George Zimmerman Trial

[homersapien 11,393]

For any rational people on this thread, here is an attorney from Wisconsin making the same point I was trying to make. Apparently, the burden in asserting an affirmative defense varies between jurisdictions. The standard he states is in Wisconsin makes sense to me. If you are claiming you were justified in killing someone, you at least have to prove it was more likely than not that you had a reasonable fear of death or imminent severe injury.

I’m a criminal defense lawyer in Wisconsin, but I’ll tell you my reaction to the Zimmerman verdict today. I’ve had friends in Florida asking for my take. I haven’t watched the trial very closely (it seems like an ordinary criminal case to me in many respects). But I was astounded that the defense would put on a “self-defense” argument without the defendant testifying. In most civilized jurisdictions, the burden is on the defense to prove, at least more likely than not, that the law breaking was done for reasons of self-defense. I couldn’t figure out how they could do this without the defendant’s testimony.

I got curious and read the jury instructions Friday night and, I was wrong. In Florida, if self-defense is even suggested, it’s the states obligation to prove it’s absence beyond a reasonable doubt(!). That’s crazy. But ‘not guilty’ was certainly a reasonable result in this case. As I told in friend in Tampa today though, if you’re ever in a heated argument with anyone, and you’re pretty sure there aren’t any witnesses, it’s always best to kill the other person.

They can’t testify, you don’t have to testify, no one else has any idea what happened; how can the state ever prove beyond a doubt is wasn’t self-defense? Holy crap! What kind of system is that?

http://editors.talki...w.php?ref=fpblg

His post speaks volumes. People are not going to like it but there is another case coming up in Sept. in Jacksonville, FL that's much like TM's case (Jordan Davis). Mike Dunn can thank GZ for a free get out of jail card. If you ever wanted to kill someone and get away with it. the state of FL seems like the place to do it.

I agree completely.

And not to change the subject, but it sounded like the jury focused on the murder charge for most of their deliberations. Personally, I think the prosecution should maybe have gone only with manslaughter, at least based on the case they presented.

I wonder if that would have made the difference in the outcome.

It may have helped b/c the jury came to the judge to asked a question about manslaughter. Neither side focused on manslaughter nor did the prosecution bring forth that charge from the start which may have helped. The prosecution could've done better but did the best they could IMO. I do think they over charged but this case was messed up from the beginning due to bad investigation and bad evidence collection; that clearly came out in trial. A lot of political and outside pressure forced them to look further into situation but it all was half assed after the fact. If things were done right from the start than who knows but with the laws FL has in place it probably would've been the same outcome.

That's exactly the way I see it. (In hindsight of course. )

The rest I don't know for sure, but it's certainly feasible considering this is Florida.

[homersapien 11,393]

and Trayvon was a saint

well, he didn't kill anyone. Just bought some Skittles-- that bothers you somehow?

You are killing me with the "innocent skittle buyer" routine. Team you up with Homer's "he exited the car, he must live behind bars", Johnny Cochran style tag line, and the two of you are a Prosecution Dream Team!

Then die and go away already.

Are you seriously trying to argue that Trayvon's character or history is justification for shooting him?

And your last sentence infers a racial component to your thinking, which I suppose is at least consistent with the premise that Trayvon's past should be a consideration. Zimmerman was clearly "profiling" him.

Your thoughts here are ludicrous, and your conclusions afa my thoughts are way off.

Saying that I am indicating Trayvon's past is grounds for shooting him is ridiculous on your part.

Actually, it was not a statement. It was a question. That means you get to answer it. So try to at least observe the basics of debate. I am not really interesting in exchanging insults, (at least witless ones).

My point is that it took two to tango that night. I don't believe that GZ had the intent to track and kill him. I believe that TM did some things that brought about his own demise that he EASILY could have avoided. To continuously refer to him as some kind of innocent little Skittle Buyer is beyond amusing and weakens someones argument that they think they are strengthening.

Afa as you playing the race card on my last sentence, that is unfounded. The only possible reason to do that is I mentioned Johnny Cochran and the mention had nothing to do with his race. I'm not sure why you would think it did.

