Zimmerman verdict

[Sinfix_15]

Closing arguments coming in the Zimmerman trial.

[David88vert]

It doesn't matter. If you have been watching the trial, the judge and prosecutor have planned a guilty verdict together since day one. The trial is a joke - especially this morning's developments.

[Sinfix_15]

I will be very concerned as a gun owner if Zimmerman is found guilty. I am already pretty concerned by how much of the prosecution's argument revolved around basic gun ownership.

[Sinfix_15]

It doesn't matter. If you have been watching the trial, the judge and prosecutor have planned a guilty verdict together since day one. The trial is a joke - especially this morning's developments.

If you really feel that way, and if it turns out to be true.... that's a scary thought

[David88vert]

If you really feel that way, and if it turns out to be true.... that's a scary thought

This morning, the prosecution wanted to add in 3rd degree murder charges based upon "child abuse" - there were no arguments or evidence for that type of charge from the state's presentation. Adding in charges at the time to begin closing arguments is ridiculous - and the judge allowed manslaughter to be added as a new charge. If you watched the judge talk this morning, she made it clear where she stands. They are grasping at straws to find a way to convict him.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/11/justice/zimmerman-trial/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

[whatever210]

The evidence isn't enough to me. And the only person to testify against him is dead. I think it's a not guilty

[Sinfix_15]

This morning, the prosecution wanted to add in 3rd degree murder charges based upon "child abuse" - there were no arguments or evidence for that type of charge from the state's presentation. Adding in charges at the time to begin closing arguments is ridiculous - and the judge allowed manslaughter to be added as a new charge. If you watched the judge talk this morning, she made it clear where she stands. They are grasping at straws to find a way to convict him.
Judge: Zimmerman jurors can consider manslaughter charge - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/11/justice/zimmerman-trial/index.html?hpt=hp_t1)

Yeah, ive been watching it.

If you think he is guilty of manslaughter or whatever else, then you should think he is guilty of murder..... if you dont think he's guilty of murder, then hes simply not guilty.

I feel the addition of charges is meant to confuse the jury. They should be informed that there's no such a thing as kinda guilty and shouldnt be encouraged to chose a compromise verdict.

[Sinfix_15]

3rd degree just removed from charges

[Hondarider33]

i love how not guilty has 100%.
This whole trial is retarded, and i think everyone knows what i mean

[Sammich]

truthfully, looking/watching this entire trial IMHO the defense has raised enough reasonable doubt for the 2nd degree (self defense) to be dropped...but i'm betting the manslaughter will stick.

he's guilty of killing a kid, there's no "planned a guilty verdict together since day one" because he's repeatedly admitted to shooting him.

[Sinfix_15]

truthfully, looking/watching this entire trial IMHO the defense has raised enough reasonable doubt for the 2nd degree (self defense) to be dropped...but i'm betting the manslaughter will stick.

he's guilty of killing a kid, there's no "planned a guilty verdict together since day one" because he's repeatedly admitted to shooting him.

He didnt kill a kid. He used a firearm to stop an attacker.

This is a clear and obvious case of self defense. If this isnt self defense, i dont know what is.


I would have shot Trayvon sooner than Zimmerman did. He screamed for help prior to deciding to use his weapon. If someone attacks me, im not screaming for help while they hit me. Each hit, each slam on the pavement can potentially knock you out, and once you're knocked out, you're defenseless and your life is in someone else's hands.

[bu villain]

I haven't been following the case very closely but I haven't heard anything to conclusively prove it wasn't self defense. So I voted not guilty. I also heard about Trayvon's weed use and past social media posts. That had me shaking my head too. It seems like there are a lot of red herrings coming from both sides in this trial.

[bu villain]

He didnt kill a kid. He used a firearm to stop an attacker.

Really there is no need to play the word games here. Leave that to the lawyers. Maybe that kid was attacking him, but he absolutely did kill a kid.

[Sinfix_15]

I haven't been following the case very closely but I haven't heard anything to conclusively prove it wasn't self defense. So I voted not guilty. I also heard about Trayvon's weed use and past social media posts. That had me shaking my head too. It seems like there are a lot of red herrings coming from both sides in this trial.

Most of the "character assassinations" were started by the prosecution. The defense is responding to their crooked tactics.


Really there is no need to play the word games here. Leave that to the lawyers. Maybe that kid was attacking him, but he absolutely did kill a kid.

I recall a conversation with some military friends. They were talking about being deployed and their interactions with various people. Talking about how some people would protest and then some would thank them for being there. How it was stressful because you never know whos who, a woman or child could walk up to you with a bomb....

Someone asked, what would you do if a child ran at you with a bomb?

His response, when they attack me, theyre no longer a child.

[whatever210]

Really there is no need to play the word games here. Leave that to the lawyers. Maybe that kid was attacking him, but he absolutely did kill a kid.

Since when is 17 a kid? They charge 17 year old "kids" as you say, as adults all the time. You can sign up for the service as a 17 year old. So him being a "kid" is a little skewed to me. A kid is 15 and younger to me.

[1civic]

Talk about this!!

link:
4 teens charged in death of Mableton man - Atlanta News, Weather, Traffic, and Sports | FOX 5 (http://www.myfoxatlanta.com/story/22742395/cobb-police-arrest-3-in-mableton-fatal)


Make it top find on google... Post links everywhere, why, cause I'm sick of reading about the zimmerman crap!

[whatever210]

Or the guys that shot that woman and her baby in the face. Why isn't that a outcry. Why. Because the media doesn't think it will get them ratings

[1civic]

Or the guys that shot that woman and her baby in the face. Why isn't that a outcry. Why. Because the media doesn't think it will get them ratings

Hate crimes get ratings, but no one seems to care if the tables are turned... It's really sad!!!

[Sinfix_15]

Since when is 17 a kid? They charge 17 year old "kids" as you say, as adults all the time. You can sign up for the service as a 17 year old. So him being a "kid" is a little skewed to me. A kid is 15 and younger to me.

just a bunch of kids
http://uptownmagazine.com/files/2013/03/DeMarquise-Elkins.jpg
http://static2.businessinsider.com/image/517159ccecad04bd1c00000b-960/dzhokhar-tsarnaev.jpg
http://a.abcnews.com/images/Health/ht_raising_adam_lanza_pbs_nt_130219_wg.jpg

[Bacon]

I declare mistrial. Because no reason and I am tired of hearing about it.

[bu villain]

Most of the "character assassinations" were started by the prosecution. The defense is responding to their crooked tactics.

I don't care who started it. Both sides are wrong to do it.


Someone asked, what would you do if a child ran at you with a bomb?

His response, when they attack me, theyre no longer a child.

Well if you are making up your own definition of who a child is and who isn't then sure, you can say anyone is an adult but the standard definition is 18 years old.


Since when is 17 a kid? They charge 17 year old "kids" as you say, as adults all the time. You can sign up for the service as a 17 year old. So him being a "kid" is a little skewed to me. A kid is 15 and younger to me.

The standard definition is 18 years old and under are minors aka kids aka children. If calling him an adult makes you feel better, then go for it. To me, the label "kid" doesn't affect how I feel about what happened at all. It has no bearing on whether Zimmerman was justified in what he did or not.

[Sammich]

Talk about this!!

link:
4 teens charged in death of Mableton man - Atlanta News, Weather, Traffic, and Sports | FOX 5 (http://www.myfoxatlanta.com/story/22742395/cobb-police-arrest-3-in-mableton-fatal)


Make it top find on google... Post links everywhere, why, cause I'm sick of reading about the zimmerman crap!

these fools deserve as much time as zimmerman..killing a person is killing a person no matter if they are a "kid" or not, it's a fucking life!! people always say 'you are not god so who are you to judge me'...well you are not god, who are you to decide if a person's life should be taken

[bu villain]

Sinflix, of course kids can be murderers. I don't understand your point. "Kid" is not a title bestowed only upon well behaved young people.

[Sammich]

life = life

regardless if it's a kid or not

[whatever210]

@sinfix. Im confused about your post. Are you arguing with me or agreeing

[whatever210]

I don't care who started it. Both sides are wrong to do it.



Well if you are making up your own definition of who a child is and who isn't then sure, you can say anyone is an adult but the standard definition is 18 years old.



The standard definition is 18 years old and under are minors aka kids aka children. If calling him an adult makes you feel better, then go for it. To me, the label "kid" doesn't affect how I feel about what happened at all. It has no bearing on whether Zimmerman was justified in what he did or not.

Your misunderstanding my point. This has nothing to do with this case. If a 17 year old shots a clerk at a gas station and kills them. They don't charge them like a juvenile. They charge them as a adult

[Bacon]

.....people always say 'you are not god so who are you to judge me'...well you are not god, who are you to decide if a person's life should be taken

I am to decide who lives or dies should my life or my family's life be jeopardized.

I am also to decide who lives or dies during a mass casualty as well but thats different.

Sent from my Galaxy Note II

[Vteckidd]

IF you look at the FACTS of the case and remove the emotion, Zimmerman should walk. He killed an attacker, an attacker that hurled just as much racism as he did. There is no racist motivation , he was attacked, plain and simple, and he killed the attacker. If someone attacks you, and you feel your life is threatened, you have the right to respond with deadly force. Based upon the witnesses saying that he was having his face pummled into the ground, he could have felt his life was in danger, used deadly force, case close.

Now, me personally, I dont think there is ANY 17 year old kid on this planet that could put me in a position where i feel like i have to draw a gun and kill him. But, I always try to diffuse situations , and unlike Zimmerman, I would have NEVER put myself in a position like he did.

I would have called LEO, and waited for their arrival.

[bu villain]

Your misunderstanding my point. This has nothing to do with this case. If a 17 year old shots a clerk at a gas station and kills them. They don't charge them like a juvenile. They charge them as a adult

That is true but I don't think that is particularly relevant here. Trayvon isn't on trial. He is under 18 and thus a minor in the laws eyes. It's just a definition and doesn't say anything about Trayvon's actions on the night in question. The only reason to say he isn't a kid is to try and make it seem like him being killed is some how less significant.

[Sammich]

IF you look at the FACTS of the case and remove the emotion, Zimmerman should walk. He killed an attacker, an attacker that hurled just as much racism as he did. There is no racist motivation , he was attacked, plain and simple, and he killed the attacker. If someone attacks you, and you feel your life is threatened, you have the right to respond with deadly force. Based upon the witnesses saying that he was having his face pummled into the ground, he could have felt his life was in danger, used deadly force, case close.

Now, me personally, I dont think there is ANY 17 year old kid on this planet that could put me in a position where i feel like i have to draw a gun and kill him. But, I always try to diffuse situations , and unlike Zimmerman, I would have NEVER put myself in a position like he did.

I would have called LEO, and waited for their arrival.

you said FACTS...but ASSUMED that Zimmerman was attacked...none of us on this forum was at the scene sitting w/ a bowl of popcorn to see the event unfold. with that said i cant say this.

