Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

biccat wrote:

A Town Called Malus wrote:1) A wounded head is not evidence of who started the fight.
2) There are no impartial witnesses who have testified who started the fight. Only two people knew for certain who started it and one is dead.

"Presumption of innocence" - Look it up.

He admitted he killed him. So we know he is not innocent.

biccat wrote:

A Town Called Malus wrote:1) A wounded head is not evidence of who started the fight.
2) There are no impartial witnesses who have testified who started the fight. Only two people knew for certain who started it and one is dead.

"Presumption of innocence" - Look it up.

Right, so we should assume that Martin was innocent until someone proves, in a court of law, that he started the fight.

We assume both parties are innocent (thus making this whole thing a terrible accident), until evidence points to one or the other being guilty. If the evidence is inconclusive and no firm view can be established then it will remain a tragic accident which came about because of racial profiling coupled with judging someone on how they dress and being allowed to freely carry a gun in the street.

Assuming that one is innocent does not automatically mean that the other must be guilty.

A Town Called Malus wrote:Right, so we should assume that Martin was innocent until someone proves, in a court of law, that he started the fight.

Wrong.

That's not how it works.

A Town Called Malus wrote:We assume both parties are innocent (thus making this whole thing a terrible accident), until evidence points to one or the other being guilty. If the evidence is inconclusive and no firm view can be established then it will remain a tragic accident

Yes. Except Martin isn't on trial. So the presumption is irrelevant for him.

A Town Called Malus wrote:which came about because of racial profiling coupled with judging someone on how they dress and being allowed to freely carry a gun in the street.

No. We don't (normal people don't) presume racism.

An accident can occur without fault.

A Town Called Malus wrote:Assuming that one is innocent does not automatically mean that the other must be guilty.

You're right.

I'm not sure how you make such wildly inconsistent statements.

CptJake wrote:
Weight is really only useful as a measure when both guys are in equally good shape.

Physics disagree.

Do you ever say anything that isn't wrong?

biccat wrote:

A Town Called Malus wrote:We assume both parties are innocent (thus making this whole thing a terrible accident), until evidence points to one or the other being guilty. If the evidence is inconclusive and no firm view can be established then it will remain a tragic accident

Yes. Except Martin isn't on trial. So the presumption is irrelevant for him.

But Martins actions determine whether it was self defence or murder. So to get the truth that question must be answered. So in a sense he is on trial. If it is self defence then he would have been guilty of assault. If not then he would most likely be innocent of assault. If the evidence is inconclusive then no-one will ever know.

biccat wrote:

A Town Called Malus wrote:which came about because of racial profiling coupled with judging someone on how they dress and being allowed to freely carry a gun in the street.

No. We don't (normal people don't) presume racism.

An accident can occur without fault.

Why did Zimmerman report him as suspicious? Because he was a black teenager in a predominantly white neighbourhood. The conclusion that he was worth reporting was made based on his skin colour, not his actions. That is racial profiling. If he were peeking into peoples houses or cars then yes, he is acting suspiciously. If he is walking from a shop with a drink and some crisps then no, he's not.

biccat wrote:

A Town Called Malus wrote:Assuming that one is innocent does not automatically mean that the other must be guilty.

You're right.

I'm not sure how you make such wildly inconsistent statements.

I am actually two people.

A Town Called Malus wrote:I am actually two people.

Just 2?!?! Lucky!

A Town Called Malus wrote:Why did Zimmerman report him as suspicious? Because he was a black teenager in a predominantly white neighbourhood. The conclusion that he was worth reporting was made based on his skin colour, not his actions.

People assume he was profiling him. What evidence do you have that he was racist, aside from hearsay from uninvolved individuals?

So were the two felony charges Zimmerman faced in August, 2005 for assault on a law enforcement officer self defense as well?

(note: the charges were reduced to misdemeanor simple battery)

Zimmerman wrote on his Myspace page: ”2 felonies dropped to 1 misdemeanor!!!!!!!!!!! The man knows he was wrong and still got this lumps..."

So who the hell thought it was a good idea to hire a guy who assaults police officers to be on the watch and how can someone with a record of violent crime legally carry a gun?

dogma wrote:

CptJake wrote:Weight is really only useful as a measure when both guys are in equally good shape.

Physics disagree.

Do you ever say anything that isn't wrong?

