|
This is a sensitive and complex issue, please do not make comments without first reading the facts, which are cataloged in the OP.
If you make an uninformed post, or one that isn't relevant to the discussion, you will be moderated. If in doubt, don't post. |
On July 12 2013 05:02 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2013 05:01 Klondikebar wrote:On July 12 2013 04:59 Millitron wrote:On July 12 2013 04:55 ComaDose wrote:On July 12 2013 04:49 Klondikebar wrote:On July 12 2013 04:46 BigFan wrote:On July 12 2013 04:44 L3gendary wrote:On July 12 2013 04:34 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 12 2013 04:27 autoexec wrote:On July 12 2013 04:26 Thieving Magpie wrote:
[quote]
What they have is Rachael's testimony (showing he instigated), lack of blood on the sidewalk (suggesting his story is false), and his comment about "they always get away" (suggesting intent)
None of them refute John Good's testimony. Could you explain John Good's testimony in a little more detail? Also, thanks. John Good said he saw a scuffle, guy in red at bottom, guy in black on top with the guy in black winning. He yelled for them to stop, the guy in black did not. He ran to call the police, a gunshot was heard. This means that even if it was Trayvon calling for help--John Good showed up (the help being called for) and that should have ended the fight. Since Trayvon did not stop his punches (Trayvon wore black), the shot is self defense. It wouldn't matter if Zimmerman instigated It wouldn't matter if Trayvon was yelling It wouldn't even matter if Zimmerman intended to shoot Trayvon An altercation happened, Trayvon started winning, John Good shows up telling them to stop. Whatever happened prior to that is null and void since it should have been over. Trayvon continues to punch Zimmerman, John runs for the phone, Zimmerman defends himself with the gun. Unless the prosecution proves John Good a liar; they have no case. Simply proving John Good inaccurate is not enough, since his testimony would still be enough for reasonable doubt. They have to show that he's a liar. So you're allowed to instigate a fight and then shoot the person if they get the better of you in florida? we don't know who instigated the fight in this case and if your life is in danger like Zimmerman said he believes, you can defend yourself. I still have trouble with this "instigation" thing. Zimmerman was safe, in a car, on the phone with police. He wasn't even on Martin's radar and other than "he looks suspicious" (an incredibly vague modifier) he had no reason to follow him. Like...no matter who won the fight or who actually escalated it to violence, surely Zimmerman is partly responsible for the confrontation. The fact that he was carrying a gun with him means he anticipated violence. But he went anyway? And unless Florida has really aggressive neighborhood watches, I thought that neighborhood watchmen didn't even confront criminals. They just looked out for them and then reported to police. I feel the same way you do but the law doesn't look at it that way and thats all that really matters. Zimmerman was legally allowed to follow Martin. You've never coincidentally been going the same direction as someone? That's indistinguishable from following. Zimmerman was legally allowed to carry that gun. Carrying a gun does not mean he anticipated violence. You wear your seatbelt right? Do you anticipate getting in a car crash? Umm...yes wearing a seat belt means you are anticipating a car crash. No, it means you are aware it is a possibility and want to be prepared, not that you expect it to happen.
Yeah...you're not disagreeing with me. If all you want is a non-zero possibility then we should all be carrying guns at all times and that would be effing weird. Zimmerman must have considered the possibility of violence high enough that a gun was necessary.
Bear in mind that many police forces outside the states don't even consider the possibility of violence high enough to warrant a gun in their own day to day activities. That threshold has to be high. High enough that I think Zimmerman was going to...help the violence along. I think he got lucky that Martin overreacted and that's the only reason he's getting off.
He did bad, but Martin did worse.
