We'll see. I don't know. I hope more people will understand that just because you're carrying a gun shouldn't embolden you to be following people around at night. Call the police, keep a safe distance, and let the authorities do their jobs.
That's what you believe. Though you haven't been able to explain how TM could be in that position and still see and reach for and grab a gun that was tucked inside a holster pinned underneath GZ. That's evidence. The prosecution did in fact disprove that could have happened. It has nothing to do with emotion.
1. That's correct they were moving. But movement doesn't mean that during that movement TM somehow did a reverse cowgirl position in order to see the gun that was tucked inside the holster inside of GZ's pants underneath him. Nor does it mean that GZ some how turned all the way over so that the backside of the hip was exposed for TM to see and go for the gun. 2. arms forward would be a natural position for someone reaching for someone in front of them, or perhaps while screaming for help and pleading for their life. It's also could be a boxing position of someone in a fight.
@ABC: #Breaking: #ZimmermanTrial jury asks judge for clarification on the instructions regarding manslaughter
LOL at the notion George was getting beaten to death that night or anything close to it. Pure fantasy that is wholly unsupported by the facts. He took a couple of punches; he was not remotely close to getting beaten to death. That's simply not true.
If GZ gets convicted for manslaughter, I hope he gets close to the minimum of 10 yrs. I think what he was stupid and criminal, but 30 years in prison seems harsh. Florida's mandatory minimums for Manslaughter are very aggressive.
I'm fine with whatever verdict the jury decides. I'm happy that this did go to trial and the evidence was put out there and subject to scrutiny. Me personally, I'd vote for manslaughter.
"Zimmerman supporter outside courthouse yelling at Trayvon supporters --> "go get ur welfare checks" and "go get ur crack." Cops stepped in." https://twitter.com/RealFarrahGray/status/356166335434211329 No mention of this bigtexxx? Is it cause of bias, or did i get ahead of you in posting real news?
A defenseless toddler is dead and the perpetrator walks because of "lack of evidence". A 17 year old is dead, one who could have more easily adverted his death with a little common sense, but the perpetrator will likely go to prison. Both cases have no evidence. The difference? One is racially driven while the other decides the case based on facts.
http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york...l-racial-slur-article-1.1397834#ixzz2YvvjTt5w drunk white guys calls black guy n word black guy knocks him out black guy gets arrested While on the other hand we have GZ following TM, killing him after getting his ass beat and GZ does not get arrested. Hmmmm?
Not comparable. Nobody is suggesting that the toddler wasn't murdered, the problem was that any one of the family members could have done it. In this case, it is clear who did the shooting.
At the end of the proverbial day, this is about the rule of law versus mob rule. In Obamastan mob rule usually carries the day.
@nbcnightlynews: JUST IN: Zimmerman defense and prosecution agree for judge to instruct jury to submit a more specific question.
At this point, it appears this all boils down to the interpretation of "necessarily". Here are the jury instructions on manslaughter: Breaking this down, #1 and #2 clearly happened. Those are not up for dispute. Shooting a gun was not a negligent act, so negligence is out as an excuse. That leaves justifiable homicide and excusable homicide. From the description above, excusable homicide is not relevant because the shooting was not by accident. That leaves justifiable homicide as GZ's not-guilty endgame, defined here as: The dwelling part is irrelevant, so that leaves: Given that they were in a fight - regardless of who started it - a felony was presumably being committed on GZ (and on TM, but that's not relevant here). So the question is how to interpret the word "necessarily". Refman, as the lawyer here, how do you interpret that sentence? Does it mean that homicide was necessary to defend himself? Or something else?
Here's the problem with what you're saying. "At the end of the day if the jury which heard the trial and seen the evidence agrees with me justice was done." "If the jury disagrees me, the only reason is because they are part of an angry mob who's lost all sight of reason. Somehow Obama shares the blame." That's what you're saying. It isn't founded on anything. You realize that the jury could disagree with you and feel that way only because they see the evidence differently than you saw it, but not because of any mob rule?
The only reason there is a jury is because an armed man tracked down an unarmed teen, and there was a physical fight and confrontation. The armed man shot and killed the unarmed teen.
