Jump to content

George Zimmerman not guilty in murder of Trayvon Martin

FischerTal

By FischerTal
in Chit Chat

 Share

Recommended Posts

bulbul Newbie

bulbul

Posted
Posted
Alexander was convicted of attempted murder after she rejected a plea deal for a three-year prison sentence. She said she did not believe she did anything wrong. She was recently denied a new trial after appealing to the judge to reconsider her case based on Florida's controversial "Stand Your Ground" law. The law states that the victim of a crime does not have to attempt to run for safety and can immediately retaliate in self-defense.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57433184/fla-mom-gets-20-years-for-firing-warning-shots/
CSK Fan Newbie

CSK Fan

Posted
Posted
Yeah ' date=' its wrong. But I think she didn't applied for the Stand your ground law in first time.[/quote'] Her lawyer brought up both things, self-defense and stand your ground. Judge rejected it An under-rtrial doesn't need to bring up laws under which she will be charged/discharged. That's the judge's job to let the lawyers know
CSK Fan Newbie

CSK Fan

Posted
Posted
OJ Simpson? For killing his white wife.
You cannot compare OJ Simpson, the darling of the masses, with a regular person. OJ Simpson case had similar tones, jury was completely biased towards OJ. Couple even wanted his auto-graph after acquitting him
punjabi_khota Enthusiast

punjabi_khota

Posted
Posted
There was a case recently in Florida , where Marissa Alexander was being hit badly by her husband and was on the verge of being killed. She got her hand on a shot gun and shot. A warning shot which didn't even hit him and hit a wall. She got 20 years in prison despite her lawyer using stand your ground and self defense as excuse. Think of that, 20 years for firing a shot gun which didn't even hit anyone And yes, she was black http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/19/marissa-alexander-gets-20_n_1530035.html
You need to read up a bit on law before blabbering. The penalty for use of deadly force is the same, regardless of the result. If you shoot at someone, you get a minimum sentence, doesn't matter if you are a *****y shooter or a sharp shooter.
beetle Rising Star

beetle

Posted
Posted
You cannot compare OJ Simpson' date=' the darling of the masses, with a regular person. OJ Simpson case had similar tones, jury was completely biased towards OJ. Couple even wanted his auto-graph after acquitting him[/quote'] Isn't there a system for appealing against the verdict?I just don't get this jury system.A bunch of regular people unfamiliar with the law taking a decision. Might as well have sms vote on it like the tv channels have...
bulbul Newbie

bulbul

Posted
Posted
Why was she given a 3 year sentence when no one was hurt? Why was Zimmerman not given the 3 year sentence?
I don't have full details , but my guess is that "Stand your ground" law. Looks like she didn't asked to go under that rule in first place.
beetle Rising Star

beetle

Posted
Posted
You need to read up a bit on law before blabbering. The penalty for use of deadly force is the same' date=' regardless of the result. If you shoot at someone, you get a minimum sentence, doesn't matter if you are a *****y shooter or a sharp shooter.[/quote'] But it is legal to keep weapons for no rhyme or reason:blink:.....the weapon can be kept but can't be used if you are getting beaten up.If you end up killing ...then you have a better chance of staying out of jail as in the latest case....screwed up laws:blink:
bulbul Newbie

bulbul

Posted
Posted
You cannot compare OJ Simpson' date=' the darling of the masses, with a regular person. OJ Simpson case had similar tones, jury was completely biased towards OJ. Couple even wanted his auto-graph after acquitting him[/quote'] What bias jury have for Zimmerman a commoner?
ravishingravi Grand Master

ravishingravi

Posted
Posted
But it is legal to keep weapons for no rhyme or reason:blink:.....the weapon can be kept but can't be used if you are getting beaten up.If you end up killing ...then you have a better chance of staying out of jail as in the latest case....screwed up laws:blink:
2nd amendment.
ganeshran Collaborator

