Zimmerman cleared of all charges

[SGOS]

The issue seems to be with this Zimmerman business that people don't really agree on what actually went down....on what happened.  Yanno?  That makes discussing it all the more difficult.

I'd guess that some of what has been presented to us or to the jury isn't even true in the first place.  Some of it is, sure, but both the prosecution and the defense have different objectives.  They're going to tell us what they want us to hear.  If not an outright lie, it will be skewed.  In addition, many people take it a step further, and insert their own assumptions, and get emotional about that.  For others, the fact of guilt or innocence isn't as big an issue as some philosophical ideology.  Some would fry Zimmerman for an ideology.  Others would exonerate him for an ideology.  Enter the media, whose main objective is to stir the pot.  You have a circus.

In the middle of this environment, the jury is asked to sort through the shit, and render a verdict.  Sometimes a not guilty verdict is the result of a lack of information, which seems to be the case here.  Sometimes, you get a jury with an ulterior motive that convicts or frees the defendant based on an ideology.  Juries are not legally trained, they are average people with average intelligence.  Hardly the crème of the crop.  It's really a flawed system.  At most, we could do a little tweak here, and a little tweak there, but we will never make a truly fair system out of it.

And of course, some laws are going to piss us off.  They represent values that offend some of us.  The system is so far from perfect, it's a wonder society survives at all.

[WitchSabrina]

The issue seems to be with this Zimmerman business that people don't really agree on what actually went down....on what happened.  Yanno?  That makes discussing it all the more difficult.

I'd guess that some of what has been presented to us or to the jury isn't even true in the first place.  Some of it is, sure, but both the prosecution and the defense have different objectives.  They're going to tell us what they want us to hear.  If not an outright lie, it will be skewed.  In addition, many people take it a step further, and insert their own assumptions, and get emotional about that.  For others, the fact of guilt or innocence isn't as big an issue as some philosophical ideology.  Some would fry Zimmerman for an ideology.  Others would exonerate him for an ideology.  Enter the media, whose main objective is to stir the pot.  You have a circus.

In the middle of this environment, the jury is asked to sort through the shit, and render a verdict.  Sometimes a not guilty verdict is the result of a lack of information, which seems to be the case here.  Sometimes, you get a jury with an ulterior motive that convicts or frees the defendant based on an ideology.  Juries are not legally trained, they are average people with average intelligence.  Hardly the crème of the crop.  It's really a flawed system.  At most, we could do a little tweak here, and a little tweak there, but we will never make a truly fair system out of it.

And of course, some laws are going to piss us off.  They represent values that offend some of us.  The system is so far from perfect, it's a wonder society survives at all.

Sometimes we scream and yell and shake our fists at our TVs with a news cast.........  then we realize that we've got it better than MANY people out there trying to get by.
I try to focus on what's good whenever I can.

[PopeyesPappy]

Excessive force means going past just stopping someone - right?

Yes, excessive force means going beyond just stopping someone. However shooting someone when that is best and sometimes only available means of stopping them isn't necessarily excessive even if they die. You said you once held someone at gunpoint until the police arrived. What would you have done if they hadn't cooperated? If they had continued doing whatever it was you didn't want them to do would you have shot them? Would it have been excessive force if you had?

People shouldn't use guns to intentionally kill other people. If you point a gun at someone raping your grandchild and tell them, "I'm going to kill you you fucking piece of shit!" Then proceed to shoot them in the head nine times you just murdered them. On the other hand if you point the gun at them and think, "I have to stop this animal from hurting my baby!" Then shoot them until they stop it is in my opinion justifiable use of deadly force whether they die or not.

By the way ---- I don't know what this says about me --- but if someone was hurting one of my grandbabies I'd shoot them without any hesitation.  I wouldn't even blink twice.   Now, I'd not shoot them 9 times in the head.  One bullet would get the job done.
But No.........   GET OFF my grandchild - for sure.  I'd gladly go to jail for doing so too.

The only difference in the two scenarios is the state of mind of the shooter. If the intent was to kill it is murder. If the intent was to stop it is justifiable use of deadly force. So if you are thinking "GET OFF MY GRANDCHILD!" when you pull the trigger you should be good as long as you don't reload then calmly empty another magazine into their crotch as they lay there twitching. But if you are screaming (or even thinking) "I'M GOING TO KILL YOU, YOU SICK BASTARD!" then do exactly that the intent was murder not just stopping him from harming those you love. That doesn't mean I would vote to convict if I was on the jury deciding your fate, but then I believe in jury nullification. Something that most courts these days claim does not exist.

[Eric1958]

I don't know if someone else has already mentioned this, but there is a very interesting (not to mention disgusting) video clip of Shawn Hannity interviewing Zimmerman in 2012 where he is asked if he (Zimmerman) would do anything differently if he had it to do over. His answer was "no, it was all part of God's plan".

Unfortunately I don't know how to copy and paste the clip. Anybody want to enlighten me?