The Aftermath of the Trial

[Vox]

I guess that I value life more than you do. When I grew up fights were common, murders few. Then the NRA came up with their brand and that changed. Welcome to conservative Amerika.

our VIEWS are irrelevant.

The law isn't.

The rules of street fight ethics do not equate with the law - and that is the common mistake, you, Trayvon and others defending him make.

Learn the LAW.

and teach the kids that street fight ethics and criminal laws DIFFER. A lot.

 

[Pogo]

the reason is irrelevant. If it is being bashed to the concrete you have the right to defend yourself with a deadly force.
It's the law.

No, the reason is not irrelevant. Life doesn't happen "joining the program already in progress". Events are set up by what went before, not in some kind of temporal vacuum. I almost posted in the previous post, "would it have anything to do with going out packing heat?"

So the question stands, even if it's inconvenient.

the reason is ABSOLUTELY irrelevant.
That's why Z was acquitted.

No, actually it isn't. We're talking about a hypothetical question posed by Pop23 here --- not the Zimmerman trial.

Within the Zimmerman trial however, I guarantee you nobody got away with posing a question-in-a-vacuum like that. If that were the case, Zimmerman would be on death row right now because there would be no such thing as self-defense. Because "things just happen in a vacuum". That's bullshit.

 

[PMZ]

The law must depend on trials and juries. Consider how many murder convictions have been overturned by DNA evidence. If you think that the system is perfect you're dreaming. TM paid the ultimate price for GZ's errors and the flawed FL law and culture let him get away with it.

Shit happens. And usually rolls down hill. If it ever rolled uphill people like you would be screaming.

 

[Vox]

No, the reason is not irrelevant. Life doesn't happen "joining the program already in progress". Events are set up by what went before, not in some kind of temporal vacuum. I almost posted in the previous post, "would it have anything to do with going out packing heat?"

So the question stands, even if it's inconvenient.

the reason is ABSOLUTELY irrelevant.
That's why Z was acquitted.

No, actually it isn't. We're talking about a hypothetical question posed by Pop23 here --- not the Zimmerman trial.

Within the Zimmerman trial however, I guarantee you nobody got away with posing a question-in-a-vacuum like that. If that were the case, Zimmerman would be on death row right now because there would be no such thing as self-defense. Because "things just happen in a vacuum". That's bullshit.

I am talking the trial and the law applied.
The reason for the fight and who started it was irrelevant for the trial, the jury and the judge.

In the reality of street fight ethics that might differ a lot.

 

[Vox]

The law must depend on trials and juries. Consider how many murder convictions have been overturned by DNA evidence. If you think that the system is perfect you're dreaming. TM paid the ultimate price for GZ's errors and the flawed FL law and culture let him get away with it.

Shit happens. And usually rolls down hill. If it ever rolled uphill people like you would be screaming.

you are mixing apples and oranges.

DNA here was not a relevant evidence as the identity of both of the men was known.

I do not think the system is perfect.

I think it is very flawed, but the angle it is flawed from my perspective never is addressed neither by you, nor other Trayvon's defenders.

The main reason the system is extremely flawed is the existence of mandatory sentencing.

It makes the judge almost not needed and the decision to be made ONLY as guilty-not guilty.

 

[Pogo]

the reason is ABSOLUTELY irrelevant.
That's why Z was acquitted.

No, actually it isn't. We're talking about a hypothetical question posed by Pop23 here --- not the Zimmerman trial.

Within the Zimmerman trial however, I guarantee you nobody got away with posing a question-in-a-vacuum like that. If that were the case, Zimmerman would be on death row right now because there would be no such thing as self-defense. Because "things just happen in a vacuum". That's bullshit.

I am talking the trial and the law applied.
The reason for the fight and who started it was irrelevant for the trial, the jury and the judge.

In the reality of street fight ethics that might differ a lot.

Having the reason spelled out and then deciding the reason is irrelevant, is a completely different thing from refusing to stipulate what the background even is in your own hypothetical scenario.

 

[Vox]

No, actually it isn't. We're talking about a hypothetical question posed by Pop23 here --- not the Zimmerman trial.

Within the Zimmerman trial however, I guarantee you nobody got away with posing a question-in-a-vacuum like that. If that were the case, Zimmerman would be on death row right now because there would be no such thing as self-defense. Because "things just happen in a vacuum". That's bullshit.

I am talking the trial and the law applied.
The reason for the fight and who started it was irrelevant for the trial, the jury and the judge.

In the reality of street fight ethics that might differ a lot.

Having the reason spelled out and then deciding the reason is irrelevant, is a completely different thing from refusing to stipulate what the background even is in your own hypothetical scenario.

I did not spell out the reason.

I think that the situation could have been totally different if Z would call or approach T with a polite sentence "you seem lost here, can I help you, I am so an so and am a neighborhood watch here". I highly suspect that even if T was a highly-flammable for a fight material he would not get into a fight after this. He would probably mumble something like "I'm fine, going home to so and so".

But Z was not taught rules of appropriate conduct ( politeness) and T was sure he can teach Z a lesson and the rest we know.

