O. J. Simpson - Casey Anthony - George Zimmerman

[Ombudsman]

Proof that if you kill someone in a high profile case, you're likely to land media hound lawyers who can get you off.

[Guest]

The justice system works.

[Roland Deschain]

In the Zimmerman case justice was served, the jury followed the law, and the state failed to prove their case. I don't know if now is the best time to say it but..... I told you so!

[O Really]

You did, indeed. I for one missed my guess.

It's good to know that at least in Florida, I can go up to some badass biker, insult his ride, kick him in the nuts, and then shoot him when he hits me back. I'll remember that next Bike Week.

Hopefully George and Casey can have a nice life together.

[Ombudsman]

Zimmerman has a known history of killing a kid. Should anyone come across him on a dark street I suppose now it'd be reasonable to shoot him claiming fear for one's life.

[O Really]

Zimmerman has a known history of killing a kid. Should anyone come across him on a dark street I suppose now it'd be reasonable to shoot him claiming fear for one's life.

Of if one happened to be a black kid in a hoodie.

[Roland Deschain]

You did, indeed. I for one missed my guess.

It's good to know that at least in Florida, I can go up to some badass biker, insult his ride, kick him in the nuts, and then shoot him when he hits me back. I'll remember that next Bike Week.

Hopefully George and Casey can have a nice life together.

Unfortunately for you, now, that is only ASSumption...the state failed to prove that anything like that happened. However, I'd recommend you try your tactics next bike week. Just let us know when and where you plan to do it.

[O Really]

No, it's a reasonable derivative from the decision. As even you pointed out, the decision was based on whether Zimmerman thought his life was in danger in the seconds before he shot, disregarding whatever might have occurred before. I was wrong in my reading of the law, which appears to be fairly clear that one cannot start an altercation and then claim self-defense. Apparently you can, because it was uncontested (and proven by the 911 tapes) in the Zimmerman incident that he initially pursued Martin.

So OK, he got off. My guess was wrong. But my conclusion on what that decision means in future cases probably isn't. Yes, in Florida you can start a fight and then claim self-defense.

And no, I'm not really going to kick a biker and then shoot him. But somebody will kick somebody and shoot them, and they'll get off. Under the principles that created today's decision, practically anybody can successfully claim self defense if s/he kills the other guy. Probably not what even the idiot Republican legislators in Florida intended, but predictable nonetheless.

[Roland Deschain]

No, it's a reasonable derivative from the decision. As even you pointed out, the decision was based on whether Zimmerman thought his life was in danger in the seconds before he shot, disregarding whatever might have occurred before. I was wrong in my reading of the law, which appears to be fairly clear that one cannot start an altercation and then claim self-defense. Apparently you can, because it was uncontested (and proven by the 911 tapes) in the Zimmerman incident that he initially pursued Martin.

So OK, he got off. My guess was wrong. But my conclusion on what that decision means in future cases probably isn't. Yes, in Florida you can start a fight and then claim self-defense.

And no, I'm not really going to kick a biker and then shoot him. But somebody will kick somebody and shoot them, and they'll get off. Under the principles that created today's decision, practically anybody can successfully claim self defense if s/he kills the other guy. Probably not what even the idiot Republican legislators in Florida intended, but predictable nonetheless.

If the state can adequately prove the shooter is also the aggressor then the shooter goes to jail for a long time. It appears in this case that Martin threw the first punch, and Zimmerman was justified in defending himself. Again, try it and let us know how it turns out.

[neoplacebo]

Zimmerman is a lucky man; he lied about what happened, he lied about his finances at his bail hearing; he's a scumbag. I predicted he'd die in prison, but I guess I was wrong. Oh, well.

[O Really]

Again, try it and let us know how it turns out.

Not me. But if the state of Florida is going to base guilt on state of mind at the time of shot, somebody else or many somebody elses are going to get off. "Throwing the first punch" is not necessarily the initiation of the altercation. Try this: (politely) "excuse me, sir, is that your wife, or have you just adopted from the shelter?" "No, of course I didn't intend to insult your wife. I'm sorry. I meant no offense. I just thought maybe you had adopted a bitch in heat." (punch...shot...) OMG, I was so afraid for my life! That bad ol' dead dude was going to kill me for sure!" Witnesses? Anybody hear me say anything wrong? I was just talking to him and he swung at me..."

[Mr.B]

Y'all seem to be forgetting one very important point here......you blame the legal system.....no one individual in the entire legal system had anything to do with setting him free.....

The state failed to prove his guilt.

His punishment (or lack of) was decided by everyday folks like you and me, none of who worked for the state or had anything to do with the legal system.

Like in the O.J. and Anthony cases, they, in all probability, knew they were guilty, but failed to prove it.

[billy.pilgrim]

No, it's a reasonable derivative from the decision. As even you pointed out, the decision was based on whether Zimmerman thought his life was in danger in the seconds before he shot, disregarding whatever might have occurred before. I was wrong in my reading of the law, which appears to be fairly clear that one cannot start an altercation and then claim self-defense. Apparently you can, because it was uncontested (and proven by the 911 tapes) in the Zimmerman incident that he initially pursued Martin.

So OK, he got off. My guess was wrong. But my conclusion on what that decision means in future cases probably isn't. Yes, in Florida you can start a fight and then claim self-defense.

And no, I'm not really going to kick a biker and then shoot him. But somebody will kick somebody and shoot them, and they'll get off. Under the principles that created today's decision, practically anybody can successfully claim self defense if s/he kills the other guy. Probably not what even the idiot Republican legislators in Florida intended, but predictable nonetheless.

If the state can adequately prove the shooter is also the aggressor then the shooter goes to jail for a long time. It appears in this case that Martin threw the first punch, and Zimmerman was justified in defending himself. Again, try it and let us know how it turns out.

so rollie, it appears that you must also agree with the o.j. case, cause we all know that you would never allow yourself to have a double standard over racial issues.

[Ombudsman]

Gun nuts see Zimmerman as the test subject for their own fantasies of killing someone and getting away with it. They are now ecstatic over the possibility that they might find their own 15 minutes of fame the same way Zimmerman did.

[O Really]

Y'all seem to be forgetting one very important point here......you blame the legal system.....no one individual in the entire legal system had anything to do with setting him free.....

The state failed to prove his guilt.

His punishment (or lack of) was decided by everyday folks like you and me, none of who worked for the state or had anything to do with the legal system.

Like in the O.J. and Anthony cases, they, in all probability, knew they were guilty, but failed to prove it.

You're right. In this specific case, the jury made its decision according to the law as they understood it. Fine. But the reason I "blame the system" (actually not the system, but just bad law) is that in Florida the threshhold for claiming "self defense" is way too low.

[God]

[Ombudsman]

Golly gosh look a brand new troll from CPF. Guessing from the emotional post and narcissistic screen name, I'd be willing to bet it's second in command troll Solar himself. This is really going to upset Taxed.

[Ombudsman]

Wonder what Zimmerman's next crime will be? Criminals like this tend to get really cocky once they dupe the system. Consider OJ for example or Joran van der Sloot. I'm guessing it will be prostitute related, after which he'll run for congress, and win.

[bannination]

Woh, Hi there 4chan.

[Another]

Gun nuts see Zimmerman as the test subject for their own fantasies of killing someone and getting away with it. They are now ecstatic over the possibility that they might find their own 15 minutes of fame the same way Zimmerman did.

Oh, bullshit.