Zimmerman not guilty!

[Fluffy]

If someone physically harms you, it's necessary.

Yeah, I'm done. There's simply no logic in this. Have a good discussion with willful ignorance of actual law.

[Lacquer Head]

Yeah, I'm done. There's simply no logic in this. Have a good discussion with willful ignorance of actual law.

I missed the deadly force part lol obviously someone punching you in the arm isn't justified, but if someone begins to assault you, it most certainly is.

[Rowan]

Yeah, I'm done. There's simply no logic in this. Have a good discussion with willful ignorance of actual law.

Excuse me but last I checked its not your life that was under threat. Any means necassary is a permit that is granted to the person who's life is in danger. You cannot sit back and judge someone on HOW they defended themself, because in essense, they are DEFENDING themself.

I will also remind you, that if it was a woman I can tell you right now this wouldnt be an issue. Oh, the joys of our biased society.
Not sure if you heard of the case about the woman who plotted to kill her husband by purchasing a gun and waiting for him to come home? She shot him to death and she was not sentenced to prison because she felt her life was threatened.

Ref:
http://www.wate.com/story/22775275/d...n-self-defense
(similar case, not the same case)

The difference between the two scenario is that we had a man who said he was going to kill his wife, and zimmerman was actually in the process of being attacked and/or possibly killed. So she had more/less right to do what she did because her husband made a verbal thread as opposed to trayven or whatever who was actually beating on someone?



And last I checked, the LAW decided that Zimmerman was innocent. So it looks like you're the person with the problem with law. You're entitled to hold your points and killing someone is a serious thing (I guess) but you are undervaluing Zimmermans own life by dictating that he should have used other means to defend himself, whilst ignoring the fact he may not have been able too.

[Fluffy]

You cannot sit back and judge someone on HOW they defended themself, because in essense, they are DEFENDING themself.

I don't see how you can say this when this is precisely what the jury's job is.

And last I checked, the LAW decided that Zimmerman was innocent.

A jury did. A jury that used Stand Your Ground law in his defense, when Stand Your Ground was never brought in as a defense during the trial.


My "problem" is not with the law, it's with miscarriage of the law, which I believe to be the case in this trial, and in many trials. Whether they got the verdict right or wrong is another issue. They came to the verdict through means outside of the evidence presented. All you're supposed to use is the evidence, your jury instructions, and your brain.

My other problem is with people completely discounting the possibility that Trayvon Martin's right to self defense may have been violated, and yet celebrate this trial as a victory for self defense. Again, whether his rights were violated or not is not the issue: it's that many refuse to even see the possibility that people's rights are violated and people go free for it all too often.

I'm not going to pretend that I know of a better system, or that there is even the possibility of one. But I hate that people refuse to acknowledge that the law gets it wrong sometimes, and it's probably far more often than we'd like to admit.

[Lacquer Head]

I don't see how you can say this when this is precisely what the jury's job is.

The jury was presented both cases FULLY and it was their job to decide, not yours.

A jury did. A jury that used Stand Your Ground law in his defense, when Stand Your Ground was never brought in as a defense during the trial.

So, if someone doesn't bring up a law that protects them in court, they should be considered guilty? It is odd that the defense didn't mention it, I suppose they were just confident lol

My "problem" is not with the law, it's with miscarriage of the law, which I believe to be the case in this trial, and in many trials. Whether they got the verdict right or wrong is another issue. They came to the verdict through means outside of the evidence presented. All you're supposed to use is the evidence, your jury instructions, and your brain.

>your brain

You just contradicted yourself, they used their brain because they based it on the knowledge of the law, regardless if it was mentioned.

My other problem is with people completely discounting the possibility that Trayvon Martin's right to self defense may have been violated, and yet celebrate this trial as a victory for self defense. Again, whether his rights were violated or not is not the issue: it's that many refuse to even see the possibility that people's rights are violated and people go free for it all too often.

Once again, you're wallowing in the what ifs and baseless possibilities with no supporting evidence.

I'm not going to pretend that I know of a better system, or that there is even the possibility of one. But I hate that people refuse to acknowledge that the law gets it wrong sometimes, and it's probably far more often than we'd like to admit.

It CAN be right or wrong, but the same laws that possibly let people get away also help far more innocent people stay out of prison. If there's no proof, there's no case, regardless of what your gut tells you about possibilities, possibilities and what ifs have NO place in court without proper testimony and proof to back it up.

[Fluffy]

It CAN be right or wrong, but the same laws that possibly let people get away also help far more innocent people stay out of prison. If there's no proof, there's no case, regardless of what your gut tells you about possibilities, possibilities and what ifs have NO place in court without proper testimony and proof to back it up.

I'm expecting a citation for this. (I'm partially joking.)

>your brain

You just contradicted yourself, they used their brain because they based it on the knowledge of the law, regardless if it was mentioned.

No I didn't. You use your brain to interpret the evidence and the jury instructions and discussion, nothing more.

You are not to read laws or read anything regarding the trial outside of the court room, and you are not to use any law other than the one given to your in the jury instructions.

[Lacquer Head]

I'm expecting a citation for this. (I'm partially joking.)

The 5th, 6th and 7th Amendments.

No I didn't. You use your brain to interpret the evidence and the jury instructions and discussion, nothing more.

You are not to read laws or read anything regarding the trial outside of the court room, and you are not to use any law other than the one given to your in the jury instructions.

You're not supposed to have contact with other people and the media to possibly bias yourself, but you ARE supposed to be familiar with the law. Are you really trying to tell me that the jury should OMIT laws because the defense didn't mention them when they're clearly protected the defendant?

[Fluffy]

You're not supposed to have contact with other people and the media to possibly bias yourself, but you ARE supposed to be familiar with the law. Are you really trying to tell me that the jury should OMIT laws because the defense didn't mention them when they're clearly protected the defendant?

No, the judge does that for you. They specifically tell you that you are to come to your verdict only through the evidence and the only law to be used is the one written in the jury instructions.