Trayvon Martin's murderer George Zimmerman is still a free man

[PhilsFan]

Can we retweet posts yet? Cause, yea... this times infinity

I work in a factory where I am the only person who doesn't own a gun. I am literally surrounded everyday by gun enthusiasts. They're the types who order gun magazines, go shoot casually on weekends, hunt deer and other things, purchase guns and ammunition as a hobby. They come into work and talk about some of the new things they've seen lately they want to try buying. And you know what? I trust them. These guys are studies. They love guns but know so much that they're not irresponsible. They don't arm themselves in anticipation of thugs robbing them, because they know better. They know the point of guns and simply know that it's not an issue that enters the home like others think it does. So their lifestyle as gun hobbyists has never bothered me. It would be silly; a waste of time and energy for me.

But I came back to work this summer and saw that one of the older guys at our shop tacked a picture near his workplace that was the equivalent of an internet meme. It essentially said "You're an idiot if you think gun legislation will keep guns out of the hands of criminals." I saw it a few days after I got back and started laughing at it. He saw me doing this and said, "What, you don't agree?" I said, "It's not that I don't agree, it's that I think the premise is asinine." He asked what I meant. I told him: "If you are going to group people into the categories of criminals and non-criminals, you're entirely missing the point. Not just with gun laws, but with laws in general." And he said, "What, you don't think criminals can buy guns on the black market?" I said, "I don't think people are criminals or non-criminals." He said, "You're being silly. If a criminal wants a gun, he can get a gun." To which I replied, "No. Do you think that kid in Connecticut was going to go find gangbangers to buy an AR-15 from? Or do you think he used it because it just so happened his mom had it for no other reason than the law told her she could?"

It pains me that my clear and logical argument never made waves there, but it still holds merit. Adam Lanza lit up those kids because of our lax gun laws. His mother only had crazy weapons because our lax laws allowed her to. He only used them because of that. There is no other reason. This isn't some guy who "would have found another way" to get these types of rifles. He only used them because our laws allowed his mother easy access. She didn't buy them for self defense; she bought them because, "Hey, why not?" I may take it personally because, as some know here, one of my closest friends lost his cousin at Sandy Hook. But this seems so obvious to me. I don't understand anyone who defends the laws that allowed it to happen. They are just people who are refusing to think about it, as far as I am concerned. And I don't intend to allow such thinking to happen unchallenged any longer.

 

[KhanadaRhodes]

the one thing i've never got with any of that rationale is this: okay, you think it's your right to own a gun, fine. that is your legal right, i'm not arguing that or saying it isn't. but why does an ordinary, average citizen need an assault rifle? "because they're legal" is not a valid reason. no one needs a gun like that. a soldier at war? that's irrelevant. but an average citizen? no.

it isn't the 1700s anymore. 99%* of us don't have to worry about bears or other wildlife traipsing around our properties or the risk of being challenged to a duel. if you want a gun, an average handgun will suffice.

*note i did not say all.

 

[BVS]

Essentially, if Zimmerman's story is true, he has committed no illegal act. The only eyewitness confirms his story.

Why is this being repeated over and over? This is not true. I hate that this has turned into a right left issue, but right media is just repeating this over and over. The eyewitness only saw Martin on top of Zimmerman hitting him, that only confirms a part of Zimmerman's story, this does not confirm anything regarding the instigation of the fight.

 

[nbcrusader]

Why is this being repeated over and over? This is not true. I hate that this has turned into a right left issue, but right media is just repeating this over and over. The eyewitness only saw Martin on top of Zimmerman hitting him, that only confirms a part of Zimmerman's story, this does not confirm anything regarding the instigation of the fight.

The key element would be the point where the instigation of a fight turned into a criminal act - my guess an assault (threatening act), followed by battery (physical contact).

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Why is this being repeated over and over? This is not true. I hate that this has turned into a right left issue, but right media is just repeating this over and over. The eyewitness only saw Martin on top of Zimmerman hitting him, that only confirms a part of Zimmerman's story, this does not confirm anything regarding the instigation of the fight.

