Zimmerman Prosecutor wants to add lesser charges, including child abuse....

[BadgeBunny]

Given Zimmerman's past, I don't trust his judgment.

Given Martin's past, I'd not trust that all he was after was Skittles that night ... Just saying, that knife cuts both ways ... Neither of these two were above reproach, I don't care what Martin's parents and the prosecuting DA would have you believe. Live by the sword, die by the sword comes to mind here. I kinda think they were both out to prove something that night. Martin came up with the short end of the stick. Different night maybe it would have been Zimmerman who got the short end, who knows ...

 

[n2sooners]

I have followed the case closely and a lot of Zimmerman's testimony is being treated as facts by folks like yourself (despite inconsistencies between his testimony and the 911 tape).

The problem is that Trayvon's testimony isn't available to dispute George's version. My speculative questions aren't "what if" for the purpose of changing the events, but to make you think about why you're on one side or the other - and to make sure it is only because of actions and not because of the talking points from your favorite cable news outlet.

Fact is George had no right to pursue someone he thought was a criminal. Had he not done that, this incident would not have occurred. Every single person on this message board who has his/her CCW knows not to do that.

Solid speculation (I'd bet money on it) is that George would not have gotten out of the car had he not been armed. If that is true, it indicates a line of thinking that is guilty of even more than Manslaughter.

Given Zimmerman's past, I don't trust his judgment.

Exactly what law says that if you think someone is a criminal that you can't follow them? You claim Zimmerman had no 'right' to follow, so what law was he breaking while doing so? How about this, if Martin had simply gone on home after losing Zimmerman then he wouldn't have gotten shot? How about if Martin had chosen not to confront Zimmerman then he might be alive today? How about if Martin hadn't got kicked out of school then he wouldn't have been there at all? Nothing but Monday morning quarterbacking.

And if you want some solid speculation, solid speculation says that Martin, who apparently didn't like 'crackers' and loved to fight decided not to go home when he had the chance and to instead initiate a fight with Zimmerman. Since we are talking speculation and all.

 

[ez bake]

Given Martin's past, I'd not trust that all he was after was Skittles that night ... Just saying, that knife cuts both ways ... Neither of these two were above reproach, I don't care what Martin's parents and the prosecuting DA would have you believe. Live by the sword, die by the sword comes to mind here. I kinda think they were both out to prove something that night. Martin came up with the short end of the stick. Different night maybe it would have been Zimmerman who got the short end, who knows ...

I agree but keep in mind, only one person involved strapped on a gun and claimed to be a responsible member of the gun community - which means at least some level of knowledge about the laws governing what you can and can't do.

I just find it completely ironic that I'm having these same discussions on both sides of this issue. Seems to me that both extreme sides of this case have identical arguments with thinly veiled references to race (or blatant statements about it).

When you just review the facts, Trayvon was guilty, but so was George.

 

[BadgeBunny]

I agree but keep in mind, only one person involved strapped on a gun and claimed to be a responsible member of the gun community - which means at least some level of knowledge about the laws governing what you can and can't do.

I just find it completely ironic that I'm having these same discussions on both sides of this issue. Seems to me that both extreme sides of this case have identical arguments with thinly veiled references to race (or blatant statements about it).

When you just review the facts, Trayvon was guilty, but so was George.

If you read up higher in the thread, I believe I've already made that point. The entire thing is a gigantic cluster****. If politicians and folks with agendas 50 years old (read: Al Sharpton and others) had left this alone and let the police chief and his men do their work this would be a non-issue. But then again, that would never do ... because we all know that JBTs (especially JBTs "of color") are racists ...

 

[ez bake]

Exactly what law says that if you think someone is a criminal that you can't follow them? You claim Zimmerman had no 'right' to follow, so what law was he breaking while doing so? How about this, if Martin had simply gone on home after losing Zimmerman then he wouldn't have gotten shot? How about if Martin had chosen not to confront Zimmerman then he might be alive today? How about if Martin hadn't got kicked out of school then he wouldn't have been there at all? Nothing but Monday morning quarterbacking.

