The Official Zimmerman Trial Verdict Thread

[Geaux4it]

Sorry but no.

The first person to break the law in this case was Martin.

No. One, we don't know who started the fight. Two, SYG gave Martin a legal reason to start the fight as he feared bodily harm. The law is pretty clear on that.

Martin had one wound the gunshot. Zimmerman had several and did not pull his gun until after he was attacked.

Martin had no way to know if Zimmerman was armed. If he did know he probably wouldn't have attacked.

Yes... That is why Society is safer when criminals don't know who's armed.

kind of like breaking into unlocked cars vs locked ones. Pick the easier target

-Geaux

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Yes. That is why this law is a bad law and need to be tweaked. But as long as it is on the books it applied to Martin and not Zimmerman.

Sorry but no.

The first person to break the law in this case was Martin.

No. One, we don't know who started the fight. Two, SYG gave Martin a legal reason to start the fight as he feared bodily harm. The law is pretty clear on that.

You see a person who you think "followed you" and that's a legal reason to start a fight? Have another hit from your bong, lady.

 

[beagle9]

Far From The Mountaintop: Black America Still Reaching For MLK's Dream

The only way to realize the dream, is to live it and believe what he said in the words that he spoke, but are many blacks truly wanting to live it in the way that he spoke it, or are they (not all of them now) perverting the dream by using it in ways that it was never intended to be used, and therefore they are separating themselves from this dream more and more ? You see here in lies a problem, where as if the blacks won't separate themselves from the bad (we all have them in our groups these bad), in which exist also among their own group, then how can they make sound judgments with the good ones in their group if the bad ones are winning the day instead for them?

So therefore at this point they no longer are protecting the protections that are in place for them in which they have that has gone along with it all, and therefore it's like having a talent placed around the neck by ones own hand and/or race, (if so unified in this way), where as the bad ones are simply trying to sink the good ones to the bottom of the ocean, and they (those who are good) can't get loosed from them while they are sinking all because of these bad ones who are winning the day against them not for them instead. It can be, and it is a big problem for people within groups, races or even within a single family household.

I mean when people do things in the name of a race or even ones own family that is bad, and then not care if their whole race or family takes the heat for it, then that is just very bad. I mean just look at how many times the blacks have accused the whites as a whole race many times over in the past of doing bad things together as a race, where as it's just so easy to label us as all as involved right ? Think about it.

 

[beagle9]

She also called him "Trayvon". Talk about bias, you stupid *****.

Cant fix stupid, Pete.

She also called Travon "boy"

In the context of what ?

 

[Ravi]

Sorry but no.

The first person to break the law in this case was Martin.

No. One, we don't know who started the fight. Two, SYG gave Martin a legal reason to start the fight as he feared bodily harm. The law is pretty clear on that.

Martin had one wound the gunshot. Zimmerman had several and did not pull his gun until after he was attacked.

Martin had no way to know if Zimmerman was armed. If he did know he probably wouldn't have attacked.

None of that matters. Zimmerman was following Martin, Martin feared harm, therefore Martin had a right to use deadly force against Zimmerman. The state of Florida crafted a law meant to protect everyone but it ends up only protecting the winner of the fight. Martin's civil rights were denied him by the state of Florida. THAT is who the fed should sue: the state.

 

[beagle9]

No. One, we don't know who started the fight. Two, SYG gave Martin a legal reason to start the fight as he feared bodily harm. The law is pretty clear on that.

Martin had one wound the gunshot. Zimmerman had several and did not pull his gun until after he was attacked.

Martin had no way to know if Zimmerman was armed. If he did know he probably wouldn't have attacked.

None of that matters. Zimmerman was following Martin, Martin feared harm, therefore Martin had a right to use deadly force against Zimmerman. The state of Florida crafted a law meant to protect everyone but it ends up only protecting the winner of the fight. Martin's civil rights were denied him by the state of Florida. THAT is who the fed should sue: the state.

There's just no end to the twisting and perverting of this situation is there ?

 

[Geaux4it]

No. One, we don't know who started the fight. Two, SYG gave Martin a legal reason to start the fight as he feared bodily harm. The law is pretty clear on that.

Martin had one wound the gunshot. Zimmerman had several and did not pull his gun until after he was attacked.

Martin had no way to know if Zimmerman was armed. If he did know he probably wouldn't have attacked.

None of that matters. Zimmerman was following Martin, Martin feared harm, therefore Martin had a right to use deadly force against Zimmerman. The state of Florida crafted a law meant to protect everyone but it ends up only protecting the winner of the fight. Martin's civil rights were denied him by the state of Florida. THAT is who the fed should sue: the state.

Martin should of done what GZ did. Use the 'following' experience as justification for obtaining a Concealed Carry Permit.

Then in the future, after 4 minutes of waiting, and then was attacked, he could of legally used his firearm to stop it.

-Geaux

 

[beagle9]

Sorry but no.

The first person to break the law in this case was Martin.

No. One, we don't know who started the fight. Two, SYG gave Martin a legal reason to start the fight as he feared bodily harm. The law is pretty clear on that.

You see a person who you think "followed you" and that's a legal reason to start a fight? Have another hit from your bong, lady.

Funny how this has made them resort to somehow suggesting that Trayvon is justified to start a fight, instead of getting somewhere safe and to call the law instead. Wow !

 

[Ravi]

Martin had one wound the gunshot. Zimmerman had several and did not pull his gun until after he was attacked.

Martin had no way to know if Zimmerman was armed. If he did know he probably wouldn't have attacked.

None of that matters. Zimmerman was following Martin, Martin feared harm, therefore Martin had a right to use deadly force against Zimmerman. The state of Florida crafted a law meant to protect everyone but it ends up only protecting the winner of the fight. Martin's civil rights were denied him by the state of Florida. THAT is who the fed should sue: the state.

Martin should of done what GZ did. Use the 'following' experience as justification for obtaining a Concealed Carry Permit.

Then in the future, after 4 minutes of waiting, and then was attacked, he could of legally used his firearm to stop it.

-Geaux

He wasn't old enough to do so.

 

[Ravi]

No. One, we don't know who started the fight. Two, SYG gave Martin a legal reason to start the fight as he feared bodily harm. The law is pretty clear on that.

You see a person who you think "followed you" and that's a legal reason to start a fight? Have another hit from your bong, lady.

Funny how this has made them resort to somehow suggesting that Trayvon is justified to start a fight, instead of getting somewhere safe and to call the law instead. Wow !

I realize that you aren't extremely bright, but the law says Martin was justified in standing his ground.

 

[beagle9]

You see a person who you think "followed you" and that's a legal reason to start a fight? Have another hit from your bong, lady.

Funny how this has made them resort to somehow suggesting that Trayvon is justified to start a fight, instead of getting somewhere safe and to call the law instead. Wow !

I realize that you aren't extremely bright, but the law says Martin was justified in standing his ground.

Care to elaborate on your point, because we sure will give you all ears just to see if you can make this stretch work, because that is what you are trying here (A HUGE STRETCH OF YOUR OWN IMAGINATION).

 

[Geaux4it]

None of that matters. Zimmerman was following Martin, Martin feared harm, therefore Martin had a right to use deadly force against Zimmerman. The state of Florida crafted a law meant to protect everyone but it ends up only protecting the winner of the fight. Martin's civil rights were denied him by the state of Florida. THAT is who the fed should sue: the state.

Martin should of done what GZ did. Use the 'following' experience as justification for obtaining a Concealed Carry Permit.

Then in the future, after 4 minutes of waiting, and then was attacked, he could of legally used his firearm to stop it.

-Geaux

He wasn't old enough to do so.

Good point.

Then he should of at least brought a knife to the fight instead of attacking with his fist.

You must be attacked first, not only followed, to use fist and or a sidewalk as a weapon.

The 4 minute wait clearly shows TM was not in imminent danger, he re-engaged and became the aggressor

-Geaux

 

[Snookie]

No, you need to prove that GZ committed murder which was what they attempted to charge him with, then when they realized how poorly they had done in that regard, they tried to eek out a victory by throwing in a lessor charge. When everything is said and done, the prosecution failed miserably.

They had to prove that Trayvon was not a typical young adult male who thought he was immortal and that he did not double back to confront Zimmerman. If Trayvon doubled back and confronted Zimmerman, then it becomes self defense in Zimmerman's case and he has every right to defend himself. I believe this is what happened. Because the confrontation obviously took place. There is no evidence that Zimmerman raced around Trayvon and prevented him from going home. Trayvon must have stopped to at least scare Zimmerman away. My guess is he got physical and that was when all hell broke loose.

Even if that is not what happened, a reasonable person, without evidence proving otherwise, could believe that is what happened and that is why George Zimmerman is a free man today and why he should be. He is not required to prove his innocence. The prosecution is required to prove his guilt.

You have stated you will fight for our freedoms. This IS one of those freedoms you should be fighting for because if we want to remain free we MUST oppose the tyranny of those who hold so much power over us. That is why I, as a conservative, opposed The Patriot Act. I could see the potential of abuse that we saw with the NSA Wiretapping under Bush and the additional abuses under Obama and I believe things are only going to get worse.

Trayvon Martin's death was a tragedy. I THINK George Zimmerman was at least partially at fault for this needless death, but our legal system says we need more than just a gut feeling to convict a man. If we didn't Ted Kennedy would never have been a Senator because too many people had the "gut feeling" that he killed Mary Jo Kopechne.

Immie

I never agreed with charging him with murder. I always felt they should have charged him with manslaughter or felony assault.

The tyranny here is to assert that it's ok to follow someone WITH A gun. Don't follow people and mind your own business and freedom will thrive.

Again, if all he did was follow, he did nothing wrong.

We are free to follow anyone we want as long as they remain on public property and there is not a damned thing they can do about it legally. Kind of sucks when you have reporters chasing you with there incessant questions about how you feel after a tragedy, or for celebrities chased by popparazzi, but that is the way it is.

You make it sound as if it was a crime for Zimmerman to follow Martin.

Immie

I can see following somebody for a good reason. Zimmerman was racial profiling Martin because he was wearing a hoodie and he was black. Zimmerman offered no good reason other than assuming that Travon was "suspicious"

It's a thin red line between stalking and following. We need some new laws about stalking and following.

I also think we should disarm neighborhood watch people. They have no business trying to play a cop role. Let the police handle it. They are trained to do so and have the legal authority.

This vigilante syndrome needs to stop.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Sorry but no.

The first person to break the law in this case was Martin.

No. One, we don't know who started the fight. Two, SYG gave Martin a legal reason to start the fight as he feared bodily harm. The law is pretty clear on that.

You see a person who you think "followed you" and that's a legal reason to start a fight? Have another hit from your bong, lady.

Isnt it incredible how libs see almost no reason for anyone to fight, but when it comes to criminals, they justify almost any aggression?

To say that you have the right to attack someone you think might be following you is so ludicrous, but the libtards make the claim anyway as this case gives them little ability otherwise to defend the criminal first.

 

[JimBowie1958]

No. One, we don't know who started the fight. Two, SYG gave Martin a legal reason to start the fight as he feared bodily harm. The law is pretty clear on that.

Martin had one wound the gunshot. Zimmerman had several and did not pull his gun until after he was attacked.

Martin had no way to know if Zimmerman was armed. If he did know he probably wouldn't have attacked.

None of that matters. Zimmerman was following Martin, Martin feared harm, therefore Martin had a right to use deadly force against Zimmerman. The state of Florida crafted a law meant to protect everyone but it ends up only protecting the winner of the fight. Martin's civil rights were denied him by the state of Florida. THAT is who the fed should sue: the state.

Yes, SYG could have justified Martin defending himself HAD MARTIN NOT INITIATED THE VIOLENCE, duh.

Why are you libtards so ******* stupid when your ideological blinders take over your brain?

 

[JimBowie1958]

None of that matters. Zimmerman was following Martin, Martin feared harm, therefore Martin had a right to use deadly force against Zimmerman. The state of Florida crafted a law meant to protect everyone but it ends up only protecting the winner of the fight. Martin's civil rights were denied him by the state of Florida. THAT is who the fed should sue: the state.

Martin should of done what GZ did. Use the 'following' experience as justification for obtaining a Concealed Carry Permit.

Then in the future, after 4 minutes of waiting, and then was attacked, he could of legally used his firearm to stop it.

-Geaux

He wasn't old enough to do so.

Martin had no quibbles about breaking the law, obviously.

 

[JimBowie1958]

You see a person who you think "followed you" and that's a legal reason to start a fight? Have another hit from your bong, lady.

Funny how this has made them resort to somehow suggesting that Trayvon is justified to start a fight, instead of getting somewhere safe and to call the law instead. Wow !

I realize that you aren't extremely bright, but the law says Martin was justified in standing his ground.

Standing your ground does not include starting violence.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Martin had one wound the gunshot. Zimmerman had several and did not pull his gun until after he was attacked.

Martin had no way to know if Zimmerman was armed. If he did know he probably wouldn't have attacked.

None of that matters. Zimmerman was following Martin, Martin feared harm, therefore Martin had a right to use deadly force against Zimmerman. The state of Florida crafted a law meant to protect everyone but it ends up only protecting the winner of the fight. Martin's civil rights were denied him by the state of Florida. THAT is who the fed should sue: the state.

Yes, SYG could have justified Martin defending himself HAD MARTIN NOT INITIATED THE VIOLENCE, duh.

Why are you libtards so ******* stupid when your ideological blinders take over your brain?

asked and answered

 

[Snookie]

No. One, we don't know who started the fight. Two, SYG gave Martin a legal reason to start the fight as he feared bodily harm. The law is pretty clear on that.

You see a person who you think "followed you" and that's a legal reason to start a fight? Have another hit from your bong, lady.

Isnt it incredible how libs see almost no reason for anyone to fight, but when it comes to criminals, they justify almost any aggression?

To say that you have the right to attack someone you think might be following you is so ludicrous, but the libtards make the claim anyway as this case gives them little ability otherwise to defend the criminal first.

You make a broad assumption with your post. I'm a liberal and I kick ass and take names of criminals.

 

[Snookie]

Martin should of done what GZ did. Use the 'following' experience as justification for obtaining a Concealed Carry Permit.

Then in the future, after 4 minutes of waiting, and then was attacked, he could of legally used his firearm to stop it.

-Geaux

He wasn't old enough to do so.

Martin had no quibbles about breaking the law, obviously.

What law did Martin break, pray tell?