Why Zimmerman is Guilty

Originally posted by Grimpachi

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.

Self defense was the issue as it applied to the "SYG" law. Zimmerman had to believe he would be badly injured or threatened with death, and he only had to believe it, he didn't need to actually be suffering it. The use of force was self defense. It was that law that was applied to the case. In the purist form self defense is the direct response to actual conflict. This law however required only the Zimmerman had to "believe" he would be in danger of bodily injury or death.

Originally posted by xyankee
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!

Yes.
And he was so close to the townhouse that he was staying in that he could have ran to it in about 30 seconds.... walking calmly may have taken a minute or two.
Why didn't he go there if he was scared?
He was so 'scared' that he doubled back and started a fight with Zimmerman.

reply to post by bbracken677


It actually shows that Zimmerman did absolutely NOTHING WRONG! NOTHING!!!! get it!!!! Like it or not. Martin was a thief and he thought he was a tough guy, well as they say "lesson learned"

reply to post by Fromabove


If anything SYG is an extension of powers given to self defense law it isn't the other way around. In other words SYG falls under self defense. Self defense does not fall under SYG.

SYG law was never a part of this case. The jury would have came to a not Guilty verdict even if this state didn't have SYG laws.


Self defense is just that and can be used in lethal and non lethal forms.

With SYG you better shoot to kill every time. SYG just means you have no duty to retreat.

The self defense statutes are pretty much the same in every state.

Again as I said SYG was not even part of the trial it wasn't needed and they didn't want o test those statutes under the case.

reply to post by butcherguy


It seems pretty obvious that Martin was upset that he was being called out as a potential shady character. SO Martin figures he will use the opportunity to fight someone and then brag to his friends, thus making him appear as a street savvy thug. Unfortunately for the young man it would be the stupidest decision of his life.

In the music and entertainment Martin idolized, thug life probably seemed like a romantic act of raw street behavior. He is not the first youngster to be smitten by the entertainment world. How many youngsters have injured themselves trying to pull off the stunts we see in the Jackass movies?

Better parenting by the Martins might have prevented this...

reply to post by Grimpachi



The other thing that the SYG (self defense law) allows for is for the belief of harm or death in order to defend. But I can also agree with you that Zimmerman would have been found not guilty as well for self defense.

Originally posted by Fromabove

Originally posted by Grimpachi

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.

Self defense was the issue as it applied to the "SYG" law. Zimmerman had to believe he would be badly injured or threatened with death, and he only had to believe it, he didn't need to actually be suffering it. The use of force was self defense. It was that law that was applied to the case. In the purist form self defense is the direct response to actual conflict. This law however required only the Zimmerman had to "believe" he would be in danger of bodily injury or death.

If I am not mistaken though FL is not special to self defense! I believe that self defense and use of deadly force is legal in ANY!! State in the union!!

reply to post by Fromabove


You do know that there is a difference right?

reply to post by Fromabove


Well that is what I am trying to tell you. SYG was never a part of the case or trial. The only place that made issue of SYG laws was the media.

The trial was a simple self defense trial nothing more. I watched a good portion of the trial and I did miss some but not much. SYG was not brought up even once that I am aware of.

Originally posted by Willtell
It’s easy and simple.

I laughed and stopped reading at this point

go smash up public property or something if it'll make you feel better

reply to post by Grimpachi


It is my understanding that SYG states that you do not have to avoid or back down in a confrontation in order for self-defense to be applicable.

Text Do you think juries are always right? Did you think the Ojay verdict was right?

reply to post by Willtell


So what is your point? Did you sit on the jury and hear and see what the jury members heard and saw?

DNA was new and not perfected in the O Jay trial but was used in the Zimmerman trial. You cannot compare apples with oranges but must judge on evidence presented. You know better than that. Who had the broken nose and cut head? The skittles poster child or the dirty ole man with a gun?

Originally posted by Deetermined


Did you watch or read about the trial?

Tell me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it suggested that Trayvon attacked Zimmerman from behind while he was on the phone with 911 and heading back to his vehicle? Didn't this line up with what was recorded on the 911 call?

