7/16/2013 2:04 PM
Posted by silentpadna on 7/16/2013 1:54:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 7/16/2013 1:47:00 PM (view original):
Posted by silentpadna on 7/16/2013 1:39:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 7/16/2013 1:33:00 PM (view original):
I think a manslaughter conviction would have been a just outcome.

Zimmerman didn't intend to kill Martin and may have believed his life was in danger but is guilty because he acted unreasonably.
Evidence (again)?

Technically, he was already tried of manslaughter and found not guilty.  How did the jurors get it wrong in the eyes of the law?

And...what is "reasonably"?  (Hint:  defending yourself is considered reasonable).
Clearly, I disagree with the verdict.

I think it's more likely that Zimmerman initiated the confrontation.
If you're going to throw a man in jail for potentially many years, you gotta have more than "thinking it's more likely..."

That's what tyrannies and dictatorships do.  Do we really want to go there?
I agree. I think juries should err on the side of acquittal. In this case, based on the evidence presented at trial, my opinion is that Zimmerman acted unreasonably and should have been convicted of manslaughter.
7/16/2013 2:04 PM
How would you react under those circumstances?
I wouldn't have been running away from Zimmerman if it was me. I'd have continued on my way and let him keep following me, because I would have been doing nothing wrong. Unless he confronted me, no confrontation would have happened.
7/16/2013 2:06 PM
I think those are valid questions.  It is perfectly plausible that a 17-year-old might think he needs to take action.  Which is probably why the 911 operator told Zimmerman not to follow him.  (If there was a law that you must obey what emergency operators tell you, I might be able to live with that BTW).

That was an extremely poor, and tragic choice by Zimmerman - but not a crime.  Zimmerman is going to have to live with whatever the truth is.  WIth what we know, though, I don't see any way to convict him (Zimmerman) of a crime.  We want justice, but what exactly is that in this case? 
7/16/2013 2:06 PM
In this case, based on the evidence presented at trial, my opinion is that Zimmerman acted unreasonably and should have been convicted of manslaughter.

I honestly hope you NEVER get placed onto a jury, because you'll be the idiot who ignores the facts and evidence and just goes based on your own opinion, assumptions, guesswork, and hunches. Hopefully if you ever do end up on a jury you'll just hang the jury instead of convicting someone who is not guilty or setting free a guilty person.
7/16/2013 2:08 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 7/16/2013 2:04:00 PM (view original):
Posted by silentpadna on 7/16/2013 1:54:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 7/16/2013 1:47:00 PM (view original):
Posted by silentpadna on 7/16/2013 1:39:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 7/16/2013 1:33:00 PM (view original):
I think a manslaughter conviction would have been a just outcome.

Zimmerman didn't intend to kill Martin and may have believed his life was in danger but is guilty because he acted unreasonably.
Evidence (again)?

Technically, he was already tried of manslaughter and found not guilty.  How did the jurors get it wrong in the eyes of the law?

And...what is "reasonably"?  (Hint:  defending yourself is considered reasonable).
Clearly, I disagree with the verdict.

I think it's more likely that Zimmerman initiated the confrontation.
If you're going to throw a man in jail for potentially many years, you gotta have more than "thinking it's more likely..."

That's what tyrannies and dictatorships do.  Do we really want to go there?
I agree. I think juries should err on the side of acquittal. In this case, based on the evidence presented at trial, my opinion is that Zimmerman acted unreasonably and should have been convicted of manslaughter.
If you stay in this thread, I'm not going to "let you off" that easily BL.  What evidence would you base your conviction on with respect to manslaughter?
7/16/2013 2:12 PM
Posted by burnsy483 on 7/16/2013 1:14:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 7/16/2013 1:11:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 7/16/2013 12:58:00 PM (view original):
In my opinion, the racism is obvious. Why are you so stupid?
Hypothetical situation:

Two guys jump a third dude as he exits a bar at 2am, and beat the **** out of him.

Is that racially motivated?
Probably not.

What makes it seem racially motivated is that he followed him in the first place, said he looked suspicious, and mentioned something along the lines of "******* ******** get away with everything."  What was so suspicious?  What was he getting away with?  Makes you wonder if it was some white kid walking around, if he would have thought the same thing.  If you think that sounds wrong of me to say, I understand.
Are you implying that Zimmerman never followed a white kid because he thought he looked suspicious?

Source, please.
7/16/2013 2:16 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 7/16/2013 1:47:00 PM (view original):
Posted by silentpadna on 7/16/2013 1:39:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 7/16/2013 1:33:00 PM (view original):
I think a manslaughter conviction would have been a just outcome.

Zimmerman didn't intend to kill Martin and may have believed his life was in danger but is guilty because he acted unreasonably.
Evidence (again)?

Technically, he was already tried of manslaughter and found not guilty.  How did the jurors get it wrong in the eyes of the law?

And...what is "reasonably"?  (Hint:  defending yourself is considered reasonable).
Clearly, I disagree with the verdict.

I think it's more likely that Zimmerman initiated the confrontation.
Star prosecution witness Rachel Jental disagrees with you(unless you consider "following" the initiation of the confrontation).

