[chachacha]

i recognize you, too, bucco, and i am sure many are happy to see your wise words.

[BobnBev]

Even tho the police really bungled the investigation, I think the outcome would have been the same. The prosecution was almost as bad.

I wonder if these "Detectives" (and I use that term loosely) were trained by the Detectives from the Jon Bonet Ramsey case in Denver.

[ijusluvit]

Originally Posted by njbchbum

ijusluvit - i have followed your posts and am having a hard time finding out where you have cited any facts from the case - could you please point them out again? thanx

A couple of other posters say I'm not using factual information to make my case that there is a flaw in the system.

As I write this, CNN is conducting the first interview with Juror B-37 in the case. She has cited the same three facts I cited in my posts.
1) George Zimmerman decided to confront the person he saw. "He never should have gotten out of his car that evening."
2) GZ should have acted in a more "responsible way" since he was armed.
3) GZ had every right to carry a gun, "just like everyone".

The juror, who admits she favored a 'not guilty' verdict from the beginning, couldn't have put her finger on the system flaw any better. She admits the jury essentially ignored facts #1 & 2 because they had to follow Florida laws.

In my opinion, what Florida obscures through it's laws, including 'stand your ground' is the RESPONSIBILITY armed people have to use a higher level of good judgement while they are armed. I again liken it to the 'rule' that guns should be securely locked away especially in homes where there are children. If things go wrong when the facts are like those stated above, the armed person should not be able to walk away with NO RESPONSIBILITY for the incident. If someone leaves a gun unsecured and someone is killed or injured by it, the gun owner should not be able to walk away with NO RESPONSIBILITY for the incident.

Hopefully my conclusion and the facts I've cited to support it are now clear to you.

[njbchbum]

thanx, ijusluvit. cleared it up...and now i am sure that i don't agree entirely. i will never give up the opinion that it is okay to use deadly force when confronted with the threat of death and a pound and ground beating. i wonder what that juror thinks would have been a 'more responsible way' - just sit there yelling for help while being beaten and maybe killed? hmmm...

as far as responsibility for securing a gun when not in use - yes - responsibility there is a must. my sisters always asked parents if there were guns in their house before allowing a play date - and now their children do the same with their children! but that is a different situation than having your life threatened and being beaten. responsibility there boils down to survival and self-defense to achieve same.

anyone who kills with a gun never forgets it - ask any vet.

[Bucco]

Originally Posted by ijusluvit

A couple of other posters say I'm not using factual information to make my case that there is a flaw in the system.

As I write this, CNN is conducting the first interview with Juror B-37 in the case. She has cited the same three facts I cited in my posts.
1) George Zimmerman decided to confront the person he saw. "He never should have gotten out of his car that evening."
2) GZ should have acted in a more "responsible way" since he was armed.
3) GZ had every right to carry a gun, "just like everyone".

The juror, who admits she favored a 'not guilty' verdict from the beginning, couldn't have put her finger on the system flaw any better. She admits the jury essentially ignored facts #1 & 2 because they had to follow Florida laws.

In my opinion, what Florida obscures through it's laws, including 'stand your ground' is the RESPONSIBILITY armed people have to use a higher level of good judgement while they are armed. I again liken it to the 'rule' that guns should be securely locked away especially in homes where there are children. If things go wrong when the facts are like those stated above, the armed person should not be able to walk away with NO RESPONSIBILITY for the incident. If someone leaves a gun unsecured and someone is killed or injured by it, the gun owner should not be able to walk away with NO RESPONSIBILITY for the incident.

Hopefully my conclusion and the facts I've cited to support it are now clear to you.

This is what I read in your previous post....

"Originally Posted by Monkei
Unfortunately the system worked. It worked too well. GZ needs to be accountable but there was just not enough evidence. The whole notion that you can basically provoke someone into attacking you and then shoot them when they attack you is wrong. The notion that you can tail and follow a kid just because of his color and he is wearing a hoode is wrong."

Where was the "provocation" you speak of. I read and reread this new info and cannot find it. You were pretty specific in saying "provoked someone into attacking you". The juror you cite certainly didn't even hint at that. She said according to you that he should not have gotten out of his car....ok, I can buy that judgement, but see no provocation of any kind in your new info.

Nobody has even tried to make Zimmerman a hero.....but our system is not based on what you think. It is based on admitted facts. Your provoke statement is what YOU say and that does not make it a fact.

And while you want to blame the state, I ask if you know how many states have the same kind of law AND how many are in the process of making it law ?