[bu villain]

IF you look at the FACTS of the case and remove the emotion, Zimmerman should walk. He killed an attacker, an attacker that hurled just as much racism as he did. There is no racist motivation , he was attacked, plain and simple, and he killed the attacker. If someone attacks you, and you feel your life is threatened, you have the right to respond with deadly force. Based upon the witnesses saying that he was having his face pummled into the ground, he could have felt his life was in danger, used deadly force, case close.

Now, me personally, I dont think there is ANY 17 year old kid on this planet that could put me in a position where i feel like i have to draw a gun and kill him. But, I always try to diffuse situations , and unlike Zimmerman, I would have NEVER put myself in a position like he did.

I would have called LEO, and waited for their arrival.

Pretty much agree entirely with this. That's my main problem with Zimmerman. He didn't do anything illegal but he escalated a situation unnecessarily and someone lost their life because of it. I think Trayvon responded poorly to the situation also.

[Vteckidd]

you said FACTS...but ASSUMED that Zimmerman was attacked...none of us on this forum was at the scene sitting w/ a bowl of popcorn to see the event unfold. with that said i cant say this.

its not debatable, read the sworn testimony. Zimmerman was attacked and was being beaten while on the ground. LEO agreed with this assessment. His bruises and marks were consistent of being attacked, Trayvon had no such marks. Read the cell phone conversation as well.

Hard to have this kind of opinion if you havent read the facts:


According to Tampa Bay Fox affiliate WTVT-TV, what the witness says he saw could bolster Zimmerman’s claim that he shot Martin in self-defense:

“The guy on the bottom who had a red sweater on was yelling to me: ‘help, help…and I told him to stop and I was calling 911,” he said.

Trayvon Martin was in a hoodie; Zimmerman was in red.

The witness only wanted to be identified as “John,” and didn’t not want to be shown on camera.

His statements to police were instrumental, because police backed up Zimmerman’s claims, saying those screams on the 911 call are those of Zimmerman.

“When I got upstairs and looked down, the guy who was on top beating up the other guy, was the one laying in the grass, and I believe he was dead at that point,” John said.


On Friday, John Good, an eye witness to the fight between George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin that resulted in the Florida teen’s death, testified that he believed Martin to be the aggressor in that fight. He depicted what he believed the fight to look like, saying that he observed Martin on top of Zimmerman. Florida’s WFTV 9 made a mockup of what Good described – the digital animation shows Martin attacking Zimmerman.



Zimmerman Trial Trayvon Martin Witness John Good Attack | Mediaite (http://www.mediaite.com/tv/prosecution-witness-describes-trayvon-martin-as-attacking-george-zimmerman-on-night-of-murder/)

Again, SWORN EYE WITNESS TESTIMONY saying Zimmerman was ATTACKED FIRST

[Vteckidd]

Pretty much agree entirely with this. That's my main problem with Zimmerman. He didn't do anything illegal but he escalated a situation unnecessarily and someone lost their life because of it. I think Trayvon responded poorly to the situation also.

Trayvon was a kid (minor), kids do stupid things. Doesnt mean he should be shot and killed. Trayvon may have overreacted and been a thug, but hes 17, Zimmerman should have waited in his car for the proper authorities to show up. Let them deal with the kid.

[whatever210]

That is true but I don't think that is particularly relevant here. Trayvon isn't on trial. He is under 18 and thus a minor in the laws eyes. It's just a definition and doesn't say anything about Trayvon's actions on the night in question. The only reason to say he isn't a kid is to try and make it seem like him being killed is some how less significant.

So they get to pick and choose between a 17 year old is a juvenile or adult in a certain cases.

[Sinfix_15]

Here's what scares me about this trial and how "off the rails" it has been.....

I'll apply it to a recent ordeal in my own life that i've been churning over in my mind.

A couple days ago i walk outside onto my porch and sit down on the steps to lace up my boots. I notice a car parked a house down with some guys leaning in the window. I'm not watching them, dont even look in their direction, just made a mental note of it. It's a habit. So i'm lacing my boots up when a guy yells out " hey, what's your business cuz ", i dont acknowledge it and dont even look up from lacing my shoes, but in my mind i consider the option that theyre talking to me. Next he says "hey white boy, mind your business" At this point i look up and put my hands on my knees, looking directly at the guy who is now walking towards me. He has his right hand on his pants to hold them up. He walks about 5 yards when the other guys from the car get out behind him and start to follow. At this point, without saying anything, i stand up. For 2 reasons, to look at the other 2 guy's hands and pockets and for easier access to my pistol if needed. I assume that because this person is so aggressive and offended by me being outside that theyre probably doing a drug deal or something, otherwise they would say "hey neighbor" One guy is wearing gym shorts, the other sweat pants, i can see that neither of those guys are carrying weapons, the guy in front has his right hand holding his belt up and hes wearing jeans so im watching his hands since i'm unsure if he's armed. Given the 3v1 scenario, id probably be pretty quick to draw my weapon if they had actually entered my property.

Not a single word comes out my mouth during this entire ordeal. The guy stops and stands there looking at me until one of the guys behind him catches up and motions for him to turn around.


So lets say this guy steps into my yard and approaches me in a threatening manner and i pull out my gun and shoot him.

Based on the methods of the Zimmerman prosecution they would say.....

"i came outside with a loaded gun because i wanted to kill someone, i wouldnt have a loaded gun if i wasnt looking to kill someone"
"if i didnt have a gun i would have went back in my house and not stayed outside"
"i only came outside because there were black people outside"
"i profiled the group of black people and pretended to be a cop"
"i only thought they were drug dealers because they were black"
"had i of turned around and went in my house, nobody would have died"
"i didnt sustain enough damage to feel that my life was being threatened"
"so a group of guys just decided to walk up and attack you for no reason... riiiiggghhhtttt"

This is my interest in this case......... i am highly concerned by the speculation at hand as it pertains to concealed carry.

[Bacon]

Blockburger v. United States (1932) shares similar circumstances as Zimmermann v. United States in that double jeopardy is potentially present based on one charge not likely to stick so a new one was introduced to continue.

I say mistrial.

Sent from my Galaxy Note II

[bu villain]

Trayvon was a kid (minor), kids do stupid things. Doesnt mean he should be shot and killed. Trayvon may have overreacted and been a thug, but hes 17, Zimmerman should have waited in his car for the proper authorities to show up. Let them deal with the kid.

Again, I completely agree. Some people seem to think that if you didn't break any laws then you didn't do anything wrong. I disagree.


So they get to pick and choose between a 17 year old is a juvenile or adult in a certain cases.

I understand what you are saying but kids as young as 13 or 14 have been tried as adults. That doesn't make them adults. It just means their trials and sentencing are handled the way an adult's trial and sentencing is handled.

[whatever210]

Again, I completely agree. Some people seem to think that if you didn't break any laws then you didn't do anything wrong. I disagree.



I understand what you are saying but kids as young as 13 or 14 have been tried as adults. That doesn't make them adults. It just means their trials and sentencing are handled the way an adult's trial and sentencing is handled.

If they make adult decision to kill or hurt somebody they should be held like adults.

[Vteckidd]

Here's what scares me about this trial and how "off the rails" it has been.....

I'll apply it to a recent ordeal in my own life that i've been churning over in my mind.

A couple days ago i walk outside onto my porch and sit down on the steps to lace up my boots. I notice a car parked a house down with some guys leaning in the window. I'm not watching them, dont even look in their direction, just made a mental note of it. It's a habit. So i'm lacing my boots up when a guy yells out " hey, what's your business cuz ", i dont acknowledge it and dont even look up from lacing my shoes, but in my mind i consider the option that theyre talking to me. Next he says "hey white boy, mind your business" At this point i look up and put my hands on my knees, looking directly at the guy who is now walking towards me. He has his right hand on his pants to hold them up. He walks about 5 yards when the other guys from the car get out behind him and start to follow. At this point, without saying anything, i stand up. For 2 reasons, to look at the other 2 guy's hands and pockets and for easier access to my pistol if needed. I assume that because this person is so aggressive and offended by me being outside that theyre probably doing a drug deal or something, otherwise they would say "hey neighbor" One guy is wearing gym shorts, the other sweat pants, i can see that neither of those guys are carrying weapons, the guy in front has his right hand holding his belt up and hes wearing jeans so im watching his hands since i'm unsure if he's armed. Given the 3v1 scenario, id probably be pretty quick to draw my weapon if they had actually entered my property.

Not a single word comes out my mouth during this entire ordeal. The guy stops and stands there looking at me until one of the guys behind him catches up and motions for him to turn around.


So lets say this guy steps into my yard and approaches me in a threatening manner and i pull out my gun and shoot him.

Based on the methods of the Zimmerman prosecution they would say.....

"i came outside with a loaded gun because i wanted to kill someone, i wouldnt have a loaded gun if i wasnt looking to kill someone"
"if i didnt have a gun i would have went back in my house and not stayed outside"
"i only came outside because there were black people outside"
"i profiled the group of black people and pretended to be a cop"
"i only thought they were drug dealers because they were black"
"had i of turned around and went in my house, nobody would have died"
"i didnt sustain enough damage to feel that my life was being threatened"


This is my interest in this case......... i am highly concerned by the speculation at hand as it pertains to concealed carry.


The issue is people have to be smart enough to understand that protecting your rights in your above scenario, can also lead to abuse of that right.

Knowing that youre a smart guy and you know the law means......you can break the law and get away with it.

Why do you think the old saying of "dead men tell no tales" goes around?

If dude stepped on your property, ALONE, like a foot on your lawn, and you drew down and killed him, under the law, you are perfectly ok. But, could you have diffused the situation? In my mind yes. Retreat into your house with weapon drawn, call LEO, if he kicks down your door FIRE away. If not, let LEO deal with it.

On one hand people can be aggressive and be in the RIGHT, and on the other hand, that gives them false notion that they dont have an obligation to seek a better outcome.

[bu villain]

So lets say this guy steps into my yard and approaches me in a threatening manner and i pull out my gun and shoot him.

While I understand your point about people assuming what is in the mind of others, it also disturbs me that your threshold for when it is justified to pull out a gun and shoot someone is so low.

[bu villain]

If they make adult decision to kill or hurt somebody they should be held like adults.

That's fine but they are still kids. As I said before, "kid" is not a term reserved for young people with good behavior. There can be murderous kids.

[Sinfix_15]

While I understand your point about people assuming what is in the mind of others, it also disturbs me that your threshold for when it is justified to pull out a gun and shoot someone is so low.

3 guys verbally threatening me prior to entering my property to confront me over being outside is a low threshold????!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!????

[Vteckidd]

Ill give you an example ive used before.

I live in downtown Atlanta, and numerous times, have been hassled by homeless guys usually drunk or high. Usually none of them are aggressive, just looking for food or money, or attention. One night I left my condo to go walk my dog. I live RIGHT next to the World Of Coke and Centennial Park, hardly "ghetto". MAJOR tourist and movie filming area. Well theres a little grassy area next to my building that is the "dog walking area". It is also surrounded by trees and a cement slab our generator is on.

While standing there waiting, I hear a rustle in the bushes. A white man stumbles out mumbling to someone else that was back there (I assume). He looks at me and my German Shepherd and I can tell hes drunk/high. He walks towards me and says "nice dog, let me pet her".

