George Zimmerman found Not Guilty.

You continue to post that ridiculous bs as if it bore some resemblance to Zimmernan's experience. Why haven't you checked that bizarre crap against the physical evidence?

Please. If you actually look at that picture, you will see a couple of mild abrasions on Zimmerman's nose, which is not bleeding from the nostrils (couple of scratches on the tip) and does not appear to be broken.

That guy did not take much, if any, beating at all. I've hurt myself worse than that trying to open a can of tuna fish. Head wounds bleed heavily for their size, and I've bled more than that photo from picking my nose - the times I've actually broken it, the main symptom was that the bleeding was severe and wouldn't quit. Do we have any actual evidence that Martin broke Zimmerman's nose? That Martin ever punched Zimmerman at all?

Not that anyone would be surprised if Martin had hit him - he was certainly within his rights to do so, given Zimmerman's behavior. But Zimmerman was not seriously beaten that night, by anyone.

And the trivial damage to Zimmerman's face matches the physical evidence on Zimmerman's hands, which were unmarked (no self-defense at all), and on Martin's hands and clothes, which was nothing much - how Martin managed to pound on a guy's bloody face and beat his head on the sidewalk without getting any blood on his hands or clothing, without hurting his hands, without discovering the gun, without doing any more damage than the petty stuff Zimmerman suffered, is a mystery with an easy solution: Zimmerman made the whole thing up. And that was the conclusion of the lead forensic witness in the trial, who stated that the physical evidence did not support in any respect and contradicted in several, even Zimmerman's final account (let alone the several he tried out in the weeks before his arrest).

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Then, as we have learned here, he is justified in shooting her, since he might see her as a threat.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No,

than as we have learned from jury, and not just here on internet from random people, is that he is justified in self defending himself, since she has done physical harm and expressed intention to kill.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Right. Both are justified in killing each other under SYG.

 

That would be the danger in it. There are numerous ways to to construe "reasonable self defense" as distinct from SYG in practice. Then again, removing the requirement to retreat could be used by aggressive parties maliciously. Surely there's a solution to this.

 

You have got to be kidding me.

Other than the autopsy results that show Trayvon Martin had injuries to his knuckles from punching Zimmerman?

Except the autopsy results show Trayvon Martin had injuries to his knuckles consistent with the entire account by Black Hispanic, fat-boy Zimmerman. You do remember Zimmerman's grandfather was Black. And Tiassa made the case that "Black" is dominate in terms of 'race'. Oh good. I wanted to make sure I follow both of your's so-called 'Race Logic' to it's so-called 'Logical Conclusion'. IMO you two really ought to take a good look in the mirror.

So, again, Martin had bloody knuckles that matched up nicely with Zimmermans bloody face.



Lastly, as I seem to be the only one talking about childhood - I'll mention it again. Spanking teaching children that violence is a justified course of action. While I find Libertarians seem to have their head up their arses when it comes to spanking (mainly because Sky-Daddy says it OK somewhere), spanking violates the NAP. Children are in the care of the parents. They have no choice in their dependency. Spanking demonstrates to children that it’s all right for people to hit other people - and especially for big 6 foot tall and muscular people to hit little 5 foot short and fat people in the nose. And that stronger people are to hit weaker people. I'd like to know how Trayvon came to learn to hit. Professor Elizabeth Gershoff's researcher into corporal punishment examined 20,000 kindergartners and their parents and found that 80% of Hispanic parents and white parents say they hit their children. And 89% of black say they have hit their children. Statistically Trayvon was hit as a child by his caregivers. Children raised without a father in the home are much more likely to drop out of school, get into trouble, not find long lasting employment, suffer from anxiety, and etc... Perhaps instead of letting the MSM lead you around by the nose, take a bit more of a look into the childhood of Martin AND Zimmerman huh?


Or, you can continue to waste your time with the Black Hispanic Fat-Boy Zimmerman Reality TV show?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

The case against spanking

 

I doubt one can remove human judgment from the whole thing. Zimmerman walked not because of the law, but because the jury did not recognize him as the aggressor. This kind of jury (and prosecution) failure is not completely avoidable by legalistic or bureaucratic procedure.

He could have easily been convicted under the existing statutes, for threatening and starting a fight with an innocent pedestrian while armed, failing to maintain proper control of his weapon, and through his irresponsibility and poor judgment ending up killing a teenage kid. That's manslaughter, with a car or a screwdriver.

The SYG law is a bad one, of course, but this case rested on self defense - I don't want to eliminate self defense as a justification for even lethal force.

