You're white so maybe you aren't aware of all the injustice that black people suffer. How long do you think a black guy would be free if he stalked a white kid in his neighborhood and then got into an altercation with him and then shot him? 2 fucking seconds is how long.
This ^^ I have learned to look through a thread going forward to see if u are in it before I reply. I can save myself oodles of time by just posting "agree" or "this." Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
The out is what is reasonable fear of one's life to justify deadly force. George exaggerated the extent of the conflict(look at his injuries) he killed a boy that was unarmed and only using his fists. He is a p***Y! IMO he should have used some of the techniques he learned in self-defense to turn the situ around, but he did not even try and under SYG he does not even have to. If George were a woman then deadly force was reasonable but in this case and under these circumstances George had no reason to believe he was going to die. He was in a fecking fist fight and he is a man , a bigger man and with self defense classes under his belt. I am a pretty reasonable person and I did not foresee death in this situ. Under the SYG all you need to do is say you felt threatened and then shoot and because the other person is usually dead it is almost impossible to disprove. As a juror I could have used this law against him and could have come to the conclusion that he premeditated the killing of Trayvon because had a very good understanding of the SYG law, which gave him the balls to follow in the first place and that he intended to use the law as his out if he felt threatened in any way .
Jurors are actually able to rule as they see fit, even ignore a law if they want, most people don't know about that. The principle is called Jury Nullification.
No, that's not what the juror said. ====== Anderson Cooper: So whether it was George Zimmerman getting out of the vehicle, whether he was right to get out of the vehicle, whether he was a wannabe cop, whether he was overeager—none of that, in the final analysis, mattered. What mattered was [in] those seconds before the shot went off, did George Zimmerman fear for his life? Juror: Exactly. That’s exactly what happened. ====== If he was in fear for his life, then SYG does not apply; self defense does. SYG only applies if your life is not threatened and you are standing your ground, reacting to what you perceive as an unlawful threat. Examples: Guy comes up to you, says "gimme your watch!" You could run but decide not to and pull out your gun. He grabs for it; you shoot him dead. SYG law applies. Guy knocks you down, says "I'm gonna kill you!" and starts hitting you. You cannot run but you have a gun, and you shoot him dead. SYG does not apply.
COOPER: Did you feel like you understood the instructions from the judge? Because they were very complex. I mean, reading them, they were tough to follow. JUROR: Right. That was our problem. It was just so confusing what went with what and what we could apply to what. Because I mean, there was a couple of them in there that wanted to find him guilty of something. And after hours and hours and hours of deliberating over the law and reading did over and over and over again, we decided there’s just no way — no other place to go. COOPER: Because of the two options you had, second degree murder or manslaughter, you felt neither applied? JUROR: Right. Because of the heat of the moment and the Stand Your Ground. He had a right to defend himself. If he felt threatened that his life was going to be taken away from him or he was going to have bodily harm, he had a right. COOPER: Even though he got out of the car, followed Trayvon Martin that didn’t matter in the deliberations. What mattered was the final seconds, minutes when there was an altercation and whether or not in your mind the most important thing was whether or not George Zimmerman felt his life was in danger? JUROR: That’s how we read the law. That’s how we got to the point of everybody being not guilty.
"Everybody" not being guilty? Lol who is everybody? One guy was on trial. Yikes...we need a new system of rendering verdicts. Back to SYG. Seems awfully broad in scope and language. Rather subjective too.
In most states you have a right to "stand your ground" in your home. Only a few have such a law that applies to public places.
Zimmerman's trial is basically blacks against non-blacks. Unfortunately for Mr. Luther King, the guy isn't white, he is hispanic.
One of the odd implications of SYG is that two armed people can meet on a street, exchange words, feel threatened - and they can then kill each other. And no one is at fault. (Arguably the problem just "took care of itself" but it's an odd legal result.)
They can consider anything they like. They could have considered whether the laws against first degree murder applied. (They didn't, but they could consider that.) In the end, the only thing that mattered - and the only thing that determined his guilt or innocence - was whether Zimmerman feared for his life. (Which is what the juror said.)
The thing is if they found that it was not self defense and they then considered the SYG law he would have been found not guilty, win win situ.
The usual self defense law in public places requires you do everything you can to retreat first before using deadly force. The evidence presented suggested that George was on his back on the ground and had no place where he could reasonably retreat. In that instance normal self defense law was all that was necessary to find the not guilty verdict, and the defense lawyers argued the case that way. They did not argue for SYG. In the instructions to the jury SYG was listed, and the jury may have been confused by the wording and may have used that meaning. However, SYG can be seen as a super-set of self defense for Florida since it removes the usual self defense clause of the need to retreat. For Florida given the evidence that George was possibly in fear of death or great bodily harm and unable to retreat then either the self defense argument OR the SYG argument were sufficient to find not guilty. Note that they did not know whether George was actually in fear of death or great bodily harm but the prosecution could not prove that he was not and that creates reasonable doubt based on the evidence = not guilty. And not guilty does not mean innocent, we simply don't know.
quinn, The witness martial arts trainer for George showed that George was a pretty hopeless fighter and did not know how to punch even after his training. Unfortunately the pictures of Trayvon in the media are showing him when he was younger and non threatening. From his Facebook and texts he shows his prowess as a street fighter and proud of that. Their heights and builds appear to have been similar with Trayvon knowing exactly how to punch and get an opponent on the ground and pummel. The defense had the option to show that evidence but chose not to, but I suspect it would have been shown in an appeal if George had been convicted. George was outclassed by a fitter and more skilled street fighter. TM also had a criminal record of knowingly receiving stolen goods. He was not the saintly innocent kid that his supporters are trying to portray.