George Zimmerman Verdict

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from pezz4pats. Show pezz4pats's posts

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:

     

     

     



     

     

     

     




    Sorry Z but the guy was not killed because he had stolen jewelry but followed because he acted suspicious.  If he were merely walking home at a normal pace, I don't think he would have been looked at as suspicious.

    Zimmerman said he was acting suspicious.  But there's no evidence the kid was doing anythning but walking down the street.  C'mon.  People don't get reported as suspicious for merely walking down the street unless it's by some nut-job.  Since there is no evidence of him being a nut, I'm going to conclude he was reasonable and sincere.

    Whether he was justified in following him, none of us can say.  You would have to be in that position.  I don't see why you are assuming he was innocent.  He wasn't reported for merely walking home.

    Reported by whom?  Zimmerman jumped to a conclusion about the kid.  why do you think he just jumped to a conclusion?  It appears he has good experience in determining what is suspicious or not.

    Zimmerman committed no crime.  It is not illegal to carry a gun as a law abiding citizen.  It is not illegal to follow a person you feel is suspicious nor is it to confront him.  It is not illegal to protect yourself while being attacked.

    Sure. He did kill a 17 year old though...and could have avoided doing so if he merely minded his own business.    It was his business to try and deter crime with his presence and assist the police. Neighborhood watches are organized and endorsed by the law

    All the evidence proves that he was attacked, not the other way around.

    No it doesn't "prove" that.  The evidence is ambiguous.  That's why Zimmerman was acquitted and why Martin probably would (or should) have been acquitted if Zimmerman had ended up dead.  So the evidence of only one person doing the punching, does not prove who was attacking whom?  What did he attack him with? His words?

    There were wounds on Martins hands from punching and none on Zimmerman's.  There was a broken nose and a cracked skull and blood coming from Z's ears, not Martins.  There were no blows to Martins body, therefore he was not attacked.  There were eye witness accounts saying Martin was on top and doing all the punching. 

    Martin was shot through the heart.  Whose injuries were more serious again?  Eye witnesses said conflicting things and no one witnessed the start of the fight.  And Zimmerman's skull wasn't "cracked."  He had cuts.  There very likely was a scuffle.  But it's not clear at all that Zimmerman didn't initiate it.  Maybe Martin was acting in self defense and Zimmerman then decided to shoot.  I would think if someone was bashing your head on the ground and reaching for your holstered gun that you would feel it was pretty serious and life threatening.  Wouldn't you?  I would hope so.

    The only person who committed a crime here is Martin.  Right or wrong, that's the truth of the matter.  He was the  only one with blood on his hands prior to the shooting.

    Martin wasn't convicted of anything.  Innocent until proven guilty, no?  Or does that only apply to Zimmerman?  No he wasn't convicted but if it was determined that he was the one with the bloody hands and the other had the bloody face, he would have been.  Can you deny he assaulted him.?

    Are the bruised knuckles and bloody face of no consequence to you?

    Yes, it could have all been avoided if Zimmerman just waited for the police but the police ARE slow in responding to these types of calls and a lot of the times, they simply take a report and the guys do get away.

    So.  That doesn't mean people should shoot kids walking home from convenience stores because they look suspicious to the shooter. He didn't shoot him for walking home.  He shot him because he was being beaten to a pulp.

    While catching shoplifters, I was sometimes in the office for two hours with them, waiting for the cops.  They weren't the ones in danger.  I was, for simply doing my job.

    Did you shoot them?  No, but no one beat me and tried to grab my gun.  One guy tried to fight but he was more trying to get away, rather than beat me.  I can't even imagine taking someones life but if it were me or them, you can bet your a@@, it wouldn't have been me.

    Apparently, so was he.

     







 
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from tcal2-. Show tcal2-'s posts

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    I'm just glad the Peruvians weren't in the streets jumping for joy and celebrating like the African Americans were when the murderer OJ got off.  Sorry, but what a bunch of whiners.  

     
  • This post has been removed.

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from sportsbozo1. Show sportsbozo1's posts

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    In response to RallyC's comment:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

     

     

     

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

     

     

     

     

    But if you kill someone in "self-defense" you better be able to show that you didn't do anything to provoke a violent encounter when you had the option of walking away.

     

     

     

     

     



    That might not go over well here. Even the libs here still ascribe to the requirement of the government having to prove guilt rather than the individual having to prove innocence.

     

     

     

     

     

     



    It's just a stricter interpretation of the self-defense defense.  Everyone knows Zimmerman shot Martin.  He's admitted to that.  All I'm saying is that if you're going to claim you killed someone in self defense you better be able to also show that you didn't pursue the person before shooting him when you could simply have walked away.  It's similar to pleading insanity.  If you're going to say you should be acquitted because you were insane, you really better be insane.  Self defense when you pursue someone for twenty minutes before an encounter takes place seems a bit lame to me.  Zimmerman may indeed have had to defend himself at the very moment he shot, but he had ample opportunity never to get involved at all and instead insisted on pursuing the kid.  I think that's dubious.  Just like someone who gets off because he has ADD or something . . . 

     

     

     

     

     

    I do agree with what your saying here.......

     

    I'm sure that the next guy will bring his own camera crew too prove everything he's saying is the truth, just how dumb are you people in Canada?  Why can't you take this man at his word? You don't know him ,Christ you don't even live in the USA! I now know why the french wanted to sucede from the butheads from Toronto and the queen. Just because the imigrant president and a bunch of wannabe preachers claim it was some sort of profiling or some whacked out cracker who was doing the pursuing of poor little Trayvon doesn't make it so. The guy told his story over 6 times with little or no change of story and never wavered as to who started what and oh by the way he did so without council, and as every person in this country has probably been taught never speak to an officer of the law without a lawyer present and having been Mirandized. Sorry you have so little faith in your fellow man, not everyone is a liar. In this case i choose too believe George Zimmerman's story,at least it doesn't start off with the once upon a time theme the prosecutors tried to use.


     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:

     

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

     

     

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     




    Sorry Z but the guy was not killed because he had stolen jewelry but followed because he acted suspicious.  If he were merely walking home at a normal pace, I don't think he would have been looked at as suspicious.

     

     

    Zimmerman said he was acting suspicious.  But there's no evidence the kid was doing anythning but walking down the street.  C'mon.  People don't get reported as suspicious for merely walking down the street unless it's by some nut-job.  Since there is no evidence of him being a nut, I'm going to conclude he was reasonable and sincere.

     

    Here's the thing:  you don't know Martin and you don't know Zimmerman. But you're quick to assume Martin wasn't innocent and Zimmerman is just a reasonable guy.  How are you making your determination?  You just know?  



    Whether he was justified in following him, none of us can say.  You would have to be in that position.  I don't see why you are assuming he was innocent.  He wasn't reported for merely walking home.

    Reported by whom?  Zimmerman jumped to a conclusion about the kid.  why do you think he just jumped to a conclusion?  It appears he has good experience in determining what is suspicious or not.

    I think he jumped to a conclusion because of his call to the police.  He clearly decided Martin was some kind of criminal ("these ass*holes always get away" he told the dispatcher), yet there's no evidence at all Martin was doing anything more than walking down the street.   

     

    Zimmerman committed no crime.  It is not illegal to carry a gun as a law abiding citizen.  It is not illegal to follow a person you feel is suspicious nor is it to confront him.  It is not illegal to protect yourself while being attacked.

    Sure. He did kill a 17 year old though...and could have avoided doing so if he merely minded his own business.    It was his business to try and deter crime with his presence and assist the police. Neighborhood watches are organized and endorsed by the law

    Or he just had a fantasy about being a cop.  Either way, a real cop would not have shot the kid.  Maybe Zimmerman wasn't qualified to be carrying around a gun and trying to apprehend people?

    All the evidence proves that he was attacked, not the other way around.

    No it doesn't "prove" that.  The evidence is ambiguous.  That's why Zimmerman was acquitted and why Martin probably would (or should) have been acquitted if Zimmerman had ended up dead.  So the evidence of only one person doing the punching, does not prove who was attacking whom?  What did he attack him with? His words?  

    No one was there to witness what Zimmerman or Martin did, but if someone came up to you on the street with a gun drawn (or even without a drawn gun, but trying to "arrest" you) and you punched him in self-defense and then he shot you, would you be wrong for punching the guy?  

    There were wounds on Martins hands from punching and none on Zimmerman's.  There was a broken nose and a cracked skull and blood coming from Z's ears, not Martins.  There were no blows to Martins body, therefore he was not attacked.  There were eye witness accounts saying Martin was on top and doing all the punching. 

    Martin was shot through the heart.  Whose injuries were more serious again?  Eye witnesses said conflicting things and no one witnessed the start of the fight.  And Zimmerman's skull wasn't "cracked."  He had cuts.  There very likely was a scuffle.  But it's not clear at all that Zimmerman didn't initiate it.  Maybe Martin was acting in self defense and Zimmerman then decided to shoot.  I would think if someone was bashing your head on the ground and reaching for your holstered gun that you would feel it was pretty serious and life threatening.  Wouldn't you?  I would hope so.

    There were only Zimmerman's fingerprints on the gun.  Maybe the story happened as Zimmerman told it.  Maybe not.  No one was there to witness the beginning of the fight. What's sure is that Zimmerman had some scratches on his head and a bloody nose and Martin, who was just a kid walking down the street, is dead because Zimmerman decided Martin was a criminal and decided to pursue him with his gun.  

    The only person who committed a crime here is Martin.  Right or wrong, that's the truth of the matter.  He was the  only one with blood on his hands prior to the shooting.

    Martin wasn't convicted of anything.  Innocent until proven guilty, no?  Or does that only apply to Zimmerman?  No he wasn't convicted but if it was determined that he was the one with the bloody hands and the other had the bloody face, he would have been.  Can you deny he assaulted him.?