Stop bending things to fit YOUR scenario..what, for some reason you wish it to be. The law nor life can work that way. This was not a sporting event...we are not on teams. It was a court of law. Using your imagination to come up with might have happened is no better than people calling young Martin a thug or whatever. It, and your premise, is not based on FACTS.

[cbg150]

Originally Posted by ijusluvit

In my opinion, what Florida obscures through it's laws, including 'stand your ground' is the RESPONSIBILITY armed people have to use a higher level of good judgement while they are armed. I again liken it to the 'rule' that guns should be securely locked away especially in homes where there are children. If things go wrong when the facts are like those stated above, the armed person should not be able to walk away with NO RESPONSIBILITY for the incident...

Very well put!!! Thank you for your insight!




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ijusluvit]

Originally Posted by njbchbum

thanx, ijusluvit. cleared it up...and now i am sure that i don't agree entirely. i will never give up the opinion that it is okay to use deadly force when confronted with the threat of death and a pound and ground beating. i wonder what that juror thinks would have been a 'more responsible way' - just sit there yelling for help while being beaten and maybe killed? hmmm...

as far as responsibility for securing a gun when not in use - yes - responsibility there is a must. my sisters always asked parents if there were guns in their house before allowing a play date - and now their children do the same with their children! but that is a different situation than having your life threatened and being beaten. responsibility there boils down to survival and self-defense to achieve same.

anyone who kills with a gun never forgets it - ask any vet.

The 'more responsible way' was simply not to have put himself into the deadly force situation. The juror asserts that GZ had the opportunity to do that and chose not to. Again, I'm focusing on what happened BEFORE the deadly incident, just as my example of not securing a gun which may come well before a tragedy.

[AJ32162]

Originally Posted by ijusluvit

The 'more responsible way' was simply not to have put himself into the deadly force situation. The juror asserts that GZ had the opportunity to do that and chose not to. Again, I'm focusing on what happened BEFORE the deadly incident, just as my example of not securing a gun which may come well before a tragedy.

Zimmerman did not place himself into a deadly force situation. Martin placed Zimmerman into the deadly force situation.

[Suzi]

I think Eric Holder will have a tough time proving racial profiling in this case. If you listen to the FULL/ENTIRE 911 call where Zimmerman describes the suspicious person. He never said it was a black person....the operator had to ask him what the color of the person was.
It was the press who "spliced" the 911 recording so it sounded like Zimmerman said it was a black man in a hoodie.

[Monkei]

Originally Posted by gomoho

Maybe "there just wasn't enough evidence" because it didn't happen they way you insist it did and got it all wrong. All evidence points to the fact Trayvon could have gone home and didn't have to beat the hell out of GZ.

How convenient, you left out everything that happened before the altercation. Like it never happened.

[Monkei]

Originally Posted by njbchbum

1] do you have and factual evidence that shows tm was next to gz's car or gz could have gotten his car next to tm; or that gz had the oppty to tell that to tm - or can we consider that gz was decked and jumped on for a pound and ground before he could so advise?

2] as far as scabs go, do you have any factual info to show that tm was any sort of upstanding pillar of any community?

just asking..................

I assume the term circling the car means he was close enough for the defendant to talk with him.

Why do we even have to consider TM position in life? He was not the defendant.

[Monkei]

Originally Posted by Bucco

I am sure you will be providing credible IN EVIDENCE facts to back up your accusations !!!!

WOW...you do know you cannot just make things up.

Are you denying that at sometime GZ could not have peacefully approached TM during this whole cat and mouse game that GZ was playing. What am I making up. Common sense is not making things up.

[Bucco]

Originally Posted by Monkei

Are you denying that at sometime GZ could not have peacefully approached TM during this whole cat and mouse game that GZ was playing. What am I making up. Common sense is not making things up.

I will not argue facts in evidence, but when you say "could have"and use the word game as if you read minds, you answer your own questions.

[gomoho]

People PLEASE this was not a stand your ground case - it was self defense. And the jury had to decide if George Zimmerman acted in self defense - period. Not who should have stayed in their car, who threw the first punch, not if Trayvon should have called 911 or run home if he was frightened, but if Zimmerman honestly believed his life was in danger and was justified in defending himself.

[buggyone]

Originally Posted by gomoho

People PLEASE this was not a stand your ground case - it was self defense. And the jury had to decide if George Zimmerman acted in self defense - period. Not who should have stayed in their car, who threw the first punch, not if Trayvon should have called 911 or run home if he was frightened, but if Zimmerman honestly believed his life was in danger and was justified in defending himself.

...and the jury returned a not guilty verdict exactly as a jury did for Casey Anthony. Both are not guilty!