I respond "sorry sir, shes not very friendly with strangers"

He says "neither am I" and proceeds to walk aggressively toward me. My dog senses im worried at this point, theres no one on the street , she cowers down into attack mode and I back up 2 steps toward the street and lighting. I repeat, "please stay back, she is not friendly"

He replies "why do you have to be an asshole, let me pet the fucking dog"

I YELL "STAY BACK OR WE WILL HAVE A PROBLEM, IVE ASKED YOU TWICE." and at which point I back pedal and move quickly across the street (never turning my back) and keep an eye on him. He gives up and walks up the street. He never knew I had a .40 inside my shirt on my waist. There was no reason to, while i was worried, I tried to avoid confrontation as much as possible. Had he ran at me, thing would have ended differently probably. But, had i drawn down the second he walked toward me, things may have ended different as well.

[Sammich]

its not debatable, read the sworn testimony. Zimmerman was attacked and was being beaten while on the ground. LEO agreed with this assessment. His bruises and marks were consistent of being attacked, Trayvon had no such marks. Read the cell phone conversation as well.

Hard to have this kind of opinion if you havent read the facts:





Zimmerman Trial Trayvon Martin Witness John Good Attack | Mediaite (http://www.mediaite.com/tv/prosecution-witness-describes-trayvon-martin-as-attacking-george-zimmerman-on-night-of-murder/)

Again, SWORN EYE WITNESS TESTIMONY saying Zimmerman was ATTACKED FIRST

like i said, none of us were there...it's going off of everything that was said including what zimmerman has said. i'm not saying trayvon didnt beat zimmerman's ass or none of that...because apparently from zimmerman's face and abrasions on trayvon's hand show that trayvon was beating zimmerman up...i'm talking about who hit who first..we dont know that. FACTS ARE FACTS AND ASSUMPTIONS ARE ASSUMPTIONS, period.

[Sinfix_15]

plus the door was locked behind me, im not turning my back and/or reaching into my pockets with 3 guys approaching me. The guy could shoot me, say i attempted to draw a gun... which i did have one on me. His 2 friends could say that i came out, shouting obscenities at them before attempting to draw a weapon and being shot.

Plus, i am not a prisoner in my own home... or lawn... or street...... i will walk outside whenever i please and jog laps up and down the public street.... if anyone attacks me, its on them.

[bu villain]

3 guys verbally threatening me prior to entering my property to confront me over being outside is a low threshold????!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!????

Yes I think stepping onto your property and asking you "What's your business?" is a very low threshold for the use of deadly force.

[Vteckidd]

3 guys verbally threatening me prior to entering my property to confront me over being outside is a low threshold????!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!????

you have nothing to lose by going inside and contacting LEO. Just because someone shows aggression and verbally threatens you doesnt mean shoot to kill.

In your scenario, I would not agree that your life was ever in danger, based upon the details you just gave. You were harassed lightly maybe, but never in danger. Ive had worse happen to me on a basketball court

[Sinfix_15]

Ill give you an example ive used before.

I live in downtown Atlanta, and numerous times, have been hassled by homeless guys usually drunk or high. Usually none of them are aggressive, just looking for food or money, or attention. One night I left my condo to go walk my dog. I live RIGHT next to the World Of Coke and Centennial Park, hardly "ghetto". MAJOR tourist and movie filming area. Well theres a little grassy area next to my building that is the "dog walking area". It is also surrounded by trees and a cement slab our generator is on.

While standing there waiting, I hear a rustle in the bushes. A white man stumbles out mumbling to someone else that was back there (I assume). He looks at me and my German Shepherd and I can tell hes drunk/high. He walks towards me and says "nice dog, let me pet her".

I respond "sorry sir, shes not very friendly with strangers"

He says "neither am I" and proceeds to walk aggressively toward me. My dog senses im worried at this point, theres no one on the street , she cowers down into attack mode and I back up 2 steps toward the street and lighting. I repeat, "please stay back, she is not friendly"

He replies "why do you have to be an asshole, let me pet the fucking dog"

I YELL "STAY BACK OR WE WILL HAVE A PROBLEM, IVE ASKED YOU TWICE." and at which point I back pedal and move quickly across the street (never turning my back) and keep an eye on him. He gives up and walks up the street. He never knew I had a .40 inside my shirt on my waist. There was no reason to, while i was worried, I tried to avoid confrontation as much as possible. Had he ran at me, thing would have ended differently probably. But, had i drawn down the second he walked toward me, things may have ended different as well.


Perception is everything and as an individual you have the right to perceive danger. Based on your perception of danger, you respond in the way you sit fit in regards to your own safety.

[Bacon]

The age of any individual in this case is irrevalent. Doesn't matter how old Trayvon was. The age isn't the crime. In the court of law, 17 is adult and a 17 year old cannot be tried as a juvenile.

Mike said it best. Zimmermann overstepped the boundary and proceeded to pursue Trayvon which ended in his death. The voice recordings clearly show he was told to stay put and wait for PD to arrive but he chose not to. Also, if that was dispatch telling him not to pursue then he has grounds to not listen to that. He could have stayed where he was and Trayvon could have taken his little ass home and wake another day to continue his life.

Sinfix also mentioned he shot in self defense. If he was overtaken by Trayvon, the shooting was justified.

[Sinfix_15]

you have nothing to lose by going inside and contacting LEO. Just because someone shows aggression and verbally threatens you doesnt mean shoot to kill.

In your scenario, I would not agree that your life was ever in danger, based upon the details you just gave. You were harassed lightly maybe, but never in danger. Ive had worse happen to me on a basketball court

I'm speaking to the potential escalation of the event, not the event as it happened. I felt no danger based on what actually happened.... and did not reveal or draw a weapon. If they entered my yard, i would have spoke.... if they didnt respond to my speaking, i would have drawn a weapon, any approach by them after weapon was out would be viewed as a threat on my life.

Once they stepped on my lawn i probably would have said something along the lines of " you're on camera, i'm warning you to leave"

[bu villain]

Perception is everything and as an individual you have the right to perceive danger. Based on your perception of danger, you respond in the way you sit fit in regards to your own safety.

That is true but your perceptions aren't above question. Your fears must be reasonable in the eyes of a jury or you will be going to jail no matter how justified you felt at the time. It must be that way or else anyone could kill anyone else and claim the person threatened them verbally.

[Vteckidd]

like i said, none of us were there...it's going off of everything that was said including what zimmerman has said. i'm not saying trayvon didnt beat zimmerman's ass or none of that...because apparently from zimmerman's face and abrasions on trayvon's hand show that trayvon was beating zimmerman up...i'm talking about who hit who first..we dont know that. FACTS ARE FACTS AND ASSUMPTIONS ARE ASSUMPTIONS, period.

its irrelevant if anyone of us where there or not. Are you saying that you have to be present at every crime to decide its outcome? LOL

This is why we have LEO, and witnesses, and testimony UNDER OATH. EYE WITNESSES have said that Zimmerman was being attacked. The belief is that since there are no punch marks on Trayvon, he was never PUNCHED. So its easy to figure out who swung first :) Theres evidence to suggest Martin threw the first punch, there isnt any that Zimmerman did. Again, read the facts, its black and white

So if a girl is raped, and she kills the rapist, are you going to say "WELL DAWG, WE WERENT THERE, SO HOW DO WE KNOW WHAT REALLLLLY HAPPENED" despite the fact that witnesses testify she said "NO GET OFF ME I DO NOT WANT TO HAVE SEX"?

Please, dont EVER be on a jury. Your understanding of the laws is frightening :P

[Bacon]

As for someone coming into your yard and shouting obscenities at you, that isn't grounds to draw a weapon and you can be charged if your life wasn't in immediate danger.

Bu, I don't recall him saying he pulled his firearm either so his "threshold" hasn't been shown.

[Sammich]

I guess people don't lie under oath even though they aren't supposed to.

[Vteckidd]

That is true but your perceptions aren't above question. Your fears must be reasonable in the eyes of a jury or you will be going to jail no matter how justified you felt at the time. It must be that way or else anyone could kill anyone else and claim the person threatened them verbally.

exactly, Society has a perceived level of "danger'' that is open to interpretation. Otherwise, if someone farts in my direction i could claim i was in danger and kill them.

[Vteckidd]

I guess people don't lie under oath even though they aren't supposed to.

ahh so now you are claiming people are lieing under oath? You seem extremely biased and overly judgmental. If someone produced a video of Trayvon being 10000% guilty, you would say it was doctored, or justified im guessing.

You just made my future responses easier, because its clear no amount of thinking or reading will change your already made up mind.

Whats funny is how you have already tried , judged, and sentenced an event you dont even know the facts on.

Again, please dont ever be on a jury

[Bacon]

What I find disturbing is they "can" charge him with manslaughter simply because he shot Trayvon but they will have to prove second-degree murder. The problem I see with this is the manslaughter charge isn't the initial charge and should not be introduced now. He is on trial for second-degree murder, which is completely different from manslaughter. If they proceed with the manslaughter charge, I call double jeopardy.

Mistrial.

/thread.

[Vteckidd]

My understanding is in FL, manslaughter is part of the murder charge. IE they can always downgrade it if state doesnt meet burden of proof

[bu villain]

Vteck, I think you are being a little overly judgemental on Sammich too. He never said Zimmerman started the fight, he said we don't really know. Zimmerman could have swung and missed, then Trayvon proceeded to beat that ass. We will never know. You may feel it is much more likely that Trayvon started it but that doesn't make it necessarily so.

[Bacon]

As I mentioned earlier, Blockburger v. United States showed the defendant being charged with a second later on charge when the first one didn't contain what was needed for a full conviction of the first charge. Double jeopardy was ruled in that case and that is similar to this case.

[Sinfix_15]

My understanding is in FL, manslaughter is part of the murder charge. IE they can always downgrade it if state doesnt meet burden of proof

The burden of proof in this particular case is proof that it wasnt self defense, if they cant meet that burden of proof in regards to 2nd degree, does that not trickle down to manslaughter also?

If someone dies it's manslaughter? should we start charging police and military with manslaughter? should Obama be charged with manslaughter for droning that family?? that's more murder than this is.

[bu villain]

The criteria for manslaughter is different from second degree murder. I'm not familiar enough to tell you exactly the distinction though.

[Bacon]

Vteck, I think you are being a little overly judgemental on Sammich too. He never said Zimmerman started the fight, he said we don't really know. Zimmerman could have swung and missed, then Trayvon proceeded to beat that ass. We will never know. You may feel it is much more likely that Trayvon started it but that doesn't make it necessarily so.

Suppose Zimmermann is the biggest racist in the world and that was his provocation for this incident. There were only two witnesses to that incident and a dead man tells no tales. You can't throw what ifs and could haves around trying to prove a point. Evidence at hands shows battle signs on Zimmermann's face and Trayvon's hands. That's plain and simple.

[Bacon]

Florida Statutes on Second Degree Murder and Manslaughter (http://www.ohioverticals.com/blogs/akron_law_cafe/2012/04/florida-statutes-on-second-degree-murder-and-manslaughter/)

This link gives definition of each in the state of Florida.

[Vteckidd]

My FEELINGS are irrelevant. I dont care who started it. When you are charged with being a jury of a case you listen to the facts ONLY and make a determination based on those alone. You dont play WHAT IFs

[.blank cd]

What does the lack of damage on Trayvon have to do with anything?

Is it possible Zimmerman attacked first and couldn't connect?

[Sinfix_15]

What does the lack of damage on Trayvon have to do with anything?

Is it possible Zimmerman attacked first and couldn't connect?

It is possible.... it's possible that Zimmerman threw the first 15 punches and Trayvon dodged them all Ali style before deciding to drop that cracker.

This is why the justice system operates under the guidelines of "innocent until proven guilty".... What Zimmerman said happened is what happened, until you can prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that it didnt.

[bu villain]

Exactly, there is a difference between legally accountable and morally accountable. I agree he should be found innocent in court but I reserve my moral judgement because I don't know the truth.

[Sammich]

ahh so now you are claiming people are lieing under oath? You seem extremely biased and overly judgmental. If someone produced a video of Trayvon being 10000% guilty, you would say it was doctored, or justified im guessing.

You just made my future responses easier, because its clear no amount of thinking or reading will change your already made up mind.

Whats funny is how you have already tried , judged, and sentenced an event you dont even know the facts on.

Again, please dont ever be on a jury

i'm biased by stating that people do lie under oath...i'm not saying everyone was, but i'm saying people do. jeez smh

all i'm saying is Zimmerman deserves time in jail for killing this person, nothing more nothing less. just like anyone else that kills another person.

[Bacon]

What does the lack of damage on Trayvon have to do with anything?

Is it possible Zimmerman attacked first and couldn't connect?

That's the point I was making. The evidence shows Trayvon swung first. If you want to know any different? Go ask Trayvon. Oh wait....

[bu villain]

That's the point I was making. The evidence shows Trayvon swung first. If you want to know any different? Go ask Trayvon. Oh wait....

No, the evidence shows Trayvon connected first, not swung first.

[Vteckidd]

What does the lack of damage on Trayvon have to do with anything?

Is it possible Zimmerman attacked first and couldn't connect?

no its not possible, because you decide a case based upon FACTS, not what ifs.

The facts which are presented by Police, Forensics , EYE WITNESSES claim that Zimmerman was in fear of his life because Trayvon was attacking him and Zimmerman sustained damages that are consistent with this story.

The Prosecution has not offered any contrary evidence, just WHAT IFs. What if Trayvon said "IM GONNA KILL YOU CRAKCER'' or Zimmerman said "DIE *nword*". Its irrelevent because unless theres someone to BACK THOSE STATEMENTS UP, they are discounted and purely speculation.

The fact Zimmerman said that Trayvon said "youre gonna die tonight" is irrelevant , because it cant be proven. We dont know if he said that, likewise we dont know who threw the first punch. Who cares, the point is was Zimemrman justified in shooting Trayvon, according to the EVIDENCE, NOT EMOTION, that answer is YES.

IF TRAYVON WAS ALIVE , IT WOULD BE DIFFERENT.

WE DONT TRY PEOPLE ON WHAT IFs. If we did, Casey Anthony and OJ would be in jail for MURDER.

[Vteckidd]

all i'm saying is Zimmerman deserves time in jail for killing this person, nothing more nothing less. just like anyone else that kills another person.

So, any cop shot at in the line of duty and defends himself deserves jail time now?

You realize how absolutely crazy you sound right?

[Sammich]

like i said before...catching what i was able to catch in this trial, defense has brought up enough reasonable doubt for the 2nd degree charge to be dismissed (regardless of Zimmerman following when he was instructed not to), but i see manslaughter sticking

[Sammich]

WE DONT TRY PEOPLE ON WHAT IFs. If we did, Casey Anthony and OJ would be in jail for MURDER.

no one will deny this

[Sammich]

So, any cop shot at in the line of duty and defends himself deserves jail time now?

You realize how absolutely crazy you sound right?

*sigh*

[Vteckidd]

no one will deny this

but you want to try Zimmerman on WHAT IFs.

We dont convict people on WHAT IFs, we try them based upon what EVIDENCE IS PRESENTED.

The evidence in this trial is clear, Trayvon was the attacker , based upon the eyewitness testimony, police statements, and Zimmerman acted in self defense.

The prosecution tried zimmerman with 2nd degree murder, that was a huge mistake.

[Vteckidd]

*sigh*

its your words not mine. You said anyone who kills someone deserves jail time.

Thats an extremely warped sense of our laws.

So a woman being raped who pulls out a weapon and kills her attacker deserves to be in jail? Is that what you are saying?

[Bacon]

Who did Zimmermann say swung first?

Sent from my Galaxy Note II

[Sinfix_15]

Exactly, there is a difference between legally accountable and morally accountable. I agree he should be found innocent in court but I reserve my moral judgement because I don't know the truth.

I agree that legally right isnt the same as morally right. I like this example for highlighting that...

Lets say you hear someone breaking in your home at night, you walk into your living room to find someone has crawled in your window and shoot them. Turns out your daughter invited that person over and left the window open. You didnt know that. The guy who came in the window didnt mean any harm and was invited by your daughter. Your perception of those events as they unfolded would lead to you being legally in the right, but morally there would be no denying that shooting your daughter's boyfriend was wrong.

The events that led up to Trayvon and Zimmerman crossing paths are open for moral scrutiny but the legality of their altercation and how it ended is pretty cut and dry self defense.

[Browning151]

all i'm saying is Zimmerman deserves time in jail for killing this person, nothing more nothing less. just like anyone else that kills another person.

WHOA, What?!? Anyone who kills another person deserves jail time?

So if someone breaks into my house in the middle of the night and somehow makes it past my 2 dogs and I shoot them to protect my wife and myself I should go to jail?

If someone assaults me on the street and proceeds to beat me relentlessly and I manage to draw a weapon and shoot them I should go to jail?

[Vteckidd]

^^^^ His thinking is if you dont know, you ASSUME.

Its crazy he can say "WE DONT KNOW WE WERENT THERE" and then jump to the conclusion of CONVICTING someone when he admits HE DOESNT EVEN KNOW WHAT HAPPENED!

I mean its just SCARY.

I wonder if he knows innocent until proven guilty.

What he is describing is guilty by profiling. By what he THINKS should happen , not what the facts show.Ironic

[bu villain]

I agree that legally right isnt the same as morally right. I like this example for highlighting that...

Lets say you hear someone breaking in your home at night, you walk into your living room to find someone has crawled in your window and shoot them. Turns out your daughter invited that person over and left the window open. You didnt know that. The guy who came in the window didnt mean any harm and was invited by your daughter. Your perception of those events as they unfolded would lead to you being legally in the right, but morally there would be no denying that shooting your daughter's boyfriend was wrong.

The events that led up to Trayvon and Zimmerman crossing paths are open for moral scrutiny but the legality of their altercation and how it ended is pretty cut and dry self defense.

Exactly.

[.blank cd]

no its not possible, because you decide a case based upon FACTS, not what ifs.

The facts which are presented by Police, Forensics , EYE WITNESSES claim that Zimmerman was in fear of his life because Trayvon was attacking him and Zimmerman sustained damages that are consistent with this story.

The Prosecution has not offered any contrary evidence, just WHAT IFs. What if Trayvon said "IM GONNA KILL YOU CRAKCER'' or Zimmerman said "DIE *nword*". Its irrelevent because unless theres someone to BACK THOSE STATEMENTS UP, they are discounted and purely speculation.

The fact Zimmerman said that Trayvon said "youre gonna die tonight" is irrelevant , because it cant be proven. We dont know if he said that, likewise we dont know who threw the first punch. Who cares, the point is was Zimemrman justified in shooting Trayvon, according to the EVIDENCE, NOT EMOTION, that answer is YES.

IF TRAYVON WAS ALIVE , IT WOULD BE DIFFERENT.

WE DONT TRY PEOPLE ON WHAT IFs. If we did, Casey Anthony and OJ would be in jail for MURDER.

That wasnt a "what if". Lol. Nothing emotional about it. Zimmerman didnt just shoot Trayvon in a vacuum. Lol.

[Bacon]

There needs to be a mistrial option.

[Vteckidd]

That wasnt a "what if". Lol. Nothing emotional about it. Zimmerman didnt just shoot Trayvon in a vacuum. Lol.

Again, you and sammich dont understand how the LAW works.

Jury decides based on EVIDENCE. The fact that Trayvon isnt alive to tell his story , that happens EVERYDAY across America. INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY.

The evidence shows that:
Zimmerman was suspicious of TM
TM Beat Zimmerman and was on top of him
ZImmerman had injuries consistent with being beaten
Zimmerman yelled for help
Eyewitness testifies to this under oath
Police agree with this evidence
Zimmerman acted with self defense.

The whole who hit who first, was it racial, etc is BULLSHIT and is not relevant. Why? Because you cant prove any of it when 1 of the key witnesses is DEAD. What you have to ask yourself is , did ZImmerman act in self defense, and the answer is overwhelmingly YES.

Could he have GAMED the system and knew how to set it up where he could get off? ABSOLUTELY. That makes him smart, not guilty.

YOU KNOW WHY?

BECAUSE YOU CANT PROVE IT.

Since you cant prove zimmerman swung first, you also cant prove TM swung first. But you CAN prove that TM attacked Zimmerman. Witnesses testified to it.

CASE CLOSED.

[Vteckidd]

This is why you dont CHARGE people if you cant PROVE it. It leads to Casey Anthony and Zimmerman. Overzealous prosecutors that charge someone with less than sufficient evidence.

Cases are about what you can PROVE. You CANNOT PROVE anything you guys are talking about. ZImmerman, by virtue of being alive, can tell his side and call witnesses to prove his side. HE DID. because TM isnt alive to refute it.

This is the whole reason why he wasnt charged in the first 40 days until the media got involved.

If blank and I were in a room, alone, I could insult him, provoke him, punch him, have him punch me, and shoot and kill him. I would tell the cops "he threatened my life, i was in danger, he punched me for no reason, i retaliated, he went for my gun i had no choice, so i killed him."

If someone walked in at the point where they see him punch me (but miss the previous action), i could construct a case that it was self defense.

However, you have to consider the alternative scenario, where I was telling the truth, and not lieing.

This case is the whole basis for our legal system . its insane to see you guys wanting to convict someone based upon what conclusions you will jump to, not what you KNOW

[Sinfix_15]

This is why you dont CHARGE people if you cant PROVE it. It leads to Casey Anthony and Zimmerman. Overzealous prosecutors that charge someone with less than sufficient evidence.

Cases are about what you can PROVE. You CANNOT PROVE anything you guys are talking about. ZImmerman, by virtue of being alive, can tell his side and call witnesses to prove his side. HE DID. because TM isnt alive to refute it.

This is the whole reason why he wasnt charged in the first 40 days until the media got involved.

If blank and I were in a room, alone, I could insult him, provoke him, punch him, have him punch me, and shoot and kill him. I would tell the cops "he threatened my life, i was in danger, he punched me for no reason, i retaliated, he went for my gun i had no choice, so i killed him."

