George Zmmerman trial begins...

ballen0351 said:
But its not revelvent. I can follow you anywhere I want as close as I want as long as I have a legal right to be there. It gives you no excuse to attack me. When you start the physical confrontation you crossed the line.
Click to expand...

It's not relevant if GZ told the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Otherwise, it's very relevant. It's only from GZ's statement that we have the image of TM attacking him from the the rear/side. Other scenarios are compatible with the physical evidence, and in my experience the truth usually lies somewhere in the middle.
 
arnisador said:
It's not relevant if GZ told the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Otherwise, it's very relevant. It's only from GZ's statement that we have the image of TM attacking him from the the rear/side. Other scenarios are compatible with the physical evidence, and in my experience the truth usually lies somewhere in the middle.
Click to expand...


You can't convict with "somewhere in the middle".....
 
arnisador said:
It's not relevant if GZ told the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Otherwise, it's very relevant. It's only from GZ's statement that we have the image of TM attacking him from the the rear/side. Other scenarios are compatible with the physical evidence, and in my experience the truth usually lies somewhere in the middle.
Click to expand...
I thought we were talking about stand your ground not this case in particular. In Stand your ground I can follow you or do anything I want as long as I dont violate the law. As soon as you touch me you crossed the line. In this case the Jury sided with him so hes innocent.
 
See, this was another fine line. 1st, while we know that GZ had a CCW, do we know if in fact he physically had the gun out? 2nd, if TM was feeling harassed, then why was he talking to that girl, rather than the police? 3rd, where do we draw the line on harassing behavior? Perhaps one of our LE members on here (paging Ballen :)) can clarify. Let's assume I'm in a shopping mall. I see an attractive girl and begin to follow her everywhere she goes, in the mall. I have a right, just as she does, to be in that mall and go into any store in that mall. Can she turn around and ask me why I'm following her? Can she complain to the cops or security? Can I be made to stop following her?
 
ballen0351 said:
I thought we were talking about stand your ground not this case in particular. In Stand your ground I can follow you or do anything I want as long as I dont violate the law. As soon as you touch me you crossed the line. In this case the Jury sided with him so hes innocent.
Click to expand...

So, in a nutshell, GZ had every right to do what he did, ie: follow TM? If that's the case, which it appears to be, then technically GZ did nothing wrong.
 
MJS said:
So, in a nutshell, GZ had every right to do what he did, ie: follow TM? If that's the case, which it appears to be, then technically GZ did nothing wrong.
Click to expand...
Yes he was a concerned neighbor checking on someone he thought was suspicious. People do it every day. When he was then attacked he defended himself just like anyone else would
 
Steve said:
If you're following me overtly in your vehicle and then on foot, in the dark, in the rain while talking on a cell phone, I'd feel a little harassed. Gun or not, let's be reasonable here and at least acknowledge that there is a side of the story that has not (and cannot) been told.
Click to expand...
If you were following me overtly or covertly and I noticed, I would calmly ask if I could help you, you might be lost, for all I know.
I certainly wouldn't jump you and start beating your head into the pavement.
 
He's also looking at street justice. He's hated and will have to watch his back.

Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk 2
 
It's only from GZ's statement that we have the image of TM attacking him from the the rear/side.
Click to expand...

Actually, that's not true...We have sworn testimony from Rachel Jeantel, Martin's female friend who was on the phone with him that night. She stated under oath that she heard Martin address Zimmerman first. We also have this from what Zimmerman said on the video and also during the police interviews. It was after this initial statement that Zimmerman says Martin punched him in the face, in particular the nose. Since Martin had punching injuries on him other than his knuckles, it tends to make Zimmerman more credible...
 
That doesn't mean we heard the whole truth.
Click to expand...

Yes, all of Martin's history, including his hobby of fighting and claims of an ability to make the other guys nose bleed, was kept out of the trial. The history of a young man, not child, who was slowly becoming a criminal because he came from a broken home, and was following all the bad influences in life was left out of the trial. I wonder if the jury had access to Martin's cell phone text messages if they would have had to deliberate for 16 hours before they came back with not guilty...
 
The worst lesson to come from this trial...ignore crime...don't help your neighbors...

http://theweek.com/bullpen/column/2...se-teach-americans-to-mind-their-own-business

Zimmerman's neighborhood had experienced a rash of burglaries and break-ins. He chose to head up a neighborhood watch group. I would probably have gotten a better security system. Or moved. But that sort of voting with your feet is cowardly and escapist.
At some point, we outsourced caring to the police and the government, and in so doing, abdicated our own responsibility. At most, you are supposed to call the police (which Zimmerman did), but that's not exactly a heroic way to go about life. Is snitching the extent of our neighborly duties?
Click to expand...

This is an obvious takeaway from the case: Your life will be a whole lot easier if you retreat inward. Don't worry about the community.
Click to expand...

