Zimmerman Verdict In...

He can't say Tray Von lol.

Often the difference between guilty and non-guilty rests on the circumstances of the situation. Those circumstances are often misreported by various entities trying to cash in on maximum scandal. When the first broke on news over a year ago I stated that it would be non-guilty via self-defense as the information released pointed to a text book case supported by many precedents. The original reason they didn't press charges was that it was such a weak case. Then the black militia got involved and well, we see the kind of stink they tried to stir up.

From the crazy guy stalking him without identifying himself. Maybe he also saw the gun on him. Just saying, if I saw a guy stalking me down an ally I'd also try to defend myself.

I believe it's the same during a home invasion. You usually shoot first I believe instead of giving the robbers a chance to fire at you. The same thing applies here.

So, by your logic, you not only have to identify yourself before perusing, you also have to identify that you are carrying a concealed weapon. Because anyone who has ill intentions will do the same for you, right?

Also, by your logic, you have to let the burglar shoot at you (and possibly hit you or your family) or run off with your stuff before you can take action? Seriously, you think this?

Step back a sec and read the bolded part again.

My post was about SYG states in general, using this case in particular to illustrate. And the wording in the SYG laws is not "reasonable person" its entirely subjective. And that's a BIG problem.

P.S. Another judge in that state upheld a SYG defense where the defendant had chased the deceased a block and stabbed him to death. Then there is the AZ case where a guy rolled his SUV's window down and blew a pedestrian away, he was neither investigated nor charged.

Oh... there's going to be another blockbuster SYG trial in FL quite soon. This time the defendant felt threatened by loud music. (Can't find the link sorry.)

Here's a link Chanti

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/12/17/justice/florida-music-shooting

And one for the stabbing

http://blogs.findlaw.com/blotter/2012/03/fl-man-cleared-in-stand-your-ground-stabbing.html

Not to say that he should get off, but it wasn't just because of loud music... The article said that after he asked them to turn down the music that he alleged he was verbally threatened and thought he saw a gun... whether that actually happened or not...

They never found a gun or pipe or anything in searching the car. He also fled the scene and was arrested the next day.

Not to put a damper in SYG discussions if you want to do that, but legally this particular case had nothing to do with SYG laws and only pure self-defense. To simplify a great deal, SYG just says "You don't have to run", which doesn't apply in this story because according to Zim he didn't have a chance to run. People who are still complaining about it in terms of "there's something wrong with our laws if someone who shot someone can walk free", they either didn't familiarize themselves with the specifics of the case or they are literally saying that self-defense laws that have been a staple of societies for centuries are outdated and faulty.


Isn't "reasonable person" itself an incredibly subjective thing?

All I'm saying is it seems like something more than oh I heard loud music and they wouldn't turn it down so I shot some kid...

Black Panthers put up $10k bounty for Zimmerman's death

No one takes the New Black Panthers seriously. I think 4chan exerts more influence at this point.

and who tipped trayvon off to confront zimmerman?This is batshit crazy. He "could have been" , so i want everyone to judge him like he was a gay rapist.

Blah Blah, emotional logic, blah blah

This is law, law is governed by a legal system and rules. When we reference law we reference those rules, not the paraphrases of forum trolls on the interwebz. I posted some of those rules earlier. The "reasonable person" standard is part of the constitution, also known as "jury of your peers". The entire purpose of a jury of neutral laymen is to provide "common sense" and "reasonable person" guidelines to cases.

If you feel that the bus driver is going to kill you, you are NOT entitled to shoot him. That's you being a royal idiot. If the bus driver is committing felony assault with you as it's victim, then you are allowed to use deadly force in your own defense.

"Stand your Ground" HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS.

The precedent in self defense rulings is that you must first attempt to retreat from the assailant, if it's possible, prior to using deadly force. In the bus driver scenario, if the door is open you must first run through that door and attempt to seek safety prior to shooting the bus driver. SYG just removed the requirement to attempt retreat, it's designed to allow victims of muggins and rape to use lethal force to defend themselves without first needing to run away.

As GZ was on the ground, retreat was impossible and thus was not required to be attempted for a regular self defense plea. His lawyers decided not to pursue a SYG ruling from the judge. If SYG never existed in Florida, the results of the trial would be the exact same.

