Unarmed black 17 year old shot by Neighborhood watch captain in gated community...

[spidey07]

Ballistics wouldn't mean squat. You walk up to someone and shoot them in the head, and then tell the police they verbally threatened you and no witnesses saw anything, according to the laws in which you praise, you will walk.




Actually, having a weapon means nothing. Someone can walk up to you, who I assume carries a gun all the time, and shoot you in the head, and tell the police you threatened him with that weapon you carry, and if there are no witnesses to dispute his claim, he will walk.

You better hope no thugs and criminals find out about this law, assuming many of them don't know about it already.

Do I really need to google the exact scenario you described and show the criminal is convicted?

You keep what if'ing. How in the world would I say the other guy threatened me with my own weapon when all evidence said he didn't? You DO know the preponderance of evidence rules regarding self defense, right? It's been explained in this thread 100s of times.

I think you're letting your emotions run wild instead of thinking logically and rationally.

 

[spidey07]

That's basically the law in which he praises.

It's scary, if you think about it.

He verbally threatened me and reached for his weapon. I then drew and fired as I feared for my life.

Good shoot. Another reason for heavy training on drawing and shooting.

 

[They Live]

Do I really need to google the exact scenario you described and show the criminal is convicted?

You keep what if'ing. How in the world would I say the other guy threatened me with my own weapon when all evidence said he didn't? You DO know the preponderance of evidence rules regarding self defense, right? It's been explained in this thread 100s of times.

I think you're letting your emotions run wild instead of thinking logically and rationally.

According to you, you can kill someone based on a verbal threat. Thus, a murderer can shoot someone, and just claim they were threatened, especially if the person they shot was armed, and they can walk. If there are no witnesses, how can the police dispute his claim?

You seemed to miss my point entirely. I never said you can claim self defense by saying they threatened you with your own weapon. You can claim self defense by saying they threatened you period. This is according to the laws in which you praise.

 

[They Live]

He verbally threatened me and reached for his weapon. I then drew and fired as I feared for my life.

Good shoot. Another reason for heavy training on drawing and shooting.

It's not a good shoot if you are lying about the verbal threat, or them reaching for their weapon.

But if nobody else was there to dispute your claim, you will walk. An easy murder.

 

[spidey07]

According to you, you can kill someone based on a verbal threat. Thus, a murderer can shoot someone, and just claim they were threatened, especially if the person they shot was armed, and they can walk. If there are no witnesses, how can the police dispute his claim?

You seemed to miss my point entirely. I never said you can claim self defense by saying they threatened you with your own weapon. You can claim self defense by saying they threatened you period. This is according to the laws in which you praise.

That is correct. You have to get it through your head that shooting somebody isn't automatically a crime, it's just a homocide and in certain cases it is justifiable. You simply cannot charge somebody with a crime if there is no evidence of a crime.

And I also showed you how there had better not be a shred of evidence showing you didn't act in self defense. Most people that get shot live and can testify against you. Their testimony would be your downfall in your devious plan to kill somebody. Better hope you don't know them either and are squeaky clean before carrying our your murder plans.

However in this case, ALL EVIDENCE actually PROVES self defense and nothing to dispute the fact that is was self defense.

I'll take your what if even further. I am unarmed and a guy tries to open my car door or approaches me aggressively - guess what? I am lawfully allowed to run them down with my car. How's that make you feel?

How about a guy with a baseball bat approaching my vehicle? Guess what...I am lawfully allowed to run him down and kill him.

What's the lesson here? Don't commit forcible felony, a part of which is threaten.

You beat somebody on the ground as they are on their back? That is a forcible felony and can get you killed lawfully in 26 states. Don't do that.

While we're on the topic of arson and burning buildings, my state allows me to shoot anybody trying to set fire to my property. Again...they never have to touch me and in that instance or even threaten me.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

According to you, you can kill someone based on a verbal threat. Thus, a murderer can shoot someone, and just claim they were threatened, especially if the person they shot was armed, and they can walk. If there are no witnesses, how can the police dispute his claim?

