Why such a wide and passionate set of feelings on this trial? Wasn't this a fair trial ?

Joanimaroni wrote:

Floridatexan wrote:

Joanimaroni wrote:

Floridatexan wrote:

TEOTWAWKI wrote:I have noticed some take pride in what Zimmerman did extolling the virtue of protecting his neighborhood from perceived encroachment by shady outside elements.
Others see Zimmerman as a coward that used a gun in a fist fight.
While others see him as a cold-blooded murderer.

The emotions are sure spread out and intense here , Why?

Because the police didn't do their jobs.

Let's play the blame game.......


Did Trayvon's parents do their job?

His mother according to Trayvon "kicked" him out. When you see disturbing signs in a teen you have to act proactively. The kid needed intervention and help....don't just turn them over to the other parent and ignore serious problems. Counselors? Ministers? School Guidance Counselor? Anything....did they do anything?

This was a teen in a downward spiral....exhibited by multiple school suspensions, truancy, marijuana possession, interested in obtaining a gun, fighting, involved in a fight club, defacing school property, possession of questionable jewelry in his locker.



http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/26/2714778/thousands-expected-at-trayvon.html


http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/05/23/18449794-zimmerman-defense-releases-texts-about-guns-fighting-from-trayvon-martins-phone?lite

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2331100/No-angel-George-Zimmermans-attorneys-want-villainize-Trayvon-Martin-photos-smoking-pot-texts-fighting.html

OMG...he was smoking pot?  Well, then, string him up...uh, oh, can't do that cuz he's already dead.  He was fighting?  How could that happen to a teenager?  What are you proving with this character assassination of a dead kid except your own stupidity?

Your stupidity for blaming the police and making up what you thought were probabilities that were inconsistent with evidence and eye witnesses.

Trayvon WAS a troubled kid. A kid that was angry. A kid that had plenty of time to run or even walk fast to his father's girlfriend's house. He didn't do that, did he?

You said you didn't follow the case closely....to be so vocal, perhaps you should have.

Dreamsglore wrote:The eye witness did not describe the color of the jacket. He described the color of skins. Zimmerman was on the bottom getting the shit beat out of him. If that's manslaughter to defend yourself from getting your head bashed in then anybody who's a victim of a violent beating needs to just lay there and take it.

2seaoat wrote:First look up affray... then we can talk.


Then lets talk, because I do not need to look up affray because it is irrelevant if a minor child being followed in the dark had the requisite fear to stand their ground and use whatever force necessary to protect themselves.  You see folks.....stand your ground is a double edged sword had Martin lived and simply said I feared great bodily harm......and you can list any crime you can imagine, but Florida says sorry charlie........stand your ground negates the criminal statute book.........and the level of proof to assert that defense is below a beyond a reasonable doubt standard.........We can thank the gun merchants for the wimp manifesto......why that poor child....fearing imminent great bodily harm.......

2seaoat wrote:As a parent who instructed their kids not to speak to strangers, I would now instruct my kids if they are approached by a stranger to run like hell.  I do not think Black parents can give that instruction.  A black kid running faces the chance of getting shot just because they are running......the assumption of wrong doing and then the interfacing with law enforcement......and certainly they should not run while running on a bike......that is an automatic death sentence.  If I was a black parent in Florida with a young kid, I would sit them down and explain that you cannot run, you cannot stand your ground and protect yourself, you cannot cry out for help because nobody will leave their home..........son curl up in a ball and pray to god because he will be the only one who can help you.

Sal wrote:It's a pretty simple concept.

If you kill someone and want to claim self-defense, you should have to explain why it was self-defense.

The prosecution should not to have to explain why it wasn't self-defense.

That's absurd, and the definition of an unfair burden ...

... but, that's the law in FLA and 16 other states thanks to the NRA and ALEC.

They want America to be the wild, wild, west where 50% of the population are cowboys and the other 50% are packing in the hopes of not becoming a victim of one of the cowboys.

Damaged Eagle wrote:

Over The Hill wrote:when things dont go the way that liberals think they should go, they want the burden of proof changed. this being  criminal case, the burden of proof has and always will lie on the shoulders of the prosecution. in this case that did not happen. the defense took the prosecution witnesses apart. even after the judge told to jurors to disregard martins fathers testimony about who was yelling for help, how can they disregard what they have already heard? you cannot un-ring a bell. the prosecution failed miserably in this case.

Recording of their voices and a tech with some excellent voice analyzing software would tell us which one was screaming for help.

The backgrounds (police and school records) of both subjects would have to be brought out in the open also if they wish to turn it into that dirty of a fight... All requested as the Burden Of Proof to indicate to the jury who has the disposition to start something.

*****SMILE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpO_oVtXCa4

 

2seaoat wrote:how do you like you crow?

Last time I checked Pa is not Fl.  Right now there is a case in Milwaukee of a 76 year old who shot an unarmed 13 year old black kid because he thought he had stolen some of his guns.   No I will eat crow if anybody can show me somebody who killed somebody and claimed self defense since 2005 in Florida who was found guilty.   I do not have a clue if there is something out there, but I know those jury instructions could NEVER allow a conviction for manslaughter.   The old pre2005 instructions were what is found in the majority of states.

Over The Hill wrote:

wisconsin is also not florida, but that is not relevant to your post. you did not say show me a case only in 'florida' so now you want to change the search criteria to fit your agenda. it appears as others have said that you have had it handed to you on a silver platter and now you are making excuses. the little kid caught with his hand in the cookie jar.

2seaoat wrote:I do believe that I read that seaoat did specify what he said, earlier.

Thank you.  Reading comprehension is a skill in high demand, but I love the graph which is succinct and clearly indicates the poster has mastered the technique of cutting and pasting pretty graphs.....but what in the heck are you trying connect to your graph which does not tell us where.....does not tell us what, or does not tell us anything.....but whats new.....you could not even read my words.

2seaoat wrote:What they should be telling their kids is don't attack someone violently.. they may have a gun.


How did that work out for Travon?

2seaoat wrote:well i am not going to look up each and every case, but suffice it to say that all 52 cases where a conviction was rendered was in the state of florida.


I cannot stop chuckling this afternoon.  This place is fun.  I ask the question if anybody has an example where a defendant used the self defense affirmative defense in Florida to a killing, and was convicted, and somebody posts a chart which is connected to nothing, has no information which can be tied to the central question asked, and then concludes I am not going to look up each and every case......priceless......so a person was shot and convicted of murder in Tampa..........and that proves what exactly.

2seaoat wrote:What they should be telling their kids is don't attack someone violently.. they may have a gun.


How did that work out for Travon?