Mock

(05-07-2012, 03:45 PM)shitstorm Wrote: [ -> ]I have not read this thread and it's too long (too many forums, so little time!) but I have to say that I HATE this case. My take was like most people - the kid had the right to walk down any public street, as we all do. Zimmerman is a wanna be security guard. I don't know if Trayvon got fed up and jumped Zimmerman but, if he did, who could blame him? Zimmerman was stalking him. Trayvon (from the little I know about this) is the one who stood his ground and got killed in the process.

The reason I hate this case is because of the politicizing. It was so fucking predictable that the special interest, anti right to bear arms assholes would try to use this to further their disarm America agenda. They ALWAYS do this. They want to deprive people, who have done nothing wrong, of their basic human right to self defense. One of the first things out of Al Sharpton's mouth was about getting rid of the stand your ground law. On that reason alone, were I on a jury - no matter if the facts pointed to Zimmerman's guilt - I would be reluctant to convict. They wanna play like that and fuck with the rights of everyone because of the act of one idiot, fuck 'em. I know that it isn't right but the stakes are too high. Sad, I know, but there it is. This is WAY bigger than Trayvon and Zimmerman.

(Bolding mine) Thank you for this post. This case has gone so beyond the facts of the actions of the individuals involved that it is hard to see what it's really about. The media, Al, Jesse, the Black Panthers et al have turned this into a three-ring circus to advance their agendas. I feel sorry for the parents of Trayvon, and a measure of sympathy for George Zimmerman. Who here believes that Zimmerman can get a fair trial? Even if Zimmerman would be declared "not guilty" he will spend the rest of his life looking over his shoulder, waiting for the axe to fall. If Zimmerman is declared "guilty" he will have to serve his time in solitary to protect him from being killed in prison. Trayvon's parents will mourn their son for the rest of their lives no matter the verdict. There are NO winners here except the vultures who prey on the sensationalism of this case to advance their careers.

Hi, Cheyne. First we've posted on a thread together, I believe. Everything you said I agree with. It's a loser all the way around. The only mention of stand your ground should have been in reference to Trayvon. Instead these stupid progressives (or whatever the hell they call themselves) raised it with respect to Zimmerman. They muddied the waters because they want the law repealed. Of course, criminals would still be armed. Because of their obnoxious political agenda, people like me, not sympathetic to Zimmerman, end up having to consider this from the perspective of our right to self defense - a totally different issue - which is under attack. If Zimmerman were tried and convicted, they use the conviction as twisted rationale to push their repeal stand your ground crap.

News13

An arraignment is scheduled at the Seminole County Courthouse Tuesday afternoon in the case against George Zimmerman, the man who shot and killed 17-year-old Trayvon Martin in February.

Zimmerman is not expected to be at Tuesday's hearing, scheduled for 1:30 p.m. Neither is his attorney, Mark O'Mara, or special prosecutor Angela Corey.

Instead, the arraignment deals with paperwork being filed to try and protect the names of witnesses in the case.

O'Mara said once that happens, much of the state's evidence in the case will be available.

But because of a tight lid on the Zimmerman case, the public might not see any of it.

Several other news organizations have been fighting to have that evidence be made public record.

The judge also expects to be made aware of what money George Zimmerman has access to during Tuesday's hearing.

O'Mara

I have not leaned on either side of this case just yet. I understand the whole "we are America and we are free to walk where we want too". BUT this is a gated community, a gated community that had break ins several times over the past 6 months, break ins that were done by young black males.

I understand he was not armed, I get that he was shot unlawfully at this time. BUT how do we/you know that he was not part of the burglaries in the community?! It states that ONE young black kid was arrested, when in fact it was 2 that committed the crimes.
AND one more question that has yet to be answered, how long has his father been staying there? First time? OR did the burglaries start when he started staying with his father??

I do not feel what Zimmerman did was right, I think he is a wannabe cop...Who took things a little too far. I think he thought he was big and tough with a gun, but probably pissed himself when he actually shot it.

Like I said I am on the fence with this one, working with in defense always makes you question ALL aspects of the case...not one side.

