I Don't Think Many Of You Know What "Confronted" Means

[MarcATL]

You can't "confront" someone if you're actively trying to get away from them.

When and if they catch up with you after pursuing you, you aren't "confronting" them when you stand your ground.

What we have here is a case of standing your ground, and a criminal then gunning down the lawful citizen who was rightfully standing their ground.

Zimmerman is toast...TOAST I said!

 

[Si modo]

You can't "confront" someone if you're actively trying to get away from them.

....

Sure you can.

con·front/kənˈfrənt/
Verb:

1. Meet (someone) face to face with hostile or argumentative intent.
2. Face up to and deal with (a problem or difficult situation).

 

[Jarhead]

You can't "confront" someone if you're actively trying to get away from them.

When and if they catch up with you after pursuing you, you aren't "confronting" them when you stand your ground.

What we have here is a case of standing your ground, and a criminal then gunning down the lawful citizen who was rightfully standing their ground.

Zimmerman is toast...TOAST I said!

Sadly, it wont bring back the poor kid.

 

[Gadawg73]

You can't "confront" someone if you're actively trying to get away from them.

When and if they catch up with you after pursuing you, you aren't "confronting" them when you stand your ground.

What we have here is a case of standing your ground, and a criminal then gunning down the lawful citizen who was rightfully standing their ground.

Zimmerman is toast...TOAST I said!

You would convict someone without seeing any of the evidence. I am sure of that.
When the alleged victim is black.
I prefer to see all of the evidence and any witnesses before I reach a conclusion that a defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Something about The United States Constitution that clearly states Zimmerman is PRESUMED innocent.
I know the presumption of innocence is a difficult standard to comprehend when one's judgment is clearly grounded with prejudices and bias be they black or white.
I saw this in the 60s with whites and now I see it with blacks.

 

[Intense]

You can't "confront" someone if you're actively trying to get away from them.

When and if they catch up with you after pursuing you, you aren't "confronting" them when you stand your ground.

What we have here is a case of standing your ground, and a criminal then gunning down the lawful citizen who was rightfully standing their ground.

Zimmerman is toast...TOAST I said!

You would convict someone without seeing any of the evidence. I am sure of that.
When the alleged victim is black.
I prefer to see all of the evidence and any witnesses before I reach a conclusion that a defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Something about The United States Constitution that clearly states Zimmerman is PRESUMED innocent.
I know the presumption of innocence is a difficult standard to comprehend when one's judgment is clearly grounded with prejudices and bias be they black or white.
I saw this in the 60s with whites and now I see it with blacks.

I support Due Process here, and a full account of both their past histories. I bet the Kid comes out allot cleaner than the shooter. Lets see how many people come out as witnesses against Zimmerman from past altercations?

 

[earlycuyler]

You can't "confront" someone if you're actively trying to get away from them.

When and if they catch up with you after pursuing you, you aren't "confronting" them when you stand your ground.

What we have here is a case of standing your ground, and a criminal then gunning down the lawful citizen who was rightfully standing their ground.

Zimmerman is toast...TOAST I said!

You would convict someone without seeing any of the evidence. I am sure of that.
When the alleged victim is black.
I prefer to see all of the evidence and any witnesses before I reach a conclusion that a defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Something about The United States Constitution that clearly states Zimmerman is PRESUMED innocent.
I know the presumption of innocence is a difficult standard to comprehend when one's judgment is clearly grounded with prejudices and bias be they black or white.
I saw this in the 60s with whites and now I see it with blacks.

I support Due Process here, and a full account of both their past histories. I bet the Kid comes out allot cleaner than the shooter. Lets see how many people come out as witnesses against Zimmerman from past altercations?

I think the guy is guilty of murder. It also sounded like the kid was whipping the shit out of a wannabe super cop. Zimmerman was told to stop by a 911 operator, he did not. He instigated this and he should be held accountable for his part. Then you have the cowards and scum who go straight to race. They dont make it any better. Wonder how much money they are making on this poor kids death.