That's uncalled for. He does. I disagree with him on this one, but he's not one of the serious trolls. I think Jake is a decent human being with whom I happen to disagree on a number of things, and I think he's actually interested in exchanging ideas and discussing stuff. On this particular point I think he's being inappropriately dismissive, but in fairness it's not like everyone on "my" side of the Martin/Zimmerman issue has been reasonable either. I think I've been respectful and reasonable, but he clearly has a different perspective on how important weight/size is in a physical confrontation. I think his anecdotes are legit, but I disagree that 50lbs of weight difference only matters between trained fighters. 5 or 10 lbs, sure.

He also had to "defend" himself twice from his wife by beating her...

Of course it helps to get charges dropped when you have a judge/magistrate in the family...

CT GAMER wrote:He also had to "defend" himself twice from his wife by beating her...

Of course it helps to get charges dropped when you have a judge/magistrate in the family...

That would be just as unethical as a family doctor claiming a broken nose, it would never happen.

d-usa wrote:

CT GAMER wrote:He also had to "defend" himself twice from his wife by beating her...

Of course it helps to get charges dropped when you have a judge/magistrate in the family...

That would be just as unethical as a family doctor claiming a broken nose, it would never happen.

Good point.

streamdragon wrote: The coroner's report [said that the gunshot that killed Martin was fired from 18" or less.

Unless it really said

http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/17/justice/florida-teen-shooting/index.html?hpt=hp_t1 wrote: According to the medical examiner's report, which was one of several documents on the case released Thursday by the office of special prosecutor Angela Corey, Martin died from a gunshot wound to chest fired from "intermediate range," within 36 inches.

CT GAMER wrote:1. So were the two felony charges Zimmerman faced in August, 2005 for assault on a law enforcement officer self defense as well?

(note: the charges were reduced to misdemeanor simple battery)

Zimmerman wrote on his Myspace page: ”2 felonies dropped to 1 misdemeanor!!!!!!!!!!! The man knows he was wrong and still got this lumps..."

2. So who the hell thought it was a good idea to hire a guy who assaults police officers to be on the watch and 3. how can someone with a record of violent crime legally carry a gun?

1. This is unrelated to the current court issue.

2. He wasn't hired to be neighborhood watch, he volunteered at a homeowner association meeting because nobody else wanted to do it. In September of 2011, the HOA thought he was doing a fine job and asked him to be the head of the neighborhood watch group, due to his success in catching a thief during his shift.

3. A Seminole county animal control officer actually recommended that Zimmerman carry a firearm instead of pepper spray because there was a period of time where a violent dog was wandering the neighborhood, and, in the animal control officer's professional opinion, "It'll take two or three seconds to take effect, but a quarter second for the dog to jump you."

While carrying concealed on a neighborhood watch posting is not recommended due to the propensity for situations (like the unfortunate one we are currently discussing) to occur, it is not illegal, and is a constitutional right.

And according to Zimmerman's booking record, at the time of his initial detainment, he was 5'8" and 185 lbs.

EDIT: When I posted his description earlier, I was unaware of his booking record, and could only post what had been stated in the news and online.

CT GAMER wrote:He also had to "defend" himself twice from his wife by beating her...

Of course it helps to get charges dropped when you have a judge/magistrate in the family...

Not to say he's right or wrong here, but in domestic violence cases--women are rarely charged even when they begin the altercations. The times when you see women charged are usually when they assault their significant other with the intent to cause serious injury with a weapon or the like.

And before anyone says it:
No, I'm not condoning spousal abuse.I certainly do not think it is okay for a husband to beat his wife or for a boyfriend to beat his girlfriend.

Mannahnin wrote: I think his anecdotes are legit, but I disagree that 50lbs of weight difference only matters between trained fighters. 5 or 10 lbs, sure.

I'm holding him to a higher standard because he is ex-military, and therefore seemingly knowledgeable regarding hand to hand combat.

Mannahnin wrote:but he clearly has a different perspective on how important weight/size is in a physical confrontation. I think his anecdotes are legit, but I disagree that 50lbs of weight difference only matters between trained fighters. 5 or 10 lbs, sure.