(05-07-2012, 03:45 PM)shitstorm Wrote: [ -> ]I have not read this thread and it's too long (too many forums, so little time!) but I have to say that I HATE this case. My take was like most people - the kid had the right to walk down any public street, as we all do. Zimmerman is a wanna be security guard. I don't know if Trayvon got fed up and jumped Zimmerman but, if he did, who could blame him? Zimmerman was stalking him. Trayvon (from the little I know about this) is the one who stood his ground and got killed in the process.

The reason I hate this case is because of the politicizing. It was so fucking predictable that the special interest, anti right to bear arms assholes would try to use this to further their disarm America agenda. They ALWAYS do this. They want to deprive people, who have done nothing wrong, of their basic human right to self defense. One of the first things out of Al Sharpton's mouth was about getting rid of the stand your ground law. On that reason alone, were I on a jury - no matter if the facts pointed to Zimmerman's guilt - I would be reluctant to convict. They wanna play like that and fuck with the rights of everyone because of the act of one idiot, fuck 'em. I know that it isn't right but the stakes are too high. Sad, I know, but there it is. This is WAY bigger than Trayvon and Zimmerman.

Shitstorm, I agree that things have gotten WAY out of hand with the various factions who have their own agendas to push.

But, to be blunt, your attitude about if you served on the jury absolutely SCARES me. "(W)ere I on a jury - no matter if the facts pointed to Zimmerman's guilt - I would be reluctant to convict."

Every juror takes an oath to render a verdict based solely upon the evidence. No matter what political positions you wish to support or refute, you have a duty to render a fair verdict. Whether you believe the evidence proves Zimmerman guilty of a crime (TM is entitled to justice) or that you can find reasonable doubt of guilt for the crimes charged/lesser included offenses (Zimmerman is entitled to an acquital), you HAVE to vote the evidence. The right to a fair trial is guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and is of PARAMOUNT importance here.

I am one who would abolish the "Stand Your Ground" statute. It is CLEARLY overly broad if it allows you to pursue someone who is unarmed and shoot him to death.

That having been said, there would, of course, always be some kind of self defense provision in the law. IMHO, New York got it right. If someone uses or threatens you with (non-deadly) physical force, you are not permitted to use deadly physical force in response. If and ONLY if faced with deadly physical force are you allowed to respond in kind.

I firmly support the requirement of passing a thorough background check to qualify for a pistol permit, as well as federal registration and a background check to purchase a firearm. There are MANY people who, because of extensive criminal records and/or mental health issues, have ABSOLUTELY no business owning firearms.

This is probably a good place to mention that I own 4 pistols and around 20 long guns.

BTW: I don't think Zimmerman was a cop wanna be. I think he crossed the line and graduated to full fledged vigilante. He knowingly and recklesssly took the law into his own hands, with predictable results.

(05-08-2012, 02:22 PM)Lady Cop Wrote: [ -> ]sadly we have seen jury nullification more than once.

Jury nullification is one of our super powers. Sometimes justice isn't just. Sometimes common sense rules, no matter what the letter of the law says.

The law isn't always right or equally applied.

I am pro jury nullification in certain instances. I tell everybody who has jury duty about it. Americans don't know they can choose not to be sheep.

It's hard to tell which jurors already have their minds made up before the trial.

It's also hard to tell if John Travolta is gay.

And if people just vote for Obama because he's black.

People tend to pretend they don't do shit like that, but they do.

(05-08-2012, 02:14 PM)Disciple Wrote: [ -> ]Shitstorm, I agree that things have gotten WAY out of hand with the various factions who have their own agendas to push.

But, to be blunt, your attitude about if you served on the jury absolutely SCARES me. "(W)ere I on a jury - no matter if the facts pointed to Zimmerman's guilt - I would be reluctant to convict."

Every juror takes an oath to render a verdict based solely upon the evidence. No matter what political positions you wish to support or refute, you have a duty to render a fair verdict. Whether you believe the evidence proves Zimmerman guilty of a crime (TM is entitled to justice) or that you can find reasonable doubt of guilt for the crimes charged/lesser included offenses (Zimmerman is entitled to an acquital), you HAVE to vote the evidence. The right to a fair trial is guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and is of PARAMOUNT importance here.

I am one who would abolish the "Stand Your Ground" statute. It is CLEARLY overly broad if it allows you to pursue someone who is unarmed and shoot him to death.

