Zimmerman surrendered 40 minutes before deadline

[GreenBat]

http://www.local10.com/news/George-Zimmerman-in-police-custody/-/1717324/14442666/-/emeot0z/-/index.html

[UNT90]

Well, he MUST be guilty then

[Green Mean]

Well, he MUST be guilty then

Well he did kill a person ya know

[UNT90]

Well he did kill a person ya know

Your point?

[Green Mean]

Your point?

That he killed a person.

[Rudy]

If killing a person is the same as murder, then lock up the SEaLs, Rangers, Green Berets, Delta, etc.

[UNT90]

That he killed a person.

State of Texas does it quite often.

Again, your point?

[GreenBat]

Let me see if I can phrase this without you considering it a personal attack.

He took a life, did not commit first degree murder. It's not like the special forces that Rudy mentions because they are under order to eliminate people who are considered to be an enemy.

I'm sorry if this elementary explaination is considered a personal attack by you UNT90, but it is important that you understand Trayvon Martin is not living this day because of George Zimmermans action on that fateful day.

[UNT90]

Actually, we don't know whether Tayvon Martin is dead today because of the actions of George Zimmerman or the actions of Trayvon Martin, or a combination of both.

Odds are, it's a combination of both (yes, that is speculation, not a FACT).

And we don't have any of the evidence to determine whether this taking of a life is a crime.

They are 2 different things, you know.

But you keep on prejudging.

[Rudy]

Ok, say someone walks into your home, and you shoot them dead. There is no evidence whether or not you invited them into your home, or they just walked in. Do you think you should be in jail automatically? Or that you are guilty of a crime?

[Green Mean]

State of Texas does it quite often.

Again, your point?

It's not rocket science. He did kill a person. What don't you get?

[UNT90]

It's not rocket science. He did kill a person. What don't you get?

Your point.

Round and round we go.

[Green Mean]

Your point.

Round and round we go.

It's not a point. It's a fact.

[UNTFan23]

It's not a point. It's a fact.

And we still don't know of the circumstances surrounding the murder -- that too is a fact.

[Green Mean]

And we still don't know of the circumstances surrounding the murder -- that too is a fact.

Absolutely correct.

[emmitt01]

"Odds are, it's a combination of both (yes, that is speculation, not a FACT). "

So, which is it? If the odds are in its favor (which would imply more evidence leaning one way as opposed to the other) then it's more than speculation. I've never seen an DA stand up and say "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, we will present a collection of evidence proving this man killed thes other man. At least that's our speculation."

I think the bottom line is that you are pissed that this case is inflammatory and that Zimmerman has received a bad rap...so you're playing the part of the contrarian to prove a point. What that point is, I don't know.

[UNT90]

Absolutely correct.

You confuse me.

[UNT90]

"Odds are, it's a combination of both (yes, that is speculation, not a FACT). "

So, which is it? If the odds are in its favor (which would imply more evidence leaning one way as opposed to the other) then it's more than speculation. I've never seen an DA stand up and say "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, we will present a collection of evidence proving this man killed thes other man. At least that's our speculation."

I think the bottom line is that you are pissed that this case is inflammatory and that Zimmerman has received a bad rap...so you're playing the part of the contrarian to prove a point. What that point is, I don't know.

Nope.

As you well know, take two sides of a story, and the truth is usually somewhere in the middle. Point is, we don't know. And as I said in that post, it was speculation on my part.

We don't know the evidence that matters. That is not being a contrarian, that is just a plain and simply fact. Way too many seem perfectly OK in determining Zimmerman's guilt based on what have proven to be extremely biased media reports. I say wait and see what the evidence shows. Does it worry me that one DA's office has looked at the evidence and chosen not to prosecute, only to have a politician hand over that DA's office responsibilties to a special prosecutor appointed by said politician? Absolutely, as it shoud you.

Does it bother me that said appointed special prosecutor refused to take the case to a grand jury, where an anonymous grand jury panel could have reviewed the evidence and given a ruling based on that evidence without the scrutiny of the learing and highly prejudiced press? Like any other case would have been treated? Absolutely, as it should you.

I don't know Zimmerman, so really no reason to be pissed about the case being "inflammatroy". As far as Zimmerman receiving a bad rap, maybe, maybe not. Again, we don't know the evidence.

What I do find ammusing is so many of the holier-than-thou social liberals (not directed at you at all, Emmitt) that are so quick to want this man in jail without having one fact to support their already guilty verdict.

I'll ask you a question. If what Zimmerman said actually occurred, is he, under Florida law, guilty of a crime (You know this will be proven or disprovent through actual crime scene evidence.)?

[emmitt01]

I think it will boil down to a "reasonable person" standard. Would a reasonable person, assuming that ALL of what Zimmerman claims is true, hav felt that deadly force was necessary. Even with a stand you ground law the violence against you must be sufficient to warrant deadly force as a recourse. For example (and I'm not saying this is the case) if Trayvon had pushed him to the ground, or punched him once, or committed some other "simple assault", I don't see a jury siding with Zimmerman. IF, and Zimmerman will have to convince the jury, Trayvon was on top o him punching him repeatedly and causing serious injury or making Zimmerman lose consciousness...then I think he's go a good shot at trial. He'll just need to fill in the blanks on how things got to that point.

[UNT90]

I think it will boil down to a "reasonable person" standard. Would a reasonable person, assuming that ALL of what Zimmerman claims is true, hav felt that deadly force was necessary. Even with a stand you ground law the violence against you must be sufficient to warrant deadly force as a recourse. For example (and I'm not saying this is the case) if Trayvon had pushed him to the ground, or punched him once, or committed some other "simple assault", I don't see a jury siding with Zimmerman. IF, and Zimmerman will have to convince the jury, Trayvon was on top o him punching him repeatedly and causing serious injury or making Zimmerman lose consciousness...then I think he's go a good shot at trial. He'll just need to fill in the blanks on how things got to that point.

Agree. And the scene evidence will bear out whether ZImmerman's story is accurate or not. The problem is people on here, in the news media, and in America in general, don't seem to care about this evidence. They either want him in jail or want him to walk free.

Idiocracy at it's finest.

[Green P1]

Agree. And the scene evidence will bear out whether ZImmerman's story is accurate or not. The problem is people on here, in the news media, and in America in general, don't seem to care about this evidence. They either want him in jail or want him to walk free.

Idiocracy at it's finest.

It seems you still haven't grasped the idea behind internet message boards. They're for opinions. Have you seen the movie Idiocracy?

[UNT90]

It seems you still haven't grasped the idea behind internet message boards. They're for opinions. Have you seen the movie Idiocracy?

Nothing wrong with opinions. But when you state opinions as fact, you get called out, especially in our little slice of heaven called GMG.com.

You do it to people every single day.

Oh, and I'm not the one getting all hot and bothered. That would be the people with "opinions" that I disagree with.

Does it bother you that I won't take a side because there isn't enough info?

Edited June 4, 2012 by UNT90

[Green Mean]

Nothing wrong with opinions. But when you state opinions as fact, you get called out, especially in our little slice of heaven called GMG.com.

Out of curiosity what part of my statement was an opinion? I simply stated Zimmerman killed Trayvon Martin. Where is the opinion in that? I frankly don't have a dog in this fight and what is with your liberal comment? You don't really know me so you're assuming I'm this crazy little liberal. Truth is that even many of my hardest of cores conservative friends would have liked to see him arrested and in jail. This has nothing to do with being a liberal or non liberal. Give me a break.

[UNT90]

Out of curiosity what part of my statement was an opinion? I simply stated Zimmerman killed Trayvon Martin. Where is the opinion in that? I frankly don't have a dog in this fight and what is with your liberal comment? You don't really know me so you're assuming I'm this crazy little liberal. Truth is that even many of my hardest of cores conservative friends would have liked to see him arrested and in jail. This has nothing to do with being a liberal or non liberal. Give me a break.

Dude, it's not about you. Go back and read the original 18 sone odd page thread. You will see unbelievable prejudice (by the very definition of the word) by the usual liberal suspects.

[Green P1]

1. Nothing wrong with opinions. But when you state opinions as fact, you get called out, especially in our little slice of heaven called GMG.com.

You do it to people every single day.

2. Oh, and I'm not the one getting all hot and bothered. That would be the people with "opinions" that I disagree with.

3. Does it bother you that I won't take a side because there isn't enough info?

1. Nah, I just crack stupid jokes.

2. The people you've disagreed with haven't been hot and bothered enough to continue arguing the matter. You have. There have been 301 posts on this board concerning the Treyvon Martin case... 95 are yours.

3. It bothers me that you say so much on the matter without saying anything at all.