The Zimmie Verdict is in

[Farbin Kaiber]

you still should leave the following and accosting of people walking down the street to the cops...

The world you live in must be a twisted place, the only thing I took from your post was this. To think that it's ok for police to accost and follow people. Plenty of people are "followed" in the city by other people on the same sidewalk, and you don't see them have the lack of self control to brutally attack the person that happens to be walking behind them.

[BraveUlysses]

"happens to be walking behind them" isn't "following" someone in the sense that GZ did.

[Farbin Kaiber]

Doesn't matter, that dead kid's parents should have taught him to have some self control, and respect for his elders, and speak to someone before viciously attacking them and threatening to kill them. "happens to be walking behind them" and "following" should be treated with the exact same response until the "followed individual" could have verified the "follower" had malicious intent.

[2761377]

, no weapon,

FBI crime statistics for 2011, the latest year available, show that more people were killed with "Hands, Fists or Feet" than shotguns and rifles combined.

STFU about Martin being un-armed.

[Q5Quint]

Farbin, did you forget to read my whole post?

Florida law makes it legal for me to judo chop, mace, taze etc (non-lethal) somebody that is following me in a way that I believe I am in danger. BUT there is a issue with that law~

The problem with the stand your ground laws is that after my danger punch/chop/whatever then if george zim (or the rapist in the alleyway example) 'feels like his life is in danger' he can pull his gun and shoot and not be prosecuted AT ALL.

So technically we both just acted legally under the law, but now I am dead. Seems odd, doesn't it?

Everything about this case is hear-say evidence because the only other person actually there on scene was shot dead. George getting out of the car to follow treyvon is getting close to intent, but not all the way there (he was the hood watchman after all).

Zimmerman could have cornered treyvon (or your daughter) in an alley, raped him, shot him, and then beat himself up to claim self defense, and not been charged with anything AT ALL. LEGALLY. This is not what happened, but how do we know? Were there any cameras or witnesses?

The fact that treyvon was a 17 year old black male in a hoodie that was high does not make it 'more okay' than if this was a white girl in a hoodie that was high. That is where the racism card comes into play. There is something I read once about equal protection under law for everyone, no matter what race or sex, somewhere if I remember correctly.

If I see a truck with a dude in it following me around, and a guy gets out of the car and follows me anywhere... that is not 'just happening to be walking down the same road', that is enough to raise suspicions of my personal safety.

Zim should not have gotten out of the car and waited on the police. (Legal)

Martin should have called the police on Zim, not attacked him (assuming that is actually what happend). (Legal)

Zim had the right to defend himself if he thought martin was going to kill him. (Legal).

It is a chain of unfortunate events that can ONLY be verified by Zimmermans story and anecdotal evidence from phone calls he and martin made.

Next time you are walking down the street and somebody 'just happens to be walking the same way as you' just remember that they could kill you and get away with it legally (get out of a jury trial) because your "Hands, Fists or Feet" are deadly weapons (you are armed) and you, according to his story, threatened to kill him so he had to shoot you first.

Luckily for your killer you are dead so nobody will hear your story, and if you are black and have a picture of tupac on your wall you are obviously a gangster and a menace to society.

George was looking for a fight~ that is why he got out of his truck. He got one.

Changing the law would ONLY mean that this situation would HAVE to go before a jury. I believe the jury would have had the exact same conclusions based on the evidence at hand. However, I would not want a rapist to not even go on trial because my daughter had a pistol in her purse and he claims she pulled it on him so he had to shoot her first. I would at least want a jury to look at his history vs my daughters history and see if he might be lying. She could be raped and they wouldnt even test her because zimmerman goes to church every week with the magistrate, so of course he wasn't the bad guy. Of course it was self defense. That is my issue with the law- it creates too many loopholes.

[mrsleeve]

^

You obviously dont understand the law and the rules regarding escalation of force and self defense.


Following someone and starting a conversation is NOT A CRIME. Physically attacking someone for asking you a question (even if a confrontational one) IS A CRIME. Tray Tray is the one that escalated the confrontation into a physical one and was the aggressor, there for what Tray tray did was a crime and was against the law, and in doing so forfeited his rights to self defense as soon as he tossed the 1st punch......


if your daughter is getting raped and pulles her pistol she is justfied in that, if he kills her, with it or with his own because he was in fear of his life at that point HES GOING TO PRISON FOR MURDER ONE. He was the aggressor not her there for his rights to self defense are forfeited

[Q5Quint]

Do you even law?