You seemed to miss my point entirely. I never said you can claim self defense by saying they threatened you with your own weapon. You can claim self defense by saying they threatened you period. This is according to the laws in which you praise.

If someone tells me that they are going to kill me and comes towards me in a threatening manner I will shoot them and ask questions later.

Unlike GZ I would not speak to police without having a lawyer present.

 

[They Live]

That is correct. You have to get it through your head that shooting somebody isn't automatically a crime, it's just a homocide and in certain cases it is justifiable. You simply cannot charge somebody with a crime if there is no evidence of a crime.

And I also showed you how there had better not be a shred of evidence showing you didn't act in self defense. Most people that get shot live and can testify against you. Their testimony would be your downfall in your devious plan to kill somebody. Better hope you don't know them either and are squeaky clean before carrying our your murder plans.

However in this case, ALL EVIDENCE actually PROVES self defense and nothing to dispute the fact that is was self defense.

There wouldn't be a shred of evidence if a murderer walks up to someone alone in the dark, where there are no witnesses, and shoots and kills them, and tells the police they verbally threatened them. Thus, you will definitely walk.

Now I see why your so paranoid. As I said previously, you better hope the thugs and criminals don't find out about this "law", assuming some don't know about it already.

 

[They Live]

If someone tells me that they are going to kill me and comes towards me in a threatening manner I will shoot them and ask questions later.

You better hope they don't shoot you first, and if there are no witnesses to dispute what he claims, you are murdered and he continues on with his life.

 

[soundforbjt]

There wouldn't be a shred of evidence if a murderer walks up to someone alone in the dark, where there are no witnesses, and shoots and kills them, and tells the police they verbally threatened them. Thus, you will definitely walk.

Now I see why your so paranoid. As I said previously, you better hope the thugs and criminals don't find out about this "law", assuming some don't know about it already.

Too late. Gang members have already used the current FL laws to walk.

 

[spidey07]

You better hope they don't shoot you first, and if there are no witnesses to dispute what he claims, you are murdered and he continues on with his life.

It's the chance I'll take to ensure woman, elderly and every citizen can have their natural right to self defense.

 

[spidey07]

Too late. Gang members have already used the current FL laws to walk.

You mean the laws of 26 states in the union, this is not special to Florida. Showing your ignorance on self defense laws yet again.

It's willful ignorance at this point as it's been explained to you and your kind ad nausem.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

You better hope they don't shoot you first, and if there are no witnesses to dispute what he claims, you are murdered and he continues on with his life.

Ok

 

[SpatiallyAware]

ROFL


There you go w\ the peering between houses bullshit.

Is that from what Zimmerman told his dad and his dad told his brother who then told a reporter something else entirely, who told his friend there was a fight for the gun, which was dis proven by DNA evidence?

Little bits and pieces you want to string together from people playing telephone is absolutely moot when we have Zimmerman's live recording w\ dispatch in which he more incriminates himself than Trayvon.

If that is all you have please... just continue lurking.

He has a known recent history as a thief and a thug, and a propensity for violence.

Again, just because he was a minor doesn't automatically make his criminal history invalid. Don't worry, trayvon's past will come out soon enough.


You are so dense about this.. Just because there's no DNA on the gun doesn't automatically mean that trayvon didn't grab for it. It simply means there was no DNA transfer when he did try to take the gun.

The evidence shows trayvon tried to kill zimmerman. It's very clear, even with what little evidence we know.

 

[xj0hnx]

There wouldn't be a shred of evidence if a murderer walks up to someone alone in the dark, where there are no witnesses, and shoots and kills them, and tells the police they verbally threatened them. Thus, you will definitely walk.

Now I see why your so paranoid. As I said previously, you better hope the thugs and criminals don't find out about this "law", assuming some don't know about it already.

Well it's a good thing that in this case the victim was actually assaulted before he shot his attacker.

