Jury Finds George Zimmerman Not Guilty
View Single Post
July 14th, 2013 (2:03 PM). Edited July 14th, 2013 by Mr. X.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Originally Posted by
The prosecution did fine. I do not understand the ignorant claim that the prosecution failed. The testimony of every medical examiner was enough to convict Zimmerman. He only got away with self defense because racism turned the case into a black kid giving someone a bloody nose (which was the only proven event of self defense in the entire scenario, and was in Trayvons/the states favour). Self-defense should not be an option for the one who started the conflict, especially when advised not to, especially when armed vs. unarmed, and most especially when they pursued the victim because of racial profiling.
But your right, Freaky, our legal system can't fail people it never was meant to, or intends to, protect.
It depends on your definition of starting the conflict - He approached Trayvon, but Trayvon 'apparently' was the one who threw the first punch.
That said, he 'got away' because his injuries supported his claims of self-defense. These injuries were enough to give reasonable doubt that he approached Trayvon fully intent to kill him.
This is what people forget - Reasonable doubt. They forget that if reasonable doubt exists then a juror is supposed to vote not guilty.
It's a failing all right - But not of the justice system. The jurors followed protocol for this case, despite what people say or believe.
Originally Posted by
One thing that I feel hasn't been mentioned in this thread...
Are there any witnesses? I haven't heard of any on the BBC or reading comments. If so, it is just the words of one man against a dead boy who can not defend himself.
Whilst there may be doubt that he can be convicted for murder, I certainly feel like there should be repercussions for killing someone. As many have said, this isn't clear-cut self defense.
In the court of public opinion he's guilty, but in the court of law he isn't.
As for the picture, people are ignoring a lot of things.
1 - She was convicted of assaulting him in the past, and ordered not to approach him.
2 - She violated this order when she decided to approach him. While it is true that she had a restraining order against this person, it's kind of hard to say that he was the one who violated it when she was the one who decided to drop by for a visit.
3 - She left the house, went to her car, got her gun and then went back in.
Self-defense is only applicable if you have a genuine fear for your life. She left the house and entered her car. At this point she is free from danger and could have decided to drive away. She instead decided to get her gun. At this point the stories differ, some say she shot randomly at the house (knowing full well that there were children inside) while some say that she went back into the house and tried shooting him (even though his children were in the same room) Still though, no matter the story she can't claim self-defense since she had already escaped the situation.
Is 20 years to much? I can't make up my mind on that. But because of her exiting the house and deciding to come back with a gun, she can't claim self-defense.
Follower of Carlinism since 2008.
Come play Runescape
View Public Profile
Send a private message to Mr. X
Visit Mr. X's homepage!
Find all posts by Mr. X
Find threads started by Mr. X