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.
Why did he attack? How do you know he wasn't defending himself when he attacked?
Maybe tm was defending himself. Maybe gz said, ' You're a dead man mf.' Maybe tm said, 'Be cool *****, let's share some Skittles and Tea.' Luck, fate, the system, something wasn't on tm's side that night. We'll never KNOW to the standard you want.
Just because a maglux flashlight shining directly in your eyes can cause retinal damage doesn't mean you have to get all pissed off about it.
So now Trayvon had retinal damage from Zimmerman's flashlight? Oh that's rich.
The eye damage didn't seem to slow him down or hurt him when it came time to attack Zimmerman, the only thing that slowed down that vicious attack was a very well placed 9mm round.
So now Trayvon had retinal damage from Zimmerman's flashlight? Oh that's rich.
The eye damage didn't seem to slow him down or hurt him when it came time to attack Zimmerman, the only thing that slowed down that vicious attack was a very well placed 9mm round.
What do you do when a fat stranger who has been chasing you shines a maglux in your eyes?
Me? I'd take it away and pummel the fat fk with the fat fk's flashlight.
You did not say it was not a part of the State law, you said it was not a part of the self defense statute. But it is.
I then posted the link to the statute where you can read the stand your ground law because it is a part of it. That's why the judge cited stand your ground in the jury instructions, as I proved earlier.
Judge Nelson did specify the stand your ground statute, as (again, and I have posted numerous official links who prove it) the stand your ground law is a part of Florida self defense statute.
Once again - what part of "stand your ground was not part of the defense" do you not understand?
Zimmerman waved a stand your ground hearing.
Why?
Because he acted in self defense, and under Florida state law, self defense is separate from stand your ground.
Sheesh - this is not rocket science.
Zimmerman offered self defense as a rationale for his actions, it was accepted by the jury, and he was found not guilty because the state could not prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
You can conflate legal principles all you want, but it will not change the existing fact - that George Zimmerman acted in self defense and was found not guilty of murder for that reason.
Because he acted in self defense, and under Florida state law, self defense is separate from stand your ground.
After reading the official document which clearly shows otherwise, and after reading the jury instructions which clearly mention stand your ground, you keep saying the self defense law is separate from stand your ground ?? Stop arguing with the facts.
It was not used in his defense, but was considered by the jury because the JUDGE INSTRUCTED them to. The judge instructed them to because Stand Your Ground is written in plain text WITHIN the Florida self defense law, as anybody can see in the official links I provided. I'm not going to bang my head on the walls over this.
Its simple, If TM the thug would have kept walking instead of doubling back and attacking GZ the thug idiot would be alive today. Put the blame where it belongs, you *******s keep giving a pass to all criminals. WAAAAAA the prisons are full of people, its not nice WAAAAAAAA Its not the blacks fault its because whites did not give then enough money WAAAAAAAA. Quit bleeding on my shoes and go cry about the world somewhere else.
Martin acted with personal responsibility.
Zimmerman acted with "presumptuous responsibility".
I believe it was the right verdict. There wasn't enough evidence to find him guilty. But he is far from "innocence". If he had money u betcha there would be a real civil lawsuit. (Since he didn't use the stand my ground defense). So he doesn't get real immunity from civil lawsuit.
I don't know...i've never liked the "not guilty" vs "declared innocent" argument.
For all intents and purposes, Zimmerman is an innocent man. Not guilty to me is tantamount to being innocent. I'm not a scarlet letter type of guy. Once you've been exonerated, you should have the right to continue your life the way you did before you were indicted.
Now the reality is that once a case gets as big as this one did, that's all but impossible. But in theory, that's how it should be.
The problem of course is that what Zimmerman did was heinous enough that even though he was exonerated, people just aren't going to forget that he shot an unarmed kid after stalking him. He's an adult with a violent history that shot an unarmed kid and no matter what, this can't end well for Zimmerman. His life can't go back to being normal again.
I never bought the idea that Zimmerman was a hell bent racist, or that Martin was a thug. That's all bullcrap. This was just an unfortunate confluence of events that got out of control and i'm sure Zimmerman wishes like hell he could take it all back.
After reading the official document which clearly shows otherwise, and after reading the jury instructions which clearly mention stand your ground, you keep saying the self defense law is separate from stand your ground ?? Stop arguing with the facts.
It was not used in his defense, but was considered by the jury because the JUDGE INSTRUCTED them to. The judge instructed them to because Stand Your Ground is written in plain text WITHIN the Florida self defense law, as anybody can see in the official links I provided. I'm not going to bang my head on the walls over this.
Whoever has ears to hear, let them hear.
Even if what you say is true, how does it support your position?
As Harrier's professors say will happen if he ever will give them a draft of his final thesis which they can't follow(he won't) - SO WHAT?
The defense was self defense, the jury heard the evidence, the prosecution failed to prove their case, and the man was found NOT GUILTY - because he acted in SELF DEFENSE.
They did not find that he "stood his ground".
The stand your ground principle is different than self defense.
Do simple facts somehow escape you?
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.
Oh that's rich.
