Man, where are all these riots that are supposed to happen?

 

Also - I think what really screwed over the prosecution was the charge that they were attempting to get on Zimmerman. If they had gone with a lesser offense, maybe we'd have a different outcome. Maybe. The point is still there that there wasn't really enough evidence.

 

I disagree, penguino, on this statement:

 

 

 

If not for the political pressure from Obama's Justice Department and the race baiter crowd, Zimmerman would not have (and should not have) been charged in the first place.

I'm not a lawyer, will never be a lawyer, never want to be a lawyer, but, logically, I believe he would have been put on trial regardless for the simple fact that someone was dead because of his action. Self-defense or not. The main thing about this was that the media blew it up, and people decided to play the race card. There are murders every day, and murder trials very, very often - the media just happened to handpick this one and give it the most attention.

 

**Just my opinion.

No they just got the news that Zimmerman is Peruvian or something. They lost interest.

Man, where are all these riots that are supposed to happen?

 

Also - I think what really screwed over the prosecution was the charge that they were attempting to get on Zimmerman. If they had gone with a lesser offense, maybe we'd have a different outcome. Maybe. The point is still there that there wasn't really enough evidence.

 

I disagree, penguino, on this statement:

 

 

 

If not for the political pressure from Obama's Justice Department and the race baiter crowd, Zimmerman would not have (and should not have) been charged in the first place.

I'm not a lawyer, will never be a lawyer, never want to be a lawyer, but, logically, I believe he would have been put on trial regardless for the simple fact that someone was dead because of his action. Self-defense or not. The main thing about this was that the media blew it up, and people decided to play the race card. There are murders every day, and murder trials very, very often - the media just happened to handpick this one and give it the most attention.

 

**Just my opinion.

 

I'm fine with Zimmerman being put on trial. However, the people who insisted that they only wanted a trial were lying through their teeth. They wanted a guilty verdict and will accept nothing less. Even now they want Zimmerman to be charged again in civil court.

Man, where are all these riots that are supposed to happen?

 

Also - I think what really screwed over the prosecution was the charge that they were attempting to get on Zimmerman. If they had gone with a lesser offense, maybe we'd have a different outcome. Maybe. The point is still there that there wasn't really enough evidence.

 

I disagree, penguino, on this statement:

 

 

 

If not for the political pressure from Obama's Justice Department and the race baiter crowd, Zimmerman would not have (and should not have) been charged in the first place.

I'm not a lawyer, will never be a lawyer, never want to be a lawyer, but, logically, I believe he would have been put on trial regardless for the simple fact that someone was dead because of his action. Self-defense or not. The main thing about this was that the media blew it up, and people decided to play the race card. There are murders every day, and murder trials very, very often - the media just happened to handpick this one and give it the most attention.

 

**Just my opinion.

 

I'm fine with Zimmerman being put on trial. However, the people who insisted that they only wanted a trial were lying through their teeth. They wanted a guilty verdict and will accept nothing less. Even now they want Zimmerman to be charged again in civil court.

 

 

 

On a different count, or the exact same thing? If the latter, people need to learn about the phrase, "Double Jeopardy."

I disagree, penguino, on this statement:

 

If not for the political pressure from Obama's Justice Department and the race baiter crowd, Zimmerman would not have (and should not have) been charged in the first place.

I'm not a lawyer, will never be a lawyer, never want to be a lawyer, but, logically, I believe he would have been put on trial regardless for the simple fact that someone was dead because of his action. Self-defense or not. The main thing about this was that the media blew it up, and people decided to play the race card. There are murders every day, and murder trials very, very often - the media just happened to handpick this one and give it the most attention.

 

**Just my opinion.

 

I don't see how you come to this conclusion. Before the media attention (which created the political pressure), the Sanford PD said that there was no probable cause based upon the evidence to charge Zimmerman. Otherwise it would have been a 4th amendment violation and they would have been held legally responsible for that.

 

Why would someone be charged for murder if the evidence points toward self-defense? I don't follow your logic there. It doesn't matter if someone is dead as long as there is evidence to support the self-defense. You can't arrest and charge people haphazardly; the evidence needs to support it.

 

 

I understand what you're saying, but self-defense or not, even with the evidence, there was going to be a trial. Like I said, had the prosecution gone for a lesser charge, this may have had a different outcome. I'm not 100% disagreeing with you, the race-baiters did make a huge deal about this situation.

 

They could have gone for manslaughter, perhaps, and got him on that. If it is true that he got out of his car to just follow Trayvon because he was "suspicious," then the altercation occurred, there is a possibility of "imperfect self-defense."

