|
11079. iiibbb - 7/11/2013 5:10:29 PM Who's making stuff up?
FACT - Martin was in the neighborhood
FACT - Zimmerman followed him and was recorded following him in his car
FACT - Zimmerman was advised to stay in car, but got out anyway
FACT - Zimmerman was followed martin into an area where cars can't go
FACT - Martin Confronted Zimmerman
UNKNOWN - what was said, who attacked who first
FACT - Zimmerman shot Martin
Impossible to know - Zimmerman's state of mind
Impossible to know - Martin's state of mind
Obvious through logic - Zimmerman, if assuming Martin is up to something unlawful, should have recognized the inherent risk in confronting a person alone, in the dark.
Obvious through law - There is no duty to retreat - for either Martin or Zimmerman
Obvious through law - If you witness or have reason to believe that someone was up to something unlawful as shown above, you can shoot.
He may very well get off as the law is written... but Zimmerman stinks...
Obvious --- don't get into confrontations with people in Florida, because they can shoot you purely on what they believe you're going to do. 11080. arkymalarky - 7/11/2013 5:13:20 PM The last obvious on your list is the one that I think is the most important one wrt impact. 11081. arkymalarky - 7/11/2013 5:14:00 PM If Z is acquitted. 11082. judithathome - 7/12/2013 12:22:18 AM My "facts" are coming from what I have observed every day in testimony from the trial. I have heard everything the jury has heard. Yes, it shows a bit of madness in me that I taped...and watched...ALL of the trial. But I think I know what I heard and I think I am intelligent enough to interpret what I heard.
Z has told many things to the police that don't add up...for instance, he was on his back, in the grass, on the concrete and yet, at the police station, the picture of the back of his jacket is shows it to be immaculate...not grass stains, no scrapes from the cement, no wetness....nice trick for someone who was on his back being pounded and ground into the surface of both grass and cement. 11083. judithathome - 7/14/2013 3:00:25 AM Not Guilty.
11084. robertjayb - 7/14/2013 3:14:16 AM Brave, smart women. They did good work 11085. anomie - 7/14/2013 4:17:04 AM Yes, kudos to the jury and I'm happy to have been wrong.
I agree with Don West, one of the defense attys, the prosecution was shameful. 11086. Wombat - 7/14/2013 4:28:30 AM A teenage boy is dead because some wannabe larry-lawman took the law into his own hands. I understand how the verdict was reached. I hope Martin's family sues the living shit out of Zimmerman. 11087. anomie - 7/14/2013 4:37:26 AM Hey Wombat. Prove it! 11088. arkymalarky - 7/14/2013 4:37:35 AM I accept the jury system and a jury verdict. I wonder if people on the other side of the case would feel the same had it played out differently. 11089. anomie - 7/14/2013 4:39:29 AM No, because a guilty verdict would have been appealed and would have been thrown out.
11090. arkymalarky - 7/14/2013 4:40:39 AM either you accept the legal system we have or you don't based on whether or not you get your way. 11091. anomie - 7/14/2013 4:45:04 AM Too simple, Arky. There was no evidence of murder. There was no evidence Z took the law into his own hands. You want to live in a country where we convict people with no evidence? I have never seen a trial where the conversation about evidence has been so silly, and where so many assumptions are just taken as fact. There is absolutely no way in your mind that Martin could have attacked Zimmerman. Just could never happen because he was just a poor innocent teen with skittles. That's your evidence. 11092. arkymalarky - 7/14/2013 4:47:19 AM Not too simple. Either you accept the justice system when you don't get your way or you don't. Period. 11093. arkymalarky - 7/14/2013 4:47:51 AM Apart from all of this, we'd better start having a conversation as a country about the insanity that has become our system of dealing with gun violence. and I say this is a gun owner who believes in the right to defend yourself with guns. It's getting crazy. 11094. arkymalarky - 7/14/2013 4:53:22 AM Had I been in Martin's shoes and been armed I would have dealt with someone stalking meconva dark street with all the force available to him. So my contention has always been that Martin's confrontation was justified. 11095. arkymalarky - 7/14/2013 4:54:54 AM ...me on a dark street with all the force available to me.... 11096. anomie - 7/14/2013 5:00:40 AM Yes too simple. Guilty verdicts are routinely appealed to protect things like OUR RIGHTS. Remember those? Really, I don't know where ya'll are coming from. Talk about vigilanties, you all have Zimmerman beat by a mile!
YOu have no doubt about what happened? Really? You KNOW what took place that dark night? Of course you don't.
Now you have Martin being the aggressor, but you say it was justified. This blows my mind and so I have to quit this.
11097. Wombat - 7/14/2013 5:04:12 AM Anomie,
Don't be an idiot. Zimmerman followed Martin, ignored the advice of the police dispatcher, got out of his car, and encountered Martin. The reason the jury found Zimmerman innocent under the law is because the prosecution was unable to prove that Zimmerman had done so with the intent of confronting Martin. (I thought manslaughter might hold up, but apparently not.) I accept the verdict.
You need to accept the FACT that had Zimmerman done what he--as an allegedly responsible member of his neighborhood watch--was supposed to do, Travon Martin would still be alive. The FACT that he is not has everything to do with Zimmerman's actions. The standard of proof is lower for civil suits, and hopefully Zimmerman will end up paying the consequences for whatever part of his thought processes that led him to get out of his car. 11098. arkymalarky - 7/14/2013 5:09:14 AM I don't know why you have such an emotional investment in this anomie, but it is really clouding your judgment. it's not just about disagreeing over whether Z should be guilty or not, it's your unbelievable total defense of his actions start to finish. I totally agree with Wombat.
|
