Zimmerman's Own Words

POSTED BY: BYTEMITE
UPDATED: Saturday, July 20, 2013 04:28
VIEWED: 7543
PAGE 2 of 10

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Thursday, July 4, 2013 4:45 AM

I despair of your laws in the US if this guy gets off with nothing. If you shot and killed an unarmed person, if even you were defending yourself, you'd get convicted of something - manslaughter most likely. Surely there has to be acknowledge of due force, not any force.

Anyway, trial will determine the outcome, right or wrong.

M52NICKERSON

Thursday, July 4, 2013 3:02 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
TM was the aggressor. Not GZ.

You don't know that for a fact. No one does save GZ.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

M52NICKERSON

Thursday, July 4, 2013 3:04 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
I despair of your laws in the US if this guy gets off with nothing. If you shot and killed an unarmed person, if even you were defending yourself, you'd get convicted of something - manslaughter most likely. Surely there has to be acknowledge of due force, not any force.

Anyway, trial will determine the outcome, right or wrong.

In Florida as soon as you fear for your life you are allowed to use lethal force. It does not matter if the other person is armed or not.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

SIGNYM

Thursday, July 4, 2013 3:49 PM

I tend to settle the question about who's at fault by asking myself: Who approached who? There was, as I recall, a similar incident where some asshole watching a parade came off the curb to approach one of the paraders, and then claimed that he (curbman) was only "defending" himself in the ensuing scuffle.

Seriously???

GZ followed TM, even tho the police told him not to. Imagine- you're walking home at night, and some creep starts following you. You have no idea what's in his mind: Rape? Robbery? Harrassment? Handing you your wallet back, because you dropped it? Now, in my book, following (literally stalking) someone is an act of aggression. If you're following someone with an innocent purpose, especially at night and in a non-public situation (everyone else is indoors) you'll announce yourself, from a distance: Hello? Excuse me? I think you dropped your wallet!

What GZ did and failed to do is the initial crime. It's GZ's fault. Common sense should prevail.

1KIKI

Thursday, July 4, 2013 4:11 PM

I read an interesting discussion about 'jury nullification'. According to the author, it was intended by the founding fathers to be used as the last resort against unjust laws. (I don't know if the argument is historically or legally accurate; I haven't looked it up.) But supposing it's a legally-available tactic, then it should be used here.

NIKI2

Thursday, July 4, 2013 5:19 PM

Quote:
He just said that he thinks it was "god's plan" that Trevon Martin died that night.

Jezus.

Quote:
What I find intolerable is how unapologetic Zimmerman is about a situation that ended in someone dying that by all accounts appears to have been a tragic misunderstanding.

Amen. He even laughed in court at one remark.

Quote:
I think someone else posted, but my mouse just started scrolling and I missed it. Darn.

Hee, hee, hee;

I really IS the best way to deal with trolls who are here to snark and nothing else.

Quote:
I despair of your laws in the US if this guy gets off with nothing.

I have despaired ever since OJ got off...and it only continues...As someone famous once said, sometimes "the law is an ass".

Quote:
Common sense should prevail.

But it rarely does.

Excuse me. Must

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT

Thursday, July 4, 2013 6:01 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
I read an interesting discussion about 'jury nullification'. According to the author, it was intended by the founding fathers to be used as the last resort against unjust laws. (I don't know if the argument is historically or legally accurate; I haven't looked it up.) But supposing it's a legally-available tactic, then it should be used here.

How nullification works is a jury finding someone not guilty even if he factually is, usually for emotional or political grounds. Are you suggesting that Zimmerman is guilty of something, but that the jury should let him walk?

My daughter, much more cynical than me, has told me that the jury will NOT convict Zimmerman.

MAL4PREZ

Thursday, July 4, 2013 6:06 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
GZ followed TM,

That's that.

An armed man invited himself into the personal space of an innocent doing nothing wrong. This was the first aggressive move that started the whole thing. TM had every right to stand his ground and defend himself against GZ.

Perhaps the self-defense isn't thought to apply to TM since he never prepared himself properly by pitching into the industry that loves Stand Your Ground? Or perhaps there's another reason... ?

OONJERAH

Friday, July 5, 2013 5:10 AM

Zimmerman received 'A' in college course that addressed self-defense

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/07/03/19270677-zimmerman-received
-a-in-college-course-that-addressed-self-defense?lite

GZ ... "received high marks in a criminal litigation

course that touched on Florida state law regarding when

it’s appropriate to use self-defense and the so- called

“Stand Your Ground” statute."

"Zimmerman had said during an interview with Sean Hannity

of Fox News last summer that he was not familiar with the

Stand Your Ground law prior to the shooting. Jurors were

shown that interview on Tuesday afternoon."

======================---------------

Today I see that GZ can be shameless telling a bald-faced lie.

What I wrote to myself yesterday while thinking that GZ might

not even be held for manslaughter. :

"George Zimmerman trial. ... I don't like the type of person

that GZ is, and I feel strongly that he initiated the contact --

the scuffle -- that ended in TM's death. I really think he is

guilty. But the evidence so far, being what it is, I don't

think it's proof of his guilt. They need to prove intent?

To know what was in his mind? My guess is, GZ intended to

observe TM doing a burglary; failing this, he'd confront TM

& hold him for the police to arrest for trespassing.

Which of them made the 1st contact? We'll never know."

He claimed to be the security watchman for his community.

But -- He wore no uniform or badge. He didn't introduce himself.

Indeed, his own behavior was pretty suspicious.

======================

All I suggest is a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest. ~Paul Simon

NIKI2

Friday, July 5, 2013 12:39 PM

I see from the link that that is testimony from the trial. Ergo, Zimmerman is now a PROVEN LIAR. As far as I'm concerned, that makes suspicious anything he testifies that cannot be proven. It's not like that class was years ago and he could have forgotten it.

Given the sum total of his taking a class and knowing about the law, literally worming his way into becoming a pseudo-cop (yet not wearing any identification as such at the time), roaming around following someone at night with a loaded gun--against the advice of the proper authorities--saying it was "God's will" that Martin died, and everything else, I've pretty much made up my mind.

I think given the sum of what we know, arguing that Zimmerman was "innocent" is a stretch, and those who do have a bias.

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE