Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I guess that I never understood initially when this first hit the media, why it was so important what color/race Zimmerman was and what color/race Martin was. I thought we were supposed to be a "colorblind" society and that justice was supposed to be colorblind. And why was it so critical when Zimmerman initially told the police that Martin was black? The police DID ask what color he/Martin was. Was Zimmerman supposed to answer "Oh, that doesn't matter" or "you're being racist for asking that"?
I guess that I never understood initially when this first hit the media, why it was so important what color/race Zimmerman was and what color/race Martin was. I thought we were supposed to be a "colorblind" society and that justice was supposed to be colorblind. And why was it so critical when Zimmerman initially told the police that Martin was black? The police DID ask what color he/Martin was. Was Zimmerman supposed to answer "Oh, that doesn't matter" or "you're being racist for asking that"?
FWIW, some European countries actually hide racial discrimination by NOT asking about it and tracking it in things like employment and crime statistics.
And yes, the media went completely "Richard Jewel" on zimmerman and ironically may wind up having to pay zimmerman $$$ in some extreme cases like when they tried to make it sound like he used the n-word.
If he get's away with this because of the SYG laws (and he might), he'd be shielded from civil suit from TM's family and might collect bucks from both book deals etc. as well as the media lawsuits. That's pretty much the worst case scenario at this point.
I know you aren't anywhere near being the type of guy that Zimmerman or the guy that shot adkins is so it's possible that you are assuming a degree of discipline on their part that you have and they don't.
Ever been to a bar and seen someone start crap with another guy?
Then get his butt kicked by the guy?
Well what happens when instead of getting his butt kicked he shoots the guy after initiating the conflict?
Oh, I was just defending myself.... Good way to get away with murder IMO and there have been guys do pretty much exactly that and get off under SYG laws.
The plain and simple situation is that we have a failed mall cop with known anger issues hopping out of his car with a gun to follow TM with ZERO probable cause. After that, we predominantly only have George Z's version of the events.
If I'm on the jury, it's fairly clear that Zimmerman initiated the conflict and had zero right to do so. If he's getting beat up at that point and guns the guy down that's his fault and he should have been carrying a non-lethal like mace or a taser etc. I'm EXTREMELY troubled that the neighborhood watch guy had a gun as his only option...another mark against him in my book.
I think we can all agree that we would not want a guy like Zimmerman roaming our neighborhoods armed.
Thanks for putting this in the proper perspective. It's a shame that when the judge sent Zimmerman for anger management classes that he did not (could not) take his gun away. People with a short fuse should not be carrying. Also, if Zimmerman had not had a gun perhaps he would not have been compelled to behave so foolishly.
First, at one time I worked in law enforcement. That was quite a few years ago, and I didn't make it a career but worked in the field for only a few years. I don't claim to have anywhere near the depth of knowledge about the issues of this case that someone such as an experienced lawyer would. I'm also unfamiliar with Florida's laws, as that was not the state where I worked in law enforcement, but I had plenty of experience (along with having graduated first in my police academy class) to be solidly grounded in the basic legal principles associated with self-defense and use of force, and other general issues that might apply in this case.
Having gotten the credentials out of the way, I'll say that it appears that many who have posted here, on both sides of the issue, appear to be basing their opinions on supposition, speculation, inaccurate information about the events involved in the case (in some instances), a poor understanding of terms such as "probable cause" or at least where probable cause applies, sketchy understanding of legal principles related to self-defense and use of force, and/or emotional or biased views about what "should" happen in this case.
At the end of this post I include three links. One is the Wiki article about the case. I know people tend to bash Wiki, and sometimes it's not accurate, but I've followed this case fairly closely, and it appears that in this case Wiki's information matches the facts I've gleaned from other reading and from various news shows. Read the article's section about the events carefully, and you should see that this thread has had some incorrect information about the details of those events. The other two links go to articles about some of Alan Dershowitz' comments on the case. I picked articles about Dershowitz because he's had a high profile as a commentator about this case, but every lawyer I've seen on television news shows has offered basically the same opinion, which is also my opinion, based on actual knowledge of the law, not supposition or the way I think things "should" be or any other subjective standard.
This would get to be a long post if I went into detail about relevant legal principles. Maybe I'll go into that some later, depending on where this thread goes or what responses there are to this post. Before I get to the bottom line, keep in mind that one basic principle that goes beyond the particular issues related to this case is that if the law is applied correctly--without bias, sentiment, or political motivation--a person is supposed to be presumed innocent unless through due process he can be proven guilty beyond the shadow of a reasonable doubt. Which leads to the bottom line here, which is that, with the facts currently known, there is no way Zimmerman can be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in the eyes of a truly impartial jury.
