The Zimmerman Trial

Here's zimmermans 911 call logs. All 47, from 4 year olds playing, to suspicios black males.....: www.motherjones.com...

Talk about paranoia.....geez....

reply to post by j.r.c.b.


Mother Jones. Yeah, no bias there. So from 2005 through 2011 the neighborhood watchman called the dispatch 47 times. 47 times in 6 years ... that's an average of 8 times a year. That's not exactly a 'paranoid' neighborhood watchman. Ya' know??

reply to post by j.r.c.b.


Yeah, criminals trying to move in and make your neighborhood part of their playground tend to make people get paranoid. At least ones that know and give a crap about their neighbors at least.

reply to post by TKDRL

Yeah, I can fight, doesn't mean I won't shoot an attacker.

Are you telling me that even in a situation where you know you could easily overcome your attacker using your physical strength, you'd prefer to save your energy and use a gun? Here's a scenario... you're walking home alone one night, when from out of nowhere there's suddenly a naked guy half your size stood before you. You know he's not the kind of guy who works out instantly because, ffs, he's there... naked! Then he starts ranting about how badly he is going to waste your sorry ass, and throws a wild swing, which you easily dodge. He throws another, and you dodge that. He runs at you screaming and manages to grab hold of you while you were laughing. Are you going to shoot him at any point?

reply to post by FlyersFan

According to the HNL live blog the jury will not get the case until Friday.

5:38 p.m. ET: The defense has requested that closing arguments be delayed. The judge delays them until 1 p.m. ET on Thursday. She says the prosecution will present its rebuttal argument on Friday morning and the jury will be charged after that.

The judge tells the attorneys to return at 9 a.m. ET to go over jury instructions.

5:40 p.m. ET: Defense attorney O'Mara asks if it makes more sense to do all of the closing arguments on Friday so they happen on the same day, instead of splitting them up.

"The reason I told you what schedule I wanted is because it makes sense to me," said the judge. She then dismissed the court.

July 10, HNL live blog

The judge really doesn't like the defense and it shows.

reply to post by IvanAstikov


What kind of crazy bath salt stuff is that?
Hypotheticals are stupid, especially when the hypothetical situation is really stupid.....

Originally posted by IvanAstikov
Restraint would have been pistol-whipping him. A bullet to the heart is not restraint, by any stretch of the imagination. He'd supposedly just won his struggle for the gun and all he had to do was hold Trayvon at arm's length and tell him to ease off or die. He could have poked Trayvon in the face with the barrel or hammer-fisted the butt on his head. He didn't have to shoot him.

No offense but you obviously have no real clue about confrontations involving armed and non armed people. Physical confrontations ('fights') are extremely adrenaline pumping; When you are fighting someone and beating him, seeing a barrel of a gun in the midst of the struggle will not make you stop. If GZ would've hesitated and 'ordered' TM to stop while aiming the barrel at his face, the chances his attacked (in this case TM) would stop, in the middle of the fighting, and consider his actions further while there's a barrel pointed at him, are slim to none.

You don't think much during a fight, especially when it comes to a street one with no rules.

What you're implying that should've happened only happens in the movies. A barrel to the face even at close range is something that can easily be avoided even by only moving alot, and it's not like the shooter has a lock-on on the target's head. It's much more difficult than it seems even for trained personnel.

Originally posted by IvanAstikov
Are you telling me that even in a situation where you know you could easily overcome your attacker using your physical strength, you'd prefer to save your energy and use a gun? Here's a scenario... you're walking home alone one night, when from out of nowhere there's suddenly a naked guy half your size stood before you. You know he's not the kind of guy who works out instantly because, ffs, he's there... naked! Then he starts ranting about how badly he is going to waste your sorry ass, and throws a wild swing, which you easily dodge. He throws another, and you dodge that. He runs at you screaming and manages to grab hold of you while you were laughing. Are you going to shoot him at any point?

If you do decide to shoot him it would be a solid self defence shooting. You better not represent anyone with that analogy.

reply to post by TKDRL


I do what George was trying to do without a gun and without any back up from the police or my neighbours. At 50, I am the youngest person in the 20 home complex where I live. When I first moved here, the place was the hang-out for all the rough kids who had been banned from the nearby youth club. They used the area beneath the stairs outside my front door to smoke their pot and drink beer until past midnight, scattering like pigeons when my neighbours called the police.

When I moved in, all that stopped. Eventually. It took a couple of broken windows in my home - one large stone almost hitting my dog - and an ineffective response from the police, for me to get pro-active, and when these toe-rags brought their older brother's into the dispute, I caught up to the main mouthpiece on his own one day, and showed him that not all "old men" were pushovers.