 

[Inthemiddle]

You would convict someone without seeing any of the evidence. I am sure of that.
When the alleged victim is black.
I prefer to see all of the evidence and any witnesses before I reach a conclusion that a defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Something about The United States Constitution that clearly states Zimmerman is PRESUMED innocent.
I know the presumption of innocence is a difficult standard to comprehend when one's judgment is clearly grounded with prejudices and bias be they black or white.
I saw this in the 60s with whites and now I see it with blacks.

Presumption of innocence means that an accused must be granted a trial before he can be judicially punished. It doesn't mean that you need to have a trial to prove their guilt before you can arrest and charge them.

What evidence would you like to see? Have you seen enough evidence to be convinced that Zimmerman shot the kid? Have you seen enough evidence to be convinced that the kid died from the shooting? Have you seen enough evidence to be convinced that Zimmerman pursued the kid? What more do you need?

 

[MarcATL]

You can't "confront" someone if you're actively trying to get away from them.

....

Sure you can.

con·front/kənˈfrənt/
Verb:

1. Meet (someone) face to face with hostile or argumentative intent.
2. Face up to and deal with (a problem or difficult situation).

I love how you HAVE to play semantics just to get a smidgeon of leeway on this.

Keep it up.

 

[Douger]

You can't "confront" someone if you're actively trying to get away from them.

When and if they catch up with you after pursuing you, you aren't "confronting" them when you stand your ground.

What we have here is a case of standing your ground, and a criminal then gunning down the lawful citizen who was rightfully standing their ground.

Zimmerman is toast...TOAST I said!

Pumpernickel

 

[MarcATL]

You would convict someone without seeing any of the evidence. I am sure of that.
When the alleged victim is black.
I prefer to see all of the evidence and any witnesses before I reach a conclusion that a defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Something about The United States Constitution that clearly states Zimmerman is PRESUMED innocent.
I know the presumption of innocence is a difficult standard to comprehend when one's judgment is clearly grounded with prejudices and bias be they black or white.
I saw this in the 60s with whites and now I see it with blacks.

Presumption of innocence means that an accused must be granted a trial before he can be judicially punished. It doesn't mean that you need to have a trial to prove their guilt before you can arrest and charge them.

What evidence would you like to see? Have you seen enough evidence to be convinced that Zimmerman shot the kid? Have you seen enough evidence to be convinced that the kid died from the shooting? Have you seen enough evidence to be convinced that Zimmerman pursued the kid? What more do you need?

He needs to see video evidence of Zimmerman assassinating the kid in cold blood, then a jury saying "guilty", until that happens, we should not say anything or do anything about the case.

 

[MarcATL]

You would convict someone without seeing any of the evidence. I am sure of that.
When the alleged victim is black.
I prefer to see all of the evidence and any witnesses before I reach a conclusion that a defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Something about The United States Constitution that clearly states Zimmerman is PRESUMED innocent.
I know the presumption of innocence is a difficult standard to comprehend when one's judgment is clearly grounded with prejudices and bias be they black or white.
I saw this in the 60s with whites and now I see it with blacks.

I support Due Process here, and a full account of both their past histories. I bet the Kid comes out allot cleaner than the shooter. Lets see how many people come out as witnesses against Zimmerman from past altercations?

I think the guy is guilty of murder. It also sounded like the kid was whipping the shit out of a wannabe super cop. Zimmerman was told to stop by a 911 operator, he did not. He instigated this and he should be held accountable for his part. Then you have the cowards and scum who go straight to race. They dont make it any better. Wonder how much money they are making on this poor kids death.

Who's making money out of this and how?

Thanks.

 

[Si modo]

You can't "confront" someone if you're actively trying to get away from them.

....

Sure you can.

con·front/kənˈfrənt/
Verb:

1. Meet (someone) face to face with hostile or argumentative intent.
2. Face up to and deal with (a problem or difficult situation).

I love how you HAVE to play semantics just to get a smidgeon of leeway on this.

Keep it up.

