George Zimmerman Found Not Guilty
- Thread starter sillysally
- Start date
I followed a police cruiser for 2 hours when I was 18 or 19, I was pulled over eventually for doing so. I was told I could do so unless they where in active pursuit. That was 20 years ago, I doubt I could do th same today with the same result.
I would have probably tried to engage Zimmerman in a conversation when . was that age. In real life Im pretty laid back.
I would have probably tried to engage Zimmerman in a conversation when . was that age. In real life Im pretty laid back.
Honestly that's what I think it comes down to. And it's sad and shitty that it ended the way it did over some guy's ego, wanting to be the hero of the neighborhood.
I don't think the jury's decision was legally incorrect but I think ethically it's a travesty and hopefully some of these castle/stand your ground laws will be de-vagued in the future because they are really inconsistently and at times IMO inappropriately applied.
ps I shoplifted, graffitti'd, and underage drank by 17. So far it didn't turn out that I was a felon in the making.
I don't think the jury's decision was legally incorrect but I think ethically it's a travesty and hopefully some of these castle/stand your ground laws will be de-vagued in the future because they are really inconsistently and at times IMO inappropriately applied.
ps I shoplifted, graffitti'd, and underage drank by 17. So far it didn't turn out that I was a felon in the making.
I'll go you one better. SHE was the one under the restraining order, which she violated by going to her exhusband's home. Legally, per the lautenberg amendment to the GCA of 68, she isn't even supposed to posses a gun because she is under a restraining order. And she shot AT the ex while the children were in the line of fire. So by initiating ANOTHER act of violence, she earned what she got.
How about this one, then? There's no shortage of inconsistently applied self-defense laws to be found. Nor a shortage of racially inconsistently applied self defense laws.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/23/nyregion/23trial.html?_r=5&
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/23/nyregion/23trial.html?_r=5&
Different state, different laws.
For example, when I lived in VA the law required a person to retreat even within their own home. Only after retreat was no longer possible could deadly force be used. OTH VA also had a fleeing felon law, that has allowed store owners to shoot armed robbers in the back as they ran out.
For example, when I lived in VA the law required a person to retreat even within their own home. Only after retreat was no longer possible could deadly force be used. OTH VA also had a fleeing felon law, that has allowed store owners to shoot armed robbers in the back as they ran out.
Last edited:
No, he was not looking in the windows of the houses, he was looking at the houses as he was walking home. Zimmerman made no mention of Trayvon talking on the phone in his 911 call, which we know he was doing at the time. I know when I'm walking and talking at the same time, my eyes tend to scan and wonder the area, not really focusing on anything.
You mean the videos he recorded of a fight that he wasn't in? Many teens do that nowadays. It is very, very common now. What does him having a grill have to do with anything? And what about Zimmerman's domestic violence charge where his own girlfriend filed a restraining order against him, and his charge of battery of a cop? Why not mention those?
So if your walking home and some guy is following you in a car, you try to loose the guy, and the guy comes out of his car and track you on foot, you wouldn't be defensive? If you had a gun in this situation, would you taken it out? Would you think your life was in danger? And how in the world do you know that Trayvon just up and attack him after he was clearly trying to loose him? Does that make any sense to you? How do you know that Zimmerman did not try to physically stop Trayvon from leaving, which lead to the altercation? Zimmerman had both fighting experience AND a gun. It is not a stretch to think that he felt he could handle Trayvon.
His friend who he was talking to told Trayvon that she was worried it was a rapist, which made Trayvon very nervous. The reason he was fighting Zimmerman hard was more than likely due to fear and not for the love of fighting. Whether or not you believe the caller, that she heard Trayvon say "Get Off Me", before the line went dead is up to you.
A women would not have gotten out of her car to follow a "suspicious" man. She would have just called the police and left it at that, and this whole situation would have been avoided. Even if a women did start following him, a women following you is a lot less intimidating than a large man.
You mean the videos he recorded of a fight that he wasn't in? Many teens do that nowadays. It is very, very common now. What does him having a grill have to do with anything? And what about Zimmerman's domestic violence charge where his own girlfriend filed a restraining order against him, and his charge of battery of a cop? Why not mention those?
So if your walking home and some guy is following you in a car, you try to loose the guy, and the guy comes out of his car and track you on foot, you wouldn't be defensive? If you had a gun in this situation, would you taken it out? Would you think your life was in danger? And how in the world do you know that Trayvon just up and attack him after he was clearly trying to loose him? Does that make any sense to you? How do you know that Zimmerman did not try to physically stop Trayvon from leaving, which lead to the altercation? Zimmerman had both fighting experience AND a gun. It is not a stretch to think that he felt he could handle Trayvon.
His friend who he was talking to told Trayvon that she was worried it was a rapist, which made Trayvon very nervous. The reason he was fighting Zimmerman hard was more than likely due to fear and not for the love of fighting. Whether or not you believe the caller, that she heard Trayvon say "Get Off Me", before the line went dead is up to you.
A women would not have gotten out of her car to follow a "suspicious" man. She would have just called the police and left it at that, and this whole situation would have been avoided. Even if a women did start following him, a women following you is a lot less intimidating than a large man.
This thread perfectly illustrates why he was not convicted. so much "how do you know that" "how do you know this didn't happen"
We DON'T know and that's why he wasn't convicted. Not enough evidence to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt. Whether we like it or not it is still Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law not guilty until proven innocent.
We DON'T know and that's why he wasn't convicted. Not enough evidence to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt. Whether we like it or not it is still Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law not guilty until proven innocent.
Maybe for you PERSONALLY, but under the law, the taking if another human life is homocide, not necessarily murder. Certain things have to be proven *beyond a reasonable doubt* for it to be concidered murder, and here they were not. You seem to have a super narrow definition of murder--EVERYONE who ever takes a human life is guilty of murder? Really? What about people who kill an intruder trying to kill their family? What about a soldier in wartime? According to the above post you think they are guilty of murder.... 
