Zimmerman Trial: Tired of media bias? See gun-friendly legal coverage

[oknow]

There was not enough evidence to Charge him....period

tell obozo and crew that
Next for Zimmerman: safety concerns, Justice weighing civil rights case | Fox News

guess they didn't like the verdict

 

[DMax]

Kinda but not quite
Next for Zimmerman: safety concerns, Justice weighing civil rights case | Fox News

Its over for me if you girls want to keep circle jerkin the talking point over and over CARRY ON I'm out of this BS

 

[oknow]

so your calling the Justice Department girls "cool"

 

[OLDNEWBIE]

Its over for me if you girls want to keep circle jerkin the talking point over and over CARRY ON I'm out of this BS

I'M OUT OF HERE TOO! I'm moving on to the "Zimmerman...Not guilty verdict !" thread!

 

[Norm0931]

From work today...

"Wait, Zimmerman was that guy who shot the black kid in the back right? ...And they just let him go free???"

...sigh, damn you media...damn you.

 

[SonicBlue03]

I did.

Before the trial I was fairly confident that he'd be convicted of manslaughter. After the state finished it's case it was clear that there wasn't any evidence that substantially contradicted Zimmerman's version of events and some evidence that substantially corroborated it.

And what was more clear, it was obvious that the prosecution KNEW there wasn't evidence to support a conviction before they pressed the charges.

I had all of my information on the details from the press, just like pretty much everyone else. The story THEY told bore little relation to what the evidence actually showed. And it was a lot more clear than just reasonable doubt. It was clear beyond reasonable doubt that he was in fact innocent of any crime charged.

I'm in exactly the same boat as Misterbill. I didn't pay it much mind last year, but then when the churn about no charges - the charges - I raised an eyebrow. I watched the entire trial and by the first week I had doubts, the second week I thought acquittal was the only appropriate route based on the rule-of-law.

I think Zimmerman made some poor decisions which led to him being put in a compromising position. I wish we had more data as to the series of events that led to him mounted and unable to flee, but through his behavior under interviews by detectives I would want compelling third party evidence to contradict his message. That said, if he was trying to extricate himself from the situation and was prevented from doing so by getting sucker punched, then he did what was necessary to stop himself from being harmed.

 

[Blitzkrieg]

It is against the law in FL to sue in civil court after you lose in criminal court.

Of course Zimmerman can always sue MSNBC for editing that tape to disparage him, and fan the flames like they did.

Thanks for that fact, good news

 

[SonicBlue03]

Actually he can still face a civil suit since he was declared "not guilty" but there was no issued ruling as to whether or not it was self-defense. You can thank the judge for not setting that as one of the criteria to be set.

That said, sounds like O'Mara is going to pursue a motion with a trial judge to have the action declared self defense to prevent a civil suit. Depending on the judge he gets, he stands a very good chance of making that all go away. I think a civil rights trial is unlikely; Holder and Obama have shown plenty of stupid in the past 8 months, but I think even Holder knows that'd be unwinnable.

 

[Blitzkrieg]

The trial judge is female and apparently a life long democrat.. can we say opportunist?

 

[JGRuby]

The trial judge is female and apparently a life long democrat.. can we say opportunist?

From the pictures I figured that she was female however is there evidence that she is a lifelong democrat?

James Ruby

 

[Blitzkrieg]

From the pictures I figured that she was female however is there evidence that she is a lifelong democrat?

James Ruby

Saw it on Drudge and Lush Rimbaugh reported such..

 

[MikeE]

I think Zimmerman made some poor decisions which led to him being put in a compromising position.

I respect your opinion, and MisterBill's as level headed people that I usually learn something from. But on this I need to ask you for a deeper analysis: Yes, Zimmerman made a 'poor' decision. It was a decision that led to him messing up his life for ever, and ending the life of a young man. And NONE of it HAD to HAPPEN. No crime was being committed, there was nothing for Zimmerman to stop , no reason to leave his car at all. All this happened for NOTHING.

OK - GZ was aquitted, the state did not show evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. So is that it? This is a gun/self defense forum. What are the lessons for CHL holders? There are tactical lessons, but beyond that there are moral lessons. Don't we have an obligation to try and protect life?
I realize there are folks here who are salivating for a race war, or want this as a political wedge issue. But what the hell is our training for if we can celebrate this thing, and learn nothing from it?

 

[gunnoob75]

What are the lessons for CHL holders?

To shoot before your head gets caved in.

 

[PiratePast40]

.... What are the lessons for CHL holders? There are tactical lessons, but beyond that there are moral lessons. Don't we have an obligation to try and protect life?....

You're reading way too much into the event and elevating yourself to some sort of moral arbiter. The prosecution was attempting to paint Zimmerman as thinking that he had some great moral authority and then denigrated him for it. In fact, that was a major aspect of the prosecution. Build a straw man and then show how foolish and immoral that straw man really is.

Fact is, there is absolutely no additional legal or moral authority conferred upon a person with issue of a CHL or when they become part of block watch. A badge and cape don't come with the gun.

It's about the right to defend yourself against an attacker. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[Trlsmn]

Don't we have an obligation to try and protect life?

No, and you know you're trolling with that question.

I realize there are folks here who are salivating for a race war.

Wow! I've seen none of that here, please feel free to back that awful statement up with quotes for proof. Your statements on the other hand are purely designed to incite agitation, perhaps it is you that wants to start a violent confrontation? I think you are very upset at the verdict and you are trying to project your own mental state onto innocent NWFA members simply because they don't share your opinion. Shame on you!

I realize there are folks here who are salivating for a race war.

I see the media as the people that are salivating for a race war with their inability to report facts with honesty and integrity and it sickens me.

 

[Trlsmn]

What are the lessons for CHL holders?

To shoot before your head gets caved in.

I appreciate the simplicity of your answer, it truly is the only real answer to the question once you strip away all the hype and talking points by backseat drivers with personal agendas.

 

[MikeE]

You make good points.I need to think about them. But they are good legal points. On a personal level, what with carrying a lethal piece of equipment around, what about the obligation to first do no harm

 

[MikeE]

Wow! I've seen none of that here, please feel free to back that awful statement up with quotes for proof. Your statements on the other hand are purely designed to incite agitation, perhaps it is you that wants to start a violent confrontation? I think you are very upset at the verdict and you are trying to project your own mental state onto innocent NWFA members simply because they don't share your opinion. Shame on you!

TRISM - Re-read the threads.

 

[Trlsmn]

TRISM - Re-read the threads.

That's a total copout rubuttal

 

[Trlsmn]

make good points.I need to think about them. But they are good legal points. On a personal level, what with carrying a lethal piece of equipment around, what about the obligation to first do no harm?

Obligation? "First do no harm" is commonly ascribed to the Hippocratic Oath for doctors. MikeE, please tell me how you would apply "first do no harm" under this hypothetical situation below:

You are on the ground on your back and a man (of any color) is on top of you punching your face and bouncing your head off the concrete. You have a concealed pistol which you have access to, what do you MikeE do.

What led up to it and what happens after is not a subject of the question. I am asking what you would do right then and how you apply "first do no harm".