Nope. Good call in my opinion I:

Although the casey anthony trial was indeed stupid -.-

he killed someone, nothing will change of that
I have seen cases where people fired warning shots, not killing anyone...get jail time, but somehow if you killed the person you wont get jail time.

Florida does this, this is why pretty much the rest of the nation don't like us...along with Ohio

What can be said of the scenario that was known of this case was that we're running on hear-say on who started what. The only thing verified was that he was getting pummeled by the kid. If you're at the brink of survival instincts with your head getting slammed into the concrete/pavement/etc, I'm sure you'd do what you had to in order to live. Neither side was right. He had to kill to defend himself. It sucks, but it is what it is.

Why would you kill a person who is using their BARE hands
maybe cause I was born in the islands, maybe cause I was raised not on "killed or be killed" but "defend yourself"
My brain is going "If you are defending yourself, how is killing someone who isnt on the same playing field the right thing"
Holy fucking balls maybe its the US thats completely stupid, maybe its florida where somehow if someone is beating the crap out of you its to kill them, maybe I'm just backwards cause I'm too busy concentrating on the fact that someone who was being pummeled via FISTS somehow gives the ok to use a GUN to shoot and kill them. Maybe cause I live in a state that where people who were getting hurt opt to use their gun to scare the attacker away with warning shots (oh fuck shit thats actually an option ya know but of course that is apparently not good enough) get sent to jail cause they used a gun....

I think logic and common sense left this state years ago.

If you're head...is being SLAMMED into the hard ground, you can die. He didn't have the means to get a better position on the guy so he had to step up the level of attack and used a gun. Its not like he fired a bunch of shots either. He used one. You can still kill someone with your bare hands and the guy didn't exactly seem to be caring if he was gonna kill 'em.

the human body can take quite a bit you know specially due to the person would have to need the required strength to do kill grade damage.
I had my head slammed against hard ground so yes I can vouch that depending on the person attacking you, they can do hardly any damage to making you feel dazed to yes even kill you but that still depends on the people (Rule of life, not everyone the same, one person can take more than another).
That doesnt change that someone in the end DIED from this, I'm angry that somehow its ok to kill someone with a gun as long as you are being attacked, but if you use a gun to scare them off you will be jailed for it.

Would you fire a warning shot with someone on top of you and straddling your chest, relentlessly assaulting you? After breaking your nose? After slamming your head back into the concrete sidewalk enough to make you bleed? Would you fire a warning shot if you had no way to stop the assailant from easily wrestling the gun from your hands and shoot you if he didn't back off?

Yes, he killed someone who was only using their bare hands with a gun, but it's abundantly clear via Zimmerman's medical report that Martin's "BARE hands" were lethal weapons. He's lucky the assault didn't kill him. When you're assaulting someone beyond the point of incapacitating them, when you're threatening their very life? You don't get the courtesy of a "warning shot". You've already begun and continued an assault far past the necessary point to ensure your own safety.

Would it have made a difference if Zimmerman stabbed him with a knife and killed him instead of shot him with a gun? If he threw him off and Martin hit a piece of metal, concrete, or plexi-glass that gave him a lethal concussion or killed him outright?

When your opponent is out to kill you at all costs, the only way to "defend yourself" is to kill them. And this is coming from a pacifist. I abhor violence, but if it can't be avoided, you should respond in kind swiftly and decisively.

It doesnt change anything, why does somehow assault now means someone is aiming to kill you too now.

Is it this day and age that attacking someone now forever means out to kill em? Is it how it is now, is it forever that if you are being attacked, assualted you MUST kill them?

Your whole argument sounds like you're DEFENDING assault? Why is violence needed at all? How many times has simply assaulting someone unintentionally led to that person's death?

So, as to your point about different people having different thresholds prior to death, and different people being able to deal different amounts of damage: Those are all valid points except for the fact that said potential damage and thresholds are measurements you get to take once and only once. In order to find out how much physical abuse someone can take before they die, you have to kill them.

Considering the fact that Martin was clearly winning the fight (only his knuckles were bruised) and was on top of Zimmerman, half-immobilizing him while continuing to deliver blows beyond the point at which Zimmerman would be safely incapacitated enough for Martin to escape, it can be safely inferred that if Zimmerman hadn't used lethal force, he'd be dead. The US isn't the only country to have legal standing where lethal force is used to combat the threat, perceived or apparent, of intent to grievously injure or kill.

You forfeit the right to live when you aim to take it away from someone else.

