|View Poll Results: Should George Zimmerman be arrested???|
|No. He acted in self defense||4||12.50%|
|Yes. Then let the legal system play out||8||25.00%|
|Dunno. No enough facts in this case yet||9||28.13%|
|The USA is so Fukked up, where is the pop corn.||11||34.38%|
|Voters: 32. You may not vote on this poll|
Yeah....but he sure didn't chase him!!!
Zimmerman: 28 years old, with asthma, 5'9" tall, 240 lbs
Martin: 17 years old, football player, 6'3" tall, 160 lbs.
And IF Martin was on top of Zimmerman pounding his head on the pavement, the shooting is (probably) justified.
Too many unknowns...but the more information that becomes availible, the more it appears Zimmerman is innocent.
Says who? The stand your ground law applies to Martin too. If Martin sees a gun drawn, then pounding Zimmerman's head would be justified if Martin fears he is going to be shot.
Martin was walking home, in a public place, which isn't unlawful.
Also, the use of deadly force isn't valid when there is provocation. When Zimmerman chased down Martin, that was provocation.
Zimmerman put himself in that situation. You can't provoke somebody into violence and then claim use of deadly force.
Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine (external - login to view)
That hasn't been proven.
If Zimmerman was the aggressor. If.
Ya, I've read 776.
Well, it doesn't take much more proof than: a) he was watching a football game which was on a break, b) he had bought skittles and iced tea at the 7 eleven and was found half way between there and the house he would return to, c) his father's girlfriend states that he had declared his intention to return.
Actually, even if Zimmerman was the aggressor, it doesn't necessarily rule out the applicability of self defense. I might start a fist fight, but when my to-be victim pulls out a knife, and I pull out mine, that isn't such excessive force at that point.
 The appellant contends that the trial judge erred in not providing the jury with the precise wording of s. 37 and of s. 34(2) of the Code. Sections 34 and 37 read:
34. (1) Every one who is unlawfully assaulted without having provoked the assault is justified in repelling force by force if the force he uses is not intended to cause death or grievous bodily harm and is no more than is necessary to enable him to defend himself.
(2) Every one who is unlawfully assaulted and who causes death or grievous bodily harm in repelling the assault is justified if
(a) he causes it under reasonable apprehension of death or grievous bodily harm from the violence with which the assault was originally made or with which the assailant pursues his purposes; and
(b) he believes, on reasonable grounds, that he cannot otherwise preserve himself from death or grievous bodily harm.
37. (1) Every one is justified in using force to defend himself or any one under his protection from assault, if he uses no more force than is necessary to prevent the assault or the repetition of it.
(2) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to justify the wilful infliction of any hurt or mischief that is excessive, having regard to the nature of the assault that the force used was intended to prevent.
 The second paragraph of the initial charge to the jury on self-defence (reproduced in para. 15 above) uses the language of s. 34(1). The third paragraph uses the language of s. 34(2) but (reasonably) excludes causation of death or reasonable apprehension of death, neither of which factors could have any application in this case. The last two sentences of the fourth paragraph and the entirety of the fifth paragraph encompass the wording of s. 37.
 (I note in passing that the trial judge instructed the jury with respect to the subjective element of self-defence and did not instruct on the objective element discussed in the cases. That has not become an issue on the appeal, no doubt because it likely operated to the benefit of the appellant.)
 The appellant argues that s. 34(2) is available to “initial aggressors”, citing McIntosh at para. 25. He argues that s. 37 is also available to initial aggressors citing R. v. Pintar 1996 CanLII 712 (ON CA), (1996), 110 C.C.C. (3d) 402 at 423-424 (Ont. C.A.) and R. v. Grandin 2001 BCCA 340 (CanLII), (2001), 154 C.C.C. (3d) 408 at paras. 41 and 54 (B.C.C.A.).
Contrast section 34 vs section 37 of the criminal code and look up the cases in canlii where both appear. In Canada, at least...
From CanLII - 2007 BCCA 104 (CanLII) (external - login to view).
I will note in passing that it would be fairly straightforward to convince a Canadian jury that bringing a gun to a fist fight is the definition of excessive.
I'm going to blame that idiotic post, on your admitted stupidity.
You really should head back to your Justin Beiber forum.
Post #1566209 - Re: Trayvon Martin: civil rights leaders call for Florida police chief to resign (external - login to view) Bad Cannuck
Awww, poor Jimmy PWNS himself, and cries with the click of his mouse. I blame your admitted stupidity.
Yeah, I don't really see why he characterises my post that way. Seeing as I was originally furthering a point that you had made, and as I saw it you were simply asking to have the actual facts.
Let me ask again.........Why KILL Martin. IF lethal force was nec , why not just injure him. There are many parts of the body that could have been targetted and still leave Martin alive. Something STINKS......regardless of how much the gun defenders want to give Zimmerman a break . Who is giving Martin the break. ??
I have some experience in this stuff.
If you are in danger of grievous bodily harm, you STOP your attacker as quickly as possible by shooting him in a place that will incapacitate him.
Whether he dies or not is completely immaterial.
He shot him ONCE.
It doesn't matter where....he succeeded in stopping him.
Yes but if using a gun on a person who is punching you is not excessive force, then there is no such thing as excessive force. The question isn't "Did the force used stop the assault?" the question is "Was the force used proportional to the violence it was intended to stop?"
Former NAACP leader C.L. Bryant is accusing Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton of “exploiting” the Trayvon Martin tragedy to “racially divide this country.”
Read more: Trayvon Martin | Jesse Jackson | Al Sharpton | The Daily Caller (external - login to view)
I prefer this Fark headline but the point is obvious regarding this MSM and politically motivated race-baiting clusterfuk:
Not that it'll change anyone's mind. "George Zimmerman suffered a broken nose, and had an injury to the back of his head, he was attacked by Trayvon Martin on that evening," (Auto-play video) (external - login to view)
Even so; after everyone (the motley crews on 4chan do a better job sourcing and covering this fiasco with a higher degree of objectivity) knows where to acquire current ones, the ABC page still runs misleading photos of both individuals:
George Zimmerman's Attorney and Friend Speak About Trayvon Martin Incident - ABC News (external - login to view)
..... we would have a much clearer idea of the situation as we would have both parties alive to describe what took place.
Here we go.
Report: Witness Says Trayvon Martin Attacked George Zimmerman
Trayvon Martin Shooter Told Cops Teenager Went For His Gun
Considering the fact that Zimmerman has a price on his head (!!!!!!), one can hardly blame a Zimmerman-sympathetic witness for being shy.