Disaster averted this weekend...

[nofearengineer]

Do you guys realize how much drama there would be on this board over the Zimmerman verdict if a few of our most special former members had still been here?

[bassboogieman]

Unfortunately, Zimmerman's problems didn't and won't end with his verdict. It's a damn shame the Feds, NAACP and others will continue hounding him, making his life miserable when he has been judged an innocent man. The same people that thought this verdict was unjust, took to demonstrations in the street in outrage, were the same ones rejoicing when O.J. was acquitted. What does that say about our society in general? Luckily, O.J. could not change his stripes and now rots in jail, I don't think Zimmerman is doomed to the same fate when he is finally allowed to continue with his life.

[flfireman]

How ironic is this? Kim Kardashian tweeted #Justice for Trayvon after the verdict. Some of you may remember her Dad was one of the defense attorneys for OJ. It was a mess here. Not going to say anything else, my temper is rather short with this topic.

[Abbeysdad]

Well I'm still suspicious...an over zealous neighborhood watch, cop wanna be dude with a loaded handgun stalks a 17 year old kid armed with a soda and skittles and the kid gets shot and killed. I guess as long as you yell help it's okay?

[WTL]

AbbeysDad,
as a matter of law, the case was correctly decided, as even Jimmy Carter and Alan Dershowitz have admitted.

To prove that a person is guilty of a crime, you have to prove each element of the crime. If the defenedent is offering an affirmative defense (such as saying I killed him, but in self defense) that too, must be proven by the state to be bogus - beyond a reasonable doubt.

That means, you have to prove that there was no existence of any reasonable doubt that Zimmerman was using self defense. If you have any doubt at all, you must acquit.

That is a very difficult standard, and its a good thing that it is so - or else how many innocent people might get locked up just because we think they probably were guilty? Because a lot of stuff goes down in the early morning hours when there are no witnesses.

The sad but unavoidable truth is it is easy to get away with murder if there is no evidence to prove anything. All we know is that Zimmerman and Martin fought, and Martin ended up dead. There is some evidence that Martin was winning the fight. Some shouting on a recording - inconclusive - a couple witnesses - who didn't see the shot - but nothing that really helps us know what happened. I don't know, and you don't know. I suspect they were both losers, but that doesn't exactly help. I think your suspicions of Zimmerman are justified, but that isn't enough.

So in a case like this, its really hard to convict. You have to basically get lucky and have a credible witness see everything, or a tape that is clear, or some physical impossibility that lends credence to the prosecution that it wasn't self defense (if Martin had been a parapalegic)....

And I find it curious, that many have made this a race based fight...and that the standard of reasonable doubt actually saved OJ...and has saved so many. But now, because one race feels as if one of their members was targeted, it makes it ok to dispense with a vital safeguard of the criminal justice system?

A lot of times in the "CULTURE WAR" there are points to both sides. But here, in this case, I don't understand and appreciate the other side. They are pretty much flat wrong to be making this into a national issue. There is no excuse.

[lilmule]

I think a lot was media oriented always portrayed as a 14 year old kid and 130 pds,look at the pics a more recent one with a hoodie is closer to the truth as to age and size.
An actress is wearing a shirt has guns that spell love,if zimmerman had given him love be him dead.
Like another dont think its all cut n dry myself even though im a concealed weapons carrier do not believe in stand your ground,here your life must be in danger(and his may very well have been dont know , other than the two involved)
But in any case even if the other party somewhat to blame hes still a perp not an innocent bystander or kid.Hes deceased but not a smiling kid ,a man more or less larger than the average adult much larger than me,and wearing to me objectionable clothing more or less designed to hide appearance.
Dont think it was race oriented,yet in retrospect it tried to be in the eyes of the media.
Hope i never have to have that decision,but do carry one,carried by 6 or judged by 12.
He was cleared folks-forget it-including big brother but we all know that wont happen.
In retrospect thought it was a mistake letting an all woman jury decide on the def part,as most women dont like guns,think it backfired as apparently dont like to be hoodwinked by the media,they saw the evidence presented not by the media but by both sides,then based their decision upon that presented.

