General Discussion

ceonupe

(597 posts)

122. You watch to many movies

Thu Jul 25, 2013, 06:24 PM

Jul 2013

In a dynamic situation u are luck to get shots on target.

No in a static situation where u have time and full clear presence of mind u can say that but if you are truly fearing for your life u don't say well let me concentrate and hit a non vital part of the attacker. You shoot to drop the threat. With someone on top of u when you pull your gun u are shooting pretty fast or that gun is being ripped away from you or otherwise deflected quite possibly.

There is a reason no weapons instructor will ever to teach you to aim for a leg or arm but rather center mass. You chance of getting a hit on target is greatly increased your chances of over penetration is decreased and your chance of hitting a vital organ thus stopping the attack greatly increased.

Read up o. The Miami FBI shoot out that lead to the development of the 10mm round and the .40 cal round (most popular police round in the USA) and read up on how many times and where the criminals were shot. If you don't hit a vital organ the attacker has a greater chance to continue the attack.

Not saying Zimmerman should have even been involved in a fight with TM had he not profiled him. But let me know when profiling becomes an illegal act so some of the fuckers I run into can go to jail for being racist assholes but until then racial profiling by citizens is not aginst the law. (Ps I'm a 31 year old black male who is profiled daily)

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

193 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Juror Says �George Zimmerman Got Away With Murder� [View all] LanternWaste Jul 2013 OP

Follow the judge's instructions and let God sort em out. n/t cprise Jul 2013 #1

That's the way our criminal justice system COLGATE4 Jul 2013 #2

"some other quarter" coeur_de_lion Jul 2013 #4

Calling Dexter Morgan! Calling Dexter Morgan! Lucky Luciano Jul 2013 #16

LOL if only coeur_de_lion Jul 2013 #27

! frylock Jul 2013 #67

Not vigilantism. branford Jul 2013 #46

This guy's Karma is totally f***ed coeur_de_lion Jul 2013 #77

See my reply to this (above) nt COLGATE4 Jul 2013 #172

The said system once said that I wasn't human malaise Jul 2013 #43

Now THAT'S a compelling argument. nt COLGATE4 Jul 2013 #171

why is so many here have yet to figure that out DrDan Jul 2013 #52

Are you advocating for vigilante justice? Rex Jul 2013 #147

No. I was seconding what the Op said that COLGATE4 Jul 2013 #170

lol @ Go Vols Jul 2013 #164

I wondered why she didn't speak out when the others did coeur_de_lion Jul 2013 #3

believing he is guilt and seeing evidence beyond reasonable doubt are two different things magical thyme Jul 2013 #84

she had a moral duty to at least hang the jury in that case... Blue_Tires Jul 2013 #5

Moral duty to not follow the law? ksoze Jul 2013 #6

Yes... Ohio Joe Jul 2013 #11

So individuals decide which laws to follow as they see fit? ksoze Jul 2013 #20

It has different names ... Ohio Joe Jul 2013 #32

Jury nullification only stands when it results in a not guilty verdict such as in the OJ totodeinhere Jul 2013 #88

Who says that? Ohio Joe Jul 2013 #163

I didn't say they can't vote how they want. But a guilty verdict totodeinhere Jul 2013 #175

Yes, but those apply to acquitting the innocent . . . caseymoz Jul 2013 #96

Jury nullification. Upheld by SCOTUS. Look it up maybe. NT dorkulon Jul 2013 #36

Only for protecting the innocent, not convicting the guilty. caseymoz Jul 2013 #104

Derp. You're right. dorkulon Jul 2013 #161

It wasn't really the jurors' fault caseymoz Jul 2013 #162

They should follow John2 Jul 2013 #45

The problem ceonupe Jul 2013 #66

The law simply John2 Jul 2013 #98

But..... ceonupe Jul 2013 #109

Thank you! HangOnKids Jul 2013 #38

Correction: They LUUUURRRRVVVVEEEEEE the LAW... Liberal_Stalwart71 Jul 2013 #76

Yes I should have been more concise HangOnKids Jul 2013 #102

I think that a good case could avebury Jul 2013 #26

It seems like she's a coward. She pawned it off on God. Fantastic Anarchist Jul 2013 #139

