George Zimmerman Trial

[NDohio]

These political threads get so intense.

If you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen. That type of thing. I don't post in them because I have a propensity to take things personally. Debates can get out of control. Its a good thing that people are so passionate in their views.

But don't let a couple arguments deter you from continuing to post. The more diverse opinions, the better the board.

Lets all just relax. What happened, happened. And it can't be changed.

Anyone else excited for football season?

48 days and counting.

 

[drayer54]

Am I missing something, people are crying about stand your ground and such... Unless I'm mistaken the whole stand your ground law had nothing to do with this case, was never invoked or argued.... Correct? Why are people so intent on using a basic self defense claim to attack laws that have nothing to do with the case?

People are crying about all kind of unrelated nonsense. CNN has been offering TV therapy for crybabies all day who think this was something it wasn't. People who don't like that he is half white, had a gun, actually defended himself, etc.

People who are upset about this are consistently ignoring the self defense part. They are consistently ignoring the weak and absent case. They are consistently ignoring that this never should of went to trial. The people crying don't care about justice, they want revenge.

 

[GoIrish41]

Am I missing something, people are crying about stand your ground and such... Unless I'm mistaken the whole stand your ground law had nothing to do with this case, was never invoked or argued.... Correct? Why are people so intent on using a basic self defense claim to attack laws that have nothing to do with the case?

the laws in Florida are said to be extremely broad when it comes to self-defense. Stand your ground was not used in this case, but the laws make it difficult to overcome a claim of self-defense. I haven't personally read the laws or compared them to other states, but that is my very limited understanding of what people are complaining about. It seems with very liberal issuing of carry permits and making it very difficult to disprove a claim of self defense when the other party is dead, some are claiming this is a recipe for people to take justice into their own hands with little chance of being held accountable.

 

[Rhode Irish]

That's what that particular move theater in Colorado did. It was private property, they banned concealed weapons.

But, the law is only useful when you're dealing with law abiding citizens. That's the problem. It's hard to apply the law when, for instance the Colorado shooting, the guy just walks in with an Automatic weapon and goes all postal.

Don't get me wrong, in a perfect world, I'd love to outlaw guns. We just don't live there, and you have to give people the opportunity to lawfully defend. What is "Lawfully Defend". I have my opinion, but people much smarter than I will have to work out the legal details, because as much as I'd like it to be (no pun intended) black and white, there is a bunch of grey area in this.

Maybe cultures really do differ this much from place to place, but I've lived my whole life in the northeast (Rhode Island, New York and Boston). These are all liberal areas, obviosuly, and all the places I've lived have been relatively urban. I've never been in a situation where I've needed a gun to defend myself, and I've never known anyone who has either. I don't know anyone who has had their home invaded, or who was robbed by an armed person. There also is virtually no gun culture to speak of. While I'm not naive enough to think that no one I know may own a gun, I've never heard anyone say so. It's just hard to fathom people being so passionate about gun ownership. It is a totally foreign concept.

 

[jmurphy75]

Why not? Race dynamics involve more than black and white. Racial animosity between Hispanics and Blacks in California at least is well documented. That being said Hispanics have nowhere near the level of power and influence to inflict and codify institutionalized forms of racism on the level that whites do. The situation in Florida does show to me that once again a supposedly well intentioned law is going to have a disproportionately negative and possibly deadly impact on Black males in much the same way that the wave of mandatory sentencing that resulted from the war on drugs.

This trial was not about racism unless you believe Al and Jesse. What supposedly well intentioned law are you talking about and why would it have disproportionately negative and possibly deadly impact on Black males?

 

[GoIrish41]

Maybe cultures really do differ this much from place to place, but I've lived my whole life in the northeast (Rhode Island, New York and Boston). These are all liberal areas, obviosuly, and all the places I've lived have been relatively urban. I've never been in a situation where I've needed a gun to defend myself, and I've never known anyone who has either. I don't know anyone who has had their home invaded, or who was robbed by an armed person. There also is virtually no gun culture to speak of. While I'm not naive enough to think that no one I know may own a gun, I've never heard anyone say so. It's just hard to fathom people being so passionate about gun ownership. It is a totally foreign concept.

I grew up in Centeral Pennsylvania, where the first day of deer season was a holiday during which kids got off school to go hunting. To this day, lots of people I know spend a good chunk of their vacation time to head into the woods to their hunting cabins. I'd say at least 80 percent of the families I knew growing up had guns in their house. I can see why those people would get uneasy if they truely thought that the government came after their guns. Those aren't the guns that anyone is concerned with. It seemes the debate is about "assault weapons," and it is a bit frightening that people are so forceful in their arguments that it is their God-given right to own those types of weapons.

 

[Grahambo]

Lax gets it.

 

[tadman95]

Hahahahahaha!

If you don't want others commenting on your business...then don't post it on a message board-- keep it to PM's, emails, texts, phone calls, hand written letters, or personal hook ups. Any and all of those provide a TAD more privacy than a public message board on the internet.

And with that, I say farewell to IE.







Actually, I just have to take a dump.

Huh, what?! Keep me out of it.

 

[drayer54]

Maybe cultures really do differ this much from place to place, but I've lived my whole life in the northeast (Rhode Island, New York and Boston). These are all liberal areas, obviosuly, and all the places I've lived have been relatively urban. I've never been in a situation where I've needed a gun to defend myself, and I've never known anyone who has either. I don't know anyone who has had their home invaded, or who was robbed by an armed person. There also is virtually no gun culture to speak of. While I'm not naive enough to think that no one I know may own a gun, I've never heard anyone say so. It's just hard to fathom people being so passionate about gun ownership. It is a totally foreign concept.

I am debating selling a few or buying my fourth full size gun safe. I don't know exactly how many I have, but it's a fair amount. I collect old Colt wheel wheel guns and some S&W pieces. I probably buy about a gun a week. Sell close to or under that. I shoot trap, hunt, archery, and have a CCW. I tend to have a Colt Mustang or Kimber Solo in a holster, much like GZ. It's legal and it's never hurt anyone. When I live in a world that doesn't have a senseless murder.., I'll keep it in the safe.

My guns have hurt nobody and are a fun hobby of mine. I don't expect you to like them, shoot them, or even want them. It's a basic right of every American. You don't have to speak freely, go to church, protest, read a paper, or own a gun. My right doesn't interfere with your right and vice versa. I just ask that people who don't feel comfortable with guns understand each other and try not to limit our rights.

 

[alohagoirish]

The jury instructions in this case were a bit of a JOKE. I stand by my earlier post that the trial was joke, I had it Not Guilty within 24 hours before the defense was even put on.

The charge was too high for the evidence. Manslaughter should have been the charge, but of course the MEDIA would not have gone wall to wall, day after day, and made celebrities of every lawyer, if this was a manslaughter trial.

Back to the jury instructions, " if there is conflicting evidence that is the basis for reasonable doubt"-----that's either a pathetic or ridiculous instruction depending on your point of view.
A jury unable to assert themselves beyond literal "INSTRUCTIONS" would by that thinking have to find everyone NOT GUILTY. And with jury trials they often do.

The manslaughter instruction was just as ridiculous " Zimmerman is lawful using deadly force NOT ONLY if he acts to prevent grave injury or his life , but if HE THINKS his life might be at stake."---

Essentially, the instructions told the jury that irrespective of all the events leading up to the shooting --Zimmerman was lawful to kill martin as long as he thought it was necessary.

WOW--hard to even get a manslaughter verdict with those instructions.

I predicted a not guilty in 48 hours from closing and I also predicted that Mr Zimmerman would find himself in other serious trouble with a couple of years. I stand by that hunch.

I'm a little older then many of the posters here, when I was a youngster I watched a lot of westerns. One KEY repetitive theme was the FAST GUN comes to town, he wants to do in this fella or that, what he does is GOAD them into a fight using a wide variety of tactics, and then shoot them under a self defense shield. The victim is usually innocent, is not a threat with his firearm , is provoked into a stupid maneuver and always ends up DEAD!

The fact that today, in parts of the country , that way continues is disconcerting IMO.

Out here in Hawaii we have a strikingly similar trial going on---A member of the secret service or some such security for OBAMA during a visit out here two years ago, SHOT a local fella dead in a fast food restaurant.

His claim is also self defense, he got involved in an altercation between two other men, he claimed one man was being bullied by the victim and he stepped in to rescue him. Pushing and shoving then commenced between the FED and the Man. He claimed he shot him do save himself and was very sorry he killed him.

There is more evidence against this fella then the florida trial but not by much , his FED buddy warning him before he went out that LOCALS don't like WHITES ( these guys were acting like Hawaii was Iraq or some such , the mindset is befuddling)---The shooter had a couple of beers but essentially its THE SAME DEFENSE---in our case a real law enforcement agent was off duty and shot a civilian during an argument---its a similar case but I would be very surprised if the verdict is similar in this state.

Glad this is over, but its hard to escape the reality that MR Z criminalized this youngster in his mind, stalked him, pursued him out of the car despite police instructions and when the unarmed fella STANDS HIS GROUND he is lawfully killed.

Something not quite kosher in all that, despite the jury instructions demands to find not guilty.

