The Official Zimmerman Trial Verdict Thread

[Luissa]

And your constant defending of Zimmerman, especially the parts where you claim he has been truthful and hasn't changed his story one bit isn't A shining example of someone using common sense.

How odd. I come to these and Middle East threads to find common sense.

Okay?

 

[dilloduck]

If a man followed me in his truck, then by foot would it be common sense to be fearful? I think so.
Under stand your ground , if he followed me by truck then on foot and I shot him do you think I would get off?

No, you wouldn't "get off". You'd be arrested and charged with murder. Someone following you is not cause to shoot them. Your concept of what "Stand Your Ground" law means is so fundamentally flawed that it's scary.

And if a man followed me in his truck and on foot I wouldn't have the right to feel I was in imminent danger?
And that if I was charged I wouldn't be able to show cause for fearing I might suffer bodily harm? I think you need to gain a little understanding on the law and how it has been used.
Have you looked up any cases that have been dropped due to stand your ground laws?


I think I easily could, and you not admitting that shows how dishonest you are. No wonder you defend Zimmerman no matter what.

no one is defending what he did---the question is "will he be convicted for anything"?

Ya ya--I know that you FEEL as if he should be but that's a different story.

 

[KissMy]

How would you know how he felt after being followed twice? He is dead, he can't tell us.

Would you PLEASE employ a little common sense!

You can't beat people up for following you. If you do you've committed assault and battery. There is absolutely no physical evidence that George Zimmerman did anything BUT follow Trayvon Martin and call the Police to report his suspicions. I don't care HOW Martin "felt" because he was being followed! He didn't have good cause to assault someone.

If a man followed me in his truck, then by foot would it be common sense to be fearful? I think so.
Under stand your ground , if he followed me by truck then on foot and I shot him do you think I would get off?

If you shoot someone for following you, you are not likely to get off. Some have gotten off but you are rolling the dice with your freedom or life. Best to have evidence or witness to prove your life was in danger. Martins life was clearly not in danger until after he had beaten GZ while he was screaming for help & then tried to take his gun.

 

[Ravi]

Wrong Again! - Martin never had a legit fear for his life. Evidence proves he was never struck or marked from forced restraint by Zimmerman. Following, grabbing clothes or shoving was not enough to kill or seriously injure him. The only way he could have had a legit fear is if Zimmerman pulled a gun on him at the start. A holstered gun is not a legit fear.

Your double standard shows your bias. Believing the pounding TM gave GZ was not enough to warrant shooting TM, but following does warrant a legit fear. You are irrational or depraved & should seek professional help.

How would you know how he felt after being followed twice? He is dead, he can't tell us.

So what if they both had legitimate reasons to fear for their lives?

Then Zimmerman started it by following him.

 

[dilloduck]

How would you know how he felt after being followed twice? He is dead, he can't tell us.

So what if they both had legitimate reasons to fear for their lives?

Then Zimmerman started it by following him.

Holy shit Ravi---how about " Zimmerman started it by being born first " ?

 

[Ravi]

So what if they both had legitimate reasons to fear for their lives?

Then Zimmerman started it by following him.

Holy shit Ravi---how about " Zimmerman started it by being born first " ?

Immaterial.

 

[Sunshine]

How would you know how he felt after being followed twice? He is dead, he can't tell us.

So what if they both had legitimate reasons to fear for their lives?

Then Zimmerman started it by following him.

I am trying to think in the years I went to law school if 'he started it' was ever used as a defense. The closest I recall would be the cases of incitement, but those cases really don't involve any retaliation, they are usually incitement to harm a third party. It is not illegal to walk behind someone. If you repeatedly walk behind them, follow them, sit in front of their house ortheir work place for some extended length of time that is stalking and is a misdemeanor. In some states continued stalking is a felony. There is nothing in this case that indicates Zimmerman was stalking Martin. He has every right to walk behind him. Anyone had the right to get out of their vehicle and walk behind Martin. Anyone. That act alone is not sufficient to be stalking or incitement. The final outcome is the reason this has ended up on court. There is more to the story as we are learning, and sadly, the media has already tried the case in the court of public opinion. I think it will be really hard fo Zimmerman to get a fair trial.

 

[Sunshine]

No, you wouldn't "get off". You'd be arrested and charged with murder. Someone following you is not cause to shoot them. Your concept of what "Stand Your Ground" law means is so fundamentally flawed that it's scary.

And if a man followed me in his truck and on foot I wouldn't have the right to feel I was in imminent danger?
And that if I was charged I wouldn't be able to show cause for fearing I might suffer bodily harm? I think you need to gain a little understanding on the law and how it has been used.
Have you looked up any cases that have been dropped due to stand your ground laws?


