Zimmerman Martin Case

peptogizmo

New member
If she'd killed him, she'd have had a better chance of claiming self defence. That seems clear from the things written about the SYG law in this thread.
 

its_me_again

New member
Quote the laws and show me the problems with them.

And both had nothing to do with the Zimmerman case.



There will be no federal case unless they just make something up.
Do you have any idea what federal law he could even be charged with?




I’ll call bull on this since there we at least 2 witness and she went out and got the gun and came back.
 

easty

New member
Hardly. She went to get a gun then returned to shoot a warning shot at the man.

Whereas as far as anyone can tell, Zimmerman was attacked by Martin and shot him in self-defence.

I believe Zimmerman was an idiot and he could have easily taken actions that didn't result in Martins death, but legally he is innocent.
 

OliviaT

New member
nonsense that stand your ground had nothing to do with the zimmerman case. did you read about the instructions to the jury? very clearly stand your ground.

my problem with both "stand your ground" and castle doctrine is that it gives people the right, seemingly, to shoot first and ask questions later. sure, they then have to prove it in court, but look, a 17 year old unarmed boy is dead. for what? he was walking at night, while black, armed with skittles, someone was following him, there was a confrontation. now, the boy is dead, as in he's never coming back. even if zimmerman was found guilty of manslaughter or 2nd degree murder, trayvon martin is still dead, because some jerk decided he was going to patrol his neighborhood at night, armed, and didn't like some other person walking through it. that's what started this whole thing: an armed george zimmerman stalked trayvon martin at night because he was suspicious looking.

from the web....said jury instructions....notice where the judge says "stand...ground"...
 

Fizzdude

New member
Here is another interesting case that flies in the face of the only reason Zimmerman got off was because Martin was black or Zimmerman only go off because it was Florida.

Or even that 17 year old Martin was no threat to Zimmerman.

By the way this is New York.







see more:http://rochester.ynn.com/content/top_stories/490926/jury-finds-roderick-scott-not-guilty/
 
But they had. They seen it as a cxase of SD. The first prosecutor, DA, Judge, were fired or disimissed.

Also fired, was the person in charge of the IT department



Nope. It is only when a black agianst white is when the media gets its panties in a bunch.

Free pass and stuff goes on all of the time.

This is a political and racial case just like OJ.
 

Osiris

Member
It is to my understanding that GZ was on the ground getting his head pounded on the concrete by TM. At that point, if GZ provoked the altercation is irrevelent IMHO. If my ass was being kicked this bad and I had a handgun, I would definitly use it. GZ was pretty beat up while Martin's only injury was the gunshot.

Even if he was found non-guilty, Martin's parents will sue Zimmerman for everything he owns.
 

Sophiesmom

New member
I would hope that a public discussion would develop that would educate people on how to handle situations that get out of control. Besides the loss of life many other lives have been permanently altered because of an event that could have been avoided.

At the end of the day it's not about laws, race, or guns...it's about violence and a culture that people feel the need to express themselves violently or resort to violence at the drop of a hat. It seems violence has become the norm instead of a last resort and that's the discussion that should be going on now on all venues.
 

smita

Member
The defense never raised stand your ground during the entire trial.

Per the juror that spoke public that was not considered but only justifiable force.

So even though they could consider it the point was never made and not considered.

Do you want me to quote the law (as I already have) again and you pick out the part you think is wrong or you just quote the part of this law you think is so bad.
 

TeSe

Member
did you read the jury instructions i just posted? the defense didn't need to raise stand your ground, it was raised by the judge.

and i've already stated why i oppose "stand your ground" and castle doctrine.
 

JohnC

Member
So you believe you have the duty to run even from your own home if you are attacked.

And I read the instructions from the judge but you fail to understand SYG was not part of the defense claim and had to bearing on the outcome.
 

phxwolf2

New member
so you're saying that you couldn't already do that, defend yourself in your own home? of course you can and could. as i said, my problem is it creates this mentality where everyone is armed, and everyone is shooting first, asking questions later. there's actually been some statistics generated that homicides have gone up because of the law. there's also anecdotal evidence that people are using the law to kill people thinking they're justified. i was just recently reading about a man who shot up a car full of african american teenagers because he got into a verbal argument over their loud music.

how can you say that a law had no bearing on the outcome case when the judge reads the law in the jury instructions?
 

Chief

Member
According to an article Philosoraptor linked to earlier in the thread, it averages at an extra 600 deaths in states with SYG laws a year.
 
Top