Anger + Sadness = RAGE

[acerrak]

Originally Posted by Esther

I agree with you.

Plus it seems to me Obmama has gotten involved and wants a conviction.

he should have never opened his mouth, he should have let the local authorities do the Job. according to the reports released by the prosecution. the sanford police did everything text book.

[Esther]

Originally Posted by Cindy

How many believe the police did a thorough investigation of this case, before letting Zimmerman go? And if not, why would they not hold him at least 48 hours?

Would you want to be held 48 hours if you were not guilty just to appease a group of people?

[canam]

Originally Posted by Esther

Would you want to be held 48 hours if you were not guilty just to appease a group of people?

[canam]

Originally Posted by Esther

Based on the trial by media for me I would have say there is reasonable doubt.

I know JD has already found him guilty.

[Cindy]

Originally Posted by Esther

Would you want to be held 48 hours if you were not guilty just to appease a group of people?

No, not to appease people. Just standard procedure.

[Jermyn Davidson]

You guys are nuts!

First of all, this story got big before Al Sharpton got involved. His Mother was dying as all of this unfolded.

Second, Jesse Jackson had a very, very limited part in this case, hardly any role at all-- and it again, it wasn't until this had made national news and protests were breaking all over the country.


The initial protests around the country happened WITHOUT involvement from Shaprton or Jackson!


Third of all, there would NEVER had been the widespread public outcry had the police simply held and investigated the case a bit more thoroughly BEFORE releasing zim.

Zim had a criminal record-- Martin did not.

Fourth, I have stated on this thread that I am just glad that the case is going to trial as there is nothin open and shut about the death of that 17 yr old.

Fifth, if the State didn't have ANY leg at all to stand on, I sincerely doubt they would allow themselves to be publicly embarassed-- again (in light of the Case Anthony case).

Finally, my "I told you so" was a referrence to what I had said about zimwit KNOWINGLY lying about his finances-- which makes him guilty of perjury, which greatly damages his credibilty in a case that is based in LARGE PART on HIS word that the 17 year old he killed was purely out of self-defense.

His high-priced lawyer is going into damage control in requesting another bond hearing, but zim has already perjured himself.

So we have a man who has a criminal record, has very recently perjured himself in court concerning this same case, and some of you are still convinced that he has done nothing wrong and all of outrage is much ado about nothing!

Some of you are just plain nuts!!!



On this thread, I have clearly stated that the only thing that could save" zim in this case is the "Stand Your Ground Law." I honestly don't think it applies here-- and I am in good company with Newt Gingrich, Jeb Bush (the Governor who signed this bill into law, and a host of others who really do believe that there is more to this story than mere self-defense.


If there is any proof or if it can be reasonably proven that zim pursued that young man in any way, then the "Stand Your Ground" law will not protect him.

Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law was never meant to protect the aggressor.

There is a very good chance that zim was original aggressor in this case-- hence the 2nd degree murder charge.


Can't be Manslaughter because Martin's death wasn't an act of negligence, neither was it accidental. There is nothing negligent or accidental about shooting someone in the chest at point blank range. Either you are victim and you are defending yourself, or you are the aggressor and guilty of murder.

[Jermyn Davidson]

If you or I perjured ourselves in court without the benefit of a high-priced lawyer, you best believe our gooses would be almost as good as cooked!

[acerrak]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

Zim had a criminal record-- Martin did not.

Martin was caught destroying property, drug paraphernalia, had possesion of stolen items, Beat up a bus driver (all in his past) plus he had marijuana in his system the night of the shooting, so dont paint the kid innocent.

Plus the major charge against zimmerman was dismissed and that was aggrevated assault on a police officer. so you cant really hold that against him. So i mean it goes both ways if you want to say this or that about their personal background

Fourth, I have stated on this thread that I am just glad that the case is going to trial as there is nothin open and shut about the death of that 17 yr old.

its not in trial yet it can still be dismissed by the judge on the stand your ground Law.

Fifth, if the State didn't have ANY leg at all to stand on, I sincerely doubt they would allow themselves to be publicly embarassed-- again (in light of the Case Anthony case).
Im not sure i understand what your saying here.

Finally, my "I told you so" was a referrence to what I had said about zimwit KNOWINGLY lying about his finances-- which makes him guilty of perjury, which greatly damages his credibilty in a case that is based in LARGE PART on HIS word that the 17 year old he killed was purely out of self-defense.

Not really, the man turned himself in and has been very cooperative with the police on this.
His high-priced lawyer is going into damage control in requesting another bond hearing, but zim has already perjured himself.

they will just redo another amount thats all if he makes bail he makes bail if he doesnt he doesnt.

