Zimmerman not guilty

[3rd & Inches]

Is it possible that a badly prosecuted case is the direct result of lack of evidence to prove the case?

What is lost here is the multiple bad decisions which led to a tragedy. There are the listed tragedies for George Zimmerman such as staying in his vehicle and not following Trayvon Martin. But why didn't you list the bad decisions of Trayvon Martin? In the 4 minutes from the phone call to the time of the assault, Trayvon had more than enough time to be home and sitting on his couch. Trayvon could had a little less pride and instead of attacking as is alleged asked Zimmerman why is he following him?

Can you at least agree that if Trayvon attacked George Zimmerman in broad daylight out of no where and Zimmerman believed he was in danger of death or serious injury that he would be justified in his use of deadly force?

So I guess his bad decision was going outside being black. He should of swallowed his pride and ran. He should of swallowed his pride and took the asswhipping Zimmerman was planning on giving him. He should of swallowed his pride and not make eye contact.

Sounds familiar.

[rdog5]

So I guess his bad decision was going outside being black. He should of swallowed his pride and ran. He should of swallowed his pride and took the asswhipping Zimmerman was planning on giving him. He should of swallowed his pride and not make eye contact.

Sounds familiar.

Great paraphrase but also typical when someone doesn't want to discuss in a factual manner. If he would have ran home instead of circling back to engage in a fight he would be alive. If he would have said "Why are you following me?" he may very well be alive. He didn't choose either, he chose to engage in a fight according to the facts represented, and one of the things you have to accept is if you are going to initiate a fight, it is entirely possible you may pay the ultimate price. Don't confuse pride with common sense.

[rdog5]

So I guess his bad decision was going outside being black. He should of swallowed his pride and ran. He should of swallowed his pride and took the asswhipping Zimmerman was planning on giving him. He should of swallowed his pride and not make eye contact.

Sounds familiar.

Ironically in this short statements you said:

Bade decision was going outside being black- Nobody said such a thing.
He should of swallowed his pride and ran- Is this such a bad thing? He may be alive, sitting at home and calling the police about some man following him
He should of swallowed his pride and took the asswhipping Zimmerman was planning on giving him- Where was this ever said? Please give the evidence to the truth to this statement.

[3rd & Inches]

Great paraphrase but also typical when someone doesn't want to discuss in a factual manner. If he would have ran home instead of circling back to engage in a fight he would be alive. If he would have said "Why are you following me?" he may very well be alive. He didn't choose either, he chose to engage in a fight according to the facts represented, and one of the things you have to accept is if you are going to initiate a fight, it is entirely possible you may pay the ultimate price. Don't confuse pride with common sense.

You are one of the dumbasses that thinks a verdict equals the truth. You are a d-bag for thinking that Tra did anything wrong.

[rdog5]

You are one of the dumbasses that thinks a verdict equals the truth. You are a d-bag for thinking that Tra did anything wrong.

So no facts to back up your case so you retort to name calling and judging? Support your opinion with fact and it can sway my viewpoint. I have watched 75% of the trial that was on TV as well as I understand law and its limitations.

[3rd & Inches]

So no facts to back up your case so you retort to name calling and judging? Support your opinion with fact and it can sway my viewpoint. I have watched 75% of the trial that was on TV as well as I understand law and its limitations.

That's where you are mistaken, I'm not trying to sway your viewpoint. I stated that your viewpoint makes you a d-bag. My evidence is every post you made in this thread.

I watched 76% of the trial that was on tv, and I overstand law and its limitations.

[Drama Queen]

You have to read the whole article, Riccardo

Good God man you're wrong. Admit it and move on!

"Coffey still expects “stand your ground” to be the linchpin of Zimmerman’s defense once the trial begins."

.. and since the prosecutor tried to illustrate that Zimmerman studied an understood the SYG law, it's not unreasonable to assumption that the law was a part of Zimmerman's defense.

I'm not a lawyer, so the question is... does the defense have to officially invoke a particular self-defense law? Also, would the judge's instructions before deliberation indicate if the SYG was the bases for the defense?

[AnnapolisEagle]

Great paraphrase but also typical when someone doesn't want to discuss in a factual manner. If he would have ran home instead of circling back to engage in a fight he would be alive. If he would have said "Why are you following me?" he may very well be alive. He didn't choose either, he chose to engage in a fight according to the facts represented, and one of the things you have to accept is if you are going to initiate a fight, it is entirely possible you may pay the ultimate price. Don't confuse pride with common sense.

See, you don't know that he didn't just ask that. You don't know that Martin didn't just say, "what the fuck, man?" The only person who knows what happened between Martin hanging up his call and getting shot is Zimmerman.

