Zimmerman vs. DMX - Boxing Match?

[patches70]

I'm just telling you how the law works, Loot. That's all. All the "I'd have done this, not done this, if only that," and such is fine and dandy, but what makes you think everyone would do and act the same way?

The "reasonable person" standard is a legal standard, just ask TGD if you don't believe me. He's a lawyer (tax layer I think, but he had to of passed a BAR exam).

So you might not of had a gun. You might have better experience, training in such situations. All fine and dandy, Loot, but you weren't the one laying on the ground getting pounded. Zimmerman was. Anything you may or may not have done in that situation is moot.

You think I condone Martins actions in any way?

I never said that. I don't know if you do or not, it doesn't really matter much either way.

Hell no, little punk picked a fight

Ok then.

(by the sounds of it) and beat the crap out of a security professional

Was Zimmerman a security professional? He worked for an insurance firm IIRC.

Oh wait, he's dead. Yeah nah, he probably didn't deserve that, in fact it should never have resulted in that and Zimmerman, in my opinion, should receive punishment for his actions since I believe there to be many non lethal alternatives (manslaughter fits this situation imo).

It's too bad it wasn't you getting pummeled. Martin might be alive today. Heading to juvy maybe, but alive. And you, fighting with a minor, would have your own legal troubles....
heh heh.


I'm not taking Zimmerman's side or Martin's side. Both were idiots. Seems to me the question of whether or not Zimmerman should face jail time has been answered in his criminal case.

But fret not, those who want to see Zimmerman in jail, it appears ever more likely that Mr Holder will persecute, er, prosecute Zimmerman for some sort of civil rights charge. We'll see in due time I guess.

[BigBallinStalin]

The first and the last law broken that night among the two was the assault committed by Martin.

But it's not just the Law that's the "meta-issue" here. Not only is there this tension between the formal rules (codified laws) and informal rules (e.g "don't be a dick."). There's also problems among various informal rules, the allocation of local enforcement resources, and the implementation of such policies.

Presumably, Zimmerman is a concerned citizen who wants to reduce crime in his neighborhood. Did he allocate his resources appropriately (e.g. driving around = okay. getting out of the car to confront a stranger = difficult/costly)? does he know the best means to attain his goals?

People generally want peace and no grief. I'm assuming both sides want that, but their means of providing peace and their interpretations of the circumstances differ. Any situation can get out of hand on even a simple misunderstanding.

so, for me I'd hesitate in describing the scenario as you have. Peoples' understanding of the rules and the means for enforcing them will differ. It's not as simple as your position implies...

[patches70]

Any situation can get out of hand on even a simple misunderstanding.

.

And that's probably a very good assessment of the whole situation. It certainly was a misunderstanding and it certainly got out of hand. Once all that happened, then it was time to sort it out, in court, which is what happened.

Problems arise when certain people are unable or unwilling to accept that decision. There are avenues to pursue going forward for those parties, but there are also avenues that are now forever barred. Either people can accept that or they can't.

[BigBallinStalin]

You are implying that you know Martin was going to, whats the phrase we defined before... um thats right, cause death or great bodily harm... Interesting that you have such a good insight...

Your culture is beyond my understanding.

The litmus test in the eyes of the law is in fear for one's life from death or severe bodily harm. It is applied by juries and judges and is based on what a reasonable person would believe. One does not have to prove they would have been killed or severely injured, they need only show that the truly believed they would be and the jury must determine if a reasonable person would think the same.

In this specific case the jury believed that Zimmerman truly believed that his life was in danger and that any reasonable person would think the same. Thus Zimmerman was not guilty of murder or manslaughter. He was defending himself as they believe any reasonable person would.

If you think that you are a reasonable person, then imagine that someone was on top of you beating you "MMA style" and slamming your head against the concrete. At that moment, would it be reasonable for you to think "Holy shit! This guy is gonna kill me!" If so, then the actions you take to stop that person is a quite wide latitude. If you gotta shoot him, you gotta shoot him.

Agree, disagree, but I don't know how many people if they were being honest would just lay there and let someone kill them or beat them senseless and think "Oh I'll just lay here and hope someone (the cops) get here in time to save me. Hopefully I won't be killed or severely maimed before that happens". Most would attempt to defend themselves in some way and if one had a gun then one could quite conceivably shoot the assailant. If not, the assailant might just take your own gun and shot you dead with it.

