jump to last post 1-19 of 19 discussions (397 posts)

Was it George Zimmerman or Trayvon Martin screaming for help?

  1. vveasey profile image83
    vveaseyposted 3 years ago

    http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6804009.jpg
    If Martin's hand was covering Zimmerman's mouth as he claims, wouldn't the screams have sounded muffled? Zimmerman's DNA wasn't found on Martin's hands so was it Zimmerman or Martin screaming?

    1. wilderness profile image97
      wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Apparently both, in perfect unison.

      Mothers of both have testified that it was THEIR son screaming - that because they are a mother they could easily recognize the voice.

    2. 60
      retief2000posted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Good, the neighbor who saw one man sitting on the other man pounding on him with both fists, testified that the man on the bottom was calling for help.  The man on the bottom was Zimmerman as evidenced by the neighbor's description of events he witnessed and the medical examiners testimony.  Zimmerman does not have to prove his innocence - he is, by condition of law, innocent.  The prosecution must prove  beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman is guilty.

      It is unlikely that the prosecution, in the typical over reach, will get a murder conviction.  After their interviews with Zimmerman immediately following the shooting, the police had concluded that he had acted in self defense.  It was not until the bogus photo of a smiling little boy in his 7th grade football uniform was circulated, as if it was a contemporary photo of an angry, grown teenager, that the political branch of law enforcement - the prosecutor's office - felt the public and racial pressure to charge Zimmerman.

      This has been a show trial, much like the Rodney King case, and because it has been in bad faith from the beginning, likely to end the same, with carnage in the streets.  The court has systematically refused to permit any evidence of Martin's frame of mind offered by the defense.  Though the prosecution couldn't help but reveal his racist language via the testimony of someone, who in many ways resembles the Martin we have come to know since his death, his girl friend.

      If the prosecution had, instead, charged Zimmerman with multiple lesser offences, the likelihood of conviction would go up.  Instead we are treated to a trial whose sole purpose is to quiet a racial storm stirred up by the usual suspects, the ones who blow into a situation; understand nothing of it; kick over a hornets nest and leave town.

      The prosecutor was cowardly, Al Sharpton and Barrack Obama were inflammatory and the media was complicit in stripping George Zimmerman of his liberty, security and expectation of privacy.  The villain here is not the man whose head was being bashed against the ground but a political philosophy that says "white men are always the villain" even when they are Hispanic.

    3. rhamson profile image76
      rhamsonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      It doesn't matter who was screaming the whole scene was out of control when Zimmerman ignored the directive from the police dispatcher to stand down. After that it was academic and only one person really knows what happened. It is as the old adage says, leave no witness to harm you.

      1. 60
        retief2000posted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Zimmerman had already been harmed and fought for his life as anyone would do if in a similar situation.  Sadly, too few place a little blame on Martin for not rushing home - he was near home when killed - but, instead, turning to attack Zimmerman.  People usually aren't really good, long term liars - unless they practice a lot like politicians or actors.

        1. rhamson profile image76
          rhamsonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Zimmerman provoked the attack by following him and going against the dispatchers directives. Plain and simple. But for Zimmerman ignoring this order Martin would still be alive. Martin had done nothing wrong until Zimmerman started the ball rolling. What would Zimmerman have lost if he listened to the dispatcher? Martin lost his life because of it.

          1. 60
            Lie Detectorposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            No, Martin started the altercation when he assaulted Zimmerman! again, 911 operators have no authority to issue orders.

            1. rhamson profile image76
              rhamsonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              You seem to be getting ahead of yourself. Zimmerman provoked the attack by following Martin and thereby provoking a response that the dispatcher was trying to prevent. Zimmerman always had the upper hand with the handgun in his possession. If Martin did indeed, as you say, start the fight then he did it out of fear for his own well being. He has just as much a right to defend himself against somebody that is stalking him as it presents a reasonable element of fear. As you suggest the police dispatcher had no authority to order Zimmerman to back down but did let Zimmerman know the police policy and procedure with regard to his actions. Zimmerman chose to ignore the order/advise and Martin is now dead as a result.

              1. wilderness profile image97
                wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                It can just as easily be said that Martin was the root cause of his own death.  Had he simply waited for Zimmerman and opened a quiet conversation with him it would not have happened.  Had he run home instead of doubling back it would not have happened.  Had he called 911 himself it would not have happened.  Had he knocked on a door and asked for help it would not have happened.

                Instead he chose to flatten the nose of a neighborhood watchman. 

                Martin chose to ignore all peaceful possibilities and instead opened his response with violence. 

                There were two people there that night, and neither one used a lick of sense in what they did.

              2. HowardBThiname profile image91
                HowardBThinameposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                rhamson, if Zimmerman provoked the attack by getting out and following Martin (which was legal), is a victim of rape responsible for her attack if she walks down a dark alley at night?

