Zimmerman Verdict In...

Your face has nothing to do with stand your ground laws.


Apples, and oranges much?

What kinda response is that? lol

You're going to need to explain why you think placing the blame on someone for placing themselves in a potentially dangerous situation is different than another situation where people are placing blame on someone for putting themselves in a potentially dangerous situation.

The idiocy of saying a woman deserves to be raped for wearing slutty outfits would be a dangerous situation she put herself in.

Equating that to Zimmerman disregarding a directive from a law enforcement officer which ultimately resulted in the death of a minor is not the same logic. By disregarding that directive he placed another persons life in danger needlessly.

Also this isn't strictly a gun issue imo. It is a faulty, and poorly thought out piece of legislature. If Zimmerman had not had a firearm he still could have killed the kid by other means.

ITT a lot of people seem to forget that morally wrong and legally wrong are sometimes not perfectly lined up, and that there's a difference between killing and murder in the court of law, and that him getting off because of reasonable doubt is the same thing that protects innocent people.

Read the rest of the thread. Zimmerman did not get a "directive", and it was not from a law enforcement officer. He got a suggestion from a 911 dispatch. They arn't allowed to give orders, and what's more, he listened to the advice and stopped pursuing.

In b4 he should've known better -> same argument for *** shaming
In b4 common sense -> same argument for *** shaming


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin#February_26




Trayvon had about 4 minutes to run back to his house, but he was somehow able to get into a fight with Zimmerman, who was backtracking to his car after having lost him?

By the way for all of you clamoring for a manslaughter charge, he was not guilty on lesser charges of that too.

This is actually the dumbest thing I have read. Ever.

welcome to this internets

Maybe you should try listening to the 911 recording, and also the interrogation tape. The 911 dispatcher very clearly tells him to stop pursuing the suspect. So whether or not they are "allowed to give instructions or not" in this case they certainly did, and he chose to ignore those instructions. That is made more clear in the interrogation.

Since when is it a smart move to contradict what a 911 operator is telling you to do? As far as your opinion of his "listening to that advice" I think you are taking some liberties with that one. That sure as hell isn't the way it sounds in the interrogation tape.

As I recall, the 911 dispatcher said "we don't need you to do that", rather than "don't pursue him".

Either way, there's really no legal authority behind a 911 dispatcher.

"I was trying to be witty and sarcastic; I failed and I was arrested."

Perfect.

You might want to consider that if you're going to ridicule and accuse others of not understanding that you actually do that yourself first.


He says "we don't need you to do that", after which he says "ok" and then "he ran" (implying that even if he was lying about stopping the pursuit, he lost sight of him and therefore it was impossible for him to be following anyone anymore). Kinda funny that you're accusing me of taking liberties when apparently "we don't need you to do that" translates out to "disregarding a directive from a law enforcement officer" for you.

I think it's really a *** shame that we've got another death boy, but there's seriously nowhere near enough evidence to prove that the actual killing part was done in anything but self defense. It's the whole crux of "your right to swing your fist ends at my nose". 99.9% of the time, it protects; sometimes, some *** wins.

OK "We don't need you to do that" last time I checked if you translate that into common sense it's pretty clear that he's not a police officer so he should be getting in his car, and waiting for one to arrive. That is expounded upon in the interrogation tape. Have either of you listened to the interrogation tape?

That's exactly what he was doing?

Yes I agree with the fact that legally with those sort of stand your ground laws it makes situations such as this very cloudy. I suppose my point is if this had occurred in a state without that provision would this case have gone the same way.

That's where I disagree with your interpretation. In the interrogation tape he is asked multiple times why after he told the dispatcher he lost sight of him did he then proceed to search again. In the several times he is asked this same question during the interrogation he never denies searching for him again after he lost sight. He never says he was confronted on the way back to his car. He always answers that question with an evasive non-answer.

If you haven't listened to the interrogation tape I suggest you give it a whirl.

I thought self-defense was this: "a person may use reasonable force when it appears reasonably necessary to prevent an impending injury. A person using force in self-defense should use only so much force as is required to repel the attack. Nondeadly force can be used to repel either a nondeadly attack or a deadly attack. Deadly Force may be used to fend off an attacker who is using deadly force but may not be used to repel an attacker who is not using deadly force."

From what I've read, it sounds to me that despite the dispatcher telling him not to approach martin, he did, armed, which tells me that he was expecting to have to use it. If he could've kept his distance, or listened to the police.

In my opinion he was looking for an altercation. "these @$$(*&^e's, they always get away.". He clearly felt by the time police showed up, the kid would've disappeared and got away, so he took it into his own hands.

I don't recall the exact words in the interrogation tape, but what I recall is mostly him saying that he was looking for a street sign after losing Martin before trying to return to his car. For me, the important part is that he lost Martin at all. It's why I made the whole *** shaming comparison to begin with- at that point you're basically blaming him for walking around in the darkness which is a dangerous thing to do.

The stand your ground law had NO part in this case at all. Was never even bought up in this case.

I read an article where a woman says (forgot which one) when she seen Martin he had his hands in his pockets and started pulling one out as he approached Zimmerman, Zimmerman probably thought he had a knife and followed him, i need to find these articles again they would be very useful right here

Serino: You’re looking for him.
Singleton: You tried to catch up to him, do you see what I’m saying?
Zimmerman: No, I wasn’t. Um…
Serino: OK, it sounds like you’re looking for him.
Zimmerman: No.



There's more like this. Pretty clearly says he's not looking for him a couple times right there. I'm not sure what interrogation tape you were listening to...

All the hype began over this because originally before any facts came out it appeared that the police were sweeping under the rug the shooting death of a black teenager by a white man because he looked suspicious walking in a hoodie. The media latched on to it, the race baiters, the true racial prostitutes like Al Sharpton got involved before anyone knew a damn thing about this case. Once the real facts slowly began to emerge, the media did their best to obscure them; altering audio tapes and photos of the night. Once it turned out that Zimmerman wasn't even a white man they even tried to obscure that, using terms like Self-proclaimed Hispanic and White Hispanic. For whatever reason the media wanted to stoke racial tensions.

By now any rational individual that watched the real facts of this case, or tuned into the trial at all, understands that these charges should never have been brought. Every witness corroborated Zimmerman's version of events as did all of the evidence. There are just a whole lot of people, that made a whole lot of loud horrible noise who now cannot admit that they were wrong. The whole thing sucks for everyone involved.

But honestly, who calls 911 before they are about to go shoot someone?

Maybe now the media can focus on the black genocide occurring in Chicago. Not sexy enough for liberals?