George Zimmerman not guilty

[crustyme]

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"...

zimmerman following trayvon is the issue. huge issue. had he not been followed by zimmerman, he would still be walking straight home without any worries, talking to his gf and looking forward to watching a ball game on tv. but that all changed when zimmerman started following and stalking him. it obviously made him nervous & scared which prompted him to change his plans and caused him to start running and possibly hiding.

it's funny how the defense claimed zimmerman wasn't following yet kept reiterating that following wasn't illegal. this is the type of double-talk you get from liars.

so only girls that are followed are in danger? no boys who were followed have ever been mugged, beaten, or killed? sounds silly.

btw, why would you call the cops when following someone isn't against the law?

when i was being followed, my first instinct was to get away. calling the cops wasn't even on my mind because i was desperately trying to escape. if you've ever been followed, you'd know how scary and helpless it is.

as the cases i've posted show, people have been shot dead just for walking up a driveway while unarmed and the shooter was granted immunity under stand your ground law. all trayvon had to do was prove he was being followed (proven) and that zimmerman was a threat to his life (concealed gun) and he'd be a free man.

again, you keep double talking saying following isn't illegal yet in the same breath saying he should've called 911 if he was being followed. i mean if it's not illegal and it isn't a life threatening situation, why would the cops show up at all?

[infamousbacardi]

zimmerman following trayvon is the issue. huge issue. had he not been followed by zimmerman, he would still be walking straight home without any worries, talking to his gf and looking forward to watching a ball game on tv. but that all changed when zimmerman started following and stalking him. it obviously made him nervous & scared which prompted him to change his plans and caused him to start running and possibly hiding.

it's funny how the defense claimed zimmerman wasn't following yet kept reiterating that following wasn't illegal. this is the type of double-talk you get from liars.

so only girls that are followed are in danger? no boys who were followed have ever been mugged, beaten, or killed? sounds silly.

btw, why would you call the cops when following someone isn't against the law?

when i was being followed, my first instinct was to get away. calling the cops wasn't even on my mind because i was desperately trying to escape. if you've ever been followed, you'd know how scary and helpless it is.

as the cases i've posted show, people have been shot dead just for walking up a driveway while unarmed and the shooter was granted immunity under stand your ground law. all trayvon had to do was prove he was being followed (proven) and that zimmerman was a threat to his life (concealed gun) and he'd be a free man.

again, you keep double talking saying following isn't illegal yet in the same breath saying he should've called 911 if he was being followed. i mean if it's not illegal and it isn't a life threatening situation, why would the cops show up at all?

You have a serious misunderstanding of how a criminal case works. You present both your theory, AND defenses to THEIR theory...

The defense's argument and assertion of the facts is that he was NOT being followed when the altercation was started...HOWEVER, the LEGAL defense argument by the defense team in this case AND myself in this thread is that it doesn't matter, even if the JURY were to believe the prosecution's argument that Zimmerman was actually following Martin, he STILL has a right to his self defense claim...

And in response to "why call the cops when following someone isn't against the law?" This is pretty easy common sense crusty....If I'm suspicious of someone or out in public and I become worried about someone's actions and how they pertain to me, I'd probably call 911. Martin didn't call 911, maybe he wasn't worried or fearful about Zimmerman?

[Hustler11]

If black people want justice so bad why do they witness shooting in the "hood" everyday and when the cops show up don't say sh!t about it out of "respect". Just shows you how hypocritical they are. Nobodys scared of them or their cousins, uncles, babies daddy's or their wussy little gangs they roll around with. Their screaming GZ would be killed if he was acquitted. Well still no report saying he's dead. All they do is hype each other up and follow the guy in front. In this case that would be Al Sharpton and the New Black Panther Party. (OH NO!)

