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.

 Crimson wrote:
So this basically means that it is legal to kill anyone in Florida as long as there are not witnesses. You can corner an unarmed person with a gun, shoot them, and claim it was self defence. And there is no way for prosecutor for prove beyond shadow of a doubt that it wasn't.

I cannot know what what happened that night, but what is clear that Florida's laws on self defence are absolutely insane.

So you really have no idea what you are talking about do you?

Trayvon Martin brutally attacked Zimmerman. Zimmerman defended his life. The facts back it up.

My facebook is quiet sadly.

The Casey ANthony case is quite similar to this one actually. In that case too, didn't the prosecution completely fail to provide compelling evidence of a case that was already shaky to begin with?

 SickSix wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
So this basically means that it is legal to kill anyone in Florida as long as there are not witnesses. You can corner an unarmed person with a gun, shoot them, and claim it was self defence. And there is no way for prosecutor for prove beyond shadow of a doubt that it wasn't.

I cannot know what what happened that night, but what is clear that Florida's laws on self defence are absolutely insane.

So you really have no idea what you are talking about do you?

Trayvon Martin brutally attacked Zimmerman. Zimmerman defended his life. The facts back it up.

The only reason Travyon was shot, is he went for Zimmerman gun, so it was kill or be killed. A police officer in the same situation would have done the same.

 Crimson wrote:
Proposal of specific account of what happened that night.

Claim to not now what happened that night, statement unrelated to previous conundrum.

Huh, weird.

 SickSix wrote:

So you really have no idea what you are talking about do you?

Trayvon Martin brutally attacked Zimmerman. Zimmerman defended his life. The facts back it up.

An armed person followed an unarmed person. Something happened. The unarmed person died.

It should absolutely be illegal for a civilian to approach other person while carrying a gun.

I don't have to agree with a verdict. I have a hard time with a not-guilty (for manslaughter) here and the guilty verdict for "attempted murder" after firing a warning shot in the same state.

But I will still respect a verdict that was issued.

If you think a law is fether up and needs changing, then now is the time to try to change the law. You can't change past circumstances caused by it, but you can prevent further instances. I'm not saying that Stand Your Ground is a stupid law though, just using it as an example.

So... I can't order at McDonalds while carrying?

 Crimson wrote:

 SickSix wrote:

So you really have no idea what you are talking about do you?

Trayvon Martin brutally attacked Zimmerman. Zimmerman defended his life. The facts back it up.

An armed person followed an unarmed person. Something happened. The unarmed person died.

It should absolutely be illegal for a civilian to approach other person while carrying a gun.

hah you definitely don't know the USA very well, I live in Arizona where having a concealed firearm is legal. And it doesn't cause any problems.

 LordofHats wrote:
The Casey ANthony case is quite similar to this one actually. In that case too, didn't the prosecution completely fail to provide compelling evidence of a case that was already shaky to begin with?

I think both cases also suffered from an maximized charge for a minimal case.

If both cases would have opened, and focused on, manslaughter we might have had different outcomes. But who knows.

The only reason Travyon was shot, is he went for Zimmerman gun, so it was kill or be killed. A police officer in the same situation would have done the same.

Travyon got shot because Zimmerman on shaky logic decided a random individual must be up to no good and with no reasonable basis decided to pursue him, inciting a confrontation that resulted in a death. Zimmerman can claim Martin went for the gun just as he can claim he was viciously attacked out of the blue (even though witnesses seem to confirm a preceding verbal confrontation), but there's no evidence to support that. Zimmerman should probably be counting lucky stars because an already shaky case was ruined by terrible prosecution.

I'm watching MSNBC/FoxNews right now and some of the commentary is just despicable. I had to turn off MSNBC because I couldn't listen to Sharpton anymore.

Honestly, anyone familiar with the presented facts of the case couldn't have found anything but not guilty. Sadly, now, the prevailing opinions I'm seeing/hearing is that the prosecutors are racist and blew the case on purpose.

