Zimmerman charged. What do you think will happen if he's found Not Guilty?

[ChevyGuy91]

This thread is blowing my mind.

 

[drgrant]

This thread is blowing my mind.

I need to get some video editing software to make my own little embedded videos for some of these threads.

 

[ChevyGuy91]

I need to get some video editing software to make my own little embedded videos for some of these threads.

I hope it has a bunch of liberal race baiters stoking the fires of a race war, and a bunch of freedom and liberty for all "conservatives" swallowing it hook line and sinker.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

How many NES members have been discriminated against because they are white, male and predominately middle class, have been turned down for jobs, have been denied admission to certain schools or academic programs?

I worked for a small company that was going out of business 20 years ago. One of the VPs went back to the fortune 500 company he worked for, so I sent him a resume.

I got a direct phone call from this person telling me "You will see ... and ... (mentioning the names of hispanic and native american co-workers who happened to be very good at their jobs) get interviews and offers. The only reason I am not inviting you in as well is that I could never get a white male hire approved, and it would be a waste of your time and mine."

 

[cekim]

Even today, my ginger people suffer... Openly abused, even here on NES...

Racism exists. I believe it will always exist. It is not a function of "race," it is, I believe, a hardwired mechanism built into our brain from birth to make a snap judgement based on appearance as to "family relation" and the presumption of safety from it. Newborns, with their terrible vision can identify human from chimp and mom from not and very quickly identify "family features" in others as well. Their brain is cognitively mush, but the facial recognition software is already running.

Maybe we will evolve a little more one day, but not in the next 200 years. In the mean time, comparing our respective trials and tribulations is a waste of time spent crying in our beer.

The only way to make society "just" is to demand that it be so and you cannot do that by writing laws that favor one group over another - PERIOD.

Is it understandable that people like Jesse, who personally witnessed and experienced some heinous behavior by our government and society attempting to change the system of institutional racism are overreacting? Yes, yes it is.

That said, he is "overreacting," and the "white guilt" crowd needs to understand this and stop responding with sympathetic guilt and start pushing for a just government that is color blind at every level and lives up to the ideals of equality under the law described by our Constitution.

It boggles my mind that someone so personally mistreated by government would advocate for expansion of that government's powers. You'd think he would have learned the lesson that the only good government is one that lacks the power and scope to discriminate against you.

 

[Boris]

I worked for a small company that was going out of business 20 years ago. One of the VPs went back to the fortune 500 company he worked for, so I send him a resume.

I got a direct phone call from this person telling me "You will see ... and ... (mentioning the names of hispanic and native american co-workers who happened to be very good at their jobs) get interviews and offers. The only reason I am not inviting you in as well is that I could never get a white male hire approved, and it would be a waste of your time and mine."

I have a couple of stories to add to that, but unfortunately, most of the time, there is no recorded evidence or proof that could be used in court. Dig more, you'll be surprised how much this problem of "reverse racism" is widespread. If affirmative action and racial quotas are open and official policies ... there is no other words for it, it's pure racism.

 

[Broc]

I need to get some video editing software to make my own little embedded videos for some of these threads.

Windows Movie Maker works (at least for Hitler videos)...but its a PITA.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

there is no recorded evidence or proof that could be used in court.

Do you really think a court would do anything other than compliment the company on its commitment to diversity even if there were such proof?

 

[Gammon]

We do not need racial equality; we need racial neutrality.

 

[Wendell]

We do not need racial equality; we need racial neutrality.

 

[Bill Nance]

But to say he was minding his own business, and not doing anything illegal is entirely unsupported by the facts. You are just repeating the narrative that was put out by Martin's family, which clearly is biased to make Martin look like an angel. For obvious reasons, Zimmerman has not had his say yet.

What crime was Martin alleged to have been participating in exactly? The 911 calls I've heard don't purport that any crime had been committed. As far as I know, no claim has been mmade by ZIMMERMAN that Martin was doing anything illegal.

Do you have some new information?