 

From West's Encyclopedia of American Law: Self Defense:

 

If the defendant's self-defense was imperfect, the self-defense may only reduce the defendant's liability. Imperfect self-defense is self-defense that was arguably necessary but somehow unreasonable. For example, if a person had a good faith belief that deadly force was necessary to repel an attack, but that belief was unreasonable, the defendant would have a claim of imperfect self-defense. In some jurisdictions, the successful invocation of such a defense reduces a murder charge to manslaughter. Most jurisdictions do not recognize imperfect self-defense.

Was it absolutely necessary to pull a gun on Trayvon? I don't truly believe so, self-defense or not.

I understand what you're saying, but self-defense or not, even with the evidence, there was going to be a trial. Like I said, had the prosecution gone for a lesser charge, this may have had a different outcome.

 

They could have gone for manslaughter, perhaps, and got him on that. If it is true that he got out of his car to just follow Trayvon because he was "suspicious," then the altercation occurred, there is a possibility of "imperfect self-defense."

 

 

You aren't making sense here. If there was going to be a trial no matter what in your mind, what would he have been charged with?

 

If the evidence points towards self-defense, there is no probable cause for Zimmerman to be charged with manslaughter.

 

I suppose the premise I take issue with is your statement "self-defense or not." In reality, self-defense is what preventing the Sanford PD from charging Zimmerman because there was no probably cause for 2nd degree murder or manslaughter. What are you proposing they charge him with?

 

 

I guess the rest of my post was cut off on your screen.

That was hardly a long post.

 

You are correct, Florida does not recognize "imperfect self defense." However, "self defense or not," that statement is literally just all it is. Regardless of if Zimmerman was employing self defense, there was going to be a trial. They had to look at everything there. The evidence, of course, ended up not being enough, and while I don't have "proof" to back up my statement that there was going to be a trial regardless, it shouldn't really be that difficult to comprehend that there's someone (especially a minor) who perished due to another person's actions. Zimmerman's only reason for going after Martin in the first place was just, "he looks suspicious." The police told him to not do anything, and he did, anyways, if what was reported was true. Martin could have used "self defense," as well. He may have felt threatened. Some dude is just following you around in a place you're not familiar with, then suddenly he gets out of his car and approaches you, you wouldn't be scared?

Don't put words in my mouth. I'm not saying he was guilty. I'm saying there was going to be a trial either way. He was not charged, since he was found "not guilty." I'm also not saying he should have been charged with anything, except for manslaughter, which obviously I've had to throw out that notion, considering the imperfect self defense rule does not apply in this state. And "admit to myself now," I said a few posts back that the evidence wasn't enough.

 

This is just gonna go in a circle.

AGAIN, don't put words in my mouth. I did not say Trayvon did nothing wrong, but he also shouldn't be dead. I said he "could have" used self defense, NOT ONCE did I say he had more justification to claim it. A dispatcher still works for the police, hence "police dispatcher." And EVERYTHING in this trial, besides Martin's death, is speculation, and we obviously can't hear Martin's side of the story. He also wasn't familiar with the area, as I said, so he couldn't just "go home." His thought process could have been (yes, speculation, what you appear to dislike here) that there wasn't enough time to contact authorities once Zimmerman removed himself from his vehicle.

 

And your reading comprehension seems to suck (more speculation!), since you keep saying "as you seem to admit now" about the evidence being insufficient. I made that point many posts ago, not just these last couple, that the evidence was not enough.

 

Again, we're just gonna go in circles here, so I'm gonna stop at this point.

Bender-

Why are you arguing with a mental midget? Let him be.

 

Like I said before- four people are responsible for the kids death. One man was charged and found not guilty.

 

Justice for Trayvon prevailed. Sorry it wasnt what everyone wanted but thems the breaks.

Penquino is exactly right.

 

A thug just short of his 18th birthday with a record of school suspensions, being found in possession of stolen property, a street-fighter who had littered his social media with comments about using dope and fighting and guns -- none of which the jury heard -- decided to be a tough guy and attacked Zimmerman when he could have just gone home (to his father's place) and made his Purple Drank (look it up if you don't know what it is) with his supposedly innocent Skittles and "iced tea."

 

Zimmerman defended himself and was entirely justified in doing so, and with no evidence to the contrary, the Sanford police were correct in not filing any charges.

 

The entire prosecution was purely political and the result was exactly what it should have been.

He also wasn't familiar with the area, as I said, so he couldn't just "go home."

