George Zimmerman Trial

[Rhode Irish]

All of this talk is kind of stupid to me. An armed grown man pursued a unarmed kid without a legitimate reason and shot him. Why does anything else matter? George Zimmerman deserves to die.

 

[anarin]

Maybe he was pissed at his cable bill?

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/VOvrJFZ8DtU" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[MJ12666]

Martin's dad originally testified for the Prosecution that it was Martin crying for help on the 911 call, but today two investigators on the case testified that Martin's dad told them it wasn't him.

The Prosecution tried to mitigate by specifying that when Martin's dad was saying "no" they were more like no's said in disbelief, and weren't in response to the questions being asked.

Also, a Vietnam Vet got on the stand today for Zimmerman and said he was sure that it was Zimmerman crying for help on the call. Then drama ensued, when he held back tears of all his fallen comrades who he heard "yell like little girls" during battle.

I do not recall Martin's father testifying. I believe the prosecution only called his mother and brother.

 

[IrishLax]

All of this talk is kind of stupid to me. An armed grown man pursued a unarmed kid without a legitimate reason and shot him. Why does anything else matter? George Zimmerman deserves to die.

Dumbest thing I've maybe ever read. Michigan boards included.

 

[Rhode Irish]

Dumbest thing I've maybe ever read. Michigan boards included.

Seriously? I'm not even a strong proponent of the death penalty in most cases, but an adult chasing down and killing an unarmed kid - probably a hate crime - is a reason that wouldn't even cause me to blink. I'd hit the switch and sleep beautifully.

 

[BobD]

Anyone else feel like the press is giving this trial so much coverage in hopes of inciting riots after the verdict? Kind of creating a new bigger story?

 

[IrishLax]

Seriously? I'm not even a strong proponent of the death penalty in most cases, but an adult chasing down and killing an unarmed kid - probably a hate crime - is a reason that wouldn't even cause me to blink. I'd hit the switch and sleep beautifully.

I mean there is no point in me even responding to this, but here goes. If someone actually chased down an unarmed KID as a "hate crime" and killed them you'd probably get a 50-50 split of people saying death penalty/life in prison.

But that isn't what happened. Hell, it's not even suggested that something like that happened (or Murder 1 would be on the table). And that's why your post was one of the stupidest things I've ever read. Go back to your fantasy land echo chamber with that nonsense.

 

[IrishLax]

Anyone else feel like the press is giving this trial so much coverage in hopes of inciting riots after the verdict? Kind of creating a new bigger story?

The only reason charges were even brought was that the media whipped this up into a huge story and the AG of Florida... wanting to keep his job... forced the local DA to file charges. The only way the prosecution wins this case at this point is if the jury is six Rhode Irishes who give zero sh*ts about the law and vote on prejudice.

 

[Irishcop]

The only reason charges were even brought was that the media whipped this up into a huge story and the AG of Florida... wanting to keep his job... forced the local DA to file charges. The only way the prosecution wins this case at this point is if the jury is six Rhode Irishes who give zero sh*ts about the law and vote on prejudice.

^
This.

 

[NDWorld247]

The only reason charges were even brought was that the media whipped this up into a huge story and the AG of Florida... wanting to keep his job... forced the local DA to file charges. The only way the prosecution wins this case at this point is if the jury is six Rhode Irishes who give zero sh*ts about the law and vote on prejudice.

Not trying to defend the media here, but, outside of Orlando, this wasn't a state or national story until the family made it one by hiring a lawyer and bringing in some well-known civil rights activists to push the race crime narrative. They even identified Zimmerman as white in their initial allegations. It took weeks for the media to pick it up and since then they've run with it because it sells papers and generates clicks.

Charges were brought because the family used the media to pressure the AG/local DA. So, one could blame the media but I choose to credit the family for the work they did even though I don't agree with their narrative.

 

[Rhode Irish]

I mean there is no point in me even responding to this, but here goes. If someone actually chased down an unarmed KID as a "hate crime" and killed them you'd probably get a 50-50 split of people saying death penalty/life in prison.