Because I think that a lot of people supporting Zimmerman's case exhibit latent or subliminal racism. The reference to Cochran may or may not have been such a reference, but it struck me as that way. It's not as blatant as AU Raptor (for example) but it is what it is.

Now, having said that, I will be the first to say that we all, including me, have a little racism in our "makeup". But when people start flashing it, I don't have a problem with acknowledging it. You can call it playing the "race card" if you want. I am just pointing out what seems obvious to me.

1) Your question could easily be interpreted as rhetorical, which I did.

2) You are overplaying the race card.

1) Please assume that a question means a question as a default. You can still answer it if you want.

2) OK, that's fair. The Johnny Cochran reference might have been completely random.

But speaking of trying to "sugar-coat" the record of an innocent 17 year old, were you aware that Zimmerman has been:

- accused of domestic violence by a former girlfriend

- arrested for assaulting a police officer

- accused by a female cousin of nearly two decades of sexually assault and molestation

Seems like I read that somewhere here, not sure. Was he convicted of anything?

http://www.allvoices...ecords-revealed

So how's that compare to the 17 year-old's record?

If you don't imply the answer in your questions you'll get better results afa them being answered and not considered accusations.

Don't quite get that, but again, you may assume, at least in my case, a question is not purely rhetorical, at least in regards of expecting a direct answer. If you think the question is begging the answer, say so. But if you don't want to answer, don't respond at all. Saying it's "ludicrous" is not an answer. It's evasion.

[tiger88 934]

and Trayvon was a saint

well, he didn't kill anyone. Just bought some Skittles-- that bothers you somehow?

You are killing me with the "innocent skittle buyer" routine. Team you up with Homer's "he exited the car, he must live behind bars", Johnny Cochran style tag line, and the two of you are a Prosecution Dream Team!

Then die and go away already.

Are you seriously trying to argue that Trayvon's character or history is justification for shooting him?

And your last sentence infers a racial component to your thinking, which I suppose is at least consistent with the premise that Trayvon's past should be a consideration. Zimmerman was clearly "profiling" him.

Your thoughts here are ludicrous, and your conclusions afa my thoughts are way off.

Saying that I am indicating Trayvon's past is grounds for shooting him is ridiculous on your part.

Actually, it was not a statement. It was a question. That means you get to answer it. So try to at least observe the basics of debate. I am not really interesting in exchanging insults, (at least witless ones).

My point is that it took two to tango that night. I don't believe that GZ had the intent to track and kill him. I believe that TM did some things that brought about his own demise that he EASILY could have avoided. To continuously refer to him as some kind of innocent little Skittle Buyer is beyond amusing and weakens someones argument that they think they are strengthening.

Afa as you playing the race card on my last sentence, that is unfounded. The only possible reason to do that is I mentioned Johnny Cochran and the mention had nothing to do with his race. I'm not sure why you would think it did.

Because I think that a lot of people supporting Zimmerman's case exhibit latent or subliminal racism. The reference to Cochran may or may not have been such a reference, but it struck me as that way. It's not as blatant as AU Raptor (for example) but it is what it is.

Now, having said that, I will be the first to say that we all, including me, have a little racism in our "makeup". But when people start flashing it, I don't have a problem with acknowledging it. You can call it playing the "race card" if you want. I am just pointing out what seems obvious to me.

1) Your question could easily be interpreted as rhetorical, which I did.

2) You are overplaying the race card.

1) Please assume that a question means a question as a default. You can still answer it if you want.

2) OK, that's fair. The Johnny Cochran reference might have been completely random.

But speaking of trying to "sugar-coat" the record of an innocent 17 year old, were you aware that Zimmerman has been:

- accused of domestic violence by a former girlfriend

- arrested for assaulting a police officer

- accused by a female cousin of nearly two decades of sexually assault and molestation

Seems like I read that somewhere here, not sure. Was he convicted of anything?

http://www.allvoices...ecords-revealed

So how's that compare to the 17 year-old's record?

