-
Comment -
I get that morals are different everywhere. I'm just giving my view.
When you stalk and ultimately kill a man you aren't completely innocent.
And who's to say tm was bashing his head in? Gz said tm was covering gz bloody nose with tm hands yet tm hands had no ttraces of blood. Now gz loses credibility, yet he's presumed to be telling the truth.
Do you really think gz life was in danger?Comment -
GOOGLE the audio from the call Zimmerman made....look at the timelines as well
Look at the timeline pointed out based off of Trayvon's phone bill where the time he hung up with Rachel Jenteal until the time the other 911 calls came in. Thats where the now infamous 4 minute gap pause came from in closing arguments. And why they spent a day or so in testimony having phone reps testify and bring in explanations of how calls are synched and GPS etc.
Rachel Jenteal said Trayvon said he was running...and that he was almost home then she heard a man come up and then a thump and then heard Trayvon yelling 'get off me get off me".....all of this can't be true since from the time Trayvon disconnected with her Zimmerman was still on the phone with 911 and another couple minutes passed before neighbors started calling in about the screams. So the theory posed by Zimmerman the entire time lines up...he was walking trying to give a good location, he hung up and as shown in is video with police, he said I was walking back here and heard him yell at me from over here in the bushes.......Trayvon waited on him and instigated the fight.Comment -
some how i feel this is obamas fault....Comment -
Punk meets dumbass. dumbass has gun. Punk dies.Comment -
If you take out the year of nonstop spoon fed narrative and look just at the case presented the last couple of weeks as well as listen to it yourself online....everything adds up for the Defense. EVERYTHING. There is a reason everyone was up in arms crying that each of the prosecution witnesses seemed good for the defense..that is because what the defense said happened happened...not the other way around.
If Zimmerman would have pulled his weapon and actually chased after him...I'd say send him away
If Zimmerman tackled him and pistol whipped him first then I'd say send him away
Clearly what happened is that he simply got back out of the truck a second time, was walking back and going to meet the cops and got caught not paying attention and Trayvon picked the fight with him. THAT is the crime that night.
It's not illegal to follow someone you are calling the cops on
Its not illegal to do so or simply carry a loaded pistol with permit
It's not required by law to yell out "stop I'm neighborhood watch and I study MMA"
What is illegal, is bashing someone's head on the concrete and pummeling them.Comment -
that's basically my point. everyone agrees that zimmerman's actions that night caused the death of an innocent child but because the jury couldn't agree on the punishment, he goes scott free.
and before someone cries racism had nothing to do with it, lets be real here, had the jury been 6 blacks instead of 5 whites/1 hispanic, the outcome might've been very different. there are reasons why all these attorneys use jury profilers to pick race/gender that will best help their side prevail.
what's crazy is that while i was watching big brother, these two white chicks started making racial slurs against their asian and black housemates. just goes to show even on an innocent tv show, racism isn't immune. glad these two bigots lost their jobs due to their blatant racism.
zimmerman may have had some minor injuries but trayvon has a hole in his chest. zimmerman's injuries did not warrant deadly force. to me, he's not innocent morally or legally. unfortunately he is not guilty though, only because prosecution screwed up asking for too much punishment and/or selecting the wrong jurors.Comment -
What I am about to say is speculative for sure, but it is salient.
If, IFF, this was able to go to civil court, and a lesser burden of proof be applied, Zimmerman would be found guilty.
The only difference is the jury in this criminal case applied a correct burden of proof to the evidence presented.
So, then - once again, you have the paradox of a not guilty, guilty guy - who is absolutely not innocent.
Point being. It's all technicalities and legal wrangling. Most of which has nothing to do with facts. (i.e., this can't be persued in civil court because of Florida law, and - because of the specific Florida law, the issue of guilt is different).
Meaning, if this happened in another state, the outcome would be absolutely different. This idea of justice you present, is not only subjectively different but geographically different as well.
Anyway, the best part about this for me is seeing a the reactions being reversal in demographics from the OJ case.Comment -
To put it simply.
Let's use Obamacare as an example. (As I assume most of you who think justice was done, hate obamacare).
Anyway, let's say your child goes into a routine procedure, but her doctor wanted to check into something.
Turns out, that what the doctor was checking into was well beyond the area of the doctors expertise. He should have referred the issue to a professional who regularly deals with this "problem". Anyway, he decides to go check it out himself, and he botches it terribly. As a result your daughter is dead.
You sue the doctor for wrongful death, but as it turns out a random clause in this piece of "law" called Obamacare gives the doctor a defense to your claim, and as a result - is able to be found not guilty because of said defense.
Now, do you think justice is served? Because a piece of "Law" offered a defense to the doctors exact circumstance?
----
There isn't a wrong answer to the last question. It's very subjective.
- According to the law, everything worked out.
- According to reality, a kid is dead and the person who caused the death is without penalty.Comment -
Comment -
Obamacare my assComment -
can someone fill me in on what this trial is about?
i havent seen anything about it yetComment -
It's too bad there isn't a FL state statute for Aggravated Poor Judgement By An Adult Involving A Minor.