That could all change if there were some witness who has not been identified who finally came forward and offered certain testimony about the gap in time between the time the police dispatcher told Zimmerman, "We don't need you to do that" [follow Martin] and the point at which the two were seen struggling on the ground. I can think of one scenario about what HYPOTHETICALLY could have happened during that gap in time which would make a strong case against Zimmerman. As difficult as it may be for some to believe, if Zimmerman's version of the story is substantially true, then he should be in the clear IF the law is applied properly. That has to do with details of what U.S. law in general says about self-defense and use of force.
Even if Zimmerman is lying through his teeth (and I'm not saying he is, but if), without that one hypothetical scenario I mentioned briefly above actually having been the way it happened, along with a witness or other substantial evidence to its having happened that way, there is nothing in the prosecution's case that, after truly impartial consideration, could prove Zimmerman guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. He should never even have been charged on this evidence, and I suspect he was charged only due to some combination of political pressure, the high-tension nature of incidents where race becomes an issue, and/or the prosecution's aggressive desire to get a conviction and belief that this might be possible if they can sway a jury due to the emotional nature of the case. Again, I'm basing this on what the law actually says, not on emotion or what I or anyone else might think "should" happen.
FWIW, some European countries actually hide racial discrimination by NOT asking about it and tracking it in things like employment and crime statistics.
That is probably a GOOD thing. I am NOT conceding that this is a case of racial discrimination. In this case I wish the media was silent and this matter could have be tried fairly and quietly by a jury of his peers. He will proably NEVER get a fair trial now because he has been tried by the media.
And yes, the media went completely "Richard Jewel" on zimmerman and ironically may wind up having to pay zimmerman $$$ in some extreme cases like when they tried to make it sound like he used the n-word.
They (the media) should pay BIG TIME for this. I would like to see someone's head up high proverbally roll for this. Maybe it would send a message or teach them a lesson. But I doubt it. It will take a lot more to knock them off there intelectually elitist liberal high horses.
If he get's away with this because of the SYG laws (and he might), he'd be shielded from civil suit from TM's family and might collect bucks from both book deals etc. as well as the media lawsuits. That's pretty much the worst case scenario at this point.
If he gets away with WHAT? Like O.J. Simpson, he hasn't been proven guilty yet.
First, at one time I worked in law enforcement. That was quite a few years ago, and I didn't make it a career but worked in the field for only a few years. I don't claim to have anywhere near the depth of knowledge about the issues of this case that someone such as an experienced lawyer would. I'm also unfamiliar with Florida's laws, as that was not the state where I worked in law enforcement, but I had plenty of experience (along with having graduated first in my police academy class) to be solidly grounded in the basic legal principles associated with self-defense and use of force, and other general issues that might apply in this case.
Having gotten the credentials out of the way, I'll say that it appears that many who have posted here, on both sides of the issue, appear to be basing their opinions on supposition, speculation, inaccurate information about the events involved in the case (in some instances), a poor understanding of terms such as "probable cause" or at least where probable cause applies, sketchy understanding of legal principles related to self-defense and use of force, and/or emotional or biased views about what "should" happen in this case.
At the end of this post I include three links. One is the Wiki article about the case. I know people tend to bash Wiki, and sometimes it's not accurate, but I've followed this case fairly closely, and it appears that in this case Wiki's information matches the facts I've gleaned from other reading and from various news shows. Read the article's section about the events carefully, and you should see that this thread has had some incorrect information about the details of those events. The other two links go to articles about some of Alan Dershowitz' comments on the case. I picked articles about Dershowitz because he's had a high profile as a commentator about this case, but every lawyer I've seen on television news shows has offered basically the same opinion, which is also my opinion, based on actual knowledge of the law, not supposition or the way I think things "should" be or any other subjective standard.
This would get to be a long post if I went into detail about relevant legal principles. Maybe I'll go into that some later, depending on where this thread goes or what responses there are to this post. Before I get to the bottom line, keep in mind that one basic principle that goes beyond the particular issues related to this case is that if the law is applied correctly--without bias, sentiment, or political motivation--a person is supposed to be presumed innocent unless through due process he can be proven guilty beyond the shadow of a reasonable doubt. Which leads to the bottom line here, which is that, with the facts currently known, there is no way Zimmerman can be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in the eyes of a truly impartial jury.
