Zimmerman trial

[RedemptionMan]

My cwp class taught me to shoot to stop not kill. However you cant be sued by a corpse.

wow, you get it. The law benefits the one who survived as long as the other one does not.

Dead men or women tell no tales and have no story. Leaving only one version of what happened. Zimmerman would NOT have walked had T taken the stand and he knows that as he stood in that court room with those blanket goofy looks on his swollen face.

 

[Shannongiles16]

I remember a song from my teen years called 3 can keep a secret if 2 are dead. I always thought that was funny. Almost as much as the song Im halfway to a threeway. That said, I approach every single person in my neighborhood that looks out of place and Im not on a neighborhood watch. I've decided, after reading this thread, that Im probably a bigoted homicidal stalker.

I didn't follow the trial at all. I figured it would turn into a race thing.

 

[quincy]

. . . .However you cant be sued by a corpse.

Technically you are right. However, wrongful death suits are often filed in cases like this, and often with success - and dead men can tell their side of the story. That is what evidence is all about.

Prosecutors in Michigan have been debating the Zimmerman trial along with many others in the country, and many of the prosecutors here believe the outcome would have been different for Zimmerman had he been tried in Michigan. One prosecutor, William Cataldo of the Macomb County Prosecutor's Office, was quoted in The Detroit News: "If you are the aggressor in a fight, you cannot then claim self defense when you use deadly force."

The evidence and facts of the trial pointed to Zimmerman as the aggressor.

If Zimmerman had been charged correctly at the outset (manslaughter and not second-degree murder) and in Michigan, there is a good possibility that he would be in jail now.

 

[swalsh411]

The evidence and facts of the trial pointed to Zimmerman as the aggressor.

Really?

Zimmerman was the aggressor.... but he was the only one with injuries? (other than being shot obviously)

Zimmerman was the aggressor.... but a witness says he saw M on top of him hitting him?

Repeating the same thing over and over again doesn't make it true.

 

[tranquility]

Technically you are right. However, wrongful death suits are often filed in cases like this, and often with success - and dead men can tell their side of the story. That is what evidence is all about.

Prosecutors in Michigan have been debating the Zimmerman trial along with many others in the country, and many of the prosecutors here believe the outcome would have been different for Zimmerman had he been tried in Michigan. One prosecutor, William Cataldo of the Macomb County Prosecutor's Office, was quoted in The Detroit News: "If you are the aggressor in a fight, you cannot then claim self defense when you use deadly force."

The evidence and facts of the trial pointed to Zimmerman as the aggressor.

If Zimmerman had been charged correctly at the outset (manslaughter and not second-degree murder) and in Michigan, there is a good possibility that he would be in jail now.

Go back to my cites on the provocation jury instruction and see why they may have an agenda other than describing the law. Florida law says much the same thing.

 

[You Are Guilty]

Silly goose. You couldn't possibly be suggesting that the mainstream (and minorstream?) media in this country don't care about actual facts and have, gasp, an agenda?!

Poppy****.
hah! ^^^ (you can surmise on your own what was censored)

 

[tranquility]

My NRA instructor who signed off on my state CCW, that is who. I did not record the conversation but when Zimmerman pulled his gun and fired his intention was to kill this person. If you think it was not then you would be wrong. Remember Zimmerman knew the law, knew police procedures, and while I am not 100 percent certain his CCW instructed him that if he shot his gun shoot to kill. I would say it would be safe to say that is a fact. You may feel personally attached to this kind of situation but again RACE or any type of RACE card played absolutely zero in play in this. If you want to call me a liar fine, go get some NRA certifications and you learn the laws and they are pretty much the same from state to state. It comes down to this, if someone is endangering someone and I pull my gun and do not use it then that is assault with a deadly weapon; however, if someone pulls a knife on me and comes at me and I shot that person in the head then that is justifiable defense.

Understand?

All but snipers are trained for center of mass. See also the NRA guides for defense in the home and outside the home.

For professionals who train often like special soldiers or swat officers, one reasonably argued technique is the triple tap. Two point shoot to center of mass then assessment and aimed shot to head.

But those few I've talked to who were in a gunfight all emptied their service weapon. Funny thing adrenaline.

 

[ecmst12]

Really?

Zimmerman was the aggressor.... but he was the only one with injuries? (other than being shot obviously)

Zimmerman was the aggressor.... but a witness says he saw M on top of him hitting him?

Repeating the same thing over and over again doesn't make it true.

You can start a fight that you then lose. Neither of the above facts preclude Z being the aggressor.

 

[swalsh411]

You can start a fight that you then lose. Neither of the above facts preclude Z being the aggressor.