                1. Uninvited Writer profile image84
                  Uninvited Writerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  But that could mean you are saying the woman is more guilty of the rape than the man who followed her.

                  1. HowardBThiname profile image91
                    HowardBThinameposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    My point is that -- as long as someone is not doing something illegal to another person -- should they be held responsible if their action results in the other person committing a crime against them? I've heard too many excuses from rapists that want us to believe that the woman was "asking for it" by walking alone at night - or by wearing suggestive clothing.

                    What Zimmerman did was stupid and probably very annoying - but it wasn't illegal. So - is that justification for Martin assaulting him?

                2. PrettyPanther profile image86
                  PrettyPantherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  A woman walking down a dark alley is minding her own business. GZ was not only not minding his own business he was engaging in behavior toward another person that would likely cause that person to experience great fear of bodily harm.  Even worse, GZ was a grown man creating fear in a minor.

                  1. 60
                    Lie Detectorposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Neither of those things are illegal!

                    Not guilty!

                  2. Seth Winter profile image85
                    Seth Winterposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    PrettyPanther, if Trayvon was SO afraid why didn't he run home? Zimmerman told the dispatcher that he lost Trayvon, Trayvon was near his home. Instead Trayvon decided to confront Zimmerman again, and call his girlfriend instead of the cops...sounds like he was terrified. lol

    4. A.Villarasa profile image80
      A.Villarasaposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      @vveasey:

      The jury obviously believed that while George Zimmerman followed (as he should, since he was performing  his  duties as a neighborhood watcher) Trayvon Martin, the situation should have ended there.... with Trayvon walking away from George, and George going his way when Trayvon was not in the vicinity of his neighborhood. BUT for whatever reason, a scuffle ensued, and George found himself on the losing end of that when Trayvon  punched him on the nose then jumped on top of him, started to slam his head against the pavement. He cried for help, and since no one did help him, he grabbed for his gun and shot Trayvon close range, on the chest. Self-defense, pure and simple. The jury obviously believed the above narrative, because they found him NOT GUILTY of 2nd degree murder, and manslaughter.

      That should be the end of that, but the purveyors of racial strife, just had to get their few ounces of  invective peroration.

      A majority of the American people, agrees with the jury that what happened during that dark and rainy night in Florida had nothing to do with racial animosity.

      1. Seth Winter profile image85
        Seth Winterposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Tell that to Eric Holder

      2. 60
        Lie Detectorposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        As does the FBI

      3. 60
        retief2000posted 3 years ago in reply to this

        +

    5. Don W profile image82
      Don Wposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      1) Does a not guilty verdict mean Zimmerman was telling the truth? Nope. It just means a jury found that the state failed to prove Zimmerman committed murder 2 or manslaughter, beyond a reasonable doubt. It does not mean Zimmerman told the truth, and it does not mean his actions were right.

      2) Is it a fact that Martin started a physical confrontation with Zimmerman? Nope, but it has been stated as a fact throughout this thread. It is in fact an unproven allegation. There is no objective evidence to support it, other than Zimmerman's own account of events. It is entirely possible that Zimmerman started a physical confrontation, e.g. by grabbing Martin, before a fight ensued, but there is no objective evidence to support or refute that. Those stating that either scenario is anything more than an allegation are being disingenuous. 

      3) Is it really that difficult to understand the response from the black community? This is being seen through the prism of hundreds of years of injustice where white perpetrators of violence against black people have not been convicted (and no, OJ Simpson does not cancel out those injustices). Compare that to a disproportionate number of black people who have been falsely convicted, or have unsafe convictions. So for many this case is the latest on that long list of injustices. Is that entirely fair? Perhaps not, but it is being loaded with that significance, and dismissing this fact is likely adding insult to injury.

      4) Should neighbourhood watch groups adopt some kind of hi-visibility clothing that is instantly recognisable (surely it is better to deter criminal activity through being visible, than to detect it through creeping around following people)?

      5) Did having a gun give Zimmerman a sense of security that caused him to take risks he would not have otherwise taken, which lead to a person's death? Would he have felt confident enough to follow Martin, rather than wait for police, if he had not been armed with a gun?

      6) Was this a case of racial profiling, or age, race and class profiling? Would Zimmerman have considered Martin to be "suspicious" if Martin were a older, whiter, and more affluent looking? In casting "suspicion" on groups of individuals based on their outward appearance, does that in fact help to criminalise those individuals? E.g. if someone is constantly stopped and searched by figures of authority for no other reason than they look a certain way, doesn't that foster mistrust, resentment and anger towards authority?

      7) Is the legal system in general institutionally racist?

      1. wilderness profile image97
        wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        1.  Agreed, although I would add that the verdict should mean that far less weight is given to the idea of actual guilt.  From the very words it is obvious that there is reasonable doubt to conclude that Zimmerman is guilty.