Not at all - the injuries to Zimmerman in those photos look trivial to me, the bleeding very little for a head wound, nothing at all resembling your fantasy of a severe beating delivered by a violent Martin. And nothing in the official reports, either.

Not that I've seen - the testimony by the lead medical examiner in court stated otherwise, for example. No identifiable amount of Zimmerman blood was found anywhere on Martin, and the only injury to the hands of either one of them was a small abrasion on one of Martin's ring fingers, according to every informed report I can find.

You repeated that assertion of bloody and damaged knuckles three or four times - do you have a source?

And you keep bringing up Zimmerman's black grandfather, like he had anything to do with anything, and speculation about Trayvon's (but not the self appointed vigilante and child killer Zimmerman's) childhood experiences you have no information about. You seem to think that stuff is relevant to the thread - why?

 

Why the need to misrepresent the facts? Martin at autopsy was 5’ 11” and weighed 158 lbs. Zimmerman’s measurements the night of the shooting were 5’ 8” and 200 lbs. The major physical threat to Zimmerman wasn't the fitness of his opponent that he bested by 40 lbs, but from the weapon holstered in his own waistband. If Zimmerman was in the process of drawing his weapon when the two had their final encounter, then Martin was not motivated by some flawed developmental conditioning, but by an immediate necessity to defend his life. The introduction of that gun into the conflict meant that the survival of each depended on gaining control of it or it’s user, and in Tyavons case it meant incapacitating Zimmerman as best he could. Ground and pound, rather than hugs and kisses was the right prescription for such a condition. Unfortunately for Trayvon , control of the gun and his ultimate fate ended up in the hands of Zimmerman.

 

It is not known at what point the gun was introduced into the conflict.

 

I still like how even though zimmerman hunted him down people like Michael and your eyes blame Martin for trying to defend himself

 

In the aftermath, the other jurors distancing themselves from the public juror b37, may be due to the backlash. their true motivation rests with them as well it may be true they do not agree with juror b37 or certain sentiments/opinions she expressed or how she expressed them. what is a fact is that juror was able to unanimously steer them to her decision which says something about them if they were so convicted of their decision in the first place. this jury was a defense's dream come true which means it was unbalanced, therefore not designed for the purpose of the goal of justice. juror b37, who bragged she knows nothing of the world, reads nothing and is proud of it was allowed to be on this jury. whether the fact the juror's husband is an attorney and that zimmerman's father is a retired magistrate judge has any connection or there was any strings pulled is a mystery but it has been revealed that juror b37 was very eager to be on this case, one who says 'you can't know everything' so her waffling in sorting out, making sense, understanding degree/gravity of information to the point she must rest/lean on a technicality or specific law without questioning it's legitimacy or exploitation factor is telling, as well as the other jurors who folded with her. mind you,not to be sexist, not all women are this way.

this case, like so many, calls for reform on many levels because of it's publicity. whether it happens is another story but it should bring reform from jury selection/process and law reform. there are so many absurd, stupid and even unethical laws on the books. it is not true that they had no choice but for this verdict but sometimes the outrageous outcome that gets publicity is the impedus for change. it's similar to any improvements or change brought about by a tragedy that could have been prevented, not just in the courtroom. trayvon martin is the sacrifice, among many others. it's unfortunate that the shit has to hit the fan sometimes for a wake-up call because of unconscientiousness, oversight or blindspots.

 

The jury aren't idiots; You say that as if it is proven fact, but the reality is that Zimmerman said Martin jumped him and there is no evidence to contradict that and plenty of evidence consistent with Zimmerman's story.

 

Well, let’s put it this way, based upon what the two jurors who have come forth have said, they ain’t the brightest bulbs on the shelf. Juror B29 misstated the requirements for a manslaughter conviction. Juror B37 couldn’t fully express her love for Zimmerman and sell her book deal fast enough -referring to Zimmerman as Georgie in the AC30 interview. And juror B37 only focused in on the last few moments before the shooting ignoring all that went before and all that came afterward and ignoring all of the blaring inconsistencies in Zimmerman’s statements.

There is ample evidence to discredit critical aspects of Zimmerman’s multiple and contradictory accounts of that evening. If Zimmerman was telling the truth, his story should be consistent with itself and the evidence and it is not. Zimmerman’s inconsistencies and errors indicates a “consciousness of guilt” why else would he need to change his story?