That could all change if there were some witness who has not been identified who finally came forward and offered certain testimony about the gap in time between the time the police dispatcher told Zimmerman, "We don't need you to do that" [follow Martin] and the point at which the two were seen struggling on the ground. I can think of one scenario about what HYPOTHETICALLY could have happened during that gap in time which would make a strong case against Zimmerman. As difficult as it may be for some to believe, if Zimmerman's version of the story is substantially true, then he should be in the clear IF the law is applied properly. That has to do with details of what U.S. law in general says about self-defense and use of force.
Even if Zimmerman is lying through his teeth (and I'm not saying he is, but if), without that one hypothetical scenario I mentioned briefly above actually having been the way it happened, along with a witness or other substantial evidence to its having happened that way, there is nothing in the prosecution's case that, after truly impartial consideration, could prove Zimmerman guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. He should never even have been charged on this evidence, and I suspect he was charged only due to some combination of political pressure, the high-tension nature of incidents where race becomes an issue, and/or the prosecution's aggressive desire to get a conviction and belief that this might be possible if they can sway a jury due to the emotional nature of the case. Again, I'm basing this on what the law actually says, not on emotion or what I or anyone else might think "should" happen.
So Zimmerman can lie through his teeth and so long as he is the only 'witness' to what happened, he can get away with murder? That sounds like what you are saying. Well, there is always jury nullification to hope for.
First, at one time I worked in law enforcement. That was quite a few years ago, and I didn't make it a career but worked in the field for only a few years. I don't claim to have anywhere near the depth of knowledge about the issues of this case that someone such as an experienced lawyer would. I'm also unfamiliar with Florida's laws, as that was not the state where I worked in law enforcement, but I had plenty of experience (along with having graduated first in my police academy class) to be solidly grounded in the basic legal principles associated with self-defense and use of force, and other general issues that might apply in this case.
Having gotten the credentials out of the way, I'll say that it appears that many who have posted here, on both sides of the issue, appear to be basing their opinions on supposition, speculation, inaccurate information about the events involved in the case (in some instances), a poor understanding of terms such as "probable cause" or at least where probable cause applies, sketchy understanding of legal principles related to self-defense and use of force, and/or emotional or biased views about what "should" happen in this case.
At the end of this post I include three links. One is the Wiki article about the case. I know people tend to bash Wiki, and sometimes it's not accurate, but I've followed this case fairly closely, and it appears that in this case Wiki's information matches the facts I've gleaned from other reading and from various news shows. Read the article's section about the events carefully, and you should see that this thread has had some incorrect information about the details of those events. The other two links go to articles about some of Alan Dershowitz' comments on the case. I picked articles about Dershowitz because he's had a high profile as a commentator about this case, but every lawyer I've seen on television news shows has offered basically the same opinion, which is also my opinion, based on actual knowledge of the law, not supposition or the way I think things "should" be or any other subjective standard.
This would get to be a long post if I went into detail about relevant legal principles. Maybe I'll go into that some later, depending on where this thread goes or what responses there are to this post. Before I get to the bottom line, keep in mind that one basic principle that goes beyond the particular issues related to this case is that if the law is applied correctly--without bias, sentiment, or political motivation--a person is supposed to be presumed innocent unless through due process he can be proven guilty beyond the shadow of a reasonable doubt. Which leads to the bottom line here, which is that, with the facts currently known, there is no way Zimmerman can be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in the eyes of a truly impartial jury.
That could all change if there were some witness who has not been identified who finally came forward and offered certain testimony about the gap in time between the time the police dispatcher told Zimmerman, "We don't need you to do that" [follow Martin] and the point at which the two were seen struggling on the ground. I can think of one scenario about what HYPOTHETICALLY could have happened during that gap in time which would make a strong case against Zimmerman. As difficult as it may be for some to believe, if Zimmerman's version of the story is substantially true, then he should be in the clear IF the law is applied properly. That has to do with details of what U.S. law in general says about self-defense and use of force.
Even if Zimmerman is lying through his teeth (and I'm not saying he is, but if), without that one hypothetical scenario I mentioned briefly above actually having been the way it happened, along with a witness or other substantial evidence to its having happened that way, there is nothing in the prosecution's case that, after truly impartial consideration, could prove Zimmerman guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. He should never even have been charged on this evidence, and I suspect he was charged only due to some combination of political pressure, the high-tension nature of incidents where race becomes an issue, and/or the prosecution's aggressive desire to get a conviction and belief that this might be possible if they can sway a jury due to the emotional nature of the case. Again, I'm basing this on what the law actually says, not on emotion or what I or anyone else might think "should" happen.
Please, quit being reasonable in your assessments. No one cares about the facts and/or lack thereof. All they care about is their personal feelings and, moreover, their emotions in this case and others. Their emotions say Zimmerman shouldn't have done what he did. The criminal case be damned!!! No one cares about the truth. Only their feelings.
The facts are simple: Had this case NOT had national headlines and spotlights, it would have never have been charged. Zimmerman acted in self defense, based upon the facts as we know them. You can interject your own opinions and/or supposed facts all you want. However, all we have IS Zimmerman's account. Nothing else.
Lots of physical evidence supports his account. Therefore, this IS a travesty of our criminal justice system. Allowing uneducated, ignorant, and naive public opinion to influence it. It is, unfortunately, the signs of the times.
Please, quit being reasonable in your assessments. No one cares about the facts and/or lack thereof. All they care about is their personal feelings and, moreover, their emotions in this case and others. Their emotions say Zimmerman shouldn't have done what he did. The criminal case be damned!!! No one cares about the truth. Only their feelings.
The facts are simple: Had this case NOT had national headlines and spotlights, it would have never have been charged. Zimmerman acted in self defense, based upon the facts as we know them. You can interject your own opinions and/or supposed facts all you want. However, all we have IS Zimmerman's account. Nothing else.
Lots of physical evidence supports his account. Therefore, this IS a travesty of our criminal justice system. Allowing uneducated, ignorant, and naive public opinion to influence it. It is, unfortunately, the signs of the times.
Zimmerman sounds so much to me to be lying. Surely, a judge and jury will take more into consideration than lies by the accused? If not, then most of us could even plot a murder and get away with it because only our story would be considered. We would then, definitely have a criminal injustice system. If Zimmerman's story were all there were then a grand jury would just throw the case out and not allow it to procede.
I have not seen an article in which the press says Zimmerman would be guilty. That would be the only way they could be sued. So, please, you guys who say he should sue the press, show me the stories in which he's accused.
Zimmerman sounds so much to me to be lying. Surely, a judge and jury will take more into consideration than lies by the accused? If not, then most of us could even plot a murder and get away with it because only our story would be considered. We would then, definitely have a criminal injustice system. If Zimmerman's story were all there were then a grand jury would just throw the case out and not allow it to procede.
I have not seen an article in which the press says Zimmerman would be guilty. That would be the only way they could be sued. So, please, you guys who say he should sue the press, show me the stories in which he's accused.
First, I have no clue what you are referring too toward news agencies saying he would be found guilty and/or ensuing lawsuits. So, I cannot comment on that.
"Zimmerman sounds so much to me to be lying." Based upon what? There is ABSOLUTELY not ONE SHRED of physical evidence which contradicts what Zimmerman has said. In fact, the physical evidence has ALL concurred with what he said.
The simple fact is you and others, do not like the way things occurred. Therefore, you are upset, mad, and angry. So, you find every little single detail, in order to discredit what occurred. You also are using your own personal emotions in this case AND NOT looking at the case on a factual value.
I look at things on a factual value. PERIOD. I leave my personal emotions and thoughts out of the criminal justice system; as it should be. You take away how you "feel," and Zimmerman is innocent. Whether he is or not, no one knows. Except him and god (if you believe in god). Two persons were there: Zimmerman and Martin. Martin is dead. Zimmerman is alive and all we have is his statement.
First, I have no clue what you are referring too toward news agencies saying he would be found guilty and/or ensuing lawsuits. So, I cannot comment on that.
"Zimmerman sounds so much to me to be lying." Based upon what? There is ABSOLUTELY not ONE SHRED of physical evidence which contradicts what Zimmerman has said. In fact, the physical evidence has ALL concurred with what he said.
The simple fact is you and others, do not like the way things occurred. Therefore, you are upset, mad, and angry. So, you find every little single detail, in order to discredit what occurred. You also are using your own personal emotions in this case AND NOT looking at the case on a factual value.
I look at things on a factual value. PERIOD. I leave my personal emotions and thoughts out of the criminal justice system; as it should be. You take away how you "feel," and Zimmerman is innocent. Whether he is or not, no one knows. Except him and god (if you believe in god). Two persons were there: Zimmerman and Martin. Martin is dead. Zimmerman is alive and all we have is his statement.
Factually, people who kill others with no witnesses may, indeed, be lying in the version of events that they produce. This is why we have trials and jurors. Why would he not put the best possible spin on his case, especially while he thinks that he's gotten rid of the only witness.
I know that you are hoping for the best for your man, but I only hope for the truth and they may not turn out to be the same.
Zimmerman is on record as a hot head. He followed the kid, and being asked not to, got out of his car to confront him. Then Z killed Martin. Those are the facts. Doesn't look good for the guy. Maybe he will be lucky and get jurors who will look out for him, like you.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
