Zimmerman verdict is easy for the Jurors

[Bricktop]

I would have to review the evidence in that case which I haven't... don't see the relevance to this case though... seems like a red herring to me...

[Muadib]

stop chat faught...

There is no basis for self-defense given the evidence.. it is not a REASONABLE proposition..

Therefore one must question what influenced the Jury other than evidence..

[Willi]

i HAVE TO AGREE WITH YOU HERE...

[Peter R]

The similarity for me is that two guilty people walked...

[Bricktop]

Review the evidence and match it up with Zimmerman's account of what happened that night...then use that critical thinking you always huffing and puffing about on the forum...need need to get all emotional and type in CAPS...just the facts...woieeee...man dem a get emotional and lose all reasoning power...

[Muadib]

Self-Defense argument requires one to believe they are in imminent danger of death or grievous bodily harm...

There is no evidence of this.. a broken nose (if true) and superficial lacerations to the scalp is not evidence that supports this.

You do not have to shoot a skinny teenager in their Heart to end a scuffle.. just brandishing the gun would put an end to that... at worst a shot in the air and a threat to kill OR a shot to a limb would be adequate.. its not like they were 20 yards apart.. aim would not be an issue..

What occurred is not reasonable in the world of Critical Thinking.

The jury took a departure from this and the only question at this point is their motive.. I suspect they suffer from the same affliction that Zimmerman suffers from..

It matters not since the REAL trial with a REAL jury is being pursued.

[Bricktop]

You do not have to shoot a skinny teenager in their Heart to end a scuffle.. just brandishing the gun would put an end to that... at worst a shot in the air and a threat to kill OR a shot to a limb would be adequate.. its not like they were 20 yards apart.. aim would not be an issue..

That argument was addressed in the trial...hard to think critically when you haven't reviewed the evidence...you think?

[Muadib]

An argument is not evidence...

Try again...

Please provide me with the evidence supporting self-defense, especially that corroborating the claim of the defendant that he killed in self-defense.. let me see if I missed something..

[Bricktop]

A wha di? You want evidence as to why he did not shoot Trayvon in the leg and wound him? Woieeeee...as the expert testified "...this is not the movies..."

[Muadib]

No.. I want evidence to support why Zimmerman REASONABLY believed his life was in danger or he was in danger of grievous bodily harm.. here is the law for your edification:

<The Florida statute holds that lethal force in self-defense is justified if “the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant.”>

Now given what you KNOW of the case.. do you belief Zimmerman acted under the guidelines of Self-Defense..

Take your time...

[Bricktop]

I am not in the habit of yapping for yapping's sake...I have already posted that it was clearly self defence as defined by the law...but then again he should have just winged him like they do in the westerns...woieeeeeeeeeeee...

[Muadib]

What evidence did you use to determine that it was clearly self defence as defined by law..

I have given you the law.. provide the evidence that supports self-defense.. I have seen none.. maybe I missed it...

[Karl]

I am not in the habit of yapping for yapping's sake...I have already posted that it was clearly self defence as defined by the law...but then again he should have just winged him like they do in the westerns...woieeeeeeeeeeee...

On what he describes as a dark rainy evening -
a) He should have remained in his vehicle.

b) If he decided to step outside of his vehicle which we know he did...then he should have obeyed the Police dispatcher's instruction "not to pursue" Trayvon.

c) If he took even one step forward in the direction Trayvon had taken he had ample time to reconsider hunting Trayvon...and to turn back.

d) Having on each of his many steps towards Trayvon...he should have on each occasion reconsidered and retraced his steps.

e) Having at last caught up with Trayvon he still had time to turn back...instead on every step of his way on that dark rainy evening he singled mindedly trailed, tracked, hunted Trayvon and on catching up with him carried out his mission - He shot the boy dead!!!

...then he built a pack of easily seen lies surrounding what occurred.

Self-defense? Only a damn fool or worse would see it that way.

[Bricktop]

Karl...you clearly did not watch the trial...the 911 operator clearly stated that they cannot tell someone what to do...they can only suggest what to do...so no "instruction" was disobeyed...Zimmerman did not "catch up" to Martin...he was going back to his car when Martin approached him...if he created a "pack of lies" why did the evidence corroborate his story?

[Muadib]

stop getting distracted.. please provide with the evidence you used to support Self-Defense under Florida Law.

Thanks in advance.