If someone walked in at the point where they see him punch me (but miss the previous action), i could construct a case that it was self defense.

However, you have to consider the alternative scenario, where I was telling the truth, and not lieing.

This case is the whole basis for our legal system . its insane to see you guys wanting to convict someone based upon what conclusions you will jump to, not what you KNOW

"Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion in private self defense."
- John Adams

[Vteckidd]

Just because you may think someone is guilty, and pretty much KNOW it, sometimes, you have to let them free because the state or prosecution didnt do its job.

Look at Ryan Braun, we all KNOW he used steroids, but they MIShandled the evidence against him, and theres a .00000001% chance that it was contaminated. well that small chance, its reason enough in our legal system to let him go.

Innocent until proven guilty embodies this entire standard of proof to be on the state.

You realize there are cases where guys have DNA evidence and confessions of crimes they committed, but because they werent read their rights correctly, GET OFF SCOTT FREE. You KNOW they are guilty, but without due process there is no standard of the highest order.

I assure you for every OJ that goes free and gets away with it (casey anthony) , there are cases where the opposite happens, and wrongly accused people get put in jail. Our system isnt perfect, but its the best we have.

It also ensures your rights are preserved to the best of our ability.

Imagine how bad it would be if it was guilty until proven innocent, how it was in England before we won our freedom. I could accuse anyone of a crime without due process and evidence and you could be jailed..................

[.blank cd]

Again, you and sammich dont understand how the LAW works.I very much understand how the law works.


Jury decides based on EVIDENCE. The fact that Trayvon isnt alive to tell his story , that happens EVERYDAY across America. INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY.

The evidence shows that:
Zimmerman was suspicious of TM
TM Beat Zimmerman and was on top of him
ZImmerman had injuries consistent with being beaten
Zimmerman yelled for help
Eyewitness testifies to this under oath
Police agree with this evidence
Zimmerman acted with self defense.

The whole who hit who first, was it racial, etc is BULLSHIT and is not relevant. Why? Because you cant prove any of it when 1 of the key witnesses is DEAD. What you have to ask yourself is , did ZImmerman act in self defense, and the answer is overwhelmingly YES.

Could he have GAMED the system and knew how to set it up where he could get off? ABSOLUTELY. That makes him smart, not guilty.

YOU KNOW WHY?

BECAUSE YOU CANT PROVE IT.

Since you cant prove zimmerman swung first, you also cant prove TM swung first. But you CAN prove that TM attacked Zimmerman. Witnesses testified to it.

CASE CLOSED.Good thing you're not a litigator, or a judge. LMAO.

[.blank cd]

The question: Is is self defense murder

Vteckidd: Trayvon is dead so there's no evidence it was murder. Case closed


Wrap it up Florida. Vteckidd solved the case!

I'm glad it doesn't work this way. Lol.

[hondachik]

*sigh* I will be glad when trial is over.

[Vteckidd]

YOur quips are getting old. Short answers poking fun is not defending your position. Learn to debate sir

Our laws operate by what you can prove. you cannot prove zimmerman is this overaly zealous racial guy who killed TM in cold blood. NO PROOF.

But, as i have show, the evidence shows that Zimmerman has evidence he acted in self defense.

The Jury may get it wrong, and thats part of our system as well.

[Vteckidd]

*sigh* I will be glad when trial is over.

great post, would read again

[Vteckidd]

The question: Is is self defense murder

Vteckidd: Trayvon is dead so there's no evidence it was murder. Case closed


Wrap it up Florida. Vteckidd solved the case!

I'm glad it doesn't work this way. Lol.

Our laws state that Self Defense is not considered MURDER. No one gets convicted of "self defense".

Go read your law books again

[Sinfix_15]

*sigh* I will be glad when trial is over.

The end of the trial will only be the beginning of the drama.

[BanginJimmy]

I've been watching the daily run downs of the trial. Its pretty much open and shut that murder 2 is out. They have absolutely nothing to prove this. The manslaughter charge is also VERY flawed. Zimmerman has said repeatedly he pulled his pistol and shot Martin. It was a calculated act. That fact does not hold up to a manslaughter charge.

[hondachik]

The end of the trial will only be the beginning of the drama.

Drama has already began.

[whatever210]

*sigh* I will be glad when trial is over.
Instead of entering a thread. Wasting time to reply. Maybe...just maybe if your waiting for it to be "over" then you should just hit the back button on the top left hand corner of your screen

[hondachik]

Instead of entering a thread. Wasting time to reply. Maybe...just maybe if your waiting for it to be "over" then you should just hit the back button on the top left hand corner of your screen

And you are? You claimed I wasted MY time, yet you wasted YOUR time quoting me AND responding. Hmm..doesn't seem like much of a waste of time now does it? Or was it...hmmm. :O

[whatever210]

And you are? You claimed I wasted MY time, yet you wasted YOUR time quoting me AND responding. Hmm..doesn't seem like much of a waste of time now does it? Or was it...hmmm. :O

It doesnt matter who i am. we will never meet. I didn't waste my time. I've been I this thread since page 1. I createda thread on 240atl long before this one was even up so i do care. Where were you? Did you give a opinion or just come in here to talk about something you don't want to hear/talk about anymore which is contradicting your own self by posting a reply in here. Nice try tho tough guy. Please try again.

[hondachik]

Lol. You continue to respond to my "time wasted." Kay.

[Sinfix_15]

One thing i'm surprised nobody has mentioned yet, Mark O'Mara is a brilliant lawyer.

[BanginJimmy]

One thing i'm surprised nobody has mentioned yet, Mark O'Mara is a brilliant lawyer.

He looks better than he really is because the prosecution only charged Zimmerman because of political pressure. They knew they didnt have enough to actually convict him. I would imagine he would be looking very ordinary right now if he prosecution actually had some real evidence.

The best piece of 'evidence' the prosecution has is the fact that zimmerman didnt listen to the operators advice to stay in his car.

[Vteckidd]

The funny thing is even in the instructions handed to the jury, the judge clearly made the case that they have to find Zimmerman not guilty. Theres no evidence to suggest this was anything but self defense.

She even explicitly said he had no obligation to retreat, no obligation to not pursue, nothing he did was illegal , therefore, he was allowed to be where he was legally , he had the right to be where he was.

Their law is written very ambiguous, but its the law.

If hes found anything but not guilty, its purely based on race and the media hyperbole. It will be a dangerous verdict because the Media will have single handedly tried and convicted someone based upon no evidence

[Vteckidd]

The best piece of 'evidence' the prosecution has is the fact that zimmerman didnt listen to the operators advice to stay in his car.

he didnt have to


If George Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in any place where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

It was not illegal for him to disregard the Operator, and he had legal right to be where he was.

Eyewitness saw TM beating Zimmerman up, he had a right to use force.

Again, EASY CASE, theres a reason he wasnt charged in the first 40+ days.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&ved=0CEkQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.orlandosentinel.com%2Fnews%2F local%2Ftrayvon-martin%2Fos-george-zimmerman-trial-jury-instructions-20130712%2C0%2C43150.acrobat&ei=JlfgUfipJ-LqiQK4-4DQCw&usg=AFQjCNGshGVk6VX7w27U7UUFB6RBIaPXWA&sig2=Y_Yq-nr4C5CAN6L32-I5Ew&bvm=bv.49260673,d.cGE

[Sinfix_15]

He looks better than he really is because the prosecution only charged Zimmerman because of political pressure. They knew they didnt have enough to actually convict him. I would imagine he would be looking very ordinary right now if he prosecution actually had some real evidence.

The best piece of 'evidence' the prosecution has is the fact that zimmerman didnt listen to the operators advice to stay in his car.

This is true.... He was handed a homerun pitch with this case. A lot of people i talk to keep stressing the fact that Zimmerman ignored the 911 operator's instructions to stay in the car. I dont see why that is a major focal point of the case. A 911 dispatcher has no authority to tell you to do anything. I recall a recent case where a 911 dispatcher told a woman who was hiding in the closet with her child during a home invasion to put her gun down and wait for the police, the robber eventually broke in the closet and she shot him 5 times. I feel that the entire argument is based around speculation. We know that he ignored the dispatcher, but that doesnt speak to why he did. Any theory as to why he ignored them is speculation and cant be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. I think he was just an over zealous neighbor who wanted to keep watch of his neighborhood and assist the police in catching what he thought was a potential robber.

[BanginJimmy]

If hes found anything but not guilty, its purely based on race and the media hyperbole. It will be a dangerous verdict because the Media will have single handedly tried and convicted someone based upon no evidence


Agreed


It was not illegal for him to disregard the Operator, and he had legal right to be where he was.

Eyewitness saw TM beating Zimmerman up, he had a right to use force.

Again, EASY CASE, theres a reason he wasnt charged in the first 40+ days.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&ved=0CEkQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.orlandosentinel.com%2Fnews%2F local%2Ftrayvon-martin%2Fos-george-zimmerman-trial-jury-instructions-20130712%2C0%2C43150.acrobat&ei=JlfgUfipJ-LqiQK4-4DQCw&usg=AFQjCNGshGVk6VX7w27U7UUFB6RBIaPXWA&sig2=Y_Yq-nr4C5CAN6L32-I5Ew&bvm=bv.49260673,d.cGE

And agreed.


This entire trial is about politics, not law.

[Echonova]

YOur quips are getting old. Short answers poking fun is not defending your position. Learn to debate sir

Our laws operate by what you can prove. you cannot prove zimmerman is this overaly zealous racial guy who killed TM in cold blood. NO PROOF.

But, as i have show, the evidence shows that Zimmerman has evidence he acted in self defense.

The Jury may get it wrong, and thats part of our system as well.Am I the only one that notices that once you post something like this, you never see blank post again until 769 posts later? And when he does it certainly isn't with an answer.

[Browning151]

It's never with an answer, he waits until the subject gets changed a bit and comes back full force with some more off the wall nonsense until someone posts something like that again, wash, rinse, repeat.

[Bacon]

Has Zimmerman been acquitted yet?

Sent from my Galaxy Note II

[Echonova]

Has Zimmerman been acquitted yet?

Sent from my Galaxy Note IIThe riots aren't scheduled until Monday. They make better press that way...



























Nobody is going to give a shit about a riot in Miami over the weekend... People will just assume the Heat won another game.

[Echonova]

#wentthere

[hondachik]

Echo stop double posting!!! Lol. Hehe, Miami Heat. Hehe, good one. No lie I did just get a brief look at the defense's tactics. Niceeee, very nice.

[Sinfix_15]

The riots aren't scheduled until Monday. They make better press that way...



























Nobody is going to give a shit about a riot in Miami over the weekend... People will just assume the Heat won another game.

I took monday off, gotta keep neighborhood watch.

[whatever210]

Lol. You continue to respond to my "time wasted." Kay.
Lol, you amuse me.

[hondachik]

Not Guilty

[BanginJimmy]

Not Guilty

Justice has been done. Get ready for the riots.

[hondachik]

Riots will begin and he will have to go into hiding. Kind of like Casey Anthony.

[.blank cd]

What can we take away from this?

