Posted by MikeT23 on 7/16/2013 2:24:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 7/16/2013 2:23:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 7/16/2013 2:21:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 7/16/2013 2:20:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 7/16/2013 2:16:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 7/16/2013 1:47:00 PM (view original):

Posted by silentpadna on 7/16/2013 1:39:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 7/16/2013 1:33:00 PM (view original):
I think a manslaughter conviction would have been a just outcome.

Zimmerman didn't intend to kill Martin and may have believed his life was in danger but is guilty because he acted unreasonably.

Evidence (again)?

Technically, he was already tried of manslaughter and found not guilty.  How did the jurors get it wrong in the eyes of the law?

And...what is "reasonably"?  (Hint:  defending yourself is considered reasonable).

Clearly, I disagree with the verdict.

I think it's more likely that Zimmerman initiated the confrontation.

Star prosecution witness Rachel Jental disagrees with you(unless you consider "following" the initiation of the confrontation).

"Why you following me?" were the words she said TM used.

How is that disagreement?

Zimmerman walks up to Martin. Martin asks, "why you following me?"

How did the non-speaking person initiate the confrontation?

Are you saying that a confrontation can only be initiated with words?

I believe this answers this question:

"Seriously, one guy has a bloody nose and a cracked head.  The other guy has a bullet hole.   Which do you really thing happened first?"

Do we know if Zimmerman tried to detain Martin? Did Zimmerman swing and miss? Did Zimmerman try to tackle Martin? Why would Martin attack Zimmerman unprovoked? Could Martin have feared for his life?

There's a shitload that we don't know and the only living witness is the guy that pulled the trigger.

Posted by bad_luck on 7/16/2013 2:35:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 7/16/2013 2:24:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 7/16/2013 2:23:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 7/16/2013 2:21:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 7/16/2013 2:20:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 7/16/2013 2:16:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 7/16/2013 1:47:00 PM (view original):

Posted by silentpadna on 7/16/2013 1:39:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 7/16/2013 1:33:00 PM (view original):
I think a manslaughter conviction would have been a just outcome.

Zimmerman didn't intend to kill Martin and may have believed his life was in danger but is guilty because he acted unreasonably.

Evidence (again)?

Technically, he was already tried of manslaughter and found not guilty.  How did the jurors get it wrong in the eyes of the law?

And...what is "reasonably"?  (Hint:  defending yourself is considered reasonable).

Clearly, I disagree with the verdict.

I think it's more likely that Zimmerman initiated the confrontation.

Star prosecution witness Rachel Jental disagrees with you(unless you consider "following" the initiation of the confrontation).

"Why you following me?" were the words she said TM used.

How is that disagreement?

Zimmerman walks up to Martin. Martin asks, "why you following me?"

How did the non-speaking person initiate the confrontation?

Are you saying that a confrontation can only be initiated with words?

I believe this answers this question:

"Seriously, one guy has a bloody nose and a cracked head.  The other guy has a bullet hole.   Which do you really thing happened first?"

Do we know if Zimmerman tried to detain Martin? Did Zimmerman swing and miss? Did Zimmerman try to tackle Martin? Why would Martin attack Zimmerman unprovoked? Could Martin have feared for his life?

There's a shitload that we don't know and the only living witness is the guy that pulled the trigger.

We know all this if star prosecution witness Rachel Jental is to be believed.

"Why you following me?" followed by the sound of a punch.   I've heard nothing stating TM had any marks on him beyond a bullet hole.

Did you even follow the trial?

Posted by bad_luck on 7/16/2013 2:35:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 7/16/2013 2:24:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 7/16/2013 2:23:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 7/16/2013 2:21:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 7/16/2013 2:20:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 7/16/2013 2:16:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 7/16/2013 1:47:00 PM (view original):

Posted by silentpadna on 7/16/2013 1:39:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 7/16/2013 1:33:00 PM (view original):
I think a manslaughter conviction would have been a just outcome.

Zimmerman didn't intend to kill Martin and may have believed his life was in danger but is guilty because he acted unreasonably.

Evidence (again)?

Technically, he was already tried of manslaughter and found not guilty.  How did the jurors get it wrong in the eyes of the law?

And...what is "reasonably"?  (Hint:  defending yourself is considered reasonable).

Clearly, I disagree with the verdict.

I think it's more likely that Zimmerman initiated the confrontation.

Star prosecution witness Rachel Jental disagrees with you(unless you consider "following" the initiation of the confrontation).

"Why you following me?" were the words she said TM used.

How is that disagreement?

Zimmerman walks up to Martin. Martin asks, "why you following me?"

How did the non-speaking person initiate the confrontation?

Are you saying that a confrontation can only be initiated with words?

I believe this answers this question:

"Seriously, one guy has a bloody nose and a cracked head.  The other guy has a bullet hole.   Which do you really thing happened first?"

Do we know if Zimmerman tried to detain Martin? Did Zimmerman swing and miss? Did Zimmerman try to tackle Martin? Why would Martin attack Zimmerman unprovoked? Could Martin have feared for his life?