[TheRifleman]

If black people want justice so bad why do they witness shooting in the "hood" everyday and when the cops show up don't say sh!t about it out of "respect". Just shows you how hypocritical they are. Nobodys scared of them or their cousins, uncles, babies daddy's or their wussy little gangs they roll around with. Their screaming GZ would be killed if he was acquitted. Well still no report saying he's dead. All they do is hype each other up and follow the guy in front. In this case that would be Al Sharpton and the New Black Panther Party. (OH NO!)

couldn't agree more...bunch of sissies. That's it!

Come get some.

We've HAD ENOUGH.

They just run their big mouths, like they are scaring someone...ok, the liberals are scared, but not real men.


As usual, the black is an expert in 'Frontin", but that's all.....they are scared little rabbits, and now, they are more scared because it's open season on the little thugs......lol..

Bottom-line is that NOTHING is going to happen to Zman..NOTHING.

If I were him I would have gone down to South Beach and partied like it's 1999!!! And then, took a tour of the Miami ghetto....NOW WHAT, I'd say.....

Nothing!!!

That's what!!!


LOL!!!

[itchypickle]

I've heard 4 different black pundits on 3 networks today give the argument that while the facts of this case were never going to show a murder they are simply upset that the prosecution didn't go ahead and use the attention on this case to introduce race into the case as a way of showing the minority communities at large that they are cared for.

[crustyme]

You have a serious misunderstanding of how a criminal case works. You present both your theory, AND defenses to THEIR theory...

The defense's argument and assertion of the facts is that he was NOT being followed when the altercation was started...HOWEVER, the LEGAL defense argument by the defense team in this case AND myself in this thread is that it doesn't matter, even if the JURY were to believe the prosecution's argument that Zimmerman was actually following Martin, he STILL has a right to his self defense claim...

And in response to "why call the cops when following someone isn't against the law?" This is pretty easy common sense crusty....If I'm suspicious of someone or out in public and I become worried about someone's actions and how they pertain to me, I'd probably call 911. Martin didn't call 911, maybe he wasn't worried or fearful about Zimmerman?

you don't seem to understand the correlation between being followed and the subsequent events that led to the shooting. it was zimmerman's actions which led to the confrontation and the shooting.

scenario #1:

zimmerman ignores trayvon and continues on to wherever he was headed that night. trayvon continues to leisurely walk home and arrives safely. just another uneventful night.

scenario #2:

zimmerman spots trayvon and stops. calls 911 dispatch to report a suspicious black teen "a fukin c**n who gets away with everything" as he is heard saying. then starts to follow him. trayvon notices the creepy "cr**ka" who is stalking him and runs in to the dark alley to flee. zimmerman follows even after being told to stay in his car and wait for the cops. a confrontation occurs and zimmerman shoots trayvon.

what is the glaring difference between these 2 scenarios? had zimmerman chosen scenario #1, there would be no shooting and no dead teen.


theories aren't facts, they are called theories for a reason. and when that theory is based on a pathological liar's account of what happened, just makes them even less credible.

if you're in a bar and i pour drink over your head for no reason, and while you are beating the sh*t out of me, i pull out my gun and shoot you dead. am i also entitled to self defense and should go scott free, right?

you keep saying following isn't illegal yet think it's suspicious enough to call the emergency number. so which is it, illegal and no big deal or suspicious and an urgent emergency.

well obviously trayvon was suspicous and/or scared since he ran away from the creepy man who was following him for no reason. as for why he didn't call 911... who knows, maybe he felt he wasn't being followed anymore or maybe as a black person distrusts cops. but even if he had, it's not an emergency situation that cops come immediately with sirens blaring. the confrontation and shooting would've gone down well before they showed up. heck, they didn't show up when zimmerman called either.

