Free Allegiance Forums

He said / she said, two stories, not enough evidence to determine which story is true = reasonable doubt and no conviction.

I don't see a reason to get all political about it.

it's a shame

florida still $#@!ing sucks though

um... because manslaughter was an option... that's how. He beyond a reasonable doubt killed the kid, and probably not out of malice thus not the murder charge. He should not have stalked the kid.... probably got in a confrontation ( if some one was following me I would confront them) then @#(! got real. He shot him.

=

Manslaughter which was an option for the jury.

$#@!ed up verdict... not guilty.

You don't believe in self defense?

This testimony really kind of screwed the prosecution:

QUOTE Jonathan (John) Good, a neighbor at the retreat, testified that he heard a faint noise outside and he could not tell the direction. As the noises grew louder, he looked outside through his blinds. He opened his door and looked out and saw "some sort of tussle" where the participants were on the ground. He called out "what's going on" and "stop it" as he started to step outside. Good said the participant wearing "dark or black" was on top, and the person wearing "red or white" was on the bottom, and the person on the bottom had lighter skin. He described the person on top had their legs straddling the person on the bottom, who was face up.

He could not hear any pounding or hitting, but did see "downward arm motion, multiple times" that "looked like punches" from the person on top. He heard a "help" from the person on the bottom, and Good said "cut it out", and that he was going to call 9-1-1. He went back inside to call 9-1-1, but he heard a gunshot before the call was completed. Good's call to 911 was played for the jury.[/quote]

Add that to the fact that Zimmerman had facial lacerations and a broken nose, and Martin had no damage to his face, and it's really hard to dispute that Martin was on top and punching Zimmerman in the face. In that kind of situation, it doesn't really matter how much of an @#$%@# Zimmerman was, or what kind of crazy laws FL has. It's a valid self-defense argument that the state really can't disprove. Everything leading up to that point kind of doesn't matter.

there's still an overwhelming feeling that the entire chain of events was a result of racial profiling which is what people are really pissed off over

Yeah, I get that. I'm not sure that feeling is justified, but for all I know Zimmerman could be a racist @#$%@#. Being hispanic, one would think he'd be a bit less prejudiced, but who knows.

Looking at the evidence, though, I find it hard to fault the jury's decision.

Seems like a provocated self defense.

it just seems like a very murky case to begin with, given that zimmerman actively pursued trayvon and caused the confrontation to begin with even though the evidence overwhelmingly favored him during the trial

I dont get why this was a race issue. Zimmerman was only half-white, and identifies as a Hispanic. The media keeps portraying this as a white v black thing, but pretty sure thats not the case.

Makes for good ratings.