Does anyone think George Zimmerman is guilty of murder?

[Beanz]

With respect Zimmerman seems like the polar opposite of yourself. It seems that in his case the gun gave him Dutch courage and he ended up putting himself into a situation that he could not handle. If he could not be confident of tackling Martin he should have walked away. Instead he set himself up as judge and jury and ended up being the executioner.

Again more assumptions. "Putting himself in a situation he could not handle" how can you tell before there's any confrontation? Also if he felt that way during the verbal confrontation Zimmerman would have been the one aiming to calm things down regardless of his carrying a gun.

It was a horrible situation, both parties did stupid things, and someone wound up dead.


But it was NOT murder, it was NOT manslaughter, because Zimmerman was defending himself after being physically attacked. Had Trayvon NOT punched George then yes, Murder, life sentence or death penalty, easy case....but that didn't happen.

You are really trying to twist this into George Zimmerman should be sent to jail. Which is not justice and it sets a horrible precedent for anyone attempting to defend themselves. Sorry Beanz but I side with Self Defense and that is why I really don't get what your argument is. Had Zimmerman punched Trayvon once in retaliation and killed him what then? Would you want his hands cut off?

That is BS and you know it. In you over eagerness to justify and defend anybody using a gun you are making huge assumptions in order to justify a Gun owner shooting somebody dead. If you have to use a gun to defend yourself against somebody that was not committing a crime you can hardly then claim self defence as an argument. Nobody witnessed the start of the altercation so why assume that a guy who was intent on following somebody was innocent of any act of aggression? Where is the self defence argument for Martin ? Is he not allowed to stand his ground or is that right only extended to the armed? You are asking everybody to suspend their disbelief and believe that Zimmerman the vigilante would suddenly become the reasonable one and despite ignoring suggestions not to take the law into his own hands would suddenly become reasonable and rational and be the one "aiming to calm things down". If he was not interested in a confrontation he should not have confronted somebody. If all it takes is a punch in the US to justify someone upping the stakes and pulling out a gun then what the hell happened to the all the men? If someone punches somebody once and that punch kills the other person then that is obviously a case of unintentional manslaughter, a crime which in neither the UK or US carries a barbaric punishment of having your hands cut off.

[El Kabong]

That is BS and you know it. In you over eagerness to justify and defend anybody using a gun you are making huge assumptions in order to justify a Gun owner shooting somebody dead. If you have to use a gun to defend yourself against somebody that was not committing a crime you can hardly then claim self defence as an argument. Nobody witnessed the start of the altercation so why assume that a guy who was intent on following somebody was innocent of any act of aggression? Where is the self defence argument for Martin ? Is he not allowed to stand his ground or is that right only extended to the armed? You are asking everybody to suspend their disbelief and believe that Zimmerman the vigilante would suddenly become the reasonable one and despite ignoring suggestions not to take the law into his own hands would suddenly become reasonable and rational and be the one "aiming to calm things down". If he was not interested in a confrontation he should not have confronted somebody. If all it takes is a punch in the US to justify someone upping the stakes and pulling out a gun then what the hell happened to the all the men? If someone punches somebody once and that punch kills the other person then that is obviously a case of unintentional manslaughter, a crime which in neither the UK or US carries a barbaric punishment of having your hands cut off.

I'm not making assumptions I'm basing my view on what went down according to the people involved & the police report. The jury found George Zimmerman NOT GUILTY not because they just wanted to mix things up but because he wasn't guilty.

Murder - The unlawful killing of another human being without justification or excuse.

Manslaughter - The unjustifiable, inexcusable, and intentional killing of a human being without deliberation, premeditation, and malice. The unlawful killing of a human being without any deliberation, which may be involuntary, in the commission of a lawful act without due caution and circumspection

By those definitions you can't convict. I understand if you EMOTIONALLY wanted Zimmerman punished but Court isn't about emotions it's about the truth and about justice. There's no justice in locking up or killing Zimmerman because he got clocked in the face by some kid and had his head bashed on some concrete pavers.

