Why Zimmerman is Guilty

American laws are messed up. Other than this, people are allowed to own guns (I know that unfortunately people have to protect themselves, but this problem can only be solved if the danger is eliminated), same-sex marriage is not allowed, water is fluoridated, euthanasia is not allowed, etc.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by Lil Drummerboy
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

And the president never should have opened his mouth either
what anti zim protesters cant get past is this Happens daily in the black community
Drive by shootings, assaults, thefts, rapes.. EVERY DAY

27 black youth were murdered in Chicago over July 4th weekend and non of these bleeding heart liberals or race pimps have mentioned it once. Their hypocrisy is astounding.

This bears repeating.

This goes to race baiting, promoting divisiveness and other sleazy, slimy actions we can all attribute to our MSM, Obama and his administration.

Ignore the man behind the curtain.

They want all this divisiveness. They want the distraction from all the other damning events going on that points towards a highly corrupt and unethical administration.

Trayvon has become Circus Maximus for the ignorant masses.

Ban ignorance. Ignorance is responsible for more deaths than guns could ever account for.

Originally posted by Willtell
It’s easy and simple.

Even if Trayvon started the fight (which I don’t concede because Zimmerman has been caught in lies) he is innocent because by the same “stand your ground law” he felt under attack by Zimmerman stalking him. Therefore he felt he had to defend himself by attacking his unknown stalker. Remember Zimmerman didn’t admit that he identified himself to Trayvon as a neighborhood watchman. So how was Trayvon to know who this guy stalking him was . . . he may have been a criminal or sex pervert or whatever.

Even if this is true, Trayvon cannot legally assault Zimmerman simply because he believed somebody was following him. You can't just assault someone because you believe they are following you. And Trayvon cannot legally murder Zimmerman simply because he believed he was being followed. But none of this even matters. It doesn't matter who started what.

Justifiable homicide is only legal when there is enough evidence to suggest a reasonable belief in great bodily harm or a threat to one's life. No injuries are necessary. And it doesn't matter who starts a fight. The evidence points to the fact that Zimmerman reasonably believed there was a threat to his life and/or great bodily harm, therefore self defense with lethal force is legal and justified.

Why don't any of you people understand this? Do any of you know anything about the law at all? And why do you keep bringing up this Stand Your Ground law when it had absolutely nothing to do with this case?

Originally posted by roadgravel
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Without the police report and reenactment, they may have been able to prove manslaughter.

The person was dead and his gun was used. Would they be able to place him there and he used his gun. Probably. The man that took the pictures of GZ basically places him there with the gun,

I think they really wanted the murder2 so they wanted it his words and actions to try prove depraved mind. Had they went without it and a lessor charge would the jury have put less weight on self defense? What do you think?

edit:

Assuming they could keep the evidence out.

edit on 7/17/2013 by roadgravel because: (no reason given)

When given instructions by the judge the jury could have came back with manslaughter and rejected that as well. With the testimony of the eyewitness and the criminal justice professor the state's case was sunk. It was a wrap after that point.

Here is something to think about! All the people who are posting comments here or anywhere, are setting the stage for there own conviction if god forbid they ever find them selves in the same situation as zimmerman. It could be used to say, your a racist, you had "hate in your heart" you were "profiling the victim" every thing under the sun except the simple fact that you were just defending your self!! It would make no difference how much of saint you were through out your life, never having a real problem with the law, and the victim could have a laundry list of discipline problems, violations, and problems, and you could be able to support your version of the conflict with hard evidence, but they would rather put you in jail. What is this world coming to?

So now we must second guess our selves in a deadly situation and think will this LOOK justifiable or should I just let him kill me? That is dangerous.

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by Trubl

 

Fact is zimmerman followed Trayvon Martin after being told not to and confronted him.

I feel the need to clean up one point that keeps comming up in this thread.

A police DISPATCH person told GZ not to get out of his car.
NOT a police OFFICER.

It was NOT a police directive.

I keep seeing this being posted.

FYI no one ever told George to not get out of his car.

A dispatcher said we do not need you to do that----- After he was asked if he was following him and that was well after he had already gotten out of his truck.

No one ever told him or implied for him to stay in his vehicle. That just never happened.

Originally posted by xyankee
Here is something to think about! All the people who are posting comments here or anywhere, are setting the stage for there own conviction if god forbid they ever find them selves in the same situation as zimmerman. It could be used to say, your a racist, you had "hate in your heart" you were "profiling the victim" every thing under the sun except the simple fact that you were just defending your self!! It would make no difference how much of saint you were through out your life, never having a real problem with the law, and the victim could have a laundry list of discipline problems, violations, and problems, and you could be able to support your version of the conflict with hard evidence, but they would rather put you in jail. What is this world coming to?

