Not guilty

Posted by: MrB

Not guilty - 07/13/13 07:02 PM

Zimmerman not guilty.

Dave
Posted by: DLC

Re: Not guilty - 07/13/13 08:21 PM

INSANE !

I never thought 2nd degree - a lot to prove... but manslaughter- he did kill Travon and went into a fight with an UNARMED man while he had a gun !! !? crazy Had it been reversed- I could see it... but not this way.

Well maybe the Stand Your Ground (anywhere) will now backfire! ``````

And we'll see if he gets slapped with a civil case.
Posted by: Leslie

Re: Not guilty - 07/13/13 08:52 PM

On days like today, I feel like humans live in a pigsty.
Posted by: DLC

Re: Not guilty - 07/13/13 09:01 PM

Originally Posted By: Leslie
On days like today, I feel like humans live in a pigsty.

Well the GOP leadership and talking heads certainly do ! .. and the stench ! sick
Posted by: steveg

Re: Not guilty - 07/14/13 03:25 AM

Zimmerman may have been acquitted, but he's going to be in court for years, fighting off Wrongful Death and other civil suits.

[cynic]He'll need every dime he earns as a Fox News justice analyst to survive the financial beating he'll take. And Wayne LaPierre will black out from the most intense wet dream he's ever had.[/cynic]
Posted by: musicalmarv7

Re: Not guilty - 07/14/13 03:54 AM

Justice has been served finally the right way NOT GUILTY.
Posted by: MacBozo

Re: Not guilty - 07/14/13 06:19 AM

The prosecution (State) failed. Not going after the stand your ground law was their first mistake. Of course, the State was not going to challenge its own law. crazy
Posted by: steveg

Re: Not guilty - 07/14/13 06:27 AM

Really? That speaks volumes about you.
Posted by: six_of_one

Re: Not guilty - 07/14/13 08:07 AM

Originally Posted By: musicalmarv7
Justice has been served finally the right way NOT GUILTY.

In this case, since only two people knew what really happened (and one of them is dead) it's hard to say wether the decision was "just" or not (in philosophical terms, at any rate) ...

The system did work as intended, however: the burden was on the prosecution and they failed to prove Martin didn't act in self-defense (and proving a negative is a big hill to climb, much less in court). Not surprising, but still disappointing (and more than a little scary) that apparently someone can play toy cop, initiate a confrontation, get in over their head, kill another person dead, and not be at least partially responsible for that outcome ...

But, to paraphrase: the US justice system is the worst on earth, except for all the others ...

... and so it goes.
Posted by: Celandine

Re: Not guilty - 07/14/13 09:59 AM

Originally Posted By: six_of_one
Originally Posted By: musicalmarv7
Justice has been served finally the right way NOT GUILTY.

In this case, since only two people knew what really happened (and one of them is dead) it's hard to say wether the decision was "just" or not (in philosophical terms, at any rate) ...

The system did work as intended, however: the burden was on the prosecution and they failed to prove Martin didn't act in self-defense (and proving a negative is a big hill to climb, much less in court). Not surprising, but still disappointing (and more than a little scary) that apparently someone can play toy cop, initiate a confrontation, get in over their head, kill another person dead, and not be at least partially responsible for that outcome ...

... and so it goes.


+1 frown
Posted by: DLC

Re: Not guilty - 07/15/13 08:12 AM

Had MrZ randomly bumped into TM and an altercation occurred, I might could have agreed...
BUT MrZ contacted 911 and they TOLD HIM NOT TO PURSUE ! But He DID anyway... so from that point it was HIS responsibility for the outcome.... HE FAILED... therefore he should take his "GOP responsibility" and the Rx that goes with it !! He provoked a situation* & killed an innocent, UNARMED kid !! PERIOD ! mad


*We don't know the words said - but just his presence provoked a confrontation ! I suspect he reiterated the same BS he told the 911 operator. Otherwise even if TM did attack him (doubtful), why would a 17 yr old kid attack a totally unknown stranger without provocation ?? ... unless said stranger confronted him in a menacing way, or said harsh words to him.
THINK McFly- THINK !! wink
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Not guilty - 07/15/13 08:20 AM

I don't know what the law says, but the conclusion I come to from the whole event is that I could, right now, go out on the street stalk someone, and when that person responds by defending him or herself, I can shoot the SOB and get away with it.

It all makes me feel much much safer.
Posted by: garyW

Re: Not guilty - 07/15/13 08:46 AM

c/p

On twitter earlier in the day.




Dear George Zimmerman,

For the rest of your life you are going to feel what its like to be a black man in America.

You will feel people stare at you. Judging you for what you feel are unfair reasons. You will lose out on getting jobs for something that you feel is outside your control. You will believe yourself to be an upstanding citizen and wonder why people choose not to see that.

People will cross the street when they see you coming. They will call you hurtful names. It will drive you so insane some days that you will want to scream at the top of your lungs. But you will have to wake up the next day, put on a firm look and push through life.

I bet you never thought that by shooting a black male you'd end up inheriting all his struggles.

Enjoy your 'freedom'.

Sincerely,

A black male who could have been Trayvon Martin
Posted by: garyW

Re: Not guilty - 07/15/13 09:26 AM

Florida law states that a defendant cannot claim self-defense if he "initially provokes the use of force against himself". The defense objected to the initial aggressor instruction. This clause of the law was deliberately withheld from the jury in the instructions from the judge.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alafair-burke/george-zimmerman-jury-instructions_b_3596685.html


mad


Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Not guilty - 07/15/13 09:34 AM

Jesus.
Posted by: steveg

Re: Not guilty - 07/15/13 09:49 AM

Perfect. smirk
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Not guilty - 07/15/13 10:43 AM

More dirty laundry.

It's hard to toe the line between discovering facts and character assassination. The 20-year-old Zimmerman is not the 28-year-old. But surely a past of confrontation and threatened violence is relevant?
Posted by: Celandine

Re: Not guilty - 07/15/13 11:14 AM

Originally Posted By: garyW
Florida law states that a defendant cannot claim self-defense if he "initially provokes the use of force against himself". The defense objected to the initial aggressor instruction. This clause of the law was deliberately withheld from the jury in the instructions from the judge.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alafair-burke/george-zimmerman-jury-instructions_b_3596685.html

mad


*BINGO*

That's what was escaping me since 'Day 1'

HTHell
it was being overlooked that Trayvon Martin
couldn't HELP but feel that his life was under
threat, since nobody in their right mind would
have exited his vehicle to stalk an individual
he found "Suspicious & Threatening" on foot
UNLESS HE WAS ARMED...
...from there it's an incredibly short leap to
realizing that Trayvon reacted to what HE felt
was a life-threatening situation.

The Jury Instructions! of course

"WORDS THAT WORK" by our
old friend 'the Wordsmith', Frank Luntz


((Listen To the Sample))
Posted by: John Rougeux

Re: Not guilty - 07/16/13 08:03 AM

You all should watch this. This is EXACTLY what should happen no matter how you feel about the verdict.

Posted by: John Rougeux

Re: Not guilty - 07/16/13 08:56 AM

Another guy's opinion Not sure how to find it on youtube, but it's on FB

<iframe src="https://www.facebook.com/video/embed?video_id=10201425501429241" width="226" height="400" frameborder="0"></iframe>