    No, I wasn't there.  What I can say for sure is that Zimmerman had very minor injuries and Martin had fatal ones.  I also know that Zimmerman was following the kid around and pursuing him despite warnings from a police dispatcher it was unnecessary.  I think there's a good possibiliy Zimmerman was playing Rambo and triggered the whole incident completely unnecessarily.  Martin may have been scared and punching because he felt threatened by a man with a gun following him around. As I've said, there's not enough evidence to convict Zimmerman under current Florida law, so the jury did the right thing to acquit him.  However, I think it is deplorable that someone like Zimmerman can carry around a gun and chase teenagers around, then shoot them dead if the teenager resists the vigilante's "arrest."   I mean, really, if someone like Zimmerman--not wearing any uniform, kind of creepy looking--came up to me on the street and tried to "arrest" me, I'd think he was nuts too and be scared of him.   I know Zimmerman claims Martin jumped him, but we know from the police calls that Zimmerman was following Martin around for twenty minutes.  It's quite possible Martin was scared shyteless with some weirdo following him around and then getting out of his car to come get him.  

    Are the bruised knuckles and bloody face of no consequence to you?

    Why should they be of more consequence to me than a bullet through the heart of a teenager is to you?

     

    Yes, it could have all been avoided if Zimmerman just waited for the police but the police ARE slow in responding to these types of calls and a lot of the times, they simply take a report and the guys do get away.

    So.  That doesn't mean people should shoot kids walking home from convenience stores because they look suspicious to the shooter. He didn't shoot him for walking home.  He shot him because he was being beaten to a pulp.

    He started a series of events that led to a kid who was doing nothing more than walking home getting shot.  It was a completely unnecessary death that would never have happened if Zimmerman didn't make false assumptions and then act on them.

    While catching shoplifters, I was sometimes in the office for two hours with them, waiting for the cops.  They weren't the ones in danger.  I was, for simply doing my job.

    Did you shoot them?  No, but no one beat me and tried to grab my gun.  One guy tried to fight but he was more trying to get away, rather than beat me.  I can't even imagine taking someones life but if it were me or them, you can bet your a@@, it wouldn't have been me.

    You were able to avoid shooting someone trying to beat you up and take your gun.  Maybe people who can't do that, shouldn't carry guns around and chase other people and try to apprehend them.  Know your limits . . . .

     

    Apparently, so was he.

     

     




     

    [/QUOTE]


    [/QUOTE]


     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

     

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

     

     

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

     

     

     

     

     

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    But if you kill someone in "self-defense" you better be able to show that you didn't do anything to provoke a violent encounter when you had the option of walking away.

     

     

     

     

     

     



    That might not go over well here. Even the libs here still ascribe to the requirement of the government having to prove guilt rather than the individual having to prove innocence.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     



    It's just a stricter interpretation of the self-defense defense.  Everyone knows Zimmerman shot Martin.  He's admitted to that.  All I'm saying is that if you're going to claim you killed someone in self defense you better be able to also show that you didn't pursue the person before shooting him when you could simply have walked away.  It's similar to pleading insanity.  If you're going to say you should be acquitted because you were insane, you really better be insane.  Self defense when you pursue someone for twenty minutes before an encounter takes place seems a bit lame to me.  Zimmerman may indeed have had to defend himself at the very moment he shot, but he had ample opportunity never to get involved at all and instead insisted on pursuing the kid.  I think that's dubious.  Just like someone who gets off because he has ADD or something . . . 

     

     

     

     

     

     

     




    You just love your apples and oranges. Insanity must be proved because the defense is asking their client not be subjected to the trial. Of course if they want to curcumvent that entire process they must show their claim is real. What you're asking for is not even close to the same thing.

     

    You say Zimmerman should have not accosted Martin, but by the same token Martin could have simply not attacked Zimmerman and all would have probably been okay. I have to draw the line at where it should be drawn. Physical assault. Martin crossed that line and Zim defended himself, as far as we know.

    Well, we really don't know how the fight started and the fact that Martin apparently was getting the better of Zimmerman doesn't mean anything unless Martin has no right to self-defense.  What we do know is that Zimmerman was following Martin for twenty minutes before anything happened.  Following someone is a threatening act in itself.  I certainly would be creeped out if some guy were following me around for blocks and then got out of his car apparently to confront me.  If he got near me, I might punch him too.  It's not like Zimmerman was wearing a police uniform.  Martin very easily could have thought Zimmerman was approaching him to beat or rob him and may have felt threatened.  If Zimmerman could shoot Martin because Zimmerman felt threatened, why couldn't Martin punch Zimmerman if Martin felt threatened?  

    Really, the fact that Zimmerman followed the kid around calling him an assh*le is what disturbs me.  Zimmerman clearly formed an unjustified conclusion about Martin, then acted upon it, and eventually killed the kid.  I don't see him as any kind of role model.  I think he's a creep.  And I think the laws should be revised to make (1) playing police illegal and (2) it harder to claim self-defense if you do something provocative like follow someone around for twenty minutes.  Citizens who want to "arrest" other people should do so knowing that if they end up killing the person they are trying to arrest they won't have an easy time getting off scot free.  It might help prevent misguided vigilantism like we saw with Zimmerman. 

     

    How in the world your proposed "provoking" law could be applied is unfathomable. Giant can of worms.

    I know, everything's too difficult.  Much better to just let kids die.  Same thing you said about Newtown.  

     

     



     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from TSWFAN. Show TSWFAN's posts

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

     

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

     

     

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

     

     

     

     

     

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    But if you kill someone in "self-defense" you better be able to show that you didn't do anything to provoke a violent encounter when you had the option of walking away.

     

     

     

     

     

     



    That might not go over well here. Even the libs here still ascribe to the requirement of the government having to prove guilt rather than the individual having to prove innocence.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     



    It's just a stricter interpretation of the self-defense defense.  Everyone knows Zimmerman shot Martin.  He's admitted to that.  All I'm saying is that if you're going to claim you killed someone in self defense you better be able to also show that you didn't pursue the person before shooting him when you could simply have walked away.  It's similar to pleading insanity.  If you're going to say you should be acquitted because you were insane, you really better be insane.  Self defense when you pursue someone for twenty minutes before an encounter takes place seems a bit lame to me.  Zimmerman may indeed have had to defend himself at the very moment he shot, but he had ample opportunity never to get involved at all and instead insisted on pursuing the kid.  I think that's dubious.  Just like someone who gets off because he has ADD or something . . . 

     

     

     

     

     

     

     




    You just love your apples and oranges. Insanity must be proved because the defense is asking their client not be subjected to the trial. Of course if they want to curcumvent that entire process they must show their claim is real. What you're asking for is not even close to the same thing.

     

    You say Zimmerman should have not accosted Martin, but by the same token Martin could have simply not attacked Zimmerman and all would have probably been okay. I have to draw the line at where it should be drawn. Physical assault. Martin crossed that line and Zim defended himself, as far as we know.

    Well, we really don't know how the fight started and the fact that Martin apparently was getting the better of Zimmerman doesn't mean anything unless Martin has no right to self-defense.  What we do know is that Zimmerman was following Martin for twenty minutes before anything happened.  Following someone is a threatening act in itself.  I certainly would be creeped out if some guy were following me around for blocks and then got out of his car apparently to confront me.  If he got near me, I might punch him too.  It's not like Zimmerman was wearing a police uniform.  Martin very easily could have thought Zimmerman was approaching him to beat or rob him and may have felt threatened.  If Zimmerman could shoot Martin because Zimmerman felt threatened, why couldn't Martin punch Zimmerman if Martin felt threatened?  

    Really, the fact that Zimmerman followed the kid around calling him an assh*le is what disturbs me.  Zimmerman clearly formed an unjustified conclusion about Martin, then acted upon it, and eventually killed the kid.  I don't see him as any kind of role model.  I think he's a creep.  And I think the laws should be revised to make (1) playing police illegal and (2) it harder to claim self-defense if you do something provocative like follow someone around for twenty minutes.  Citizens who want to "arrest" other people should do so knowing that if they end up killing the person they are trying to arrest they won't have an easy time getting off scot free.  It might help prevent misguided vigilantism like we saw with Zimmerman. 

     

    How in the world your proposed "provoking" law could be applied is unfathomable. Giant can of worms.

    I know, everything's too difficult.  Much better to just let kids die.  Same thing you said about Newtown.  

     

     






    Don't you think we have heard enough from an "American" who probably went north to escape the draft?

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from portfolio1. Show portfolio1's posts

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    In response to RallyC's comment:

    In response to portfolio1's comment:

     

    I'm sorry but I think there is way too much rationalizing going on. I think it is very simple:

    1. teenager goes to store, buys candy, returns to father's house

    2. Self appointed, untrained adult male with a gun decides this teen is dangerous and follows him (characterizing him as a criminal over the phone)

    3. Armed male causes confrontation as teen is threatened and triesd to defend himself

    4. Armed man ends up shooting and killing innocent teen.

    With these facts there is no question that the armed adult caused the events that resulted in the death of an innocent teen. While there might be a legitimate question as to whether the armed adult male was racist there is no question that he caused the events to happen. 

    It is reveiling that so many seem to overlook the teen's right to self defence but demand the right of self defence to the armed adult who caused the events to take place. 

    Further, the injuries sufered by the armed adult were not serious and certainly not life threatening. Yet he chose to use deadly force to defend himself. He did not back off and he did not try to flee. But he chose deadly force.

    There is no question that causing the death of an innocent teen is wrong and deserves some serious consequences. It really is that simple.

