GZ to get his gun back

[zahrasalem 114]

http://gma.yahoo.com/george-zimmerman-gun-back-204024289--abc-news-topstories.html

Of course. He did nothing wrong. He needs an apology also.

So if he's so proud of himself and he did nothing "wrong" according to the "jury", then he should be able to walk freely out of the courthouse front doors, chin up, and live his life without having to look over his shoulder, in hiding, like a coward.

Look, NOBODY actually saw exactly what happened, so people need to quit saying it was "self defense". And if Trayvon had "pounded" his head into the cement like gz claimed, he probably would have either gone unconscious or died from it. Plus, they weren't on concrete like gz said, they were on the grass, where he murdered Trayvon.

Trayvon wasn't DOING anything wrong when gz approached him, just walking. Why, then, did gz feel the need to get out of his suv and pick a fight with a loaded gun on him .... to do "nothing wrong"?

[Penny Lane 8,159]

I don't know why people think that because GZ was acquitted, it means the jury believed his story. It means there was reasonable doubt. It could have happened the way GZ said, it could have happened another way. There's no proof of anything, so he walked.

Take Casey Anthony for example. The jurors wanted to convict her. They thought she killed her daughter. But there wasn't enough proof that she did, and they had to let her walk.

A not guilty verdict does not necessarily mean the jury believes he is innocent or free of wrong doing.

[Harsh_77 718]

So if he's so proud of himself and he did nothing "wrong" according to the "jury", then he should be able to walk freely out of the courthouse front doors, chin up, and live his life without having to look over his shoulder, in hiding, like a coward.

Look, NOBODY actually saw exactly what happened, so people need to quit saying it was "self defense". And if Trayvon had "pounded" his head into the cement like gz claimed, he probably would have either gone unconscious or died from it. Plus, they weren't on concrete like gz said, they were on the grass, where he murdered Trayvon.

Trayvon wasn't DOING anything wrong when gz approached him, just walking. Why, then, did gz feel the need to get out of his suv and pick a fight with a loaded gun on him .... to do "nothing wrong"?

Unfortunately the medic had different opinion when testified.

So you are free to have your opinion, TM did jump on GZ and attack him. TM could had just kept on walking and he would had got to his home rather he decided to hide and jump on the GZ.

Media did not talk about the txt mssgs on TMs phone about buying and selling guns, him getting in fights at school and being thrown out of the school.

There is nothing wrong in carrying gun, as a lawful USC that is one of your right.

[Penny Lane 8,159]

You do not know that TM attacked first. It's a possibility, but not a fact.

[DaveE 178]

The juror Anderson Cooper interviewed last night (B37) said they did believe GZ's story.

Specifically the screams were GZ

He was in fear of his life

Shot in self defense.

They did criticize him for getting out of the car and following, but none of that was illegal. The also put partial blame on the 911 operator who told GZ "we don't need you to do that",. and then asked "what is he doing".

Edited July 16, 2013 by DaveE

[Penny Lane 8,159]

Ah okay, I hadn't seen that interview. Didn't know about it.

I wonder why the verdict took so long if they believed him. Maybe they didn't all agree at first.

I have no idea how the 911 operator would get partial blame for anything. They didn't say anything wrong.

Edited July 16, 2013 by Penny Lane

[Dan and Judy 614]

You do not know that TM attacked first. It's a possibility, but not a fact.

I would call it a probable. but that's just me being logical, fair and wise

[Penny Lane 8,159]

I would call it a probable. but that's just me being logical, fair and wise

Very well could be. I believe it did. However, still not a fact.

[GandD 5,966]

The good news is that we do not have to stay in our cars because of criminals.

The bad news is walking around makes you a criminal.

[DaveE 178]

Listen to the interview on CNN, fascinating insight as to how that jury worked. Initial vote was 3 not guilty, 2 manslaughter, 1 2nd degree murder.

find

After reviewing the evidence many times and reading the jury instructions they said they could find no way to convict based on the law. She did say the at least one of the jurors wanted to convict GZ of something/anything but could find no legal basis for it.

They really didn't blame the 911 operator, they said it was confusing to them when he told GZ you don't need to do that, and later asked "what are they doing".

Edited July 16, 2013 by DaveE

[Penny Lane 8,159]

Yes, I keep forgetting that TM was committing a crime that night.

Listen to the interview on CNN, fascinating insight as to how that jury worked. Initial vote was 3 not guilty, 2 manslaughter, 1 2nd degree murder.

After reviewing the evidence many times and reading the jury instructions they said they could not no way to convict based on the law. She did say the at least one of the jurors wanted to convict GZ of something/anything but could find no legal basis for it.

That 1 juror who wanted 2nd degree murder initially is nuts.

[slim 1,533]

I'm still surprised so many people are upset that our justice system worked exactly as it was supposed to. If there is no evidence of a crime, a not guilty verdict must be reached.

Are you folks considering what you're asking for here? You're implying the state, and jurors as well, should be holding citizens accountable for actions not based on evidence and proven in a court of law, but simply by how they feel about the situation.

In self defense cases, it's almost always a bad situation and that's why the facts and evidence is so important. Those of you who've pointed out there's no evidence of who started the initial confrontation are exactly right. There is none. And in that case, we always have to acquit the accused. If we don't, we're implying people should be convicted without evidence of a crime.

There is evidence the shooter was physically assaulted. There is none that he assaulted the deceased. Judge based on facts. Not conjecture, not feelings, and certainly not what Al Sharpton says might have possibly maybe could've taken place.

Facts. Only facts.

[Penny Lane 8,159]

Who is upset?

Stating that TM wasn't committing a crime that night doesn't mean anyone's upset.

Neither is saying there's really no evidence of what exactly happened. There is proof of a physical altercation but no way of proving how it started.

That's just the way it is.

Edited July 16, 2013 by Penny Lane

[slim 1,533]

And that's why the verdict was returned.

People are mad. They want to take away my rights because they don't understand the law.

[Penny Lane 8,159]

And that's why the verdict was returned.

People are mad. They want to take away my rights because they don't understand the law.

I know why the verdict was returned. I think 99% of people here agreed there was not sufficient evidence.

Who is mad and trying to take anything away from you?

You sound paranoid as ####.