skypuppy

I can accept that. I just get my panties in a wad when people post stuff about how Martin started the fight as if it were a proven fact. I find it just as irritating when people on TV state that Zimmerman was a racist as if it is the uncontested truth. We should all admit that the situation sucked, many lives have been ruined, and there were likely better ways of dealing with it that both parties could have chosen. However, once Zimmerman pulled the trigger, I think he should have been arrested. And given the fact that there was conflicting evidence (although the evidence presented by the prosecution turned out to be pretty weak), that evidence should have gone before a finder of fact, namely a jury. Now that the jury has spoken, the case should be over. perhaps it should have gone before a grand jury, and perhaps they should have decided there was not enuf to press charges. But it certainly shouldn't have gone to trial based on what was presented. Perhaps if you get your panties in such a twist, you should stop reading the thread... If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

Under law, he has to be in fear of his life 'or serious injury'. Doesn't really matter if he did or didn't think he'd die - fear of being more seriously injured is enuf justification. And frankly, he was entirely justified upping the ante after being unjustifiably attacked... If he'd picked the fight, yes, it would have been different. He didn't. He was a resident in a neighborhood plagued by home invasions and robberies, who saw someone he didn't recognize who seemed to be acting strangely ('on drugs') and so he decided to keep an eye on him until the police got there. Perfectly justified in my book. And legally. TM shouldn't have attacked him. If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

I think the Admin decided to have the DOJ say it to float it as a trial balloon and gauge public opinion (re: further charges); then decide based on that. It's great to have a gov't that will run it's legal system based on public opinion. Maybe we should do away with trials altogether. Throw them in the water. If they float, they're witches! If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

I caught a bit of the interview, including where this issue was discussed. As I understood it, the jurors who initially voted guilty (either manslaughter or murder) did so out of the belief that Zimmerman initiated the conflict by pursuing Martin. However the law only addresses whether or not Zimmerman (in this specific instance) reasonably felt his life was in danger at the instant he shot Martin; the circumstances of how they got to that point are not relevant given how the law is written. They even sent a question to the judge to clarify the point. Once they understood the law as it is written, the only relevant question was whether or not Zimmerman could reasonably have feared for his life (or serious injury) at the instant when he drew his gun and shot Martin. So it seems the law in Florida allows someone to provoke a confrontation, even to throw the first punch, and then to kill if the fight turns against them. Presumably they could still be accountable for assault for throwing the first punch, but not with murder. Seems like an open invitation for hotheads to me. Don Again, following someone is not provoking a confrontation, it is not illegal unless it is serial and menacing, and much of the time Z was out of the car, he was actually talking on the phone, which I doubt anyone could consider menacing. So he did not provoke the confrontation. And again, when there is an epidemic of break-ins and home invasions going on in the neighborhood, it is perfectly reasonable for a resident, noticing someone acting strange, to notify police and if necessary attempt to see where the stranger is going by following at a distance? It was not Z's only choice to follow him, but it was certainly reasonable. If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

The only way Z profiled Martin was he said he was acting weird and seemed to be on drugs. From what I understand, it seems like Martin WAS on drugs, seems like they believe he did some drugs after leaving the store and before returning home, so Z was absolutely correct. I also understand that the candy and drink were not for his brother, but to make a drug cocktalk called LEAN, which mixes them with something like robitussin to get you high... If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

Make my day, slit your wrists ... with all due respect to lawrocket (who is a good guy), this world would be a much better off with less slime bag lawyers in it. Seriously? You don't like what I write online so you openly tell me you want me dead? Would you like my address so you can openly threaten my children, too? ETA: The preferred usage in context would be "fewer", not "less". preferred usage by you might be fewer, rather than less maybe, but then again that's a purely subjective suggestion anyways... Why do you lefties always have to try to tell others how to even talk now? If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

If the author of this piece does not know the difference between 'insure' and 'ensure' then I doubt they have written anything intelligent enough to warrent a thorough reading, much less an analysis of their opinion. If the author of this piece does not know the difference between 'warrent' and 'warrant' then I doubt they have written anything intelligent enough to warrent a thorough reading, much less an analysis of their opinion. There, fixed it for you. If you're gonna correct someone's spelling, maybe check your own... If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

He's profiling you.... If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

I couldn't even listen to that. That guy obviously didn't have a clue what the case was about. The pictures he showed of Trayvon are about 5 years old, while calling him a 'kid'. Virtually every thing that GZ claimed has been born out by the evidence in the investigation. The witnesses the PROSECUTION called, ended up being for the defences benefit. This case never should have gone to trial. That's why you have grand juries, they would have told them not to bother. The rumor is that there are legal proceedings in the offing against the 'special prosecutor' who decided to take this case to trial over 'prosecutorial abnormalities' and failure to disclose exculpatory evidence. This guy you linked needs to do some more investigating before spouting off as if he knows what he's talking about... If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