 

[jmurphy75]

Maybe cultures really do differ this much from place to place, but I've lived my whole life in the northeast (Rhode Island, New York and Boston). These are all liberal areas, obviosuly, and all the places I've lived have been relatively urban. I've never been in a situation where I've needed a gun to defend myself, and I've never known anyone who has either. I don't know anyone who has had their home invaded, or who was robbed by an armed person. There also is virtually no gun culture to speak of. While I'm not naive enough to think that no one I know may own a gun, I've never heard anyone say so. It's just hard to fathom people being so passionate about gun ownership. It is a totally foreign concept.

People form their opinions and beleifs from their own life situation, mostly the reason I will never tell someone they are wrong when they are voicing their own opinion. As your life has affected your opinion about gun right so has mine. In 2005 I was involed in an attempted robbery where 3-5 hispanic males around 18-20 years old tried to mug me coming out of a restraunt near downtown Orlando. I managed to fight them most of them off with a large crown just watching from inside the restraunt, until one of them struck me with a pipe in the back of my neck, I got up once and was hit again. I was almost paralized with a fracture to my C5, and concussion that came from kicks to the head after I was out. # years later outside a bar near UCF I was hit across the face with a bat by a black male, fractured eye sockets and another concussion for no reason at all. Let's just say that I formed my gun rights opinions from my life instances as well. The reason I'm so passionate now is that I have a 2 year old daughter and will never be caught unable to defend myself or her from someone that does not have any respect or value for someone else's life or well being.

 

[GoIrish41]

The jury instructions in this case were a bit of a JOKE. I stand by my earlier post that the trial was joke, I had it Not Guilty within 24 hours before the defense was even put on.

The charge was too high for the evidence. Manslaughter should have been the charge, but of course the MEDIA would not have gone wall to wall, day after day, and made celebrities of every lawyer, if this was a manslaughter trial.

Back to the jury instructions, " if there is conflicting evidence that is the basis for reasonable doubt"-----that's either a pathetic or ridiculous instruction depending on your point of view.
A jury unable to assert themselves beyond literal "INSTRUCTIONS" would by that thinking have to find everyone NOT GUILTY. And with jury trials they often do.

The manslaughter instruction was just as ridiculous " Zimmerman is lawful using deadly force NOT ONLY if he acts to prevent grave injury or his life , but if HE THINKS his life might be at stake."---

Essentially, the instructions told the jury that irrespective of all the events leading up to the shooting --Zimmerman was lawful to kill martin as long as he thought it was necessary.

WOW--hard to even get a manslaughter verdict with those instructions.

I predicted a not guilty in 48 hours from closing and I also predicted that Mr Zimmerman would find himself in other serious trouble with a couple of years. I stand by that hunch.

I'm a little older then many of the posters here, when I was a youngster I watched a lot of westerns. One KEY repetitive theme was the FAST GUN comes to town, he wants to do in this fella or that, what he does is GOAD them into a fight using a wide variety of tactics, and then shoot them under a self defense shield. The victim is usually innocent, is not a threat with his firearm , is provoked into a stupid maneuver and always ends up DEAD!

The fact that today, in parts of the country , that way continues is disconcerting IMO.

Out here in Hawaii we have a strikingly similar trial going on---A member of the secret service or some such security for OBAMA during a visit out here two years ago, SHOT a local fella dead in a fast food restaurant.

His claim is also self defense, he got involved in an altercation between two other men, he claimed one man was being bullied by the victim and he stepped in to rescue him. Pushing and shoving then commenced between the FED and the Man. He claimed he shot him do save himself and was very sorry he killed him.

There is more evidence against this fella then the florida trial but not by much , his FED buddy warning him before he went out that LOCALS don't like WHITES ( these guys were acting like Hawaii was Iraq or some such , the mindset is befuddling)---The shooter had a couple of beers but essentially its THE SAME DEFENSE---in our case a real law enforcement agent was off duty and shot a civilian during an argument---its a similar case but I would be very surprised if the verdict is similar in this state.

Glad this is over, but its hard to escape the reality that MR Z criminalized this youngster in his mind, stalked him, pursued him out of the car despite police instructions and when the unarmed fella STANDS HIS GROUND he is lawfully killed.

Something not quite kosher in all that, despite the jury instructions demands to find not guilty.

This is a good post. I'd be interested in hearing what shakes out in that case in Hawaii.

 

[Rhode Irish]

I am debating selling a few or buying my fourth full size gun safe. I don't know exactly how many I have, but it's a fair amount. I collect old Colt wheel wheel guns and some S&W pieces. I probably buy about a gun a week. Sell close to or under that. I shoot trap, hunt, archery, and have a CCW. I tend to have a Colt Mustang or Kimber Solo in a holster, much like GZ. It's legal and it's never hurt anyone. When I live in a world that doesn't have a senseless murder.., I'll keep it in the safe.

