Zimmerman Says He Doesn't Regret Actions in Shooting

page: 3
8
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 19 2012 @ 10:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by habitforming
Oh, Zimmerman was attacked was he?OH OK.
All you have to do is prove that to me.
Have even ANY EVIDENCE of that at all?

The fact he was beaten up on the scene .. the pictures ... the eye witness ...

As I said .. no one should jump to conclusions on this Zimmerman/Martin thing.
The 'grab the torches and pitchforks' mentality of some people here is awful.
The fact is that we don't know what happened .. we only have what the media wants
us to think. The media has been proven to be LIARS in this case.

Wait for the jury to see the real evidence and to decide.
In the mean time .. you all should put your nooses away. :shk:


Originally posted by roadgravel
Isn't the standard 'beyond a reasonable doubt'.

Not in a murder case. It has a higher standard to meet.

Arnold Law Firm - 2nd Degree Murder

In order to convict a defendant in Florida of Second-degree murder, the State of Florida must prove the following three elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

1 - The victim is dead;
2 - The death was caused by the criminal act of the defendant;
3 - There was an unlawful killing of the victim by an act imminently dangerous to another and demonstrating a depraved mind without regard for human life.

Understanding a second degree murder can be more confusing than the more serious first degree murder. The "criminal act" reference in the statute must be a single event or series of related actions arising from and performed pursuant to a single design or purpose of committing the murder or creating the dangerous condition that led to the death.


It must be proven that Zimmerman had the single design or purpose of committing murder OR created the dangerous condition that led to death.

Was he stalking with intent to commit murder? Can that be proven? Was that his intent the whole time ... to go murder Martin in cold blood??

Did he cause the dangerous condition that led to death? At the time Martin jumped Zimmerman, Zimmerman was walking away from Martin and Martin could have also just walked away. There was no need for Martin to jump Zimmerman. So the state will have a hard time proving Zimmerman caused the condition that led to Martins death.




posted on Jul, 19 2012 @ 10:19 AM
link   
The reason He does not regret it because He would have been killed according to His story.I'm sure He feels bad it happened.



posted on Jul, 19 2012 @ 10:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by habitforming
So anyone you think is a thug is ok to shoot to death then?
Is that how justice works in America?

A 17 year old male beating someone up and smashing their head against pavement when he doesn't have to .. that is a thug. If a 17 year old male is beating the crap out of me and I have a gun, I'm going to shoot him. If he dies .. it's his own fault for beating me up instead of walking away liike he could have.


Originally posted by habitforming
they do not regret the fact that an innocent child is dead.

1 - Martin wasn't innocent. He was beating the snot out of someone when he didn't have to.
2 - Martin was 17 years old and bigger than Zimmerman. Legally a 'child' .. but in reality he wasn't.
2 - Of course ZImmerman was 'not regreting' saving himself. Why would someone regret saving themselves from a thug beating them up? He said he was sorry someone was dead and that people were in pain over it. But of course he's not going to regret protecting himself.


Originally posted by habitforming
If you come after me with a gun for no reason I am going to smash your head into something too.

1 - Zimmerman wasn't 'going after' Martin. That's silly.
2 - If you go around smashing people's heads into concrete for no reason .. then you deserve to get shot if that person has a gun on them. That's a STUPID thing for someone to do when they could, instead, just walk away.


Your response is ridiculous.

Apparently you haven't taken a closer look at what YOU posted.


I do not want to have any part in any country where people just shoot people based on whether or not you think they are a thug.

1 - If someone attacks me for no reason and smashes my head in the sidewalk .. that person is a THUG. There is no 'thinking the person is a thug' .. the fact is, that person IS a thug.
2 - Then go live elsewhere if you don't like the fact that people have a right to self defense.



posted on Jul, 19 2012 @ 10:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by habitforming
What about Trayvon's justice?

