# Views on the Zimmerman case then and now



## dixiegal62 (Aug 18, 2007)

Decided to go back and read old threads when this case was unfolding. It's interesting to read everyone's opinions as we got information. There where things I had forgotten about being in the news, some where true we know now and some where media hype. 

What's interesting to me is in reading the new thread on the trial many of us who viewed GZ innocent or guilty back then haven't changed our opinions even after viewing the trial, myself included.

Has anything you've heard in the trial changed your opinion on his innocence or guilt?


----------



## partndn (Jun 18, 2009)

Nope. 
Still understanding I will never know exactly what happened, as I was not there.. that doesn't change my feeling that this whole case has been doodie

created by the media and people like Sharpton, etc. 

I want him to be acquitted, not because I know of GZ's innocence, but because I hate the sodomy of what is supposed to be a justice system.


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

No Change for me. I am now thinking how I'd never want to be a Juror. I don't know if I could live with myself if I put someone away because after the verdict found out all of the info the Judge kept out and my verdict would have been different. I have lost faith in every aspect of our government.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

Yeah, mine changed. To begin with it appeared Zimmerman was a vigilante now after the trial it appears Trevon was bad news and Zimmerman was right. 

Either way it sounds like a neighborhood I want no part of.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

The first media reports made it seem like a slam dunk that Zimmerman was guilty. But as more information came out, it got harder and harder to pick out the relevant facts, and determine if they really were facts, from all the other information and misinformation floating around out there. 

I always felt like Zimmerman had some responsibility to be held accountable for, because of his actions that led to the confrontation in the first place. Still, it was a surprise to me when the charges came out, manslaughter seemed more appropriate.

I really feel for this jury. Whatever they decide, a big chunk of the population is going to hate them, believe they are wrong or corrupt, second guess them, etc. They are in a no-win situation that will likely change their lives.

I believe that by having the trial, the interests of Martin and his family have been adequately served. The case has now been heard in the public eye, with judge and jury. None of them are perfect but it's the best we have. So whatever the jury decides, I can accept and move on.


----------



## simi-steading (Sep 27, 2012)

Since the judge is now allowing manslaughter, then that's my verdict.. Zimmerman provoked the incident by following and allowing himself to come in contact with Martin... He should have just stayed in his truck and observed..


----------



## Pearl B (Sep 27, 2008)

Not really. After some of the evidence to me Z stands in a worse light. 



> I always felt like Zimmerman had some responsibility to be held accountable for, because of his actions that led to the confrontation in the first place. Still, it was a surprise to me when the charges came out,


This is the way I feel. While I think he bears some responsibility, I cant see him being charged with murder. His actions would fit the legal definition of manslaughter I suppose.

This case really throws me. While I think his actions led to all this, I dont believe he deserves to go to prison. I think this situation really got away from him, & he set out with no malicious intent to murder anyone.

I also think Z's having a gun gave him a false sense of bravado. If he wouldnt have been armed, this wouldnt have happened.


----------



## Harry Chickpea (Dec 19, 2008)

No way did the prosecution make a proper case for second degree murder. The burden of proof is stiff in criminal cases, and I'm beginning to suspect that the original charge was meant to placate and that manslaughter was what they knew they would end up with.

In simple terms "standing your ground" does not mean "advancing your ground." In order for there to be an altercation, BOTH parties had to advance their ground and there is therefore culpability on both sides.

The greater issue is not in this skirmish, but in the question - "How does a community 'take back' its streets for safety if it cannot confront the problem as the need arises?"

I haven't followed the trail closely enough to make a certain opinion. My gut is telling me manslaughter, with a three months sentence, just to keep the Rambos in check.


----------



## StL.Ed (Mar 6, 2011)

I haven't changed my opinion from the time I listened to the original Zimmerman call to the police, and found a layout of the neighborhood; and I don't believe, based on the evidence, Zimmerman's actions led to the confrontation.

To start at the beginning, George Zimmerman called police rather than confront Travon Martin directly.

Two minutes, or so, into the call is where Zimmerman says "he's running"
The police ask if he's following Martin, and Zimmerman say "yes".
That is when the police say "you don't have to do that" and Zimmerman says "OK".
(A lot of news reports I've seen leave out the "OK")

Later in the call, Zimmerman doesn't want to give out his address because he doesn't know where Martin went, or if he is listening.

The call lasts for a bit over four minutes.

So, either Travon Martin was just going home and had at least a minute and a half head start, but George Zimmerman somehow managed to locate him, track him down, and started a confrontation; or, Travon Martin doubled back or waited for George Zimmerman, and started the confrontation.

There is very little evidence of how the confrontation began; all things considered, I believe the second scenario is much more plausible.


----------



## dixiegal62 (Aug 18, 2007)

For me one of my biggest concerns with the case from the beginning was the way it was handled. People tried and convicted him before the facts where even out. Obama weighed in sealing his fate. The media has never had any interest in the truth and used it as race bait. There was a price put on his head and people turned a blind eye. Those who questioned his guilt where called racists. Since the trial started American's have been threatened with riots and retribution. We have people in this country trying to redefine justice and to me, that is a scary thing indeed!


----------



## Hollowdweller (Jul 13, 2011)

First I thought that Zimmerman was guilty.

Now I think it's going to be impossible to say whether he is or not for sure.

You don't want some poor guy to go to jail just because he was trying to cut down on crime in his neighborhood, went a little overboard and then the person who he was following started a fight that ended in him getting shot.

On the other hand you got a kid walking home, not doing anything wrong and suddenly an unidentified guy is trailing him, obviously from his conversation with the girl he's trying to evade him not confront him and then he winds up dead. If the guy chased him down, emboldened by the fact that he had a gun on him, grabbed him and they got into it and then shot him you don't really want that guy to walk.

We know Martin was trying to evade him from the girl. We know Zimmerman claims he doubled back and attacked him. We do not really know who started it. We don't know why Martin after trying to get away from the guy would be motivated to attack him. We don't know why Zimmerman never tried to identify himself as a neighborhood watch guy or had nothing on his car to identify him as that.

So I think the case is way more murky than I originally thought.


----------



## Hollowdweller (Jul 13, 2011)

dixiegal62 said:


> For me one of my biggest concerns with the case from the beginning was the way it was handled. People tried and convicted him before the facts where even out. Obama weighed in sealing his fate. The media has never had any interest in the truth and used it as race bait. There was a price put on his head and people turned a blind eye. Those who questioned his guilt where called racists. Since the trial started American's have been threatened with riots and retribution. We have people in this country trying to redefine justice and to me, that is a scary thing indeed!


 
I think you are wrong. Intially the guy wasn't even charged.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

dixiegal62 said:


> What's interesting to me is in reading the new thread on the trial many of us who viewed GZ innocent or guilty back then haven't changed our opinions even after viewing the trial, myself included.
> 
> Has anything you've heard in the trial changed your opinion on his innocence or guilt?


Before the trial I thought he was going to have a difficult time defending himself. I thought it was likely he would be convicted. After spending considerable time watching the trial, I'm of the opinion that Zimmerman will be acquitted.

I don't like what Zimmerman did any better, but I believe he will be found innocent.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

dixiegal62 said:


> People tried and convicted him before the facts where even out. Obama weighed in sealing his fate.


You've gotta admit, the fundamental facts didn't sound good. When a neighborhood watch person shoots and kills an unarmed 17 year-old kid who is supposed to be in the neighborhood, people are going to look down their noses on it.


----------



## Ozarks Tom (May 27, 2011)

When it first happened, and the media figured "Zimmerman" was a white name, every race hustler around started screaming. When it came out he's really half Latino they had to re-double their efforts to keep from looking stupid. The investigating detective believed Zimmerman, the Chief of Police got fired for refusing to arrest him, the local prosecutor didn't want to try him, but the pressure got too much, so they appointed a "Special Prosecutor". This should have never gone to trial.

They (some of the media, and the prosecutor) keep making a false narrative about GZ's injuries not being serious enough to warrant someone thinking they're about to be killed or seriously injured. That's about as stupid as it gets, and meant for consumption by people who know nothing about physical altercations. I promise you someone can be beaten to death in under a minute, faster if concrete is available.


----------



## dixiegal62 (Aug 18, 2007)

Hollowdweller said:


> I think you are wrong. Intially the guy wasn't even charged.


Exactly! There wasn't enough evidence to charge him.


----------



## dixiegal62 (Aug 18, 2007)

Nevada said:


> Before the trial I thought he was going to have a difficult time defending himself. I thought it was likely he would be convicted. After spending considerable time watching the trial, I'm of the opinion that Zimmerman will be acquitted.
> 
> I don't like what Zimmerman did any better, but I believe he will be found innocent.


 
I think he'll be found guilty and his fate was sealed before the trial even began.


----------



## dixiegal62 (Aug 18, 2007)

Ozarks Tom said:


> When it first happened, and the media figured "Zimmerman" was a white name, every race hustler around started screaming. When it came out he's really half Latino they had to re-double their efforts to keep from looking stupid. The investigating detective believed Zimmerman, the Chief of Police got fired for refusing to arrest him, the local prosecutor didn't want to try him, but the pressure got too much, so they appointed a "Special Prosecutor". This should have never gone to trial.
> 
> They (some of the media, and the prosecutor) keep making a false narrative about GZ's injuries not being serious enough to warrant someone thinking they're about to be killed or seriously injured. That's about as stupid as it gets, and meant for consumption by people who know nothing about physical altercations. I promise you someone can be beaten to death in under a minute, faster if concrete is available.


 
Someone on CNN had a good point this afternoon about the injuries. He pointed out of a woman had came into the police station with the exact injuries from an abusive spouse they would consider them major injuries.


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

> My gut is telling me manslaughter, with a three months sentence, just to keep the Rambos in check.


Minimum sentence for manslaughter is 9.25 years.


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

dixiegal62 said:


> Someone on CNN had a good point this afternoon about the injuries. He pointed out of a woman had came into the police station with the exact injuries from an abusive spouse they would consider them major injuries.


Happened to me, except he picked me up around the knees, slammed me down. I had to have stiches in the back of my head . After I pressed charges, found out I was woman # 5 he had hurt. He got nothing but anger classes, and even in the end skipped out of those.Helps, I guess,his sis was married to a local Judges son. Good ol (boy) Justice system.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

simi-steading said:


> Since the judge is now allowing manslaughter, then that's my verdict.. Zimmerman provoked the incident by following and allowing himself to come in contact with Martin... He should have just stayed in his truck and observed..


I disagree. As I understand it, Florida law allows a "surcharge" of time if manslaughter involves use of a gun. The result is manslaughter can mean as much time in prison as 2nd degree murder, 30 years to life. No way I could send anyone to that many years in prison based on the maybes, could bes, and what ifs of the prosecution in this case.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Nevada said:


> Before the trial I thought he was going to have a difficult time defending himself. I thought it was likely he would be convicted. After spending considerable time watching the trial, I'm of the opinion that Zimmerman will be acquitted.
> 
> I don't like what Zimmerman did any better, but I believe he will be found innocent.


A jury will find him guilty or not guilty. Innocence doesn't come into play.


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

poppy said:


> I disagree. As I understand it, Florida law allows a "surcharge" of time if manslaughter involves use of a gun. The result is manslaughter can mean as much time in prison as 2nd degree murder, 30 years to life. No way I could send anyone to that many years in prison based on the maybes, could bes, and what ifs of the prosecution in this case.


I agree but it's unlikely that the jury knows the sentencing ramifications involved. I would not be surprised if they went for a "compromise" thinking they were being fair.


----------



## Harry Chickpea (Dec 19, 2008)

jtbrandt said:


> Minimum sentence for manslaughter is 9.25 years.


Yeah, looks like that is right. I had been under the impression that this held:

(6) While the sentencing guidelines are designed to aid the judge in the sentencing decision and are not intended to usurp judicial discretion, departures from the presumptive sentences established in the guidelines shall be articulated in writing and made when circumstances or factors reasonably justify the aggravation or mitigation of the sentence. The level of proof necessary to establish facts supporting a departure from a sentence under the guidelines is a preponderance of the evidence.

However, looks like they hamstrung the judges on discretion by imposing the mandatory minimums. Given that, if I were on a jury, I'd find "not guilty" because the required punishment is excessive and would be unlikely to do anything more than cost the taxpayers more money.


----------



## katydidagain (Jun 11, 2004)

Harry Chickpea said:


> Given that, if I were on a jury, I'd find "not guilty" because the required punishment is excessive and would be unlikely to do anything more than cost the taxpayers more money.


