Trayvon Martin Law in Alabama

[M14 Shooter]

No. We also know that he is not guilty of a crime.

We know he was found not guilty. oj simpson was found not guilty.
Doesn't make either of them innocent

It -does- mean that Zimmerman did not commit a crime.
Accept that fact.

Lol. You have a very, very, warped sense of the justice system.

Not guilty = no crime committed.
You can refuse to believe this but it make you a fool.

That's not what a "not guilty" verdict means.
all it means is the prosecution was not able to convince the jury of guilt.
It does not somehow change the actions of the past.

No matter how much you want it to be otherwise, fact is that Zimmerman did not commit a crime.
So says a jury of his peers, and the state of FL.
You opinion to the contrary? Meaningless.

 

[Impenitent]

Doesn't matter how your child acts. Under current Alabama law, anyone who feels threatened by him can use deadly force against him. Good law? Maybe not.

That's a lie - but since the truth doesn't paint the narrative you desire.....

that is not what the law says....you should know what the law says before you lie........their must be a reasonable belief that the individual is facing an immediate threat of serious injury or death....so try again......

The current law allows one to anticipate the threat and act first. It also does not require one to flee, but allow one to stand and fight. The law has unintended consequences It needs to be tweaked. Alabama s Stand Your Ground has helped defendants win acquittals attorneys say AL.com

See...the problem comes if you are an innocent person and defend yourself and you don't have Stand Your Ground protection....then you have to prove you couldn't run away....and if you can't do that...you are in trouble even if the other guy initiated the attack against you......and even the new addition to this law is no big deal...

The addition states that a person is justified if the other person is "using or about to use physical force against an owner, employee, or other person authorized to be on business property when the business is closed to the public while committing or attempting to commit a crime involving death, serious physical injury, robbery, kidnapping, rape, sodomy, or a crime of a sexual nature involving a child under the age of 12."

go back and read it again. Your quote only apples to business owners after hours.

You did't disprove anything I said.

 

[ogibillm]

We know he was found not guilty. oj simpson was found not guilty.
Doesn't make either of them innocent

It -does- mean that Zimmerman did not commit a crime.
Accept that fact.

Lol. You have a very, very, warped sense of the justice system.

Not guilty = no crime committed.
You can refuse to believe this but it make you a fool.

That's not what a "not guilty" verdict means.
all it means is the prosecution was not able to convince the jury of guilt.
It does not somehow change the actions of the past.

No matter how much you want it to be otherwise, fact is that Zimmerman did not commit a crime.

Again, he was not convicted. He may have committed a crime.

So says a jury of his peers, and the state of FL.
You opinion to the contrary? Meaningless.

The jury if his peers and the state of florida didn't convict him. but he is a free man, and he will have to live with his actions, whatever they really were

 

[M14 Shooter]

It -does- mean that Zimmerman did not commit a crime.
Accept that fact.

Lol. You have a very, very, warped sense of the justice system.

Not guilty = no crime committed.
You can refuse to believe this but it make you a fool.

That's not what a "not guilty" verdict means.
all it means is the prosecution was not able to convince the jury of guilt.
It does not somehow change the actions of the past.

No matter how much you want it to be otherwise, fact is that Zimmerman did not commit a crime.

Again, he was not convicted. He may have committed a crime.

Nope. No crime committed. So says a jury of his peers, and the state of FL
You opinion to the contrary? Meaningless.

 

[ogibillm]

Lol. You have a very, very, warped sense of the justice system.

Not guilty = no crime committed.
You can refuse to believe this but it make you a fool.

That's not what a "not guilty" verdict means.
all it means is the prosecution was not able to convince the jury of guilt.
It does not somehow change the actions of the past.

No matter how much you want it to be otherwise, fact is that Zimmerman did not commit a crime.

Again, he was not convicted. He may have committed a crime.

Nope. No crime committed. So says a jury of his peers, and the state of FL
You opinion to the contrary? Meaningless.

If i rob your house but am not convicted, that doesn't change that a crime was committed, or that i committed it. A jury's verdict does not change what happened.

Do you see? Zimmerman was not convicted. That does not mean that there was no crime - or that there was one.

Logic is difficult for you, isn't it? Do you believe that no innocent people are ever convicted?

 

[Iceweasel]

That's not what a "not guilty" verdict means.

all it means is the prosecution was not able to convince the jury of guilt.

It does not somehow change the actions of the past.

No one said it did. Not guilty means the state doesn't find the actions illegal. Therefore, we can and should dismiss those that would opine differently.

 

[hadit]

Not having bothered to read the entire thread, has anyone else noted that the "stand your ground" defense wasn't even used in the Zimmerman case?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Not guilty = no crime committed.
You can refuse to believe this but it make you a fool.