[infamousbacardi]

you don't seem to understand the correlation between being followed and the subsequent events that led to the shooting. it was zimmerman's actions which led to the confrontation and the shooting.

scenario #1:

zimmerman ignores trayvon and continues on to wherever he was headed that night. trayvon continues to leisurely walk home and arrives safely. just another uneventful night.

scenario #2:

zimmerman spots trayvon and stops. calls 911 dispatch to report a suspicious black teen "a fukin c**n who gets away with everything" as he is heard saying. then starts to follow him. trayvon notices the creepy "cr**ka" who is stalking him and runs in to the dark alley to flee. zimmerman follows even after being told to stay in his car and wait for the cops. a confrontation occurs and zimmerman shoots trayvon.

what is the glaring difference between these 2 scenarios? had zimmerman chosen scenario #1, there would be no shooting and no dead teen.


theories aren't facts, they are called theories for a reason. and when that theory is based on a pathological liar's account of what happened, just makes them even less credible.

you keep saying following isn't illegal yet think it's suspicious enough to call the emergency number. so which is it, illegal and no big deal or suspicious and an urgent emergency.

well obviously trayvon was suspicous and/or scared since he ran away from the creepy man who was following him for no reason. as for why he didn't call 911... who knows, maybe he felt he wasn't being followed anymore or maybe as a black person distrusts cops. but even if he had, it's not an emergency situation that cops come immediately with sirens blaring. the confrontation and shooting would've gone down well before they showed up. heck, they didn't show up when zimmerman called either.

Crusty, you aren't arguing from a LEGAL perspective my friend. Certainly not a criminal law one. It's not about what you know, it's about what you can PROVE....

Perhaps your argument is better suited for a "tort" case. In which, "but for" Zimmerman stopping and calling police on Martin he would still be alive, that being your argument and all. However, even in torts there is what is called a "superseding intervening cause" that would negate your argument, and that would be, the punch to the face to begin the physical scuffle delivered incontrovertibly by Martin.

You can speak of "correlations" all you want, that's not what the LAW says and that's not the way the system works. The prosecution has an extremely high burden to prove, and they didn't come close to meeting half of that burden in that court room.

As my last post to you on this subject, I'll just point out a couple things.

Firstly, I literally can spot at least 4 or 5 FACTUAL ambiguities in your version of the events. Disagree w/ Zimmerman or agree w/ him, we will forever only know one version of the events from the night. All we can do is take what Zimmerman says, and contrast that to the other circumstantial evidence the case presents. The bottom line and the LEGAL and FACTUAL conclusion of this case is that you may THINK you know exactly what happened, but the investigators who initially looked into the matter decided NOT to press charges. Zimmerman then stood trial on charges that weren't even brought by the Sanford PD, and he then beat those charges. He has been LEGALLY and FACTUALLY cleared of legal wrong-doing by not only the Sanford PD in the first place but ALSO now a legal and bonafide jury of his peers....yet you believe YOU know more than they do about all of the facts and circumstantial evidence that they saw? You're entitled to your opinion, but you aren't entitled to make up your own facts.

Secondly, again, you are trying to spot this "which is it" type nonsense. I've been very clear. I'm not saying that following someone in general isn't suspicious enough for the "followee" to get a little nervy about it...of course, someone would have a right to feel UNEASY about it...in fact, if it happened to me and I was alone at night I may call 911 just to be sure I was safe....but is that on it's face, EVEN IF I did feel uneasy and call 911, a "reasonable belief" that my life was in danger?? I promise you, from a decent bit of legal experience, just about any court in America would find it difficult to grant the use of deadly force on those facts alone. Even in most of those cases you posted earlier, the person doing the shooting was in or near the actual confines of his yard...that's more the castle doctrine than it is the "stand your ground" law anyway....

And remember, Zimmerman had offered evidence into court to controvert the state's claim that he was following Martin at the time of the attack...this is an actual LEGAL argument...it is up to the STATE then to prove he was wrong...what piece of evidence PROVES BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT, in this case, that he was following him AT THE TIME of the altercation? Guess all you want, the FACT is that they couldn't produce one, beyond a reasonable doubt....let alone prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman even after that wouldn't have been entitled to use self defense based on the suggested sequence of events thereafter...

