:thumbsup:thumbsup:thumbsup

Well one thing is for sure....... He didn't get his ass kicked after he pulled the gun, the gun ended it. So he must have been being assalted prior to blasting the dude.
That would lean towards self defense in most (non-racial) cases. But, all bets are off when the race card gets played!!! :Oh crap No-one knows how this one is gonna go.

What he said

The guy that's still alive gets to say his part in court and if there are no other witnesses to dispute it. That's what happened. It takes proof to find a person guilty. (supposedly)

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

What will happen is that the prosecution will likely try to put together a presentation that makes Zimmerman out as a guy who pursued hahahahahaha with the intent to do him harm and that he started the altercation an hahahahahaha was defending himself against Zimmerman. When Zimmerman started losing the fight he shot hahahahahaha.

If you start a fight and start losing that fight you can't just kill someone and claim self defense.

Zimmerman's defense will likely be just the opposite. He will likely say that he was trying to calmly talk to hahahahahaha and hahahahahaha attacked him.

It will come down to who the jury believes.

What Zimmerman has going for him is that that the charges that he has been hit with it are more difficult to prove than other charges they could have gone with. What he has going against him is his past history of violence and so far he has a few incidence of lying to and misleading the court. You can imagine his defense team will fight like hell to not allow his past to be admitted as evidence.

How does it actually work?
If you are jury you would know said past - does not matter if it is allowed as evidence or not. So how come it is a big difference if it is allowed or not? Jury will still know that past... And as you say - it will come down to what version jury believes.

Are you crazy? If an idiot like Zimmerman was in my neighbourhood, I'd move. Trevon was NOT ARMED. Zimmerman had no reason to shoot from everything I've seen on TV so far. Even if a fight did break out between them, Zimmerman could have easy fought back. And if he had to pull a gun, all he had to do was threaten Trevon with it. Zimmerman shot first because he was scared of a black kid, nothing else.

Yeah, a girlfriend would never lie.

Yes, what we need is more fucking idiots heavily armed, completely untrained, unsupervised, with absolutely no regard for human life running around thinking they're Wyatt Earp, taking the law into their own hands. If this guy had any kind of training the situation would have never happened in the first place seeing as the kid - a 17-year-old kid - wasn't trespassing on anyone's property, nor was there any reasonable indication - a trained law officer calls it "probable cause" - to suggest the kid was doing anything wrong other than walking down the street in a neighborhood HE FUCKING LIVED IN.

But, hey, why should we stop there? Why don't we just round all the minorities up and throw them in gas chambers or something? Probably save a lot of trouble, right?

A repeal of the "Stand Your Ground" laws would be nice. Rather than holding people accountable for taking someone's life and keeping the burden of proof on those people who choose to kill someone, the new standard requires society to prove that the taking of human life wasn’t necessary. Pretty sick if you ask me.

Hopefully he'll spend the next 25 years getting big, black, AIDS infected, open sore covered cocks brutally jammed up his bloody shitty asshole. Only then can we truly say that justice has been served.

George Zimmerman's future hubby right here:

when he relaxes :1orglaugh

:2 cents:

Case closed if GF said so :1orglaugh

You are right. It is going to be nearly impossible for them to find a jury where the people haven't heard of the case and know nothing about it beforehand. They could, but it would be a challenge.

In theory you are supposed to ignore everything but the evidence you are presented, but if you knew about his past even if it weren't brought up in court you know that would sway your judgement.

It is a big deal if it is allowed in as evidence because if they do find jurors who don't know much about the case or about his past you know the prosecution will hammer it home and show that he is a guy who has anger issues and a history of violence.

I think with his past as evidence or not, he may well be in trouble because all he had to do was sit in his car and wait for the police like he said he was going to do and none of this would have happened. To me it looks like he took unnecessary action and it ended badly.

You don't think cell phone records are verifiable?

He's wrong because he had no business being black!

People like him and me should go be black somewhere in the dark like reasonable
people.

:1orglaugh