Click to expand
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #6 - thewhitenigger (07/17/2013) [-]
so wait what was the verdict, it hasnt had any impact in the uk so i dont know
#20 to #6 - FattyMcDoogle (07/17/2013) [-]
They weren't able to Flim Flam the Zim Zam.
#121 to #20 - bigken ONLINE (07/18/2013) [-]
#22 to #20 - Darkroyal (07/17/2013) [-]
Sir, I haven't experienced a comment quite like yours in a long time...take a thumb
User avatar #8 to #6 - sketchE ONLINE (07/17/2013) [-]
he was acquitted on the grounds of self defense. there was little to no evidence that could have gotten him convicted of murder
#23 to #8 - TimeWarpRaped (07/17/2013) [-]
I paid zero attention to the trial. Didn't he shoot Trayvon though?
User avatar #56 to #23 - Yesitsme (07/18/2013) [-]
The whole issue was that they couldn't prove that Travyon didn't attack him first.
User avatar #39 to #23 - Ruspanic (07/17/2013) [-]
Yes, but lethal force in self-defense is legal, and there was decent evidence that Trayvon Martin attacked Zimmerman. The jury voted not guilty on the basis of reasonable doubt.
User avatar #25 to #23 - choclategum (07/17/2013) [-]
Yeah he shot him, he just was seen as guilty because the prosecutor was a ****** lawyer. Oh well.
User avatar #95 to #25 - sketchE ONLINE (07/18/2013) [-]
there wasnt enough evidence to get murder. regardless of the situation zimmerman did not start watching martin with the intent to kill him. the most they could have gotten is manslaughter and they didnt even try for that
User avatar #96 to #95 - choclategum (07/18/2013) [-]
That's why i said he was a ****** lawyer. Went for the diamond instead of settling for the gold.
#98 to #96 - jackassalope (07/18/2013) [-]
Gold is actually worth more than diamonds right now.
User avatar #105 to #98 - choclategum (07/18/2013) [-]
It really depends on the cut of the diamond. But when you're going jewelry shopping. You'll ususally end up spending more on the diamond. If you're talking about the gold countries weigh their economy in, then yes it is more valuable. But let's not get into specifics.
User avatar #97 to #96 - sketchE ONLINE (07/18/2013) [-]
even then it would have been a hard one to win. almost all the vidence points to martin starting the fight. the point that to me helps zimmerman the most is that upon seeing there was a gun martin didnt run his ass home.
User avatar #101 to #97 - choclategum (07/18/2013) [-]
Well that's also to say if martin actally ever saw the gun. I know that if i saw a dude coming towards me with a gun or at least saw he had a gun once we started fighting, i would have booked it out of there. Did he see it and try to grab it? Did he not see it at all? There's a lot of questions in this case. And it's only harder to answer because there was really only one dude left to say what happened. Which is why i said the prosecutor was a ****** lawyer, because he was too focused on the defendants argument and not his own. The defendant was a great lawyer because he took advantage of those unanswered questions. It would have been better if the prosecutor had just gone for manslaughter and based his arguments off that instead of trying to prove it was murder.
User avatar #120 to #101 - sketchE ONLINE (07/18/2013) [-]
according to zimmerman martin went for his gun. also this wasnt zimmerman following martin on foot the entire way. zimmerman was driving to the grocery store when he saw martin looking at one of his friends houses. from the point of zimmerman seing martin up to the point where he got out of his car to look for a street sign martin would have had no way to see the gun. regardless i don go looking for trouble in the middle of the night if someones following me ill be concerned but i wont be planning to attack or kill the person. martin had a history of violence at school and was sspended for fighting
User avatar #122 to #120 - choclategum (07/18/2013) [-]
OK, so because trayvon got into a fight at school, that gives Zimmerman a pardon for getting out of his vehicle and following the boy when he was explicitly told not to? He followed trayvon around for quite a while before he got out of his vehicle and that would make anyone nervous and defensive. Also he did not just get out to look for a street sign. He said that trayvon went between buildings and when he got out he was trying to see where he went as he was walking up the sidewalk, when Zimmerman came back down that side walk, that is when he said he saw trayvon and trayvon confronted him. The basics is this. Zimmerman saw trayvon, Zimmerman followed trayvon thinking he was trying to break in to a house, when trayvon disappears between buildings Zimmerman got out to make sure he didn't run before the police arrived, trayvon confronted Zimmerman for following him, they fought, Zimmerman panicked and shot trayvon. End of story. Self defense and manslaughter all in one.
User avatar #123 to #122 - sketchE ONLINE (07/18/2013) [-]
your missing a few key things. im using martins past as a basis for violent behavior. zimmerman doesnt get a pass in that catagory either because he has a slightly violent past too but it wasnt as recent. he was not explicitly told not to
this contains the conversation backed by recordings. zimmerman was told "we dont need you to do that" after he confirmed he was following martin. this was by a non emergency dispatcher. that was in no way a legaly binding order to stop. your also not taking into account this wasnt a stand up shooting martin was on top of zimmerman assaulting him confirmed by eyewitness report and injuries to zimmermans head he had every right to feel threatend
#28 to #25 - TimeWarpRaped (07/17/2013) [-]
Wow, that's some ass.
User avatar #26 to #25 - choclategum (07/17/2013) [-]
I meant not guilty* my bad
 Friends (0)