DOR said:HOLLAFAME said:Legally, the decision is probably correct,
Which is bullshit. Because the facts are that GZ refused to listen to the 911 operator when they told him to stay in his car and let police handle the situation. That right there shows malice IMO. You refuse to listen to a direct order from the police and venture out with a gun. That shows malice, no?
And I said it at the beginning of this thread back in March. The only person that should be able to claim any sort of stand your ground here is TM. He was the one that wasn't doing anything illegal going about his own business being stalked by some wannabe vigilante who refused to listen to authorities.
The shit makes no sense. And the prosecution should have been bringing that up every step of the way.
HOLLAFAME said:Legally, the decision is probably correct,
skel said:maybe America needs to get un-American for a while to change for the better.
day said:Part of the problem (in this case) is that some state laws are autonomous from the federal government. Which brings up not only how shit like this can be legal in a quote-un-quote civilized society, but how archaic laws like getting a blowjob in your own home can still exist on the books. It's a convoluted situation.
And with all that said, the very bottom line is a man disregarded the police, got out of his car, pursued and confronted a kid (who, ironically he should have been protecting), most likely got his ass beat for doing so, and murdered him.
Fuck all the courtroom theatrics. That could be my or your son. He wasn't doing a damn thing wrong. He wasn't out breaking any laws, he went to get a drink and some candy during a basketball game in a place he had every right to be in.
PatrickCrazy said:You can't have individual states' rights without having individual states' rights.
It was a police dispatcher who could not have had as much of a grasp of the situation as the person at hand.
And seriously not trying to stir anything but how can people in this thread completely discount dude's recollection of the situation and then come up with some account of the event that has absolutely no evidence to support it?
Fred_Garvin said:PatrickCrazy said:You can't have individual states' rights without having individual states' rights.I would think, though, that the question here is "Should states have the right to make laws that can be interpreted in such a way that a person can commit a homicide and walk away because he said it was necessary?"
Not as a much a grasp of the situation as a police officer on the scene, perhaps... but based on his actions and his police interview, it's probably fair to say that Zimmerman had a pretty poor grasp of the situation. One thing to remember is that a police dispatcher is not a just a phone operator. They take emergency calls all day long, and a good one has training in police procedure so they at least know what to expect and what to tell people
A totally fair point, but his recollection doesn't have much to support it either. All we really know for certain is that he followed someone (who was by all appearances doing nothing more than walking and talking on the phone), was armed, didn't announce himself in any way or state his purpose, and there was some type of a physical struggle, which ended with a gunshot. Everything else is conjecture, based on either hearsay, imagination, or tangential/irrelevant information.
PatrickCrazy said:Look, I'm not saying dude had the greatest judgment skills in the world but people will react differently in tense situations compared to normal ones. No one is going to be able to give a police dispatcher a total picture of a situation and if someone in a situation exercises their own judgment in a situation and it happens to be poor then they should be held accountable for it. That does not equal murder though
PatrickCrazy said: That does not equal murder though.
crabmongerfunk said:i know i am putting words in her mouth and extrapolating the worst from them
Jonny_Paycheck said:This is not a one-off event
I also gotta say that the judge's directions to the jury were just awful. Clear as mud.
skel said:Maybe the jurors got the decision technically right.
But sane people must realise that whatever law allowed this whole episode to happen and dude to walk free is utterly wrong.
So take a step back; Zimmerman is a shill here.
The law is shit, change it.
Then another step back; armed neighbourhood watch dudes, block captains, main regulating mens, whatever, outlaw it.
Then a further step back: get rid of this 'right to bear arms'.
And one more step: maybe that's "un-American", but maybe America needs to get un-American for a while to change for the better.
Because being un-American seems an appealing stance to take when surveying the views of some dudes up in here who seems to think that justice has been served and all is right with the world and yay for our best system in the world bollocks.
And for the avoidance of doubt, and for the one-eyed patriot sheep amongst us, yes this could happen anywhere in the world, but we're specifically talking the Trayvon case here.
LaserWolf said:GZ has shown zero signs of remorse and has a 'rest of his life'.
Bon Vivant said:LaserWolf said:GZ has shown zero signs of remorse and has a 'rest of his life'.
This can't be overstated.
day said:Bon Vivant said:LaserWolf said:GZ has shown zero signs of remorse and has a 'rest of his life'.
This can't be overstated.
rootlesscosmo said:"Do you feel that you wouldn't be here for this interview if you didn't have a gun?"