First, My argument is that why does everything seem to be "Killed or be killed" I grew up on "defend yourself" something so foreign to people it seems. But hey you CAN defend yourself by assaulting the person right...or is that concept completely lost to people these days.

Two, you would have to do it across the board to a certain point, which can be guesstimated on how far a person can take. Only idiots think you have to kill someone to see how much they can take, specially when the point of killing someone is well beyond the that threshold and would require the second person to be able to do so.

Three, Inferred, you know that word means its still a guess right? Nothing says Tray would continue his assault to kill Zim, the Inferred information said he could of. "Could and Would are two different words, just like their present version of can and will". So just cause information says he could of, does it mean he would of?

And your final words
"You forfiet the right to life when you aim to take it away from someone else"

So does zimmerman lost is right to life when he aimed to take it away from tray? After all hes dead, and information only says he could be able to kill Zimmerman.

Try sticking to their last names unless you knew either of them personally. Unless you want it to look like you're not even open to considering the other side.

"Kill or be killed" is how nature works, first off. As human beings, we're part of nature. However, I think you missed when I said I abhor violence. I don't think Martin should have started the fight at all. If he didn't, he'd probably still be alive.

Your whole argument on that point was that people have different thresholds before they die. In order to see how much damage someone can take before they're dead, you have to kill them.

If you accept the possibility of one side, you must accept that there is an equal an opposite possibility. In your more recent journal, you talk about being raised to see things form both sides. Try it in this scenario. You say there's no guarantee Martin would continue his assault, but there's also no guarantee he would stop until Zimmerman was severely beaten or dead. He was on top of Zimmerman, and up to that point, had caused no traumatic injuries, but he had caused numerous injuries and continued assaulting him, relentlessly. Zimmerman feared for his life, and shot Martin in self-defense. He didn't shoot him, push him off, get up, and empty the rest of the clip into him. He shot him once. That is "defending yourself." So no, Zimmerman wasn't aiming to take his life away, or he'd have shot him multiple times to ensure that he was dead.

Should Zimmerman have followed Martin? No. Should Martin have assaulted Zimmerman? No. There is fault on both sides, but for someone to be assault and also be expected to not fight back is ridiculous. When you assault someone, you submit yourself to the possibility that you may be attacked in return, sometimes with lethal force. That is why violence should be avoided in the first place.

amen and im in florida x.x

And the justice system works again

Florida_cant_do_anything_right.jpg

The biggest flaw of american justice system is that it's too much about "marketing".

It was the right call. All the evidence suggests innocence. He got attacked.

he got attacked, and KILLED someone
is everyone forgetting that part?
how is somehow killing them fine and dandy?

As a fellow conceiled carry gun owner if I was attacked and felt my life was in danger I would do the same thing. Would you honestly let someone kill you, if you had means to stop it?

if you have the means to stop it, why does it automatically mean to kill them?
Explain that to me, WHY does it ALWAYS mean to kill them?

The shot could have been non lethal, then again when someone is slamming your head into the concrete it can be hard to aim.

when someone is slamming your head against concrete it doesnt stop your motor skills at all

Plain and simple, if someone is trying to kill me, I'm not going to be worried about my aim.

plan and simple from the islands: "Going to kill me and Trying to kill me is two different things, one means the person does have a means to kill you out right, the other means the person doesnt have a means to do so but is trying to"

I'm not going to take someone elses life for trying to take mines

would you have followed him in the first place?

Probably not.

I live in Florida and I say good call.

so its fine for them to kill someone, even if it was self defense against a person who wasnt armed...
Then why are other people getting jailed who use a gun in self defense and didnt kill the person.

to those claiming zimmerman is a saint basicly here look at trayvons side not just zimmermans.

or least see it in trayvons eyes not just that.

yet the watch guidlines and so on state not to confront or place self in danger EVEN self defence law he claimed for protection says cant place self into danger then claim defence or state the ordeal. persueing some one when not law enforcement is agressive act. and provokes. think in martins case what did he see? some dude un marked car or truck following him home slowly probly and then some guy get out comeing toward him. [what was martin to think the guy comeing at him going to gvie him candy?] zimmerman has no legal backing to confront or question some one or demand answers. as hes not law enforcement. he Broke protocol and some one died. zimmerman knew to call cops and report that was it. but the line "they always get away" shows he was fed up and angerd and frustratied and let that get louder then the tiny little voice in head that tells you "dont do it". he went vegilante.

with me i could one day be walking down street in my duster and hat at night in rain when its winter and some dude could see me as questionable and then report and then suddenly chase me down cause he felt that i would get away . Even though im innocent. if i see you charge me from a distance and not slow down i will defend my self and see the chargeing person as a threat. thing is the call in 911 or what ever shows him angerd and frustated. this means when he did get to martin if asked questions probly did it in a accusing tone and thus provokeing a fight. This is why watch does not engage or presue or what ever and only reports. [unless you see the guy attacking a old lady or what ever you do not engage or even attempt to do so.]

t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSplCLKDLmWuAIxxid9vI-2639t8hjjbNrvihx1nTEJWcu_S0kkxtCgvfs

like i said not a saint and oh no proof that gun is his. cause the pic that had the gun in hand was black guys hand but no proof its his. and there was some records they claimed was the martin in zimmerman case but was actualy a trayvon martin that was in montana or somthing. plus doesnt matter if one smokes or not or what he did in past that night is what matters. those pics wer eplaced up to try and say he was evil kid to core. but what was he doing THAT night? walking home.

Autopsy found thc in his system at time of death.

so THC lasts days doesn tmean he did it that night. and frankly they proven pot weed what ever was not as evil deadly as government made it out to be. so THC just says weed this means could easly been few days ago. doesnt mean he toked that night.

I'm not anti weed, hell i used to smoke it myself. But I do know it doesn't make all people chill and mellow. People can have bad reactions and get angry or paranoid.

still zimmerman broke protocol and followed martin and got out of car to confront or attempt to and placed him self into danger. which voids stand ground law or self defence law.

Stand your ground law wasn't used in the defense's case. That's one of the things that is getting tossed around as fact that is inaccurate. Getting out of his car may have been stupid, but his neighborhood had been robbed, he was just being a concerned citizen.

the self defence law also has the cant create the ordeal thing. and reason why they didnt do stand ground was cause he created the ordeal and thus showed intent to go after martin and thus confront and thus the agressor.

Its never fine to kill any one. But when someone is sitting on top of smashing your head into the ground. You have a right to defend your self. For these other cases I have no information on so I could not tell you. If I had to just wing out answer to your question with out any facts. I would have to say it was based on the Jury, judge, prosecutor and defense of those individual cases.

Following or walking behind someone is not aggressive. Smashing someone face in is aggression.

I feel Zimmerman is guilty, however to prove guilt in a court of law a specific standard and burden of proof must be met, and it was never demonstrated once by the Prosecution. Going for Murder in the 2nd is what sank them really. Being a man of the law myself and experienced in court matters, once the witnesses took the stand and support Zimmermans' story there was no other option than to acquit because that would have demonstrated clear cut reasonable doubt. The law requires one to go beyond reasonable doubt.

I agree with you. The count of murder in the 2nd is what sank the prosecution case. Base on all the information given and witnesses testimony. I could tell it was going to be acquitted. I'm happy that feeling never play a roll in court case, only the facts.

I just want something done to him, I'm angry that somehow nothing is gonna happen to him over him killing that guy,
Im angry as a person who know of various cases where someone did use a gun as warning shots and somehow get jail time even if no one died.
I'm angry that somehow in this world, we are still "Killed or be killed" instead of "defend yourself". I'm far to backwards for this world I guess, cause even if I was in the same situation I rather not kill someone.

More than likely there will be a civil case, he's gonna get sewed. On the flip side he will make millions off books and interviews and maybe a movie deal, probably sew the state.

he cant really try to Sue the state, thats the only time when Florida does something

I think people forget, Zimmerman was told (by the police) not to follow this kid. It's his own damn fault he was in that situation. He helped create the need to "defend" himself. If he could have just minded his own damn business...

The police never told him not to follow. Only the 911 dispatch (Dispatch is not the police) said "You do not need to follow them."

yet protocol of th ewatch is to only report and watch neve rconfront. well zimmermans words "they always get away" well words far worse sound ing content but basicly shows frustration and anger and thus ignore dpolice thinking they didnt do enough. AND they always get away shows he assumed the guy walking home was guilty and suspision. thus assumed trayvon guilty in his eyes and then got out and one interview he changed his words on the table cought in mid sentence knowing if he said it that way it would show he was persueing with out true cause thus stalking and thus aggressor. saying hear in my head is "seek the devil under every rock your going to find him" He saw any dark shadowy figure or person in dark clothing out at night as guilty or suspision even though he was just walking on sidewalk. he was basicly seeing anyone out at night as a thug. thus he let his anger frustration and stuff. plus self defence law doe ssay fear of death so on. BUT also says cant start the ordeal or provoke it. he got out fo car when he said he saw some one that might be a threat suspision. i dont buy the seeking the street sign story as he lived in the area and patroled that area. i put my self in martins shoes whos walking home.

im wearing my duster cowboy hat and its cold rainy walking home at night. some dude suddenly assumes im guilty and suspision when im doing nothing wrong. should we see all walking around as guilty or suspision? just based on clothing? then said guy comes at me . if aid guy charges me and doesnt slow down before getting ot me i wills ee him as a threat. even if he walked away an was following me whole time. how do i know this guy is not going to run me over or follow me home and then attack family?

yet there was voice recording showing zimmerman did confront and was talking to him last i heard.

