Zimmerman verdict - Page 66 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

Dudesky · #**976** 07-24-2013, 08:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidmash

Not if it is self defense.

Assault and Battery is an offense.

engatwork · #**977** 07-24-2013, 08:21 PM

You got a gun Tom?

Diesel911 · #**978** 07-25-2013, 01:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SwampYankee

OMFG, the horse's carcass now makes pink slime look like recognizable chunks.

Yet here I am still reading...

Now back to our regularly scheduled slap-fight, already in progress.

Isn't swinging a Club good exercise good for You/Us?

At least sitting here and reading and responding to this thread is keeping Me off the Streets. That has to mean it is doing some good.

It has also made Me do some thinking on another subject.
I always thought that People ought to do what the thought was the right thing to do.
If Z thought He was doing the right thing I guess I am wrong about that and have to add as long as they do not hurt someone else in the process.

Diesel911 · #**979** 07-25-2013, 01:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MTUpower

You've pointed out one of the most important points in this trial and future conduct of nearly everyone in a civilized nation: what to do when someone looks or acts like suspicious in your own neighborhood. The general rule which seems to be universal was that GZ "confronted" TM by getting out of his car and following TM. Here's the important question:

Why should people NOT follow otherwise suspicious people?

The answer is the same answer to other situations such as when someone else needs help: will you hurt yourself while attempting to save or help the other person? In other words- is it safe to try and help? Don't make two people drown instead of one; don't get two people electrocuted instead of one. In any suspicious person case, call the police and then what? Don't follow? Why? Because the person you are following may be a violent thug. There are two ways to find out if the person is actual worthy of your suspicion: one is to let them commit the crime, the other is to follow and they get violent- on you. Both methods show the person you followed IS A CRIMINAL. If you get beat up by following someone suspicious then your instinct was correct, period. There is no other conclusion. TM was a criminal. While you as a watch person are recommended to not follow- there is no law which says you cannot follow. If you follow and the person turns on you and assaults you- they are a criminal. TM was guilty of this and GZ defended himself. I applaud GZ and everyone who looks at the risks, knows the police most likely will not come in time to stop any crime and follows a suspicious person from a safe distance. Sometimes the criminal may have cohorts- or they may circle around and surprise you. But future criminals will be less likely to commit crimes, and if the person you follow is guilty then you've stopped crime right there. There is no crime in following a suspicious person.

But, I think Z thought He had the upper hand because He had a Gun. Therefore He did not exercise caution.
And, while He got hurt the Gun did give Him the upper hand in this situation.

I keep wondering which one of them was the actual Victim.

davidmash · #**980** 07-25-2013, 02:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dubyagee

Unproven, no witnesses self defense.

He was beating Z into the ground. Broke his nose and kept hitting.

The best thing to learn from this is to never assume the guy your whipping is unarmed or legally restrained from using a weapon.

Exactly. So how was Zimmerman able to claim it? Without knowing who started it, either cold have claimed self defense.

Diesel911 · #**981** 07-25-2013, 02:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Air&Road

How was TM a criminal? Is Assault and Battery not a crime where you come from?

Gee, We only have one side of the Story. How do We know Z did not Walk up to T and garb Him or otherwise get it Ts Face; how about if Z pulled His Coat aside and showed that He had a Gun.

So if We are not allowed to assume facts not in evidence concerning Z than the same has to go for T as far as the reason goes for the start of the Fight.

davidmash · #**982** 07-25-2013, 02:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dudesky

Assault and Battery is an offense.

Not if it's self defense it's not.

Diesel911 · #**983** 07-25-2013, 02:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Air&Road

Sounds as if you are not aware that there was testimony showing that TM was grounding and pounding Z. Of course you can always discount such testimony if it does not support your opinion.

That is evidence that at that Point Z was losing the Fight at that point in the Fight. I don't think that is disputed.

There is evidence from anyone else but Z as to how the Fight started?
There is no outside testimony that Z did not start the Fight.

If Z started the Fight then it was T who was defending Himself from a Crime being committed on Him (meaning T).

cmac2012 · #**984** 07-25-2013, 02:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MTUpower

I agree with all of this except who lost the fight. However none of this says SYG should be repealed nor does it say civil rights were abused; both of these are the major issues for people marching, occupying offices and other protests. The marches and protests have little to no common ground with the case. They are misplaced and shows the stupidity people marching and cunning of the black leaders ability to con it's followers.

