Zimmerman Poll

Do you agree with the Zimmerman verdict?

  • Yes
  • No, It should have been murder
  • No, It should have been manslaughter
  • Don’t care

0 voters

I’m just wondering what people think. Zimmerman was found not guilty of 2nd degree murder.

My own view is that it should have been manslaughter, based on the common law definition of what that means. It was a brilliant piece of lawyering to bring out the slab of concrete, but an unarmed teen vs armed man? This all could have been avoided if GZ hadn’t followed the kid with a fucking gun. I’m not interested in the politics of this case from either side-both sides are making me sick.

I do think there are valid legal arguments on both sides. The problem with this case is that the only ‘witness’ is the guy who pulled the trigger. TM doesn’t get to tell his side of the story. But for me, bringing a gun to a street fight is overkill, especially when GZ never needed to be out of his car. He could have simply drove away when TM approached. All of this could have been avoided but for the actions of GZ.

You could avoid anything happening to you if you only never got out of bed in the morning. The lead detective in the case testified that GZ did not break any law by following TM. Your argument is based on an erroneous implication that it is somehow acceptable to physically attack someone who is not breaking any law. Based on the available evidence, that’s where things went south here.

[quote=“Tempo Gain”]You could avoid anything happening to you if you only never got out of bed in the morning. [/quote] :doh:
I’ll chalk that up to a momentary loss of reason because I know you can do better :bow:

[quote]The lead detective in the case testified that GZ did not break any law by following TM. [/quote] I didn’t claim he broke the law. I’m arguing that as a neighborhood watch person, his only duty was to observe and report. He crossed the line, which is probably why the homeowner’s association was so quick to settle.

[quote]Your argument is based on an erroneous implication that it is somehow acceptable to physically attack someone who is not breaking any law. Based on the available evidence, that’s where things went south here.[/quote] That’s not what I said nor what I think. I didn’t even insinuate or imply that it was ok for TM to attach GZ, if that’s what happened. But if you are going to report someone to the police and say they look suspicious/ dangerous, why would you put yourself in danger? He wants us to believe that’s a normal decision-it isn’t. He also wants us to believe that he couldn’t foresee a suspicious looking criminal (his claim) might attack him if he followed him. He wants it both ways, and I don’t buy it.

[quote=“Cooperations”][quote=“Tempo Gain”]You could avoid anything happening to you if you only never got out of bed in the morning. [/quote] :doh:
I’ll chalk that up to a momentary loss of reason because I know you can do better :bow: [/quote]

When you can do better than “All of this could have been avoided but for the (legal) actions of GZ.” maybe I’ll try :laughing:

So if someone has “crossed the line” it’s ok to physically assault them?

His job was to monitor such situations. He exceeded what was wise, but it’s not inexplicable and on a different day might even have been seen as admirable devotion to his duty. Regardless, he was attacked, and that’s when the situation escalated.

Escalated to what? Nothing more than you must have seen a hundred times in bar or school fights.

I agree with Cooperations. If you are a big pansy then you stay in the car, knowing the police are coming. If you get out you have shown either courage or recklessness, in either case you should not fear so much for your life in a fight that you need to kill another man.

I just don’t buy that.

The US needs to change it’s laws. You can’t have self-defense so easily argued and allow private citizens to have guns.

Also sentencing. The judge should have the discretion to give ZM 6 months in a minimum security jail, etc, for manslaughter because of a perceived need for self-defense. But he doesn’t so I agree that the sentence ZM would have gotten for manslaughter in this case would have been unjust.

The whole system is ridiculous.

[quote=“Tempo Gain”]When you can do better than “All of this could have been avoided but for the (legal) actions of GZ.” maybe I’ll try :laughing:[/quote] You seem to believe that only illegal actions can be the point at which the incident began, ie, the first person to break the law is at fault. I disagree. TM was responsible for his actions, but not for pulling the trigger and putting the gun in that situation. It may be that he is found responsible in a civil court, which is likely, given that even the homeowner’s association is planning to sue him, likely because he did not do as he was trained.

[quote]So if someone has “crossed the line” it’s ok to physically assault them? [/quote] No, and again, I didn’t say that, nor did I imply it. That’s twice you’ve tried to assign this argument to me. And he didn’t assault him, he battered him. But I think you are missing the point I was making. You typically are not allowed to shoot someone who hits you, even if they break your nose. Like I said, I think the defense did a good job of twisting that bit, but using deadly force even when you are getting your ass kicked is usually is not justifiable. Shooting a kid who is kicking your ass is not justifiable, in my opinion. GZ shot and killed the kid-and no, I don’t think any of this means it’s ok that TM battered GZ.

[quote] His job was to monitor such situations. He exceeded what was wise, but it’s not inexplicable and on a different day might even have been seen as admirable devotion to his duty. Regardless, he was attacked, and that’s when the situation escalated.[/quote] I fully understand your point, but he was told not to follow. Yes, TM escalated the situation to a street fight, allegedly. He couldn’t defend himself from that accusation because he wasn’t given a chance to. Saying TM was using deadly force is a stretch. Certainly, if TM had picked up a huge slab of concrete and moved to bash GZ’s skull in with it, I would say…yeah, shoot him. From what I saw, GZ took a beating. That doesn’t make deadly force justifiable.

I voted “Don’t care”. :neutral:

Myself as well.
As the bullshit detector has gone unto overdrive.
All I have to say is that if humanity delves unto such a low parametre, where some fat ill-educated punk can walk around with a loaded gun and stalk those that he feels are acting “suspicious”, then it has gone far beyond the thin edge of the wedge.
I won’t even mention the eerily faulty position of Martin’s corpse.
Yeah, fuck all that,
Another win for 2nd Amendement asshats, who surely need surgery, to compensate for their complete lack of common sense.

