Stand Your Ground Law

[loveoforganic2]

Ohhhh...the consequences of our actions. The law is subjective and is interpreted by your judgements, experiences, biased. It's not fair, but that's the law. Has the defense convinced me that he did not break a law. No. I knew an inmate that went to prison for 10 yrs for literally being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Our legal system is flawed. What can I say, but I respect your opinion nonetheless. Good nite.

Our legal system is most certainly flawed. Are you arguing what you want to happen in the flawed system? I'm arguing what I feel should happen if the legal system works as it should.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[loveoforganic2]

You are making assumptions. What makes you say Martin was the aggressor and not Zimmerman? To me it shows that Z was just as aggressive as I assume Martin was. How convenient is it now that Z says he feared for his life. He should have felt that fear before he got out of the car. I know you won't agree with this. I guess this is why I never choose to be on a jury in my county.

I posted before pgg's post w/some evidence presented regarding who assaulted who. Why would GZ be in fear of his life before he got out of his vehicle? I don't even understand what your logic or point is in that statement. I also don't understand the jury comment. All kind of tangents

 

[Medicinewoman85]

Interesting - I read an article somewhere or other with different information. I tried to dig into the actual laws... but I'm studying, it's late, and I'm tired, was not vibing.





What injuries did Martin have that suggest he was assaulted by GZ prior to the shooting? You keep insisting "what evidence do we have that this is the way it played out?" We have some, but not a lot. The defense must just present a preponderance of evidence that the homicide was justified, and I think anyone would be hard pressed to say that has not been met. The wounds present on GZ and TM are consistent with GZ's story. The burn pattern and entry wound are consistent w/a contact shot into TM's shirt while it was at distance from his chest. When GZ was interrogated by the police, the interrogator lied and said a camera had been located that had his interaction w/TM recorded, and GZ's response was "Thank god." A lot of the witness evidence is contradictory/changing. I'm not seeing what evidence would have me feeling that GZ was most likely not acting in self defense

Maybe.. But it is the defense's job to provide a reasonable doubt, which they did a good job of. The defense is doing its job.

 

[Medicinewoman85]

I posted before pgg's post w/some evidence presented regarding who assaulted who. Why would GZ be in fear of his life before he got out of his vehicle? I don't even understand what your logic or point is in that statement. I also don't understand the jury comment. All kind of tangents

Let me be clear. Why did Z get out of the car if he wasn't trying to "protect and serve"? He was not looking for a street sign. My point is if he didn't get out the car he was in no danger. He put himself in harms way by ignoring what the dispatcher told him.

 

[Medicinewoman85]

I posted before pgg's post w/some evidence presented regarding who assaulted who. Why would GZ be in fear of his life before he got out of his vehicle? I don't even understand what your logic or point is in that statement. I also don't understand the jury comment. All kind of tangents

The jury comment was to say my opinion is biased because of my LE experience. I would not think like a juror, a civilian, but like a cop. It's a reason we don't serve on jurors, and that comment was to PGG, as I explained my experience to him.

 

[loveoforganic2]

Let me be clear. Why did Z get out of the car if he wasn't trying to "protect and serve"? He was not looking for a street sign. My point is if he didn't get out the car he was in no danger. He put himself in harms way by ignoring what the dispatcher told him.

To protect and serve? I assume you're also going after the wannabe cop angle? Local PD offered GZ enrollment in the "Citizen on Patrol" program in which he would have received a civilianized patrol car and uniform. GZ turned the offer down. I'm not sure what more argument can be made in this regard.

Getting out of his vehicle was an unwise move, but there was nothing illegal. The dispatcher's comment was not a command, and even if it was, it wouldn't carry weight of law. You say confidently that GZ did not exit the vehicle to find a street sign - what makes you that positive?

 

[loveoforganic2]

The jury comment was to say my opinion is biased because of my LE experience. I would not think like a juror, a civilian, but like a cop. It's a reason we don't serve on jurors, and that comment was to PGG, as I explained my experience to him.

