Soxbadger

The OJ trial really has nothing to do with how a Zimmerman civil trial would play out. The difference is OJ never argued self defense, the question was, whether OJ actually committed the murder. The Zimmerman trial is different, there is no doubt that Zimmerman killed Martin, the question was whether or not that killing was lawful. The ultimate question being, if Zimmerman was lawfully allowed to shoot Martin, then under what theory could there possibly be recovery in a civil trial? Conversely, OJ was never allowed to kill those people, thus there is no conflict in finding him not guilty under a beyond a shadow of a doubt standard, but liable under preponderance of the evidence. But where is this really all going? Even if Zimmerman was somehow found liable he can just file bk.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 15, 2013 -> 11:39 AM) It's a good thing the people in the second example were racist and believed the three black kids standing nearby were the culprits. You, SB and others would have thought nothing of them and not gotten your laptop back. I have insurance, why would I start pretending Im Sherlock Holmes when I can just call up state farm and get a replacement? Seems a hell of a lot cheaper/simpler, wouldnt even want to guess what legal defense fees are for murder.

They way I interpret the statute is that: is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force. So without digging deeper id say that Zimmerman has a pretty strong defense to any civil charge.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 15, 2013 -> 10:43 AM) Even in a gated residential area? That to me is the difference. There's a limited number of neighbors/strangers in that kind of place. You most likely have seen everyone before. This isn't living in Lincoln Park where you see a hundred thousand different people a day. I lived in the North Suburbs (Lake County), I never assumed random people on a path were criminals, even in a gated community. People walking on the street arent generally criminals. Especially 1 single teenager.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 15, 2013 -> 10:27 AM) Lostfan, honestly, if the script were reversed here - it's a predominately black neighborhood that's experiencing crime being committed by white teens - and you happen to see a white teen that you've never seen before, you're not thinking to yourself "wonder what he's up to?" Maybe you don't care enough to call the cops on him (but you might, especially if you've been a victim of a crime and watched as the cops did nothing for you and your neighbors), but I find it hard to believe you wouldn't at least think that to yourself. Unless they are committing an overtly criminal act, I wouldnt think anything regardless of whether they were white, black, etc. I guess I dont assume that people who are walking on the street are criminals, regardless of the circumstantial connection that they may have to other unrelated crimes. Call me old fashioned, but I dont consider walking on the street to be a suspicious activity.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Jul 15, 2013 -> 10:08 AM) Being black and walking while otherwise minding your business is apparently a valid reason to call 911. Comforting to know that's the country that I live in and that's what people see when I'm not wearing a suit or playing with my son or doing something else inherently non-threatening. Hey now, its perfectly reasonable for adults to follow teenagers around. Im sure that everyone in this thread would have no problem with an armed adult following their child around at night. Especially if that adult already has had violence issues in the past. These are just reasonable things that you want happening in your neighborhood. I dont really care about the verdict, its better that 10 guilty men go free than 1 innocent man be convicted, I just think that the idea that this is "reasonable" is pretty bizarre. I also think that a lot of the opinions may be different if some roles were reversed.

Even though I may disagree with the law and the result, the jury did their job. Its just unfortunate that many others have been convicted unjustly because they did not get the media/public support that Zimmerman did. Its very rare for an adult who kills a teenager to get that much sympathy. The case is over, anyone who deals with this type of stuff knows you win some and you lose some. Hopefully no one does anything really stupid like deciding to take the law into their own hands. Kind of an ironic last statement on this case. heh

QUOTE (zenryan @ Jul 12, 2013 -> 02:41 PM) Havent you learned yet that only Zimmerman is responsible for his actions. God forbid anyone holds Trayvon responsible for his... Im pretty sure that Martin already has paid the greatest consequence for his action. The idea here is that BOTH should have to take some responsibility.

QUOTE (MexSoxFan#1 @ Jul 12, 2013 -> 02:07 PM) That to me is the most WTF thing about all this...Zim is so b****made he can't get a teen who weighs less than him, off of him without killing him? Really? This is a guy who wanted to be a cop and took MAA lessons and he's now the weakest man alive...please. Hes a coward. The type of guy who says lets meet at the bike rack and then tells the principal you are going there to fight him as hes crying on the phone to his mommy.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 12, 2013 -> 01:38 PM) Every state has concealed carry laws. And all hell hasn't broken loose! We have a lot more gun murders/violence then other countries, so I guess it depends on what we consider going to hell. You may think it takes a million gun deaths a year, I may think it takes 1, difference of opinion.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 12, 2013 -> 12:24 PM) I don't think that's lost on most people. But why make two tragedies by putting a guy in jail for life (since you would have preferred murder 1 charges) over a dumb decision? I never said Id prefer Murder 1 charges. I have said manslaughter from the beginning. Your now basically arguing that no one should ever go to jail over a bad decision, because its just more tragedy. Got a dui and killed someone, why should your family have to suffer because of a dumb decision? Id say most people who go to jail would say that they made a "dumb decision", the point is to prevent people from making said dumb decision.

