Great interview with Charles Barkley regarding the Zimmerman verdict.

Stand your ground is different from self defense because unlike self defense, u do not have to show u tried to de escalate the scene by either movie g away or something like that. In stand your ground basically it's almost like the one who survives can determine the script of the story. U can start a fight, get beaten up, kill the person u attacked and claim u stood ur ground in the face of an attack. That is like the cowboy days where u would have to meet a challenge with the shootout scenes we have seen in movies and whoever lives is the innocent one. And some fish prosecutor decided to make it an all woman jury, and we all know what women think of a black man in a hood in the night. Even I who is not a lawyer could predict they would see how zimmerman could be afraid of the black man in a hood at night coz they were, hence it is not hard to exonerate him. It is like having an all white jury convict a black man, and I thot civil rights laws changed that. In any case if I was a parent, i would tell my black kids (if my kids turn out black then my wife will have cheated) if I had any, to come back home safe coz some wannabe self proclaimed neighborhood protector is after their life. A law where if u die u r guilty and if u live u r innocent is going to fuel a few more deaths before they change it and change it they will.

He's talking about stand your ground in Texas not Florida. Originally Posted by oilfieldscum

Florida's Stand Your Ground is also based on the Castle Doctrine.

Stand your ground is different from self defense because unlike self defense, u do not have to show u tried to de escalate the scene by either movie g away or something like that. In stand your ground basically it's almost like the one who survives can determine the script of the story. U can start a fight, get beaten up, kill the person u attacked and claim u stood ur ground in the face of an attack. That is like the cowboy days where u would have to meet a challenge with the shootout scenes we have seen in movies and whoever lives is the innocent one. And some fish prosecutor decided to make it an all woman jury, and we all know what women think of a black man in a hood in the night. Even I who is not a lawyer could predict they would see how zimmerman could be afraid of the black man in a hood at night coz they were, hence it is not hard to exonerate him. It is like having an all white jury convict a black man, and I thot civil rights laws changed that. In any case if I was a parent, i would tell my black kids (if my kids turn out black then my wife will have cheated) if I had any, to come back home safe coz some wannabe self proclaimed neighborhood protector is after their life. A law where if u die u r guilty and if u live u r innocent is going to fuel a few more deaths before they change it and change it they will. Originally Posted by chess9718cb

Precisely the problem with SYG ... It gives way too much leeway to average joes like Zimmerman with no authority or training to use deadly force with legal cover. Look at the guy who shot 3 of his neighbors here in Houston who were at a birthday party. He recorded the scene claiming he feared for his life when he was the aggressor and no one attacked him.

Agree ... There will be more shootings like the TM case with these laws in place.

As far as his head being slammed into the ground, that is bs.
His head wound (singular) was superficial and didn't require medical attention.
It was more like his head was rubbing on the ground and the injury was caused by friction.

If his head was being slammed to the ground he would have had more than a scratch. His head wasn't swollen or cracked just scratched.

I have been in a few fist and wrestling fights in my life. And my experience is that his injuries are not consistent with how he portrayed the incident.

It's a shame that we have to have a law that states you can stand your ground and meet force with force. Who is the govt or anyone else for that matter able to dictate that I or anyone else needs to exhaust all escape possibilities before defending oneself? The idea of this is absolutely insane. I wish Texas would pass an open carry law, there would be a lot less thugs running around thinking they can intimidate the public and rape our society. Charles Barkley's interview was the best and most rational thing I've seen from the media this entire time. FACTS presented are all we or the jury had to go on, everything/everyone else is just speculating. The fact that there was only Zimmerman left to tell the story of what happened is how it works. If you are going to intentionally kill someone or whatever, the best way to get out of it is to have no witness' to say otherwise than that of your side of the story. It's true what they said in my CHL class the first time I took it many many years ago, shoot center mass until they cease to show further aggression. Also, this is just to everyone else who said he didn't listen to the dispatcher..... guess what, he doesn't have to. That's not a lawful command or request. I said it once, hell I've said it 100 times.... this should have never went to trial..... funny, the cops weren't going to until...

Why did he fire just one shot? In the act of getting one's ass whooped, and claim of fear of one's life, in the frantic action of getting beat, and he fires JUST ONCE? Not even a double tap due to, say, a tight grip on the trigger? Keep in mind this was a situation where he's wrestling around with someone, and is 'losing'. You're worried about your life, yet you're conscious enough to only fire one shot? That's interesting.

Where was Trayvon shot at, and from what angle? I've never heard anyone speak on this, and wondered if anyone knew. Certain angles can be telling of the situation.

How is it that a grown ass man can shoot a minor, and NOTHING happens to him? If Trayvon had survived, he would've been charged with assault. How fucking insane is this??

How was he able to get to his gun if Trayvon was on top of him, I'm assuming in some kind of mounted position? If a person is on top of you in the mount, their knees are most likely going to be on your sides. How could he reach for a gun in that situation? Not only that, but how could he grasp it with one hand (assuming he's using the other to ward off Trayvon), and secure it enough to fire it (again, keep in mind it's a tussle situation, two bodies fighting for leverage)?

Btw, Barkley can be a real fucking idiot sometimes. This is one of those times.

Where was Trayvon shot at, and from what angle? I've never heard anyone speak on this, and wondered if anyone knew. Certain angles can be telling of the situation.

How was he able to get to his gun if Trayvon was on top of him, I'm assuming in some kind of mounted position? If a person is on top of you in the mount, their knees are most likely going to be on your sides. How could he reach for a gun in that situation? Not only that, but how could he grasp it with one hand (assuming he's using the other to ward off Trayvon), and secure it enough to fire it (again, keep in mind it's a tussle situation, two bodies fighting for leverage)? Originally Posted by Rambro Creed

The entry wound suggests TM was shot straight-on, in the heart, from a distance of anywhere from 4 inches to 4 feet was the best guess of the forensics pathologist.