Unless 1 of the 6 happens to know the minimum terms, they were not told them during the trial. I happen to think this is very wrong.


----------



## dixiegal62 (Aug 18, 2007)

I've stayed steady in my belief that this was a case of self defense. After just seeing an interview with Trayvon's father which showed a clip of George apologizing about the shooting I'm having to take a second look at how I viewed this trial. It was the first time I had seen that. It really bothered me that George said he didn't know how old Trayvon was and he thought he was closer to his age. It points me to a side of his character that would make excuses to grieving parents, especially after stating on the 311 call that he was in his late teens and it didn't set well with me.

I still feel the evidence didn't prove George had malicious intent and I still feel he had reason to fear for his life. I still think Trayvon went back to confront him but it's certainly gives me doubt as to what kind of man he is.


----------



## StL.Ed (Mar 6, 2011)

Hollowdweller said:


> First I thought that Zimmerman was guilty.
> 
> Now I think it's going to be impossible to say whether he is or not for sure.
> 
> ...


The testimony from the girlfriend is not evidence, just testimony. Her version of events has changed a number of times, and she is probably not a neutral party. 
Sorry, but "We" do NOT "know Martin was trying to evade him."


----------



## katydidagain (Jun 11, 2004)

StL.Ed said:


> The testimony from the girlfriend is not evidence, just testimony. Her version of events has changed a number of times, and she is probably not a neutral party.
> Sorry, but "We" do NOT "know Martin was trying to evade him."


I don't think it really matters. The only moment in question is: was GZ in fear of his life when he shot TM? I could be wrong but what led up to it is interesting and could sway the jury emotionally but I don't think it's supposed to matter legally. Someone smarter, please correct me.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

katydidagain said:


> I could be wrong but what led up to it is interesting and could sway the jury emotionally but I don't think it's supposed to matter legally. Someone smarter, please correct me.


The Florida self defense law specifically states that you can't assert that defense if you were the aggressor. I don't see how it's not relevant, in fact it seems like the central issue.


----------



## dixiegal62 (Aug 18, 2007)

Nevada said:


> The Florida self defense law specifically states that you can't assert that defense if you were the aggressor. I don't see how it's not relevant, in fact it seems like the central issue.


 
Zimmerman's teacher explained that that art of the law had changed. He said even if you started the fight, the tables turned and your life was now in danger you still had the right to use deadly force and it would be up to the law to decide if you had reasonable reason to fear.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

StL.Ed said:


> The testimony from the girlfriend is not evidence, just testimony. Her version of events has changed a number of times, and she is probably not a neutral party.
> Sorry, but "We" do NOT "know Martin was trying to evade him."


She was not a good witness, which benefited Zimmerman's case. I don't think she changed her story. Instead, I think she wasn't good at remembering facts and even worse at expressing herself. She is a living monument to what's wrong with our public education system. If she could recall the entire conversation with Martin it would be different, but her memory was fuzzy at best. The prosecutor should have helped her with that. But I don't think the prosecutor spent enough time with her to know how bad it was going to be.

She was also a reluctant witness, and it showed. It was obvious that she resented Mr. West's questioning. There was no denying that she didn't want to be there, yet still did it to help Martin's family. You have to giver her that.

It's too bad she had to be humiliated on the stand the way she was. Honestly, I doubt the prosecutor prepared her for cross examination at all, and that hurt his case. I think she had no earthly idea what Mr. West had in store for her. The prosecutor let her get ambushed.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Nevada said:


> She was not a good witness, which benefited Zimmerman's case. I don't think she changed her story. Instead, I think she wasn't good at remembering facts and even worse at expressing herself. She is a living monument to what's wrong with our public education system. If she could recall the entire conversation with Martin it would be different, but her memory was fuzzy at best. The prosecutor should have helped her with that. But I don't think the prosecutor spent enough time with her to know how bad it was going to be.
> 
> She was also a reluctant witness, and it showed. It was obvious that she resented Mr. West's questioning. There was no denying that she didn't want to be there, yet still did it to help Martin's family. You have to giver her that.
> 
> It's too bad she had to be humiliated on the stand the way she was. Honestly, I doubt the prosecutor prepared her for cross examination at all, and that hurt his case. I think she had no earthly idea what Mr. West had in store for her. The prosecutor let her get ambushed.


She was there because she was subpoenaed.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Darren said:


> She was there because she was subpoenaed.


There's more to preparing a witness than issuing a subpoena. She obviously wasn't prepared at all.


----------



## katydidagain (Jun 11, 2004)

Nevada said:


> There's more to preparing a witness than issuing a subpoena. She obviously wasn't prepared at all.


I was subpoenaed to testify before a grand jury; I was given no assistance by the prosecutor. I suspect she was very sorry she didn't spend 5 minutes with me telling me what to expect; I did her no favors.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

katydidagain said:


> I was subpoenaed to testify before a grand jury; I was given no assistance by the prosecutor. I suspect she was very sorry she didn't spend 5 minutes with me telling me what to expect; I did her no favors.


I suspect that this prosecutor is accustomed to going up against public defenders, who don't normally have enough time to put on a formidable defense. He just didn't put on the kind of prosecution he should have for the legal team he was up against.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

Nevada said:


> The Florida self defense law specifically states that you can't assert that defense if you were the aggressor. I don't see how it's not relevant, in fact it seems like the central issue.


Not at all. The law allows a proportional response. If Martin was concerned he was being followed, it did not give him the right to confront Zimmerman when he had other options. Zimmerman posed no direct threat to him. He could have simply proceeded to his dad's house, called 911, or knocked on anyone's door and told them he feared someone who was following him. He raised it to the next level when he confronted Zimmerman.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Nevada said:


> There's more to preparing a witness than issuing a subpoena. She obviously wasn't prepared at all.


Her preparation is one of the foul odors coming out of Florida. If you research and read what happened you'll understand why Trayvon's "girlfriend" was a lousy witness. I'm absolutely sure she perjured herself more than the two times noted.

She's the weakest link in Benjamin Crump's press release scam.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

Nevada said:


> I suspect that this prosecutor is accustomed to going up against public defenders, who don't normally have enough time to put on a formidable defense. He just didn't put on the kind of prosecution he should have for the legal team he was up against.


The problem is the prosecutor had no case to begin with. The cops knew it from the start. There was zero evidence Zimmerman was guilty of anything. This was a political case once the media, blacks, and Obama jumped on it. Justice no longer mattered.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

poppy said:


> Not at all. The law allows a proportional response..


 Is blowing a hole through someones chest a proportional response to a broken nose? Zimmermans injuries are not consistent with someone being beaten to death, or even CLOSE to it.


----------



## katydidagain (Jun 11, 2004)

poppy said:


> The problem is the prosecutor had no case to begin with. The cops knew it from the start. There was zero evidence Zimmerman was guilty of anything. This was a political case once the media, blacks, and Obama jumped on it. Justice no longer mattered.


Justice does matter. Just because some human beings didn't see that there was a case doesn't mean others would not. At any point in his life, GZ could have faced charges for killing TM. Any time. Until he breathed his last natural breath. There is no statute of limitations for taking another person's life.

Put yourself in the shoes of TM's parents--wouldn't you want justice for your child?


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

Nevada said:


> The Florida self defense law specifically states that you can't assert that defense if you were the aggressor.


You're ignoring the word "unless" and everything that follows it in the law. There are exceptions to the part you stated.


----------



## Ozarks Tom (May 27, 2011)

greg273 said:


> Is blowing a hole through someones chest a proportional response to a broken nose? Zimmermans injuries are not consistent with someone being beaten to death, or even CLOSE to it.


I guess by your theory one should wait until they're nearly unconscious, or suffocating to death from being punched in the larynx before using deadly force. I don't know about you, but I been punched/kicked/whacked more than a few times and I never knew where the next one was going to land or what else my opponent might have in store. In real life you don't wait to find out, you do what's necessary to change the situation.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

greg273 said:


> Is blowing a hole through someones chest a proportional response to a broken nose? Zimmermans injuries are not consistent with someone being beaten to death, or even CLOSE to it.


That is nonsense. Let someone break your nose and repeatedly bang your head on concrete and then tell me you wouldn't feel your life was in danger. Zimmerman couldn't see how bad the wounds on his head were. All the law says is if you feel your life is in danger at that moment. None of us truly know what Zimmerman thought at that instant but his injuries and treatment by Martin are well within what any reasonable person might consider life threatening.

According to your logic, a woman being raped is not in a life threatening situation either but if she shoots the attacker in the process, no jury is going to convict her.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

I have no doubt George Zimmerman was scared... getting punched is no fun, especially if you are on the ground or in a bad position. So he did what he had to do. I don't fault him for that, but he should NOT be ineligible for punishment for his actions. He took a life. Period. There has to be some form of retribution for those actions. Sure, he may have saved his own life by taking another, and he should be thankful for that, but there is still a price that needs to be paid. 2nd degree murder or manslaughter at least.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

poppy said:


> That is nonsense. Let someone break your nose and repeatedly bang your head on concrete and then tell me you wouldn't feel your life was in danger. .


 That was partly my point, his injuries were not consistent with getting ones head 'repeatedly smashed into the concrete'. His injuries were consistent with getting a punch to the face and falling backward onto the pavement.


----------



## katydidagain (Jun 11, 2004)

greg273 said:


> That was partly my point, his injuries were not consistent with getting ones head 'repeatedly smashed into the concrete'. His injuries were consistent with getting a punch to the face and falling backward onto the pavement.


His injuries do not have to be great; if he is in fear of his life, according to FL law he can act to end the threat. If that means gathering superhuman strength to kick his attacker in the gonads and throw him into outer space or shooting him dead, he has the legal right to protect himself. Someone tell me if I'm misinterpreting the law, please.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

poppy said:


> The problem is the prosecutor had no case to begin with.


The prosecution could have done a lot better in presenting what they had. There's not excuse for not preparing witnesses.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

katydidagain said:


> His injuries do not have to be great; if he is in fear of his life, according to FL law he can act to end the threat. If that means gathering superhuman strength to kick his attacker in the gonads and throw him into outer space or shooting him dead, he has the legal right to protect himself. Someone tell me if I'm misinterpreting the law, please.


No, you got it right.
Don't take my word for it though.
Check out the two cases I mention on the other thread.
When the judges gave the wrong jury instructions based on their own interpretation, the Florida Supreme court correctly restated exactly what you said.
You don't actually need to show any injury at all, and as long as you have a right to be in that public or private area, you don't necessarily have to retreat.
That was the whole purpose of the "Stand your ground" law, that you have a right to defend yourself at all times, all places.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Nevada said:


> The Florida self defense law specifically states that you can't assert that defense if you were the aggressor. I don't see how it's not relevant, in fact it seems like the central issue.


You already know that isn't true.

http://www.homesteadingtoday.com/general-chat/488821-zimmerman-trial-14.html
post#395 and #414


----------



## katydidagain (Jun 11, 2004)

But stand your ground was not part of the defense, was it? I tried mightily to listen and understand the judge's instructions and don't recall hearing that mentioned. (Sorry but I'm not going to spend my free time reading case law; I'm an unemployed accountant trying to find a job just now and don't have a dog in this race.)


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Nevada said:


> There's more to preparing a witness than issuing a subpoena. She obviously wasn't prepared at all.


I have no doubt Crump, Trayvon's mother and the prosecution tried to prepare her. The fact that Crump lied about her age to keep others away from her to supposedly protect her raises questions. Add the perjury and it makes me wonder wha she really heard that night.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

greg273 said:


> I have no doubt George Zimmerman was scared... getting punched is no fun, especially if you are on the ground or in a bad position. So he did what he had to do. I don't fault him for that, but he should NOT be ineligible for punishment for his actions. He took a life. Period. There has to be some form of retribution for those actions. Sure, he may have saved his own life by taking another, and he should be thankful for that, but there is still a price that needs to be paid. 2nd degree murder or manslaughter at least.


If Zimmerman goes to prison even for manslaughter, he will be killed by another inmate if he's placed in the general population. In the interview Zimmerman's attorney just gave to CNN he said the man's life is ruined whether he goes to jail or not. The amount of hae the media has stirred up gaurantees people will try to kill him.


----------



## Ozarks Tom (May 27, 2011)

greg273 said:


> I have no doubt George Zimmerman was scared... getting punched is no fun, especially if you are on the ground or in a bad position. So he did what he had to do. I don't fault him for that, but he should NOT be ineligible for punishment for his actions. He took a life. Period. There has to be some form of retribution for those actions. Sure, he may have saved his own life by taking another, and he should be thankful for that, but there is still a price that needs to be paid. 2nd degree murder or manslaughter at least.