LEO are civilians. Pet peeve

 

[Medicinewoman85]

To protect and serve? I assume you're also going after the wannabe cop angle? Local PD offered GZ enrollment in the "Citizen on Patrol" program in which he would have received a civilianized patrol car and uniform. GZ turned the offer down. I'm not sure what more argument can be made in this regard.

Getting out of his vehicle was an unwise move, but there was nothing illegal. The dispatcher's comment was not a command, and even if it was, it wouldn't carry weight of law. You say confidently that GZ did not exit the vehicle to find a street sign - what makes you that positive?

I watched the court proceedings and they showed a diagram with Z's car. He could have seen the sign from inside his car, but he got out and walked in the direction of Martin between two houses. He was recorded saying he walked by the dog trail. That's why I question his motives. I'm not convinced Z was a cold blooded killer going after Martin but why did he get out of the car?

 

[Medicinewoman85]

LEO are civilians. Pet peeve

Police officers are not civilians. What's the pet peeve?

 

[loveoforganic2]

I watched the court proceedings and they showed a diagram with Z's car. He could have seen the sign from inside his car, but he got out and walked in the direction of Martin between two houses. He was recorded saying he walked by the dog trail. That's why I question his motives. I'm not convinced Z was a cold blooded killer going after Martin but why did he get out of the car?

I haven't recently looked at the scenario/geography mapped out. The shooting was at night in the rain, correct? Seems like it would be reasonable that the sign may be hard to read in those conditions. At any rate, alternative possibilities that would not be illegal or warrant assault as a response - getting out of the car to see which way TM was heading, or even to follow TM.

"not convinced GZ was a cold blooded killer" - I assume this is hyperbole. GZ called the police. Unless he did this to cover his own ass and prop up a story for a planned murder, I would say quite affirmatively he isn't a "cold blooded killer"

Police officers are not civilians. What's the pet peeve?

You're correct. I've grown up hearing civilian/non-civilian as a dichotomy b/w military and non-military, but the dictionary says it applies to police and fireman as well. Apologies

 

[pgg]

You are making assumptions. What makes you say Martin was the aggressor and not Zimmerman? To me it shows that Z was just as aggressive as I assume Martin was. How convenient is it now that Z says he feared for his life. He should have felt that fear before he got out of the car. I know you won't agree with this. I guess this is why I never choose to be on a jury in my county.

We don't know.

All we know is that there's no evidence to contradict Zimmerman's story, and "no evidence" and "we don't know" shouldn't be enough to convict anyone of anything, ever.

Police officers are not civilians. What's the pet peeve?

It's an old semantic argument that I think gets less and less important as time goes by and the meaning of the word changes. Here's the abridged version of the controversy as I understand it:

Used to be, that all people who weren't a member of the armed forces acting in an official capacity in uniform were "civilians" ... and the military is very specifically prohibited from conducting its business within the United States. The notion of seeing armed soldiers on the streets in the US is an uncomfortable thought.

Police officers DO walk the streets, but they're different. They're civilians.

It can be a sore point with people who worry about the ongoing militarization of the police. I think it's less an issue with their equipment and more about their tactics. It's a perceived shift away from "protect and serve" toward "enforce primarily with violence or threatened violence and with broad discretion and near-impunity" ... The latter is what the military does. We don't want that from a police officer - we want them to be like us, civilians.

We get nervous when police refer to themselves as not-civilians because it implies that they think they're different from us, on another level of privilege and power, above ordinary citizens.

 

[loveoforganic2]

We don't know.

All we know is that there's no evidence to contradict Zimmerman's story, and "no evidence" and "we don't know" shouldn't be enough to convict anyone of anything, ever.




It's an old semantic argument that I think gets less and less important as time goes by and the meaning of the word changes. Here's the abridged version of the controversy as I understand it:

Used to be, that all people who weren't a member of the armed forces acting in an official capacity in uniform were "civilians" ... and the military is very specifically prohibited from conducting its business within the United States. The notion of seeing armed soldiers on the streets in the US is an uncomfortable thought.

Police officers DO walk the streets, but they're different. They're civilians.