 

 

Except it appears that he was more-or-less familiar with the area. He was visiting his father's fiancé's place, inside the gated community, for the third time.

 

He knew enough about the area to go to a store to buy his Purple Drank drug ingredients, he surely therefore knew how to "get home" as he had just come from "home."

 

Zimmerman said he lost sight of Martin. Martin apparently didn't lose sight of Zimmerman and attacked him while Zimmerman was looking for Martin.

 

Someone attacks me and starts beating my head into concrete or asphalt or any hard surface and I have a gun and no other way to stop the attack, it's gonna get used.

I think in fl you can't go to civil court if you've been found innocent of the same crime in federal court.

 

 

 

That could be. O'Mara said something about Zimmerman getting immunity in civil court. I didn't understand what he meant by that.

 

 

Well it's not 'the same crime in federal court'. If by federal court you mean criminal court.

 

 

He could get immunity based upon the fact that the criminal court has already accepted his plea of self-defense, I think. He'd just need to copy-and-paste or something.

I don't think he's guaranteed immunity. I think he asks for immunity based upon the fact that he's already been seen as in self-defense.

 

Whether or not the civil court accepts that is a different story. Like... this is O'Mara being a lawyer by saying his client *will* get immunity.

Why are people so dumb? A lot of people are calling for boycotts against the entire state of Florida now until "Stand Your Ground" is repealed.

 

Don't they realize that "Stand Your Ground" had nothing to do with the verdict and Zimmerman was acquitted on the grounds of standard self defense laws that have been around in every state since forever?

 

"Stand Your Ground" was not mentioned or debated at all during the trial. The level of retardation I've been seeing since Saturday is astonishing.

 

 

True.

 

But SYG is a pretty crazy/confusing law and really does more harm than good. If anything I think it's positive that there's attention being called to it even though it had nothing to do with the Zimmerman case: http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/crime/florida-stand-your-ground-law-yields-some-shocking-outcomes-depending-on/1233133

I bet most of the people that disagree with the verdict are so dumb they don't even think Martin was beating up Zimmerman. They think Zimmerman just shot him for no reason.

The fact that you may feel that Zimmerman should be guilty of "something" does not mean he should be guilty of Manslaughter. That is a high bar, and the state wasn't even close. The state should not have even brought charges, the complaint was perjurous, and the Grand Jury was bypassed because it would not have passed along an indictment. There are six people that were provided FAR more information than any of us, and they made their call.

 

The death of the young man is a tragety. Simple Assault, which would have been a misdemeanor of the second degree would have been adequate to revoke Zimmerman's CCW and provide a punishment for being an overly-aggressive cop wannabe.

The law is certainly problematic to be sure, but it's very hard to have an intelligent discussion on modifying/repealing it if a large number of people are convinced that it is related to the Zimmerman verdict. It actually seems like many of these people rallying against it are in fact opposed to Zimmerman's use of self-defense thinking that he "stood his ground."

 

While it brings a questionable law into light, I think the protesting has the negative effect of obfuscating the justice system. The number of people who are shocked by the jury's verdict is evidence of this.

 

 

The people who are shocked at the verdict have effectively made up their own versions of the facts. I still see idiots who keep saying that the police told Zimmerman to stay in his car. These same people vote in our country.

It won't die until Lenny Harris throws the first pitch.

We had a candle light vigil today at UCF for Travon Martin.

 

You don't know how pissed off that makes me.

 

Being someone who is rather neutral on the case, I don't see how you can, as an institution, play lawyer and determine who is guilty and who is innocent. People's behavior disgusts me. I hate celebrity criminal cases.

It's fine to be sad that a guy is dead. But the fact is that Trayvon has been dead for a while. If this was really about being sad over his death, this mourning would have happened long before this trial and its verdict. Also, young people die a lot. Trayvon Martin is not special in this regard that his passing is a national tragedy.

Obama just said that Trayvon Martin could've been him so this is going to be a significant story for awhile.

The death of the young man is a tragety. Simple Assault, which would have been a misdemeanor of the second degree would have been adequate to revoke Zimmerman's CCW and provide a punishment for being an overly-aggressive cop wannabe.

 

 

How is assault even appropriate in a self-defense case? I really don't understand the "Zimmerman must be guilty of something" mindset when he broke no laws.

 

 

The state could have made a case for Trayvon's actions being a response to a credible threat by Zimmerman. It may have failed, but it is certainly more viable than felony homicide.

.

Edited October 6, 20223 yr by MarlinKidd101

How long until Zimmerman is back in the news for something like attempted robbery?