[curvature]

If that soft play cop was following me, staring at me when I was 17, I would have thought "Fuck you Im a grown ass man, Weirdo.." and I would have been up for a fight.

Its normal instinct for a young man to step up to another man sweating him with odd attention isn't it?

Unless he's a pussy, that is.

Speaking of pussies I wonder what the next pathetic Zimmerman emotional breakdown will be.

[n2ecosystems]

I don't see how Zimmerman got away with this senseless murder, he didn't have a weapon. I could see shooting someone if they were high on bath salts and charging at you, then you would be defending your life, but Zimmerman pursued this kid with a bag of skittles.

[Susan]

Originally Posted by minka1 ↗

THANK YOU!

*Also his feet are one over the other from being turned over. I have seen that from other true crime docus.

Poor kid. All he wanted was to get home. Think about that the next time you are walking home or your kid, brother, cousin, friend is walking home with some candy and something to drink. You your brains and think.

LOL worst post i've ever read on DR

[Agapeti]

Zimmerman dodged a bullet in court, but still got a life sentence in society because what he did was all sorts of wrong. I'm sure Martin wasn't the innocent little boy the family tried to make him out to be but did he deserve to be shot and killed? I think not.

[jesse]

The 2013 Florida Statutes


Title XLVI
CRIMES
Chapter 776
JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE
View Entire Chapter

776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—


(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:

(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and
(b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.


(2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:

(a) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or
(b) The person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or
(c) The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or
(d) The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.


(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.


(4) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person’s dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.


(5) As used in this section, the term:

(a) “Dwelling” means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night.
(b) “Residence” means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest.
(c) “Vehicle” means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property.

Out of all the evidence given to the jury, they concluded that this law was rightfully used in these circumstances.

Was anyone on this site sitting on that jury?

I was on a jury, concerning the deaths of 3 people and the serious injuries of another, that lasted 3 weeks.

We were presented with evidence in the jury room, at the time of deliberation, that was NOT presented in the courtroom. THAT evidence had a huge deciding factor in the case.

And I, along with the foreman, was persecuted in the media, for our verdict. And it was ALL untruths.

That gave me great insight into how incredibly ignorant and judgemental others can be.

[R4791827]

Originally Posted by Matti ↗

[I][COLOR="Blue"]

I was on a jury, concerning the deaths of 3 people and the serious injuries of another, that lasted 3 weeks.

We were presented with evidence in the jury room, at the time of deliberation, that was NOT presented in the courtroom. THAT evidence had a huge deciding factor in the case.

And I, along with the foreman, was persecuted in the media, for our verdict. And it was ALL untruths.

That gave me great insight into how incredibly ignorant and judgemental others can be.

Isn't that against the law? to be presented evidence in deliberation that you aren't given during the trial? Or am I misunderstanding?

[Spiffyfable]

What a circus

[diannegrow1]

The only 3 people who knew what REALLY went on there. One is dead the other aint telling so its GOD who really knows. I believe Zimmerman should not have gone to that extreme but I dont believe that Trevan Martin was so innocent either.

[invertigo]

How hard is it to spell the name 'Trayvon'? It's in the freaking thread title, how are people still fucking it up?

[Sturrminator]

Trayvon WAS NOT just getting skittles and ice tea. The "ice tea" was really watermelon cocktail and the candy and drink were purchased to mix with cough medicine to create a drug called lean. Look it up. Also from the time he left the store to the time he got where he was at it took him an hour. His dad lived a mere couple blocks away. Wonder where he was at. Maybe the lockpicking tools he owned had something to do with that as well as the recent break-ins that occured in the neighborhood prior to his death.

Also, contrary to the bullshit you heard on the news, his dad did NOT live in that particular neighborhood Zimmerman was watching. The reason he was on patrol was because of the break ins that had been occurring and a thug like Trayvon who was walking slow and suspicious in the pouring rain sure as shit is enough to make a neighborhood watch concerned. It had nothing to do with a fucking hoodie. Just because the 911 operator told Z to stay put, he didn't break any laws by following him simply so he could give them his whereabouts before he was out of view. 911 are not police so if they give him an order to stay put, while it may be a good idea it's not an order that absolutely has to be obeyed.

And last and final point, if that n***** Trayvon was such a scared little angel who just wanted to get home, why did he hide and WAIT for Zimmerman to approach and then commit not only a hate crime by calling him a "cracker" but also attempted murder by bashing his head in the ground saying "you gonna die tonight".
Sorry but you sheep who believe the garbage the news feed you need to get your head out of your asses. They painted a picture to portray that future felon as a sweet innocent child simply so they could instigate race tensions and have a hell of a story. Look up the facts for yourself. The world is a better place with Trayvon buried in it rather than walking on it.