It can be a sore point with people who worry about the ongoing militarization of the police. I think it's less an issue with their equipment and more about their tactics. It's a perceived shift away from "protect and serve" toward "enforce primarily with violence or threatened violence and with broad discretion and near-impunity" ... The latter is what the military does. We don't want that from a police officer - we want them to be like us, civilians.

We get nervous when police refer to themselves as not-civilians because it implies that they think they're different from us, on another level of privilege and power, above ordinary citizens.

Technically, if there is zero evidence in either direction, in an affirmative defense that would be enough to convict. Obviously, I don't feel that's the case for GZ though. Your latter explanation is what I had been familiar with

 

[shibby1111]

someone said earlier "you can't cry mommy after go play vigilante" or something to that effect. If there was any evidence that Zimmerman put his hands on Martin first resulting in an altercation that led to Martin's death, I would say put Zimmerman away for life. You can't instigate/provoke an altercation and then use deadly force when it's not going your way. However, the evidence is Zimmerman eventually lost Martin when Martin took a left at the T sidewalk, heading towards his relatives house, Zimmerman continuing straight towards the other street. Martin decided to return to Zimmerman and start a fight. This fight involved a Martin on top of Zimmerman who at that point was under threat of great bodily injury or death. The person defending himself need not wait to receive great bodily injury or death before defending himself. The prosecution is ignoring and avoiding the evidence that Zimmerman fired in self defense and instead painting Zimmerman to be a "vigilante, wannabe cop." The questions should be who started the fight--that's what determines whether Zimmerman had the right to shoot.

 

[BLADEMDA]

someone said earlier "you can't cry mommy after go play vigilante" or something to that effect. If there was any evidence that Zimmerman put his hands on Martin first resulting in an altercation that led to Martin's death, I would say put Zimmerman away for life. You can't instigate/provoke an altercation and then use deadly force when it's not going your way. However, the evidence is Zimmerman eventually lost Martin when Martin took a left at the T sidewalk, heading towards his relatives house, Zimmerman continuing straight towards the other street. Martin decided to return to Zimmerman and start a fight. This fight involved a Martin on top of Zimmerman who at that point was under threat of great bodily injury or death. The person defending himself need not wait to receive great bodily injury or death before defending himself. The prosecution is ignoring and avoiding the evidence that Zimmerman fired in self defense and instead painting Zimmerman to be a "vigilante, wannabe cop." The questions should be who started the fight--that's what determines whether Zimmerman had the right to shoot.

Correct. That is why Zimmerman is "not Guilty" of Murder or Manslaughter. I hope the Jury sees it that way as well.

FYI, my friends and I are prepared for the worst in Florida so those of with guns (the majority of citizens in the State) are well stocked up on ammo. Any Riots will be dealt with using severe force by the police. I hope it doesn't come to that and I doubt it will. I think many African Americans understand our system of justice does work and Zimmerman is not a White KKK member.

 

[Telekinesis]

Correct. That is why Zimmerman is "not Guilty" of Murder or Manslaughter. I hope the Jury sees it that way as well.

FYI, my friends and I are prepared for the worst in Florida so those of with guns (the majority of citizens in the State) are well stocked up on ammo. Any Riots will be dealt with using severe force by the police. I hope it doesn't come to that and I doubt it will. I think many African Americans understand our system of justice does work and Zimmerman is not a White KKK member.

Actually most African Americans HIGHLY distrust the justice system and believe it does not work. Like why are prisons majority full of minorities? White people don't commit crime?

 

[shibby1111]

Florida prison is about to get another minority if Zimmerman is convicted. Would that or wouldn't that give minorities more trust in the justice system?

 

[Telekinesis]

Florida prison is about to get another minority if Zimmerman is convicted. Would that or wouldn't that give minorities more trust in the justice system?

Idk, I just that it came down to race in the first place. It's more of a common sense issue to me.

But I do feel if Zimmerman is convicted it would go along way for Blacks to start trusting the legal system more.

 

[FiremedicMike]

But I do feel if Zimmerman is convicted it would go along way for Blacks to start trusting the legal system more.

I'm honestly at a loss for words.

