Post Reply
Page 3 of 16  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 16 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Zimmerman Arrested On Murder Charge In Trayvon Martin Case
3 years ago  ::  Apr 12, 2012 - 4:18PM #21
teilhard
Posts: 51,393

What Facts do we now have that were missing a couple Weeks ago ... ???


I have ALSO thought -- and posted -- for now quite a while that George "Night Stalker" Zimmerman should have been arrested and charged  THAT  NIGHT ...


NO "Mob Hysteria" here ...


Apr 12, 2012 -- 8:58AM, Marcion wrote:

Apr 11, 2012 -- 9:29PM, teilhard wrote:


MAYBE The Prosecutor has developed/learned some FACTS that will be made Public at Trial ...


Apr 11, 2012 -- 9:28PM, Marcion wrote:


I can't believe the special prosecutor went for second degree murder. that is going to be very hard to prove. She should have gone for manslaughter and had a better chance of winning, 








Now that the facts are out I can depart from my independent position and state that I always felt  Zimmerman should have been charged with voluntary manslaughter.


I will never give in to the mob hysteria that many posters succumed to on this issue; Teilhard being the worst offender.





Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 12, 2012 - 4:21PM #22
teilhard
Posts: 51,393

Yes and No ...


NO  ONE -- not even "The Night Stalker Guy" -- disputes the FACT that the unarmed Teenager is DEAD and that Zimmerman IS the Guy who SHOT him ...


See ... "The Presumption of Innocence" is in many Respects simply a matter of PROCEDURE, i.e., a Legal Nicety ...


Apr 12, 2012 -- 3:54PM, TPaine wrote:


Apr 12, 2012 -- 12:23PM, arielg wrote:


Apr 11, 2012 -- 6:58PM, jane2 wrote:


Apr 11, 2012 -- 6:49PM, mainecaptain wrote:


It is about time. Now I hope justice is actually served.



As do I and most of us.



Justice has been served from day one. There is a process to go through instead of jumping to emotional, hysterical conclusions based on one's preconceptions. Justice is not only served when the result is  what some people  want.


As far as I am concerned, the guy is guilty just for the fact of going around the neighborhood with a loaded gun. It remains to be seen what kind of credible arguments he can come up with to diminish his guilt.


 This is a case where he is guilty until he proves himself innocent. His only hope is how much of an excuse can the  interpretation of the "stand your ground" law can give him.



Mr. Zimmerman does not have to prove himself innocent. The burden of proof is on the prosecution, not the defense.





Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 12, 2012 - 4:24PM #23
mindis1
Posts: 7,915

Apr 12, 2012 -- 4:11PM, rabello wrote:


Apr 12, 2012 -- 3:55PM, mindis1 wrote:


Considering the recent cases that have been dismissed in Florida under its “stand your ground” law, I have little confidence that this case will go to trial. I have less confidence that Zimmerman will be convicted or will spend a day in prison on such conviction. Not that I am cynical.


Indeed, considering the recent cases that have been dismissed in under Florida’s “stand your ground” law, I think it would be somewhat unfortunate for this case to go to trial and result in a conviction, if its dismissal (or Zimmerman’s acquittal) could lead to the repeal of these and other NRA-sponsored laws.




I share your lack of confidence in this situation.  But, the worst of all worlds would be for Zimmerman to get off but the NRA-sponsored laws that protect the shooter and not the victim don't get repealed, which is what I think is the most likely outcome.



I am afraid that that is the most likely outcome, also.  Again, not that I am cynical.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 12, 2012 - 7:14PM #24
rangerken
Posts: 16,408

There was not, and is not a 'stand your ground law' on army bases BUT, this supreme court decision covers anyone defending their home, specifically meaning private quarters OR, a soldier in barracks!


"The Supreme Court ruled in Beard v. U.S. (158 U.S. 550 (1895)) that a man who was "on his premises" when he came under attack and "...did not provoke the assault, and had at the time reasonable grounds to believe, and in good faith believed, that the deceased intended to take his life, or do him great bodily harm...was not obliged to retreat, nor to consider whether he could safely retreat, but was entitled to stand his ground."


Here in Massachusetts I may use deadly force if my home is broken into. Outside, however,
it would have to be clear that life was in danger. BUT, I do not have to 'run away' in any case. The issue is whether or not the level of force used is warranted. But again, inside my home, I MAY kill an intruder and it is assumed that someone unlawfully entering my home while I am inside, or anyone lawfully entitled to be there is inside, intends to do harm whether or not the person unlawfully entering is armed.


However...my local police do advise that if I ever have to kill an intruder they would prefer to at least find a knife or club or something that could be used as a deadly weapon in the person's hand...and oh yes...the police STRONGLY advise people to NEVER wound someone! An injured person can, of course, give evidence. So either hold them unharmed or the police, or kill them, but nothing in between.


Personally, I believe that any requirement that says an Ameican citizen must run away and may not defend him or herself is about as un-American and anti-Ametican as anything can be. One important thing about being an American is NOT running away, and NOT depending on 'government' to defend you! After all, government sponsored dial-a-prayer (aka 911) means that the police will do thei best to get there as quickly as possible but usually AFTER the crime has been committed. However, those who prefer to be victims should not be required to defend themselves. Cowards are entitled to be potected too.


I have no idea if Zimmerman committed 2nd degree murder. It does seem like a stretch to convict him of that. But if the prosecution has the evidence, than he should be tried for that and convicted. But if not, and manslaughter is the right charge, then perhaps a plea bagain is what is hoped for.


Anyway, there seems to be a whole lot more speculation than acknowledged facts right now.


Ken

Libertarian, Conservative, Life member of the NRA and VFW
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 12, 2012 - 9:56PM #25
jane2
Posts: 14,295

Apr 12, 2012 -- 7:14PM, rangerken wrote:


There was not, and is not a 'stand your ground law' on army bases BUT, this supreme court decision covers anyone defending their home, specifically meaning private quarters OR, a soldier in barracks!


"The Supreme Court ruled in Beard v. U.S. (158 U.S. 550 (1895)) that a man who was "on his premises" when he came under attack and "...did not provoke the assault, and had at the time reasonable grounds to believe, and in good faith believed, that the deceased intended to take his life, or do him great bodily harm...was not obliged to retreat, nor to consider whether he could safely retreat, but was entitled to stand his ground."


Here in Massachusetts I may use deadly force if my home is broken into. Outside, however,
it would have to be clear that life was in danger. BUT, I do not have to 'run away' in any case. The issue is whether or not the level of force used is warranted. But again, inside my home, I MAY kill an intruder and it is assumed that someone unlawfully entering my home while I am inside, or anyone lawfully entitled to be there is inside, intends to do harm whether or not the person unlawfully entering is armed.


However...my local police do advise that if I ever have to kill an intruder they would prefer to at least find a knife or club or something that could be used as a deadly weapon in the person's hand...and oh yes...the police STRONGLY advise people to NEVER wound someone! An injured person can, of course, give evidence. So either hold them unharmed or the police, or kill them, but nothing in between.


Personally, I believe that any requirement that says an Ameican citizen must run away and may not defend him or herself is about as un-American and anti-Ametican as anything can be. One important thing about being an American is NOT running away, and NOT depending on 'government' to defend you! After all, government sponsored dial-a-prayer (aka 911) means that the police will do thei best to get there as quickly as possible but usually AFTER the crime has been committed. However, those who prefer to be victims should not be required to defend themselves. Cowards are entitled to be potected too.


I have no idea if Zimmerman committed 2nd degree murder. It does seem like a stretch to convict him of that. But if the prosecution has the evidence, than he should be tried for that and convicted. But if not, and manslaughter is the right charge, then perhaps a plea bagain is what is hoped for.


Anyway, there seems to be a whole lot more speculation than acknowledged facts right now.


Ken




Ranger-Ken


I'm not always in total accord with all you say, but I do like your presentations.


Let this proceed.


I will say that in the Atlanta suburb in which I live police response is close to instantaneous. I know we also pay for that. Sometimes I do chuckle at their souped up police cars, but they earn them. One does not speed or drive under the influence here and we have few drug problems even though we are near a major interchange of interstate highways.


My husband's father's family were all Mass. Not a blood-thirsty lot. All were SAR and DAR and documented direct descendants of John Adams. My husband's grandfather owned mills in central Mass. My grandson, who has aced all but one course in a year and a half at MIT, loves Boston : great choice for him, on partial scholarship and recruited by MIT.


I'm not a great fan of handguns in the hands of unreliable sorts. My husband had a pistol here but he was Federal law enforcement and trained in how to use one. It was kept solely in our home and loaded only after our children had left home. When my husband died I had a son-in-law remove it and my husband's and father-in-law's hunting rifles and shotguns.


Jane


 




 

discuss catholicism
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 13, 2012 - 12:30AM #26
rabello
Posts: 21,664

Apr 12, 2012 -- 7:14PM, rangerken wrote:


After all, government sponsored dial-a-prayer (aka 911) means that the police will do thei best to get there as quickly as possible but usually AFTER the crime has been committed. However, those who prefer to be victims should not be required to defend themselves. Cowards are entitled to be potected too.




According to the timeline, Martin was shot a mere 2 minutes after Zimmerman ended his conversation with the 9-1-1 dispatcher, and the first cop arrived a mere 2 or 3 minutes after Martin was shot.   If Zimmerman had just waited for the cop to arrive, as he was advised to do, Martin would not have had to depend on "Dial-A-Prayer" to stop Zimmerman.  


Of course, had Zimmerman not racially profiled the kid in the first place, judging him to be a criminal who didn't belong in HIS neighborhood, Martin wouldn't have needed "Dial-A-Prayer" at all.