[nofearengineer]

I am still astounded how many people let their kneejerk, emotional reactions determine their take on this verdict.

The state has all of the burden of proof.

And they had NOTHING.

[WTL]

You know, even if Zimmerman had racially profiled Martin, and followed him, and started the fight, it is possible that he could claim self defense. It would be a very weak case in that regard, but it could be claimed. Say Zimmerman hit Martin first, and then Martin just opened up on Zimmerman, beating his head into the ground, breaking his nose...at that point, if Zimmerman subjectively believed his life was in danger, he could shoot Martin.

Of course if those were the facts of the case, the jury probably would have ruled differently...but it would have been a much closer case.

Again, this was not a close case. Not with what we knew, at least.

Even Charles Barkely is now saying it was the right decision. That should end discussion.

[Abbeysdad]

If Martin broke into Zimmerman's house, I'd say fine. I just have a problem with middle aged men with guns stalking teenagers on the street and shooting them dead. I don't care who was winning the fight.
I hope that if a gunman stalks you or I on the street and shoots us, the perp doesn't walk. Just saying.

Originally Posted by WTL

AbbeysDad,
as a matter of law, the case was correctly decided, as even Jimmy Carter and Alan Dershowitz have admitted.

To prove that a person is guilty of a crime, you have to prove each element of the crime. If the defenedent is offering an affirmative defense (such as saying I killed him, but in self defense) that too, must be proven by the state to be bogus - beyond a reasonable doubt.

That means, you have to prove that there was no existence of any reasonable doubt that Zimmerman was using self defense. If you have any doubt at all, you must acquit.

That is a very difficult standard, and its a good thing that it is so - or else how many innocent people might get locked up just because we think they probably were guilty? Because a lot of stuff goes down in the early morning hours when there are no witnesses.

The sad but unavoidable truth is it is easy to get away with murder if there is no evidence to prove anything. All we know is that Zimmerman and Martin fought, and Martin ended up dead. There is some evidence that Martin was winning the fight. Some shouting on a recording - inconclusive - a couple witnesses - who didn't see the shot - but nothing that really helps us know what happened. I don't know, and you don't know. I suspect they were both losers, but that doesn't exactly help. I think your suspicions of Zimmerman are justified, but that isn't enough.

So in a case like this, its really hard to convict. You have to basically get lucky and have a credible witness see everything, or a tape that is clear, or some physical impossibility that lends credence to the prosecution that it wasn't self defense (if Martin had been a parapalegic)....

And I find it curious, that many have made this a race based fight...and that the standard of reasonable doubt actually saved OJ...and has saved so many. But now, because one race feels as if one of their members was targeted, it makes it ok to dispense with a vital safeguard of the criminal justice system?

A lot of times in the "CULTURE WAR" there are points to both sides. But here, in this case, I don't understand and appreciate the other side. They are pretty much flat wrong to be making this into a national issue. There is no excuse.

[nofearengineer]

You're right, Abbey.

The "neighborhood watch" has neither right, nor obligation to "watch the neighborhood".

And a guy wandering around in the rain, in the dark, cutting through people's yards should raise no suspicion whatsoever.

And it goes without saying that George Zimmerman had an obligation to let Trayvon beat him senseless, possibly to death, before he infringed on his right to act like an animal.

Frankly, if Trayvon hadn't been so immersed in "tough, angry, young black thug" culture, his first response to Zimmerman might not have been violence. It was a mistake he paid for and George Zimmerman will pay for for the rest of his life.

I can only hope you never run across any Trayvons lurking around your property late at night.

[bassboogieman]

Crime is at unprecedented levels in this county and anyone with any common sense should understand that if you dress like a thug, act like a thug, and assault another in their own neighborhood, you will be treated as a thug.

