FL man shoots unarmed kid. Walks home, has a beer.

I already said that the Jury are the ones I blame the least. The negligent police and the FL laws are who I blame the most.

 

What about the one who wrote the opinion quoted here?

 

Which audio tape would that be exactly? The non emergency calls? You must have a crystal ball or heard something completely different than me and the rest of the jury.

I'm curious, did you listen to the trial at all or are you forming your opinion based on what you read? I ask this simply because the entire trial was played on the local radio station, and when not in my car I streamed it on I heart radio. I didn't hear every second of the trial, but heard a majority of it. Back to that crystal ball?

 

What act of negligence? What specific law?

 

As I'm playing catch up here for the last 30 minutes I missed, I'm glad someone asked this, holy crap!

I listened to at least 80% of the trial with my headphones on at work everyday throughout the trial, regardless if I'm biased, I'd have to be pretty damn dense to still think he's guilty with all the witness testimony.

It bugs me so much that there are so many people basing their opinions on what they read/heard in the media. After listening to each witness, it was disgusting reading the articles where the media would play their tricks and put their liberal spin on it all.

 

The police should have done a more thorough initial investigation.

The FL gun and self defense laws, including "stand your ground."

And before you say "the defense didn't use 'stand your ground,'" the Jury was in fact advised about the law.

 

The executioner described Martin as being in his late teens.

 

No. You are wrong.

They were instructed on justifiable use of deadly force. Not much different here than the other states. Sorry.

 

What do you think they missed in the initial investigation?

Advised or not, stand your ground was not used as a defense. Self defense is pretty common throughout the US.

 

Stand your ground did not apply in this case. He was pinned down! It doesn't matter if he did or did not have the duty to retreat, he was pinned down! damn!

 

Am I?

From the instructions:

"If George Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in anyplace where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony."

Sounds like they were instructed on "stand your ground." The duty of gun toters to retreat is where a lot of states differ from FL. Zman did the opposite of retreat. He followed Martin and confronted him.

 

That's the use of force instruction. The now maligned stand you ground defense is a grant of immunity decided by the judge.

 

That instruction started with an "if", you know?

The lethal force was not needed until TM attacked him and pinned him down, had he not been pinned down then Stand your ground would apply.

 

wrong, he followed then stopped, TM went home, then came back and confronted GZ. Or did you just conveniently omit that from what you "heard"?

 

And once again, there is zero proof that it was GZ made initial contact, unthreatening or otherwise.


You sound like the rest of the media, that Zimmerman jumped out of his truck, drew his weapon, sprinted to where TM was and shot him point blank for no apparent reason.

 

IDK what they missed, but from what I've read, the investigation didn't seem very thorough.


Stand your ground was not specifically mentioned by the defense, and that was smart of them, but they certainly tried to paint a picture that met the requirements of it, knowing that the jury would be instructed based on FL's stand your ground laws. Self defense is absolutely common throughout the USA, but what is considered self defense varies by state, and IMO, the way FL's law is written is morally wrong.

 

The 911 call is proof that he was following Martin. The operator even advised him to stop following Martin, which he ignored.

 

I've confronted a few people by my dwelling in the last few years to find out whether or not they were up to no good, not one of them ended up punching me in the face thankfully, but was I wrong for confronting them? I guess I followed them too, since I had to walk up to them to confront them.

You've never confronted someone you thought was suspicious? Never drove back past a suspicious looking parked car on your street?

 

We ain't too moral down here. People should stay away.

 

Seriously, how much of the actual trial did you see and read? If you did see and read most of it, and still come to these conclusions, I honestly don't know what to tell you. You keep talking about GZ instigating violence with TM but NO evidence bore that out. Not one bit. In fact, all evidence pointed to the fact that TM attacked GZ. How exactly are you drawing the conclusions that you are based on the evidence presented?