QUOTE (illinilaw08 @ Jul 12, 2013 -> 12:13 PM) The other point that cannot be driven home enough is this: Martin was not breaking the law. Zimmerman followed a 17 year old kid while carrying a firearm. Zimmerman's act of following Martin led to the confrontation. As a result, Martin is dead. Anyone that fails to see the tragedy in Martin's death... I just don't know what to say... This point is lost on some people and always will be lost on some people. They do not see themselves in Martin, they see themselves as Zimmermans, and so they empathize and create a story where a man can shoot a teenager and we can all sit around and say: "Well lets just chalk this up to bad things happening" "Just another unfortunate case of mistaken identity"

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Jul 12, 2013 -> 12:12 PM) Travon's and his 'friend's'. or did you not hear that part of the testimony? So because teenage kids are idiots, you are going to keep parroting idiocy?

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Jul 12, 2013 -> 12:09 PM) it really boils down to what exactly was it that Zimmerman did to start the altercation. IF 1) Zimmerman was following from a reasonable distance 2) Martin ducked around a corner to hide in some bushes to ambush Zimmerman 3) then Zimmerman went to investigate where Martin went 4) then Martin attacked Zimmerman and is totally kicking his ass 5) Zimmerman shoots Martin in this scenario Zimmerman is not-guilty Id semi-agree, the problem I have with 1 is that Martin was absolutely aware that Zimmerman was following him. So to me that indicates it was not "reasonable" because it was close enough that someone noticed and changed their actions due to the following. The only way I can really justify "self-defense" is if there was some evidence that Martin was out that night looking for trouble. Because even just "hiding to ambush" could merely be Martin trying to "self defend". And that is ultimately the problem, can 2 people both be using "self-defense" at the same time, to therefore make it impossible for either party to be charged with the crime? My answer would be no. I would actually think that if both parties are "defending" that means neither party really is, and thus both should be able to be convicted. Since Martin is dead we cant punish him, but if this had gone different (martin just being wounded), I would have absolutely been fine with both Martin and Zimmerman facing battery charges.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Jul 12, 2013 -> 12:07 PM) And do you think that his life will even be the same again? Looking over his shoulder for that one crazy-ass douchbag that thinks he is gonna up his street cred by taking care of this crazy-ass cracker? Yeah, he is still alive, for now, but unless he moves across the country in some sort of witness relocation type of thing he will be punished every remaining day of his life, guilty verdict or no. In what world is Zimmerman a "cracker". And you pay for the consequences of your actions. If you are not willing to live with them, dont do them. Simple advice to live by.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 12, 2013 -> 12:00 PM) Then stop talking in absolutes if you admit context matters. It's not as simple as: man had a gun, unarmed teen dead, give him the chair! Um, Ive always said in this case and then brought out multiple examples why what Zimmerman did is not self defense and should not be protected under the law. You dont think Zimmerman did anything wrong, I get it.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Jul 12, 2013 -> 11:57 AM) I believe the dispatcher testified that he never told him NOT to, because if they told someone what to do or not to do they could be open to all sorts of liability issues. Right semantically the dispatcher said "We dont need you to do that" Also lets remember Zimmerman had already prejudged Martin, associating Martin with a criminal that would "get away". And like I said, this case will come down to the jury. I cant predict what people will think on this one. You have classic defendant's rights people like myself arguing for conviction, so its not really about the facts, its about your impression of the incident. My impression is that Zimmerman shouldnt have started it, so he deserves some sort of punishment. Another persons impression may be that Zimmerman was absolutely in the right and thus he deserves nothing. Its just boring to say that somehow the law is on one side or the other, when clearly its a very grey area.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Jul 12, 2013 -> 11:55 AM) Nice to see all the people on here who would just do nothing if they noticed a strange person walking around their neighborhood in the dark rain for 20 minutes or more, when the whole neighborhood is only about 3 blocks long. Don't look twice at him, that might be profiling, and certainly don't call the police, if he happens to be black that's racist. I hope your child never gets accidentally shot by the neighborhood watch. Sorry but no amount of valuables in your home is worth the life of an innocent person. Thats why you call the police, because you dont know the situation.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 12, 2013 -> 11:55 AM) I still come back to the example of the subway robber. Your s*** is stolen by a mob of teens, you go after them, they end up jumping you and beating you until the brink of death and you shoot and kill on of them (unarmed) in self defense. Based on your guys' logic, the mere fact that you stepped foot in their direction to recover your phone means you lose all arguments of self-defense. Based on SB's ridiculous logic, the only facts that matter is that you went after them and an unarmed teen was shot. Case closed. Go to jail for 30 years. f*** that. Nope not at all. In this scenario the TEEN STOLE MY s***. WHERE DID MARTIN STEAL ANYTHING FROM ZIMMERMAN????? Jesus this is absurdly bad, which is why I have to make jokes, because im seriously saddened. If Zimmerman stole Martins wallet... But he didnt...

