Fab1b;1472285 wrote:No no no. Don't fall into this trap. It is not stand your ground nor self defense when you leave and return armed and fire shots in the presence of children. Also she was the one that kept letting him back in and she was the one that had the lawful orders against her not him. Do your freaking homework!

Mulva;1472292 wrote:My point wasn't innocence or guilt. It was plea deal sentence vs. trial sentence. The actions/crime were the same either way. That isn't justice.

Relating back to this case... I think the jury got the verdict right. But too often in similar cases people are strong-armed into accepting the 3 year plea deal so that they don't have to face the risk of 20 years in prison. "Stack charges to get a guilty plea so it doesn't have to be proven in court" is the prevailing strategy, and I think it's disgusting.

It was more of a personal tangent than anything relevant to this case.

Hb31187;1472277 wrote:don't profile and masquerade as a cop and you don't get "jumped"

Midstate01;1472295 wrote:I agree that GZ should have just left it alone, ,especailly after being told too. But he didn't break any laws approaching him.

TedSheckler;1472299 wrote:He wasn't told to leave it alone.

Fab1b;1472301 wrote:Even if he was, the 911 operator is not a police officer and therefor it is not a lawful order and does not have to be regarded! People need to stop with that and learn the damn facts! That wasn't directed at you Ted!

TedSheckler;1472298 wrote:Just keep walking to your father's apartment and don't double back to put a beat down on GZ.

Hb31187;1472316 wrote:GZ initiated their encounter otherwise the two woulda went their.separate ways.....

Hb31187;1472316 wrote:GZ initiated their encounter otherwise the two woulda went their.separate ways.....

O-Trap;1472319 wrote:Sure, but the initial interaction was neither illegal nor violent in any way. If I was to call a man an asshat and he was to beat the ever-loving **** out of me, does that vindicate the other guy because I started it by calling him a name? Of course not.

Zimmerman may have initiated contact, but Martin (by the accounts in court) was the one whose actions were to give justification for the claim of self-defense.

Ultimately, this whole trial would have been bad, no matter what the verdict.

Manhattan Buckeye;1472320 wrote:Would have, not woulda, and it isn't illegal to talk to someone on a public street or other public area, or else I would have been arrested about a dozen times last night on a public transit vehicle.

Manhattan Buckeye;1472325 wrote:I do when someone is parroting an old and worn out argument. Are you seriously bringing up this up again for the zillionth time? It is a complete red herring.

Crimson streak;1472333 wrote:I just love how everyone was trying to act like TM was some sweet little kid and did no wrong.

TedSheckler;1472335 wrote:6 white women didn't buy it.

Hb31187;1472321 wrote:And I didn't say what GZ did was illegal, just was pointing out that TM wasn't the one who sought.out GZ it.was the other way around

Hb31187;1472327 wrote:Panties must be in a serious bunch. I wasn't defending TM simply stated there would have been no contact between the two and Gz wouldn't of.feared for his life had he just listened to the dispatcher and left the kid alone, or.just left him to be and not.called 911 in the first place.

Manhattan Buckeye;1472344 wrote:BTW, Zimmerman's attorney is very, very good. Made a statement with dignity and also a bit of an edge.