[njbchbum]

Originally Posted by ijusluvit

I respectfully disagree with the OP and the poster who agrees with NJBlue. To me the decision to engage in violent confrontation carries a heavy responsibility, especially if the party making the decision is armed. Mr. Zimmerman made the decision to initiate that confrontation, without being forced, or having the jurisdiction to do so, and in fact being told not to do so.

And let's leave race out of the incident, even though there is evidence of how Mr. Zimmerman felt about young blacks in the neighborhood, and what might have motivated him to continue into that confrontation.

ijusluvit -
what is the job of community watch - if not to watch?

under what authority does a police dispatcher issue commands/orders that must be followed? [the dispatchers i know dispatch emergency personnel and have a first aid manual at their desk in case they are needed to provide that info until emergency responders arrive on site]

if gz had not followed tm - how would he have been able to answer the dispatcher's subsequent question of 'where did he go'? confusing/conflicting?

pray tell how you came to the conclusion that gz initiated the confrontation and not tm...just by following tm?

if tm was concerned about being followed by a cracker... why did he not go stratight home, to the first porch with a light on ot call 911 to report same?

what might have motivated gz to follow tm - how about his neighborhood watch responsibilities?

what would you do if your nose was broken and your head slammed into the ground while being told you were going to die that night?

[ijusluvit]

Originally Posted by batman911

GZ did not break any law by carrying a weapon or asking TM what he was doing in the neighborhood. The law was first broken when TM assaulted GZ. Unfortunately, that was the mistake that cost him his life. You have no right to assault someone even if they are following or annoying you. TM's parents did not do their job. It is apparent from evidence not allowed that TM took joy in previous "ground and pound" incidents and appeared to be a way of life for him. I wonder how you would feel if the person getting pounded was one of your friends or relatives. All of this happened in seconds and I'm sure anyone on the receiving end of TM beating would have done the same if they are honest with themselves. If you were the one getting the beating would you have been afraid for you life if it was your head being slammed on the concrete?

Speculate forever about who broke the law first. The OP asked if the system worked. My opinion is that there is a flaw in the system which allows a person to deliberately confront another person without any compulsion or duty to do so; do so while in possession of a loaded firearm; and then walk away with absolutely no responsibility for the result. I believe that while a person is in possession of a lethal weapon, they have a responsibility not to voluntarily enter into potential confrontations. Think of it as not a lot different from the responsibility to lock up firearms in a private home where children are residing.

[tucson]

Do people realize that there were at least 8 robberies in a matter of 14 mos. at Twin Lakes and that there was other residents BESIDES GZ calling the police for help. There were dozen's of reports of B&E's & would be burglars casing homes & that was creating alot of fear with the residents.It wasn't just Gerge calling the police about "the young black men" robbing homes (their words not mine).That's why GZ was watching TM, NOT to stalk him as the media so falsely keeps stating over & over to bolster this phoney scenario of racial profiling, it's very scary. The ones who want to protect the innocent victims are the ones that are being labeled the "evil racial profiling haters"! WOW!!!

[Shimpy]

[QUOTE=Bucco;708047[B]"The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) has called on the Obama administration to pursue civil rights charges against George Zimmerman.

The NAACP also tweeted out a petition urging the Justice Department to “open a civil rights case against George Zimmerman.”

“Attorney General Eric Holder,” the petition reads, “The Department of Justice has closely monitored the State of Florida’s prosecution of the case against George Zimmerman in the Trayvon Martin murder since it began. Today, with the acquittal of George Zimmerman, it is time for the Department of Justice to act.”

“The most fundamental of civil rights — the right to life — was violated the night George Zimmerman stalked and then took the life of Trayvon Martin,” the NAACP wrote. “We ask that the Department of Justice file civil rights charges against Mr. Zimmerman for this egregious violation.”

“Please address the travesties of the tragic death of Trayvon Martin by acting today,” the NAACP wrote.

The head of the NAACP and Attorney General Eric Holder have both expressed their admiration for one another.[/B]



Why was it OK for OJ Simpson to walk but not Zimmerman???? Because Simpson was black and Zimmerman wasn't.

[BarryRX]

I have read all the previous responses to the OP's question. I have been one of the minority on TOTV that was disappointed in the verdict. Please do not argue with me, because to answer the OP's question, I believe the system did work. For those complaining about spending taxpayer money on a trial, I submit to you that a man was shot to death with very few witnesses to witness the entire incident. I can think of no higher purpose of a society than to make sure that it was self defense rather than murder. So, in that respect, the system worked because there was a trial. Next, I believe that a jury was picked with both the prosecution and defense having the opportunity to accept or reject jurors that would hear the case with impartiality, listen to evidence that I was not previously aware of, and come to a verdict that was not influenced by fear or bribes or threats. In that respect also, the system worked. I believe that both the prosecution and defense had a chance to present their cases, so the system worked there also. So, I accept the verdict and will move on with my life. I have heard it said that the United States has the second worst justice system in the world. The only one that is worse is everybody else's.

[tucson]

Why is it that J.Jackson, A.Sharpton, NAACP, & others don't organize the same kinds of marches and calling on Washington (like they are now re;the Zimmerman/Martin case) for all the young black men and women that are being murdered everyday in our country?