     

     



    But you left out very important details:

    Teen is walking through an area of homes that had recently experienced several break ins and robberies. Evidence showed that teen struck man who was LEGALLY carrying a gun. At that point, the "innocent, young teen" as you describe him, is no longer innocent. Armed man shoots bigger, stronger 17-yr old APPARENTLY IN SELF DEFENSE as the jury deemed. Jury finds legally armed man, Not Guilty. Again, I am not a fan of GZ or how he handled the situation, BUT I am a fan of our legal system. Lastly, if you truly think it "really is that simple" as you say in closing above, then you are dillusional........And that really is that simple.



    Rally, I am sorry but - respectfully - there are serious problems with your response. 

    1. whether there had been recent crimes does not change any of the specific facts I pointed out. At all. Further, this teen was not and has not been accusedf let alone charged with any of those crimes. That this point you bring up gives reason to the desire or perhaps need for patroling the neighborhood is reasonable. But it also raises the questions of the difference between a trained and empowered police officer and a wanna be policeman/vigilante.

    2. I am sorry but your remark that the teen CANNOT defend HIMSELF when confronted by a guy scary to HIM, an older, larger and armed guy who had been following him - in the eyes of this teen stalking is a legitimate perception - is just not at all consistent with your insistence that self defense is legitimate. 

    3. Many - including yourself (and Babe for example) did not (as far as I have read this thread and I have admittedly not read every post) have ignored one important option Zimmerman had - to keep his distance or walk or even run away from a fight. Even the police dispatch told him not to engage... in fact I think they told him not to follow, just to give them info. But Zimmerman followed (perhaps stalked in the eyes of the teen), closed the distance, and confronted. And he did this with a mindset that this teen was a creep and one of those thugs who "always get away with it".

    On this last point, I was advised many years ago by a man who among other things used to train marines in self defense. His advice after showing me some techniques in self defense: your first move should be to walk away from a fight. Only when there are no other options do you engage. Zimmerman is no hero. He is just a small man who wants to be important. Small enough to be judge, jury and executioner.

    I do not say any of the above to insite but I hope you and others read it and pause to at least consider the points.

    Again, while there are all kinds of points to be made, the fundamentals, the underlying basic facts are that:

    1. teenager goes to store, buys candy, returns to father's house

    2. Self appointed, untrained adult male with a gun decides this teen is dangerous and follows him (characterizing him as a criminal over the phone)

    3. Armed male causes confrontation as teen is threatened and tries to defend himself 

    4. Armed man ends up shooting and killing innocent teen.

    That there are additional points to consider in determining degree of moral and legal crime by armed, larger adult male is legitimate in presenting but there is nothing that takes him off the hook altogether. An innocent teen was killed. It is not unfortunate. It is wrong.

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from portfolio1. Show portfolio1's posts

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:

     

     

     

     

     

     



     

     

     

     

     

     




    Sorry Z but the guy was not killed because he had stolen jewelry but followed because he acted suspicious.  If he were merely walking home at a normal pace, I don't think he would have been looked at as suspicious.

     

    Zimmerman said he was acting suspicious.  But there's no evidence the kid was doing anythning but walking down the street.  C'mon.  People don't get reported as suspicious for merely walking down the street unless it's by some nut-job.  Since there is no evidence of him being a nut, I'm going to conclude he was reasonable and sincere.

    Whether he was justified in following him, none of us can say.  You would have to be in that position.  I don't see why you are assuming he was innocent.  He wasn't reported for merely walking home.

    Reported by whom?  Zimmerman jumped to a conclusion about the kid.  why do you think he just jumped to a conclusion?  It appears he has good experience in determining what is suspicious or not.

    Zimmerman committed no crime.  It is not illegal to carry a gun as a law abiding citizen.  It is not illegal to follow a person you feel is suspicious nor is it to confront him.  It is not illegal to protect yourself while being attacked.

    Sure. He did kill a 17 year old though...and could have avoided doing so if he merely minded his own business.    It was his business to try and deter crime with his presence and assist the police. Neighborhood watches are organized and endorsed by the law

    All the evidence proves that he was attacked, not the other way around.

    No it doesn't "prove" that.  The evidence is ambiguous.  That's why Zimmerman was acquitted and why Martin probably would (or should) have been acquitted if Zimmerman had ended up dead.  So the evidence of only one person doing the punching, does not prove who was attacking whom?  What did he attack him with? His words?

    There were wounds on Martins hands from punching and none on Zimmerman's.  There was a broken nose and a cracked skull and blood coming from Z's ears, not Martins.  There were no blows to Martins body, therefore he was not attacked.  There were eye witness accounts saying Martin was on top and doing all the punching. 

    Martin was shot through the heart.  Whose injuries were more serious again?  Eye witnesses said conflicting things and no one witnessed the start of the fight.  And Zimmerman's skull wasn't "cracked."  He had cuts.  There very likely was a scuffle.  But it's not clear at all that Zimmerman didn't initiate it.  Maybe Martin was acting in self defense and Zimmerman then decided to shoot.  I would think if someone was bashing your head on the ground and reaching for your holstered gun that you would feel it was pretty serious and life threatening.  Wouldn't you?  I would hope so.

    The only person who committed a crime here is Martin.  Right or wrong, that's the truth of the matter.  He was the  only one with blood on his hands prior to the shooting.

    Martin wasn't convicted of anything.  Innocent until proven guilty, no?  Or does that only apply to Zimmerman?  No he wasn't convicted but if it was determined that he was the one with the bloody hands and the other had the bloody face, he would have been.  Can you deny he assaulted him.?

    Are the bruised knuckles and bloody face of no consequence to you?

    Yes, it could have all been avoided if Zimmerman just waited for the police but the police ARE slow in responding to these types of calls and a lot of the times, they simply take a report and the guys do get away.

    So.  That doesn't mean people should shoot kids walking home from convenience stores because they look suspicious to the shooter. He didn't shoot him for walking home.  He shot him because he was being beaten to a pulp.

    While catching shoplifters, I was sometimes in the office for two hours with them, waiting for the cops.  They weren't the ones in danger.  I was, for simply doing my job.

    Did you shoot them?  No, but no one beat me and tried to grab my gun.  One guy tried to fight but he was more trying to get away, rather than beat me.  I can't even imagine taking someones life but if it were me or them, you can bet your a@@, it wouldn't have been me.

    Apparently, so was he.

     









  • Much of what you say is that Zimmerman has a "good track record" of acting like a police officer. But the fact of the matter is that the police have refused to allow him to become a policeman because he is not the sort of person the want. It actually reflects the very opposite of what you are claiming.

    In any case:

    1. teenager goes to store, buys candy, returns to father's house

    2. Self appointed, large, untrained adult male with a gun decides this teen is dangerous and follows him (characterizing him as a criminal over the phone)

    3. Armed, large, untrained adult male causes confrontation as teen is threatened and triesd to defend himself

    4. Armed, large untrained adult male ends up shooting and killing innocent teen.

     

    You could add some things that reflect Zimmerman's wanna be vigilante cop and trigger happy juumping to conclusions but it is not necessary in reflecting on the above 4 points.

     

    Bottom line is that when you just focus on the basics an armed, large, untrained adult male followed and killed an innocent teen. That is all that happened and that is both morally and legally disgusting.

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from TheTinMan. Show TheTinMan's posts

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    For me, this isn't an issue about license to carry, neighborhood watches or any of that.  Personally, the big question is who was the one that created the situation that led to the entire incident?

    I just happen to be of a mind that if I was walking home on a dark, drizzly evening, became aware that someone in a vehicle was following me, and that person then got out of the vehicle and began walking after me, and that when I stopped and was confronted by that other person (did GZ call out to TM to stop?  Did GZ get up close and start asking TM what he was doing in that area?  IDK), and I perhaps could see that person was armed, I'd be in fear for my personal safety.  What if I felt that the best option I had under those conditions was to strike first and try to disarm that guy?  Could I have ended up putting that person in fear for their own life?  Possibly, but where do you draw the line?  If I put someone else in fear for their life because I am defending myself from that other person, does that other person have the right to claim self-defense?

    For me, that's the real issue here.  Do you have a right to a self-defense argument if you created a situation where you put the other person in fear for their safety as the catalyst?  We'll never know how TM felt or what he was thinking.  Under those conditions (that is, did TM feel he was in danger and was he trying to defend himself?), I don't see any way to arrive at a conviction for even manslaughter, unless there was something telling in the forensics.

    As others have pointed out, it's an unfortunate situation all around.

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from Macrawn. Show Macrawn's posts

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    In response to jimmytantric's comment:

     

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

     

     

     

    What I find troubling is that you can apparently pursue an unarmed person with a gun in Florida and if they fight back when you approach them with your gun, you can shoot them and claim self-defense.  From what I've read, based on Florida law and the lack of proof that Zimmerman hadn't acted in "self-defense", they had to acquit this guy, but the law is absurd in my opinion.  Basically, if I want to kill you in Florida, I just have to threaten you and if you react to my threat with physical force, I can shoot you and claim I was defending myself.  It's just absurd.

     

    Martin was unarmed and was clearly approached by an armed man.  The fact that Martin may have fought back to defend himself makes the other guy able to claim self-defense after shooting Martin through the heart?  Wow.  

     

     




    You make a good point --it is absurd the way the law reads. Thats why I live in Idaho. Besides Florida there are other states I would nevr live in Like Texas and Calif. In Idaho a lot of people have weapons so people pretty much don't start stupid sh-t or do a lot of home break-ins because they know what's behind those doors!!!!

     

     

     



    If Zimmerman was acting in self-defense, wasn't Martin also acting in self-defense?  It seems like Florida law simply favours the person with the better weapon . . . last man standing wins.

