George Zimmerman Trial Thread (Found Not Guilty Jesus help us...)
Options
Comments
-
Gold_Certificate wrote: »
Then your problem lies more with the law itself rather than these specific circumstances.Gold_Certificate wrote: »
Nah. Life threatening injuries aren't required here, nor is any "attempt to preserve life".Gold_Certificate wrote: »
The bolded is subjective, and the underlined is conjecture.Gold_Certificate wrote: »
You're over-thinking it bruh.fiat is doing a great job at pointing out the technicalities of florida law..however the defense already established a flaw....
as fiat said, the law says all zimmerman has to prove HE THOUGHT his life was in danger....yet his attorney is trying t o prove that his life WAS in danger.....
and unfortunately for zimmerman the only way for them to prove that zimmerman's life was actually in danger was for him to have been damaged more than he was...
dude didn't even have to go directly to the hospital...they entertained it...but ultimately it was determined he'd be iight....it's not like the ? was life threatening....ya feel me? not life threatening....
so the jury is going to have to believe that trayvon really intended to ? this man......and i don't see anyone buying that...especially considering zimmerman had the gun from the jump...he was fully prepared to shoot if needed be..trayvon just wanted to know why he was being followed..he could have jumped off of zimmerman and ran for all we know...but we don't know cuz zimmerman who was prepared to shoot..shot first......knowing mind you that the police were on their way....because he called them
You don't wait for the ? to mortally injure you to do what you can to stop him, you try to stop him before it gets that far.
That's the concept this law is based on.
there was no indication that it was ever going to get that far is what i'm attempting to prove...dude jumped the gun literally because he walked in there prepared to shoot at the first sign of trouble
If Zimmerman reasonably felt that things could go that far, that would justify the use of force under the law.
For him, the indication could be as simple as, "If I'm getting my ass beat, with no end in sight.".
but the shooting of trayvon and the absence of any life threatening injuries add validity to both statements..... zimmer knew the police were on the way.. he coulda reasonably held trayvon off until the police arrived.....
where is his attempt to preserve life here?
there is no attempt to preserve, because by carrying the gun to the altercation it's clear that he'd rather take life
Such requirements would ? up self-defense laws in general.
well that's what we're trying to argue against....
murder vs self defense
i'm just trying to prove that he wasn't defending himself...he provoked a confrontation he knew would end with him shooting trayvon
"these ? they always get away"
that's what he wanted to do....he wanted to shoot him from the jump....he was just looking for the first opportunity where he thought he can get away with it -
The bolded is still conjecture.Gold_Certificate wrote: »
Then your problem lies more with the law itself rather than these specific circumstances.Gold_Certificate wrote: »
Nah. Life threatening injuries aren't required here, nor is any "attempt to preserve life".Gold_Certificate wrote: »
The bolded is subjective, and the underlined is conjecture.Gold_Certificate wrote: »
You're over-thinking it bruh.fiat is doing a great job at pointing out the technicalities of florida law..however the defense already established a flaw....
as fiat said, the law says all zimmerman has to prove HE THOUGHT his life was in danger....yet his attorney is trying t o prove that his life WAS in danger.....
and unfortunately for zimmerman the only way for them to prove that zimmerman's life was actually in danger was for him to have been damaged more than he was...
dude didn't even have to go directly to the hospital...they entertained it...but ultimately it was determined he'd be iight....it's not like the ? was life threatening....ya feel me? not life threatening....
so the jury is going to have to believe that trayvon really intended to ? this man......and i don't see anyone buying that...especially considering zimmerman had the gun from the jump...he was fully prepared to shoot if needed be..trayvon just wanted to know why he was being followed..he could have jumped off of zimmerman and ran for all we know...but we don't know cuz zimmerman who was prepared to shoot..shot first......knowing mind you that the police were on their way....because he called them
You don't wait for the ? to mortally injure you to do what you can to stop him, you try to stop him before it gets that far.
That's the concept this law is based on.
there was no indication that it was ever going to get that far is what i'm attempting to prove...dude jumped the gun literally because he walked in there prepared to shoot at the first sign of trouble
If Zimmerman reasonably felt that things could go that far, that would justify the use of force under the law.
For him, the indication could be as simple as, "If I'm getting my ass beat, with no end in sight.".
but the shooting of trayvon and the absence of any life threatening injuries add validity to both statements..... zimmer knew the police were on the way.. he coulda reasonably held trayvon off until the police arrived.....
where is his attempt to preserve life here?
there is no attempt to preserve, because by carrying the gun to the altercation it's clear that he'd rather take life
Such requirements would ? up self-defense laws in general.
well that's what we're trying to argue against....
murder vs self defense
i'm just trying to prove that he wasn't defending himself...he provoked a confrontation he knew would end with him shooting trayvon
"these ? they always get away"
that's what he wanted to do.... -
Gold_Certificate wrote: »
The bolded is still conjecture.Gold_Certificate wrote: »
Then your problem lies more with the law itself rather than these specific circumstances.Gold_Certificate wrote: »
Nah. Life threatening injuries aren't required here, nor is any "attempt to preserve life".Gold_Certificate wrote: »
The bolded is subjective, and the underlined is conjecture.Gold_Certificate wrote: »
You're over-thinking it bruh.fiat is doing a great job at pointing out the technicalities of florida law..however the defense already established a flaw....
as fiat said, the law says all zimmerman has to prove HE THOUGHT his life was in danger....yet his attorney is trying t o prove that his life WAS in danger.....
and unfortunately for zimmerman the only way for them to prove that zimmerman's life was actually in danger was for him to have been damaged more than he was...
dude didn't even have to go directly to the hospital...they entertained it...but ultimately it was determined he'd be iight....it's not like the ? was life threatening....ya feel me? not life threatening....
so the jury is going to have to believe that trayvon really intended to ? this man......and i don't see anyone buying that...especially considering zimmerman had the gun from the jump...he was fully prepared to shoot if needed be..trayvon just wanted to know why he was being followed..he could have jumped off of zimmerman and ran for all we know...but we don't know cuz zimmerman who was prepared to shoot..shot first......knowing mind you that the police were on their way....because he called them
You don't wait for the ? to mortally injure you to do what you can to stop him, you try to stop him before it gets that far.
That's the concept this law is based on.
there was no indication that it was ever going to get that far is what i'm attempting to prove...dude jumped the gun literally because he walked in there prepared to shoot at the first sign of trouble
If Zimmerman reasonably felt that things could go that far, that would justify the use of force under the law.
For him, the indication could be as simple as, "If I'm getting my ass beat, with no end in sight.".
but the shooting of trayvon and the absence of any life threatening injuries add validity to both statements..... zimmer knew the police were on the way.. he coulda reasonably held trayvon off until the police arrived.....
where is his attempt to preserve life here?
there is no attempt to preserve, because by carrying the gun to the altercation it's clear that he'd rather take life
Such requirements would ? up self-defense laws in general.
well that's what we're trying to argue against....
murder vs self defense
i'm just trying to prove that he wasn't defending himself...he provoked a confrontation he knew would end with him shooting trayvon
"these ? they always get away"
that's what he wanted to do....
but it's validated by that being exactly what happened -
AND I die for my hood
TRAYVON
shut the ? up. they are doing the exact same racial profiling in arizona and pushing for it to be done in California. your ass don't live in san Francisco which is a sanctuary city.
so keep the stupid ass black racial jokes at a minimum. -
It isn't, you're applying hindsight bias.Gold_Certificate wrote: »
The bolded is still conjecture.Gold_Certificate wrote: »
Then your problem lies more with the law itself rather than these specific circumstances.Gold_Certificate wrote: »
Nah. Life threatening injuries aren't required here, nor is any "attempt to preserve life".Gold_Certificate wrote: »
The bolded is subjective, and the underlined is conjecture.Gold_Certificate wrote: »
You're over-thinking it bruh.fiat is doing a great job at pointing out the technicalities of florida law..however the defense already established a flaw....
as fiat said, the law says all zimmerman has to prove HE THOUGHT his life was in danger....yet his attorney is trying t o prove that his life WAS in danger.....
and unfortunately for zimmerman the only way for them to prove that zimmerman's life was actually in danger was for him to have been damaged more than he was...
dude didn't even have to go directly to the hospital...they entertained it...but ultimately it was determined he'd be iight....it's not like the ? was life threatening....ya feel me? not life threatening....
so the jury is going to have to believe that trayvon really intended to ? this man......and i don't see anyone buying that...especially considering zimmerman had the gun from the jump...he was fully prepared to shoot if needed be..trayvon just wanted to know why he was being followed..he could have jumped off of zimmerman and ran for all we know...but we don't know cuz zimmerman who was prepared to shoot..shot first......knowing mind you that the police were on their way....because he called them
You don't wait for the ? to mortally injure you to do what you can to stop him, you try to stop him before it gets that far.
That's the concept this law is based on.
there was no indication that it was ever going to get that far is what i'm attempting to prove...dude jumped the gun literally because he walked in there prepared to shoot at the first sign of trouble
If Zimmerman reasonably felt that things could go that far, that would justify the use of force under the law.
For him, the indication could be as simple as, "If I'm getting my ass beat, with no end in sight.".
but the shooting of trayvon and the absence of any life threatening injuries add validity to both statements..... zimmer knew the police were on the way.. he coulda reasonably held trayvon off until the police arrived.....
where is his attempt to preserve life here?
there is no attempt to preserve, because by carrying the gun to the altercation it's clear that he'd rather take life
Such requirements would ? up self-defense laws in general.
well that's what we're trying to argue against....
murder vs self defense
i'm just trying to prove that he wasn't defending himself...he provoked a confrontation he knew would end with him shooting trayvon
"these ? they always get away"
that's what he wanted to do....
but it's validated by that being exactly what happened -
Im good..i was born here not every mexican is from mexico,,.
No worries..they can send these mfs back to mexico dont effect me -
Gold_Certificate wrote: »
It isn't, you're applying hindsight bias.Gold_Certificate wrote: »
The bolded is still conjecture.Gold_Certificate wrote: »
Then your problem lies more with the law itself rather than these specific circumstances.Gold_Certificate wrote: »
Nah. Life threatening injuries aren't required here, nor is any "attempt to preserve life".Gold_Certificate wrote: »
The bolded is subjective, and the underlined is conjecture.Gold_Certificate wrote: »
You're over-thinking it bruh.fiat is doing a great job at pointing out the technicalities of florida law..however the defense already established a flaw....
as fiat said, the law says all zimmerman has to prove HE THOUGHT his life was in danger....yet his attorney is trying t o prove that his life WAS in danger.....
and unfortunately for zimmerman the only way for them to prove that zimmerman's life was actually in danger was for him to have been damaged more than he was...
dude didn't even have to go directly to the hospital...they entertained it...but ultimately it was determined he'd be iight....it's not like the ? was life threatening....ya feel me? not life threatening....
so the jury is going to have to believe that trayvon really intended to ? this man......and i don't see anyone buying that...especially considering zimmerman had the gun from the jump...he was fully prepared to shoot if needed be..trayvon just wanted to know why he was being followed..he could have jumped off of zimmerman and ran for all we know...but we don't know cuz zimmerman who was prepared to shoot..shot first......knowing mind you that the police were on their way....because he called them
You don't wait for the ? to mortally injure you to do what you can to stop him, you try to stop him before it gets that far.
That's the concept this law is based on.
there was no indication that it was ever going to get that far is what i'm attempting to prove...dude jumped the gun literally because he walked in there prepared to shoot at the first sign of trouble
If Zimmerman reasonably felt that things could go that far, that would justify the use of force under the law.
For him, the indication could be as simple as, "If I'm getting my ass beat, with no end in sight.".
but the shooting of trayvon and the absence of any life threatening injuries add validity to both statements..... zimmer knew the police were on the way.. he coulda reasonably held trayvon off until the police arrived.....
where is his attempt to preserve life here?
there is no attempt to preserve, because by carrying the gun to the altercation it's clear that he'd rather take life
Such requirements would ? up self-defense laws in general.
well that's what we're trying to argue against....
murder vs self defense
i'm just trying to prove that he wasn't defending himself...he provoked a confrontation he knew would end with him shooting trayvon
"these ? they always get away"
that's what he wanted to do....
but it's validated by that being exactly what happened
all the prosecution has to do is lead the jury to believe that was the case.....
it's a fairly simple concept to grasp, and given the way things went down, it's very plausible that they might feel this way once prosecution really gets going -
I like how no one answered my question about if hes not found guilty? What yall gona do riot?