There is no doubt in my mind that Zimmerman is guilty of that.Comment -
Famous sports stars responses to verdict
@DwyaneWade
Wow!!! Stunned!!! Saddened as a father!!! Some1 make sense of this verdict for me right now please!!! Don't worry I'll wait...
9:09 PM - 13 Jul 2013Comment -
@WarrenSapp
Don't forget to set your clocks back 50 years before you go to sleep tonight #NoJusticeComment -
@roddywhiteTV
All them jurors should go home tonight and kill themselves for letting a grown man get away with killing a kid
10:03 PM - 13 Jul 2013Comment -
Comment -
Victor Cruz deleted his tweet but had tweeted
@TeamVic
Thoroughly confused. Zimmerman doesn’t last a year before the hood catches up to him.Comment -
i dont know all the details but i do know this... if somebody is on top of me beating my ass .... ya damn right im bout bust a cap
thats what guns are for .. self defense. Thats why we all need a conceal carry and berreta...
that way next time we in a movie theater and and somebody starts blastin ...we blast back.Comment -
I agree. State definitely overcharged out of pressure in this one. Heard it mentioned before I turned the TV off about how Angela Correy even sidestepped a grand jury and just indicted Zimmerman on her on...big overstep. And we see the result.
As with any murder/self defense case its the littlest details that can bring a wide array of results. If Zimmerman had pulled his weapon not to point it at Trayvon necessarily but to have it out and at the ready while walking around would have went the other way with jury, had their been an actual foot chase and Trayvon stopped and turned on Zimmerman, would have went the other way as well.Comment -
Comment -
here's the crazy part.... had trayvon pulled out a gun and shot zimmerman dead, not only would he still be alive but would be legally protected under the stand your ground law. but since he protected himself with his fists, he's a punk criminal who deserved what he got.
im sure nra is happy that whoever fired, they got off scott free.Comment -
Entirely incorrect statement of the law.
"Stand-your-ground law states that a person may justifiably use force in self-defense when there is reasonable belief of an unlawful threat"
In this case, Zimmerman merely following him for ANY reason isn't legally or factually going to provide "reasonable belief of an unlawful threat"...in fact, it's quite the contrary, merely following someone is very NOT against the law and certainly someone just following you wouldn't give a "reasonable belief" on its face of an unlawful "threat".
Not to mention, there isn't even concrete evidence (or even a preponderance of the evidence that he was, for that matter) he was actually following Martin when the deadly encounter actually took place...and if he wasn't even following him, even MORE reason your hypothetical and assertion about the law is flawed for multiple reasons.Comment -
let me get this straight.... zimmerman wasn't following him, yet he was relaying to the 911 dispatcher everything trayvon was doing for over 4 mins. then tells the dispatcher trayvon was running and he was going to follow him. but he wasn't following him.
if someone was following me in their car, i would have done exactly what trayvon did.... take off and into an alley inaccessible by car. if they continue following me on foot, you better believe i will consider you a huge threat and shoot you, which is the very definition of "people fearing for their lives can use deadly force without having to retreat from a confrontation, even when it is possible."
Comment -
Zimmerman's defense presented evidence that he had STOPPED following Martin well before the confrontation, and the map they presented w/ the alleged routes each person took during the events corroborated exactly what Zimmerman told police and detectives. If he wasn't believable to the people doing the actual police investigation after the events occurred, they would have pressed charges, which they didn't. More than enough to prove reasonable doubt that he was actually in pursuit during the time of the deadly altercation in question...
Actually, if I was in his shoes and I was only 300 yards from where I was staying, I would have ran as fast as I could have that direction and called 911 myself...
Again, that isn't the actual definition as you are omitting a key phrase, the belief of "fearing for your life" must be REASONABLE. I don't think if someone was following me out of nowhere that there initial intention would be to kill me...and like I said, if it was my thought, I'd have called 911 and tried to run to my house.
Martin wouldn't have had an obligation to retreat if he had such a reasonable belief as you are trying to project, but from a legal perspective it just isn't there for him in these facts.
AND, had Martin actually had a gun as he actually had attempted to acquire via his text messages on his phone, he wouldn't have been in legal possession of the firearm, which is ALSO required under the law. Which, Zimmerman was...just another reason your hypothetical just honestly isn't legally accurate.Comment -
wait, you claimed zimmerman wasn't following him, yet now admit he was indeed following him. make up your mind. and he didn't "stop" following him by choice, trayvon ran into an alley inaccessible by car and lost sight of him, which prompted him to get out and chase after him on foot. funny that zimmerman claims he only left his car to look for a street sign yet his own route suggest otherwise. not surprising coming from a pathological liar who has been caught in dozens of lies.
if your daughter calls saying she was being followed by a stranger, you'd tell her following isn't illegal and hang up? of course not, you'd immediately jump in your car and head straight to wherever she was. strangers follow people for a reason and it's often for devious reasons.
i've actually had strangers tail me in a car recently while i was driving to the market. they were probably following because i had just gotten a new car. i would test them by entering and exiting several businesses and they would do exactly the same. it was a scary and helpless feeling. so i know how trayvon must've felt. luckily, i was able to lose them after being followed for 10 miles.
some stand your ground law cases:
In 2006, he showed up at Steven Deon Mitchell's Jacksonville carwash business and started arguing over a woman. When the fight escalated, Harden shot and killed Mitchell, who was unarmed.