The instigation of the fight does not matter when faced with the only question that does... did George Zimmerman fear for his life? If the jury believes that he did, then they can't convict him of murder.

I mean... they can, but they shouldn't.

If it was a stand your ground case, it would absolutely matter. It isn't. The defense is arguing self defense, not stand your ground. They'd lose a stand your ground case. They'll probably win this one.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

the one thing i've never got with any of that rationale is this: okay, you think it's your right to own a gun, fine. that is your legal right, i'm not arguing that or saying it isn't. but why does an ordinary, average citizen need an assault rifle? "because they're legal" is not a valid reason. no one needs a gun like that. a soldier at war? that's irrelevant. but an average citizen? no.

it isn't the 1700s anymore. 99%* of us don't have to worry about bears or other wildlife traipsing around our properties or the risk of being challenged to a duel. if you want a gun, an average handgun will suffice.

*note i did not say all.

You need a license to drive a car. You need a different license to drive a big truck or bus, or a motorcycle. Heck, you need a different license to drive most mopeds.

If you have price to be a threat to other drivers, be it through DWIs or repeated offenses, your license and right to drive a car is taken away.

Nobody debates that these rules make sense. Yet to try and put even that level of protection around guns, and everybody freaks the fuck out.

It's sickening.

 

[anitram]

Nobody debates that these rules make sense. Yet to try and put even that level of protection around guns, and everybody freaks the fuck out.

It's sickening.

Except that they don't really or at least they don't according to polls. Most people agree that these are reasonable things. But the NRA doesn't and the Congress has been bought by political interests and is acting in direct opposition to the will of the people on this matter.

 

[AEON]

If the car was invented today - there's no way in the world we'd be okay with it. The idea that ordinary citizens can drive metal boxes around freely at deadly high speeds with only painted lines and electronic lights to "contain us" is pretty ludicrous - and so is the idea that an ordinary citizen can walk around patrolling his neighborhood with a pistol.

 

[nbcrusader]

Yet to try and put even that level of protection around guns, and everybody freaks the fuck out.

Perhaps we are failing to address the real problem. A US city with the most stringent levels of gun control still has an enormous gun violence problem.

If we shifted attention from the "gun" to the "violence", maybe we would see some of the positive change we are after.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

Quite frankly if I lived in Sanford, Florida I myself would definitely be considering a concealed carry permit myself.

Would you take your gun to Target to grocery shop?

Apparently you also have to multitask there and patrol the neighborhood for undesirables, before and after grocery shopping.

I just wonder how many of his calls to the police non emergency line were about suspicious white people. Apparently every crime in that area was seemingly committed by black people?

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

Is carrying a gun illegal?
no.

Is following Trayvon silly?
yes

Is following Trayvon ILLEGAL?
no.

Is defending oneself illegal?
no.

Essentially, if Zimmerman's story is true, he has committed no illegal act. The only eyewitness confirms his story.

At the end of the day, Zimmerman is no more or less than a very stupid man with poor decision making abilities.

Then why didn't the judge grant an acquittal after the prosecution rested, when the defense argued for it? That it was a prima facie case of self defense, which is essentially what they argued. I know that hardly ever happens in criminal cases, but she could have.

What about the DNA evidence and the other evidence presented so far? What about Zimmerman himself telling the police that it didn't sound like him screaming? What about his various conflicting versions of the events? What about his injuries? He never got a single suture.

 

[The_Pac_Mule]

Would you take your gun to Target to grocery shop?

Probably not. But wouldn't the possibility of having to defend yourself or being able to stop a crime would be the same as pretty much anywhere else?

When I was in high school there was a robbery down the road from my house at a pharmacy and someone else there pulled out a gun and he just dropped everything and ran. The police were able to find him because of the shit he left.


Also, Vermont doesn't have a target

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

Probably not. But wouldn't the possibility of having to defend yourself or being able to stop a crime would be the same as pretty much anywhere else?

