This would tend to reveal your previous assertion that you weren't rushing to judgment. Since we are now playing the judgment card, I'll go with "A" and a 10 year sentence.
I find it interesting how most of us, even Franchise Blade, acknowledges that we do not know what happened in those final couple moments. It just seems like you are perfectly happy with Zimmerman rotting in jail with no trial. I dont think Zimmerman was the protecting angel, but I certainly don't think he was out for a fist fight. I personally think martin did escalate it. Here is a map of the events. Im not sure how accurate it is as I've seen different variants. There is little doubt that Zimmerman did follow him in some sort... past the 9/11 call. Now whether Martin did jump Zimmerman is for the courts to decide. Following isn't a crime. The only thing absolute is Zimmermans 9/11 call. Zimmermans testimony is certainly questionable as is Martin's g/fs call. The eye witnesses have been conflicting. If Casey Anthony can walk, then unless some damning evidence comes up, Zimmerman will walk.
No, there should be a trial. However, whether anybody here likes it or not, there is a policy perspective to this. This will make a statement as to whether neighborhood watch should be armed, whether neighborhood watch should try to take the place of the police and whether you can use deadly force after pursuing somebody wh may or may not be a suspect. I suspect that Zimmerman will be convicted of a lesser included offense. I don't think he will go away for a long time, but I don't think he walks either.
We are all "rushing" to judgment with a few reservations thrown in. We are not a court of law; we are a discussion and debate board. None of us really has all the evidence right in front of us anyway. Like a lot of these things, I entered into this discussion because many were "convicting" GZ of first degree murder seemingly based on Trayvon's youth and race. The facts as they were known then and still are now do seem to back up Zimmerman's story very well. Others just want to convict the IDEA of George Zimmerman....
We already have these policies in place and that is what the trial is for... if he broke any laws. This won't set any precedent for the future. 1-Whether a person is a neighborhood watch or not has absolutely no bearing on whether or not they can carry a weapon. As long as the individual qualifies and follows state guidelines (and these vary widely from state to state), then he is legally allowed to carry a weapon. An HOA (or equivalent) does not supersede state law. If the HOA does not allow the neigherhood watch to carry weapons, then naturally they can remove the person from the neighborhood watch, but they can't criminalize the person.(unless state laws says otherwise). For example, in the state of Georgia, you're allowed to carry on your own property. Since it (appears) Zimmerman was on the common ground of his own neighborhood, he would not have been breaking any laws. 2-Of course the neighborhood watch can't take the place of the police. Im not sure why this is even brought up. Zimmerman wasn't trying to detain anyone and nobody has even suggested otherwise. 3-This is another misconstrued statement. Zimmerman didn't chase anyone and gun them down. And again, nobody is suggesting otherwise. Sure, he very likely followed him to see what he was doing. What is in question is intent. Did he escalate the situation or was he really ambushed like he stated. Did he really believe his life was in danger? Was shooting Martin his only recourse? Incidents like this happen everyday; concerned and/or nosy neighbors asking a stranger what they are doing. If you really believe this is an act of aggression, then people every day could be found guilty of "escalating" a confrontation by simply questioning someone.
Not every jury is the same, but OJ walking certainly shows that even the painfully obvious guilty can walk.
Oh the irony. What really matters in this kind of matter is that one race over the other get the "preferrred" outcome.. They were ready to riot in LA if the obviously guilty OJ got convicted and they are ready to riot of the ambigously not-guilty GZ does not get convicted.
What? Please link to the groups that were just waiting to start the riots in LA. I hadn't heard that. Please link to the groups that are ready to riot in GZ doesn't get convicted. I hadn't heard that people were already planning that. Where is this coming from. You seem to be condemning people on the outcomes of things that never happened, or haven't happened yet? I don't know where you're getting this information from about people planning to riot ahead of time.
As we learned in Benghazi, it does not take an organized group to create mayhem and bring about desturction. Ever heard about the riots after Rodney King? or Watts?
Yes, I've heard of those. I'm still waiting for you to show me proof that people were going to riot based on the OJ trial, or the upcoming GZ trial. You are condemning one group of people with no evidence. I'm curious why you're doing that? What is it about that one group that you believe makes you state as if it were fact that there were going to be riots?
Proof of something before it happens? Novel idea. Stop posturing and get real! It's just a prediction not a condemnation. A prediction based on historical precedent. Let me go check Jesse Jackson's travel itinerary...
So then stop claiming that people were going to riot. You admit that you have no proof, and that it's not even possible to get proof. You are slandering a group of people with no proof. What factor is it about the group are slandering that makes you think that way about an entire group?
The group that expects a certain decision and will PROTEST if they don't get it-- not matter how out of the ordinary that expectation might be. No proof? There is a pretty clear precedent. You can't prove a prediction-- nor do you need to.
Just to humor myself and "satisfy" you I did a little googling and found this tidbit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O._J._Simpson_murder_case Verdict At 10 a.m. on October 3, 1995, the jury returned a verdict of not guilty. The only testimony reviewed was that of limo driver Alan Park who stated that he did not see Simpson's Bronco outside of the Rockingham estate after the murders occurred. It had arrived at the verdict by 3 p.m. the previous day, after only four hours of deliberation, but Judge Ito postponed the announcement.[32] Before the verdict, President Bill Clinton was briefed on security measures if rioting occurred nationwide due to the verdict. An estimated 100 million people worldwide stopped what they were doing to watch or listen to the verdict announcement. Long-distance telephone call volume declined by 58% and trading volume on the New York Stock Exchange by 41%, water usage decreased as people avoided using bathrooms, and government officials postponed meetings. So much work stopped that the verdict cost an estimated $480 million in lost productivity.[32] The United States Supreme Court received a message on the verdict during oral arguments, with the justices quietly passing the note to each other while listening to the attorney's presentation. Congressmen cancelled press conferences, with one telling reporters "Not only would you not be here, but I wouldn't be here, either."[33] Domino's Pizza reported a large rise in pizza sales in the 15 minutes before the verdict. When the announcement began, the orders stopped, however; "not a single pizza was ordered in the United States for five minutes between 1 o'clock and 1:05", according to the chain.[34] END
There is a difference between protest and riot. There isn't a clear precedent of rioting when things go against a group. It has happened, but it isn't the norm by any means. You can't prove a prediction. What I'm trying to understand is why you mentioned race which was the only descriptor you used and said they would riot and in fact were ready to riot before based on the outcome of trials. You claimed they would have rioted based on the outcome of something yet have no way of knowing it. You acknowledge you have no way to prove it and admit that one doesn't exist. So you singled out a race and made a negative claim about them based not on evidence which you admit isn't possible to even have. The only precedent you site are two that were decades apart despite having numerous injustices against that race happen in between. I'm trying to understand why? I don't want to accuse you of anything, so I'm asking questions to try and clarify.
So. That proves nothing and has nothing to do with what you claimed. Being prepared for unrest is different than any kind of evidence that it was definitely going to happen.
