So how about that Zimmerman trial?

[Hasbinfat]

So what kinds of guns have you guys been stockpiling for the Great Chimp-Out of 2013, when they acquit Zimmerman? I've just got a .45 ACP but that should be enough considering I'm pretty far away from where my town keeps its black people.

[Hasbinbad]

How exactly?

[Samoht]

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

How exactly?

the location of zimmerman's house is completely irrelevant to the discussion of where he was parked or where trayvon's aunt's mom's friend from college lived or where trayvon died. zimmerman's role in neighbourhood watch was just that: neighbourhood. not just his own house. zimmerman is not arguing castle law in his defense. zimmerman is not arguing stand your ground. zimmerman is simply arguing self-defense.

trayvon was a terrible person. he defaced school property. got caught with stolen jewelry. suspended previously for tardiness/truancy. the fault that he didn't have a criminal record is on miami-dade county for never arresting him in favour of making themselves look safer. they've fired people for corruption since then.

i'm willing to bet that the night he died, trayvon had intentions of further theft. wtg gz.

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

you just have a hard-on for race-justice

[Daldolma]

martin's character is a red herring

criminal or honor roll student, all that matters is what he did when he was confronted by zimmerman

and we have absolutely no evidence one way or the other. so it doesn't even matter what he did. what happened is unknowable. zimmerman's account is reasonable and there's nobody to contradict it

acquitted

[Flamewraith]

For those of you who aren't aware, Martin was not the angel that he is depicted as by his mother. He was staying with his father as a punishment because of drug use, and his twitter can account to him having a terrible "gangster" attitude. I do believe Zimmerman may have been a bit over intrusive on his investigation of Martin, but I think in the end Martin was a shithead who jumped a man when he felt threatened.

[Alawen]

I'm not really following this case, but I'm confused. I can carry a gun, follow you, shoot you, and then the burden of proof is on a prosecutor to establish that I wasn't defending myself? Is all of the self defense evidence coming from the killer's testimony? This seems like really bad precedent.

[Barkingturtle]

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

and we have absolutely no evidence one way or the other. so it doesn't even matter what he did. what happened is unknowable. zimmerman's account is reasonable and there's nobody to contradict it

acquitted

Even as someone who has paid the attention little attention, I can see a case made that the older, supposedly trained Zimmerman should have known how to handle the situation without killing Martin. That's all it takes for 2nd degree murder. This is not CSI. You do not an eye-witness to contradict Zimmerman. You do not need evidence to contradict Zimmerman's account, even. You need to establish that Zimmerman knew he was doing something reckless which could lead to this ultimately tragic outcome, and did not take the steps he knew could prevent that outcome. If that's not how it's being prosecuted then they bad.

Or does the law say it's okay to murder if you first incite violence in your victim? I'm not from Florida I dunno.

[Raavak]

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

Or does the law say it's okay to murder if you first incite violence in your victim? I'm not from Florida I dunno.

Unfortunately, some of this comes down to what Florida law says. Different states define assault and such differently. Hell, pointing a finger at someone is a physical threat somewhere I believe. The thing is, if Martin did knock Zimmerman to the ground at all, I'm afraid you could claim the right to use deadly force in self-defense about anywhere. And there doesn't seem to be much as far as prosecution witnesses to show that Martin acted in some sort of self defense. And the one "girl" on the phone with Martin who called Zimmerman a "cracker" in front of 5 white jurors isn't going to help.

[Daldolma]

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

Even as someone who has paid the attention little attention, I can see a case made that the older, supposedly trained Zimmerman should have known how to handle the situation without killing Martin. That's all it takes for 2nd degree murder. This is not CSI. You do not an eye-witness to contradict Zimmerman. You do not need evidence to contradict Zimmerman's account, even. You need to establish that Zimmerman knew he was doing something reckless which could lead to this ultimately tragic outcome, and did not take the steps he knew could prevent that outcome. If that's not how it's being prosecuted then they bad.

Or does the law say it's okay to murder if you first incite violence in your victim? I'm not from Florida I dunno.

you're ascribing a level of responsibility to zimmerman that has no foundation in law. even if he knew that being an obnoxious busybody could lead to violence, he isn't liable for that violence simply for being obnoxious. and even if he could have potentially escaped without killing trayvon, he's not required to try. as soon as he felt his life was in danger, he was justified to use deadly force.

[Barkingturtle]

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

you're ascribing a level of responsibility to zimmerman that has no foundation in law. even if he knew that being an obnoxious busybody could lead to violence, he isn't liable for that violence simply for being obnoxious.

He's not a mere "obnoxious busybody". He's a lethally armed obnoxious busybody -- a distinction which does carry with it further responsibility.