Even you don't believe that.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

The internet allows people with diverse skills and knowledge to work together. If you really want all of the information available and make sense of something that happened, the internet is the place to go. It requires persistance because chances are everything won't be handed to you in a tidy package. Rest asssured people will dig out the facts.

For over fifty years I've wondered why people think like they do. The first book that started the quest was _Black Like Me_ back in the 60's. As much as I've learned it still comes down to emotion over ruling logical thinking every time for most people. We're still pack animals and it shows.

The Florida incident has been disturbing to me in several ways. The state bypassed the grand jury when one was immediately available. The state tried to use emotion to convict Zimmerman when there was no evidence. That point was made by criminal trial lawyers who watched the case.

The rush to judgement fueled by hate and egged on by the media just ruined a man's life no matter what the jury decides. Meanwhile other violence is ignored by the media.

I've also learned some disturbing information regarding this site which I can't explain. Lets just say someone is taking liberties they shouldn't.

About a year ago I started looking at leaving this country. After hearing a prosecutor ask jurors to use their hearts to convict Zimmerman because there was no evidence to support the charges, this country has veered in a direction that makes me extremely uncomforttable. It's telling that foreign news sources are the ones that report things here the media ignores. 

As I've said before this is not the America that so many served and died for. In a sense I view what the state of Florida did as wiping their butts on the flag. I don't consider myself a patriot in the sense some grandstanders do. But I do believe in the Constituion and its relevance today. The mockery of justice we just viewed was nothing less than a state ordered execution for popular reasons not legal ones.

If the Statue of Liberty could cry it would be hearc throughout this country,


----------



## Karen (Apr 17, 2002)

Darren said:


> The Florida incident has been disturbing to me in several ways. The state bypassed the grand jury when one was immediately available.


Because Florida doesn't use the grand jury for manslaughter or murder 2. Only for first degree murder.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Karen said:


> Because Florida doesn't use the grand jury for manslaughter or murder 2. Only for first degree murder.


That's interesting. In WV the grand jury gets a lot more than that. Any idea why O'Mara made a point of that in the CNN interview? How do you think the motions for sanctions against the prosecutors will go for delaying and/or withholding evidence?


----------



## davel745 (Feb 2, 2009)

greg273 said:


> Is blowing a hole through someones chest a proportional response to a broken nose? Zimmermans injuries are not consistent with someone being beaten to death, or even CLOSE to it.


If some one hits me and I have my gun you better believe I will blow him away. There is nothing to prevent someone from stepping in your space and doing harm. This country is full of bullies. 
A armed society is a polite society.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Karen said:


> Because Florida doesn't use the grand jury for manslaughter or murder 2. Only for first degree murder.


I'll double check before I say this is 100%, but I believe you misread something about grand juries in Florida. I'm fairly sure that I know someone, probably several, that have served on grand juries. The subjects are secret, but the crimes were definitely not 1st degree murder.
http://www.sa15.state.fl.us/stateattorney/ouroffice/divisions/indexHGJ.htm
The grand jury serves a very special function in Florida&#8217;s criminal courts. The only charge a State Attorney cannot file based on his or her constitutional authority is first degree murder. All first degree murder cases must be presented to a grand jury. In this section you will read an overview of what the grand jury is as well as certain functions of the grand jury. Additionally you will find investigative reports and indictments by the grand jury.




It isn't that grand juries *aren't* used for lessor crimes, it is that *only* a grand jury can indict for 1st degree murder. IOW a DA can't indict for 1st degree, it must come thru a grand jury, a DA *can* indict for every other crime *without* one.

From FL statutes.

http://law.onecle.com/florida/criminal-procedure-and-corrections/905.16.html


905.16&#8195;Duties of grand jury.&#8212;The grand jury shall inquire into every offense triable within the county for which any person has been held to answer, if an indictment has not been found or an information or affidavit filed for the offense, and all other indictable offenses triable within the county that are presented to it by the state attorney or her or his designated assistant or otherwise come to its knowledge.

History.&#8212;s. 95, ch. 19554, 1939; CGL 1940 Supp. 8663(95); s. 52, ch. 70-339; s. 1497, ch. 97-102.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

katydidagain said:


> But stand your ground was not part of the defense, was it? I tried mightily to listen and understand the judge's instructions and don't recall hearing that mentioned. (Sorry but I'm not going to spend my free time reading case law; I'm an unemployed accountant trying to find a job just now and don't have a dog in this race.)


I understand, fortunately after a long hard search, I think I found a gem of a job recently myself. lol

It doesn't take long to read the whole law though, here it is.....


Title XLVI. Crimes.

Chapter 776: JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE

776.041&#8195;Use of force by aggressor.&#8212;

The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:

(1)&#8195;Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or

(2)&#8195;Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:

(a)&#8195;Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or

(b)&#8195;In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.




The "preceding sections" are mentioned here.

http://law.onecle.com/florida/crimes/chapter776.html


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Nevada said:


> The prosecution could have done a lot better in presenting what they had. There's not excuse for not preparing witnesses.


What should be self evident is that lack of preparation is the same as lack of evidence. You have to wonder what's going on when the prosecution's witnesses prove the case for the defense. As the ex-police chief and the investigator said, there was no case. That means they didn't find evidence to file charges. Then the state sent their own investigators and they found zilch the same as the FBI who also investigated.

Posters here have talked about evidence being presented to the jury. There wasn't anything to prove Zimmerman did not act in self defense. All of the forensic experts and investigators who looked couldn't CSI any evidence.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Darren said:


> That's interesting. In WV the grand jury gets a lot more than that. Any idea why O'Mara made a point of that in the CNN interview? How do you think the motions for sanctions against the prosecutors will go for delaying and/or withholding evidence?


As you can see from my link about FL grand juries, the reason O'Mara made his point was that prosecutors who have shaky cases will let a grand jury decide.
That way they can honestly claim their was no political pressure to decide to prosecute.........as has been alleged in the Zimmerman case.
If the fired chief of police didn't see probable cause, and the first DA who saw it didn't see probable cause, when the case was assigned to Corey, why did she opt not let a grand jury indict, rather than go forward based on only her own opinion?


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

greg273 said:


> That was partly my point, his injuries were not consistent with getting ones head 'repeatedly smashed into the concrete'. His injuries were consistent with getting a punch to the face and falling backward onto the pavement.


Are you in effect saying the witness lied when he testified Martin continued to beat Zimmerman as Zimmerman called for help?


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Yes Darren, as far as I can tell, the ones who believe Zimmerman guilty simply believe his entire story is a lie, regardless of evidence, which in fairness, is pretty scant in this case.
There is some evidence, but not enough to prove to 100% of the people, 100% innocence.
Fortunately, that isn't how our justice system defines it.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

I'm trying to find out if withholding evidence is grounds for dismissal of the charges against Zimmerman. The IT director's actions in going to a lawyer for legal advice when the prosecutor didn't turn over the report got him fired but it was the ethically right thing to do.

The contents of Martin's phone blow the case out of the water. If I understand the reasoning you can't allow the phone's contents to be used for the prosecution and not allow the conents to be used for the defense.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Darren said:


> I'm trying to find out if withholding evidence is grounds for dismissal of the charges against Zimmerman. The IT director's actions in going to a lawyer for legal advice when the prosecutor didn't turn over the report got him fired but it was the ethically right thing to do.
> 
> The contents of Martin's phone blow the case out of the water. If I understand the reasoning you can't allow the phone's contents to be used for the prosecution and not allow the conents to be used for the defense.


Hard to say, but IMO, not a dismissal necessarily, but grounds for appeal or overturned conviction, for sure.
Brady v. Maryland is the most cited case.
I don't know for a fact that Corey withheld the evidence from the defense. I believe that the judge instead, ruled it inadmissible.


Why are the current standards requiring the 
prosecution to turn over material evidence 
insufficient? 
In the 1963 case, Brady v. Maryland,the Supreme 
Court established that the prosecution must submit 
all exculpatory evidence to the defense prior to trial. 
While the Court specified that the material must be 
turned over in a timely manner, it did not define what 
amounts to &#8220;timely.&#8221; Subsequent cases (i.e., Kyles v. 
Whitley) narrowed this standard, stating that only 
material which would have changed the outcome of a 
trial constitutes material evidence. Taken together, 
these rulings require a predictive determination of 
what evidence meets the materiality requirement, and 
prosecutors may inadvertently suppress evidence due 
to unfamiliarity with the defense&#8217;s case and inability to 
forecast what evidence may prove material in the con- 
text of the defense strategy. This creates competing 
roles for the prosecutor, who must both try the defen- 
dant and anticipate what evidence may later prove to 
have changed case outcome. 
In addition, the Bradyruling only applies to cases 
that go to trial; in ninety-five percent of cases, howev- 
er, the defendant pleads guilty in a plea bargain. Because 
Brady standards don&#8217;t apply to the plea bargaining 
process, even innocent defendants may decide to plead 
because they are unaware of material evidence.82 
Does open-file discovery place an undue 
burden on the prosecution? 
Open-file discovery helps to require the strongest 
case possible for the prosecution. This makes the 
process more efficient and increases confidence in 
convictions, therefore reducing the likelihood of a 
cments, information relating to lineups, personal 
belongings of the defendant to be submitted as evi- 
dence, evidence negating guilt, and expert and 
police reports. It does not apply to notes, theories, 
opinions, conclusions, or legal research conducted 
by the prosecution. Disclosure of witnesses can also 
be denied by judges on a case by case basis in 
instances where there is a substantial risk of physical 
harm or intimidation. 
Does open-file require the defense to turn 
over their evidence as well? 
The burden to prove the defendant guilty beyond 
a reasonable doubt falls upon the state alone, and the 
information the defense may be required to disclose 
under reciprocal discovery is limited to notice of evi- 
dence and witnesses the defense intends to offer at 
trial. Moreover, the reciprocal discovery require- 
ments made of defense counsel must be consistent 
both with a defender&#8217;s constitutional role to advocate 
for a person who is presumed innocent until proven 
guilty and with a defendant&#8217;s 5th amendment right 
against self-incrimination. 
Some jurisdictions do require that both sides 
turn over information before trial. Reciprocal dis- 
covery is important in that both sides should have 
time to develop a response to the evidence present- 
ed by the other. Several states have requirements 
for reciprocal discovery under part of expansive dis- 
covery systems. The ABA standards require the 
defense to disclose certain information to the pros- 
ecution, including the names and addresses of all 
witnesses whom the defense intends to call at trial, 
and reports and statements made by experts as a


----------



## Pops2 (Jan 27, 2003)

greg273 said:


> Is blowing a hole through someones chest a proportional response to a broken nose? Zimmermans injuries are not consistent with someone being beaten to death, or even CLOSE to it.


And how many people have you beaten to death to know that? In point of fact you can kill a man with one punch to the head AND without any apparent serious injury. It happened here in UT a few weeks ago. A 17 YO kid got mad at a soccer ref and punched him ONE time to the side of the head. The ref collapsed, went into a coma & died a few days later in the hospital. No cuts or outward physical damage at all. So rather than being based on medical fact, your argument is based solely in ignorant personal biases.


----------



## Pops2 (Jan 27, 2003)

greg273 said:


> That was partly my point, his injuries were not consistent with getting ones head 'repeatedly smashed into the concrete'. His injuries were consistent with getting a punch to the face and falling backward onto the pavement.


Again how many people's heads have you repeatedly bounced off the pavement to make that statement. My brother had his head bounced off the pavement repeatedly in a fight in high school, no blood not even a scratch. OTH he made a two inch gash in the other guys forehead with a six inch punch. There is no set standard when talking about human beings because each persons body is different and the way that body sustains damage is different. So again no basis in medical fact just your own personal biases based on limited knowledge.


----------



## Pops2 (Jan 27, 2003)

farmrbrown said:


> I'll double check before I say this is 100%, but I believe you misread something about grand juries in Florida. I'm fairly sure that I know someone, probably several, that have served on grand juries. The subjects are secret, but the crimes were definitely not 1st degree murder.
> http://www.sa15.state.fl.us/stateattorney/ouroffice/divisions/indexHGJ.htm
> The grand jury serves a very special function in Floridaâs criminal courts. The only charge a State Attorney cannot file based on his or her constitutional authority is first degree murder. All first degree murder cases must be presented to a grand jury. In this section you will read an overview of what the grand jury is as well as certain functions of the grand jury. Additionally you will find investigative reports and indictments by the grand jury.
> 
> ...