 

[Medicinewoman85]

I'm honestly at a loss for words.

 

[shibby1111]

Idk, I just that it came down to race in the first place. It's more of a common sense issue to me.

But I do feel if Zimmerman is convicted it would go along way for Blacks to start trusting the legal system more.

What about hispanics' trust in the legal system??? Its not about whose trust in the legal system. Its about a person who defended himself against imminent threat of death and bodily injury not going to prison for the rest of his life.

 

[Telekinesis]

What about hispanics' trust in the legal system??? Its not about whose trust in the legal system. Its about a person who defended himself against imminent threat of death and bodily injury not going to prison for the rest of his life.

An armed person killed a unarmed person. If the race roles were reversed you know Zimmerman would have been in jail already

Hell I have family that are high ranking in the justice system and they tell me don't trust the legal system.

America treats you differently if you're black, especially in the south. You know how many times I've been followed or pulled over for suspicion?

 

[loveoforganic2]

An armed person killed a unarmed person. If the race roles were reversed you know Zimmerman would have been in jail already

Hell I have family that are high ranking in the justice system and they tell me don't trust the legal system.

America treats you differently if you're black, especially in the south. You know how many times I've been followed or pulled over for suspicion?

Shooting an unarmed individual can be a defendable use of force.

I don't trust the justice system as a white guy. I would certainly feel worse about it as a black guy. You all are obviously subject to some degree of discrimination. Doesn't mean wishing retaliatory injustice onto others isn't a disgusting sentiment

 

[Telekinesis]

Shooting an unarmed individual can be a defendable use of force.

I don't trust the justice system as a white guy. I would certainly feel worse about it as a black guy. You all are obviously subject to some degree of discrimination. Doesn't mean wishing retaliatory injustice onto others isn't a disgusting sentiment

I'm not wishing injustice on anyone despite the injustice directed towards minorities, I just feel like if he is guilty and gets off on a technicality then it would defend Blacks argument that the government is against us.

It's a shame how law is treated as a game in this country.

 

[Telekinesis]

If I shot an unarmed person no matter the circumstances I would most likely at least get manslaughter. Why is Zimmerman any different?

 

[Gern Blansten]

You know how many times I've been followed or pulled over for suspicion?

I have been pulled over 4 times because of, what I can only assume was, suspicion. I am not black. Sometimes cops just wanna see what you are up to. I don't like it that it happened, but it is what it is.
I would say I have a general distrust of police because I think they gradually begin to think they are above the law. I have known many good ones, but I think there is a higher percentage of bad ones than there should be. I think aggressive people are drawn to that profession.

 

[loveoforganic2]

I'm not wishing injustice on anyone despite the injustice directed towards minorities, I just feel like if he is guilty and gets off on a technicality then it would defend Blacks argument that the government is against us.

"if he is guilty" & "if he gets off on a technicality" - you should elaborate a little bit on what you mean by those two things.

It's a shame how law is treated as a game in this country.

I'm talking about an individual receiving a fair ruling. You're talking about how a certain (imo unjust) ruling would be beneficial or detrimental to a race of people due to their conceptions of what occurred. Who's treating law like a game?

If I shot an unarmed person no matter the circumstances I would most likely at least get manslaughter. Why is Zimmerman any different?

Dude, what is with all the strawmen, and why do you keep driving at the race point? Ideally, there is nothing different. People are people. The media blew this up into a race case. The evidence lies in GZ's favor. If he was a black dude that shot a white dude, maybe the racial differences and juror bias would lead to a conviction, and that would be an injustice.

 

[Telekinesis]

"if he is guilty" & "if he gets off on a technicality" - you should elaborate a little bit on what you mean by those two things.



I'm talking about an individual receiving a fair ruling. You're talking about how a certain (imo unjust) ruling would be beneficial or detrimental to a race of people due to their conceptions of what occurred. Who's treating law like a game?



Dude, what is with all the strawmen, and why do you keep driving at the race point? Ideally, there is nothing different. People are people. The media blew this up into a race case. The evidence lies in GZ's favor. If he was a black dude that shot a white dude, maybe the racial differences and juror bias would lead to a conviction, and that would be an injustice.