Some of you liberals don't care about using reason or logic. Instead your only tool is to scream louder then everyone else in the hopes of drowning out actual reasonable debate and argument.

That's why a jury exists. They are the ones who examine the evidence and arguments provided and then decide if they (being reasonable people) would do the same thing in that situation. Essentially if they feel that they would of felt threatened for their lives or grave bodily harm, then they would of been required to rule non-guilty. That is what "reasonable doubt" is all about.

Of course some people seem to of fallen off the wagon and are really just trying to convict GZ of being a "white guy with a gun". Facts of the case be damned.

Just in case you thought this was finally over....

Justice Dept. places hold on Trayvon Martin evidence.


/sigh.

Anyone making this into an issue of "Stand your ground", even though it was never used to defend this case, are admitting that Trayvon attacked Zimmerman and that Zimmerman was standing his ground. The only evidence of racism, was Trayvon Martin refrring to Zimmerman as a "creepy-*** cracker" moments before he broke his nose and smashed his head into a sidewalk.

What scenarios do they dream of that makes Trayvon not at fault for this violent confrontation? What could George Zimmerman have done or said to Trayvon that justified Trayvon beating his brains in instead of peacefully walking away and going home. Why did Trayvon feel the need to "stand his ground" and trounce this creepy-*** cracker? Did GZ try to make a citizens arrest? Do you believe something that silly with no evidence to support it? Did GZ attack TM, swing and miss or something and TM was just defending himself? Unlikely and no evidence. GZ according to everything known about him is a pussy. Listen to how timid and shakey his voice is on the phone. He doesn't sound like someone that would confront an old lady that cut him in line at WalMart.

The only possible scenario that makes GZ guilty of anything, and the only small good point the prosecution ever made, would be after TM beat the piss out of Zimmerman. If GM was enraged that he just got his *** kicked and as Trayvon was getting off of him GZ reached for his gun and shot him at close range.

This is only dragging on because early on the story was horribly reported. The first "facts" that were released had me on the side of the Martin family. It sounded horrible. A paranoid white man saw a black teenager wearing a hoodie so he pulled over and shot him and the white police department refused to do anything about it. The people that thrive and enrich themselves off racial division got involved. One of the most disgusting people in the world, Al Sharpton, got involved. They invested all of their credibility and political capital into this case.

Then as the real facts began to trickle out, the real information about the people involved, the photos, the unedited 911 call, it became clear that none of the original reporting was accurate.

It is too late now for these people to admit they were wrong. They invested too much into this. They need racial division. They need outrage. Without it the race pimps like Al Sharpton have nothing. Being his race is his only talent. Spreading hatred is his only goal.

I don't think I could agree more.

I too was once on the TM side of things...up until I learned the facts that a lot of people still refuse to acknowledge. I still and will always feel that TM was killed for pointless and avoidable reasons, but I now feel that the choices that HE made, and not George Zimmerman's, are the ones that led to his demise.

I wish the people who are only interested in race-baiting and argument would open their eyes and see the truth for what it is. A young man died not because of a racist Hispanic-American, but because he was the victim of terrible circumstance.

I'm often accused of being a liberal, mostly by many of the forum trolls, or people seen as forum trolls on this particular website. In their view, I might be. So, for the matter at hand, let's assume that I am in fact, a liberal.

Now, let's get to the meat and potatoes of the argument here. In this particular situation, given the reported evidence as it was presented (ignoring all media bias and bizarre "factoids" coming from unreliable sources, and assuming that both Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman were of the believe that one was a threat to the other, there are realistically only 2 possible outcomes.

Trayvon Martin, according to the information coming from the investigation was a well known "delinquent", with a bit of an ego problem, and a massive drug problem.

George Zimmerman, according to all credible sources was an honest man, with very little to no racial bias, worked as a productive member of society, and was even a community watch member (if I have this correctly, if not, please make a correction), who had, disregarded the "suggestive order" from the 911 dispatcher, to follow Trayvon Martin in an attempt to identify him, and to search for the name of the street he was on.

