Breaking News! George Zimmerman found not guilty.

reply to post by SonOfTheLawOfOne


Well I wouldn’t give you a case number on my friend even if I knew it however I was there and witnessed his being arrested. I also witnessed what happened and it was a verbal altercation however the other guy said my friend threatened him. Yet he didn’t. He was latter released but they still took him in.
Just to be clear you have now changed your scenario from walking up to someone and threatening there life to walking up to them threatening there life then walking away. There is a difference between those two scenarios and it is quite significant. The first scenario the person could shoot you the second he could not. If you pose a threat and that person was in fear of their life (or at least said so) they can legally shoot you.


It would be covered under this part of your source.

if you reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to yourself or a third person or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

In the second scenario where you threaten then walk away it would not be legal to shoot.

As for the case with castle doctrine and he was shot through the door. The man who was shot was not armed but banging loudly on the door threating to kill the homeowner over a woman. I think it was in 1999 in Cocoa Beach.


BTW your avatar says you are in California not Florida you may want to change it.

Originally posted by Wookiep
This from Keith Olbermanns "fan page". (facebook)

If we could all stick to it and just do it, and I mean really do it! "BOYCOTT Florida." If they refuse to live in a civilized society, so be it. We don't have to take our lives into our own hands when we visit their state and possibly lose our life in a state that is filled with murderers and hate. Let's just do it! Quit bringing tourism money into their state. We can force any state in this country a lack of revenue if we just stick to OUR guns (no pun intended) and not support that state in any monetary manner whatsoever.

Keith Olbermanns Fan Page

Ban Florida?? Are you effing kidding me?? WTF is wrong with these people out there?? This guy... You want to BAN Florida because there was not enough evidence to convict Zimmerman of the crimes? You're mad because the justice system worked? I cannot believe the amount of spin people like this are putting on this story. The MSM are ALL acting like idiots. There is something deeper going on here for sure.

I'm seeing so many ignorant comments on Facebook right now from people that are just absolutely ridiculous. I cannot believe this BS hive mentality going on. If people have anything to be scared of, it's the massive amount of idiots who watch the MSM and can't see past the BS. It's truly frigtening.

edit on 13-7-2013 by Wookiep because: (no reason given)

Not to be off-topic, but by that same standard, Washington D.C. should be first on that list.

~Namaste

Originally posted by Galadriel
reply to post by TKDRL

 

Protect you from what? skittles?

From punks and scumbags who could care less about the law.

and yes, Zimmerman likely was emboldened because he had that handgun - did he threaten Trayvon with it? The answer would be no.

Zimmerman was already backpedaling from Trayvon once he got out of the car.

While Zimmerman was returning to his vehicle, he states he was attacked by Martin," the report said. "But only after Martin inquires to Zimmerman 'What's your problem?' Zimmerman, instead of attempting to inform Martin of the reason he was following him, stated to Martin 'I don't have a problem.'"

The report said Zimmerman had another opportunity to identify himself.

"As Zimmerman responds to Martin, by his own admission, Zimmerman reaches into his pocket attempting to locate his cell phone," it said. "As Zimmerman reaches for his cell phone, he stated Martin replies 'You have one now,' and Martin punches Zimmerman in the face, knocking him to the ground."

www.reuters.com...

Martin replies 'You have one now,' and Martin punches Zimmerman in the face, knocking him to the ground

reply to post by SonOfTheLawOfOne


LOL it's not off topic at all since DC decided to inject themselves into this whole thing.

reply to post by LadyofGlass


I completely agree with you. No matter how you look at it, bad decisions were made on both sides.

On that night, neither of these men thought they would be national news. Its just male machismo in play.

I hope it ends here, I hope everyone here has mindset that justice has led its course. If you agree with it or not, it is what it is at this point.

As another poster mentioned this kid picked the wrong fight out immaturity and arrogance. Stupidity is what makes this a racial issue.



In the end this kid made a choice and it cost him his life. It can be spun a 100 ways from Tuesday but this is the cold hard truth when you peel back all the layers of crap.

I don't necessarily agree with the verdict, but I accept it and I feel that Zimmerman received a fair trial. I wish it would have turned out differently, but who am I to question the juries decision? They were in the room, they saw all of the evidence and acted accordingly.

Originally posted by VoidRonin
reply to post by hounddoghowlie

 

Maybe because Trayvon didnt' have to die. He wasn't posing a lethal threat on Zimmerman's life. But George made the choice to end his life. Put away your preconceptions and look at what your seeing!

Keep cheering on murder you guys, I'm sure it is good for your soul.

I am entitled to my evaluation of the facts placed before us all. George made several wrong decisions that night, and for him to get off without any penalty, and to watch you all cheer for him, just makes me sick.

But it comforts me that Zimmerman has condemned his own life; such is the destiny of murderers.

Actually, he was witnessed posing a threat to Zimmerman's life, and STATE witnesses confirmed this. Martin made wrong decisions. He attacked a man because of race, and because his suspicious behavior was witnessed. Zimmerman had every right to walk in HIS neighborhood, and even to speak to Martin. Martin did NOT have a right to attack him because he didn't like being spoken to, or seen.