If you don't imply the answer in your questions you'll get better results afa them being answered and not considered accusations.

Don't quite get that, but again, you may assume, at least in my case, a question is not purely rhetorical, at least in regards of expecting a direct answer. If you think the question is begging the answer, say so. But if you don't want to answer, don't respond at all. Saying it's "ludicrous" is not an answer. It's evasion.

Sounds like has no record. His one conviction was overturned due to him entering rehab of some sort.

Do you have the inside info. On his spat with his lady friend? From what I've heard he can be hot headed, but there are always two sides of the story in these spats. She could be half cuckoo for all we know.

He oversped? Lock him up. :)/>

No mention of the abuse charges in your link and I'm guessing if they had info. It would be in th er e seeing how they mentioned the overspeeding.

Once again no firm evidence of any substantial wrongdoing by GZ. He may be a spawn of the devil for all I know, but I haven't seen proof.

I didn't evade anything in my previous response. I made it quite clear what my response to your question was. Had you asked "Are you saying......." I would have answered it directly. To say, "Are you seriously saying....." infers that is what you understand me to be saying and using the word "seriously" infers that you are incredulous that I would be saying it. There was nothing wrong with how I responded to your question based on common usage of the english language and for you to nitpick on it when my response to your question was obvious comes across as petty to me. I even clarified my point that you misinterpreted.

[WarEagle1983 2,185]

I always found it interesting how TM was characterized as a thug but GZ was the one with criminal background history conviction or no conviction..he clearly had some serious allegations attached to him; one that was clearly a crime. TM certainly wasn't perfect but who is at that age is. The things he did that declared him thug was just regualr teenage boy stuff IMO. He wasn't even dressed like a "thug" the night he died. He wore khaki pants and hoodie...that's it. That's not thug attire. lol. Weed is darn legal and he took a pic with a gun and shooting a bird...that's it? Ha ha...if my mother only knew the things i did at that age. Many kids are "angels" around their parents but we don't know everything our kids are doing.

[TexasTiger 12,961]

I always found it interesting how TM was characterized as a thug but GZ was the one with criminal background history conviction or no conviction..he clearly had some serious allegations attached to him; one that was clearly a crime. TM certainly wasn't perfect but who is at that age is. The things he did that declared him thug was just regualr teenage boy stuff IMO. He wasn't even dressed like a "thug" the night he died. He wore khaki pants and hoodie...that's it. That's not thug attire. lol. Weed is darn legal and he took a pic with a gun and shooting a bird...that's it? Ha ha...if my mother only knew the things i did at that age. Many kids are "angels" around their parents but we don't know everything our kids are doing.

Here's how one of his teacher's described him:

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-03-17/news/os-trayvon-martin-shooting-tension-20120317_1_shooting-death-english-teacher-uncle

[tiger88 934]

I always found it interesting how TM was characterized as a thug but GZ was the one with criminal background history conviction or no conviction..he clearly had some serious allegations attached to him; one that was clearly a crime. TM certainly wasn't perfect but who is at that age is. The things he did that declared him thug was just regualr teenage boy stuff IMO. He wasn't even dressed like a "thug" the night he died. He wore khaki pants and hoodie...that's it. That's not thug attire. lol. Weed is darn legal and he took a pic with a gun and shooting a bird...that's it? Ha ha...if my mother only knew the things i did at that age. Many kids are "angels" around their parents but we don't know everything our kids are doing.

Here's how one of his teacher's described him:

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-03-17/news/os-trayvon-martin-shooting-tension-20120317_1_shooting-death-english-teacher-uncle

I didn't get the article you mentioned through that link.

[TexasTiger 12,961]

I always found it interesting how TM was characterized as a thug but GZ was the one with criminal background history conviction or no conviction..he clearly had some serious allegations attached to him; one that was clearly a crime. TM certainly wasn't perfect but who is at that age is. The things he did that declared him thug was just regualr teenage boy stuff IMO. He wasn't even dressed like a "thug" the night he died. He wore khaki pants and hoodie...that's it. That's not thug attire. lol. Weed is darn legal and he took a pic with a gun and shooting a bird...that's it? Ha ha...if my mother only knew the things i did at that age. Many kids are "angels" around their parents but we don't know everything our kids are doing.