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 12, 2013 -> 11:45 AM) Because I don't believe having a gun and walking down a street means you intend to shoot someone. He's legally allowed to carry that gun and he's legally allowed to use that gun to defend himself if he feels like he's about to die. You can't punish him for not agreeing with that law. I dont either. I believe walking down the street and following after being told explicitly not to creates a dangerous situation that you need to take responsibility for if it turns sideways. Plenty of people walk down the street with guns in Florida every day, Id say 99% of them do not fail to follow a 911 operators instructions. But lets just keep pretending that in this world the facts are: George Zimmerman was walking down the street, minding his own business. Out of nowhere a large teenage boy attacked him knocking him to the ground. George screamed for help as the teenager bashed his skull into the pavement, fearing for his life. After no one responded to his pleas, George asked the teenager to stop hurting him and the teenager replied "I am going to kill you sucker", then George, with no other option, pulled his gun and warned the teen again. At that point the teen turned into a zombie so George did the only thing he could, he shot the zombie teen and saved Florida from a zombie apocalypse. lol

In Jenks world you have to let the other guy do something first. So as long as he touches you, you can shoot him. But if he follows you around while you are going home, you cant be fearful and defend yourself. Interesting logic. And the testimony is meaningless. Dead men tell no tales. I could be scared s***less and acting with bravado. I can be around the girl of my dreams and dying inside and act like I dont even know her name. How does any of that truly tell what Martin felt that night? Its entirely speculative. Heres what is not speculative. Zimmerman killed an unarmed teenager. If Zimmerman had not followed Martin, no one dies. Maybe he will get away with it, but thats only because there is no real justice in the world. (edit) And its not shocking you dont want me on your jury. Its kind of a compliment actually, it just shows that my compass is still pointing the right way. (edit 2) And even more interesting is that Im generally almost always pro-defendant so for me to be arguing for a conviction means that something super shady had to go down.

Jenks, Once again, I do not believe following innocent people around with guns and acting in aggressive fashion is "reasonable". If I was walking home and some random guy started following me in a car and then on foot, I cant defend myself? Its funny, you keep acting like Zimmerman is the victim because he got beat up. I say, dont act like a tough guy unless you are a tough guy. If someone follows me and Im scared, I think I should have the right to try and defend myself with my fists. I do not believe that guy then should have the right to shoot me, because hes the dick who started it in the first place. Here is a fact that no one can deny: But for Zimmerman, no one dies that night. Martin wasnt going to hurt anyone, he wasnt trying to hurt anyone, he was walking down the goddamn street going home. But for Zimmerman, none of this happens. You want to applaud this type of behavior that is your call, but the law absolutely favors my argument and Zimmerman should be thanking whatever god he believes in that Martin wasnt me, because hed likely be facing murder 1. -in the world where Zimmerman kills the white suburban upper middle class teenager- It was premeditated, Zimmerman was told by the police to stop following the nice white suburban boy through the gated community that the teenager was visiting, but Zimmerman would not listen. He followed the white teenager as the teenager tried to escape to his house. Out of fear the teen tried to attack Zimmerman so he could run away, but Zimmerman, who had previously been arrested for assault in another case, shot the teenager in the chest killing him instantly. Justice for all.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 12, 2013 -> 11:17 AM) Mr. Juror, your job is to evaluate the facts based on the law, not what you believe the law should be. The Judge gets to do the sentencing right? If i'm a juror and I wanted Zimmerman to serve a little time, i'd be concerned that my option of finding him guilty of manslaughter still carries a possibility of 30 years for this. I am applying the law. I believe that you cant "self defend" if you created the situation by following someone. The 911 operator clearly told him not to follow. At that point he no longer can claim self defense. Thats called applying the law, so you really dont need to try and act condescending, it wont get you anywhere.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 12, 2013 -> 11:03 AM) IMO he walks. The prosecution had a weak case that was made worse by the witnesses. They tried to make race a thing and it didn't really stick. And they never could paint the picture that Zimmerman was a vigilante. The evidence is overwhelming that Martin was on top of Zimmerman and clearly had the upper hand in the fight. I think that should be enough for the self-defense argument. And I think the prosecution knows this since they asked for the weak third degree murder charge based on child abuse. This case is going to be decided by what juror has the strongest will. If Im a juror in that case, I would be hammering away that turning a fist fight into a gun fight that kills someone deserves some punishment. Zimmerman/Martin perhaps both created a dangerous situation, 1 of them is dead, the other deserves something. Had they both just beaten the s*** out of each other, we never hear about this. But when you bring a gun to a fist fight, I think you need to use much more restraint and I would want to make that message clear. You will go to jail if you shoot an unarmed teenager over a fist fight.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 11, 2013 -> 11:10 AM) According to Florida Code of Criminal Procedure: RULE 3.490. DETERMINATION OF DEGREE OF OFFENSE If the indictment or information charges an offense divided into degrees, the jury may find the defendant guilty of the offense charged or any lesser degree supported by the evidence. The judge shall not instruct on any degree as to which there is no evidence. So you can go downstream but not upstream. Y2hh it was actually Jenks who found it, based on that I think its always okay to convict of a lesser offense, even if its not explicitly charged.