You think GZ actually won the fight? Oh, he's alive and the other guy is dead but I'm not sure GZ won anything. His life from here on out is likely to be weird. His every burp getting reported in the press and random strangers hassling him unexpectedly.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Txjake

I am beginning to find all this hand wringing & teeth knashing humorous.... GZ found NOT GUILTY....let it go.... world is falling around us, major cities in financial ruin, and we are debating this ****??? IF you took a side and that side was TM, your side LOST. get over it, move on with your life...

My side lost? I think this issue is deeper than that. GZ was not found innocent in broad swathes of public opinion. One does well to avoid becoming an infamous pariah because that status cannot be overturned by a court judgment.

Diesel911 · #**985** 07-25-2013, 02:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by t walgamuth

I heard on the radio that Indiana now has SYG law.

I am not happy about that.

This is a good point; People have been thinking turning the Spotlight on the SYG Law would obviously reveal the flaws in it but no one seems to have thought there is a large group of People out there who now that the see the SYG Law more clearly would be happy to have one in their State.

Diesel911 · #**986** 07-25-2013, 02:41 AM

[QUOTE=Dubyagee;3181522]Unproven, no witnesses self defense.

He was beating Z into the ground. Broke his nose and kept hitting.

The best thing to learn from this is to never assume the guy your whipping is unarmed or legally restrained from using a weapon.[/QUOTE]

In Hindsight another conclusion that could be made is that T's assault/defense was not violent enough to save His life; T might have been to Humane.

They tell Women who are being assaulted to grab the Assailant's Ears with their Finger and shove their Thumbs into the Assailant's Eyes; it works the same if Men do it.

Sounds like T could have crushed Z's Trachea without too much problem.

It would have taking an unusual Person to still have reached for their Gun and shoot with their Eyes gouged or Trachea crushed.

t walgamuth · #**987** 07-25-2013, 05:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by engatwork

You got a gun Tom?

I have multiple lethal choices.

Botnst · #**988** 07-25-2013, 08:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diesel911

Gee, We only have one side of the Story. How do We know Z did not Walk up to T and garb Him or otherwise get it Ts Face; how about if Z pulled His Coat aside and showed that He had a Gun.

So if We are not allowed to assume facts not in evidence concerning Z than the same has to go for T as far as the reason goes for the start of the Fight.

How do we know a Martian didn't suck his lifeforce through his skull?

Two experts argued the facts in the case for six weeks before a jury. The jury weighed all of the facts and arguments presented and reached a conclusion.

I did not sit in the court and listen and watch everything. I watched a couple of hours. It was riveting. In my botanical opinion based on those two hours, both sides did a very good job arguing with the facts at hand.

I accept that the jury came to the best conclusion.

Outside of that, all of us experts are entitled to whatever speculative, ill-informed opinions we want to advance.

Txjake · #**989** 07-25-2013, 09:04 AM

Regardless, if Z approached M and asked him what hes was doing, THAT IS NOT A CRIME.....And, if M then assailed Z or ambushed him w/o being confronted by Z, there is the crime. True, we have one side here, but seemingly, the evidence supported the conclusion. Even IF Z confronted M, he still had a right, after being assualted and fearing for his life (his decision, not ours) he had the right to use lethal force. Its the law. And, its the law in many states. Don't like it? Change it, but I doubt if that is going to happen. People in this country are tired of thuggery.

oh, the prattle about Z being emboldened by the fact he was legally carrying? well that's the point of a self defense weapon. Free people may walk about and do things without as much trepidation b/c they know they are more safe due to the defense weapon. Don't like guns? fine, but don't prevent those who wish to legally carry & defend themselves and their families from scumbags from doing so.

Honus · #**990** 07-25-2013, 09:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Txjake

...People in this country are tired of thuggery...

People in this country also seem to be under the impression that violent crime is increasing, even though it occurs at about half the rate it did 20 years ago. FBI — Table 1

Quote:

oh, the prattle about Z being emboldened by the fact he was legally carrying? well that's the point of a self defense weapon....

Which is an excellent argument against stand-your-ground and for stronger gun control. Carrying a gun gives people a false sense of competence. Easy access to guns + stand-your-ground = recipe for disaster, IMHO.