 

[PMZ]

The law makers have the responsibility to establish consequences for not abiding by any law. The judge and jury can only decide if the evidence of breaking the law is compelling beyond reasonable doubt. That’s all this jury decided. That it was possible that GZ's story was correct. No evidence made it certainly incorrect.

Our system is to avoid convicting the innocent even at the certainty of letting some guilty off free.

 

[Pop23]

No, the reason is not irrelevant. Life doesn't happen "joining the program already in progress". Events are set up by what went before, not in some kind of temporal vacuum. I almost posted in the previous post, "would it have anything to do with going out packing heat?"

So the question stands, even if it's inconvenient.

the reason is ABSOLUTELY irrelevant.
That's why Z was acquitted.

No, actually it isn't. We're talking about a hypothetical question posed by Pop23 here --- not the Zimmerman trial.

Within the Zimmerman trial however, I guarantee you nobody got away with posing a question-in-a-vacuum like that. If that were the case, Zimmerman would be on death row right now because there would be no such thing as self-defense. Because "things just happen in a vacuum". That's bullshit.

Typical, don't answer the question because YOU KNOW what your answer would be and show what a hypocrite you are.

Hypothetical or not, you know what the answer would be. Guess the Jury did the right thing didn't they?

I am still looking for some kind of justification for one man slamming another mans head into a concrete sidewalk.

That my friend, is not a hypothetical, that was BROUGHT UP BY YOU.

Go ahead, show us your superior thought process. So far I am unimpressed.

 

[Pogo]

the reason is ABSOLUTELY irrelevant.
That's why Z was acquitted.

No, actually it isn't. We're talking about a hypothetical question posed by Pop23 here --- not the Zimmerman trial.

Within the Zimmerman trial however, I guarantee you nobody got away with posing a question-in-a-vacuum like that. If that were the case, Zimmerman would be on death row right now because there would be no such thing as self-defense. Because "things just happen in a vacuum". That's bullshit.

Typical, don't answer the question because YOU KNOW what your answer would be and show what a hypocrite you are.

Hypothetical or not, you know what the answer would be. Guess the Jury did the right thing didn't they?

I am still looking for some kind of justification for one man slamming another mans head into a concrete sidewalk.

That my friend, is not a hypothetical, that was BROUGHT UP BY YOU.

Go ahead, show us your superior thought process. So far I am unimpressed.

No, it was not BROUGHT UP BY ME. I couldn't care less about this media circus and didn't follow a second of it. I think you might wanna clean your glasses before going to all caps and embarrassing yourself.

What I did was I noted that you gave no background for your hypothetical. The question cannot be addressed. If your head is being beaten in because you're a Nazi guard and your prisoner just got the jump on you, then you and I would say the head beating is justified. If you're head's being beaten in because you just tried to rob me and got the jump on you ...maybe. If you're head's being beaten in because some clown just feel like some random violence, then no.

But you wouldn't say, so you have no question anyway.

 

[PMZ]

There is no evidence of that
ever happening.

 

[beagle9]

Chicago is middle of the road for American cities in violent crime.

FL is well known as a very difficult state in which to get unwitnessed murder convictions. Stand your ground in both law and culture is the reason. It's a gun nut nirvana.

The judge realized that and instructed the jury to consider manslaughter after the prosecution had attempted the nearly impossible. Good for her but too late.

What is there to be learned from this? Policing should be done by trained police.

Agree, but in reality they (the police) can't be everywhere when needed, and especially at the right time in some of these high crime areas where it's even worse. So the neighborhoods begin taking matters into their own hands once things get so bad, and I guess this is the result of that situation for this neighborhood as it were.

If laws are to be thought of, and lessons are to be learned, then maybe there should be some rules and regulations set forth in concerns of security or neighborhood watches that are conducted by civilians or in concerns of the hiring of those who may not be qualified properly to handle a situation if one does arise, where as a person is hired anyway or chosen anyway because the situation seems so lost for the residents who are trying to just live peacefully in their neighborhoods because the cops and the system has since failed them.

 

[PMZ]

I agree that standards are in order. If it were up to me, they wouldn't be armed.

 

[Vox]

I agree that standards are in order. If it were up to me, they wouldn't be armed.

He was not armed as a watcher.
He was armed as a lawful citizen with a CCP.
You can not forbid a watcher to carry if they are allowed to.
It is unconstitutional.

 

[Pop23]

No, actually it isn't. We're talking about a hypothetical question posed by Pop23 here --- not the Zimmerman trial.

Within the Zimmerman trial however, I guarantee you nobody got away with posing a question-in-a-vacuum like that. If that were the case, Zimmerman would be on death row right now because there would be no such thing as self-defense. Because "things just happen in a vacuum". That's bullshit.

Typical, don't answer the question because YOU KNOW what your answer would be and show what a hypocrite you are.

Hypothetical or not, you know what the answer would be. Guess the Jury did the right thing didn't they?

I am still looking for some kind of justification for one man slamming another mans head into a concrete sidewalk.

That my friend, is not a hypothetical, that was BROUGHT UP BY YOU.

