https://ccwsafe.com/news/zimmerman-trial-and-lessons-learned/ Excellent article. Excellent points. Imagine that you are in a self-defensive situation, and you have the Punisher logo on your firearm, some silly bumper stickers on your car, and a "shoot first ask questions later t-shirt", how is that going to look to law enforcement? What if the media is present? Imagine those silly things spread throughout the media attracting the attention of special interests groups. Imagine being the next Zimmerman, have your name destroyed because stupid and ignorant people do not understand that having someone on top of you smashing your head in to concrete is a terrible position to be in. So take steps to prevent attracting attention from malicious special interests groups. Keep the Punisher bull(*)(*)(*)(*) off your self-defensive firearms. Carry the ammunition that police carry (avoid things like RIP and other stupidity). And keep the silly bumper stickers off of your car. If you look at the link, "CCW Safe" (there are other companies as well) is actually an insurance company for gun owners.
Your first plan should be try not to kill anyone. I carry all the time. I do not intentionally put myself in situations that I might have to kill someone. Had Z kept his ass in his SUV none of us would have ever heard of him. Of course he had every right to get out and confront Martin, but it was (*)(*)(*)(*) poor judgement. This case really bothers me becuase it makes gun owners look more like gun slingers. A post action plan? Really?
Well, Zimmerman had a right to talk to Martin, Martin did not have a right to pin Zimmerman to the ground and beat his head in. I do agree, avoid confrontations. Avoid sketchy areas. And disassociate from shady people.
Any eye witness accounts to that or is it more Zimmermans word against a dead man? you are right Zimmerman did have the right to talk to Martin, we do not, however really know what was said or whether Martin was under threat of violence and we will never know, suffice to say the jury believed Zimmermans account and justice has been seen to be done.
If only George had talked with Trayvon.. but I think George was too frightened to identify himself.. He sure created a liability for the HOA.
The wounds are consistent with Zimmerman's claim, he was on his back, having his head beat in, and shot Martin in the chest at point blank range.
Not according to Dr. Valerie Rao, but in the end the verdict was given, the jury believed Zimmermans account and justice has been seen to be done.
This Dr. Valerie Rao? http://www.news4jax.com/news/more-c...ille-medical-examiner-dr-valerie-rao/20640256
Hmm, yet another "attack the person instead of the evidence" comment. In the end it matters not the jury believed Zimmermans account and justice has been seen to be done.
Good grief this conspiracy again? Since that is a local story where I live, the very first local news story I read of it (weeks before it became a national story) told the same basic story that was presented at trial. There was never any other new evidence that changed the narrative. If you are a responsible juror, you're going with the evidence. I don't know why people let their hatred of Zimmerman determine whether facts are real or not.
Excuse me, I was not the one who started the topic and I merely replied to it, where in my comment does it even come close to mentioning "conspiracy", please do not project what you want to see onto what is actually said. NOWHERE have I claimed whether the facts are real or not. I have no feelings towards Zimmerman at all, no hate, no love, nothing .. I have not tried to introduce anything new to this I have merely stated what is already in the public domain. I have not attacked Zimmerman, I have not defended Martin. Can you dispute that in the end what actually happened will only ever be really known by one person and that is Zimmerman himself. The jury believed Zimmermans account and justice has been seen to be done. I asked a simple question of the authors statement - "Well, Zimmerman had a right to talk to Martin, Martin did not have a right to pin Zimmerman to the ground and beat his head in." The fact of the matter is that there were NO eye witnesses to confirm or deny Zimmermans claim that he was pinned to the ground having his head beaten in, does this mean Zimmerman was not justified in shooting Martin, no of course it doesn't. Are we at the stage where even asking questions is deemed as hating?
Here is the comment I was referring to: To me, this sounds like you are disputing the evidence available, including the available eyewitness testimony. Ignoring the actual evidence in favor of the gaps in evidence is a pretty good working definition of a conspiracy theory, so I feel the term applies. If you have new evidence to bring to the table please do, otherwise stop with the ridiculous "Zimmermans word against a dead man" nonsense.
Do you understand the difference between a question and a statement, because from your response it appears not. A statement gives information or opinion. A response is not necessarily required. A questions asks for information or opinion. A response is usually required. and what gaps am I favouring above the evidence, or does the evidence given by Dr. Valerie Rao not count? The "eye witness" accounts given were contradictory, neither were they conclusive .. there was in fact only a single eye witness account the other was heard on a mobile phone, and even that eye witness account could not be conclusive due to the conditions at the time of the incident. NOWHERE in my comments do I state that the court verdict was right or wrong. Why do you assume that when someone asks questions they are "disputing the evidence available"? .. this is known as assuming the premise. You cannot seem to grasp the point I am making here, I am not advocating that the verdict was right or wrong, I am simply saying that in reality the ONLY person who really knows what took place is Zimmerman himself, do you disagree with that? if so why?
The point you are making now, isn't the point you were making. I'm not interested in playing either "move the goal posts" or "change the subject" with you. What you said was: Now, if you are now saying that the only one who knows the truth is Zimmerman, and that's it. OK, however, I don't recall the eyewitness accounts being contradictory. There were simply gaps in them. But Zimmerman's story fit the evidence and eyewitness statements available. No one could come up with a plausible counter story that did the same.
You assumed the point I was making (assumption of premise) as you readily admitted - To me, this sounds like you are disputing the evidence available, the point from me was and is the same, so no there is not moving the goalposts or changing the subject, the point is and always has been the same. That is all I have ever said. There were some contradictory accounts, even to the extent of later witness statements different from the original ones given to the police. Even Derek B. Brett, an Orlando attorney who represented one of the witnesses agreed that "The only true eye witness who is going to give testimony is George Zimmerman" not wholly it didn't, as pointed out by Dr. Valerie Rao and by conflicting statements given by witnesses eg one witness stated "a black man with a hoodie on top of a white man." while another witness stated " a man with a white shirt on top of another." That does not mean the events were as stated .. look in the end Zimmerman and his lawyers did enough to convince the jury that he acted in self-defence, that is all that was required of them to do and so justice was seen to be done. I'm going to stop now as this is going nowhere, I am not saying that the verdict was right or wrong, I am only saying that the only person who really knows is Zimmerman. If it came over as something else then that was not my intention. - - - Updated - - - Agreed but the intent of my comments was not to open up the guilt or innocent debate.
My dear, I think Zimmerman is a creep and dumb as a post.. He's still young.. and has opportunity to clean p his life or beat up more women and pretend that he is law enforcement.. or a "profiler".. Let it go... He'll show up for what he is... or he won't.
Lessons learned: For Zimmerman: Don't pretend to be a police officer Don't bring a loaded gun into a dangerous situation. Don't racially profile. Leave people alone when they're just minding their own business. Don't follow strangers. For young, black guys: If an idiot is following you, call the cops instead of dealing with it yourself. You don't have to answer to anybody. You also have the right to stand your ground.
We definitely have not established that the jury 'believed' Zimmerman's story. What we have established is that enough of the members of the jury could not find sufficient evidence to convict, and that reasonable doubt lingered after all the evidence, and testimony and jury instructions were presented. This was not necessarily an endorsement of either his conduct or his testimony. There were other witnesses to be impeached, other testimony to be shaken, other potential holes in the evidence trail, showcased by the defense team. they did not have to like Zimmerman to acquit. They did not have to trust Zimmerman to acquit. At the end of the day, not enough of them were so confident in the prosecutors case, that they in good conscience could send the man to prison. And that is all we have really established.
My personal feelings on Zimmerman are not really relevant to the discussion. I simply don't like being accused of something for which there is no evidence to support.