|
On July 12 2013 05:04 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2013 05:01 Klondikebar wrote:On July 12 2013 04:59 Millitron wrote:On July 12 2013 04:55 ComaDose wrote:On July 12 2013 04:49 Klondikebar wrote:On July 12 2013 04:46 BigFan wrote:On July 12 2013 04:44 L3gendary wrote:On July 12 2013 04:34 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 12 2013 04:27 autoexec wrote:On July 12 2013 04:26 Thieving Magpie wrote:
[quote]
What they have is Rachael's testimony (showing he instigated), lack of blood on the sidewalk (suggesting his story is false), and his comment about "they always get away" (suggesting intent)
None of them refute John Good's testimony. Could you explain John Good's testimony in a little more detail? Also, thanks. John Good said he saw a scuffle, guy in red at bottom, guy in black on top with the guy in black winning. He yelled for them to stop, the guy in black did not. He ran to call the police, a gunshot was heard. This means that even if it was Trayvon calling for help--John Good showed up (the help being called for) and that should have ended the fight. Since Trayvon did not stop his punches (Trayvon wore black), the shot is self defense. It wouldn't matter if Zimmerman instigated It wouldn't matter if Trayvon was yelling It wouldn't even matter if Zimmerman intended to shoot Trayvon An altercation happened, Trayvon started winning, John Good shows up telling them to stop. Whatever happened prior to that is null and void since it should have been over. Trayvon continues to punch Zimmerman, John runs for the phone, Zimmerman defends himself with the gun. Unless the prosecution proves John Good a liar; they have no case. Simply proving John Good inaccurate is not enough, since his testimony would still be enough for reasonable doubt. They have to show that he's a liar. So you're allowed to instigate a fight and then shoot the person if they get the better of you in florida? we don't know who instigated the fight in this case and if your life is in danger like Zimmerman said he believes, you can defend yourself. I still have trouble with this "instigation" thing. Zimmerman was safe, in a car, on the phone with police. He wasn't even on Martin's radar and other than "he looks suspicious" (an incredibly vague modifier) he had no reason to follow him. Like...no matter who won the fight or who actually escalated it to violence, surely Zimmerman is partly responsible for the confrontation. The fact that he was carrying a gun with him means he anticipated violence. But he went anyway? And unless Florida has really aggressive neighborhood watches, I thought that neighborhood watchmen didn't even confront criminals. They just looked out for them and then reported to police. I feel the same way you do but the law doesn't look at it that way and thats all that really matters. Zimmerman was legally allowed to follow Martin. You've never coincidentally been going the same direction as someone? That's indistinguishable from following. Zimmerman was legally allowed to carry that gun. Carrying a gun does not mean he anticipated violence. You wear your seatbelt right? Do you anticipate getting in a car crash? Umm...yes wearing a seat belt means you are anticipating a car crash. No, I wear it every time, but I have no plans on crashing. Thats how carrying a gun works too.
But you people anticipate someone else may screw up and crash in to your their car, so you they wear it to be safe in that anticipation.
|
On July 12 2013 05:08 GreenGringo wrote:
I seriously fear for Zimmerman. The jurors will fear reprisal and their self-interest will factor into their decision. The emotional manipulation of the prosecution will be enough to push them over the age and harden them against Zimmerman.
The jurors are sequestered, and had their names withheld. They're safe.
Even if he is found guilty by this jury, the prosecution's lack of hard evidence has opened the door to an easy appeal once the masses have calmed down.
On July 12 2013 05:09 MrCon wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2013 04:49 Klondikebar wrote:On July 12 2013 04:46 BigFan wrote:On July 12 2013 04:44 L3gendary wrote:On July 12 2013 04:34 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 12 2013 04:27 autoexec wrote:On July 12 2013 04:26 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 12 2013 04:23 autoexec wrote:
I'm just starting to tune in. I haven't been following this case at all and all I know are the main points that were presented to the media at the time of occurrence. Could anyone please explain what evidence the prosecution even has at this point that could make him guilty? What they have is Rachael's testimony (showing he instigated), lack of blood on the sidewalk (suggesting his story is false), and his comment about "they always get away" (suggesting intent) None of them refute John Good's testimony. Could you explain John Good's testimony in a little more detail? Also, thanks. John Good said he saw a scuffle, guy in red at bottom, guy in black on top with the guy in black winning. He yelled for them to stop, the guy in black did not. He ran to call the police, a gunshot was heard. This means that even if it was Trayvon calling for help--John Good showed up (the help being called for) and that should have ended the fight. Since Trayvon did not stop his punches (Trayvon wore black), the shot is self defense. It wouldn't matter if Zimmerman instigated It wouldn't matter if Trayvon was yelling It wouldn't even matter if Zimmerman intended to shoot Trayvon An altercation happened, Trayvon started winning, John Good shows up telling them to stop. Whatever happened prior to that is null and void since it should have been over. Trayvon continues to punch Zimmerman, John runs for the phone, Zimmerman defends himself with the gun. Unless the prosecution proves John Good a liar; they have no case. Simply proving John Good inaccurate is not enough, since his testimony would still be enough for reasonable doubt. They have to show that he's a liar. So you're allowed to instigate a fight and then shoot the person if they get the better of you in florida? we don't know who instigated the fight in this case and if your life is in danger like Zimmerman said he believes, you can defend yourself. I still have trouble with this "instigation" thing. Zimmerman was safe, in a car, on the phone with police. He wasn't even on Martin's radar and other than "he looks suspicious" (an incredibly vague modifier) he had no reason to follow him. Like...no matter who won the fight or who actually escalated it to violence, surely Zimmerman is partly responsible for the confrontation. The fact that he was carrying a gun with him means he anticipated violence. But he went anyway? And unless Florida has really aggressive neighborhood watches, I thought that neighborhood watchmen didn't even confront criminals. They just looked out for them and then reported to police. It's what I feel too. Martin had reason to be here, a guy find him suspicious and Martin ends up dead. I would find very difficult to be a fair jury if I had to.