When I was in high school there was a robbery down the road from my house at a pharmacy and someone else there pulled out a gun and he just dropped everything and ran. The police were able to find him because of the shit he left.

I assume all this crime was in his neighborhood, not in a well lit Target and Target parking lot. Unless Sanford is the Newark of Florida.

Hypothetically you might have to defend yourself or stop a crime anywhere-so we should have guns in schools, nursing homes, hair salons, day care centers, malls, airports, etc.

 

[nbcrusader]

Then why didn't the judge grant an acquittal after the prosecution rested, when the defense argued for it? That it was a prima facie case of self defense, which is essentially what they argued. I know that hardly ever happens in criminal cases, but she could have.

Just a couple of things from the criminal process. First, in just about every criminal case, a defense counsel moves for acquittal after the prosecution rests its case. Some attorneys suggest that is malpractice to not make such a motion.

The motion only argues that the prosecution failed to establish a case on its face. It has nothing to do with the defense, as the defense has not presented its case at this point.

You are correct - a judge rarely grants this type of motion. Prosecutors rarely take cases to trial, and only do so if they feel very confident of a guilty verdict. If the judge granted the motion, it largely reflects on the lack of ability of a prosecutor (or the misguided rational for taking the case to trial).

 

[AEON]

If we shifted attention from the "gun" to the "violence", maybe we would see some of the positive change we are after.

I think that is a fantastic point - but that doesn't grab headlines, votes, election money...

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

Just a couple of things from the criminal process. First, in just about every criminal case, a defense counsel moves for acquittal after the prosecution rests its case. Some attorneys suggest that is malpractice to not make such a motion.

The motion only argues that the prosecution failed to establish a case on its face. It has nothing to do with the defense, as the defense has not presented its case at this point.

.

I know all that. But the defense does argue for it, and the prosecution rebuts. All of that aside, it's still not a prima facie case of self defense-which is what his post seemed to be suggesting.

 

[U2DMfan]

But the NRA doesn't and the Congress has been bought by political interests and is acting in direct opposition to the will of the people on this matter.

Ding ding ding. On that matter and many others. I've said it over the years here in FYM about many different subjects. Whether it's the tax lobby, the health insurance lobby, etc. The NRA example is the most pristine example you could ask for. 90% of Americans in various polls say they support background checks. And yet NOTHING, at all, is done. Even after Newtown.

More and more people are FINALLY wising up. Although not enough. Maybe some people might still be in a bit of denial about it and still want to believe that their elected leaders are better than this. They're not. They care more about staying in office than almost anything else.

Lobbies and special interests have effectively bought the government off. All because of campaign donations and the power of not getting 'primaried' by a powerful lobby. That's not tin-foil hat conspiracy stuff.

It's ABSOLUTELY TRUE. And totally legal. America, fuck yeah!

 

[deep]

The instigation of the fight does not matter when faced with the only question that does... did George Zimmerman fear for his life? If the jury believes that he did, then they can't convict him of murder.

I mean... they can, but they shouldn't.

you really believe this??

a person can pursue somebody, cause an altercation, and then kill them with a gun and be let off??
because they claim they feared for their life.


if that is the case, a kook could pursue you or me or anyone kill them and walk

 

[IWasBored]

Perhaps we are failing to address the real problem. A US city with the most stringent levels of gun control still has an enormous gun violence problem.

If we shifted attention from the "gun" to the "violence", maybe we would see some of the positive change we are after.

Partly. We could also address how utterly idiotic this is:

More than a quarter of the firearms seized on the streets here by the Chicago Police Department over the past five years were bought just outside city limits in Cook County suburbs, according to an analysis by the University of Chicago Crime Lab. Others came from stores around Illinois and from other states, like Indiana, less than an hour’s drive away. Since 2008, more than 1,300 of the confiscated guns, the analysis showed, were bought from just one store, Chuck’s Gun Shop in Riverdale, Ill., within a few miles of Chicago’s city limits.