So we have a man who has a criminal record, has very recently perjured himself in court concerning this same case, and some of you are still convinced that he has done nothing wrong and all of outrage is much ado about nothing!

i dont think so

Some of you are just plain nuts!!!
yes add yourself to the fruit basket

On this thread, I have clearly stated that the only thing that could save" zim in this case is the "Stand Your Ground Law." I honestly don't think it applies here-- and I am in good company with Newt Gingrich, Jeb Bush (the Governor who signed this bill into law, and a host of others who really do believe that there is more to this story than mere self-defense.

that is his case

If there is any proof or if it can be reasonably proven that zim pursued that young man in any way, then the "Stand Your Ground" law will not protect him.

Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law was never meant to protect the aggressor.

There is a very good chance that zim was original aggressor in this case-- hence the 2nd degree murder charge.

actually your wrong. Its not a felony to follow someone. its not a felony to aproach some one. there is also citizens arrest that can fall under the law.

As one lawyer put it the boy on top lost all his rights to any self defense when he started smashing the skull of zimmerman on the sidewalk. even if Zim was the initial aggressor. If your doing something suspicious i can run at you approach you what ever, its in my rights to do so.

study what second degree murder is he doesnt fit the bill


Can't be Manslaughter because Martin's death wasn't an act of negligence, neither was it accidental. There is nothing negligent or accidental about shooting someone in the chest at point blank range. Either you are victim and you are defending yourself, or you are the aggressor and guilty of murder.

(words in red mine)
answering the last part of the paragraph here.

The initial detective wanted to charge him with manslaughter, but not enough initial evidence at the time to charge the man with.

i would also call it self defense since he fired while his back was on the ground into the chest of martin who was beating him up, also with 2 viable witnesses and the support of Trayvons father verifying the screams was not of His son on the 911 tape... what else you want the man todo? he screamed for like 40 seconds for help.

he didnt chase the boy down to kill him. he wanted to contain him until the police arrived. The boy was partial stoned if he had marijuana in his system. This begs to ask the question what he was doing around the clubhouse.

expecially when he first realized he was being watched by a man in a vehicle, he took off running. Most people wouldnt have run unless maybe a guilty conscience. ofcourse this is all speculation. But its not as cut and tried as you think it is.

peopel say you should listen to the 911 operator, there not cops. and few months ago a 911 operator got a man killed in denver. Cause the man listened to him,

Nothing in the law says you cant confront a person,

[Jermyn Davidson]

Originally Posted by acerrak

(words in red mine)
answering the last part of the paragraph here.

The initial detective wanted to charge him with manslaughter, but not enough initial evidence at the time to charge the man with.

i would also call it self defense since he fired while his back was on the ground into the chest of martin who was beating him up, also with 2 viable witnesses and the support of Trayvons father verifying the screams was not of His son on the 911 tape... what else you want the man todo? he screamed for like 40 seconds for help.

he didnt chase the boy down to kill him. he wanted to contain him until the police arrived. The boy was partial stoned if he had marijuana in his system. This begs to ask the question what he was doing around the clubhouse.

expecially when he first realized he was being watched by a man in a vehicle, he took off running. Most people wouldnt have run unless maybe a guilty conscience. ofcourse this is all speculation. But its not as cut and tried as you think it is.

peopel say you should listen to the 911 operator, there not cops. and few months ago a 911 operator got a man killed in denver. Cause the man listened to him,

Nothing in the law says you cant confront a person,

Trace amount of mary jane and EVERYONE knows that MJ doesn't make you violent.

Zim has a police record-- Martin does not have a police record. Didn't say anyone was a goody two-shoes, but given zim's past with VIOLENCE, more should have been done to investigate.

The Governor who signed the law has publicly stated that our "Stand Your Ground" law was never meant to be applied in cases like this.


I never said it was cut and dry-- I have been saying the EXACT OPPOSITE of that since I started this thread. I am glad the case has been investigated and I am glad he is going to trial. Most people who were outraged were outraged simply because it was not investigated.

[Jermyn Davidson]

zim wasn't trying to make a citizens arrest as he himself has never said that is what he was doing.

Besides, when was the last time you heard of someone attempting to make a citizens arrest of a person where you did not witness that person commit a crime? What is the legal basis for that?


As for the running, the boy was 17-- he may have looked like a man, but at 17 you're not the most mature person and not everyone makes the best decisions even as adults! Martin was 17 when he was killed.