This is what the witnesses did that night...and Martin was killed. Who wants to take the chance that they might end up like Martin? What if Martin had started the confrontation earlier...when he had seen Zimmerman looking at him from his car? Everyone keeps saying Zimmerman should have stayed in his car...but how about Zimmerman should have never have stopped in the first place, even if he did have concerns about the stranger walking in the neighborhood? Sure, a woman who testified said two guys broke into her home, in broad daylight and ransacked the place while she hid in the bedroom with her infant hoping 911 would get the police there in time...isn't that really her problem? So the two guys lived in the community and were released...isn't that the next victims problem...as long as it isn't you?

Who wants to have to go to court as a witness anyway? That can be a real pain in the a**, just ask Rachel Jeantel...she really had a problem with it. Just don't call 911, and your problems wont escalate. Ignore the crime, move if you can, or suffer in silence...the police will be along to clear up the mess anyway...
 
The number of Greater Nashua residents applying for concealed carry permits has nearly doubled in December and January compared with a year ago, local police said.
Click to expand...

A good thing all around. More people carrying will help reduce crime, and it will expose more people to firearms and help to reduce the fear of them...
 
Again, a look at what actually happened during the 911 call...as opposed to what the media keeps misrepresenting about it...

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog...in_stream_media_about_the_zimmerman_case.html

The first paragraph of the editorial then repeats the lie that Zimmerman was told not to leave his car. In fact what the transcript of the call shows is that just prior to this exchange, the dispatcher tells Zimmerman "just let me know if this guy does anything else. A few seconds later after Zimmerman says that Martin is running the dispatcher asks him "which way is he running." It is sometime in this period that Zimmerman sounds like he has gotten out of his truck. For the next five or ten seconds there is a sound of wind that is followed by the exchange in which the dispatcher advises him he doesn't need to follow Martin. At no time anywhere on the call does the dispatcher ever tell him not to leave his car or return to it. These five to ten seconds are the only time in the whole encounter in which there is any evidence of Zimmerman following Martin on foot. And since there is so much misinformation about what happened it bears repeating.

Zimmerman was never told to stay in his car and was never asked to return to it!

No evidence at all is ever produced that Zimmerman followed Martin after the above exchange with the dispatcher. In fact, towards the end of the call, Zimmerman tells the dispatcher that he has lost sight of Martin. Clearly Zimmerman could not follow Martin if he couldn't see him. Further evidence of this is that Rachel Jaentel's testimony indicates that Martin had likewise lost sight of Zimmerman until shortly before the start of the confrontation. In other words, after telling the dispatcher "ok", Zimmerman did not follow Martin nor did Martin perceive he was being followed.
Click to expand...
The claim that Zimmerman was at fault because he pursued Martin after being told not to has absolutely no basis in fact. It is a made up assumption that has been repeated so many times by the media that people actually believe that is what happened.

The 911 call that was placed by Zimmerman is on the web in both audio and written transcript form. It was played numerous times at the trial. There is no excuse for continuing to lie about the evidence. The Chicago Tribune should know better than to continue to perpetuate lies that have fueled so much anger over this case.
Click to expand...
 
Would Martin have been more or less likely to attack Zimmerman if he KNEW Zimmerman was armed?
 
While it's indisputable that Martin spoke first, it's unknown whether he initiated physical confrontation. We have one side if a very confused story. As arnisador said, I agree with the verdict. I don't, however, believe we have heard the truth of it. At least, not the whole truth. I wish Zimmerman no ill and don't envy him the infamy. But my opinion is that he benefited legally from the media circus. Had the prosecutor charged him with manslaughter, I believe we'd be having a berry different discussion

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2
 
billc said:
A good thing all around. More people carrying will help reduce crime, and it will expose more people to firearms and help to reduce the fear of them...
Click to expand...

Indeed. There's a big spike in women getting their permits as well -- which is also consistent to what we've been seeing with the rise in attendance at the 2nd Amendment sisters shoot.

But, Matt Lewis' article makes it sound like he needs to cry himself to sleep. He's right, retreating inwards is easier. I think it was Bill Mattocks who said a few times that no one's life gets easier with police involvement.

I just don't see the Zimmerman case as affecting much. It hasn't stopped my neighbors -- in a state where open, loaded carry is legal -- from wanting a CCW, for example. If you're motivated to do something, you'll find a way to do it, and probably find that you do it well. If you're not motivated to do something, then anything can serve as an excuse...whether its the Zimmerman case or what's on TV.
 
Well...things are starting to go to south on the West Coast.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Not Just the EDL Then?

Previous Thread

Hmmm ... Given My Disdain for Celebrity ...

Next Thread

Similar threads

kenpo tiger
1964 abduction and killing of three voter-registration volunteers revived
2
Replies
22
Views
2K
rmcrobertson
R

Latest Discussions

Back
Top