Zimmerman had reason to be there too. Martin did NOT have a justifiable reason to attack Zimmerman though.
We don't even know if Zimmerman actually confronted Martin. Zimmerman claims he got out of his car to get an address for police, when he was jumped.
|
On July 12 2013 05:09 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2013 05:02 Millitron wrote:On July 12 2013 05:01 Klondikebar wrote:On July 12 2013 04:59 Millitron wrote:On July 12 2013 04:55 ComaDose wrote:On July 12 2013 04:49 Klondikebar wrote:On July 12 2013 04:46 BigFan wrote:On July 12 2013 04:44 L3gendary wrote:On July 12 2013 04:34 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 12 2013 04:27 autoexec wrote:
[quote]
Could you explain John Good's testimony in a little more detail?
Also, thanks. John Good said he saw a scuffle, guy in red at bottom, guy in black on top with the guy in black winning. He yelled for them to stop, the guy in black did not. He ran to call the police, a gunshot was heard. This means that even if it was Trayvon calling for help--John Good showed up (the help being called for) and that should have ended the fight. Since Trayvon did not stop his punches (Trayvon wore black), the shot is self defense. It wouldn't matter if Zimmerman instigated It wouldn't matter if Trayvon was yelling It wouldn't even matter if Zimmerman intended to shoot Trayvon An altercation happened, Trayvon started winning, John Good shows up telling them to stop. Whatever happened prior to that is null and void since it should have been over. Trayvon continues to punch Zimmerman, John runs for the phone, Zimmerman defends himself with the gun. Unless the prosecution proves John Good a liar; they have no case. Simply proving John Good inaccurate is not enough, since his testimony would still be enough for reasonable doubt. They have to show that he's a liar. So you're allowed to instigate a fight and then shoot the person if they get the better of you in florida? we don't know who instigated the fight in this case and if your life is in danger like Zimmerman said he believes, you can defend yourself. I still have trouble with this "instigation" thing. Zimmerman was safe, in a car, on the phone with police. He wasn't even on Martin's radar and other than "he looks suspicious" (an incredibly vague modifier) he had no reason to follow him. Like...no matter who won the fight or who actually escalated it to violence, surely Zimmerman is partly responsible for the confrontation. The fact that he was carrying a gun with him means he anticipated violence. But he went anyway? And unless Florida has really aggressive neighborhood watches, I thought that neighborhood watchmen didn't even confront criminals. They just looked out for them and then reported to police. I feel the same way you do but the law doesn't look at it that way and thats all that really matters. Zimmerman was legally allowed to follow Martin. You've never coincidentally been going the same direction as someone? That's indistinguishable from following. Zimmerman was legally allowed to carry that gun. Carrying a gun does not mean he anticipated violence. You wear your seatbelt right? Do you anticipate getting in a car crash? Umm...yes wearing a seat belt means you are anticipating a car crash. No, it means you are aware it is a possibility and want to be prepared, not that you expect it to happen. Yeah...you're not disagreeing with me. If all you want is a non-zero possibility then we should all be carrying guns at all times and that would be effing weird. Zimmerman must have considered the possibility of violence high enough that a gun was necessary. Bear in mind that many police forces outside the states don't even consider the possibility of violence high enough to warrant a gun in their own day to day activities. That threshold has to be high. High enough that I think Zimmerman was going to...help the violence along. I think he got lucky that Martin overreacted and that's the only reason he's getting off. He did bad, but Martin did worse.
How did he get lucky that Martin overreacted? His live got pretty much screwed because of it, even if he is not convicted.
If Martin had not overreacted, nothing would have happened. Do you seriously believe he would randomly shoot him for no reason just because he was carrying a gun?
|
TLADT24920 Posts
On July 12 2013 05:08 GreenGringo wrote:
I seriously fear for Zimmerman. The jurors will fear reprisal and their self-interest will factor into their decision. The emotional manipulation of the prosecution will be enough to push them over the age and harden them against Zimmerman.
my thoughts alike.
|
On July 12 2013 05:08 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2013 05:04 ComaDose wrote:On July 12 2013 05:02 Millitron wrote:On July 12 2013 05:01 Klondikebar wrote:On July 12 2013 04:59 Millitron wrote:On July 12 2013 04:55 ComaDose wrote:On July 12 2013 04:49 Klondikebar wrote:On July 12 2013 04:46 BigFan wrote:On July 12 2013 04:44 L3gendary wrote:On July 12 2013 04:34 Thieving Magpie wrote:
[quote]
John Good said he saw a scuffle, guy in red at bottom, guy in black on top with the guy in black winning.
He yelled for them to stop, the guy in black did not.
