I don't hate hispanics in the least. Those instructions are what the jury considered. If the judge gave them the first instructions, they may well have come to the conclusion his self defense strategy was a FAIL. I also never have said the jury got it wrong. The law is what's wrong. Why do you hate young black boys so much?
See, unlike you, I actually have had to defend that ridiculous notion that because I'm not upset that mob rule didn't triumph, therefore I'm a racist. Isn't it lovely to have the shoe on the other foot? So, we now have it. You think Florida law is wrong. Your beef isn't with the jury, or the attorneys, or the judge, it's the law. Got it. So, why should Zimmerman have been convicted under the existing law? Like it or not, that's the law he has to abide.
It's not mob rule at issue, dude. It's the law was changed with a very negative impact. If Zimmerman had killed the kid (and he did kill the kid) in 2004, he'd have gone to prison for 30 years, minimum. The so-called LIVs get it. Hard to believe the so-called "high information voters" don't. EDIT: there is a thing called jury nullification, but they blew it.
Mob rule is why George Zimmerman was tried in the first place. The police that investigated George Zimmerman--the same George Zimmerman that stood against the Sanford police a couple of years earlier in an abuse case--declined to charge him. Then Barack Obama and the rest of the race hustlers turned up the heat because this "white Hispanic" "racially profiled" and "hunted down like a dog in the street" this sweet, little African-American boy. So the State of Florida, under political pressure, acted and went to court with a case so shitty they couldn't even prove manslaughter. Now the mob is back in the street, demanding Eric Holder charge Zimmerman with a hate crime. Ridiculous.
He should have been tried in the first place. There was the body of a dead boy. It's not the police's job to determine the truth, that role belongs to the courts. The cops not arresting him for 40 days was due to the fucked up law (it was a stand your ground case all along, even then). So do you think all civil rights marches were just mobs, too? That's what this is.
They're not asking for equal rights; they're demanding someone be lynched. 50 years after the civil rights marches, it's Bizzaro World.
They're demanding someone pay for lynching the 17-year-old black boy. High information voter. Go figure.
Wrong! It is the job of the District Attorney to bring charges when he has evidence that a law has been violated. Not to please all kibitzers. There was no violation as you know, the jury found the man "Not Guilty". For your info, 16 states have Stand Your Ground statutes. 17 more do not require retreat before using force in self defense, including Oregon. But tell me, is the intent of a "Whoop Ass" to cause great bodily harm? If you answer no it's just for fun, Then tell me how often you want be receiving a Whoop Ass?
http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/07/16/3502481/juror-we-talked-stand-your-ground.html Juror: Stand Your Ground played role in verdict http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2012/06/11/study-says-stand-your-ground-laws-increase-homicides/ Justifiable homicides nearly doubled from 2000 to 2010, according to the most recent data available, when 326 were reported. The data, provided by federal and state law enforcement agencies, showed a sharp increase in justifiable homicides occurred after 2005, when Florida and 16 other states passed the laws.
35 pages of back and forth arguments, and I'm gonna assume no ones opinion has changed in this thread. Wow.
Actually, I'll admit that my opinion of the case as a whole has changed, with my disagreement more focused now on the law itself rather than anything else. These were two imperfect people who got caught up in an event, and all the dirty laundry that airs really is a shame to both of them. Either person could have defused the situation, but neither did, and we're sitting her arguing over this case because both people made some significant, life-altering mistakes that didn't seem like much individually, but stacked up until they couldn't be taken back. It's tragic, and I empathize with both sides of the story now, where I didn't earlier in the discussion.
Where was the great bodily harm? 45 sec fight and there were only minor injuries. There was no great bodily harm done to Zimmerman. He's just a pussy.
Well, the point of defending yourself with lethal force is to stop an attack before you turn into a vegetable.
In 45 seconds there were only pretty minor injuries. Doubtful it would get more severe than that. Lost a regular fight and used a gun. He should be behind bars.