Yes, even the way the defense legal counsel demonstrated the positioning on a mannequin would have made it hard for Zimmerman, with ONE hand, to reach behind his back, remove the pistol from its HOLSTER, then reach forward and fire. TM's knees and lower legs would have been in the way as Zimmerman claimed that TM's knees were just below Zimmerman's armpits.

The defense did a poor job of demonstrating just how difficult this would have been for Zimmerman to do.

But, Rambro, there were no witnesses and this is the best evidence the jury had to go on.

That's interesting.

I didn't watch every minute of the trial. Admittedly, that first witness, sista girl, she was acting too ignorant to keep my attention span. They did a terrible job of prepping her.

Of course my next question is (rhetorical....unless you know the answer), why wasn't a ballistic expert brought in to determine what distance the shot was fired from? Or if one was brought in, where's the emphasis on how and where the shot was fired, since there's only one witness to the murder (who didn't fucking testify)?

This case was poorly handled, which is sad.

That's interesting.

I didn't watch every minute of the trial. Admittedly, that first witness, sista girl, she was acting too ignorant to keep my attention span. They did a terrible job of prepping her.

Of course my next question is (rhetorical....unless you know the answer), why wasn't a ballistic expert brought in to determine what distance the shot was fired from? Or if one was brought in, where's the emphasis on how and where the shot was fired, since there's only one witness to the murder (who didn't fucking testify)?

This case was poorly handled, which is sad. Originally Posted by Rambro Creed

Many necessary questions that should have been raised were not addressed in this case. Like why or how can a person get their head slammed against concrete and keep the same tone and consistency or their screams? Not only that, but also while having his nose and mouth covered by TM. Or why was TM's body found 40 to 50 away from where the tussle took place, yet in Zimmerman's video testimony he never accounted for that distance?

The defense did try and address the fact that there were no blood on TM's hands from Zimmerman's bloody nose by saying that either rain washed it off or GZ did not bleed outward until he stood upright. There are huge holes in these claims.

1) Because TM was found lying on his hands, that would cancel out the idea that the blood was ever exposed to the rain in order to be washed off. AND OR that would warrant GZ's blood being on the front of Martin's sweater.

2) Lets say GZ's nose actually bled inwardly, there are two issues that makes this claim not plausible. When bleeding as much as GZ's nose suggested it usually causes vomiting because it irritates the stomach. Now lets assume he just so happen to beat the stomach irritation.

The most glaring problem with this claim is the fact if your nose is broken it becomes extremely difficult to breathe through your nose and lying horizontally is adding salt to the wound. Now add on the fact that TM is SUPPOSEDLY covering his mouth while he is bleeding inward.

These are just a few inconsistencies in his testimony that begs the question of 'Is Zimmerman's claim even feasible? You can bet anything that there is much more to this story than what is the going popular belief.

I just watched the OP video clip and read through this thread.

I watched a lot of the trial but not the whole trial and some of the comments here are really good especially about the gun shot and the fight detail/questions.

I think CB did a good interview.I had not seen that one yet.I did see yest while at work a clip on the news of a lady juror speaking about her feelings.Also I saw that GZ got out of protective custody and was allegedly "saving a life" ???Not sure what all is going on now but its very sad for the death.I still wonder how "comfortable" GZ "free" life is going to go.

Well anyways. Good thread and a lot of points made here that I found interesting

That's interesting.

I didn't watch every minute of the trial. Admittedly, that first witness, sista girl, she was acting too ignorant to keep my attention span. They did a terrible job of prepping her.

Of course my next question is (rhetorical....unless you know the answer), why wasn't a ballistic expert brought in to determine what distance the shot was fired from? Or if one was brought in, where's the emphasis on how and where the shot was fired, since there's only one witness to the murder (who didn't fucking testify)?

This case was poorly handled, which is sad. Originally Posted by Rambro Creed

The best estimate on the shot was a "medium range shot" meaning 4 inches to 4 feet. The evidence was consistent with TM "hovering over" Zimmerman when he was shot ... the medical evidence of the entry wound and surrounding tissue suggests that TM's hoodie and undershirt were not touching TM's skin at the moment of impact.

Not that does not mean that Zimmerman had not already drawn his weapon before the physical altercation started, which is a distinct possibility. Maybe that's how the whole thing got started. Zimmerman drew his weapon upon approaching TM, TM attacked him thinking Zimmerman was going to shoot him.

Here's a big problem with this whole situation. People have varying opinions without knowing the details. There is a gut instinct that Zimmerman is fabricating some of his version of the incident.

But, in a Court of Law, you can ONLY convict if there is evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. That simply is not the case here.

Really, what does Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson want: A legal system where someone can be convicted on circumstantial evidence and "gut instinct" and past injustice? That's a recipe for using the justice system to convict a whole lot of innocent people.

Y'all need to move on...more black people are getting shot while you're arguing here...find a new dead horse/mule to beat/40 acres...

Huh?

I still wonder how "comfortable" GZ "free" life is going to go.
Originally Posted by Exotic Beauty

Not very. Somebody will still be after his ass! Best believe that!

Y'all need to move on...more black people are getting shot while you're arguing here...find a new dead horse/mule to beat/40 acres...

Huh? Originally Posted by Wakeuр

Free county, bro. People can talk all they want. No one's forcing you to click that button to read this thread.

Y'all need to move on...more black people are getting shot while you're arguing here...find a new dead horse/mule to beat/40 acres...

Huh? Originally Posted by Wakeuр

How's the wife doing? Is my baby bump showing yet?