        2.  True, for the most part.

        3.  Difficult?  No, but very sad.  That there is an entire community that concludes guilt based primarily on skin color plainly means that there is a community of racists - something we have tried very hard to stamp out.

        4.  Possibly, but there are considerations.  Will such clothing do anything if the watcher is in a car, where they belong?  Will the clothing simply move the crime to a different neighborhood without ever helping to stop it?  I think I would probably support it, but there ARE other considerations.

        5.  Opinion only, based solely on personal reaction, but probably so.  Zimmerman would likely have stayed in his car if unarmed.

        6.  There is no indication of racial profiling.  Indeed, Zimmerman failed to give that pertinent information to the 911 operator until asked - information useful to police to ID the suspect.  But while "profiling" has become a nasty word it is something we all do, and is quite necessary to simply get by today.  We profile based on our past experience, on our training (if any).  Had Zimmerman seen an elderly woman in a wheelchair he would have undoubtedly "profiled" her as safe and might even have wheeled her home.  Profiling is not used only to grow suspicion.

        Another example here might be the TSA insisting that a person wearing adult incontinence protection be searched.  The public is in an uproar because they have profiled such individuals as safe, while TSA is quite well aware that wearing such clothing indicates nothnig of the sort.

        Finally, profiling is necessary.  There aren't enough police to randomly stop everyone - they must make their best guess as to which individuals are more likely to actually be criminals.  Nor is it reasonable to wait for a crime to occur to make any move at all; that's how people get hurt. 

        8.  No.  It is undeniable that some cops/judges/lawyers/lawmakers are racist, just as some people outside the system are.  Nor is it deniable that in certain locations most of those arrested are of a certain race, although the race varies by location.  Neither, though, indicates that the system itself is composed primarily of racist people.

      2. A.Villarasa profile image80
        A.Villarasaposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        @DonW:
        The worst violence and injustice inflicted by whites on blacks is SLAVERY. Slavery is an un-erasable  blot  that will forever stain American History. Despite the eradication of slavery approximately one and a half century ago, injustices  committed by whites on blacks continued sporadically well into the end of the just concluded century... and now that  the 1st decade of this our new  century has barely passed, the eternal hope is that racial disharmony  would indeed be a thing of the past. Not if the purveyors of racial disharmony (Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Obama/Holder, White supremacists, MSNBC etc) have anything to say or do  anything about it.
        The jurors, the prosecutors, the judge, and the defense  lawyers have all agreed that what happened on that rainy and dark Florida night one year ago had nothing to do with racial animosity. And here we are barely a week after the jury verdict, these purveyors of racial disharmony are busy stirring up the pot of racial strife. SHAME ON THEM.

        1. wilderness profile image97
          wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          +1  It is with great disgrace that the racists of the country continue their racial attack on someone that apparently didn't have a racist bone in their body.  Zimmerman had great faults, absolutely so, but being racist was not one of them and those claiming otherwise do themselves and the country a disservice with their own racism.

          1. Don W profile image82
            Don Wposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            The suggestion that race was a factor in this incident is not racism. That is a misuse of the term and demonstrates lack of understanding of its meaning. Those people suggesting race was a factor (not just black people by the way ) are not suggesting Zimmerman is inferior in some way because he is Hispanic. That would be racism. The main criticisms appear to be that:

            1) prejudice based on Martin's appearance (including his race) was a factor in Zimmerman's negative attitude towards him, which prompted him to think he was "suspicious".

            2) a disproportionate number of white people accused of violence against black people (especially police officers or those related to law enforcement) are not convicted, compared to black people accused in similar circumstances.

            3) in not arresting Zimmerman until 6 weeks after the incident, Sandford police department showed racial bias because the victim was black and the perpetrator was not black (based on previous complaints that a white relative of a Sanford police officer accused of violence against a black man was not charged).

            Whether you believe those opinions are correct or incorrect, none of them constitute racism. If you think they do, please explain your reasoning.

            1. Don W profile image82
              Don Wposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Just saw this, which describes the context of the reaction to this verdict much more eloquently than I have.

              http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl … AQQ#t=132s

            2. wilderness profile image97
              wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              They most certainly do constitute racism.

              1) Martin's race had no apparent bearing on Zimmerman's assessment of his threat.  Nevertheless the claims was immediately made that it did, a claim based solely on race differential.  Zimmerman was declared racist because he was not black.

              2)  Whatever the proportion is (and I don't truly doubt that your claim has merit) that has no bearing on the claim that a specific person behaved in a racist manner.  Or at least it shouldn't; it obviously did and that makes the claim racist in itself.

              3)  Hindsight tells us that the local cops were correct in that the charges eventually filed were unprovable.  Nevertheless, the claim was quickly made that the cops, too, were racist because the dead man was black and they did not immediately charge the white man perceived responsible for the crime.  Not because they didn't have a case to prove, mind you, but because Martin was black and everyone knows that white cops don't arrest white men for killing a black man.  A most racist claim - noone blind to race would make such a claim without evidence in that specific case.

