  |
|
Re: NOT GUILTY
Posted by **No Flies On Frank** on Jul 14, 2013 at 10:51:13 AM:
In Reply to: Re: NOT GUILTY posted by **murray** on Jul 14, 2013 at 3:57:09 AM:
****Jurors: Zimmerman not guilty of 2nd-degree murder
****
****
*******
****
****hj
***
**citizens
***So ends the railroad job they tried to pull on him..let's just see if the riots happen.
***
**
**I don't think that citizens like George Zimmerman or anyone else should be able to confront people with lethal force and play cop. There is no justification that I can think of that allows private citizens to confront people if they aren't in imminent danger. What's to stop anyone from confronting anyone else and using lethal force if this is allowed? Tonight's ruling simply allows vigilantes to act more easily. It's not the mark of civilized society to let people take the law into their own hands. Florida has a problem with its juries, its laws or both. I don't see how this can't be a bizarre and dumb decision. I don't know how often this happened in the past but some places in our country still have very strange customs and laws.
**
*
*
*
*'Confront' is the key word...The jurors have said they're not convinced it was Zimmerman who was the one confronting.. It's 'Ifs' versus the actual laws ... Some want to stop with "If Zimmerman hadn't done this, etc."... It doesn't appear that he broke any laws by keeping an eye on Martin, whether one considers it a good or bad idea... We wind up back at the question of whether Zimmerman believed his life was in danger at the time he fired the gun... Even if one disagrees with how Zimmerman chose to handle the situation prior to that...
*
*
Based on everything I know about this case...including reading the transcript of the 911 call...I find it almost impossible to believe that Zimmerman did not make a choice to pursue him. He chose to go after him. Whether you consider this to "be keeping an eye on him" or some other term, it was still an action he chose. He simply acted as a vigilante. Maybe that's legal in Florida. I don't think it should be and am pretty sure it's not legal in most places in the Western world. He should bear some responsibility for his actions. I wouldn't send him to jail for life but I would consider him guilty of a crime like manslaughter that indicates he acted recklessly. That's all I can say.Followup Messages:
- Re: NOT GUILTY - **Old Flat Top** - Jul 14, 2013 at 9:36:05 PM
- Re: NOT GUILTY - **No Flies On Frank** - Jul 15, 2013 at 3:01:27 PM
- Re: NOT GUILTY - **Hippie J** - Jul 17, 2013 at 8:05:58 PM
Home | Web Chat | Web Boards | Discography | Library | Quiz | Art & Poetry | Links | Store
Produced by Sam Choukri
Frequently Asked Questions
Last updated on Jul 17, 2013