And your second example is all hear-say because there are no witnesses. All he has to do is tell the jury that she pulled a gun on him and, if he had no criminal record, then you have your doubt, and he may get away with nothing.

I find it interesting that you are trying to tell me about "rules regarding escalation of force and self defense." without quoting the actual law.

CHAPTER 776 JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/...entsIndex.html

You are correct, following someone and starting a conversation is not a crime..... but:

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.

If Treyvon "believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself" he could have killed zimmerman legally just for imminent threat (not actual). Since zimmerman actually did shoot and kill him, the physical attack could have been, by the letter of this law, justified, since death did actually happen to treyvon.

I am clearly not arguing for or against treyvon or zimmerman, I am only trying to discuss the issues related to this type of law.

If you are following someone and trying to start a conversation, with a gun, and not in a uniform, at what point will the person you are following THINK there is "imminent use of unlawful force"?

and in doing so forfeited his rights to self defense as soon as he tossed the 1st punch......

False. Sort of:

776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.
History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1190, ch. 97-102.

So from Martins perspective: Zimmerman is following him, he feels threatened so he attacks zimmerman (legal from imminent threat section 776.012), zimmerman responds by pulling a gun, so even if treyvon 'started it' now section 2(a) kicks in for treyvon which means he can now kill zimmerman legally (again) in self defense because 'imminent death'. He could have been legal to kill zimmerman.

From Zimmerman's perspective: He is following a possible felon/burgler, treyvon jumps out from a bush to attack him, in the fight zimmerman feels like 'imminent death' is about to happen so he pulls his gun and shoots treyvon. He was legal to do so.

The law is clear. If you feel threatened you can respond with force. You do not have to wait for your rapist/follower to hit you over the head before you can hit them back. Even if you provoke a fight, you can still use self-defense to protect your own life.

Assault is a misdomener, not a felony, so it will be up to the judge to decide if section 776.041 applies when the person you 'attack' (in self-defense, confusing right?) responds with a force of 'imminent danger of death' and you have 'no reasonable means to escape' so you can kill them.

The issue is with hear-say 'evidence' where we don't know what actually happened in the situation because we weren't there. THAT is why it should at least go to jury trial so the rapist that attacked my daughter and claimed self-defense because she had a gun, who was buddy-buddy with the local DA, cant get off quite as easily, like zimmerman almost did without trial.

I havent looked it up in a while but I remember witnesses thought zimmerman was on top of treyvon, and something about the phone call thought treyvon was attacked by zimmerman.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/26/justice/zimmerman-trial

But it is all hear-say and not good, hard evidence to convict anyone of anything.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/05/us/tra...cts/index.html

How about zimmermans wife's purgery? Or the wrongful death settlement between martins parents and the home owners association?

I cant tell who is right or who is wrong in this situation because dead men tell no tales. The confidence in treyvon's guilt and the ability of these laws to be abused is what gets me.

Sanford Police Chief Bill Lee says that Zimmerman has not been charged because there are no grounds to disprove his story of the events.

That guy quit, but you can see how that is not a good statement to issue especially when the phone call between treyvon and his girlfriend came out.

[mrmckie]

^^^^ouch...lol

MrSleeve
You keep say Treyvon attacked Zimmerman but guess what..you can't prove it. maybe he did attack first but wouldn't you? If i was following you with a gun do you think that i would want to have a conversation with you??? No the hell you wouldn't, therefore your first thought is self preservation, fight or flight. Each person is different, some run, some stand and fight. Zimmerman ran into the fighter allegedly and got his ass beat so he decided to shoot that poor kid. You don't know if Zimmerman had his gun out when he approched Treyvon, you don't know if he said "excuse me young man what are you doing here at this time of night", or "hey mofo what the f are you doing in my neighborhood".

People were also judging this kid based on his FB posts and pics...really FB, the internet, land of phonies??? he's a teenager, teenagers experiment and do dumb shyt that's no indication that he was a bad kid. Based on all the personal testimonials from people about Zimmerman he appears to be a nice guy to me not this monster that the media was trying to make him out to be. He was just too over ambitious in this situation and it ended with the loss of a life because either way he put himself in a spot that he could have totally avoided and ended up killing someone's child.