ganeshran

Posted
Posted
This is what went down in court that ultimately worked in Zimmerman's favor. Besides what makes you think that Martin was completely unaware of Zimmerman? The girl who testified clearly said that Martin suspected someone was following him. Zimmerman talked to 911 and was returning to his truck. It was Martin who initiated the confrontation with Zimmerman!! Hell man the girl even testified that she heard Martin ask Zimmerman something!! Where are you getting your info from? If Zimmerman was looking for trouble why would he call the cops? http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/NEWS/usaedition/2012-04-12-trayvon-cover-timeline_ST_U.htm
Can you cite a source which says Zimmermann returned to his truck immediately after the 911 call. There was a phone call to 911 at 7PM where he was warned not to follow. He does so anyway.
Zimmerman pursues Martin anyway, but then says he lost sight of him.
http://edition.cnn.com/2012/04/20/us/florida-zimmerman-timeline the fight started around 7:15-7:20 PM because the 911 call on his death was ta 7:25 P
ganeshran Collaborator

ganeshran

Posted
Posted
You need to read up a bit on law before blabbering. The penalty for use of deadly force is the same' date=' regardless of the result. If you shoot at someone, you get a minimum sentence, doesn't matter if you are a *****y shooter or a sharp shooter.[/quote'] She fired the warning shot into the roof. Had a restraining order against the abusive husband since 2009 and actually tried to escape first but the garage door was locked so she came back into the home with a gun and fired a warning shot. Gray (the husband) in his initial deposition stated that the gun was aimed at the roof, not at him.
Brainfade Newbie

Brainfade

Posted
Posted
When the President takes sides even before the trial then how is this not reverse racism.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/15/opinion/thernstrom-trayvon-martin-obama/index.html?hpt=op_t1
(CNN) -- Every American can make their own judgment about whether justice was served by the verdict in the George Zimmerman murder trial but one thing we should all recognize: President Obama's interference in a local law enforcement matter was unprecedented and inappropriate, and he comes away from the case looking badly tarnished by his poor judgment. "If I had a son, he'd look like Trayvon," the president said when asked about the case in the Rose Garden on March 23, 2012, after many had called for Zimmerman's arrest but several weeks before he was charged. "When I think about this boy, I think about my own kids." In fact, if the president had a son, he would have been born to extraordinary privilege and raised with all the advantages of two very affluent and highly educated parents. He would have gone to tony private schools. His path in life would have been almost as dissimilar from Trayvon's as one could imagine. Yes, Obama's hypothetical son and Trayvon would have shared the same brown skin color. Would that have made them interchangeable? Not unless all brown-skinned boys are the same. Does the president really believe that? The president's remarks created a clear impression that he was motivated by one of two factors, and we can only guess as to which, or what combination of the two, was at work here. One possibility is that this is merely another manifestation of the president's well-known narcissism: No matter what the situation may be, it's all about him. The other, more troubling possibility is that the president surrendered to his political instincts. He wants disadvantaged Americans to believe that he and his family are one of them -- despite their life of unparalleled privilege -- and he wanted the prosecutors, judge and jury to believe that this was a case about race where justice demanded a guilty verdict. If that was his motivation -- and we cannot know, but reasonable people certainly may suspect -- then Obama should be ashamed of his effort to stir America's turbulent, dangerous racial waters. The president's role is not to be a racial agitator, and the mark of a great civil rights leader has been a determination to reject the temptations of that approach. And not that long ago -- in 2008, in Philadelphia -- candidate Obama distanced himself from such agitators. People such as Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson see white racism as endemic and elevate what's wrong with America over all that is remarkably right. In his 2008 Philadelphia speech, Obama separated himself from activists of their ilk: the very people who today still hope to punish George Zimmerman. On the campaign trail, Obama understood the sensibilities of the American people on these questions; in office, Obama seems to have lost that touch. On Sunday, the president did once again separate himself from the voices of anger. "We are a nation of laws and the jury has spoken," he said. But if his Justice Department brings civil rights charges against Zimmerman, as the NAACP has urged and which it is reportedly still considering, the ugly racial politics of this prosecution will be undeniable. Let us hope it never comes to that, for at that point a double tragedy will have occurred. Trayvon Martin will be dead, and our hopes for a president whose judgment is unaffected by his race will have been thoroughly and irreparably dashed.
Like I said, there was an election to be won, and if that got him a step closer, he was going to do it. Just another run-of-the-mill politician.
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...