Go ahead, show us your superior thought process. So far I am unimpressed.

No, it was not BROUGHT UP BY ME. I couldn't care less about this media circus and didn't follow a second of it. I think you might wanna clean your glasses before going to all caps and embarrassing yourself.

What I did was I noted that you gave no background for your hypothetical. The question cannot be addressed. If your head is being beaten in because you're a Nazi guard and your prisoner just got the jump on you, then you and I would say the head beating is justified. If you're head's being beaten in because you just tried to rob me and got the jump on you ...maybe. If you're head's being beaten in because some clown just feel like some random violence, then no.

But you wouldn't say, so you have no question anyway.

Obviously you know your NOT answering a question on a "nazi prisoner of war camp" thread

Your running is obvious

So now point out where in your above example Zimmermans position was

He was obviously not a nazi camp guard

There was no indication that he tried to rob Martin

That leaves number 3

Thank for your honesty

The jury acted correctly?

 

[Oldstyle]

Q - Why is your head being bashed against a concrete sidewalk in the first place? Did you just teleport there randomly from point X in Unspace?

the reason is irrelevant. If it is being bashed to the concrete you have the right to defend yourself with a deadly force.
It's the law.

No, the reason is not irrelevant. Life doesn't happen "joining the program already in progress". Events are set up by what went before, not in some kind of temporal vacuum. I almost posted in the previous post, "would it have anything to do with going out packing heat?"

So the question stands, even if it's inconvenient.

Your rationale for Zimmerman's "guilt" is that he "went out" carrying a concealed weapon...and that somehow set all these events in motion? I'm having a hard time seeing that as a rational argument, Pogo. Zimmerman was carrying a weapon that he had a permit for...a weapon that by all accounts he didn't draw from it's holster until well after he was attacked by Trayvon Martin and had been struck repeatedly in an attack which wasn't ending even when neighbors like Good came out of his townhouse and yelled at them to stop. Trayvon didn't ask for help. He continued to beat someone who's on their back and apparently helpless.

I'll be completely honest with you...I have a concealed carry permit also and I would have pulled my weapon LONG before Zimmerman did. I would have pulled it when he approached me out of the dark with his "You got a problem?" confrontation. I would have pulled it...told him I had a gun and to stay back and if he continued to come at me I would have shot him BEFORE he punched me in the nose. In your eyes and many other liberals eyes I assume that makes me an "Uber" criminal but I can live with that because my guess is that Martin would have backed off in the face of a drawn weapon, therefore saving his life. Zimmerman's mistake was waiting so long that he ended up HAVING to shoot.

 

[Oldstyle]

Ok pal , in order to avoid any misunderstanding, when I say "getting into a fist fight that cost the life of another person." I am refering to this :

"About two minutes into the call, Zimmerman said, "he's running".[16] The dispatcher asked, "He's running? Which way is he running?"[77] Noises on the tape at this point have been interpreted by some media outlets as the sound of a car door chime, possibly indicating Zimmerman opened his car door."

Shooting of Trayvon Martin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I think it was quite idiotic from him getting out of his car and getting into a fist fight with Trayvon Martin lacking any propper training on how to perform an arrest.

You just gave Zimmerman's reason for getting out of his SUV. He was asked by the dispatcher "Which way is he running?" and in order to answer that question Zimmerman gets out of his SUV and goes to the T area in an attempt to keep Martin in sight. You assume that means that Zimmerman intends to confront Martin and try and arrest him but that makes no sense given Zimmerman's history. He's NEVER attempted to arrest someone before in any of the many calls he's made to Police. He's NEVER confronted someone in any of the many calls he's made to Police. All he's doing at that point is trying to keep the suspect in view after he loses sight of Trayvon Martin when he runs. He's called the Police and knows they are in route to the complex. THEY would be the one's to confront Martin.

The REASON that there is a fist fight is that Trayvon Martin confronts George Zimmerman on Zimmerman's way BACK to his SUV and sucker punches him in the face. Given George Zimmerman's history and his general demeanor I think it's safe to say that if he SAW Trayvon Martin coming towards him that he would have retreated. George Zimmerman is NOT a violent, confrontational person. I'm sorry, he's just not. He's pretty much a wuss. That fight takes place because Trayvon makes it take place. HE leaves the safety of the condo he was staying at and walks BACK to confront someone following him in the pitch dark between those buildings. That isn't the act of a "victim" that is the act of an aggressor.

It sounds like you were there.

Unlike you, I've actually paid attention to the testimony at trial. This case should have never gone to trial in the first place because there was no crime committed that night by George Zimmerman. If Angela Corey hadn't avoided taking it to a Grand Jury and instead lied to a judge to get charges filed, it wouldn't have. Now Florida is out millions of dollars for a "show trial" that never should have taken place.

 

[PMZ]

Why didn't GZ do what you say you'd do? Was he looking for the ending that he got?

 

[PMZ]

There is not the slightest chance that middle of the road America would have allowed that not to go to trial. I'm not even sure a majority will settle for this verdict.

 

[PMZ]

There is no evidence at all that he had to shoot.