Additionally, all the references to the 6'2", 17 year old Martin as "boy" or "young child" are insulting and irresponsible.

 pities2004 wrote:

The only reason Travyon was shot, is he went for Zimmerman gun, so it was kill or be killed.

We don't know that.

A police officer in the same situation would have done the same.

Zimmerman was not a police officer, he never should have been there with that gun in the first place.

Sadly, now, the prevailing opinions I'm seeing/hearing is that the prosecutors are racist and blew the case on purpose.

Wow. I think the prosecution failed miserably but that's just absurd.

An armed person followed an unarmed person. Something happened. The unarmed person died.

It should absolutely be illegal for a civilian to approach other person while carrying a gun.

Crimson.....I think you really need to go over the entire case of Zimmerman. Also understanding the laws surrounding it.

Edit
Also what status Zimmerman was when M got opted out

 Crimson wrote:

 pities2004 wrote:

The only reason Travyon was shot, is he went for Zimmerman gun, so it was kill or be killed.

We don't know that.

A police officer in the same situation would have done the same.

Zimmerman was not a police officer, he never should have been there with that gun in the first place.

Respectfully, you have no idea what you're talking about. In the United States it is absolutely legal for a citizen to carry a firearm.

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:
So... I can't order at McDonalds while carrying?

Well, if you ask me, you really shouldn't.

Still, you probably don't shoot the cashier when you go there. But if you ever do, just claim he tried to grab your gun and it was self defence.

 cincydooley wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 pities2004 wrote:

The only reason Travyon was shot, is he went for Zimmerman gun, so it was kill or be killed.

We don't know that.

A police officer in the same situation would have done the same.

Zimmerman was not a police officer, he never should have been there with that gun in the first place.

Respectfully, you have no idea what you're talking about. In the United States it is absolutely legal for a citizen to carry a firearm.

But should it be?

/ducks

Ahhh... ninja'd.

 LordofHats wrote:

Sadly, now, the prevailing opinions I'm seeing/hearing is that the prosecutors are racist and blew the case on purpose.

Wow. I think the prosecution failed miserably but that's just absurd.

Agreed. I think the prosecution did a poor job, but I think they had a hard burden of proof to meet in the first place. Remember the local courts didn't find that there was enough evidence to initially prosecute it. That played out pretty consistently in the trial.

 cincydooley wrote:

Respectfully, you have no idea what you're talking about. In the United States it is absolutely legal for a citizen to carry a firearm.

It is one thing to carry a firearm and quite other to intentionally go to a possibly explosive situation with that firearm.

 Monster Rain wrote:
But should it be?

/ducks

Yes, I think so, considering if the 200M + guns in the United States legally registered, crime is committed with less than 1 % of them. I think you'll find that the statistics bear out that those with legally obtained guns and legally obtained CCW permits aren't the ones committing crimes and are the ones more responsible with their firearms.

I actually think the case was going half decently until Jeantel testified. She completely blew any chance the case had and the defense just needed to say "where's you're evidence." The prosecution attacked this from the wrong angle. They needed to call into question Zimmerman's judgement leading to the shooting, not the shooting itself (but I guess that method would mean a manslaughter charge rather than a murder charge).

 Crimson wrote:

 pities2004 wrote:

The only reason Travyon was shot, is he went for Zimmerman gun, so it was kill or be killed.

We don't know that.

A police officer in the same situation would have done the same.

Zimmerman was not a police officer, he never should have been there with that gun in the first place.

Jeeze man, we get that the laws in Finland are a little different, but honestly you really need to read up on America's gun laws. It was perfectly legal for him to carry that gun, a right provided to him by the State of Florida, just as I am afforded the same right by the State of Washington. This will be my only post about this as I do not wish to start a gun debate. Seriously, your argument sounds like somebody that has absolutely no idea what they are talking about when you say stuff like:

"So this basically means that it is legal to kill anyone in Florida as long as there are not witnesses. You can corner an unarmed person with a gun, shoot them, and claim it was self defence. And there is no way for prosecutor for prove beyond shadow of a doubt that it wasn't.