My guns have hurt nobody and are a fun hobby of mine. I don't expect you to like them, shoot them, or even want them. It's a basic right of every American. You don't have to speak freely, go to church, protest, read a paper, or own a gun. My right doesn't interfere with your right and vice versa. I just ask that people who don't feel comfortable with guns understand each other and try not to limit our rights.

Yeah, that is all fine. I didn't say gun owners are all idiots. In fact, I was trying to say the opposite. I was acknowledging that my thoughts on guns and gun ownership are largely shaped by the culture I grew up in, and people who have had a different experience probably have a different perspective. Like I said, it doesn't seem like there is a lot to do with a gun around here. I've never personally met someone who would have benefited from having a gun to defend himself, and I don't know anyone who uses a gun recreationally, either.

I have been to other parts of the country, though, and it is always amazing to me how ubiquitous guns are and how prominent gun culture is. I have relatives in Atlanta, Nashville and all over Florida. My best friend was briefly stationed in Biloxi and I visited him a few times. I was living in New York at the time, so that was a bit of a culture shock. Anyways, everyone I met down there had multiple guns, and most had all kinds of other weapons, too. We'd go to a house party, and people would be practicing throwing six inch blades into blocks of wood (I did that; it was fun) and shooting bottles in the back yard (also fun). I'm not making judgments. I had a blast down there. It is just totally foreign to me. It isn't a culture that I understand.

 

[GoIrish41]

Yeah, that is all fine. I didn't say gun owners are all idiots. In fact, I was trying to say the opposite. I was acknowledging that my thoughts on guns and gun ownership are largely shaped by the culture I grew up in, and people who have had a different experience probably have a different perspective. Like I said, it doesn't seem like there is a lot to do with a gun around here. I've never personally met someone who would have benefited from having a gun to defend himself, and I don't know anyone who uses a gun recreationally, either.

I have been to other parts of the country, though, and it is always amazing to me how ubiquitous guns are and how prominent gun culture is. I have relatives in Atlanta, Nashville and all over Florida. My best friend was briefly stationed in Biloxi and I visited him a few times. I was living in New York at the time, so that was a bit of a culture shock. Anyways, everyone I met down there had multiple guns, and most had all kinds of other weapons, too. We'd go to a house party, and people would be practicing throwing six inch blades into blocks of wood (I did that; it was fun) and shooting bottles in the back yard (also fun). I'm not making judgments. I had a blast down there. It is just totally foreign to me. It isn't a culture that I understand.

Sounds like all that was missing was the banjo music.

 

[Woneone]

This is a good post. I'd be interested in hearing what shakes out in that case in Hawaii.

I agree.

What's sad is that now, cases like this for at least the near future, will not be judged on the merits or evidence of the case. Instead, the public will draw their conclusions of race of the shooter, race of the victim, and how it relates to the Trayvon Martin tragedy.

 

[GoIrish41]

I agree.

What's sad is that now, cases like this for at least the near future, will not be judged on the merits or evidence of the case. Instead, the public will draw their conclusions of race of the shooter, race of the victim, and how it relates to the Trayvon Martin tragedy.

Agreed, it is sad. I know a lot of people talk about the only reason that this story got any attention is because the media whipped up a race circus. Think back to what the debate was when this all came to light -- two months after the Newtown shooting. As I recall the debate over the potential for gun control was fairly enflamed at the time, and people were forwarding the preposterous notion that more people having guns might be the answer to the rampant gun violence that has plagued this country. Out of the blue, some dumbass wannabe cop with a conceiled weapon decides to chase a kid down and shoot him. Maybe I'm naive, but I think given the debate, that had as much to do with this interest in this case than the racial angle. What is really sad is that our legal system is based on precident and this case provided a blueprint for using self-defense claims as a way to get away with murder.

 

[NDWorld247]

People form their opinions and beleifs from their own life situation, mostly the reason I will never tell someone they are wrong when they are voicing their own opinion. As your life has affected your opinion about gun right so has mine. In 2005 I was involed in an attempted robbery where 3-5 hispanic males around 18-20 years old tried to mug me coming out of a restraunt near downtown Orlando. I managed to fight them most of them off with a large crown just watching from inside the restraunt, until one of them struck me with a pipe in the back of my neck, I got up once and was hit again. I was almost paralized with a fracture to my C5, and concussion that came from kicks to the head after I was out. # years later outside a bar near UCF I was hit across the face with a bat by a black male, fractured eye sockets and another concussion for no reason at all. Let's just say that I formed my gun rights opinions from my life instances as well. The reason I'm so passionate now is that I have a 2 year old daughter and will never be caught unable to defend myself or her from someone that does not have any respect or value for someone else's life or well being.

