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.
The thread appears longer than it really is: 50-some posts discussing the killer's history and his legal woes, 800 posts by Waldo Kitty announcing "case closed."
There are the legal issues, and also non-legal such as what may have been in GZ's mind.
When dispatch advised GZ to stop following, he said OK. To someone who doesn't believe GZ stopped, that moves him even further from the concerned citizen, to cop wannabe with bad intent.
And again, none of that matters. GZ didn't do anything illegal. Certainly nothing that would allow TM to assault him.
As I said earlier, the case started at the moment TM assaulted GZ. The rest is nothing but a distraction.
There was not one scintilla of evidence or testimony produced at trial indicating Martin attacked Zimmerman. A theory postulated by defense counsel is only that, their theory.
If you believe that, you didn't follow the case very closely. What you are claiming is simply not true.
The thread appears longer than it really is: 50-some posts discussing the killer's history and his legal woes, 800 posts by Waldo Kitty announcing "case closed."
Can't rep you yet but this is an awesome post! LOL LOL LOL
And again, none of that matters. GZ didn't do anything illegal. Certainly nothing that would allow TM to assault him.
As I said earlier, the case started at the moment TM assaulted GZ. The rest is nothing but a distraction.
Your right, because they ended up agreeing it was justifiable self defense. However, ...
jurors don't always strictly follow the letter of the law or will compromise rather than hang. It turned out that the 3 convict jurors changed their minds or caved. Had the three NG's done that instead, whether GZ continued to follow when advised not to vs return to his car, easily could have mattered.
And again, I take the thread as more of a discussion about GZ the person than the verdict.
Lose him? That's a loaded question that implies TM was obligated to sprint in one direction (away from Zim) in order to not be at fault for his own death. Look up the definition of the Stand Your Ground law. No words in the English language could more accurately describe TM's rights that night. It's sole purpose is to abolish the common law duty of retreat. (Unless you're a teenage black kid, then you must flee everyone, all the time. And then it will be assumed that you're guilty of something else.)
Without reading all of the posts here, I bet a dozen people have written that Zim has every right to walk wherever he wants, as if is not considered stalking (a legal term) when preceding a killing. Pointing that out is exactly the same as saying someone had every right to be swinging a baseball bat. If it's against the rib cage of an unarmed 17 year old though, it is not within his rights.
Re-read the last paragraph from my previous post. FIVE people (that we know of) have been assaulted and/or threatened to be killed with a gun by George Zimmerman. It's foolish, and frankly pathetic, to think that Zimmerman didn't assault and/or threaten to kill the one person in that long list THAT HE ACTUALLY KILLED.
Lose him? That's a loaded question that implies TM was obligated to sprint in one direction (away from Zim) in order to not be at fault for his own death. Look up the definition of the Stand Your Ground law. No words in the English language could more accurately describe TM's rights that night. It's sole purpose is to abolish the common law duty of retreat. (Unless you're a teenage black kid, then you must flee everyone, all the time. And then it will be assumed that you're guilty of something else.)
OK, I'll play. I'm pretty familiar with Florida's SYG law. Why don't you tell us how that law gave TM the right to assault GZ.
If you believe that, you didn't follow the case very closely. What you are claiming is simply not true.
What kind of sources did you utilize to follow the case very closely? I can't prove the negative. Please supply a link to the tiniest crumb of evidence that indicates Martin attacked Zimmerman. Even paraphrase and indicate what you THINK was evidence at trial showing Martin attacking, if you're so sure of your position.
You are quite wrong, your claims are completely unfounded and unsupported.
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.
