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.
In hindsight, do you think the prosecution should have more forcefully introduced the theory that it was Martin who was acting in self defense? After all, the Florida self defense/stand your ground law doesn't require a person in fear of their life (evidenced by Martin initially running from Zimmerman) to retreat... thus there was no requirement for Martin to run home, and he was well within his rights to lay in wait for Zimmerman and jump out in self defense as Zimmerman walked through the neighborhood searching for Martin.
AGAIN, Florida law still grants a civilian self-defense rights with lethal force even if said person initiated the conflict as long as the person is determined to be in fear of losing their life.
even if one starts a fist fight in the street...if they are being one upped and they feel they are going to die...they can use lethal force
FOLLOWING SOMEONE IS NOT ILLEGAL!!! Drop this issue already.
DISOBEYING THE POLICE DISPATCHER FOR DOING SOMETHING PERFECTLY LEGAL IS TOTALLY WITHIN YOUR RIGHTS. Please drop this too.
Nobody in the world can order you to stop doing something that is perfectly legal! We are not slaves of anybody, certainly not of the police or the police dispatcher.
I've been trying to beat these simple facts into these nutjobs for weeks now. Don't waste your time. No point in arguing with someone who just wants to "win" facts be damned.
The prosecution should have presented the case from what they knew happened to Trayvon, not based on George's version of events.
The biggest mistake they made was presenting George's story twice in the videos. This sure showed why George thought he acted in self-defense, but it did nothing to show why Martin acted in self-defense.
Because there is absolutely no evidence that TM acted in self defense. None. It's speculative fantasy and nothing more. All of the actual evidence indicates the opposite.
That just show what people know about stand your ground. it does not allow going back and assaulting the person. that allows the person assaulted to stand their ground and if in fear for their life use deadly force I self defense.
Yeah, you've got to love these hypocritical nuts.
Stand your ground should be repealed, because it makes it too easy to claim self defense. But at the same time, stand your ground should be expanded to include "following" as provocation.
I think the prosecutiton deliberately screwed up to remove the risk of jail for the killer. They were more interested in preserving cultural normalcy then doing justice to the victim. They did not want to prosecute some white guy for killing an uppity black kid for being in the wrong neighborhood. Well Zimmerman got away with murder. Let's see who he kills next.
I think the prosecutiton deliberately screwed up to remove the risk of jail for the killer. They were more interested in preserving cultural normalcy then doing justice to the victim. They did not want to prosecute some white guy for killing an uppity black kid for being in the wrong neighborhood. Well Zimmerman got away with murder. Let's see who he kills next.
Great theory Greg. Although somehow it seems to completely baseless compared to my theory. My theory being that they had no god damn case, at all.
Here's the problem with that theory. While SYG does allow you to defend yourself it doesn't allow you to assault another. Even if we assume TM was attacked or justified in attacking first the prosecution would then have to explain why TM was on top of GZ and did not stop fighting after the neighbors told them to stop.
Somebody was also yelling for help. It doesn't make sense that TM would be yelling for help while on top of GZ and it also doesn't make sense that TM was defending himself if GZ was the one yelling. Remember the state was the one with the burden and if they don't prove a claim or make an unreasonable claim they would have lost credibility with the jury.
One thing I dont understand. Who was yelling? GZ or TM? Did they prove that it was GZ who was yelling. It is possible that GZ took out his gun and TM was yelling. then there were gun shots after yelling when GZ shot TM dead.
That just show what people know about stand your ground. it does not allow going back and assaulting the person. that allows the person assaulted to stand their ground and if in fear for their life use deadly force I self defense.
By that logic, one can start fight with anyone walking on the street and then shoot him dead claiming self defense. One can claim that he/she feel threatened even if the other person was protecting self from your assault. No witness. Jury will believe your word.
A ling time ago a cop friend told me that if I ever had to shoot someone I should be certain to kill because then there would be only one person to tell the tale. It seems that was good advice. It worked for Zimmerman.
SB - We disagree. I think the prosecution had a damn good case but did not want to convict the killer.
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.