I'm not saying make the dude guilty to appease black people. And I haven't been following the case as much because I generally don't care too but by I guess common sense. You can't follow someone with a gun and expect nothing to happen of it. Yea he might not have done anything illegal but Zimmerman did something incredibly stupid. There is no straw man argument, like at the many cases where there was reasonable doubt and the minority was still find guilty (ex. Troy Davis case)

 

[shibby1111]

If I shot an unarmed person no matter the circumstances I would most likely at least get manslaughter. Why is Zimmerman any different?

Armed doesn't necessarily mean armed with a gun, you can be armed with a rope, a bat, a knife, even a fist. Martin used his hands as vehicles to deliver serious bodily injury or death. Fearful of injury or death, Zimmerman fired his weapon.

In some situations a hand is just as deadly as a gun. Ask yourself if its Mike Tyson with one punch vs me with one 9mm round, who is more armed? If all I had was one 9mm round to fight with or a pair of legs to run with, I would run for my life. Your life can end very quickly if you got hit by a fist in the right spot, even by somebody less fit than martin or zimmerman. So, you don't know what you are talking about.

plus, why are you stuck on this whole minority thing.....both martin and zimmerman are minorities.

 

[Telekinesis]

Armed doesn't necessarily mean armed with a gun, you can be armed with a rope, a bat, a knife, even a fist. Martin used his hands as vehicles to deliver serious bodily injury or death. Fearful of injury or death, Zimmerman fired his weapon.

In some situations a hand is just as deadly as a gun. Ask yourself if its Mike Tyson with one punch vs me with one 9mm round, who is more armed? If all I had was one 9mm round to fight with or a pair of legs to run with, I would run for my life. Your life can end very quickly if you got hit by a fist in the right spot, even by somebody less fit than martin or zimmerman. So, you don't know what you are talking about.

plus, why are you stuck on this whole minority thing.....both martin and zimmerman are minorities.

Trayvon isn't Tyson 1. Have you even ever been in a fight. Unless Trayvon was a boxer there is no way he could put enough power behind a punch to the point of making Zimmerman fear for his life. Why won't Zimmerman get on the stand?

 

[Telekinesis]

Armed doesn't necessarily mean armed with a gun, you can be armed with a rope, a bat, a knife, even a fist. Martin used his hands as vehicles to deliver serious bodily injury or death. Fearful of injury or death, Zimmerman fired his weapon.

In some situations a hand is just as deadly as a gun. Ask yourself if its Mike Tyson with one punch vs me with one 9mm round, who is more armed? If all I had was one 9mm round to fight with or a pair of legs to run with, I would run for my life. Your life can end very quickly if you got hit by a fist in the right spot, even by somebody less fit than martin or zimmerman. So, you don't know what you are talking about.

plus, why are you stuck on this whole minority thing.....both martin and zimmerman are minorities.

Do you honestly believe race doesn't matter in the justice system? That's the reason why it matters.

 

[aneftp]

Simple matter is Zimmerman shot and killed a pretty 6 foot tall 17 year old white girl , GZ would have been charged the same day and we'd all be calling for his head.

Even if GZ claimed she attacked him. Yes some women do attack men.

This case is all about race.

 

[Medicinewoman85]

I'm not wishing injustice on anyone despite the injustice directed towards minorities, I just feel like if he is guilty and gets off on a technicality then it would defend Blacks argument that the government is against us.

It's a shame how law is treated as a game in this country.

As a black/native american woman I can understand. But I don't think if Zimmerman gets off its a racial oversite. It will be that the prosecution could not convince the jury that he went after Martin. I think he was negligent and should be charged with manslaughter since he had no regard for human life when he decided to get out of his car armed pursuing what he thought was a criminal. I know he says he was looking for a street sign, but I don't believe him. I think he panicked and got scared and made a mistake that may cost him his freedom.