The law allows jurors to vote as they see fit. The jury instructions were flawed, Hoyt Jul 2013 #51

despite the jury instructions they still could have found him guilty TorchTheWitch Jul 2013 #112

Sounds good to me. The jury could have gotten to guilty a number of ways. Hoyt Jul 2013 #126

Whether he lied was irrelevant mythology Jul 2013 #138

they only "followed the law" Skittles Jul 2013 #114

Juries are empowered to do so, that's why were given the jury system. TransitJohn Jul 2013 #155

she had a moral duty to follow the law DrDan Jul 2013 #63

then why even fucking say anything? Blue_Tires Jul 2013 #100

she followed the judge's instruction - which was to find guilt if proven beyond a reasonable doubt DrDan Jul 2013 #135

Apparently she's reasonably sure on national tv. Fantastic Anarchist Jul 2013 #141

She had the responsibility to hang the jury. She's just hanging herself by shooting off her mouth. duffyduff Jul 2013 #152

I agree....live with your decision.....too late for regrets on TV. IMHO Gin Jul 2013 #176

One might say with equal validity that Zimmerman had a moral duty to stay in his vehicle. LanternWaste Jul 2013 #127

one might - however you did notice the prosecution did not rely on that . . . for good reason DrDan Jul 2013 #134

If she believes he's a murderer on national TV ... Fantastic Anarchist Jul 2013 #140

"the evidence put forth was not sufficient to prove murder" DrDan Jul 2013 #159

She had the evidence for manslaughter. Fantastic Anarchist Jul 2013 #183

That came out of her interview? Could you provide a link where she stated DrDan Jul 2013 #188

By saying that he's a murderer, how else could she come to that conclusion? Fantastic Anarchist Jul 2013 #191

no - she stood by her decision - she stated DrDan Jul 2013 #192

Nope YarnAddict Jul 2013 #110

But it was getting late into the weekend! JVS Jul 2013 #115

She should repeat this as much as possible, it was the SYG constraints in the jury instructions uponit7771 Jul 2013 #7

Which were illegal. This was NOT a SYG defense. Mr. David Jul 2013 #13

+1, how in the world did the judge allow them or are they in every jury instructions? uponit7771 Jul 2013 #18

SYG is sort of merged into the self-defense law itself davidn3600 Jul 2013 #19

Prior to SYG being enacted in 2005, self-defense required retreat if possible. Hoyt Jul 2013 #56

You mean, like these in the California jury instructions? X_Digger Jul 2013 #49

This might be splitting hairs but there seems to be a big difference between California and Florida Trekologer Jul 2013 #168

Yeah, I think that's parting a hair, frankly. n/t X_Digger Jul 2013 #169

So "God" will punish him? bunnies Jul 2013 #8

Is a hung jury the same as an acquittal? Rex Jul 2013 #9

No there would be a retrial Ash_F Jul 2013 #12

A more diverse jury? Boom Sound 416 Jul 2013 #21

That's adorable. Ash_F Jul 2013 #22

Nice back track Boom Sound 416 Jul 2013 #23

LOL nt NoGOPZone Jul 2013 #29

The law and whether or not a bigot with a gun is guilty, was up to jury. Hoyt Jul 2013 #62

This message was self-deleted by its author Boom Sound 416 Jul 2013 #70

Should be more than 6 jurors in a criminal murder case HockeyMom Jul 2013 #75

Perhaps Boom Sound 416 Jul 2013 #87

"capital". Sorry, pet peeve of mine. Recursion Jul 2013 #166

No comma Boom Sound 416 Jul 2013 #173

Fair enough Recursion Jul 2013 #174

In many cases with a hung jury Jenoch Jul 2013 #178

That is true. Ash_F Jul 2013 #193

In the case of a hung jury I believe the prosecution can attempt to try the case again Mike Daniels Jul 2013 #14