Be careful when venturing to the convenience store for a snack.

[.blank cd]

Riots will begin and he will have to go into hiding. Kind of like Cayce Anthony....who did exactly the opposite

[hondachik]

She did go into hiding for a while. She just came back out recently for court because she has failed to pay her lawyers and bill collectors.

[Vteckidd]

Jury came to the correct conclusion. AG should be fired.

No riots are going to happen, that's just ignorance.

[Vteckidd]

What can we take away from this?

Be careful when venturing to the convenience store for a snack.
Or don't attack someone with a gun.

We don't know what happened, its comical to see the twitter feed right now.

[.blank cd]

No one should be fired. The right thing happened all around

[Vteckidd]

This is two major love charged cases lost.

The y should have gone for manslaughter not murder

[whatever210]

I HATE piers Morgan. He's hates everything about America. Why is he here

[-EnVus-]

Self defense law upheld !

[91LudeSiT]

He is guilty of taking a life, he followed after being told not to by the 911 operator. Whether he provoked Travyon or not that does not matter.


Is there enough evidence to convict him beyond a reasonable doubt? No!

[C230K]

Zimmerman better watch out now

[-EnVus-]

..

[eraser4g63]

I hope they do riot, I've been bored as of late at work....

[BanginJimmy]

No one should be fired. The right thing happened all around

I disagree, but I dont think it should be the states atty. It should be whoever pushed her to prosecute what was at best a very weak case.

[BanginJimmy]

Zimmerman better watch out now

I hope this guy is charged with terroristic threats.

[-EnVus-]

All 80% of this case followers were ignorant to details and only saw race

[1civic]

All 80% of this case followers were ignorant to details and only saw race

Yeah proof of that on FB...

[-EnVus-]

Yeah proof of that on FB...
Yeah and many interracial friendships will be decided tonight on facebook

[Sinfix_15]

No one should be fired. The right thing happened all around

Eric Holder, Obama, Jessie Jackson, and Al Sharpton should be fired. Everyone on twitter issuing violent threats should be arrested and charged. The NAACP should be shut down.

[Sinfix_15]

I feel safer in my community now. I know that in the event i am assaulted, i will be judged strictly by facts and evidence and not tried in the court of public opinion. That even in the face of racial outcry and scrutiny from my own president..... that justice will be served.

[Sinfix_15]

Zimmerman better watch out now

This is the type of attitude that ended Trayvon's life. Every angry racist on twitter who acts like this guy is contributing to the reason that Trayvon died in the first place. The more the black community endorses violence, the more they will fall victim to it.


Side note... thirst as a sumbitch... think im gonna get some skittles and sweet tea.

[Sinfix_15]

Atlanta Falcon Roddy White Tweets Zimmerman Jurors (http://patdollard.com/2013/07/atlanta-falcons-thug-player-demands-zimmerman-jurors-should-go-home-tonight-and-kill-themselves/)

[Sinfix_15]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BPDkgX2CQAAgVpm.jpg:large

[Bacon]

He is guilty of taking a life, he followed after being told not to by the 911 operator. Whether he provoked Travyon or not that does not matter.


Is there enough evidence to convict him beyond a reasonable doubt? No!

He had no obligation to listen to the 911 operator.






I hope they do riot, I've been bored as of late at work....

Me too.






Yeah proof of that on FB...

Funny how when you look at your FB feed, its segregated.

But race isn't a factor......

Sent from my Galaxy Note II

[Sinfix_15]

i'm honestly not looking forward to going back to work...... mysteriously... and i'm sure it's just coincidence and not racially motivated at all, but every single black person is extremely passionate about their opinion of this case.

[.blank cd]

He had no obligation to listen to the 911 operator.


No. But in hindsight, it would have been a great idea.

I have a feeling this wont be the end of Zimmerman's court days

I find myself wondering, if Trayvon was alive and Zimmerman was dead, would Trayvon be in jail?

[Sinfix_15]

No. But in hindsight, it would have been a great idea.

I have a feeling this wont be the end of Zimmerman's court days

I find myself wondering, if Trayvon was alive and Zimmerman was dead, would Trayvon be in jail?

You're probably right..... Zimmerman should be filing civil suits against those who have defamed his character. Al Sharpton would be a good start.....

[.blank cd]

You're probably right..... Zimmerman should be filing civil suits against those who have defamed his character. Al Sharpton would be a good start.....

He would be stupid to voluntarily file civil suits. He defamed his own character. He would lose and it would just make him look like a profiteer. If he's smart, he would keep hisself out of the spotlight for the rest of his life.

[Sinfix_15]

He would be stupid to voluntarily file civil suits. He defamed his own character. He would lose and it would just make him look like a profiteer. If he's smart, he would keep hisself out of the spotlight for the rest of his life.

He has no reason to hide and nothing to be ashamed of. I hope he files suit against every media personality who publicly defamed him. The comments of these race baiting scumbags have potentially put his life at risk. Because of trash like Al Sharpton calling for people to "lynch zimmerman" there are riots.

If i was GZ, i would demand protective custody and i would spend the next week or two working with police officers to file charges against every single terrorist threat i could find on social media. I would also be filing civil suits against the media outlets who altered the 911 tapes and any NAACP and DOJ members who participated in organizing riots. Id file a civil suit against Obama himself just on principle.

[David88vert]

No. But in hindsight, it would have been a great idea.

I have a feeling this wont be the end of Zimmerman's court days

I find myself wondering, if Trayvon was alive and Zimmerman was dead, would Trayvon be in jail?

If Trayvon had killed Zimmerman, and claimed self defense, he shouldn't have even been charged, and it never would have been in the national media, much less with 24x7 coverage.

[.blank cd]

He has no reason to hide and nothing to be ashamed of. I hope he files suit against every media personality who publicly defamed him. The comments of these race baiting scumbags have potentially put his life at risk. Because of trash like Al Sharpton calling for people to "lynch zimmerman" there are riots.

If i was GZ, i would demand protective custody and i would spend the next week or two working with police officers to file charges against every single terrorist threat i could find on social media. I would also be filing civil suits against the media outlets who altered the 911 tapes and any NAACP members who participated in organizing riots. Id file a civil suit against Obama himself just on principle.

But you'd lose every one of them. Lol. The public is already unhappy with the situation, why make it worse?

No one defamed him. He killed Trayvon and admitted it. An investigation happened, as it should, and he was not guilty of 2nd degree murder. No rational attorney would pursue anything further because they have nothing to gain.

[.blank cd]

DOJ members who participated in organizing riots. Id file a civil suit against Obama himself just on principle.

...and no DOJ members organized any riots.

[David88vert]

He would be stupid to voluntarily file civil suits. He defamed his own character. He would lose and it would just make him look like a profiteer. If he's smart, he would keep hisself out of the spotlight for the rest of his life.

Agreed.


He has no reason to hide and nothing to be ashamed of. I hope he files suit against every media personality who publicly defamed him. The comments of these race baiting scumbags have potentially put his life at risk. Because of trash like Al Sharpton calling for people to "lynch zimmerman" there are riots.

If i was GZ, i would demand protective custody and i would spend the next week or two working with police officers to file charges against every single terrorist threat i could find on social media. I would also be filing civil suits against the media outlets who altered the 911 tapes and any NAACP and DOJ members who participated in organizing riots. Id file a civil suit against Obama himself just on principle.

That would be a poor way to address it.

[Sinfix_15]

Agreed.



That would be a poor way to address it.

Principle..... the court of public opinion thinks they can sentence Zimmerman to a life in hiding.....

I would not submit to that request...

[.blank cd]

If Trayvon had killed Zimmerman, and claimed self defense, he shouldn't have even been charged, and it never would have been in the national media, much less with 24x7 coverage.

It was appropriate for Zimmerman to be charged in order to perform a detailed investigation, which needed to happen. If it wasn't appropriate, he wouldn't have been charged at all. If he wasn't, I would be worried. I'd feel uneasy if I could get away with murder just by claiming "self-defense". Lol

[.blank cd]

Principle..... the court of public opinion thinks they can sentence Zimmerman to a life in hiding.....

I would not submit to that request...

Your principles are gonna get you in trouble one day.

[David88vert]

It was appropriate for Zimmerman to be charged in order to perform a detailed investigation, which needed to happen. If it wasn't appropriate, he wouldn't have been charged at all. If he wasn't, I would be worried. I'd feel uneasy if I could get away with murder just by claiming "self-defense". Lol

The police, who performed a detailed investigation, did not think that there was enough evidence to charge him. Only after outside political pressure was applied to the SA, he was charged. The SA didn't even think she could get it through a grand jury.

If you watched the trial, you would see that there was not enough evidence to really warrant bringing it to trial. The only excuse that the SA presented in the conference after the verdict was that it happened outside in a public place, rather than inside a home, so she didn't want to accept self-defense.

If Zimmerman had been black, he never would have been charged, and again, we never would have heard of it.
If both had been Hispanic or white, we never would have heard of it, and there would have never been any charges.

The reason that we wouldn't have seen charges is not racial, its that the evidence didn't support a conviction. In any of those situations, only one side can be heard, and that is the voice of the person still living. The state simply could not prove the case without enough supporting evidence. The verdict was "legally correct" as not guilty. It is not a statement that he is innocent.

------------------------------------------

Looking at the situation, how could it have ended differently?
If we look at the evidence presented in the trial, Trayvon did not do anything wrong. He was in a place that he was legally entitled to be in, and was not doing anything illegal. He did not really have any other options - he certainly didn't want some strange guy to follow him home. He really didn't have any solid opportunity to change the outcome.
Zimmerman, on the other hand, could have chosen to listen to the dispatcher, even though he was not legally obligated to. He had a truck, and had the opportunity to distance himself from Trayvon. His actions, while legally permissible, could have been modified which would have resulted in Trayvon's life being spared. In hindsight, everything is 20/20. In the real world, Zimmerman could not see the future.
The bottom line is that neither of them did anything "legally wrong" - the situation happened, and the worst possible outcome occurred.

[.blank cd]

The police, who performed a detailed investigation, did not think that there was enough evidence to charge him. Only after outside political pressure was applied to the SA, he was charged. The SA didn't even think she could get it through a grand jury.

If you watched the trial, you would see that there was not enough evidence to really warrant bringing it to trial. The only excuse that the SA presented in the conference after the verdict was that it happened outside in a public place, rather than inside a home, so she didn't want to accept self-defense.I watched the same trial you did. There was enough evidence to charge Zimmerman, and as of last night, not for a conviction. They don't have to be the same, and the prosecutor can charge something more severe than the police, and all the prosecutor needs is an affidavit of probable cause, which a judge decided to issue. If you believe it was political pressure, it doesn't really matter. These people are elected officials and that's a consequence of that. Everyone wants to be elected. There still needed to be an investigation. Any prosecutor would have jumped all over that case if there was a shred of a chance they could get a conviction. But they tried for too much. They might have got a conviction if it was just manslaughter they were looking for. Instead they focused on the 2nd degree murder and lost.


