Florida jury instructions, before and after SYG

[_Bazooka]

3. As you can see, you people judge on your feelings, not the actual facts.

As the Church has spent years indoctrinating us to do. Our leaders will be proud....

[_ldsfaqs]

3. As you can see, you people judge on your feelings, not the actual facts.

As the Church has spent years indoctrinating us to do. Our leaders will be proud....

More liberal anti-mormon lying....

The church teaches us to live by STUDY and by FAITH, the later being related to "feelings" though not totally, the former NOT being related to feelings.

Don't you people ever get tired of lying?
p.s. I added more to my comment above.

[_Bazooka]

Two problems with your judgment....

1. Trayvon was engaging in suspicious behavior, walking about looking at houses, etc. (in other words casing houses to rob).

No, Zimmerman decided Trayvon was engaging in what he considered suspicious behaviour.

2. In another thread I responded to a post prior to mine of a link which clearly shows that the Dispatcher INSTRUCTED Zimmerman to keep an eye on Trayvon and report his activity. It was only LATER at the end of the call did the dispatcher recommended not to follow Trayvon. Zimmerman was already out of the car etc. well BEFORE that time.

At which point Zimmerman could have followed the recommendation, gone back to his car, ensuring a happier ending all round.

3. As you can see, you people judge on your feelings, not the actual facts. Further, your feelings that Zimmerman shouldn't have left his car is irrelevant.

Not my feelings, the dispatchers official recommendation.

A person has the right, period.

A person has the right to walk home in whatever none criminal manner he wishes without the expectation that a gun toting vigilante will stalk him.

Trayvon Martin was the sole cause of his own death, period.

Actually, I thought it was the bullet from Zimmermans gun (a gun that should have been far away in a car) that killed him.

Even if Zimmerman was suspicious to Trayvon, which I'm sure he was also, that doesn't change who was at fault. Innocent people don't generally beat up people simply because they are being "checked out".

If you were being followed by a thick set unidentified individual would you assume:
a. I'm being checked out by the neighbourhood watch, or
b. I'm about to get mugged here

Guilty people do that.

People afraid for their life do that. Trayvon was right to be in fear for his life, as the guy following him had a loaded weapon he was prepared to use on an unarmed man walking home to his dads house.

Further, Trayvon was guilty because he committed a violent assault when there was no evidence he was going to be assaulted.

There's no evidence to support your claim, other than what Zimmerman stated.

And the fact that Zimmerman was beat up so much and on the ground straddled, as well as ZERO evidence of blows to Trayvon demonstrates that he was "surprised" and had not actually confronted Trayvon, but that Trayvon had jumped him.

So, because Zimmerman hadn't landed a significant blow, and that Trayvon was winning, you surmise Trayvon 'jumped' him?

[_Bazooka]

3. As you can see, you people judge on your feelings, not the actual facts.

As the Church has spent years indoctrinating us to do. Our leaders will be proud....

More liberal anti-mormon lying....

The church teaches us to live by STUDY and by FAITH, the later being related to "feelings" though not totally, the former NOT being related to feelings.

Don't you people ever get tired of lying?
p.s. I added more to my comment above.

Need Answers? Go to the Source

As a teenager, Joseph Smith grew up among “unusual excitement on the subject of religion“ (see Joseph Smith—History 1:5), including a battle of ideas and beliefs that continues around us today.

While some disagreements really don't matter, being able to know what is true has eternal consequences.

In this video, a young woman learns from reading Joseph Smith's experience that when we face similar challenges, the best way to find truth is to go to the origin, our Heavenly Father.

https://www.LDS.org/youth/video/origin?lang=eng

[_ldsfaqs]

Bazooka.... I'm bored going round and round.

You are ignoring all the facts, and judging by that "opinion".
We have shown you every which way to look at the facts which debunk your "opinion", but you continue ignoring them, like you do related to Mormonism.

So, I think we've all said our piece in this.

by the way, how come there still hasn't been a response to my debunking of the OP?
SYG had nothing to do with the case.

[_Bazooka]

Bazooka.... I'm bored going round and round.

No you're not!

What facts am I ignoring?


P.S. I think if TM had returned home and then gone back out (which has been intimated might be the case) then my view shifts significantly.

[_krose]

The problem is (for those that wanted him sent to jail), he didn't act criminally.

I don't agree.

It's hard to comprehend how an unarmed teenager could be shot dead and the shooter doesn't end up in jail, but I wish the protesters would put a little more thought and energy into trying to comprehend it.