They must also have the law explained to them in order to determine if the indictment is valid. Which is why the special prosecutor went for 2nd degree murder, he knew an INFORMED jury would most likely throw out the indictment.


----------



## Pops2 (Jan 27, 2003)

Ozarks Tom said:


> Even you don't believe that.


Unfortunately, if it fits his personal biases, he does. Which unfortunately is also true of most Americans.


----------



## Old John (May 27, 2004)

Sorry Folks. it still kinda looks to me that Trayvon Martin was kind of a "street tough".
And George Zimmerman was kind of a "wuss".
And both of those things contributed to the outcome of the situation.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

greg273 said:


> Is blowing a hole through someones chest a proportional response to a broken nose? Zimmermans injuries are not consistent with someone being beaten to death, or even CLOSE to it.


But who knows what would have happened after that had Zimmerman not had a gun. Would Trayvon left it at that or continued beating Zimmerman?


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

greg273 said:


> That was partly my point, his injuries were not consistent with getting ones head 'repeatedly smashed into the concrete'. His injuries were consistent with getting a punch to the face and falling backward onto the pavement.


The forensics guy explained very clearly why the evidence did show repeated blows to the back of Zimmerman's head. If Zimmerman got the injuries falling backward, he had to fall backward more than 5 times.


----------



## suzfromWi (Jun 1, 2002)

I watched the re-enactment with Zimmerman showing how it all came down. I listened to his 911 call. Its obvious to me that he was the aggressor. Then he said at one point martin came up and circled his car. Why didnt he then tell Martin who he was, and what he was doing? So then martin just walked away? This makes no sense to me at all...When Zimmerman then got out of his car and began looking for him again, supposedly looking for an address, Martin came out and asked if he had a problem with him? Then zimmerman said, [ his words ] No I dont have a problem and went to his pocket for his cell phone. Thats when Travon said, well now you do and slugged him....How do we know Z wasnt reaching for his gun at that point? Maybe he thought he could detain the kid...How do we know that Martin didnt also think Z was reaching for a weapon?
Maybe the wounds to Z,s head were caused by falling on the ground from the blow? I dont give a hoot about T being a young wanabe hood. If I was followed by a stranger I would think the worst and I WOULD protect myself. What about the statement Z made to the 911 operator that M was running? Doesnt that in itself mean he was trying to avoid confrontation? What about Z telling the 911 that M was gone...Shouldnt he have stopped the search ?
I believe with all my being that this boy did not have to die that day. I believe Z wanted to find him and be a big shot...Someone tell me exactly what M had done that night to warrent such suspicion from Z, other then being Black, wearing a Hoody, and looking around?


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

mnn2501 said:


> But who knows what would have happened after that had Zimmerman not had a gun. Would Trayvon left it at that or continued beating Zimmerman?


Exactly. Zimmerman had no reason to rationally think Martin was just going to quit beating him at any moment and walk away. We can't accurately judge what was in Zimmerman's mind at the time any more than we can judge what was in Martin's mind. Was Martin thinking he would just beat the guy up a bit and leave or was he in a fit of rage and not in total control of his actions which could have resulted in Zimmerman's death?


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

suzfromWi said:


> I watched the re-enactment with Zimmerman showing how it all came down. I listened to his 911 call. Its obvious to me that he was the aggressor. Then he said at one point martin came up and circled his car. Why didnt he then tell Martin who he was, and what he was doing? So then martin just walked away? This makes no sense to me at all...When Zimmerman then got out of his car and began looking for him again, supposedly looking for an address, Martin came out and asked if he had a problem with him? Then zimmerman said, [ his words ] No I dont have a problem and went to his pocket for his cell phone. Thats when Travon said, well now you do and slugged him....How do we know Z wasnt reaching for his gun at that point? Maybe he thought he could detain the kid...How do we know that Martin didnt also think Z was reaching for a weapon?
> Maybe the wounds to Z,s head were caused by falling on the ground from the blow? I dont give a hoot about T being a young wanabe hood. If I was followed by a stranger I would think the worst and I WOULD protect myself. What about the statement Z made to the 911 operator that M was running? Doesnt that in itself mean he was trying to avoid confrontation? What about Z telling the 911 that M was gone...Shouldnt he have stopped the search ?
> I believe with all my being that this boy did not have to die that day. I believe Z wanted to find him and be a big shot...Someone tell me exactly what M had done that night to warrent such suspicion from Z, other then being Black, wearing a Hoody, and looking around?


Someone following you is not a direct threat to you. For all you know, it could just be someone going the same way you are. It is stupid to confront them in a place where no one else is around. You should knock on a door where the lights are on and tell them someone is following you and call the police. Same thing if you think someone is following you in a car while driving. It is stupid to pull over in a dark place with no one around and confront them.


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

katydidagain said:


> Put yourself in the shoes of TM's parents--wouldn't you want justice for your child?


You"re talking Revenge here, if Zimmerman is innocent, Justice will not be served if he is convicted. 
All these emotional feelings( age, race,,,) about TM/GZ need to be put aside.


----------



## katydidagain (Jun 11, 2004)

7thswan said:


> You"re talking Revenge here, if Zimmerman is innocent, Justice will not be served if he is convicted.
> All these emotional feelings( age, race,,,) about TM/GZ need to be put aside.


No, I am talking about a parent mourning their child's death and wanting answers. Perhaps the quest is tinged with revenge but knowing what happened--truly happened--aids in closure. No verdict will bring their child back.


----------



## suzfromWi (Jun 1, 2002)

What about M walking around Z,s car? wasnt that the time to tell him who you are? In stead he sat there with the windows up looking like a stalker..maybe if I let the jury decide, it WILL be justice.


----------



## dixiegal62 (Aug 18, 2007)

suzfromWi said:


> What about M walking around Z,s car? wasnt that the time to tell him who you are? In stead he sat there with the windows up looking like a stalker..maybe if I let the jury decide, it WILL be justice.


 
If I thought some pervert was watching me at night, I would go the other way. I certainly wouldn't go up to his truck. That does not sound like someone who is afraid. If T was afraid why would he do that? Walking to the truck and staring Z down was an aggressive move, not one of fear. If he was just wanting to get a tag number as some have said why didn't he then call the police and give it to them?


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

suzfromWi said:


> I watched the re-enactment with Zimmerman showing how it all came down. I listened to his 911 call. Its obvious to me that he was the aggressor. Then he said at one point martin came up and circled his car. Why didnt he then tell Martin who he was, and what he was doing? So then martin just walked away? This makes no sense to me at all...When Zimmerman then got out of his car and began looking for him again, supposedly looking for an address, *Martin came out and asked if he had a problem with him?* Then zimmerman said, [ his words ] No I dont have a problem and went to his pocket for his cell phone. Thats when Travon said, well now you do and slugged him....How do we know Z wasnt reaching for his gun at that point? Maybe he thought he could detain the kid...How do we know that Martin didnt also think Z was reaching for a weapon?
> Maybe the wounds to Z,s head were caused by falling on the ground from the blow? I dont give a hoot about T being a young wanabe hood. If I was followed by a stranger I would think the worst and I WOULD protect myself. What about the statement Z made to the 911 operator that M was running? Doesnt that in itself mean he was trying to avoid confrontation? What about Z telling the 911 that M was gone...Shouldnt he have stopped the search ?
> I believe with all my being that this boy did not have to die that day. I believe Z wanted to find him and be a big shot...Someone tell me exactly what M had done that night to warrent such suspicion from Z, other then being Black, wearing a Hoody, and looking around?


I don't think he kid had to die either. Lots of things had to happen to bring the two togther.

1. If Trayvon had been arrested for the stolen jewelry he wouldn't have been in Sanford.

2. If Trayvon hadn't been suspended he wouldn;t have been in Sanford.

3. If his mother had kept him at home, he wouldn't have been in Sanford.

4. If the father hadn't gone out that night, maybe he would have kept Trayvon at the house.

5. If Trayvon had gone straight back to the house after the 711 he wouldn;t have encountered Zimmerman.

6. If Trayvon had gone home as suggested by the girl he would have been "safe" from Zimmerman.

7. If Trayon hadn't come out of hiding o confront Zimmerman, he would have been safe.

8. If Zimmerman had been in much better shape possibly Trayvon wouldn't have been able to back Zimmerman into a corner so to speak where he felt he had no choice but to shoot.

9. If any of the neighbors that witnessed the fight had assisted Zimmerman, rayvon would have probably lived.

10. If Trayvon had stopped beating Zimmerman when the man started crying for help, I think he wouldn't have been shot.

I can go on but it looks like Trayvon played a major contributing role in his death. I guess the moral here is don't pick on overweight, out of shape wusses that might have a gun. Trayvon was young and dumb.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

suzfromWi said:


> What about M walking around Z,s car? wasnt that the time to tell him who you are? In stead he sat there with the windows up looking like a stalker..maybe if I let the jury decide, it WILL be justice.


How close was Trayvon to the car? And why would he do something so predatory?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Darren said:


> Trayvon was young and dumb.


Maybe, but I'm not impressed with Zimmerman's judgment either.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

poppy said:


> Someone following you is not a direct threat to you. For all you know, it could just be someone going the same way you are. It is stupid to confront them in a place where no one else is around. You should knock on a door where the lights are on and tell them someone is following you and call the police. Same thing if you think someone is following you in a car while driving. It is stupid to pull over in a dark place with no one around and confront them.


 So I hear you saying Trayvons actions were stupid, and I agree, but they were no more stupid than Zimmermans.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

greg273 said:


> So I hear you saying Trayvons actions were stupid, and I agree, but they were no more stupid than Zimmermans.


I disagree. This was not a public housing area or even an ordinary city street. This is a gated community and people who pay to live in those usually do so for lower crime rates. Zimmerman was the neighborhood watch captain. He was just doing his job. He made no attempt to arrest or subdue Martin at all. He was simply watching to see where he was going. He was posing zero threat to Martin.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

poppy said:


> I disagree. This was not a public housing area or even an ordinary city street. This is a gated community and people who pay to live in those usually do so for lower crime rates. Zimmerman was the neighborhood watch captain. He was just doing his job. He made no attempt to arrest or subdue Martin at all. He was simply watching to see where he was going. He was posing zero threat to Martin.


Zimmerman did pose a threat to Martin. After Martin mentioned the creepy cracker following him to the girl and she told him to run home, it became a test of Martin's manhood.

The threat perceived by Martin was to his reputation if he didn't do something about the creepy cracker. That is why Martin reappeared and confronted Zimmerman. Zimmerman inadvertantly pushed all the right buttons to set Martin off. 

Martin then proceeded to knock Zimmerman down and beat him. Even Martin's final words can be interpreted as Zimmerman being the better man. In the instant before his death Martin realized he had met a man with a gun. The gun ultimately got Martin's respect for the creepy cracker.

That is why the prosecution's concealment of evidence is so critical. That evidence which the judge incorrectly disallowed explains what happened that night.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

poppy said:


> Zimmerman was the neighborhood watch captain. He was just doing his job. He made no attempt to arrest or subdue Martin at all.


 Are there witnesses to confirm that other than the man on trial?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

greg273 said:


> Are there witnesses to confirm that other than the man on trial?


Hopefully the jury will take that into account, since the victim is not able to speak for himself. It's logical for them to do that too, since Zimmerman's account was obviously slanted to make his story sound good. We know that because he claimed he had no knowledge of Florida self-defense or stand-your-ground laws after studying those laws in a college level criminal justice course.


----------



## Pearl B (Sep 27, 2008)

> We know that because he claimed he had no knowledge of Florida self-defense or stand-your-ground laws after studying those laws in a college level criminal justice course.


 that & 


> Prosecutors said Zimmerman got his second passport after claiming heâd lost his original one, which expired at the end of May 2012. It was that original passport which he turned over to the court; the second passport, which is valid until 2014, remained in his possession.
> 
> In addition to the passport allegations, prosecutors also disclosed on Friday what the stateâs attorney called an elaborate scheme by Zimmerman and his wife, Shelly, to conceal their true financial status from the court.
> 
> ...


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

That's ok. There's plenty of folks that also don't know Florida's laws either.
Here's hoping at least a few of jurors do......


----------



## Pearl B (Sep 27, 2008)

suzfromWi said:


> What about M walking around Z,s car? wasnt that the time to tell him who you are? In stead he sat there with the windows up looking like a stalker..maybe if I let the jury decide, it WILL be justice.