I cannot know what what happened that night, but what is clear that Florida's laws on self defence are absolutely insane."

On topic:

This was the only verdict that made sense. This whole dog and pony show was a giant waste of time for the State of Florida as it should of really never happened. Now Florida will have to foot the bill for all these court costs, and potentially foot the bill to clean up the city if there are indeed riots..

I go to shady areas of town sometimes. There are often robberies and hold-ups in the downtown area. Every time I go there into a potentially volatile situation. That is why I carry, to defend myself in a potentially volatile situation.

I don't agree with the verdict, but there are some face-palm causing arguments from other people that also don't agree with the verdict.

 Crimson wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:

Respectfully, you have no idea what you're talking about. In the United States it is absolutely legal for a citizen to carry a firearm.

It is one thing to carry a firearm and quite other to intentionally go to a possibly explosive situation with that firearm.

So it was the onus of Zimmerman to assume that Martin would attack him? While we don't know exactly what happened, the testimony indicates that Zimmerman "lost" Martin in his pursuit and Martin initiated the assault. Whether or not Zimmerman should have been following Martin is a different matter, but for all we know Zimmerman would have initiated contact with Martin by stating, "hey kid, what are you doing?" Or was planning on simply following him to his destination.

It is one thing to carry a firearm and quite other to intentionally go to a possibly explosive situation with that firearm

Alright Crimson....there was 4 min between Z hanging up with the 911 operator and the confrontation. Basically Martin came back and became aggressive with Zimmerman. That could have been avoided if Martin had gone straight to the place he was staying. Mind you because it seems you forgot. Zimmerman is Neighborhood Watch for the area he lived in. Which is the same area Martin was staying at. Facts Crimson....straight up Facts

 LordofHats wrote:
I actually think the case was going half decently until Jeantel testified. She completely blew any chance the case had and the defense just needed to say "where's you're evidence." The prosecution attacked this from the wrong angle. They needed to call into question Zimmerman's judgement leading to the shooting, not the shooting itself (but I guess that method would mean a manslaughter charge rather than a murder charge).

Completely agree. I honestly thought the manslaughter charge would be appropriate.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
I go to shady areas of town sometimes. There are often robberies and hold-ups in the downtown area. Every time I go there into a potentially volatile situation. That is why I carry, to defend myself in a potentially volatile situation.

I don't agree with the verdict, but there are some face-palm causing arguments from other people that also don't agree with the verdict.

Can I ask what you don't agree with in regards to the verdict? Feel free to take to PM.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
IMO criminally negligent homocide seems like it would have been the most appropriate here. I sincerely believe Zimmerman had no intent to kill Martin. I also think Zimmermans actions could be considered reckless. However. I also don't think he expected Martin to attack him.

I hate to blame the victim here, but if Martin doesn't initiate the altercation and instead goes straight to where he's staying, there's not even a case.

I think he should have been found guilty of manslaughter, and possibly would have been if the prosecution wouldn't have focused in a murder conviction. I am disappointed that he wasn't, but I respect that.

I am sure that some of it is also influenced by emotion for me considering the woman in Florida that got 20 years for firing a warning shot and claimed a stand your ground defense but was found guilty of attempted murder.

I don't really have a big legal argument for why I am disappointed, I will admit that. But the case is done, the jury has spoken, and not guilty it is.

IronWarLeg wrote:

Jeeze man, we get that the laws in Finland are a little different, but honestly you really need to read up on America's gun laws. It was perfectly legal for him to carry that gun, a right provided to him by the State of Florida, just as I am afforded the same right by the State of Washington. This will be my only post about this as I do not wish to start a gun debate.

I know the gun laws and the self defence laws involved. That's why I criticised those laws.

hate to blame the victim here, but if Martin doesn't initiate the altercation and instead goes straight to where he's staying, there's not even a case.

You can blame Martin for attacking Zimmerman, but you can also blame Zimmerman for chasing Martin. "Don't blame the victim" is a stupid way of looking at a lot of situations. So don't feel bad