Zimmerman tweets picture of kid he murdered.

[hadit]

This wasn't self defense.

1: Irrelevant to your post and to your position
2: Not guilty. Thais means it was not murder.

a jury verdict does not change what happened. they are different events.

Jury verdict doesn't change the fact that he's dead.
It DOES, however, change the word 'murdered' to 'killed'

Words mean things.

 

[M14 Shooter]

“has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another, or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.”
And what is so wrong with this?

It mans that under a limited set of circumstances, it it legal for a white man with a gun to kill a black.
that's their -real- issue with it.

 

[Sallow]

No.

A scared kid couldn't get away from a conservative gun nut playing cop. He fought for his life and lost.

Yes, he was a thug who would could not retreat in his own mind, and GZ was a thug with a gun playing cop.

Um, no.

Martin ran away. Zimmerman pursued him. It's on the police tape and Zimmerman, himself, admitted to it.

In most rational states Zimmerman would be cooling his heels in the clink.

But thanks to a Koch Brothers/ALEC manufactured law, signed by Jeb! Bush.

This kid got murdered and a real piece of shit got away with it.

Can you cite this manufactured law and its author(s)?

Sure.

Only a few months after Bush signed the Florida law, Hammer worked with NRA operatives and friendly legislators on ALEC’s “Criminal Justice Task Force” to develop a new piece of “Stand Your Ground” model legislation for passage in states across the country.
The proposal made a strong impression on ALEC members, who approved model legislation that mirrored the Florida law’s assertion that an individual gunman or a neighborhood watch member “has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another, or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.”
In states across the country, with support from the gun lobby, ALEC’s model legislation—sometimes in mirror form, sometimes with modest alterations—has been enacted over the years since Peadon and Bush dismissed the warning by Florida state Senator Steve Geller that the “Stand Your Ground” law ran the risk of encouraging Floridians to think that “you ought to be able to kill people that are walking toward you on the street because of this subjective belief that you’re worried that they may get in a fight with you.”

How ALEC Took Florida’s ‘License to Kill’ Law National

“has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another, or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.”

And what is so wrong with this?

A lot.

And you asked me to prove what I posted. I did.

No cookie?

 

[ogibillm]

This wasn't self defense.

1: Irrelevant to your post and to your position
2: Not guilty. Thais means it was not murder.

a jury verdict does not change what happened. they are different events.

Jury verdict doesn't change the fact that he's dead.
It DOES, however, change the word 'murdered' to 'killed'

as far as the law is concerned you're right.
as far as what happened... he murdered that kid.

 

[Stephanie]

I swear the left/lib/dems are the most easily brainwashed in this country. Obama and the media wails over some kid and here comes the sheep brigade to fall right in line with them. how sad and is what we the rest of us is up against.

 

[ogibillm]

“has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another, or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.”
And what is so wrong with this?

It mans that under a limited set of circumstances, it it legal for a white man with a gun to kill a black.
that's their -real- issue with it.

but apparently it does not mean that a black man can defend himself against a white guy.

 

[M14 Shooter]

lets see, wasn't he cleared of MURDER? and was he required NOT TO post a picture of some kid in this country. man oh man, what they will stir up hate and BS with. pathetic

no. he was not cleared of anything. he was acquitted. there is a difference.

Innocent innocent proven guilty.
Has be been proven guilty?

nope. but that doesn't make him innocent.

Zimmerman did not murder Martin.
As soon as you people admit this to yourselves, the better off you'll be.

 

[hadit]

This wasn't self defense.

1: Irrelevant to your post and to your position
2: Not guilty. Thais means it was not murder.

a jury verdict does not change what happened. they are different events.

Jury verdict doesn't change the fact that he's dead.
It DOES, however, change the word 'murdered' to 'killed'

as far as the law is concerned you're right.
as far as what happened... he murdered that kid.

I don't recall seeing you in any of the crime scene photos, which is the only way you would have more information about what happened than the jury did. Which one were you?

 

[M14 Shooter]

“has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another, or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.”
And what is so wrong with this?

It mans that under a limited set of circumstances, it it legal for a white man with a gun to kill a black.
that's their -real- issue with it.

but apparently it does not mean that a black man can defend himself against a white guy.

Thank you for proving my point.

 

[Sallow]

“has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another, or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.”
And what is so wrong with this?

It mans that under a limited set of circumstances, it it legal for a white man with a gun to kill a black.
that's their -real- issue with it.

No, actually the real issue is going back to the "Wild West" mentality this country has done much to evolve from.

No one should be able to start a fight, get his ass kicked and kill the guy kicking his ass.

 

[JakeStarkey]

TM made it home then went back out.

He killed himself.

 

[M14 Shooter]

“has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another, or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.”
And what is so wrong with this?

It mans that under a limited set of circumstances, it it legal for a white man with a gun to kill a black.
that's their -real- issue with it.

No, actually the real issue is going back to the "Wild West" mentality this country has done much to evolve from.

You hate the fact that people have the right to use a gun to kill in self defense.
No more, mo less.

 

[ogibillm]

This wasn't self defense.

1: Irrelevant to your post and to your position
2: Not guilty. Thais means it was not murder.

a jury verdict does not change what happened. they are different events.

Jury verdict doesn't change the fact that he's dead.
It DOES, however, change the word 'murdered' to 'killed'

as far as the law is concerned you're right.
as far as what happened... he murdered that kid.

I don't recall seeing you in any of the crime scene photos, which is the only way you would have more information about what happened than the jury did. Which one were you?

the jury has a higher threshold for proof than i do. the jury is only allowed to consider certain things.
the jury did not have the evidence to convict. doesn't change that i believe hunting someone down and shooting them once you lose the upper hand is murder.

 

[ogibillm]

TM made it home then went back out.

He killed himself.

that isn't true.

 

[Auld Phart]

“has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another, or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.”
And what is so wrong with this?

It mans that under a limited set of circumstances, it it legal for a white man with a gun to kill a black.
that's their -real- issue with it.

No, actually the real issue is going back to the "Wild West" mentality this country has done much to evolve from.

No one should be able to start a fight, get his ass kicked and kill the guy kicking his ass.

No one should be able to start a fight, get his ass kicked and kill the guy kicking his ass

Zimmerman started the fight?

 

[M14 Shooter]

1: Irrelevant to your post and to your position
2: Not guilty. Thais means it was not murder.

a jury verdict does not change what happened. they are different events.

Jury verdict doesn't change the fact that he's dead.
It DOES, however, change the word 'murdered' to 'killed'

as far as the law is concerned you're right.
as far as what happened... he murdered that kid.

I don't recall seeing you in any of the crime scene photos, which is the only way you would have more information about what happened than the jury did. Which one were you?

the jury has a higher threshold for proof than i do. the jury is only allowed to consider certain things.

The jury's opinion on the matter is relevant.
Yours is not.

 

[ogibillm]

“has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another, or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.”
And what is so wrong with this?

It mans that under a limited set of circumstances, it it legal for a white man with a gun to kill a black.
that's their -real- issue with it.

but apparently it does not mean that a black man can defend himself against a white guy.

Thank you for proving my point.

let's say everything you think happened happened. why wasn't martin allowed to stand his ground?

 

[ogibillm]

“has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another, or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.”
And what is so wrong with this?

It mans that under a limited set of circumstances, it it legal for a white man with a gun to kill a black.
that's their -real- issue with it.

No, actually the real issue is going back to the "Wild West" mentality this country has done much to evolve from.

No one should be able to start a fight, get his ass kicked and kill the guy kicking his ass.

No one should be able to start a fight, get his ass kicked and kill the guy kicking his ass

Zimmerman started the fight?

there was no confrontation without zimmerman chasing him down. sound like starting a fight to me.

 

[ogibillm]

a jury verdict does not change what happened. they are different events.

Jury verdict doesn't change the fact that he's dead.
It DOES, however, change the word 'murdered' to 'killed'

as far as the law is concerned you're right.
as far as what happened... he murdered that kid.

I don't recall seeing you in any of the crime scene photos, which is the only way you would have more information about what happened than the jury did. Which one were you?

the jury has a higher threshold for proof than i do. the jury is only allowed to consider certain things.

The jury's opinion on the matter is relevant.
Yours is not.

legally speaking. but we aren't in court, this is a discussion forum.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

He's no hero of mine, in fact he's not someone I would hang with, but there simply wasn't enough evidence to convict him of murder.