Funny that it turns out that it was Martin who needed "Dial-a-Prayer" which was minutes away.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 13, 2012 - 12:43AM #27
mainecaptain
Posts: 21,786

When you are scared, (and being stalked by a stranger is frightening) one does not always think straight, he (Trayvon Martin) May not have thought of (911).He was near his Dads residents, he may have been hoping he could make it their before the stalker caught up with him.

A tyrant must put on the appearance of uncommon devotion to religion. Subjects are less apprehensive of illegal treatment from a ruler whom they consider god-fearing and pious. On the other hand, they do less easily move against him, believing that he has the gods on his side. Aristotle
Never discourage anyone...who continually makes progress, no matter how slow. Plato..
"A life is not important except in the impact it has on other lives" Jackie Robinson
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 13, 2012 - 1:34AM #28
rabello
Posts: 21,664

Apr 13, 2012 -- 12:43AM, mainecaptain wrote:


When you are scared, (and being stalked by a stranger is frightening) one does not always think straight, he (Trayvon Martin) May not have thought of (911).He was near his Dads residents, he may have been hoping he could make it their before the stalker caught up with him.




I agree...that's a good point. I wouldn't think of calling 9-1-1 if somebody was following me.   I was trying to make a comment on the irony of Zimmerman not waiting for "Dial-a-Prayer" to save him from a less-than-2-minute fistfight with a kid when it was the kid who needed the 9-1-1 officer.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 13, 2012 - 11:56AM #29
mytmouse57
Posts: 9,782

Apr 12, 2012 -- 7:14PM, rangerken wrote:


There was not, and is not a 'stand your ground law' on army bases BUT, this supreme court decision covers anyone defending their home, specifically meaning private quarters OR, a soldier in barracks!


"The Supreme Court ruled in Beard v. U.S. (158 U.S. 550 (1895)) that a man who was "on his premises" when he came under attack and "...did not provoke the assault, and had at the time reasonable grounds to believe, and in good faith believed, that the deceased intended to take his life, or do him great bodily harm...was not obliged to retreat, nor to consider whether he could safely retreat, but was entitled to stand his ground."


Here in Massachusetts I may use deadly force if my home is broken into. Outside, however,
it would have to be clear that life was in danger. BUT, I do not have to 'run away' in any case. The issue is whether or not the level of force used is warranted. But again, inside my home, I MAY kill an intruder and it is assumed that someone unlawfully entering my home while I am inside, or anyone lawfully entitled to be there is inside, intends to do harm whether or not the person unlawfully entering is armed.


However...my local police do advise that if I ever have to kill an intruder they would prefer to at least find a knife or club or something that could be used as a deadly weapon in the person's hand...and oh yes...the police STRONGLY advise people to NEVER wound someone! An injured person can, of course, give evidence. So either hold them unharmed or the police, or kill them, but nothing in between.


Personally, I believe that any requirement that says an Ameican citizen must run away and may not defend him or herself is about as un-American and anti-Ametican as anything can be. One important thing about being an American is NOT running away, and NOT depending on 'government' to defend you! After all, government sponsored dial-a-prayer (aka 911) means that the police will do thei best to get there as quickly as possible but usually AFTER the crime has been committed. However, those who prefer to be victims should not be required to defend themselves. Cowards are entitled to be potected too.


I have no idea if Zimmerman committed 2nd degree murder. It does seem like a stretch to convict him of that. But if the prosecution has the evidence, than he should be tried for that and convicted. But if not, and manslaughter is the right charge, then perhaps a plea bagain is what is hoped for.


Anyway, there seems to be a whole lot more speculation than acknowledged facts right now.


Ken




In the home, I think I might favor the use of a firearm for defense. I would not have any problem putting myself and a 12-gauge between my wife and kids and anybody with the audacity to cross our threshhold with evil intent. 


On the street, I'm not sure packing heat is a good idea for most people. In most cases, it's just asking for somebody to get seriously maimed or killed. And that's exactly what happened here.


I don't live in a place where street thuggery is really an issue. But if I did, I think I would just carry grizzly bear spray.


My sister related to me that she once used it when she went to work in a seedy part of the city she was in at the time, and had to  stop a man who was beating the living crap out of his girlfriend.  She said it put him right down on the floor, and he instantly lost interest in doing anybody any more harm.


Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 13, 2012 - 12:47PM #30
Nepenthe
Posts: 2,720

Apr 12, 2012 -- 12:23PM, arielg wrote:


This is a case where he is guilty until he proves himself innocent. His only hope is how much of an excuse can the  interpretation of the "stand your ground" law can give him.




Well, he and his team will have to convince the jury that he was being assaulted by Martin.  If they can do that, then the "stand your ground" law does not apply, since there was no possibility for Zims to retreat.


 

Greater love has no one than this, than to lay down one's life for his friends.
Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 3 of 16  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 16 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook