Your source is biased and inaccurate. In the Anderson case, the woman walked out of an argument, went to her car, got a handgun she was NOT licensed to carry, went BACK to the argument and started shooting. No one was hit, but that was likely because she was not trained in firearms use. She was convicted after the jury deliberated only a few minutes - for the jury members this case was clear cut and there was no doubt she was guilty.
In the Zimmerman case, the FL "Stand Your Ground" law was NOT a factor. Zimmerman chose a trial defense of "self defense" without attempting to use (nor ever referring to) Stand Your Ground. A bunch of uninformed gun-ban dodos (including several network talking heads) have made a big deal about Stand Your Ground but it was never a factor in the Zimmerman trial.
Wow. Another Zimmerman thread!
Much as it pains me to agree with cranky old conservatives, Dallas is correct that Zimmerman didn't invoke SYG. The big problem with the case is that we don't really know what happened. After all, we only have the story of the dude who lived.
And, of course, we do know from "how" that following somebody is NEVER threatening. So we've solved the case. No possible way that Zimmerman could have avoided killing Martin from the get go! Well, maybe if Martin had put his hands behind his head and said "yessir...I surrender...I don't know what you want but I'm sure you're a nice person."
Of course, I'm now waiting to see the headline describing a seriously injured cranky old conservative dude who had the shit beaten out of him. The papers will report that Phineas P. Phartman, known to friends as "how", stated "Well, I was being followed by a strange car. But I assumed all was OK. They must have had a good reason for following me. I assumed they had free puppies to give me, so I ran at them yelling 'show me da cuuuuute puppies' in a friendly voice. Imagine my surprise when they kicked my ass. I'm sad now."
Later, Mr. Phartman will of course claim the newspaper story was biased. Mikey M. Merkinson confirms the biased nature of the story, stating "But the story only reported facts, which are known to be highly biased toward the narrative based upon reality. That isn't fair. We demand equal time for my fantasy world in the interest of fairness!"
I stand by my previous statements that Zimmerman was a douchebag wannabe cop dumbass who could have avoided all of this by having some common sense. Why did he exit the car? Because he fancies himself a tough guy who could "take down" the "criminal".
I'm willing to bet we'll see him in a similar case within 5 years. The only question in my mind is whether he once again takes on somebody that he shoots or takes on somebody who ends up winning the confrontation. Such is the way of dumbasses.
Ok....like others have mentioned..... APPLES to Oranges in this posted article.
None of the stories involved people actually in a physical confrontation...ie getting beaten like zimmerman. The first story is the only one that can be compared to because it was the only one in florida. But like dallas stated....the lady went to her car and got the gun. Again I don't see the problem or she shouldn't have been convicted because of that.....but it is what she did next.... Fired blindly into a wall towards the individual. She could have hit others in the room and also wasn't in a physical confrontation at that point.
Zimmerman....had a person ontop of him and was getting beaten. So he drew his weapon and fired. HUGE DIFFERENCE!!!!
Interesting.
I wouldn't say apples & oranges (maybe green apples & red apples): like GZ, the 3 above felt their backs were against the walls and pulling the trigger was how they handled it.
In one case, no one was hurt, but she still got hard time. Another case, a guy went to the home of the guy he was having problems with for a while with a knife (like troop going after Doc). The next, a guys son was allegedly being threatened by a mob of guys who came to his house in the middle of the night. None of these people followed an unsuspecting stranger with a gun on their hip. The "victims" came to them.
Crazy system aside, there were guys almost justifying Zimmermans actions. How would those same guys view the above cases?
I'd also like to know what the guys who felt Zimmerman should've been found guilty think about the above cases?
And to the above posters: how would you've handle the 3 situations above had you been in the shooters position?
I was also just sent this: (don't know how valid it is)
[view link]?
@staxwell: "3 above felt their backs were against the walls"
WRT the woman who fired into the wall, if the report of her getting the gun from the car is true, that's not "back against the wall." If she could leave the house to get the gun, she could leave the house and *keep* leaving right on down the street.
"Zimmerman....had a person on top of him and was getting beaten. So he drew his weapon and fired. HUGE DIFFERENCE!!!!"
Were you an EYE Witness Sir? UNLESS you were standing there watching, you have NO idea what happened. He got away with KILLING an unarmed person.
Open warfare on minorities in Florida.
There was no one there to see all that went down other than Treyvon and Zimmerman (except for the guy that was actually a witness for the prosecution that stated from what he saw that it was Zimmerman on the bottom with Treyvon on top whaling away ground and pound style).
“… Were you an EYE Witness Sir? UNLESS you were standing there watching, you have NO idea what happened …â€
Yes. But if one is to invalidate the view of Zimmerman being the one attacked b/c no one was there to see it. then the barrage of arguments that Zimmerman “stalked†and was the aggressor must also be discounted b/c “UNLESS you were standing there watching, you have NO idea what happenedâ€.
Also, was it not Zimmerman that showed *all* the injuries from a physical confrontation – to the best of my knowledge Treyvon did not show any signs of a physical assault.
True, gmd, she could've left that moment, but in this case the man who would've been on the receiving end of the bullet (had she not been aiming at the wall) was her allegedly abusive husband & father of her daughter; not a stranger she would never see again. Now sure, a restraining order could come into play, but I know personally: if someone wants to get to you, they'll get to you. This is why I say her back was against the wall. She obviously felt threatened enough to need to let her husband know that she wouldn't take the abuse any longer and that she would use any force necessary to stop it.
"Yes. But if one is to invalidate the view of Zimmerman being the one attacked b/c no one was there to see it. then the barrage of arguments that Zimmerman “stalked†and was the aggressor must also be discounted b/c “UNLESS you were standing there watching, you have NO idea what happenedâ€."
Papi, True, but there's Zimmermans phone call & Trayvons phone call confirming that Zimmerman was following the guy, which says enough. Then the fact that Zimmerman confronted him with a gun on his hip lets us know that Zimmerman was prepared for things to go south...unless he just casually carries a 9...then that changes things.
"Also, was it not Zimmerman that showed *all* the injuries from a physical confrontation – to the best of my knowledge Treyvon did not show any signs of a physical assault."
True again, but is it fair to say Zimmerman provoked Trayvon by following him? I don't know what was said, because I wasn't there, but if I'm being followed by this guy when I'm just minding my business on the phone with some chick, I'm gonna wanna know why this dude is following me. And if he doesn't have good reason, I'm definitely telling him to fuck off before things escalate. Zimmerman obviously didn't fuck off in this situation, provoking Trayvon. Who GZ knew nothing about, all he knew was that he had his 9, and if things escalated he could "stand his ground". Trayvon didn't show signs of physical assault, but...he probably didn't leave the house thinking he'd have to physically assault anybody, while the man with the 9 was probably looking for trouble...unless he just casually carries the 9.
Motor, I think EVERYONE agrees on that.
"How about Chicago? There have been hundreds of minorities murdered in Chicago this year, by other minorities!"
Thank you, T-fag. This brings me to my next question: why the outrage over this case, when a place like south side Chicago is covered in the blood of kids Trayvons age and younger (on a daily basis it seems)? They even call it "Chi-raq" because it's so bad.
Where's the outrage there?
Or is it the media?
[view link]
Guilty? Is this a case of a sad situation used for mass manipulation? Is that what the first link is: someone trying to play into the obvious racial divide after this case?
What's to gain besides ratings?
What the fuck is going on?
Stax... I understand what you are saying that lead up to the incident. But that is not what you are supposed to look at. You are supposed to look at the facts. Had facts and not interpret what happened prior... Zimmerman was beaten on, he had Martin on top of him from the accounts of a witness and physical evidence or his face and accounts from police. Then Zimmerman drew his weapon and fired. So an actual physical confrontation happened. The other three stories no actual physical fight happened. They all claim self defense but nothing physical happened. Again a huge difference in my eyes.
