Really there were a lot of people that are going to try to crucify Zimmerman. As he may have to hide out for years.
1) Why no Grand Jury?
2) Why wasn't Trayvon arrest record allowed?
3) Why wasn't his cell phone record not allowed?
Answers 1 It wouldn't have gotten past a Grand Jury
2 It would have blown the states case out of the water. Fighting on
numerous occasions(suspensions) and found with stolen jewelry
guns. Charges never brought because of lowering the crime rate in
Finally a president and an attorney general who one of the worst at stirring racial divide in this country since the days before the GREAT Martin Luther King.
He worked to bring people together Obama and Holder are doing just the opposite.
Secondly, Of course it was not illegal. Unfortunately, it simply set into motion the events leading up to the shooting.
Actually, it was obvious to ME, that the Prosecution simply LACKED the evidence needed to even convict him of Manslaughter in the end. I feel there was no real way to prove or disprove that Zimmerman acted in Self-Defense. It was simply just a lack of evidence that ended up freeing him.It was very obvious to me, based on all the evidence reported in the news, that this was a classic self defense scenario.
I always thought Racial Profiling was illegal? Guess I'm wrong. Nevermind then.Now if you think Zimmerman only followed Martin because he was packing? Well, you may be right. But it is still IRRELEVANT. He did not break the law. There is no law making it illegal.
No. Actually the question should be "Would Zimmerman have even been out patrolling the neighborhood in the first place if he never had a gun?" I think it's safe to assume that he wouldn't.And really the ideal here that paved the way for Zimmerman to be acquitted is the constitution. The public outrage here is that Zimmerman was armed in the first place. They think he should not have been allowed to be packing.
Well, he was legally licensed to carry a concealed weapon. So once again there were no laws broken on the part of the defendant.
And maybe the real question here is, "Would Martin have attacked Zimmerman if he'd known that Zimmerman had a gun?" I think not.
The gun gave him false courage which enabled him to do his "Legal stalking"(as I call it) which ended the way it did.
I agree with you for the most part but George Zimmerman is FAR from innocent in my eyes. But I guess we can agree to disagree in that regard. You think he's a Poor Innocent Soul who only wanted to do good in the community while I think he's a dirty-harry wannabe-cop who got brave because he had a gun and wanted to "get the bad guys" like they do in the movies(which he obviously watches a lot of).At the end of the day, I think it is tragic that Martin was killed. I would tend to believe that really all Martin was intending to do when he attacked Zimmerman was to beat him up - certainly not kill him.
But you or I could never ultimately know that as we were not in his shoes. So he reacted in a manner that he thought was appropriate. I can also easily say, "If I had a gun and got attacked and was enduring the beating that Zimmerman was taking? A split second decision to shoot is exactly the way I would have reacted."
So if you think our system of laws are wrong? Go after them in the right manner. Try to change the constitution. Try to take away the self defense angle.
But I'm fine with it. It was designed to protect innocent people and allow them to defend themselves. That is EXACTLY who George Zimmerman is.
Whatever. It's over and done with.
Now Z will have to remain in hiding and be looking over his shoulder for the rest of miserable life. And yeah....unfortunately for him, it's going to be miserable with the entire country knowing who he is.
Last edited by Vin; 07-15-2013 at 02:43 AM.
In the State of Florida, you have to be 21 to own a gun
People, when are we going to move on? We all have our various suspicions about what happened, but we're never going to know in any legal sense. End of story.
Still, there is a story here. But it's not about Zimmerman and Martin and may never have been really. It's about distrust on several levels and from several directions. Skin color still drives our assumptions, our expectations, and our suspicions, on both sides of the question. That's the other tragedy in this mess, and the availability of media for every hate-monger, race-baiter, do-gooder, and bleeding heart has not made things better.
To my knowledge, there was no physical evidence that Z. ever struck/punched/hit M. until the single fatal gunshot was fired.
There is clear cut evidence that M. struck Z. repeatedly, both physical, forensic and witness testimony.
So please explain the basis of this hypothetical claim please, because I find it confusing as to why you, a lawyer who is usually a stickler for detail and evidence, would raise it without any evidence to support it.
The event may not have been about race. But the response, all down the line, most certainly was.
Top pic is 17 year old Travon the bottom the one the press likes to use.. At the time of the shooting he was suspended from school for weed and allegedly punching a bus driver..