Originally posted by cd5love96
I rarely post on here but here's my few words:

I can't believe he wasn't found guilty. He was specifically told NOT to pursue TM but did instead. That right there speaks volumes. He got away with murder just like Casey Anthony did.


I'm half African-American and Hispanic by the way.

No, he was NOT told not to pursue. People, please listen. Time and time again, it's been stated what actually happened. That claim is flat out false. The dispatcher to whom Zimmerman spoke states this. They cannot tell someone what to do. He also stated that, based on his two comments to let him know if the guy did anything else, followed by asking if Zimmerman could see which way the guy went, could have been construed as a request to exit the vehicle and check. Plus, Martin was out of sight when Zimmerman exited his vehicle. Even if Zimmerman DID follow, that isn't a crime. Nor would be asking Martin a question, IF he did so. Martin attacking him was a crime.

Wow this must be proof that the MSM can create the news out of thin air.

I am blown away how powerful and far reaching this topic has become.

I actually don't find it to be of world importance. The only reason IMHO this ever became as big as it was, was simply as an ulterior MSM attack on human rights (self defense in this case). The MSM's track record with human rights is that they are most often against them in their rhetoric. So it wouldn't be a big surprise that they fulfill the pattern this time.

People are misreading the Constitution or something. Sure it provides for a free press, but this press is anything but free. How can you have a "free press" when a small group of traitors can control/own it and purposely push anti-freedom rhetoric constantly? The only thing that comes off this 'press', are lies, half-truths, and propaganda.

Click here for more information.

Originally posted by Auricom

Originally posted by Euphony
Zimmerman killed an innocent kid.

Innocent?!

I really hate to see what you consider to be guilty. Trayvon had been suspended from school, did and sold drugs, had tools to break and enter homes in his backpack and more. How in the world is that innocent? All Zimmerman did was see something wrong, go to right it and ended up having a criminal attack him so he had to use self defense.

If Trayvon the criminal wanted to stay alive, he should have stayed in school and walked the straight and narrow.

LOL So now it's okay to kill somebody because they are criminals or got suspended in school? Some of you guys thought process is amazing to me.

As for the topic itself........

This is a sad day to me, this basically means you can harass somebody, follow them and mess with them , initiate a confrontation, start the fight , lose the fight and then shoot the person dead and claim you were afraid to lose your life. I mean fear is nothing but an emotion and it varies from person to person. Who's to say or judge what's going on inside your brain? I wouldn't be surprised to see someone try to pull a Z in the next few days.

reply to post by Grimpachi

So let me get this strait...hmmm. you think following someone is worse than being assaulted by someone.

Did I say that? I forgot to finish my point, but even if I had I doubt you would have had the perspicacity to restrain yourself from asking me this question. My point was: the conspiracy narrative discredits the justifiable argument of the prosecution, that racial profiling led to this kerfuffle.

As for assault and racial profiling? Yes, assault is obviously worse. But can I ask you a question? Consider it a thought experiment. What if you followed someone you knew was probably violent, but you had a weapon on you, so you felt emboldened to approach him. If this person happens to respond in a manner consistent with what probability predicts - that he will violently attack you - should your claim of "self defense" be upheld?

Think about it. A gun is an extremely serious weapon. When you approach that kid who in all likelihood might respond violently, you entered a context where killing him became an ever greater possibility. Is this a mature use of this responsibility? Did George Zimmerman consider the value of the human life he was to take when he came towards him with a gun?

BTW it is against T&C to mention forms of drugs here. Just FYI.

Ughhhh.. So in the "political issues" thread, we should just pretend that laws pertaining to drug use should not be discussed, simply because the word "coc aine" (oops, sorry!) was used? I don't think that was the intention of the authors of the T&C. Rather - and this only goes to show how poor your analytical ability is - it probably refers to personal use of these drugs. Not in discussing them in the context of their political relevance.

If I was confronted by a "Neighborhood Watch" person and asked questions, I would remain polite and answer them having nothing to hide. If my father lived there I would ask the guy for a ride home and meet him. Someone got in someones face for nothing better than being tough. I don't care if a person thinks they are being racially profiled, it's fine to express your feelings about it but resorting to physical violence will always end up with a looser.

In the sixties and seventies having long hair got you profiled and treated the same way as a black person. Spread eagle, search the car, called names and having police trying to insult to get a physical reaction so they can beat the crap out of you. Keeping your cool and not fighting lead to driving away saying "What @#%^& jerks" with nothing else happening.

It is a sad event when someone losses their life for no good reason. If only words were exchanged there would never of been a trial.

Zimmerman was part of a witch hunt and every bodies personal causes with racism waved their flag. If you would of mixed up the colors of who got shot and who did the shooting with all the same information and situation, it would be a whole different media bias and might not be news worthy at all. There might not even have been any charges at all treating it as self defense from the beginning.

Originally posted by MidnightTide

Originally posted by Galadriel
reply to post by TKDRL

 

Protect you from what? skittles?

