Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Zimmerman not guilty

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    I'm no lawyer, but meeting force with equal force should be the standard. GZ had no potentially lethal injuries given he refused and did not need medical treatment.
    the State was all over the map with their case which allowed this jury to cop out with the " If only they gave us just a bit more we could have convicted him" excuse.

    Comment


    • #32
      Force with equal force meaning you can only use a gun i

      if the other guy has a gun? That's just stupid.

      Regarding manslaughter, I thought that was a charge that applies to any death, even by accident (i.e. if you kill someone in a car wreck).
      "I could buy you." - The Village Idiot

      Comment


      • #33
        Agree with this post

        I don't agree this guy should walk by No means,,dont think the Guy was going out that night to kill someone...he panicked and killed the kid when a shot to the leg would have done the job,,,Inexperience and fear,,its a bad Combo..
        OFFICIAL BOARD DRUG CZAR
        "BFTR"

        Comment


        • #34
          From what I've heard, and read, and I'm no lawyer,

          Originally posted by Riccardo View Post
          But from what I heard "stand your ground" and the self-defense element were not related. Even without a stand your ground law he could've gotten off on self-defense.
          the Stand Your Ground Law was invoked in the Zimmerman/ Martin case.

          http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...9620RL20130703

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Riccardo View Post
            if the other guy has a gun? That's just stupid.

            Regarding manslaughter, I thought that was a charge that applies to any death, even by accident (i.e. if you kill someone in a car wreck).
            Never said Gun for gun....Evidenced by what just happened you think that is stupid??? really?? where was the lethal weapon TM had?? Dont give me the Bullshit concrete pavement esxcuse....use your brain

            when Dullards like GZ are given concealed carry permits = force should be the standard
            Last edited by T.D-Bag; 07-14-2013, 11:05 AM.

            Comment


            • #36
              Definitely, but I guess my my point is more a human one than a legal one. I believe if the prosecution had focused on George Zimmerman the meathead, wannabe cop who negligently carried loaded weapon in his capacity as a neighborhood watchman, ignored directions from 911 and, in doing so, set off a chain of events that ended in the senseless death of a kid, rather than George Zimmerman the racist who intentionally murdered a black kid, the jury would have been more willing to give them the benefit of the doubt on the close calls related to the self defense argument.
              "Listen to McCarthy" - Art Vandelay

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Riccardo View Post
                if the other guy has a gun? That's just stupid.

                Regarding manslaughter, I thought that was a charge that applies to any death, even by accident (i.e. if you kill someone in a car wreck).
                In this case the guy who initiated the confrontation had the gun. This case sets a bad precedent IMO. But I'm sure it makes gun nuts happy! You can shoot and kill someone and get away with it! Yippee!!
                --------
                "We choose to go to the moon."

                Comment


                • #38
                  It wasn't. It was waived. They used statutory self defense, which, I understand, is even broader than self defense.
                  "Listen to McCarthy" - Art Vandelay

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by T.D-Bag View Post
                    Never said Gun for gun....Evidenced by what just happened you think that is stupid??? really?? where was the lethal weapon TM had?? Dont give me the Bullshit concrete pavement esxcuse....use your brain

                    when Dullards like GZ are given concealed carry permits = force should be the standard
                    GZ did look like he was getting a beatin' before he shot the kid.

                    What would be the dullard standard? That would be embarrassing, you go to get your ccp only to find out you are a dullard. That is a great word.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      On another note, Matt Drudge seems a little upset that black folks aren't rioting all over the country after this verdict.
                      --------
                      "We choose to go to the moon."

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by udontknowme View Post
                        GZ did look like he was getting a beatin' before he shot the kid.

                        What would be the dullard standard? That would be embarrassing, you go to get your ccp only to find out you are a dullard. That is a great word.
                        The fight did not end at the concrete but 30 feet from it, GZ had a couple of minor cuts. He was not getting his head pummeled into pavement when he shot, they were on the grass. To me, that is qualifying fact for manslaughter
                        Last edited by T.D-Bag; 07-14-2013, 11:15 AM.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Thanks for correcting me.

                          Why even have the SYG law then? Anyway, I think manslaughter was the way to go, like you outlined.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Matt Grudge

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Case is simple

                              This case was really simple once the rhetoric is removed. We try to be too politically correct which in turn fans the flames of injustice. Simply put from a legal perspective, did Zimmerman fear for his life or serious bodily injury when he used deadly force.

                              Whether he followed him or not or didn't listen to a 911 operator really doesn't come into play. The reason why the prosecution played this hand is that they knew that to counter the self-defense claim, they had to paint him as having ill will or being a vigilante. There was not enough evidence to support that so the facts relied simply on the fight.

                              There are no witnesses to the fight but enough circumstantial evidence to suggest Zimmerman was on the bottom and yelling for help. This coupled with head injuries is simply enough to give reasonable doubt.

                              None of us will ever know if he had some sort of motive that night. And it doesn't benefit anyone to only give the facts that support your opinion. The negative portrayal of Zimmerman without also showing the negative behavior of Martin is a biased attempt to show the world you are right. That's why we have a court system.

                              From my perspective, and my familiarity with the legal system, I was shocked after watching 75% of the trial that the charges were brought in the first place. When a prosecutor rests their case, the average person should believe the defendant is guilty without a doubt. That simply was not the case. Prosecutor witnesses in this case made the defense case for them. The leading detective even said he believed Zimmerman was telling the truth.

                              I don't think I will sway anybody's opinion as in a media biased society we struggle to maintain open minds. We like and follow the news that mostly agrees with us because it makes us feel good. We root for a president like our favorite football team and when he loses we spend the next 4 years blaming and criticizing. I could go on and on but I am sure most don't want to hear it.
                              Last edited by rdog5; 07-14-2013, 11:27 AM. Reason: Spelling

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by rdog5 View Post
                                This case was really simple once the rhetoric is removed. We try to be too politically correct which in turn fans the flames of injustice. Simply put form a legal perspective, did Zimmerman fear for his life or serious bodily injury when he used deadly force.

                                Whether he followed him or not or didn't listen to a 911 operator really don't come into play. The reason why the prosecution played this hand is that they knew that to counter the self-defense claim, they had to paint him as having ill will or being a vigilante. There was not enough evidence to support that so the facts relied simply on the fight.

                                There are no witnessed to the fight but enough circumstantial evidence to suggest Zimmerman was on the bottom and yelling for help. This coupled with head injuries is simply enough to give reasonable doubt.

                                None of us will ever know if he had some sort of motive that night. And it doesn't benefit anyone to only give the facts that support your opinion. The negative portrayal of Zimmerman without also showing the negative behavior of Martin is a biased attempt to show the world you are right. That's why we have a court system.

                                From my perspective, and my familiarity with the legal system, I was shocked after watching 75% of the trial that the charges were brought in the first place. When a prosecutor rests their case, the average person should believe the defendant is guilty without a doubt. That simply was not the case. Prosecutor witnesses in this case made the defense case for them. The leading detective even said he believed Zimmerman was telling the truth.

                                I don't think I will sway anybody's opinion as in a media biased society we struggle to maintain open minds. We like and follow the news that mostly agrees with us because it makes us feel good. We root for a president like our favorite football team and when he loses we spend the next 4 years blaming and criticizing. I could go on and on but I am sure most don't want to hear it.
                                It's much more fun to pick a side and argue vociferously even if facts are presented that would make you clearly wrong. It's the American way, and damn it, I love this country. Go Merica!
                                Last edited by udontknowme; 07-14-2013, 12:13 PM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X