November 2012 Moms
pamelamelanie924
member
Options
George Zimmerman
pamelamelanie924
member
Do you ladies think the jury will find him guilty or not guilty? Thoughts?
I think he'll be found not guilty. I think there's a lot of reasonable doubt and I don't think the prosecution has proved their case.
This discussion has been closed.
Re: George Zimmerman
ITA.
Murder is not the only verdict option. They also have the option of manslaughter and aggravated assault.
I hope the jury at least comes back with Manslaughter. Zimmerman had a lot more options available to him and he took none of them. He should be held responsible for his bad decisions.
This. Following and shooting an unarmed kid even though the 911 dispatcher told him not to ? DH said not for nothing but if some guy was following me around I'd do something too. To which I replied it's never a good idea because of all the crazies out there !
He's not just guilty of being stupid. He's guilty of following someone around in his car as well as on foot. This is assault. He then approached Treyvon after being specifically instructed by police dispatch not to do so. Rightly so, Treyvon was in fear of HIS life. He then got into a physical altercation with Treyvon. Again, for lack of better words, he may not have "thrown the first punch", but he ABSOLUTELY made the first move when he decided to pursue Treyvon. And then, after all of that, he shot and killed Treyvon Martin.
The only thing that's left unknown is which man was recorded crying, "Help" and if, in fact, Treyvon was reaching for Zimmerman's gun and that is why Zimmerman shot him.
Zimmerman is absolutely guilty and I hope he gets charged with, at the bare minimum, Manslaughter. He was way too "high" on his neighborhood watch position and he took it way way WAY too far.
There y'all go.
He got the Not Guilty verdict y'all felt he earned... or his defense earned, I guess.
I really can't express the extent to which this verdict disappoints and sickens me.
I thought assault was making physical contact.
I was just simply stating that I do not think the prosecution proved the case beyond a reasonable doubt and that based on the evidence shown, I was not convinced he was guilty.
Assault solely requires instilling fear.
Battery adds the physical contact aspect.
ETA. And all I was saying is he got the verdict you felt his defense earned.
... so we're on the same page.
Different opinions, same page.
There's a minimum of 6.
12 max.
Lori that's great. First Casey now this
Yeah you're right. When I think of someone being charged with assault I think physical. Is simply following someone really assault?
Either way, what's done is done.
I don't believe the law needs to be changed, if you fear for your life you should absolutely be able to protect yourself.
This case isn't a matter of him fearing for his life, it's whether he ACTUALLY feared for his life, rather then just saying that to cover his butt.
I agree. I have my concealed weapons permit and if I'm ever in fear for my life I feel like I should have the right to protect myself.
You're joking, right?
Zimmerman put HIMSELF in the situation he was in where he POSSIBLY feared for his life.
If someone broke into your house with a gun and you got in an altercation with them trying to protect yourself and THEY shot YOU because "they feared for their life", are they not guilty too?
Yes, I think it's safe to say this guy feels no burden whatsoever.
Oh. Quite the contrary, I'm sure he now feels that what he did was justified...
Have you seen his face? Zimmerman has no remorse for what he did. Maybe because he really doesn't believe he did anything wrong or maybe for a worse reason, IDK.
I agree Rachael. He was grinning from ear to ear in the courtroom.
Now he gets to live free and probably protected and start cashing in on this experience....you know there's a book and/or movie deal coming shortly.
BFP #1 5/4/11 EDD 1/12/12 natural m/c 5/17/11
BFP #2 8/9/11 EDD 4/18/12 ectopic pregnancy (methotrexate) 8/24/11 ruptured tube and removal 8/29/11
BFP #3 3/9/12 EDD 11/19/12 Logan born 11/18/12
~*~*Everyone Welcome*~*~
I saw his face. Right now he is being fueled by adrenaline, excitement at the prospect of going home. I honestly think that something of this magnitude will come around and knock him on his azz. Not today. Not tomorrow. But someday, it will hit him. People hate him. He and his family aren't safe. And he is at fault. He will realize the gravity of taking someone's life. You can't escape something like this.
The media was asked to back off b/c they wanted this to be a trial by jury not by media. The media listened, regardless of the crap they get.
This really is a separate issue for a separate thread, BUT there is a specific part of FL's SYG statute that protected Treyvon. Mainly the part that says this statute doesn't apply when a person isn't engaged in unlawful activity and attacked in a place he's allowed to be; this person has NO DUTY to retreat and can reciprocate with force, including deadly.
All of these points meet to the T this case. Treyvon.... was NOT doing anything illegal.
Treyvon... WAS somewhere he was allowed to be.
Treyvon... WAS confronted in a hostile manner.
Sadly, there was a gun involved.
Treyvon should have been protected. So questioning this law is irrelevant right now.
ITA.
Right, but my point was to specify to UConn that if she thought FL's SYG law was as black and white ::no pun intended:: as this case makes it out to be.... it's not.
...
Or not supposed to be.
Based on last night, I guess it is.
F.uck. I don't even know which way is up. This whole case has me all jumbled up.
Um. Please don't start with that.
Unless you'd like an enumerated list of all the clusterfuckk thoughts you spout off on the reg...
Which I'd be more than happy to oblige. Just say the word.
Um. Please don't start with that.
I'd be more than happy to post a list UConn's List of Clusterfuckk Thoughts.
Oh. Whoops. My first reply did post.
I threatened it twice. Yikes.
Riiigghhhhtttt. Because your "clearly" response wasn't a dig at me?
Got it.
In what world do you see that I came in here to "slaughter" you? I was clarifying for you the SYG statute. It was all relevant to this thread then YOU insinuated that I "clearly" don't know what I'm talking about, more or less.
Are we clear here?
Well, I'm nothing if not eloquent.
....
...
Okay. I know I've been gone for a while, but this seems like a way big overreaction.
But I am the "other party" here, so...
FWIW, a bunch of internet strangers can't tell you if you're losing it or not.
Just. FWIW.
ITA. I read UConn's "clearly" comment as meaning the law was not "black and white." I didn't feel that it was directed at Rachel's mental state. I could be wrong, but that is just how I read it.