I understand the verdict. I really do.

But there is one irrefutable thing that would have kept Martin alive: Zimmerman not cowboying up and and provoking a response.

Trayvon Martin didn't go looking for trouble that night. George Zimmerman did.

-AE

[JuTMSY4]

to me

See, you don't know that he didn't just ask that. You don't know that Martin didn't just say, "what the fuck, man?" The only person who knows what happened between Martin hanging up his call and getting shot is Zimmerman.

I understand the verdict. I really do.

But there is one irrefutable thing that would have kept Martin alive: Zimmerman not cowboying up and and provoking a response.

Trayvon Martin didn't go looking for trouble that night. George Zimmerman did.

-AE

this seems like the closest to right answer. No one knows what happened and facts are what bears on verdicts. This wasn't a miscarriage of justice, it was a miscarriage of morals.

[rdog5]

See, you don't know that he didn't just ask that. You don't know that Martin didn't just say, "what the fuck, man?" The only person who knows what happened between Martin hanging up his call and getting shot is Zimmerman.

I understand the verdict. I really do.

But there is one irrefutable thing that would have kept Martin alive: Zimmerman not cowboying up and and provoking a response.

Trayvon Martin didn't go looking for trouble that night. George Zimmerman did.

-AE

You state what I don't know but go on to assume not based in facts something that you know. "Trayvon Martin didn't go looking for trouble that night. George Zimmerman did." I only pasted the first part of your statement so it was in context but what evidence exists to stay definitively that George Zimmerman went looking for trouble that night?

[noguano]

I have mixed emotions about adding anything to this thread. I grew up in the dirty-dirty south and I'm not surprised by this verdict. Everytime I visit family in Georgia, I feel like I traveled back in time. The separation of races still exist there.

So many things I want to say, but I'll just say this one point: In my 37 years on this earth, it doesn't matter how educated I am, doesn't matter what uniform I wore, doesn't matter that I can sit in front of the bus...I'm still a nigga.

Not in my eyes.

[JuTMSY4]

You state what I don't know but go on to assume not based in facts something that you know. "Trayvon Martin didn't go looking for trouble that night. George Zimmerman did." I only pasted the first part of your statement so it was in context but what evidence exists to stay definitively that George Zimmerman went looking for trouble that night?

Because he called 911 and said he saw "a real suspicious guy. This guy looks like he's up to no good or he's on drugs or something."

He then proceeded to follow TM. If at that point, GZ just listens to the 911 dispatcher after observing and reporting (as neighborhood watch people are instructed to do), TM is much more likely to be alive today.

Those are facts. And I'm allowed to infer a few things from those facts.

[Drama Queen]

But what does matters is the hat you and I wear!

(when I do shoulder workouts, I think of the pimp back hand, BTW. Keepin' it strong!)

[rdog5]

Because he called 911 and said he saw "a real suspicious guy. This guy looks like he's up to no good or he's on drugs or something."

He then proceeded to follow TM. If at that point, GZ just listens to the 911 dispatcher after observing and reporting (as neighborhood watch people are instructed to do), TM is much more likely to be alive today.

Those are facts. And I'm allowed to infer a few things from those facts.

Are George Zimmerman's injuries facts?
Are the screams for help fact?
Are Trayvon Martin's lack of impact injuries facts?

Why not infer a person's claim of self-defense from his actions?
Does a person who believes they acted illegally conduct multiple interviews without an attorney with law enforcement? (From experience no)
Does a person who was just assaulted and shot a person express relief that such crime may have been audio or video recorded?

Can you infer that a jury that heard all the facts without our media induced biases by facts that are not entered into court thought self-defense was justified?

I am sure your opinion will not change based on my statements nor do I need it to but we all need to open our minds and realize there is often more to an instance than what is presented on the surface.

[JuTMSY4]

Are George Zimmerman's injuries facts?
Are the screams for help fact?
Are Trayvon Martin's lack of impact injuries facts?

Why not infer a person's claim of self-defense from his actions?
Does a person who believes they acted illegally conduct multiple interviews without an attorney with law enforcement? (From experience no)
Does a person who was just assaulted and shot a person express relief that such crime may have been audio or video recorded?

Can you infer that a jury that heard all the facts without our media induced biases by facts that are not entered into court thought self-defense was justified?

I am sure your opinion will not change based on my statements nor do I need it to but we all need to open our minds and realize there is often more to an instance than what is presented on the surface.

that doesn't change my or AE's point actually - and his point (which i agree with) wasn't about the verdict.

All of those things you cited occurred after the phone call