No...Zimmerman has made many claims, but that is not one of them and he wasn't on the phone with 911 when the fight broke out. Zimmerman claims he didn't know the main street in his community and that he approached TM to ask the street name. He also claim Trayvon appeared out of nowhere...or jumped out of the bushes...or simply appeared from the darkness.

Originally posted by Deetermined

Didn't ballistics show that the bullet entered Trayvon's shirt while it was 3" - 4" inches away from his body, as if he was hovering over Zimmerman when he was shot?

Yes TM was shot at close range.

Originally posted by Deetermined

Didn't Trayvon make it all the way home before he decided to head back out to go looking for Zimmerman?

This last one I'm not sure about, but I read it a couple of times.

That is what is claimed by defense, no one knows. For that time frame to work, TM would have had to run all the way home and then immediately run back. TM girlfriend was on the phone with him and cell records prove it. Her testimony is that he did not make it home.

Map here..
bcclist.com...

Originally posted by bruteforce13

Originally posted by hounddoghowlie

Graffiti, tardiness to class, Hemp residue.. No armed robberys, no attempted murders, no drive by shootings, no assaults. Lets be fair

Hardly a blood thirsty thug

it took me along time to find the link and do some searching, but the found what i wanted.

you forgot that in the hemp residue incident, they also found womens jewelry, and a large screw driver. when questioned about it, he said it was given to he by a friend, but wouldn't name him. here it in the link below.

Ironically were it not for Frances Robles writing a Miami Herald article on March 26th 2012 an entire chain of events would not have taken place. It was that Robles article, and the outlining of the Miami-Dade School Police Department’s report on a Trayvon Martin incident from October 2011, that kicked off an internal investigation by M-DSPD Police Chief Hurley against his own officers to find out who leaked the police report.

N-DSPD Cover UP The Curious Case Of Trayvon'Martin's Backpack With Stolen Jewelay and Burlary Tool....

now in the interrest of being fair.
one thing i find to be funny, if you go to the miami herald, and search for the article, you can find frances robles and a lot of artciles she wrote, but none that seem to pertain to this story provided in the link. also you can find a few articles about chief hurly. but only about sex harassment,and the baker act being used on students.
i can only conclude, one of three things.

one, i didn't go and read every article, one search of the herald's archives gave me 15 pages of articles and it may still be there some where.

two, the article was scrubbed, one reason i say this, i found several references to this on the web. one was on a site that show a headline for drudge report, say what you want about the drudge ,they are pretty good on their archiving of articles,i couldn't find it. was it scrubbed here to.

three the article is fake, i have to admit this is possible, but i think to many of the facts shown and names inthe article are verifiable. and that if it wasn't true there would have been something said about the paper printing false stories some where.

now if you want i can go and pull up some texts message that may even a shine a better light onTM.

he was lucky that he hadn't been arrested yet. GZ didn't get arrested until he was 20 according the arrest report.

Hey here is what really happened between GZ and TM:

GZ walked down the street, saw TM and followed him. TM acted suspiciously and GZ called police. GZ waited in the car and again saw TM who checked on GZ. GZ confronted TM but TM was hiding, so GZ walked back to the car when TM attacked him. TM saw the GZ's Gun and tried to trigger it while pointed upwards to GZ. GZ managed to point the gun away from him while TM triggered the gun - shooting effectively himself!

---

Yeah it could have happened that way but it could have happened another way! We don't know! It's all speculation since the evidence was not conclusive! You can call them lies but I believe that anyone has been in a situation before where we can't connect the dots anymore. Especially after an event like that!

But what we know that the court/jury came to a conclusion that represented the entire trial! No racial profiling was confirmed, no malicious or ill-mannered behavior was confirmed. The rest of the evidence was contradictory or just couldn't uphold as evidence. Just to convict a man because a majority doesn't like him or what he did - well that's not how our legal system works!

---

So what's the point of this thread? Are you trying to divide even further? What's your intention to keep this discussion going and going and going? Do you think you have a take in this case? Are you personally effected by this? Because you don't!

