Trayvon Martin Case

[Gary84Clark]

According to you guys analysis Zimmerman is sure to walk. The evidence is overwhelmingly in his favor, and there are goigng to be riots!!!?? **Wishful thinking sounds like to me and not analysis** LMAO way out there

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by Gary84Clark

According to you guys analysis Zimmerman is sure to walk. The evidence is overwhelmingly in his favor, and there are goigng to be riots!!!?? **Wishful thinking sounds like to me and not analysis** LMAO way out there

I have an intense dislike of humanity, it never fails to stoop to the idiocy of the lowest common denominator.

We'll see. Remember this thread.

[Gary84Clark]

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

I have an intense dislike of humanity, it never fails to stoop to the idiocy of the lowest common denominator.

We'll see. Remember this thread.

Wait, like your last prediction that Romney was gonna win Pennsylvania, the Presidency, and there would be riots. Remember that one?

[over the mountain]

Originally Posted by Gary84Clark

According to you guys analysis Zimmerman is sure to walk. The evidence is overwhelmingly in his favor, and there are goigng to be riots!!!?? **Wishful thinking sounds like to me and not analysis** LMAO way out there

i do hope he is found guilty but its a close call.

either way, the jurors get to make the call and they are in the best position to make a decision .. assuming none of them harbor strong feelings for or against gun control laws and didnt speak up during voir dire.

[Gary84Clark]

Originally Posted by over the mountain

i do hope he is found guilty but its a close call.

either way, the jurors get to make the call and they are in the best position to make a decision .. assuming none of them harbor strong feelings for or against gun control laws and didnt speak up during voir dire.

I think the gun control angle is being over played here. This has nothing to do with gun control its a stalking case. No one is saying it was illegal for Zimmermn to have the gun we are saying it was illegal for him to kill that teenager.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by over the mountain

i do hope he is found guilty but its a close call.

either way, the jurors get to make the call and they are in the best position to make a decision .. assuming none of them harbor strong feelings for or against gun control laws and didnt speak up during voir dire.

Or are closet racists.

[Gary84Clark]

There si no gone too far when someon you don;t know follows you and enters your personal space. You have a right to self defrense at that point. That person brought the problem to you.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by Gary84Clark

There si no gone too far when someon you don;t know follows you and enters your personal space. You have a right to self defrense at that point. That person brought the problem to you.

Wrong. DEAD WRONG. Being bothered by someone does not mean you can't "go too far".

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by Gary84Clark

There si no gone too far when someon you don;t know follows you and enters your personal space. You have a right to self defrense at that point. That person brought the problem to you.

No. You don't. As long as I don't threaten you with physical violence, I can get in your face all day long. You don't like it? Walk away or call the cops. You DO NOT have the right to become violent. Period.

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by Gary84Clark

Wait, like your last prediction that Romney was gonna win Pennsylvania, the Presidency, and there would be riots. Remember that one?

No.

[Gary84Clark]

Following someone is an aggressive act. If your logic is correct, then how can stalking laws be upheld in court?

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by Gary84Clark

Following someone is an aggressive act. If your logic is correct, then how can stalking laws be upheld in court?

Stalking laws are entirely different legal animal. You know why stalkng laws exist? In part, so that the stalked don't need to resort to violence.

"Stalking" [EDIT: In and of itself] is not, and never has been, an excuse to escalate a confrontaton from verbal to physical.

[Gary84Clark]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Stalking laws are entirely different legal animal. You know why stalkng laws exist? In part, so that the stalked don't need to resort to violence.

"Stalking" [EDIT: In and of itself] is not, and never has been, an excuse to escalate a confrontaton from verbal to physical.

Well, why didn't the stalking laws apply to Zimmerman following the teenager?

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by Gary84Clark

Well, why didn't the stalking laws apply to Zimmerman following the teenager?

This may be the point of contention that the Media has sold to the general public/braying mob. Zimmerman was ambushed by Martin.

It'll come out, no one will want to hear it, but that's how it went down.

[Gary84Clark]

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

This may be the point of contention that the Media has sold to the general public/braying mob. Zimmerman was ambushed by Martin.

It'll come out, no one will want to hear it, but that's how it went down.

To ambush someone takes planning. To prove ambush you must prove intent. We have evidence suggesting Zimmerman's intent as aggressive, but Martin was simply coming form the store. Joe please explain intent to your co-counsel.