(Bolding and shortening mine)
OK, you’re wrong because this case is not about SYG. It’s a case of self-defense. A SYG hearing in Florida would be held before a judge, not a jury. As far as I’m aware, GZ is still entitled to a SYG hearing but I don’t know what good it would do at this point in time.
If he won it, he would assert his immunity from civil action over Martin’s death, and cause to take action against the police and State for arresting him and trying him despite his immunity. I’d be surprised if, assuming he is acquitted, his next step isn’t an immunity hearing.
Idle Hands issued a note in another, related thread, and suggested a pit thread, so here it is:
Thank you, sir, I admire your courage in being willing to speak up and say this openly and I’m grateful.
Thanks and me too! It’s been very edifying about many things above and beyond the case itself.
Ma’am, no thanks are needed. I don’t see it as courageous on my part to speak the truth as I see it.
I fuckin’ disagree with you about the case, but you’re welcome for dinner anytime you’re in East Texas.
Watch out, I might take you up on it! And be happy to have you if you make it to LA…
I just hope that George Zimmerman can put his life together after having had to defend himself not only against a prosecution that presents practically no evidence for the crime, but also against a media that was strongly biased against him.
The assailant’s own actions lead to his own death. George Zimmerman is innocent.
The guy heading home with snacks becomes “the assailant”? Only when the stalker tries to keep him from getting home.
Yes. When he bashed George’s head on the pavement, he’s the assailant. When he hit him, he’s the assailant. When he straddled him and wouldn’t stop hitting even as George cried out for help, he’s the assailant.
How many Zimmerman defenders are reacting like this, I wonder? And by a poster on this board, no less!
What really clinched it for me is that when the neighbor came out and shouted to the two on the ground to stop it, Martin didn’t even react to that and continued the “up and down motions of his arms” (that is, hitting Zimmerman).
What clinched it for me was when George Zimmerman was being questioned and the possibility that a video of the fight was available, George said “Thank God!”. This is a man who really believes that he had no other choice and welcomed the video evidence of the encounter (there wasn’t). If he had any doubt that video evidence will show him to be telling the truth about the encounter, he wouldn’t have been as relieved or as enthusiastic.
This was about simple self defence.
Facts that interestingly enough were never presented, detailed or even sometimes eluded to…
This arises in any discussion. When people talk like Miss Jeantel, you’re damn right it’s going to be brought up.
Of all the things to debate, this has not been a fantastic example of the subject content itself. If you are that intereted in law or specifically self defence or more to the point, self defense in Florida, that is commonly ‘debated’ daily, and has been long before anyone knew anything about Mr. Martin or Mr. Zimmerman.
You sound bitter..
Hmm, my opinion was their argument was entirely weak and far too emotional. It reminds me of people who cannot accept the fact that intelligent extra terrestrial life cannot exist - and that because of how large the universe, it impossible for there not to be -via simple odds-, life on other planets. They are so invested in the idea that no science ( the thing they say they use to prove such…) could speak to them otherwise.
In the end all you see is a derranged individual hell bent on WISHING something to be true.
Stoid has represented themself like the alter ego of Betenoire and I get the picture this individual shrieks instead of speaks.
I wasn’t aware that having the ability to make or produce coherent sentences was some type of badge of honor. In fact ‘AFAIK’ it’s the minimum requirement…
What gets me is that I remember the thread being penned by Magiver - never the less Stoid disappeared from it ages ago, I suppose due to no more interest in irrelevant and emotional attempts at throwing something to the wall hoping it would stick. Then they return nearing crunch time and decided to rehash everything. Meanwhile, the actual debaters on the subject of the law and those discussing facts, were here all along.
I’m also surprised that they’ve allowed several threads on [what is effectively the SAME thing] to be started, when they quite clearly could be amalgamated into one.
I point this out because the obvious next step in this saga, is to discuss civil law suits for both the Fulton family and the Zimmerman family.
Why not rename this accordingly and direct all discussions here?
Ah but you see the thing is, his ‘racism’ comes from a justifyable place and that’s why it never goes punished. Meanwhile if you come from any other angle, you suffer consequences.
Congratulations, 250 pages. We couldn’t have reached it without the wonderful involvement of both those interested in law and order, as well as the crazies who seek adoration and adulation over the internet. Thank you to the following :
Betenoire
Honesty
Jack Batty
Stoid
You with the Face
Trollhouse
Monstro
Sugaree
Bricker
Emeraldia
Magiver
Hmarvin
Shodan
Steophan
Doorhinge
Terr
Hbns
JoelUpchurch
Human Action
PatriotX
P.S. There’s a reason they’re broken into two groups. If you couldn’t smell the bullshit, I guess you must be white. … …
That’s unfortunate. But even before the verdict, we had:
And by a poster on this board, no less!
