make choices in life and have to live with those choices. When you make bad choices you have to deal with the outcomes. Life is really that simple.

[TMF]

Yup...it he felt threatened why didn't he call 911?

Probably shoulda. There are a whole mess of "shoulda's" from that night.

[Worriedman]

He did that! And Zimmerman chased him down. Fight or flight.

And there is any evidence to support that theory, that Zimmerman chased him down, that a fit 17 year old could not outrun a pudgy "pussy"?  If Treyvon was in fear, the adrenalin would have allowed him to get to his home a lot quicker than Zimmerman, no way the young man could not out quick the old guy.