I don’t take bashing someone’s head into the concrete that lightly. You have a right to self-defense against that, as the jury obviously agreed. I don’t think it’s any kind of schoolyard game.

Should people be walking around the streets with guns? Should there be neighborhood watch people? The fact is there are in the US. I’d like to see the former changed, but it’s not going to happen. I think neighborhood watch organizations have a place and aren’t going anywhere either.

Zimmerman followed some kid for minimal reason. So what should have happened to him? Maybe have a complaint filed against him? His neighborhood watch rights revoked? That’s about it. If it’s open season on everybody that follows someone, and it’s okay to get on top of them and bash their head into the concrete, that’s not a place where I want to be. I can’t accept that it’s any way justifiable. Call him a big pansy or whatever but Zimmerman would have to have gone much farther to deserve it. The evidence I’ve seen indicates that TM initiated the violence here. It bothers me that I see so many speakers ignoring that.

You folks still discussing a case you know nothing about, eh?

:laughing: Good job!

Oh, please explain! :laughing:

The teen was old enough to join the military. You know what the military does?

Unarmed? TM had two fists and a concrete sidewalk. How can one not understand the damage those can potentially do.

There is no evidence that GZ actually followed TM except when asked by the dispatcher which way TM was running and where to. GZ was scared shitless in his truck while TM was nearby and GZ only exited his truck after TM took off running and the dispatcher asked which way TM was heading.

I’d be interested in reading your analysis.

Wrong. There was an eye-witness, called by the Prosecution, who testified that TM was atop GZ in an MMA style ground and pound position.

That’s a problem for TM. Not for the case. Sorry to be blunt. But, that’s the truth.

Except that isn’t remotely what happened, according to the evidence. There is ZERO evidence that GZ wanted a confrontation with TM.

What an asinine comment!
Surely folks are entitled to an opinion, on anything under the sun, whether or not they are paid indentured liars.

What an asinine comment!
Surely folks are entitled to an opinion, on anything under the sun, whether or not they are paid indentured liars.[/quote]
And those weak on facts should be taken to task, at the perimeter! :laughing:

[quote=“TheGingerMan”]What an asinine comment!
Surely folks are entitled to an opinion, on anything under the sun, whether or not they are paid indentured liars.[/quote]

Sure. Opine all you want. Just remember, you’re entitled to your own opinion, but, not your own facts! And know that you will demonstrate ignorance if you cannot get even the simplest and most obvious facts correct. :laughing:

Radio interview of Professor Jacobson re Zimmerman verdict

[quote=“Tigerman”]You folks still discussing a case you know nothing about, eh?
[/quote]

Isn’t everyone?

[quote=“rowland”][quote=“Tigerman”]You folks still discussing a case you know nothing about, eh?
[/quote]

Isn’t everyone?[/quote]

No. Some folks have been following the case, know the facts, and understand the law.

[quote=“Tigerman”]You folks still discussing a case you know nothing about, eh?

:laughing: Good job!
[/quote]

no one on this forum has invested more bytes on this since the verdict than you, so I am not sure where the condescension comes from.

secondly, your brilliant legal knowledge aside, your complete failure to see the failure in the legal system and the verdict is troubling. but the head in the sand (when not up the ass) attitude that you have held towards this is staggeringly moronic for someone who professes to be as knowledgeable as you love to promote yourself to be.

a woman got twenty years for firing warning shots at her abusive husband while having a restraining order against him, and GZ walks free and gets his gun back…the fuck?

yeah yeah yeah, I know the law is the law, and that is precisely the problem, your attitude is no worse than a fundamentalist discussing science, you are blinded by belief in a serious flawed system run by a SERIOUSLY flawed state.

So start a thread about it.

As far as I can tell, all the “bad law” “bad guns” people are navel gazers who haven’t backed up anything they said with facts or links because their own lack of facts and or deliberate ignorances regarding this case.

Just personal opinions quite :offtopic: to the TM/GZ clusterfuck.

[quote=“Tigerman”]You folks still discussing a case you know nothing about, eh?

:laughing: Good job!
[/quote]

My condescension results from the staggering ignorance that some, like you, elect to cling to despite having the law and facts identified for your reference.

I don’t claim to be a brilliant attorney. In fact, much of my frustration is due to my belief that the law re self defense is quite simple and my belief that one need not be an attorney to understand it. That the law and the facts are known, and yet so many continue to state it incorrectly, is not indicative of my head being in the sand or up my ass. That’s a finger you should be pointing at yourself. :laughing:

Yeah. Wasn’t that case prosecuted by the same special prosecutor who prosecuted GZ?

You’re entitled to your opinion, even if it is an ignorant and uninformed opinion. But, with the law easily referenced and the facts already known, I wonder why you are having such difficulty with reality? :ponder:

[quote=“rodeo”]So start a thread about it.

As far as I can tell, all the “bad law” “bad guns” people are navel gazers who haven’t backed up anything they said with facts or links because their own lack of facts and or deliberate ignorances regarding this case.

Just personal opinions quite :offtopic: to the TM/GZ clusterfuck.[/quote]

All our political and personal differences aside, do you believe the law is wrong? You have a son. If he were to find himself in such a precarious position, would you not want him to defend himself without the risk of having his life terminated so ignominiously?

And Tigerman, all our political differences aside. don’t you think the law is fucked up? I pose the same hypothetical and, fates-willing, never-gonna-happen question to you. Your lad spends lots of time states-side. Can’t you see how laws like this can turn someone so kind and well-reared as your boy into a victim of circumstance?

Oh to be Canadian now that stand your ground has stood its ground.