Yes and I doubt he can be tried again for the same crime. Rex Jul 2013 #59

That is incorrect. Ash_F Jul 2013 #81

Sorry, I meant that only if he was acquitted. Rex Jul 2013 #82

That is true. Ash_F Jul 2013 #85

Same here, most of the legal team on DU say Holder has no case. Rex Jul 2013 #103

I didn't say anything about evidence Ash_F Jul 2013 #106

Same here I want them to as well. Rex Jul 2013 #121

It probably won't happen, but not because of any constraints. Ash_F Jul 2013 #123

Yup, I guarantee you the DOJ will not prosecute Zimmerman. Vattel Jul 2013 #119

The law, if presented... zentrum Jul 2013 #10

Oh, no. Her verdict rested on "intent." DevonRex Jul 2013 #15

That is exactly John2 Jul 2013 #25

If they bring any further case against Zimmerman, Rachel Jeantel's comments on Piers Morgan's show.. dkf Jul 2013 #130

It is obvious that the jury did not understant intent. avebury Jul 2013 #39

You said it precisely. I think someone on that jury deliberately confused the two DevonRex Jul 2013 #47

If his intent was to kill Trayvon why did he wait until he was being beaten up? dkf Jul 2013 #136

Actually you could make a valid arguement that avebury Jul 2013 #144

That is a ridiculous interpretation...once you follow a person you have decided to kill them. dkf Jul 2013 #167

I think you are missing something in your argument. Jenoch Jul 2013 #179

I think you have finally hit on the real problem here. Brigid Jul 2013 #78

No it's non lawyers ceonupe Jul 2013 #86

I would have hung the jury. Brigid Jul 2013 #90

The JUROR said they they could not prove intent and so they voted not guilty. DevonRex Jul 2013 #107

And proving intent was the only way to get ceonupe Jul 2013 #111

No, no. They ruled murder 2 out. Then went to manslaughter. DevonRex Jul 2013 #116

You watch to many movies ceonupe Jul 2013 #122

LOL. You don't know who you're talking to. DevonRex Jul 2013 #125

Well if you have has any firearms instruction ceonupe Jul 2013 #145

I think the juror with the lawyer husband had tips on how to sway DevonRex Jul 2013 #105

That means she aided and abetted him KamaAina Jul 2013 #17

That is a bit of a stretch with the dragnet lingo ksoze Jul 2013 #24

I think it John2 Jul 2013 #28

It could mean she was going to miss an AGT episode and bailed out ksoze Jul 2013 #31

What would you John2 Jul 2013 #68

I'm a white guy and I would have hung that fucking jury. Fantastic Anarchist Jul 2013 #142

In that case, she should have stood her ground. KamaAina Jul 2013 #41

Then she should be straight and say that... onpatrol98 Jul 2013 #131

Did you read it all? DevonRex Jul 2013 #34

Alphabetized list of the evidence HockeyMom Jul 2013 #30

How does asking for the evidence indicate a "rush to judgment"? Nye Bevan Jul 2013 #53

Sort through it YOURSELF HockeyMom Jul 2013 #69

B37's attorney husband probably told her to do that so she'd look knowledgeable. Hoyt Jul 2013 #72

Unless someone held a gun on HER, she should have stood HER ground SoCalDem Jul 2013 #33

Careful - new thread on "gun being used on juror" forthcoming. ksoze Jul 2013 #37

It's pretty clear to me that the first juror who came out DevonRex Jul 2013 #54

I would wager she got continuing advice on this during those unsupervised visits with dh the atty.nt DeschutesRiver Jul 2013 #108

I'm with you on that. DevonRex Jul 2013 #117

Legal question: If a juror holds out for a verdict they think is just but doesn't follow the law ... Kablooie Jul 2013 #35

I watched the case very carefully and do think avebury Jul 2013 #42

Which is a fault of the prosecution, not the judge! davidn3600 Jul 2013 #48

A strong jury could have put the pieces together and avebury Jul 2013 #55

Jury instructions ARE the responsiblity of the judge. nt avebury Jul 2013 #61

And they followed the law ceonupe Jul 2013 #89

it's also the jury's job TorchTheWitch Jul 2013 #124

Almost always, no. branford Jul 2013 #74

there was nothing in the law saying he couldn't be found guilty TorchTheWitch Jul 2013 #120