And if you want some solid speculation, solid speculation says that Martin, who apparently didn't like 'crackers' and loved to fight decided not to go home when he had the chance and to instead initiate a fight with Zimmerman. Since we are talking speculation and all.

Where did I say Martin broke a law by pursuing Martin? If I'm following you at night, I basically put myself in the dangerous position of risking my actions being mistaken as threatening behavior - I didn't break any laws, but I knew better and I decided to pursue you anyway so I sort of gave up my right to claim self-defense when I purposely (and against the advice of a dispatcher) placed myself into a dangerous situation and possibly provoked someone by doing something so stupid, I should have known better.

Go find yourself any shady looking person at night and jump out of the car and follow them around - what exactly do you think will happen? Try doing it without a gun and let me know how that will end. Would would the cops say to you if you got the crap beat out of you for following around shady people? It's common sense, but you're right - it's not illegal (but if someone doesn't know that people they suspect of a crime are going to possibly attack them for following said criminal, then those idiots shouldn't be operating a motor vehicle much less carrying a gun).

Zimmerman isn't a cracker btw - he's Hispanic.

 

[n2sooners]

I agree but keep in mind, only one person involved strapped on a gun and claimed to be a responsible member of the gun community - which means at least some level of knowledge about the laws governing what you can and can't do.

I just find it completely ironic that I'm having these same discussions on both sides of this issue. Seems to me that both extreme sides of this case have identical arguments with thinly veiled references to race (or blatant statements about it).

When you just review the facts, Trayvon was guilty, but so was George.

Both guilty of what? If making bad decisions was a crime then we have all been guilty at one time or another. The way I see it whoever is guilty of assault is the only guilty party and the other one is the victim. If Zimmerman started the fight and then shot Martin, he is at least guilty of assault and probably guilty of murder (there are some instances where you can start a fight and still use self defense). But if Martin started the fight then he is guilty of assault and Zimmerman is innocent. But we don't know who initiated the physical contact.

 

[BadgeBunny]

Where did I say Martin broke a law by pursuing Martin? If I'm following you at night, I basically put myself in the dangerous position of risking my actions being mistaken as threatening behavior - I didn't break any laws, but I knew better and I decided to pursue you anyway so I sort of gave up my right to claim self-defense when I purposely (and against the advice of a dispatcher)placed myself into a dangerous situation and possibly provoked someone by doing something so stupid, I should have known better.

Go find yourself any shady looking person at night and jump out of the car and follow them around - what exactly do you think will happen? Try doing it without a gun and let me know how that will end. Would would the cops say to you if you got the crap beat out of you for following around shady people? It's common sense, but you're right - it's not illegal (but if someone doesn't know that people they suspect of a crime are going to possibly attack them for following said criminal, then those idiots shouldn't be operating a motor vehicle much less carrying a gun).

Zimmerman isn't a cracker btw - he's Hispanic.

Under the self-defense laws of Florida you can be the original aggressor and still use lethal force to defend yourself if a situation escalates sufficiently. Don't ask me for chapter and verse because I don't know. I'm simply repeating what I heard some of the legal pundits on one of the news stations discussing today while they were talking about this case. Even though they were supposed to be "debating" the issues of this case, this was one area in which they agreed.

 

[n2sooners]

Where did I say Martin broke a law by pursuing Martin? If I'm following you at night, I basically put myself in the dangerous position of risking my actions being mistaken as threatening behavior - I didn't break any laws, but I knew better and I decided to pursue you anyway so I sort of gave up my right to claim self-defense when I purposely (and against the advice of a dispatcher) placed myself into a dangerous situation and possibly provoked someone by doing something so stupid, I should have known better.

Go find yourself any shady looking person at night and jump out of the car and follow them around - what exactly do you think will happen? Try doing it without a gun and let me know how that will end. Would would the cops say to you if you got the crap beat out of you for following around shady people? It's common sense, but you're right - it's not illegal (but if someone doesn't know that people they suspect of a crime are going to possibly attack them for following said criminal, then those idiots shouldn't be operating a motor vehicle much less carrying a gun).

Zimmerman isn't a cracker btw - he's Hispanic.