I think I easily could, and you not admitting that shows how dishonest you are. No wonder you defend Zimmerman no matter what.

no one is defending what he did---the question is "will he be convicted for anything"?

Ya ya--I know that you FEEL as if he should be but that's a different story.

You are right, that is a different story. Did you know that the golden rule argument cannot be used in court? You cannot ask the jury to put themselves in the shoes of someone else, because you are then asking them to NOT be objective in their deliberations, which we hope they will be in this case and the verdict will evolve from the facts and the evidence presented, not from some arbitrary and unconsidered 'feeling' or pressure from the media.

 

[Zona]

Would you PLEASE employ a little common sense!

You can't beat people up for following you. If you do you've committed assault and battery. There is absolutely no physical evidence that George Zimmerman did anything BUT follow Trayvon Martin and call the Police to report his suspicions. I don't care HOW Martin "felt" because he was being followed! He didn't have good cause to assault someone.

If a man followed me in his truck, then by foot would it be common sense to be fearful? I think so.
Under stand your ground , if he followed me by truck then on foot and I shot him do you think I would get off?

If you shoot someone for following you, you are not likely to get off. Some have gotten off but you are rolling the dice with your freedom or life. Best to have evidence or witness to prove your life was in danger. Martins life was clearly not in danger until after he had beaten GZ while he was screaming for help & then tried to take his gun.

He followed a guy, approached him and (as it turns out) that kid could fight so Zimmerman got his ass kicked.

He then shot that kid.

Stop me when you think I am wrong.

 

[Sunshine]

If a man followed me in his truck, then by foot would it be common sense to be fearful? I think so.
Under stand your ground , if he followed me by truck then on foot and I shot him do you think I would get off?

If you shoot someone for following you, you are not likely to get off. Some have gotten off but you are rolling the dice with your freedom or life. Best to have evidence or witness to prove your life was in danger. Martins life was clearly not in danger until after he had beaten GZ while he was screaming for help & then tried to take his gun.

He followed a guy, approached him and (as it turns out) that kid could fight so Zimmerman got his ass kicked.

He then shot that kid.

Stop me when you think I am wrong.

It is not illegal to walk behind someone.

 

[Ravi]

So what if they both had legitimate reasons to fear for their lives?

Then Zimmerman started it by following him.

I am trying to think in the years I went to law school if 'he started it' was ever used as a defense. The closest I recall would be the cases of incitement, but those cases really don't involve any retaliation, they are usually incitement to harm a third party. It is not illegal to walk behind someone. If you repeatedly walk behind them, follow them, sit in front of their house ortheir work place for some extended length of time that is stalking and is a misdemeanor. In some states continued stalking is a felony. There is nothing in this case that indicates Zimmerman was stalking Martin. He has every right to walk behind him. Anyone had the right to get out of their vehicle and walk behind Martin. Anyone. That act alone is not sufficient to be stalking or incitement. The final outcome is the reason this has ended up on court. There is more to the story as we are learning, and sadly, the media has already tried the case in the court of public opinion. I think it will be really hard fo Zimmerman to get a fair trial.

I don't imagine your law school covered Floriduh's current laws. It does matter who started an argument that ended in on party dying.

 

[dilloduck]

Then Zimmerman started it by following him.

I am trying to think in the years I went to law school if 'he started it' was ever used as a defense. The closest I recall would be the cases of incitement, but those cases really don't involve any retaliation, they are usually incitement to harm a third party. It is not illegal to walk behind someone. If you repeatedly walk behind them, follow them, sit in front of their house ortheir work place for some extended length of time that is stalking and is a misdemeanor. In some states continued stalking is a felony. There is nothing in this case that indicates Zimmerman was stalking Martin. He has every right to walk behind him. Anyone had the right to get out of their vehicle and walk behind Martin. Anyone. That act alone is not sufficient to be stalking or incitement. The final outcome is the reason this has ended up on court. There is more to the story as we are learning, and sadly, the media has already tried the case in the court of public opinion. I think it will be really hard fo Zimmerman to get a fair trial.

I don't imagine your law school covered Floriduh's current laws. It does matter who started an argument that ended in on party dying.

link us up

 

[Polk]

Then Zimmerman started it by following him.

I am trying to think in the years I went to law school if 'he started it' was ever used as a defense. The closest I recall would be the cases of incitement, but those cases really don't involve any retaliation, they are usually incitement to harm a third party. It is not illegal to walk behind someone. If you repeatedly walk behind them, follow them, sit in front of their house ortheir work place for some extended length of time that is stalking and is a misdemeanor. In some states continued stalking is a felony. There is nothing in this case that indicates Zimmerman was stalking Martin. He has every right to walk behind him. Anyone had the right to get out of their vehicle and walk behind Martin. Anyone. That act alone is not sufficient to be stalking or incitement. The final outcome is the reason this has ended up on court. There is more to the story as we are learning, and sadly, the media has already tried the case in the court of public opinion. I think it will be really hard fo Zimmerman to get a fair trial.

I don't imagine your law school covered Floriduh's current laws. It does matter who started an argument that ended in on party dying.

I can't imagine someone who actually went to law school saying you can assert self-defense for a fight you started.

 

[Sunshine]

Then Zimmerman started it by following him.

I am trying to think in the years I went to law school if 'he started it' was ever used as a defense. The closest I recall would be the cases of incitement, but those cases really don't involve any retaliation, they are usually incitement to harm a third party. It is not illegal to walk behind someone. If you repeatedly walk behind them, follow them, sit in front of their house ortheir work place for some extended length of time that is stalking and is a misdemeanor. In some states continued stalking is a felony. There is nothing in this case that indicates Zimmerman was stalking Martin. He has every right to walk behind him. Anyone had the right to get out of their vehicle and walk behind Martin. Anyone. That act alone is not sufficient to be stalking or incitement. The final outcome is the reason this has ended up on court. There is more to the story as we are learning, and sadly, the media has already tried the case in the court of public opinion. I think it will be really hard fo Zimmerman to get a fair trial.

I don't imagine your law school covered Floriduh's current laws. It does matter who started an argument that ended in on party dying.

And I will be awaiting your link to them.

 

[Sunshine]

I am trying to think in the years I went to law school if 'he started it' was ever used as a defense. The closest I recall would be the cases of incitement, but those cases really don't involve any retaliation, they are usually incitement to harm a third party. It is not illegal to walk behind someone. If you repeatedly walk behind them, follow them, sit in front of their house ortheir work place for some extended length of time that is stalking and is a misdemeanor. In some states continued stalking is a felony. There is nothing in this case that indicates Zimmerman was stalking Martin. He has every right to walk behind him. Anyone had the right to get out of their vehicle and walk behind Martin. Anyone. That act alone is not sufficient to be stalking or incitement. The final outcome is the reason this has ended up on court. There is more to the story as we are learning, and sadly, the media has already tried the case in the court of public opinion. I think it will be really hard fo Zimmerman to get a fair trial.

I don't imagine your law school covered Floriduh's current laws. It does matter who started an argument that ended in on party dying.

I can't imagine someone who actually went to law school saying you can assert self-defense for a fight you started.

You don't know who 'started' it. Unless of course you were there, in which case you should come forward as a witness.

 

[Polk]

I don't imagine your law school covered Floriduh's current laws. It does matter who started an argument that ended in on party dying.

I can't imagine someone who actually went to law school saying you can assert self-defense for a fight you started.

You don't know who 'started' it. Unless of course you were there, in which case you should come forward as a witness.

Your claim was that even if Zimmerman was the aggressor, he could still claim self-defense.

I am trying to think in the years I went to law school if 'he started it' was ever used as a defense.

 

[Sunshine]

When the guy backed into my car in my own driveway, you can be sure that I drove around trying to find the truck. If I had, I would have reported him. I might even have driven up beside him and asked if he was aware that he hit my car. That wouldn't give him the right to turn and assault me.

 

[Sunshine]

I can't imagine someone who actually went to law school saying you can assert self-defense for a fight you started.

You don't know who 'started' it. Unless of course you were there, in which case you should come forward as a witness.

Your claim was that even if Zimmerman was the aggressor, he could still claim self-defense.

I am trying to think in the years I went to law school if 'he started it' was ever used as a defense.

You don't know that he was the 'aggressor.' All you know is he was walking behind Martin. Walking behind someone is not illegal.

 

[Polk]

Because, as we know, there is no difference between what you just described and chasing a guy while brandishing a pistol.

 

[Sunshine]

I can't imagine someone who actually went to law school saying you can assert self-defense for a fight you started.

You don't know who 'started' it. Unless of course you were there, in which case you should come forward as a witness.

Your claim was that even if Zimmerman was the aggressor, he could still claim self-defense.

I am trying to think in the years I went to law school if 'he started it' was ever used as a defense.

I am still waiting on those Florida laws to be posted. A cyber dollar says they won't be because they don't exist.