I read back, and tbh I don't really get where you stand. So I'll just say my piece:
Between well trained or even just trained fighters weight can mean a great deal and 5-10 lbs can make all the difference in the world. Between brawlers it means very little. I've trained in and instructed both the USMC and US Army fighting systems. When I was 150lbs I could wrap a majority of average dudes in a ball up to about 215lbs where sheer mass generally negated any advantages in training, experience, and the sheer bloody minded will to win. At the fight house in Benning a 140 lbs SF Major was on his way to beating me within an inch of my life, rogt after I layed a similar beating down on another guy who outmassed me by a good 40 lbs and was fit and reasonably trained...sometimes you just get beat. At a shade over 200 and a growth spurt later I have little to fear from anyone within 50lbs of myself. But with all of the advantages I have on my side I've been knocked flat by 150-175 lbs dudes. The point beig tha the actual mass and even training of the two is largely irrelevant. A 150 lb kid fueled by fear and aided by surprise could easily put a 200lbs man in a position where his life was legitimately in danger with no other recourse but to employ deadly force. That doesn't always mean "gun" but I would say with the benefit of experience that of a person much smaller than me made me legitimately believe he was trying to kill me I wouldn't stop until he was dead.

I don't believe in my heart that Trayvon Martin had the brutal frame of mind to kill a man wit his bare hands, but all I have to go on is a pretty dismal picture of a misogynist twitter account, the dubious account from his parents, and some pictures to frame an idea. In otherwords it's just a guess.

With regards to weight and age; almost as useless to the dialogue about the guilt or innocence of Zimmerman as the race of either party.

Nocturn wrote:

CT GAMER wrote:1. So were the two felony charges Zimmerman faced in August, 2005 for assault on a law enforcement officer self defense as well?

(note: the charges were reduced to misdemeanor simple battery)

Zimmerman wrote on his Myspace page: ”2 felonies dropped to 1 misdemeanor!!!!!!!!!!! The man knows he was wrong and still got this lumps..."

2. So who the hell thought it was a good idea to hire a guy who assaults police officers to be on the watch and 3. how can someone with a record of violent crime legally carry a gun?

1. This is unrelated to the current court issue.

2. He wasn't hired to be neighborhood watch, he volunteered at a homeowner association meeting because nobody else wanted to do it. In September of 2011, the HOA thought he was doing a fine job and asked him to be the head of the neighborhood watch group, due to his success in catching a thief during his shift.

3. A Seminole county animal control officer actually recommended that Zimmerman carry a firearm instead of pepper spray because there was a period of time where a violent dog was wandering the neighborhood, and, in the animal control officer's professional opinion, "It'll take two or three seconds to take effect, but a quarter second for the dog to jump you."

While carrying concealed on a neighborhood watch posting is not recommended due to the propensity for situations (like the unfortunate one we are currently discussing) to occur, it is not illegal, and is a constitutional right.

And according to Zimmerman's booking record, at the time of his initial detainment, he was 5'8" and 185 lbs.

EDIT: When I posted his description earlier, I was unaware of his booking record, and could only post what had been stated in the news and online.

It all speaks to his character. His Myspace page was also an interesting read...

He is an individual with a documented history of violent and illegal behavior who has assaulted police officers (and bragged about it) and even his own wife and then had family connections get him off or reduce charges.

He is a self-appointed vigilante with violent tendencies.

I wouldnt want this guy anywhere near my neighborhood.

Mannahnin wrote:

dogma wrote:

CptJake wrote:Weight is really only useful as a measure when both guys are in equally good shape.

Physics disagree.

Do you ever say anything that isn't wrong?

That's uncalled for. He does. I disagree with him on this one, but he's not one of the serious trolls. I think Jake is a decent human being with whom I happen to disagree on a number of things, and I think he's actually interested in exchanging ideas and discussing stuff. On this particular point I think he's being inappropriately dismissive, but in fairness it's not like everyone on "my" side of the Martin/Zimmerman issue has been reasonable either. I think I've been respectful and reasonable, but he clearly has a different perspective on how important weight/size is in a physical confrontation. I think his anecdotes are legit, but I disagree that 50lbs of weight difference only matters between trained fighters. 5 or 10 lbs, sure.

And yet, the witnesses seem to agree that Martin was on top of Zimmerman. And we know Zimmermans injuries seem to line up with getting beat upon, and the injuries we know Martin had (from the bit of the autopsy report that has made the news) do not support that Zimmerman was hitting him.

If weight was the deciding factor Zimmerman would have been on top of Martin beating him or would have subdued him.... So either Martin was a magic man who could void the laws of physics, OR in a street fight weight may not be as important as some make it out to be. I NEVER said 50 pounds doesn't make a difference, read what I actually said.

Jake wrote:Weight is really only useful as a measure when both guys are in equally good shape. It MAY help in a grappling/wrestling situation but even then if the extra 50 is fat the fat guy may well get worn out fast.

and

Jake wrote: Take away the 'in about the same condition' and the weight really isn't as important.

I think that beside my personal examples, this particular case highlights the point. Again, two folks with training and conditioning being equal, THE variable left is weight and minimizing the differences ensures a 'fair' fight in pro sports. Where weight is NOT the only variable, it is NOT as important. Please show me the fault in that line of thinking.

CT GAMER wrote:

Nocturn wrote:

CT GAMER wrote:1. So were the two felony charges Zimmerman faced in August, 2005 for assault on a law enforcement officer self defense as well?

(note: the charges were reduced to misdemeanor simple battery)

Zimmerman wrote on his Myspace page: ”2 felonies dropped to 1 misdemeanor!!!!!!!!!!! The man knows he was wrong and still got this lumps..."

2. So who the hell thought it was a good idea to hire a guy who assaults police officers to be on the watch and 3. how can someone with a record of violent crime legally carry a gun?

1. This is unrelated to the current court issue.

2. He wasn't hired to be neighborhood watch, he volunteered at a homeowner association meeting because nobody else wanted to do it. In September of 2011, the HOA thought he was doing a fine job and asked him to be the head of the neighborhood watch group, due to his success in catching a thief during his shift.

3. A Seminole county animal control officer actually recommended that Zimmerman carry a firearm instead of pepper spray because there was a period of time where a violent dog was wandering the neighborhood, and, in the animal control officer's professional opinion, "It'll take two or three seconds to take effect, but a quarter second for the dog to jump you."

While carrying concealed on a neighborhood watch posting is not recommended due to the propensity for situations (like the unfortunate one we are currently discussing) to occur, it is not illegal, and is a constitutional right.

And according to Zimmerman's booking record, at the time of his initial detainment, he was 5'8" and 185 lbs.

EDIT: When I posted his description earlier, I was unaware of his booking record, and could only post what had been stated in the news and online.

It all speaks to his character. His Myspace page was also an interesting read...

He is an individual with a documented history of violent and illegal behavior who has assaulted police officers (and bragged about it) and even his own wife and then had family connections get him off or reduce charges.

He is a self-appointed vigilante with violent tendencies.

I wouldnt want this guy anywhere near my neighborhood.

Wasn't there also some anti-mexican or latino comments on that myspace page as well?

Personal insults are not permitted on Dakka. -Mannahnin

CT GAMER wrote:
It all speaks to his character. His Myspace page was also an interesting read...

1. He is an individual with a documented history of violent and illegal behavior who has assaulted police officers (and bragged about it) and even 2. his own wife and then 3. had family connections get him off or reduce charges.

4. He is a self-appointed vigilante with violent tendencies.

I wouldnt want this guy anywhere near my neighborhood.

1. The incident here was dropped down to a misdemeanor(resisting without violence) with required alcohol treatment classes. It's not the first time, nor will it be the last time, that prosecutors will charge someone with a higher-level crime to get them to accept a plea bargain. They might not have any evidence to support their claim of the higher crime, but the accused party doesn't know that.

2. "In the same year (2005), Zimmerman's ex-fiance, Veronica Zuazo, filed a civil motion for a restraining order, alleging domestic violence. In retaliation, Zimmerman filed for a retraining order against Zuazo and both these claims were resolved with both restraining orders granted."

Allegations are not proof. It's he said/she said.

If they had proof that Zimmerman had engaged in domestic violence or spousal abuse, then he would have been charged appropriately.

3. You have no proof aside from your own opinion that this is the case. It's not about what you think you know, it's about what you can prove.

4. A vigilante, by definition, carries out punishment (based on crime) in place of what they deem an inadequate justice system. The term doesn't really apply here for several reasons.
A. Martin was not committing any crime.
B. Zimmerman was not trying to circumvent the justice system. If he was, he wouldn't have called the police.
C. Zimmerman's claim was that he fired his weapon in self defense. Until there is proof showing otherwise, or until he is convicted in court of intentionally shooting Martin, you cannot say with any amount of certainty that he was taking the law into his own hands.

2. http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/11808013-george-zimmermans-criminal-records-revealed
http://rollingout.com/culture/george-zimmerman-son-of-a-retired-judge-has-3-closed-arrests/
^I dislike this reference, because, as most of you will notice, it is biased against Zimmerman. I'm at work and don't really have the time to find a perfectly neutral yet accurate account.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:

CptJake wrote: Where weight is NOT the only variable, it is NOT as important. Please show me the fault in that line of thinking.