Given the timeline, and evidence, scenario one is the least likely to have happened: GZ happens to find a "suspicious youth" coming from someone's back yard, the events leading up to the incident at that time, such as where he was coming from, why and so forth were ignored, blah blah blah, stuff happens, one feels threatened by the other, conflict ensues, resulting in a physical altercation, leading to the boy's death.

Scenario two, focusing entirely on the events that transpired, and on witness accounts, Trayvon Martin initiated the conflict (quite possibly tweaking or coming down hard) and then assaulting George Zimmerman, feeling that he is a threat, since he had been following him relentlessly as a suspicious person.

Now, what doesn't particularly add up, is the sizeable difference between the two individuals. Martin seems to be by all accounts, a fair whisper of a person, being as small and as light as he was. Zimmerman, the larger and more stout of the two, shouldn't have received the extent of injuries that he did - It seems as though he had put up absolutely no resistance at all, until he felt threatened enough to use deadly force.

If you've never been in an actual fight, all it takes is that first hit to land to throw your target off balance, usually a vital point somewhere around the head - chin, nose, eyes, forehead, temple, etc. which *could* have left Zimmerman reeling and dizzy long enough for Martin to put down what he perceived as a threat to his person. Zimmerman regains some clarity and opens fire once.

Firing a single shot at your target doesn't make sense either, when using deadly force to put down your attacker. If Martin had been such a threat, several shots would have been needed, particularly since it was dark that night, and Zimmerman couldn't see house numbers and whatnot. This is where my speculation ends.

Saevel was wrong on one important point. The "jury of your peers" are presented with evidence that was already been investigated, and examined by the prosecution. The job of the jury is to then interpret and make a decision based on how the evidence, and timeline of events transpired, listen to testimony, to ignore personal bias, ignore media bias, and offer up a verdict in conjunction which the presiding judge takes into account, before making the final verdict.

Now, given the particulars of this case, and the Florida State Laws, credible sources, and actual facts that were presented, I agree with the verdict of Not Guilty. There is absolutely no evidence in any shape or form, that there was any racial bias or racism present. There wasn't even any form of evidence suggesting that Zimmerman had even glimpsed the color of his skin, or that he had knowledge of Martin prior to this incident.

Also Saevel, if you looked more closely, there are quite a few of us "liberals" that actually agree with the ruling of Not Guilty.

This is incorrect.

The evidence is presented by both the prosecution and defense. In the case of murder / manslaughter or any crime that was a "reasonable person" standard it's the jury's job to examine it and apply that standard. A single juror insisting that the individual is Not-Guilty will cause a hung jury and mistrial. Rarely does the prosecution every win the 2nd time around.

And many more of you "liberals" swear GZ is guilty because he killed a small little boy armed with nothing but "tea and skittles". It's plain appeal to emotion.

At the time of the altercation Trayvon was a 6'2", 160 pound athlete and Zimmerman was a 5'9", 170 pound putz that couldn't pass a physical. He has since put on 100 pounds.

...I need a job, and soon.

I hear China is hiring.

There are just as many conservatives that agree that GZ is guilty, but for different reasons, just as emotional. The general media on all sides tend to play up opinions as fact, or deliberate and form the verdict for the court of public opinion. Some people will also use personal anecdotes as viable evidence or viable defense as if they were fact.

If anything, the prosecution could have, and in my opinion, should have gone no higher than manslaughter 1 (which I think is the lowest?) for discharging a fire-arm causing death. Even if they lost this, it wouldn't have looked nearly as bad on them, and would have been more reasonable to charge Zimmerman with. That said, Zimmerman's lawyer would still be likely to walk away with a "Not Guilty" verdict for his client.

Unfortunately, while the court case may be over, the court of public opinion will always be in session around him.

You always entertain me, sir. Never stop. :D

If you caught the CNN interview with his mother post verdict, she told Pierce Morgan that she told Treyvon that Zimmerman might be a homosexual out looking to rape him. She then said that she told him that he should run away.

Maybe Treyvon was simply a homophobic teenager and that's why the altercation began? Either way, he was hardly the "saint" the media portrayed him to be.

That was his friend who admitted that in the interview not his mother.

This development if it were true would be world's colliding for liberals lol.

Hispanic man shoots unarmed black teenager who was attacking him because he thought he was gay.