Originally posted by IvanAstikov
reply to post by TKDRL

 

Yeah, I can fight, doesn't mean I won't shoot an attacker.

Are you telling me that even in a situation where you know you could easily overcome your attacker using your physical strength, you'd prefer to save your energy and use a gun? Here's a scenario... you're walking home alone one night, when from out of nowhere there's suddenly a naked guy half your size stood before you. You know he's not the kind of guy who works out instantly because, ffs, he's there... naked! Then he starts ranting about how badly he is going to waste your sorry ass, and throws a wild swing, which you easily dodge. He throws another, and you dodge that. He runs at you screaming and manages to grab hold of you while you were laughing. Are you going to shoot him at any point?

I have to say Ivan, though (I think) we are in different camps regarding this case, for me your scenarios are the most entertaining aspect of this thread. You'd probably make a great writer, if you aren't one all ready.

reply to post by InstantRemedy


It's not always about whether something is allowed by law, it's about whether you really, really had to kill someone, or whether you are doing it because you have a tool that enables you to do it with minimum effort.

reply to post by IvanAstikov


So you are an old guy that has no problem doing criminal acts to people you don't like..... (Unless I am getting you wrong, and you are not saying you kicked the crap out of the loudmouthed guy) You are really proud of that?

I am a pretty young guy, that stopped feeling the need to prove the size of my balls after they dropped and I got laid.

reply to post by tjack


Flattery gets you everywhere. Ooh, wait... it's a trick, isn't it? You've just called me a complete fantasist, you swine!

reply to post by IvanAstikov


You make good sense here. The majority here is PRO-zim.....your not trolling, your disagreeing, which last I checked, is ALLOWED!! I love the fact that people want to ignore the Z family for lying to the court about the money they hid, & Georgie's sick past. Yet, lets all gang up on Trayvon, who lived only 17 yrs, was still a minor, definately was followed, scared, & probably thought zimmerman was a molester of some sort...wouldn't be the first time for Georgie boy.......it's called stranger danger, & we all, good parents teach our children to do whatever necessary to get away from the stranger........FYI- none of Georgie's DNA was found on trayvons hands, knuckles, shirt sleeves, & trayvons DNA was never found near the holster of that gun. O, but Georgie said Trayvon was reaching for it, so it must be true.....please......bottom line, zim had no reason to follow. None.

reply to post by j.r.c.b.


Why would you expect that Martins DNA would be everywhere? They were not having sex, and last I checked it was Zimmerman bleeding.......

As the trial starts to wind down, members are reminded to stay on topic and post in a civil manner.

You are responsible for your own posts.

We expect civility and decorum within all topics.

Go after the ball not the player.

I Don't Agree with YOU...

Don't Respond to Obvious Trollery, Just Alert It

What is a troll?

Trolling, And What To Do About It



Thanks for keeping this thread informative and civil!

reply to post by TKDRL


It's not a criminal act to defend yourself when you confront someone for breaking your window and they throw a punch at you. So, you're wrong there. As for me needing to prove the size of my balls, that is a ridiculous claim. I'm merely using my life experiences to help illustrate why I think the way I do. Why would I have any admiration, respect or sympathy for a grown man who may have got himself into a fist-fight with a 17yr old, and then shot him when he was losing, when I have been in more threatening situations and survived without the need of a gun?

Originally posted by IvanAstikov
reply to post by tjack

 

Flattery gets you everywhere. Ooh, wait... it's a trick, isn't it? You've just called me a complete fantasist, you swine!

FLATTERIST swine.

I wasn't kidding though, I thought I didn't like you but you were away a couple days ago for most of the discussion and I found myself missing you.

Weird, huh?

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by j.r.c.b.

 

Yeah, criminals trying to move in and make your neighborhood part of their playground tend to make people get paranoid. At least ones that know and give a crap about their neighbors at least.

Zimmerman was previously arrested for attacking a cop. Trayvon, not arrested. Zimmerman beat up a woman, Trayvon did not........Trayvon was not the criminal here, zimmermans the one with the problems. Ignore z's past all you want, it's not gonna go away......

For the record though, I think that trolling does get tossed around a lot more than it should, not just here but on the internet in general. My debates on the internet are all in good fun, I try to keep it clean, and none of it is personal. I don't consider those I debate with my enemy, just someone with a differing opinion

reply to post by j.r.c.b.


Zimmerman did not attack a cop....... Anyone that so much as harms a hair on a cop's head is always charged with the harshest penalty they can throw at you. His lawyer explained that yesterday better than I ever could, but long story short, he was not convicted of, or even face charges of assaulting a cop.