He called the police and then ignored the instructions, so yeah, he knew what he was doing. Pretend you're being attacked so you can get off. Not that difficult a concept really.
Sure. Throw around some profanities, maybe use racial slurs to induce the victim in, and bam! Shoot them, claiming self defense. It worked out well for him.
so you WERE there and saw it all...........small wonder the prosecutor never called you to the stand...maybe because you aren't a believable witness? - - - Updated - - - maybe it's time to ask a mod to shut this thread down.......................too much hatred going on here with all the race baiting comments
The prosecution performed poorly. The highly paid defense "team" of lawyers earned their fees. The system allowed it. Write the big check, and you're free to do whatever the hell you want to. That's the lesson here.
So...it's MY OPINION. That what you want? Money can buy your way out of anything is my point. Even murder (that's also MY OPINION).
this is so old..................they've removed the Zimmerman thread in this forum. Only racists keep stirring this (*)(*)(*)(*) up........
Sour grapes is an understatement. Isn't it just the epitome of arrogance that these folks reject the not guilty verdict like they know better than anyone else the facts of the case.
Courts are not places where we find truth. Courts are gladiatorial arenas where folks get a chance to fight for their positions under the law. Not all laws are good, not all victors are virtuous. Sometimes the bad guy wins.
That incident in Texas was quite awhile ago. The news today said Zimmerman yesterday (5 Sep 13) was pulled over for speeding in Florida. The news is also reporting (6 Sep 13) that Zimmerman's wife is divorcing him. She's probably turning on and divesting herself of him in order to stay in the good graces of Democrats, Hollywood in particular, so she can publish a "Tell All" book and movie and be on the talk show circuit. Can you imagine that wench on The View and David Letterman? Her appearances bashing Zimmy on television will keep the incident alive and help bolster the NAACP's crusade for the feds to file a hate-crime civil case against Zimmerman.
I suppose any 13 year old boy with Media Player could produce such an altered tape in about 30 minutes. The police department werent Zimmermans friends in the least. He was just some annoying dude that called them a lot that had a history of protesting againt the police and even shoved a plain clothes cop in the past(which they knew after running background checks). The cops would in no way give a flip about Martin or Zimmerman. Its just another call amongst thousands. Another day another call. They have no incentive to jeapordize their careers, retirement and their freedom as to alter such evidence and enter into a conspiracy to help some watchman dude. Respectfully.
You are correct about SYG instructions being included in the judges final instructions to the jury. You are seriously incorrect in what you quoted as proof that SYG was part of the trial. Neither the prosecutor nor defense invoked SYG during the trial. The trial was completely about the use of deadly force in self defense. To set things straight and because I am seriously tired of the misrepresentation and implication that SYG allows you to kill someone just cause you were afraid here is the actual jury instructions relating to SYG, which BTW were ancillary to use of deadly force. Prior to SYG becoming law in many states you had a legal obligation to do everything you could to retreat from a criminal confrontation...EVEN IN YOUR OWN HOME, AUTOMOBILE, OR PLACE OF BUSINESS. When many state legislators were correcting this ignorant application of the law they also decided that it was ignorant to place the burden of proof on the law abiding citizens in any place they had a right to be. Now why do I call the SYG law ancillary to lawful use of force or deadly force. Well mostly because SYG in no way relieves you of the burden to show that your use of force or deadly use of force was justified. The judges instruction to the jury were simply saying, If you believe Zimmerman was not there illegally then you can proceed to the decision of whether his use of deadly force was justified. SYG is NOT an allowance to use force of any kind UNLESS you are meeting force with force This was the crux of the defenses case and one the jury agreed with and had nothing to do with SYG. What you are quoting is the standard bearer for any person to be able to defend themselves against the application of deadly force against them. Zimmerman did not rely on the SYG law, he relied on the use of deadly force law which you didn't quite quote completely. I've bolded several key parts of the instructions so you can see that the application of deadly force that Zimmerman had to justify were, "what was HE facing at the time" and "would a reasonably cautious and prudent person under the same circumstances done the same thing." I get tired of the supposition that because a state has a SYG law that it is a license to kill when in fact it doesn't. SYG and Self defense laws are separate statutes. Irrespective of SYG laws, the only way Trayvon could have justified using deadly force against Zimmerman would be to prove he was under imminent threat of death or great bodily harm which evidently wasn't the case or Zimmerman would be in prison. BTW was there something in the trial that indicated Zimmerman threatened Trayvon with a gun prior to anything else happening, I thought the trial concluded that the gun was pulled when Trayvon was on top of Zimmerman smashing his head into concrete.
Well let me expound, George only had to perceive he was in imminent threat of death or great bodily harm (he didn't have to wait until he actually had his head slammed against concrete, just the threat of causing great bodily harm would suffice) By way of example, if someone were to raise a knife or gun at me or because I am ehem senior, a youngster stated he was going to kill me, I don't actually have to wait to be stabbed, shot or beat to be justified in my use of force/deadly force. However the court testimony said Trayvon was atop of Zimmerman slamming his head on concrete...the jury accepted this as true and therefore allowed that Zimmerman legally pulled his weapon and shot Trayvon. In spite of your post I quoted that "Trayvon could have used the same argument to defend his right to attack someone threatening him with a gun." I never read any testimony that Zimmerman threatened Trayvon with a gun prior to being on the ground having his head smashed into the concrete, in fact if I recall correctly, that was the first time the gun was pulled. My point was that in that hypothetical situation, in order for Trayvon to prove self defense on his part, some form of threat would have had to be proven that implied a deadly threat against him. I never saw anything that implied that had happened, did you? Keep in mind I am discussing Use of force/deadly force laws, SYG laws, and the actual trial and testimony. There is a major difference between what the prosecution can prove and what they suppose happened. I don't really give a hoot, who the trial was about. You are innocent until proven guilty, I like that right just fine. SYG is an appropriate law give that the alternative makes everyone subject to someone else's opinion and finally self defense is a natural right no law should infringe upon.
Trayvon wasn't available to provide testimony. - - - Updated - - - Still seems like a double standard.
There are emotional responses and there are factual responses. I choose the latter. I cannot control how you respond Fair enough but the law is what it is, and "seems" and laws are separated by volumes.
Factually, we only heard one side of the story. Trayvon wasn't available to offer his. Factually, you don't know what happened that night. There can be a world of difference between what something seems to be and what it is. (or so I've been told)
Factually a jury decided based on what was presented and by what was instructed....At this point it doesn't matter that Trayvon couldn't testify. Emotionally I understand people would like to hear Trayvons side although I don't know if it would change a self defense case.
Why do you suggest wanting to hear both sides of a story is based on emotions? Factually, if you don't know whether hearing Trayvon's side would change the case, it's unreasonable to say not hearing his Testimony wouldn't have mattered.