 

[n1bsbri]

What crime was Martin alleged to have been participating in exactly? The 911 calls I've heard don't purport that any crime had been committed. As far as I know, no claim has been mmade by ZIMMERMAN that Martin was doing anything illegal.

Do you have some new information?

Let me ask you this, how do you know he wasn't involved in a crime? Just the statements of his family (who weren't there). I'm not alleging anything, I'm just saying don't accept the family's statement as fact.

 

[OfficerObie59]

I hope it has a bunch of liberal race baiters stoking the fires of a race war, and a bunch of freedom and liberty for all "conservatives" swallowing it hook line and sinker.

I tried:

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to edmorseiii again.

I was born almost twenty years after the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed. I have never acted in any way that has prejudiced my fellow man for the color of his skin. My hero is Clarence Thomas, and a picture of me standing with him proudly hangs on the wall in my home.

I have nothing to apologize for.

As for this case, the only thing I can agree with anyone on is that we don't know what happend. When you have Alan Deshowitz stating that the filing of charges by the DA was "unethical", it seems to me somthing has gone amiss.

 

[soloman02]

I have a couple of stories to add to that, but unfortunately, most of the time, there is no recorded evidence or proof that could be used in court. Dig more, you'll be surprised how much this problem of "reverse racism" is widespread. If affirmative action and racial quotas are open and official policies ... there is no other words for it, it's pure racism.

So what your saying is since I am of European descent (Dutch, Scottish and a little French) I need to marry a 100% Asian or Native American gal so that my offspring can't be discriminated against when they are old enough to go to school and get jobs?

 

[inerlogic]

Does it not occur to you that he doesn't have to prove a damned thing? The prosecution has to prove he did it, with zero evidence, and fewer witnesses. All he has to do is raise reasonable doubt....

Does it not occur to ANY of you that Zimmerman could in fact be guilty as charged?

At BEST, being charitable, I look at this case and think he has one Hell of a case to make: That he was at imminent threat of death or grievous bodily injury by a single unarmed assailant AFTER having initiated the confrontation in the first place. (That last isn't in doubt at all, even by Zimmerman's account).

In the BEST of circumstances, even with a sympathetic jury I'd give 70/30 that Zimmerman would be convicted of some degree of manslaughter. He's got one Hell of a hard case to prove.

But since the usual suspects are saying the usual crap, many people on this board are assuming it's Rodney King all over again. -It's not the same thing. Not even a little bit. -I fail to see any reason for the original question. -Unless you're stupid enough to think that the Black Panther party speaks for anything but the same fringe of the country that the KKK speaks for.

Sent from my HTC EVO running Synergy+Godmode using Forum Runner

 

[Bill Nance]

But to say he was minding his own business, and not doing anything illegal is entirely unsupported by the facts.

Your words, not mine.

Martin was under no obligation whatever, any more than you or I would be, to prove to anyone that he wasn't engaged in criminal activity

And yet you say stupid crap like:

Let me ask you this, how do you know he wasn't involved in a crime?

Which shows exactly how unreasonably biased you are in this case. ZIMMERMAN never alleged any criminal activity on the part of Martin in his 911 call. Not has anyone else. So why exactly is it you think that Martin had some obligation to to prove the negative.

Your answer is nonsensical and devoid of any serious content. But given what you've written on this thread, I don't find that surprising. If that had been my kid, Zimmerman wouldn't likely have lived this long. The notion that this is some trumped up BS case is ridiculous on it's face. An unarmed assailant of about the same size, no matter WHAT the circumstances outside a home or business, would likely involve a prosecution for manslaughter. In this case we have key evidence that ZIMMERMAN was the one who initiated the contact. Of someone doing nothing illegal.

Some altercation ensued and then Zimmerman is claiming SD against an unarmed opponent with no wounds to back up a claim of fear of imminent death or grave bodily injury.

Under the BEST of circumstances, that's a lot for Zimmerman to prove. In this case, all the things we know make that case even harder to make. Unless you're stupid enough to think that anyone someone takes a punch at your nose you have the right to shoot him. -God help you if you ever get punched, because you're probably going to do some time.

 

[mark056]

I tried:

I was born almost twenty years after the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed. I have never acted in any way that has prejudiced my fellow man for the color of his skin. My hero is Clarence Thomas, and a picture of me standing with him proudly hangs on the wall in my home.

I have nothing to apologize for.

As for this case, the only thing I can agree with anyone on is that we don't know what happend. When you have Alan Deshowitz stating that the filing of charges by the DA was "unethical", it seems to me somthing has gone amiss.

For someone who is usually spot-on IMO, you totally missed the point. It is not about you being prejudiced, it is about how other groups perceive you. Read Cekim's post, I think he has articulated it best.

You I don't have anything to apologize for shows a lack of critical reading, something you usually possess to a high degree. It's not about that at all, it is about the fact that you and your children are going to be part of the new white minority, and that other groups are not necessarily treat you fairly or equally. That's the point.

You get bashed enough on here for being on the Job, but there will be sometime in your career (if you don't go over to the dark side and become an attorney) where you will either have a civil rights violation charged against you, or someone less qualified than yourself will be promoted because of affirmative action policies.

There are plenty of groups out there who feel oppressed, rightly or wrongly, and are quite willing able and ready to oppress others because of a perceived notion of payback.

We have a diverse society with a thin veneer of tolerance, and do not have a consensus culture.

 

[OfficerObie59]

For someone who is usually spot-on IMO, you totally missed the point. It is not about you being prejudiced, it is about how other groups perceive you. Read Cekim's post, I think he has articulated it best.

Your I don't have anything to apologize for shows a lack of critical reading, something you usually possess to a high degree. It's not about that at all, it is about the fact that you and your children are going to be part of the new white minority, and that other groups are not necessarily treat you fairly or equally. That's the point.

You get bashed enough on here for being on the Job, but there will be sometime in your career (if you don't go over to the dark side and become an attorney) where you will either have a civil rights violation charged against you, or someone less qualified than yourself will be promoted because of affirmative action policies.

There are plenty of groups out there who feel oppressed, rightly or wrongly, and are quite willing able and ready to oppress others because of a perceived notion of payback.

For what it's worth, my post wasn't in direct response to any of yours, maybe except post #134--I couldn't disagree more, and it seemed your later posts were additional reading, rather than a clarification. In a country where our very national Constitution provides that sons are not responsible for the adverse acts of their ancestors, I refuse to relegate myself to this line of thinking. Perception is good and well and worth being cognizant of, but when we change our actions in fear of angering those with this perception, we become no better than those who hold it.

Is there racism still? Absolutely, I'd never deny that. But how much lingers from the Jim Crow era versus how much is created on the campuses and legislatures of America in noble effort by overcorrection? I think we long reached the tipping point where we're perpetuating the problem.

I also disagree largely those who make such claims always feel oppressed for legitimate reasons. I think a good portion of people use of skeletons of the pre-Civil Rights movement in attempt to avoid responsibility for their actions. And I also think that those who feel genuinely discriminated against feel that way not becasue they were, but only because they are always on guard for it. It's kinda like the medical student phenomenon: the medical student sits in class, hears all the symptoms to a particular disease, and says in response to all of them, "yeah, I might have that". If you look for racism everywhere, you're going to find it everywhere--not because it actually exists, but because you create it where it isn't. And the mindset that allows that to exist is just as wrong IMO than classic white-on-black racism.

In the end, justice is blind and should also be color blind. In this instance of Zimmerman, the only reason he was charged is because he shot a black teenager under ambiguous circumstances and everyone has filled in the blanks with assumptions of racism. Had this been a white-on-white shooting, there never would have been any uproar and the decision of the police and local DA not to prosecute would have stood.

Some altercation ensued and then Zimmerman is claiming SD against an unarmed opponent with no wounds to back up a claim of fear of imminent death or grave bodily injury.

Under the BEST of circumstances, that's a lot for Zimmerman to prove.

That's where I think you're wrong.

Zimmerman doesn't have to prove anything. The state does. In Florida, use of self defense is not only a legal defense--it provides immunity, thus shifting the burden of proof to the state. That's why no matter what may have actually happened, from an objective inquiry, I don't see how the prosecution made their initial burden of probable cause.

 

[Bill Nance]

For what it's worth, my post wasn't in direct response to any of yours, maybe except post #134--I couldn't disagree more, and it seemed your later posts were additional reading, rather than a clarification. In a country where our very national Constitution provides that sons are not responsible for the adverse acts of their ancestors, I refuse to relegate myself to this line of thinking. Perception is good and well and worth being cognizant of, but when we change our actions in fear of angering those with this perception, we become no better than those who hold it.

Is there racism still? Absolutely, I'd never deny that. But how much lingers from the Jim Crow era versus how much is created on the campuses and legislatures of America in noble effort by overcorrection? I think we long reached the tipping point where we're perpetuating the problem.

I also disagree largely those who make such claims always feel oppressed for legitimate reasons. I think a good portion of people use of skeletons of the pre-Civil Rights movement in attempt to avoid responsibility for their actions. And I also think that those who feel genuinely discriminated against feel that way not becasue they were, but only because they are always on guard for it. It's kinda like the medical student phenomenon: the medical student sits in class, hears all the symptoms to a particular disease, and says in response to all of them, "yeah, I might have that". If you look for racism everywhere, you're going to find it everywhere--not because it actually exists, but because you create it where it isn't. And the mindset that allows that to exist is just as wrong IMO than classic white-on-black racism.

In the end, justice is blind and should also be color blind. In this instance of Zimmerman, the only reason he was charged is because he shot a black teenager under ambiguous circumstances and everyone has filled in the blanks with assumptions of racism. Had this been a white-on-white shooting, there never would have been any uproar and the decision of the police and local DA not to prosecute would have stood.


That's where I think you're wrong.

Zimmerman doesn't have to prove anything. The state does. In Florida, use of self defense is not only a legal defense--it provides immunity, thus shifting the burden of proof to the state. That's why no matter what may have actually happened, from an objective inquiry, I don't see how the prosecution made their initial burden of probable cause.

And that my friend, is where you've got it wrong. (And friend I mean,)

A homicide has occurred, By his own admission, Zimmerman is the one who committed this homicide.

It isn't up to the state to prove anything other than the homicide. It's up to Zimmerman to prove that the homicide was reasonable. Any burden resides on the state to disprove Zimmerman's claims -YMMV depending upon the state you're in.

Zimmerman has to prove at least to a preponderance of evidence, (the minimum possible standard) that he was in fear of death or grievous (or grave, depending on the state) bodily injury or death.

All the state has to prove is that A: a homicide has occurred and that the defendant has committed it (uncontested) and that there was not an imminent threat of death or grievous bodily injury.

Given an unarmed assailant at about the same size and an absence oi serious or remotely life-threatening injuries, yes, the defendant has a Hell of a hard case to make for legit self-defense.

I am NOT anti-Zimmerman. No, I DON'T know all the facts. But what I DO know makes Zimmerman's case one Hell of a hard one to defend.

 

[Bill Nance]

Since when is a criminal record of an assailant relevant in determining whether or not self defense is legitimate? It isn't, at least not in this case.
/QUOTE]

Actually Its a huge factor in this case Mike, because the defendant is claiming a reasonable fear of death or grievous bodily injury at the hands of a previously innocent person.


It's an easy case to prove as a defense attorney in this kind of case when you can show the dead guy was a gang-banger. It's an altogether different case when you can prove nothing of the sort.

Martin was guilty of NOTHING as far as we can tell. He wasn't even ALLEGED to have been guilty of anything.

We have this otherwise innocent teen killed by some mall ninja and somehow there's anything to defend?

