The Official Zimmerman Trial Verdict Thread

What are your Initial Thoughts on the Guilt or Innocence of George Zimmerman?


  • Total voters
    84
Status
Not open for further replies.
There are many Americans who put the lives of others ahead of their own: Policemen, nurses, doctors, soldiers, to name a few. All of them are voluntarily in harm's way. But even in those instances there are many situations which demand that the person defend his/her own life and they are legally allowed to do so.

Your statement has to be the stupidest one I have EVER read on a forum. Humans are genetically programmed to preserve their own lives, and the law allows it.

So in your mind, depraved as it appears to be, an 8year old little girl brandishing a toy gun and yelling bang, deserves to die. Nice.

My point went over your head like a 747. I would say, 'keep trying' but you are just too boneheaded to understand that in America anyone who believes their life is being threatened by anyone, regardless of the age of the person doing the threatening, has the right to defend their own life. That was just a few examples. There are many many more similar cases out there.
You assume it want over my head. My point is one that is typically not understood by authoritarians. Not to turn this to a political point. But you appear to believe a right to kill in self defense is the same as justification for taking a life in self defense. Authority to perform an act is not the same as justification for taking the act. If Trayvon had been packing and Zimmerman was not Trayvon could have led with his chin fallen to the concrete cried like a baby for 8sec when he knew someone was watching then shot and killed Zimmerman. Would he have been justified because it was self defense? Because he was able to intimidate Zimmerman into throwing punches? Or is self defense only for those in authority positions? What if Zimmerman was a bad cop and was beating on TM would you be defending the teen if he killed a cop in self defense?
 
Iz steal thinks Mawtin shud ob be callin' da pohleese instaid ob comfrontin dat white creepy ass crackah follerin' him wantin' hiz skittles.
Iffen Mawtin wooda staid in he howse in da betroom callin' da pohleese, he be still alive.

dis hee-ah thread aint evah gonna be da same affa dat

myz sail foam iz ringin
 
Sail Foam Song...

I gots sail foam,
He gots sail foam,
She gots sail foam,
Dey got sail foam,
Wudn ya like ta haz a sail foam too?
 
776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.
History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1188, ch. 97-102; s. 2, ch. 2005-27.
776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—
(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and
(b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.
(2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or
(b) The person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or
(c) The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or
(d) The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.
(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be 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.
(4) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person’s dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.
(5) As used in this section, the term:
(a) “Dwelling” means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night.
(b) “Residence” means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest.
(c) “Vehicle” means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property.
[/sallow]

Did you actually read this?

And when did Martin enter Zimmerman's tent?

:eusa_whistle:

I did, especially 776.012 (1)
He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or

They WANT it to say:

He or she has sustained death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or

That is what they keep arguing - that Zimmerman's injuries weren't severe enough to justify deadly force....

I know more than one crime victim who turned on a dime regarding guns and self defense once they became a victim of violent crim.
 
Last edited:
What in the evidence shows that Martin would have stopped beating Zimmerman if he hadn't been shot?

All of his prior victims, all the restraining orders? Oh that's right there were no prior victims or restraining orders on TM. What about Zimmerman?
A MUTUAL restraining order.

Next week, we will most likely find out that Martin was involved in a lot more than his troubles at school.


The judge usually restrains both parties from seeing each other, but Zimmerman was the only one arrested and she was listed as the victim. Zimmerman was accused of hitting her for chewing gum and kicking her dog.
 
They WANT it to say:

He or she has sustained death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or

That is what they keep arguing - that Zimmerman's injuries weren't severe enough to justify deadly force....

It's easy for someone to want it that way when they weren't the one having their head slammed into the concrete and weren't the one that had their nose broken.
 
DD splained fo u's not payin tention an onna rush

and u's living in Fantasy Making Shit Up Land haven't watch the trial talking out your azz land:

State Star Witness

Diamond
Dee Dee
Rachel
'Tude DD
Drug DD
Yessuh DD

You forgot DD The Hutt.

946829_10151725391691675_522204030_n.jpg



Just sayin' :eusa_whistle:

I SO gotta spread...
 