As pointed out to you before, one of the most blaring inconsistencies is Zimmerman’s demeanor that evening. He would have everyone believe that despite having a gun and knowing how to use it, having trained to use it to kill, would go from hysterically pleading for help before shooting and killing an unarmed Martin to being placid, calm, and comfortable within a minute of shooting and killing Martin and all without drugs. It just boggles the mind and challenges common sense. I have never seen that kind of metamorphosis in my 12 years working as a first responder in a very violent major city. I have responded to hundreds if not thousands of shootings, stabbings, rapes, assaults, and anything in between. It just isn’t credible. It isn’t believable and it is strikingly so.

Our jury selection system, especially for high profile cases, favors the dimmer bulbs and the poorly informed.

http://www.tampabay.com/news/courts...eals-system-partial-to-the-uninformed/2126887

 

No actually there is zero evidence supporting zimmerman's story and evidence that he started the physical altercation. Remember Martin was on the phone when zimmerman initiated a confrontation

 

While I can't speak to the IQ of the jurors, they made the right decision overall. There simply was not enough evidence to convict Zimmerman of the crime. For a criminal conviction we require a preponderance of evidence that proves guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and they didn't have it.

Note that is NOT to say that Zimmerman did nothing wrong; it's almost certain that he did. Indeed, had Martin produced a knife halfway through the altercation and cut Zimmerman's throat, he would now be the one walking free, since there would also be insufficient evidence to convict Martin.

 

so well said, every bit of it.

as an aside...i live in florida, and recently, was called for jury duty.
as the day wore on, the lawyers asked a number of very seemingly intrusive questions. (in front of everyone)
we were all together in the court room when this went on.
i was not picked to be a juror. the case was civil in nature, but it dealt with a serial rapist.
so, there were a number of women who said they couldn't be unbiased, and they were let go.
of the remaining people, i sat through all the questioning, and they finally selected a jury. i'm somewhat grateful i wasn't picked.
i couldn't quite figure out how this man who had been in prison THREE times (for a number of years) for raping and nearly killing six women, was still walking the streets. (they share what the trial is about with you, for those who have never attended jury duty, before)
i wasn't 'not' picked for anything i said in response to the questioning, i just think they had made a decision before they questioned me.

according to the judge, she said that it takes about 300 summons, to get a jury (6 people) for a trial. (on average)
what??

our system is ridiculously messed up.

 

An armed Zimmerman meant that the gun was introduced when he was. Even if Trayvon wasn’t aware of it, the gun dictated the defensive behavior of Zimmerman. During the tussle, he may have had to lay on it, or keep his hands occupied in order to maintain control of it, which meant that his hands were not as free for use offensively or defensively in regards to physical combat.

Zimmerman also stated that the two had a verbal exchange prior to Trayvon’s attack, which is also supported by Rachel Jeantel’s statements. During that brief verbal exchange did Zimmerman make a move for his gun? Wouldn’t such a move justify a defensive attack by Trayvon? I wonder if the jury gave weight to or even considered how such behavior by Zimmerman may have provoked Trayvon to act.

 

Actually there was ample reason to convict zimmerman of manslaughter, even second-degree murder based on his inconsistent story and behavior, as well as the physical evidence. he was not badly hurt to warrant lethal action, he pursued martin without cause, he did not warn martin before lethal action, he lied that he was in mortal danger due to his head hitting concrete yet if that occurred it was before, not during, as they moved to the grass and that moment had passed of his account that he had to shoot martin because his head was being pounded in the pavement. this means he was not in 'mortal' danger anymore even according to his story. the body was found between yards and in grass consistent with officer smith's first observations on the scene and the grass on the back of zimmerman and the grass stains on martin. he had been chasing martin as he was nowhere near his truck as he tried to portray which also raised suspicions. the glaring lack of blood on zimmerman or martin shows there was some distance or ability to get distance before he fired his weapon. he did not warn him of anything. it could very well have been martin who was pleading for his life as even the voice analysis is inconclusive by the experts and was surprised that usually the match is at least 90 percent. in zimmerman's case, it was only 48 percent and of course martin's voice could not be analyzed. the jury's leaning toward believing it was zimmerman without really any reason as well because he was there alive is somewhat absurdly comical in this case.

his story that he had to scramble for his gun and shoot martin at that critical moment with that close bodily contact because martin was bashing his head into the sidewalk does not match the evidence and even all the details of the evidence, by a longshot.

 

See, that's the reason right there. If you are 48% sure (or 52% sure) of someone's guilt, you cannot convict them of murder. If the evidence is inconclusive, you cannot convict them of murder. It's how our system works. You need conclusive proof.