That's not what a "not guilty" verdict means.
all it means is the prosecution was not able to convince the jury of guilt.
It does not somehow change the actions of the past.

No matter how much you want it to be otherwise, fact is that Zimmerman did not commit a crime.

Again, he was not convicted. He may have committed a crime.

Nope. No crime committed. So says a jury of his peers, and the state of FL
You opinion to the contrary? Meaningless.

If i rob your house but am not convicted, that doesn't change that a crime was committed, or that i committed it. A jury's verdict does not change what happened.
Do you see? Zimmerman was not convicted. That does not mean that there was no crime - or that there was one.
Logic is difficult for you, isn't it? Do you believe that no innocent people are ever convicted?

No crime committed. So says a jury of his peers, and the state of FL
Nothing will ever change the fact that you opinion to the contrary is meaningless.

 

[ogibillm]

That's not what a "not guilty" verdict means.
all it means is the prosecution was not able to convince the jury of guilt.
It does not somehow change the actions of the past.

No matter how much you want it to be otherwise, fact is that Zimmerman did not commit a crime.

Again, he was not convicted. He may have committed a crime.

Nope. No crime committed. So says a jury of his peers, and the state of FL
You opinion to the contrary? Meaningless.

If i rob your house but am not convicted, that doesn't change that a crime was committed, or that i committed it. A jury's verdict does not change what happened.
Do you see? Zimmerman was not convicted. That does not mean that there was no crime - or that there was one.
Logic is difficult for you, isn't it? Do you believe that no innocent people are ever convicted?

No crime committed. So says a jury of his peers, and the state of FL
Nothing will ever change the fact that you opinion to the contrary is meaningless.

You can lead a horse to water...

 

[M14 Shooter]

No matter how much you want it to be otherwise, fact is that Zimmerman did not commit a crime.

Again, he was not convicted. He may have committed a crime.

Nope. No crime committed. So says a jury of his peers, and the state of FL
You opinion to the contrary? Meaningless.

If i rob your house but am not convicted, that doesn't change that a crime was committed, or that i committed it. A jury's verdict does not change what happened.
Do you see? Zimmerman was not convicted. That does not mean that there was no crime - or that there was one.
Logic is difficult for you, isn't it? Do you believe that no innocent people are ever convicted?

No crime committed. So says a jury of his peers, and the state of FL
Nothing will ever change the fact that you opinion to the contrary is meaningless.

You can lead a horse to water...

...but you cant make him understand that his opinion is meaningless.

 

[dannyboys]

Again, he was not convicted. He may have committed a crime.

Nope. No crime committed. So says a jury of his peers, and the state of FL
You opinion to the contrary? Meaningless.

If i rob your house but am not convicted, that doesn't change that a crime was committed, or that i committed it. A jury's verdict does not change what happened.
Do you see? Zimmerman was not convicted. That does not mean that there was no crime - or that there was one.
Logic is difficult for you, isn't it? Do you believe that no innocent people are ever convicted?

No crime committed. So says a jury of his peers, and the state of FL
Nothing will ever change the fact that you opinion to the contrary is meaningless.

You can lead a horse to water...

...but you cant make him understand that his opinion is meaningless.

Not just meaningless but it's like trying to carry on a debate with a 'Special Needs' person about the fucking economy in Greece. Useless.
Next time the Tree Dweller posts here I'm putting him on PI.

 

[ogibillm]

Nope. No crime committed. So says a jury of his peers, and the state of FL
You opinion to the contrary? Meaningless.

If i rob your house but am not convicted, that doesn't change that a crime was committed, or that i committed it. A jury's verdict does not change what happened.
Do you see? Zimmerman was not convicted. That does not mean that there was no crime - or that there was one.
Logic is difficult for you, isn't it? Do you believe that no innocent people are ever convicted?

No crime committed. So says a jury of his peers, and the state of FL
Nothing will ever change the fact that you opinion to the contrary is meaningless.

You can lead a horse to water...

...but you cant make him understand that his opinion is meaningless.

Not just meaningless but it's like trying to carry on a debate with a 'Special Needs' person about the fucking economy in Greece. Useless.
Next time the Tree Dweller posts here I'm putting him on PI.

Is that what you do to people that point out your lies?

 

[ogibillm]

Again, he was not convicted. He may have committed a crime.

Nope. No crime committed. So says a jury of his peers, and the state of FL
You opinion to the contrary? Meaningless.

If i rob your house but am not convicted, that doesn't change that a crime was committed, or that i committed it. A jury's verdict does not change what happened.
Do you see? Zimmerman was not convicted. That does not mean that there was no crime - or that there was one.
Logic is difficult for you, isn't it? Do you believe that no innocent people are ever convicted?