     

     

     

     



    That's the part we don't know. Zimmerman called out to him, but if this kid turned around and punched Zimmerman because he was pissed off and then took him to the ground then it was a justified shooting. An expert on gunshot wounds said that the boys shirt was several inches away from the body consistent with someone Leaning over the top of someone else ie the shirt drapes outward from the body. It is not consistent with someone standing in front of you. If Zimmerman initiated the actual attack we will never know. At best it's unclear and therefore not enough evidence to convict. I think zimmerman acted stupidly and made a bad decision to follow him, but was within his rights to do so. If Travon turned around and punched him Zimmerman has a right to defend himself.

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from pezz4pats. Show pezz4pats's posts

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    In response to portfolio1's comment:

     

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:

     

     

     

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

     

     

     

     

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     



     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     




    Sorry Z but the guy was not killed because he had stolen jewelry but followed because he acted suspicious.  If he were merely walking home at a normal pace, I don't think he would have been looked at as suspicious.

     

     

     

    Zimmerman said he was acting suspicious.  But there's no evidence the kid was doing anythning but walking down the street.  C'mon.  People don't get reported as suspicious for merely walking down the street unless it's by some nut-job.  Since there is no evidence of him being a nut, I'm going to conclude he was reasonable and sincere.

    Whether he was justified in following him, none of us can say.  You would have to be in that position.  I don't see why you are assuming he was innocent.  He wasn't reported for merely walking home.

    Reported by whom?  Zimmerman jumped to a conclusion about the kid.  why do you think he just jumped to a conclusion?  It appears he has good experience in determining what is suspicious or not.

    Zimmerman committed no crime.  It is not illegal to carry a gun as a law abiding citizen.  It is not illegal to follow a person you feel is suspicious nor is it to confront him.  It is not illegal to protect yourself while being attacked.

    Sure. He did kill a 17 year old though...and could have avoided doing so if he merely minded his own business.    It was his business to try and deter crime with his presence and assist the police. Neighborhood watches are organized and endorsed by the law

    All the evidence proves that he was attacked, not the other way around.

    No it doesn't "prove" that.  The evidence is ambiguous.  That's why Zimmerman was acquitted and why Martin probably would (or should) have been acquitted if Zimmerman had ended up dead.  So the evidence of only one person doing the punching, does not prove who was attacking whom?  What did he attack him with? His words?

    There were wounds on Martins hands from punching and none on Zimmerman's.  There was a broken nose and a cracked skull and blood coming from Z's ears, not Martins.  There were no blows to Martins body, therefore he was not attacked.  There were eye witness accounts saying Martin was on top and doing all the punching. 

    Martin was shot through the heart.  Whose injuries were more serious again?  Eye witnesses said conflicting things and no one witnessed the start of the fight.  And Zimmerman's skull wasn't "cracked."  He had cuts.  There very likely was a scuffle.  But it's not clear at all that Zimmerman didn't initiate it.  Maybe Martin was acting in self defense and Zimmerman then decided to shoot.  I would think if someone was bashing your head on the ground and reaching for your holstered gun that you would feel it was pretty serious and life threatening.  Wouldn't you?  I would hope so.

    The only person who committed a crime here is Martin.  Right or wrong, that's the truth of the matter.  He was the  only one with blood on his hands prior to the shooting.

    Martin wasn't convicted of anything.  Innocent until proven guilty, no?  Or does that only apply to Zimmerman?  No he wasn't convicted but if it was determined that he was the one with the bloody hands and the other had the bloody face, he would have been.  Can you deny he assaulted him.?

    Are the bruised knuckles and bloody face of no consequence to you?

    Yes, it could have all been avoided if Zimmerman just waited for the police but the police ARE slow in responding to these types of calls and a lot of the times, they simply take a report and the guys do get away.

    So.  That doesn't mean people should shoot kids walking home from convenience stores because they look suspicious to the shooter. He didn't shoot him for walking home.  He shot him because he was being beaten to a pulp.

    While catching shoplifters, I was sometimes in the office for two hours with them, waiting for the cops.  They weren't the ones in danger.  I was, for simply doing my job.

    Did you shoot them?  No, but no one beat me and tried to grab my gun.  One guy tried to fight but he was more trying to get away, rather than beat me.  I can't even imagine taking someones life but if it were me or them, you can bet your a@@, it wouldn't have been me.

    Apparently, so was he.

     

     

     




     

     

     




     

    [/QUOTE]

    Much of what you say is that Zimmerman has a "good track record" of acting like a police officer. But the fact of the matter is that the police have refused to allow him to become a policeman because he is not the sort of person the want. It actually reflects the very opposite of what you are claiming.

    In any case:

    1. teenager goes to store, buys candy, returns to father's house

    2. Self appointed, large, untrained adult male with a gun decides this teen is dangerous and follows him (characterizing him as a criminal over the phone)

    3. Armed, large, untrained adult male causes confrontation as teen is threatened and triesd to defend himself

    4. Armed, large untrained adult male ends up shooting and killing innocent teen.

     

    You could add some things that reflect Zimmerman's wanna be vigilante cop and trigger happy juumping to conclusions but it is not necessary in reflecting on the above 4 points.

     

    Bottom line is that when you just focus on the basics an armed, large, untrained adult male followed and killed an innocent teen. That is all that happened and that is both morally and legally disgusting.

    [/QUOTE]


    He wasn't trained as a law enforcement official (neither are security Guards) but he was trained by the police as a neighborhood watch captain and licensed to carry a gun, which involves additional training.

    They have to go through this training to get the distinction.

    They are not trained to pursue or interfere but they are trained to be the eyes and ears of the authorities.

    They are also trained to report suspicious activity.  Suspicious activity is anything that appears differently than what a normal person might do.

    According to the officer that trained Zimmerman, something like walking around in the rain with no purpose, would be considered, suspicious or contrary to what a normal person would do in that situation.

    Though it's not their job to pursue or follow, it is reasonable to follow to report the whereabouts of the suspicious person, at a distance.  He had been recently praised for his watch, following a burglary subject, leading to his apprehension.

    There is no evidence of him being a vigilant and confronting with guns a blazing or at all.

    He did not get out of his car to confront after the dispatcher told him he didn't need to follow.  He was already out of the car when he made that call.

    There is no evidence to suggest that he was confrontational at all but merely following to not lose sight of him.  He did express concern that he would get away and was likely trying to keep an eye on him.

    I don't believe his intent was to kill anyone that day which is what you(some) are inferring.

     

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from PatsEng. Show PatsEng's posts

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    I just had to toss my two cents in as everyone else did. To me I take out race and age off the bat. These give emotional responses and might not lead to the truth. So, lets remove those items for right now.

    Zimmerman is part of a neighborhood watch in which an area where crime was evident before the watch had formed. So Zimmerman as well as other people had already grew mistrust of anyone they didn't recognize in the area. This is compounded by the fact that the state itself is under criminal attack to the point they made the law to protect people who are trying to help others out. And yes, even though it's unreported, this law has helped save more people than it has caused deaths to this point. But, back onto topic, there were previous cases of break ins and Zimmerman had performed actions in the watch previously which did the same things. Saw someone suspecious, reported them, and continued to watch the suspect. Now given the area and lack of police response previously Zimmerman was most likely over eger to take action himself. To me this reflects poorly on the cops in the area truthfully. And, from personal experience sometimes cops being slow to respond in certain areas causes more problems than the actual crimes themselves. Now he's sees someone he doesn't recognize walking through yards and houses of his neighbors. That's enough to raise concern to call the cops give previous experience in that neighborhood. Police told him not to worry about it but again experience comes into play where in that neighborhood police can be slow to respond and typically only come in after the fact. So Zimmerman continues to follow against police will. Can't blame the guy at that point really. Now Martin starts cutting through a yard in which Zimmerman would lose him in his car. This is where it gets fuzzy and it becomes he said she said. Zimmerman gets out of his car fearing he will lose Martin and a crime will happen (not the smartest move but something I might have done too given the history of the area). An event occurs name calling exchanged and a fight broke out. We don't know who started what at one point Zimmerman was on the ground being beaten and Martin was reaching for his gun. Now at this point both can claim self defense as Martin could have felt threatened by the situation and took a pre-emptive strike to defend himself (wrong action but can't blame Martin). Zimmerman saw someone he didn't recognize and trying to come off as a threatening force (somethng taught to cops as a means of controling a situation) pressed the situation and was attacked to the point his life felt in danger (again can't balme him for the actions he took once attacked, wrong move trying to confront Martin in the first place). Martin was shot at that point during the struggle and the situation ended at that point.

    Both parties made a series of mistakes which lead to the death of one of the people. Zimmerman was correct in following Martin given it was his job as neighborhood watch to look for anything that seemed out of place and an unknown person was walking through the neighborhood late at night and cutting through yards. Were Zimmerman made the mistake is confronting Martin. He should have never tried to confront Martin but considering neighborhood history and what seems like slow or lack of police response to crimes in that area he might have justified that response.

    Martin on the other hand made a wrong choice in attacking Zimmerman and pounding him into the ground. I'm sure he felt threatened but going on the offensive isn't always the right action either. Given his life might have been in danger he might have justified going after Zimmerman.

    All in all the whole situation was a build up of mistakes after mistakes after mistakes.

    Martin should have never been in that area as the school tried to sweep his previous crime, which ironically was theft, under the rug to begin with.

    The police in slow or no responses to the area previously (what I read from reports from neighbors after teh event) lead to overzealist neighborhood watches as the area didn't feel safe under the police blanket.

    Zimmerman trying to be the neighborhood protector took things to far when he went from observing to confrontation.

    Martin had 3 choices to run, to stay and explain things, or to fight. To fight is not always the best choice unless you are certain your life is in danger and once the fight started pounding Zimmermans head into the ground repeatedly only made the problem worse instead of trying to control Zimmerman and yelling for help. Martin wasn't a small either lets not forget.

