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.
Let's say, hypothetically, that a video popped up showing the whole incident and it turned out to have happened as Zimmerman claimed. Would you guys change your mind about his guilt? Would you still feel that an injustice has happened?
Not sure any healthy male should need to shoot a unarmed youth..... If Zimmernan was not capable of defending himself he should NOT have been in a position (neighbourhood watch) to be in a confrontational situation.... he was indeed a liability not a asset to the neighbourhood watch. Zimmerman should NOT have followed Trayvon..... simple.
Zimmerman appears way bigger then Treyvon. Even if he was attacked I doubt he would be overcome by a kid. Point here: An unarmed kid was shot dead.
An unarmed kid. I cannot see any right in this. Plus Zimmerman had a previous record with the law and of making numerous 911 calls.
Just for the record... I personally see no reason for Zimmerman to be following Trayvon Martin, especially given that he was told by police to stop. So to me, given the known facts, Zimmerman has to shoulder some guilt. Trayvon Martin, on the other hand, might be totally innocent of any wrongdoing. Given the facts as known, that is a possibility.
However, if Trayvon Martin needlessly attacked Zimmerman, then Martin would be largely to blame for his own death. Trayvon Martin was actually taller than Zimmerman, but that is actually irrelevant because both parties were big enough to inflict physical harm, consequently the size of both persons becomes irrelevant. It is conceivable that Martin surprised and overpowered Zimmerman and Zimmerman felt his life was being threatened. It is possible, but the reality is, all of this is unknown.
Point is, presenting accurate facts and then proposing theories is one thing, proposing theories based on inaccurate facts is another.
I think it matters in connection with the stand your ground law. It does not seem right to me that the law allows a civilian to follow another civilian, start a physical altercation, and then use deadly force to end the altercation. Just think of where this could lead to.
You're right. But it's our justice system. He doesn't need hard evidence. The burden of proof is on the prosecution. For example, in the case of Casey Anthony, there was no evidence linking her directly to the crime. In my personal opinion, the jury used reasonable doubt incorrectly. I wasn't in the jury room, so I don't know if the judge didn't explain it to them, the prosecution did a lousy job, or she was, in fact, innocent of the charges (which I doubt) I suppose someone who is missing a baby might just go out and party instead of reporting it to the police for over a month. Sure. However, the law specifically states that "reasonable" means based on evidence, reason and common sense and not what we think might or might not be possible.
I'm on your side and am sad that this happened. It's not anything new, however. Justifiable homicides aren't uncommon, and it's my opinion that in this case we have even less evidence than in other cases where the person on trial was acquitted. Only if the Federal Investigation reveals facts not currently known to the public (which is very possible) and experts can show undisputed evidence that proves Martin was yelling for help, or eyewitness testimony can positively state Zimmerman was the aggressor, it's always going to be a "he said-she said" kind of case.
If I ran the world, I would charge him with involuntary manslaughter or negligent homicide, just something that would give the Martin family some justice. But I don't run the world, and I think he will either not be arrested or charged or be tried and acquitted of all charges. Keep in mind that this man went free in Florida. This is why I keep saying the crime isn't necessarily racially motivated.
And the confusing and unprovable word amounts to what should be considered reasonable. I agree our justice system may be better than in other countries, but too often covers the fact it's too often a joke. I was in jail briefly for the first in my life (I'm 54) and saw first hand how the jails actually rely and almost encourage their predominance of repeat offenders, as they get more revenue from the state based on a body count. DOC? More like Dept of Perpetual Incarcerations. Worst of all I saw this long time Boeing QC engineer who had no criminal record get framed between his ex wife and incompetent detectives who claimed he conspired to have his ex murdered, and is now serving 10-14 at a state penn. They literally had nothing on him. No hit man, weapon, nothing! They used the testimony of his ex's son from another marriage who was clinically retarded and heavily coached by the prosecution. It was unreal! Even the COs who got the chance to get to know him knew there was no way he had anything to do with a crime that never happened anyway. While his ex had a history of criminal behavior and never should have been believed in the first place. Today she walks free with her imprisoned ex husband's holdings and severance the court awarded her. What a racket.
I think it matters in connection with the stand your ground law. It does not seem right to me that the law allows a civilian to follow another civilian, start a physical altercation, and then use deadly force to end the altercation. Just think of where this could lead to.
Well, I agree that the law is numbskullian. It was written with testosterone seemingly pushing the pen. But I don't think it allows anyone to "start a physical altercation" and legally use deadly force to end that altercation. The law is dumb, but it isn't that dumb.
Not sure any healthy male should need to shoot a unarmed youth..... If Zimmernan was not capable of defending himself he should NOT have been in a position (neighbourhood watch) to be in a confrontational situation.... he was indeed a liability not a asset to the neighbourhood watch. Zimmerman should NOT have followed Trayvon..... simple.
And if MARTIN went for the gun, and was shot inadvertently trying to get it?
Even trained police officers have been in that situation, and you would think that THEY as Healthy adults, would not need to shoot an unarmed youth, but if that youth goes for their gun, then what?
There is a lot we don't know, and as armchair quarterbacks, we cannot know what happened, and assuming to know only displays ignorance.
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.