Here's how one of his teacher's described him:

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-03-17/news/os-trayvon-martin-shooting-tension-20120317_1_shooting-death-english-teacher-uncle

I didn't get the article you mentioned through that link.

Did you scroll down?

[tiger88 934]

I always found it interesting how TM was characterized as a thug but GZ was the one with criminal background history conviction or no conviction..he clearly had some serious allegations attached to him; one that was clearly a crime. TM certainly wasn't perfect but who is at that age is. The things he did that declared him thug was just regualr teenage boy stuff IMO. He wasn't even dressed like a "thug" the night he died. He wore khaki pants and hoodie...that's it. That's not thug attire. lol. Weed is darn legal and he took a pic with a gun and shooting a bird...that's it? Ha ha...if my mother only knew the things i did at that age. Many kids are "angels" around their parents but we don't know everything our kids are doing.

Here's how one of his teacher's described him:

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-03-17/news/os-trayvon-martin-shooting-tension-20120317_1_shooting-death-english-teacher-uncle

I didn't get the article you mentioned through that link.

Did you scroll down?

Nevermind. I was thinking GM for some reason.

[WarEagle1983 2,185]

I always found it interesting how TM was characterized as a thug but GZ was the one with criminal background history conviction or no conviction..he clearly had some serious allegations attached to him; one that was clearly a crime. TM certainly wasn't perfect but who is at that age is. The things he did that declared him thug was just regualr teenage boy stuff IMO. He wasn't even dressed like a "thug" the night he died. He wore khaki pants and hoodie...that's it. That's not thug attire. lol. Weed is darn legal and he took a pic with a gun and shooting a bird...that's it? Ha ha...if my mother only knew the things i did at that age. Many kids are "angels" around their parents but we don't know everything our kids are doing.

Here's how one of his teacher's described him:

http://articles.orla...h-teacher-uncle

Thanks for the article. I know he seemed like a decent kid b/c the Rachel girl who testified said in an interview that he was really her only guy friend b/c he didn't make fun of her like the other boys did. He was just a good friend to her. Just goes to show how the media just can twist things. I'm sure they've done some of the same with GZ but they acted like that kid was a hardcore thug or something. Prayers to his family. I'm sure they're really hurt.

[bigbird 60,571]

http://www.wnd.com/2013/04/police-buried-trayvons-criminal-history/

[WarEagle1983 2,185]

So did he have any burglary tools the night he died? Was he ever found to have burglariezed anything?

[WarEagle1983 2,185]

Retired judge daddy Zimmerman comes to the rescue again. http://rollingout.com/culture/george-zimmerman-son-of-a-retired-judge-has-3-closed-arrests/2/

[bigbird 60,571]

Not at all. However, he wasn't the innocent cherub that he was depicted to be either.

[WarEagle1983 2,185]

Not at all. However, he wasn't the innocent cherub that he was depicted to be either.

Never said he was innocent but he wasn't a thug as many stated either. TM doesn't have an arrest record. GZ is clearly the thug with the criminal record to prove it. Assualt on an officer and domestic issues and only had to go to alcohol rehab and record mysteriously goes away thanks to judge daddy Zimmerman. Then they go let GZ a criminal have a gun? Sounds about right.

[TeBoneAU 89]

http://www.wnd.com/2...iminal-history/

.

When is ENOUGH ENOUGH! The young man is dead and the trial is over. Why can't we show some respect for the lost of a life.

[WarEagle1983 2,185]

http://www.wnd.com/2...iminal-history/

.

When is ENOUGH ENOUGH! The young man is dead and the trial is over. Why can't we show some respect for the lost of a life.

You're free not to discuss it if you don't like. For those who wish to this forum is here to do so. We all are showing respect for one anothers opinions and points here so there is no issue.