    All in all it adds up to not enough information to say who caused the fight or which actions by themselves ended in the tragedy. This, however, is much more of an isolated event than the standard. It was only brought to everyones attention because of factors that we don't even know were involved in the case to begin with. Think about it this way, if Martin had pounded Zimmermans head more and killed him or managed to get to Zimmermans gun first and killed Zimmerman what this have even been a story? And, wouldn't the outcome have been the same in the reverse role?

    When you take age and race out of it, it's clearly a tragedy that shouldn't have happened if not for a series of wrongs that lead to this moment. But, a series of wrongs doesn't mean it was murder and it's one case in which both sides can claim self defense and still be right. Martin felt his life was in danger before he attacked and Zimmerman felt his life was in danger once Martin was pounded him on the ground. The school should have taken the proper actions towards Martins previous incidents, the police should have responded properly to the report of a suspecious person instead of writing it off, Zimmerman should have never confronted Martin and remained an observer, and Martin should have never attacked to the point where he could have ended up killing Zimmerman if Zimmerman didn't take action.

    I swear by lil 10 pound bearded baby Jesus

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from redsoxfan94. Show redsoxfan94's posts

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    By florida law, zimmerman was correctly found not guilty. Their self defense law is much different from ours. In many other states, zimmerman would be looking at 10-15 years behind bars at least.

    The prosecution did such a sloppy job, they deserved for zimmerman to be found innocent. I knew this case was over when the prosecution showed a photo of Trayvon Martin when he was THIRTEEN, to try to gain sympathy from the jurors. The photo they showed of Trayvon was not the same person that had an encounter with zimmerman that night.

     

    I am saddened by the amount of ignorance on both sides, espescially since an overwhelming majority of the people so upset by this would have never heard of Trayvon Martin had Obama not talked about him. The NFL needs to punish the athletes who crossed the line on twitter, Roddy White said the jurors should "kill themselves", really? So unprofessional of anyone to say that. Some of these athletes need to learn when to not hit "Send"

     

    Anyways, lots of ignorance and racism on both sides and its sad to see. My view is that the jury got it right because not only does florida law support zimmerman on that issue, the zimmerman defense team did an exceptional job of proving reasonable doubt.

     

     

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from portfolio1. Show portfolio1's posts

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:

    In response to portfolio1's comment:

     

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:

     

     

     

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

     

     

     

     

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     


     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     




    Sorry Z but the guy was not killed because he had stolen jewelry but followed because he acted suspicious.  If he were merely walking home at a normal pace, I don't think he would have been looked at as suspicious.

     

     

     

    Zimmerman said he was acting suspicious.  But there's no evidence the kid was doing anythning but walking down the street.  C'mon.  People don't get reported as suspicious for merely walking down the street unless it's by some nut-job.  Since there is no evidence of him being a nut, I'm going to conclude he was reasonable and sincere.

    Whether he was justified in following him, none of us can say.  You would have to be in that position.  I don't see why you are assuming he was innocent.  He wasn't reported for merely walking home.

    Reported by whom?  Zimmerman jumped to a conclusion about the kid.  why do you think he just jumped to a conclusion?  It appears he has good experience in determining what is suspicious or not.

    Zimmerman committed no crime.  It is not illegal to carry a gun as a law abiding citizen.  It is not illegal to follow a person you feel is suspicious nor is it to confront him.  It is not illegal to protect yourself while being attacked.

    Sure. He did kill a 17 year old though...and could have avoided doing so if he merely minded his own business.    It was his business to try and deter crime with his presence and assist the police. Neighborhood watches are organized and endorsed by the law

    All the evidence proves that he was attacked, not the other way around.

    No it doesn't "prove" that.  The evidence is ambiguous.  That's why Zimmerman was acquitted and why Martin probably would (or should) have been acquitted if Zimmerman had ended up dead.  So the evidence of only one person doing the punching, does not prove who was attacking whom?  What did he attack him with? His words?

    There were wounds on Martins hands from punching and none on Zimmerman's.  There was a broken nose and a cracked skull and blood coming from Z's ears, not Martins.  There were no blows to Martins body, therefore he was not attacked.  There were eye witness accounts saying Martin was on top and doing all the punching. 

    Martin was shot through the heart.  Whose injuries were more serious again?  Eye witnesses said conflicting things and no one witnessed the start of the fight.  And Zimmerman's skull wasn't "cracked."  He had cuts.  There very likely was a scuffle.  But it's not clear at all that Zimmerman didn't initiate it.  Maybe Martin was acting in self defense and Zimmerman then decided to shoot.  I would think if someone was bashing your head on the ground and reaching for your holstered gun that you would feel it was pretty serious and life threatening.  Wouldn't you?  I would hope so.

    The only person who committed a crime here is Martin.  Right or wrong, that's the truth of the matter.  He was the  only one with blood on his hands prior to the shooting.

    Martin wasn't convicted of anything.  Innocent until proven guilty, no?  Or does that only apply to Zimmerman?  No he wasn't convicted but if it was determined that he was the one with the bloody hands and the other had the bloody face, he would have been.  Can you deny he assaulted him.?

    Are the bruised knuckles and bloody face of no consequence to you?

    Yes, it could have all been avoided if Zimmerman just waited for the police but the police ARE slow in responding to these types of calls and a lot of the times, they simply take a report and the guys do get away.

    So.  That doesn't mean people should shoot kids walking home from convenience stores because they look suspicious to the shooter. He didn't shoot him for walking home.  He shot him because he was being beaten to a pulp.

    While catching shoplifters, I was sometimes in the office for two hours with them, waiting for the cops.  They weren't the ones in danger.  I was, for simply doing my job.

    Did you shoot them?  No, but no one beat me and tried to grab my gun.  One guy tried to fight but he was more trying to get away, rather than beat me.  I can't even imagine taking someones life but if it were me or them, you can bet your a@@, it wouldn't have been me.

    Apparently, so was he.

     

     

     



     

     

     




     



    Much of what you say is that Zimmerman has a "good track record" of acting like a police officer. But the fact of the matter is that the police have refused to allow him to become a policeman because he is not the sort of person the want. It actually reflects the very opposite of what you are claiming.

    In any case:

    1. teenager goes to store, buys candy, returns to father's house

    2. Self appointed, large, untrained adult male with a gun decides this teen is dangerous and follows him (characterizing him as a criminal over the phone)

    3. Armed, large, untrained adult male causes confrontation as teen is threatened and triesd to defend himself

    4. Armed, large untrained adult male ends up shooting and killing innocent teen.

     

    You could add some things that reflect Zimmerman's wanna be vigilante cop and trigger happy juumping to conclusions but it is not necessary in reflecting on the above 4 points.

     

    Bottom line is that when you just focus on the basics an armed, large, untrained adult male followed and killed an innocent teen. That is all that happened and that is both morally and legally disgusting.

    [/QUOTE]


    He wasn't trained as a law enforcement official (neither are security Guards) but he was trained by the police as a neighborhood watch captain and licensed to carry a gun, which involves additional training.

    They have to go through this training to get the distinction.

    They are not trained to pursue or interfere but they are trained to be the eyes and ears of the authorities.

    They are also trained to report suspicious activity.  Suspicious activity is anything that appears differently than what a normal person might do.

    According to the officer that trained Zimmerman, something like walking around in the rain with no purpose, would be considered, suspicious or contrary to what a normal person would do in that situation.

    Though it's not their job to pursue or follow, it is reasonable to follow to report the whereabouts of the suspicious person, at a distance.  He had been recently praised for his watch, following a burglary subject, leading to his apprehension.

    There is no evidence of him being a vigilant and confronting with guns a blazing or at all.

    He did not get out of his car to confront after the dispatcher told him he didn't need to follow.  He was already out of the car when he made that call.

    There is no evidence to suggest that he was confrontational at all but merely following to not lose sight of him.  He did express concern that he would get away and was likely trying to keep an eye on him.

    I don't believe his intent was to kill anyone that day which is what you(some) are inferring.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I did not and do not beleive Zimmerman's initial intent was to kill nor did I say that nor have almost anyone I have read who feel Zimmerman was grossly at fault for the death of a teen.

    Please do not make that assumption. It is not made or intended. NOR is it key to the points I have made.

    regards...

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from portfolio1. Show portfolio1's posts

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    In response to PatsEng's comment:

    I just had to toss my two cents in as everyone else did. To me I take out race and age off the bat. These give emotional responses and might not lead to the truth. So, lets remove those items for right now.

    Zimmerman is part of a neighborhood watch in which an area where crime was evident before the watch had formed. So Zimmerman as well as other people had already grew mistrust of anyone they didn't recognize in the area. This is compounded by the fact that the state itself is under criminal attack to the point they made the law to protect people who are trying to help others out. And yes, even though it's unreported, this law has helped save more people than it has caused deaths to this point. But, back onto topic, there were previous cases of break ins and Zimmerman had performed actions in the watch previously which did the same things. Saw someone suspecious, reported them, and continued to watch the suspect. Now given the area and lack of police response previously Zimmerman was most likely over eger to take action himself. To me this reflects poorly on the cops in the area truthfully. And, from personal experience sometimes cops being slow to respond in certain areas causes more problems than the actual crimes themselves. Now he's sees someone he doesn't recognize walking through yards and houses of his neighbors. That's enough to raise concern to call the cops give previous experience in that neighborhood. Police told him not to worry about it but again experience comes into play where in that neighborhood police can be slow to respond and typically only come in after the fact. So Zimmerman continues to follow against police will. Can't blame the guy at that point really. Now Martin starts cutting through a yard in which Zimmerman would lose him in his car. This is where it gets fuzzy and it becomes he said she said. Zimmerman gets out of his car fearing he will lose Martin and a crime will happen (not the smartest move but something I might have done too given the history of the area). An event occurs name calling exchanged and a fight broke out. We don't know who started what at one point Zimmerman was on the ground being beaten and Martin was reaching for his gun. Now at this point both can claim self defense as Martin could have felt threatened by the situation and took a pre-emptive strike to defend himself (wrong action but can't blame Martin). Zimmerman saw someone he didn't recognize and trying to come off as a threatening force (somethng taught to cops as a means of controling a situation) pressed the situation and was attacked to the point his life felt in danger (again can't balme him for the actions he took once attacked, wrong move trying to confront Martin in the first place). Martin was shot at that point during the struggle and the situation ended at that point.

