Actually there is a huge difference, OJ rightly or wrongly disputed the facts of the case, so did Anthony. This racist filth DIDN'T dispute the facts, he proudly told EVERYONE how he stalked and murdered this kid. THATS the difference, if he had said "It wasn't me" then there might be some doubt but HE SAID HE STALKED HIM, HE SAID HE SHOT HIM. THERE WAS NO DOUBT ABOUT THIS
George Zimmerman found Not Guilty.
- Thread starter Saturnine Pariah
- Start date
Actually there is a huge difference, OJ rightly or wrongly disputed the facts of the case, so did Anthony. This racist filth DIDN'T dispute the facts, he proudly told EVERYONE how he stalked and murdered this kid. THATS the difference, if he had said "It wasn't me" then there might be some doubt but HE SAID HE STALKED HIM, HE SAID HE SHOT HIM. THERE WAS NO DOUBT ABOUT THIS
That is a very simplistic statement. If there was no doubt there would be no need for trials. This was a right to self defense case, has nothing to do with he did not do it. If Zimmerman did not have a broken nose then he would have been hard pressed for a self defense case.
There is precedence for cases like this and I went back and forth with this case, but like i said the jury is usually going to consider "reasonable" doubt a lot more than someone not on the jury. If you can find some videos of the trial.
I didn't make it up bud. i've watched a news story in which the guy shot another guy that was breaking into his car that was parked outside his home. He walked outside and shot the guy. No charges were pressed. I read your link. It said this:
"One key distinction is whether the concept only applies to defending a home or VEHICLE, or whether it applies to all lawfully occupied locations"
The American Mainstream liberal media tried hard to get Zimmerman convicted even before the trail. They started off by doctoring the 911 audio tapes. They always show the 12 year old boy pictures of Martin, but not one of him at the correct age. They would also call Martin by his first and last name to make him more personal, while calling Zimmerman by only his last name to keep him more distance. They even invented the term white hispanic, for someone who looks hispanic, to make sure the evil white man was part of mix. Justice was not supposed to be served but rather Zimmerman was supposed to be part of the quota system. Even in the end, the judge changed the rules of the game to include other lessor charges, but only after the defense rested their case. During the time of the killing to the end of the trial President Obama's home city of Chicago had dozens of murders mostly black and black. Did any of these get any national attention? It was all about optics for the mindless liberals who are so easy to manipulate using race bait.
The way I see it, Zimmerman followed Martin, until Martin saw him and then doubled back and outflanked him to teach him a lesson. Martin jumped Zimmerman and was beating him like a dog. A 17 year old black male who is 6'3" will kick the butt of an out of shape pretend cop with 5 to 1 Vegas odds. Martin was beating Zimmerman but but because Zimmerman was heavier, he was able to reverse ground and pound (MMA) and get to his gun. If Martin had not doubled back and attacked Zimmerman he would be alive. Zimmerman drew his gun after his beating not while following.
The way I see it, Zimmerman followed Martin, until Martin saw him and then doubled back and outflanked him to teach him a lesson. Martin jumped Zimmerman and was beating him like a dog. A 17 year old black male who is 6'3" will kick the butt of an out of shape pretend cop with 5 to 1 Vegas odds. Martin was beating Zimmerman but but because Zimmerman was heavier, he was able to reverse ground and pound (MMA) and get to his gun. If Martin had not doubled back and attacked Zimmerman he would be alive. Zimmerman drew his gun after his beating not while following.
You probably misunderstood what actually transpired.
Your quote still needs to include what is stated in the first sentence.
"In the United States, stand-your-ground law states that a person may justifiably use force in self-defense when there is reasonable belief of an unlawful threat, without an obligation to retreat first."
This ^^ agreed.
Edit to clarify...I don't think he shot him out of spite but he had no valid reason to follow him.
Unlawful threat of what? Wouldn't burglary be an unlawful threat?
For instance,
(New York Penal Law section 35.15 effectively ordains that:
"A person may... use DEADLY physical force upon another person" "when and to the extent he reasonably believes such to be NECESSARY to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be .... a kidnapping, forcible rape, forcible sodomy or ROBBERY; or (c) ... a burglary....") taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_self-defense
The news didn't mention the stand your ground law. But, it's about self defense which is related to the stand your ground law.
I am for gun rights, I am for self defense and I think my states law favors criminals over home owners in regards to self defense but I thought for sure a jury of women, one of color, 5 who are mothers would have found him guilty of something.
But they didnt. And they did not deliberate very long considering the seriousness of the issue. A dead kid who by all accounts wasnt a troubled youth.
Zimmerman was battered by Martin. Martin had a phone and did not call 911, "hey I am being followed by a scary guy please help". Zimmerman did call 911 so I guess this is what the jury decided. Martin attacked Zimmerman and then it became self defense.