 To me, Z lost any defense right there. Z had a chance to clear things up, he didnt. Z wasnt wearing anything that would give notice hes neighborhood watch, or any other valid authority figure that would have a right to be following/dealing with others, in that capacity.

How was anyone to know who Z was & what he was doing.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

I've always found that when in search of knowledge, I start with a question from my mouth, rather than a fist.
But then, I'm funny that way.........and still alive.


----------



## suzfromWi (Jun 1, 2002)

You forget the part about Z reaching for his cellphone when he was punched. How does anyone know WHAT he was really reaching for? He had already called the cops. he was supposed to be waiting for them at this time...Why then when he shot Travon was the safety already off of the gun? Why did he end up on top of the kid supposedly pulling his arms out? Why did the testimony of the police say M,s arms were underneath him when they got there? Z said he thought he had missed him. OMG isnt there blood from a close wound like that? Too much doesnt make sense to me....


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

suzfromWi said:


> You forget the part about Z reaching for his cellphone when he was punched. How does anyone know WHAT he was really reaching for? He had already called the cops. he was supposed to be waiting for them at this time...


Maybe to tell them where he was....



> Why then when he shot Travon was the safety already off of the gun?


The gun did not have a safety other than the trigger. Even with a safety a gun can be switched to "fire" and fired in one smooth motion.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Get shot ---feel pain ---natural to reach-touch wound, colapes fall --hand on wound.


----------



## Pops2 (Jan 27, 2003)

Pearl B said:


> that &


In all fairness, at the time he did those things he had already been portrayed on national news as a racist white man executing an innocent little barely teen black boy. Various threats to his life, including a bounty on his head, had already been made. He had a very legitimate concern for both judicial impartiality and his safety.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Not anymore.
The verdict is in......NOT GUILTY!


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

YEAH Good news for sure.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

From the evidence presented, I think it was the right verdict. I have concerns for what impact this verdict might have, but I still think it was the right verdict.


----------



## Karen (Apr 17, 2002)

Nevada, I agree. I still say it doesn't all add up and that both M and Z were both responsible for what happened; however, with the evidence presented, it was absolutely the right verdict. 

I'm really happy to see that despite all the bickering and politics, it shows the right jury was chosen and the system worked. :thumb:


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

I'm impressed with the jury. Normally I don't put much faith in juries since the old joke that "juries are made up of people too stupid to get out of jury duty" has at least a little truth in many cases. I've heard from a criminal defense lawyer that if the client is guilty you should go with a jury and if he's innocent go with the judge. But this jury seemed to be fairly intelligent. Apparently they asked an intelligent question to help them understand the jury instructions. And it only took them 2 days to reach their verdict...I thought for sure it would take 4-5 days.


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

> I still say it doesn't all add up and that both M and Z were both responsible for what happened


In the big picture of all the events that night, I agree.


----------



## davel745 (Feb 2, 2009)

The judge is the reason Zimmerman is free. She was so wishy washy about answering the jury's question that they voted to self defense. They took a good look at manslaughter and the judge didn't give them an answer to there inquiry. So it is not guilty. The Big zero just spoke, what a joke. His said something about becoming the chief prosecutor of the country. Just kidding.


----------



## EDDIE BUCK (Jul 17, 2005)

davel745 said:


> The judge is the reason Zimmerman is free. She was so wishy washy about answering the jury's question that they voted to self defense. They took a good look at manslaughter and the judge didn't give them an answer to there inquiry. So it is not guilty. The Big zero just spoke, what a joke. His said something about becoming the chief prosecutor of the country. Just kidding.


If you are thinking Obama is Big ZERO,I Bet he was thinking it,even if he didn't say it,and I'm not kidding. However, I doubt he'll really want to give up his Dictator job,but knowing him he'll try to do both of them if he thinks it will speed up this country's down fall.To many American's agree with him evidently.


----------



## davel745 (Feb 2, 2009)

Love the sheep drinking cool aid.


----------



## Txrider (Jun 25, 2010)

dixiegal62 said:


> Decided to go back and read old threads when this case was unfolding. It's interesting to read everyone's opinions as we got information. There where things I had forgotten about being in the news, some where true we know now and some where media hype.
> 
> What's interesting to me is in reading the new thread on the trial many of us who viewed GZ innocent or guilty back then haven't changed our opinions even after viewing the trial, myself included.
> 
> Has anything you've heard in the trial changed your opinion on his innocence or guilt?


I heard about the incident when it happened, and I thought it was something the press would sensationalize and apparently demonize Zimmerman regardless of any facts. I figured the guy should maybe be tried if the local prosecutors believed their was enough evidence and let a jury decide.

Never watched the leadup or trial, I don't have satellite or cable or even an antenna, only cell phone internet so I wasn't aware when the trial started, and only today heard it was over and what the verdict was because I visited here and saw it in this thread.

The one thing I did know right of the bat that was the press would try the case on the airwaves and print media/internet for profit, sensationalize for their own gain, and that millions would decide and believe guilt or innocence knowing diddly squat about what really happened and play right into the medias hands like willing little lambs to slaughter.

I also knew that the ad execs were going to be out in force, upping the ad rates and selling their ad slots for big rates as millions glued themselves to the TV in morbid fascination watching the trial, rooting for one side or the other like good little sheeple.

And I also figured that a jury would hear the evidence, do their best, and decide the case one way or another, and the press would again sensationalize that result, do all they can to foment anger and division with whatever side "lost" when nobody really lost but Martin and Zimmerman, and make even more money off this poor dead kid and the poor guy who killed him, and millions would eat it up and buy right in and never think twice about it.

Now I know what the verdict was because I saw it in this forum, and I'll not be bothered with a thought about it again. I assume there will be no riots or they would already have occurred.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

suzfromWi said:


> You forget the part about Z reaching for his cellphone when he was punched. How does anyone know WHAT he was really reaching for? He had already called the cops. he was supposed to be waiting for them at this time...Why then when he shot Travon was the safety already off of the gun? Why did he end up on top of the kid supposedly pulling his arms out? Why did the testimony of the police say M,s arms were underneath him when they got there? Z said he thought he had missed him. OMG isnt there blood from a close wound like that? Too much doesnt make sense to me....


Any boxer knows not to drop his arms. That invites getting hit good. Likewise when a boxer drops his arms and dances around he's telling the oponent something on a pasychological level. That wasn't the message Zimmerman wanted to convey. It did render him temporarily less capable of defending against getting hit. 

It's only normal to call for help, and continue to do so after being knocked down, especially when someone who had disappeared suddenly, reappears and confronts you. Martin should have already seen Zimmerman on the phone when he circled the truck. He should have known he had a phone.

After the shot, Zimmerman thought he needed to restrain Martin. That was interrupted by the arrival of a neighbor and the police. 

The bleeding has been explained already. The heart couldn't pump any more blood after gettting hit by the bullet. Contrary to some of the speculation, Martin died almost immediately. That's shown by the position of the arms. He was unconscious when he hit the ground.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Darren said:


> Contrary to some of the speculation, Martin died almost immediately. That's shown by the position of the arms. He was unconscious when he hit the ground.


You don't believe Zimmerman's account that he got on top of Martin and held his arms out to be sure he wouldn't attack him again? The purpose in the defense saying that Martin could have lived for a few minutes was to show that it was possible for Martin to pull his arms back in himself. You seem to suggest that you don't believe a word of it.


----------



## dixiegal62 (Aug 18, 2007)

Darren said:


> Any boxer knows not to drop his arms. That invites getting hit good. Likewise when a boxer drops his arms and dances around he's telling the oponent something on a pasychological level. That wasn't the message Zimmerman wanted to convey. It did render him temporarily less capable of defending against getting hit.
> 
> It's only normal to call for help, and continue to do so after being knocked down, especially when someone who had disappeared suddenly, reappears and confronts you. Martin should have already seen Zimmerman on the phone when he circled the truck. He should have known he had a phone.
> 
> ...


One of the first things my husband told me when teaching me to deer hunt is if you shot a deer in the heart it's probably going to run and it can run a long ways.


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

Rachel Jeantel on Piers Morgan last night:
Jeantel opened up and let loose on the murder case that gripped that nation.
She explained to CNN&#8217;s Piers Morgan how she warned her childhood friend that Zimmerman &#8212; could be a gay rapist!
MORGAN: You felt that there was no doubt in your mind from what Trayvon was telling you on the phone about the creepy ass cracka and so on, that he absolutely believed that George Zimmerman, this man, you didn&#8217;t know who he was at the time, but this man, was pursuing him?
JEANTEL: Yes.
MORGAN: And he was freaked out by it?
JEANTEL: Yes. Definitely after I say may be a rapist, for every boy, for every man, every &#8212; who&#8217;s not that kind of way, seeing a grown man following them, would they be creep out?
She continued:
&#8220;And people need to understand, he didn&#8217;t want that creepy ass cracker going to his father or girlfriend&#8217;s house to go get &#8212; mind you, his little brother was there. You know &#8212; now, mind you, I told you &#8212; I told Trayvon it might have been a rapist.&#8221;

I has told people this during the trial,nnone would belive me. I hope the trouble/riots will stop, now if people will admit that Trayvon attacked George.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

7thswan said:


> I has told people this during the trial,nnone would belive me. I hope the trouble/riots will stop, now if people will admit that Trayvon attacked George.


I don't follow you. Yes, Travon Martin was undoubtedly afraid of Zimmerman. I don't think anyone questions that. But how does that establish that Martin attacked Zimmerman?


----------



## dixiegal62 (Aug 18, 2007)

7thswan said:


> Rachel Jeantel on Piers Morgan last night:
> Jeantel opened up and let loose on the murder case that gripped that nation.
> She explained to CNN&#8217;s Piers Morgan how she warned her childhood friend that Zimmerman &#8212; could be a gay rapist!
> MORGAN: You felt that there was no doubt in your mind from what Trayvon was telling you on the phone about the creepy ass cracka and so on, that he absolutely believed that George Zimmerman, this man, you didn&#8217;t know who he was at the time, but this man, was pursuing him?
> ...


 
This girl is nuts, first she thinks there's nothing racist about calling whites names, now gays are rapists? If a white person had said the n word (Paula Deen) or made that gay comment people would be having a fit.


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

dixiegal62 said:


> This girl is nuts, first she thinks there's nothing racist about calling whites names, now gays are rapists? If a white person had said the n word (Paula Deen) or made that gay comment people would be having a fit.


 She said that the N word is now pronounced with a A on the end and that, that is ok. That meens "man" of any color. She said it changed in /around 2000. (I will have go get the tape It was very clear that she told T to run because the guy following him was a Gay guy and that he didn't need the gay guy to follow T home where his little brother was. It was a gay thing on Trayvons side.


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

Here is the interview. http://now.msn.com/rachel-jeantel-slams-zimmerman-verdict-in-piers-morgan-interview?ocid=ansnow11


I will look for a transcript, I can't stand to watch.

ps. Rush talked about this most of the day,so his site should have info.

Transcript:http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1307/15/pmt.01.html


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

Nevada said:


> I don't follow you. Yes, Travon Martin was undoubtedly afraid of Zimmerman. I don't think anyone questions that. But how does that establish that Martin attacked Zimmerman?


 If he thought he was being followed by a Man that was going to attack him. Rachel put this into T's head. So T circled back around instead of letting the CAC follow him home, and attacked Zimmerman first.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

7thswan said:


> If he thought he was being followed by a Man that was going to attack him. Rachel put this into T's head. So T circled back around instead of letting the CAC follow him home, and attacked Zimmerman first.


I think it's an unreasonable leap to go from Martin fearing Zimmerman to Martin attacking Zimmerman. I've never doubted that Martin feared Zimmerman, but I have no idea who started it. I think it's likely that Zimmerman wanted to detain Martin for police questioning, which Martin wouldn't have tolerated. Being as afraid of Zimmerman as he was, there's no way he was going to allow himself to be abducted by a CAC without a fight.


----------



## Hollowdweller (Jul 13, 2011)

Nevada said:


> I think it's an unreasonable leap to go from Martin fearing Zimmerman to Martin attacking Zimmerman. I've never doubted that Martin feared Zimmerman, but I have no idea who started it. I think it's likely that Zimmerman wanted to detain Martin for police questioning, which Martin wouldn't have tolerated. Being as afraid of Zimmerman as he was, there's no way he was going to allow himself to be abducted by a CAC without a fight.


 
Just think. Man following you. You try to evade and he continues following you. If Trayvon had a gun he might have been able to invoke stand your ground.


