Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
ok..I'll edit that.
trayvon had illegal substances in his system. There is no evidence zimmerman took illegal drugs.
Now I'll suggest a further edit...
Trayvon had illegal substances in his system. There is no evidence Zimmerman took illegal drugs due to the fact that he was not subjected to a test, not because he was tested and came up negative.
Marijuana takes 30 days to leave the system, so there is also no way of knowing how recently prior to his death that TM indulged or how much.
The kid didn't like being stalked, he confronted the stalker and was giving him a little b**** slapping beat down. The wanna be macho man turned Vigilante could not accept his limitations, so he pulled his gun(courage) and committed Manslaughter, possibly Murder..
Bob your story sure has changed. I thought he was hunted down like a dog ?
Now the court is considering throwing in "lesser charges"??? Wow, what a terrible miscarriage of justice!!! It's glaringly obvious that this was a case of self-defense. Only the biased people who see racism in EVERYTHING want to make this out to be something other than self-defense. The court just wants to appease the potential rioters by considering crap-charges like "third degree murder" or "child abuse". Absolutely pathetic.
Alright!
Now, try making your point without all the sarcasm.
The kid didn't like being stalked, he confronted the stalker and was giving him a little b**** slapping beat down. The wanna be macho man turned Vigilante could not accept his limitations, so he pulled his gun(courage) and committed Manslaughter, possibly Murder..
If what you said up until the last 4 words was true then by law he should walk.
So when someone gets into a fight and starts losing, it's ok to kill the opponent? Hmmmmm, very interesting.
Dose the person losing the fight fear for their life? Who threw the 1st punch? What was the reason for the fight? Was the person losing the fight walking back to their vehicle when they were attacked?
Again, follwing is not a crime(no matter what this judge says) attacking some one with out reason(being followed is not a reason) is a crime, and it dose give some one the right to defend them self.
Trayvon had illegal substances in his system. There is no evidence Zimmerman took illegal drugs due to the fact that he was not subjected to a test, not because he was tested and came up negative.
Marijuana takes 30 days to leave the system, so there is also no way of knowing how recently prior to his death that TM indulged or how much.
Drugs had almost nothing to do with this situation except it got TM suspended from school.
I love the arm chair lawyers in here. Let the professionals do their jobs folks.
Amen!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Justme305
Now the court is considering throwing in "lesser charges"??? Wow, what a terrible miscarriage of justice!!! It's glaringly obvious that this was a case of self-defense. Only the biased people who see racism in EVERYTHING want to make this out to be something other than self-defense. The court just wants to appease the potential rioters by considering crap-charges like "third degree murder" or "child abuse". Absolutely pathetic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maabus1999
I love the arm chair lawyers in here. Let the professionals do their jobs folks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by southbel
Yet, she, as a judge, must not devolve into the emotional argument. Yes, we should and do hold our judges to a higher standard one of which is to not get emotional, whether that be anger or otherwise. She simply needed to remind West of the rules of conduct in the court. It was not appropriate for her to speak of appeal, especially since Zimmerman has not been convicted of anything.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maabus1999
I love the arm chair lawyers in here. Let the professionals do their jobs folks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by southbel
Here's the thing though. Stalking is illegal. Following is not. Thus if Martin attacked Zimmerman for following him, Martin was in the wrong, legally.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maabus1999
I love the arm chair lawyers in here. Let the professionals do their jobs folks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sun Thinker
Of course, you're right. I've not seen a shred of evidence from anyone, including the prosecution, that George did anything illegal. What George did from the first call to the police to getting out of his truck and watching was perfectly within his rights. Many don't think it was prudent, but it was legal. He walked down to the end of the walkway, and back to the Tee. Up to this point, George was doing what he could lawfully do. All indications are that Trayvon was also well within his rights.
It's at this point that the real case begins.
Every argument about stalking and following is a lame one. They are not criminal acts. Given the state of George's face and head, it's at this point where one can only speculate as to how it began, or take it as stated. If George threw a punch and Trayvon ducked, we'll never know. If they argued down the walkway and George placed his hands on Trayvon, again, we'll never know.
The evidence simply is not there to make the case that George started the fight. To be fair, we can't prove he didn't either.
The child abuse claim is grasping at straws from a team that knows its case is pretty much lame.
Sadly, people keep harping on following and stalking because they Need George to be convicted of something, anything, they do not care. Be it because of race, rage, anti-gun sentiment, or even political ideology, that's even sadder, and I would recommend those folks have some deep inner discussions with themselves.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maabus1999
I love the arm chair lawyers in here. Let the professionals do their jobs folks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gunther Rall
We've established that "following" (as you admit in your first 8 words) someone isn't illegal.
YOU'RE the one who posted the "definitions" of "stalking" to defend your weak position...I pointed out they weren't the LEGAL definitions.
Now you're just deflecting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maabus1999
I love the arm chair lawyers in here. Let the professionals do their jobs folks.
So when someone gets into a fight and starts losing, it's ok to kill the opponent? Hmmmmm, very interesting.
Getting sucker punched does not mean you agreed to a fight.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
