Man follows black teen who seems "suspicious" and kills him.

It is funny how politics colored this trial. That it was a tragedy is no question, that Zimmerman was reckless is no question, but so was Trayvon. Why did he jump Zimmerman? There is plenty of evidence he threw the first punchs.
Why are the Trayvon supporters mad at the prosecution for overcharging and such a poor presentation at trial? It seems to me they would rather an issue than justice.
Those that defend Zimmerman for all wrongs and think he was a hero are equally off.

I think there are less of those that think Zimmerman is a hero than the nuts that scream racism as a defense mechanism.

where was martin's right to "stand his ground" when he was being stalked by an armed man who was impersonating a police officer?

Nowhere since it was deemed that there was no stalking. Also, LOL@impersonating a police officer. The dumb emotional groups will say anything to make themselves feel better.

Originally posted by dadudemon

TOO FUNNY!!!!! 😂

Originally posted by focus4chumps
where was martin's right to "stand his ground" when he was being stalked by an armed man who was impersonating a police officer?

"Stand your ground" wasn't even used by the defense. Why are you so hung up on it?

Originally posted by focus4chumps
where was martin's right to "stand his ground" when he was being stalked by an armed man who was impersonating a police officer?

Originally posted by juggerman
"Stand your ground" wasn't even used by the defense. Why are you so hung up on it?

Agreed.

But if we're going to believe Zimmerman's testimony, then Martin knew Zimmerman had a gun as he allegedly went for it. So tell me, if a man follows you in a car, you make a run for it down a pedestrian street and he gets out of the car to follow; you then see he's armed. Is it not reasonable to take the fight to him as a means to defend yourself? Flight or fight response; seems Trayvon chose fight.

Originally posted by Robtard
Agreed.

But if we're going to believe Zimmerman's testimony, then Martin knew Zimmerman had a gun as he allegedly went for it. So tell me, if a man follows you in a car, you make a run for it and he gets out of the car to follow, you then see he's armed. Is it not reasonable to take the fight to him as a means to defend yourself? Flight or fight response; seems Trayvon chose fight.

Sorry, Robtard, that's not an SYG situation. Unless Zimmerman had the gun out or otherwise moved to attack Martin, it would be irrelevant. Seeing that a person following you is armed (though as said, that's not what happened) and pre-emptively attacking him is nothing to do with SYG laws and is very likely to get you convicted.

All SYG does is remove your duty to retreat from a violent confrontation. In your hypothetical situation, it is Martin beginning the violence.

The broad answer to focus' question, then, is that unless Zimmerman opened hostilities (which is unclear, which is the problem with the case), Martin has no such right- which is actually no bad thing.

But yes, as I said earlier, SYG laws and Florida attitudes are completely irrelevant to this case as Zimmerman's legal defence was simply self-defence, acceptable pretty much everywhere.

Originally posted by Raisen
More lies. Martin knew he had a gun after he struck zimmerman and knocked him to the ground

iirc, Zimmerman's testimony was that Martin went for the gun when then clashed, it wasn't stated that it was then and only then that Martin knew about the gun.

But please, if you have info that says exactly what you claim, do show it.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Sorry, Robtard, that's not an SYG situation. Unless Zimmerman had the gun out or otherwise moved to attack Martin, it would be irrelevant. Seeing that a person following you is armed (though as said, that's not what happened) and pre-emptively attacking him is nothing to do with SYG laws and is very likely to get you convicted.

All SYG does is remove your duty to retreat from a violent confrontation. In your hypothetical situation, it is Martin beginning the violence.

The broad answer to focus' question, then, is that unless Zimmerman opened hostilities (which is unclear, which is the problem with the case), Martin has no such right- which is actually no bad thing.

But yes, as I said earlier, SYG laws and Florida attitudes are completely irrelevant to this case as Zimmerman's legal defence was simply self-defence, acceptable pretty much everywhere.

I wasn't arguing a pro SYG position. As I agreed SYG had nothing to do with the case.

Well, in that case- no, it's not reasonable for Martin to do that.

Originally posted by Robtard
iirc, Zimmerman's testimony was that Martin went for the gun when then clashed, it wasn't stated that it was then and only then that Martin knew about the gun.

But please, if you have info that says exactly what you claim, do show it.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Well, in that case- no, it's not reasonable for Martin to do that.

Just going off the Florida law that Oliver North posted several pages back. ie if a person felt there was danger or if it was reasonable to feel that they were in danger.

IMO, a man following me in a car, then following me with a gun after I make a run for it would definitely put in the the mindset that I was in danger.

Originally posted by Raisen
Regardless, if trayvon knew he had the gun then struck zimmerman instead of running, that is even more on zimmermans side. Then you would really be thinking this guy is.trying to take my gun by.hitting me.....hes going to kill me.
No matter how you look at it, yohr butthurt is unjustified

Not by Florida law as posted by Oliver North several pages ago.

As noted before, many states have a preemptive attack for the defender; Zimmerman was the one with the gun and it was Zimmerman's actions that put all this in play.

Originally posted by Robtard
Just going off the Florida law that Oliver North posted several pages back. ie if a person felt there was danger or if it was reasonable to feel that they were in danger.

IMO, a man following me in a car, then following me with a gun after I make a run for it would definitely put in the the mindset that I was in danger.

In your opinion, your mindset would be correct, but that's not what happened in the case. Between the hypotheticals and the whining, it's tough to continue the logical discourse involving this topic.

Originally posted by Robtard
Just going off the Florida law that Oliver North posted several pages back. ie if a person felt there was danger or if it was reasonable to feel that they were in danger.

IMO, a man following me in a car, then following me with a gun after I make a run for it would definitely put in the the mindset that I was in danger.

Your opinion is noted, but I don't think either judge or jury would agree, and nor do I.

Originally posted by Robtard
Not by Florida law as posted by Oliver North several pages ago.

As noted before, many states have a preemptive attack for the defender; Zimmerman was the one with the gun and it was Zimmerman's actions that put all this in play.

I'm pretty sure Zimmerman said Martin noticed the gun after he was already "ground and pounding" Zimmerman.

Originally posted by Robtard
Not by Florida law as posted by Oliver North several pages ago.

As noted before, many states have a preemptive attack for the defender; Zimmerman was the one with the gun and it was Zimmerman's actions that put all this in play.

my god you are reaching hard. you're too damn soft