blonde poker forum

I just don't understand.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23304198

The wikipedia page has a lot more information. How has he gotten away with this?

Always difficult to react when we know <100% of the story. We don't know what was ruled inadmissible, for example.

However, it's a tragic story, whichever way you look at it.

Watched a documentary about that and other cases in the US, based on the gun-law and 'stand your ground' law.

Think it was this one: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01nhb1d

Media in America too btw, "Fox News Channel host Geraldo Rivera claimed that Martin's "gangsta style clothing" was "as much responsible for Trayvon Martin's death as George Zimmerman was".[293][294] Rivera was quoted saying, "I am urging the parents of black and Latino youngsters particularly to not let their children go out wearing hoodies." [293] Faced with outrage over his statements, Rivera apologized, saying that he had "obscured the main point that someone shot and killed an unarmed teenager".[295] When a 7-Eleven surveillance video showing Martin making a purchase on the night of the shooting was released two months later, however, Rivera referred to the clothes he had been wearing as "thug wear". His comments were criticized by the Martin family attorney, Benjamin Crump, who compared them to people blaming rape victims for wearing short skirts.[294]"




Another case: http://columbia.patch.com/groups/police-and-fire/p/man-shot-by-state-police-was-sobe

It's ridiculous, and I know we had a long thread on here about America's gun laws.  The attitude of their law with regards to shooting people is incredible, but still manages to astound at times.

God bless America:
http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local_news/article/Jury-acquits-escort-shooter-4581027.php

If anyone follows Sam Grafton on twitter he has retweeted a lot of very interesting articles on this subject.  Well worth a read.

Thanks for this, incredible twitter all-round really. http://gerrycanavan.wordpress.com/2013/07/13/354-2/ scary stuff.

Interesting case.  The law here in Florida is pretty screwed up in my opinion.  The proliferation of guns along with the stand your ground laws are an accident waiting to happen.  In terms of pure racism I think it a bit unfortunate that this is how it has been built up by the media as the main issue as whilst Zimmerman is probably guilty of racial profiling when choosing to follow him it is fairly clear some kind of altercation took place and is fairly unclear who instigated that.

It's clear who had a gun and who shot the other man.

That might mean something morally but in terms of Florida law it means absolutely zero.

Oh, I know it's the law that's a complete farce - and the way it's implemented.

One was on the phone saying he was being followed, one was on the hunt.

The friend said that she told Martin to run to the townhouse where he was staying with his father and the father's girlfriend.[160] She then heard Martin say, "What are you following me for?" followed by a man's voice responding, "What are you doing around here?" She said that she heard the sound of pushing before the phone went dead.

I cannot believe that Trayvon randomly decides to "come out of the bushes" towards a guy who was following him, just 60m away from where he lived. He was returning home and got confronted.

jonathanturley.org/2013/07/14/separating-law-and-legend-in-the-zimmerman-verdict/ (http://jonathanturley.org/2013/07/14/separating-law-and-legend-in-the-zimmerman-verdict/) Interesting assessment of the prosecution
 Don't know enough about the case myself to express a strong view. 

Will read that later as it's quite involved. But having scanned it, I don't see a mention of why Zimmerman wasn't even arrested by the police after the incident. Maybe that's why people were up-in-arms (pun intended) from the start?

compare and contrast

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57433184/fla-mom-gets-20-years-for-firing-warning-shots/ (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57433184/fla-mom-gets-20-years-for-firing-warning-shots/)

That's pretty sickening

Compare and contrast:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Horn_shooting_controversy

ones off white ones black. she obv should get punished for that alone amirite.

I wonder how Obamas stood near US police for so long and still not been shot in the back.........

If a guy on drugs was smashing your skull repeatedly into the pavement after breaking your nose would you use the gun then?

How is that in any way comparable to what is being discussed?

I think you posted in the wrong thread.

That was Zimmermans defense.

Yes, now i'm confused, have you read about the case? His defense etc?

Not sure what drugs have to do with anything...

The autopsy showed that he had a miniscule amount of THC in his blood/urine, the levels were so low that they can be seen for days after smoking and as such it would have played no part in his behaviour.

and he had injuries consistent with a single hit - e.g. like somebody trying to defend themselves after being chased by someone who'd just got out of their car to catch them.

i.e. it would be relevant if it was true, but that it was his defence doesn't it make it so

So we agree he had drugs in his system (i'm just playing devils advocate, i'm sure the defense would argue THC causes paranoia, anxiety, long term brain damage etc even years after smoking).

Don't get me wrong, i'm not arguing his innocence, i'm just shocked that people are surprised he was found not guilty, the jury had all the evidence available and made their decision based on that evidence.

I was just interested in the answers to the question I asked:

If a guy on drugs was smashing your skull repeatedly into the pavement after breaking your nose would you use your gun?

Martin's autopsy indicated that medical examiners found THC, the psychoactive ingredient in marijuana, when they tested Martin's blood and urine. The amount described in the autopsy report is such a low level that it would have played no role in Martin's behavior, said Larry Kobilinsky, a professor of forensic science at John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York.

"This kind of level can be seen days after somebody smokes," Kobilinsky said. "If it comes up in the case, I would be surprised. It wouldn't benefit the defense, it wouldn't benefit the prosecution, and if the defense tried to bring it up, the judge would keep it out."

I will defer to the experts ;)

I'm not surprised at all from what I have read, but I think it is a joke that he did get away with it.

Self defence is a perfectly legitimate reason, and if you were somewhere which allowed guns then it's no issue that you'd use one for self defence.

There's perfectly good analysis to show the not guilty verdict was absolutely correct as a point of law.

But only because the law is written such that it's perfectly legal to push anyone further and further until they turn on you - then you can legally shoot them.


The issue's are that, it's clearly a ridiculous concept to have enshrined in law and that it only seems to apply if you're not black.

Why are we arguing about an argument that cant be won, about something that is clearly stupid and indicative of a wider US problem of the bulk of them being morons.


Saw a great chart on twitter for zimmerman bingo lemme go find.


(https://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/46805_486068801467820_1099699459_n.png)