Could the whole affair been resolved differently? Certainly. But Martin was responsible for his actions, and paid a terrible price for not behaving differently. Zimmerman, probably should have been more passive (in the described circumstances) and continued to watch Martin until police arrived, then let them handle him. But as the affair unfolded, each behaved in a manner that led to the conclusion. Was Zimmerman, and a member of the "neighborhood watch" wrong in challenging Martin, I don't believe so. Martin could have taken a more passive response to the challenge and either been on his way after talking to Zimmerman, or explaining it again to the police. No, Martin decided to kick this dude's arse, yeah a real tough guy.

Should Zimmerman not have defended himself with deadly force after he was attacked? My personal opinion is no, NO WAY. Once you are attacked every citizen should be allowed to defend themselves with whatever means is available. Did Zimmerman provoke the attack? I don't know, but why would a totally "innocent boy" attack Zimmerman, did he think he was going to steal his candy and soda? Martin should have realized his situation and not responded in an aggressive manner, to do so only invites the escalation of the situation, which happened.

Martin was perceived as a thug, challenged as a thug, reacted like a thug, and was treated like a thug. End of story.

[nofearengineer]

Bruce, you're just another Pennsylvanian, clinging to your God and your gun...you bigot.

Oh, and btw...CONGRATS on your AR-15 purchase. I'm totally jealous.
As is typical of me, I want one, but I can't decide which one. I'm sure that shocks you.

[WTL]

Originally Posted by Abbeysdad

If Martin broke into Zimmerman's house, I'd say fine. I just have a problem with middle aged men with guns stalking teenagers on the street and shooting them dead. I don't care who was winning the fight.
I hope that if a gunman stalks you or I on the street and shoots us, the perp doesn't walk. Just saying.

I agree with that...cause I know I wouldn't try to fight a neighborhood watch captain patrolling a neighborhood. If I had been Trayvon Martin, Zimmerman and I would have had no problems. No fights. No cheap shots. Not even an argument.

I would have turned around and asked if there was a problem. Zimmerman would have asked me what I was doing. I would have held up the skittles. Problem likely solved.

Now a lot of people are assuming Zimmerman is at fault for the pure, single reason that Martin was black. They have no reason to assume this. But they are. And so are you. But if Zimmerman killed Martin because he was black...wouldn't he have shot the kid before they got in a fight and Martin got a few punches in? Does the existence of a fight actually prove that there wasn't an intent, originally, to go in shooting? Cause if your intent is to shoot a kid, why do you let him beat on you a little bit first? Slam your head into concrete? Abbeys...it just doesn't make sense.

Cause it is all very convenient...no...very inaccurate to characterize the events as merely being "guy with a gun stalking a teenager"...

Only by watering the fact scenario down can you make the argument that is seems people are programmed to make. Well its sad and its sick. If Zimmerman were obviously guilty, if he were obviously racist (his date to prom was a black girl for crying out loud!), but if Zimmerman were obviously guilty, don't you think people would have thrown him under the bus? They only people throwing him under the bus, though, are folks who are using this thing as an excuse to argue that racism still controls everything in america - itself a ludicrous suggestion considering the man who IS actually controlling america.

[nofearengineer]

The whole talking point about Zimmerman "stalking" him is getting pretty old.

[Bassboss]

It might get real muddy real quick!

[3dkicker]

Thought I'd add a little to this. Two times I've been approached by a neighborhood "watch" person.
1st - I was in a neighborhood checking out a pond for an event for the team I sponsored. I had permission from one of the coaches at the school to be on the property. I was approached by their NW person who remained in his car. He identified himself and then asked me politely but directly who I was and why I was in the neighborhood. I answered him and told him what I was doing and who had given me permission to be there. He took all the information down in a notebook and then filled me in on the community rules to use the pond.
2nd - I was hunting on a neighbors property. As I was walking across a field a local farmer confronted me and asked me what I was doing trespassing on the the property. He informed me that people were poaching on the property and he wanted to know who I was and if I had permission to be there. In this case I was the one armed with the loaded shotgun. Fortunately for him I wasn't poaching and I also gave him the name of the owner of the property who had given me permission to be there and told him that the son of the owner was asleep at the house on the property and he knew I was on the property hunting.