He ran to call the police, a gunshot was heard.
This means that even if it was Trayvon calling for help--John Good showed up (the help being called for) and that should have ended the fight. Since Trayvon did not stop his punches (Trayvon wore black), the shot is self defense.
It wouldn't matter if Zimmerman instigated
It wouldn't matter if Trayvon was yelling
It wouldn't even matter if Zimmerman intended to shoot Trayvon
An altercation happened, Trayvon started winning, John Good shows up telling them to stop. Whatever happened prior to that is null and void since it should have been over. Trayvon continues to punch Zimmerman, John runs for the phone, Zimmerman defends himself with the gun.
Unless the prosecution proves John Good a liar; they have no case.
Simply proving John Good inaccurate is not enough, since his testimony would still be enough for reasonable doubt. They have to show that he's a liar. So you're allowed to instigate a fight and then shoot the person if they get the better of you in florida? we don't know who instigated the fight in this case and if your life is in danger like Zimmerman said he believes, you can defend yourself. I still have trouble with this "instigation" thing. Zimmerman was safe, in a car, on the phone with police. He wasn't even on Martin's radar and other than "he looks suspicious" (an incredibly vague modifier) he had no reason to follow him. Like...no matter who won the fight or who actually escalated it to violence, surely Zimmerman is partly responsible for the confrontation. The fact that he was carrying a gun with him means he anticipated violence. But he went anyway? And unless Florida has really aggressive neighborhood watches, I thought that neighborhood watchmen didn't even confront criminals. They just looked out for them and then reported to police. I feel the same way you do but the law doesn't look at it that way and thats all that really matters. Zimmerman was legally allowed to follow Martin. You've never coincidentally been going the same direction as someone? That's indistinguishable from following. Zimmerman was legally allowed to carry that gun. Carrying a gun does not mean he anticipated violence. You wear your seatbelt right? Do you anticipate getting in a car crash? Umm...yes wearing a seat belt means you are anticipating a car crash. No, it means you are aware it is a possibility and want to be prepared, not that you expect it to happen. On July 12 2013 05:02 ComaDose wrote:On July 12 2013 04:59 Millitron wrote:On July 12 2013 04:55 ComaDose wrote:On July 12 2013 04:49 Klondikebar wrote:On July 12 2013 04:46 BigFan wrote:On July 12 2013 04:44 L3gendary wrote:On July 12 2013 04:34 Thieving Magpie wrote:
[quote]
John Good said he saw a scuffle, guy in red at bottom, guy in black on top with the guy in black winning.
He yelled for them to stop, the guy in black did not.
He ran to call the police, a gunshot was heard.
This means that even if it was Trayvon calling for help--John Good showed up (the help being called for) and that should have ended the fight. Since Trayvon did not stop his punches (Trayvon wore black), the shot is self defense.
It wouldn't matter if Zimmerman instigated
It wouldn't matter if Trayvon was yelling
It wouldn't even matter if Zimmerman intended to shoot Trayvon
An altercation happened, Trayvon started winning, John Good shows up telling them to stop. Whatever happened prior to that is null and void since it should have been over. Trayvon continues to punch Zimmerman, John runs for the phone, Zimmerman defends himself with the gun.
Unless the prosecution proves John Good a liar; they have no case.
Simply proving John Good inaccurate is not enough, since his testimony would still be enough for reasonable doubt. They have to show that he's a liar. So you're allowed to instigate a fight and then shoot the person if they get the better of you in florida? we don't know who instigated the fight in this case and if your life is in danger like Zimmerman said he believes, you can defend yourself. I still have trouble with this "instigation" thing. Zimmerman was safe, in a car, on the phone with police. He wasn't even on Martin's radar and other than "he looks suspicious" (an incredibly vague modifier) he had no reason to follow him. Like...no matter who won the fight or who actually escalated it to violence, surely Zimmerman is partly responsible for the confrontation. The fact that he was carrying a gun with him means he anticipated violence. But he went anyway? And unless Florida has really aggressive neighborhood watches, I thought that neighborhood watchmen didn't even confront criminals. They just looked out for them and then reported to police. I feel the same way you do but the law doesn't look at it that way and thats all that really matters. Zimmerman was legally allowed to follow Martin. You've never coincidentally been going the same direction as someone? That's indistinguishable from following. Zimmerman was legally allowed to carry that gun. Carrying a gun does not mean he anticipated violence. You wear your seatbelt right? Do you anticipate getting in a car crash? Why are you responding to me? You agreed with Klondike and his post was on the previous page. I said the law does not see it this way. Then you told my why it was legal. I know its legal, thats why I said it. I still think zimmerman is an irresponsible fool. I think the only thing Zimmerman did wrong was not immediately identifying himself to Martin. Nothing else he did was criminal, or even ill-advised in my eyes. I certainly don't think that momentary lapse in judgment should mean Zimmerman spends 20-life in jail.