But that isn't what happened. Hell, it's not even suggested that something like that happened (or Murder 1 would be on the table). And that's why your post was one of the stupidest things I've ever read. Go back to your fantasy land echo chamber with that nonsense.

The legal system isn't perfect. Sometimes it produces the wrong result. That the accused can leverage the system in such a way that might excuse stalking a kid and gunning him down is an indictment of the legal system, but it doesn't necessarily make suggesting the appropriateness of an alternative outcome stupid. If we stipulate that the kid was just walking home and minding his own business before he was interfered with, I don't think there should be any circumstance, short of it wasn't George Zimmerman that pulled the trigger, that should mitigate the shooter's culpability. I acknowledge that isn't the law, but it is my opinion.

A killing that is a crime of passion, or even a premeditated murder that has even a somewhat plausible motive - while clearly reprehensible and deserving of harsh punishment - do not rise to the same level of tragic moral failing as randomly killing an unarmed teenager who was minding his own business. That is about as heinous of a crime as I can imagine. That the killing was the result of some combination of stupidity and ignorance rather than a masterminded plan isn't really all that relevant to me.

 

[phgreek]

The legal system isn't perfect. Sometimes it produces the wrong result. That the accused can leverage the system in such a way that might excuse stalking a kid and gunning him down is an indictment of the legal system, but it doesn't necessarily make suggesting the appropriateness of an alternative outcome stupid. If we stipulate that the kid was just walking home and minding his own business before he was interfered with, I don't think there should be any circumstance, short of it wasn't George Zimmerman that pulled the trigger, that should mitigate his culpability. I acknowledge that isn't the law, but it is my opinion.

A killing that is a crime of passion, or even a premeditated murder that has even a somewhat plausible motive - while clearly reprehensible and deserving of harsh punishment - do not rise to the same level of tragic moral failing as randomly killing an unarmed teenager who was minding his own business. That is about as heinous of a crime as I can imagine. That the killing was the result of some combination of stupidity and ignorance rather than a masterminded plan isn't really all that relevant to me.

"gunning someone down" evokes imagery of "son of sam" sh!t...that's just rabid hyperbole.... Didn't happen that way based on whats in EVIDENCE. And counselor, coming from you, it is indeed disturbing.

Trust me I'd love nothing more than to have our justice system ignore "intent" and focus solely on outcomes and accountability...but would YOU be ok with such a system...or only when it offends one of your sensibilities which leads to the chip on your shoulder.

 

[BGIF]

All of this talk is kind of stupid to me. An armed grown man pursued a unarmed kid without a legitimate reason and shot him. Why does anything else matter? George Zimmerman deserves to die.

You really need to send your law degree back.

 

[Rhode Irish]

I think the law produces the wrong result here, and that the man's moral culpability rises to a level that warrants the ultimate punishment. I'm obviously not involved with this case or the larger criminal justice system. I'm sure if I were I would be less forthcoming with my opinion. As it is, I'm afforded a certain amount of anonymity here and with that I choose to give my opinion about what would happen to Zimmerman if I were judge, jury and executioner.

 

[BGIF]

I do not recall Martin's father testifying. I believe the prosecution only called his mother and brother.

He was called by the defense as he had told the detectives during their investigation that he couldn't tell. The two detectives affirmed that.

A few weeks later when the media blitz to bring pressure was on, he listened to the tape about 20 times then changed his mind.

Under cross-examination he responded in court to the prosecutor that it was his son's voice.


You can read the interview and court quotes here:

Trayvon Martin's father: Screaming on 911 call is my son - U.S. News

 

[BGIF]

Seriously? I'm not even a strong proponent of the death penalty in most cases, but an adult chasing down and killing an unarmed kid - probably a hate crime - is a reason that wouldn't even cause me to blink. I'd hit the switch and sleep beautifully.

A hate crime, really?

The first investigation by the Sanford PD didn't find that.

The second investigation by the Replacement States Attorney didn't find that.

The FBI's and the DOJ's investigations didn't find that either.

Despite all the scrutiny, no hate crime charge was made by States Attorney Corey OR the DOJ despite all the angry demands to do so.


Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and the New Black Panther's beat that drum long and loud. The New Black Panther's actually put up a $10,000 dollar price on Zimmerman's head. Like you they judged the case before charges were brought. The Million Hoodie March was all the testimony they needed. Were you there in Manhattan in your hoodie?

Your Judge, Jury, and Executionary comment sure sounds like the mob rhetoric.

 

[Rhode Irish]

I just want to add that it is a very strange feeling for me to apparently be the "law an order" guy in this discussion. In normal cases I would be the hardest person on a jury to get a conviction out of. But because this is an affirmative defense, I view it a little differently. This isn't a question of whether the defendant actually killed the victim, it is a matter of whether the killing was justified. And to me, none of what is being discussed in court impacts that question (morally, not legally). Killing a kid for essentially being in the wrong place at the wrong time is inexcusable, and it warrants the harshest penalty we have at our disposal. That is just how I feel. I'm not trolling you guys. People are free to disagree with me, and I won't call them stupid for it. I'm not here making a legal argument. I'm just giving my opinion.

 

[Rhode Irish]

BGIF, you're right about the hate crime thing. That was more me bristling at being called stupid than explaining my view. I shouldn't have said it. I don't have any idea how much race played a factor in the killing, and I don't think it matters. Taking all possible motives out of it, the fact remains that a kid was killed for walking through his neighborhood. An unarmed kid, up to nothing nefarious.

I do think race may be playing some role in how the case is viewed now though. If a black adult killed an unarmed white kid just walking home in his own neighborhood, I doubt you'd see such a rallying around him.

 

[Ndaccountant]

I just want to add that it is a very strange feeling for me to apparently be the "law an order" guy in this discussion. In normal cases I would be the hardest person on a jury to get a conviction out of. But because this is an affirmative defense, I view it a little differently. This isn't a question of whether the defendant actually killed the victim, it is a matter of whether the killing was justified. And to me, none of what is being discussed in court impacts that question (morally, not legally). Killing a kid for essentially being in the wrong place at the wrong time is inexcusable, and it warrants the harshest penalty we have at our disposal. That is just how I feel. I'm not trolling you guys. People are free to disagree with me, and I won't call them stupid for it. I'm not here making a legal argument. I'm just giving my opinion.

This I can agree with.

The case is tragic on so many levels. Nobody can convince me that Zimmerman does not have blood on his hands and he owes the Martin family way more than he can ever pay back. It may have been legal what Zimmerman did, but that doesn't justify the actions morally.

 

[magogian]

I just want to add that it is a very strange feeling for me to apparently be the "law an order" guy in this discussion.

Hilarious. Try lynch mob mentality.

Edit: On second thought, not hilarious at all. You are advocating nothing more than murder yourself.

 

[connor_in]

I think the law produces the wrong result here, and that the man's moral culpability rises to a level that warrants the ultimate punishment. I'm obviously not involved with this case or the larger criminal justice system. I'm sure if I were I would be less forthcoming with my opinion. As it is, I'm afforded a certain amount of anonymity here and with that I choose to give my opinion about what would happen to Zimmerman if I were judge, jury and executioner.

"I leave this as a declaration of intent so no one will be confused. Number one: Sic vis pacem, para bellum. Latin. The boot-camp sergeant made us recite it like a prayer. Sic vis pacem, para bellum. If you want peace, prepare for war."

"Number two: Frank Castle is dead. He died with his family. Number three: In certain extreme situations, the law is inadequate. In order to shame its inadequacy it is necessary to act outside the law-to pursue…natural justice. This is not vengeance. Revenge is not a valid motive, it's an emotional response. No, not vengeance. Punishment."

"Those who do evil to others-the killers, the rapists, psychos, sadists-you will come to know me well. Frank Castle is dead. Call me...the Punisher."

#DirtyLaundry

 

[connor_in]

"I AM THE LAW!"

 

[Rhode Irish]

Hilarious. Try lynch mob mentality.

Edit: On second thought, not hilarious at all. You are advocating nothing more than murder yourself.

