Unarmed teen shooting: the debate rages on...

[kiki5711]

Super! Give me your address and I'll come and check out for any suspicious "persons" going through your neighborhood. Make sure it's not you or any of your family members. I'm prepared to "self defense".

Are you suggesting that in the US, one is not allowed to walk around in public and ask people questions?

Quite contrary. I am prepared now to ask questions to anyone I feel is "suspicious" in my or any other neighborhood. I'm getting my permit to carry a gun.

[kiki5711]

Zimmerman is perfectly entitled to follow Martin and vice versa. Mere following and mere asking for an explanation of what someone is doing there, is not a license of Martin to attack Zimmerman, or vice versa.

With this kind of defense and reasoning we could have and additional thousands of murders claiming the same thing.

It's just a fact. If I walk out of my house today, and someone is walking in my neighborhood, I am 100% within my rights to walk up to that person and say "hey, what are you doing here?"

so would that also mean I can just walk through your neighborhood, I can walk up to a person that looks suspicious to me and ask them what they're doing there?

Sure, why not?

Ok, give me your address, and I'll be ready!

[Coito ergo sum]

Or Zimmerman would be dead and robbed and Martin would be on the lam.

so now you're the jury and the executioner, ha?

Are you worried he's replacing you in that role?

Zimmerman's alive, which beats being dead.

how very tender of you! I bet martin would feel it'd be better that he was alive as well.

It's also better to be alive than dead for Charles Manson, let's just not mention anything he had to do with "some murders" a while back.!

Quick question: If you were to receive irrefutable evidence, 100% clear, that what Zimmerman says happened actually happened exactly as he says it happened -- would you as a member of the jury vote to acquit him?

[Coito ergo sum]

As far as the photo of Zimmerman's head goes, it would seem that the defence would be able to find it with due diligence, as even I've seen it.

However, what have we actually seen? We don't know if it's been faked by abc, we don't even know if it was taken that night. Putting people on a stand to swear that it's genuine isn't the same. People can lie.
I'd like to know how much abc paid for the picture.

Unless there is a chain of evidence, it has to be treated with suspicion. That's why it's incredible, if the police don't have photos of their own. It's another example of the sheer incompetence of the investigation.

Having said that, the photo proves nothing new. The police made statements about him bleeding from the head and nose. The photo, if genuine, would just confirm that they weren't lying about the head part.
Which is of very little value to anybody.

All the photo would prove, if genuine, is that they had a struggle. I think that's now generally accepted anyway.

I think Zimmerman's going to go down for it. And it's important that he does. If he doesn't, every pathetic wanker who carries a concealed gun will feel confident that if he gets into a fight, and doesn't get the best of it, he can scream for help. pull out his gun and kill the person he's fighting.
It's not exactly how John Wayne would have done it, is it?

If they can't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman started the fight, he walks. The simple fact is, there is not enough evidence to even charge Zimmerman let alone convict him. You can suspect all you want, but there is no evidence against Zimmerman and he does not have to prove his innocence.

If the ballistics and forensics point to the fact that the two men were standing and several feet apart at the time the gun went off, Zimmerman will go down. He already made admissible statements to the police that Martin was on top of him beating his head in the ground and Zimmerman struggled to draw his weapon and fired from his back. If the ballistics/forensics can clearly show that Zimmerman is not correct about that, then the jury may will find him to be a liar. And, if he fired from a standing position, his story crumbles.

[kiki5711]

Are you worried he's replacing you in that role?

Yes, terribly worried. I'm shaking as I type.

[kiki5711]

Quick question: If you were to receive irrefutable evidence, 100% clear, that what Zimmerman says happened actually happened exactly as he says it happened -- would you as a member of the jury vote to acquit him?

That's another one of your "IF" questions. I'd like to see the process and the evidence first.

[Tyrannical]

If they can't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman started the fight, he walks. The simple fact is, there is not enough evidence to even charge Zimmerman let alone convict him. You can suspect all you want, but there is no evidence against Zimmerman and he does not have to prove his innocence.

Not at all. I don't know how you got such a weird view.
If Martin started the fight, that wouldn't give Zimmerman the right to shoot him. That's just basic common sense that you're failing on there.

Yes, it would give Zimmerman the right to shoot Trayvon. That is why the police didn't initially charge him.