I'm really torn on the gun issue. IMO, the only reasonable excuse to own a gun is self-defense. I find hunting deplorable but to each his own, and I highly doubt we'll need to form a militia in the foreseeable future.

So, in order to be prepared to defend yourself or your loved ones, one would need to have their gun handy at all times. Does that mean we should be a nation of gun-toting individuals ready to defend ourselves at the first sign of physical conflict? Should I go out and buy a gun because pretty soon the majority of Americans will have one and I don't want to be left bringing a knife to a gun fight? If the reason I'm going to buy a gun is to protect myself and my three children, shouldn't I bring it everywhere I go with them including their youth sports fields, playground, school, etc.? What's the point in letting it collect dust in a safe if the only reason I have it is self-defense?

We have a serious problem in this country and it's only going to get worse as Americans are purchasing guns at an alarming rate. I'm either going to a.) Move somewhere that has a very low gun fatality rate and televises ND football games every Saturday during the fall (any suggestions?) or b.) Buy a gun and carry it everywhere I go. Option B is going to result in someone's death and/or a prison sentence, but what choice do I have? I suppose there's an option C that includes not buying a gun and hoping myself or my loved ones are never put in a life or death situation, but with the way our country is trending that's really rolling the dice.

 

[Rhode Irish]

Sounds like all that was missing was the banjo music.

Yeah, man. It was surreal.

 

[NDinL.A.]

Lax,

For a moderator, the way you started the post was incredibly crass, and just wrong. It was stupid and shortsighted to, because it opens the opportunity for everyone to nitpick at each other.

You should PM jpham and every other mod and all your cronies and demand that Lax be fired from his $0 per year 'job'!!! Then you should PM Lax and provoke him with insulting emails, and if he responds rudely, you should share his PM with jpham and all the other mods and all your cronies! And then keep doing it over and over until jpham tells you to just leave him out of it, and then you should quit the board forever!

But then, you should come back, and harass Lax to the point that he finally quits his $0 a year 'job'. Yeah, that'll show Lax that all the mods aren't real people and they are not allowed to disagree with insane, idiotic posts!

Hey, it worked for you against me right? Difference is, Lax deals with idiocy with class and decorum, and I admittedly obviously don't.

I don't even consider the standard of factually correct because of the absolute abdominal bull shiit that has been posted on this thread in the guise of "conservative media."

Wow. Have you read some of the stuff you've written on this thread???

One every expert and that was five on CNN, so you can review the tapes specifically, state that as tough as the case was they thought the prosecution had met the burden of proof, four for M2, the remaining for manslaughter.

Woah woah woah, CNN is the 'unbiased' network you keep referring to??? For real? That's like me saying Fox is unbiased. I don't have a blanket over my eyes so fortunately I know that they are both biased, and I make my judgments based on the facts and what I believe, as well as info from people I trust. And the absolute truth is that almost everyone that isn't a bleeding heart blinded liberal thinks that this case was a no-win for the prosecution and never should have been brought to trial. ****, my wife is a bleeding heart liberal and even she thinks that it was a bogus trial, even though she thinks Zimmerman is a racist and deserves some sort of punishment.

Watch/read other networks besides CNN and you'll see what the rest of the board is talking about.

Final thoughts of TM case. I hope this is one too many for the gun lobby and people realize they can change stupid laws. I hope they saw what I did. That Andrea Corey lady was a bought dupe of the gun lobby. I don't know that any of the prosecutors really wanted to win. Did anyone ask NRA affiliations with the prosecutors office or the jury?

There is so much wrong here that I won't even waste my time breaking it apart.

Thoughts for IE. I guess it is time to take a break for a while.

A departing salvo.

Can we get some v-action on when he will return? What's the starting over-under date?

A) It is not a departing salvo. I am actually going on vacation. (So stupid, I am still laughing.)

B) I have often wondered why you just don't keep your nose out of other peoples business.

C) I know others have had their fill of your smart@ss commentary.


So now all you have to figure is how long my vacation actually is, Lol.

Nope, but nice try. You're laughing cause it's so stupid? You already quit IE 'forever', so why is it stupid for him to think you quit again when you worded it the way you did? (Wait, I already know your reply...you'll change it and say you were laughing at yourself for being stupid.)


ANYWAYS...I'm glad ZM was found not guilty because it was a b.s., media driven case. Nobody knows exactly what happened other than 2 people, so IF he really is guilty, I believe the good Lord will have His say in all this. Also, I wish that Trayvon's parents wouldn't see a dime (not going to happen, sadly) because they are HORRIBLE parents (I know I'm going to get killed for that but I don't care) and that all money won in civil suits goes to the Negro College Fund or some other worthy cause.

