George Zimmerman Trial?

hotshot said:
No one has said Zimmerman broke no laws that night, this case did not decide that either. The only thing this case decided was that he was innocent of the laws he was charged with, according to the evidence and sworn testimony. That is all.
Click to expand...

What laws did he break? He was lawfully carrying a gun. It was shown (via his acquittal) he lawfully used deadly force to protect himself. I'm curious what laws were broken? Only law I can see broken is assault and that was (most likely based on testimony) Martin who broke that one.
 
FooBird said:
What laws did he break? He was lawfully carrying a gun. It was shown (via his acquittal) he lawfully used deadly force to protect himself. I'm curious what laws were broken? Only law I can see broken is assault and that was (most likely based on testimony) Martin who broke that one.
Click to expand...
Don't know. And no one will know but Zimmerman and Trayvon. Unfortunately, Trayvon can't give his side of the story.
 
HeelsandEers said:
Lol The vast majority of the protestors haven't a slightest clue how our legal system actually works. Instead of protesting and rioting against the acquittal of a man that broke no laws, they should try to do something productive politically. Maybe challenging mandatory minimum sentence laws, which are directly aimed toward minorities and the poor? That would be a start.
Click to expand...

Doing something personally productive might also be beneficial, e.g., go to school, get a job, join the military, etc.

I've always found that not committing crimes keeps me away from those pesky minimum sentencing laws.
 
begayu.jpg
 
To compare the two as analogues is disingenuous.

Two entirely different cases, even though similarities exist on the surface
 
hotshot said:
Two entirely different cases, even though similarities exist on the surface
Click to expand...


Two big differences...

The evidence in the Scott case, including that from the defendant, was that there was never any direct physical contact between him and the deceased. In this regard, his use of the justification defense was not nearly as strong as Zimmerman’s. While Zimmerman could not be expected to retreat while Martin was on top of him, slamming his head into the pavement, Scott did not even try to retreat from Cervini, who was unarmed and not in direct contact with him.

There was virtually no coverage of the Scott case in 2009, other than by the local media in the Rochester area.
 
Scott was also charged immediately with murder, which was later reduced to manslaughter. Scott also caught Cervini in a criminal act
 
FooBird said:
What laws did he break? He was lawfully carrying a gun. It was shown (via his acquittal) he lawfully used deadly force to protect himself. I'm curious what laws were broken? Only law I can see broken is assault and that was (most likely based on testimony) Martin who broke that one.
Click to expand...

He would not of had to use deadly force had he not put himself in that position in the first place. Zimmerman was told NOT to engage the suspect, by the 911 dispatcher, but he took matters into his own hands. He changed his story 3 times. That speaks volumes to me. No laws were broken, yet using the stand your ground law as a sword and not a shield tells me how scewed up these laws are. They need revamping asap.
 
KennyGS said:
So if Zimmerman was charged immediately with murder, and it was later reduced to manslaughter, and if it was proved Martin was committing a criminal act, then all of the protesters would be cool with the Zimmerman verdict?
Click to expand...

It would just be more speculation, since that's not the way it played out. To be honest, I don't know why it would matter anyway? As far as protestors are concerned, they say they feel there's still an injustice. As humans, there's absolutely nothing wrong or illogical with how they feel, they have legitimate grievances, and their emotions have nothing to do with the outcome of the case
 
2fast4u2 said:
He would not of had to use deadly force had he not put himself in that position in the first place. Zimmerman was told NOT to engage the suspect, by the 911 dispatcher, but he took matters into his own hands. He changed his story 3 times. That speaks volumes to me. No laws were broken, yet using the stand your ground law as a sword and not a shield tells me how scewed up these laws are. They need revamping asap.
Click to expand...

It is my understanding Zimmerman was asked, while he was following Martin, if he was following Martin and when he said he was, he was told to stop, which he did! It came out at the trial Zimmerman was returning to his truck when he was assaulted by Martin who approached Zimmerman from behind at the T intersection of the sidewalk, whereupon Martin's assault began. It was shown at the trial, Zimmerman was NOT standing his ground, but was, in fact, retreating pursuant to police instruction. The Stand Your Ground laws had absolutely nothing to do with the Zimmerman case and were not part of Zimmerman's defense. He had a clear, strong self defense case from the beginning, which, I believe, explains why Zimmerman was not arrested and charged on the spot. There simply was no reason to do so. The Stand Your Ground laws are thorn in the side of the left. Therefore, the left is trying to capitalize on Martin's death by seeking to restrict the rights of law abiding citizens.

I wish, as a nation, with blacks in the forefront, we could have a national conversation about what has happened, and continues to happen, to so much of the black population in America. Sadly, the black leaders in America are making too much money off the poverty business, and seem to have no interest in an honest dialog about how poor blacks can GET THEMSELVES back on their feet and start making a contribution to this country. They could start by addressing the issue of out-of-wedlock child births and having households with a married mother and father under the same roof.
 
