It’s not a popularity contest. Either he had a lawful use of deadly force that night or he didn’t, the rest is irrelevant.
And again, it isn’t about what he did or didn’t “deserve”. He was a thug by the very definition of the word but what matters is what happened that night.
Did he give Zimmerman a lawful reason to act in self defense? Yes.
Did he give reason a lawful use of deadly force in his own defense? Yes.
Did his thuggish attitude affect his thinking that night leading him to do so? Probably but it’s irrelevant, he was lawfully killed in self defense for attacking Zimmerman, Refusing to stop despite repeated begging for him to do so by Zimmerman, and the fact he gave Zimmerman a clear reason to believe he was facing imminent grave bodily harm or death.
So found the jury just as the facts of the case always supported.
We almost always agree but isn’t it nice, that we aren’t an echo chamber?
They helped push public opinion. They didn’t have to be on the Jury.
He did nothing for the community. Just stop. You are defending a vile human being.
**[quote=“WildRose, post:226, topic:557, full:true”]
It’s not a popularity contest. Either he had a lawful use of deadly force that night or he didn’t, the rest is irrelevant.
[/quote]
But lawfull doesn’t mean “right”. Given the facts of the case Zimmerman didn’t do what was right. The incident should not have ended the way it did.
Had Martin killed Zimmerman, would it have ended the “right” way … in your opinion?
We can see from his behavior after that night who the REAL thug is.
2 Likes
A tale of two WildRoses:
One WR says “just because Amazon isn’t doing anything illegal doesn’t mean their treatment of employees isn’t wrong.”
Another WR says “Zimmerman was found innocent, which vindicates him of any wrongdoing.”
3 Likes
Of course not. No one should’ve died from that counter.
I’m making no moral judgement at all.
The jury found that Martin was lawfully killed in self defense and I agree.
I called this case within a week of the shooting and it came out exactly as I expected it to.
Me too. Without any real witnesses, there really wasn’t anything that the prosecution could do or say that would adequately fill in the gaps.
“lawfully killed?” Who, other than you, used that phrase?
They needed Martin’s testimony. Z made sure they wouldn’t get that.
He was killed in lawful self defense.
There was never any doubt as to whether or not Zimmerman Killed Martin, he admitted it immediately. The only question was as to whether or not it was done lawfully.
Could you stop using that as if it were a legal term and not one that you made up yourself?
1 Like
Who, other than you, who used the phrase “lawfully killed?” Not being able to prove something does not default to “lawful.” Your language and characterization of Martin’s murder is disgusting. But it doesn’t surprise me; I’ve seen how you post in threads about anyone who isn’t white being killed.
I didn’t attribute the phrase to anyone else.
Zimmerman absolutely killed Martin.
He pled self defense.
His claim of self defense was upheld and he was exonerated.
That makes the killing of Martin lawful.
Now is there any part of that you can’t understand in particular?
The jury found no such thing. The jury found that the prosecution failed to meet their burden of proof in proving that Zimmerman murdered Martin. That in no way is the same thing as they found that it was actual self defense. Some jurors actually said as much in that they felt Zimmerman was in the wrong but the burden of proof just wasn’t there.
They found him not guilty, he admitted to the killing. The only way he could be not guilty is if his claim of self defense was upheld.
