Zimmerman Found Not Guilty

[TheCat]

Non story...

 Zimmerman is auctioning a gun he used to kill a teenager, and then justifies it by saying he will use the proceeds to fight anti-gun politicians:

It's not a story.

[fsquid]

Dude needs help.

[TheCat]

He does need help. And, he needs it before he ends up hurting someone else.

[peestandingup]

Here's the thing though, and someone correct me if I'm wrong. But according to the neighbor's 911 tape, Zimmerman was yelling for help & getting beaten for a LONG time before he shot a single round (which wasn't excessive). Meaning he didn't just straight up shoot someone & his injuries confirmed he probably did have a legitimate fear of great bodily harm or death, so he was technically within the boundaries of Stand Your Ground (which is why he was found not guilty). That really is the law & I think people let their emotions dictate this case instead of looking at it from a lawful perspective. It is what it is.

"But, PSU. He followed Trayvon & confronted him, which led to these unfortunate events!" Yeah, while scummy & probably somewhat racist, not against the law. So really you guys should be bellyaching against the current laws instead of this particular case throwing down your own judgements, because it was within the boundaries of what makes up Stand Your Ground, conceal carry & the no obligation to retreat from a threat.

Do I think Zimmerman is a scumbag? Yep, he's obviously got issues. Am I taking up for what the man did overall that set the events in motion? Nope. Was he within the current law? Yep, he sure was. So even though many of you absolutely hate it, that's where you live & that's what the rules are. If you don't like it, try to change it. If you cant change it, you gotta either live with it or move to a more restrictive state or country. Lord knows there's plenty to choose from.

[peestandingup]

no.  mostly he appointed himself a 'neighborhood watchman' accosted a resident, and then chickenshit scared of the teenager he blew him away and murdered him in cold blood.

He was helped along in his legal defense by a law which doesn't penalize a combatant for having put himself deliberately into the line of possible 'fear' while exonerating them for murder by gun usage (but no other form of murder).

More of an opinion than a correction. And Zimmerman was indeed appointed by the residents as the neighborhood watch coordinator & had been for years, so that statement is incorrect. I'd also say you're leaving out quite a bit of information in your timeline of accosting>shooting, like the witnesses & 911 tapes tell us, esp this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Trayvon_Martin_Shooting_Call3.ogg

As far as putting himself in that situation, I guess you could say that. But then that opens up a whole nother can of worms that could be used against people who defend themselves & to circumvent the law itself. "This man chose to walk down a dark alley in a bad neighborhood, putting himself in the situation where he had to use deadly force" or "his house window was clearly left open, the homeowner brought this upon himself" and so forth. Not saying the Zimmerman case is that, but you get what I mean. When it comes down to it, no one has the right to inflict great bodily injury or infringe on someone else's right to exist (or threaten to do so under certain circumstances) no matter what led up to it. If so, you can counter with deadly force. Even if its not against you & you witness it happening to another person & you're within the law to legally carry/own a firearm.

We may not like it, but technically Zimmerman was within the laws, which is really the root of people's problem with this case, and I understand that. But it seems most on here have decided to skip over/ignore a host of Florida's laws that pertain to firearms & their lawful use (because they don't count apparently) since they don't like them & call him a murderer. Again, not taking up for Zimmerman but that's not how it works.

Work to get the laws changed if you don't like them.

[peestandingup]

no.  mostly he appointed himself a 'neighborhood watchman' accosted a resident, and then chickenshit scared of the teenager he blew him away and murdered him in cold blood.

He was helped along in his legal defense by a law which doesn't penalize a combatant for having put himself deliberately into the line of possible 'fear' while exonerating them for murder by gun usage (but no other form of murder).

More of an opinion than a correction. And Zimmerman was indeed appointed by the residents as the neighborhood watch coordinator & had been for years, so that statement is incorrect. I'd also say you're leaving out quite a bit of information in your timeline of accosting>shooting, like the witnesses & 911 tapes tell us, esp this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Trayvon_Martin_Shooting_Call3.ogg

As far as putting himself in that situation, I guess you could say that. But then that opens up a whole nother can of worms that could be used against people who defend themselves & to circumvent the law itself. "This man chose to walk down a dark alley in a bad neighborhood, putting himself in the situation where he had to use deadly force" or "his house window was clearly left open, the homeowner brought this upon himself" and so forth. Not saying the Zimmerman case is that, but you get what I mean. When it comes down to it, no one has the right to inflict great bodily injury or infringe on someone else's right to exist (or threaten to do so under certain circumstances) no matter what led up to it. If so, you can counter with deadly force. Even if its not against you & you witness it happening to another person & you're within the law to legally carry/own a firearm.

We may not like it, but technically Zimmerman was within the laws, which is really the root of people's problem with this case, and I understand that. But it seems most on here have decided to skip over/ignore a host of Florida's laws that pertain to firearms & their lawful use (because they don't count apparently) since they don't like them & call him a murderer. Again, not taking up for Zimmerman but that's not how it works.

