|
This is a sensitive and complex issue, please do not make comments without first reading the facts, which are cataloged in the OP.
If you make an uninformed post, or one that isn't relevant to the discussion, you will be moderated. If in doubt, don't post. |
On July 16 2013 09:35 ImmunityLight wrote: There are many versions of what happened, we don't know and we will never know. The important part is that there is not enough information/evidence that could charge Zimmerman for 2DM. Or manslaughter. Or child abuse, for some reason.
|
|
On July 16 2013 09:28 ImmunityLight wrote: I think there needs to be a review on gun and self defence laws. Certainly not a race issue.
Zimmerman never would have had the courage to encounter Travyon if he didn't have a gun.
Also quoting a friend "you can see someone acting suspiciously, go up to him and confront him verbally at night in the dark, and if he panicks and comes at you you legally have the right to shoot them dead". That's pretty messed up.
There was not enough evidence presented to convict Zimmerman for 2DM, period.
Based on what?
People who are too scared to make simple confrontations with other people, are not people who volunteer to become a watchman. Or have certain interest in cop Work.
|
holy shit. a juror spoke.
wait, thats it.... where is the rest of the interview?
|
Just a personal assumption, Artemis.
|
That's one lengthy interview.
|
Well I did say that it was just a short preview of the interview. The journalist who wrote this article doesn't even cite a source, so we'll have to wait till the interview airs to see the full context of her statements.
B37 is the same juror planning to write the book, by the way.
|
On July 16 2013 09:42 FatChicksUnited wrote: Well I did say that it was just a short preview of the interview. The journalist who wrote this article doesn't even cite a source, so we'll have to wait till the interview airs to see the full context of her statements.
B37 is the same juror planning to write the book, by the way. ugggggghhhhh
|
I was going to read the interview, but I ain't got time for dat. I have to work tomorrow.
|
On July 16 2013 09:44 PassiveAce wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2013 09:42 FatChicksUnited wrote: Well I did say that it was just a short preview of the interview. The journalist who wrote this article doesn't even cite a source, so we'll have to wait till the interview airs to see the full context of her statements.
B37 is the same juror planning to write the book, by the way. ugggggghhhhh Within 5 years we're going to have at least 10 books on the subject. Post-secondary courses, too.
Picture Trayvon Kenobi in a hoodie, telling Zimmerman, "If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful than you can possibly imagine."
|
On July 16 2013 09:42 FatChicksUnited wrote: Well I did say that it was just a short preview of the interview. The journalist who wrote this article doesn't even cite a source, so we'll have to wait till the interview airs to see the full context of her statements.
B37 is the same juror planning to write the book, by the way. Sounds like a good way to profit off of someone's expense.
|
On July 16 2013 09:44 PassiveAce wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2013 09:42 FatChicksUnited wrote: Well I did say that it was just a short preview of the interview. The journalist who wrote this article doesn't even cite a source, so we'll have to wait till the interview airs to see the full context of her statements.
B37 is the same juror planning to write the book, by the way. ugggggghhhhh I knew they were too eager to get famous and rich to remain silent. Just people after all
|
The only thing to take from this trial is 1 important lesson:
If you're 65 yards from your home and you're concerned someone is following you, you go home.
There is no point about profiling. There is no point about race. (Zimmerman being "black" by most definitions, as well, though he would generally be regarded as Hispanic) There is no point about gun laws, as Zimmerman's gun wasn't even drawn. There is no point about Self-Defense laws, as we have unimpeached testimony of Martin on top of Zimmerman swinging at him.
From the information that we have confirmed, Martin waited for Zimmerman. Either openly or hidden. Considering the attendant physical evidence, it's safe to conclude that Martin escalated their interaction into a fight. And that got him dead. Thus, you keep walking home, if you're walking home. Which is why that's the only lesson you take from this case.
|
|
thanks. now i have to fix the op so i can start updating it again.
|
It obviously starts with the infamous knock-knock joke.
|
I love how she said if George Zimmerman would have been spanish, black, or asian, he would have acted the same way.
|
http://rochester.ynn.com/content/top_stories/490926/jury-finds-roderick-scott-not-guilty/
I found this story interesting, of course, we never heard about it.
Older black man, shoots 17 yr old white kid, when it was actually the black man who made the confrontation, something we will never know about the Zimmerman case.
I guess we can loosely see what would have happened if the 'races' were reversed which the pundits seem to love hearing themselves say.
tl;dr he was acquitted on self defense.
|
Basically this case showed that you should always do the safe thing when you encounter some bizarre situation. Yes, Zimmerman was clearly paranoid, probably racist, and weirdly suspicious, but Trayvon made the worst possible decision by trying to actually fight with him. If someone is following you, either he wants to follow you or it's a coincidence. In the latter case, nothing happens, whereas in the former case there's a small chance he might attack you. Why increase that chance to 100% by attacking him first? Just run away, or walk away, or just ask him what he wants and then leave if he makes you feel uncomfortable. If a fight does occur (regardless of who started it, since such things are pretty much impossible to tell after the fact) you have a chance of being killed, since guns are apparently pretty common, so try to avoid getting into one.
|
So is it legal in Florida to kill someone who is attacking you? That's what I don't understand. I get that Travony attacked him (maybe not first but who cares) but how does that give Z the right to SHOOT him? That's what I'm not getting. How can you legally escalate the situation beyond what the (supposed) aggressor is doing? Was he REALLY in fear for his LIFE?
|
|
|
|