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

Nevada said:


> I think it's an unreasonable leap to go from Martin fearing Zimmerman to Martin attacking Zimmerman. I've never doubted that Martin feared Zimmerman, but I have no idea who started it. I think it's likely that Zimmerman wanted to detain Martin for police questioning, which Martin wouldn't have tolerated. Being as afraid of Zimmerman as he was, there's no way he was going to allow himself to be abducted by a CAC without a fight.


The Fact that Zimmerman has evidence that he was beat up, meens nothing to you about who attached who? Why do you think that Martin was afraid of Zimmerman?(before what I told you today)


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Is there some fairy tale that's being used to frighten young Black boys into being good otherwise a gay bogey man will stalk them and rape them? Is that something common in Haiti? Has anyone here read about gays stalking and raping Black kids? 

I'd like someone to link to some statistics proving that young Black boys are at risk of rape. *Can you find that, Nevada?* No prison statistics please. *I'd like to see hard proof that Black teenaged males are being abducted off the streets and raped*. Don't expect me to believe that the members of gangs killing others daily have to rape their victims first as a matter of honor.

*I put that story up there along with the outbreak of dogs attacking and eating homework when school starts in the fall. It's out and out BS. *

The question to ask yourself, if you don't think there's an epidemic of gays raping Black kids is where did that story come from ... and how does it fit in with the rest of the Trayvon Martin publicity campaign?

For bonus points tell me how an NAACP leader threw Zimmerman under the bus along with a homeless Black person.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

7thswan said:


> The Fact that Zimmerman has evidence that he was beat up, meens nothing to you about who attached who?


Whether someone might have lost a fight is not indicator of who started it. Are you suggesting that everyone who has won a fight started it? How is that logical?


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

Nevada said:


> Whether someone might have lost a fight is not indicator of who started it. Are you suggesting that everyone who has won a fight started it? How is that logical?


There is no evidence that Zimmerman attacked Martin. There is only the evidence that Zimmerman got beat and had to protect himself from more damage by Martin.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Darren said:


> I'd like someone to link to some statistics proving that young Black boys are at risk of rape.


I don't think he was afraid of being raped. I think he was afraid of being abducted by a CAC. Central Florida really IS a creepy place for blacks. Before you act offended and bewildered that I would say such a thing, consider these facts.

* Florida historically had a larger per capita percentage of KKK lynchings of African- Americans than any state in the union.
* The area around Sanford was formerly a hotbed of Central Florida KKK activity.
* The great baseball player Jackie Robinson, the first black to ever play major league baseball, was driven out of Sanford by the KKK and other racist elements of the community during spring training in 1946.
* Harry Tyson Moore, the founder of the first branch of the NAACP in Seminole County, Fla., the county Sanford is located in, was murdered by the KKK in a firebombing in 1951. His wife also died from injuries she sustained during the firebombing.
http://allthingscrimeblog.com/sanfo...ve-hall-of-famer-jackie-robinson-out-of-town/

Any black would be nervous in central Florida. He would be crazy NOT to be nervous.

Honestly, you don't understand that? Really?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

7thswan said:


> There is no evidence that Zimmerman attacked Martin. There is only the evidence that Zimmerman got beat and had to protect himself from more damage by Martin.


That's only evidence that there was a fight, and Martin apparently got the best of Zimmerman. It in no way indicates how the fight started.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

dixiegal62 said:


> Fixed it for you.


 Is it just me, or does anyone else feel it is HIGHLY inappropriate to quote someone and change their quotes while leaving their name attached? 

And Dixiegal, you seem to think you know exactly how the fight began. No one knows that except George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin, and one of those guys is dead.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Nevada said:


> I don't think he was afraid of being raped. I think he was afraid of being abducted by a CAC. Central Florida really IS a creepy place for blacks. Before you act offended and bewildered that I would say such a thing, consider these facts.
> 
> * Florida historically had a larger per capita percentage of KKK lynchings of African- Americans than any state in the union.
> * The area around Sanford was formerly a hotbed of Central Florida KKK activity.
> ...



Well,since you seem to know a lot about the area, let me introduce you to one of my oldest friends....
Can ya tell me a little about Mr. Poole?
*He* sure knows a lot about that area too, not all good, not all bad.
(His friends do call him T.H. or Sr.......or Hank. I've always called him, "Sir.")


http://flcourier.com/2012/08/02/lake-county-naacp-candidates-pay-tribute-to-t-h-poole/


----------



## dixiegal62 (Aug 18, 2007)

greg273 said:


> Is it just me, or does anyone else feel it is HIGHLY inappropriate to quote someone and change their quotes while leaving their name attached?
> 
> And Dixiegal, you seem to think you know exactly how the fight began. No one knows that except George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin, and one of those guys is dead.


 
I don't know any more than anyone else. You're right nobody knows but some on here keep telling the story the way they think it happened not the way evidence showed what probably happened. You yourself keep telling how you think it happened do you know more than the rest of us? 

Notice I put the changed part in a different color so nobody would think it was his quote. It's probably just me but some take themselves far too seriously. If I've broken some kind of forum rule I apologize. I went ahead and removed the offending post


----------



## Lazaryss (Jul 28, 2012)

greg273 said:


> Is it just me, or does anyone else feel it is HIGHLY inappropriate to quote someone and change their quotes while leaving their name attached?
> 
> And Dixiegal, you seem to think you know exactly how the fight began. No one knows that except George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin, and one of those guys is dead.


And the other was found not guilty.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

dixiegal62 said:


> You yourself keep telling how you think it happened do you know more than the rest of us?


 Nope, but I acknowledge it is speculation. Lots of folks on here keep telling us what they are saying is 'the facts', as if they were there that night. Unless you are GZ or TM, you weren't there when the altercation started. One witness dead, the other on trial, NO ONE knows what REALLY happened. All we know is one kid is dead, and the man who killed him walks free.


----------



## Lazaryss (Jul 28, 2012)

greg273 said:


> Nope, but I acknowledge it is speculation. Lots of folks on here keep telling us what they are saying is 'the facts', as if they were there that night. Unless you are GZ or TM, you weren't there when the altercation started. One witness dead, the other on trial, NO ONE knows what REALLY happened. All we know is one kid is dead, and the man who killed him walks free.


Because the jury found him not guilty.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Lazaryss said:


> Because the jury found him not guilty.


 True, there was a decided lack of evidence. Which often happens when the only other person who knows what REALLY happened is DEAD.


----------



## katydidagain (Jun 11, 2004)

Lazaryss said:


> Because the jury found him not guilty.


Because they followed the law. Had they not, GZ's appeal would have been a slam dunk. Laws are imperfect; they are formed by imperfect men.

ETA: and by a few women who became politicians thus lost their humanity.


----------



## dixiegal62 (Aug 18, 2007)

greg273 said:


> Nope, but I acknowledge it is speculation. Lots of folks on here keep telling us what they are saying is 'the facts', as if they were there that night. Unless you are GZ or TM, you weren't there when the altercation started. One witness dead, the other on trial, NO ONE knows what REALLY happened. All we know is one kid is dead, and the man who killed him walks free.


....and he was duly tried and found not guilty by a jury of his peers. Justice prevails.


----------



## dixiegal62 (Aug 18, 2007)

katydidagain said:


> Because they followed the law. Had they not, GZ's appeal would have been a slam dunk. Laws are imperfect; they are formed by imperfect men.
> 
> ETA: and by a few women who became politicians thus lost their humanity.


 
Maybe a lynching in the pubic square would have been more to your liking.


----------



## Lazaryss (Jul 28, 2012)

greg273 said:


> True, there was a decided lack of evidence. Which often happens when the only other person who knows what REALLY happened is DEAD.


If that was the case, we would probably have a LOT more murderers walking free. But in many many cases, a murderer is found guilty even though the only other person that knows what REALLY happened is DEAD (caps are fun).

In this case, the evidence proved that Zimmerman was and is not guilty. If the evidence proved otherwise, Zimmerman should have been found guilty.


----------



## Lazaryss (Jul 28, 2012)

katydidagain said:


> Because they followed the law. Had they not, GZ's appeal would have been a slam dunk. Laws are imperfect; they are formed by imperfect men.
> 
> ETA: and by a few women who became politicians thus lost their humanity.


So what would you suggest should be changed? Also, are you suggesting that the jury lost their humanity by finding Zimmerman not guilty?


----------



## katydidagain (Jun 11, 2004)

Lazaryss said:


> So what would you suggest should be changed? Also, are you suggesting that the jury lost their humanity by finding Zimmerman not guilty?


I think they wanted to find him guilty of manslaughter or something because they believe, as do other reasonable people, that GZ had a chance to avoid ALL of this by not following TM. They voted with the law, I don't believe they think they voted for justice.


----------



## Lazaryss (Jul 28, 2012)

katydidagain said:


> I think they wanted to find him guilty of manslaughter or something because they believe, as do other reasonable people, that GZ had a chance to avoid ALL of this by not following TM. They voted with the law, I don't believe they think they voted for justice.


I think it is perfectly reasonable to follow someone you think is active suspicious. I also think it is perfectly reasonable to contact the police regarding said suspicion. And surprisingly enough, I think it is perfectly reasonable to defend yourself when said suspicious person attacks you.

If the jury, the whole jury, wanted to find him guilty of manslaughter, then they would have. It is common to have disagreements during jury deliberations and the jury could have come back hung if they still wanted to find him guilt of manslaughter. However, the same reasonable people ultimately came to the decision that it was not manslaughter and found him not guilty.

Are you suggesting that the jury is unreasonable because of that? Or that all of us who believed he should have been found not guilty are unreasonable?


----------



## katydidagain (Jun 11, 2004)

I think the jury was comprised of compassionate women who truly cared unlike the white folk who are so proud that GZ was found not culpable and want to justify a young man's death by calling him a monster. Shame on them!. I think the jury, unlike the "good old boys" I've heard discussing this victory, were reasonable because they didn't vote with their conscience but realized that to do so would only result in an appeal won quickly. I think the situation is very sad.


----------



## Lazaryss (Jul 28, 2012)

katydidagain said:


> I think the jury was comprised of compassionate women who truly cared unlike the white folk who are so proud that GZ was found not culpable and want to justify a young man's death by calling him a monster. Shame on them!. I think the jury, unlike the "good old boys" I've heard discussing this victory, were reasonable because they didn't vote with their conscience but realized that to do so would only result in an appeal won quickly. I think the situation is very sad.


I also think the situation is very sad. However, you can consider me one of those "white folk" (great way to put it btw) that is celebrating Zimmerman's not guilty verdict because the entire case was a fiasco from the beginning. The evidence supported Zimmerman's story. He was not arrested for months. He was only arrested after a media frenzy of misinformation as well as racial tension. This case was a victory not only for Zimmerman, but for self defense.

Thank you for letting me know what you truly believe.


----------



## katydidagain (Jun 11, 2004)

Mark my words: this case is the beginning of the end for all self defense provisions. Self defense is valid when used appropriately; this case caused reasonable people who support those provisions to rethink the issue and realize it needs to be fixed.


----------



## dixiegal62 (Aug 18, 2007)

katydidagain said:


> Mark my words: this case is the beginning of the end for all self defense provisions. Self defense is valid when used appropriately; this case caused reasonable people who support those provisions to rethink the issue and realize it needs to be fixed.


 
You could very well be right after all that is what Obama wants unarmed citizens.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

dixiegal62 said:


> ....and he was duly tried and found not guilty by a jury of his peers. Justice prevails.


 I agree with your first part... he was duly tried and found not guilty. I respect that. The second part is open to debate.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

I am curious about something here, what was all this talk of Martin being overheard saying 'now the n---- is following you' on the phone? Did this come up in the trial, or what that some made up internet stuff?


----------



## katydidagain (Jun 11, 2004)

dixiegal62 said:


> You could very well be right after all that is what Obama wants unarmed citizens.


Guess what? I, who am not armed, am not so sure I want someone to shoot me if they think I'm winning. Or maybe if I say something mean to them and they "feel threatened" then it's okay because I'll be dead so can't speak up. I never concerned myself about CCW before because it didn't affect me and never thought it would. But now that everyone and his borderline nutty brother "carries", I'm not so sure. If I grab the best peach at Publix, will I be shot dead if I say "hey, that's mine" then grab it back? Small victory this GZ verdict be if you made me rethink the right to carry.


----------



## dixiegal62 (Aug 18, 2007)

katydidagain said:


> Small victory this GZ verdict be if you made me rethink the right to carry.