Tell Me where there';s anything remotely like an imminent threat of death or grievous bodily injury. Seriously, tell me how some 17-year-old punk gets the best of a 35 year-old male and other than size that's anything remotely like an equal confrontation.

I'd tear any 17-year-old I've ever met a new a**h***.He'd learn really quick why you don't F with a guy you don't know. -And that
is as a 47 y/o who knows his physical limitations.

I can hardly imagine a situation where I'd need to draw a gun. -and I'm not even remotely where I was at 35. ZIMMERMAN ius the one who needs to justify his actions.

No one else.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Does it not occur to you that he doesn't have to prove a damned thing? The prosecution has to prove he did it, with zero evidence, and fewer witnesses. All he has to do is raise reasonable doubt....

No. The prosecution simply has to get a jury to vote guilty. One standard way of doing this is to overcharge, so the jury will include a lesser included offense as a compromise verdict if they aren't really sure the subject is guilty but also aren't really sure the subject is innocent.

Yes, I know that is not how it is supposed to work - and that judges will tell the jury the defendant must be guilty beyond the proverbial reasonable doubt, and perhaps even advise not to issue any verdict as a compromise. But, things happen.

Since when is a criminal record of an assailant relevant in determining whether or not self defense is legitimate? It isn't, at least not in this case.

Since when is a criminal record of an assailant relevant in determining whether or not self defense is legitimate? It isn't, at least not in this case.

In some states, this is admissible only if the person claiming self defense can demonstrate he knew about the record at the time of the incident as, absent such knowledge, it could not have been part of the defendant's mindset at the time of the incident. This was the case in MA until Commonwealth v. Adjutant established the admissibility of such information as part of a self defense claim.

As to proof - the US operates on "innocent until proven guilty". The defendant is not under a legal obligation to prove anything.

 

[namedpipes]

What crime was Martin alleged to have been participating in exactly?...

He wasn't. Z called 911 saying a person was acting suspiciously. Z claims that person later attacked him and that he defended himself. What about that is unclear or wrong on Z's part, IF Z's claim is what happened? The crime came later, when Martin allegedly attacked Z.

... All the state has to prove is that A: a homicide has occurred and that the defendant has committed it (uncontested) and that there was not an imminent threat of death or grievous bodily injury.

Given an unarmed assailant at about the same size and an absence oi serious or remotely life-threatening injuries, yes, the defendant has a Hell of a hard case to make for legit self-defense.
...

So to stay "legal", the victim has no right to use greater force than he is attacked with? Why in HELL do you have a gun, Bill? Just in case somebody attacks you with a gun of the same caliber? You'd keep that in the holster, I assume, if you are physically assaulted but the mugger doesn't pull his gun? Do you have a knife in case someone attacks you with a knife?

If Z was the victim (the attackee if you will) he doesn't have to so much as break a fingernail in the fight to be in fear of his life. He's attacked - he has the right to react (and IMO) as violently as required to END the conflict immediately and without any damage to himself.

... I'd tear any 17-year-old I've ever met a new a**h***.He'd learn really quick why you don't F with a guy you don't know. -And that is as a 47 y/o who knows his physical limitations.

I'm a little bit short of 6'4" and just shy of 300lbs. Yes, I have a little too much belly but a lot is muscle too. I would probably come out ok in a fight. I would hurt afterwards but he'd probably be hurting more. I've met you at one of the pumpkin shoots. Unless you have a black belt kicking around somewhere... and if you do, I think you may have glossed over some of the teachings, if you're making claims / statements like this...

This part is really pretty amusing: You say you'd defeat any 17 year old, yet you go on to say they shouldn't "F" with a guy they don't know. Can someone in the class point out the obvious issue with this statement?

In summary: A person standing in a place of moral correctness, that is attacked and that willingly gives up ANY advantage, or willingly accepts ANY harm in order to "fair" is and idiot and is likely to become a dead idiot.

 

[drgrant]

Actually Its a huge factor in this case Mike, because the defendant is claiming a reasonable fear of death or grievous bodily injury at the hands of a previously innocent person.