Thug could walk away but instead he attacks man with gun. Thug beats man up and smashes his head in the pavement. Thug gets shot by man who has a right to defend himself. Thug gets 'justice'.



posted on Jul, 19 2012 @ 10:26 AM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 


The line where those points are proven is beyond a reasonable doubt in the minds of the jury. Without the actual words from the actor (confession of guilt), how could any intention be proved or considered actual otherwise.



posted on Jul, 19 2012 @ 10:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 

There are too many people with the 'grab the torches and pitchforks' mentality here. The press is full of BS ... it's been caught manipulating information and selectively editing tapes. It can't be trusted. As I said before ... I'm going to let a JURY make a decision based on real evidence and not a bunch of emotion driven half truths that are running around in the media. My guess ... manslaughter. I would have said involuntary manslaughter, but the Florida laws don't have that. (as far as I can tell).



posted on Jul, 19 2012 @ 10:28 AM
link   
reply to post by roadgravel
 

I dunno. I'm not a lawyer in Florida. I'm just posting what Florida says 'reasonable doubt' is and what the requirements are that have to be met for second degree murder. (which I think the DA is overreaching by going for and that overreaching could cost the case).



posted on Jul, 19 2012 @ 10:33 AM
link   
ahhh,

yet another trayvon thread
i love these, the bigots not only out themselves
but post shining examples of how lowbrow, how truly low on the evolutionary scale, one has to be to be a bigoted racist.




EDIT and of course z-man is gonna say stupid stuff
duuuhhh!

not to mention all the money being sent by the klanners and stormfront crowd,
and other assorted dimbulbs

who ironically would want his head if trayvon had been white.
edit on 19-7-2012 by DerepentLEstranger because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 19 2012 @ 10:34 AM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 



Originally posted by FlyersFan
A 17 year old male beating someone up and smashing their head against pavement when he doesn't have to .. that is a thug.


What about if he does it in self-defense? You say "doesn't have to" beat Zimmerman up. How do you know this?

What is a "thug", anyway? Why is that such a popular word among the Zimmerman apologists?



: a brutal ruffian or assassin : gangster, tough


We have no indication that Martin was any of these... yet people use that word regularly to apply to Martin. I wonder why?



If a 17 year old male is beating the crap out of me and I have a gun, I'm going to shoot him. If he dies .. it's his own fault for beating me up instead of walking away liike he could have.


So, you're assuming:
1. Trayvon was beating the crap out of Zimmerman, not defending himself against an attack
2. Trayvon had the option to "walk away"...

Those are some pretty critical assumptions. Strange that you don't think Zimmerman had the same option to "walk away", like HE could have.

If I'm a young black man walking home from the store with my candy and someone in a car is obviously following me, going slow enough to clearly be watching me, I'm going to be alarmed and do my best to WALK AWAY. If the driver then exits his car and starts following me, when he heads me off at the pass, I'm going to do my best to defend myself and beat the crap out of him. To defend myself. Trayvon was doing NOTHING wrong. Zimmerman pursued him, confronting him.


Originally posted by habitforming
1 - Martin wasn't innocent. He was beating the snot out of someone when he didn't have to.


How do you know he "didn't have to"? What do you mean, he "didn't have to"? Zimmerman himself said Trayvon saw the gun. You seem to have a lot more facts about the case than the rest of us do.



posted on Jul, 19 2012 @ 10:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


hush now chile,
don't you know?
dere ain't no such thing
as self-defense fo' colored folk an' da po', chile

an all god's chillun got shoes.




posted on Jul, 19 2012 @ 10:42 AM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 


You know, for someone saying we shouldn't jump to conclusions, you sure are drawing a lot of them yourself. I guess what's good for the goose isn't good for the gander eh?



posted on Jul, 19 2012 @ 10:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
What about if he does it in self-defense?

Zimmerman shot in self defense. Martin wasn't beating up Zimmerman in self defense.
Martin could have walked away. He chose not to.


What is a "thug", anyway? Why is that such a popular word among the Zimmerman apologists?

A THUG ... comeon .. you know exactly what one is.
Why is it so popular among the Martin Apologists to downplay this?


a brutal ruffian or assassin : gangster, tough We have no indication that Martin was any of these... yet people use that word regularly to apply to Martin. I wonder why?

You 'wonder why'.
Oh please ... more of your veiled insinuations of racism. It's silly. (and don't deny it and say 'i said nothing about race' .. by now we all have your MO .. denial would be silly as well). Martin was beating a mans head into the pavement when he didn't have to. He could have walked away. The witness' have Martin on top of Zimmerman. That's brutal. That's ruffian. That's tough. And if he was going for a kill, that's assassination.


Strange that you don't think Zimmerman had the same option to "walk away", like HE could have.

he was.


Trayvon was doing NOTHING wrong. Zimmerman pursued him, confronting him.

Funny how the Martin apologists assume this.
You seem to assume a lot more facts about the case then the rest of us do.
Or is that another 'fact' that MSNBC 'selectively edited' and has pumped out?