And again, EVEN if the state could have proved that, which they 100% DID NOT, they then couldn't prove that even if Zimmerman had been following Martin up until the exact moment of confrontation that Zimmerman didn't validly assert his legal right to self defense.

This case was a complete and total failure from an actual LEGAL perspective. Those are the FACTS of this case....nearly every single reputable legal pundit on t.v. said the same thing.

And I'll even do you one better....if Martin, in your hypothetical before, would have KNOWN that Zimmerman had a gun when he was being followed? That could have changed things from his perspective IF he were to have also had a gun and then shot Zimmerman. I'm sure he would have a very valid claim of self defense if he was being followed by someone whom he KNEW had a gun, and assuming he didn't run into any legal issues w/ him not being in lawful possession of the gun thereafter, as I mentioned could be a problem to Martin had those been the facts...but he didn't know that...and like I said, based on your hypothetical, he wouldn't have just been being followed then, he'd have been followed by someone whom he KNEW had a gun...

The bottom line is that Martin wasn't familiar w/ the area and Zimmerman exercised his legal right to call 911 and report a suspicious person. Did Zimmerman go a little beyond what a reasonable member of the neighborhood and the local neighborhood watch team would have or should have done? THAT is certainly a debate...but that doesn't make him guilty of murder or manslaughter on its face...and when you combine the facts of the case w/ the comparative injuries to Zimmerman and non-injuries (in terms of a physical scuffle) to Martin AND the most credible eye-witness stating that Martin was on top of Zimmerman repeatedly punching him in the face....it was just never going to be murder OR manslaughter. Martin punched the wrong guy in the face that night.

Lastly, what did Zimmerman say after the Sanford PD had lied to him and told him that Martin had recorded the entire confrontation? "Thank God!"....well I guess that strategy backfired on them....

The case should have never been brought, and it WASN'T by the Sanford PD who did the investigation. THEN the special prosecutors led by Angela Corey even went ahead and over-charged him on top of it all. THEN a jury of his peers heard every single piece of evidence the state could produce against him, and he still rightfully walked under the letter of the law.

If you want to be mad, be mad at the law...argue that Florida and the other 25 states or so that have enacted some form of the "stand your ground law" should look into changing the law....don't be mad at someone who acted w/in their legal right under it via the legal facts of this case as acquitted by the Sanford PD and in front of a jury.

[Hustler11]

zimmerman following trayvon is the issue. huge issue. had he not been followed by zimmerman, he would still be walking straight home without any worries, talking to his gf and looking forward to watching a ball game on tv. but that all changed when zimmerman started following and stalking him. it obviously made him nervous & scared which prompted him to change his plans and caused him to start running and possibly hiding.

it's funny how the defense claimed zimmerman wasn't following yet kept reiterating that following wasn't illegal. this is the type of double-talk you get from liars.

so only girls that are followed are in danger? no boys who were followed have ever been mugged, beaten, or killed? sounds silly.

btw, why would you call the cops when following someone isn't against the law?

when i was being followed, my first instinct was to get away. calling the cops wasn't even on my mind because i was desperately trying to escape. if you've ever been followed, you'd know how scary and helpless it is.

as the cases i've posted show, people have been shot dead just for walking up a driveway while unarmed and the shooter was granted immunity under stand your ground law. all trayvon had to do was prove he was being followed (proven) and that zimmerman was a threat to his life (concealed gun) and he'd be a free man.

again, you keep double talking saying following isn't illegal yet in the same breath saying he should've called 911 if he was being followed. i mean if it's not illegal and it isn't a life threatening situation, why would the cops show up at all?

Point 1) Following somebody isn't illegal, get that through your head.
Point 2) He didn't have to call the police if he didn't want too (he chose not too, im referring to TM as he's being followed.)
Point 3) If he thought he was in danger why was he the agressor attacking Zimmerman.

If you want it to be legal to attack someone because you say they're following you. pass the law and see how out of hand it gets. Which is what you're implying. Your the actual hypocrite

[Hustler11]

couldn't agree more...bunch of sissies. That's it!