 

[Telekinesis]

As a black/native american woman I can understand. But I don't think if Zimmerman gets off its a racial oversite. It will be that the prosecution could not convince the jury that he went after Martin. I think he was negligent and should be charged with manslaughter since he had no regard for human life when he decided to get out of his car armed pursuing what he thought was a criminal. I know he says he was looking for a street sign, but I don't believe him. I think he panicked and got scared and made a mistake that may cost him his freedom.

At the very least manslaughter. A mother still lost her child.

 

[loveoforganic2]

Trayvon isn't Tyson 1. Have you even ever been in a fight. Unless Trayvon was a boxer there is no way he could put enough power behind a punch to the point of making Zimmerman fear for his life. Why won't Zimmerman get on the stand?

Have YOU ever been in a fight? I was a boxer for 3 years. I am WELL aware of how much damage a person can do with just his body as a weapon. Getting your head slammed against pavement can very realistically lead to permanent disability or death

 

[loveoforganic2]

At the very least manslaughter. A mother still lost her child.

Everybody is somebody's kid. Why are you appealing to sympathy? Present grounds for manslaughter. Getting out the vehicle by itself doesn't do it for

 

[canjosh]

Trayvon isn't Tyson 1. Have you even ever been in a fight. Unless Trayvon was a boxer there is no way he could put enough power behind a punch to the point of making Zimmerman fear for his life. Why won't Zimmerman get on the stand?

Absolutely naïve statement there. A healthy 34 year old guy here in Houston died a couple of years ago after a single punch to the face. Dude that punched him was in his 50s and not a boxer. How about that soccer referee in Salt Lake City that died recently after a single punch to the head? I'm sure there are many more examples of fatal encounters with fists thrown by regular Joes.

 

[shibby1111]

Trayvon isn't Tyson 1. Have you even ever been in a fight. Unless Trayvon was a boxer there is no way he could put enough power behind a punch to the point of making Zimmerman fear for his life. Why won't Zimmerman get on the stand?

The point is: a fist can be as deadly as a gun. I thought if I exaggerated the point you may have understood. You are right in that Martin is not as strong as Tyson. But, Martin could have struck Zimmerman in the right place to make him go unconscious, and continued slamming of his head on the concrete side walk could have eventually led to his death. Therefore, Zimmerman shot Martin under the threat of serious bodily injury and/or death. He shot Martin for no other reason.

And yes, I have been in a fight. After 15 years of training, I know how to use my head, fists, and feet as deadly weapons. In fact, I have been in situations where I knew for a fact I could win a fight, but backed out because I was afraid of seriously injuring someone.

You can put a person's lights out by merely back handing them in the right place if you know how or if you get a lucky strike in. And for someone untrained, like Zimmerman, it would not be an impossible feat.

You do not need a Tyson punch to ruin a person's life. A couple light strikes to the face and some contact with cement can be just as deadly as a bullet.

 

[Telekinesis]

So you all think Zimmerman should just go free with no charges against him?

 

[periopdoc]

There's no evidence that it wasn't. The burden of proof is on the prosecution, as it should be. Edit - actually I'm not 100% sure on that, I've heard that self-defense is a so-called "affirmative defense" meaning the defendent has to prove he acted reasonably, but I'm not a lawyer.

If you are in Ohio, the burden of proof is on the defendant to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the killing was in fact in self defense. In the other 49 states, the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that your claim of self defense is a lie, a threshold that was not reached in this case. Since that threshold was not reached, then neither murder 2 nor manslaughter are legitimate verdicts.

You can't cry for mommy after you go and play vigilante of the neighborhood.

Actually, yes you can according to Florida law. Don't like it, fine, change the law, but it is in fact legal. The defendant can be a prick, annoy and pester someone, and goad them into a fight then when he finds himself outclassed and fearful for his life he can legally kill the individual that he picked the fight with.

The burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove that the claim that he was fearful for his life is in fact not true and his fear was unreasonable.

Just like we can say GZ felt threatened for his life, how do you think Martin felt.

Martin is not on trial here, though he would have had a valid self defense claim if he feared great bodily harm from Zimmerman.