I will not be surprised when it is decided nothing he did was criminal.
I believe it is ill-advised to intentionally follow suspicious strangers around in the dark while armed and not a superhero.
But what i believe doesnt matter at all.
Obviously being antagonistic instead of identifying yourself is stupid.
I also don't think Zimmerman should spend the rest of his life in jail.
|
I almost want Zimmerman to get a guilty verdict after hearing some threats of violence against white people on Twitter if Zimmerman gets acquitted.
|
On July 12 2013 05:08 GreenGringo wrote:
I seriously fear for Zimmerman. The jurors will fear reprisal and their self-interest will factor into their decision. The emotional manipulation of the prosecution will be enough to push them over the age and harden them against Zimmerman.
I'm more afraid of the jury getting fancy and thinking that they can compromise by coming back with a ruling of Aggravated Assault or something lesser, thinking that murder or manslaughter don't fit but Trayvon died so they "have to do something". They won't be instructed on sentencing, so they won't realize that Agg. Assault comes with a mandatory 20 years or whatever.
|
On July 12 2013 05:06 Kaitlin wrote:
Prosecution's list of evidence supporting "ill will" is remarkable.
Sarcasm? Or did I miss something groundbreaking?
|
On July 12 2013 05:14 Tewks44 wrote:
I almost want Zimmerman to get a guilty verdict after hearing some threats of violence against white people on Twitter if Zimmerman gets acquitted.
Coward. Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.
|
On July 12 2013 05:14 ConGee wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2013 05:06 Kaitlin wrote:
Prosecution's list of evidence supporting "ill will" is remarkable. Sarcasm? Or did I miss something groundbreaking?
Sarcasm
|
On July 12 2013 05:11 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2013 05:08 GreenGringo wrote:
I seriously fear for Zimmerman. The jurors will fear reprisal and their self-interest will factor into their decision. The emotional manipulation of the prosecution will be enough to push them over the age and harden them against Zimmerman. The jurors are sequestered, and had their names withheld. They're safe. Can they really be sure of being safe, especially when millions of people will be out to get them? And mightn't they err on the side of caution?
|
On July 12 2013 05:12 SKC wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2013 05:09 Klondikebar wrote:On July 12 2013 05:02 Millitron wrote:On July 12 2013 05:01 Klondikebar wrote:On July 12 2013 04:59 Millitron wrote:On July 12 2013 04:55 ComaDose wrote:On July 12 2013 04:49 Klondikebar wrote:On July 12 2013 04:46 BigFan wrote:On July 12 2013 04:44 L3gendary wrote:On July 12 2013 04:34 Thieving Magpie wrote:
[quote]
John Good said he saw a scuffle, guy in red at bottom, guy in black on top with the guy in black winning.
He yelled for them to stop, the guy in black did not.
He ran to call the police, a gunshot was heard.
This means that even if it was Trayvon calling for help--John Good showed up (the help being called for) and that should have ended the fight. Since Trayvon did not stop his punches (Trayvon wore black), the shot is self defense.
It wouldn't matter if Zimmerman instigated
It wouldn't matter if Trayvon was yelling
It wouldn't even matter if Zimmerman intended to shoot Trayvon
An altercation happened, Trayvon started winning, John Good shows up telling them to stop. Whatever happened prior to that is null and void since it should have been over. Trayvon continues to punch Zimmerman, John runs for the phone, Zimmerman defends himself with the gun.
Unless the prosecution proves John Good a liar; they have no case.
Simply proving John Good inaccurate is not enough, since his testimony would still be enough for reasonable doubt. They have to show that he's a liar. So you're allowed to instigate a fight and then shoot the person if they get the better of you in florida? we don't know who instigated the fight in this case and if your life is in danger like Zimmerman said he believes, you can defend yourself. I still have trouble with this "instigation" thing. Zimmerman was safe, in a car, on the phone with police. He wasn't even on Martin's radar and other than "he looks suspicious" (an incredibly vague modifier) he had no reason to follow him. Like...no matter who won the fight or who actually escalated it to violence, surely Zimmerman is partly responsible for the confrontation. The fact that he was carrying a gun with him means he anticipated violence. But he went anyway? And unless Florida has really aggressive neighborhood watches, I thought that neighborhood watchmen didn't even confront criminals. They just looked out for them and then reported to police. I feel the same way you do but the law doesn't look at it that way and thats all that really matters. Zimmerman was legally allowed to follow Martin. You've never coincidentally been going the same direction as someone? That's indistinguishable from following. Zimmerman was legally allowed to carry that gun. Carrying a gun does not mean he anticipated violence. You wear your seatbelt right? Do you anticipate getting in a car crash? Umm...yes wearing a seat belt means you are anticipating a car crash. No, it means you are aware it is a possibility and want to be prepared, not that you expect it to happen. Yeah...you're not disagreeing with me. If all you want is a non-zero possibility then we should all be carrying guns at all times and that would be effing weird. Zimmerman must have considered the possibility of violence high enough that a gun was necessary. Bear in mind that many police forces outside the states don't even consider the possibility of violence high enough to warrant a gun in their own day to day activities. That threshold has to be high. High enough that I think Zimmerman was going to...help the violence along. I think he got lucky that Martin overreacted and that's the only reason he's getting off. He did bad, but Martin did worse. How did he get lucky that Martin overreacted? His live got pretty much screwed because of it, even if he is not convicted. If Martin had not overreacted, nothing would have happened. Do you seriously believe he would randomly shoot him for no reason just because he was carrying a gun?
