New George Zimmerman Photo. Proof he will be innocent?

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#201 Posted by Stevo_the_gamer (43354 posts) -
[QUOTE="Socialist696"][QUOTE="Stevo_the_gamer"][QUOTE="Socialist696"] I honestly wouldn't take this kid seriously. He has the views of a 14 year old adolescent still living with mommy and daddy. He clearly has no experience in the real world.

You sound rather bitter.

Its in my nature to be negative. Can't help it :)

Jack or Crown can fix that.
#202 Posted by Socialist696 (558 posts) -
I don't want to fix it. Especially since being a negative person on the internet is far more entertaining than being a happy, positive, conformist lol
#203 Posted by Cloud_Insurance (3279 posts) -

[QUOTE="Cloud_Insurance"]

Not really...as what I wrote was a hypothetical. This was indicated by the use of the word "if".

Stevo_the_gamer

Your hypothetical is pointless in reference to the topic.

No it isn't, as it hasn't been shown who attacked who.

If Zimmerman was the first person to get physical, going to his gun in a claim of self defense isn't going to help him much...as he put himself in that situation because of his aggressive actions toward another person. How many times does it need to be said that you can't attack someone first and then get hit back and claim your future actions are in self defense? Thats not how it works. The phrase "did not provoke the assault" is included in the stand your ground laws. And Zimmerman wasn't on his property either, which also goes against his defense.

Even if Martin hit Zimmerman first it could be argued that Zimmerman provoked the assault as he was a strange man (not a LEO) following a boy at night. The prosecutor's could easily paint the picture that Martin was feeling threatened at that point and his physical action was him defending himself.

#204 Posted by Socialist696 (558 posts) -

[QUOTE="Stevo_the_gamer"][QUOTE="Cloud_Insurance"]

Not really...as what I wrote was a hypothetical. This was indicated by the use of the word "if".

Cloud_Insurance

Your hypothetical is pointless in reference to the topic.

No it isn't, as it hasn't been shown who attacked who.

If Zimmerman was the first person to get physical, going to his gun in a claim of self defense isn't going to help him much...as he put himself in that situation because of his aggressive actions toward another person. How many times does it need to be said that you can't attack someone first and then get hit back and claim your future actions are in self defense? Thats not how it works. The phrase "did not provoke the assault" is included in the stand your ground laws. And Zimmerman wasn't on his property either, which also goes against his defense.

Even if Martin hit Zimmerman first it could be argued that Zimmerman provoked the assault as he was a strange man (not a LEO) following a boy at night. The prosecutor's could easily paint the picture that Martin was feeling threatened at that point and his physical action was him defending himself.

Zimmerman will be charged with manslaughter either way. He won't get out of it. I don't see the point in debating the law over this especially when its so clear cut if you eliminate the politics of it.
#205 Posted by Aljosa23 (26410 posts) -

No it isn't, as it hasn't been shown who attacked who.

If Zimmerman was the first person to get physical, going to his gun in a claim of self defense isn't going to help him much...as he put himself in that situation because of his aggressive actions toward another person. How many times does it need to be said that you can't attack someone first and then get hit back and claim your future actions are in self defense? Thats not how it works. The phrase "did not provoke the assault" is included in the stand your ground laws. And Zimmerman wasn't on his property either, which also goes against his defense.

Even if Martin hit Zimmerman first it could be argued that Zimmerman provoked the assault as he was a strange man (not a LEO) following a boy at night. The prosecutor's could easily paint the picture that Martin was feeling threatened at that point and his physical action was him defending himself.

Cloud_Insurance

I'll repost what I said earlier since you must have missed it.

-

Only up until a point. The law goes that you have "reasonable limits" to defend yourself against an attack. If you're punched, you may hit back, if you're kicked, you may kick back and so on. Once you defend yourself to the point that the person is disharmed and no longer able to hurt you then you must NOT go on the offensive. In extreme cases even if the person you were defending yourself against dies you can still get acquitted if you show due diligence in a crime that has no mens rea.

In this case, it doesn't really matter who initiated it. What matters is whether or not the person defending themself used a reasonable amount of force.

#206 Posted by Cloud_Insurance (3279 posts) -

Zimmerman will be charged with manslaughter either way. He won't get out of it. I don't see the point in debating the law over this especially when its so clear cut if you eliminate the politics of it.Socialist696

he was charged with 2nd degree murder so please stop posting.

#207 Posted by Socialist696 (558 posts) -

[QUOTE="Socialist696"]

Zimmerman will be charged with manslaughter either way. He won't get out of it. I don't see the point in debating the law over this especially when its so clear cut if you eliminate the politics of it.Cloud_Insurance

he was charged with 2nd degree murder so please stop posting.

