The Official Zimmerman Trial Verdict Thread

[Oldstyle]

How so? Under Florida law if Trayvon had lived it wouldn't have mattered if Zimmerman lost him?
And on who's word are we going on that he lost him? A man who can't bail out of jail due to lying?

the 911 tapes bear out that zimmerman said he lost him.
The tapes bear out that zimmerman was going to meet the cops (at the mailboxes?)

Which means travon decided to hunt Zimmerman and attack.

In the 911 tapes he asked the operators to call him once they got there so he could tell them where he was at. From the timeline of events he wasn't at his truck which is where he originally made the call. It is also noted on the 911 calls he had already followed Martin, then followed him again while on the phone.
And under Florida Law Martin did not have to retreat if he feared imminent danger. In one case in Florida a man got off after shooting a man who was laying on the ground.
If you can defend Zimmerman for using self defense after following an innocent minor, why can't you defend Martin for coming back after being followed by someone at night?
If one can use that excuse, why can't the other?

Only one problem with your "scenario", Luissa...when Zimmerman agrees to meet the Police back by the front entrance to the gated community it's because he's lost the man he was following. He isn't following Martin at that point...he's given up and headed back to his truck.

So what right does Martin have to go back and physically confront someone who is no longer following him? How do you justify self defense when your "attacker" is walking away from you after calling the Police? Why haven't YOU called the Police? Why haven't YOU run the hundred yards or so to the front door of the condo you're staying in? If I was scared of someone following ME at night that's what I would do...I damn well wouldn't go BACK to confront them. Yet that's exactly what Martin did.

 

[Luissa]

ok---let's assume you're right about the law---Travon's thinking--I'm scared shitless so I'm going to track this dude down and beat the shit out of him. What is Zimmerman supposed to do under Florida Law ? Allow himself to be killed ?

Wouldn't he have caused the situation? Which would mean it was an imperfect self defense. He would get a lesser charge, but still face consequences.. Which is actually what I think should happen.

You scare me--I kill you--no problem---cmon Luissa

In Florida you wouldn't have had a problem.

 

[Luissa]

the 911 tapes bear out that zimmerman said he lost him.
The tapes bear out that zimmerman was going to meet the cops (at the mailboxes?)

Which means travon decided to hunt Zimmerman and attack.

In the 911 tapes he asked the operators to call him once they got there so he could tell them where he was at. From the timeline of events he wasn't at his truck which is where he originally made the call. It is also noted on the 911 calls he had already followed Martin, then followed him again while on the phone.
And under Florida Law Martin did not have to retreat if he feared imminent danger. In one case in Florida a man got off after shooting a man who was laying on the ground.
If you can defend Zimmerman for using self defense after following an innocent minor, why can't you defend Martin for coming back after being followed by someone at night?
If one can use that excuse, why can't the other?

Only one problem with your "scenario", Luissa...when Zimmerman agrees to meet the Police back by the front entrance to the gated community it's because he's lost the man he was following. He isn't following Martin at that point...he's given up and headed back to his truck.

So what right does Martin have to go back and physically confront someone who is no longer following him? How do you justify self defense when your "attacker" is walking away from you after calling the Police? Why haven't YOU called the Police? Why haven't YOU run the hundred yards or so to the front door of the condo you're staying in? If I was scared of someone following ME at night that's what I would do...I damn well wouldn't go BACK to confront them. Yet that's exactly what Martin did.

Is it hard for you guys to realize that under Florida law it doesn't matter that Zimmerman lost Martin? Under Florida law you are not required to retreat, once you feel imminent danger you have the right to use deadly force.
Look up cases that have been dropped or the person was never charged under stand your ground, then you will get my point.

I will state it again. If Martin feared for his life etc etc under Florida law he had the right to attack Zimmerman.

 

[Oldstyle]

Under Florida law he doesn't have to.
And are saying if someone followed you at night you wouldn't be fearful?

If someone followed me at night I would head for somewhere safe AS I called the Police on my cell phone. Trayvon Martin did neither.

Under Florida law he doesn't have to.. And from your answer I can assume your answer is yes. So that proves my point. Thanks.

If someone followed me at night I would be wary...not fearful. I carry a concealed weapon and a cell phone. The first thing I would do if an aggressive person approached me at night would be to inform them that I was armed and warn them to stay back. The second thing I would do would be to call the Police.

If that person was no longer following me I sure as heck wouldn't go back to find them. I would proceed to my house and wait for the Police to show.

 

[Luissa]

If someone followed me at night I would head for somewhere safe AS I called the Police on my cell phone. Trayvon Martin did neither.

Under Florida law he doesn't have to.. And from your answer I can assume your answer is yes. So that proves my point. Thanks.

Oh Luissa. Florida law doesn't say that if your scared you can just go kill the person. It's far more detailed.

Look up cases that were dropped due to the law.

 

[dilloduck]

Wouldn't he have caused the situation? Which would mean it was an imperfect self defense. He would get a lesser charge, but still face consequences.. Which is actually what I think should happen.

You scare me--I kill you--no problem---cmon Luissa

In Florida you wouldn't have had a problem.

Sorry--that's just not true.

 

[Luissa]

If someone followed me at night I would head for somewhere safe AS I called the Police on my cell phone. Trayvon Martin did neither.

Under Florida law he doesn't have to.. And from your answer I can assume your answer is yes. So that proves my point. Thanks.

If someone followed me at night I would be wary...not fearful. I carry a concealed weapon and a cell phone. The first thing I would do if an aggressive person approached me at night would be to inform them that I was armed and warn them to stay back. The second thing I would do would be to call the Police.

If that person was no longer following me I sure as heck wouldn't go back to find them. I would proceed to my house and wait for the Police to show.

Under Florida law you do not have to do that.

 

[Luissa]

You scare me--I kill you--no problem---cmon Luissa

In Florida you wouldn't have had a problem.

Sorry--that's just not true.

Yes it is.

 

[Oldstyle]

In the 911 tapes he asked the operators to call him once they got there so he could tell them where he was at. From the timeline of events he wasn't at his truck which is where he originally made the call. It is also noted on the 911 calls he had already followed Martin, then followed him again while on the phone.
And under Florida Law Martin did not have to retreat if he feared imminent danger. In one case in Florida a man got off after shooting a man who was laying on the ground.
If you can defend Zimmerman for using self defense after following an innocent minor, why can't you defend Martin for coming back after being followed by someone at night?
If one can use that excuse, why can't the other?

Only one problem with your "scenario", Luissa...when Zimmerman agrees to meet the Police back by the front entrance to the gated community it's because he's lost the man he was following. He isn't following Martin at that point...he's given up and headed back to his truck.

So what right does Martin have to go back and physically confront someone who is no longer following him? How do you justify self defense when your "attacker" is walking away from you after calling the Police? Why haven't YOU called the Police? Why haven't YOU run the hundred yards or so to the front door of the condo you're staying in? If I was scared of someone following ME at night that's what I would do...I damn well wouldn't go BACK to confront them. Yet that's exactly what Martin did.

Is it hard for you guys to realize that under Florida law it doesn't matter that Zimmerman lost Martin? Under Florida law you are not required to retreat, once you feel imminent danger you have the right to use deadly force.
Look up cases that have been dropped or the person was never charged under stand your ground, then you will get my point.

I will state it again. If Martin feared for his life etc etc under Florida law he had the right to attack Zimmerman.

Why would Martin "fear for his life" from someone who was walking back to their SUV and no longer following him? Or do you for some unknown reason think that once you feel threatened you have license to attack someone at a later time even though they are walking away from you?

 

[dilloduck]

Under Florida law he doesn't have to.. And from your answer I can assume your answer is yes. So that proves my point. Thanks.

Oh Luissa. Florida law doesn't say that if your scared you can just go kill the person. It's far more detailed.

Look up cases that were dropped due to the law.

Look up the case that were not --Seriously, the lengths that liberals will go to make an attacker a victim is amazing

 

[Oldstyle]

To be blunt, Luissa? I don't think you REALLY know anything about the applicable Florida statutes.

 

[Luissa]

Oh Luissa. Florida law doesn't say that if your scared you can just go kill the person. It's far more detailed.

Look up cases that were dropped due to the law.

Look up the case that were not --Seriously, the lengths that liberals will go to make an attacker a victim is amazing

And the lengths cons will go to make a man who followed an innocent boy a victim are amazing.
And I am not defending Martin, if you got my point, you would understand that I am pointing out that under Florida law he did nothing wrong.


Look up these cases for starters. I have to go back to work.

"• People often go free under "stand your ground" in cases that seem to make a mockery of what lawmakers intended. One man killed two unarmed people and walked out of jail. Another shot a man as he lay on the ground. Others went free after shooting their victims in the back. In nearly a third of the cases the Times analyzed, defendants initiated the fight, shot an unarmed person or pursued their victim — and still went free"

http://www.tampabay.com/news/public...s-some-shocking-outcomes-depending-on/1233133

I would start with the guy who pursued the victim and still went free. Then maybe you will start to get my point.

 

[Oldstyle]

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.

 

[Oldstyle]

So you're claiming that Martin "reasonably believed" that a man who was walking away from him talking on his cell phone to the Police posed a threat of "imminent death or great bodily harm"? Really?

 

[Luissa]

To be blunt, Luissa? I don't think you REALLY know anything about the applicable Florida statutes.

I think I understand how it's being used more than you do, to be blunt.
Which is exactly the point I am trying to make. You guys are too busy worrying about my political beliefs and assuming my opinion, to realize that people who have done the very same things Martin did have gotten off or were never charged under the Florida law.

And if I was confused by the law I would be in the company of Florida judges and politicians.

 

[dilloduck]

To be blunt, Luissa? I don't think you REALLY know anything about the applicable Florida statutes.

I think I understand how it's being used more than you do, to be blunt.
Which is exactly the point I am trying to make. You guys are too busy worrying about my political beliefs and assuming my opinion, to realize that people who have done the very same things Martin did have gotten off or were never charged under the Florida law.

And if I was confused by the law I would be in the company of Florida judges and politicians.

If he would have killed Zimmerman he might have gotten away with it------but he didn't. Now Zimmerman can get away with it.
Oh hell--I'll go as far to say that if Travon had crushed Zimmerman's skull and went crying to the cops we woulda walked . Just like OJ.

 

[Luissa]

So you're claiming that Martin "reasonably believed" that a man who was walking away from him talking on his cell phone to the Police posed a threat of "imminent death or great bodily harm"? Really?

No I am not. I am claiming that someone following him could or would cause fear of imminent danger and under Florida law he would have gotten off even though Zimmerman might have retreated.
I don't understand why it's so hard to understand? I guess if you guys actually looked up cases where people used the Florida law to get off you would get my point. It's not my fault you don't bother to do so.

 

[Luissa]

To be blunt, Luissa? I don't think you REALLY know anything about the applicable Florida statutes.

I think I understand how it's being used more than you do, to be blunt.
Which is exactly the point I am trying to make. You guys are too busy worrying about my political beliefs and assuming my opinion, to realize that people who have done the very same things Martin did have gotten off or were never charged under the Florida law.

And if I was confused by the law I would be in the company of Florida judges and politicians.

If he would have killed Zimmerman he might have gotten away with it------but he didn't. Now Zimmerman can get away with it.

I think Zimmerman as a case for imperfect self defense, since he caused the incident to happen.

 

[dilloduck]

I think I understand how it's being used more than you do, to be blunt.
Which is exactly the point I am trying to make. You guys are too busy worrying about my political beliefs and assuming my opinion, to realize that people who have done the very same things Martin did have gotten off or were never charged under the Florida law.

And if I was confused by the law I would be in the company of Florida judges and politicians.

If he would have killed Zimmerman he might have gotten away with it------but he didn't. Now Zimmerman can get away with it.

I think Zimmerman as a case for imperfect self defense, since he caused the incident to happen.

Only in the mind of a bleeding heart

 

[Luissa]

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.

Now look up cases that have been dropped due to the law, then you might get my point. Freakin geniuses around here.
Try not to spend so much time putting me down, and more time looking up how the law has been used.