Come get some.

We've HAD ENOUGH.

They just run their big mouths, like they are scaring someone...ok, the liberals are scared, but not real men.


As usual, the black is an expert in 'Frontin", but that's all.....they are scared little rabbits, and now, they are more scared because it's open season on the little thugs......lol..

Bottom-line is that NOTHING is going to happen to Zman..NOTHING.

If I were him I would have gone down to South Beach and partied like it's 1999!!! And then, took a tour of the Miami ghetto....NOW WHAT, I'd say.....

Nothing!!!

That's what!!!


LOL!!!

LOL RifleMan I'm glad your apart of this forum. Cheers to ya

[eidolon]

You have a serious misunderstanding of how a criminal case works. You present both your theory, AND defenses to THEIR theory...

The defense's argument and assertion of the facts is that he was NOT being followed when the altercation was started...HOWEVER, the LEGAL defense argument by the defense team in this case AND myself in this thread is that it doesn't matter, even if the JURY were to believe the prosecution's argument that Zimmerman was actually following Martin, he STILL has a right to his self defense claim...

And in response to "why call the cops when following someone isn't against the law?" This is pretty easy common sense crusty....If I'm suspicious of someone or out in public and I become worried about someone's actions and how they pertain to me, I'd probably call 911. Martin didn't call 911, maybe he wasn't worried or fearful about Zimmerman?

crusty really doesn't understand anything

[NYSportsGuy210]

dont change the subject....like you always do

ADDRESS THE THREAD

its just that simple hueguey

Last time I checked the SUBJECT of this thread was the George Zimmerman trial.....wow I just can't talk normally with retards.

[SharpBoxing]

couldn't agree more...bunch of sissies. That's it!

Come get some.

We've HAD ENOUGH.

They just run their big mouths, like they are scaring someone...ok, the liberals are scared, but not real men.


As usual, the black is an expert in 'Frontin", but that's all.....they are scared little rabbits, and now, they are more scared because it's open season on the little thugs......lol..

Bottom-line is that NOTHING is going to happen to Zman..NOTHING.

If I were him I would have gone down to South Beach and partied like it's 1999!!! And then, took a tour of the Miami ghetto....NOW WHAT, I'd say.....

Nothing!!!

That's what!!!


LOL!!!

[nyplayer33]

jury has spoken and all should accept the outcome

[Optional]

If someone was following me around the streets in a car at night, I'd probably ambush the prick too, if he got out and came after me on foot.

Certainly would put me in fear of physical danger just having someone follow me in the car. Let alone if they got out.

I would have thought I could probably punch his lights out without legal fear too. (here in Australia)


Glad I don't have to deal with any and all dopy bastards on the street being allowed to carry a gun to sort out that sort of situation though.

And if I did run into a gun toting vigilante, I'd hope the law would throw the book at him. Explaining a gun is not a reasonable response to fists ever.

[Dr.Gonzo]

So some thug is bashing your wifes head in, you contend that shooting him in self defense would not be a reasonable response?

[infamousbacardi]

If someone was following me around the streets in a car at night, I'd probably ambush the prick too, if he got out and came after me on foot.

Certainly would put me in fear of physical danger just having someone follow me in the car. Let alone if they got out.

I would have thought I could probably punch his lights out without legal fear too. (here in Australia)


Glad I don't have to deal with any and all dopy bastards on the street being allowed to carry a gun to sort out that sort of situation though.

And if I did run into a gun toting vigilante, I'd hope the law would throw the book at him. Explaining a gun is not a reasonable response to fists ever.

Another poster who ASSUMES from what they've heard in the media the ACTUAL facts of the case...

It is not proven by ANY means at all that Zimmerman "got out and came after him on foot"...

In fact, among other evidence, Zimmerman even passed a lie detector test in which during so he was asked, "were you following TM when the confrontation began", to which he replied "No"....