You're emotional, I'm being rational. I don't LIKE what Zimmerman did but by the letter of the law he's in the clear. Maybe you can make it a law in England where you can't defend yourself ever but sorry that doesn't work over here man.

[Beanz]

That is BS and you know it. In you over eagerness to justify and defend anybody using a gun you are making huge assumptions in order to justify a Gun owner shooting somebody dead. If you have to use a gun to defend yourself against somebody that was not committing a crime you can hardly then claim self defence as an argument. Nobody witnessed the start of the altercation so why assume that a guy who was intent on following somebody was innocent of any act of aggression? Where is the self defence argument for Martin ? Is he not allowed to stand his ground or is that right only extended to the armed? You are asking everybody to suspend their disbelief and believe that Zimmerman the vigilante would suddenly become the reasonable one and despite ignoring suggestions not to take the law into his own hands would suddenly become reasonable and rational and be the one "aiming to calm things down". If he was not interested in a confrontation he should not have confronted somebody. If all it takes is a punch in the US to justify someone upping the stakes and pulling out a gun then what the hell happened to the all the men? If someone punches somebody once and that punch kills the other person then that is obviously a case of unintentional manslaughter, a crime which in neither the UK or US carries a barbaric punishment of having your hands cut off.

I'm not making assumptions I'm basing my view on what went down according to the people involved & the police report. The jury found George Zimmerman NOT GUILTY not because they just wanted to mix things up but because he wasn't guilty.

Murder - The unlawful killing of another human being without justification or excuse.

Manslaughter - The unjustifiable, inexcusable, and intentional killing of a human being without deliberation, premeditation, and malice. The unlawful killing of a human being without any deliberation, which may be involuntary, in the commission of a lawful act without due caution and circumspection

By those definitions you can't convict. I understand if you EMOTIONALLY wanted Zimmerman punished but Court isn't about emotions it's about the truth and about justice. There's no justice in locking up or killing Zimmerman because he got clocked in the face by some kid and had his head bashed on some concrete pavers.

You're emotional, I'm being rational. I don't LIKE what Zimmerman did but by the letter of the law he's in the clear. Maybe you can make it a law in England where you can't defend yourself ever but sorry that doesn't work over here man.

Lyle you are the one again assuming. You are assuming that I am being emotional because you are unable to employ rationality yourself and distinguish between two distinct arguments. I have never suggested that one should not be able to defend oneself. It's not even about punishing Zimmerman. The crux falls on the pivot of instigating a situation in which you are intent on starting a confrontation. Martin may have been defending himself but Zimmerman shot him dead.

[El Kabong]

Martin may have been defending himself but Zimmerman shot him dead.

What isn't rational about my argument?


It really is very simple, let's follow along shall we? Zimmerman followed Trayvon (not illegal), Trayvon ran from Zimmerman (not illegal), Zimmerman looked for which street he was on (not illegal), Trayvon attacks Zimmerman ILLEGAL. In order to stop the attack Zimmerman reaches for his firearm and 1 shot is fired (not illegal)


You're being emotional because George Zimmerman has been vilified by the media, and he did not use the best judgment in this event (neither did Trayvon), but he didn't break any laws.


Again he DID NOT BREAK ANY LAWS.

[Beanz]

Martin may have been defending himself but Zimmerman shot him dead.

What isn't rational about my argument?


It really is very simple, let's follow along shall we? Zimmerman followed Trayvon (not illegal), Trayvon ran from Zimmerman (not illegal), Zimmerman looked for which street he was on (not illegal), Trayvon attacks Zimmerman ILLEGAL. In order to stop the attack Zimmerman reaches for his firearm and 1 shot is fired (not illegal)


You're being emotional because George Zimmerman has been vilified by the media, and he did not use the best judgment in this event (neither did Trayvon), but he didn't break any laws.


Again he DID NOT BREAK ANY LAWS.

