Zimmerman NOT guilty

[QUOTE=waterdog101;517725]I don't know about the American people, but I know that Zimmerman can be glad I wasn't on the jury. he killed the 17 year old kid and got away with it. Zimmerman did nothing illegal doing the neighborhood watch, Martin did nothing illegal walking down the neighborhood street. Martin had the same rights to be there as Zimmerman did. and just because, Zimmerman thought the kid looked suspicious. called the police, and was told not to follow him any more. but he did and got out of his car and that was the reason for the fight. he got his BUTT Kicked, and he shot and killed the kid. even if he had to shoot the kid to get him off him. it still goes back to Zimmerman being the ROOT cause for the kids Death. there would have been no fight if Zimmerman, hadn't got out of his car and started one. if I had been on the jury, I would have voted Zimmerman guilty, not for shooting the kid to stop the Butt kicking he was getting. but for being the Root cause for the trouble that ended with a 17 year old kid Dead. everyone looks at things different, but thats my take on it. I just can't see it any other way.[/QUOTE]

YOU are kidding right. You make it sound like Trayvon was a freakin choirboy. He WAS NOT.....Yea Zimmerman shot and killed him. Yea, he probably got in over his head, but YOU YOURSELF stated both had a right to be where they were.

When Martin chose to confront Zimmerman, and sucker punched him, and then mounted him "MMA" style, he escalated to the point where Zimmerman KILLED him.

NO one wins. It is unfortunate that even without the evidence to support a murder conviction, you'd convict. I'm GLAD you're not on the jury. And I sure hope you're never on any jury....

Later,

Geo

[QUOTE=GeoFisher;517745]YOU are kidding right. You make it sound like Trayvon was a freakin choirboy. He WAS NOT.....Yea Zimmerman shot and killed him. Yea, he probably got in over his head, but YOU YOURSELF stated both had a right to be where they were.

When Martin chose to confront Zimmerman, and sucker punched him, and then mounted him "MMA" style, he escalated to the point where Zimmerman KILLED him.

NO one wins. It is unfortunate that even without the evidence to support a murder conviction, you'd convict. I'm GLAD you're not on the jury. And I sure hope you're never on any jury....

Later,

Geo[/QUOTE] yea, they both had the right to be where they were.
yea, Zimmerman got in over his head, and it was his own fault. he did it.
yea, Zimmerman chose to confront Martin, by stopping his car and getting out on the boy.
yea, there wouldn't have been a fight if not for Zimmerman, following and confronting the boy.
yea, Zimmerman's actions cost Martin his young life.
yea, I hope I'm never on a jury, thats there for a murder case.
yea, if if I was on the jury for this case, I would listen to all the evidence about the fight and
yea, I would also have enough sense to look back far enough, to see what started the trouble
that cost this young boy his life. and the ROOT cause was Zimmerman himself.

I hope Zimmerman wins his suit against NBC and becomes filthy stinking Rich!!! I also hope Obama pays by being held accountable for his political misuse of power to win over the blacks and florida vote.....but that won't happen.

Sharpton well he is a class A idiot anyway and he will always be that. I expect him to be inflammatory because that's how he rolls and gets paid.

[QUOTE=waterdog101;517750]yea, they both had the right to be where they were.
yea, Zimmerman got in over his head, and it was his own fault. he did it.
yea, Zimmerman chose to confront Martin, by stopping his car and getting out on the boy.
yea, there wouldn't have been a fight if not for Zimmerman, following and confronting the boy.
yea, Zimmerman's actions cost Martin his young life.
yea, I hope I'm never on a jury, thats there for a murder case.
yea, if if I was on the jury for this case, I would listen to all the evidence about the fight and
yea, I would also have enough sense to look back far enough, to see what started the trouble
that cost this young boy his life. and the ROOT cause was Zimmerman himself.[/QUOTE]

We will agree to disagree.....

But to clear the record. The root cause of this, was BLACK THUGS breaking in and terrorizing a neighborhood....

Later,

Geo

You don't convict for MURDER based on root causes. Murder needs two critical components that so many people forget - MALICE and INTENT. George Zimmerman would have had to get out of that car with the INTENT to go shoot and kill Trevon Martin in a malicious fashion, with no regard for human life.

That wasn't the case.

You could have convicted him for MANSLAUGHTER if the killing was unjustified and unlawful. Obviously, the jury didn't see it that way. There was reasonable doubt, enough for them to uphold the Castle Doctrine and say that Zimmerman had the right to stand his ground, to protect himself from death or severe bodily harm with lethal force.

End of story.

As I always say, the one left breathing has a large advantage in the version of the story that gets told. If you're going to get in a pissing contest with somebody, you better go all-in and come out dry.