So according to your logic, someone living in that community, plagued by violent home invasions and burglaries, is basically to sit back and do nothing, other than perhaps call the cops, who may not show up for an hour, while people's belongings or safety may be threatened? Again, I see no reason that anything Z did should be illegal or considered as provocation in and of itself. Maybe he could have stayed in his car, but that's his choice, it wasn't illegal not to. He said that he thought the person was on drugs - well, it turned out the person was on drugs. He thought the person was up to no good - well, the person doubled back, sucker punched him and started whacking his head on the pavement. GZ may well wish he hadn't gotten out of his car that day, but that's certainly not because a single thing he did was 'wrong'... If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

This case was about reasonable doubt. The prosecution's theory was that Zimmerman initiated the fight, the defense's theory was that Martin started it. If the jurors were not able to agree with the prosecution, beyond a reasonable doubt, they were obligated to return a verdict of "not guilty". That the prosecution was not able to prove their theory beyond a reasonable doubt does not automatically make the defense theory true. Martin was doing nothing illegal when Zimmerman decided he was up to no good. He was walking on a sidewalk in a neighborhood he had every right to be in, while talking on a cell phone. The defense certainly did not even try to prove that Martin was committing a crime when Zimmerman profiled him as a criminal. Zimmerman certainly did not know who Martin was at that point, and knew nothing about him personally. On what basis did he decide Martin was worthy of suspicion? Do you think he would have called the police and then followed Martin, had Martin been wearing dress pants, a white shirt, and a tie like a Mormon missionary? Black males get profiled a million times every day in this country. OCHUTE's post is a prime example. Sometimes that leads to confrontations. It's interesting that Zimmerman has a right to self defense, but apparently Martin did not. It is a tragedy that young black males are presumed to be thugs, by OCHUTE, by you, and by millions of others. It is a tragedy that so many people die for no good reason. I heard one commentator ask if he now has to dress his sons in a tuxedo before he lets them go to the store. If they are confronted by an unknown stranger, are they obligated to meekly acquiesce to every demand? I for one have no idea how to answer his questions. Don Zimmerman was doing nothing illegal when Martin decided to double back, sucker punch him, and start banging his head on the pavement. Following someone is not illegal, unless serial 'stalking' or if it is perhaps 'menacing', but Z spent much of the time follwoing TM talking on the phone, hardly what one would consider 'menacing'. Even the dispatcher did not tell Z not to follow, because following is not illegal. He did tell him 'we don't need you to do that'; but that is hardly ordering him not to follow. There is only one person to blame in this situation, TM. (well, actually maybe you could blame his parents as well, but certainly not GZ, who was in his own community and was attacked without provocation). If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

At least his story makes sense. Not sure what cloud your head is on.... If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

Who knows what the jury thought? they very well may have thought that he was most likely guilty, but not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and that equals an innocent verdict. In a civil suit, that same conclusion would be a win for the plaintiff. It's nice when the primary witness against you is dead, but it will be a different ballgame in a civil case, ask Orenthal James. then maybe they should just drop the whole criminal trial process and do everything as 'civil' suits. Streamline the system. Want to kille someone? How much? If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

Well, I hope NOT. There's been a trial, he was found not guilty. That should be the end of it. Don't need a federal "civil rights" suit, a civil suit for damages, or whatever. Just let it go. Agee 100%. There is nothing to be gained by continuing to stoke emotions. Let it go. Sure there is. Race baiters gotta continue to make a name for themselves and make money off inciting hatred. Gottsta sell those t-shirts, man. Now, before they go stale. If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

"I know this case has elicited strong passions. And in the wake of the verdict, I know those passions may be running even higher. But we are a nation of laws, and a jury has spoken" -President Barack Obama- Sounds just like the words of a liberal President about to set loose his federal goons to get Zimmerman any way he can. Well, we always knew this was gonna happen with obummer and holder in charge anyways, didn't we? If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

Why? Because you have mountains of evidence saying GZ is guilty that the jury didn't have? The burden of liability is much less in civil court, a jury need only find a person more likely than not to have acted negligent. it's also going to be nice to see all usual suspects that claim the system work, applaud the civil verdict. There is no negligence here. TM tried very hard to hurt or kill GZ. GZ defended himself the only way he could. Prior to being attacked, GZ committed no crimes at all in reference to TM. Again, even if he did 'follow' him, 'following' is not a crime unless it is perhaps 'stalking', on a serial basis, or maybe 'menacing' - but we have no proof whatsoever that there was ever any 'menacing', in fact, GZ was on the phone much of the time... If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