Your Media argument is rubbish. It may have been a big story in America it certainly was not here. You only have Zimmermans word that he did not break any laws. Again I am not being emotional. You only have Zimmermans word claiming he was sucker punched but in order to defend Gun ownership you have to claim that he was the victim turning a whole course of natural events on it's head.

[El Kabong]

Your Media argument is rubbish. It may have been a big story in America it certainly was not here. You only have Zimmermans word that he did not break any laws. Again I am not being emotional. You only have Zimmermans word claiming he was sucker punched but in order to defend Gun ownership you have to claim that he was the victim turning a whole course of natural events on it's head.

NBC edited the 911 tape. That is a FACT, it is undeniable. And whether they edited the tape for time or to fit an agenda is a moot point because it took Zimmerman's words out of context and made him look like a racist whether or not that was their intention. I'm sorry I'm not so stupid as to overlook that point and yeah if you choose to overlook that happening yes I'm calling you willfully ignorant.

Witness for the Prosecution Rachel Jeantel said Trayvon punched first as well. Her story jives with Zimmerman's and she was the STAR witness for the prosecution looking to put Zimmerman away.

[Beanz]

Your Media argument is rubbish. It may have been a big story in America it certainly was not here. You only have Zimmermans word that he did not break any laws. Again I am not being emotional. You only have Zimmermans word claiming he was sucker punched but in order to defend Gun ownership you have to claim that he was the victim turning a whole course of natural events on it's head.

NBC edited the 911 tape. That is a FACT, it is undeniable. And whether they edited the tape for time or to fit an agenda is a moot point because it took Zimmerman's words out of context and made him look like a racist whether or not that was their intention. I'm sorry I'm not so stupid as to overlook that point and yeah if you choose to overlook that happening yes I'm calling you willfully ignorant.

Witness for the Prosecution Rachel Jeantel said Trayvon punched first as well. Her story jives with Zimmerman's and she was the STAR witness for the prosecution looking to put Zimmerman away.

You are exposing yourself as being wilfully ignorant the moment you use incomplete fragments to recreate a new history. The very fact that a Star witness ( only in America would they use such crass nomenclature) is actually on the end of a mobile phone has been conveniently forgotten, as has the fact that nobody saw the first punch or Zimmerman attempting to apprehend a man who had committed no crime. You have an agenda Lyle, in focusing on the hypocrisy of the media and the constitutional right to be armed you are ignoring anything that contadicts what you believe despite very few facts supporting your viewpoint.

[Beanz]

You are both putting words in my mouth and have made it quite clear that not only do you think that you know what I think, but also exactly what happened on the night Zimmerman shot Martin dead. Neither of you would ever back down from your argument because you are both so incensed by what you see as media manipulation that you would jump through hoops to make that point. I didn't follow the media circus and yet you seem unable to comprehend how anyone could come to another conclusion than the ludicrous scenario you have painted.

[El Kabong]

You are both putting words in my mouth and have made it quite clear that not only do you think that you know what I think, but also exactly what happened on the night Zimmerman shot Martin dead. Neither of you would ever back down from your argument because you are both so incensed by what you see as media manipulation that you would jump through hoops to make that point. I didn't follow the media circus and yet you seem unable to comprehend how anyone could come to another conclusion than the ludicrous scenario you have painted.

1. Alright what is YOUR take Beanz? Back it up with evidence and/or witnesses please.

2. What evidence is there that contradicts MY view on the events that happened between Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman?

3. The ONLY things that incensed me about the media was A) their intention to make the Trayvon Martain & George Zimmerman event about race and B ) attempting to convict George Zimmerman in the court of public opinion.

4. Editing a 911 call to make a person come off as racist IS media manipulation and the fact that you don't even acknowledge that is telling and it's more than a bit disappointing to tell the truth.

5. How is my take on this case "ludicrous"? Back up your comments.

[TitoFan]

Zimmerman was acquitted..... but I don't think this guy's gonna be so lucky.


Florida man shoots and kills 17-year-old teen after argument over loud music at gas station - NY Daily News


This guy's got the look of a real scumbag.


