|
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. |
So when will they read the verdict? in how many hours?
|
TLADT24920 Posts
On July 12 2013 05:18 Kaitlin 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. 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.
I doubt they are looking at this from this perspective.
|
On July 12 2013 05:18 SKC wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2013 05:16 Klondikebar wrote: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:
[quote]
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.
Because Martin would, justifiably, resist being held, especially if Zimmerman's only claim to hold him was that he "looked suspicious."
And again, ya'll are like totally missing the "carrying a gun" thing. Even in Texas it's not normal to just see people carrying guns. It's still rare even here. It's effing weird that he was carrying a gun, license or no.
|
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?
Remarkable as in ridiculous. They listed such things as his education and desire to be a police officer.
|
On July 12 2013 05:21 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2013 05:18 SKC wrote:On July 12 2013 05:16 Klondikebar wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Because Martin would, justifiably, resist being held, especially if Zimmerman's only claim to hold him was that he "looked suspicious." And again, ya'll are like totally missing the "carrying a gun" thing. Even in Texas it's not normal to just see people carrying guns. It's still rare even here. It's effing weird that he was carrying a gun, license or no.
Need a definition of CONCEALED ???
|
On July 12 2013 05:22 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2013 05:21 Klondikebar wrote:On July 12 2013 05:18 SKC wrote:On July 12 2013 05:16 Klondikebar wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Because Martin would, justifiably, resist being held, especially if Zimmerman's only claim to hold him was that he "looked suspicious." And again, ya'll are like totally missing the "carrying a gun" thing. Even in Texas it's not normal to just see people carrying guns. It's still rare even here. It's effing weird that he was carrying a gun, license or no. Need a definition of CONCEALED ???
Oh please. It's trivial to spot a concealed weapon on someone unless they're wearing particularly baggy clothes. I have seen people carrying before. It's super easy to spot. The "concealed" modifier really just refers to the size of the weapon and the fact that you can't carry it around in your hand.
|
On July 12 2013 05:21 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2013 05:18 SKC wrote:On July 12 2013 05:16 Klondikebar wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Because Martin would, justifiably, resist being held, especially if Zimmerman's only claim to hold him was that he "looked suspicious." And again, ya'll are like totally missing the "carrying a gun" thing. Even in Texas it's not normal to just see people carrying guns. It's still rare even here. It's effing weird that he was carrying a gun, license or no.
I doubt he would forcefully hold him. I meant that in a case where Martin was completelly compliant. If Martin chose to keep going after talking to GZ, it's perfectly reasonable to expect that Zimmermann would simply follow him to the father's girlfriend house or whathever it was, without any violence.
|
On July 12 2013 05:19 BigFan wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2013 05:18 Kaitlin 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. 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. I doubt they are looking at this from this perspective.
If I were on that jury, and I were a concealed carry permit holder, I damn sure would be. I think they would as well.
|
On July 12 2013 05:18 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2013 05:04 Plansix 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, 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.
Reasonable is subjective. Further, not everyone lives in crime-free utopias.
The specific probability doesn't matter, because any boundary you draw based on probability is arbitrary.
On July 12 2013 05:23 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2013 05:22 Kaitlin wrote:On July 12 2013 05:21 Klondikebar wrote:On July 12 2013 05:18 SKC wrote:On July 12 2013 05:16 Klondikebar wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Because Martin would, justifiably, resist being held, especially if Zimmerman's only claim to hold him was that he "looked suspicious." And again, ya'll are like totally missing the "carrying a gun" thing. Even in Texas it's not normal to just see people carrying guns. It's still rare even here. It's effing weird that he was carrying a gun, license or no. Need a definition of CONCEALED ??? Oh please. It's trivial to spot a concealed weapon on someone unless they're wearing particularly baggy clothes. I have seen people carrying before. It's super easy to spot.
How about at night, in the rain? Because that's when the incident occurred.
|
On July 12 2013 05:23 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2013 05:22 Kaitlin wrote:On July 12 2013 05:21 Klondikebar wrote:On July 12 2013 05:18 SKC wrote:On July 12 2013 05:16 Klondikebar wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Because Martin would, justifiably, resist being held, especially if Zimmerman's only claim to hold him was that he "looked suspicious." And again, ya'll are like totally missing the "carrying a gun" thing. Even in Texas it's not normal to just see people carrying guns. It's still rare even here. It's effing weird that he was carrying a gun, license or no. Need a definition of CONCEALED ??? Oh please. It's trivial to spot a concealed weapon on someone unless they're wearing particularly baggy clothes. I have seen people carrying before. It's super easy to spot.
