Trayvon Martin and "Stand Your Ground" in FL

[SECHusker]

@husker_99 in post #387.

 

If he waited for the police, why weren't they there to stop the fight? You make no sense, and it is senseless for me to have this discussion with you. Evidentally you are for whatever reason slanted to one side of the story.

 

The fact remains is that someone brought a gun to a fight and shot someone.

[JJ Husker]

 

Don't get me wrong, this is entertaining and all but, didn't we get the jury verdict about 3 pages ago. I'm not sure I understand the posters who seem to not be satisfied that justice was served in this case. Once again, Zimmerman was tried and found not guilty. He wouldn't have even been tried in the first place if the media and other race baiting special interests had not intervened. There is a whole bunch of speculation about what might've or could've or should've happened and then there are the facts of the case that determined Zimmerman was not guilty.

 

I guess my question is, aside from what is now obvious (that murder 2 should never have been charged in this case) what problems do you folks have with the trial itself. Seems to me the system worked. There was a prosecution, a defense, and a jury. Who here knows more about this case than was presented in court? Sure, Martin doesn't get killed if Zimmerman doesn't follow him and sure if Zimmerman doesn't have a gun Martin doesn't get shot but calling Zimmerman the "aggressor" seems to be applying your own bias in my book. If Martin had every right (which he did) to walk down the street, wearing a hoodie, and calling a complete stranger a crazy ass cracker, then Zimmerman also was well within in his rights to follow Martin down that same street. The sad fact that a person ended up dead does not have to mean that another person was in the wrong. It only means that one of those 2 people unfortunately escalated the situation. We'll never know for sure which one of them but, with all that could be proven in court, it wasn't enough to convince a jury that it was Zimmerman.

[husker_99]

@husker_99 in post #387.

 

If he waited for the police, why weren't they there to stop the fight? You make no sense, and it is senseless for me to have this discussion with you. Evidentally you are for whatever reason slanted to one side of the story.

 

The fact remains is that someone brought a gun to a fight and shot someone.

Cause the fight happened before the police got there. Zimmerman's intent was never to kill. If it was Zimmerman would've shot him in plain sight and also shot him more than once. No i am not bias i go by what the facts were. So Zimmerman had a gun? It's not like he knew Martin was coming to the neighborhood.

[husker_99]

 

Don't get me wrong, this is entertaining and all but, didn't we get the jury verdict about 3 pages ago. I'm not sure I understand the posters who seem to not be satisfied that justice was served in this case. Once again, Zimmerman was tried and found not guilty. He wouldn't have even been tried in the first place if the media and other race baiting special interests had not intervened. There is a whole bunch of speculation about what might've or could've or should've happened and then there are the facts of the case that determined Zimmerman was not guilty.

 

I guess my question is, aside from what is now obvious (that murder 2 should never have been charged in this case) what problems do you folks have with the trial itself. Seems to me the system worked. There was a prosecution, a defense, and a jury. Who here knows more about this case than was presented in court? Sure, Martin doesn't get killed if Zimmerman doesn't follow him and sure if Zimmerman doesn't have a gun Martin doesn't get shot but calling Zimmerman the "aggressor" seems to be applying your own bias in my book. If Martin had every right (which he did) to walk down the street, wearing a hoodie, and calling a complete stranger a crazy ass cracker, then Zimmerman also was well within in his rights to follow Martin down that same street. The sad fact that a person ended up dead does not have to mean that another person was in the wrong. It only means that one of those 2 people unfortunately escalated the situation. We'll never know for sure which one of them but, with all that could be proven in court, it wasn't enough to convince a jury that it was Zimmerman.

cause they listen to the news too much who obviously had Zimmerman guilty before the trial start. I mean look at LA they had people in the freeway because Zimmerman was found not guilty.

[SECHusker]

 

Don't get me wrong, this is entertaining and all but, didn't we get the jury verdict about 3 pages ago. I'm not sure I understand the posters who seem to not be satisfied that justice was served in this case. Once again, Zimmerman was tried and found not guilty. He wouldn't have even been tried in the first place if the media and other race baiting special interests had not intervened. There is a whole bunch of speculation about what might've or could've or should've happened and then there are the facts of the case that determined Zimmerman was not guilty.

 

I guess my question is, aside from what is now obvious (that murder 2 should never have been charged in this case) what problems do you folks have with the trial itself. Seems to me the system worked. There was a prosecution, a defense, and a jury. Who here knows more about this case than was presented in court? Sure, Martin doesn't get killed if Zimmerman doesn't follow him and sure if Zimmerman doesn't have a gun Martin doesn't get shot but calling Zimmerman the "aggressor" seems to be applying your own bias in my book. If Martin had every right (which he did) to walk down the street, wearing a hoodie, and calling a complete stranger a crazy ass cracker, then Zimmerman also was well within in his rights to follow Martin down that same street. The sad fact that a person ended up dead does not have to mean that another person was in the wrong. It only means that one of those 2 people unfortunately escalated the situation. We'll never know for sure which one of them but, with all that could be proven in court, it wasn't enough to convince a jury that it was Zimmerman.

 

While to the extent Zimmerman was following a kid down the street is not illegal, it is a taboo of society to randomly follow people. At least where I come from. I stated previously my issue wasn't race, and I never called either person the aggressor. My issue is that someone got shot in a fight, when the other person had no weapon.

 

People get in fights all the time. My concern is that this case turns those fights into the wild-wild-west where people feel as though they can get away will killing someone.

[husker_99]

 

Don't get me wrong, this is entertaining and all but, didn't we get the jury verdict about 3 pages ago. I'm not sure I understand the posters who seem to not be satisfied that justice was served in this case. Once again, Zimmerman was tried and found not guilty. He wouldn't have even been tried in the first place if the media and other race baiting special interests had not intervened. There is a whole bunch of speculation about what might've or could've or should've happened and then there are the facts of the case that determined Zimmerman was not guilty.

 

I guess my question is, aside from what is now obvious (that murder 2 should never have been charged in this case) what problems do you folks have with the trial itself. Seems to me the system worked. There was a prosecution, a defense, and a jury. Who here knows more about this case than was presented in court? Sure, Martin doesn't get killed if Zimmerman doesn't follow him and sure if Zimmerman doesn't have a gun Martin doesn't get shot but calling Zimmerman the "aggressor" seems to be applying your own bias in my book. If Martin had every right (which he did) to walk down the street, wearing a hoodie, and calling a complete stranger a crazy ass cracker, then Zimmerman also was well within in his rights to follow Martin down that same street. The sad fact that a person ended up dead does not have to mean that another person was in the wrong. It only means that one of those 2 people unfortunately escalated the situation. We'll never know for sure which one of them but, with all that could be proven in court, it wasn't enough to convince a jury that it was Zimmerman.

 

While to the extent Zimmerman was following a kid down the street is not illegal, it is a taboo of society to randomly follow people. At least where I come from. I stated previously my issue wasn't race, and I never called either person the aggressor. My issue is that someone got shot in a fight, when the other person had no weapon.

 

People get in fights all the time. My concern is that this case turns those fights into the wild-wild-west where people feel as though they can get away will killing someone.

You can't take a chance that the other person isn't armed. Cops never even take that chance.

[Haspula]

SIAP, apparently the last photo Martin took with his dad

 

[knapplc]

Once again, Zimmerman was tried and found not guilty.

 

So was OJ.

[sd'sker]

not guilty and innocent are two very different things.

[sd'sker]

cause they listen to the news too much who obviously had Zimmerman guilty before the trial start. I mean look at LA they had people in the freeway because Zimmerman was found not guilty.

the media is quite the boogeyman. maybe they were in the streets because they are upset that we live in a society with so much distrust and fear that a teenager is dead because some want-to-be cop was compelled to police his own streets with a gun and act on some far-fetched suspicion against the advice of 911 dispatch.

 

who wants to live in that world? guilty or not, this should be very upsetting for anyone.

[SECHusker]

 

Don't get me wrong, this is entertaining and all but, didn't we get the jury verdict about 3 pages ago. I'm not sure I understand the posters who seem to not be satisfied that justice was served in this case. Once again, Zimmerman was tried and found not guilty. He wouldn't have even been tried in the first place if the media and other race baiting special interests had not intervened. There is a whole bunch of speculation about what might've or could've or should've happened and then there are the facts of the case that determined Zimmerman was not guilty.

 

I guess my question is, aside from what is now obvious (that murder 2 should never have been charged in this case) what problems do you folks have with the trial itself. Seems to me the system worked. There was a prosecution, a defense, and a jury. Who here knows more about this case than was presented in court? Sure, Martin doesn't get killed if Zimmerman doesn't follow him and sure if Zimmerman doesn't have a gun Martin doesn't get shot but calling Zimmerman the "aggressor" seems to be applying your own bias in my book. If Martin had every right (which he did) to walk down the street, wearing a hoodie, and calling a complete stranger a crazy ass cracker, then Zimmerman also was well within in his rights to follow Martin down that same street. The sad fact that a person ended up dead does not have to mean that another person was in the wrong. It only means that one of those 2 people unfortunately escalated the situation. We'll never know for sure which one of them but, with all that could be proven in court, it wasn't enough to convince a jury that it was Zimmerman.

 

While to the extent Zimmerman was following a kid down the street is not illegal, it is a taboo of society to randomly follow people. At least where I come from. I stated previously my issue wasn't race, and I never called either person the aggressor. My issue is that someone got shot in a fight, when the other person had no weapon.

 

People get in fights all the time. My concern is that this case turns those fights into the wild-wild-west where people feel as though they can get away will killing someone.

You can't take a chance that the other person isn't armed. Cops never even take that chance.

 

a) First don't compare yourself as a citizen to a cop, and what they have to go through.

b) You're talking about 'not taking chances' in this situation, you sound trigger happy.

c) A good prosecutor would have lit Zimmerman's ass on fire. Zimmerman's story has too many holes.

 

-I have never heard of a man with a gun yelling for help.

-Maybe they exist but I have never heard of a conscious man getting his head bashed in, especially when he has size on the person doing the head bashing.

-If Zimmerman had time to grab his gun, while he is getting his head bashed, and c$%k-it he has the time and coordination to throw him off or throw a punch.

-I have never heard of a man who getting his head bashed yell for help, on beat. There was rthym in whoever was yelling for help. Maybe Trayvon took a break every time he was bashing his head.

-BUT MOST IMPORTANTLY if I shot someone point blank range and they are on top of me, science would dictate blood should land on me and my pistol. There is a little thing called gravity and yet there was no blood on either. Maybe science doesn't work in Florida, who knows.

-If I throw somone off me logic would dictate they should land on their back not their stomach, unless I"m being extra tender with that toss.

 

***I wasn't going to post anything, but your comment was alarming. And like I said whether Zimmerman is telling the truth, who knows, but it is sad that someone brought a gun to a fight, and this sets a horrible precedent. If you feel you need shot people to feel safe, then do you. But don't say you weren't warned if they throw you in jail.

[krc1995]

what would have been the correct amount of head bashes before GZ defended himself?

[zoogs]

c) A good prosecutor would have lit Zimmerman's ass on fire. Zimmerman's story has too many holes.

 

You realize that it's not the job of the prosecution to poke holes in his case, it's their job to conclusively demonstrate beyond all doubt their own side of the story? Poking enough holes, or raising enough questions, was the defense's job.

