buffalo hunter
Newbie
Thank You, I was not aware of that.
Zimmerman Verdict
- Thread starter The Man
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
Thank You, I was not aware of that.
-
80Replies
-
2KViews
-
0Participant count
-
Participants list
Joe don't miss his point.
We only know Zimmerman's side and not Trayvon.
As you may recall the testimonies from the witnesses contradict each other.
So we only know from what came out from the trial which is a feather in the cap of the defense.
As for the scuffle the defense showed a cartoon displaying what had happened.
Correct me but why was there no warning from Zimmerman telling Trayvon to move on out ?
Why didn't Zimmerman showed his weapon as a threat ?
Why bother at all with Trayvon ?
Anyone ?
Joe the meek
Active Member
Does any internet commando know the whole story? NO. The jury who sat through the trial knows probably better than anyone all the evidence that was presented. Do I know if Zimmerman is guilty or innocent? NO. That said, 6 jurors that by all accounts FAVORED the prosecution found the guy innocent. That tells me that I'd probably find the guy innocent as well.
What I do find amusing is people are calling this a "race issue". News flash...If I saw a black man at night wearing a hoodie walking around, I might find him suspicious as well. Would I follow him? No. Does that make me a racist? I call it common sense. Zimmerman made some mistakes and I think the guy was an idiot, that said, if TM would of kept going, he may not be dead. Two wrongs don't make a right.
How many young black males end up dead in our cities? Those dead bodies don't sell news.
Alien Allen
Froggy the Prick
I don't think he ever got a chance to. During the Hannity interview he mentioned starting to go for his phone. At that point as I recall came the punch in the nose.
That would be brandishing a weapon which is illegal. In some cases I can see that being something worth doing but the laws says you can't do that for some reason.
Joe the meek
Active Member
When you draw your sidearm as a civilian in public, you draw it to shoot to neutralize the subject ASAP, you don't draw it to "scare".
Alien Allen
Froggy the Prick
I understand the law but the reasoning is flawed. In an instance like this it likely would have averted somebody being killed. That is not to say brandishing a weapon should be allowed anytime anywhere. Doing so in a crowded environment is asking for trouble.
Joe the meek
Active Member
I see and understand the reasoning.
If I am in fear for my life and I draw my weapon, the threat will be neutralized or I will be neutralized. By most accounts, Zimmerman was on the ground and felt like he was going to get his head bashed in. Like I said, I wasn't there, I don't know the story, but every online forum has hashed out the "what if's" prior to the trial taking place. 6 People heard all the evidence and found him not guilty (and ironically enough, most people who were "pro Zimmerman" thought Zimmerman would be toast with all women being on the jury).
"Showing" a firearm as a deterant is nothing more than stupid as you don't know if the threat is armed.
I listen to this morning show where I live. They do a thing called dumb ass of the day. Everyday it is almost guaranteed that at least one story comes from Florida.
Now back on subject I feel justice has finally been served in that state.
Now back on subject I feel justice has finally been served in that state.
I wonder if there will be any positive results from this whole fiasco. Any lessons learned? Or will it be the usual case of whatever sells the most?
The whole thing has really shown the disgusting attributes of people from all sides of the entire debate.
One thing that really amazed me was how much speculation goes on in a trial ... how much is allowed.
The whole thing has really shown the disgusting attributes of people from all sides of the entire debate.
One thing that really amazed me was how much speculation goes on in a trial ... how much is allowed.
You appear to be posting before reading...No where have I stated I thought he was guilty..and if you read further I claimed he was innocent in the beginning.
I did not take the bait of white man executes black boy ...police doing nothing because the kid was black.
While we may not be a perfect nation..to even suggest that such happened is ludicrous.
Joe it is about race....read the news..Black people of power are still pushing Joe.
At least you are honest by saying if you saw a black man in a hoodie you might find him suspicious.
Again people are putting to much weight on follow here.
This was a gated community....burglary had become a recent major problem.
It is normal for someone to keep an eye on someone suspicious....managers maintenance men watchman...even other renters.
The fact that he ran upon seeing George on the phone was very suspicious.
If you were on trial...yes as you said that you black men in hoodies suspicious....If you ever find your self having to shoot one you have admitting shown an indifference to blacks.
As he put himself in danger....but think about it...how many people would look to see where a guy ran to just because he saw you on the phone?..in a gated community...alot of people would have...ok so there are a lot of idiots out there.
Thats is what I was talking about....why did martin go back to the T and what the hell happened.
Martin went up for battle its safe to say as he took the headset off his phone...and removed the button he was wearing...The button he wore to 7 11...had it on when he saw George...took it off and put it in his pocket before the fight.
That would give martin every right to "fight for life"
Additionally George just cant pull it until it is a safety issue...I do agree with the law in that regard
Edit:
An exception would be to hold someone ay gun point that say was in the process of a home invasion{until police arrive}..not sure if it legal in Fla...but here they dont prosecute for it.
