George Zimmerman Trial

[capewind]

The USA indirectly provides aid to Canada every single day. No-one will attack Canada because they know full well that we will destroy them. In fact, I bet our "leaders" would defend Canada more forcefully than they defend the USA.

AND let's not forget that Canada CLAIMS to mind its own business, when the reality is it hides BEHIND the US. Specifically look at Vietnam. Canada CLAIMS to have not been involved. That is a joke on every person who believes that LIE. Canada was a lot more involved than they want the world to believe. I am NOT attacking Canada BTW, I am a LEGAL CITIZEN of both countries;-) (Which can be indirectly blamed on the Vietnam War LOL.)

 

[capewind]

So as a mother would you feel your son should be able to defend himself from a vicious, thug, druggie like Martin? Or should your son just have let his head be bashed in until his brains spilled out onto the concrete?

I would tell my son OR DAUGHTERS to do everything they can do to AVOID the situation, and if FLEEING is not an option, to use every skill they have learned to protect themself, and to hell with the person threatening them.

 

[crsublette]

I would tell my son OR DAUGHTERS to do everything they can do to AVOID the situation, and if FLEEING is not an option, to use every skill they have learned to protect themself, and to hell with the person threatening them.

That is what was so interesting about the cell phone audio and autopsy. There is zero evidence to support either victim trying to stop the fight or trying to get away or trying to flee or run away.

There actually was a self defense case a few years ago about a fella that got assaulted and the guy that assaulted him started to run away and the assaultor was shot in the back as running away. I think the fella with the gun got properly charged, which I completely agreed with. This idea of " I am right to kill the guy for potential retaliation " does not fly with me.

 

[CdnJCR]

AND let's not forget that Canada CLAIMS to mind its own business, when the reality is it hides BEHIND the US. Specifically look at Vietnam. Canada CLAIMS to have not been involved. That is a joke on every person who believes that LIE. Canada was a lot more involved than they want the world to believe. I am NOT attacking Canada BTW, I am a LEGAL CITIZEN of both countries;-) (Which can be indirectly blamed on the Vietnam War LOL.)

Canada was "officially non-belligerent" in the war, the Canadian government helped the U.S. by sending medical equipment, weapons-making material, and technical assistance.
While the exact number of Canadians who volunteered for military duty with U.S. services during the 10-year Vietnam war is difficult to pinpoint, most estimates put the number at about 30,000 troops, about the same number of U.S. citizens who fled to Canada to avoid the draft.

 

[capewind]

No, I'm not talking about gun owner's or assault's compared to drunk drivers. I'm talking about them in their own separate entities. I'm talking about the laws bringing people to prosecution due to the decisions they made.

Okay, so let's say you being a woman, assumed to be smaller than most men, see a large MAN attacking one of your teenage children, and needs help. YOU fear for YOUR CHILDS LIFE. You run to the cabinet, grab your husbands gun, and shoot the bastard hurting your child, and he dies, since you COULD have shot to maime only ... By your statements you should be tried for murder. I think such a mom should be pat on their back for protecting their child, and should NOT face charges.

 

[crsublette]

Okay, so let's say you being a woman, assumed to be smaller than most men, see a large MAN attacking one of your teenage children, and needs help. YOU fear for YOUR CHILDS LIFE. You run to the cabinet, grab your husbands gun, and shoot the bastard hurting your child, and he dies, since you COULD have shot to maime only ... By your statements you should be tried for murder. I think such a mom should be pat on their back for protecting their child, and should NOT face charges.

I don't know if I would agree about that one assuming what other options were exhausted prior to reaching for the weapon first... It would depend on the evidence. If I were on the jury and there was only an evidence indicating the mom wanting to kill the guy that is attacking the son, then I don't know... I don't know how far the "wanted to maime rather than kill" reasoning would go. That'd be a tough one.

 

[capewind]

Canada was "officially non-belligerent" in the war, the Canadian government helped the U.S. by sending medical equipment, weapons-making material, and technical assistance.
While the exact number of Canadians who volunteered for military duty with U.S. services during the 10-year Vietnam war is difficult to pinpoint, most estimates put the number at about 30,000 troops, about the same number of U.S. citizens who fled to Canada to avoid the draft.