That myth again. When the operator said 'we don't need you to do that' Zimmerman said okay and stopped following. And he wasn't trying to catch Martin (and wouldn't have been able to if he did), he was just trying to see where he went. The whole following 'against the advice of a dispatcher' is BS.

And you said Zimmerman 'had no right' to follow when, in fact, he did have that right. In hind sight it wasn't the smartest thing to do, but if doing dumb things were a crime nearly all of us would have been jailed at one time or another in our youth (or last week)

 

[trickydick]

If this is true why wasn't this whole trial dismissed?http://finance.yahoo.com/news/zimme...-120000903.html;_ylt=A2KJjbzPnd9RZHUA6DCTmYlQ

 

[Shadowrider]

I have followed the case closely and a lot of Zimmerman's testimony is being treated as facts by folks like yourself (despite inconsistencies between his testimony and the 911 tape).

The problem is that Trayvon's testimony isn't available to dispute George's version. My speculative questions aren't "what if" for the purpose of changing the events, but to make you think about why you're on one side or the other - and to make sure it is only because of actions and not because of the talking points from your favorite cable news outlet.

Fact is George had no right to pursue someone he thought was a criminal. Had he not done that, this incident would not have occurred. Every single person on this message board who has his/her CCW knows not to do that.

Solid speculation (I'd bet money on it) is that George would not have gotten out of the car had he not been armed. If that is true, it indicates a line of thinking that is guilty of even more than Manslaughter.

Given Zimmerman's past, I don't trust his judgment.

A few things.

I know exactly why I'm on the side I'm on. It's implied heavily with the video that I post at post #19 of this thread. I'm looking at a bigger picture than you I think. More on that in a minute.

I know from the training that I've had and talking to those that I have who have used lethal force themselves, with the attorney that taught my SDA class, and with several other SDA instructors that I know, that at least to me, GZ did exactly what we are all supposed to in this situation. He used the gun as a last resort. It's been documented that he was on the ground being pounded for almost a minute by a younger male before he went to gun. That's a long time bro. He also only shot once. I can't really say for sure, but if it were me, a double tap would probably happen just out of habit from shooting in competition.

Like said it's not proven by any stretch that he was pursuing. That IS however what the media has spewed forth. But so what if he was? It's not a violation of any law. And to turn it around, what if TM was actually trolling for an open window to slide through? Suppose he found one and raped a woman? Would your opinion GZ's "pursuit" be different? I think so. What was GZ's intent in this "pursuit"? After all he was on the phone with the police at the time. Could it just be that he wanted to maintain eye contact to tell police his location and was following from a distance?

You seem to be pretty judgmental of GZ with his past. Does the fact that he did multiple interviews without counsel mean anything? He went way above and beyond what's reasonable in working with the police. This flies right in the face of what ANY attorney would have one do and frankly the police don't expect anywhere near this kind of cooperation either. GZ's story just seems way too solid to have been made up in the aftermath of a shooting. Also there's just way too much detail in his story that lines up with his injuries and other evidence.

I don't buy the wannabe cop thing. If that were the case why didn't he just draw his gun immediately and hold TM at gunpoint for the police if he were such a mall ninja?

Sure there are a few inconsistencies with GZ's story. But there are also many things that if thought through logically that are completely kosher. What I really have issue with is the complete abandonment of innocence until proven guilty. GZ may have indeed murdered TM in cold blood. You are right, we will never know because the one who can say won't. Unless he's acquitted, then I think he'll be all over TV telling the whole tale, but most won't believe him then. But the state has utterly failed to prove murder, manslaughter or any doubt to self defense. The only thing they have proved is that someone died. The lead detective tried to get to the bottom of what happened and probably really did ultimately because he became personally convinced that GZ was being truthful with them. It's kind of odd that he's been demoted to traffic. Weirder still is that the police chief was fired because he upheld his oath and wouldn't just arrest GZ to have it "not stick". The state attorney was also fired for not bringing charges. A special prosecutor didn't even bother with a grand jury. See a pattern here? This has been two things: first and foremost an attack on CCW and SYG, and second a racially charged witch hunt of a trial to further divide us. And that's my real problem. The utter bastardization of our system of justice and it's use to further a political agenda...