Michael Dunn's trial in Jordan Davis shooting set for Feb. 3 | jacksonville.com


Hopefully, justice will be done.

[El Kabong]

Zimmerman was acquitted..... but I don't think this guy's gonna be so lucky.


Florida man shoots and kills 17-year-old teen after argument over loud music at gas station - NY Daily News


This guy's got the look of a real scumbag.


Michael Dunn's trial in Jordan Davis shooting set for Feb. 3 | jacksonville.com


Hopefully, justice will be done.

That's a completely different situation though I think we can all agree on that.

[Beanz]

Zimmerman was acquitted..... but I don't think this guy's gonna be so lucky.


Florida man shoots and kills 17-year-old teen after argument over loud music at gas station - NY Daily News


This guy's got the look of a real scumbag.


Michael Dunn's trial in Jordan Davis shooting set for Feb. 3 | jacksonville.com


Hopefully, justice will be done.

That's a completely different situation though I think we can all agree on that.

Bullshit. We certainly can not. That is the whole crux of my argument. If Mr Dunn can try and claim self defence because he felt threatened then why are you so eager to deny that right in the case of Trayvon Martin. An innocent civilian followed at night is not allowed to feel threatened or use his hands in self defense and yet his armed assailant is allowed despite being armed to "feel threatend " and shoot the other guy dead. Why? Because if you suspend disbelief and skew justice to breaking point in order to defend the gun owner, it must have been the unarmed guy who struck him first. It must be because a girl on the other end of a phone thought he did, despite not seeing anything. It must be the pursued guy who is the aggressor because the Guy on trial for shooting him dead who was advised not to follow him said so. Not only that but he must have resorted to a sucker punch so he deserved to be shot anyway. Martin had no right to feel threatened because the media manipulated everything to make it seem like a race based crime. So incensed are you by this that common sense has been thrown out the window and the fact that I have not joined you in being incensed by media bias that I have not been dippy enough to get wound up about has left you "disappointed".

[TitoFan]

Zimmerman was acquitted..... but I don't think this guy's gonna be so lucky.


Florida man shoots and kills 17-year-old teen after argument over loud music at gas station - NY Daily News


This guy's got the look of a real scumbag.


Michael Dunn's trial in Jordan Davis shooting set for Feb. 3 | jacksonville.com


Hopefully, justice will be done.

That's a completely different situation though I think we can all agree on that.

I've already expressed my own opinions about the Zimmerman case, but it is what it is. Zimmerman was acquitted, rightly or wrongly, and all we can do is make assumptions about what actually happened, because obviously everyone's gonna have a different take on things.

However-r-r-r...... Dunn's case should result in nothing less than a murder one conviction. Anything else would be a slap in the face of the entire justice system, and we may as well declare open season on all obnoxious teenagers playing loud music. Dunn is the poster child of someone who should have as much right to own a gun as he should have a right to pilot the next mission to Mars.

I know this is Zimmerman's thread, but it just makes me angry to realize just how many Dunns must be walking the streets today. They should all be spayed and neutered to prevent further pollution to society.

[Beanz]

Denial Lyle. I am not and have never denied that the media try to make it seem race based and you continue to deny both Trayvon Martins right to defend himself and the possibility that Zimmerman himself caused Martin the unarmed man to fear for his own safety and denial that Zimmerman could possibly be doubted on anything as though he was in a bizarre perversion of justice the victim. Martin is dead because of a guy who you now think should be afforded the benefit of doubt on the veracity of his account because you dread the idea that his being armed actually gave him the stupid vigilante mindset and dutch courage to cause the whole sorry situation in the first place. Zimmerman could have stayed at home, he could have let the police do their job, he could have not followed an innocent civilian,he could have turned back when advised to do so, he could have done a lot of things that he didn't and now someone is dead.

[El Kabong]

Yup fine whatever you say George Zimmerman called the police, MADE Trayvon punch him, played possum, and shot Trayvon dead ON PURPOSE with 1 bullet.

You know all about guns Beanz, you should be making laws in the US!