No crime committed. So says a jury of his peers, and the state of FL
Nothing will ever change the fact that you opinion to the contrary is meaningless.

You can lead a horse to water...

...but you cant make him understand that his opinion is meaningless.

I don't think we're necessarily on opposite ends here. I freely admit that as far as the justice system is concerned Zimmerman committed no crime. Thevstate did not make their case.

However, can you accept that tge verdict itself does not change whether or not a crime was committed? His guilt or innocence, the actual actions he took, are not dependent on the opinion of a jury, correct?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Nope. No crime committed. So says a jury of his peers, and the state of FL
You opinion to the contrary? Meaningless.

If i rob your house but am not convicted, that doesn't change that a crime was committed, or that i committed it. A jury's verdict does not change what happened.
Do you see? Zimmerman was not convicted. That does not mean that there was no crime - or that there was one.
Logic is difficult for you, isn't it? Do you believe that no innocent people are ever convicted?

No crime committed. So says a jury of his peers, and the state of FL
Nothing will ever change the fact that you opinion to the contrary is meaningless.

You can lead a horse to water...

...but you cant make him understand that his opinion is meaningless.

I don't think we're necessarily on opposite ends here. I freely admit that as far as the justice system is concerned Zimmerman committed no crime. Thevstate did not make their case.
However, can you accept that tge verdict itself does not change whether or not a crime was committed? His guilt or innocence, the actual actions he took, are not dependent on the opinion of a jury, correct?

The legal system - the jury, who hears all of the facts of the case, and the trial judge, who looks out for rights of the defendant and the people - determines this.
They together, not you, are the competent judge.
They had their say.
Why do you think your opinion holds any water?

 

[ogibillm]

If i rob your house but am not convicted, that doesn't change that a crime was committed, or that i committed it. A jury's verdict does not change what happened.
Do you see? Zimmerman was not convicted. That does not mean that there was no crime - or that there was one.
Logic is difficult for you, isn't it? Do you believe that no innocent people are ever convicted?

No crime committed. So says a jury of his peers, and the state of FL
Nothing will ever change the fact that you opinion to the contrary is meaningless.

You can lead a horse to water...

...but you cant make him understand that his opinion is meaningless.

I don't think we're necessarily on opposite ends here. I freely admit that as far as the justice system is concerned Zimmerman committed no crime. Thevstate did not make their case.
However, can you accept that tge verdict itself does not change whether or not a crime was committed? His guilt or innocence, the actual actions he took, are not dependent on the opinion of a jury, correct?

The legal system - the jury, who hears all of the facts of the case, and the trial judge, who looks out for rights of the defendant and the people - determines this.
They together, not you, are the competent judge.
They had their say.
Why do you think your opinion holds any water?

Im not saying if there was a crime committed or not. I think zimmerman's actions were wrong, but that doesn't mean i think he committed a crime or that he didn't.

I'm just arguing the philosophical point - a not guilty verdict from a jury doesn't change what happened. The only people that knew what happened, with certainty, when zimmerman and martin met are zimmerman and martin. With martin dead, that just leaves zimmerman. Anyone else claiming to know with certainty, making claims about martin jumping out of bushes or attacking from behind, well those people are liars and the not guilty verdict does not give them cover to lie

 

[hunarcy]

If Zimmerman was stalking me at night I too would turn on him and shove that gun up his ass. Martin had no way of knowing his stalker was a gun pussy who was out hunting negroes. Having 7 run-ins with the police since 2013 is a pretty good indication to anyone with a room temperature IQ that this guy is bad news.

Why lie?

 

[hunarcy]

you would feel differently if it was your child who was followed and shot down.

My child when he was younger would've came home if some man was following him. He wouldn't of attacked him.

How can you go home when some one is holding on to you and not letting go.

Didn't happen. Why do you have to CREATE a narrative to justify your view? Could it be because the facts show that Martin was the aggressor? Nah, couldn't be that.

The facts absolutely never showed that.

IF you look back, I said that testimony said. I never claimed that "facts showed anything".

 

[Agit8r]

Seems like common sense to me. How could anyone disagree unless they want Nazi-style vigilantism?

"no man having a natural right to be the judge between himself and another, it is his natural duty to submit to the umpirage of an impartial third."
-- Thomas Jefferson; from letter to Francis Gilmer (June 7, 1816)

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Lawmaker seeks to restrict Alabama s Stand Your Ground law with Trayvon Martin Act AL.com

I wish them luck.

Too bad George Zimmereman did not use Florida's stand your ground law as his legal defense.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

you would feel differently if it was your child who was followed and shot down.

it is not against teh law to watch somebody who is a stranger in your neighborhood.

no one was 'followed and shot' why misrepresent what happened?