              1. Don W profile image82
                Don Wposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                The everyday experiences of many black people leads them to believe otherwise, as they have experienced being negatively profiled because of the colour of their skin. You may not be seeing this case through the same lens. For those who have experienced such prejudice, I would imagine the case has a deeply personal dimension to it. When you understand this, then the phrase "I am Trayvon Martin", takes on a moving and significant meaning. This case is being seen as the ultimate conclusion of a type of prejudice many people in the black community have experienced. Regardless of whether you or I understand that, the pain and anger being felt is very real. It cannot, and should not be dismissed or ignored.


                I agree, but the issue of race is an emotive one, and it is difficult to separate individual cases like this from the historic and personal context through which people are seeing it. Dismissing that context is unhelpful. It needs to be addressed, because that's the only way healing can take place.



                Untrue. Before the Trayvon case, Sanford PD received complaints that Justin Collison, a white police lieutenant's son, had received preferential treatment following a violent attack on a homeless black man. The attack was recorded on video tape, but Collinson was never arrested and no charges were brought. This was reported by CNN in 2011. Also, in 2010 Ned Golden and his colleague Jason Bowen, both officers with Sanford PD, were disciplined for sending sexist and racist messages from the computers inside their squad cars. Bowen was fired. Golden (who's father is the head of the police union) received a 2 week suspension. So complaints in the handling of the Trayvon Martin case were not motivated by reverse racism. There were previous instances of racial bias and preferential treatment within Sanford PD, years before Zimmerman shot Martin. Why do you are assume that those (mostly black) protesters were not well informed, concerned citizens with reasonable grounds for complaint? Why do you assume they were making an ignorant, unwarranted claim based purely on the race of the victim. I believe that is an example of unconscious racism at work right there.

                1. wilderness profile image97
                  wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  First, let me say that there is no such thing as "reverse racism".  Racism is racism regardless of the color of skin the person has.  The very term is offensive.

                  But how one's ancestors were treated in regards to racism has absolutely nothing to do with how we should treat others.  Although it can provide somewhat of a reason behind misbehavior it in no way absolves anyone of the need to scrub racism from their own actions.  It certainly does NOT provide an excuse to become racist yourself.

                  So the context you speak of can be taken in some small part as an understanding of why some are racists after being mistreated the same way.  It does NOT excuse the behavior and indeed exacerbates it as the racists themselves know what it means to be treated that way.

                  Sorry, can't agree with the last paragraph, either.  Calls were being made for arrest weeks before any competent investigation could be conducted (as in less than 24 hours).  Claims were being made that the cops were racist before they could ever have enough information for the DA to OK an arrest and charges.  And both were being made solely because of Zimmerman's skin color and not because Zimmerman did anything wrong or committed a crime; that's racism.

                  1. Don W profile image82
                    Don Wposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    There is very much such a thing as reverse racism and I encourage you to look up what it means.



                    This is not just about "ancestors". Historical injustices serve as a backdrop, but it is how people are still being treated today that is causing the angst. This is hitting a nerve because many black people, to this day, experience negative profiling because of the color of their skin, and it is galling that this is still the case. Those people in Florida who initially heard about the Trayvon Martin case reasonably concluded that this was another example of prejudice and racial bias based on their personal experience and the multiple instances of previous racial bias and corruption within Sanford PD. That is not reverse racism, it is simple reasoning. As yet no objective evidence has been presented to refute the claim that Sanford police were racially biased in the way they initially handled the case.


                    Let's be clear about this. Racist individuals within the majority social group can significantly affect society to the detriment of those in a minority social group. So on a personal level, racism is the same regardless of who it originates from. On a societal level there is a difference. If you are a white male, you are more likely to be President, more likely to be the CEO of a top 100 company, more likely to be a senator, senior police officer,or in a position of authority than say, a black female. So white men (majority group), can have more impact on black females (minority group) at societal level, even though on an individual a black female can be racist towards a white man. Therefore claims that black people can be racist are irrelevant to the fact that white people are in the majority and can therefore impact society more significantly through existing power structures than black people (yes, even with a black President).


                    An arrest is just holding someone in custody while an investigation is undertaken. It prevents a suspect from causing further harm, absconding, or disposing of evidence relevant to that investigation. It does not infer guilt. People can be arrested then released if there is insufficient evidence to charge. To make an arrest a police officer only needs probable cause, i.e. the reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed, is being committed or is about to be committed. A dead boy, and a man with the gun that fired the bullet is enough probable cause to make an arrest, let alone the suspect admitting that he killed the person. The claim of self defence should have been taken as exactly that, a claim, until evidence could be gathered to establish the facts. George Zimmerman should have been arrested on suspicion of murder while those facts were investigated. He could then have been arraigned or released depending on whether sufficient evidence was found to charge. That's basic police work. Instead George Zimmerman was not arrested until 6 weeks after he shot and killed Trayvon Martin. Combined with previous, multiple instances of corruption and racial bias within Sanford PD, and it is entirely reasonable that people concluded (rightly or wrongly) that procedures had not been followed, and that racial bias was a factor.

