Zimmerman Trial (Friday July 5th)

Not true. You really should actually know something about the case before embarrassing yourself like this. There is an eyewitness who says Martin on top of Zimmerman pinning him down beating on him. Case Closed!

 

He didn't jump him without warning. He gave the fat punk a chance to explain himself, but the punk just got more hostile and threatening. So, yes, at that point, Martin had the right to use force to neutralize the threat that the little psychopath obviously posed.

 

Nope. He had ample opportunity to run and decided to stay. His claim of fear is out the window at that point.

 

Reasonable is the keyword . If you can show case law of someone being allowed to beat another because they thought they were being followed we might take you more serious .

 

Aw punkin, it seems you are the clueless one.

Where was the negligence? The evidence shows Martin had Zimmerman down on the ground beating him before the gun ever came out. There is no negligence on Z's part causing the death. You can't claim his following Martin was the negligence because you cannot reasonably expect merely following someone to result in their attacking you!
You have NOTHING!!!!

 

Actually the evidence and testimony so far has shown the opposite... I guess you still dont understand trials....

 

Don't hold your breath.

 

George had the right to be in his car. Yes

George had the right to be out of his car. Yes

George had the right to follow Martin. Yes

Martin had the right to walk home. Yes

Martin did not have the right to assault Zimmerman..

There i made it very simple for you. You can LOL at leisure now while telling others they are acting like children ~

 

He never regained sight of TM until TM approached him and questioned him. What right did TM have to approach GZ and question him???

GZ said "no" and got blasted in his face for his troubles. Then, TM tried to kill him. GZ defended his life.

TM is not the first thug to pick the wrong victim and he won't be the last.

 

The one who violated the rights of the other was Martin attacking Zimmerman. Nobody violated any rights merely walking where they were walking. Is that clear enough for you?

 

We teach kids to expect that people who act like fat boy did intend them harm. A security guard or a NW member with half the common sense the job requires would know to identify himself to a person whom he knows has reason to fear him. When somebody is acting like a boy bumper and passes up an opportunity to show that he is not, a kid has reasonable cause to believe he is a boy bumper. That simple.

 

No one is interested in your child molestation fantasy , show some case law or get out of here with that garbage .

 

He was not obligated to run and it was probably not the best tactic. Never let a sexual predator know where you live.

 

An now you are just out right lying and slandering character . Case must be going bad for you .

 

Statute law. If you have reason to fear for your life, force is justified. GZ acted like a boy bumper. That is reason to fear harm. Why is this so difficult for you people to understand?

- - - Updated - - -

He followed a kid at night and refused to identify himself. What about that does not make him look like a boy bumper?

 

Guys, this thread is nearing post limit, and will be closed.


Please continue the discussion in the new thread. ~


http://www.politicalforum.com/curre...man-trial-weekend-edition.html#post1062830192


Thank you for your contributions/opinions.

 

You have provided no argument against what I am saying so if you are so well versed than enlighten us. But the fact remains you have yet to clarify only chastise another individual for their opinion and their interpretation why do so unless you are making assumptions. I stated clearly my interpretation which clearly shows the decision making process in a court or with a individual. I am indeed making assumptions but assumptions that I have backed up with fact you have yet to do so. So why are you perusing so adamantly with no fact to back up your claims? The fact is she had two arguments one from the prosecution and one for the defense. The defense did not prove their case in the form of a dismissal yet the prosecution did. Their argument one doesnt have to think about their argument is that he lied so the judge hearing all the testimony and facts has only that to make a final determination. She said the prosecution has presented THEIR case which is only by far Zimmerman LIED And was inconsistent I am right? The case law can go either way. But the deciding factor is that the defense has yet to squash the inconsistencies in Zimmermans story. The judge being the complete authority only had that to take in account. Case law in Florida is inconsistent so it was less of a factor. Zimmermans testimony is a major factor because he changed it himself. If you were the judge seeing the evidence would you stake your career at this point on merely testimony? Or would you take in account the entirety of the prosecutions case. I would like to argue that the testimony of witnesses favors Zimmerman and his story does it not?

 

Any rational thinking person or anyone with alittle common sense knows that Zimmerman's story is unbelievable.

What grown man is going to lay on the ground and allow someone one to just pummel them and not fight back, but yet at the last moment when you think this kid is reaching for your gun you muster up the strength to grab his arm with your arm and pull out your gun and kill him.

I mean really. You couldn't use your hands to stop him from beating you, but you could take your arm and stop him from grabbing your gun and in the process grab your gun and shot him.

Sorry, something about that dog don't hunt and that is why the Judge didn't throw this case out.

 

On the merit, it should have never gone to trial, so I clearly believe that on merit, Z should be acquitted.

However, on politics, and the pressure that brings, as well as the unpredictability of how a jury will react emotionally (vs with wisdom), Manslaughter is certainly possible. I would most certainly see that as a disgusting miscarriage of Justice.

My brother, and daughter, agree.

 

The world doesn't operate like you want/believe it to.

Just don't riot.