And I'm glad this is over (for now).

 

[GoIrish41]

Also, I wish that Trayvon's parents wouldn't see a dime (not going to happen, sadly) because they are HORRIBLE parents (I know I'm going to get killed for that but I don't care) and that all money won in civil suits goes to the Negro College Fund or some other worthy cause.

Don't tell me, you've been drinking? If you don't wake up after your buzz and feel ashamed for saying this, I feel really sorry for you. What a completely insensitive, sh*tty, horrible thing to say about two people who have just had their son taken from them.

 

[NDWorld247]

Applicable to either of the last two posts.

 

[Bluto]

I do believe it deters violent crime (again, this is just an opinion). But, you're asking me my opinion on how a scenario, which follows the script of your already formed opinions, plays out. Yea, in the scenario you laid out, it didn't do much, other than give everyone in the building a chance to defend themselves.

You think the number of deaths would have been as high assaulting a theater with Conceal and carry? I believe I read that there is conceal/carry rate of something like 4% in Colorado. In a theater with a few hundred people, there's a good chance he's facing multiple armed citizens. And my guess? The death toll is much lower.

That's a pretty substantial difference, isn't it?

Limiting Conceal and Carry does NOT prevent the wanna-be vigilant from going all Bronson. That's a tired opinion. You know how hard it is to get a gun in this country? Go to a gun show. It's not that hard. Ask a friend who hunts. Those people you speak of, the ones who apparently wear masks and go by names like "Wonder Boy" are not going to be deterred from getting a weapon. That's like saying making the relation between GZ having a gun and conceal and carry if you think he's sole intent was murder. If that's the case, if he was only out for blood, you think he'll break the crime of taking a life, but won't break the law to get a weapon (not you, just in general)?

In any case, this is the scenario YOU provided that I was responding to:



So you're saying, in the situation you provided, you're only fear is a gun, not any other type of weapon that person may have? If things get heated, I'm more worried that he has a WEAPON. I don't care what kind, be it ball bat, knife, or even a car. If he is trying to a wound severe enough to kill, at that point I don't care about how much more convenient it would be to kill me with a gun. I'm just worried about the whole killing part.

And that's not limited to conceal and carries.

Edit: Sorry, hurried typing (baby crying). GZ comparison doesn't sound as good as it does in my head. Will fix later.

No my point was that if a homicidal manic is faced with the potential of people packing handguns he's probably going to up the ante (ie is not going to be deterred) and adapt to the situation accordingly. Google la bank robbery 1997 and you will see an example of what I am talking about. Not sure how many people carry bows and arrows, stones, bats and or buck knifes. In fact the first three sound down right rediculous. Lets be honest a gun takes one action that involves a split second decision to be fatal. None of those other weapons do. So you're absolutely right about me being much more afraid of anyone armed with a gun as opposed to any of the other weapons you listed. Unless the assailant was some super big bad *** I feel pretty good saying I could defend myself . Couldn't say the same for even the smallest of assailants armed with a Glock.

For what it's worth I grew up around guns, have plenty of friends who hunt and own samll armories and had the pleasure of peeling off some rounds with a Sig Sauer P220, a Desert Eagle and a semi auto 12 gauge the weekend before last and I see no reason to bring any of those to the movies and its quite easy to purchase any of those (the ammo on the other hand seems to be in short supply lol).

 

[HereComeTheIrish]

You should PM jpham and every other mod and all your cronies and demand that Lax be fired from his $0 per year 'job'!!! Then you should PM Lax and provoke him with insulting emails, and if he responds rudely, you should share his PM with jpham and all the other mods and all your cronies! And then keep doing it over and over until jpham tells you to just leave him out of it, and then you should quit the board forever!

But then, you should come back, and harass Lax to the point that he finally quits his $0 a year 'job'. Yeah, that'll show Lax that all the mods aren't real people and they are not allowed to disagree with insane, idiotic posts!

Hey, it worked for you against me right? Difference is, Lax deals with idiocy with class and decorum, and I admittedly obviously don't.



Wow. Have you read some of the stuff you've written on this thread???



Woah woah woah, CNN is the 'unbiased' network you keep referring to??? For real? That's like me saying Fox is unbiased. I don't have a blanket over my eyes so fortunately I know that they are both biased, and I make my judgments based on the facts and what I believe, as well as info from people I trust. And the absolute truth is that almost everyone that isn't a bleeding heart blinded liberal thinks that this case was a no-win for the prosecution and never should have been brought to trial. ****, my wife is a bleeding heart liberal and even she thinks that it was a bogus trial, even though she thinks Zimmerman is a racist and deserves some sort of punishment.

