Court of public opinion looms large in George Zimmerman murder trial

ambrosia said:
He could have left the gun in his car, if he brought it that meant he thought he might be using it, which he did. And yes.
Click to expand...
If you have a concealed carry gun you're supposed to keep it on your person.
 
Zimmerman MUST use 911 instead of non-emergency line if he spot the suspicious activity so dispatcher could get police really quickly.
 
jonnyghost said:
Can't say what he was thinking but i always have a gun on me. How am i supposed to kow when i'll need it?
Click to expand...

I see you point. But considering he pretty likely thought he was being the friendly neighborhood spider man stopping crime....what are the chances he thought he might be needing it?

Do you think he would have gotten out if his car and approached him if he didn't have it?
 
Last edited:
ambrosia said:
It was a needless wrongful death that were the direct result of his actions, I don't know that seems pretty manslaughterierish to me. Yes I get to make up my own words. :)

I don't have a problem with guns, or carrying one. This isn't an issue for me. BUT you have a responsibility to act responsibly with one. I think having one made him a little brave and when things didn't play out like he thought they would he found out he wasn't very brave and he panicked. I don't believe his life was in danger, I don't believe he really thought his life was on danger but he panicked and he used his gun when he shouldn't have. If he hadn't gone for his gun, and defended himself with his his own hands and fists, he still would have walked away, both of them would have. If you kill somebody because you are behaving irresponsibly, yeah you should be punished. He shouldn't get to walk away with a "oh you Zimmerman, that was just silly. Don't do that again."
Click to expand...

The problem is, the charges are focused on his death and both charges allow an exception for self defense which the prosecution has fail to disprove. The burden was theirs. Had they gone for reckless endangerment or something along those lines they would have had a MUCH stronger case....but they didn't. The prosecution was incompetent and overcharged and then were not able to meet their legal obligation.

I can see someone in fear for their life when someone is on top of them and punching them. That is realistic. And the prosecution was unable to prove otherwise.
 
Yes a young man sitting on someone is a lethal threat. It's always seemed to me the question is was he leaving and attacked or did he confront TM. There seems to be plenty of proof that there was a lethal threat just not much info on how it got to that point.
 
TXgolfer said:
The problem is, the charges are focused on his death and both charges allow an exception for self defense which the prosecution has fail to disprove. The burden was theirs. Had they gone for reckless endangerment or something along those lines they would have had a MUCH stronger case....but they didn't. The prosecution was incompetent and overcharged and then were not able to meet their legal obligation.

I can see someone fear for their life when someone is on top of them and punching them. That is realistic. And the prosecution was unable to prove otherwise.
Click to expand...

I haven't followed the case, I just don't care much. It is unfortunate if the prosecution flubbed, I have no opinion whether they did or not because I haven't followed it.

But like I said earlier, you can't shoot somebody just because you're a chicken shit. He had 2 fists 2 elbows 2 knees and 2 feet to defend himself with, the same weapons that were being used against him. Being scared of someone that does not grossly outman you or has no weapon is no excuse. Fine be scared, but he should have to pay the price of needless taking a life because he was "scared". He DID have other means to defend himself. He's a grown man not child or a woman. It's obvious his balls were in gun.

Okay no more posting for me while drinking.
 
TXgolfer said:
The problem is, the charges are focused on his death and both charges allow an exception for self defense which the prosecution has fail to disprove. The burden was theirs. Had they gone for reckless endangerment or something along those lines they would have had a MUCH stronger case....but they didn't. The prosecution was incompetent and overcharged and then were not able to meet their legal obligation.

I can see someone in fear for their life when someone is on top of them and punching them. That is realistic. And the prosecution was unable to prove otherwise.
Click to expand...
Say some bigger guy is beating on you in a Texan bar. What do you do, pull a gun out and shoot him since you fear the outcome of the fight?

It feels kind of like something's missing here. In Florida, SYG could be more applicable, but in other states I feel like the shooter would be worse off - it's just simply reckless.
 
TXgolfer said:
The problem is, the charges are focused on his death and both charges allow an exception for self defense which the prosecution has fail to disprove. The burden was theirs. Had they gone for reckless endangerment or something along those lines they would have had a MUCH stronger case....but they didn't. The prosecution was incompetent and overcharged and then were not able to meet their legal obligation.

I can see someone in fear for their life when someone is on top of them and punching them. That is realistic. And the prosecution was unable to prove otherwise.
Click to expand...

Self defense is an affirmative defense meaning that the defense has the burden of proof.
 
jonnyghost said:
Self defense is an affirmative defense meaning that the defense has the burden of proof.
Click to expand...

That's how it seems to me. I haven't followed the case, I have popped in the thread occasionally, and from what I saw it sounded like TM was more on trial than GZ, I hate that.
 
Reba said:
Zimmerman wasn't "on watch" at the time; he was going to the store to shop, as a regular resident.
Click to expand...

I am aware of that but once he saw TM he took on his role as the neighborhood watchman. I could not believe it when Zimmerman's lawyer walked into court carry a piece of a sidewalk and saying that TM had a weapon , the sidewalk. TM did not walk around carrying a piece of sidewalk with him all the time. The sidewalk was already there , TM did not bring it with him. So if GZ was going to the store as a regular resident why was wearing his gun? I do not know of one person that wear gun to go shopping. And a regular resident would had stay in their car and waited for the cops. GZ was no longer a 'regular resident' when he started stalk TM .
 
whatdidyousay! said:
I am aware of that but once he saw TM he took on his role as the neighborhood watchman. I could not believe it when Zimmerman's lawyer walked into court carry a piece of a sidewalk and saying that TM had a weapon , the sidewalk. TM did not walk around carrying a piece of sidewalk with him all the time. The sidewalk was already there , TM did not bring it with him. So if GZ was going to the store as a regular resident why was wearing his gun? I do not know of one person that wear gun to go shopping. And a regular resident would had stay in their car and waited for the cops. GZ was no longer a 'regular resident' when he started stalk TM .
Click to expand...

I wear my gun everywhere it is allowed. Always to the store. Now you know one.
 
I know lots of people that go shopping with guns. And neighborhood watchmen are regular residents.
 
It seems there are some people here that would be shocked as to how many people carry guns.
 
jonnyghost said:
Self defense is an affirmative defense meaning that the defense has the burden of proof.
Click to expand...

Hmmm, I thought that, since the State of Florida has charged GZ, they (the State of Florida) has the burden, no?
 
ambrosia said:
That's how it seems to me. I haven't followed the case, I have popped in the thread occasionally, and from what I saw it sounded like TM was more on trial than GZ, I hate that.
Click to expand...

TM's actions are just as important here as GZ's
 
Tousi said:
Hmmm, I thought that, since the State of Florida has charged GZ, they (the State of Florida) has the burden, no?
Click to expand...

They did until he claimed self defense. He admited to killing him so now he has to prove it was justified.
 
jonnyghost said:
They did until he claimed self defense. He admited to killing him so now he has to prove it was justified.
Click to expand...

Really? I'm not so sure about that.....will hafta look into it when I get a chance but right now we are on the road....
 
Back
Top