People without criminal records get into altercations all the time. How do you think people get a record to begin with? It still doesn't invalidate his claim, at least not on its face. Only other evidence can.

I agree that it will likely add difficulty in getting the jury to believe his claim, but this all depends on what other evidence ends up on the table. I think we've only seen a small amount of it, frankly.

Martin was guilty of NOTHING as far as we can tell. He wasn't even ALLEGED to have been guilty of anything.

True, About the only thing on the table is whether or not he initiated the assault on Zimmerman or not.

We have this otherwise innocent teen killed by some mall ninja and somehow there's anything to defend?

How do you know he didn't initiate an unprovoked assault on Zimmerman? That's still an open issue here.

Tell Me where there';s anything remotely like an imminent threat of death or grievous bodily injury. Seriously, tell me how some 17-year-old punk gets the best of a 35 year-old male and other than size that's anything remotely like an equal confrontation.

I've seen some ripped 16-18 year olds who could probably beat the snot out of the average 35 year old out of shape male. BTW I think Zimmerman is younger than 35, but my assertion still stands.

I'd tear any 17-year-old I've ever met a new a**h***.He'd learn really quick why you don't F with a guy you don't know. -And that is as a 47 y/o who knows his physical limitations.

That's you, and you are not Zimmerman. You might have a lot more experience fighting with people than the average person, and that means a lot in terms of how you view (and respond to things) in a conflict. So what's next- are you going to suggest someone needs to get in a few fistfights before they are allowed to carry a gun?

I can hardly imagine a situation where I'd need to draw a gun. -and I'm not even remotely where I was at 35. ZIMMERMAN ius the one who needs to justify his actions.

So are you going to leave your gun at home tomorrow? This is the dumbest thing I've ever seen you post.

-Mike

 

[ThePreBanMan]

People without criminal records get into altercations all the time. How do you think people get a record to begin with? It still doesn't invalidate his claim, at least not on its face. Only other evidence can.

I agree that it will likely add difficulty in getting the jury to believe his claim, but this all depends on what other evidence ends up on the table. I think we've only seen a small amount of it, frankly.



True, About the only thing on the table is whether or not he initiated the assault on Zimmerman or not.



How do you know he didn't initiate an unprovoked assault on Zimmerman? That's still an open issue here.



I've seen some ripped 16-18 year olds who could probably beat the snot out of the average 35 year old out of shape male. BTW I think Zimmerman is younger than 35, but my assertion still stands.



That's you, and you are not Zimmerman. You might have a lot more experience fighting with people than the average person, and that means a lot in terms of how you view (and respond to things) in a conflict. So what's next- are you going to suggest someone needs to get in a few fistfights before they are allowed to carry a gun?



So are you going to leave your gun at home tomorrow? This is the dumbest thing I've ever seen you post.

-Mike

I have to agree with the DrGrant. I think that Zimmerman under normal conditions would never have been charged in FL. However because this case has received national media attention he had to be charged - so there could be a trial and a vetting of evidence which will be made public. Then the public can see for themselves.

 

[Bill Nance]

He wasn't. Z called 911 saying a person was acting suspiciously. Z claims that person later attacked him and that he defended himself. What about that is unclear or wrong on Z's part, IF Z's claim is what happened? The crime came later, when Martin allegedly attacked Z.

Learn about the concept of "Immediate fear of death or grave bodily injury." A punch in the nose, or even several, doesn't constitute in most people's minds a fear of imminent grave bodily injury. In THIS case, the claim of banging his head on the pavement MIGHT save his butt. It also might not.

So to stay "legal", the victim has no right to use greater force than he is attacked with? Why in HELL do you have a gun, Bill? Just in case somebody attacks you with a gun of the same caliber? You'd keep that in the holster, I assume, if you are physically assaulted but the mugger doesn't pull his gun? Do you have a knife in case someone attacks you with a knife?

