“Legal Definitions”? I said nothing about legal definitions, it’s a concept. There is both lawful and unlawful self defense.
A lot of people have gone to jail who thought they were acting lawfully in their defense and found out otherwise.
There have been lots of people who claimed self defense and at trial were proven to have acted unlawfully.
The “legal term” when by a technicality it is determined someone’s acting in self defense was unlawful is “imperfect self defense”.
"George Zimmerman got away with murder, but you can’t get away from God. And at the end of the day, he’s going to have a lot of questions and answers he has to deal with." - Juror B29
I don’t care. How did she vote?
She voted not-guilty because there wasn’t enough evidence and not because she thought it was a lawful shooting.
As the law was read to me, if you have no proof that he killed him intentionally, you can’t say he’s guilty…you can’t put the man in jail even though in our hearts we felt he was guilty." -Juror B29
And that’s ridiculous.
He admitted he killed Martin and claimed self defense.
He admitted he intentionally drew his weapon and fired it to stop Martin’s attack.
If anything she doesn’t like the law or doesn’t like Zimmerman but the fact is her vote upheld is claim of self defense by finding him not guilty.
Before you claim otherwise see the link above and read the jury instructions.
OK thanks.
You have absolutely no way of knowing what she was thinking other than what she said about feeling he was guilty but didn’t have the needed evidence against him. Fortunately for the dreg of humanity he killed the evidence that could of done him in
I know the facts and the law, you’re the one purporting to know what she was thinking.
He’s not a likeable character, he wasn’t then and isn’t now.
Under the law though what he did was lawful.
No, I’m quoting what she said. You’re the one adding meaning that’s not there “If anything she doesn’t like…”
Then who wrote this?
Yes, she didn’t think there was enough evidence. Her words
However, she said that after nine hours of deliberations, she realized that there was not enough evidence to convict Zimmerman under Florida law:
Oh, the jury decision was “self-defense”?
She “thought in her heart” it was murder but the evidence showed the contrary.
Again.
He admitted shooting Martin. Is that in dispute at all?
He admitted pulling his gun and shooting him to save his own life. Is that in dispute at all?
Under the law if you intentionally use deadly force and kill someone in doing so it was done by and with intent to kill them.
Unless he did so in self defense then it is Murder. Is that in dispute at all?
Did you bother reading the law or the jury instructions?
You are right.
Very good point. Here’s an excerpt from
http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/726236-zimmerman-trial-final-jury-instructions.html
“A killing that is excusable or was committed by use of justifiable deadly force is lawful”
Six years late and these people haven’t managed to get to “acceptance” yet.
Yeah, run with the “that wasn’t what I was implying” when I wasn’t even the first person to pick it up.
Please, never change WR!
Defending a murderer-- and the beat goes on. Wait till it’s a white teen that falls to this fate. Their stories will be so different you won’t think they are the same posters.
I’ve never given a damn about the races of anyone involved in any of these cases and I judge them all by the same standards.
Under Florida law what Zimmerman did wa lawful self defense.
This is far more about what burden of proof there is.
The prosecution could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that his claim of self defense wasn’t justified.
It seems to me the juror indicated they thought it was was more likely that it wasn’t justified, they couldn’t prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.
personally, i like that some Americans are still defending Z.