As important as what?

You're not a bright man.

As important as skill.
As important as the element of surprise.
As important as physiological factors.

I'm not saying that all or any of these factors apply here, and I don't think that's what CptJake was saying either. I think he was trying to point out that there are other important factors to take into account, more than just a weight advantage/disadvantage.


EDIT: Spelling.


Please do not purposely insult others on this thread. I would like to see this thread not repeat what it's predecessor did, and actually stay open.

At the end of the day folks, from the evidence presented it definately sounds to me like he was getting a pasting off Martin, so he shot the lad.

Not such a big deal if you ask me. If you go around filling people in Stateside, be prepared to get slotted.. you lot are packing!

As I said, its alright being a keyboard warrior and saying "you should never shoot someone if you are merely being beaten up" and I have to ask, have you ever been properly beaten up? Before I became a steely eyed dealer of death, I was merely an average (though devilishly handsome) teenager, and when I was about 15 I was assaulted by two guys who tried to mug me. I think there were maybe two years older than me, one of them said "empty your pockets" to me in a quiet street and at that point I pushed him away and tried to flee, I was punched once and then got into a scuffle, I hit him several times and then had a searing pain in my head as I was hit a couple of times with what I later learned (mates stupid mother called the police, obviously my father wouldn't have) was three cricket stumps taped together, the lad I had hit then mashed me over the head with a sock with some pool balls in, and I was knocked unconscious and spent 24 hours in the hospital.

If as I was being hit with the stumps, I had a firearm on me, I would have whipped it out and gleefully slotted the pair of them.

Now, being as Im all grown up and Tommy Rockers, I probably wouldn't panic and have my blood rushing and my adrenalin pumping in the same situation, but seriously, if I was an out of shape untrained civvie who doesnt often engage in fist fights, and I was on the floor getting beaten up by some kid and I had a gun in my pocket, Im pretty sure the mixture of pain and ardrenalin would mean I would happily whip it out shoot the little fether.

Is that really so unreasonable?

No it's not, if that's what happened.

The point is that only a very brief investigation led to that conclusion, and no charges being filed against a guy, after he killed an unarmed teenager.

Reasonable people disagree about whether a more in-depth investigation should have been done, and charges filed.

mattyrm wrote:
Now, being as Im all grown up and Tommy Rockers, I probably wouldn't panic and have my blood rushing and my adrenalin pumping in the same situation, but seriously, if I was an out of shape untrained civvie who doesnt often engage in fist fights, and I was on the floor getting beaten up by some kid and I had a gun in my pocket, Im pretty sure the mixture of pain and ardrenalin would mean I would happily whip it out shoot the little fether.

Is that really so unreasonable?

It is if you started the confrontation, which is the crux of the matter.

d-usa wrote:

mattyrm wrote:
Now, being as Im all grown up and Tommy Rockers, I probably wouldn't panic and have my blood rushing and my adrenalin pumping in the same situation, but seriously, if I was an out of shape untrained civvie who doesnt often engage in fist fights, and I was on the floor getting beaten up by some kid and I had a gun in my pocket, Im pretty sure the mixture of pain and ardrenalin would mean I would happily whip it out shoot the little fether.

Is that really so unreasonable?

It is if you started the confrontation, which is the crux of the matter.

Yeah indeed, I agree with Manahins post as well.

Point is, I argued for so long with people like Shuma because I think so many people are reactionary and jumping in feet first. In no way do I support the events portraid by Spike Lee, I also dont condemn the guy if he was merely being a bit of a dick, then got a kicking and whilst this was happening whipped out his piece and shot the lad.

The point is obviously, that if nobody seems to know what's going on, it seems ridiculous to either aggressively vindicate Zimmerman, or aggressively attack him.

Doubtless as good of a picture of events as is possible will now be built up, but as I said in my first post, if it was good enough for the DA, then im 99% certain its going to be good enough for me regardless of reactionary nonsense months after the event, but lets wait and see.

To be honest, it sounds like they were both dicks, so I dont think I care either way. Clearly Zimmerman (past record) was a douchbag, and at the same time, Martin wasn't even remotely a "nice kid" was he!?