He wasn't told to not follow. He was advised by a dispatcher that it wasn't _necessary_ to follow.

so when did the definition of necessary change?
I mean its synonymous to required thus the dispatcher in other words said it wasn't required to follow, the dispatcher in a sense said "you dont need to follow them"

It's an important legal distinction. Unless the dispatcher explicitly told Zimmerman not to follow, you can't then say that Zimmerman disobeyed orders. He merely ignored a recommendation.

and ignoring it caused all this sadly
using the words Wasn't and Necessary would be a combination of saying "please dont do that"

To be honest, I can't really blame Florida for this one.
Ignorant people as a whole, on the other hand, I find to be at fault here.
True, it doesn't change what happened, but I was upset that (1): he hadn't been found guilty, and more importantly, (2): this wasn't taken care of sooner.

Florida,the place you come for retirement followed by your final days... I need to escape...

you never escape florida, you can move to another country but you will never escape this state people and the things that happen here.

It will forever have place in my memories aswell as the foot prints left behind.. As for this Zimmerman thing,I really thought this was over long ago.I really do hate being reminded over things like this.this.It's like the news is always filled with drama and people dying over something that could have been easily avoided.

From the comments you have posted I believe you might be a little biased in the manner.... But that is just my opinion. Though I have no information of the trial. Smashing someone's head into the ground is assault and that person being smashed has the right to defend themselves. So the person shoots the person assaulting them. Even if they lived does that mean that the person shot goes to court against the person with the gun trying to sue him for being shot?

I am just confused.

Does anyone forget that this guy went out of his house with the gun FOLLOWING this kid? and it was recorded?

Having not followed this case at all, cause the whole thing is just blown way out of proportion by th emedia,

If someone is attempting to kill me, even with there bare hands, and i have no other way to defend my self but with a firearm, then by god yes im going to use that fucking gun.

Maybe he shouldn of followed him, who cares. The worst I could think of it being that is Man SLaughter, and nothing more.

And this is my POV as Armed security, so, yah. Its all about escalation of force. And there ARE situations were you have no choice but togo straight for the gun.

but does it always have to end with death no matter what?

Did he realy have a choice? No it doesnt always have to end with death. but sometimes there is no alternative. If The man was alreaddy sitting on his chest, and beating the shit out of his head with his hands, there was no other way. He could of shot him before he had him on the ground, but he did not. Instead he waited intill he was SURE he had no ohter choice, when the damage to his head was allreaddy done, before he shot him.

The Attacker was in a supurior position, and he knew it. He was gonna kill him.

heres the problem I have with everyone right now

"Why is everyone saying He would of killed him"
Is everyone forgetting english class of which the words Would and Could mean two different things
Did everyone somehow KNOW he would kill him, cause so far evidence did show tray COULD kill him, but nothing actualy did say he WOULD kill him.

there's no evidence saying he also wouldn't kill him. I would never take that chance. I'm going to do everything in mg power to give myself the best chance of survival.

to punish him and say "well you might of lived " is rediculous.


evidence will never tell the whole story. the only person who can answer that question is tray. and well he's dead.

So its fine to ignore the rules of life
its fine to just go "he could of killed him, thats all the reasons he had to right to actually kill him"
Someone tell me when Defending yourself mean out right killing someone
When did assault mean "aiming to kill you"

When did the fucking world fully accepted "Killed or be killed" to be the only rule

When your head is being slammed into the ground repeatedly. It's hard to think "Oh no! He might not kill me! Despite potentially giving me a life threatening concussion and not showing any intent to stop!"

If one's life is in danger..One acts.

If you were in that situation, would you really just let someone continue doing it? To potentially be killed by some potential person on the street?

Kill or be killed is the Law of Nature.

For the mindless it is, for those with common sense the "Defend yourself" we follow

I'm sorry, i came in late, what happened?

Florida did well in it's choice.