What? I'm not calling for people to take matters into their own hands. I'm suggesting that the justice system is going to produce the wrong result in this case, and explaining why I think that. I get that not everyone is going to agree with me, and that some people aren't so good at picking up on subtle differences in arguments, but that isn't exactly a subtle difference.

Nowhere have I suggested that someone should go kill Zimmerman if he isn't convicted. I don't think that. I think that Florida law is assigning meaning to meaningless facts, which is having the effect of mitigating the defendant's legal culpability. I don't think anything matters in this case beyond the facts that Martin was unarmed and not committing a crime, he is dead, and Zimmerman shot him. All the rest of it is just noise to me. Not sure how that is a lynch mob mentality, but I am also responsible for the stupidest comment in the history of the Internet so maybe I'm just not capable of understanding.

 

[connor_in]

Just an observation...IMHO, the law/justice system divorced itself from morality/morals a long time ago.

 

[Irish Houstonian]

...I think that Florida law is assigning meaning to meaningless facts, which is having the effect of mitigating the defendant's legal culpability. I don't think anything matters in this case beyond the facts that Martin was unarmed and not committing a crime, he is dead, and Zimmerman shot him. All the rest of it is just noise to me. Not sure how that is a lynch mob mentality, but I am also responsible for the stupidest comment in the history of the Internet so maybe I'm just not capable of understanding.

Punching someone in the face repeatedly is a crime. Even in Florida.

 

[Domina Nostra]

I don't think anything matters in this case beyond the facts that Martin was unarmed and not committing a crime, he is dead, and Zimmerman shot him. All the rest of it is just noise to me.

I get your general point, but I don't understand how the apparent fact that TM was violently beating GZ's head could be considered "noise." If it's all about moral culpability, it would certainly change the situation that GZ was arguably scared for his life (whether he should have been or not).

Murder turns on intent, and the intent to prevent someone from hitting your head on a sidewalk again is very different than the intent to kill, inact revenge, intimidate, or inflict grave bodily harm. At the very least, that fact would determine whether it was manslaughter or murder.

 

[goldandblue]

What? I'm not calling for people to take matters into their own hands. I'm suggesting that the justice system is going to produce the wrong result in this case, and explaining why I think that. I get that not everyone is going to agree with me, and that some people aren't so good at picking up on subtle differences in arguments, but that isn't exactly a subtle difference.

Nowhere have I suggested that someone should go kill Zimmerman if he isn't convicted. I don't think that. I think that Florida law is assigning meaning to meaningless facts, which is having the effect of mitigating the defendant's legal culpability. I don't think anything matters in this case beyond the facts that Martin was unarmed and not committing a crime, he is dead, and Zimmerman shot him. All the rest of it is just noise to me. Not sure how that is a lynch mob mentality, but I am also responsible for the stupidest comment in the history of the Internet so maybe I'm just not capable of understanding.

Bolded above = your posts on this subject

 

[BobD]

Legal question for you lawyers.

If the jury ultimately determines that Zimmerman shot Martin in self defense, but was responsible for creating the situation. Is there a charge?

If there is, that's how I could see this turning out.

 

[Rhode Irish]

I get your general point, but I don't understand how the apparent fact that TM was violently beating GZ's head could be considered "noise." If it's all about moral culpability, it would certainly change the situation that GZ was arguably scared for his life (whether he should have been or not).

Like I said, I don't think that is all that relevant. If Martin actually was beating the guy (which I am certainly not at all convinced was the case), that is his own damn fault. If anyone had a legit claim to self defense, it was the kid who was approached in the dark by an idiot that wrongly thought he was committing a crime, and who also happened to be armed. Self defense shouldn't mean that it OK to start an altercation with someone for no reason, and then shoot the person when you get your *** kicked.

 

[GoIrish41]

Like I said, I don't think that is all that relevant. If Martin actually was beating the guy (which I am certainly not at all convinced was the case), that is his own damn fault. If anyone had a legit claim to self defense, it was the kid who was approached in the dark by an idiot that wrongly thought he was committing a crime, and who also happened to be armed. Self defense shouldn't mean that it OK to start an altercation with someone for no reason, and then shoot the person when you get your *** kicked.

Completely agree with this