 
Which is exactly why politics where brought into this trial. When those 2 black teenagers shot that baby in the face later saying he looked too white, did you hear any outcry about it being a hate crime? Most criminals that carry don't carry legally. How do you plan on taking their guns?

BTW Victory? It's not a football game! There is no victory in the Zimmerman case, a young man dead for being foolish and a man's life will never be the same because he had bad judgment.


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

I don't celebrate Zimmerman's victory. I'm not one of his fans and couldn't care less about him as an individual. I do celebrate the fact that the law was victorious over emotion. I feel for those who loved Martin, imperfect as he may have been, but I am pleasantly surprised by and satisfied with the verdict.


----------



## katydidagain (Jun 11, 2004)

Never heard about the too light baby being killed. 

Sure, criminals carry guns; you can pretty much avoid them. How do you avoid the CCW nuts with whom you work, shop or attend church? Or those who don't think you belong in your own neighborhood? This entire discussion has opened my eyes. Thanks!


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

greg273 said:


> I am curious about something here, what was all this talk of Martin being overheard saying 'now the n---- is following you' on the phone? Did this come up in the trial, or what that some made up internet stuff?


A certain now-banned member brought it up repeatedly in another thread, so I tried to find it and it seemed to only be something taken out of context from the girl's testimony. She was clarifying what she meant but a bunch of people took it as a direct quote of what Martin said to her.


----------



## tlrnnp67 (Nov 5, 2006)

katydidagain said:


> Never heard about the too light baby being killed.
> 
> How do you avoid the CCW nuts with whom you work, shop or attend church? This entire discussion has opened my eyes. Thanks!


I think you just opened a lot of people's eyes about your arguments.


----------



## katydidagain (Jun 11, 2004)

tlrnnp67 said:


> I think you just opened a lot of people's eyes about your arguments.


How so? I have always believed in gun ownership and still do although nobody in my family has owned one since fighting in the Revolutionary War. (Okay, they were farmers so they might have been armed to protect their livestock--I honestly don't know that.)

I knew very little about CCW but have learned that it means the holder can walk around ready to blow away anyone he/she doesn't like and get away with it. And they can't warn their victim that they can do it before it happens. Um, I don't think that's a good idea.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

jtbrandt said:


> A certain now-banned member brought it up repeatedly in another thread, so I tried to find it and it seemed to only be something taken out of context from the girl's testimony. She was clarifying what she meant but a bunch of people took it as a direct quote of what Martin said to her.


 Fascinating. I wonder how many thought it was a direct quote.


----------



## Lazaryss (Jul 28, 2012)

katydidagain said:


> How so? I have always believed in gun ownership and still do although nobody in my family has owned one since fighting in the Revolutionary War. (Okay, they were farmers so they might have been armed to protect their livestock--I honestly don't know that.)
> 
> I knew very little about CCW but have learned that it means the holder can walk around ready to blow away anyone he/she doesn't like and get away with it. And they can't warn their victim that they can do it before it happens. Um, I don't think that's a good idea.


And this is why I am done with discussing this matter with you.


----------



## tlrnnp67 (Nov 5, 2006)

katydidagain said:


> I knew very little about CCW...


Agreed.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

katydidagain said:


> I knew very little about CCW but have learned that it means the holder can walk around ready to blow away anyone he/she doesn't like and get away with it. And they can't warn their victim that they can do it before it happens.


 The just have to convince a jury they were scared. Isn't there a phobia where people are terrified of clowns?? Fair warning to circus clowns in Florida, some people are deathly afraid of you. Do not approach them with balloon animals, or spray them with the flower on your lapel, you may get some lead through your chest. :grin:


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

greg273 said:


> I am curious about something here, what was all this talk of Martin being overheard saying 'now the n---- is following you' on the phone? Did this come up in the trial, or what that some made up internet stuff?


 ...and how many HERE thought it was a direct quote... I stayed out of this argument for a LONG TIME, because I didn't know all the facts.... now it seems I wasn't alone. Looks like some people made up their own.


----------



## tlrnnp67 (Nov 5, 2006)

katydidagain said:


> How so? I have always believed in gun ownership and still do although nobody in my family has owned one since fighting in the Revolutionary War. (Okay, they were farmers so they might have been armed to protect their livestock--I honestly don't know that.)
> 
> I knew very little about CCW but have learned that it means the holder can walk around ready to blow away anyone he/she doesn't like and get away with it. And they can't warn their victim that they can do it before it happens. Um, I don't think that's a good idea.


CCW isn't about being confrontational. It's just the opposite - being prepared for your own personal safety. 

Most CCW folks I know would never let anyone they met in passing know they were carrying. Letting them know would, in fact, be illegal. 

If anyone of any race or any description came up to me and threatened or assaulted me and by their actions caused me to fear for my life, I suppose I should put my hand up and ask them, "Pardon me, sir, but what are your intentions?"


----------



## katydidagain (Jun 11, 2004)

tlrnnp67 said:


> CCW isn't about being confrontational. It's just the opposite - being prepared for your own personal safety.
> 
> *Most CCW folks I know would never let anyone they met in passing know they were carrying. Letting them know would, in fact, be illegal. *
> 
> If anyone of any race or any description came up to me and threatened or assaulted me and by their actions caused me to fear for my life, I suppose I should put my hand up and ask them, "Pardon me, sir, but what are your intentions?"


And you just made my point. Why should a CCW holder have the right to carry a weapon they could use against me without giving me fair warning that I was dead meat if they chose? Forget CCW. Those so proud of carrying their guns in their panties should have their permit tattooed on their forehead so that reasonable people can avoid them at all costs--because if we don't, we might pay the ultimate cost.


----------



## EDDIE BUCK (Jul 17, 2005)

dixiegal62 said:


> You could very well be right after all that is what Obama wants unarmed citizens.


Yep,he wants all the George Zimmerman's to be at the mercy of all the Trayvon Martin's. Ain't Gunna Happen.

Had Zimmerman left his gun in the truck,Martin would have beat his brains out on the concrete, and we would never even heard of George Zimmerman.No thanks.Mines staying with me Mr Usurper.No telling when I might need it.


----------



## tlrnnp67 (Nov 5, 2006)

katydidagain said:


> And you just made my point. Why should a CCW holder have the right to carry a weapon they could use against me without giving me fair warning that I was dead meat if they chose? Forget CCW. Those so proud of carrying their guns in their panties should have their permit tattooed on their forehead so that reasonable people can avoid them at all costs--because if we don't, we might pay the ultimate cost.


Why are you equating yourself with being a criminal? If you are a law-abiding citizen and don't attack a CCW holder, you have nothing to fear from a CCW holder.


----------



## tlrnnp67 (Nov 5, 2006)

katydidagain said:


> And you just made my point. Why should a CCW holder have the right to carry a weapon they could use against me without giving me fair warning that I was dead meat if they chose? Forget CCW. Those so proud of carrying their guns in their panties should have their permit tattooed on their forehead so that reasonable people can avoid them at all costs--because if we don't, we might pay the ultimate cost.


I disagree with your position on gun control, and therefore will no longer engage you. I do hope you are never in a position that you have to protect yourself.


----------



## katydidagain (Jun 11, 2004)

tlrnnp67 said:


> I disagree with your position on gun control, and therefore will no longer engage you. I do hope you are never in a position that you have to protect yourself.


I have been and said it on some thread. I used my wits against a 44 magnum and someone who outweighed me by 130lbs. I don't believe in hiding your force; if that is taken as being a gun control advocate, I'll own it.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

katydidagain said:


> Mark my words: this case is the beginning of the end for all self defense provisions. Self defense is valid when used appropriately; this case caused reasonable people who support those provisions to rethink the issue and realize it needs to be fixed.


Haven't you heard? It's been fixed in several states as more and more people get the right to legally carry. Better yet with reciprocity a CCW in one state cam legally carry in many of the others. I think New York, Maryland, New Jersey, Kalifornia, in some counties,and a few others that don't come to mind are the sole states that hinder their residents from defending themselves.

The Supreme Court ruling on a case from Washington D.C., provided increased impetus for the lawsuits that have been benefiting people in more and more states. Many states have always had what's called shall issue laws. That means if the issuing law enforcement official checks and you have a clean record, you get the permit after you complete the mandatory training.

Do we live in a great country or what? 

Congress has already considered universal reciprocity. Can you imagine the effect that would have on crime? I imagine folks with criminal tendencies will forget preying on those visiting or passing through from other states once a few get "educated."

Here's the current list of states that honor a West Virginia issued CCW permit. 

Â· Alaska
Â· Arizona
Â· Arkansas
Â· Delaware
Â· Florida
Â· Kansas
Â· Kentucky
Â· Louisiana
Â· Michigan
Â· Mississippi
Â· Missouri
 Â· New Mexico
Â· North Carolina
Â· North Dakota
Â· Ohio
Â· Oklahoma
Â· Pennsylvania
Â· South Carolina
Â· South Dakota
Â· Tennessee
Â· Texas
Â· Utah
Â· Virginia
Â· Wyoming
Â· Idaho
Â· Indiana
Â· Iowa
Â· Montana
Â· Nebraska
Â· Nevada
Â· Vermont
Â· Wisconsin***


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

EDDIE BUCK said:


> Yep,he wants all the George Zimmerman's to be at the mercy of all the Trayvon Martin's. Ain't Gunna Happen.
> 
> Had Zimmerman left his gun in the truck,Martin would have beat his brains out on the concrete, and we would never even heard of George Zimmerman.No thanks.Mines staying with me Mr Usurper.No telling when I might need it.


Amen! You never know when you might get pulled into a hostile meet and beat attempt.


----------



## katydidagain (Jun 11, 2004)

Darren said:


> Haven't you heard? It's been fixed in several states as more and more people get the right to legally carry. Better yet with reciprocity a CCW in one state cam legally carry in many of the others. I think New York, Maryland, New Jersey, Kalifornia, in some counties,and a few others that don't come to mind are the sole states that hinder their residents from defending themselves.
> 
> The Supreme Court ruling on a case from Washington D.C., provided increased impetus for the lawsuits that have been benefiting people in more and more states. Many states have always had what's called shall issue laws. That means if the issuing law enforcement official checks and you have a clean record, you get the permit after you complete the mandatory training.
> 
> ...


It would take very little to end all this joy legally. A right given can be removed.. I do not want to associate with or live near someone with a CCW; this trial convinced me that they are power hungry killers or can be and I don't want to bet my life on it. Until we, the unarmed majority, heard the facts of how this secret society works, many of us didn't care. We do now.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

katydidagain said:


> It would take very little to end all this joy legally. A right given can be removed.. I do not want to associate with or live near someone with a CCW; this trial convinced me that they are power hungry killers or can be and I don't want to bet my life on it. Until we, the unarmed majority, heard the facts of how this secret society works, many of us didn't care. We do now.


CCW was endorsed by the Supreme Court not too long ago in the Heller case out of Washington D.C. The Supreme Court decision reaffirmed that the Second Amendment is an individual right just like the others in the Bill of Rights.

That means the Constitution would have to be changed which is beyond highly unlikely. Rest assured that concealed means exactly that. You will never know a CCW permit holder is carrying unless the SHTF.

You do have me curious about one thing. What is this secret society you mentioned? I've never heard of anything like that and I'm good friends with a very active CCW instructor.


----------



## katydidagain (Jun 11, 2004)

tlrnnp67 said:


> Why are you equating yourself with being a criminal? If you are a law-abiding citizen and don't attack a CCW holder, you have nothing to fear from a CCW holder.


Forgot this one.

Yeah, I am equating myself with a "criminal". I could be walking home and be followed; as a female, it's happened before. I don't have any pot in my system but, like TM, have no criminal convictions. So neither of us were/are criminals under the law. I have a lot to fear from a CCW holder IMO.


----------



## katydidagain (Jun 11, 2004)

Darren said:


> CCW was endorsed by the Supreme Court not too long ago in the Heller case out of Washington D.C. The Supreme Court decision reaffirmed that the Second Amendment is an individual right just like the others in the Bill of Rights.
> 
> That means the Constitution would have to be changed which is beyond highly unlikely. Rest assured that concealed means exactly that. You will never know a CCW permit holder is carrying unless the SHTF.
> 
> You do have me curious about one thing. What is this secret society you mentioned? I've never heard of anything like that and I'm good friends with a very active CCW instructor.