The attorneys will most likely plead it down. Until its a conviction it can go either way. You should know that charges are not guaranteed to stick. Also, I said earlier and I'll say it again in case you missed it, I said the MINIMUM charge is a manslaughter in response to another posters posting. So no, I won't stop posting because you didn't comprehend fully.
#208 Posted by Stevo_the_gamer (43354 posts) -

[QUOTE="Stevo_the_gamer"][QUOTE="Cloud_Insurance"]

Not really...as what I wrote was a hypothetical. This was indicated by the use of the word "if".

Cloud_Insurance

Your hypothetical is pointless in reference to the topic.

No it isn't, as it hasn't been shown who attacked who.

If Zimmerman was the first person to get physical, going to his gun in a claim of self defense isn't going to help him much...as he put himself in that situation because of his aggressive actions toward another person. How many times does it need to be said that you can't attack someone first and then get hit back and claim your future actions are in self defense? Thats not how it works. The phrase "did not provoke the assault" is included in the stand your ground laws. And Zimmerman wasn't on his property either, which also goes against his defense.

Even if Martin hit Zimmerman first it could be argued that Zimmerman provoked the assault as he was a strange man (not a LEO) following a boy at night. The prosecutor's could easily paint the picture that Martin was feeling threatened at that point and his physical action was him defending himself.

Read aljosas post. Then read it again.
#209 Posted by Cloud_Insurance (3279 posts) -

Read aljosas post. Then read it again.Stevo_the_gamer

his post doesn't refute what I wrote.

#210 Posted by Stevo_the_gamer (43354 posts) -

[QUOTE="Stevo_the_gamer"]

Read aljosas post. Then read it again.Cloud_Insurance

his post doesn't refute what I wrote.

It does.
#211 Posted by RedEyedMonster8 (1161 posts) -

[QUOTE="Socialist696"]

I guaranteed at the end of the day, your ass will be grass over mine when it comes down to it. Survival of the fittest.

Cloud_Insurance

never has this been more appropriate

watch-out-we-got-a-badass-over-here-meme

LOL

#212 Posted by LJS9502_basic (153499 posts) -
I don't want to fix it. Especially since being a negative person on the internet is far more entertaining than being a happy, positive, conformist lolSocialist696
Because being happy and positive always means conformist.....
#213 Posted by thebest31406 (3681 posts) -

doesn't prove anything. Zimmerman is still alive and Trayvon the one dead. I don't doubt Trayvon pucnhed zimmerman. I would have punched Zimmerman too if he was stalking me for no reason.

helwa1988
Same.
#214 Posted by thebest31406 (3681 posts) -
[QUOTE="RedEyedMonster8"]

[QUOTE="D3nnyCrane"] HAHAHA death = instant respect. In that case, Jeffrey Dahmer you were a true hero at advancing the rights of men who want to kill and have sex with black boy corpses and I salute you. Steven Hawking, you're only half dead so screw you, Hawko.D3nnyCrane

Are you honestly comparing Travyon Martin with Jeffery Dahmer? So much for trying to have a civil debate with you guys.

Haha Jesus, you could not see the point in a packet full of pins. You said I should show respect cos someone died. Jeffrey Dahmer also died, so merely following your rationale that means he should also be treated with some respect. And I can't respect anyone who would willingly eat Skittles. Who the f*ck eats Skittles.

Wow, another relativst ghoul. Give it time folks, he'll get himself banned eventually.
#215 Posted by LJS9502_basic (153499 posts) -
[QUOTE="thebest31406"][QUOTE="D3nnyCrane"][QUOTE="RedEyedMonster8"]

Are you honestly comparing Travyon Martin with Jeffery Dahmer? So much for trying to have a civil debate with you guys.

Haha Jesus, you could not see the point in a packet full of pins. You said I should show respect cos someone died. Jeffrey Dahmer also died, so merely following your rationale that means he should also be treated with some respect. And I can't respect anyone who would willingly eat Skittles. Who the f*ck eats Skittles.

Wow, another relativst ghoul. Give it time folks, he'll get himself banned eventually.

He's right though. Why should any respect be accorded Trayvon because he died? That's a really stupid ideology.
#216 Posted by thebest31406 (3681 posts) -
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="thebest31406"][QUOTE="D3nnyCrane"] Haha Jesus, you could not see the point in a packet full of pins. You said I should show respect cos someone died. Jeffrey Dahmer also died, so merely following your rationale that means he should also be treated with some respect. And I can't respect anyone who would willingly eat Skittles. Who the f*ck eats Skittles.

Wow, another relativst ghoul. Give it time folks, he'll get himself banned eventually.

He's right though. Why should any respect be accorded Trayvon because he died? That's a really stupid ideology.

No, you don't have to respect anyone who's dead or who has just been killed no matter who they are. He's still a ghoul.
#217 Posted by Obviously_Right (5324 posts) -

I will lol when he is inevitably found guilty.

#218 Posted by Renevent42 (5912 posts) -
And if he's not?