Yeah, maybe let's take a look at Reuters:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/19/usa-florida-shooting-trial-idUSL1E8LJDX620121019
Trayvon Martin
- Thread starter Devo
- Start date
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/19/usa-florida-shooting-trial-idUSL1E8LJDX620121019
Congratulations to the jury for making the courageous and CORRECT decision to find George Zimmerman not guilty of all charges. If not for the scumbag race pimps Sharpton and Jackson this case would have never been brought against the obviously innocent Zimmerman. Today the good side won!
There really wasn't a good side.
The way I see it a 17 year old boy who went to the store was profiled, a fight ensued and he was gunned down.
Was it self defense? At the time of the shooting it seems to have been.
But if I stalk someone, pick a fight with them, find myself losing the fight, can I then shoot them and claim self defense?
The answer should be no, the problem is there really wasn't enough evidence to convict him because there was no eye witnesses and we can't say for certain who started the fight, who was screaming and whether or not Zimmerman thought he was likely going to incur great bodily harm or death.
So while the verdict is correct, based on the evidence, or lack thereof, nobody "won". Least of all Trayvon Martin.
The way I see it a 17 year old boy who went to the store was profiled, a fight ensued and he was gunned down.
Was it self defense? At the time of the shooting it seems to have been.
But if I stalk someone, pick a fight with them, find myself losing the fight, can I then shoot them and claim self defense?
The answer should be no, the problem is there really wasn't enough evidence to convict him because there was no eye witnesses and we can't say for certain who started the fight, who was screaming and whether or not Zimmerman thought he was likely going to incur great bodily harm or death.
So while the verdict is correct, based on the evidence, or lack thereof, nobody "won". Least of all Trayvon Martin.
Well stated. Key words "at the time of the shooting". That's what the jury was deciding and they got it right.
A few years ago a black man was robbing and beating a white guy in a subway in New York and was shot by a white policeman. He was left paralyzed and was awarded millions in damages. He created the scene by attacking someone, but was still rewarded when he was injured, so juries have previously ignored what led to a more serious result.
unfortunately,the cop only wounded the perp.
If he'd been a better shot,there's no lawsuit.