So now we must second guess our selves in a deadly situation and think will this LOOK justifiable or should I just let him kill me? That is dangerous.

I'm not stupid enough to stalk someone with a gun in my waist throughout a neighborhood, especially someone that has not committed a crime. If someone looks suspicious I call the police and let them take care of it. I don't play cop and robbers.

reply to post by muse7


GZ didn't stalk or "confront" TM, he tried to maintain a line of sight with the person to direct police to him when they arrived.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by muse7

 

GZ didn't stalk anyone, he tried to maintain a line of sight with the person to direct police to him when they arrived.

So in other words he stalked him?

Originally posted by muse7

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by muse7

 

GZ didn't stalk anyone, he tried to maintain a line of sight with the person to direct police to him when they arrived.

So in other words he stalked him?

Take a timeout to refresh your memory on the legal definition of "stalking" then come back to the discussion.

reply to post by muse7


What is YOUR definition of stalking?


The reason I ask is because you are not using the term with any legal merit.

OP, may you truly be stalked (in the true and real sense of the word, not the incorrect way you've used it) and beaten to near death by a band of young black "boys" (17-19 yrs old). Then get back to us.

Originally posted by Grimpachi
reply to post by muse7

 

What is YOUR definition of stalking?


The reason I ask is because you are not using the term with any legal merit.

Well, his arbitrary and subjective definition is irrelevant.

It matters what the law states. Which is:

"a course of conduct directed at a specific person that involves repeated (two or more occasions) visual or physical proximity, nonconsensual communication, or verbal, written, or implied threats, or a combination thereof, that would cause a reasonable person fear."

Tjaden, Patricia and Nancy Thoennes. "Stalking in America: Findings From the National Violence Against Women Survey." Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, 1998, NCJ 169592.U.S

What I find the most interesting is that Zimmerman was even allowed to carry a firearm. With past Convictions of assault on a police officer, assault on his girlfriend and accusations of rape in his family it's amazing how he can even look at a firearm let along carry one. In Texas you can't get your CHL with so many violent crimes especially assault on a police officer. But I guess the law is more in your favor when your father was a judge.

reply to post by Trubl


Do you even know how stupid you sound? My dad use to say all the time "hey keep your mouth shut! its better to let people think your stupid, than open your mouth and prove it!!" Don't let people know how stupid you are"

It is very obvious you don't know the law, the facts of the case, or what common sense dictates.

People keep getting off track as to what the whole trial was about.

1. Was George Zimmerman defending himself from an attack that he feared could do him serious bodily harm or death?

2. Under the self defense statute of Florida (stand your ground) law, was George Zimmerman's use of deadly force justifiable?


The jury heard the case for and against. Nothing else nattered. And the answer to questions 1 and 2 was yes. Therefore, George Zimmerman could not be found guilty for murder nor manslaughter. And that was the decision.

Originally posted by muse7

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by muse7

 

GZ didn't stalk anyone, he tried to maintain a line of sight with the person to direct police to him when they arrived.

So in other words he stalked him?

According to the National Institute of Justice, stalking is defined as:

Stalking is conservatively defined as "a course of conduct directed at a specific person that involves repeated (two or more occasions) visual or physical proximity, nonconsensual communication, or verbal, written, or implied threats, or a combination thereof, that would cause a reasonable person fear." [1] Stalking behaviors also may include persistent patterns of leaving or sending the victim unwanted items or presents that may range from seemingly romantic to bizarre, following or laying in wait for the victim, damaging or threatening to damage the victim's property, defaming the victim's character, or harassing the victim via the Internet by posting personal information or spreading rumors about the victim.

So, no...he didn't stalk him. Disingenuous doesn't get you anywhere.

Originally posted by Fromabove
People keep getting off track as to what the whole trial was about.

1. Was George Zimmerman defending himself from an attack that he feared could do him serious bodily harm or death?

2. Under the self defense statute of Florida (stand your ground) law, was George Zimmerman's use of deadly force justifiable?


The jury heard the case for and against. Nothing else nattered. And the answer to questions 1 and 2 was yes. Therefore, George Zimmerman could not be found guilty for murder nor manslaughter. And that was the decision.

edit on 17-7-2013 by Fromabove because: (no reason given)

Just so you know SYG is a totally separate issue/statute from self defense.

SYG is an extension of castle doctrine.

reply to post by Grimpachi


What is SYG ?

second line.

reply to post by Fromabove


SYG= Stand Your Ground

reply to post by muse7


As it was stated by zimmerman he was not following anyone around he was doing as the dispatch asked and was trying to see what direction he was running. When Zimmerman turned back to go to his truck is when Martin jumped him! If Martin was so afraid of Zimmerman he had well over 4min. that he could have just gone home! But he choose to turn back around and teach the whitie a lesson. It was that choice Martin made that cost him his life!