[AUGradinTX 0]

For any rational people on this thread, here is an attorney from Wisconsin making the same point I was trying to make. Apparently, the burden in asserting an affirmative defense varies between jurisdictions. The standard he states is in Wisconsin makes sense to me. If you are claiming you were justified in killing someone, you at least have to prove it was more likely than not that you had a reasonable fear of death or imminent severe injury.

I’m a criminal defense lawyer in Wisconsin, but I’ll tell you my reaction to the Zimmerman verdict today. I’ve had friends in Florida asking for my take. I haven’t watched the trial very closely (it seems like an ordinary criminal case to me in many respects). But I was astounded that the defense would put on a “self-defense” argument without the defendant testifying. In most civilized jurisdictions, the burden is on the defense to prove, at least more likely than not, that the law breaking was done for reasons of self-defense. I couldn’t figure out how they could do this without the defendant’s testimony.

I got curious and read the jury instructions Friday night and, I was wrong. In Florida, if self-defense is even suggested, it’s the states obligation to prove it’s absence beyond a reasonable doubt(!). That’s crazy. But ‘not guilty’ was certainly a reasonable result in this case. As I told in friend in Tampa today though, if you’re ever in a heated argument with anyone, and you’re pretty sure there aren’t any witnesses, it’s always best to kill the other person. They can’t testify, you don’t have to testify, no one else has any idea what happened; how can the state ever prove beyond a doubt is wasn’t self-defense? Holy crap! What kind of system is that?

http://editors.talki...w.php?ref=fpblg

For any rational people on this thread, here is an attorney from Wisconsin making the same point I was trying to make. Apparently, the burden in asserting an affirmative defense varies between jurisdictions. The standard he states is in Wisconsin makes sense to me. If you are claiming you were justified in killing someone, you at least have to prove it was more likely than not that you had a reasonable fear of death or imminent severe injury.

I’m a criminal defense lawyer in Wisconsin, but I’ll tell you my reaction to the Zimmerman verdict today. I’ve had friends in Florida asking for my take. I haven’t watched the trial very closely (it seems like an ordinary criminal case to me in many respects). But I was astounded that the defense would put on a “self-defense” argument without the defendant testifying. In most civilized jurisdictions, the burden is on the defense to prove, at least more likely than not, that the law breaking was done for reasons of self-defense. I couldn’t figure out how they could do this without the defendant’s testimony.

I got curious and read the jury instructions Friday night and, I was wrong. In Florida, if self-defense is even suggested, it’s the states obligation to prove it’s absence beyond a reasonable doubt(!). That’s crazy. But ‘not guilty’ was certainly a reasonable result in this case. As I told in friend in Tampa today though, if you’re ever in a heated argument with anyone, and you’re pretty sure there aren’t any witnesses, it’s always best to kill the other person. They can’t testify, you don’t have to testify, no one else has any idea what happened; how can the state ever prove beyond a doubt is wasn’t self-defense? Holy crap! What kind of system is that?

http://editors.talki...w.php?ref=fpblg

Why does the defendant ever have to prove anything?

How can the state prove beyond a reasonable doubt that someone didn't fear for their safety? Its an almost impossible burden allowing almost anyone claiming it to walk free. Simply entering enough evidence to persuade a jury that it was more likely than not that one had a reasonable fear of serious injury is not a very high bar. Zimmerman may have been able to reach that burden pretty easily here. Most of you guys seem to think the evidence supports it. Again, my question is about what the process should be when a person admits to killing someone, but says they had to, not the outcome in this case. The process largely preordained the outcome in this case.

BTW, Zimmerman could have avoided trial altogether if he had opted to assert the "stand your ground" defense in a pre-trial immunity hearing. He opted not to.

The state can't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that someone didn't fear for their safety when:

1. There was a witness stating that someone was on top of him beating him.

2. The person had a broken nose.

3. The person had bruises on his head.

4. The person had 2 cm gashes on the back of his head.

5. The person had black eyes.

6. There is audio of someone screaming for help for 40 seconds (and anyone who says they don't know who's voice is really on the audio is either lying or has the IQ of a basketball).