    Both parties made a series of mistakes which lead to the death of one of the people. Zimmerman was correct in following Martin given it was his job as neighborhood watch to look for anything that seemed out of place and an unknown person was walking through the neighborhood late at night and cutting through yards. Were Zimmerman made the mistake is confronting Martin. He should have never tried to confront Martin but considering neighborhood history and what seems like slow or lack of police response to crimes in that area he might have justified that response.

    Martin on the other hand made a wrong choice in attacking Zimmerman and pounding him into the ground. I'm sure he felt threatened but going on the offensive isn't always the right action either. Given his life might have been in danger he might have justified going after Zimmerman.

    All in all the whole situation was a build up of mistakes after mistakes after mistakes.

    Martin should have never been in that area as the school tried to sweep his previous crime, which ironically was theft, under the rug to begin with.

    The police in slow or no responses to the area previously (what I read from reports from neighbors after teh event) lead to overzealist neighborhood watches as the area didn't feel safe under the police blanket.

    Zimmerman trying to be the neighborhood protector took things to far when he went from observing to confrontation.

    Martin had 3 choices to run, to stay and explain things, or to fight. To fight is not always the best choice unless you are certain your life is in danger and once the fight started pounding Zimmermans head into the ground repeatedly only made the problem worse instead of trying to control Zimmerman and yelling for help. Martin wasn't a small either lets not forget.

    All in all it adds up to not enough information to say who caused the fight or which actions by themselves ended in the tragedy. This, however, is much more of an isolated event than the standard. It was only brought to everyones attention because of factors that we don't even know were involved in the case to begin with. Think about it this way, if Martin had pounded Zimmermans head more and killed him or managed to get to Zimmermans gun first and killed Zimmerman what this have even been a story? And, wouldn't the outcome have been the same in the reverse role?

    When you take age and race out of it, it's clearly a tragedy that shouldn't have happened if not for a series of wrongs that lead to this moment. But, a series of wrongs doesn't mean it was murder and it's one case in which both sides can claim self defense and still be right. Martin felt his life was in danger before he attacked and Zimmerman felt his life was in danger once Martin was pounded him on the ground. The school should have taken the proper actions towards Martins previous incidents, the police should have responded properly to the report of a suspecious person instead of writing it off, Zimmerman should have never confronted Martin and remained an observer, and Martin should have never attacked to the point where he could have ended up killing Zimmerman if Zimmerman didn't take action.

    I swear by lil 10 pound bearded baby Jesus



    Once again - it is astounding that you do not give an unarmed teen the right to defend himself from a larger, adult, armed male who has been following him.. and in the eyes of that teen maybe stalking him. 

     

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from RallyC. Show RallyC's posts

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    In response to portfolio1's comment:

     

    In response to RallyC's comment:

     

     

     

    In response to portfolio1's comment:

     

    I'm sorry but I think there is way too much rationalizing going on. I think it is very simple:

    1. teenager goes to store, buys candy, returns to father's house

    2. Self appointed, untrained adult male with a gun decides this teen is dangerous and follows him (characterizing him as a criminal over the phone)

    3. Armed male causes confrontation as teen is threatened and triesd to defend himself

    4. Armed man ends up shooting and killing innocent teen.

    With these facts there is no question that the armed adult caused the events that resulted in the death of an innocent teen. While there might be a legitimate question as to whether the armed adult male was racist there is no question that he caused the events to happen. 

    It is reveiling that so many seem to overlook the teen's right to self defence but demand the right of self defence to the armed adult who caused the events to take place. 

    Further, the injuries sufered by the armed adult were not serious and certainly not life threatening. Yet he chose to use deadly force to defend himself. He did not back off and he did not try to flee. But he chose deadly force.

    There is no question that causing the death of an innocent teen is wrong and deserves some serious consequences. It really is that simple.

     

     



    But you left out very important details:

    Teen is walking through an area of homes that had recently experienced several break ins and robberies. Evidence showed that teen struck man who was LEGALLY carrying a gun. At that point, the "innocent, young teen" as you describe him, is no longer innocent. Armed man shoots bigger, stronger 17-yr old APPARENTLY IN SELF DEFENSE as the jury deemed. Jury finds legally armed man, Not Guilty. Again, I am not a fan of GZ or how he handled the situation, BUT I am a fan of our legal system. Lastly, if you truly think it "really is that simple" as you say in closing above, then you are dillusional........And that really is that simple.

     

     



    Rally, I am sorry but - respectfully - there are serious problems with your response. 

     

     

    1. whether there had been recent crimes does not change any of the specific facts I pointed out. At all. Further, this teen was not and has not been accusedf let alone charged with any of those crimes. That this point you bring up gives reason to the desire or perhaps need for patroling the neighborhood is reasonable. But it also raises the questions of the difference between a trained and empowered police officer and a wanna be policeman/vigilante.

    2. I am sorry but your remark that the teen CANNOT defend HIMSELF when confronted by a guy scary to HIM, an older, larger and armed guy who had been following him - in the eyes of this teen stalking is a legitimate perception - is just not at all consistent with your insistence that self defense is legitimate. 

    3. Many - including yourself (and Babe for example) did not (as far as I have read this thread and I have admittedly not read every post) have ignored one important option Zimmerman had - to keep his distance or walk or even run away from a fight. Even the police dispatch told him not to engage... in fact I think they told him not to follow, just to give them info. But Zimmerman followed (perhaps stalked in the eyes of the teen), closed the distance, and confronted. And he did this with a mindset that this teen was a creep and one of those thugs who "always get away with it".

    On this last point, I was advised many years ago by a man who among other things used to train marines in self defense. His advice after showing me some techniques in self defense: your first move should be to walk away from a fight. Only when there are no other options do you engage. Zimmerman is no hero. He is just a small man who wants to be important. Small enough to be judge, jury and executioner.

    I do not say any of the above to insite but I hope you and others read it and pause to at least consider the points.

    Again, while there are all kinds of points to be made, the fundamentals, the underlying basic facts are that:

    1. teenager goes to store, buys candy, returns to father's house

    2. Self appointed, untrained adult male with a gun decides this teen is dangerous and follows him (characterizing him as a criminal over the phone)

    3. Armed male causes confrontation as teen is threatened and tries to defend himself 

    4. Armed man ends up shooting and killing innocent teen.

    That there are additional points to consider in determining degree of moral and legal crime by armed, larger adult male is legitimate in presenting but there is nothing that takes him off the hook altogether. An innocent teen was killed. It is not unfortunate. It is wrong.

     



    Sorry man, but you are wrong. Once TM hit GZ, TM is no longer the "innocent teenager." Period. I can stand and yell at you in public all I want and if you hit me, I can shoot you if I feared for my life during the incident. Thats just how it works. YOU CAN'T just go hitting folks just becasue you don't like what they are saying. Moral of the story? Be careful who you hit because they may shoot you and get away with it BECAUSE its the Shooter's word against a dead guy's. AND AS WE SEE, DEAD GUYS CAN'T TALK! EOS.

     

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from pezz4pats. Show pezz4pats's posts

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    In response to portfolio1's comment:

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:

     

    In response to portfolio1's comment:

     

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:

     Well you did make the inference to suggest that he may be a vigilante which is why I said you. 

    I did further qualify that by adding (some), as in (some) here have labeled him as a vigilante with a big gun and small d!ck who fantasized about killing someone.

    That was what I was referring to.

    listen, every bit of evidence I've seen supports the testimony of Zimmerman that he was attacked and acted out of self defense.  The defense could not bring one iota of evidence to dispute that.   If they did, there might have been a different verdict, but there was nothing but support for Zimmerman's claim.

    No one knows what was in his heart.  No one knows why Martin attacked, but he did attack and got shot in the process.  He was shot after the fact, not before.  I'm sure Zimmerman would have had ample opportunity to shoot before he had his head bashed in if he really wanted too.  He didn't.  If someone is going for your gun, you get it first.

    You said Martin has the right to defend himself and are right.  But what was he defending himself against?  A "creepy cracker" following him and asking him what he was doing in peoples yards? 

     

     

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

     

     

     

     

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     




    Sorry Z but the guy was not killed because he had stolen jewelry but followed because he acted suspicious.  If he were merely walking home at a normal pace, I don't think he would have been looked at as suspicious.

     

     

     

    Zimmerman said he was acting suspicious.  But there's no evidence the kid was doing anythning but walking down the street.  C'mon.  People don't get reported as suspicious for merely walking down the street unless it's by some nut-job.  Since there is no evidence of him being a nut, I'm going to conclude he was reasonable and sincere.

    Whether he was justified in following him, none of us can say.  You would have to be in that position.  I don't see why you are assuming he was innocent.  He wasn't reported for merely walking home.

    Reported by whom?  Zimmerman jumped to a conclusion about the kid.  why do you think he just jumped to a conclusion?  It appears he has good experience in determining what is suspicious or not.

    Zimmerman committed no crime.  It is not illegal to carry a gun as a law abiding citizen.  It is not illegal to follow a person you feel is suspicious nor is it to confront him.  It is not illegal to protect yourself while being attacked.

    Sure. He did kill a 17 year old though...and could have avoided doing so if he merely minded his own business.    It was his business to try and deter crime with his presence and assist the police. Neighborhood watches are organized and endorsed by the law

    All the evidence proves that he was attacked, not the other way around.

