I hope this has not already been posted. I find it very disturbing

[bobabode]

Originally Posted by bhunter

No, I don't think that his action was premeditated. I suspect that the likely outcome will be manslaughter. The other problem is going to be obtaining an impartial jury of his peers. I'd like to see some charges brought against those that fanned the flames in this case. Surely, others have been harmed by the intense rhetoric emanating from the media frenzy and hyped race baiting by those that make a living from such endeavors.

Now, now- you can't be chucking the first amendment if you want support for the second and any other part of the bill of rights. It did take an unusual amount of time for powers that be to finally file charges, that is why there was so much uproar.
Can't we just get back to calling each other names and beating up on our favorite scumbag politicians?

[noonereal]

Originally Posted by piece-itpete

Good. But if he's found innocent, what then?

Pete

he can't be, he stalked a kid and then murdered him

it's a matter of weather the jury finds him guilty of murder 2 or some level of manslaughter

[noonereal]

Originally Posted by bhunter

No, I don't think that his action was premeditated. I suspect that the likely outcome will be manslaughter. The other problem is going to be obtaining an impartial jury of his peers. I'd like to see some charges brought against those that fanned the flames in this case. Surely, others have been harmed by the intense rhetoric emanating from the media frenzy and hyped race baiting by those that make a living from such endeavors.

Or we could give them an award since it is likely without them this murderer may well have walked.

[Charles]

Originally Posted by noonereal

Chas with all respect (and I honestly mean it) we already know Treyvon did not start the confrontation.


The insistence of overlooking the facts to vindicate the almighty gun is extremely frustrating.

If you think for a minute that you have not done what you accuse others of doing you are way wrong.

Even if Trevor was beating Zimmerman to death it was Zimmerman who caused Trevor to use force to stand his own ground.

Trevor did not violate Zimmerman, it was Zimmerman who stalked Trevor.

There is so much wrong with this that it just amazes me when people post as you just did.

If I start carrying a gun it is then OK for me to pick a fight and when you fight back kill you?

This is an insane opinion.

Sorry I do respect you and your opinions but you defending the gun and Zimmerman by extension over the life of a young kid with candy. This si just as wrong as wrong can be.


Tell you what, can you make a case for me to understand your position? I am walking home from the candy store, you start following me and chasing me until I feel uncomfortable and decide to confront you (which I likely would) You have a gun and I don't.

What is it I can possibly do to make it OK for you to now shoot me?????????



Let me put it another way. Had Trevor beaten Zimmerman to death (and he was not a black kid) he would have told the police that he was stalked by a man with a gun and was able to save himself and he would have been a cult hero.


In fact if he were a white man and Zimmerman black kid you would be thrilled that he had beaten the aggressor to death.



I just can't believe good regular folk can make a case that even if Trevor was able to turn the tide temporarily on Zimmerman and was beating him that it was OK for Zimmerman to kill him.

Had he shot Trevor in the arm and Trevor lived (and he was a fat white guy) Zimmerman would be in jail. But because he murdered him he is free?????????

That is what happened here.



Footnote
I find this another amazing study on human psychology.

Well, I'll try to make a case.

From what I've read Zimmerman followed Trayvon, which is legal, but Trayvon started the confrontation with an assault.

And a I find any statement that Zimmerman simply murdered a child coming back from a candy store to be beyond plausibility. They put you in jail for that, there has to be more to it.

Perhaps Zimmerman was a zealot, then again, perhaps he was simply a concerned citizen trying to do the right thing, and the whole deal went south.

I don't know. But I do know that we are viewing the same situation and coming up with diametrically opposing conclusions.

I "get it", are you sure that you do?

Chas

[Charles]

Originally Posted by noonereal

he can't be, he stalked a kid and then murdered him

it's a matter of weather the jury finds him guilty of murder 2 or some level of manslaughter

As this issue has gathered so much attention, politically motivated IMHO, it will have to go to court.

Now suppose that the court finds him to be perfectly legal in his use of lethal force?

Chas

[barbara]

Chas.... I'm not so sure the kid started the confrontation. From what I've heard, it could have been Zimmerman who was confrontational.
But then, I've heard so many things, hard to sort out the real story.

Also, I think a few posts ago you ( I think it was you) mentioned there were no witnesses. I would think the person the kid was talking to on the phone as well as others that heard the screams would be considered witnesses, no?

[noonereal]

Originally Posted by Charles

As this issue has gathered so much attention, politically motivated IMHO, it will have to go to court.