Remember that guy who got shot that started the London riots? He was a total, full blown, horrible scum bag. But on the news they were making out he was a saint who never meant "any real harm" I reckon the same thing has happened here... It seems everyone is a nice guy posthumously.

Even Jerry Falwell!

mattyrm wrote: The point is obviously, that if nobody seems to know what's going on, it seems ridiculous to either aggressively vindicate Zimmerman, or aggressively attack him.

This is the most sensible post in the entire thread, to my knowledge.

mattyrm wrote:

d-usa wrote:

mattyrm wrote:
Now, being as Im all grown up and Tommy Rockers, I probably wouldn't panic and have my blood rushing and my adrenalin pumping in the same situation, but seriously, if I was an out of shape untrained civvie who doesnt often engage in fist fights, and I was on the floor getting beaten up by some kid and I had a gun in my pocket, Im pretty sure the mixture of pain and ardrenalin would mean I would happily whip it out shoot the little fether.

Is that really so unreasonable?

It is if you started the confrontation, which is the crux of the matter.

Yeah indeed, I agree with Manahins post as well.

Point is, I argued for so long with people like Shuma because I think so many people are reactionary and jumping in feet first. In no way do I support the events portraid by Spike Lee, I also dont condemn the guy if he was merely being a bit of a dick, then got a kicking and whilst this was happening whipped out his piece and shot the lad.

The point is obviously, that if nobody seems to know what's going on, it seems ridiculous to either aggressively vindicate Zimmerman, or aggressively attack him.

Doubtless as good of a picture of events as is possible will now be built up, but as I said in my first post, if it was good enough for the DA, then im 99% certain its going to be good enough for me regardless of reactionary nonsense months after the event, but lets wait and see.

To be honest, it sounds like they were both dicks, so I dont think I care either way. Clearly Zimmerman (past record) was a douchbag, and at the same time, Martin wasn't even remotely a "nice kid" was he!?

Remember that guy who got shot that started the London riots? He was a total, full blown, horrible scum bag. But on the news they were making out he was a saint who never meant "any real harm" I reckon the same thing has happened here... It seems everyone is a nice guy posthumously.

Even Jerry Falwell!

I was with the crowd that was just unhappy that the entire thing got a quick "Martin was a thug who got what he had coming" dismissal. I play the "What if Zimmerman started the fight, can he claim self defense if he is the one that caused the situation?" card to show that to many it was not a clear cut issue. Not from a "Martin is a victim!" standpoint, but from a "What if Martin is a victim?" standpoint.

I am happy that the entire thing is getting a trial, all the evidence will be made public, and 12 people will decide instead of just one DA or ADA. I know that there are people that will be upset no matter what the outcome of the trial will be, but I am just happy that this came to trial irregardless of the outcome. If nothing else it may help set precedent for similar situations in the future. As a gun owner I prefer if there is a clear ruling instead of a backroom decision by a DA.

Monster Rain wrote:

mattyrm wrote: The point is obviously, that if nobody seems to know what's going on, it seems ridiculous to either aggressively vindicate Zimmerman, or aggressively attack him.

This is the most sensible post in the entire thread, to my knowledge.

I'll see you this one(and agree to a point), and raise you this:

d-usa wrote: I am happy that the entire thing is getting a trial, all the evidence will be made public, and 12 people will decide instead of just one DA or ADA. I know that there are people that will be upset no matter what the outcome of the trial will be, but I am just happy that this came to trial irregardless of the outcome. If nothing else it may help set precedent for similar situations in the future. As a gun owner I prefer if there is a clear ruling instead of a backroom decision by a DA.

I'm also glad a trial will decide it as opposed to a single person.

d-usa wrote:I am happy that the entire thing is getting a trial, all the evidence will be made public, and 12 people will decide instead of just one DA or ADA. I know that there are people that will be upset no matter what the outcome of the trial will be, but I am just happy that this came to trial irregardless of the outcome. If nothing else it may help set precedent for similar situations in the future. As a gun owner I prefer if there is a clear ruling instead of a backroom decision by a DA.

You really would prefer Zimmerman go to trial than a decision by a DA not to prosecute?

If you shoot someone and it's an absolutely clear case of self defense, would you rather go to trial to "clear things up" and "set precedent," or would you rather stay out of jail, not have your name dragged through the press, and not have the next 25+ years of your life in the hands of people who were too stupid to get out of jury duty?

Even if you're completely innocent, a criminal trial is a life altering event. Often not for the better.