[Rickg]

Originally Posted by l2ridehd

Our legal system has an established process for dealing with these issues. It is called a trial by jury. It has been completed and the members of that jury heard all the arguments and evidence submitted by both the prosecution and the defense. It was a jury selected and approved by both sides. After hearing all the facts and information they made a unanimous decision of not guilty. For all of us to pontificate as to why this was good or bad is stupid. We only hear what so the so called media wants us to hear, not everything as that jury did. The media has made a circus of this and will not let it go. Either we accept our legal system as is or work to change it. But stop trying to second guess it.

And if Eric Holder or Harry Reid or Al Sharlaton or the NAACP continue to stir the pot, they are the one's that should be prosecuted. You can't try a person a second time for the same thing, that is called double jeopardy and is not allowed under our legal system. They are all grand standing for political gain.

I used to second guess juries. However, after serving on a jury that was sequestered for three weeks for a murder trial, I no longer second guess. It is a very intense and difficult job they have, and as stated, both sides were represented and heard in this case. In this juries eyes the state didn't meet the criteria for a conviction. It SHOULD be over, whether we onlookers agree or not.

[NotGolfer]

Originally Posted by BarryRX

I have read all the previous responses to the OP's question. I have been one of the minority on TOTV that was disappointed in the verdict. Please do not argue with me, because to answer the OP's question, I believe the system did work. For those complaining about spending taxpayer money on a trial, I submit to you that a man was shot to death with very few witnesses to witness the entire incident. I can think of no higher purpose of a society than to make sure that it was self defense rather than murder. So, in that respect, the system worked because there was a trial. Next, I believe that a jury was picked with both the prosecution and defense having the opportunity to accept or reject jurors that would hear the case with impartiality, listen to evidence that I was not previously aware of, and come to a verdict that was not influenced by fear or bribes or threats. In that respect also, the system worked. I believe that both the prosecution and defense had a chance to present their cases, so the system worked there also. So, I accept the verdict and will move on with my life. I have heard it said that the United States has the second worst justice system in the world. The only one that is worse is everybody else's.

I didn't follow this case as "some" seem to have done, due to the fact that early on the media and others took it upon themselves to try and convict GZ. They didn't have ALL of the facts yet they kept on and on and on. Given all that...I posted the above quote because I agree with it....especially the last couple of sentences. I'd rather live in our country than anywhere else in the world due to how our fore-fathers set things up for us to enjoy freedoms that many do not get to. As for this whole outcome----no one has won, in my opinion. Two families are hurting and will never be the same again. I don't think any of us have the answers and can keep on speculating but the outcome of this is still the same.

[Happinow]

The system worked. There just wasn't enough evidence to convict GZ. If you really think about it, GZ was just doing his job as neighborhood watch. He was watching a suspicious person be it black, white, male or female. He was doing what he signed up for. That neighborhood had plenty of issues to form a watch group.

[njbchbum]

[QUOTE=Shimpy;708156
snipped
Why was it OK for OJ Simpson to walk but not Zimmerman???? Because Simpson was black and Zimmerman wasn't.[/QUOTE]

no - oj walked because the prosecution team did a lousy job!

[gomoho]

Originally Posted by ijusluvit

Speculate forever about who broke the law first. The OP asked if the system worked. My opinion is that there is a flaw in the system which allows a person to deliberately confront another person without any compulsion or duty to do so; do so while in possession of a loaded firearm; and then walk away with absolutely no responsibility for the result. I believe that while a person is in possession of a lethal weapon, they have a responsibility not to voluntarily enter into potential confrontations. Think of it as not a lot different from the responsibility to lock up firearms in a private home where children are residing.

The problem with your opinion it is as you said yourself speculation. The jury dealt with facts and evidence.

[janmcn]

Originally Posted by ijusluvit

Speculate forever about who broke the law first. The OP asked if the system worked. My opinion is that there is a flaw in the system which allows a person to deliberately confront another person without any compulsion or duty to do so; do so while in possession of a loaded firearm; and then walk away with absolutely no responsibility for the result. I believe that while a person is in possession of a lethal weapon, they have a responsibility not to voluntarily enter into potential confrontations. Think of it as not a lot different from the responsibility to lock up firearms in a private home where children are residing.

In Florida it's called the "shoot first" law.

[Bucco]

Originally Posted by janmcn

In Florida it's called the "shoot first" law.

If not mistaken, the law you make fun of was not an issue and the right to use it was waived by the defendant thus, what is your point ? No more self defense laws ?

[Kelsie52]

We talk about facts and evidence --

There was no "evidence" that GZ started the altercaton
There was lots of evidence the GZ was taking a beating .

GZ did nothing illegal by following TM --we will never know who did what

Some facts from the people that were there:
All the Police officers believed GZ acted in self defense (you could tell by their testimony)
The Chief of Police was fired because he failed to arrest GZ
The DA refused to prosecute

The case never went to Grand Jury to hear the evidence --because they knew they would not call for any action and were afraid of an uprising

The IT person who found some evidence on TM phone and came forward after the prosecuters faild to notify the defense about the discovery was fired
SIX jurors could not find enough evidence to convict.

The system worked

GZ was found not guilty --not innocent --none of us are !!

It is a shame that TM died --it could have been averted with a little communication--- instead of a lot of tough guy stuff

[ijusluvit]

Originally Posted by gomoho

The problem with your opinion it is as you said yourself speculation. The jury dealt with facts and evidence.

I realize you don't appreciate my correcting you, but if you read my post again you might realize I used the word 'speculate' referring to another poster's comments.

Go ahead, read my comments again. Is it not obvious I have cited facts from the case to support my opinion that there is a flaw in the system?