    No it doesn't "prove" that.  The evidence is ambiguous.  That's why Zimmerman was acquitted and why Martin probably would (or should) have been acquitted if Zimmerman had ended up dead.  So the evidence of only one person doing the punching, does not prove who was attacking whom?  What did he attack him with? His words?

    There were wounds on Martins hands from punching and none on Zimmerman's.  There was a broken nose and a cracked skull and blood coming from Z's ears, not Martins.  There were no blows to Martins body, therefore he was not attacked.  There were eye witness accounts saying Martin was on top and doing all the punching. 

    Martin was shot through the heart.  Whose injuries were more serious again?  Eye witnesses said conflicting things and no one witnessed the start of the fight.  And Zimmerman's skull wasn't "cracked."  He had cuts.  There very likely was a scuffle.  But it's not clear at all that Zimmerman didn't initiate it.  Maybe Martin was acting in self defense and Zimmerman then decided to shoot.  I would think if someone was bashing your head on the ground and reaching for your holstered gun that you would feel it was pretty serious and life threatening.  Wouldn't you?  I would hope so.

    The only person who committed a crime here is Martin.  Right or wrong, that's the truth of the matter.  He was the  only one with blood on his hands prior to the shooting.

    Martin wasn't convicted of anything.  Innocent until proven guilty, no?  Or does that only apply to Zimmerman?  No he wasn't convicted but if it was determined that he was the one with the bloody hands and the other had the bloody face, he would have been.  Can you deny he assaulted him.?

    Are the bruised knuckles and bloody face of no consequence to you?

    Yes, it could have all been avoided if Zimmerman just waited for the police but the police ARE slow in responding to these types of calls and a lot of the times, they simply take a report and the guys do get away.

    So.  That doesn't mean people should shoot kids walking home from convenience stores because they look suspicious to the shooter. He didn't shoot him for walking home.  He shot him because he was being beaten to a pulp.

    While catching shoplifters, I was sometimes in the office for two hours with them, waiting for the cops.  They weren't the ones in danger.  I was, for simply doing my job.

    Did you shoot them?  No, but no one beat me and tried to grab my gun.  One guy tried to fight but he was more trying to get away, rather than beat me.  I can't even imagine taking someones life but if it were me or them, you can bet your a@@, it wouldn't have been me.

    Apparently, so was he.

     

     

     


     

     

     




     

     



    Much of what you say is that Zimmerman has a "good track record" of acting like a police officer. But the fact of the matter is that the police have refused to allow him to become a policeman because he is not the sort of person the want. It actually reflects the very opposite of what you are claiming.

     

    In any case:

    1. teenager goes to store, buys candy, returns to father's house

    2. Self appointed, large, untrained adult male with a gun decides this teen is dangerous and follows him (characterizing him as a criminal over the phone)

    3. Armed, large, untrained adult male causes confrontation as teen is threatened and triesd to defend himself

    4. Armed, large untrained adult male ends up shooting and killing innocent teen.

     

    You could add some things that reflect Zimmerman's wanna be vigilante cop and trigger happy juumping to conclusions but it is not necessary in reflecting on the above 4 points.

     

    Bottom line is that when you just focus on the basics an armed, large, untrained adult male followed and killed an innocent teen. That is all that happened and that is both morally and legally disgusting.




    He wasn't trained as a law enforcement official (neither are security Guards) but he was trained by the police as a neighborhood watch captain and licensed to carry a gun, which involves additional training.

    They have to go through this training to get the distinction.

    They are not trained to pursue or interfere but they are trained to be the eyes and ears of the authorities.

    They are also trained to report suspicious activity.  Suspicious activity is anything that appears differently than what a normal person might do.

    According to the officer that trained Zimmerman, something like walking around in the rain with no purpose, would be considered, suspicious or contrary to what a normal person would do in that situation.

    Though it's not their job to pursue or follow, it is reasonable to follow to report the whereabouts of the suspicious person, at a distance.  He had been recently praised for his watch, following a burglary subject, leading to his apprehension.

    There is no evidence of him being a vigilant and confronting with guns a blazing or at all.

    He did not get out of his car to confront after the dispatcher told him he didn't need to follow.  He was already out of the car when he made that call.

    There is no evidence to suggest that he was confrontational at all but merely following to not lose sight of him.  He did express concern that he would get away and was likely trying to keep an eye on him.

    I don't believe his intent was to kill anyone that day which is what you(some) are inferring.

     



    I did not and do not beleive Zimmerman's initial intent was to kill nor did I say that nor have almost anyone I have read who feel Zimmerman was grossly at fault for the death of a teen.

    Please do not make that assumption. It is not made or intended. NOR is it key to the points I have made.

    regards...




  •  
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from pezz4pats. Show pezz4pats's posts

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    In response to russgriswold's comment:

    In response to TheTinMan's comment:

     

    For me, this isn't an issue about license to carry, neighborhood watches or any of that.  Personally, the big question is who was the one that created the situation that led to the entire incident?

    I just happen to be of a mind that if I was walking home on a dark, drizzly evening, became aware that someone in a vehicle was following me, and that person then got out of the vehicle and began walking after me, and that when I stopped and was confronted by that other person (did GZ call out to TM to stop?  Did GZ get up close and start asking TM what he was doing in that area?  IDK), and I perhaps could see that person was armed, I'd be in fear for my personal safety.  What if I felt that the best option I had under those conditions was to strike first and try to disarm that guy?  Could I have ended up putting that person in fear for their own life?  Possibly, but where do you draw the line?  If I put someone else in fear for their life because I am defending myself from that other person, does that other person have the right to claim self-defense?

    For me, that's the real issue here.  Do you have a right to a self-defense argument if you created a situation where you put the other person in fear for their safety as the catalyst?  We'll never know how TM felt or what he was thinking.  Under those conditions (that is, did TM feel he was in danger and was he trying to defend himself?), I don't see any way to arrive at a conviction for even manslaughter, unless there was something telling in the forensics.

    As others have pointed out, it's an unfortunate situation all around.

     



    Zimmerman has no business confronting Martin. He's not a licensed law officer. That's the crux of this case and where his claim of self defense rings hollow. He left his car and he's the aggressor.  If that is not the case, then my mistake, but it sure sounds like what is what even the defense was claiming with how it unfolded.

     

    The fact they didn't allow manslaughter or they didn't convict him of 2nd degree in this case is a travesty of the legal system.

    This basically means anyone can walk around pretending they are a cop and if they are attacked by someone who is scared or wondering why a loony bird, thinking he is a cop, is stalking them on a street at night, they are the one who is in the wrong.

    We got some problems in this country.  Money can make things seem VERY illogical most of the time, that's for sure.

    Lots of whiteys sending in cash to the Zimmerman team, which is a shame.  Another trial, bought and sold in Florida.

     




    He does not have to be a police officer to confront anyone.  He has the same rights as a security officer or any private person for that matter.

    He was part of a crime fighting organization supported and enforced by the police.

    Once again and as usual, you make up things and present them as facts,when they are no where near factual.  

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from PatsEng. Show PatsEng's posts

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    In response to portfolio1's comment:

     

    Once again - it is astounding that you do not give an unarmed teen the right to defend himself from a larger, adult, armed male who has been following him.. and in the eyes of that teen maybe stalking him. 

     

     

     



    did you read my post at all? I said that he could defend himself and that if he had kill Zimmerman and not the reversed that he'd have a  great case for self defense too. Read my post again because I specifically said he had the right to defend himself I just said it might have been the wrong choice just the same as it was wrong for Zimmerman to confront Martin. I don't care who you are, if you are beating someone and going for their gun there is a good chance you are going to get shot or you will kill the other person. Martin had other choices and that was the one he chose same as Zimmerman had choices other than to confront the kid. Why is everything black or white with no grey? Couldn't they both have the right to defend themselves but both make the wrong choices?

    We don't know who attacked who first. But what if Zimmerman said "Neighborhood watch what are you doing here" and Martin instantly turned around started screaming in his face clocked him and started to beat Zimmerman on the ground and was reaching for Zimmermans gun? Do you think Martin made the right choice and Zimmerman who thought this kid was a criminal to begin with was justified in shooting someone who was clearing attacking to the point he could of killed him?

    Of course there's the other scenerio where Zimmerman just started yelling racial slurs telling Martin he was going to shot him and Martin attacked not knowing whether or not Zimmerman was just some nut job. In that scenerio than Martin made the right choice imo as you didn't know what was going on.

    Two different scernerios with both just as likely as the other. In one case than wrong choices were made on both parties in the other only Zimmerman is to be blame and Martin was right feeling he was going to die. Either way the events happened and could have happened regardless of color or age in the right context.

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from PatsEng. Show PatsEng's posts

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    btw prot, Zimmerman was 5'7" 207, obese yes but not a big man at all. Martin was 5'11" and 160 built like a high school athlete. Size wise Martin had the advantage not Zimmerman.


    I swear by lil 10 pound bearded baby Jesus

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from RallyC. Show RallyC's posts

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    In response to russgriswold's comment:

    In response to PatsEng's comment:

     

    btw prot, Zimmerman was 5'7" 207, obese yes but not a big man at all. Martin was 5'11" and 160 built like a high school athlete. Size wise Martin had the advantage not Zimmerman.


    I swear by lil 10 pound bearded baby Jesus

     




    Who was the aggressor?  It wasn't Martin. That's the difference.   Yes, I know you have me on ignore because you're an insecure Millenniall. lol

     

    Russ, Once TM hit GZ, he became the law breaker and aggressor.  TM was the no longer the "innocent teenager." Period. I can stand and yell at you in public all I want and if you hit me, I can shoot you if I feared for my life during the incident. Thats just how it works. YOU CAN'T just go hitting folks just becasue you don't like what they are saying. Moral of the story? Be careful who you hit because they may shoot you and get away with it BECAUSE its the Shooter's word against a dead guy's. AND AS WE SEE, DEAD GUYS CAN'T TALK! EOS.

