Zimmerman TrialFollow

Probably because just accepting the testimony of the shooter is the worst possible way to run a trial?

Having a trial where the prosecution provides witness and expert testimony to prove the defendant guilty is your definition of "just accepting?"

I don't agree with the verdict, but I also don't agree with it with larger reference to what should and should not be allowable in our society. I think this is ultimately a problem with Florida's SYG law being horribly written. Whether or not SYG laws in general are a positive or negative thing is a separate debate.

As far as I'm concerned, Zimmerman is a murderer. Unfortunately, being guilty of murder isn't quite the same thing.

I declared Zimmerman guilty because I'm racist against whites and Hispanics.

This makes dinnertime a little awkward but I gotta have principles.

The racism is IMPLIED.

You know, not to stir the pot, but the one quote I took from Zimmerman's call was this:

Zimmerman: Okay. These (expletive) they always get away.

Take from that what you well.

Even though I don't believe it to be 100% legit, I don't doubt the possibility nor care if it is. Saving a family from a car accident doesn't take away the fact that he profiled, unnecessarily provoked, and killed an unarmed teenager

P.S. I hate the oxford comma, but I had to use it

There was an AMA on reddit by Zimmerman's nephew (I think) who was raving about how nice a person he was.

Edited, Jul 29th 2013 10:18am by Aethien

It's everything.

Zero. What I have said repeatedly is that we don't know how the physical fight began, but that it doesn't matter because we do know that just prior to Zimmerman shooting Martin, Martin was seen to be on top of Zimmerman, pinning him to the ground, and punching him in the face. My argument has consistently been that this position gives Zimmerman the right to use his weapon in self defense by default.



Not really. The entire point of having your concealed weapon holster on the back side of your hip is so that you can get at it while minimizing the odds that someone else can see it or get to it first. It's just not that hard to pull a pistol from the holster in that position, even when someone is on top of you. It's not "easy", but hardly impossible. Most people can manage to pull their wallet out of a back pocket while sitting in a car just fine. This is considerably easier in terms of actual reach and only made more difficult because of the whole "guy punching you in the face" bit.



No, it doesn't. There's a whole list of possible ways they could have ended out that way. However, the fact that not a single witness who saw the men fighting saw a gun would tend to poke big holes in the theory that he had it out the entire time. If there was even the slightest evidence of this having been the case, you can bet the prosecution would have found someone to say it. Yet, even they realized this was an impossible thing to even suggest, let alone prove.

There's just no evidence to support that theory.



Er? What both ways? I have never argued that Zimmerman was so harmed in the first instant of the fight that he had no ability to do anything. So I'm not sure what kind of false dilemma you're building here.

The key is that he continued to punch Zimmerman in the face *after* pinning him to the ground

HI. Allegedly. I think you're conflating a finding of reasonable doubt that Zimmerman murdered someone with a finding of fact that Martin was assaulting Zimmerman. The only evidence that took place was the account of the guy who killed him. May be entirely accurate, but it doesn't seem outlandish to suspect a small amount of bias.

That's good! So, if Martin didn't run away from random people on the phone sitting in parked cars, then that means Zimmerman must have been suspicious enough to Martin in order for him to run. Unless that is, you believe that Martin "just had a feeling"?

It's certainly not as effective as a 1/2" hole through the heart, or splattered brains, but it will shut um up.