Grab the torches and pitchforks!
OY VEY.
edit on 7/19/2012 by FlyersFan because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 19 2012 @ 10:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by antonia
for someone saying we shouldn't jump to conclusions, you sure are drawing a lot of them yourself.

I'm damn tired of the 'grab the torches and pitchforks' mentality around here.
And I'm tired of people playing the race card.
And I'm tired of people not understanding that Zimmerman is 'innocent until proven guilty'.
And I'm tired of people ignoring the fact that MSNBC and the MSM have been caught tampering with information and evidence trying to make Zimmerman look like a racist puke who was out to murder a lil' child. Just that fact alone should make people sit back and wonder why the media is so intent on telling lies in order to convict Zimmerman.



posted on Jul, 19 2012 @ 10:51 AM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 


Zimmerman thought that Trayvon was another black thief in the neighborhood and didn't stop stalking him. Martin did have a choice but Zimmerman shouldn't have been following him, since he had already called the police and told them of his location.
Martin decided to take the law into his own hands just like Zimmerman was doing. If you were being followed by a man in a car you would get worried too. Wouldn't you?
Trayvon was doing nothing wrong. Zimmerman was. He decided to take the law into his own hands.



posted on Jul, 19 2012 @ 10:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by habitforming
reply to post by fnpmitchreturns
 


"I am not a racist, and I am not a murderer" said the man who killed a black kid for no reason.



It wasnt for no reason...it was for being black on a tuesday..thats still a crime in Florida....

If anything he killed him because he's nosey and couldn't resist his neighborhood duty to be a worry wart about things he had no business nosing into. At any rate any publicity is what he needs if he stands a chance of getting off from public opinion. After all that is what taints the jury pool these days. And his jury will probably be all white.



posted on Jul, 19 2012 @ 10:56 AM
link   
The whole thing shouldn't have gotten this far. Drop the charges and let the guy go . Lets get the riots over and done with. Burn the cities down and no federal aid to rebuild I say.



posted on Jul, 19 2012 @ 10:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by RimDaas
If you were being followed by a man in a car you would get worried too.

If I were being followed by a man in a car I'd NOT jump the guy.
If I were being followed by a man in a car I'd not attack him, even with his back turned.
I'd call the cops or I'd go to a public place ... I wouldn't attack him. that would be STUPID.

Trayvon was doing nothing wrong. Zimmerman was. He decided to take the law into his own hands.

Trayvon took the law into his own hands and jumped Zimmerman.
Zimmerman was walking back to his car.
Previous to that, Zimmerman was on Neighborhood watch and was doing what people do on Neighborhood watch .. WATCHING .. and he called in to dispatch about what was going on.

Why the DA could possibly get manslaughter ... they might be able to prove Zimmerman caused the situation because he was out watching instead of sitting in a car. If he had been in his car, then this wouldn't have happened. So that's why I think they might be able to get a manslaughter conviction.



posted on Jul, 19 2012 @ 11:01 AM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 



Originally posted by FlyersFan
Zimmerman shot in self defense.
Martin wasn't beating up Zimmerman in self defense.
Martin could have walked away.
He chose not to.


These are all assumptions.



A THUG ... comeon .. you know exactly what one is.
Why is it so popular among the Martin Apologists to downplay this?


Downplay what? We do NOT know that Martin is a "thug".


Martin was beating a mans head into the pavement when he didn't have to. He could have walked away.


He WAS walking away! Zimmerman pursued. What don't you get about that?



The witness' have Martin on top of Zimmerman.


During a scuffle between two people, there's a good chance that one is on top of the other. That doesn't prove who started the fight.




he was.


So, in your mind, Zimmerman stopped his car, got out, pursued Martin and then walked away, and was attacked by Martin? Are you serious?



You seem to assume a lot more facts about the case then the rest of us do.


Pot, meet kettle.



posted on Jul, 19 2012 @ 11:03 AM
link   
We may never know all the facts since one person is dead.

All the GZ self defense protection could be out the door if he was an aggressor or depending on what he did with his gun in the time he was following TM.

Maybe TM felt that he had no escape. That map posted didn't show GZ following him, it shows him taking a different path to intercept him.

Much of this will never be known, I suspect.



posted on Jul, 19 2012 @ 11:04 AM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 


Well if you get to come on the board and talk about how Martin was thug who jumped Zimmerman without seeing the evidence then I guess it's fair for the other side to speak their peace too.





new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join