7. His attacker had zero injuries (other than on his knuckes, but that tends to happen when you inflict the above injuries on someone).

The lawyer from Wisconsin says himself that he hasn't watched the trial very closely. GM is protected from having to testify for good reason. Evidence tells the story here. Stop ignoring it.

[WarEagle1983 2,185]

For any rational people on this thread, here is an attorney from Wisconsin making the same point I was trying to make. Apparently, the burden in asserting an affirmative defense varies between jurisdictions. The standard he states is in Wisconsin makes sense to me. If you are claiming you were justified in killing someone, you at least have to prove it was more likely than not that you had a reasonable fear of death or imminent severe injury.

I’m a criminal defense lawyer in Wisconsin, but I’ll tell you my reaction to the Zimmerman verdict today. I’ve had friends in Florida asking for my take. I haven’t watched the trial very closely (it seems like an ordinary criminal case to me in many respects). But I was astounded that the defense would put on a “self-defense” argument without the defendant testifying. In most civilized jurisdictions, the burden is on the defense to prove, at least more likely than not, that the law breaking was done for reasons of self-defense. I couldn’t figure out how they could do this without the defendant’s testimony.

I got curious and read the jury instructions Friday night and, I was wrong. In Florida, if self-defense is even suggested, it’s the states obligation to prove it’s absence beyond a reasonable doubt(!). That’s crazy. But ‘not guilty’ was certainly a reasonable result in this case. As I told in friend in Tampa today though, if you’re ever in a heated argument with anyone, and you’re pretty sure there aren’t any witnesses, it’s always best to kill the other person. They can’t testify, you don’t have to testify, no one else has any idea what happened; how can the state ever prove beyond a doubt is wasn’t self-defense? Holy crap! What kind of system is that?

http://editors.talki...w.php?ref=fpblg

For any rational people on this thread, here is an attorney from Wisconsin making the same point I was trying to make. Apparently, the burden in asserting an affirmative defense varies between jurisdictions. The standard he states is in Wisconsin makes sense to me. If you are claiming you were justified in killing someone, you at least have to prove it was more likely than not that you had a reasonable fear of death or imminent severe injury.

I’m a criminal defense lawyer in Wisconsin, but I’ll tell you my reaction to the Zimmerman verdict today. I’ve had friends in Florida asking for my take. I haven’t watched the trial very closely (it seems like an ordinary criminal case to me in many respects). But I was astounded that the defense would put on a “self-defense” argument without the defendant testifying. In most civilized jurisdictions, the burden is on the defense to prove, at least more likely than not, that the law breaking was done for reasons of self-defense. I couldn’t figure out how they could do this without the defendant’s testimony.

I got curious and read the jury instructions Friday night and, I was wrong. In Florida, if self-defense is even suggested, it’s the states obligation to prove it’s absence beyond a reasonable doubt(!). That’s crazy. But ‘not guilty’ was certainly a reasonable result in this case. As I told in friend in Tampa today though, if you’re ever in a heated argument with anyone, and you’re pretty sure there aren’t any witnesses, it’s always best to kill the other person. They can’t testify, you don’t have to testify, no one else has any idea what happened; how can the state ever prove beyond a doubt is wasn’t self-defense? Holy crap! What kind of system is that?

http://editors.talki...w.php?ref=fpblg

Why does the defendant ever have to prove anything?

How can the state prove beyond a reasonable doubt that someone didn't fear for their safety? Its an almost impossible burden allowing almost anyone claiming it to walk free. Simply entering enough evidence to persuade a jury that it was more likely than not that one had a reasonable fear of serious injury is not a very high bar. Zimmerman may have been able to reach that burden pretty easily here. Most of you guys seem to think the evidence supports it. Again, my question is about what the process should be when a person admits to killing someone, but says they had to, not the outcome in this case. The process largely preordained the outcome in this case.

BTW, Zimmerman could have avoided trial altogether if he had opted to assert the "stand your ground" defense in a pre-trial immunity hearing. He opted not to.

