It's really not the point. The question is, was it necessary for Z to shoot Martin? I don't see the necessity
The jury.Who decides what reasonable fear is
I suppose you might think differently if you're ever pinned to the ground, getting punched in the face, your head grinding into concrete, a hand smashing your broken nose down, he's reaching down for your firearm saying, "You're gonna die tonight!" and NO ONE is helping you.
Bs!All of that is Z testimony as to what happened that night. We don't really know what the exchange was. We can not say, conclusively, that Martin was posing more of a threat than Z or that Martin didn't feel just as threatened.
As the prosecution said. 17 year old adult.I hear you however, I don't really see the relevance. Even if Martin had the upper-hand was it really necessary for Z to shoot him? I don't see it as a question of who had the advantage or who started it. Z shot and killed this child and I have a hard time understanding the necessity for such extreme measures in response to this situation. Z followed him, take your lumps for putting yourself in that position and call it a day. Don't kill someone because you are afraid they are going to beat you up.
All of that is Z testimony as to what happened that night. We don't really know what the exchange was. We can not say, conclusively, that Martin was posing more of a threat than Z or that Martin didn't feel just as threatened.
Bs!
The evidence clearly says otherwise.
As the prosecution said. 17 year old adult.
That fact that you refer to an aggressive 17 year old, who was slamming someones head into the ground, as a child, says all I need to know about your position.
You are wrong.
Well, there ya go. Not guilty.
All of that is Z testimony as to what happened that night. We don't really know what the exchange was. We can not say, conclusively, that Martin was posing more of a threat than Z or that Martin didn't feel just as threatened.
I'm not debating or arguing what verdict should be handed down. I am stating my OPINION about the conflict. I do believe that the evidence can not support a verdict of guilt to 2nd degree murder. I do believe there is a possibility that it can support a manslaughter charge.
You seem to be confused.Saying I am wrong and that the evidence clearly says that does not support your position. That's just you yelling what you think. Explain yourself. What evidence shows that Z felt more threatened?
The prosecution in not the law and a 17 year old by law in not yet an adult.
As I said earlier, he may not be a child, but he was NOT an adult. I am not wrong you just disagree with me. That does not make me wrong.
Well, there ya go. Not guilty.
just as o'mara and then the judge told the jury
if there is any degree of reasonable doubt whether zimmerman was entitled to self defense, then 'not guilty' is the only verdict which should be rendered
I hear you however, I don't really see the relevance. Even if Martin had the upper-hand was it really necessary for Z to shoot him? I don't see it as a question of who had the advantage or who started it. Z shot and killed this child and I have a hard time understanding the necessity for such extreme measures in response to this situation. Z followed him, take your lumps for putting yourself in that position and call it a day. Don't kill someone because you are afraid they are going to beat you up.
If there are riots, I sure hope they don't burn down their own neighbourhood. They should choose an upper class neighbourhood instead.
Calm
I hear you however, I don't really see the relevance. Even if Martin had the upper-hand was it really necessary for Z to shoot him? I don't see it as a question of who had the advantage or who started it. Z shot and killed this child and I have a hard time understanding the necessity for such extreme measures in response to this situation. Z followed him, take your lumps for putting yourself in that position and call it a day. Don't kill someone because you are afraid they are going to beat you up.
____Are you kidding me?
I am driving (dark and rainy night?) and notice a white van following me.
I pull into a mall and notice that I am still being followed by that same white van.
I park and walk towards a store, but the (creepy ass cracker?) driver of that white van is still following me.
I then jump and beat them up to whatever extent that my anger at being followed dictates.
The "crime" committed by the driver of the white van was simply that they were 30 seconds later going to that store than I was. Good thing to know that Floriduh law now allows this "beating when provoked (by following)", but it is illegal to use deadly force to avoid your well deserved beatings.
The violence, the hate and the stupid is heavy on Twitter:
Lynch mob thugs threaten Zimmerman jury; ‘N*ggas coming for that bitch ass jury’ | Twitchy
If I were on the jury, I don't think I'd even want to do one of those interviews you always see a month or so after the verdict.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?