I didn't take it anywhere, it was started there not by me.

Keep up the good work phill.

TD was possibly referring to stand your ground law, which was instructed to the jury before their deliberation and we know influenced the outcome.

Im not sure, I'm not a mind reader and never claim to be one. You take care of that role for us all in the forum.

SS was pretty clear of his own opinions.

I don't want to play semantike games tbh it turns out I'm not an expert on Florida law, but if you can stalk a man through the streets, start a fight with him, kill him and face no legal repercussions then something is wrong.

Oh you have evidence that proved that GZ stalked a man and started a fight?

Weird how no one else has that evidence. Maybe get your facts straight before posting.

Funny, I was under the impression that it was the other way around; that you're the one who doesn't understand that this was Zimmerman creating a problem where none existed by confronting Trayvon, and everyone else has it straight.

You're allowed to confront someone without getting pinned down to the ground and having your head bashed on concrete (which hey, we actually do have a third party witness to that).

You need to prove the things you claim in this criminal context. The claim made by tomdemaine was never proven. I never made the claim that GZ never confronted TM. It's not relevant at all in any criminal case in any state in America.

I think Tom is saying it ought to be relevant.

Then that's really ****ing dumb. Confronting someone doesn't give them the right to bash you in the head.

We have two parties. One is trained in mma, has a history of violence against women and children and carries a deadly weapon. The other doesn't have any of that history.

So because the mma trained violent thug with a deadly weapon killed the kid he confronted we have to conclude the other guy started the fight. The one without a violent history who was being followed started the fight? Because there is no evidence whatsoever except the claims of the admitted killer, all the above and what was known in the run up to the assault and murder let's just ignore this.

There are broke laws somewhere for this to happen. Or its just the institutional racism. Probably a mix of both.

No we don't have to conclude the other guy started the fight. In order to put someone in prison, you have to be able to prove your case beyond reasonable doubt. The defense doesn't have to prove dick. That's true even in your country Phill.

He would be in prison here. Because people aren't allowed to self deputise themselves, then follow and kill black kids with deadly weapons.

He would be in prison if you couldn't prove a key element of the crime?

Strange phill. I don't think that's true.

If your point is that GZ would be in jail in Britain because it's illegal to carry a gun in self defense, then well good ****ing point bro.

Yes, zimmercoward wouldn't have followed TM if he wasn't armed. He also wouldn't have escalated a conversation to a fight and a fight to a murder.

We have no stand your ground laws to influence juries too.

phill there was no influence needed. Any other decision would have been a complete and total failure by the justice system. There's a reason I argue with facts and you argue with feelings.

Unfortunately most US citizens currently disagree with you, so that won't happen for decades, if ever.

I didn't suggest the popular, I suggested the necessary.

Ike's Zimmerboner is funny.

Was Martin cornered? I thought the fight took place in an open area where a faster person would have been able to run away.

I don't know why ikes gets so ripped here - he's 100% correct. I mean his approach is a little confrontational, but people are using mostly emotion and personal opinions to try and debate him in a pretty black-and-white legal position.

All we have evidence of:

1) Zimmerman folowed Martin

2) There was a fight

3) Martin was on top of Zimmerman punching him

4) Zimmerman had an open bleeding wound on the back of his head

5) Zimmerman shot Martin


What we don't have evidence of:

1) Whether Zimmerman "confronted" Martin

2) How the fight started

3) State of mind of either party


Under Florida law, you can be a total dick to someone and still plead self-defense if they start beating you up and you feel your life is in danger. A big open bleeding wound on your head can be used as evidence that your life was in danger.

Under Florida law, there was almost no way for a jury to find Zimmerman guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Why is this still being debated?

It's important to expand on that it's not even under florida law, it's the law in general in the usa.

So then, in a reasonable and normal scenario, Trayvon gets arrested for the head bashing instead of suffering a roadside execution.

Could trayvon have claimed self defence if Zimmerman was the one who ended up dead?

I'm guessing the police response to dead white guy black suspect would have been somewhat different than their actual response

He probably gets found guilty and it's seen as a racial injustice in a completely different way. Zimmermans own words betray that the fight started because he went to draw his gun during the argument and beating a guy unconscious who tries to draw a gun on you is totally self defence.

So you can have a situation in a fight where legally, both parties can claim self defence? That's weird