However, when Martin gained the upper hand in the fight, and Zimmerman no longer presented a threat, he had the legal and moral obligation to cease and desist from further battery

We are legally and morally allowed to employ necessary levels of force only until the threat is stopped and no further. It is no more self defense to pummel a threat who is now helpless than it is to continue firing after a threat has fallen to the ground.

Police officers are not civilians. What's the pet peeve?

As much as they like to use military equipment and tactics, and think that they are not civilians, police are in fact civilians. International and U.S. law defines civilians as individuals who are not currently on active duty in the armed services. Police and fire personnel informally view themselves as non-civilians though this has no legal standing.\

- pod

 

[shibby1111]

So you all think Zimmerman should just go free with no charges against him?

Imagine that I ambushed you and was on top of you, pummeling your face with my fists, and slamming the back of your head on to concrete. And then you used a weapon to stop the attack, would you think that you should be put in prison for the rest of your life?

 

[Telekinesis]

Imagine that I ambushed you and was on top of you, pummeling your face with my fists, and slamming the back of your head on to concrete. And then you used a weapon to stop the attack, would you think that you should be put in prison for the rest of your life?

I wouldn't use a weapon. And I wouldn't be ambushed because I would have stayed in my car. I don't go looking for trouble like Zimmerman did.

 

[periopdoc]

I know he says he was looking for a street sign, but I don't believe him. I think he panicked and got scared and made a mistake that may cost him his freedom.

I don't believe him either. This doesn't negate a self defense claim and neither did the prosecution.

I think he actually was trying to keep Martin in sight until the police arrived so that he could guide them there. I don't think that he left the car with the intention of confronting Martin personally. I am not sure who confronted who or surprised who.

However, what you and I think doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is did the prosecution prove that Zimmerman did not have a reasonable fear for his life when he killed Martin.

- pod

 

[Telekinesis]

Imagine that I ambushed you and was on top of you, pummeling your face with my fists, and slamming the back of your head on to concrete. And then you used a weapon to stop the attack, would you think that you should be put in prison for the rest of your life?

And I've been slammed on the concrete many times, even knocked out before. I still wouldn't use a weapon.

 

[periopdoc]

I wouldn't use a weapon. And I wouldn't be ambushed because I would have stayed in my car. I don't go looking for trouble like Zimmerman did.

Doesn't make him guilty of manslaughter or murder 2. Even the prosecution admitted that leaving his car and following Martin was perfectly legal (even if he was a ***** for doing so).

- pod

 

[Telekinesis]

Doesn't make him guilty of manslaughter or murder 2. Even the prosecution admitted that leaving his car and following Martin was perfectly legal (even if he was a ***** for doing so).

- pod

But it escalated a situation that wouldn't have happened. Are you saying Trayvon was is the wrong place at the wrong time?

 

[shibby1111]

And I've been slammed on the concrete many times, even knocked out before. I still wouldn't use a weapon.

Well, maybe that's why you're having trouble understanding this situation.

 

[loveoforganic2]

So you all think Zimmerman should just go free with no charges against him?

I quoted the below over a year ago, on the second page of this thread, as representing my opinion on the matter

My advice? Let’s all “stand our ground,” not participate in the rush to judgment, and wait for the facts and the evidence to become available to us 300 million jurors in the Court of Public Opinion.

Having seen what's been presented, yes, I think he should walk without a charge. I'm not sure that he will, but I think he should, though he'll likely end up in somewhat constant fear of his life whether he ends up in prison or on street

 

[Telekinesis]

Well, maybe that's why you're having trouble understanding this situation.

That was uncalled for. Don't insult me as I haven't insulted you.

 

[shibby1111]

But it escalated a situation that wouldn't have happened. Are you saying Trayvon was is the wrong place at the wrong time?

Zimmerman was in the wrong place at the wrong time. Martin did what he should have never done which was ambush someone, pummel his victim's face, and slam his head on to the concrete.

 

[Telekinesis]

Zimmerman was in the wrong place at the wrong time. Martin did what he should have never done which was ambush someone, pummel his victim's face, and slam his head on to the concrete.

So if someone suspicious follows you you're supposed to let them?