It's not an enviable situation to be in for sure. But there are times when people find themselves in said position and that is understood and taken into account when it comes to the law, as it should be. Within certain parameters (claiming self defense while breaking into someone's house in the middle of the night and shooting the owner because you thought he might shoot you won't fly, for instance).

Martin wasn't shot walking hope from the store. He was shot while atop Zimmerman beating him, possibly beating him to death for all Zimmerman (or any of us) knew. Everyone wants to focus on the events prior to that moment, and that's understandable. However it's also irrelevant because neither of them did anything unlawful prior, stupid, surely, but not unlawful. Therefore all that was not to be considered by the jury (as per the Judge's instructions and the law).

Wanna try and hold Zimmerman accountable for his actions up to the shooting? That can be explored in a civil case. Unfortunately, it may have been better for said civil case had Zimmerman not been charged criminally and then acquitted. That could well cause some problems for the Martin case in the civil trial, but not always.
OJ Simpson was acquitted and yet found liable for the deaths of his wife and Mr Goldman and was found against him the sum of some $30 million+.
That civil finding helped contribute to OJ's ultimate situation he finds himself today, rotting in prison. But, there were different circumstances with OJ than with Zimmerman, obviously. Especially that Zimmerman freely admits he shot Martin but it was in self defense. In such cases there will certainly be some safeguards against civil prosecution in self defense cases. The degree of those safeguards I am unsure of. It varies considerably I believe, depending on the State and the circumstances.

I have to disagree with your description of the scenario. It's heavily based on Zimmerman's possible perspective. Think about Martin's possible explanations for his actions or rather his reactions.

A stocky guy gets a car and accosts you. in what manner did Zimmerman accost Martin? Did Z presume that Martin would only be up to no good? Did he thusly behave in an aggressive manner? Could Martin have interpreted Z's good or bad intentions correctly?

We can accept the possibility that Z did not approach Martin optimally. We can understand how misunderstandings turn very violent. Nevertheless, in this particular circumstance, the Truth will evade us because we only have Z's side of the story and an incomplete, insufficient account of Martin's.

(which is a main problem I have with many peoples' interpretations of the entire Z v. Martin saga. It is difficut and can be disappointing to accept the real confinement of imaging possibilities yet never being able to verify the Truth).

[BigBallinStalin]

It's not just the Law--that manna oozing from the crooked mouths of smiling politicians and partial judges [/polemic], which matters. It's also about our rules--the rules of civil society, which are distinct from the government. It's about how individuals define and defend various formal and informal rules, which are operating underneath and throughout a set of formal rules that emanate and are enforced by a government organization.

When we look at this scenario, we've got to think beyond the Law. We have to really examine how individuals interpret the body/verbal language of the other and to understand which formal and informal rules they wished to be upheld in that circumstance. Were the two parties' interpretation of the intentions of the other correct? Did they respond accordingly? Were each parties' informal rules of addressing another person and questioning him satisfied?

We can easily imagine how this scenario turned violently and quickly--even though both parties did not initially want a conflict.

[Woodruff]

I think the whole story is desperately sad , the likes of Phatty and Jessie Jackson are 2 sides of the same coin , the dead kid is just a pawn in their game. The murder charge was absurd , a lesser charge was always more likely to succeed , more about the prosecutor making a name for herself than justice in my opinion.
In a perfect world a civil case will prevent Zimmerman from benefitting financially , ' self defence ' laws will be tightened and the prosecuting attorney will spend the next 5 years making coffee and doing the filing.

Like greekdog... I agree this pretty much says it all.

How a woman dresses (is she asking for it?) could be compared with the "profiling people as criminals" as an ill informed method of using preconceived stereotypes to jump to conclusions.

I do not agree with your last sentence (in the Martin v. Zimmerman case specifically). There were a rash of burglaries in the neighborhood committed by young black men. Martin was a young black men. Erego, although he was racially profiled (and that is racist) it was for a reason... and a good reason.

Except, does "a rash of burglaries" deserve vigilante death sentences?