That having been said, there would, of course, always be some kind of self defense provision in the law. IMHO, New York got it right. If someone uses or threatens you with (non-deadly) physical force, you are not permitted to use deadly physical force in response. If and ONLY if faced with deadly physical force are you allowed to respond in kind.

I firmly support the requirement of passing a thorough background check to qualify for a pistol permit, as well as federal registration and a background check to purchase a firearm. There are MANY people who, because of extensive criminal records and/or mental health issues, have ABSOLUTELY no business owning firearms.

This is probably a good place to mention that I own 4 pistols and around 20 long guns.

BTW: I don't think Zimmerman was a cop wanna be. I think he crossed the line and graduated to full fledged vigilante. He knowingly and recklesssly took the law into his own hands, with predictable results.

New York? Surely you jest. New York is so far left (i.e., unrecognizable as part of United States under the constitution) that it could join the Soviet Republic if it still existed. Fuck New York.

You are mistaken about jurors. It's a common misconception. The People have the final say. While I understand where Lady Cop is coming from with the cases she cited, we have lots of bullshit laws under which someone could be prosecuted and lose their freedom and a conscious jury is the only remedy for that. Jurors are not rubber stamps for the law nor there to serve the judge. I would never convict anyone on anything the IRS brought or for weed, for instance. The former is unconstitutional and the latter is a goddamn plant. I did not say that I wouldn't convict Zimmerman (though I sure don't see any murder 2 there), just that I would be reluctant because of the very real and dangerous political agenda it would be used for. I care more about my rights and the rights of all Americans to self defense than I do about that case. I would have to weigh that legitimate concern in any decision that I made. No case exists in a vacuum and consequences have to be considered. I also don't think in terms of 'justice' for dead people. They're dead, okay? Dead people aren't around to enjoy any justice. The concern, for me, is getting a dangerous person off the street and any implications of the case beyond that.

You can learn more about your rights and duty as a juror here:

http://fija.org/

Well, here it is ...


House Democrats said Tuesday they will offer an amendment to push to overturn stand-your-ground self-defense laws in states like Florida.

The amendment, which would withhold some grants from states that have such laws, will come as part of the House's debate on the Commerce Department spending bill.

"'Shoot-first' laws have already cost too many lives. In Florida alone, deaths due to self-defense have tripled since the law was enacted. Federal money shouldn't be spent supporting states with laws that endanger their own people," said Reps. Raul Grijalva of Arizona and Keith Ellison of Minnesota, the two Democrats who are offering the legislation. "This is no different than withholding transportation funds from states that don't enforce seat-belt laws."

Florida's law, which allows residents to use force in response to an attack without first having to retreat, has come under scrutiny after the nationally-polarizing death of teenager Trayvon Martin. George Zimmermann, a neighborhood watch volunteer, has been charged with murder in the case.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/insi...ent/print/

Everyone should have the right to defend themselves and their homes. However, it's the few that go to the exteme that ruin it for everyone else. That is why government has to step in and try to remedy the situation. I don't agree with it. And it pisses me off that the actions of the few idiots affect the rest of us. The authorities need to deal with the individuals that go to far. Not punish the people abiding by the law and being reasonable about it.

I don't think anyone will be happy with the outcome of this trial whether Zimmerman if found guilty or not. This whole thing is not even about Trayvon and Zimmerman anymore. It's about politics and people using this as a platform to push their own agendas. There will be no justice in this case.

(05-08-2012, 06:40 PM)Cracker Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-08-2012, 02:22 PM)Lady Cop Wrote: [ -> ]sadly we have seen jury nullification more than once.

Jury nullification is one of our super powers. Sometimes justice isn't just. Sometimes common sense rules, no matter what the letter of the law says.

The law isn't always right or equally applied.

I am pro jury nullification in certain instances. I tell everybody who has jury duty about it. Americans don't know they can choose not to be sheep.

I wholeheartedly agree.

(05-08-2012, 10:07 PM)shitstorm Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-08-2012, 02:14 PM)Disciple Wrote: [ -> ]Shitstorm, I agree that things have gotten WAY out of hand with the various factions who have their own agendas to push.

