abge - what dangerous game do you refer to? Observing a stranger? Becausethat was Zim's "game". I use my neighborhood to live in...and I use my eyes to observe what goes on around me to keep my children and my property safe. That is my RESPONSIBILITY.

Bybthe way - as for whatlever asshole up above called me racist earlier...what a stupid fucktard ....they were BOTH NON_WHITES asshole! How am I racist for thinking TM was a thug punk kid? Attacking an adult earns him this label, *regardless* of his race.

The real racism here is from all the TM defenders who think Zimm killed him ONLY because he was black, when there is no evidence to suggest this.

Laughble.

Yeah, don't lump me in with krellin or Draugnar at all here.

> You can't just throw that out there and declare victory.

I can, unless and until you give a better citation that supports your claim.

> The fact that you so grossly misunderstood the felony and dangerous act references

I didn't, and you're lying.

> last time I saw new updates on the case, the defense was arguing to no have the jury hear or know about the previous calls.

The judge admitted the previous calls. http://news.wjct.org/post/judge-rules-zimmerman-911-calls-admissable-dismisses-alternate-juror

If I was as belligerent an asshole as you are, I'd say this means you're totally fucking ignorant of the case, the facts, the law, and the difference between your ass and a hole in the ground.

> How am I racist for thinking TM was a thug punk kid?

Exactly. You are a racist for choosing a racially inflammatory description.
http://plaistedwrites.blogspot.com/2008/07/thug-is-new-n-word.html

abge - what obnoxiousn post? The one that accuratley portrays the lifestyle and rational views of thr vast majority of responsible adult Americans that keep an eye on their neighborhoods and keep an eye on strangers in order to protect their house and home? Or re you such a goody that you implicitely trust eveone around you always? if you say yes, you're a liar.

I can't even understand what you're argung about on the second-degree murder thing.

Life's too short. See you on TV at the riots I guess, gavrilop.

@invictus

I certainly don't. Despite disagreeing with most things you say I think you usually have understandable reasons for those viewpoints.

> I can't even understand what you're argung about on the second-degree murder thing.

The murder may or may not be willful. It may or may not be deliberate. It may not be premeditated. It must be committed in the course of a dangerous act, but that act may or may not be a felony.

> Life's too short. See you on TV at the riots I guess, gavrilop.

So you're a racist too. Not surprised.

@draug " Marine Corps! Shock troops! Devil dogs! Blood sucking war machines! ... I've seen amd been in a fucking hell of a lot worse than MMA."

You've talked about your marine corps service many times, but I dont recall anyone ever asking what you did. Do you mind sharing?

if Zimmerman set outnto murder TM, he's the dumbest fuckingn cracker (who isnt even a cracker...) to live. First he calls 911 to identify himself and sketch out his victim, then after the fact he turns himself over to the cops, gives them his gun and confesses.

Or maybe he's, you know, a guy that was overzealous in following somene...which last I knew is not justification to get jumped from the bushes and beat up...who then defended himself before getting knocked unconscious and have his brains spilled all over the concrete.

Why is it so difficult for all the racists around here to believe Zimmerman was telling the truth?

> if Zimmerman set outnto murder TM,

Then he would be charged with first degree murder, not second degree.

Nobody jumped out of the bushes. On the video when Zimmerman identifies where he says Martin approached him, there are no bushes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w59TxxxPH-c

No bushes there. An open sidewalk with about 20 feet of grass on either side.

Cachimbo: "If it wasn't for people like Abge or Gavrilop, I think I would have quit this site by now." Try to ignore the imflamatory whackos like Draugnar and especially krellin. In fact, it is almost better to look at posts like this one and just sigh and shake your head. Trying to convince people like that of something on an internet forum is nigh impossible.

Invictus: Did you listen to and read the transcript of Zimmerman's call yet? (It wasn't a 911 call, by the way; he directly called the police department.) Your attempts to downplay that call are woefully inadequate.

"Inflamatory" apparently means I believed one witness instead of another, and look at things with a rational point of view -- apparently to you people Zimmerman beat himself up and killed Martin for no reason at all. Wow...what color is the sky is your demented world? I pity you people, truly.

I know JECE... I'm sadly not new to their crap.

I was in a foul mood yesterday and their shit hit me hard for some reason. I do maintain what I have said though...

"crap" : Rationally examining a situation and applying logic without overly politically correct emotional responses.

Cute Krellin... Just as cute as the inner-workings of your clunky and poorly prejudiced mind.

krellin: 'Inflamatory' means that reality and reason are less important to you than getting people worked up.

JECE -- no, you get worked up when confronted with a reality and rationale that fly in the face of your emotionally-based, liberal, racist viewpoint.

Cach-- Please give a single example of racism in this thread by me? Why am I racist...because I supported the non-white Hispanic guy and believe him more than the black kid? lol What a fucking moron you are.

krellin: Yawn.

I find it hilarious (and deeply saddening) that the biggest counter to the racism argument in this thread is that Zimmerman isn't white either, as if racist people are equally prejudiced against all other races and only white people can be racist. Jesus, you all make me weep for America.

Krellin: I would urge you to pick up a dictionary and to look up "prejudiced" and "racist". But since I doubt your capacities to make the effort and meet with any bit of success, let me enlighten you: a racist is prejudiced, but a prejudiced person is not necessarily racist.
In this case, I was calling you prejudiced because of how obtuse you are. Time and time again you have shown, in this forum, and in this thread, that you have accepted certain things as true that you are unwilling to question. If I would have wanted to call you racist, I would have.

So Zimmerman is 'banged to rights' just like I thought

I'm not sure I get what you mean Nigee...

He's fuilty as guck !! Murderer !!

He's guilty of defending himself, which isn't a crime in America. Did you know that in Texas, ranchers can still legally shoot cattle rustlers?

And some cities in North America still have laws that can send you to jail for spitting on the sidewalk.

Can't draw an ought from an is.
You can say that the fact of the law is sufficient to impose an obligation to obey the law, but you can't from that say that this bit of law ought to be law. Many of these debates are confused and muddled by confusing this.

That's why, for example, I said I would not pronounce myself on whether or not he's guilty in the eye of the law: I'm not equipped to justify my claim (not trained sufficiently, not in possession of relevant clues and testimonies) and the court system is built so that it's up to them to decide on that level. What I did mean to discuss here, and what I think some are discussing as well, is whether or not what happened ought to be considered as self-defense or as murder (or, maybe more likely, as manslaughter).

What to me is the most striking point in this debate, is that words like guilty and innocent don't apply very well. A man is dead. By his hand. He is responsible of his death as he caused it (physically caused it... enough with the crap of what lead to that moment... he pulled the trigger... that's all I mean to say here). The question is whether or not he was justified in doing so. Ought he have behaved differently.

Well, I believe he should indeed have behaved differently and that he had the opportunity to do so (and was in fact advised to do so). Because of that, I think that his killing of a man was not justified.

Now, will that pass as second degree murder? Manslaughter (I believe I have read here that the jury could find him guilty of that even if that's not the charge)? Or as self-defense? Here the interpretation of the law in light of many details that, I believe, escape most if not all of us will be the determining factor. And it is here I believe none of us is able to say how the law should be applied.

> He's guilty of defending himself

No he's not. He pursued Martin with the intention of starting a fight.

> And it is here I believe none of us is able to say how the law should be applied.

Jury members aren't legal specialists, and yet they are the ones entrusted with saying how the law should be applied. I'm as well informed as they are, or more. I can say how the law should be applied. He's a murderer.