I don't really think it's fair to characterize this as a "vigilante death sentence", and I find it unlikely that a reasoned individual would consider it one unless they were trying to score political points for some reason.

[Woodruff]

I think the whole story is desperately sad , the likes of Phatty and Jessie Jackson are 2 sides of the same coin , the dead kid is just a pawn in their game. The murder charge was absurd , a lesser charge was always more likely to succeed , more about the prosecutor making a name for herself than justice in my opinion.
In a perfect world a civil case will prevent Zimmerman from benefitting financially , ' self defence ' laws will be tightened and the prosecuting attorney will spend the next 5 years making coffee and doing the filing.

Like greekdog... I agree this pretty much says it all.

How a woman dresses (is she asking for it?) could be compared with the "profiling people as criminals" as an ill informed method of using preconceived stereotypes to jump to conclusions.

I do not agree with your last sentence (in the Martin v. Zimmerman case specifically). There were a rash of burglaries in the neighborhood committed by young black men. Martin was a young black men. Erego, although he was racially profiled (and that is racist) it was for a reason... and a good reason.

Likewise....if all the reports of the burglaries were of short Asian women in dresses breaking and entering into private property, then short Asian women in dresses who do not live in neighborhood and seem to be looking in windows of people houses late at night is going to get some attention, and that only makes sense.

What Comic is doing is replacing simple common sense and rationality with political correctness.

No, Comic Boy absolutley IS NOT doing that. Sadly, you're replacing simple common sense and rationality with SOMETHING, though it's certainly not politically correct.

[Woodruff]

The first and the last law broken that night among the two was the assault committed by Martin.

Do we KNOW that Martin initiated the assault? I keep hearing this, but where is the evidence of this being the case?

I'm not saying he didn't. I AM saying I don't know, and I don't think anyone else other than Zimmerman does either.

[BigBallinStalin]

In this specific case the jury believed that Zimmerman truly believed that his life was in danger and that any reasonable person would think the same. Thus Zimmerman was not guilty of murder or manslaughter. He was defending himself as they believe any reasonable person would.

If you think that you are a reasonable person, then imagine that someone was on top of you beating you "MMA style" and slamming your head against the concrete. At that moment, would it be reasonable for you to think "Holy shit! This guy is gonna kill me!" If so, then the actions you take to stop that person is a quite wide latitude. If you gotta shoot him, you gotta shoot him.

See all of this is your own culturally based assessment of the situation. For example if you were to get the average response from people where I live it would be along the lines of: If he thought he might be in danger (prior to the violence) then why was he even there? Why did he not have a partner with him? Why was he not trained in personal combat to the point that he could over-power or at least escape? Why did he not have a personal alarm that could raise nearby help? See you have a culture that is very familiar with guns (rightly or wrongly Im not debating this); hence instead of using one of the solutions that would apply in our restrictive society (and likely lead to the same outcome for Zimmerman, i.e. battered and bruised but otherwise ok) you went straight for the lethal response.

For example; put me in Zimmermans shoes this is what i'd do. Firstly I would avoid going out on a patrol without a partner, especially into bad neighbourhoods, but lets say I found myself in that position; I would then spot a dodgy character and call it in, I would then let him know im there and ask him what hes doing. If he turned out to be aggressive, I would do all I could within my power to talk him down, and then would retreat back to my car and call up assistence. Lets say I couldnt talk him down and he came at me; well I would never take a security/police role without a high level of personal combat skills. Oh but lets say he had better combat skills - well that would imply he has some official training and combat experience: ok so he beats the shit out of me (not before I could set off a personal alarm or an emergency signal back to dispatch). How many scenarios do you think would end like this? Lets say it was a common scenario: Then I can say with 100% certainty I would never (nor would any other rational person) take a security/policing role where they did not supported by at least one other person, possibly more.

Im not advocating against guns (though I agree that you can implicitly read that in what I have said). I am simply saying that there are many many non-lethal responses to the situation Zimmerman found himself in. Now I will come back to this...

Exactly. Lootifer and the People of his Island probably operate through different means while acting on similar rules (e.g. "keep the peace"). Arguably, there's many in the US who think similarly--e.g. properly trained private security personnel, but it's important to note how odd Zimmerman's assessment and approach of the situation was (at least according to Lootifer's perspective, which is agreeable).

RE: guns, sure, they'll change the 'price' of estimating opponents and choosing between speech and conflict; however, I don't think guns make much of a difference. They could--in that if everyone only had knives, then you'd want another officer/security guy with you. And maybe that could change the outcome significantly when repeated over many 'trials'; however, what is the magnitude of that variable? How influential can it be on the "force differentials" (opting for violence as oppose to speech/trade)? I'm not sure, but I agree that various commodities can create different incentives and outcomes (e.g. Zimmerman, being a private security guy, would have to wear a camera with microphone at all times).

Arguably, other factors are much more important such as the rules which they are trying to enforce and their means for doing so--as well as simple things like each person's general disposition (e.g. one's manner of accosting and being accosted by someone at night while trying to keep the peace/wanting to go home).

[Woodruff]

Martin wasn't shot walking hope from the store. He was shot while atop Zimmerman beating him, possibly beating him to death for all Zimmerman (or any of us) knew. Everyone wants to focus on the events prior to that moment, and that's understandable. However it's also irrelevant because neither of them did anything unlawful prior, stupid, surely, but not unlawful. Therefore all that was not to be considered by the jury (as per the Judge's instructions and the law).

I don't agree at all that it is irrelevant. Irrelevant to the charge that they were prosecuting, sure...but that is a far different matter.

[patches70]

I have to disagree with your description of the scenario. It's heavily based on Zimmerman's possible perspective. Think about Martin's possible explanations for his actions or rather his reactions.

A stocky guy gets a car and accosts you. in what manner did Zimmerman accost Martin? Did Z presume that Martin would only be up to no good? Did he thusly behave in an aggressive manner? Could Martin have interpreted Z's good or bad intentions correctly?

Oh, yeah, sure I can see Martin's reaction. Sure he could have, hell, had he beaten Zimmerman to death he could well have gotten off completely arguing self defense as well!

All I was doing was explaining as best I can how it worked in court. That's all.

We can accept the possibility that Z did not approach Martin optimally. We can understand how misunderstandings turn very violent. Nevertheless, in this particular circumstance, the Truth will evade us because we only have Z's side of the story and an incomplete, insufficient account of Martin's.

(which is a main problem I have with many peoples' interpretations of the entire Z v. Martin saga. It is difficut and can be disappointing to accept the real confinement of imaging possibilities yet never being able to verify the Truth).

We'll never know. What we do know is that the jury found Zimmerman's actions reasonable. That is, Zimmerman reacted how the jury felt any reasonable person would have acted in the scenario as they understood it to be.

That's all. Nothing more, and considering what evidence was presented in the case, it's probably the right decision. Right and wrong are sometimes not the same as legal and illegal. I know that's a hard thing for some to accept. But we are human beings who are all flawed, our implementation of law reflects those flaws I'd think.

[patches70]

Martin wasn't shot walking hope from the store. He was shot while atop Zimmerman beating him, possibly beating him to death for all Zimmerman (or any of us) knew. Everyone wants to focus on the events prior to that moment, and that's understandable. However it's also irrelevant because neither of them did anything unlawful prior, stupid, surely, but not unlawful. Therefore all that was not to be considered by the jury (as per the Judge's instructions and the law).

I don't agree at all that it is irrelevant. Irrelevant to the charge that they were prosecuting, sure...but that is a far different matter.

That's the only thing that matters when the jury is deciding to send Zimmerman to jail or not. And as I'm only talking about the trial, I make no claims or opinions about the morality of the situation. What I think is irrelevant.

The Martin family wants to see Zimmerman put in prison. They are holding unrealistic expectations which lead to horrible disappointments. In regards to how it can be handled through the legal system.

But not all hope is lost for them yet. Mr Holder will come riding in on his white horse to save the day, I have less and less doubt of that every day now. Considering the DOJ's recent actions...

[Woodruff]

We'll never know. What we do know is that the jury found Zimmerman's actions reasonable. That is, Zimmerman reacted how the jury felt any reasonable person would have acted in the scenario as they understood it to be.

That's all. Nothing more, and considering what evidence was presented in the case, it's probably the right decision. Right and wrong are sometimes not the same as legal and illegal. I know that's a hard thing for some to accept. But we are human beings who are all flawed, our implementation of law reflects those flaws I'd think.

I agree. I would rather a guilty man go free than an innocent man be found guilty. I would probably have dropped this discussion entirely by this point if it weren't for the local political jackholes on both sides trying to score points with it (I do not count you among those, I just happen to be responding to your point because I agree with it).

[Woodruff]

Martin wasn't shot walking hope from the store. He was shot while atop Zimmerman beating him, possibly beating him to death for all Zimmerman (or any of us) knew. Everyone wants to focus on the events prior to that moment, and that's understandable. However it's also irrelevant because neither of them did anything unlawful prior, stupid, surely, but not unlawful. Therefore all that was not to be considered by the jury (as per the Judge's instructions and the law).

I don't agree at all that it is irrelevant. Irrelevant to the charge that they were prosecuting, sure...but that is a far different matter.

That's the only thing that matters when the jury is deciding to send Zimmerman to jail or not.

Sure, I agree. But I don't think that's all that's being discussed here.

[patches70]

Exactly. Lootifer and the People of his Island probably operate through different means while acting on similar rules

I really don't know, don't care and don't comment on how Loot and the people on His island do things.

but it's important to note how odd Zimmerman's assessment and approach of the situation was

Certainly, and Zimmerman's assessment and approach were looked at in the trial, just read the judge's instructions to the jury! Which is what I've been trying to get people to understand and that's why he was acquitted.

RE: guns, sure, they'll change the 'price' of estimating opponents and choosing between speech and conflict; however, I don't think guns make much of a difference. They could--in that if everyone only had knives, then you'd want another officer/security guy with you. And maybe that could change the outcome significantly when repeated over many 'trials'; however, what is the magnitude of that variable? How influential can it be on the "force differentials" (opting for violence as oppose to speech/trade)? I'm not sure, but I agree that various commodities can create different incentives and outcomes (e.g. Zimmerman, being a private security guy, would have to wear a camera with microphone at all times).

Arguably, other factors are much more important such as the rules which they are trying to enforce and their means for doing so--as well as simple things like each person's general disposition (e.g. one's manner of accosting and being accosted by someone at night while trying to keep the peace/wanting to go home).

And imagine, a jury of six individuals has to sort through all that to come to a lawful decision! Hahah!

Human interactions with each other can get complicated when it doesn't really need to be. And when stuff like this happens a jury has to try and figure all this out. All within a set standard of parameters. Not that an individual judge, appointed by a political entity could do any better of a job.

The jury system, it may not be the best system there can be, but it's still the best system that exists. At this time. One day, when we get machines or psychics who can read minds with unerring accuracy, we can have a sure fire way of figuring out exactly what happens in such cases, but until then, this is the best we got. Kind of sucks, but if one ever finds themselves wrongfully accused, it's that jury that jury that will be about the last line of defense that determines if you go free or go to prison.

[patches70]

We'll never know. What we do know is that the jury found Zimmerman's actions reasonable. That is, Zimmerman reacted how the jury felt any reasonable person would have acted in the scenario as they understood it to be.

That's all. Nothing more, and considering what evidence was presented in the case, it's probably the right decision. Right and wrong are sometimes not the same as legal and illegal. I know that's a hard thing for some to accept. But we are human beings who are all flawed, our implementation of law reflects those flaws I'd think.

I agree. I would rather a guilty man go free than an innocent man be found guilty. I would probably have dropped this discussion entirely by this point if it weren't for the local political jackholes on both sides trying to score points with it (I do not count you among those, I just happen to be responding to your point because I agree with it).

Not counting the intentional jackholes who are just using all this to promote furthering their agenda, just counting those who are dismayed at the verdict and still want to see Zimmerman in prison simply because they believe it's the right thing to do.
I'm afraid many of those people convicted Zimmerman long ago. Long before any jury was picked, any court proceedings began. I think that is an unwise way to proceed in said situations. Then again, I can understand as well, we are human.

It's never a good thing when a 17 year old gets shot dead. That goes without saying. But would be even worse is falling to mob justice or abandoning our principles. Innocent until proven guilty, fair trials, and such things. American eagles, stuff like that.
Or to mete out punishment based on emotion rather than cold hard facts and rule of law.