Frankly, GZ was 'innocent', and the judge and the prosecutors and the special prosecutor should all be disbarred for ever allowing this to trial, half the D of J and the Holder should be fired for this sham, and Obummer should be impeached for stupidity and sticking his oar in the water when all along the Sandford Police had made the correct decision by not charging Z. Unfortunate? Yes. But Trayvon Martin was the one who precipitated events here. He only has himself (and possibly his parents) to blame. If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

GZ killed a young man. He did not do like he was asked to do when he called 911. They told him to get back in his vehicle, he did not. ***The evidence supported this outcome. IMHO, to a point, not 100%. The evidence also pointed out GZ's faults as well and no punishment. Murder is not supported in the Bible. "Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth" Best- Richard the evidence supported this 100%. there is absolutely no way this ever should have even gone to trial. Even after a trial run by lying prosecutors and a hang-em-high judge there was NEVER ANY POSSIBILITY of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Bottom line is it is NOT illegal to follow someone, never has been (unless you;re actually stalking, which is a serial event, or menacing, which there was absolutely no way to prove beyond a reasonable doubt). But it IS ILLEGAL to assault someone, which is what TM did. and you could NEVER prove otherwise beyond a reasonable doubt. The state never had any possibility of a valid conviction in this case. Could GZ have handled things differently? Perhaps, hindsight is always 20/20. But he is not legally responsible and never was, and should not be found so in a civil case either. 10 to 1 TM would have ended up the same way within 10 years if GZ had never met him anyways. He was living that lifestyle. If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

“CRS is an arm of the department that we call the Peacemakers,” Thomas Battles, regional director of the DOJ's Community Relations Service, said at a meeting at the Shiloh Church on April 19, 2012. “We work with communities where there is real or perceived racial tensions.” “…When Trayvon happened, for many of us, it was the proverbial straw that broke the camel’s back,” he continued. “We had grown up in a state and environment where race is a way of life … We’re not from Sanford, but what Sanford represented to us was the very real problems going around this state and this country. We wanted to figure out how could we stand in solidarity, and how could we make this about not just justice for Trayvon, but using this moment and using the opportunity to honor his memory, to honor his spirit by working to bring down the various structures and the various systems that allow something like this to happen.” well, there you have it - it was never about Trayvon - it is about 'using the opportunity..by working to bring down the various structures and the various systems...' Out of the DoJ's own mouth... If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

*** I've held the opinion that this was never a case of 2nd Degree Murder, it was a case of Voluntary Manslaughter, and the claim of self defense was invalid (basically a vigilante situation that turned deadly). The issue with self defense (and the one a lot of people are missing completely) is that there are several elements to a claim of self defense. "Fear of Death or Great Bodily Injury" is one of them. But not the only one. All of them must be present for a claim of self defense to stand up in a court of law. It's that GZ clearly shot an unarmed TM, who was apparently doing nothing but walking home from the store. quote] TM was not doing nothing but walking home. He attacked GZ. From what you're saying, no one is ever to be allowed to follow someone they don't know in their own neighborhood. What's next? Maybe you're not following someone, and they think you are. So they can attack you? If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

I was referring to ian's story about when his house was broken into. I'm sure the crown didn't wait until the break and enter trial was almost over and then tacked 'kidnapping' to the charges... If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

When my house was broken into at gunpoint a few years back, they also hit the perp with kidnapping since they used a firearm to force someone to do something against their will (in this case jamming our house sitter in the closet). I don't think it's uncommon to hit them with as much as you can. Ian Yes, but I doubt they waited until the end of the trial to throw in that charge. Usually you hit them with everything you have in order to plea some of it away. Here, like in LA, even if Z is acquitted (as I think he should be) the feds are likely to jump in and charge him with something else... If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

Lesser charges are often included at the end in FL. Its just the way it works down here. The defense probably was prepping for it from day 1.I believe that's the way it works in every state. If you're charged with 1st degree murder, the jury could return a verdict of not guilty, but guilty of 2nd degree, manslaughter, or even aggravated assault. The "abuse of a child" I haven't heard of before. Think of it this way: if lesser charges are not included , then if Zimmerman is acquitted of 2nd degree murder he could be re-tried for manslaughter or assault without violating double jeopardy, since he would not have faced those charges already. Do any of you really want the state to get another kick at the can, where they could clean up some of their witnesses before putting them back on the stand? Don Considering what happened in LA when the cops were acquitted and then the feds charged them again anyway, I guess it really doesn't matter. Obummer and Holder will get their man anyway they can... If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

You should really try reading some of the stuff you link with a more critical eye. None of the documents indicate that the DOJ was organizing for or promoting a specific viewpoint. I realize that's not what those right wing websites want you to believe, but you have the choice to read their " articles" with at least a little skepticism. so you think they were arguing that z never should be charged in the first place? If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

this whole thing just gets more blatant. The belief in justice and rule of law is being destroyed. If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone