Zimmerman tweets picture of kid he murdered.

[hadit]

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.

I do not believe shooting someone who is bashing your head into a concrete slab is murder. It's self defense. It may be stupidity that gets you into the situation (both Zimmerman and Martin could have avoided the entire conflict), but once they got into that situation, the result was predictable.

 

[jknowgood]

TM went inside the condo, then came out again to confront GZ.

One piece of trash confroned another piece of trash. We are just waiting for the end of the story when the second piece of trash gets thrown away for good.

No.

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

He was found not guilty by the law of america, just like queer marriage. So shut the hell up.

 

[ogibillm]

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.

sadly true. i think the prosecutor way overshot on the charges.

 

[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.

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

Again.

I personally think it should be against the law for a person to carry a concealed automatic weapon, who isn't a cop or doesn't have a very good reason to do so.

The only reason for a gun is home defense.

I don't advocate for folks to be hunting people in their neighborhoods. Which is what Zimmerman did.

If his actions that night do not speak to intent? Zimmerman tweeting a picture of his "trophy" should remove all doubt.

Except in the minds of folks like yourself.

The taking of a human life should be reprehensible to a normal human being. Not a victory.

 

[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 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.

I do not believe shooting someone who is bashing your head into a concrete slab is murder. It's self defense. It may be stupidity that gets you into the situation (both Zimmerman and Martin could have avoided the entire conflict), but once they got into that situation, the result was predictable.

so martin was not allowed to defend himself?
how could martin have avoided the conflict?

 

[J.E.D]

Murder is an undeserved killing. When a person is killed by another person, it means they deserved it. Trayvon was killed, not murdered.

So, Ted Bundy's victims deserved to be killed? The depths that some will sink to to defend this pos is astounding

They made bad choices, don't ya know.

I guess a better example would be a drunk driver killing an innocent family. According to AvgGuyIA, they deserved it

 

[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?

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

As posted earlier, by several posters, Treyvon was in the clear, and came back to confront George.

The fight, and his death, is on Treyvon .

 

[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.

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

This question does not make sense, especially in that SYG was not an issue in this case.

Why do you hate the fact that, under a limited set of circumstances, it it legal for a white man with a gun to kill a black?

 

[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.

As posted earlier, by several posters, Treyvon was in the clear, and came back to confront George.

The fight, and his death, is on Treyvon .

this is not true.

 

[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?

This question does not make sense, especially in that SYG was not an issue in this case.

Why do you hate the fact that, under a limited set of circumstances, it it legal for a white man with a gun to kill a black?

the question absolutely makes sense. why was martin not allowed to stand his ground against zimmerman?

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

This does not make your opinion any less irrelevant.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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?

This question does not make sense, especially in that SYG was not an issue in this case.
Why do you hate the fact that, under a limited set of circumstances, it it legal for a white man with a gun to kill a black?

the question absolutely makes sense. why was martin not allowed to stand his ground against zimmerman?

Who said he was not?
How is the question relevant to the issue here?

 

[ogibillm]

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.

This does not your opinion any less irrelevant.

at least i don't pretend a jury's verdict determines fact.

 

[Sallow]

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.

sadly true. i think the prosecutor way overshot on the charges.

Doesn't matter.

Florida's laws concerning this are confusing and pretty terrible.

It's entirely dependent on the killer. If they "reasonably" think their life is being threatened they can use deadly force. That's nuts.

 

[ogibillm]

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?

This question does not make sense, especially in that SYG was not an issue in this case.
Why do you hate the fact that, under a limited set of circumstances, it it legal for a white man with a gun to kill a black?

the question absolutely makes sense. why was martin not allowed to stand his ground against zimmerman?

Who said he was not?
How is the question relevant to the issue here?

so if he's legally standing his ground why is it legal for zimmerman to shoot him?

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

This does not your opinion any less irrelevant.

at least i don't pretend a jury's verdict determines fact.

But... YOU do.

 

[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.

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

Again.

I personally think it should be against the law for a person to carry a concealed automatic weapon, who isn't a cop or doesn't have a very good reason to do so.

The only reason for a gun is home defense.

I don't advocate for folks to be hunting people in their neighborhoods. Which is what Zimmerman did.

If his actions that night do not speak to intent? Zimmerman tweeting a picture of his "trophy" should remove all doubt.

Except in the minds of folks like yourself.

The taking of a human life should be reprehensible to a normal human being. Not a victory.

The only reason for a gun is home defense

You believe the only place a person is allowed to protect themselves is in their home?

Someone attacks you on the street, you just stand there and take it?

hope a cop drives by?

 

[ogibillm]

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.

sadly true. i think the prosecutor way overshot on the charges.

Doesn't matter.

Florida's laws concerning this are confusing and pretty terrible.

It's entirely dependent on the killer. If they "reasonably" think their life is being threatened they can use deadly force. That's nuts.

exactly. how you can stalk someone and then claim to be a victim is beyond me.

 

[ogibillm]

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.

This does not your opinion any less irrelevant.

at least i don't pretend a jury's verdict determines fact.

But... YOU do.

i'm not pretending to offer anything more than my opinion.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Thank you for proving my point.

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

This question does not make sense, especially in that SYG was not an issue in this case.
Why do you hate the fact that, under a limited set of circumstances, it it legal for a white man with a gun to kill a black?

the question absolutely makes sense. why was martin not allowed to stand his ground against zimmerman?

Who said he was not?
How is the question relevant to the issue here?

so if he's legally standing his ground why is it legal for zimmerman to shoot him?

Sigh.
Beg a question - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia