The Official Zimmerman Trial Verdict Thread

[Luissa]

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

Did he follow an innocent man?

 

[Luissa]

I may be a liberal, but no one who knows me as ever accused me of having a bleeding heart. There you go spending too much time assuming, and less time actually researching.

 

[dilloduck]

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

Did he follow an innocent man?

You follow me---I crush your skull and you can't try to stop me--you have to just lie there and die

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

Many on the right trying to make Martin the ‘criminal,’ putting the victim on trial in the hope the jury will find some sort of de facto ‘justification’ for the shooting, although the Zimmerman defense team is not pursuing a SYG ruling from the court.

 

[dilloduck]

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.

Many on the right trying to make Martin the ‘criminal,’ putting the victim on trial in the hope the jury will find some sort of de facto ‘justification’ for the shooting, although the Zimmerman defense team is not pursuing a SYG ruling from the court.

Horsehit--I'm not saying Martin did anything illegal. I'm saying Zimmerman was justified in using lethal force as a self defence as defined in Florida law. Create strawmen elsewhere.

 

[Luissa]

Only in the mind of a bleeding heart

Did he follow an innocent man?

You follow me---I crush your skull and you can't try to stop me--you have to just lie there and die

Look up imperfect self defense.
And the fact Zimmerman is no longer using stand your ground.

 

[dilloduck]

Did he follow an innocent man?

You follow me---I crush your skull and you can't try to stop me--you have to just lie there and die

Look up imperfect self defense.
And the fact Zimmerman is no longer using stand your ground.

I know what it is. I have no doubts that the primary concern in that Florida jurisdiction right now is how to handle the rioting when the verdict is read.
one guy killed another guy who was trying to crush his skull cuz he was skeered.

 

[FishfaceDeMarco]

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.

Many on the right trying to make Martin the ‘criminal,’ putting the victim on trial in the hope the jury will find some sort of de facto ‘justification’ for the shooting, although the Zimmerman defense team is not pursuing a SYG ruling from the court.

I don't think MT was a criminal. I just don't believe he used common sense. He should have gone home.

 

[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?

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.

"Imminent danger" isn't what the statute says, Luissa. It's "imminent death" or "great bodily harm". So which of those two would Martin have feared from someone walking away from him talking to the Police on his cell phone?

Like I said before...I don't think you understand the applicable law...and you just illustrated that I'm right.

 

[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?

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.

Many on the right trying to make Martin the ‘criminal,’ putting the victim on trial in the hope the jury will find some sort of de facto ‘justification’ for the shooting, although the Zimmerman defense team is not pursuing a SYG ruling from the court.

That's actually EXACTLY what I'm doing, Clayton because I believe that Martin's assault and battery on Zimmerman was indeed criminal. The reason that Zimmerman's team isn't pursuing a SYG ruling is that a "self defense" defense fits circumstances of this case better than a SYG defense.

 

[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.

"Imminent danger" isn't what the statute says, Luissa. It's "imminent death" or "great bodily harm". So which of those two would Martin have feared from someone walking away from him talking to the Police on his cell phone?

Like I said before...I don't think you understand the applicable law...and you just illustrated that I'm right.

It has nothing to do with understanding the law, it has to do with how it has been used and who has gotten off due to the law. Obviously you didn't look up any cases. So you have illustrated that you didn't read what I posted, and just assumed what I posted.
And it has nothing to do with him walking away and everything to do With him following him.
Do me a favor, before you post again that I don't know what I am talking about, look up cases that have been dropped due to stand your ground on Florida. Geez, like I said before, a bunch of geniuses.

 

[Gracie]

I'm wondering what the jury will make of all the evidence. If I were on the jury, I would be very suspicious of someone in fear of their life while following the follower after the follower stopped following and then attacking them, then winding up dead because the original follower had a weapon.

And yes, if someone were following me, depending on the situation, I would be wary of what was the intent of the person. But once I "ditched" that person, I damn sure wouldn't go back to follow them. I'd go home and call the cops since I don't have a cell. Oh. Wait. Martin had a cell, yet he called his girlfriend instead.

 

[dilloduck]

I'm wondering what the jury will make of all the evidence. If I were on the jury, I would be very suspicious of someone in fear of their life while following the follower after the follower stopped following and then attacking them, then winding up dead because the original follower had a weapon.