It's already bad enough when our government routinely ignores laws, start getting everyone ignoring law and we'll all be in a deep pile manure in due time. Probably going to happen anyway, but I'd rather keep on fighting for rule of law while I still can. The alternative is far worse. IMO.

[Army of GOD]

STOP IGNORING ME SCOTTY

Scotty can you change the poll to:
I agree with the verdict and am mostly liberal
i disagree/mostly liberal
i agree, mostly conservative
I disagree, mostly conservative
I agree, libertarian
I disagree, libertarian
I'm a douchebag

[Phatscotty]

[Phatscotty]

STOP IGNORING ME SCOTTY

Scotty can you change the poll to:
I agree with the verdict and am mostly liberal
i disagree/mostly liberal
i agree, mostly conservative
I disagree, mostly conservative
I agree, libertarian
I disagree, libertarian
I'm a douchebag

spoze

[Jdsizzleslice]

Just like women who dress provocatively are begging to be raped.

Woodruff... Just saying bro that was off the deep end. That's not a comparison by any means.

Perhaps, then, you can explain WHY it's not a valid comparison, instead of simply snipping out the point I was responding to as if it doesn't exist?

You're saying because women that dress like that all the time are going to get raped.

No, I didn't say that at all, actually.

Yes, yes you did. You inferred that all women who dress that way get raped.

They don't want to, and they aren't even the ones who start the bad conflict in the first place.

The statement I was directly responding to was "Being disrespectful like that is begging for a confrontation, something I feel disrespectful people are looking for, because hey, they don't have any respect!"

The stupid idea that being disrespectful is begging for a confrontation is quite similar to the stupid idea that if a woman dresses provocatively, she is begging to be raped. In both cases, the biased observer is foisting their own misguided notions onto someone else as to "what they want".

Not really... The women don't want to be raped. I fail to see how you grasp this concept, if any at all. And you really can't even compare women's dress to this.

"I take it this is the first time you've met Woodruff?"

That's him, doing what he does. Constantly getting out of the car and following and stalking people, agitating them the entire time, discriminating against people for their beliefs, calling them names and being a bully, looking for a fight.

Zimmerman aint got nothing on THIS guy!

He probably lives in Massachusetts

Huh?

Can't handle a little troll thrown your way? I would have figured the massive troll as you are, would have gotten this.

I didn't see it as a troll at all. To be honest, I STILL don't understand it. What does Massachusetts have to do with the discussion at all, and how does it relate to my theoretically living there? I'm just missing the point...why Massachusetts?

This is really sad. You don't know that Massachusetts is the most liberal state? But whatever. Just stop trolling and maybe you will be respected more.

[Lootifer]

I'm just telling you how the law works, Loot. That's all. All the "I'd have done this, not done this, if only that," and such is fine and dandy, but what makes you think everyone would do and act the same way?

The "reasonable person" standard is a legal standard, just ask TGD if you don't believe me. He's a lawyer (tax layer I think, but he had to of passed a BAR exam).

Yeah, apologies. I was specifically referring to the higher level (or hypothetical if you will) debate around the right/wrong of the situation (obviously through my glasses, its subjective); not the legal details.

I fully understand the legal side; it seems like it was a reasonably solid case of self defense in terms of a murder charge.

I dont understand your culture, however.

[patches70]

I'm just telling you how the law works, Loot. That's all. All the "I'd have done this, not done this, if only that," and such is fine and dandy, but what makes you think everyone would do and act the same way?

The "reasonable person" standard is a legal standard, just ask TGD if you don't believe me. He's a lawyer (tax layer I think, but he had to of passed a BAR exam).

Yeah, apologies. I was specifically referring to the higher level (or hypothetical if you will) debate around the right/wrong of the situation (obviously through my glasses, its subjective); not the legal details.

I fully understand the legal side; it seems like it was a reasonably solid case of self defense in terms of a murder charge.

I dont understand your culture, however.

Yeah, well, probably many of my countrymen don't understand our culture either.

The right and wrong, the morality, that's a lot harder to go pinning down. There is no wrong answer, really. Hell, does right and wrong even exist? LOL. Not to some people I'd think.