And a jury are entitled to convict, if they don't believe Zimmerman.
People have been banging on about reasonable doubt, but the fact is, if the jury don't BELIEVE that Zimmerman had a real justifiable fear for his life, they have EVERY RIGHT to come to a verdict of guilty.

Nope, that's not how the law works. The Judge would either have dismissed the case or set aside the jury verdict if he saw no evidence to convict. A jury may not convict just because they think someone deserves it.

[Coito ergo sum]

Super! Give me your address and I'll come and check out for any suspicious "persons" going through your neighborhood. Make sure it's not you or any of your family members. I'm prepared to "self defense".

Are you suggesting that in the US, one is not allowed to walk around in public and ask people questions?

Quite contrary. I am prepared now to ask questions to anyone I feel is "suspicious" in my or any other neighborhood. I'm getting my permit to carry a gun.

Sounds good.

Is that supposed to sound like something that is improper?

I say a lot of things to people in my neighborhood. I'll walk around, and if someone is walking a bit in front of me, I'll even continue on my way, despite following them. I feel no need to change direction because they're walking ahead of me. And, I see people walking around my cul-de-sac all the time. I will introduce myself, say hello, initiate conversation, etc. I've said stuff like - are you new to the neighborhood? Did you buy one of the houses right here?

If I saw someone meandering through my or my neighbor's yard, I'd even keep an eye on them, and even perhaps ask what they're doing there. It's called being alert and neighborly.

[Coito ergo sum]

Sure, why not?

Ok, give me your address, and I'll be ready!

Feel free to walk in my neighborhood anytime. I am not sure why you want me to post my address though, or give it to you, whom I don't know. Why would I want to do that?

And, about your mention of getting a permit to get a gun, that sounds great. Follow the permitting requirements and get some training. It's not a bad thing to own a gun.

[Coito ergo sum]

Are you worried he's replacing you in that role?

Yes, terribly worried. I'm shaking as I type.

I didn't expect you'd be nervous. You're very comfortable in your role as final arbiter of the facts, based on incomplete and faulty evidence.

[Coito ergo sum]

Quick question: If you were to receive irrefutable evidence, 100% clear, that what Zimmerman says happened actually happened exactly as he says it happened -- would you as a member of the jury vote to acquit him?

That's another one of your "IF" questions. I'd like to see the process and the evidence first.

It's the first such question I've posed.

It's a hypothetical, but, that's clearly something you're not prepared to deal with.

[mistermack]

.
If Martin started the fight, that wouldn't give Zimmerman the right to shoot him. That's just basic common sense that you're failing on there.

Yes, it would give Zimmerman the right to shoot Trayvon. That is why the police didn't initially charge him.

Quite amazing. So in America, you can kill someone if they start a fight?
I didn't know that !
You learn so much on this site. The phrase "he started it" obviously has great importance across the pond.

I can see one teeeeeeeensy weeeeeeeeeensy little problem though.
The person who's been killed is usually dead, and doesn't get much of a chance to say, "NO, HE STARTED IT" !!

[kiki5711]

Quick question: If you were to receive irrefutable evidence, 100% clear, that what Zimmerman says happened actually happened exactly as he says it happened -- would you as a member of the jury vote to acquit him?

That's another one of your "IF" questions. I'd like to see the process and the evidence first.

It's the first such question I've posed.

It's a hypothetical, but, that's clearly something you're not prepared to deal with.

say you "the great wizzard of oz".

[kiki5711]

I didn't expect you'd be nervous. You're very comfortable in your role as final arbiter of the facts, based on incomplete and faulty evidence.

[Coito ergo sum]

Quick question: If you were to receive irrefutable evidence, 100% clear, that what Zimmerman says happened actually happened exactly as he says it happened -- would you as a member of the jury vote to acquit him?

That's another one of your "IF" questions. I'd like to see the process and the evidence first.

It's the first such question I've posed.

It's a hypothetical, but, that's clearly something you're not prepared to deal with.

say you "the great wizzard of oz".

LOL -- nice.

You just got yourself too committed to a position, and now you can't bear to let yourself admit that there is any doubt as to Zimmerman's culpability. That makes you accuse those who have merely expressed doubt and identified factual problems that you've brought up of being somehow sure of Zimmerman's innocence. I, for one, am not sure of his innocence. I am sure, however, that folks like you relied instantly and heavily on false evidence.