Trayvon and Zimmerman

So, does anyone see riots like happening if Zimmerman is found guilty? Like with the Rodney King riots a few years ago?

Surely a riot is more likely if he's found Not Guilty?

Ditto.

Welcome back from your year-long hibernation. :o

I honestly don't see riots happening in florida, with either verdict. its been a clusterfuck of bad reporting, poor prosecuting, and an idiotic defense. People may moan, media might bitch and draw it out... but this is Florida after all.

I don't think it would be limited to Florida.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ImAnOgre

So, does anyone see riots like happening if Zimmerman is found guilty? Like with the Rodney King riots a few years ago?

---

eh? Why would there be rioting if Zimmerman was found guilty? A lot of people would disagree with the decision but conservatives tend not act like animals when a verdict doesn't go there way.

Surely the conservative opinion (at least as espoused by you) is that not only is he guilty but he should be Fried?

you have to account for the victim being black and florida passing stupid laws that conservatives love, ie Stand Your Ground.

This left being stand your ground by the press, and is all about race now.

Hey there, Ogre! :)

I don't think there will be riots if Zimmerman is found not guilty of 2nd degree murder, but convicted of the lesser charge of manslaughter. If he's found not-guilty of all charges, there might be some protests about Florida's SYG laws, concealed carry, or definitions of imminent threat/self-defense, though.

Then they can protest the great Florida Attorney General who tried to convict him of second degree murder.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

Then they can protest the great Florida Attorney General who tried to convict him of second degree murder.

---

Huh? That's not the starting point or person. :confused:

Whoever decided that the best alternative to not prosecuting him was prosecuting him for a crime that he clearly did not commit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

Surely the conservative opinion (at least as espoused by you) is that not only is he guilty but he should be Fried?

---

Where did you get that idea? The more info that came out about the case (despite the media LIES *and yes their were LIES*) it became clear it likely occurred just how Zimmerman described. He confronted someone who went ballistic and if he hadn't shot Martin he would have likely suffered a severe injury or death. One could argue manslaughter but 2nd degree murder? /boggle

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

Whoever decided that the best alternative to not prosecuting him was prosecuting him for a crime that he clearly did not commit.

---

Seriously? There's a dead teenager who wasn't doing anything wrong or illegal. But you pronounce Zimmerman is completely innocent of any crime before any investigation, charges, or trial? :donkey:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

Where did you get that idea? The more info that came out about the case (despite the media LIES *and yes their were LIES*) it became clear it likely occurred just how Zimmerman described. He *confronted* someone who went ballistic and if he hadn't shot Martin he would have likely suffered a severe injury or death. One could argue manslaughter but 2nd degree murder? /boggle

---

Goes to state of mind and intent. Zimmerman didn't need to *confront* the kid. His SUV and cell phone were his "safe zone" and first modes of "self-protection". The neighborhood watch program taught that policy, and even forbade carrying concealed weapons. That was confirmed during the 911 call (we don't need you to follow him, ie stay in your car, wait for police).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

Seriously? There's a dead teenager who wasn't doing anything wrong or illegal. But you pronounce Zimmerman is completely innocent of any crime before any investigation, charges, or trial? :donkey:

---

Are your reading skills that terrible? Do you just come here to have conversations with some alter ego that exists only inside your head?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

Are your reading skills that terrible? Do you just come here to have conversations with some alter ego that exists only inside your head?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

Whoever decided that the best alternative to not prosecuting him was prosecuting him for a crime that he clearly did not commit.

---

Try again. :donkey:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

Goes to state of mind and intent. Zimmerman didn't need to *confront* the kid. His SUV and cell phone were his "safe zone" and first modes of "self-protection". The neighborhood watch program taught that policy, and even forbade carrying concealed weapons. That was confirmed during the 911 call (we don't need you to follow him, ie stay in your car, wait for police).

---

If Zimmerman intended to kill him he could have just gunned him down and he would have no injuries. Zimmerman wouldn't have called 911 either. The way I see it he confronts someone he views as suspicious (and yes that was dumb, if Martin was actually in the process of stealing something that's one thing but he was just walking around) and the person goes crazy and starts using deadly force to the skull then Zimmerman has a right to defend himself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

If Zimmerman intended to kill him he could have just gunned him down and he would have no injuries. Zimmerman wouldn't have called 911 either. The way I see it he confronts someone he views as suspicious (and yes that was dumb, if Martin was actually in the process of stealing something that's one thing but he was just walking around) and the person goes crazy and starts using deadly force to the skull then Zimmerman has a right to defend himself.