In the first case the NW identified himself and in turn I gave him my information. No issues.
In the second case things could have gotten ugly very quickly. But I was able to provide the farmer with the information he wanted and let him know that I had permission to be where I was without escalating the situation....and I was 15 at the time.

My point is that if both people had handled the situation correctly then none of this would have happened.

[Abbeysdad]

Around here, we lock the doors during the summer to keep the zucchini out.
I've never lived in an urban area, but I realize kids have to be tough and/or become a gang banger there.
I just don't think NW people should be out on the streets packing loaded guns. Zimmerman called 911, the police were dispatched, that was enough. No confrontation. Nobody had to die.
No, I'm not looking at this as a race issue.

Originally Posted by nofearengineer

You're right, Abbey.

The "neighborhood watch" has neither right, nor obligation to "watch the neighborhood".

And a guy wandering around in the rain, in the dark, cutting through people's yards should raise no suspicion whatsoever.

And it goes without saying that George Zimmerman had an obligation to let Trayvon beat him senseless, possibly to death, before he infringed on his right to act like an animal.

Frankly, if Trayvon hadn't been so immersed in "tough, angry, young black thug" culture, his first response to Zimmerman might not have been violence. It was a mistake he paid for and George Zimmerman will pay for for the rest of his life.

I can only hope you never run across any Trayvons lurking around your property late at night.

[carolina-rig-01]

Originally Posted by nofearengineer

Do you guys realize how much drama there would be on this board over the Zimmerman verdict if a few of our most special former members had still been here?

You referring to me?

[nofearengineer]

Originally Posted by carolina-rig-01

You referring to me?

I said "special".

[bassboogieman]

If you have a couple minutes, I would bet MANY people never heard this information, certainly not the six on the jury. American media is not interested in all the facts, just facts that sell newspapers and inflame the public, not to mention lean heavily to the left.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?featur...Yvzs4Ls#at=606

[carolina-rig-01]

This is way after the fact and I should probably just stay out of it, but that has never been my nature. Did Zimmerman over step his bounds by approaching the kid after the cops where called? Maybe, but without being there and swing what happened firsthand I can't even guess. The fact is that the kid was a known thug that had been in trouble before and the evidence was determined to be consistent with someone being shot point blank while being on top of the shooter. That alone tells me it was self defense. What would we be saying if Zimmerman didn't approach him after calling the cops and he went on to murder someone before the police got there? I bet a lot of people would be upset because the neighborhood watch had him and let him go before the cops arrived.

[nofearengineer]

All I can say is, the fight and shooting took place halfway back to Zimmerman's truck from where Zimmerman's phone call ended. And before anyone asks, they have the cellular GPS data to confirm where the call ended.

Ergo, Zimmerman has stopped following Trayvon and was going back to his truck. Zimmerman had no duty to retreat, yet retreat he did.

So at that point, it was Trayvon who had followed Zimmerman. Why? Like most predators, Trayvon saw retreat as weakness, and chose to attack.

[pro reel]

The part of this that really gets me angry is why the heck was this national news? Why was the media so intent on ignoring all of the negative facts they knew about Trayvon such as his history of violence, theft, drug use, and school expulsions and instead tryed to portray him as in inocent child? Why was the media so intent on doing the oposite with the man that defended himself? Zimmerman didn't do anything illegal. He may not have been smart in folowing a suspicious person into a dark area, but he did retreat from the area when he realized that it wasn't a good idea, thats when trayvon atacked him, while he was trying to return to his vehicle. If most of the do gooders that wanted zimmerman burned like a witch knwe the real Trayvon, they would not have been on thier witchhunt. The media made him look like the all american poster boy of an upstanding black american youth. He wasn't, he was a young violent criminal who was just gettting started in the system.

[nofearengineer]

Kevin, the answer to that question is that the news media is no longer about news. They are about agenda. This is a travesty, as there is a reason the founders granted the press special protection under the First Amendment. They knew that the press was an invaluable tool in keeping government honest.

The press today picks sides and wades into the political battlefield like partisan soldiers.

It's disgusting.

This country elected a president they knew NOTHING about, because the news media REFUSED to do their job.