Just mind blowing how much so many SHEEP in this country just believe things because they are said on TV by some agenda toting news network, no matter what that network is. The FACTS of the case said no charges should have been brought, and they weren't. The facts of the case said if they were still brought he would walk, and he did.

This wasn't racism, this wasn't murder, PLENTY of ACTUAL instances of that in this country every day the "MEDIA" should actually bring people's attention to. This, wasn't, isn't, and NEVER will be one of them.

[rkelly110]

Since the prosecution in their closing arguments said about turning the tables, how about you guys who are against GZ not guilty verdict, put yourselves in GZ's shoes. You seem to put yourselves in Martins shoes and would do the same thing. Put your ass on the bottom getting your ass beat enough to make you scream like a little girl. You know you have a weapon, what would you do?

[Optional]

Another poster who ASSUMES from what they've heard in the media the ACTUAL facts of the case...

It is not proven by ANY means at all that Zimmerman "got out and came after him on foot"...

Ok Mr prosecutor, to word it better. If someone appeared to be stalking me at night in a car and then got out of that car and walked in the area where I was.... I'd feel threatened and probably ambush the guy as Martin is alleged to have done.

And you may not call it murder... but I don't see how it's much less than that when someone carries around a gun and acts threateningly to people walking the streets at night.

So some thug is bashing your wifes head in, you contend that shooting him in self defense would not be a reasonable response?

Correct, a gun is not an appropriate response to fists ever.

Deadly force is over the top when it comes to a fist fight.

[infamousbacardi]

Then we have to hear Benjamin Crump compare Trayvon Martin to Emmit Till.

Emmitt Till was taken from inside of his Uncle's home at 14 years of age in the middle of the night and beaten and murdered in cold blood for doing nothing more than doing what all teenage boys do, he allegedly flirted w/ a white woman who happened to be married. He was savagely beaten and murdered for his minor transgression, because he was black.

Emmitt Till died a very racist and heinous death...he is rightfully in the history books for having died for the evolution of civil rights in this country.

Trayvon Martin is NOTHING like Emmitt Till. Benjamin Crump and his comments are an utter and absolute disgrace. Filthy.

[infamousbacardi]

Ok Mr prosecutor, to word it better. If someone appeared to be stalking me at night in a car and then got out of that car and walked in the area where I was.... I'd feel threatened and probably ambush the guy as Martin is alleged to have done.

And you'd go to jail for assault and battery, deservedly so. Exactly where Martin would have gone that night had he not been shot in self defense.

And you may not call it murder... but I don't see how it's much less than that when someone carries around a gun and acts threateningly to people walking the streets at night.

Again, there is no concrete evidence that Zimmerman EVER acted "threateningly" toward Martin....none. Like I said, he even passed a lie detector test about this...yet everyone still argues like it's guaranteed fact he was out there menacing the neighborhood w/ his lawfully permitted weapon.

[Optional]

And you'd go to jail for assault and battery, deservedly so. Exactly where Martin would have gone that night had he not been shot in self defense.



Again, there is no concrete evidence that Zimmerman EVER acted "threateningly" toward Martin....none. Like I said, he even passed a lie detector test about this...yet everyone still argues like it's guaranteed fact he was out there menacing the neighborhood w/ his lawfully permitted weapon.

On #1 I'm not as sure it would be a slam dunk conviction for assault as you are.

Because

On #2 I suspect a judge would agree, from Martin's point of view, the actions were threatening, whether legal or not.

[infamousbacardi]

On #1 I'm not as sure it would be a slam dunk conviction for assault as you are.

Because

On #2 I suspect a judge would agree, from Martin's point of view, the actions were threatening, whether legal or not.

People can make opinions either way, that's their right. But the definition of reasonable doubt is exactly what everyone has been doing over the last 16 months...

[Dr.Gonzo]

Correct, a gun is not an appropriate response to fists ever.

Deadly force is over the top when it comes to a fist fight.

So you're quite happy to give free range for a thug to beat your wife to death.

Let her get raped while his at it as well.