Just because he was carrying a gun? No
I think he was looking for trouble based on his arrogant actions combined with the fact that he was carrying a gun in a role (neighborhood watchmen) that doesn't use guns.
And I use lucky in a relative sense here. had Martin not overreacted but violence still happened, Zimmerman would be guilty.
|
TLADT24920 Posts
On July 12 2013 05:14 FatChicksUnited wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2013 05:08 GreenGringo wrote:
I seriously fear for Zimmerman. The jurors will fear reprisal and their self-interest will factor into their decision. The emotional manipulation of the prosecution will be enough to push them over the age and harden them against Zimmerman. I'm more afraid of the jury getting fancy and thinking that they can compromise by coming back with a ruling of Aggravated Assault or something lesser, thinking that murder or manslaughter don't fit but Trayvon died so they "have to do something". They won't be instructed on sentencing, so they won't realize that Agg. Assault comes with a mandatory 20 years or whatever.
that's another point that I'm wondering about.
On July 12 2013 05:14 ConGee wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2013 05:06 Kaitlin wrote:
Prosecution's list of evidence supporting "ill will" is remarkable. Sarcasm? Or did I miss something groundbreaking?
likely sarcasm.
|
I'd be very surprised if the people on the jury actually had 0 contact with the outside world for weeks. I hope they learn the missing parts of the puzzle and the number of years each verdict would give. If I was on a jury I know I'd try to obtain all that as long as I was sure to not get caught doing something forbidden.
|
On July 12 2013 05:16 GreenGringo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2013 05:11 Millitron wrote:On July 12 2013 05:08 GreenGringo wrote:
I seriously fear for Zimmerman. The jurors will fear reprisal and their self-interest will factor into their decision. The emotional manipulation of the prosecution will be enough to push them over the age and harden them against Zimmerman. The jurors are sequestered, and had their names withheld. They're safe. Can they really be sure of being safe, especially when millions of people will be out to get them? And mightn't they err on the side of caution?
I wouldn't be surprised if they were offered police protection for some time after the trial.
On July 12 2013 05:16 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2013 05:12 SKC wrote:On July 12 2013 05:09 Klondikebar wrote:On July 12 2013 05:02 Millitron wrote:On July 12 2013 05:01 Klondikebar wrote:On July 12 2013 04:59 Millitron wrote:On July 12 2013 04:55 ComaDose wrote:On July 12 2013 04:49 Klondikebar wrote:On July 12 2013 04:46 BigFan wrote:On July 12 2013 04:44 L3gendary wrote:
[quote]
So you're allowed to instigate a fight and then shoot the person if they get the better of you in florida? we don't know who instigated the fight in this case and if your life is in danger like Zimmerman said he believes, you can defend yourself. I still have trouble with this "instigation" thing. Zimmerman was safe, in a car, on the phone with police. He wasn't even on Martin's radar and other than "he looks suspicious" (an incredibly vague modifier) he had no reason to follow him. Like...no matter who won the fight or who actually escalated it to violence, surely Zimmerman is partly responsible for the confrontation. The fact that he was carrying a gun with him means he anticipated violence. But he went anyway? And unless Florida has really aggressive neighborhood watches, I thought that neighborhood watchmen didn't even confront criminals. They just looked out for them and then reported to police. I feel the same way you do but the law doesn't look at it that way and thats all that really matters. Zimmerman was legally allowed to follow Martin. You've never coincidentally been going the same direction as someone? That's indistinguishable from following. Zimmerman was legally allowed to carry that gun. Carrying a gun does not mean he anticipated violence. You wear your seatbelt right? Do you anticipate getting in a car crash? Umm...yes wearing a seat belt means you are anticipating a car crash. No, it means you are aware it is a possibility and want to be prepared, not that you expect it to happen. Yeah...you're not disagreeing with me. If all you want is a non-zero possibility then we should all be carrying guns at all times and that would be effing weird. Zimmerman must have considered the possibility of violence high enough that a gun was necessary. Bear in mind that many police forces outside the states don't even consider the possibility of violence high enough to warrant a gun in their own day to day activities. That threshold has to be high. High enough that I think Zimmerman was going to...help the violence along. I think he got lucky that Martin overreacted and that's the only reason he's getting off. He did bad, but Martin did worse. How did he get lucky that Martin overreacted? His live got pretty much screwed because of it, even if he is not convicted. If Martin had not overreacted, nothing would have happened. Do you seriously believe he would randomly shoot him for no reason just because he was carrying a gun? Just because he was carrying a gun? No I think he was looking for trouble based on his arrogant actions combined with the fact that he was carrying a gun in a role (neighborhood watchmen) that doesn't use guns. And I use lucky in a relative sense here. had Martin not overreacted but violence still happened, Zimmerman would be guilty.
