So how about that Zimmerman trial?

[Misto]

I just feel sorry for the jury that they have to listen to this bullshit even though they the majority of them have already made up their mind before they've enter the courtroom.

[Daldolma]

Originally Posted by JurisDictum [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

There is no evidence that points to Trayvon starting the violence with Zimmerman, or that it was merely "self defense." This is Zimmerman's story which you seem to take as fact. There's a difference between "not guilty" and "innocent."

there actually is evidence that it was self defense. zimmerman sustained a broken nose and cuts to the back of his head and his temple, while trayvon suffered no injuries consistent with being hit. zimmerman was indisputably losing the fight. there are witnesses that have testified to zimmerman being on the bottom, and a half dozen people have testified that it was zimmerman's voice calling for help.

some of that is in dispute. there are also witnesses that believe it was trayvon on bottom. trayvon's family has testified that it was trayvon's voice calling for help.

but to say there is "no evidence" that points to self defense is inaccurate. there is significant, but far from conclusive, evidence that supports such a claim. there is not conclusive evidence to disprove such a claim. that is the crux of this case.

[Misto]

Originally Posted by Bodeanicus [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Figures, this is about gun sales to you. You could give a fuck less that someone was killed. You just want to be able to "protect" yourself from the big skeery black men.

And by the way, the 2nd Amendment was written to ensure an armed militia could be raised if the British, French, or Spanish invaded. Period. Not for armed rebellion, or shootin' ******s.

What the fucks your problem. The guy sells guns to people who want them. Which is legal.

Sounds like your problem is with the US Government. Not this guy.

[Bodeanicus]

Originally Posted by Daldolma [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

wow. there is a staggering amount of incorrect in this post. i'm going to go paragraph by paragraph.

Paragraph 1a - he doesn't have to follow the guidelines of neighborhood watch. should he have? sure. and trayvon should've run home or called the cops. a lot of different scenarios could have resulted in a much better outcome. but he has no legal obligation to follow those guidelines.

Paragraph 1b - it's highly questionable as to whether trayvon had the legal right to initiate physical violence with zimmerman. you claim that he was allowed to engage, in accordance with SYG. that depends upon a reasonable apprehension of harm. it would be a tough case to prove that trayvon reasonably believed zimmerman would harm him based simply on the fact that he followed him and asked what he was doing. it would be even tougher to prove that after initiating violence, it was necessary to pin zimmerman to the ground and continue hostile action. but most importantly, even if you were to prove that martin was justified and believed himself to be acting in self defense, that does NOT mean that zimmerman was not ALSO acting in self defense when he shot martin. martin could have attacked out of self defense, at which point zimmerman could have shot him in self defense. this would be a tragic misunderstanding based on two non-criminal instances of self defense. such is the law as it relates to self defense. it is mostly about reasonable perception -- not actual danger.

Paragraph 1c - your contention that zimmerman picked the fight is based wholly on supposition with no grounding in fact. we lose clarity as to the events that occurred in between zimmerman asking what trayvon was doing and both parties brawling on the ground. that intervening action is of paramount importance in determining who, in fact, "picked the fight".

Paragraph 2 - following a person and asking what they're doing is not grounds for a conviction of manslaughter. it is not negligent. it is not incompetent or stupid. it is nosy, maybe, which also is not a crime. you are making assumptions as to the intervening actions that resulted in violence. those assumptions are your own -- they're fabricated, not factual.

Paragraph 3 - again, you are advocating for trayvon's right to defend himself. again, this is an uphill battle and in no way relevant to the outcome of the zimmerman case. even if trayvon was acting well within his rights of self defense, so too could zimmerman have been.

Paragraph 4a - there is no evidence that he harassed martin. that is, again, supposition on your part.

Paragraph 4b - perhaps zimmerman wouldn't have gotten out of his car without his gun -- that only bolsters zimmerman's case for self defense. if you argue he's a pussy, you further support the notion that he feared for his life while being attacked by martin.

Paragraph 4c - SYG has not been mobilized by zimmerman nor is it relevant to this case in any way. SYG grants zimmerman the ability to defend himself without an obligation to retreat. according to testimony, zimmerman was pinned to the ground by martin. this would nullify his responsibility to retreat, even in a non-SYG state.

Paragraph 5 - correct. it was the state's duty to investigate. they did, and they filed no charges because there is insufficient evidence to properly charge that a crime was, in fact, committed. it was not until this became a cause celebre that a special prosecutor was appointed to initiate far further scrutiny than a case such as this would typically garner

And it still doesn't change the fact that if Zimmerman hadn't gotten of his car with his 9mm security blanket and tried to play cop, and let the real police handle it, none of this shit would have happened. He's guilty of manslaughter, at least, and it's looking like he's going to jail. As he should.

[Reapin]

Originally Posted by Misto [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Martin started the fight.

He slams the beaner's head on the concrete. Beaner pulls a gun. Kills the ******.

He feared for his life. He did nothing wrong.

--

To the people that want this beaner on death row for what he did. Engaging someone in a conversation doesn't give you grounds to punch them in the face.

That's it. It's that simple.

--

Oh. Hasbinbad is still a fag.

Martin was being stalk by someone he didn't know..in the dark and he was lost. He tried to defend himself because he felt threatened. The beaner never identified himself as a neighborhood watch volunteer (probably because he was living a fantasy he was a big bad cop). Zimmerman is a proven liar and manipulator. Martin is a dead kid.

I side with the dead kid.

[Bodeanicus]

Originally Posted by Misto [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

What the fucks your problem. The guy sells guns to people who want them. Which is legal.

Sounds like your problem is with the US Government. Not this guy.

The fuck's my problem? Fat, narcissistic little pussy cop wannabe's shooting anybody they're afraid of, and having the possibility of walking because of a dumbass law, that's my fucking problem.

[Misto]

Originally Posted by Reapin [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Martin was being stalk by someone he didn't know..in the dark and he was lost. He tried to defend himself because he felt threatened. The beaner never identified himself as a neighborhood watch volunteer (probably because he was living a fantasy he was a big bad cop). Zimmerman is a proven liar and manipulator. Martin is a dead kid.

I side with the dead kid.

Why didn't he just run away instead of punching him in the face then.

[Misto]

What do you mean he was lost? He was walking home from a 7/11.

[Reapin]

Run where? He was lost in a gated neighborhood he didn't know well on a dark and stormy night.

[Frieza_Prexus]

Originally Posted by Bodeanicus [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The fuck's my problem? Fat, narcissistic little pussy cop wannabe's shooting anybody they're afraid of, and having the possibility of walking because of a dumbass law, that's my fucking problem.

I suggest you acquaint yourself with the legal elements of SYG and the present trial. SYG is not, in any way, at issue.