[Optional]

People can make opinions either way, that's their right. But the definition of reasonable doubt is exactly what everyone has been doing over the last 16 months...

My humanity does not like a killing to be justified. And I don't really disagree with the decision under law.

I just think it's a bad community standard that a killing like this can be justified.

So you're quite happy to give free range for a thug to beat your wife to death.

Let her get raped while his at it as well.

Yeah yeah, of course that's just what I want of course

Now do you think it's fine for any coward to pull a gun because he is losing a fist fight?

[infamousbacardi]

My humanity does not like a killing to be justified. And I don't really disagree with the decision under law.

I just think it's a bad community standard that a killing like this can be justified.

Your argument seems to be more against the law than against George Zimmerman...which, is a very fair position to take in my mind. However, people saying Zimmerman is some racist vigilante out to hunt and kill minorities who are present in Sanford, FL are just ignorant sheep who can't think for themselves and believe what the t.v. tells them.

And again, Benjamin Crump comparing Martin to Emmitt Till should be a civil rights violation in itself. Wildly offensive to history.

[Dr.Gonzo]

Yeah yeah, of course that's just what I want of course

Now do you think it's fine for any coward to pull a gun because he is losing a fist fight?

Well that's the result of your policy, if it's not what you want change it.

Any coward? No.

George Zimmerman in this instance? I would give him the benefit of the doubt based on the evidence and witness testimony. It's also possible that I'm biased in Zimmerman's favor after the witchhunt from the MSM.

[TheRifleman]

NOT GUILTY!!!!

[Optional]

Well that's the result of your policy, if it's not what you want change it.

Any coward? No.

George Zimmerman in this instance? I would give him the benefit of the doubt based on the evidence and witness testimony. It's also possible that I'm biased in Zimmerman's favor after the witchhunt from the MSM.

I didn't mean Zimmerman, even though it did sound like that.

More that any person who feels unable to defend themselves physically is empowered under law to do that with a gun under this jurisdiction.

[Mikail]

[Hustler11]

My humanity does not like a killing to be justified. And I don't really disagree with the decision under law.

I just think it's a bad community standard that a killing like this can be justified.




Yeah yeah, of course that's just what I want of course

Now do you think it's fine for any coward to pull a gun because he is losing a fist fight?

If he wasn't the agressor then hell yeah. Martin was a thug who whooped up the wrong guy. Let's move on....

[Imsmarterthanu]

If he wasn't the agressor then hell yeah. Martin was a thug who whooped up the wrong guy. Let's move on....

you're a coward

if you can't defend yourself physically you shouldn't be driving around pretending to be a cop

how you came to the conclusion that martin was the aggressor is beyond me but then again many people are just fueled by their own inner prejudices.

[GunShard]

Jurors initially had 3 not guilty, 2 manslaughter and 1 second degree murder.

Later on, the juror believed it was second degree murder went to manslaughter.

[Imsmarterthanu]

if the jurors say he's not guilty then i guess he's not guilty right

society's logic is mind boggling

[Hustler11]

Ok Mr prosecutor, to word it better. If someone appeared to be stalking me at night in a car and then got out of that car and walked in the area where I was.... I'd feel threatened and probably ambush the guy as Martin is alleged to have done.

And you may not call it murder... but I don't see how it's much less than that when someone carries around a gun and acts threateningly to people walking the streets at night.





Correct, a gun is not an appropriate response to fists ever.

Deadly force is over the top when it comes to a fist fight.

by the way that's assault.

[Hustler11]

you're a coward

if you can't defend yourself physically you shouldn't be driving around pretending to be a cop

how you came to the conclusion that martin was the aggressor is beyond me but then again many people are just fueled by their own inner prejudices.

you mean like your prejudice against white people as shown in your avatar? you're the coward. he wasn't trying to pretend to be a cop you moron, he was looking out for his neighborhood. you're the coward because you'd rather sit there and let people take your sh!t than do anything about it. why don't you and chris mathews go cry together?