In the dark?
|
On July 12 2013 05:23 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2013 05:22 Kaitlin wrote:On July 12 2013 05:21 Klondikebar wrote:On July 12 2013 05:18 SKC wrote:On July 12 2013 05:16 Klondikebar wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Because Martin would, justifiably, resist being held, especially if Zimmerman's only claim to hold him was that he "looked suspicious." And again, ya'll are like totally missing the "carrying a gun" thing. Even in Texas it's not normal to just see people carrying guns. It's still rare even here. It's effing weird that he was carrying a gun, license or no. Need a definition of CONCEALED ??? Oh please. It's trivial to spot a concealed weapon on someone unless they're wearing particularly baggy clothes. I have seen people carrying before. It's super easy to spot.
Do you search purses ? You simply have no idea about much, apparently. Obviously, Trayvon wasn't able to realize GZ was armed, otherwise he wouldn't have done what he did.
|
On July 12 2013 05:24 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2013 05:23 Klondikebar wrote:On July 12 2013 05:22 Kaitlin wrote:On July 12 2013 05:21 Klondikebar wrote:On July 12 2013 05:18 SKC wrote:On July 12 2013 05:16 Klondikebar wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Because Martin would, justifiably, resist being held, especially if Zimmerman's only claim to hold him was that he "looked suspicious." And again, ya'll are like totally missing the "carrying a gun" thing. Even in Texas it's not normal to just see people carrying guns. It's still rare even here. It's effing weird that he was carrying a gun, license or no. Need a definition of CONCEALED ??? Oh please. It's trivial to spot a concealed weapon on someone unless they're wearing particularly baggy clothes. I have seen people carrying before. It's super easy to spot. Do you search purses ? You simply have no idea about much, apparently. Obviously, Trayvon wasn't able to realize GZ was armed, otherwise he wouldn't have done what he did.
I don't understand why he punched him in the first place. This is assuming Zimmerman didn't grab him first and the beginning of the altercation as stated is true.
|
On July 12 2013 05:18 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2013 05:04 Plansix 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, 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.
No, reasonable is not a factor in this. My brother carries a gun all the time, both when he is deployed over seas and when he is at home. He never encounters violence at home, but still carries a fire time.
The concpect that carrying a fire arm increases the chance of violence is stupid and a poor argument. Learning martial arts does not incease the chance of violence or carrying a taser.
|
On July 12 2013 05:24 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2013 05:23 Klondikebar wrote:On July 12 2013 05:22 Kaitlin wrote:On July 12 2013 05:21 Klondikebar wrote:On July 12 2013 05:18 SKC wrote:On July 12 2013 05:16 Klondikebar wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Because Martin would, justifiably, resist being held, especially if Zimmerman's only claim to hold him was that he "looked suspicious." And again, ya'll are like totally missing the "carrying a gun" thing. Even in Texas it's not normal to just see people carrying guns. It's still rare even here. It's effing weird that he was carrying a gun, license or no. Need a definition of CONCEALED ??? Oh please. It's trivial to spot a concealed weapon on someone unless they're wearing particularly baggy clothes. I have seen people carrying before. It's super easy to spot. Do you search purses ? You simply have no idea about much, apparently. Obviously, Trayvon wasn't able to realize GZ was armed, otherwise he wouldn't have done what he did.
Yeah now you're diverging from my point. I'm not talking about Martin knowing whether or not Zimmerman was carrying. I'm talking about the fact that Zimmerman was carrying at all. I'm saying people do not just walk around with guns. The ones I have seen were just kinda shoved in their pants and pretty clearly showing so it's not like the people that have them feel the need to hide them.
I'm saying it's unusual for Zimmerman to be carrying a gun at all unless he thought the probability of violence was unusually high. Given that probability, I feel that his actions were reckless and that he put himself in an unnecessary amount of danger.
Again, this is just my opinion. I don't like Zimmerman. I don't think he acted appropriately at all. Under the law he's probably innocent. But by my judgement he's an asshole.
|
On July 12 2013 05:29 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2013 05:18 Klondikebar wrote:On July 12 2013 05:04 Plansix 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, 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. No, reasonable is not a factor in this. My brother carries a gun all the time, both when he is deployed over seas and when he is at home. He never encounters violence at home, but still carries a fire time. The concpect that carrying a fire arm increases the chance of violence is stupid and a poor argument. Learning martial arts does not incease the chance of violence or carrying a taser.
I never said carrying a gun increases the chance of violence. I said it is indicative of an increased expectation of violence. And your brother is military. He's an outlier in regard to what's normal with guns.
|
On July 12 2013 05:29 QQKachoo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2013 05:24 Kaitlin wrote:On July 12 2013 05:23 Klondikebar wrote:On July 12 2013 05:22 Kaitlin wrote:On July 12 2013 05:21 Klondikebar wrote:On July 12 2013 05:18 SKC wrote:On July 12 2013 05:16 Klondikebar wrote:On July 12 2013 05:12 SKC wrote:On July 12 2013 05:09 Klondikebar wrote:On July 12 2013 05:02 Millitron wrote:
[quote]
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. Because Martin would, justifiably, resist being held, especially if Zimmerman's only claim to hold him was that he "looked suspicious." And again, ya'll are like totally missing the "carrying a gun" thing. Even in Texas it's not normal to just see people carrying guns. It's still rare even here. It's effing weird that he was carrying a gun, license or no. Need a definition of CONCEALED ??? Oh please. It's trivial to spot a concealed weapon on someone unless they're wearing particularly baggy clothes. I have seen people carrying before. It's super easy to spot. Do you search purses ? You simply have no idea about much, apparently. Obviously, Trayvon wasn't able to realize GZ was armed, otherwise he wouldn't have done what he did. I don't understand why he punched him in the first place. This is assuming Zimmerman didn't grab him first and the beginning of the altercation as stated is true.
How about because some "creepy ass cracker" was following him simply because he was "walking while black in a gated community" and he was upset at being treated in this way. Perhaps he wanted to beat him up for treating him this way, when he had done nothing wrong to deserve such a treatment ? It's pretty obvious that this black youth felt the GZ had wronged him by following him and calling the police on him. Is that hard to believe ? Because, to me, it's very likely what brought about the physical attack initiated by Trayvon.
|
On July 11 2013 23:03 PanzerKing wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 22:52 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 11 2013 22:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 11 2013 22:28 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 11 2013 20:45 LaughingTulkas wrote:On July 11 2013 15:13 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 11 2013 14:58 Kaitlin wrote:
If she didn't shut down West so quickly, she would have quickly understood that they weren't going to discuss it until the witnesses concluded. Her shutting down West pre-emptively was also exhibited Monday when he was explaining that he needed to proffer the "text message" expert witness for the authentication. She interrupted him repeatedly, preventing him from explaining that, and it ultimately delayed the explanation. She shut him down, and proceeded as if the proffer wasn't necessary, and eventually relented to accept the proffer once she finally allowed West to complete his fucking sentence.
Similarly, in this case about GZ. Had she let his attorney represent his client, and make the point that they weren't going to make that decision until after the witnesses were concluded, she could have avoided the repeated questions and wasted time.
edit:
So, I'm not sure how she saved any time by repeatedly asking the same questions that she would have known weren't going to be answered if she weren't a complete bitch about it. im sorry, but the defense attorneys have nothing to complain about. they spent this whole trial blabbering and the court has repeatedly told them to stfu, but they continue to blabber. i imagine the court is quite frustrated with them at this point. this isnt some bias thing. they are always yapping their mouths. So your stated opinion is that the DEFENSE is always yapping their mouths and taking too long? Just wow. I mean... don't you think... wow. This is one of (definitely not the most, but up there) uniformed and biased thoughts I've seen in a while. I don't even think I can respond because if this is really how you see it, then I'm pretty sure mere facts won't convince you. they are constantly doing speaking objections, and constantly getting reprimanded by the court for it. it is a procedural no-no and they dont feel compelled to change their habits. a first year law student knows a speaking objection is improper. I imagine it's largely a result of the national attention. Natural to be more confrontational when in front of an audience in a situation like this (especially if he is as confident in his case as you are) Edit: probably more accurate to say if he thinks the prosecutors case is as weak as you do whatever the reasons for them doing it, it is annoying that they feel the need to continue to do it. violating the rules and then constantly getting reprimanded by the court in front of the jury is a disservice to their client. it makes them look like shoddy attorneys, which as far as their trial presentation is actually the case. there is no reason for them to constantly make speaking objections. just say "objection" and state the basis; no need to yap their mouths on and on until the court rightfully tells them to stfu. There are times when you might want to continue talking after objecting, as a strategic matter. If a witness's testimony is damaging and you want to break up their flow or distract the jury's attention, you might want to make as many objections as possible and talk as much as possible while doing so. Against less experienced attorneys, you might even agitate them and disrupt their questioning. Or you might want to make a clear record so that an issue is preserved for appeal - in that case, you want to err on the side of caution and make your point as explicit as possible. Also, timing is important - you might want to drag out a witness's testimony so that the more damaging part happens later in the day when people have less energy and are paying less attention, or time it so that their testimony concludes the following day when the jury's memory of the first day's testimony is not as fresh. Also, the longer it takes to get through direct, the more time you have to plan out and prep for your cross. Generally (and especially as a prosecutor) you don't want to irritate the court and potentially the jury by being verbose in your objections, but there are definitely situations where it is a viable strategy.