All of his prior victims, all the restraining orders? Oh that's right there were no prior victims or restraining orders on TM. What about Zimmerman?
A MUTUAL restraining order.

Next week, we will most likely find out that Martin was involved in a lot more than his troubles at school.


The judge usually restrains both parties from seeing each other, but Zimmerman was the only one arrested and she was listed as the victim. Zimmerman was accused of hitting her for chewing gum and kicking her dog.

wut youz be goin on bout?
 
All of his prior victims, all the restraining orders? Oh that's right there were no prior victims or restraining orders on TM. What about Zimmerman?
A MUTUAL restraining order.

Next week, we will most likely find out that Martin was involved in a lot more than his troubles at school.


The judge usually restrains both parties from seeing each other, but Zimmerman was the only one arrested and she was listed as the victim. Zimmerman was accused of hitting her for chewing gum and kicking her dog.

Sail Foam Song...

I gots sail foam,
He gots sail foam,
She gots sail foam,
Dey got sail foam,
Wudn ya like ta haz a sail foam too?
 
Well to Ernie's defense, his issue may be old guys verses younger guys.. or based on the the lack of video and / or decent witnesses for the prosecution in the TM case. Have to remember we don't have a video like this bus showing zimmerman's face as he cursed about Trayvon and gave chase and reached for his "phone" at the start of the conversation.

Ernie's a decent guy.

I have no personal problems with him.

Probably would buy him a beer if he was in a bar.

I'd take a coffee for sure, but I haven't had a beer in 25 years.

Yes, I think we could have a decent conversation, especially now that you know I am always armed. :D

I know two internet friends who had a meet up. They both went armed~! And neither one told the other until they were back online. When I met Si Modo all I was armed with was a pair of surgical scissors that airport security somehow missed and that I forgot I had. (I carry a small pair of scissors everywhere I go, cuz I don't like threads hanging or hangnails.) Last year when I went to get my license tag renewed I had a pair of nippers in my purse. The security person looking through the x-ray machine made me promise not to nip them to death in the clerk's office.)
 
So in your mind, depraved as it appears to be, an 8year old little girl brandishing a toy gun and yelling bang, deserves to die. Nice.

My point went over your head like a 747. I would say, 'keep trying' but you are just too boneheaded to understand that in America anyone who believes their life is being threatened by anyone, regardless of the age of the person doing the threatening, has the right to defend their own life. That was just a few examples. There are many many more similar cases out there.
You assume it want over my head. My point is one that is typically not understood by authoritarians. Not to turn this to a political point. But you appear to believe a right to kill in self defense is the same as justification for taking a life in self defense. Authority to perform an act is not the same as justification for taking the act. If Trayvon had been packing and Zimmerman was not Trayvon could have led with his chin fallen to the concrete cried like a baby for 8sec when he knew someone was watching then shot and killed Zimmerman. Would he have been justified because it was self defense? Because he was able to intimidate Zimmerman into throwing punches? Or is self defense only for those in authority positions? What if Zimmerman was a bad cop and was beating on TM would you be defending the teen if he killed a cop in self defense?

Not at all. Color doesn't matter here. We are defending a righteous shoot.
 
Why do you believe Zimmerman's pursuit was "passive" and the pursuit by the guy in this bus was "aggression?" In this video on the bus both are being aggressive, the old man smartly tries to diffuse by walking away, but then he turns to taunt by saying something like I'll beat the shit out of you.. then the wannabe pursues. They are both the aggressor right up to the point where the wannabe curls up in the fetal position while the old man is beating on him. Just like the trial where GZ is just laying there getting his ass beat crying out for help.

Zimmerman followed to observe, not to confront or attack. Martin was aggressive Zimmerman was, shall I say, actively passive?
How was Trayvon supposed to know the guy in the black and red jacket with the dome cut was just observing? Would you want some guy following you to observe you walking to your house like that? Some guy that is ignoring your requests to stop following? How do we know Zimmerman did not make the first punch or grab Trayvon's phone?

Sail Foam Song...

I gots sail foam,
He gots sail foam,
She gots sail foam,
Dey got sail foam,
Wudn ya like ta haz a sail foam too?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Forum List

Back
Top