Prosecutors filed no charges.
• During an argument at a 2009 party in Fort Myers, Omar Bonilla fired his gun into the ground and beat Demarro Battle, then went inside and gave the gun to a friend. If Battle feared for his life, he had time to flee. Instead, he got a gun from his car and returned to shoot Bonilla three times, including once in the back. Battle was not charged in the slaying.
At another party in the same town five months later, Reginald Etienne and Joshua Sandswere arguing. Etienne left the party and returned with a knife. During a fistfight between the two men, Etienne fatally stabbed Sands. He was sent to prison for life.
• In Winter Springs, Owen Eugene Whitlock came home on Christmas Eve 2009 to find his daughter's boyfriend, Jose Ramirez, angrily stalking up his driveway, flexing his muscles and swinging his fists. Whitlock stood his ground and fired a fatal shot. He was not charged.
In Clearwater, Terry Tyrone Davis shot and killed his cousin as he stalked up the walkway of Davis' home in 2010 with a group of friends. "There's no doubt he was going over there to kick his a--,'' Circuit Judge Philip J. Federico said, "but that does not allow you to kill a guy." Davis is now serving 25 years in prison.
• In West Palm Beach, Christopher Cote started pounding on the door of neighbor Jose Tapanes at 4 a.m. after an argument over Cote's dog. Tapanes stepped outside and fired his shotgun twice, killing Cote. A jury acquitted him, but prosecutors and a judge had discounted Tapanes' self-defense claim, saying if he was truly afraid for his life, he should not have stepped outside.
Yet Rhonda Eubanks was not arrested or charged when she opened her front door one evening in 2006 and fatally shot a man who had been causing a ruckus in her Escambia County neighborhood. He had tried to get into her house, then left and tried to take her neighbors' cars. When he returned, Eubanks stood near her doorway and fired as he approached.
When Gerald Terrell Jones shot his marijuana dealer in the face in Brandon this year, he was charged with attempted murder and aggravated assault. A jury later acquitted him. But a judge had rejected Jones' "stand your ground'' motion, in part, because he was committing a crime at the time.
as you can see, stand your ground law really had no set boundaries and can be invoked basically anytime someone is shot. so to say trayvon wouldn't have immunity is ridiculous.
Btw, nowhere in the law does it say you're not covered if you possess an illegal gun.
"Still unresolved is whether a defendant can get immunity if he illegally has a gun."
Comment -
Comment -
Comment -
Whether or not he was following him isn't and wasn't an issue, in particular because that couldn't be proven one way or the other, which is entirely the state's burden to do! I don't personally believe he was following him at the time of the confrontation when he was out of his car, but even if you do that doesn't mean he wasn't legally entitled to his self-defense claim as he used to win his case....
The only issue that mattered in THIS case was whether or not George Zimmerman reasonably and in good faith feared for his life or that he was in imminent harm of serious bodily injury.
Hate the law or agree with it, if someone was on top of you and raining blows to your head and face and slamming your head into the ground, odds are you will be justified in alleging you reasonably feared for your life. (at least the jury in this case said so...)
That's a fact.
Firstly, my 17 year old daughter being followed at night by herself is different than my 17 year old son being followed at night by himself. I think it's clear as to why...
However, I may get in my car if they were w/in driving distance, yes, but I would tell BOTH of them to hang up and call 911 immediately. I'd also hang up and call 911 immediately.
I'm sure you are correct and have no reason to not believe you, and people are followed for their new cars all the time...but why wouldn't you call 911 and report them, if you didn't? Try and get a license plate, etc. That's suspicious behavior certainly, and not only would putting their license plate on legal record assist you in the near future should something happen to you and/or your car, but may help get them off the street or at least have the proper authorities stop and question them and perhaps deter them...
Stand your ground is a more specific component of general self-defense law...if you understand anything about self-defense law you'd know that Martin, again, would need to reasonably fear for his life or be in imminent bodily harm. Between the two arguments they each present in both the actual facts of Zimmerman's self defense claim, and the hypothetical you present...one argues self defense because he was being pummeled, and the other one argues self defense because he was being followed by a guy who was on the phone w/ 911 reporting the then would-be shooter (Martin in your hypothetical) as a suspicious person...
In fact, had Martin called 911 instead of choosing to fight instead of flight, he'd still be alive because he'd likely have found out exactly who was, in your version of the events, "chasing him"...
Comment