The state can't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that someone didn't fear for their safety when:

1. There was a witness stating that someone was on top of him beating him.

2. The person had a broken nose.

3. The person had bruises on his head.

4. The person had 2 cm gashes on the back of his head.

5. The person had black eyes.

6. There is audio of someone screaming for help for 40 seconds and anyone who says they don't know who's voice is really on the audio is either lying or has the IQ of a basketball.

7. His attacker had zero injuries (other than on his knuckes, but that tends to happen when you inflict the above injuries on someone).

The lawyer from Wisconsin says himself that he hasn't watched the trial very closely. GM is protected from having to testify for good reason. Evidence tells the story here. Stop ignoring it.

No one is ignoring it but the law states if the believes his life is in danger. The guy who testified to seeing TM didn't see when the gun was shoot and who was on top of who when the shot was fired. 2 minor cuts my young son gets from falling off the play ground don't constitute as someone's life being in danger. If he was getting beat up as he claimed he'd have more server injuries than he had. A bunch of blood with no serious injuries. Just b/c GZ was losing a fight that he primarily initiated doesn't mean he has the right to bring a gun to fist fight. He had two flashlights with him...one small and one medium size...why not use that to hit TM if he was defending himself? Secondly GZ claimed that he didn't know TM was dead until he got to the police station so if he thought TM was not dead why wasn't he still screaming after the gun shot? TM could've still been a threat to him even though he was shot....he claimed he thought he was still alive so why not keep screaming until someone came to his aid?

He claimed he was scared when TM supposedly circled his car....so why get out your car? His nose wasn't proven to be broken; he declined to go to the ENT as stated by the physcian assistant so we don't know if it was broken or not. A broken nose can affect a person's sinuses....yet GZ is willing to pay for MMA classes for over 18 months out of his own pocket but not go to the ENT for a broken nose? I get as the law states they had no choice to let him go free but doesn't mean it's right and just. He just gets off b/c there is a loophole in the law. GZ was clearly wrong and made changes to his story to fit self defense. Fine...he goes free..now he'll get to feel what it's like to be a black man the rest of his life. Hope he enjoys it. Point is these dumb laws need to be changed b/c it's going to be more cases like this. Everyone taking the word of the killer b/c the person who's dead can't defend themselves in court so the defense gets the benefit of the doubt in court b/c it's hard to convict without having other reliable witness to the event so the benefit goes to the defense.

[autigeremt 6,652]

Jury sent out their verdict. Case closed. Time to move on.....of course a group of people who want their voice to be the only voice will let us know it's NEVER OVER.

[WarEagle1983 2,185]

Well don't listen or participate...plain and simple. Free to express whatever we wish. I've seen many on here b*%*h and moan about our prez from every subject possible so clearly some have not moved on from that so don't like it don't discuss it.

[autigeremt 6,652]

You sure are.....keep on with it. Please do! I never said you couldn't, just stated an opinion.

[WarEagle1983 2,185]

Which you are certainly free to do so but just to say move on doesn't mean a discussion can't continue. Don't want to hear it...pretty simple thing to do not to discuss or hear about it. Maybe you'd like to forget but some may not wish to do so.

[cptau 169]

Justice does not always mean fairness. Lots of people go free that should be punished and many are punished that should not be.

The burden on the state to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and the right of self defense are at the core of the justice system.

We will never know for sure if justice has been fair concerning what happened that night.

[WarEagle1983 2,185]

Maybe true. Just hope some things can be changed that something similar doesn't happen again.

[AUGradinTX 0]

No one is ignoring it but the law states if the believes his life is in danger. The guy who testified to seeing TM didn't see when the gun was shoot and who was on top of who when the shot was fired.

First off, that's not what the law says. You don't have to fear for your life to use deadly force. Fear of great bodily harm is sufficient. Stop looking at one thing at a time and look at everything together, as the lead investigator said several times while on the stand. Are you suggesting that GZ may have overpowered TM and then shot him. Where is the evidence of this? This wasn't even suggested by the defense. The autopsy revealed ZERO evidence harm to TM. You're ignoring the evidence.