Like I mentioned about the lady in FL. I don't care that she got her gun and could have left. That doesn't bother me at all that she stayed. The point that would have gotten me is that she was in another room and fired the shots through a wall. Was her life in danger?? In that situation no she was in another room!!!
The other instances.... Was there life in immediate danger??? No because it was words at that point. No body lunged at them, punched, pushed, tried to stab, etc. It was just words. Again big difference.
Because it is like any fight words get thrown out but until something physical happens is your life really in danger?? I was always told by officers and lawyers if you are going to get into a fist fight....never throw the first punch and yell loud so others can hear "I don't want to fight you" a couple of times. Then kick the shit out of the other person and you will get off about 95% of the time. Because # 1 you are not the aggressor and # 2 you gave your intentions you didn't not want to fight. Main thing is to know when to stop the shit kicking. ;-)
But here is another case to look at about stand your ground law. This one the guy should get the book thrown at him. Because again....No physical altercation. Just words.
[view link]
Alucard..... You must not have paid close attention to the trial....because all evidence pointed to and testimony was with Martin on top of Zimmerman and Zimmerman bloodied and showed signs of getting his ass kicked.
Stax... Also what you are mentioning about everything that lead up to the actual fight is not criminal law. that is civil law. The questions of: Did Zimmerman profile Martin? Should Zimmerman have walked away? Was martin doing anything so Zimmermans actions of following and confronting were just? Etc. that is civil law.
Criminal law, which this case was criminal, has to do with the actual actions that happened....ie: fight and self defense. Like I mentioned before about this case is black and white (no racial reference meant). Zimmerman was getting his ass kicked ground and pound style and feared from his life. Drew his weapon and fired. The other cases.....no life or death situation and they fired a weapon. Again all black and white.
I see. Thanks for breaking that down for me, crsm.
What are your personal thoughts on the GZ/TM situation if you don't mind me asking?
And this one is pretty sad too: [view link]
Zimmerman pursued someone fleeing from him at night on a deserted street. There is no evidence he identified himself as acting as neighborhood watch. If we give Zimmerman the benefit of every reasonable doubt, the fight has to be considered mutual combat. If someone dies in a mutual combat, the survivor is guilty of manslaughter.
Stax.... In this instance the law was up held. Florida has the stand your ground law. And by the facts presented self defense is plausible.
Ibb.....your situation is wrong with Florida's law. Also they claimed self defense and stand your ground so it wasn't mutual combat. The evidence presented....the hard facts....not what either side wanted you to interpret...stated that TM started the physical fight and was harming GZ...was ontop of GZ and pounding him into the ground...GZ feared for his life and safety....he drew his weapon and fired. With the mutual combat in most other states you are correct. Unless deemed self defense.
Stax... Like I mentioned before....in a civil case there is loads of evidence of possible profiling, a man jumping to conclusions, a man looking for confrontation, etc. But also on the flipside.....you have to allow the evidence of Martin....ie was he a drug user, was he prone to violence, was he a trouble maker, did he have a chip on his shoulder and looking for fights....That is all the stuff you have to look into. But under a civil trial I could see Zimmerman getting prosecuted for something.
Like I mentioned about the other stories in the first post....those all were not the same and someone looking to make racial rifts.
The one to look at is the article I posted. Now if that guy gets off the hook. Then there is something wrong and people should be in an uproar!!!
Anyone who thinks being Black makes somebody "suspicious" and "an asshole" is mentally deficient. Anyone who thinks the uncorroborated statements of a mentally deficient person are "hard facts" is also mentally deficient.
The information that is corroborated by multiple sources (including Z):
1. TM tried to distance himself from GZ, and GZ responded by pursuing him, on a deserted street, thus giving a significant level of provocation.