There's a shitload that we don't know and the only living witness is the guy that pulled the trigger.

Therefore, he's guilty?

Thank you, Perry Mason.

Again, saying the death was "obviously racially motivated" and "he's in prison if it was a white kid" is beyond stupid.

Posted by MikeT23 on 7/16/2013 2:39:00 PM (view original):
Again, saying the death was "obviously racially motivated" and "he's in prison if it was a white kid" is beyond stupid.

Are those more or less stupid than (and I am paraphrasing from multiple posts) "nobody really knows what happened, but he should have been convicted of manslaughter"?

Posted by tecwrg on 7/16/2013 2:44:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 7/16/2013 2:39:00 PM (view original):
Again, saying the death was "obviously racially motivated" and "he's in prison if it was a white kid" is beyond stupid.

Are those more or less stupid than (and I am paraphrasing from multiple posts) "nobody really knows what happened, but he should have been convicted of manslaughter"?

Tough call.   I'll leave that one to badluck.

Posted by tecwrg on 7/16/2013 2:38:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 7/16/2013 2:35:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 7/16/2013 2:24:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 7/16/2013 2:23:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 7/16/2013 2:21:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 7/16/2013 2:20:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 7/16/2013 2:16:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 7/16/2013 1:47:00 PM (view original):

Posted by silentpadna on 7/16/2013 1:39:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 7/16/2013 1:33:00 PM (view original):
I think a manslaughter conviction would have been a just outcome.

Zimmerman didn't intend to kill Martin and may have believed his life was in danger but is guilty because he acted unreasonably.

Evidence (again)?

Technically, he was already tried of manslaughter and found not guilty.  How did the jurors get it wrong in the eyes of the law?

And...what is "reasonably"?  (Hint:  defending yourself is considered reasonable).

Clearly, I disagree with the verdict.

I think it's more likely that Zimmerman initiated the confrontation.

Star prosecution witness Rachel Jental disagrees with you(unless you consider "following" the initiation of the confrontation).

"Why you following me?" were the words she said TM used.

How is that disagreement?

Zimmerman walks up to Martin. Martin asks, "why you following me?"

How did the non-speaking person initiate the confrontation?

Are you saying that a confrontation can only be initiated with words?

I believe this answers this question:

"Seriously, one guy has a bloody nose and a cracked head.  The other guy has a bullet hole.   Which do you really thing happened first?"

Do we know if Zimmerman tried to detain Martin? Did Zimmerman swing and miss? Did Zimmerman try to tackle Martin? Why would Martin attack Zimmerman unprovoked? Could Martin have feared for his life?

There's a shitload that we don't know and the only living witness is the guy that pulled the trigger.

Therefore, he's guilty?

Thank you, Perry Mason.

Not necessarily. But, looking at what we do know, Zimmerman made a mistake. His unreasonable actions were the cause of the confrontation and he should be guilty of manslaughter.

Exactly which of his "unreasonable actions" were criminal?

So a guy on the neighborhood watch team is being unreasonable when he follows a stranger walking in the rain thru his neighborhood?

Posted by akira_hokuto on 7/16/2013 1:59:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 7/16/2013 1:48:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 7/16/2013 1:45:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 7/16/2013 1:38:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 7/16/2013 1:33:00 PM (view original):
I think a manslaughter conviction would have been a just outcome.

Zimmerman didn't intend to kill Martin and may have believed his life was in danger but is guilty because he acted unreasonably.

Acted unreasonably in what way?  What do you do if someone attacking you tries to get your gun from you?

I think it's more likely that Zimmerman initiated the confrontation. That makes his actions unreasonable.

Based on what? Why do you feel that way?  Is there any reasonable doubt in your mind that maybe it was Martin who attacked Zimmerman first?

None of us know exactly how the physical confrontation started but I'll tell you this, if I thought someone was following me and then I ran away (as Martin did per Zimmerman) and then saw the guy who had been following me was still following me I might well think I was about to be attacked myself and to be honest I'm not sure how I'd react in that situation. How would you react under those circumstances?

I would have asked him why he was following me.

I'm definitely going with my gut on this one. Like I said before, juries should err on the side of acquittal. In this case, I think Zimmerman should go to prison. I'm uncomfortable with a law that allows someone to follow and confront an unarmed teenager, shoot the teenager to death, and then claim self defense.

Maybe I'm the one being unreasonable. I don't know.

Posted by bad_luck on 7/16/2013 2:53:00 PM (view original):
I'm definitely going with my gut on this one. Like I said before, juries should err on the side of acquittal. In this case, I think Zimmerman should go to prison. I'm uncomfortable with a law that allows someone to follow and confront an unarmed teenager, shoot the teenager to death, and then claim self defense.

Maybe I'm the one being unreasonable. I don't know.

Did he know he was a teenager?
Did he know he was unarmed?
What do neighborhood watch member do other than follow strangers?