its an improper strategy. speaking objections are against the rules. there is no gray area; they are improper. what you are describing is trial practice that is NOT allowed. yes, the defense is doing what you are describing, and, yes, the judge is getting irritated with them for it.
|
Does anyone else feel like theres a hidden agenda behind this entire event / trial? Its obvious Zimmerman was charged solely for political reasons and to appease a certain percentage of the public. I just feel like the outcome of this trial has been predetermined (Zimmerman gets acquitted). And once he does theres a high chance of a certain percentage of the public rioting / protesting to the point it turns violent. Maybe im just being paranoid but this whole ordeal just smells a little bit fishy to me.
|
On July 12 2013 05:30 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2013 05:24 Kaitlin wrote:On July 12 2013 05:23 Klondikebar wrote:On July 12 2013 05:22 Kaitlin wrote:On July 12 2013 05:21 Klondikebar wrote:On July 12 2013 05:18 SKC wrote:On July 12 2013 05:16 Klondikebar wrote:On July 12 2013 05:12 SKC wrote:On July 12 2013 05:09 Klondikebar wrote:On July 12 2013 05:02 Millitron wrote:
[quote]
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. Because Martin would, justifiably, resist being held, especially if Zimmerman's only claim to hold him was that he "looked suspicious." And again, ya'll are like totally missing the "carrying a gun" thing. Even in Texas it's not normal to just see people carrying guns. It's still rare even here. It's effing weird that he was carrying a gun, license or no. Need a definition of CONCEALED ??? Oh please. It's trivial to spot a concealed weapon on someone unless they're wearing particularly baggy clothes. I have seen people carrying before. It's super easy to spot. Do you search purses ? You simply have no idea about much, apparently. Obviously, Trayvon wasn't able to realize GZ was armed, otherwise he wouldn't have done what he did. Yeah now you're diverging from my point. I'm not talking about Martin knowing whether or not Zimmerman was carrying. I'm talking about the fact that Zimmerman was carrying at all. I'm saying people do not just walk around with guns. The ones I have seen were just kinda shoved in their pants and pretty clearly showing so it's not like the people that have them feel the need to hide them. I'm saying it's unusual for Zimmerman to be carrying a gun at all unless he thought the probability of violence was unusually high. Given that probability, I feel that his actions were reckless and that he put himself in an unnecessary amount of danger. Again, this is just my opinion. I don't like Zimmerman. I don't think he acted appropriately at all. Under the law he's probably innocent. But by my judgement he's an asshole.
http://legallyarmed.com/ccw_statistics.htm
Millions of people have concealed weapon permits.
|
On July 12 2013 05:30 Klondikebar wrote:
Yeah now you're diverging from my point. I'm not talking about Martin knowing whether or not Zimmerman was carrying. I'm talking about the fact that Zimmerman was carrying at all. I'm saying people do not just walk around with guns. The ones I have seen were just kinda shoved in their pants and pretty clearly showing so it's not like the people that have them feel the need to hide them.
I'm saying it's unusual for Zimmerman to be carrying a gun at all unless he thought the probability of violence was unusually high. Given that probability, I feel that his actions were reckless and that he put himself in an unnecessary amount of danger.
Based on what you've written, I'll just conclude that you're woefully uninformed. Many more people than you realize "just walk around with guns". People who are concealed carry permit holders generally are armed by default, unless they know ahead of time they are going somewhere or will be in a situation where it's inappropriate, such as going out drinking. GZ was going to Target to shop. He was armed by default. He was already armed when he encountered TM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