2. Prior to GZ shooting TM, there was a fistfight that TM got the better of.
3. GZ is not qualified to carry pointy scissors, let alone a firearm. He is a proven liar. No uncorroborated statement from him should be given any weight.
GZ provoked a fight and someone died. The level of provocation that is proven beyond a reasonable doubt is toward the less severe end of the spectrum. Therefore, GZ should have been convicted of manslaughter, and given a sentence towards the less severe end of the range in the sentencing guidelines.
@ilbbiacnl. everything you post is just stupid. are you TRYING to out stupid alucard?
according to witness testimony from Rachel Jeantel - the person that was supposedly on the phone with Martin when he was killed by Zimmerman, Martin had made it to his father's house and decided to go back and confront Zimmerman.
your idiot narrative has no relation to the facts of the trial much less to reality.
ibbaicni..... So the toxicology reports that show there was THC and other substances in TM body. So when GZ called and said that TM was acting funny and like on something. Did that warrant someone to follow up or pursue? Because if that isn't allowed then why do people call in DUI's???
Like I have stated over and over. The pursuing, or profiling by GZ wasn't about this trial. It was the fact that he was getting beaten and feared for his life. Someone was on top of him beating his head in the ground. Now if TM would have knocked him down. Then walked away or just stood over him. That is a different story. But no...he was on top of him pounding his head into the ground!!!
Again.... Facts. Also again..... TM came back and instigated the fist fight.
So a few strikes.... #1 (Like what DocPhil stated).... Witness for the prosecution states TM went back and confronted GZ. #2 TM was beating GZ head into the ground. #3 toxicology report shows GZ had the right suspicions that TM was "on something".
Again.... I get what people are saying about how GZ was told not to follow and he kept going.... I get that he was using words like "punk" and what not and profiling TM. But the fact remains a physical confrontation happened and TM was beating GZ head into the ground. So in self defense he drew his weapon and fired.
Like I have stated....if no physical confrontation happened GZ should be on death row.
Actually it was GZ who was doped up. He said it himself. That was his "explanation" for why he had to look for a sign to know the name of a street he drove on daily. Sounds seriously doped up to me.
"In the course of Zimmerman's recorded interviews, Detective Chris Serino questioned aspects of Zimmerman's account, such as Zimmerman's statement that he didn't know the name of a street in the Twin Lakes community where he had lived for three years. Zimmerman said in response that he had a bad memory and takes medication for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder."
[view link]
ilbbaicnl you continue to be a dumbass and your reading comprehension is as bad as alucard’s.
“Zimmerman said in response that he had a bad memory and takes medication for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder."
he said he “takes†medication not that he “took†medication. btw medication to help ADHD and his short term memory could hardly be described as “doped up†dumbass
@staxwell. i would like to hear your honest reaction to both of these clips
[view link][view link]
Besides that, it wasn't mentioned in the trial so it wasn't a consideration in the jury's decision. That was my point. I won't call ibi a dumbass but...
D.Phil, I agree with both those videos 100%. I probably wouldn't have said it the way the guy in the 2nd vid said it though lmao; that just makes it worse.
For the first time, today I read the transcript of the instructions given by the judge to the jury. If you haven't read it, read it now. Any REASONABLE person would agree the jury made the correct decision.
If you don't like the fact they came back with the correct verdict, then you need to change the law. Ban guns. Ban self defense. Otherwise move on.
^^^^^
what the hell are you doing educating yourself with facts? next thing you know you will be sounding like Charles Barkley. in case you missed it the first time:
[view link]
MH the defense lawyer punked the judge. He moved that lack of provocation as requirement for self-defense not be included in the instructions, and cited a precedent where a mistrial was declared because this requirement was included in the jury instructions. But, in fact, the mistrial was declared because this requirement was not described with enough elaboration and detail.
40 comments