Not what I'm saying at all. Three or more unarmed attackers? Deadly force, not even a question. Two or more? the gun came out as soon as the threat was presented. It may or may not get used, but in FACT, you're on less solid legal ground with two vs three, according to people who've been involved in hundreds of self-defense cases.

One unarmed attacker? Is he very significantly larger than you where one look at the guy decides that you're going to be seriously hurt in a physical confrontation? If so, you have a good shot at either not being prosecuted or being acquitted.

One unarmed attacker with no previous violent history whatever who you outweigh by some significant measure (as alleged in this case) who is also a minor? Tell me in what jurisdiction that DOESN'T get you prosecuted, no matter HOW right you may have been?

As the victim (the attackee if you will) he doesn't have to so much as break a fingernail in the fight to be in fear of his life. He's attacked - he has the right to react (and IMO) as violently as required to END the conflict immediately and without any damage to himself.

You're right. He has to (In Florida, I looked up the law and a couple of high court cases on it) provide a preponderance of evidence that his 17-year--old attacker with no violent history whom he is alleged to have outweighed by something like 50 pounds, was so dangerous to him that he thought he was in immediate danger of being killed or gravely injured even though no weapon was even thought to have been present. I can think of a couple of scenarios where this case might be made, but not by a 51% margin. Reasonable doubt he may well manage. But to have the case dismissed via the Florida judicial hearing process? -Not likely.

This concept is known as disparity of force. In other words, to quote a Washington State Supreme Court justice in a recent case I'm aware of: "The defendant, essentially brought a gun to a fistfight."

You might also ask this guy, who has a THOUSAND PERCENT more justification than Zimmerman on his BEST day could claim, about how disparity of force works in the courts.

I'm a little bit short of 6'4" and just shy of 300lbs. Yes, I have a little too much belly but a lot is muscle too. I would probably come out ok in a fight. I would hurt afterwards but he'd probably be hurting more. I've met you at one of the pumpkin shoots. Unless you have a black belt kicking around somewhere...

Which is exactly my point.

You outweigh me by something like 140 pounds. You're 8 inches taller than me. When I tell a prosecutor that I took one look at you and jnew you were going to kill me, how do you think the prosecutor is going to react to that, vs, I was up against a 17=y/o- kid whom I outweighed my 30 pounds, who was 4 inched taller than me and the only reason it happened in the first place was that I followed said kid, exited my car to do so AFTER the cops had said they were coming, etc?

In summary: A person standing in a place of moral correctness, that is attacked and that willingly gives up ANY advantage, or willingly accepts ANY harm in order to "fair" is and idiot and is likely to become a dead idiot.

Fair isn't the point. Not going to jail unnecessarily IS the point.

1. There was no reason on earth for Zimmerman to follow Martin after the cops had said they were coming.

2. There was even LESS reason for him to exit his car to do so. -This was downright stupid. He was instead of avoiding a physical confrontation where no one had been in ANY way threatened, he was putting himself in a position where that confrontation was MORE likely to happen. (If not actively seeking it, which I promise you the prosecution will claim) -Count on the prosecution making this point over and over WITH the testimony of self-defense experts. This is the crap I scream and rage at my students NOT to do.

3. HE claims he was attacked from behind. The only other witness is a dead, unarmed 17-y/o with no history of violence. Who's story do YOU think an actual impartial just would believe? If you had to think about it for more than a nano-second, that's a bad deal for the defendant.

I'm skeptical of Zimmerman. But I don't have all the facts, haven't interviewed him or the (noise only) witnesses. This could be a legally justified shooting.

But of you think that your "moral rightness" or any other such nonsense will justify homicide in any state but TX, you are smoking crack.(TX is it's own beast).

There is a presumption, rightful or not, that a mere fistfight does not constitute immediate fear of death or grave bodily injury. Where it does, the attacker had best be a LOT bigger than you or have friends or you're in real jeopardy.

If you act in any other manner, you are at grave risk of doing some serious jail time.

The big mistake Zimmerman made was getting out of his car to follow someone AFTER he'd called the cops, who had done nothing wrong other than appear "suspicious."