Semantics is not a bad word, nor are actual meanings of words a bad thing.

 

[Jarhead]

I support Due Process here, and a full account of both their past histories. I bet the Kid comes out allot cleaner than the shooter. Lets see how many people come out as witnesses against Zimmerman from past altercations?

I think the guy is guilty of murder. It also sounded like the kid was whipping the shit out of a wannabe super cop. Zimmerman was told to stop by a 911 operator, he did not. He instigated this and he should be held accountable for his part. Then you have the cowards and scum who go straight to race. They dont make it any better. Wonder how much money they are making on this poor kids death.

Who's making money out of this and how?

Thanks.

No one.

 

[imbalance]

You can't "confront" someone if you're actively trying to get away from them.

When and if they catch up with you after pursuing you, you aren't "confronting" them when you stand your ground.

What we have here is a case of standing your ground, and a criminal then gunning down the lawful citizen who was rightfully standing their ground.

Zimmerman is toast...TOAST I said!

You would convict someone without seeing any of the evidence. I am sure of that.
When the alleged victim is black.
I prefer to see all of the evidence and any witnesses before I reach a conclusion that a defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Something about The United States Constitution that clearly states Zimmerman is PRESUMED innocent.
I know the presumption of innocence is a difficult standard to comprehend when one's judgment is clearly grounded with prejudices and bias be they black or white.
I saw this in the 60s with whites and now I see it with blacks.

Right and that's what judges and juries are for. The Sanford Police Department is not judge/jury/executioner yet they are essentially wielding judicial authority by refusing to arrest Zimmerman. If Zimmerman wants to assert an affirmative defense via Florida's Stand Your Ground law, the burden of proof is on him to present his case at a legal hearing before a judge. But there is no judge right now and there is no case because the SPD has refused to arrest/charge him; they've essentially made their own judicial ruling and unilaterally dismissed all potential charges without having proper authority to do so. Sanford Florida isn't Nazi Germany so its police department shouldn't be operating like the Gestapo.

 

[California Girl]

You would convict someone without seeing any of the evidence. I am sure of that.
When the alleged victim is black.
I prefer to see all of the evidence and any witnesses before I reach a conclusion that a defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Something about The United States Constitution that clearly states Zimmerman is PRESUMED innocent.
I know the presumption of innocence is a difficult standard to comprehend when one's judgment is clearly grounded with prejudices and bias be they black or white.
I saw this in the 60s with whites and now I see it with blacks.

Presumption of innocence means that an accused must be granted a trial before he can be judicially punished. It doesn't mean that you need to have a trial to prove their guilt before you can arrest and charge them.

What evidence would you like to see? Have you seen enough evidence to be convinced that Zimmerman shot the kid? Have you seen enough evidence to be convinced that the kid died from the shooting? Have you seen enough evidence to be convinced that Zimmerman pursued the kid? What more do you need?

He needs to see video evidence of Zimmerman assassinating the kid in cold blood, then a jury saying "guilty", until that happens, we should not say anything or do anything about the case.

How about you stop putting words into the mouths of others and let them speak for themselves? Just an idea.

 

[WillowTree]

You can't "confront" someone if you're actively trying to get away from them.

When and if they catch up with you after pursuing you, you aren't "confronting" them when you stand your ground.

What we have here is a case of standing your ground, and a criminal then gunning down the lawful citizen who was rightfully standing their ground.

Zimmerman is toast...TOAST I said!

yep one less hispanic voter for obama

 

[Gadawg73]

You can't "confront" someone if you're actively trying to get away from them.

When and if they catch up with you after pursuing you, you aren't "confronting" them when you stand your ground.

What we have here is a case of standing your ground, and a criminal then gunning down the lawful citizen who was rightfully standing their ground.

Zimmerman is toast...TOAST I said!