Watch/read other networks besides CNN and you'll see what the rest of the board is talking about.



There is so much wrong here that I won't even waste my time breaking it apart.







Nope, but nice try. You're laughing cause it's so stupid? You already quit IE 'forever', so why is it stupid for him to think you quit again when you worded it the way you did? (Wait, I already know your reply...you'll change it and say you were laughing at yourself for being stupid.)


ANYWAYS...I'm glad ZM was found not guilty because it was a b.s., media driven case. Nobody knows exactly what happened other than 2 people, so IF he really is guilty, I believe the good Lord will have His say in all this. Also, I wish that Trayvon's parents wouldn't see a dime (not going to happen, sadly) because they are HORRIBLE parents (I know I'm going to get killed for that but I don't care) and that all money won in civil suits goes to the Negro College Fund or some other worthy cause.

And I'm glad this is over (for now).

 

[NDinL.A.]

Don't tell me, you've been drinking? If you don't wake up after your buzz and feel ashamed for saying this, I feel really sorry for you. What a completely insensitive, sh*tty, horrible thing to say about two people who have just had their son taken from them.

No, actually, completely sober. Riled up maybe, because nobody gets me going like a certain blowhard member (seriously, I know you two are on the same side here, but have you actually read some of the drivel he's been spitting on this thread??? Like I said when I repped you on a certain post, you and I disagree here, but you've made some quality arguments. His? Just wow), but I was sober and I completely believe everything I wrote. I knew people would hate it, but after reading my facebook page for 2 days I couldn't take it anymore.

So yes, again, his parents were horrible parents and don't deserve a dime. I wish it would all go to charity.

Here's the thing...parenting is extremely difficult, and you never know what results you are going to get. I've seen students of mine who are phenomenal kids, and then I've seen their siblings and one of their siblings is a bad seed. Same parenting, different results. I get that. But as long as you are trying to discipline your kids and teach them right from wrong as best you can, you're all good in my book.

But Trayvon had been effing up for quite a while now. So many supporters are making him out to be some sort of saint, straight-laced A+ student when in fact he was a bad seed. And here's my problem with this whole thing...what was he doing out at night??? What kind of parent lets their kid out of the house (with his nice cell phone as well) when the kid's behavior was so bad that he was suspended from school for 10 days??? If he's my son (yeah, looking at you Obama), then his *** is grounded with no cell phone and most if not all privileges taken away. You want to throw away your life son? Fine, but in my house, you're living under my rules and we're going to try and turn this thing around.

He ain't going with his friends, he ain't going with his cousins, he ain't living with his father or his uncle or anyone else who will let him out late at night...nothing. It's consequence time. How many times was he suspended that year? How many days of school had he missed (last I heard, 53, and that was with over 3 months left in the year)?

It's a tragedy and damn shame that TM is dead. He didn't deserve to die, and his parents didn't deserve to lose their son. I wish he could be here and they could be given a 2nd chance to try and raise him the right way. People say that if GZ hadn't followed him, he'd be alive today. People say that if Trayvon hadn't attacked GZ, he'd be alive today. And I'll add that if Trayvon's parents had discipline their son like he should have been disciplined, then he would be alive today, and probably a better member of society as well.

Insensitive? Yeah, probably. But it's the truth. Or at least, it's my truth. Nothing personal against the members of this board who believe against me or who believe GZ should be in jail for murder; this is just one man's opinion...

 

[connor_in]

The jury instructions in this case were a bit of a JOKE. I stand by my earlier post that the trial was joke, I had it Not Guilty within 24 hours before the defense was even put on.

The charge was too high for the evidence. Manslaughter should have been the charge, but of course the MEDIA would not have gone wall to wall, day after day, and made celebrities of every lawyer, if this was a manslaughter trial.

Back to the jury instructions, " if there is conflicting evidence that is the basis for reasonable doubt"-----that's either a pathetic or ridiculous instruction depending on your point of view.
A jury unable to assert themselves beyond literal "INSTRUCTIONS" would by that thinking have to find everyone NOT GUILTY. And with jury trials they often do.

The manslaughter instruction was just as ridiculous " Zimmerman is lawful using deadly force NOT ONLY if he acts to prevent grave injury or his life , but if HE THINKS his life might be at stake."---

Essentially, the instructions told the jury that irrespective of all the events leading up to the shooting --Zimmerman was lawful to kill martin as long as he thought it was necessary.

WOW--hard to even get a manslaughter verdict with those instructions.