 

[spidey07]

Photo of z-man right after the shooting, clearly shows major damage and broken nose. Would be consistent with the out of nowhere brutal blow to the head by Martin. You can also see the abrasions to his forehead and temple caused by treyvon's hands where Martin was viciously slamming his head into the concrete.

 

[TerryMathews]

Photo of z-man right after the shooting, clearly shows major damage and broken nose. Would be consistent with the out of nowhere brutal blow to the head by Martin. You can also see the abrasions to his forehead and temple caused by treyvon's hands where Martin was viciously slamming his head into the concrete.

It never ceases to amaze me how much information detrimental to the prosecutions case has been held back.

Look over his right shoulder. He's obviously sitting in the drivers seat of a police cruiser.

 

[EagleKeeper]

They have to win via court of public opinion. Bluff Zimmerman's team and rig the court.

The case can not stand on it's own merits

 

[spidey07]

They have to win via court of public opinion. Bluff Zimmerman's team and rig the court.

The case can not stand on it's own merits

Did you see that picture? Zimmerman is so evil and racist he drank the poor little boy's blood after he hunted him down and murdered him for his tea and skittles!

 

[xj0hnx]

It never ceases to amaze me how much information detrimental to the prosecutions case has been held back.

Look over his right shoulder. He's obviously sitting in the drivers seat of a police cruiser.

Back seat, driver side. You can see the separator, and drivers head rest, also, placement of the computer to be accessed by driver.

 

[Doppel]

As I said a while back it appears that every piece of evidence released firms up Zimmerman's defense. Few could doubt now that it went down more or less as he described, at least the key major details. A cocky kid assaulted a guy who had a gun and got shot for his folly.

 

[TerryMathews]

Back seat, driver side. You can see the separator, and drivers head rest, also, placement of the computer to be accessed by driver.

Well, maybe you're more familiar with the back seat of cruisers than I am. I was going by the computer. Regardless, you would think the context of the picture means that a first responder of some sort took the picture. The point being, the prosecution has had it forever.

 

[Geosurface]

Well, maybe you're more familiar with the back seat of cruisers than I am. I was going by the computer. Regardless, you would think the context of the picture means that a first responder of some sort took the picture. The point being, the prosecution has had it forever.

Yep it was the police officer. This image has actually been out for months, but it was not only black and white, it was a faxed photocopy of a black and white printout. So it looked absolutely atrocious.

As I said a while back it appears that every piece of evidence released firms up Zimmerman's defense. Few could doubt now that it went down more or less as he described, at least the key major details. A cocky kid assaulted a guy who had a gun and got shot for his folly.

Yep. Exactly.

They have to win via court of public opinion. Bluff Zimmerman's team and rig the court.

The case can not stand on it's own merits

Yep and the corrolary of that is that the prosecutor's office basically was brought in for the express purpose of ignoring the evidence and pursuing a politically motivated, racially motivated persecution here. Deeply immoral, deeply illegal. Norm Wolfinger's office responded properly to the evidence. Sanford Police Department responded properly to the evidence. No charges warranted.

 

[soundforbjt]

You mean the laws of 26 states in the union, this is not special to Florida. Showing your ignorance on self defense laws yet again.

It's willful ignorance at this point as it's been explained to you and your kind ad nausem.

True but FL is one of the wackiest states, they have more wierd shit happen there than anywhere else lately.

 

[JEDI]

Back seat, driver side. You can see the separator, and drivers head rest, also, placement of the computer to be accessed by driver.

so who took the pic?
and why is it being released now, months after the arrest?!

 

[spidey07]

so who took the pic?
and why is it being released now, months after the arrest?!

Police officer or EMT - it was evidence the prosecution didn't want to release, but defense and media forced it to be allowed to the public.

So far there isn't a single piece of evidence zimmerman committed any crime, not a single shred. Not ONE THING. All evidence backs his account of events and actually proves self defense beyond all doubt.

That's why he wasn't charged originally.