Zimmerman is lucky to be let off, there should be lesser charges.
False arrest, false detainiment of libery, harrassing, stalking, aggravated by all that being a hate crime. That Zimmerman is innocent of murder does NOT mean that Zimmerman is innocent. Perhaps the jury found Zimmerman not guilty due to insanity …
Judge Judy said a very apt thing one day, “When you are detect you are dealing with a madman, run.”. Unfortunately the boy chose to not to run.
He had trace amounts of marijuana in his system. For hopped up Christ on a rope’s sake, he was a 17 year old kid. I don’t know the percentage of teenagers who regularly smoke dope, but I’m guessing 10% would be a lowball estimate. Most people “cranked up” on weed aren’t thinking of violence so much as they’re raiding the cupboards for munchies. Or, for that matter, going to 7-11 for skittles. Recreational usage of marijuana is so routine among young people that it is disengenuous, at best, to claim he was “on drugs”.
The rest of your post, including your telling usage of racial stereotypes … Not even worth addressing.
Please. :dubious:
I’m not going to bother looking up each of the statutes in Florida law because its a meaningless exercise at this point. But I will say that in my state the facts of the case do not fit any of those statutes you mention. You can’t prosecute because someone should be guilty of something. Not including the lesser included charge of manslaughter was just strategy. If there were other charges not included that they could have filed they would have.
And no, they did not find him insane. That was not an option. The jury instructions were very clear as to what they could and could not look at.
Not insane in that sense of the word, but he definately , his demeanor and actions seem very much those of a sociopath
OK, let’s talk about “suspicious.”
Scenario 1:
Ed, a retired plumber who walks around his neighborhood every day, sees a young African-American man walking slowly down the side. He knows there are no African-American families in the neighborhood, and so he crosses the street to intercept the young man. Standing in front of the young man, Ed says to him, “You don’t live here - what are you doing around here?”
Scenario 2:
Frank, a retired accountant with a concealed-carry permit, and who is carrying a holstered gun, walks around his neighborhood every day. He sees a young African-American man walking slowly down the side. He knows there are no African-American families in the neighborhood, and so he crosses the street to intercept the young man. Standing in front of the young man, Frank says to him, “Hold up – can I talk to you a moment?”
Scenario 3:
Graham, a police officer who patrols a neighborhood every day, sees a young African-American man walking slowly down the side as he’s on his patrol. He knows there are no African-American families in the neighborhood, and so he pulls his squad car alongside the sidewalk where the young man is walking. Stepping out of his car, Graham says to him, “Hold up – can I talk to you a moment?”
Do any of those scenarios involve a criminal act?
About suffering, they were never wrong, the old Masters.
I think MM’s purpose was to keep his name in the news.
Lets be more real. I stopped a car theft because I saw a kid standing on the sidewalk. He looked suspicious. Sadly for your theory he and his cohorts were white. None of them were caught but the car was still there by the time the police arrived. When it comes to burglaries it’s true that those punks always seem to get away.
It’s not hard to look at how someone is behaving and perceive a variety of nuanced things that appear suspicious. It’s what we do with this information that’s important. George Zimmerman had a phone in his hand and called the police. Martin had a phone in his hand AND made it to his house undetected but went back to confront Zimmerman. He did this twice. We know Martin referred to Zimmerman as a crazy-ass-cracker so he’s got some racial issues. It would appear based on the evidence at hand that Martin attempted to directly confront Zimmerman where Zimmerman shows signs of avoiding direct confrontation. At most Zimmerman attempts to keep Martin in view. So who is following who in this scenario?
1 and 2 are jaywalking?
He was looking for the kind of reaction he got in post #2 of this thread.
Regards,
Shodan
Really? You’re judging from a corpse that the boy was “defenseless victim”? A sweet, sweet child. Such a precious gem of a Human Being… Get your head out of your ass. You might as well refer to an already-detonated bomb as “inert and harmless”.
The thug (yes, thug) was obviously up to no good. He was obviously a trouble maker. Sure, he “probably” shouldn’t have died over this but, dammit, you want to go sneaking around homes looking like a bugler your ass must accept the consequence, whatever that may be.
Just like when a NASCAR driver gets killed in a wreck and the fans want to cry “how could this happen? Life is so unfair.” Boo-effin’-hoo. If you tempt fate for a living your ass deserves what comes your way. Don’t want to get your sorry ass shot? Don’t engage in known high risk, life threatening activities. And if you do and do get your ass killed, well, that’s on you, dumbass. Good riddance.
If Tray was such a thug, and so huge to overpower Zimmerman, why didn’t he take Zimmerman’s gun?
According to Zimmerman, that’s what he was trying to do.
But you have a good point - if Zimmerman had had his gun in hand when Martin returned from his father’s house and confronted him, it would have been easier for Martin to disarm him. Of course, if Zimmerman had had his gun in hand, he probably would have shot Martin before getting beat up instead of after, and probably from further than eight inches away. So apparently Zimmerman did not have his gun in hand, but rather tucked away on his hip.
Regards,
Shodan
It’s basic rock-paper-scissors. Gun beats fist.
Keep trumpeting your ignorance.
Yes, O’Mara certainly misread this jury.
Unlike you.
You don’t have to be huge to sucker punch someone. The evidence shows he was on top of Zimmerman and he did beat him for over 38 seconds. Not sure why you’re asking about what occurred. But to answer your last question, he didn’t take Zimmerman’s gun because Zimmerman got to it first.
Or he didn’t take Zimmerman’s gun because Zimmerman’s account of what happened, was fabricated.
Then wouldn’t the evidence that backs up the other parts of Zimmerman’s account also have to be fabricated? How did Zimmerman manage that?
For instance, Zimmerman said Martin sat on top of him pounding his head on the ground. The back of Zimmerman’s jackets, and Martin’s knees, were wet and grass-stained, and an eyewitness testified that he saw Martin on top of Zimmerman. How did Zimmerman manage to arrange that, and get an eyewitness to back it up?
Regards,
Shodan