Can't buy fireworks in Massachusetts. Can advertise on billboards throughout the greater Springfield area for fireworks stores located literally just over the border in New Hampshire. At least here people aren't running around using fireworks as murder weapons.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

you really believe this??

a person can pursue somebody, cause an altercation, and then kill them with a gun and be let off??
because they claim they feared for their life.

if that is the case, a kook could pursue you or me or anyone kill them and walk

Apparently that's the case, if you follow the way this case is playing out to a "logical" conclusion. Of course now Zimmerman claims Trayvon was persuing him, and Zimmerman only got out of his car to check a house address. One that a photo shows was clearly visible in the dark, it had a light right next to it. And the neighborhood only had a few streets, and he's in the neighborhood watch.

And now accdg to his lawyers he was obese at the time, at the very least fat and out of shape. His trainer says he couldn't land a punch. Lmao.

Big blow to the prosecution today-Serino, the lead investigator, said that Trayvon's father said it wasn't his son's voice screaming. When he first played the tape for him.

 

[Irvine511]

as America gets fatter and fatter, more and more of us are going to need more guns to protect ourselves when we decide to harass black teenagers.

 

[BVS]

The instigation of the fight does not matter when faced with the only question that does... did George Zimmerman fear for his life?

But what if Martin feared for his life?

 

[Diemen]

But what if Martin feared for his life?

Well then he should have had a gun, obviously.

 

[deep]

But what if Martin feared for his life?

why?
Zimmerman is not black, does not look like a "fucking punk (coon), fucking asshole, that always gets away"
Do you think Zimmerman has the natural ability to turn an ordinary sidewalk into a lethal weapon?

 

[nbcrusader]

But what if Martin feared for his life?

Which explains why Martin was on top of Zimmerman?

In today's testimony, a gym owner where Zimmerman trained described Zimmerman's athletic ability, on a scale of 1 to 10, as a "point five".

 

[Irvine511]

Which explains why Martin was on top of Zimmerman?

In today's testimony, a gym owner where Zimmerman trained described Zimmerman's athletic ability, on a scale of 1 to 10, as a "point five".

Zimmerman had a gun. That renders his fitness moot. Perhaps Trayvon feared that Zimmerman was going to shoot him?

Notably, Zimmerman has gained 120 lbs in the past year.

That's some good legal counsel.

 

[Jive Turkey]

Notably, Zimmerman has gained 120 lbs in the past year.

That's some good legal counsel.

Ha! I was thinking the same thing.
But I guess misrepresenting physical attributes of those involved is par for the course in this case

 

[nbcrusader]

Zimmerman had a gun. That renders his fitness moot. Perhaps Trayvon feared that Zimmerman was going to shoot him?

Notably, Zimmerman has gained 120 lbs in the past year.

That's some good legal counsel.

So, he got on top of him and started pounding his head?

I know the left has convicted him and waived their objections to the death penalty. Perhaps living with this open hostility led to his weight gain?

 

[Irvine511]

So, he got on top of him and started pounding his head?

I know the left has convicted him and waived their objections to the death penalty. Perhaps living with this open hostility led to his weight gain?

Well, gee, if we're going to play that game, I suppose the right loves it whenever an unarmed black teenager get shot?

If I were in a struggle with someone who was armed, I'd for sure do what I could to make sure I didn't get killed.

All this said, I believe it's entirely possible that Zimmerman is telling the truth. That doesn't mean that it isn't Zimmerman's fault and it also lets us know, again, that guns really do kill people.

My issue here isn't race, though that's impossible to ignore. It's about guns.

Horrible, horrible guns.

 

[deep]

In today's testimony, a gym owner where Zimmerman trained described Zimmerman's athletic ability, on a scale of 1 to 10, as a "point five".

this gym owner, like many of the best friends of Zimmerman are not credible at all, any other gym owner would have said something like, he came in a 2 but we got him up to a 6, not on a 1 to 10, at my gym we get our paying customers in shape to a whopping .5

the .5 comment should have all jurors completely disregarding him as not credible.