Ever read about Dred Scott v. Sanford? The SCOTUS can change its mind. CCW is not about 2nd amendment rights but allows maniacs to walk around secretly armed in an otherwise unarmed society; after this decision, many people will be pushing for that to end. Just one case and you can keep your guns at home--where they belong.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

katydidagain said:


> Forgot this one.
> 
> Yeah, I am. I could be walking home and be followed; as a female, it's happened before. I don't have any pot in my system but, like TM, have no criminal convictions. So neither of were/are criminals under the law. I have a lot to fear from a CCW holder IMO.


You don't impress me as someone who is into the gangsta lifestyle as was the late Trayvon Martin. So that risk is out.

Keep in mind the criminal background check required before a CCW permit is issued, weeds out the criminals. Your average CCW holder is just someone who feels they need to be prepared to protect themselves and their family. They're the last ones you need to fear.

Depending on where you live and travel you may be more likely to be a victim of BoW violence.


----------



## EDDIE BUCK (Jul 17, 2005)

katydidagain said:


> Forgot this one.
> 
> Yeah, I am. I could be walking home and be followed; as a female, it's happened before. I don't have any pot in my system but, like TM, have no criminal convictions. So neither of were/are criminals under the law. I have a lot to fear from a CCW holder IMO.


Look on the bright side,even though you don't carry,that would be mugger or rapist now has to make a choice,thanks to CCW, He'll wonder does she or don't she? Now hows that?


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

> CCW was endorsed by the Supreme Court not too long ago in the Heller case out of Washington D.C.


You sure about that? I thought Heller only addressed the right to carry a gun in your own home. As far as I know, concealed carry in public is still banned in D.C.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

katydidagain said:


> Ever read about Dred Scott v. Sanford? The SCOTUS can change its mind. CCW is not about 2nd amendment rights but allows maniacs to walk around secretly armed in an otherwise unarmed society; after this decision, many people will be pushing for that to end. Just one case and you can keep your guns at home--where they belong.


I doubt the Supreme Court is going to entertain another challenge to the second amendment soon. Eight years passed and a Civil War before Dred Scott was annulled by the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment. FWIW, the Supreme Court doesn't issue amendments to the Constitution. Those have to be approved by the states.


----------



## unregistered41671 (Dec 29, 2009)

katydidagain said:


> It would take very little to end all this joy legally. A right given can be removed.. I do not want to associate with or live near someone with a CCW; this trial convinced me that they are power hungry killers or can be and I don't want to bet my life on it. Until we, the unarmed majority, heard the facts of how this secret society works, many of us didn't care. We do now.


BOO

:cowboy:


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

jtbrandt said:


> You sure about that? I thought Heller only addressed the right to carry a gun in your own home. As far as I know, concealed carry in public is still banned in D.C.


You are correct. CCW has not been to the Supreme Court.

"In 2008, the Supreme Court overturned a lot of accepted wisdom about gun control when it ruled in _District Columbia v. Heller_ that* the Second Amendment creates an individual right to possess a firearm.* Until then, it was widely â if not universally â believed that the amendment was about raising âa well-regulated militiaâ


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

katydidagain said:


> Ever read about Dred Scott v. Sanford? The SCOTUS can change its mind.


Actually, the Supreme Court never reversed Dred Scott. Instead, much of the decision was rendered ineffective by constitutional amendment. However, a lot of the Dred Scott decision lived on in the form of Jim Crow laws, such as the separate but equal doctrine. We didn't see changes in the enforcement of those parts of the Dred Scott decision until the mid-1960s when the civil rights & voting acts passed.


----------



## katydidagain (Jun 11, 2004)

Possum Belly said:


> BOO
> 
> :cowboy:


I have not attacked anyone personally; I believe you just did.


----------



## katydidagain (Jun 11, 2004)

Nevada said:


> Actually, the Supreme Court never reversed Dred Scott. Instead, much of the decision was rendered ineffective by constitutional amendment. However, a lot of the Dred Scott decision lived on in the form of Jim Crow laws, such as the separate but equal doctrine. We didn't see changes in the enforcement of those parts of the Dred Scott decision until the mid-1960s when the civil rights & voting acts passed.


But if social changes had not occurred, it most certainly would have been reversed. Agreed?


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

I don't mind so many folks having CCW permits, in general, most folks are simply looking to protect themselves. But every once in awhile, like in this case, you get someone who thinks they are Charles Bronson, disregards the suggestion of a police officer, and chases people down darkened streets. Then shoots them when an altercation occurs.


----------



## katydidagain (Jun 11, 2004)

Darren said:


> I doubt the Supreme Court is going to entertain another challenge to the second amendment soon. Eight years passed and a Civil War before Dred Scott was annulled by the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment. FWIW, the Supreme Court doesn't issue amendments to the Constitution. Those have to be approved by the states.


CCW is not 2nd amendment rights. A militia is recognized just as LEOs are to be carrying weapons. Whack jobs with a license to hide their weapons and shoot when they feel like it are neither. And much as you and Jefferson might not like it, Federal rulings trump states.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

katydidagain said:


> But if social changes had not occurred, it most certainly would have been reversed. Agreed?


I really doubt it. Supreme Court cases are not reheard. SC justices think doing so would cheapen their own decisions by opening up their rulings to be reheard at some future date. For that reason it simply isn't done.

For example, Roe v Wade will never be reheard. But we'll see many more cases about abortion that will change the way abortion is restricted and allowed.


----------



## katydidagain (Jun 11, 2004)

Nevada said:


> I really doubt it. Supreme Court cases are not reheard. SC justices think doing so would cheapen their own decisions but opening up their rulings to be reheard at some future date. For that reason it simply isn't done.
> 
> For example, Roe v Wade will never be reheard. But we'll see many more cases about abortion that will change the way abortion is restricted and allowed.


You're right, of course. No man wants to admit he was ever wrong; put 9 together and it's impossible. 

Challenges will be forthcoming I truly believe. There are a lot more people like me who believe one should have the right be armed (but aren't) then those who have CCWs. And the "lot of us" had no idea what CCW entailed until now. I truly am frightened now.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

katydidagain said:


> Challenges will be forthcoming I truly believe. There are a lot more people like me who believe one should have the right be armed (but aren't) then those who have CCWs. And the "lot of us" had no idea what CCW entailed until now. I truly am frightened now.


I think CCW is safe. Holder is talking about shooting down stand-your-ground laws, but the attorney general has no authority to do so. I think there is no realistic chance Holder can influence congress to create a federal law restricting state stand-your-ground laws.


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

greg273 said:


> Fascinating. I wonder how many thought it was a direct quote.


I can't be sure my interpretation is correct, since the girl's testimony was very difficult to understand and I didn't watch all of it, but that was my best guess at what happened. It suited the arguments of one side to take it as a direct quote of Martin talking about himself ("the n----") following Zimmerman ("him") but it sounds to me like she is just paraphrasing what Martin ("him") said to her about Zimmerman ("the n----").


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

jtbrandt said:


> I can't be sure my interpretation is correct, since the girl's testimony was very difficult to understand and I didn't watch all of it, but that was my best guess at what happened. It suited the arguments of one side to take it as a direct quote of Martin talking about himself ("the n----") following Zimmerman ("him") but it sounds to me like she is just paraphrasing what Martin ("him") said to her about Zimmerman ("the n----").


----------



## Lazaryss (Jul 28, 2012)

katydidagain said:


> It would take very little to end all this joy legally. A right given can be removed.. I do not want to associate with or live near someone with a CCW; this trial convinced me that they are power hungry killers or can be and I don't want to bet my life on it. Until we, the unarmed majority, heard the facts of how this secret society works, many of us didn't care. We do now.


I live in Tonopah Arizona and will be moving to southern Missouri. You are more than welcome to avoid those areas.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Lazaryss said:


> I live in Tonopah Arizona


Good grief, I'll be darned. I lived in Salome for more than a decade. You don't need to ask very many people about me in Salome to find someone who knows me.

I also used to operate dialup Internet services in Gila Bend & Ajo, so I used to drive through Tonopah all the time so I could take the shortcut (Old 80 through Arlington). Of course even if I was just headed to Phoenix I'd stop for coffee on Tonopah.

It takes a special kind of person to live in the remote AZ desert. It's not for everyone.


----------



## Lazaryss (Jul 28, 2012)

Nevada said:


> Good grief, I'll be darned. I lived in Salome for more than a decade. You don't need to ask very many people about me in Salome to find someone who knows me.
> 
> I also used to operate dialup Internet services in Gila Bend & Ajo, so I used to drive through Tonopah all the time so I could take the shortcut (Old 80 through Arlington). Of course even if I was just headed to Phoenix I'd stop for coffee on Tonopah.
> 
> It takes a special kind of person to live in the remote AZ desert. It's not for everyone.


True enough right haha. Ever go to the Tin Top by the power plant. Excellent restaurant.


----------



## dixiegal62 (Aug 18, 2007)

katydidagain said:


> Never heard about the too light baby being killed.
> 
> Sure, criminals carry guns; you can pretty much avoid them. How do you avoid the CCW nuts with whom you work, shop or attend church? Or those who don't think you belong in your own neighborhood? This entire discussion has opened my eyes. Thanks!


 
You don't think criminals shop? How can you avoid them? It's not like they have a name tag saying they're criminals.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

katydidagain said:


> I have been and said it on some thread. I used my wits against a 44 magnum and someone who outweighed me by 130lbs. I don't believe in hiding your force; if that is taken as being a gun control advocate, I'll own it.



Yes you did........on a thread you started......where you also stated that you were unbiased and hadn't formed an opinion yet about Zimmerman's guilt or innocence........



katydidagain said:


> It would take very little to end all this joy legally. A right given can be removed.. *I do not want to associate with or live near someone with a CCW; this trial convinced me that they are power hungry killers* or can be and I don't want to bet my life on it. Until we, the unarmed majority, heard the facts of how this secret society works, many of us didn't care. We do now.


Hmmmmmm.......one trial brought out such emotion and fear that wasn't already lying just below the surface? Just like that?

There is a very good alternative that should satisfy those with such tremendous fear AND those who believe in the Constitution. I am referring of course to that special amendment which is often misquoted in its "edited" version.....the one that clearly states what are "the people's" right, NOT the militia's.

Open carry.

That way you will know, the criminals will know, LEO's will know, and your fear of the unknown should leave you.


----------



## davel745 (Feb 2, 2009)

katydidagain said:


> Guess what? I, who am not armed, am not so sure I want someone to shoot me if they think I'm winning. Or maybe if I say something mean to them and they "feel threatened" then it's okay because I'll be dead so can't speak up. I never concerned myself about CCW before because it didn't affect me and never thought it would. But now that everyone and his borderline nutty brother "carries", I'm not so sure. If I grab the best peach at Publix, will I be shot dead if I say "hey, that's mine" then grab it back? Small victory this GZ verdict be if you made me rethink the right to carry.


I think that people will think twice before bulling someone about that peach at the store if they think that there is a chance the other person is carrying.
Again an armed society is a polite society.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Lazaryss said:


> True enough right haha. Ever go to the Tin Top by the power plant. Excellent restaurant.


I never stopped there. To be honest I thought it was just a bar. I didn't know they had good food.


----------



## Lazaryss (Jul 28, 2012)

Nevada said:


> I never stopped there. To be honest I thought it was just a bar. I didn't know they had good food.


I thought so too until my mother in law stopped there after church once. I live about a mile from there lol.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Lazaryss said:


> I thought so too until my mother in law stopped there after church once. I live about a mile from there lol.


Extremely remote, and insanely close to the nuke plant. You probably have ground squirrels that glow in the dark. LOL

I'm running away to a hotel today. Got a few free nights and some meal vouchers to use. Be back home Friday. So I'm not ignoring you, I just have fun things to do.


----------



## Hollowdweller (Jul 13, 2011)

davel745 said:


> I think that people will think twice before bulling someone about that peach at the store if they think that there is a chance the other person is carrying.
> Again an armed society is a polite society.


 
The statistics bear you out at least partially.

If you look at the states with the most lax gun laws they also have the highest rates per capita of firearm deaths.

But if you look at the rate of all violent crime there appears to be either no relationship or a slight decrease in the rate of it in states with high gun ownership.

However your chances of being shot by any stranger whether it's a trigger happy cop wannabe like Zimmerman or some robber is a lot less than your chances of shooting yourself, being shot by a family member, or by somebody you know.


----------



## davel745 (Feb 2, 2009)

Hollowdweller said:


> The statistics bear you out at least partially.
> 
> If you look at the states with the most lax gun laws they also have the highest rates per capita of firearm deaths.
> 
> ...


Then you need to be courteous and polite and be prepared to kill everyone.


----------