Last edited by a moderator:
IMO there will be some changes in law..for the better or worse is the question.
People harp on Fla in regard to self defense but in reality most states are modeled very similar.{not saying you are harping on it}
I am in Mo..its pretty much the same thing as fla.
In a nutshell...If tom hits larry...that doesnt give larry a right to shoot tom
Larry can fight Tom legally.
Now if Larry has "won" and Tom says he quits...If Larry doesn't quit he is now assaulting Tom.
If larry starts smashing his head into the sidewalk...Tom can do what is necessary to defend himself.
Additionally you can aid someone to prevent them from getting beat to death...the original aggressor doesnt matter...And not be charged.
George screaming for help in this case is a show of "I quit" or do not want to partake in this fight.
I agree with these laws as it doesnt give anyone a right to shoot someone just because someone got hit.
In other words while there is no evidence that George started it,even if he had Martin elevated the fight to major assault with head smashing...Zimmerman did not want any part of it{screaming for help}..Martin continued and got shot.
Geoerge would have not been arrested in my state,just like he originally wasnt in Fla.
Kakapo Dundee
Active Member
The verdict was as expected. Zimmerman is clearly guilty as fuck, however Florida state law has a massive loophole that makes it impossible for a jury to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he's guilty. Any legislation that allows for a person's feelings to be sufficient grounds for killing another is wide open to abuse from scumbags like Zimmerman. Under Florida law, as long as he says that he felt his life was at risk, he can execute whoever he pleases.
Meanwhile, as those Americans who believe that the last four words of the American National Anthem are "Gentlemen, start your engines" celebrate their ill-conceived victory, the question remains....Does Florida legislation provide adequate protection for unarmed citizens from bigoted vigilantes? The outcome of this case shows that clearly it doesn't.
Meanwhile, as those Americans who believe that the last four words of the American National Anthem are "Gentlemen, start your engines" celebrate their ill-conceived victory, the question remains....Does Florida legislation provide adequate protection for unarmed citizens from bigoted vigilantes? The outcome of this case shows that clearly it doesn't.
Kakapo Dundee
Active Member
If indeed it was George. Both sides testified that they could identify the voice, but neither could prove it. Zimmerman got into a scuffle, received superficial injuries, and shot an unarmed kid dead. He's either a murderer, or a cowardly bully who can start a fight but not finish it like a man.
Jackass master
Old and worn out
He is a lawful citizen who exercised his right to protect himself.
buffalo hunter
Newbie
The sad thing IMHO, is if Zimmerman would have been black, or an illegal alien, this story would not have even aired on the local 10pm news. 
But then again if a knife was used instead of a gun, some here probably would not even have an opinion. :mad
But then again if a knife was used instead of a gun, some here probably would not even have an opinion. :mad
Alien Allen
Froggy the Prick
Every state has laws that would have allowed for an innocent verdict based on the available evidence. The defense never used Stand Your Ground as a defense.
zimmermans lawyer O'mara said if zimmerman were black he probably would not have been chargedThe sad thing IMHO, is if Zimmerman would have been black, or an illegal alien, this story would not have even aired on the local 10pm news.
i dont understand that
Incredible if he is clearly guilty as Fuck then why did 6 women who heard the evidence vote otherwise.
There is no loophole.
LET ME SPELL IT OUT FOR YOU THE STATES OWN WITNESSES SHOWN IT WAS SELF DEFENSE
LET ME SPELL IT OUT FOR YOU THE STATES OWN WITNESSES SHOWN IT WAS SELF DEFENSE
HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH FEELINGS.
Not at all.
What we have here is a watchman who did nothing illegal.
You have the right to call in a suspicious person...thats a fact.
If that suspicious run you have a right to see where they ran.
Martin had the right to run.
Martin while standing by his house had every right to put the headset on his phone away and remove the pin button he was wearing in preparation of battle.
Martin had every right to go back to the T where George was.
The rights end when martin started smashing his head into the cement.
Its pretty simple....I am also willing to guess that the law in NZ is also the same...if not you guys truly are some ignorant cock suckers.
You truly are uninformed arent you...there were no celebrations...fact is there was small rioting in a couple cities as they didnt like the verdict.
When a citizen arms himself with a sidewalk he is no longer unarmed.
When a citizen uses that sidewalk on a creepy ass cracker.
I hate to sound like a prick here but walking around in a gated community in the rain looking at apts is suspicious.
Suspicious enough that the POLICE were sending a unit to the location upon Zimmerman notification....based upon only information given
Police asked Zimmerman if he was black white or Hispanic...at that time George said he looks black ..but was not certain until martin came into closer view.
With your logic you are calling the POLICE DEPT vigilantes as well...as they also thought it was suspicious and were sending police to the location.
Every cop that has been attacked and defended himself is a vigilante with your logic.
Again not trying to sound like a prick....but are obviously misinformed in regard to how the system operates.
78,874Threads
2,185,387Messages
4,959Members