If he'd stayed in his damn car, this would have never happened. -Something I assure you Zimmerman is reminding himself of constantly. -I'm sure he feels awful given who Martin was and what he was doing.

AVOID, AVOID, AVOID. It's not your damned job to question or apprehend anyone. If you take it upon yourself to do so and wind up shooting an unarmed person, you're going to get prosecuted unless the guy was a 300-pound baddie with a long rap sheet,

Sorry you're unhappy with reality, but find me ANY expert who's testified in hundreds of self defense trials who will tell you different. You won't. Those are the people who's opinions I rely upon for what's legal and what isn't, along with some prosecuting attorneys I happen to know pretty well and talk about this stuff with regularly.

One of the primary questions in self-defense cases that get more than a cursory look (home break-ins to an occupied residences usually DON'T) is this:

Did the person slain have the ABILITY to inflict grave bodily injury or death to the slayer?

And absent a significant physical advantage (size, disability or gender of the slayer) numbers of assailants or a weapon, juries tend to say NO.

Let's suppose for a moment that Zimmerman was totally right in HIS mind that his life was in immediate danger. Lets just take that for a given. So in that case, yes, he would have the right to use deadly force, right? WRONG.

Because the FACT is that it wasn't what was in HIS mind that matters. What matters is what would be in the mind of a mythical "reasonable person," in that scenario. He may get off if the jury is of a similar mindset. He's screwed if the jury thinks that he over-reacted in an "unreasonable" manner.

So the lesson out of this is DON'T, while armed, get into any confrontation you can avoid unless someone is in danger. If you choose to do so, you do so at your peril. You may not like that, but that's how it works.

 

[namedpipes]

Learn about the concept of "Immediate fear of death or grave bodily injury." A punch in the nose, or even several, doesn't constitute in most people's minds a fear of imminent grave bodily injury. In THIS case, the claim of banging his head on the pavement MIGHT save his butt. It also might not.

I know the concept. It's good that you can "divine" the abilities and intentions of people you encounter. Most people can't do that.

Fair isn't the point. Not going to jail unnecessarily IS the point.

I'm talking about rights and you pick out the word "fair" from "fair fight"?

Look, bottom line. You attack me and I'll try to shoot you. 140lbs disparity or not.

Your DESIRE to cause me so much as a hangnail, does not impose on me any duty to accept even the slightest harm.

I'm skeptical of Zimmerman. But I don't have all the facts, haven't interviewed him or the (noise only) witnesses. This could be a legally justified shooting.

Yet you're happy to hang him out to dry based on no more evidence than I have available to me... Hey, I don't know either. Z could be the next incarnation of Charles Manson.

But of you think that your "moral rightness" or any other such nonsense will justify homicide in any state but TX, you are smoking crack.(TX is it's own beast).

I have no doubt that if I am ever placed in a situation where I must kill another person, I'll be put through the legal wringer. I would not be the first person to have his natural rights violated, to be trampled by the disgusting carricature of justice we "call" the legal system here and to be drowned in the sewage spewed by moonbats like yourself.

Here. Changing just a couple of words . . .

But of you think that the Second Amendment or any other such nonsense will justify civilians owning guns in any state but TX, you are smoking crack.

Let's suppose for a moment that Zimmerman was totally right in HIS mind that his life was in immediate danger. Lets just take that for a given. So in that case, yes, he would have the right to use deadly force, right? WRONG.

No. You are incorrect. Given that situation, Z *would* have the *right* to use deadly force. Following the inevitable trial by jury (sadly filled with a bunch of moonbats such as yourself) he would undoubtedly be denied that right. That does not mean he doesn't have it - just that a morally bankrupt society is willing to deprive him of it.

So the lesson out of this is DON'T, while armed, get into any confrontation you can avoid unless someone is in danger. If you choose to do so, you do so at your peril. You may not like that, but that's how it works.

And that is the ONLY thing you have said that makes the slightest bit of sense. The rep +1 I'm about to give you is for THAT statement.