But his story is out there for everyone to see and to disprove. JDPriestly Jul 2013 #40

I wish she pushed hard for a guilty verdict. hrmjustin Jul 2013 #44

No credit from me. She also said it should not have gone to trial. If she truly thought it, she uppityperson Jul 2013 #50

You KNOW that came from that first juror. She fucked the verdict up DevonRex Jul 2013 #57

she should've hung that jury frylock Jul 2013 #58

sounds like she was bullied into going along. the bright side? Pretzel_Warrior Jul 2013 #60

Yeah, all of us that live in reality know that. Rex Jul 2013 #64

We all know that the state sucked ceonupe Jul 2013 #93

Yeah that's why I said only the Zimmerman apologists. Rex Jul 2013 #101

Good thing some mythical figure will deal with him. MrSlayer Jul 2013 #65

My thoughts as well. madaboutharry Jul 2013 #71

I'm a little torn. Tommy_Carcetti Jul 2013 #73

It would have given John2 Jul 2013 #79

Other issues besides immediate retrial. branford Jul 2013 #80

That's interesting. I think I read somewhere that hung juries are bad for defendants because... JVS Jul 2013 #128

Maybe. branford Jul 2013 #143

I don't believe in god Fringe Jul 2013 #83

and, apparently, you do not believe in our system of justice DrDan Jul 2013 #91

It had nothing to do with Fringe Jul 2013 #97

we have onky heard Niceguy1 Jul 2013 #113

It quacks like a duck. Fringe Jul 2013 #146

and your allegation Niceguy1 Jul 2013 #148

They set a murderer free. Fringe Jul 2013 #151

They picked six females, and no males. Captain Stern Jul 2013 #160

it has to do with proving the case - which the prosecutors failed at DrDan Jul 2013 #133

No, it had to do with interpretation of the case Fringe Jul 2013 #149

One may believe in the justice system and yet maintain that it may be flawed in particular or specif LanternWaste Jul 2013 #129

regardless - it is our system DrDan Jul 2013 #132

Thank you, Juror B29, for confirming what every reasonably knowledgeable and honest person indepat Jul 2013 #92

Exactly! Fringe Jul 2013 #99

I get innocent smallcat88 Jul 2013 #94

Again, the fault in this case lay squarely on the prosecutors!!!! Vinnie From Indy Jul 2013 #95

I've seen few cases with more reasonable doubt. Vattel Jul 2013 #118

Well, so she passed her duties off on God. Fantastic Anarchist Jul 2013 #137

As many pointed out, the case was weak LittleBlue Jul 2013 #150

In the interview, she says the evidence "was not sufficient to prove murder" Federosky Jul 2013 #153

This is exactly right: there wasn't enough evidence to prove murder GiaGiovanni Jul 2013 #154

there was plenty for manslaughter- too bad the jury decoded to go home before they understood bettyellen Jul 2013 #180

I served on a hung jury CitizenLeft Jul 2013 #156

Basically, in Florida, murder is legal as long as you do it properly. Crunchy Frog Jul 2013 #157

While I Wish She Would Have Held Out & Hung The Jury... ChiciB1 Jul 2013 #158

there is an ugly strain of racism on du Dustin DeWinde Jul 2013 #165

This juror seems confused about Florida law. Jenoch Jul 2013 #177

they said all sorts of moronic things- that Trayvon was out very late in pouring rain, that they bettyellen Jul 2013 #181

I didn't watch much of the trial, Jenoch Jul 2013 #182

none of the jurors understood manslaughter. i think they had an obligation to find out what the bettyellen Jul 2013 #184

What would have been the justification for manslaughter? Jenoch Jul 2013 #185

it goes from murder 2 to manslaughter (and not not guilty) if you believe Trayvon had some fault bettyellen Jul 2013 #186

I understand what they said about how they reached their verdict. Jenoch Jul 2013 #187

the truth is, the jurors had to make a judgement on whether they could trust a proven liars story bettyellen Jul 2013 #189

I don't think the problem is the law,.. NM_Birder Jul 2013 #190