And yes, if someone were following me, depending on the situation, I would be wary of what was the intent of the person. But once I "ditched" that person, I damn sure wouldn't go back to follow them. I'd go home and call the cops since I don't have a cell. Oh. Wait. Martin had a cell, yet he called his girlfriend instead.

The poor guy was black--They can't call the cops because cops hate them.

 

[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.

"Imminent danger" isn't what the statute says, Luissa. It's "imminent death" or "great bodily harm". So which of those two would Martin have feared from someone walking away from him talking to the Police on his cell phone?

Like I said before...I don't think you understand the applicable law...and you just illustrated that I'm right.

Oh! And smart one you might look up what imminent danger means. I will give you clue, it is the same thing as great bodily harm. Tomato tomato. Lol
I do love cons who spend more time calling people stupid then actually knowing what they are talking about.

Tell me again how that isn't the same thing?
Have you looked up any cases yet?

 

[Gracie]

And zimmerman is mexican. Or half. Or something. It has nothing to do with the actions both took that night. Zimmerman followed a guy that looked suspicious, then lost him. Martin was ambling along and ditched the guy following him. But then he went back.....and it doesn't matter what race either one was. He WENT BACK to either confront the guy following him, or to see where he was going so he could call the cops later, maybe. Nobody knows. Which is why we have to wait for the trial.

 

[dilloduck]

And zimmerman is mexican. Or half. Or something. It has nothing to do with the actions both took that night. Zimmerman followed a guy that looked suspicious, then lost him. Martin was ambling along and ditched the guy following him. But then he went back.....and it doesn't matter what race either one was. He WENT BACK to either confront the guy following him, or to see where he was going so he could call the cops later, maybe. Nobody knows. Which is why we have to wait for the trial.

Dont' kid yourself--it's racial now.

 

[Luissa]

And zimmerman is mexican. Or half. Or something. It has nothing to do with the actions both took that night. Zimmerman followed a guy that looked suspicious, then lost him. Martin was ambling along and ditched the guy following him. But then he went back.....and it doesn't matter what race either one was. He WENT BACK to either confront the guy following him, or to see where he was going so he could call the cops later, maybe. Nobody knows. Which is why we have to wait for the trial.

Dont' kid yourself--it's racial now.

Only because you want it to be.

 

[dilloduck]

And zimmerman is mexican. Or half. Or something. It has nothing to do with the actions both took that night. Zimmerman followed a guy that looked suspicious, then lost him. Martin was ambling along and ditched the guy following him. But then he went back.....and it doesn't matter what race either one was. He WENT BACK to either confront the guy following him, or to see where he was going so he could call the cops later, maybe. Nobody knows. Which is why we have to wait for the trial.

Dont' kid yourself--it's racial now.

Only because you want it to be.

So true--this is exactly what I prayed for a couple of Christmases ago.

 

[Luissa]

Dont' kid yourself--it's racial now.

Only because you want it to be.

So true--this is exactly what I prayed for a couple of Christmases ago.

You think I and others are defending him because he is black, bleeding heart liberal and all that.

 

[Oldstyle]

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.

"Imminent danger" isn't what the statute says, Luissa. It's "imminent death" or "great bodily harm". So which of those two would Martin have feared from someone walking away from him talking to the Police on his cell phone?

Like I said before...I don't think you understand the applicable law...and you just illustrated that I'm right.

It has nothing to do with understanding the law, it has to do with how it has been used and who has gotten off due to the law. Obviously you didn't look up any cases. So you have illustrated that you didn't read what I posted, and just assumed what I posted.
And it has nothing to do with him walking away and everything to do With him following him.
Do me a favor, before you post again that I don't know what I am talking about, look up cases that have been dropped due to stand your ground on Florida. Geez, like I said before, a bunch of geniuses.

So kindly explain to me, Luissa the time table involved in YOUR concept of how this law applies? If A follows B...you're saying that B has the right to attack A? That just the act of following someone provides the excuse to commit assault and battery on another?

And let's say A is following B but then loses B and a period of time transpires. Does B STILL have the right to commit assault and battery upon A at a later time? How long (in your bizarre interpretation of the law) does this right hold up? Five minutes? Fifteen? Half an hour? Can I decide that I was in fear for my life a day later and give that stranger a beating then? How does this all work in your "Alice Through The Looking Glass" world?