You would convict someone without seeing any of the evidence. I am sure of that.
When the alleged victim is black.
I prefer to see all of the evidence and any witnesses before I reach a conclusion that a defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Something about The United States Constitution that clearly states Zimmerman is PRESUMED innocent.
I know the presumption of innocence is a difficult standard to comprehend when one's judgment is clearly grounded with prejudices and bias be they black or white.
I saw this in the 60s with whites and now I see it with blacks.

I support Due Process here, and a full account of both their past histories. I bet the Kid comes out allot cleaner than the shooter. Lets see how many people come out as witnesses against Zimmerman from past altercations?

With all due respect to you that is not evidence and will not be included as evidence in the case.
That is prejudicial to the jury unless he is recitivist under Florida statute.
I doubt this guy has shot and killed anyone else anyway as that is the only way that would be allowed in as similar cases.
This case is being presented to the grand jury for possible indictment. That is a good thing.
Of course there are many that would rather try him in the media and the court of public opinion as evidenced here.
There are no shortage of arm chair jurists here for sure. However, an understanding of THE LAW would help.
Let the grand jury decide and if they choose to indict him let a jury decide his guilt or not.
You can now untie the noose in the rope. I know that tree looked good and high but that is not how we do things these days.
I trust the jury system more than the rank hearsay here or anywhere else.

 

[Jarhead]

You can't "confront" someone if you're actively trying to get away from them.

When and if they catch up with you after pursuing you, you aren't "confronting" them when you stand your ground.

What we have here is a case of standing your ground, and a criminal then gunning down the lawful citizen who was rightfully standing their ground.

Zimmerman is toast...TOAST I said!

You would convict someone without seeing any of the evidence. I am sure of that.
When the alleged victim is black.
I prefer to see all of the evidence and any witnesses before I reach a conclusion that a defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Something about The United States Constitution that clearly states Zimmerman is PRESUMED innocent.
I know the presumption of innocence is a difficult standard to comprehend when one's judgment is clearly grounded with prejudices and bias be they black or white.
I saw this in the 60s with whites and now I see it with blacks.

Right and that's what judges and juries are for. The Sanford Police Department is not judge/jury/executioner yet they are essentially wielding judicial authority by refusing to arrest Zimmerman. If Zimmerman wants to assert an affirmative defense via Florida's Stand Your Ground law, the burden of proof is on him to present his case at a legal hearing before a judge. But there is no judge right now and there is no case because the SPD has refused to arrest/charge him; they've essentially made their own judicial ruling and unilaterally dismissed all potential charges without having proper authority to do so. Sanford Florida isn't Nazi Germany so its police department shouldn't be operating like the Gestapo.

My guess is he has not been arrrested yet becuase a charge has not been determined. Will it be murder, voluntary manslaughter, involuntary manslaughter, etc.

Furthermore, they are also probably trying to determine if they have a case of a racially motivated crime....did race play a role in his decision to scout the poor kid out.

Once they charge him, they have to prove the charge....so to charge hiim too early may result in a botched prosecution.

The guy is innocent until proven guilty....but based on what I have heard...again, third hand information.....this attack was unwarranted.

 

[8537]

You can't "confront" someone if you're actively trying to get away from them.

When and if they catch up with you after pursuing you, you aren't "confronting" them when you stand your ground.

What we have here is a case of standing your ground, and a criminal then gunning down the lawful citizen who was rightfully standing their ground.

Zimmerman is toast...TOAST I said!

You would convict someone without seeing any of the evidence. I am sure of that.
When the alleged victim is black.
I prefer to see all of the evidence and any witnesses before I reach a conclusion that a defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Something about The United States Constitution that clearly states Zimmerman is PRESUMED innocent.
I know the presumption of innocence is a difficult standard to comprehend when one's judgment is clearly grounded with prejudices and bias be they black or white.
I saw this in the 60s with whites and now I see it with blacks.

Well in order to see all the evidence, in the United States we first arrest and charge someone.

Except in this case, of course, we didn't arrest or charge someone. We did, however, drug test the dead body.

 

[Gadawg73]

Amazing that folks believe "witnesses from past altercations" would be allowed in this case as evidence.