George Zimmerman verdict just in . . .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vhatever

The miscarriage of justice was charges ever being brought with zero evidence of wrongdoing. The jury has to believe that the person in question, given their background/ability/health/etc. that they could reasonably be in fear of serious bodily harm or death. Further, they have to believe a reasonable person in that same situation could possibly be afraid of harm/death. If both of those are satisfied, it's self defense.

why do you dare to even speak on miscarriages of justice when it's clear you know absolutely nothing about the law or due process?

---

You have this condescending attitude of being a know-it-all and that others (me) are not informed. You make sweeping accusations that encompass all of the law and due process of same.
If you are a professor of criminal law and specifically Florida law, then you could comment. Since you are not spare me your pathetic judgements and excuse yourself from personal insults.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by D-Type

I am not a US resident and I do not understand the nuances of US Law. Can somebodey please clarify whether being a member of a neighbourhood watch group is considered legally to being a member of a "A well regulated Militia" in the sense that the writers of the Second Amendment intended?

---

I am going to pretend you are being serious and answer your question.

It is perfectly justifiable as a basic human right to defend oneself from bodily harm. When Martin jumped on George Zimmerman, knocking him down and then proceeded to drive his head into the pavement he waved any right to his life.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spafranco

A complete and total miscarriage of justice and another reason that the archaic second amendment be looked at.

It's akin to a person saying booo and then being shot as you felt threatened. How do you determine when someone considers an action a threat.

That is an emotional point of response. How was Zimmerman , a 27 year 'mature man' acquitted? Utterly baffling.

---

Oh, I forgot the other liberal argument methods, but Spanfranco just reminded me:

1) mis-characterizing
2) righteous indignation

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spafranco

You have this condescending attitude of being a know-it-all and that others (me) are not informed. You make sweeping accusations that encompass all of the law and due process of same.
If you are a professor of criminal law and specifically Florida law, then you could comment. Since you are not spare me your pathetic judgements and excuse yourself from personal insults.

---

Vhatever has continually provided cogent, well-written comments on this thread and you repeatedly fail to make any substantive responses.

Definitely the right decision. Cue inevitable Al Sharpton race-baiting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anthonyvop

It is perfectly justifiable as a basic human right to defend oneself from bodily harm. When Martin jumped on George Zimmerman, knocking him down and then proceeded to drive his head into the pavement he waved any right to his life.

---

Pray tell, how do you know this? You do not know the circumstances.

You can't honestly say that Martins' attack wasn't provoked; mainly because apart from Martin and Zimmerman, there were no other witnesses. Therefore any remarks about this being "perfectly justifiable" or even a "proportionate response" are entirely conjecture because no-one apart from Martin and Zimmerman would know what the response was in proportion to. Zimmerman is a biased party and must be treated as an unreliable narrator and Martin is dead.

You do not know the circumstances which happened. Nobody apart from Martin and Zimmerman do. For that reason it is impossible for a prosecution to construct a case providing proof beyond reasonable doubt; why the jury delivered a not guilty verdict.

I don't have any problem with the right to defend yourself.

But then again, I still struggle to comprehend how Zimmerman got no conviction, while Marissa Alexander got 20 years in jail... go figure.

Fla. woman Marissa Alexander gets 20 years for "warning shot": Did she stand her ground? - Crimesider - CBS News

Quote:

---

(CBS) - Last Friday, Jacksonville mother Marissa Alexander was sentenced by a Florida judge to 20 years in prison for firing what she says was a "warning shot" into the wall after a physical altercation with her husband, Rico Gray.

The case has set off yet another controversy involving the state's "stand your ground" law, which is under intense scrutiny after the shooting death of Trayvon Martin in February. Critics, including Congresswoman Corrine Brown (D-Fla.), are crying foul.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anthonyvop

I am going to pretend you are being serious and answer your question.

It is perfectly justifiable as a basic human right to defend oneself from bodily harm. When Martin jumped on George Zimmerman, knocking him down and then proceeded to drive his head into the pavement he waved any right to his life.

---

and you know what Tony, I don't actually disagree with you, once that happened and Zimmerman feared for his life, then he was justified in doing what he did...... but did the situation that happened really need to happen? Until that point Zimmerman had been the aggressor and you could argue that Martin was merely making use of the stand your ground law as he quite possibly feared for his life.

If you think about it, the law created a situation whereby both people were quite entitled to do what they did and with predictable results.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by keysersoze

Spanfranco just reminded me:

1) mis-characterizing
2) righteous indignation

---

I have to agree (please note that I removed your knuckle dragging liberal comments), the only verdict that could be reached (due to the fact that Zimmerman shot the only other witness) was not guilty. But the law does need to be looked at, should the law really allow people to go chasing trouble and then when they get it, to go shooting people?

Fortunately in the UK Neighbourhood Watch consists of old folk peeping round their net curtains and tutting a lot, not "standing their ground" by following unarmed teenagers about tooled up. And yet it's arguably more effective if you compare the crime rates of our respective countries.