There wouldn't have been violence had Martin not overreacted.
|
On July 12 2013 05:04 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2013 05:01 Klondikebar wrote:On July 12 2013 04:59 Millitron wrote:On July 12 2013 04:55 ComaDose wrote:On July 12 2013 04:49 Klondikebar wrote:On July 12 2013 04:46 BigFan wrote:On July 12 2013 04:44 L3gendary wrote:On July 12 2013 04:34 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 12 2013 04:27 autoexec wrote:On July 12 2013 04:26 Thieving Magpie wrote:
[quote]
What they have is Rachael's testimony (showing he instigated), lack of blood on the sidewalk (suggesting his story is false), and his comment about "they always get away" (suggesting intent)
None of them refute John Good's testimony. Could you explain John Good's testimony in a little more detail? Also, thanks. John Good said he saw a scuffle, guy in red at bottom, guy in black on top with the guy in black winning. He yelled for them to stop, the guy in black did not. He ran to call the police, a gunshot was heard. This means that even if it was Trayvon calling for help--John Good showed up (the help being called for) and that should have ended the fight. Since Trayvon did not stop his punches (Trayvon wore black), the shot is self defense. It wouldn't matter if Zimmerman instigated It wouldn't matter if Trayvon was yelling It wouldn't even matter if Zimmerman intended to shoot Trayvon An altercation happened, Trayvon started winning, John Good shows up telling them to stop. Whatever happened prior to that is null and void since it should have been over. Trayvon continues to punch Zimmerman, John runs for the phone, Zimmerman defends himself with the gun. Unless the prosecution proves John Good a liar; they have no case. Simply proving John Good inaccurate is not enough, since his testimony would still be enough for reasonable doubt. They have to show that he's a liar. So you're allowed to instigate a fight and then shoot the person if they get the better of you in florida? we don't know who instigated the fight in this case and if your life is in danger like Zimmerman said he believes, you can defend yourself. I still have trouble with this "instigation" thing. Zimmerman was safe, in a car, on the phone with police. He wasn't even on Martin's radar and other than "he looks suspicious" (an incredibly vague modifier) he had no reason to follow him. Like...no matter who won the fight or who actually escalated it to violence, surely Zimmerman is partly responsible for the confrontation. The fact that he was carrying a gun with him means he anticipated violence. But he went anyway? And unless Florida has really aggressive neighborhood watches, I thought that neighborhood watchmen didn't even confront criminals. They just looked out for them and then reported to police. I feel the same way you do but the law doesn't look at it that way and thats all that really matters. Zimmerman was legally allowed to follow Martin. You've never coincidentally been going the same direction as someone? That's indistinguishable from following. Zimmerman was legally allowed to carry that gun. Carrying a gun does not mean he anticipated violence. You wear your seatbelt right? Do you anticipate getting in a car crash? Umm...yes wearing a seat belt means you are anticipating a car crash. No, I wear it every time, but I have no plans on crashing. Thats how carrying a gun works too.
That's because the probability of getting in a car wreck is much higher than the probability of being the victim of random violence. For a gun to become as reasonable as a seat belt the probability of violence must be pretty high.