Now, he'll get sued for wrongful death in Civil Court and probably lose...whatever money or future that he has. Zimmerman's life, though he is still alive as compared to Martin, is pretty much ruined. That's where all of the wannabe Rambo's on the Neighborhood Watch with a flashlight and a pistol need to think twice before they make chase. If a suspicious person is not immediately threatening your life or the life of someone else you want to protect, call the Police and let them do their job. If they don't get there in time to catch them, so be it...it's not worth getting into a fight with a street thug, ending up shooting somebody, and ruining your life. In that manner, I disagree with Zimmerman's actions. BUT, once committed, I don't disagree with him protecting his life with lethal force when the SHTF.

Zimmerman shot and killed Trayvon Martin; There is no doubt about that. There is doubt, however, as to whether or not it was with the intent to run him down and murder him, or in self-defense to protect his own life after the situation turned bad. I, for one, am glad that I live in a place where I can't be locked away based on the rulings of the court of public opinion...where media bias and people who want to rush in and make things about race can't trump the fact that the burden of proof rests upon the prosecution to disprove my innocence. It's sad that a young man lost his life for any reason and I can't imagine the pain felt by his parents. Color of skin is irrelevant in all of that. We'll never know for certain what really happened, but the legal process worked as it should.

Beyond that, I'm not an overly religious man, but I do believe in God. I believe that a man is ultimately judged by the content of his character when his time on Earth is through. That final verdict is always the right one...and the one that really matters. Zimmerman walks out of court with a good idea of what that final verdict will be - He's either comforted or haunted by that right now, but only he knows for sure.

According to some news reports that I heard, the Federal Government is investigating the Martin killing. Reportedly the Federal Govt had started an investigation early on, but stepped aside for Florida's investigation. The news report stated they may be restarting their investigation into the killing. I imagine it is most likely on Obama's orders although no one will never be able to prove it. Probably that fat lady has not sung yet.

[QUOTE=DJD;517721]Exactly!!! That's why they called him White Hispanic.....is that an option on forms? You know when you fill out an application or something?? Is it just another term made up to help rally against whites?[/QUOTE]
What the hell do you mean, "that's why they called him White Hispanic?" It was CNN that came up with that term, after he had already been charged, and they took a lot of grief over it, as they should have.

[QUOTE=MrSplitshot;517753]You don't convict for MURDER based on root causes. Murder needs two critical components that so many people forget - MALICE and INTENT. George Zimmerman would have had to get out of that car with the INTENT to go shoot and kill Trevon Martin in a malicious fashion, with no regard for human life.

That wasn't the case.

You could have convicted him for MANSLAUGHTER if the killing was unjustified and unlawful. Obviously, the jury didn't see it that way. There was reasonable doubt, enough for them to uphold the Castle Doctrine and say that Zimmerman had the right to stand his ground, to protect himself from death or severe bodily harm with lethal force.

End of story.[/QUOTE]
The Castle Doctrine was not brought into play, or there never would have been a trial (if it was accepted, that is). And unless you've read the jurors' minds, there's no way to know if they acquitted him based on self-defense or on reasonable doubt.

[QUOTE=RoadToad;517759]What the hell do you mean, "that's why they called him White Hispanic?" It was CNN that came up with that term, after he had already been charged, and they took a lot of grief over it, as they should have.[/QUOTE]

I didn't check the timeline on when that term was used. I was just saying that the idea of black on black or Hispanic on black raises less hell. If the guy had a last name like Sanchez or spoke with a strong Hispanic accent things would have been different. They used the term because it sounded better and served their purpose of ratings.
I understand what you saying....that the term wasn't used before he was charged but to assume no one used racism aginst zimmerman or in favor of Trevon in any form before the charges is foolish.
As we know this trial was another case of racism run wild no one knows to what depth because people hide it when it's not convenient.

[QUOTE=RoadToad;517760]The Castle Doctrine was not brought into play, or there never would have been a trial (if it was accepted, that is). And unless you've read the jurors' minds, there's no way to know if they acquitted him based on self-defense or on reasonable doubt.[/QUOTE]

Maybe my interpretation is wrong...I'm certainly not a lawyer, nor did I stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night...but if we know that he shot Martin, what else could they have acquitted him on, aside from the claim of self-defense or reasonable doubt?

[QUOTE=MrSplitshot;517763]Maybe my interpretation is wrong...I'm certainly not a lawyer, nor did I stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night...but if we know that he shot Martin, what else could they have acquitted him on, aside from the claim of self-defense or reasonable doubt?[/QUOTE]
Exactly. Either they completely bought his claim of self defense, or the prosecution simply didn't prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. Until one of the jurors speaks out, we can only guess. Personally, I would speculate that it was the latter, because there wasn't any solid evidence to prove one way or the other who was the aggressor. There was only testimony from unreliable sources, and yes I'm including Zimmerman himself as one of those, because his story changed more than once, and it would not be unreasonable to wonder whether or not he was telling the truth.