These are the question I have for ALL the people who are rioting right now! Our legal system, for gods sake, worked at least one time!

How about the 6 teenager that got killed the last 20 weeks in Chicago by Gangs and other thugs? Do you care about these people, too?

How do you feel about those people who attacked the jogger yesterday? Those are REAL racial motivated crimes? Are you disagreeing with that, too? I bet you don't! I bet you see it as a justification! A justification - for what?

What is going on in this country?

Originally posted by Willtell
While Trayvon as an individual being stalked had more proof to himself that Zimmerman was the person with criminal intent (since he was creepily following Trayvon)

It seems to me that if you're following someone around with a weapon, you're not acting in self defense...you're hunting. It's not "stand your ground" if you start stalking someone.

I guess I'm the only one who sees it that way

Originally posted by NarcolepticBuddha

Originally posted by Willtell
While Trayvon as an individual being stalked had more proof to himself that Zimmerman was the person with criminal intent (since he was creepily following Trayvon)

It seems to me that if you're following someone around with a weapon, you're not acting in self defense...you're hunting. It's not "stand your ground" if you start stalking someone.

Why is it hard to see it this way

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

I carry a gun on me at all times, I have a concealed weapons permit. If I use it to defend myself does that mean I was hunting?

Originally posted by raifordko

Originally posted by NarcolepticBuddha

Originally posted by Willtell
While Trayvon as an individual being stalked had more proof to himself that Zimmerman was the person with criminal intent (since he was creepily following Trayvon)

It seems to me that if you're following someone around with a weapon, you're not acting in self defense...you're hunting. It's not "stand your ground" if you start stalking someone.

Why is it hard to see it this way

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

I carry a gun on me at all times, I have a concealed weapons permit. If I use it to defend myself does that mean I was hunting?

If you're in pursuit of someone, then that's not self-defense anymore.

JMHO

~NB

Originally posted by NarcolepticBuddha

Originally posted by raifordko

Originally posted by NarcolepticBuddha

Originally posted by Willtell
While Trayvon as an individual being stalked had more proof to himself that Zimmerman was the person with criminal intent (since he was creepily following Trayvon)

It seems to me that if you're following someone around with a weapon, you're not acting in self defense...you're hunting. It's not "stand your ground" if you start stalking someone.

Why is it hard to see it this way

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

I carry a gun on me at all times, I have a concealed weapons permit. If I use it to defend myself does that mean I was hunting?

If you're in pursuit of someone, then that's not self-defense anymore.

JMHO

~NB

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

Did he have his gun drawn while "in pursuit"? Hunting is a lot harder when you're weapon is holstered. Just saying.

Originally posted by MystikMushroom
reply to post by hounddoghowlie

 

His father was a magistrate, no surprise the charges were dropped.

did you even read the article, from your link.

www.abcactionnews.com...
TAMPA - Some viewers on the ABC Action News Facebook page have asked whether George Zimmerman’s father served as a judge. Some have speculated Zimmerman’s father may have used that position to get a 2005 charge against his son thrown out (although, while the charge of assaulting a law enforcement officer was dropped, there is no proof Zimmerman’s father played any role in making that happen). On Wednesday, we decided to answer your questions about what was truth and what was fiction.

perticurly this part, (although, while the charge of assaulting a law enforcement officer was dropped, there is no proof Zimmerman’s father played any role in making that happen).

www.abcactionnews.com...
“Robert J. Zimmerman served as a full-time magistrate from 2000-2006. Please be advised that in Virginia magistrates are judicial officers, but they are not considered "judges" and do not possess trial jurisdiction. More detailed information on the role of the magistrate in Virginia is available on Virginia's Judicial System Website .”

and besides that GZ was arrested in florida, his daddy was a magistrate in virginia, what makes you think he had any pull down here. and if ircc GZ lawyer said it was ATF agents, doing a undercover under age drinking sting, and that they were in plain clothes that he pushed. these are federal leo's, and he is not likely to have any influence in a fed involved case.