[mrsleeve]

working 16+ hour days right now, have not had time to respond properly. but a quote form the code dose not mean there is proper understanding of said quotation. As for tray tray attcacking 1st, this is what the evidence at the trial showed and confirmed so ......... I am not going to continue to post on this in depth from my phone

[2761377]

the loser of the fist fight is obvious- zimmerman. he, and he alone, had injuries inflicted by the scuffle.

none of the other BS about following or profiling is pertinant- zimmerman was losing a fight and escalated the force level to protect himself.

end of story, except for race-baiters and morons.

[Q5Quint]

So calling the cops on 5 previous occasions, only about black males, was not racial profiling by zimmerman?

Following a person, a person who had already ran from you, after being told to not leave your truck, was not instigating a fight?

Treyvons girlfriend was on the phone with him at the time george stopped treyvon. Said she heard someone ask him what he was doing then it sounded like the headset was knocked to the ground~ so it appears george snuck up on martin while he was on the phone, then either he or treyvon started fighting, ending in treyvon getting shot.

Neighbors and treyvons girlfriend said they heard what sounded like a boy cry out 'help help' before the shot. A investigator said it was zimmerman yelling for help, but nobody can tell for sure. Would you yell for help right before you shot somebody? Or if you were about to be shot?

It bothers me how conclusive everyone is about this case when it is inconclusive. We don't and can't know what happened aside from the inconclusive 'evidence' and trying to pry into the backgrounds of these characters.

If you were being followed, in your dads neighborhood, by some random guy, are you just going to hang out and wait for him to have a nice conversation with you?

Jeantel says she heard Martin talking to Zimmerman in the background of the call.
"He said, 'Why are you following me for?' And I heard a hard-breathing man say, 'What you doing around here?'" said Jeantel.
Jeantel also said she heard a bump from Martin's headset hitting something and "wet grass sounds."
"I start hearing a little bit of Trayvon saying, 'Get off, get off!'" said Jeantel.

Are you SURE that treyvon 'attacked' george? Or did he chase after and attack treyvon? Are you SURE that the 'evidence' from the trial showed that treyvon attacked first? Or is that just what zimmerman said and what *could have happened?

Are you SURE george didnt grab treyvon to stop him walking away (illegal) and treyvon hit him a few times in the face in self-defense to get away?

Again, for this particular case... we don't know.

For future cases where george wouldn't even have been charged at all because of 'self-defense' is what worries me. A jury should at least look at the evidence right?

The worst part is that if I get murdered in the street by a gangster the defense is going to look at my facebook and decide that I am a drunk redneck who listens to the grateful dead and works on beatup old cars. Clearly I hate black people and attacked first.

That kind of 'background check' is not a good way of determining a persons character. Just because I have pictures of hatchet throwing, shotgun shooting, and hank williams the 3rd on my facebook does not mean I am a racist anymore than blunts and glocks and tupac make you a gangster.

I can see the headlines now:

"A redneck hippie who likes guns and lesbians and david allen coe was shot and killed today when he attacked a black man in a drunken rage at 2am. The man who shot and killed q5quint in self defense, a 3 time convicted felon who recently converted to Christianity, said he was attacked in a dark alleyway at 2am and was trying to wrestle the stolen firearm from q5quints hands when it accidentally went off 3 times, once shooting his attacker in the head. When asked why the man had taken q5quints wallet and cell phone back to his home he replied that it was for 'evidence' to give to his pastor to ask what to do, and he was definitely not robbing q5quint with a stolen gun at all"

It would be nice if that case could at least go before a jury, but with no real 'evidence' and your word vs his + his pastor....... you have to admit that something is wrong there.

[BraveUlysses]

the loser of the fist fight is obvious- zimmerman. he, and he alone, had injuries inflicted by the scuffle.

none of the other BS about following or profiling is pertinant- zimmerman was losing a fight and escalated the force level to protect himself.

end of story, except for race-baiters and morons.

If that's really the end of the story why do you feel the need to keep making terrible posts in this thread?

Fortunately, adults with functioning brains find ways to discuss the facts and implications from this trial without your useless input.

[Thizzelle]

from what people are saying in here, I don't even think most people posting in here even watched the trial.

[2761377]

If that's really the end of the story why do you feel the need to keep making terrible posts in this thread?

to call out race baiters like you. why do you keep insisting there is more to this than simple self-defense?

allow me to posit a theory- your agenda is more important (to you) than the facts.

[BraveUlysses]

to call out race baiters like you. why do you keep insisting there is more to this than simple self-defense?

allow me to posit a theory- your agenda is more important (to you) than the facts.

My agenda? I have no agenda. Being able to discuss racial issues isn't "race baiting".

Stop posting. Just stop.