        2. Don W profile image82
          Don Wposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          You imply those injustices have stopped. They haven't. Injustices (big and small) continue to be committed against black people every day. Has there been improvement? Yes. Have social attitudes changed over the years? Yes. Is the issue of white people being racist towards black people, and institutional racism a thing of the past? Absolutely not.


          So anyone who suggests an injustice is racially motivated is a racist? What an ignorant thing to say. And your implication that Sharpton, Jackson, Obama and Holder are the same as white supremacists is odious. By that standard Martin Luther King Jnr., Mahatma Gandhi and Nelson Mandela are the same as white supremacists. Do you understand that it is not just black people who are suggesting race was a factor in this incident? Many people, of all backgrounds, believe race was a factor. Are you suggesting they are all racists? Falsely accusing people of racism because they believe race was a factor in an injustice, is a pathetic attempt to deflect from the issue and does you no credit.


          Rubbish. They did not agree anything of the sort. The jury agreed that the state had not proven Zimmerman guilty of the charges against him beyond a reasonable doubt. That's all. No more, no less. The jury made no judgement about whether race was a factor. That would have been beyond the jury's remit. The issue of race here is a social issue, not a legal one. The jury delivered a verdict on the legal issue only.


          Again, the verdict is irrelevant to the social issue being discussed in relation to this case. That verdict speaks to the legal issue, not the issue of race. Zimmerman was not charged with being racist. He was charged with 2nd degree murder, and was found not guilty of that charge. That does not say anything about whether race was a factor in his actions on that day.

          1. wilderness profile image97
            wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            "So anyone who suggests an injustice is racially motivated is a racist?"

            You're right - such a thing is ignorance personified.  However.  A claim that race played a part when no information at all is available (or ever would be!) is just as ignorant, and almost always comes from the racist attitude that every individual of a particular race is racist.

          2. A.Villarasa profile image80
            A.Villarasaposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            @Don:
            I most certainly did not imply that  injustices of the racial kind have stopped. I mainly stated my belief that it should stop....perhaps, a pipe dream on my part, given the current  still very deep racial divide in the country, exemplified by the different response to the jury verdict.


            I am neither suggesting nor implicating racism on the part of Obama/Holder, Sharpton/Jackson,  MSNBC/NAACP... I am mostly infering  that with their rhetorical  flair and commentary, they are stirring the pot of racial disharmony. not because of racist ideology, but because of political expediency (Holder/Obama); monetary gain (Sharpton/Jackson/NAACP) and  liberal angst(MSNBC).

            Of course the judge, prosecutors, defense attorneys and ultimately the jury  all agreed that  what happened on the rainy and dark night in Florida had nothing to do with racial bias. If you say otherwise, then you  were not listening to what they have respectively said  before and during and after the court trial. Two of the jury members after their verdict talked to the press, and both said that race had nothing to do with what happened that night. If you still insist that i am wrong in this regard you might want to review the transcrips of theirs various  public statements.

            Given that these various actors, having been intimatekly involved in the  evaluation of all the evidence in the case have concluded that  yes..... Zimmerman trailed (as part of his duty as a neighborhood watcher), scuffled with (but did not throw the first punch or any other kind of body blows)  and killed Trayvon Martin, purely on self defense motivation, not racial prejudice.... then  I would give them a lot more credence than all the other bloviators on TV, Newspapers, and Social media combined.

            1. Don W profile image82
              Don Wposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              I think the President's comments were very balanced.


              George Zimmerman was never on trial for racial profiling, and the judge forbade any reference to racial profiling etc. That does not mean everyone agreed race was not a factor in the case. It means that race could not be considered as part of the case. The verdict doesn't even mean the jurors believe Zimmerman acted in self-defence. It just means they believe it cannot be proven beyond reasonable doubt that he did not. One of the jurors has said: "You can't put the man in jail even though in our hearts we felt he was guilty". The verdict does not mean Zimmerman was not racially profiling Martin, and it does not mean that his account of events was truthful. It means lack of evidence. Nothing more, nothing less.


              Again, the jury's opinion only matters in one regard: whether or no Zimmerman should be found guilty of the charges against him. Outside of that narrow purview, their opinions have no more weight than yours or mine. As a juror's comments suggest, some jurors thought Zimmerman was "guilty", but the evidence offered by the prosecution did not meet the burden of proof required for a guilty verdict.

              Not being found guilty of a crime, does not mean Zimmerman did not wrong. Legal does not always equate to right.