But, to be blunt, your attitude about if you served on the jury absolutely SCARES me. "(W)ere I on a jury - no matter if the facts pointed to Zimmerman's guilt - I would be reluctant to convict."

Every juror takes an oath to render a verdict based solely upon the evidence. No matter what political positions you wish to support or refute, you have a duty to render a fair verdict. Whether you believe the evidence proves Zimmerman guilty of a crime (TM is entitled to justice) or that you can find reasonable doubt of guilt for the crimes charged/lesser included offenses (Zimmerman is entitled to an acquital), you HAVE to vote the evidence. The right to a fair trial is guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and is of PARAMOUNT importance here.

I am one who would abolish the "Stand Your Ground" statute. It is CLEARLY overly broad if it allows you to pursue someone who is unarmed and shoot him to death.

That having been said, there would, of course, always be some kind of self defense provision in the law. IMHO, New York got it right. If someone uses or threatens you with (non-deadly) physical force, you are not permitted to use deadly physical force in response. If and ONLY if faced with deadly physical force are you allowed to respond in kind.

I firmly support the requirement of passing a thorough background check to qualify for a pistol permit, as well as federal registration and a background check to purchase a firearm. There are MANY people who, because of extensive criminal records and/or mental health issues, have ABSOLUTELY no business owning firearms.

This is probably a good place to mention that I own 4 pistols and around 20 long guns.

BTW: I don't think Zimmerman was a cop wanna be. I think he crossed the line and graduated to full fledged vigilante. He knowingly and recklesssly took the law into his own hands, with predictable results.

New York? Surely you jest. New York is so far left (i.e., unrecognizable as part of United States under the constitution) that it could join the Soviet Republic if it still existed. Fuck New York.

You are mistaken about jurors. It's a common misconception. The People have the final say. While I understand where Lady Cop is coming from with the cases she cited, we have lots of bullshit laws under which someone could be prosecuted and lose their freedom and a conscious jury is the only remedy for that. Jurors are not rubber stamps for the law nor there to serve the judge. I would never convict anyone on anything the IRS brought or for weed, for instance. The former is unconstitutional and the latter is a goddamn plant. I did not say that I wouldn't convict Zimmerman (though I sure don't see any murder 2 there), just that I would be reluctant because of the very real and dangerous political agenda it would be used for. I care more about my rights and the rights of all Americans to self defense than I do about that case. I would have to weigh that legitimate concern in any decision that I made. No case exists in a vacuum and consequences have to be considered. I also don't think in terms of 'justice' for dead people. They're dead, okay? Dead people aren't around to enjoy any justice. The concern, for me, is getting a dangerous person off the street and any implications of the case beyond that.

You can learn more about your rights and duty as a juror here:

http://fija.org/

Shitstorm, are you suggesting that NY is leftist because it is illegal to use deadly force on unarmed people?

Hmmmm.

I guess you'd really blow a gasket if you knew about the duty to retreat before using deadly force unless you are in your own house.

I also don't understand what you mean when you say that the "People" have the final say. Would you explain that please? If we are talking about the same legal system, I thought Appeals Courts, including the US Supreme Court, had the final say.

What I meant by justice for the deceased was calling an unlawful homicide what it is, instead of blaming the victim. You'll notice the field day the right wing press has had with the fact that Martin was suspended from school for having a baggie with pot residue (open parentheses: the kid had it coming). Since you are so conscious of the policy implications of jurors' decisions, I'm sure that you can see the danger of acquitting Zimmerman when the facts call for a conviction: such as declaring open season on teenage male persons of color who wear hoodies and walk where others resent their presence. Hence my concern about the reluctance you voiced.

Note this prediction: Federal regulations of firearms will never become restrictive. Absolute political suicide for 75% of the federal politicians.

BTW: here in leftist NY, the Judge, when charging the jury, will charge them on nullification if asked.

I wonder what would have happened in the same circumstances if Zimmerman hadn't been armed. If the bystander who saw TM on top of GZ had intervened, or if the cops had arrived and saw TM on GZ, they would have found TM with no injuries (at least according to the mortician) and GZ with a cut and bloodied head. What charges would have been filed in that case?

Some might say that GZ wouldn't have followed TM if he hadn't been armed. Possibly. Or he might have. People get fed up with their homes being burglarized. There have been a lot of burglaries in my daughter's neighborhood. One of her neighbor's, a 40-something woman saw two guys trying to kick in another neighbor's door. She yelled and them and chased them down the road where they got into a car with a driver waiting for them. (She got a partial license plate.) Probably not the wisest thing for this woman to do - she's glad she didn't catch up to them (!) - but people are just fed up with this stuff. When the story first came out, I didn't understand GZ not following the 911 dispatcher's direction to stop following the guy. But after reading about all the burglaries in the neighborhood, I understand why he'd want to keep a potential suspect in sight.

(05-09-2012, 02:27 PM)Kip Wrote: [ -> ]I wonder what would have happened in the same circumstances if Zimmerman hadn't been armed. If the bystander who saw TM on top of GZ had intervened, or if the cops had arrived and saw TM on GZ, they would have found TM with no injuries (at least according to the mortician) and GZ with a cut and bloodied head. What charges would have been filed in that case?

Some might say that GZ wouldn't have followed TM if he hadn't been armed. Possibly. Or he might have. People get fed up with their homes being burglarized. There have been a lot of burglaries in my daughter's neighborhood. One of her neighbor's, a 40-something woman saw two guys trying to kick in another neighbor's door. She yelled and them and chased them down the road where they got into a car with a driver waiting for them. (She got a partial license plate.) Probably not the wisest thing for this woman to do - she's glad she didn't catch up to them (!) - but people are just fed up with this stuff. When the story first came out, I didn't understand GZ not following the 911 dispatcher's direction to stop following the guy. But after reading about all the burglaries in the neighborhood, I understand why he'd want to keep a potential suspect in sight.

Not only was Zimmerman disregarding the 911 Dispatcher's directions, he disregarded the Neighborhood Watch instructions he received from the police.

From Wikipedia:

Sanford Police volunteer program coordinator Wendy Dorival, told the Miami Herald that she met Zimmerman in September, 2011 at a community neighborhood watch presentation. Dorival stated that she gave a warning to participants at the presentation: “I said, ‘If it’s someone you don’t recognize, call us. We’ll figure it out,’ ” Dorival said. “‘Observe from a safe location."

Actually, Kip, my initial reaction to your question took off in an entirely different direction from what you posted.

My thought was, if Zimmerman had been unarmed?

They would both still be alive.

(05-09-2012, 02:59 PM)Disciple Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-09-2012, 02:27 PM)Kip Wrote: [ -> ]I wonder what would have happened in the same circumstances if Zimmerman hadn't been armed. If the bystander who saw TM on top of GZ had intervened, or if the cops had arrived and saw TM on GZ, they would have found TM with no injuries (at least according to the mortician) and GZ with a cut and bloodied head. What charges would have been filed in that case?

Some might say that GZ wouldn't have followed TM if he hadn't been armed. Possibly. Or he might have. People get fed up with their homes being burglarized. There have been a lot of burglaries in my daughter's neighborhood. One of her neighbor's, a 40-something woman saw two guys trying to kick in another neighbor's door. She yelled and them and chased them down the road where they got into a car with a driver waiting for them. (She got a partial license plate.) Probably not the wisest thing for this woman to do - she's glad she didn't catch up to them (!) - but people are just fed up with this stuff. When the story first came out, I didn't understand GZ not following the 911 dispatcher's direction to stop following the guy. But after reading about all the burglaries in the neighborhood, I understand why he'd want to keep a potential suspect in sight.

Not only was Zimmerman disregarding the 911 Dispatcher's directions, he disregarded the Neighborhood Watch instructions he received from the police.

From Wikipedia:

Sanford Police volunteer program coordinator Wendy Dorival, told the Miami Herald that she met Zimmerman in September, 2011 at a community neighborhood watch presentation. Dorival stated that she gave a warning to participants at the presentation: “I said, ‘If it’s someone you don’t recognize, call us. We’ll figure it out,’ ” Dorival said. “‘Observe from a safe location."

Actually, Kip, my initial reaction to your question took off in an entirely different direction from what you posted.

My thought was, if Zimmerman had been unarmed?

They would both still be alive.

Please tell me in your experience where would have been a safe location to observe from?