But they didnt. And they did not deliberate very long considering the seriousness of the issue. A dead kid who by all accounts wasnt a troubled youth.
Zimmerman was battered by Martin. Martin had a phone and did not call 911, "hey I am being followed by a scary guy please help". Zimmerman did call 911 so I guess this is what the jury decided. Martin attacked Zimmerman and then it became self defense.
If were a teenage boy being followed by a man with a gun, I'd turn around and punch him in the face too. You can't outrun a bullet. Cops aren't gonna aren't gonna be there quick enough to prevent him from doing harm to you. I mean, really, who had more of a right to stand his ground? the kid being followed by an arm man, or the arm man who follows/stalks the kid? Let's face it, if Trayvon was a white kid in a white neighborhood who got shot by a black man there is no way he would have gotten off. That's why its racism!
It’s a travesty of justice. It isn’t the first time and it unfortunately will not be the last. I am not aware of any system of justice that has achieved perfection. That said, this may not be over for Zimmerman. The federal government could charge Zimmerman on federal civil rights charges. And frankly, I would hope that the Department of Justice takes a serious look at this case. I think it has merit.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jul/14/naacp-calls-federal-civil-rights-charges-against-g/
I guess going forward the Zimmerman case informs us we must all be weary of young black kids running around carrying huge blocks of concrete. It’s stupid.
What really scares me is that one day Zimmerman might be wearing a badge. And what does Zimmerman walk away from this thinking? And what does this say to all the whackos and vigilantes out there? That is the scary part of this affair.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jul/14/naacp-calls-federal-civil-rights-charges-against-g/
I guess going forward the Zimmerman case informs us we must all be weary of young black kids running around carrying huge blocks of concrete. It’s stupid.
What really scares me is that one day Zimmerman might be wearing a badge. And what does Zimmerman walk away from this thinking? And what does this say to all the whackos and vigilantes out there? That is the scary part of this affair.
He provoked the altercation. I agree...Trayvon shouldn't have reacted that way but he might have felt that it was his only recourse. Without a gun, Zimmerman wouldn't have followed him. People turn much braver when they have guns. He shouldn't have followed him. This kid was doing NOTHING wrong. I understand at the point it got to, that Zimmerman was protecting his life. But he shouldn't have followed him.
I tend to agree. Even without an eyewitness to the beginning of the fight, we know that Zimmerman was the one who approached Martin, not the other way around. There was a case in Texas a few years ago in which a man carried a video camera with him to confront a neighbor about loud music. He pulled his gun when a group of them approached, and shot three of them when one charged at him. He was found guilty of murder, and this was in a Stand Your Ground state. Even if Trayvon was the one who struck first, he was the one who was being approached for nothing other than the fact that he was black and wearing a hoodie, and so Zimmerman, in my view, should have been found guilty.
And I'm betting if Martin hadn't been a teenaged black kid, he would have been.
Zimmerman wasn't protecting his life. Getting beaten up shouldn't be--and isn't, so far as I can tell--ground for using deadly force.
I can follow anyone I want in public and I sure cant punch someone for following me. You make an assumption that Zimmerman would not have followed him. I do not know. I tend to believe Zimmerman's account of pulling the gun after Martin attacked him because I doubt Martin would have attacked someone holding a gun being unarmed and all.
Martin did do something wrong which is what got him killed. He attacked someone for no reason. It is not reasonable to attack someone for following you.
It is in many states. And in others it is very difficult to get a conviction when deadly force is used under those circumstances.
We only know one side. I don't disbelieve Zimmerman. But I think he shouldn't have followed him. He should have called the police with his suspicions and let them handle it. This is why we have a police force.
Understand, I don't think the charges now knowing the full definitions fit what happened but I don't feel settled.
This needs to be taken in its full context. It states: "A person may... use DEADLY physical force upon another person"
Key terms are - reasonably believes, may and forcible.
Burglary in and of itself is not a threat that requires DEADLY physical force, BUT that may vary from state to state and also there is a difference between force that is in line with the threat.
I am not defending anyone in this particular case, nor am i an attorney. I am looking at the laws presented with my own understanding of them. Law is very complicated, always something to learn.
"Stand your ground law" is pretty much universal throughout the world, it may differ but i just dont know how.
We only know one side. I don't disbelieve Zimmerman. But I think he shouldn't have followed him. He should have called the police with his suspicions and let them handle it. This is why we have a police force.
Understand, I don't think the charges now knowing the full definitions fit what happened but I don't feel settled.
We dont actually, we also have the direct evidence of the 911 tape. Not just of him calmly walking in the same direction but of him stalking him, chasing him down when he ran