 

The rest of your post is a whole lot of conjecture. There are a lot of things any number of people have never heard of, but fortunately those are not the kind of pillars upon which our justice system relies. Thankfully too there are (usually) higher standards for expert forensic testimony.

[Junior]

except Martin was on top of Zimmerman while Zimmerman shot Martin.

 

Depends on which witness you ask.

[husker_99]

 

Don't get me wrong, this is entertaining and all but, didn't we get the jury verdict about 3 pages ago. I'm not sure I understand the posters who seem to not be satisfied that justice was served in this case. Once again, Zimmerman was tried and found not guilty. He wouldn't have even been tried in the first place if the media and other race baiting special interests had not intervened. There is a whole bunch of speculation about what might've or could've or should've happened and then there are the facts of the case that determined Zimmerman was not guilty.

 

I guess my question is, aside from what is now obvious (that murder 2 should never have been charged in this case) what problems do you folks have with the trial itself. Seems to me the system worked. There was a prosecution, a defense, and a jury. Who here knows more about this case than was presented in court? Sure, Martin doesn't get killed if Zimmerman doesn't follow him and sure if Zimmerman doesn't have a gun Martin doesn't get shot but calling Zimmerman the "aggressor" seems to be applying your own bias in my book. If Martin had every right (which he did) to walk down the street, wearing a hoodie, and calling a complete stranger a crazy ass cracker, then Zimmerman also was well within in his rights to follow Martin down that same street. The sad fact that a person ended up dead does not have to mean that another person was in the wrong. It only means that one of those 2 people unfortunately escalated the situation. We'll never know for sure which one of them but, with all that could be proven in court, it wasn't enough to convince a jury that it was Zimmerman.

 

While to the extent Zimmerman was following a kid down the street is not illegal, it is a taboo of society to randomly follow people. At least where I come from. I stated previously my issue wasn't race, and I never called either person the aggressor. My issue is that someone got shot in a fight, when the other person had no weapon.

 

People get in fights all the time. My concern is that this case turns those fights into the wild-wild-west where people feel as though they can get away will killing someone.

You can't take a chance that the other person isn't armed. Cops never even take that chance.

 

a) First don't compare yourself as a citizen to a cop, and what they have to go through.

b) You're talking about 'not taking chances' in this situation, you sound trigger happy.

c) A good prosecutor would have lit Zimmerman's ass on fire. Zimmerman's story has too many holes.

 

-I have never heard of a man with a gun yelling for help.

-Maybe they exist but I have never heard of a conscious man getting his head bashed in, especially when he has size on the person doing the head bashing.

-If Zimmerman had time to grab his gun, while he is getting his head bashed, and c$%k-it he has the time and coordination to throw him off or throw a punch.

-I have never heard of a man who getting his head bashed yell for help, on beat. There was rthym in whoever was yelling for help. Maybe Trayvon took a break every time he was bashing his head.

-BUT MOST IMPORTANTLY if I shot someone point blank range and they are on top of me, science would dictate blood should land on me and my pistol. There is a little thing called gravity and yet there was no blood on either. Maybe science doesn't work in Florida, who knows.

-If I throw somone off me logic would dictate they should land on their back not their stomach, unless I"m being extra tender with that toss.

 

***I wasn't going to post anything, but your comment was alarming. And like I said whether Zimmerman is telling the truth, who knows, but it is sad that someone brought a gun to a fight, and this sets a horrible precedent. If you feel you need shot people to feel safe, then do you. But don't say you weren't warned if they throw you in jail.

a)I didn't compare myself to a cop.

b) not trigger happy just use common sense

c) the prosecutor didn't have sh#t in the first place which is why they lost the case, cause they didn't have one in the first place.

Cause he probably didn't want to use his gun as first thing he reach for. you know try to resolve conflict another way.

Zimmerman did black out.

a forensic scientist did confirm that Martin was on top and Zimmerman was on bottom. the bullet wound was consistent.