Look at what happen with oscar grant -
Word. The prosecution can try to lead them to think/feel whatever they want.Gold_Certificate wrote: »
It isn't, you're applying hindsight bias.Gold_Certificate wrote: »
The bolded is still conjecture.Gold_Certificate wrote: »
Then your problem lies more with the law itself rather than these specific circumstances.Gold_Certificate wrote: »
Nah. Life threatening injuries aren't required here, nor is any "attempt to preserve life".Gold_Certificate wrote: »
The bolded is subjective, and the underlined is conjecture.Gold_Certificate wrote: »
You're over-thinking it bruh.fiat is doing a great job at pointing out the technicalities of florida law..however the defense already established a flaw....
as fiat said, the law says all zimmerman has to prove HE THOUGHT his life was in danger....yet his attorney is trying t o prove that his life WAS in danger.....
and unfortunately for zimmerman the only way for them to prove that zimmerman's life was actually in danger was for him to have been damaged more than he was...
dude didn't even have to go directly to the hospital...they entertained it...but ultimately it was determined he'd be iight....it's not like the ? was life threatening....ya feel me? not life threatening....
so the jury is going to have to believe that trayvon really intended to ? this man......and i don't see anyone buying that...especially considering zimmerman had the gun from the jump...he was fully prepared to shoot if needed be..trayvon just wanted to know why he was being followed..he could have jumped off of zimmerman and ran for all we know...but we don't know cuz zimmerman who was prepared to shoot..shot first......knowing mind you that the police were on their way....because he called them
You don't wait for the ? to mortally injure you to do what you can to stop him, you try to stop him before it gets that far.
That's the concept this law is based on.
there was no indication that it was ever going to get that far is what i'm attempting to prove...dude jumped the gun literally because he walked in there prepared to shoot at the first sign of trouble
If Zimmerman reasonably felt that things could go that far, that would justify the use of force under the law.
For him, the indication could be as simple as, "If I'm getting my ass beat, with no end in sight.".
but the shooting of trayvon and the absence of any life threatening injuries add validity to both statements..... zimmer knew the police were on the way.. he coulda reasonably held trayvon off until the police arrived.....
where is his attempt to preserve life here?
there is no attempt to preserve, because by carrying the gun to the altercation it's clear that he'd rather take life
Such requirements would ? up self-defense laws in general.
well that's what we're trying to argue against....
murder vs self defense
i'm just trying to prove that he wasn't defending himself...he provoked a confrontation he knew would end with him shooting trayvon
"these ? they always get away"
that's what he wanted to do....
but it's validated by that being exactly what happened
all the prosecution has to do is lead the jury to believe that was the case.....
it's a fairly simple concept to grasp, and given the way things went down, it's very plausible that they might feel this way once prosecution really gets going -
Im good..i was born here not every mexican is from mexico,,.
No worries..they can send these mfs back to mexico dont effect me
did I state you werent born here? no.
I'm speaking about how real racial profiling will really get when its voted and mandates in California like Arizona.
you will be affected too. -
? ......
did i just out debate legal tender aka fiat money aka gold certificate????
-
-
I like how no one answered my question about if hes not found guilty? What yall gona do riot?
Look at what happen with oscar grant
no one needs to riot to get things started. there are laws trying to be passed in Sacramento om stopping racial profiling in the police force based on the national attention oscar grant situation had provided.
there is a movie coming out that is critically acclaimed that features the life of oscar grant and how he was killed.
just because there isn't chaos doesn't mean justice isn't being served. -
they trying to take trayvon martin's parents out of the case so zimmerman can look less guilty
-
-
I like how no one answered my question about if hes not found guilty? What yall gona do riot?
Look at what happen with oscar grant
they'll talk about how they are going to riot. -
O'Mara is pretty good for getting the 911 operator to suggest that his statements led to Zimmerman following Treyvon.
-
Fixed. -
People are gonna keep exploiting loop-holes in these ambiguous ass self-defense laws
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HL4-1dLRvs0 -
Justice for Trayvon Martin!
-
i wish somebody delivered fried chicken
-
you know Zimmerman Is gonna get off right?
-
i'm feeling this re-examination....
-
to b clear, rioting is out of the question for me... I have ? to lose... the rest of y'all should take up arms against your oppressors... and make sure to go to their neighborhoods...
-
Stopitfive wrote: »to b clear, rioting is out of the question for me... I have ? to lose... the rest of y'all should take up arms against your oppressors... and make sure to go to their neighborhoods...
What do you mean rioting mista? What do you mean rioting in there neighborhoods sir?
This discussion has been closed.