---

But you don't see how Zimmerman's chosen actions (to leave his car and pursue) could have been construed as imminent danger to the innocent kid walking home......"armed" with nothing but candy and a bottled beverage?

Plus, we only have Zimmerman's account of events. He maintains that his gun was concealed under his clothes, tucked in a holster behind his hip/flank, which puts it underneath his body during the scuffle. But somehow Trayvon Martin "saw" the gun and tried to grab it...and Zimmerman was able to lift his (soft and out-of-shape body, with inferior athletic abilities) against gravity and force, to draw the gun and shoot it?

I think there's an alternate scenario that can't be corroborated by the victim, because he's dead. Zimmerman brandished his gun and scared the crap out of Martin. Young, dark-skinned males have a reasonable expectation that means imminent danger, and a threat to their lives. How are they supposed to "stand their ground" and defend themselves?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

Plus, we only have Zimmerman's account of events. He maintains that his gun was concealed under his clothes, tucked in a holster behind his hip/flank, which puts it underneath his body during the scuffle. But somehow Trayvon Martin "saw" the gun and tried to grab it...and Zimmerman was able to lift his (soft and out-of-shape body, with inferior athletic abilities) against gravity and force, to draw the gun and shoot it?

I think there's an alternate scenario that can't be corroborated by the victim, because he's dead. Zimmerman brandished his gun and scared the crap out of Martin. Young, dark-skinned males have a reasonable expectation that means imminent danger, and a threat to their lives. How are they supposed to "stand their ground" and defend themselves?

---

Which is more likely? Man calls police and then gets his face beat in and then manages to fire OR Man goes out to kill kid waving his gun about. Kid instead of running or surrendering starts wailing on him and Zimmerman doesn't fire until he gets his face knocked in a few times. Which is more likely? Now apply a standard GREATER than 51% likely hood (that of reasonable doubt) and you can see if the jury understands their job it should be not guilty.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

Which is more likely? Man calls police and then gets his face beat in and then manages to fire OR Man goes out to kill kid waving his gun about. Kid instead of running or surrendering starts wailing on him and Zimmerman doesn't fire until he gets his face knocked in a few times. Which is more likely? Now apply a standard GREATER than 51% likely hood (that of reasonable doubt) and you can see if the jury understands their job it should be not guilty.

---

That's not the legal definition of reasonable doubt, let alone self-defense. Your spelling of likelihood is also wrong. :donkey:

Also, 'the kid' did reportedly did try to run. He was talking on the phone at the time and had corroborating testimony from his phone-mate. Zimmerman could have taken that opportunity to return to his car, but he didn't. How many more excuses will you afford the shooter, that you don't afford to the victim?

Look up the requirements for second degree murder and then tell me how it applies to this case. This was a gross overreach and a political overreaction, and risks undermining any case against Zimmerman, including for manslaughter.

Would it be the same gross overreach and political overreaction if the teenager had been profiled as an Arab, Muslim, or Jew?

edit to add Mexican, Hispanic, Latino, Native Indian and illegal immigrant stereotypes to the profiling list

Or if the shooter was a Hispanic...or something.

Do you truly believe that Zimmerman (of Peruvian descent) would have treated a light-skinned male teenager....or any female...the same way he treated Trayvon Martin?

Utterly irrelevant to the question of second degree murder (something the judge happens to agree with by the way).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

Utterly irrelevant to the question of second degree murder (something the judge happens to agree with by the way).

---

The judge didn't allow "racial profiling" as part of the trial proceedings. But "criminal profiling" was certainly allowed, and was a main component of Zimmerman's defense. He was just acting as Neighborhood Watch, reporting suspicious people to the police. :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

Which is more likely? Man calls police and then gets his face beat in and then manages to fire OR Man goes out to kill kid waving his gun about. Kid instead of running or surrendering starts wailing on him and Zimmerman doesn't fire until he gets his face knocked in a few times. Which is more likely? Now apply a standard GREATER than 51% likely hood (that of reasonable doubt) and you can see if the jury understands their job it should be not guilty.

---

This is a truly dumb approach to both determining whether or not there is "reasonable" doubt in general as well as to determining guilt in a particular case.

Don't be a big baby. It should at least be 2nd degree murder due to his recklessness and disregard for human life. You're mad because someone might go to jail for incorrectly (aka stupidly) taking the law into his own hands and shooting an innocent black person to death. But, Lewk, just because most redneck conservatives are clearly bloodthirsty racists doesn't mean that you have to be.