If Zimmerman had been black, he never would have been charged, and again, we never would have heard of it.
If both had been Hispanic or white, we never would have heard of it, and there would have never been any charges.Highly highly doubt that. Might not have heard as much, but there would have been charges. I would be worried if there wasn't.

[Sinfix_15]

Your principles are gonna get you in trouble one day.

So be it.

[Sinfix_15]

Just got back from the grocery store......

bitches be trippin...... i got dirty looks from every single black person i passed and over heard a dozen conversations of "if Trayvon was white"....

I'm gonna stop tomorrow and have me a "Zimmerman is innocent" shirt made.... might even put "if you dont agree, you're probably a racist" on the back of it.

[.blank cd]

Just got back from the grocery store......

bitches be trippin...... i got dirty looks from every single black person i passed....

No you didn't. You were looking for reactions, when someone made eye contact with you without a smile on their face, you assume it was something negative. Confirmation bias.

[Sinfix_15]

No you didn't. You were looking for reactions, when someone made eye contact with you without a smile on their face, you assume it was something negative. Confirmation bias.

Yeah, i also brought some headphones and prerecorded conversations on it so i could listen to racist banter while i grocery shopped. Either that or my imaginary friend was telling me how its ok to kill blacks in white america and how the law only applies to black people... ect ect ect....

[Bacon]

Redundant thread is now redundant.

Sent from my Galaxy Note II

[Sinfix_15]

Redundant thread is now redundant.

Sent from my Galaxy Note II

agreed, innocent man is innocent. Time to move on with our lives.

[BanginJimmy]

It was appropriate for Zimmerman to be charged in order to perform a detailed investigation, which needed to happen. If it wasn't appropriate, he wouldn't have been charged at all. If he wasn't, I would be worried. I'd feel uneasy if I could get away with murder just by claiming "self-defense". Lol

In the American justice system, the detailed investigation is supposed to take place BEFORE you put someone on trial for their life.

You cant get away with murder by claiming self defense unless there is a lot of evidence to back up your story.


I find myself wondering, if Trayvon was alive and Zimmerman was dead, would Trayvon be in jail?

Look a that, the race card again. That thing must be pretty worn out at this point.



I watched the same trial you did. There was enough evidence to charge Zimmerman, and as of last night, not for a conviction. They don't have to be the same, and the prosecutor can charge something more severe than the police, and all the prosecutor needs is an affidavit of probable cause, which a judge decided to issue. If you believe it was political pressure, it doesn't really matter. These people are elected officials and that's a consequence of that. Everyone wants to be elected. There still needed to be an investigation. Any prosecutor would have jumped all over that case if there was a shred of a chance they could get a conviction. But they tried for too much. They might have got a conviction if it was just manslaughter they were looking for. Instead they focused on the 2nd degree murder and lost.

What evidence are you speaking about? I didnt hear any. Everything the prosecution tried to push was conjecture, not fact.

Read the statute on manslaughter again. That charge fits worse than murder 2.


Highly highly doubt that. Might not have heard as much, but there would have been charges. I would be worried if there wasn't.

In 2010 there were 326 justifiable homicides in the US, 33 of them in Florida. Why didnt we hear anything about those? Why werent any of those national media spectacles?

Just read about a case even less clearly self defense, also from the racist state of florida. Greyston Garcia chased, then stabbed to death a guy that stole his car radio. Judge declared it self defense and dismissed the charges because the theif swung a bag of radios at Garcia.

[.blank cd]

In the American justice system, the detailed investigation is supposed to take place BEFORE you put someone on trial for their life.An investigation happened, and he was put on trial. In that order. Are they doing the investigation right now or something?


Look a that, the race card again. That thing must be pretty worn out at this point.What was racial about that statement?


What evidence are you speaking about? I didnt hear any. Everything the prosecution tried to push was conjecture, not fact.Were you listening to the trial for evidence for an a affidavit of probable cause to charge Zimmerman? That's backwards. Zimmerman profiled (do not read: racially) and shot Martin while Martin was not committing a crime. That is a fact that no one disputes. That was enough to get probable cause for a charge. That's how it works. It wasnt media pressure. The media was focused on the racial aspect of the case, Zimmerman was charged with 2nd degree murder, he was not charged with a racially motivated hate crime. I don't understand why people are confusing the media's interpretation of the case with the actual facts and due process. Just because he was innocent doesn't mean he didn't do anything wrong or not worth investigating.


In 2010 there were 326 justifiable homicides in the US, 33 of them in Florida. Why didnt we hear anything about those? Why werent any of those national media spectacles?Why should any of them be media spectacles? Why are you preoccupied with the media's account of the case? This case shouldn't have been a media spectacle, but unfortunately it was. It should have played out the way it did whether it was a media spectacle or not.

[Sinfix_15]

Reid on Zimmerman: (http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/310865-reid-on-zimmerman-this-isnt-over-with)

[.blank cd]

Read the statute on manslaughter again. That charge fits worse than murder 2.

Ummm are you sure you read it?

782.07 Manslaughter; aggravated manslaughter of an elderly person or disabled adult; aggravated manslaughter of a child; aggravated manslaughter of an officer, a firefighter, an emergency medical technician, or a paramedic.—
(1) The killing of a human being by the act, procurement, or culpable negligence of another, without lawful justification according to the provisions of chapter 776 and in cases in which such killing shall not be excusable homicide or murder, according to the provisions of this chapter, is manslaughter, a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

In murder 2, they had to prove he had ill intent. In manslaughter, they had to prove his use of force was justifiable. Much easier.

[Sinfix_15]

Here's another race baiting piece of shit..... Van Jones...

Van Jones: ‘The Verdict: Racism Won’ « Pat Dollard (http://patdollard.com/2013/07/van-jones-the-verdict-racism-won/)

[.blank cd]

Reid on Zimmerman: (http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/310865-reid-on-zimmerman-this-isnt-over-with)

Called it.

[Sinfix_15]

Called it.

This isnt a good thing..... not something you should be happy about calling.

Is it normal for the DOJ to intervene in trial decisions? Especially ones as open shut as this one.

[David88vert]

I watched the same trial you did. There was enough evidence to charge Zimmerman, and as of last night, not for a conviction. They don't have to be the same, and the prosecutor can charge something more severe than the police, and all the prosecutor needs is an affidavit of probable cause, which a judge decided to issue. If you believe it was political pressure, it doesn't really matter. These people are elected officials and that's a consequence of that. Everyone wants to be elected. There still needed to be an investigation. Any prosecutor would have jumped all over that case if there was a shred of a chance they could get a conviction. But they tried for too much. They might have got a conviction if it was just manslaughter they were looking for. Instead they focused on the 2nd degree murder and lost.

Highly highly doubt that. Might not have heard as much, but there would have been charges. I would be worried if there wasn't.

We are pretty close in agreement, just have different perspectives. I fully support an intensive, detailed investigation into any incident that results in a loss of life - of anyone. I think that race was injected too much into this particular trial, and that if it the specific events that were legally relevant were taken without race or emotion interjected into the discussion, then there is not enough evidence for the prosecution to have the ability to prove their case.

[.blank cd]

Here's another race baiting piece of shit..... Van Jones...

Van Jones: ‘The Verdict: Racism Won’ « Pat Dollard (http://patdollard.com/2013/07/van-jones-the-verdict-racism-won/)

It's intellectually dishonest to deny the racial undertones in what happened that night. Zimmerman may have not pulled the trigger because he was black, Martin may have not had an optimal response to Zimmerman, But Martin "fit a profile"

[BanginJimmy]

An investigation happened, and he was put on trial. In that order. Are they doing the investigation right now or something?

An investigation happened, no charges were filed. Politicians and black groups started getting uppity, then charges were filed. That was the real order of events.


What was racial about that statement?

You implied that that it would be an open and shut murder conviction if the black guy lived.


Were you listening to the trial for evidence for an a affidavit of probable cause to charge Zimmerman? That's backwards. Zimmerman profiled (do not read: racially) and shot Martin while Martin was not committing a crime. That is a fact that no one disputes. That was enough to get probable cause for a charge. That's how it works. It wasnt media pressure. The media was focused on the racial aspect of the case, Zimmerman was charged with 2nd degree murder, he was not charged with a racially motivated hate crime. I don't understand why people are confusing the media's interpretation of the case with the actual facts and due process. Just because he was innocent doesn't mean he didn't do anything wrong or not worth investigating.

As I have said multiple times, I read the daily run downs I found online. At no point was Zimmerman's self defense plea challenged with evidence. The only challenges to that defense were presented with conjecture and what ifs.

Killing someone is NOT enough to charge someone with a crime, especially when the shooter claims self defense.

I agree with you that Zimmerman profiled, I have no issues with profiling as long as its done correctly though. I also agree with you that the police nor Zimmerman took the race of anyone involved into consideration when they made their decisions. Race only became an issue in the media after the race profiteers got involved.


Why should any of them be media spectacles? Why are you preoccupied with the media's account of the case? This case shouldn't have been a media spectacle, but unfortunately it was. It should have played out the way it did whether it was a media spectacle or not.

I agree completely with you here. The race pimps made it a media spectacle. Obama made it a media spectacle with his comments. It should say a lot when charges were only filed after the media got involved.

[Sinfix_15]

It's intellectually dishonest to deny the racial undertones in what happened that night. Zimmerman may have not pulled the trigger because he was black, Martin may have not had an optimal response to Zimmerman, But Martin "fit a profile"

That's your speculative opinion. Zimmerman gave a vivid description of why he thought Trayvon was suspicious.

Reality = Nothing Zimmerman did was even remotely motivated by race.
Reality = Trayvon is the one who called Zimmerman a cracker before doubling back to confront him.

[David88vert]

Called it.


This isnt a good thing..... not something you should be happy about calling.

Is it normal for the DOJ to intervene in trial decisions? Especially ones as open shut as this one.

I don't see where he said he was happy about it, just that he was predicting it would happen.

[BanginJimmy]

It's intellectually dishonest to deny the racial undertones in what happened that night. Zimmerman may have not pulled the trigger because he was black, Martin may have not had an optimal response to Zimmerman, But Martin "fit a profile"

What racial undertones are you talking about? Zimmerman saw someone acting suspicious and reported it. Then followed him while waiting for police.

[Bacon]

People are still trying to rationalize what "could've" or what "shouldve" and race this and race that. The case is closed. He is innocent. Plain and simple.

Sent from my Galaxy Note II

[Sinfix_15]

People are still trying to rationalize what "could've" or what "shouldve" and race this and race that. The case is closed. He is innocent. Plain and simple.

Sent from my Galaxy Note II

Our DOJ doesnt think it's over...... the same people who thought this guy was innocent, think Zimmerman is guilty... It creates quite the contrast i would say...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=oBhzJnJIilI

[.blank cd]

I think that race was injected too much into this particular trial, and that if it the specific events that were legally relevant were taken without race or emotion interjected into the discussion, then there is not enough evidence for the prosecution to have the ability to prove their case.But he wasn't charged with a race related crime. I would understand if he was charged with a hate crime. There was a dead, unarmed 17yr old, and one man's claim of self defense. I don't care what race anyone is, I would need more info than that before I let someone free. Luckily, Zimmerman's bloody nose didn't cut it for a few people, and I unilaterally support a full investigation when the water was murky like it was. If I were Zimmerman, I would've turned myself in too. But the jury decided it was enough for self defense according to the law, and we have to respect that.