And I wish you would give people a little credit for thinking about it and still coming to a different conclusion than you.

I also don't understand how the Trayvon Martin shooting has received so much more attention than the other black men who were shot last year.

So how many of the shooters in these cases were released with no charges, until political and community pressure was brought to bear?

It's as if he were the only person shot in the United States in 2012. The problem of black people getting shot is much, much bigger than what happened to Trayvon Martin, and the problem overzealous mexican neighborhood watchmen.

People who say this kind of thing just are not paying attention. There has been a lot of concern and talk about the scourge of gun violence in our cities. I realize the conservative media have just discovered the problem because they now see a narrative they can exploit, but that doesn't mean the rest of us have been ignoring it. The president has spoken about it many times (certainly more than his two comments about this case).

The Martin case has become a big deal because there was a televised trial, and because the right wing staked out its support for the shooter, which escalated the issue to a bitter partisan argument.

[_ldsfaqs]

Bazooka.... I'm bored going round and round.

No you're not!

What facts am I ignoring?


P.S. I think if TM had returned home and then gone back out (which has been intimated might be the case) then my view shifts significantly.

Well, that's something at least....

But, I would ask you. What gives a person a "right" to assault someone simply because they might "look" like are following you?

What if Zimmerman was actually looking for an address, or a friend? What if he thought Trayvon was a friend of his, and being dark and raining he wasn't sure? Many "what if's", none of which justify Trayvon violently attacking Zimmerman.

Every single thing Zimmerman did he had a RIGHT to do..... Yet, somehow "he" in the liberal mind is the one at fault, in contrast to Trayvon's assault which he DID NOT have a RIGHT to do.

I still cannot comprehend why the liberal mind cannot understand that "self defense" even with deadly force is a human right, not only a legal one.

What if Zimmerman had been a woman? I bet you would feel "differently" about the outcome, even with the facts exactly the same. Hypocritical double standards.

[_Bazooka]

But, I would ask you. What gives a person a "right" to assault someone simply because they might "look" like are following you?

Proximity and circumstance would dictate ones own conscience as to when one felt threatened enough to be proactive in ensuring ones own safety.

What if Zimmerman was actually looking for an address, or a friend?

You mean like TM was doing?

What if he thought Trayvon was a friend of his, and being dark and raining he wasn't sure? Many "what if's", none of which justify Trayvon violently attacking Zimmerman.

That TM felt threatened enough to want to protect himself is borne out by the fact that his stalker was carrying (and who, in hindsight, was clearly prepared to use) a loaded firearm. A friend would have called out, not followed in a suspicious manner.

Every single thing Zimmerman did he had a RIGHT to do..... Yet, somehow "he" in the liberal mind is the one at fault, in contrast to Trayvon's assault which he DID NOT have a RIGHT to do.

Why was Zimmerman within his rights to take proactive actions against what he felt was a suspicious situation, yet TM didn't have a right to take proactive action against what he felt was a suspicious situation?

I still cannot comprehend why the liberal mind cannot understand that "self defense" even with deadly force is a human right, not only a legal one.

Which means TM was within his rights to defend himself against an assailant with a loaded firearm.

What if Zimmerman had been a woman? I bet you would feel "differently" about the outcome, even with the facts exactly the same. Hypocritical double standards.

What if Zimmerman had been in a wheelchair?
What if Zimmerman was secretly a Nazi who hated young black Americans?
What if....pointless.

[_ldsfaqs]

You keep being liberal and entering in "fantasy" as if it's fact.

You have no evidence at all that Trayvon Martin KNEW Zimmerman had a gun.
In fact, according to the known evidence, it wasn't known until Zimmerman's shirt was pulled up from the struggle.

Further, how do you claim Zimmerman walking along is the SAME sort of "proactive action" as Trayvon violently PERSONALLY assaulting him?

Does your liberal brain not actually understand the difference between a personal attack and a person "acting suspicious" somewhere around you (if you are taking Trayvon's side in this as you are)?

See, this is why you people are so off in neverland...... You can't understand the differences in even basic intelligence.

And in case you didn't get it, my "what if's" were to show that Zimmerman could have had ANY reason for doing what he was doing, and Trayvon "assuming" he might have been some rapist IS NOT CAUSE to violently assault a man. This behavior by the way is common with punks, especially black punks, but I've seen whites and other races do it also. How do you "excuse" this behavior? The attacking of innocent people simply because they LOOK AT YOU???

Zimmerman was innocent also you know..... certainly more so than Trayvon.