There is zero evidence to support the theory that Z was the aggressor. You don't convict people of murder based on theories with no evidence.

 

[Ladyback1]

All but snipers are trained for center of mass. See also the NRA guides for defense in the home and outside the home.

For professionals who train often like special soldiers or swat officers, one reasonably argued technique is the triple tap. Two point shoot to center of mass then assessment and aimed shot to head.

But those few I've talked to who were in a gunfight all emptied their service weapon. Funny thing adrenaline.

When I was young (so yeah, we're talking 30+ years!), and my dad was teaching me gun safety for hunting---his first lesson was, "this is a weapon, if you point it at any living being, you should be prepared to kill that living being. Whether it is a deer or a person. Do not point a gun at anything you are not willing to kill..." Now, that may have been a very simplistic explanation for a his child, but it has stuck with me. He also taught me to aim for the biggest part of whatever I was shooting at, so on a person that would be the center mass. I wish that more young kids were taught gun safety early on. I grew up in home w/ several guns (rifles, shotguns, handguns) and I never felt the need to use them or handle them except when we were hunting or target/practice shooting. I digress....

As far as primary aggressor: One does not have to be injured to be the primary aggressor. One does not have to lay hands on the other person to be the primary aggressor. Who was the primary aggressor between Mr. Z and Mr. M? Only God knows. I do believe that Mr. Z has convinced himself that he was not. And all the rest of the world is left to speculate and assume.

 

[swalsh411]

The two main rules of gun safety that I was taught were:

1. Never point the gun at at any living thing you are not prepared to kill.

2. Keep your finger off the trigger until ready to shoot.

What's nice about these two rules is that nobody will get hurt so long as at least one is followed. The third corollary rule is to treat all guns as if they were loaded at all times.

 

[Willlyjo]

Technically you are right. However, wrongful death suits are often filed in cases like this, and often with success - and dead men can tell their side of the story. That is what evidence is all about.

Prosecutors in Michigan have been debating the Zimmerman trial along with many others in the country, and many of the prosecutors here believe the outcome would have been different for Zimmerman had he been tried in Michigan. One prosecutor, William Cataldo of the Macomb County Prosecutor's Office, was quoted in The Detroit News: "If you are the aggressor in a fight, you cannot then claim self defense when you use deadly force."

The evidence and facts of the trial pointed to Zimmerman as the aggressor.

If Zimmerman had been charged correctly at the outset (manslaughter and not second-degree murder) and in Michigan, there is a good possibility that he would be in jail now.

Zimmerman WAS NOT the agressor!! He was the one who got punched by Trayvon. The jury made the right decision! Under those same circumstances which enabled Zimmerman to go free, he would have gone free in Michigan and MOST other states as well.

 

[quincy]

Silly goose. You couldn't possibly be suggesting that the mainstream (and minorstream?) media in this country don't care about actual facts and have, gasp, an agenda?!

Poppy****.
hah! ^^^ (you can surmise on your own what was censored)

Ha. Not at all, YAG. I am not suggesting that mainstream media has an agenda. Never. With the press, it is accuracy first and always.

Cataldo, by the way, is the chief of homicide for the Macomb County Prosecutors Office. I've spoken with other prosecutors who felt as he did, that in Michigan the case would have played out differently.

I read the jury instructions, tranquility, and they were the type of jury instructions I would want my jury to have if I were ever the defendant on trial for second-degree murder under similar circumstances.



(as an aside: I like the way you wrote your posts, Ladyback1 - very nice)

 

[Ladyback1]

Zimmerman WAS NOT the agressor!! He was the one who got punched by Trayvon. The jury made the right decision! Under those same circumstances which enabled Zimmerman to go free, he would have gone free in Michigan and MOST other states as well.

Just because he got punched and had some wounds is NOT indicative of WHO the primary aggressor was!

I can give you numerous examples of a primary aggressor sustains wounds before their victim does, or aggressor sustains more serious/significant wounds.
(and I have already, re: my work comp claim experience)

NONE of us know who the primary aggressor was. Mr. M is can't tell his side of what happened. And Mr. Z has either convinced himself that he was the victim, or believed he was the victim from the start. You are making assumptions and conclusions based on one version of a story. NEVER, EVER a good idea! No matter what the story is or is about.

And thank you Quincy!

 

[Antigone*]

At the end of the day the facts will hold true that if Zimmerman had listened to the 911 operator and not followed TM, we wouldn't be talking about this. Zimmerman wouldn't be a marked man and Trayvon would be home with his family.

Clearly Zimmerman was more aggressive than he should have been.