Work to get the laws changed if you don't like them.

sorry.  no one appointed him.  He appointed himself.

And then he murdered a teenager.

He deserved more than an ass beating for harassing the teen anyways.  He deserved an assbeating and a night in jail for attempting a false arrest and interfering in a police matter after being told by the police dispatcher to leave the kid alone.

But thats not what happened.  Instead he murdered the boy, and because death by gun is a special category of murder in this country, he wasn't convicted for his crimes.

Stephen, a neighborhood watch is just concerned neighbors getting together & watching out for each other on a volunteer basis, esp in places where crime can be high. No one gets "appointed" in any official way, unless the homeowner's association is involved. It looks like they were somewhat involved in this case though:

Zimmerman was in charge of recruiting block captains for a neighborhood watch program and, after having been asked, was also part of a group to enforce parking rules in his community.

The president of the homeowners association for the community where the shooting took place testified that he didn't think a neighborhood watch program was needed and that Zimmerman was in charge of the community's program from the very beginning.

Donald O'Brien stressed that the homeowners association had nothing to do with the neighborhood watch program but that he did attend a meeting to start it. Residents were told to "stay away" from suspicious people and call police, O'Brien said.

He said he once text messaged Zimmerman with praises for a group of workers who followed a burglar. Their actions led to the arrest of a young black man, who was charged with burglaries in the neighborhood, O'Brien said.

O'Brien added that police indicated it was acceptable to follow suspicious persons at a safe distance. He also said he signed an agreement with police to increase patrol of the area and to tow illegally parked cars.

Regardless, even if he did appoint himself as you say (or even just by the other neighbors), its still beside the point as nothing leading up to the shooting was technically illegal. And no, in the eyes of the law, no one "deserves" a potentially life threatening ass beating for following someone or even harassment unless the person is threatening death or great bodily harm. If that's the case then sure, have at it. Beat his ass until he doesn't move.

Sorry man, not trying to be argumentative. But like I said, your main beef is with the current laws since technically nothing unlawful was done by Zimmerman before or during the confrontation. That's just the reality of it.

[I-10east]

^^^That case is about as cut and dry as it gets, and the self defense was obvious. All of the outrage was based on race and emotion, opposed to evidence. They wanted Zimmerman's head on a platter (ala similarly Darren Wilson) and came up nada. 

[Adam White]

^^^That case is about as cut and dry as it gets, and the self defense was obvious. All of the outrage was based on race and emotion, opposed to evidence. That wanted Zimmerman's head on a platter (ala similarly Darren Wilson) and came up nada.

Perhaps. But I think there are a lot of people who believe Martin was racially profiled by Zimmerman (whether intentionally or not) and that Zimmerman created a situation that then required him (in his eyes) to use deadly force to escape.

I think Martin's family should file a civil suit against Zimmerman and then, if nothing else, it should cure us of Zimmerman's money-grubbing and fame-whoring behavior.

[peestandingup]

And stop trying to parse a difference between legality and morality.  Sometimes they reflect the same thing, sometimes they don't.

"But my morality & feels should count!" No. And thank God, otherwise we'd have all kinds of kooky shit going on in the legal world. Besides, people in any case usually don't stop & ponder the moral dilemma of what they're doing. The world is what it is, not what you want or think it should be. That's why we have hardlined views of the laws written down. Its like living in a huge ghetto that has breakins/murders every night & taking the moral high ground by not owning a gun. Sure, you'd feel good about yourself, but you're probably gonna die.

Zimmerman appointed himself, to the annoyance and frustration of his neighbors.  This is just a fact, and Im not sure why you keep denying this.

I'm not, but it doesn't matter. Not unlawful in any way.

If Zimmerman had murdered the boy with a baseball bat instead of a gun, we wouldn't be having this conversation btw.

Probably not since guns are bad & stuff. I'd also wager if Martin had been white (or Zimmerman was black), we wouldn't be talking about it either.

Which you seem to be having because someone referred to Zimmerman as a murderer. He is.  Plain and simple.  He murdered Trayvon Martin, and no amount of rhetoric will change that.

The laws on the books in the state you live in says otherwise. So did the jury. Change em, then he's a murderer.

You keep saying that the problem anyone who thinks differently is having is The Stand Your Ground Law. Which is a bad law.  It basically encourages and sanctifies a special category of murder.  Murder by Gun.

Well I'm glad you recognize its the law itself you have the problem with. How would you change it? Is there any situation in your mind that would constitute a civilian to be protected by these laws that defends themselves, their family or others? Home invasion, mugging at gun/knife point, witnessing a rape or attempted murder of another, etc??

Gimme Stephen's morally approved self defense crash course.

[peestandingup]

Repeating yourself endlessly doesn't make your points any more valid, PSU. It just makes you repetitive.

"I can't refute logic & the laws, so here's a personal jab & I win" -The Post