"Why you following me?" were the words she said TM used.
7/16/2013 2:20 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 7/16/2013 2:16:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 7/16/2013 1:47:00 PM (view original):
Posted by silentpadna on 7/16/2013 1:39:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 7/16/2013 1:33:00 PM (view original):
I think a manslaughter conviction would have been a just outcome.

Zimmerman didn't intend to kill Martin and may have believed his life was in danger but is guilty because he acted unreasonably.
Evidence (again)?

Technically, he was already tried of manslaughter and found not guilty.  How did the jurors get it wrong in the eyes of the law?

And...what is "reasonably"?  (Hint:  defending yourself is considered reasonable).
Clearly, I disagree with the verdict.

I think it's more likely that Zimmerman initiated the confrontation.
Star prosecution witness Rachel Jental disagrees with you(unless you consider "following" the initiation of the confrontation).

"Why you following me?" were the words she said TM used.
How is that disagreement?

Zimmerman walks up to Martin. Martin asks, "why you following me?"
7/16/2013 2:21 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 7/16/2013 2:20:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 7/16/2013 2:16:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 7/16/2013 1:47:00 PM (view original):
Posted by silentpadna on 7/16/2013 1:39:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 7/16/2013 1:33:00 PM (view original):
I think a manslaughter conviction would have been a just outcome.

Zimmerman didn't intend to kill Martin and may have believed his life was in danger but is guilty because he acted unreasonably.
Evidence (again)?

Technically, he was already tried of manslaughter and found not guilty.  How did the jurors get it wrong in the eyes of the law?

And...what is "reasonably"?  (Hint:  defending yourself is considered reasonable).
Clearly, I disagree with the verdict.

I think it's more likely that Zimmerman initiated the confrontation.
Star prosecution witness Rachel Jental disagrees with you(unless you consider "following" the initiation of the confrontation).

"Why you following me?" were the words she said TM used.
How is that disagreement?

Zimmerman walks up to Martin. Martin asks, "why you following me?"
How did the non-speaking person initiate the confrontation?
7/16/2013 2:22 PM
BTW, that was AFTER he told her "Some crazy-*** cracker is following me".

Who do you really think initiated the physical confrontation?
7/16/2013 2:23 PM
Seriously, one guy has a bloody nose and a cracked head.  The other guy has a bullet hole.   Which do you really thing happened first?
7/16/2013 2:23 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 7/16/2013 2:21:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 7/16/2013 2:20:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 7/16/2013 2:16:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 7/16/2013 1:47:00 PM (view original):
Posted by silentpadna on 7/16/2013 1:39:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 7/16/2013 1:33:00 PM (view original):
I think a manslaughter conviction would have been a just outcome.

Zimmerman didn't intend to kill Martin and may have believed his life was in danger but is guilty because he acted unreasonably.
Evidence (again)?

Technically, he was already tried of manslaughter and found not guilty.  How did the jurors get it wrong in the eyes of the law?

And...what is "reasonably"?  (Hint:  defending yourself is considered reasonable).
Clearly, I disagree with the verdict.

I think it's more likely that Zimmerman initiated the confrontation.
Star prosecution witness Rachel Jental disagrees with you(unless you consider "following" the initiation of the confrontation).

"Why you following me?" were the words she said TM used.
How is that disagreement?

Zimmerman walks up to Martin. Martin asks, "why you following me?"
How did the non-speaking person initiate the confrontation?
Are you saying that a confrontation can only be initiated with words?
7/16/2013 2:24 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 7/16/2013 2:22:00 PM (view original):
BTW, that was AFTER he told her "Some crazy-*** cracker is following me".

Who do you really think initiated the physical confrontation?
I'd guess it was the crazy *** cracker doing the stalking.
7/16/2013 2:24 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 7/16/2013 2:23:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 7/16/2013 2:21:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 7/16/2013 2:20:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 7/16/2013 2:16:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 7/16/2013 1:47:00 PM (view original):
Posted by silentpadna on 7/16/2013 1:39:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 7/16/2013 1:33:00 PM (view original):
I think a manslaughter conviction would have been a just outcome.

Zimmerman didn't intend to kill Martin and may have believed his life was in danger but is guilty because he acted unreasonably.
Evidence (again)?

Technically, he was already tried of manslaughter and found not guilty.  How did the jurors get it wrong in the eyes of the law?

And...what is "reasonably"?  (Hint:  defending yourself is considered reasonable).
Clearly, I disagree with the verdict.

I think it's more likely that Zimmerman initiated the confrontation.
Star prosecution witness Rachel Jental disagrees with you(unless you consider "following" the initiation of the confrontation).

"Why you following me?" were the words she said TM used.
How is that disagreement?

Zimmerman walks up to Martin. Martin asks, "why you following me?"
How did the non-speaking person initiate the confrontation?
Are you saying that a confrontation can only be initiated with words?
I believe this answers this question:

"Seriously, one guy has a bloody nose and a cracked head.  The other guy has a bullet hole.   Which do you really thing happened first?"
7/16/2013 2:26 PM

But, again, saying the death was "obviously racially motivated" and "he's in prison if it was a white kid" is beyond stupid.

 

of 19

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games

© 1999-2014 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.