              1. 60
                retief2000posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                It does mean that he is innocent.  Not in the liberal morality sense of the word, as in, he is innocent of reasonably suspecting a teenage black male alone at night in the rain of possible criminal intent, but in the legal sense of the words, as in, he is a citizen of the United States, which means less everyday, and therefore is not subject, no matter how much the Third World impulses of Obama/Holder compel, to a kangaroo court and Kingly caprice.

                1. Cody Hodge5 profile image83
                  Cody Hodge5posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  So that's why the jurors were pointing to the wording of the law as the only reason why he wasn't convicted?

                  1. 60
                    retief2000posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Immaterial, he is innocent because he is innocent and cannot be stripped of that innocence on a whim.  If he is anything like real criminals, say OJ or Rodney King, he will act out again.

                    Although I understand the frustration of having to follow laws rather than just scoop up the inconvenient Jews from the streets, accuse them of executing innocent little babies, like Trayvon, and slamming the jail door behind them, we are still, for now, a nation of laws - everyone but Holder/Obama - and those laws have limits for a reason, except the IRS, NSA, Justice Department, etc....

                    So once the wording of a law becomes inconvenient to Al Shaprton and Eric Holder's vendetta against a Jew, who had the temerity to defend his life against an attack from his racial superior, it must be ignored?

                2. Don W profile image82
                  Don Wposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  1) As I said, the evidence presented did not meet the burden of proof to convict Zimmerman of a criminal offence. That's all. I (and some of the jurors evidently) think he is a liar, with anger management issues (as shown by his previous convictions for beating up a woman and charges of battery against a law enforcement officer). I think on the balance of probability it is likely that he started the physical conflict with Martin in a frustrated effort to prevent him from getting away as he perceived Martin to be another "punk" who was going to "get away with it". I also think it is likely that Martin's physical appearance (including the color of his skin) was a factor in that perception. However, balance of probability is not the burden of proof required in a criminal court. Beyond reasonable doubt is. If I were on that jury I would also conclude that not guilty is the only verdict possible based on the charges made and the evidence presented.

                  2) One of the reasons this is an issue of race (aside from Zimmerman's personal perceptions and motivations) is that there are a disproportionate number of cases of black defendants who are convicted (and executed) even though the same burden of proof has not been met. I don't think justice would be served by convicting Zimmerman purely on emotive grounds, but I think justice would be served if the same burden of proof were consistently applied to all criminal cases, regardless of the defendant's or victims's color. Currently the perception is that white defendants get the benefit of the doubt more often than black defendants. And in a cruel twist of irony, we would not be having this conversation had George Zimmerman given Trayvon Martin the same benefit of the doubt the jury has just given him.

                  3) You are using the term "third world impulses" to denote lawlessness, lack of justice, and inconsistency of thought. Therefore you are assigning those negative attributes to entire populations of people. Moreover by using the term "third world" to refer to people you know are black, you are deliberately conflating being black with "third world impulses". The implication is that because the President and Attorney General are not white, they have "third world impulses", i.e. they are compelled towards lawlessness. In effect you have just said that (regardless of citizenship, level of education etc) non whites are compelled towards lawlessness. For that reason, I think your comment is racist. If you do not recognise, or do not understand how that is so, then multiply that lack of understanding up to societal level, and therein lies one of the issues of race in modern America. If you do understand how your comment is racist and intended it to be so, then you represent a big part of the problem.

                  1. 60
                    retief2000posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    1) ... his previous convictions....

                    WHAT!?!!?  apparently dropped charges, accusations and mutual restraining orders equal convictions - WOW!!  If accusations equaled convictions why wasn't Bill Clinton jailed for rape??

                    2) One of the reasons this is an issue of race

                    Yes, race is an issue - George Zimmerman's race.  If he used his mother's maiden name there would have been little attention paid to the case, as so little is paid to Hispanic and Black crime now.  Since his real name was used, Zimmerman, the anti-Semite Al Sharpton raced to Florida to make sure that no Jew got off for killing a Black "child."

                    3) You are using the term "third world impulses" to denote lawlessness, lack of justice, and inconsistency of thought. ... The implication is that because the President and Attorney General are not white,....

                    A scoundrel's retreat, cries of racism.  Eric Holder and Barrack Obama have demonstrated consistent contempt for the law going so far as to ignore Constitutionally charged responsibilities and openly proclaiming that if Congress employs its Constitutionally granted power the President will use executive fiat to by pass them.  If that is not a Third World impulse I don't know what is.  Actually, you may have a point, it sounds as much like Vladimir Putin as Hugo Chavez, so I suppose it could be a Second or Third World impulse. 


                    There are people who use the anonymity of the internet to say things that would get them punched in the nose and rightly so.  Keep your filthy liberal accusations that I am a racist to yourself.  I can think of nothing more hateful and vile.