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from seawolfxs. Show seawolfxs's posts

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

     wow - it is as tough to read some of this as to Nancy Grace

    1) Any celebrity who opens their mouth is an idiot - especially a pro athelete and then there is beyonce - who is married to a gangsta rapper who pushes violence to kids just like TW

    2) Some people here are basically saying GZ "hunted "TW down - no proof of that what ever

    TW  had the opportunuity to run and get home - if you argue about stand your ground for GZ how about TW? shouldnt he a have run also? - Once he was pounding the crap out of GZ - shouldn't he have left? But who knows - once  a fight starts - anything and everything is possible

    Self Defense is a right to eveyone and no government is going to take it away from me

    3) this kid was no angel - - check out his cell phone - i read where he blind jumped and beat up a bus driver a few mths b4 - and why was he at his Dad's house? he was suspended from school as i understand it - and remember he couldn't have been too scared cause he went after GZ - saying " Do you have a problem?" Basd on the evidnece - not hard to believe TW could have jumped him - - I;m just saying i refuse to put this kid on a pedastal - he shouldn't have died but ... we all make bad choices growing up - and this was one -

    4) GZ said he was walking from his car to where he was going to meet the cops whilke TALKING to the 911 operator - so he called the cops so then he could hunt down TW? and then shoot him ? Really?

    5) When the cops tried to trap GZ in a contradiction they told him that they had a video of the whole thing - and GZ said " thank god" - sure sounds like he didn't tell the truth - right!and then  Detective testified that he believed GZ's story and believed him

    6)However, I am now waiting for the record of movements of the cell phones - since we now know they do this- that may be the best bet as to where and when everything happened - and it is possible that then and only then to say GZ was in the wrong in any way - and then I will have no problem changing my mind

    7) Even Dershowtiz - said this trial should never have been tried - and there was no Grand Jury - you can believe what ever you want - but in the end there wasn't one shred of evidence against GZ - Ya just have to go beyond "An Adult  w/ a gun and "child" with only candy and tea - and yelling and screainng liar liar pants on fire - doesn't get me to put a man in prizon for 30 yrs  - sorry - there are alot of 17 yo kids in Chicago who are killers

    8) TW's family has already collected $1M from the Home Owners association

    9) GZ voted for Obama

    This was a Media, PC and race baiting story from the beginning to end - feeding on low info type people who "heard" but never "listened" to any evidence - some of these blacks should try and get off the Government plantation and away from their over wrought feelings of current day persecution

    And b4 anybody goes off on me - i am a MWM, married to a black hispanic woman and have a child and have spent many sundays in a Black church and also Hispanic church

    Pat's Fan lost in Jet Land

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from sportsbozo1. Show sportsbozo1's posts

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    In response to seawolfxs' comment:

     wow - it is as tough to read some of this as to Nancy Grace

    1) Any celebrity who opens their mouth is an idiot - especially a pro athelete and then there is beyonce - who is married to a gangsta rapper who pushes violence to kids just like TW

    2) Some people here are basically saying GZ "hunted "TW down - no proof of that what ever

    TW  had the opportunuity to run and get home - if you argue about stand your ground for GZ how about TW? shouldnt he a have run also? - Once he was pounding the crap out of GZ - shouldn't he have left? But who knows - once  a fight starts - anything and everything is possible

    Self Defense is a right to eveyone and no government is going to take it away from me

    3) this kid was no angel - - check out his cell phone - i read where he blind jumped and beat up a bus driver a few mths b4 - and why was he at his Dad's house? he was suspended from school as i understand it - and remember he couldn't have been too scared cause he went after GZ - saying " Do you have a problem?" Basd on the evidnece - not hard to believe TW could have jumped him - - I;m just saying i refuse to put this kid on a pedastal - he shouldn't have died but ... we all make bad choices growing up - and this was one -

    4) GZ said he was walking from his car to where he was going to meet the cops whilke TALKING to the 911 operator - so he called the cops so then he could hunt down TW? and then shoot him ? Really?

    5) When the cops tried to trap GZ in a contradiction they told him that they had a video of the whole thing - and GZ said " thank god" - sure sounds like he didn't tell the truth - right!and then  Detective testified that he believed GZ's story and believed him

    6)However, I am now waiting for the record of movements of the cell phones - since we now know they do this- that may be the best bet as to where and when everything happened - and it is possible that then and only then to say GZ was in the wrong in any way - and then I will have no problem changing my mind

    7) Even Dershowtiz - said this trial should never have been tried - and there was no Grand Jury - you can believe what ever you want - but in the end there wasn't one shred of evidence against GZ - Ya just have to go beyond "An Adult  w/ a gun and "child" with only candy and tea - and yelling and screainng liar liar pants on fire - doesn't get me to put a man in prizon for 30 yrs  - sorry - there are alot of 17 yo kids in Chicago who are killers

    8) TW's family has already collected $1M from the Home Owners association

    9) GZ voted for Obama

    This was a Media, PC and race baiting story from the beginning to end - feeding on low info type people who "heard" but never "listened" to any evidence - some of these blacks should try and get off the Government plantation and away from their over wrought feelings of current day persecution

    And b4 anybody goes off on me - i am a MWM, married to a black hispanic woman and have a child and have spent many sundays in a Black church and also Hispanic church

    Pat's Fan lost in Jet Land

    Tavon Wilson has nothing to do with this story. TM Trayvon Martin is the young man who is the deadman.


     

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from RallyC. Show RallyC's posts

    Re: George Zimmerman Verdict

    In response to russgriswold's comment:

     

    In response to RallyC's comment:

     

    In response to russgriswold's comment: 

     

    In response to PatsEng's comment:

      

    btw prot, Zimmerman was 5'7" 207, obese yes but not a big man at all. Martin was 5'11" and 160 built like a high school athlete. Size wise Martin had the advantage not Zimmerman.


    I swear by lil 10 pound bearded baby Jesus




    Who was the aggressor?  It wasn't Martin. That's the difference.   Yes, I know you have me on ignore because you're an insecure Millenniall. lol

     

      

    Russ, Once TM hit GZ, he became the law breaker and aggressor.  TM was the no longer the "innocent teenager." Period. I can stand and yell at you in public all I want and if you hit me, I can shoot you if I feared for my life during the incident. Thats just how it works. YOU CAN'T just go hitting folks just becasue you don't like what they are saying. Moral of the story? Be careful who you hit because they may shoot you and get away with it BECAUSE its the Shooter's word against a dead guy's. AND AS WE SEE, DEAD GUYS CAN'T TALK! EOS.

     

     


    Russ, you may not like the answers to your questions/statements, but here is the TRUTH:

    That's not true or at least shouldn't be. Are you telling me if someone was following you in a car, got out, approached you in this free country of ours, you would in no way feel like you might need to defend yourself?

     

    It is true. You cannot strike someone except in self defense. The person who strikes the other better have real evidence that the person who they hit was in process of physically harming them. NOT JUST VERBALLY ABUSING. If someone was following me in a car, they are not breaking the law unless they follow me onto private property. I may, and have defended myself in similar situations BUT THAT DOESN'T MAKE IT RIGHT. YOU CAN'T HIT ANYONE unless you have proof that you were defending yourself against physical harm. No stop asking questions, that can be answered by common sense, man.

    Are you serious?

    Yes, I am serious.

    How can you be serious?  If I walk out my door right now in a city and some crackhead on a bike, approached me, heckling me for change and the gets more aggressive, I might knock  his tooth loose if I need to.

    I am serious becasue I am telling you the truth. Period. Not my opinion, the factual, legal truth. AND, crack head probably would just go away becasue crack heads don't want to see cops because they are crack heads. However, a smart crackhead puts you in jail for striking him and is right according to the law for doing so.

    I am the aggressor?  No, I am not. I was harrassed and threatened by someone  I don't know and who is not identifying themselves with any authority to be approaching or questioning me.  Why do you think homeless people are given vests to beg on the streets? So people realize they are just begging and not about to jump and mug you. That's why. It's called identifying oneself.

    And? Nothing you say here proves a thing. None of it has any nexus to the GZ / TM situation.

    You're clueless on what the law is and who is deemded the aggressor.  Barring evidence of Martin trying to carjack Zimmerman's car or evidence of Martin initiating the confrontation, you're flat out incorrect.

    I am absolutely, 100% right. It is not illegal to be an aggressor as long as you don't threaten the other person's life or make contact with the other person. That is a fact. Injuries are are the only real way to prove an actual threat if ther are no other witnesses. PERIOD. Russ, I'm not arguing with you man. I'm telling you a fact. I know the law intimately. Do you recall me mentioning that I have a TS Clearance and that I work with the US government? Well, it has something to do with law enforcement. 

    This is where the jurors are morons.  Zimmerman admits to leaving his car. That right there is an admission of initiating the confrontation and where he was wrong.

    It is not illegal, despite not being recommended for personal security reasons, for a concerned citizen to leave their car to go question suspicious activity, and he is a known neighborhood watch member. THE IS NOTHING ILLEGAL OR EVEN WRONG about asking someone unfamiliar to you in your neighborhood that has been victimized by recent crime, "Who are you, what are you doing here?" The law does not prevent anyone from asking strangers questions. Or, leaving their car to do so. Sorry, man, no matter how much you don't agree. I am certain I am right about this.

    Come on man, don't get irritated with me for giving you the straight truth, Russ. I'm only telling you facts, not my opinion.

     

     

     
  • Sections
    Shortcuts

    Share