I predicted a not guilty in 48 hours from closing and I also predicted that Mr Zimmerman would find himself in other serious trouble with a couple of years. I stand by that hunch.

I'm a little older then many of the posters here, when I was a youngster I watched a lot of westerns. One KEY repetitive theme was the FAST GUN comes to town, he wants to do in this fella or that, what he does is GOAD them into a fight using a wide variety of tactics, and then shoot them under a self defense shield. The victim is usually innocent, is not a threat with his firearm , is provoked into a stupid maneuver and always ends up DEAD!

The fact that today, in parts of the country , that way continues is disconcerting IMO.

Out here in Hawaii we have a strikingly similar trial going on---A member of the secret service or some such security for OBAMA during a visit out here two years ago, SHOT a local fella dead in a fast food restaurant.

His claim is also self defense, he got involved in an altercation between two other men, he claimed one man was being bullied by the victim and he stepped in to rescue him. Pushing and shoving then commenced between the FED and the Man. He claimed he shot him do save himself and was very sorry he killed him.

There is more evidence against this fella then the florida trial but not by much , his FED buddy warning him before he went out that LOCALS don't like WHITES ( these guys were acting like Hawaii was Iraq or some such , the mindset is befuddling)---The shooter had a couple of beers but essentially its THE SAME DEFENSE---in our case a real law enforcement agent was off duty and shot a civilian during an argument---its a similar case but I would be very surprised if the verdict is similar in this state.

Glad this is over, but its hard to escape the reality that MR Z criminalized this youngster in his mind, stalked him, pursued him out of the car despite police instructions and when the unarmed fella STANDS HIS GROUND he is lawfully killed.

Something not quite kosher in all that, despite the jury instructions demands to find not guilty.

Just out of curiosity...what would you prefer the jury instructions to be?

 

[Rhode Irish]

NDinLA, as a teacher you must be as aware as anyone that some families don't value education as they should. That is a tragedy on a national level, but it is so ingrained culturally in some communities that it is hard to say any particular parent is bad because of it. At least bad enough to say that they don't deserve sympathy over losing their child. I'm sure they loved their son, they just didn't know how to parent in the way that you and I think of the term.

Putting all of that aside, it really doesn't matter what kind of kid Martin was or what kind of parents his folks were. He wasn't doing anything wrong the night he was shot. He was just walking home from the convenience store. Him being suspended from school doesn't really matter. If his parents win in court, they should get whatever they get. Zimmerman probably doesn't "deserve" to be walking around as a free man, but he won in court so that's the way it is.

 

[GoldenIsThyFame]

This pretty much sums up why the trial ended the way it did.

“Trials, for better or worse, are not morality plays.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/15/u...se-was-hard-to-topple.html?smid=fb-share&_r=0

 

[BobD]

Theres absolutely nothing that can be said to resolve this, but there is something that can be done, it's called community. A few of us we're discussing "sense of community" awhile back and I brought up a question "is diversity having a negative effect on sense of community?" It's not. A community can happen anywhere. Here's a great positive story and proof that it can work.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/ib-rh1GFnaU?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[NDinL.A.]

NDinLA, as a teacher you must be as aware as anyone that some families don't value education as they should. That is a tragedy on a national level, but it is so ingrained culturally in some communities that it is hard to say any particular parent is bad because of it. At least bad enough to say that they don't deserve sympathy over losing their child. I'm sure they loved their son, they just didn't know how to parent in the way that you and I think of the term.

Putting all of that aside, it really doesn't matter what kind of kid Martin was or what kind of parents his folks were. He wasn't doing anything wrong the night he was shot. He was just walking home from the convenience store. Him being suspended from school doesn't really matter. If his parents win in court, they should get whatever they get. Zimmerman probably doesn't "deserve" to be walking around as a free man, but he won in court so that's the way it is.

If you read my post again, you'll see I'm not arguing for or against almost everything you wrote, other than the bolded part. With the bolded part, we just disagree. All good though.

 

[Irish Houstonian]

Did Zimmerman take the stand? Irish Houstonian, I want all your v-bucks forever.

You're right that I missed that one. (Although you have to accept a bet before you can win it).

For whatever reason the Prosecution played both his police interview and his reenactment for the jury, meaning he didn't have to take the stand to introduce evidence regarding his personal belief at the time he was attacked.

The Defense couldn't have played those tapes on their own, and why the Prosecution did that still isn't clear to me. It certainly didn't score them any points, obvisouly, and in the interview and tapes themselves Zimmerman came off as a credible, nice, law-abiding dude.

Usually you don't introduce any possibly exculpatory evidence for the Defense, and wait for them to call the Defendant so you can cross examine with all his inconsistent statements.