It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by PLASIFISK
Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes
Originally posted by PLASIFISK
Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by PLASIFISK
Apparently not, at least not in the jury's mind.
How so. He claimed self defense.
It was self defense.
That's why he was found not guilty, in addition to not enough evidence to prove otherwise.
With that being said........ Follow, confront, fight, kill is legal!
Yes or no?
Irrelevant, as that isn't what happened. He observed, reported, and was behaving responsibly. Martin hid, then confronted, attacked, and thus committed a felony assault.
Well, as I have just returned from having a smoke out front my house, armed....why you ask.
I wanted to smoke!
Never do that armed but being as though my wife told me to take my fire arm with me just in case someone rolls up on me and asks why am I here.
She now fears that someone can roll up on me,, confront me , fight me, then kill me.
My friggin family is scared and thinks its now open season on black males!
Lol
Sooooooo, what am I to do?
Just as I have to be prepared for it seeing that this case proves it can happen.
I must also understand that there could be someone who is looking to try this out on me.
What it boils down to is who can pull there firearm the fastest.
Point blank.
The police report will always read self defense for fear of losing my life.
It is very relevant. I look very suspiciouse. I'm black.
Originally posted by PLASIFISK
So does this mean its now legal to follow, confront, fight, and kill anybody you want? . As long as your the last person standing?
Jury found him innocent.
And opened the door to a storm of moral issues.
Originally posted by DarkNite
reply to post by 1curiousmama
I agree with you. So many posts focus on the fact that Martin was 17 - as if NO 17 year old on the face of this planet has been in a fight/attempted murder/ actually murdered another human being. The evidence and witness statements all indicated that Zimmerman was defending himself - just because Z had a gun and was able to use it does not mean that he is guilty of anything like murder. What if he would have had a knife and stabbed Martin and he bled to death? What if he would have pushed him off of him and Martin fell back on the concrete just right and was killed? What difference does it make that it was a gun that helped him? it is called self defense. If I was being beaten and I had a weapon and I feared for my life, you better believe that I would use whatever I could get my hands on to get the person off of me. Whether he was 57 or 17. Was Z supposed to ask for his driver's license to check his age before deciding to defend his own life?
Yes.. Tm did attack first and probably didn't realize gZ had a gun. But seeing that tm attacked him if tm had a gun hisself he probably would've just shot first. Which would've been breaking the law. This is a hard one to judge though. I would've hated to be on the jury stand. Hard decisions it must of been. I still feel for the kid who lost his life at such a young age. Sad day in America no matter what your position is
Originally posted by luciddream
Now psychopaths can pull a "zimmerman" and get away with it if caught!
Another loops in the messed up justice system.
Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes
Oh, brother! Now Geraldo is on, describing Martin as someone who, "just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time." Then he tries to say politics shouldn't be mixed into these cases? Wow.....
He is trying to play this off as some tragic accident, instead of a case of self defense when criminally assaulted.
Originally posted by juniperberry
Granted I'm not from America but I'm thinking the same rules apply as in my own country.
Please tell me if i have anything incorrect as I will not watch the media circus,
Nothing in this verdict says that GZ didn't kill TM. They didn't call him "Innocent" (which is a legal term)
And "Aquittal" or "Not Guilty" only means that GZ isn't guilty of the CHARGE that was laid before the Judge.
The Prosecution ONLY tried to have him charged with 2nd degree Murder.
No where does anything in the above say that GZ is "innocent", just that there isn't enough proof or evidence for the 2nd degree murder charge.
If the prosecution had been smart, they should have gone with something like "involuntary manslaughter". Any charge with "murder" in it must prove some level of INTENT. GZ couldn't have intended to "murder" TM since he did call 911 first.
So in this case, Justice, as defined over several centuries, has been served.
If anyone riots over this case, then they shouldn't be sent to jail, they should all be forced sit through several courses of criminal and administrative law.
That's because of Florida Statute 776.013(3), which took effect five years ago this month. The old law gave you the right to protect yourself with deadly force inside your home. The 2005 law gives you the right to protect yourself in a park, outside a Chili's, on a highway — just about anywhere.
You need only to "reasonably believe" that pulling the trigger or plunging the knife or swinging the bat is necessary to stop the other person from hurting you.
Reports of justifiable homicides tripled after the law went into effect, according to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement. Last year, twice a week, on average, someone's killing was considered warranted.
The self-defense law — known as "stand your ground" — has been invoked in at least 93 cases with 65 deaths, a St. Petersburg Times review found.
Originally posted by jhn7537
I wonder if the same people who are freaking out right now were as mad when Casey Anthony got off?
Originally posted by jhn7537
Casey Anthony killed her kid = Not Guilty
George Zimmerman kills a teenager = Not Guilty!
Michael Vick killed a dog = GUILTY?
IM SO LOST!
Originally posted by GrantedBail
Well, I take comfort in the fact that he will never truly be a free man.