  2. PrettyPanther profile image86
    PrettyPantherposted 3 years ago

    I find it implausible that George Zimmerman was screaming like that while reaching for his gun and shooting.  The screaming stops the instant the gun is shot, which leads me to believe the screamer was stopped by the gunshot.  However, we will never know for certain.

    One man is alive to tell his story; the other is dead.

    1. 60
      Lie Detectorposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I guess if you just shot your attacker there wouldn't be any more reason to scream. Did Zimmerman have a broken nose? Yes! Was it obvious he had been attacked? Yes!

      The prosecution is based solely on race and is a travesty.

      1. PrettyPanther profile image86
        PrettyPantherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        It was obvious he had been in a scuffle.  It is NOT obvious he was the victim of an attack.  Again, we have his side of the story, not the dead teenager's side.

        1. 60
          Lie Detectorposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          And?

          The prosecution is giving the "dead teenagers" side of the story, poorly!

          1. PrettyPanther profile image86
            PrettyPantherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            No, the prosecution is providing a case based on evidence from multiple sources; however, none of those sources include a narrative from Trayvon Martin, who is dead.

          2. vveasey profile image83
            vveaseyposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Here's the question if Trayvon Martin had his hand covering George Zimmerman's mouth as he claimed, if he was screaming wouldn't his screams sound muffled? Did the screams sound muffled?

            1. 60
              Lie Detectorposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Don't know, don't care, screams are just a sideshow.

              1. vveasey profile image83
                vveaseyposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                How are they "just a sideshow"? This is part of Zimmerman defense

                1. 60
                  Lie Detectorposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Maybe they play some significant role in this case, maybe I'm wrong. But since experts can't identify the scream using voice recognition it is not really useful to talk about. So in my opinion a sideshow.

                  1. PrettyPanther profile image86
                    PrettyPantherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    The screams stop INSTANTANEOUSLY with the sound of the gun.  They do not sound muffled.  Seems like they are quite useful.

                  2. vveasey profile image83
                    vveaseyposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Lie Detector
                    Here's why they may be significant. Zimmerman said that Martin covered his mouth to stop him from screaming and then reached for his gun so he had to shoot him. So wouldn't his screams sound muffled if that were true?

                    Zimmerman's nose was bleeding so if Martin had his hand covering Zimmerman's mouth, Zimmerman's DNA should have been detected on Martin's hands, but it wasn't. Doesn't this call into question the veracity of Zimmerman's account of the shooting? Or do you discount this fact as "just another sideshow"?

  3. Reality Bytes profile image93
    Reality Bytesposted 3 years ago

    Fourth Of July Violence In Chicago: Homicide Rate Passes 200 After Long Holiday Weekend Of Shootings

    Shootings in Chicago during the Fourth of July holiday weekend have left at least nine people dead and several dozen wounded, including two boys shot in different parks.

    The weekend's littlest victims included 5-year-old Jaden Donald and 7-year-old Christian Lyles, both shot late night on July 4 in separate incidents.

    Authorities also said a 17-year-old man was shot and killed by Chicago police Thursday after he allegedly pointed a gun at officers.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/0 … 58463.html

    Where is the outrage?  The media coverage?  The spectacle?

    1. 60
      Lie Detectorposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Doesn't have a race angle I guess!

      1. Credence2 profile image86
        Credence2posted 3 years ago in reply to this

        "What exactly is there to discuss? Martin attacked Zimmerman, more than likely he didn't know he had a gun and died for his efforts."

        Thats debatable........


        "Your opinion is Zimmerman stalked and murdered the poor defenseless skittle eating pepsi drinking angel".

        My opinion is that Zimmerman is out of line and that he provoked what occured by not staying in his vehicle and let sworn law enforcement officers deal with it. Had he done so, Martin might still be alive. Zimmerman was looking for an opportunity to express his pitiful manhood by accosting a 17 year old boy. If I were Martin, I would jump Zimmerman as well, 'what are you doing stalking me'. Is Trayvon's right to safety put on the wayside for some pathetic weak minded fool? Do you remember the case in Texas where the grandfather type shot two unarmed men in the back to keep them from robbing the neighbors house where they was danger to him nor the neighbors as they were out of town. You just cannot shoot whoever you want because you do not like their looks. Whatever it takes to defeat you and them, so let loose the dogs of war!

        "You won't change your opinion so why should I change mine."

        I know I won't change you opinion, thats OK. You just need to know that many of us are not buying it.

        I know what you are, and will ignore your cowardice.

        On the contrary, you know nothing about me, but the rightwinger is as transparent as glass even in its attempt to conceal itself.  I am not going give you ammunition to go cry babying to Hub Pages central accusing me of calling you a name. You may have been born yesterday, but I certainly wasn't!

        "I would have some respect for you if you had left your original post up."

        No, I would have made an easier target for you and obviously that is not what I want.