[David88vert]

But he wasn't charged with a race related crime. I would understand if he was charged with a hate crime. There was a dead, unarmed 17yr old, and one man's claim of self defense. I don't care what race anyone is, I would need more info than that before I let someone free. Luckily, Zimmerman's bloody nose didn't cut it for a few people, and I unilaterally support a full investigation when the water was murky like it was. If I were Zimmerman, I would've turned myself in too. But the jury decided it was enough for self defense according to the law, and we have to respect that.

I see your point and agree that it is a reasonable position for you to stand with. No disagreement from me on that at all.

I am quite pleased and impressed that you have not fallen into the potential "race traps" that have been repeatedly stated in the media and to a smaller aspect in this thread.

[hondachik]

WTF!! This thread blew up overnight!! Gonna have to grab a bag of popcorn and a 40 oz for this read, Smh.

[.blank cd]

An investigation happened, no charges were filed. Politicians and black groups started getting uppity, then charges were filed. That was the real order of events.What do politicians and "black groups" not directly involved in this ordeal have to do with anything? Charges were filed before the media outrage caught traction.




You implied that that it would be an open and shut murder conviction if the black guy lived.How was that a racial implication? If all the events were the same and Martin killed Zimmerman first, would he be in jail? Even if both parties were white, or Hispanic, If an altercation occurred and Martin believed he was defending himself, since everything leading up to the altercation was irrelevant, according to the law, would he have been set free?


As I have said multiple times, I read the daily run downs I found online. At no point was Zimmerman's self defense plea challenged with evidence. The only challenges to that defense were presented with conjecture and what ifs.That was during the trial, and that's why the prosecution lost. They didnt have enough evidence to convict. There was enough evidence to charge, and they do not have to be equal.


Killing someone is NOT enough to charge someone with a crime, especially when the shooter claims self defense.Apparently it is, and it should be. That's why we have laws from Capital murder to justifiable homicide.

[.blank cd]

I see your point and agree that it is a reasonable position for you to stand with. No disagreement from me on that at all.

I am quite pleased and impressed that you have not fallen into the potential "race traps" that have been repeatedly stated in the media and to a smaller aspect in this thread.

Because they were both minorities. No one in the media seems to understand that. Even if Zimmerman was blonde haired blue eyed white, if he was defending himself, he was defending himself. I don't see anything that would make me believe that Zimmerman pulled the trigger because Martin was black.

There are still racial undertones in that ordeal that anyone is susceptible to. Black people wearing typical gangster clothing looking up to no good is still a racial stereotype. It even happens amongst blacks themselves. It should be addressed, criminally or not, and hopefully in addressing it, people will think twice before thinking someone is up to no good. Would this have happened if Trayvon was wearing Khaki dress slacks, sperry's, and a windbreaker?

Hopefully this case has taught everyone a lesson.

[Sinfix_15]

Jesse Jackson FAIL: Trayvon Martin Denied Jury Of His Peers « Pat Dollard (http://patdollard.com/2013/07/jesse-jackson-bitches-trayvon-martin-denied-jury-of-his-peers/)

[BanginJimmy]

What do politicians and "black groups" not directly involved in this ordeal have to do with anything? Charges were filed before the media outrage caught traction.

Wrong. Charges came AFTER the media got their hands on it.




How was that a racial implication? If all the events were the same and Martin killed Zimmerman first, would he be in jail? Even if both parties were white, or Hispanic, If an altercation occurred and Martin believed he was defending himself, since everything leading up to the altercation was irrelevant, according to the law, would he have been set free?

I believe he would have been. I believe if Zimmerman was on top of Martin beating his head against the ground and Martin was able to get Zimmerman's gun away from him and he shot Zimmerman he would have walked, and rightly so.


That was during the trial, and that's why the prosecution lost. They didnt have enough evidence to convict. There was enough evidence to charge, and they do not have to be equal.

Did the prosecution not go over their own evidence and witness statements before they went to trial? The only prosecution witnesses that did not support Zimmerman was Martins family. It doesnt take a legal scholar to realize that the case was unwinnable for the prosecution, even if you think they had enough to bring it to trial.


Apparently it is, and it should be. That's why we have laws from Capital murder to justifiable homicide.

No, it actually isnt and thats been my point all along. This should have never even gone to trial because there was boatloads of evidence supporting Zimmerman's claim of self defense and none that contradicted it. You wanted him convicted but cant cite a single piece of evidence to refute the self defense claim. Why should he have been convicted when you cant find evidence to support it?

[.blank cd]

What racial undertones are you talking about? Zimmerman saw someone acting suspicious and reported it. Then followed him while waiting for police.

How was Trayvon acting suspicious? He was somewhere he was legally allowed to be, and wearing a hooded sweatshirt in the rain sounds pretty reasonable to me. If we take Zimmerman on his word that he was weaving through houses, was he taking a shortcut to his place, or was he trying to lose someone he recognized was following him? What were the facts that supported Trayvon acting suspiciously?

[David88vert]

Because they were both minorities. No one in the media seems to understand that. Even if Zimmerman was blonde haired blue eyed white, if he was defending himself, he was defending himself. I don't see anything that would make me believe that Zimmerman pulled the trigger because Martin was black.

There are still racial undertones in that ordeal that anyone is susceptible to. Black people wearing typical gangster clothing looking up to no good is still a racial stereotype. It even happens amongst blacks themselves. It should be addressed, criminally or not, and hopefully in addressing it, people will think twice before thinking someone is up to no good. Would this have happened if Trayvon was wearing Khaki dress slacks, sperry's, and a windbreaker?

Hopefully this case has taught everyone a lesson.

I agree with you on this. To me, it shouldn't matter what the races are of the individuals.
Perhaps if Trayvon was dressed differently, GZ may not have reported him as suspicious; however, Trayvon was not dressed inappropriately, and did nothing wrong, from what I saw presented at the trial.

[BanginJimmy]

How was Trayvon acting suspicious? He was somewhere he was legally allowed to be, and wearing a hooded sweatshirt in the rain sounds pretty reasonable to me. If we take Zimmerman on his word that he was weaving through houses, was he taking a shortcut to his place, or was he trying to lose someone he recognized was following him? What were the facts that supported Trayvon acting suspiciously?

From what I understand, Martin was stopping and looking at houses, then weaving between them. At that point Zimmerman started following him. I will admit though, when I read that I didnt have much interest in this and never thought it would end up at trial.

[.blank cd]

Wrong. Charges came AFTER the media got their hands on it.





I believe he would have been. I believe if Zimmerman was on top of Martin beating his head against the ground and Martin was able to get Zimmerman's gun away from him and he shot Zimmerman he would have walked, and rightly so.



Did the prosecution not go over their own evidence and witness statements before they went to trial? The only prosecution witnesses that did not support Zimmerman was Martins family. It doesnt take a legal scholar to realize that the case was unwinnable for the prosecution, even if you think they had enough to bring it to trial.



No, it actually isnt and thats been my point all along. This should have never even gone to trial because there was boatloads of evidence supporting Zimmerman's claim of self defense and none that contradicted it. You wanted him convicted but cant cite a single piece of evidence to refute the self defense claim. Why should he have been convicted when you cant find evidence to support it?I didn't care if he got convicted or not as long as the evidence that was presented to the jury was true. And I've never said he should have been convicted. The prosecution did not have enough evidence to convinct, that does not, in the American legal system, mean that there wasn't enough evidence to charge Zimmerman. There was an unarmed dead 17yo and a +30yo man with a gun, a bloody nose, and one side of the story at the time, according to an affidavit of probable cause signed by a judge. It does not matter what the police charge him with to hold him if the state wants to press charges. This is how the system works.

[BanginJimmy]

A good opinion piece from a Chicago Tribune columnist written on June 29th.


Change of Subject: Zimmerman trial has all the ingredients for a miscarriage of justice (http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news_columnists_ezorn/2013/06/-zimmerman-trial-has-all-the-ingredients-for-a-miscarriage-of-justice.html)

[ISAtlanta300]

An investigation happened, and he was put on trial. In that order. Are they doing the investigation right now or something?

What was racial about that statement?

Were you listening to the trial for evidence for an a affidavit of probable cause to charge Zimmerman? That's backwards. Zimmerman profiled (do not read: racially) and shot Martin while Martin was not committing a crime. That is a fact that no one disputes..


But Martin WAS committing a crime. He was physically assaulting Zimmerman.

Lesson of the day: Know who you fuck with. Especially in Florida.

[.blank cd]

But Martin WAS committing a crime. He was physically assaulting Zimmerman.

Lesson of the day: Know who you fuck with. Especially in Florida.

So you were there? You saw it? Why didn't you testify in the trial?

[BanginJimmy]

So you were there? You saw it? Why didn't you testify in the trial?

Are you saying saying there was no evidence that Martin assaulted Zimmerman?

[ISAtlanta300]

So you were there? You saw it? Why didn't you testify in the trial?

Don't be an idiot. This was all brought up in the trial and the jury ruled on it. You weren't there either. All i am quoting you is facts from the trial. Everything else is just opinion.

[ISAtlanta300]

This is how i feel:

Family guy - OJ Simpson verdict - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a1s5sLY4hVo)

But the roles are reversed this time.... lol

[BanginJimmy]

Jury finds George Zimmerman not guilty - U.S. News (http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/07/13/19441838-jury-finds-george-zimmerman-not-guilty?lite)


Last line of this, Zimmerman has sued NBC for defamation. I think its open and shut for him if they base it only on the edited call to police. The fact that the program director that used the edited tape was fired for doing it basicly proves Zimmerman's case for him.

[Bacon]

I vote for thread lock. This has turned into an e-penis contest and nobody has evidence to support it.

Sent from my Galaxy Note II

[SHHHH]

I vote for thread lock. This has turned into an e-penis contest and nobody has evidence to support it.

Sent from my Galaxy Note II

Agreed.

[.blank cd]

Don't be an idiot. This was all brought up in the trial and the jury ruled on it. You weren't there either. All i am quoting you is facts from the trial. Everything else is just opinion.

The jury ruled that Zimmerman defended himself. That's all they ruled on. They didnt rule on who started the fight.

[Sinfix_15]

So Obama blames the death of Trayvon on gun violence.....

Looks to me like the gun worked exactly how it is suppose to work. It stopped Zimmerman from being assaulted. Zimmerman screaming for help didnt stop Trayvon, no reason to believe he would have stopped before doing great bodily harm to Zimmerman. A gun stopped this assault....

He also says we should honor Trayvon.... for what???

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BPJoS0dCAAAPEp2.jpg
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BPKeo0CCYAANld_.jpg:large

[Sinfix_15]

Al Sharpton: Lynching Zimmerman On Federal Charges Was ‘Always Plan B’ « Pat Dollard (http://patdollard.com/2013/07/al-sharpton-lynching-zimmerman-on-federal-charges-was-always-plan-b/)

[Vteckidd]

Thread has run its course. LOCKED