Not sure that is even true. Even if true, it would be so only as a way of limiting civil liability and has nothing to do with the criminal case. Regardless, Zimmerman was not really acting as a neighborhood watch anyway since he was actually about to leave the complex when he saw Martin.
This was an interest fact that I didn't know until yesterday. Zimmerman was not actually a neighborhood watch on patrol when this happened, he was going to the grocery story and acted only because he was concerned.
More than a dozen arrested after last night's Trayvon protests. Rocks and batteries thrown in LA... http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/07/15/zimmerman-verdict-protestors-block-los-angeles-freeway/
This is where I was at on Saturday, but changed my mind when I realized the flaw of the thinking. The issue here is that negligence alone can not be the case for a manslaughter conviction. There needs to be more. Zimmerman followed TM and did act recklessly and against his training. There should be consequences to that. But he could not have anticipated that TM would jump on him and put him into a position where he feared for his life. You can't ask Zimmerman to choose between his life and going to jail for 20 years. Essentially that is what you are saying. And following TM in and off itself can't be considered a crime - it's not. You can not prove that Zimmerman followed TM knowing that it could likely result in his death - and that is where the manslaughter conviction falls apart. If you could show that GZ was looking for a confrontation and wanted to get into a fight - by throwing the first punch or saying something overtly threatening, then yeah, I would back the manslaughter charge in a heart beat. But its not there.
yes, but I think it goes beyond "fright or fear" when you are actually in the process of getting attacked. GZ did not have an escape route if TM was on top of him hitting him. In that situation, GZ has a right to defend himself even if what he did prior to that was in the wrong. It wasnt a heat of passion type of killing, it was a self-defense one. If TM had been shouting at him or in his face, and GZ pulled a gun and shot him, then yeah, that's manslaughter - easy. But he was on the ground with someone on top of him attacking him. As someone in martial arts, you would know that's a very vulnerable and dangerous position to be in - one where seriously bodily harm can result.
http://www.bondaction.org/content/article/37076/Black Racism Killed Trayvon This article is on point with how I feel about this whole ordeal.
Stand your ground does not give you the right to be the aggressor. Again, you can't just attack someone for following you and then claim stand your ground. I agree, both can be considered aggressors. If ZM pushed TM, and TM responded with a fist, I would consider them both being aggressors. But simply verbally speaking to someone does not constitute the right to physically attack someone.
Very faulty logic. You are basing this off off GZ's video testimony. Other evidence and GZ's flip-flopping suggest he did FOLLOW Trayvon. Martin was the instigator? Really...I did not know being a young black man on a rainy night automatically makes him the aggressor. GZ started the fight, and if anyone was defending himself, it was Trayvon in order to get away from an ARMED, FAKE cop that suspected someone was 'up to no good" based on his profiling. People never fail to surprise me with making crap up just to portray a killer as a hero. GZ is a disgrace to Florida, America, REAL police officers and every young man walking around late at night without any illegal intentions.
I'm thinking your problem goes deeper than just liberalism. I wonder if something is actually wrong with you. Like mentally. WHAT THE PHUCQ is a man to do if his head is being smashed into the ground and he can't defend himself? I don't get it man. Afraid I never will. The phucqing law says you can use deadly force to prevent bodily injury. You know why? Legislators wrote the law using common, God given sense. But you won't come back with a valid argument, so I will never know what you're trying to say.
Yes, Texxx, we know you are thrilled that a guilty man got away and that the victim was just another "thug." Your posting history shows your general distaste for minorities, both socially and politically. No one in this thread is going to say "hooray, people vandalized something after a verdict" But, most of us understand that this case will cause tensions for years to come because of people that fail to recognize that race is still a huge social issue in America, and in this case, may have led to the murder of a young man.
I don't think anyone is portraying Zimmerman as a hero. This whole situation is a tragedy. You also seem to be viewing Trayvon as a completely innocent character. It's clear the kid had some major issues.
I haven't seen bigtexx this excited since Bush defeated Kerry. With 709 posts invested in this thread I guess it's nice to feel like you've personally won something.
You do know Zimmerman's mother is Peruvian and that his Peruvian side of the family has Afro-Peruvian roots right? He spoke Spanish. He lived among and worked with blacks. He was a registered Democrat who voted for Obama twice. He was not the "white" racist that he has been portrayed to be. He is a minority.
http://www.nydailynews.com/man-shoots-teen-loud-music-article-1.1209345 Lets see if this makes national news. I seriously doubt it since this is a clear case of murder. The Zimmerman/Martin trial is like watching a tragic movie a second time. You know exactly how its going to end, but still scream foul after its over.
Give it a rest, already. YOU LOST. Deal with it and move on. The jury got it right because, unlike you, they didn't get emotionally invested in the bull**** spin that was put on this case from day 1. Race causes tensions when people cry wolf and others like you support baseless claims like this one.