|
On July 12 2013 04:59 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2013 04:44 L3gendary wrote:On July 12 2013 04:34 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 12 2013 04:27 autoexec wrote:On July 12 2013 04:26 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 12 2013 04:23 autoexec wrote:
I'm just starting to tune in. I haven't been following this case at all and all I know are the main points that were presented to the media at the time of occurrence. Could anyone please explain what evidence the prosecution even has at this point that could make him guilty? What they have is Rachael's testimony (showing he instigated), lack of blood on the sidewalk (suggesting his story is false), and his comment about "they always get away" (suggesting intent) None of them refute John Good's testimony. Could you explain John Good's testimony in a little more detail? Also, thanks. John Good said he saw a scuffle, guy in red at bottom, guy in black on top with the guy in black winning. He yelled for them to stop, the guy in black did not. He ran to call the police, a gunshot was heard. This means that even if it was Trayvon calling for help--John Good showed up (the help being called for) and that should have ended the fight. Since Trayvon did not stop his punches (Trayvon wore black), the shot is self defense. It wouldn't matter if Zimmerman instigated It wouldn't matter if Trayvon was yelling It wouldn't even matter if Zimmerman intended to shoot Trayvon An altercation happened, Trayvon started winning, John Good shows up telling them to stop. Whatever happened prior to that is null and void since it should have been over. Trayvon continues to punch Zimmerman, John runs for the phone, Zimmerman defends himself with the gun. Unless the prosecution proves John Good a liar; they have no case. Simply proving John Good inaccurate is not enough, since his testimony would still be enough for reasonable doubt. They have to show that he's a liar. So you're allowed to instigate a fight and then shoot the person if they get the better of you in florida? Instigating a fight doesn't forfeit your right to life.
Under self-defense laws, continuously beating your opponent into the ground while they're screaming for you to stop does.
|
On July 12 2013 05:16 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2013 05:12 SKC wrote:On July 12 2013 05:09 Klondikebar wrote:On July 12 2013 05:02 Millitron wrote:On July 12 2013 05:01 Klondikebar wrote:On July 12 2013 04:59 Millitron wrote:On July 12 2013 04:55 ComaDose wrote:On July 12 2013 04:49 Klondikebar wrote:On July 12 2013 04:46 BigFan wrote:On July 12 2013 04:44 L3gendary wrote:
[quote]
So you're allowed to instigate a fight and then shoot the person if they get the better of you in florida? we don't know who instigated the fight in this case and if your life is in danger like Zimmerman said he believes, you can defend yourself. I still have trouble with this "instigation" thing. Zimmerman was safe, in a car, on the phone with police. He wasn't even on Martin's radar and other than "he looks suspicious" (an incredibly vague modifier) he had no reason to follow him. Like...no matter who won the fight or who actually escalated it to violence, surely Zimmerman is partly responsible for the confrontation. The fact that he was carrying a gun with him means he anticipated violence. But he went anyway? And unless Florida has really aggressive neighborhood watches, I thought that neighborhood watchmen didn't even confront criminals. They just looked out for them and then reported to police. I feel the same way you do but the law doesn't look at it that way and thats all that really matters. Zimmerman was legally allowed to follow Martin. You've never coincidentally been going the same direction as someone? That's indistinguishable from following. Zimmerman was legally allowed to carry that gun. Carrying a gun does not mean he anticipated violence. You wear your seatbelt right? Do you anticipate getting in a car crash? Umm...yes wearing a seat belt means you are anticipating a car crash. No, it means you are aware it is a possibility and want to be prepared, not that you expect it to happen. Yeah...you're not disagreeing with me. If all you want is a non-zero possibility then we should all be carrying guns at all times and that would be effing weird. Zimmerman must have considered the possibility of violence high enough that a gun was necessary. Bear in mind that many police forces outside the states don't even consider the possibility of violence high enough to warrant a gun in their own day to day activities. That threshold has to be high. High enough that I think Zimmerman was going to...help the violence along. I think he got lucky that Martin overreacted and that's the only reason he's getting off. He did bad, but Martin did worse. How did he get lucky that Martin overreacted? His live got pretty much screwed because of it, even if he is not convicted. If Martin had not overreacted, nothing would have happened. Do you seriously believe he would randomly shoot him for no reason just because he was carrying a gun? Just because he was carrying a gun? No I think he was looking for trouble based on his arrogant actions combined with the fact that he was carrying a gun in a role (neighborhood watchmen) that doesn't use guns. And I use lucky in a relative sense here. had Martin not overreacted but violence still happened, Zimmerman would be guilty.
How exactly do you think violence would still happen had Martin not attacked him? Zimmerman would aproach him, arrogantly, in your own words, maybe even hold him until the police arrives, and nothing would happen. He could be accused of racism or being a vigilante, but I don't believe there is evidence that Zimmermann would actually attack him.
|
On July 12 2013 05:08 GreenGringo wrote:
I seriously fear for Zimmerman. The jurors will fear reprisal and their self-interest will factor into their decision. The emotional manipulation of the prosecution will be enough to push them over the age and harden them against Zimmerman.
There is a flip side to that coin. Several of the jurors either have concealed carry permits or are related to someone who does. These are people who realize that police are minutes away, when seconds count. A guilty verdict would very much discourage conceal carry holders from being able to defend themselves, or anyone from defending themselves for that matter. It's important for people defending themselves to feel that they won't be subsequently unjustly convicted, and this jury has a LOT to say in that sentiment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