I don't really see anything productive trying to chase that down. As far as I'm concerned an individual has a right to protect himself. That might be one the ultimate truths. That drive for self preservation that's instinctual and thus above right and wrong (or forms the basis for right and wrong). Where the ethics and morality of our societies may change over time, our instincts stay strong. I ain't letting anyone just kill me or beat me, even if I might deserve it. Of course, I believe it's a good idea to stay out of my neighbor's garden, so I don't anticipate him (or anyone else) coming to get me anytime.

But you see, I ain't no brawler, someone wants to brawl with me I'd just as soon shoot him than fight him. But that's just me. Some people like to go around fighting and raising hell and don't see no wrong in it. Some people like to think they're responsible for stuff they ain't responsible for. Some people like to think they are more important than what they are.

Me, I'm just a guy trying to get through life with the least amount of pain and misery possible and maybe just a little bit of happiness.

But remember, Loot, you're from New Zealand? If so, then no worries, we don't have to completely understand each other to be friends, and the US and NZ are friends (as much of friends as nations can be I guess). I don't think our country holds any ill will to yours, and yours none to us. And hell, we've fought together against common enemies in the past, and will do so again the the future I'd bet.

It's good that people are different all around the world. If we were all the same then the world would be a boring place and we'd be nothing better than ants in an antfarm.

Cheers!

[Lootifer]

I really don't know, don't care and don't comment on how Loot and the people on His island do things.

Interesting comment for two reasons:

- I like how I have my own island! Goooood times!

- I find it interesting that you don't care how another, with a culture very similar - with subtle differences - to you own, operates. Is that how you really feel? Because I get involved in these discussions not to cause trouble or poke fun, but to genuinely get a better understanding of the world (not that you are a representative sample at the individual level, but you are mostly smart cookies and you do at least sometimes use facts etc ). This in turn shapes my outlook to a certain, limited*, extent.

* this is, after all, an internet forum.

[Lootifer]

Cheers!

Indeed! Cheers!

(especially since it's 5:45pm on a friday afternoon and Im still at work! Time for a beer*!)

* actually I need to earn it first and I brought mah boxing gloves tonight, time to punch the shit out of a bag - bag because I too aint no brawler! - then bicycle home and sup on a well earned pint!)

[Woodruff]

We'll never know. What we do know is that the jury found Zimmerman's actions reasonable. That is, Zimmerman reacted how the jury felt any reasonable person would have acted in the scenario as they understood it to be.

That's all. Nothing more, and considering what evidence was presented in the case, it's probably the right decision. Right and wrong are sometimes not the same as legal and illegal. I know that's a hard thing for some to accept. But we are human beings who are all flawed, our implementation of law reflects those flaws I'd think.

I agree. I would rather a guilty man go free than an innocent man be found guilty. I would probably have dropped this discussion entirely by this point if it weren't for the local political jackholes on both sides trying to score points with it (I do not count you among those, I just happen to be responding to your point because I agree with it).

Not counting the intentional jackholes who are just using all this to promote furthering their agenda, just counting those who are dismayed at the verdict and still want to see Zimmerman in prison simply because they believe it's the right thing to do.

I don't actually mind them. Whether it's a misunderstanding of the law or the belief that the law is wrong, at least it's honest. I can live with that, because it's either correctable (in the first instance) or it's something that shouldn't necessarily BE corrected. It's the dishonest ones who really bother me.

I'm afraid many of those people convicted Zimmerman long ago. Long before any jury was picked, any court proceedings began. I think that is an unwise way to proceed in said situations. Then again, I can understand as well, we are human.

For what it's worth, I convicted him in my mind. There wasn't much question for me that he was guilty based on what I had gathered (I still think he's guilty of SOMETHING criminal, but certainly not what he was charged with). That being said, my view of the situation HAS changed despite that, as more information came out about it.

It's already bad enough when our government routinely ignores laws, start getting everyone ignoring law and we'll all be in a deep pile manure in due time. Probably going to happen anyway, but I'd rather keep on fighting for rule of law while I still can. The alternative is far worse. IMO.

I firmly believe that in SOME UNUSUAL CIRCUMSTANCES, it's "right" to ignore a particular law. But not when you're talking about within the courtroom.