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.
If I as a woman had had a teenager attack me, I would have fought back physically, not shot the kid to death. I certainly would have tried to defend myself for more than 40 seconds.
Plus, Zimmerman KNEW help was on the way. He'd already called the police and he knew neighbors had called 911. He knew the kid wasn't a murderer or mugger, because Trayvon had asked him why he was following him.
Even if he was knocked into unconsciousness, he knew he'd be all right. The thing is he didn't want to get knocked unconscious. He knew then it would be another one of those ***s "who always get away."
Shame on GZ for not wanting to get knocked unconscious. I suppose GZ knew TM would leave him alone after that. Maybe splashing some of his ice tea on GZ face to awaken him.
"Zimmerman knew help was on the way." I guess he had his scanner report back to him that the police were seconds away. Zimmerman sure knew how to plot this encounter even up to the second.
Are you still avoiding my questions in previous post? Or are you just going to continue to make this insane assumption on the event.
If I as a woman had had a teenager attack me, I would have fought back physically, not shot the kid to death. I certainly would have tried to defend myself for more than 40 seconds.
Plus, Zimmerman KNEW help was on the way. He'd already called the police and he knew neighbors had called 911. He knew the kid wasn't a murderer or mugger, because Trayvon had asked him why he was following him.
Even if he was knocked into unconsciousness, he knew he'd be all right. The thing is he didn't want to get knocked unconscious. He knew then it would be another one of those ***s "who always get away."
Such a bunch of bull.
I seriously want to send a 17 year old to kick your arse for THIRTY seconds and see what you'd think then.
Even if he was knocked unconscious, he knew he'd be alright. ... <---------what bunch of malarkey this is. That is one of the most insane things I've read in this forum in a long time. There have been TONS of links posted of "one punch" deaths. Of course he didn't want to get knocked unconscious ... seriously, dumb dumb dumb.
Well, he did get away with voluntary manslaughter. The difference between America and the 1880s Tombstone AZ that Florida has become, hinges upon the absence of the concept of imperfect self-defense. In Florida, thanks to the stand your ground law and the general white conservative stance of gun ownership bravado, the concept of imperfect self-defense is non-existent. This is colloquially referred to as "shoot first, ask later" or "load fire aim" laws. This is regressive in nature and why Florida is off kilter as a citizenry these days.
As to the jury system in Florida. The population get the justice they deserve. An apathetic underemployed Floridian populace more concerned with making it to Downtown Disney for the night than keeping their neighbor's welfare, voted and enacted shoot first precedents, so 'shoot first' is what you get. If the people of Florida were more temperate, they would vote for and adjudicate in their juries a more reasonable middle ground for the legality of lethal responses to altercations, which would result in more voluntary manslaughter convictions. Offenses which carry much lesser jail time and still assign partial culpability to those who are flippant about the use of 'shoot first' and then profer blanket Tombstone Arizona self-defense arguments.
Does Florida even recognize manslaughter? Or does everyone who gets into a verbal altercation deserve what they get down there in Mickey Mouse land?
I seriously want to send a 17 year old to kick your arse for THIRTY seconds and see what you'd think then.
Even if he was knocked unconscious, he knew he'd be alright. ... <---------what bunch of malarkey this is. That is one of the most insane things I've read in this forum in a long time. There have been TONS of links posted of "one punch" deaths. Of course he didn't want to get knocked unconscious ... seriously, dumb dumb dumb.
An unarmed 17 year old punches an older, larger, armed man.
The punch knocks the man down and the 17 year old child gets
on top of him and begins punching him. The man's head is over
concrete...
A "very confused soul" that is scared to death that the DOJ, the President of the United States and Mobs are going to be coming after her. I guess she has good reason to fear that.
Well, he did get away with voluntary manslaughter. The difference between America and the 1880s Tombstone AZ that Florida has become, hinges upon the absence of the concept of imperfect self-defense. In Florida, thanks to the stand your ground law and the general white conservative stance of gun ownership bravado, the concept of imperfect self-defense is non-existent. This is colloquially referred to as "shoot first, ask later" or "load fire aim" laws. This is regressive in nature and why Florida is off kilter as a citizenry these days.
As to the jury system in Florida. The population get the justice they deserve. An apathetic underemployed Floridian populace more concerned with making it to Downtown Disney for the night than keeping their neighbor's welfare, voted and enacted shoot first precedents, so 'shoot first' is what you get. If the people of Florida were more temperate, they would vote for and adjudicate in their juries a more reasonable middle ground for the legality of lethal responses to altercations, which would result in more voluntary manslaughter convictions. Offenses which carry much lesser jail time and still assign partial culpability to those who are flippant about the use of 'shoot first' and then profer blanket Tombstone Arizona self-defense arguments.
Does Florida even recognize manslaughter? Or does everyone who gets into a verbal altercation deserve what they get down there in Mickey Mouse land?
your post is rubbish. first off the stand your ground law didnt apply and wasnt even adjudicated. second the jury found that zimmerman acted in self defense as he was in fear of his life, thus voluntary manslaughter doesnt apply.
I never said he pulled the gun out right away. I believe he started trying to almost right away. The gun was not accessible to Zimmerman right away. He said so himself.
None of those are self-defense injuries. My question still stands: what was Zimmerman doing with his hands to defend himself during those 40 seconds?
Ok now you're saying he was trying. So first you said his gun was ready once he hit the ground now you're saying he was trying to almost right away. Whatever that means. Is that like saying something is definitely possibly maybe certain? And now you're basing your response on what GZ said. "He said so himself" You're taking GZ word for it now.
What self-defense injuries would satisfy you?
You get your nose broken and your head pounded on the concrete well I suppose you can provide us with the injuries and where GZ hands could be. Have you ever had you're nose broken. Do you know how painful it is? The pain rushes at you straight into your brain. You're eyes get watery. Add to that a brutal head pound. Have you bumped your head on a desk or have you ever taken a fall on the ground. How long does it take you to regain composure. So a head on concrete collision repeatedly and a broken nose. And more punches from someone you cannot shake off. When someone get's straddles you sitting on your stomach or chest it is not easy to get them off. You should watch UFC fights and most instances this type of mount means lights out for the guy on bottom.
Let me the first to comment - the juror's comments are a mess of contradictions. If she said he "got away with murder" then why didn't she vote guilty and force a mistrial. That's her responsibility. Then she failed as a juror to do her duty.
But you have one paragraph saying "he got away from murder",
another paragraph saying "She said the jury was following Florida law and the evidence, she said, did not prove murder.",
another paragraph saying "When asked by Roberts whether the case should have gone to trial, Maddy said, "I don't think so." "I felt like this was a publicity stunt. This whole court service thing to me was publicity," she said."
A very confused soul.
Having a hard time with this one too, I see.
I don't think it's out of the ordinary for a juror to decide one way while being sequestered and working within the regulations and constraints of the rules of law required of jurors, and then hold a different view once the trial is over and she has time to reflect, consider other viewpoints, so on and so forth.
Whatever the case, verdict was rendered, and so it goes...
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.