Last edited:
2fast4u2 said:
He would not of had to use deadly force had he not put himself in that position in the first place. Zimmerman was told NOT to engage the suspect, by the 911 dispatcher, but he took matters into his own hands. He changed his story 3 times. That speaks volumes to me. No laws were broken, yet using the stand your ground law as a sword and not a shield tells me how scewed up these laws are. They need revamping asap.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure if I fully buy that, but partially. I'm probably the size of skinnier Zimmerman and the same age and I'm not going to follow and track folks on my street, especially if I'm on 911 because "they look suspicious." But I have also known folks to resort to using fists if they were merely looked at wrong, which could have been the case with Trayvon Martin. From the testimony, Trayvon's friend said he was being followed by a "creepy *** cracker". To me, there is some animosity there. If so and Trayvon truly went after Zimmerman, the only explanation was for Zimmerman to not leave his house and get into his truck so he couldn't exit it. Then the question is, did Zimmerman ENGAGE Martin? What is meant by ENGAGE? Is merely getting out of his vehicle and following ENGAGEMENT? Or is ENGAGEMENT actually confronting Martin? What if Zimmerman tracked Martin while inside his truck? There are all sorts of scenarios and half have the two never meeting and the other half have the two meeting, with half of those meeting scenarios resulting in some kind of violence.

I've never heard "creepy ***" as an endearing term to describe a stranger and I've never heard of folks use "cracker" as one either. I think both were suspicious of each other and things moved forward. I don't buy 100% that Martin was only a victim. I don't believe 100% that Zimmerman was not partially at fault. But I do believe Zimmerman didn't commit any crimes by doing what he did, as foolish as it may be now in hindsight. Witness testimony said he was being beaten up by Martin and he used what force he could to stop it regardless. I would have probably done the same thing in his (Zimm's) shoes.
 
FooBird said:
I'm not sure if I fully buy that, but partially. I'm probably the size of skinnier Zimmerman and the same age and I'm not going to follow and track folks on my street, especially if I'm on 911 because "they look suspicious." But I have also known folks to resort to using fists if they were merely looked at wrong, which could have been the case with Trayvon Martin. From the testimony, Trayvon's friend said he was being followed by a "creepy *** cracker". To me, there is some animosity there. If so and Trayvon truly went after Zimmerman, the only explanation was for Zimmerman to not leave his house and get into his truck so he couldn't exit it. Then the question is, did Zimmerman ENGAGE Martin? What is meant by ENGAGE? Is merely getting out of his vehicle and following ENGAGEMENT? Or is ENGAGEMENT actually confronting Martin? What if Zimmerman tracked Martin while inside his truck? There are all sorts of scenarios and half have the two never meeting and the other half have the two meeting, with half of those meeting scenarios resulting in some kind of violence.

I've never heard "creepy ***" as an endearing term to describe a stranger and I've never heard of folks use "cracker" as one either. I think both were suspicious of each other and things moved forward. I don't buy 100% that Martin was only a victim. I don't believe 100% that Zimmerman was not partially at fault. But I do believe Zimmerman didn't commit any crimes by doing what he did, as foolish as it may be now in hindsight. Witness testimony said he was being beaten up by Martin and he used what force he could to stop it regardless. I would have probably done the same thing in his (Zimm's) shoes.
Click to expand...

Regarding Zimmerman's use of deadly force, I was trained to endure a beating rather than taking a life to stop the beating. However, if the beating included having my head slammed repeatedly on the cement, well, I believe I would do whatever necessary to make that stop.
 
HeelsandEers said:
And that grown man broke exactly zero laws in doing so. That's all there is to it.

I'm not going to sit here and speculate whether he actually needed to use deadly force or not. The fact of the matter is, he felt that he needed to, and did.

It's an unfortunate situation, for sure, that seems like it very easily could of been avoided.
Click to expand...
I respectfully disagree with your opinion. Even if the law says its was necessary self defense we are still talking about an undeveloped teenager. And it's not like Zimmerman was being beaten an inch from his life HE was egging it on by following him. I feel pulling a gun was a bit overboard.
 
mclovin_FG4 said:
I respectfully disagree with your opinion. Even if the law says its was necessary self defense we are still talking about an undeveloped teenager. And it's not like Zimmerman was being beaten an inch from his life HE was egging it on by following him. I feel pulling a gun was a bit overboard.
Click to expand...

I don't know about "undeveloped". Most 17 year olds are pretty developed. There once was a time when 17 year olds lied to go to war. 17 year olds can make children. 18 year olds have been known to play professional sports at a high level if not higher than 29 year, whether baseball, basketball, hockey, and to a lesser extent football. Other than 15 lbs of extra fat, I'm the same size as I was at 17. Maybe if Martin was 13 or 14, but we're talking a pretty athletic late teen, not prepubescent.
 
2fast4u2 said:
He would not of had to use deadly force had he not put himself in that position in the first place.
Click to expand...

The same could be said for Martin. It wasn't as though Martin ran away, and Zimmerman ran him down and shot him.

2fast4u2 said:
Zimmerman was told NOT to engage the suspect, by the 911 dispatcher, but he took matters into his own hands.
Click to expand...

That's actually incorrect. I can get the actual 911 transcription if you want, but he was not "told." The 911 operator said it was "not necessary" for him to approach Martin, to which he replied, "OK." A 911 operator has no authority over an average citizen.

2fast4u2 said:
He changed his story 3 times. That speaks volumes to me. No laws were broken
Click to expand...

...and the jury acquitted him.

2fast4u2 said:
yet using the stand your ground law as a sword and not a shield tells me how scewed up these laws are. They need revamping asap.
Click to expand...

If I'm on the ground, and someone is beating my head into the cement, I will shoot them if I have a gun.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top