Now suppose that the court finds him to be perfectly legal in his use of lethal force?

Chas

Chas, they can't.

It's a matter of what charge he is convicted of. He killed the kid for goodness sakes.

You can't kill kids, even the NRA can't get this passed.

Can you offer any scenario that could have occurred given what we do know where he could walk?

[noonereal]

Originally Posted by Charles

Well, I'll try to make a case.

From what I've read Zimmerman followed Trayvon, which is legal, but Trayvon started the confrontation with an assault.

And a I find any statement that Zimmerman simply murdered a child coming back from a candy store to be beyond plausibility. They put you in jail for that, there has to be more to it.

Perhaps Zimmerman was a zealot, then again, perhaps he was simply a concerned citizen trying to do the right thing, and the whole deal went south.

I don't know. But I do know that we are viewing the same situation and coming up with diametrically opposing conclusions.

I "get it", are you sure that you do?

Chas

If Trevor hit Zimmerman first it has little if any relevance since Zimmerman was stalking him.
I think it's a normal reaction when threatened to lash out in an attempt to turn the tide of an anticipated victimization.
The kid had no gun to "frighten off" Zimmerman.
Zimmerman had a gun and instead of frightening off the kid if this is what happened he killed him!

Honest, there is literally no way Zimmerman can walk.

Yes we are coming up with a dramatically different conclusion and that is both amazing and frankly very sad.

I think the right needs to pick a less obvious aggression to champion their cultural beliefs.



Look at it this way Chas, had Zimmerman not been playing cop Trayvon would be alive.

Had Zimmerman listen to the police Trayvon would be alive.

Had Zimmerman not carried a gun Trayvon would be alive.

All you folks making excuses for Zimmerman, what if your kid went to the store for candy and never returned?

[Charles]

Originally Posted by barbara

Chas.... I'm not so sure the kid started the confrontation. From what I've heard, it could have been Zimmerman who was confrontational.
But then, I've heard so many things, hard to sort out the real story.

Also, I think a few posts ago you ( I think it was you) mentioned there were no witnesses. I would think the person the kid was talking to on the phone as well as others that heard the screams would be considered witnesses, no?

You're a sweet lady.

To start with, you admit that you don't really know. And that makes two of us.

I wasn't the one to mention that there were no witnesses. But I have mentioned several times that I wasn't there and I don't know what actually happened.

Now I do object to Zimmerman being painted a racist, a "Dirty Harry Wannabee", etc, whenever it's just as possible that he was no more than a concerned citizen trying to do the right thing when things went south, and used lethal force in defense of his life.

All I'm saying is let's give the guy a fair shake. After all, he's not living in nirvana.

http://www.neighborhoodscout.com/fl/sanford/crime/

BTW, I was opening a checking account in Houston TX whenever there was a bank robbery. Sure glad the perp stopped when the cops told him that they were "going to blow him away" as I was sitting in a chair in the direct line of fire.

Ain't like opening a checking account in Bugtussell.

Chas

[Charles]

Originally Posted by noonereal

If Trevor hit Zimmerman first it has little if any relevance since Zimmerman was stalking him.
I think it's a normal reaction when threatened to lash out in an attempt to turn the tide of an anticipated victimization.
The kid had no gun to "frighten off" Zimmerman.
Zimmerman had a gun and instead of frightening off the kid if this is what happened he killed him!

Honest, there is literally no way Zimmerman can walk.

Yes we are coming up with a dramatically different conclusion and that is both amazing and frankly very sad.

I think the right needs to pick a less obvious aggression to champion their cultural beliefs.



Look at it this way Chas, had Zimmerman not been playing cop Trayvon would be alive.

Had Zimmerman listen to the police Trayvon would be alive.

Had Zimmerman not carried a gun Trayvon would be alive.

All you folks making excuses for Zimmerman, what if your kid went to the store for candy and never returned?

Reaching for common ground, shall we agree that this conversation is going nowhere?

And in the spirit of harmony, I'll admit that you're correct and I'm full of shit.

But I will NEVER back down from my previous statement that you would have made someone one hell of a good bitchy ex-wife!!!

Chas

PS: I'll be glad whenever you're healed up enough to start drinking again. I think you might be one of those who can claim "The wife didn't know I drank until I came home sober".

Personally, I'm not going to lose a friend over this issue. Ain't got that many to lose.

Take care,

Chas