If you believe that all Canadans who served WITH the US was as volunteers, you are SADLY MISTAKEN. My FATHER was given NO CHOICE.

 

[CdnJCR]

If you believe that all Canadans who served WITH the US was as volunteers, you are SADLY MISTAKEN. My FATHER was given NO CHOICE.

Dual citizenship ? No choice given by whom. Are you saying on one hand Canada accepted draft dodgers but on the other forced Canadians to fight in the US military?

 

[capewind]

I don't know if I would agree about that one assuming what other options were exhausted prior to reaching for the weapon first... It would depend on the evidence. If I were on the jury and there was only an evidence indicating the mom wanting to kill the guy that is attacking the son, then I don't know... I don't know how far the "wanted to maime rather than kill" reasoning would go. That'd be a tough one.

My point here is a MOM would NOT be THINKING ... Every INSTINCT would be to protect your child, and stop the attack. I am projecting a rational thought as to a mom fearing that their child faces grave injury. My goal would be to stop the assault. I would NOT be THINKING that I could shoot the man in the leg ...

 

[crsublette]

The difference with this case is there actually is evidence that prove the motivation of both victims eventhough all of the evidence to describe's the kid's motivation, except for the cell phone audio, was flat out denied by the judge, who told the jury to disregard everytime it was brought up, but, yet, the prosecution was able to say all sorts of nonesense about how, such as, absurdly saying, " zimmerman killed the kid because he wanted his skittles".

 

[capewind]

Dual citizenship ? No choice given by whom. Are you saying on one hand Canada accepted draft dodgers but on the other forced Canadians to fight in the US military?

My father was born in Montreal and was a Canadian citizen who joined the Royal Airforce. As a member of the airforce, he was NOT asked if he WANTED to fight WITH the US in Vietnam, he WAS SENT.

And yes, I hold dual citizenship. My mother was a US citizen. My father was a Canadian citizen. While I was born in the US, my birth was also recorded/registered in Canada as a child born abroad. My children are considered US citizens as being born here to two US citizens, but in Canada, they are considered "unregistered Canadian citizens" since I was legally registered in 1968. With immigration reform laws that have taken place in Canada, my grandchildren will nolonger be eligible for automatic citizenship, unless my children update their status. After my children, the laws get complicated. I suggest you look it up if you need more info.

 

[CdnJCR]

Regardless of what the verdict maybe do you think it was a fair trial based on Florida law ?

 

[crsublette]

If this trial was driven by the law as written and evidence, then yes I would think it was a fair trial.

This has not been about the law nor evidence. It has all been about theories and emotion and all about perception.

I will not be suprised if the jury convicted Zimmerman on manslaughter. It definitely is not second degree and a second degree verdict would suprise me. Although, I think there is a very good chance for an aqcuital or hung jury. I very much doubt there will be a not guilty verdict. Any potential civil case will likely be denied or end unsatisfactory for both families.

 

[HTH]

Okay, so let's say you being a woman, assumed to be smaller than most men, see a large MAN attacking one of your teenage children, and needs help. YOU fear for YOUR CHILDS LIFE. You run to the cabinet, grab your husbands gun, and shoot the bastard hurting your child, and he dies, since you COULD have shot to maime only ... By your statements you should be tried for murder. I think such a mom should be pat on their back for protecting their child, and should NOT face charges.

If what "I SEE ON TV" is true law offices shoot to kill. Reason being a wounded man can shoot back and sue etc. So I expect that makes sense for mom's too.

 

[CdnJCR]

If this trial was driven by the law as written and evidence, then yes I would think it was a fair trial...

I very much doubt there will be a not guilty verdict. Any potential civil case will likely be denied or end unsatisfactory for both families.

Are you saying a not guilty would deny a civil suit how would this be different then OJ being not guilty was he not subsequently sued successfully in civil court ?