Zimmerman tweets picture of kid he murdered.

[hadit]

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?

If he was being attacked, sure. By the evidence, he was not being attacked, he was attacking, thus making Zimmerman defend himself.

how could martin have avoided the conflict?

By staying on the sidewalk and proceeding to his house, or calling 911 to report someone following him, not by hiding behind a bush until Zimmerman got close, then jumping him.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

Which means nothing to me.
Not guilty. The end.

 

[hortysir]

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.

No. As far as how you FEEL, he murdered TM

 

[hadit]

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?

Because Zimmerman wasn't attacking him. Zimmerman called 911, Martin did not. See the difference?

 

[ogibillm]

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

just answer the question. why is it assumed that martin was not standing his ground in any conflict between him and zimmerman, a man who admits stalking him?

 

[Auld Phart]

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.

actually, it is.

 

[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?

Because Zimmerman wasn't attacking him. Zimmerman called 911, Martin did not. See the difference?

no. there's no way for martin to have known what zimmerman did or did not do. all he knew was that he was being stalked by a guy at night. how safe would you feel?

 

[ogibillm]

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.

actually, it is.

submit your proof.
it's one of those things people say happened, but that's all.

 

[hortysir]

“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.

Who the hell carries a concealed automatic weapon??!!

 

[M14 Shooter]

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

just answer the question. why is it assumed that martin was not standing his ground in any conflict between him and zimmerman, a man who admits stalking him?

Your question is fallacious as it assumes things that haven't been proven.
Thus, begging the question. Please read the link I posted.

 

[ogibillm]

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

just answer the question. why is it assumed that martin was not standing his ground in any conflict between him and zimmerman, a man who admits stalking him?

Your question is fallacious as it assumes things that haven't been proven.
Thus, begging the question. Please read the link I posted.

i'm asking you. knowing everything you know about the case, including things you just think you know, why was martin not allowed to stand his ground? why, even if he managed to get the upper hand on zimmerman after being stalked, was zimmerman able to shoot a guy acting in self defense and get away with it?

the only answer can be because martin ended up dead

 

[hadit]

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?

Because Zimmerman wasn't attacking him. Zimmerman called 911, Martin did not. See the difference?

no. there's no way for martin to have known what zimmerman did or did not do. all he knew was that he was being stalked by a guy at night. how safe would you feel?

In that circumstance, I have choices.

1. If I'm close to my home, move faster and get inside.
2. If I have a cell phone (Martin did), call 911 and report the stalker.
3. If I'm far from my home, knock on a neighbor's door and ask to stay with them until the police arrive.
4. Hide behind a bush and jump the guy who is following me, not knowing if he's armed or what his intentions are.

Which one seems like a smart course of action?

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

Your opinion. All 50 states disagree.

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

Your opinion. The jury disagrees.

 

[hadit]

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

just answer the question. why is it assumed that martin was not standing his ground in any conflict between him and zimmerman, a man who admits stalking him?

Your question is fallacious as it assumes things that haven't been proven.
Thus, begging the question. Please read the link I posted.

i'm asking you. knowing everything you know about the case, including things you just think you know, why was martin not allowed to stand his ground? why, even if he managed to get the upper hand on zimmerman after being stalked, was zimmerman able to shoot a guy acting in self defense and get away with it?

the only answer can be because martin ended up dead

The only way Martin could have been acting in self defense is if Zimmerman attacked him. The evidence does not support that scenario.

 

[ogibillm]

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?

Because Zimmerman wasn't attacking him. Zimmerman called 911, Martin did not. See the difference?

no. there's no way for martin to have known what zimmerman did or did not do. all he knew was that he was being stalked by a guy at night. how safe would you feel?

In that circumstance, I have choices.

1. If I'm close to my home, move faster and get inside.
2. If I have a cell phone (Martin did), call 911 and report the stalker.
3. If I'm far from my home, knock on a neighbor's door and ask to stay with them until the police arrive.
4. Hide behind a bush and jump the guy who is following me, not knowing if he's armed or what his intentions are.

Which one seems like a smart course of action?

1. stand your ground.
2. stand your ground.
3. stand your ground.
4. stand your ground.

he did have options. he was not required to do any of those things. but if he did hide behind a bush and jump zimmerman, he was still standing his ground

 

[JakeStarkey]

TM made it home then went back out.

He killed himself.

that isn't true.

Yes, it is. He made it home, and when he went back out he shed the right to defense.

 

[ogibillm]

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

just answer the question. why is it assumed that martin was not standing his ground in any conflict between him and zimmerman, a man who admits stalking him?

Your question is fallacious as it assumes things that haven't been proven.
Thus, begging the question. Please read the link I posted.

i'm asking you. knowing everything you know about the case, including things you just think you know, why was martin not allowed to stand his ground? why, even if he managed to get the upper hand on zimmerman after being stalked, was zimmerman able to shoot a guy acting in self defense and get away with it?

the only answer can be because martin ended up dead

The only way Martin could have been acting in self defense is if Zimmerman attacked him. The evidence does not support that scenario.

the evidence doesn't tell us who attacked who. we do know that zimmerman acted aggressively, stalking martin, and that alone would make a reasonable person fear for their safety.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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?

Because Zimmerman wasn't attacking him. Zimmerman called 911, Martin did not. See the difference?

no. there's no way for martin to have known what zimmerman did or did not do. all he knew was that he was being stalked by a guy at night. how safe would you feel?

In that circumstance, I have choices.

1. If I'm close to my home, move faster and get inside.
2. If I have a cell phone (Martin did), call 911 and report the stalker.
3. If I'm far from my home, knock on a neighbor's door and ask to stay with them until the police arrive.
4. Hide behind a bush and jump the guy who is following me, not knowing if he's armed or what his intentions are.

Which one seems like a smart course of action?

1. stand your ground.
2. stand your ground.
3. stand your ground.
4. stand your ground.

he did have options. he was not required to do any of those things. but if he did hide behind a bush and jump zimmerman, he was still standing his ground

No. He went home first and came back out.

 

[ogibillm]

TM made it home then went back out.

He killed himself.

that isn't true.

Yes, it is. He made it home, and when he went back out he shed the right to defense.

again, it's not true.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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?

Because Zimmerman wasn't attacking him. Zimmerman called 911, Martin did not. See the difference?

no. there's no way for martin to have known what zimmerman did or did not do. all he knew was that he was being stalked by a guy at night. how safe would you feel?

In that circumstance, I have choices.

1. If I'm close to my home, move faster and get inside.
2. If I have a cell phone (Martin did), call 911 and report the stalker.
3. If I'm far from my home, knock on a neighbor's door and ask to stay with them until the police arrive.
4. Hide behind a bush and jump the guy who is following me, not knowing if he's armed or what his intentions are.

Which one seems like a smart course of action?

1. stand your ground.
2. stand your ground.
3. stand your ground.
4. stand your ground.

he did have options. he was not required to do any of those things. but if he did hide behind a bush and jump zimmerman, he was still standing his ground

As SYG was never part of this case, why do you think any of this matters?