Quote:
Originally Posted by ijusluvit
A couple of other posters say I'm not using factual information to make my case that there is a flaw in the system.
As I write this, CNN is conducting the first interview with Juror B-37 in the case. She has cited the same three facts I cited in my posts.
1) George Zimmerman decided to confront the person he saw. "He never should have gotten out of his car that evening."
2) GZ should have acted in a more "responsible way" since he was armed.
3) GZ had every right to carry a gun, "just like everyone".
The juror, who admits she favored a 'not guilty' verdict from the beginning, couldn't have put her finger on the system flaw any better. She admits the jury essentially ignored facts #1 & 2 because they had to follow Florida laws.
In my opinion, what Florida obscures through it's laws, including 'stand your ground' is the RESPONSIBILITY armed people have to use a higher level of good judgement while they are armed. I again liken it to the 'rule' that guns should be securely locked away especially in homes where there are children. If things go wrong when the facts are like those stated above, the armed person should not be able to walk away with NO RESPONSIBILITY for the incident. If someone leaves a gun unsecured and someone is killed or injured by it, the gun owner should not be able to walk away with NO RESPONSIBILITY for the incident.
Hopefully my conclusion and the facts I've cited to support it are now clear to you.
|
This is what I read in your previous post....
"Originally Posted by Monkei
Unfortunately the system worked. It worked too well. GZ needs to be accountable but there was just not enough evidence. The whole notion that you can basically provoke someone into attacking you and then shoot them when they attack you is wrong. The notion that you can tail and follow a kid just because of his color and he is wearing a hoode is wrong."
Where was the "provocation" you speak of. I read and reread this new info and cannot find it. You were pretty specific in saying "provoked someone into attacking you". The juror you cite certainly didn't even hint at that. She said according to you that he should not have gotten out of his car....ok, I can buy that judgement, but see no provocation of any kind in your new info.
Nobody has even tried to make Zimmerman a hero.....but our system is not based on what you think. It is based on admitted facts. Your provoke statement is what YOU say and that does not make it a fact.
And while you want to blame the state, I ask if you know how many states have the same kind of law AND how many are in the process of making it law ?
Stop bending things to fit YOUR scenario..what, for some reason you wish it to be. The law nor life can work that way. This was not a sporting event...we are not on teams. It was a court of law. Using your imagination to come up with might have happened is no better than people calling young Martin a thug or whatever. It, and your premise, is not based on FACTS.