So what have we proved, exactly?
What clinched it for me was the dispatcher call. when the dispatcher suggested George not follow, the wind noise stopped, his speech and breathing were normal, and he was just conversing with the dispatcher. How can you follow and stalk someone running away, while standing in one place for over four minutes? The prosecutors never explained it, and an impartial jury certainly would have noticed.
Denying and ignoring things doesn’t mean they cease to exist. And it’s “alluded”.
It’s always interesting to me when the opposition expresses exactly my view of them, presented as their view of us, on this or any other topic. Interesting, but not mysterious.
You’re certainly entitled to your imaginings, of course, but a review of the threads reveals much more stamping and screaming on the part of some of my opponents.
Speaking only for myself, this particular debate has never been an emotional one for me, because, again, I do not share any of the agendas, beliefs, or preconceived notions about how this particular case represents anything larger than itself. And the record of my postings proves it. It was just an interesting debate because of the extremity and intensity of opinion, and the hoops that were being jumped (on both sides) to get to where people wanted to be. I never felt much of anything around it, so my thoughts and participation have never been driven by emotion.
My friends on facebook were having meltdowns about racism, and I tried, gently, to persuade them that it really played only the most minor of roles, but they were having none of it, to my dismay. hate it when my side gets strident and stupid. While I’m generally a true liberal in most ways, I have zero patience swith political correctness, or with denying plain truth to advance an agenda.
I’m not sure what this is supposed to prove about anyone, but in terms of your assertions about me: No, I disappeared from the board altogether for over a year because the Straight Dope particularly, and debate boards generally, have always been an irresistible lure for me to distract myself with. Since 1987 and BBSes. I’m actually much improved over the years, but still not cured.
So in light of the fact that I have almost no impulse control whatsoever, it was not, and still isn’t, possible for me to participate “just a little” if there’s a lot going on. I’m all in, face first. And it’s a ridiculous time suck. So I had to pull all the way back. And I’m damn glad this is over because I need it to be… too much stuff not getting done in my real world.
I’m with you on this. If there was going to be a separate thread just to track developments, I thought it should be in GQ to specifically preclude any debate, but <shrug>.
Yer welcome.
“The fundamental danger of an acquittal is not more riots, it is more George Zimmermans.”
I was a heavy participant in the early parts of this thread, and wisely decided to stop participating in it long ago. This case and this thread in particular were about a lot of people wanting to argue about things relating to their innate sense or justice or right and wrong. The people who instead wanted to argue about the actual facts as they relate to a real world criminal prosecution have been repeatedly vilified for not looking at a set of evidence that was never conclusive one way or the other and jumping to the same conclusions.
When the facts in a case in total, leave one without a clear idea what happened that’s a classic time when the jury must acquit, and they did. I predicted this something like a year ago, and now it has happened. Back then the only caveats I would add were that if more information was presented condemning Zimmerman, maybe he could have been convicted. Instead, the total evidence presented at trial painted no clear picture and really didn’t move the needle much versus what we knew back in the early months of the case.
There are a few really good articles about this case up on The Atlantic right now. The reason I mention them, especially to the side here that was so vehemently convinced Zimmerman was going to be convicted, is that they are all written by people much like yourselves. They are written by anti-gun, anti-Zimmerman people who think he did bad things that night and is essentially scum. But they also all conclude that hey, whatever problems with race were at play in Sanford and whatever bad stuff Zimmerman did the prosecution didn’t prove its case. That’s the reasonable way to look at this case if you’re one of those was was so vehemently convinced Zimmerman was going to be convicted. You can condemn Zimmerman and recognize the legal reality was simply a case that lacked sufficient evidence to determine what had happened when presented to a jury that is supposed to impartially examine it.
On The Killing Of Trayvon Martin By George Zimmerman - Ta-Nehisi Coates
Law and Justice and George Zimmerman - Andrew Cohen
There are also compelling articles by people that after observing the case are still basically outraged, for example this one, but they all share a common theme. They rely on historical references to lynchings and acquittals from long ago, and they are making sweeping pronouncements about society as a whole. None of them are effectively criticizing the legal outcome because it was never really in doubt. The simple reality that some people will never swallow is that whatever bad actions the Sanford Police Department took, the State and its executive branch took worse ones in deciding to start a criminal prosecution based on public outcry. If they had allowed this to be heard by a grand jury there is a great deal of likelihood that this case would not have been held, the State of Florida would not have spent probably a couple million dollars prosecuting a case they were never winning, and Martin’s parents would not have been deceived by an entrepreneurial lawyer and a sympathetic public outcry that the case involving their son had any chance of being resolved in a legal way that would be to their liking.
Would you correct your obvious intentional misspelling of my name? I think that is a violation of one of the rules because of your obvious implication. My name is Tollhouse as in the famous yellow bag. Thank you