[Susan]

Originally Posted by 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.

and that's the best post i've ever read

[cortdb]

Agree to the 2 above

[cortdb]

Originally Posted by Matti ↗

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.

I agree with your post, but i do have a question. How do they present evidence in the jury room that cant be presented in the courtroom? Can you elaborate on this please? Not being critical im just curious as to how this went down. Thanks!

[cortdb]

Originally Posted by ralucagymnast ↗

Saddens me greatly that Channon Christian and Chris Newsom's murders, which were the worst hate crimes I have EVER heard about, didnt get a mention, never mind the massive attention that this case got But I guess the Channon and Chris murders dont fit the right social/political agenda's eh?

FUCKIN RIGHT! That shit disgusts me to this day

[stillfeelchill]

CuriousOne...may you choke on a dick. Not2 the degree shown...fucking really

[jesse]

Originally Posted by cortdb ↗

I agree with your post, but i do have a question. How do they present evidence in the jury room that cant be presented in the courtroom? Can you elaborate on this please? Not being critical im just curious as to how this went down. Thanks!

Because there is certain things the general public simply is NOT meant to know.

In MY case, the evidence that was not brought up during the trial was the blood alcohol level of the boy that was driving.

We were also given all the medical reports on the boys in the car.

The public saw none of this.

It is up to the judge what will be presented in the courtroom and what will not.

But the JURORS know it all. The jurors have access to all of the evidence.

[cortdb]

Originally Posted by Matti ↗

Because there is certain things the general public simply is NOT meant to know.

In MY case, the evidence that was not brought up during the trial was the blood alcohol level of the boy that was driving.

We were also given all the medical reports on the boys in the car.

The public saw none of this.

It is up to the judge what will be presented in the courtroom and what will not.

But the JURORS know it all. The jurors have access to all of the evidence.

ohhh okay i gotcha. I was kind of under the impression that if evidence wasnt presented in the courtroom then it couldnt be shown to jurors. Not sure where i got that from but thanks for the reply! I was in a trial as a juror about 10 years ago and during closing arguement the prosecutor made a comment about how the man was convicted once and will be convicted again. Well that was enough to throw out the trial and start over because we weren't supposed to know this was a re-trial based on a technicality from the last lol. I never got to put in a verdict but was 100% sure the man was guilty

[Shakey]

Weird looking shoes.

[icehole]

Hmm, interesting thread
New facts comin up

[Adam76]

Another thug down. Lol.