From punks and scumbags who could care less about the law.

and yes, Zimmerman likely was emboldened because he had that handgun - did he threaten Trayvon with it? The answer would be no.

Zimmerman was already backpedaling from Trayvon once he got out of the car.

While Zimmerman was returning to his vehicle, he states he was attacked by Martin," the report said. "But only after Martin inquires to Zimmerman 'What's your problem?' Zimmerman, instead of attempting to inform Martin of the reason he was following him, stated to Martin 'I don't have a problem.'"

The report said Zimmerman had another opportunity to identify himself.

"As Zimmerman responds to Martin, by his own admission, Zimmerman reaches into his pocket attempting to locate his cell phone," it said. "As Zimmerman reaches for his cell phone, he stated Martin replies 'You have one now,' and Martin punches Zimmerman in the face, knocking him to the ground."

www.reuters.com...

Martin replies 'You have one now,' and Martin punches Zimmerman in the face, knocking him to the ground

He reached.

Without telling him who he was or why he was following him, he reached... and had it been me, I wouldn't have wanted him to go into that pocket either. He says it was for a cell phone. How do we know that's true and even if it was true, it was a stupid move.

Now I am wondering why Fox is showing two-hour old footage from the crowds outside the courthouse. Did they all go home, or is there something they don't want us to see?

Something seems off with that.

Protesting the verdict?

www.ustream.tv...


No Justice, No Peace?

Originally posted by Grimpachi
reply to post by SonOfTheLawOfOne

 

Well I wouldn’t give you a case number on my friend even if I knew it however I was there and witnessed his being arrested. I also witnessed what happened and it was a verbal altercation however the other guy said my friend threatened him. Yet he didn’t. He was latter released but they still took him in.

Still hearsay, but you validated my point, which is that since no crime was committed, he was released and not charged with a crime.

Just to be clear you have now changed your scenario from walking up to someone and threatening there life to walking up to them threatening there life then walking away. There is a difference between those two scenarios and it is quite significant. The first scenario the person could shoot you the second he could not. If you pose a threat and that person was in fear of their life (or at least said so) they can legally shoot you.
In the second scenario where you threaten then walk away it would not be legal to shoot.

Neither are different. In absence of an action of physical force, or a commissioned felony, you would go to prison for life if you shot me simply for threatening your life. Comparable force can only be used in the face of the same force. If I punch you in the face once, knock you to the ground and walk away, you still can't shoot me! I don't see your argument as valid, I'm sorry. If you don't get your facts straight, you're going to end up in prison if you face these types of circumstances and use deadly force. Without evidence of a physical threat or a felony, you can NOT use deadly force, the law is very clear, I quoted it for you in the previous post.

As for the case with castle doctrine and he was shot through the door. The man who was shot was not armed but banging loudly on the door threating to kill the homeowner over a woman. I think it was in 1999 in Cocoa Beach.

Again, you have provided little context in that case, so it's still hearsay. Find a source, or I can just as easily say you are being deceptive for no other reason than to try to support your argument in the absence of facts. Since it's not your friend, you should have something more than your word. I'm sure there were extenuating circumstances that you are not aware of that would lead to him not being arrested, you can't just shoot someone for banging on your door.

BTW your avatar says you are in California not Florida you may want to change it.

This is really getting off-topic. Can't someone live in two places or have businesses / jobs in more than one place? I didn't know it was a requirement to state where I am at all times.

I grew up in Florida, am very well versed in the laws, and have been on both sides of them. I have physically defended myself in a case of assault and battery with a deadly weapon, using deadly force with a weapon of my own, and was arrested and charged, and had to use the same laws and precedents used in the GZ case. I was able to use the SYG statute for self defense, but was still convicted of a crime. I'm telling you from more than a first-hand perspective, you are wrong, and I will leave it at that. If you want specifics, feel free to U2U me and I will be happy to have you sign a non-disclosure agreement with my attorney and give you the case number.

This is all irrelevant to this thread. A jury of peers listened to the facts and found him innocent of violating the law. It doesn't mean he's innocent of killing someone, and he'll have to live with that, not us. I personally empathize with both sides in this case.

~Namaste

Society has a big problem.

A lot of people believe they have a right to punch someone.
They don't.

This case proves that.

You wanna go around thinking you are all tough punching people you don't like, be ready for karma to come back at you in full force.

That's my take on the whole thing.

I am very strongly against those who think they have a right to punch people they don't like. A punch can and has killed many people many times. Punch or kick is equally as deadly as a gun or a sword in some cases.

Let this be a lesson for all of those who speak with their fists.

reply to post by NotAnAspie


I have been arguing with people about this all night now.

Yes, Zimmerman was an idiot to do what he did. Following someone isn't illegal, what Trayvon did was illegal. All he had to do was stand his ground, demand for the cops to be called.

reply to post by tnhiker


I agree, the Christian Newsom murders were far more brutal than the trayvon case. But because it was white people who were kidnapped, tortured, and murdered by black people, the case was never going to attract national attention.