2 minor cuts my young son gets from falling off the play ground don't constitute as someone's life being in danger. If he was getting beat up as he claimed he'd have more server injuries than he had. A bunch of blood with no serious injuries.

Professionals testified about this. Your experience on the playground takes a back seat.

Just b/c GZ was losing a fight that he primarily initiated doesn't mean he has the right to bring a gun to fist fight.

Once again, zero evidence suggesting GZ started the altercation. You are speculating on things that aren't supported by evidence. It's nonsensical.

He had two flashlights with him...one small and one medium size...why not use that to hit TM if he was defending himself?

If you were paying attention to professional testimony, or have been in that situation, you would know that when you are in fear of your life you don't think the same as you normally would. I don't know why GZ didn't use the flashlights. Maye it was because TM was going for his firearm, as GZ stated, and his instinct was to get to it first.

Secondly GZ claimed that he didn't know TM was dead until he got to the police station so if he thought TM was not dead why wasn't he still screaming after the gun shot? TM could've still been a threat to him even though he was shot....he claimed he thought he was still alive so why not keep screaming until someone came to his aid?

After the gun was fired, GZ wasn't even sure he had hit TM. GZ stated that TM raised up off of him and said something along the lines of, "you got it" or "you got me" and put his hands up. GZ stated he believed the this indicated that TM was giving up the fight because GZ reached the weapon first. At that point the altercation stopped. GZ wasn't being assaulted any longer. I don't see why he would continue screeming at this point.

He claimed he was scared when TM supposedly circled his car....so why get out your car?

He didn't at that point. In the police dispatch call, GZ says that TM ran off. After that statment he gets out. Later he says he doesn't know where TM is.

His nose wasn't proven to be broken; he declined to go to the ENT as stated by the physcian assistant so we don't know if it was broken or not. A broken nose can affect a person's sinuses....yet GZ is willing to pay for MMA classes for over 18 months out of his own pocket but not go to the ENT for a broken nose?

This medical report says he did have a broken nose. Are you suggesting the PAC is lying? Or that GZ broke his own nose after the altercation? You are reaching if so. The pictures taken of GZ after the altercation show clear damage to his nose. http://media.miamihe...2uxIe.So.56.pdf

I get as the law states they had no choice to let him go free but doesn't mean it's right and just. He just gets off b/c there is a loophole in the law.

What is this loophole? The ones of you that are saying this would have done the same thing if you were GZ. You won't admit it here because you don't want to be hypocritial, but if you are in fear for your life you'd whistle a different tune real quick. You would instinctively do whatever you had to do to end that beating and save yourself. And you have the legal right to do so. That isn't a loophole.

And I know this will get the response, "I wouldn't have left the vehicle." Maybe you would, maybe you wouldn't. Either way, that doesn't give someone else a green light to beat you.

GZ was clearly wrong and made changes to his story to fit self defense

I'm tired of reading this. "GZ told lies." "GZ changed his story." I've asked someone to post these lies and got only crickets. Now i'm asking you, specifically, to do the same. If you cannot, can it. If you can, as I may know what you are referring to, I'll show you the testimony stating that is completely normal in a case like this along with the testimony of the lead investigator who stated under oath that he believed GZ to be telling the truth. Once again, I can't understand why some of you ignore the evidence of this case when making your points and opinions.

Fine...he goes free..now he'll get to feel what it's like to be a black man the rest of his life. Hope he enjoys it. Point is these dumb laws need to be changed b/c it's going to be more cases like this. Everyone taking the word of the killer b/c the person who's dead can't defend themselves in court so the defense gets the benefit of the doubt in court b/c it's hard to convict without having other reliable witness to the event so the benefit goes to the defense.

Wow... Depending on your response, I may be finished discussing this with you. There were witnesses. There was audio evidence. There was physical evidence. There was medical evidence. There was testimony from many professionals. Go out and look at it so you can form a more educated opinion.