        1. 60
          Lie Detectorposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          By ignoring your cowardice I really meant I was going to ignore you.

          I guess I had to explain that to you.

          Thats sad.

          1. Credence2 profile image86
            Credence2posted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Obviously, you have been (ignoring me and those that don't agree with you)  since our conversation began, so what else is new? But thats OK, whatever floats your boat!

          2. Cody Hodge5 profile image83
            Cody Hodge5posted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Not any sadder than most conservatives on these boards being nothing more than trolls.....

    2. Credence2 profile image86
      Credence2posted 3 years ago in reply to this

      There is no denying, AC, that there are in fact plenty of thugs that meet the description that LD would like to attribute to every black man or boy. I am just as concerned about justice being done in Chicago as I am in Sanford Florida. But there is no question that what happened in Chicago is murder. Sanford brings up issues of whether people can use this Stand your Ground defense or anything else that allows one to  bypass the contributory factors of provocation that led to a tragic outcome to walk from what at least has to be considered manslaughter. The implications to similar law in other states could be far reaching, so it is more than just another murder case and such with the over the edge media coverage.

  4. 0
    Sooner28posted 3 years ago

    What's interesting is Trayvon's dad today testified that he wasn't sure who was screaming!  He is a witness with a bone to pick, and this is in addition to two detectives claiming Martin's dad told them immediately after the killing that it wasn't Martin's voice.

    I don't know if there is any way to say for sure who is screaming, but if we had to take it as given, the defense has a slight advantage here.

  5. Seth Winter profile image85
    Seth Winterposted 3 years ago

    Let's assume Zimmerman is guilty.

    That means Trayvon Martin was chased down. Confronted with a gun by Zimmerman. Allowed to yell for several seconds before Zimmerman shot him. And at some point Trayvon's knuckles got bruised up and Zimmerman's head was smashed in....that doesn't make sense.

    Zimmerman would of had to of had the gun pointed right at Trayvon otherwise why would he yell. And then if he was yelling why did Zimmerman allow him to yell? If Zimmerman intended to kill this boy, allowing him to yell would just increase the chances of someone peaking out of their windows. Remember Zimmerman is a bright guy or at least he was a top student in the Law Class he took.

    If it wasn't for the various race baiters this wouldn't be an issue. Thanks Sharpton, Jeese, and Obama.

    1. PrettyPanther profile image86
      PrettyPantherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      A few facts for you:

      1)  Trayvon's knuckles were not "bruised up."  The medical examiner testified that there were minor abrasions on the two outside knuckles.  He specifically said there were no contusions (bruising) or lacerations.  He also said the abrasions could have occurred before the incident, during, or as a result of falling to the ground.
      2)  Zimmerman's head was not "smashed in."  The lead investigator testified he believed GZ exaggerated his injuries and the intensity of the struggle.  Another medical examiner testified that "The injuries are so minor that the word slam implies great force," and "There was not great force used here."

      1. vveasey profile image83
        vveaseyposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Everyone it's ok to discuss the other issues of this incident but this is the question or questions to address on this thread and these questions are based on facts "If Martin's hand was covering Zimmerman's mouth as he claims, wouldn't the screams have sounded muffled? Did they sound muffled to you? Zimmerman's DNA wasn't found on Martin's hands so was it Zimmerman or Martin screaming?
        Will you answer this question?

        1. PrettyPanther profile image86
          PrettyPantherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          I did answer the question near the top of the thread.  The screams don't sound muffled to me and I agree that if Martin had first punched GZ then held his hands over his nose there should have been some DNA evidence on Martin's hands.

          1. vveasey profile image83
            vveaseyposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Cool. I didn't mean you personally I meant whom ever is posting

          2. wilderness profile image97
            wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Unless you believe that Z broke his own nose, I'm not sure the DNA (lack of) evidence is indicative of much.  I can't see M hitting hard enough to break a nose and still not having DNA on his hands - to me it throws that whole aspect into doubt.

            Far from an expert here, but when DNA is taken from a suspect it is done via a swab from inside the cheek.  Spittle does not carry sufficient DNA for testing.  So how does putting a hand over the mouth produce enough cells containing DNA to find anyway?

            1. vveasey profile image83
              vveaseyposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              It's not the fact that Martin broke Zimmerman's nose. It's that Zimmerman claimed that when he started screaming, after his nose was broken and bloodied, that Martin covered Zimmerman's mouth so his screams wouldn't be heard. The evidence collector swapped Martin's hands because there was blood flowing out Zimmerman's nose, so they obviously thought that DNA evidence could be present and gathered. That how "enough cells containing DNA" could be found but they weren't found.

              1. vveasey profile image83
                vveaseyposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                And what about if Martin had his hand covering Zimmerman's mouth to muffled his screams, as Zimmerman claimed, wouldn't his screams sound muffled? Did they sound muffled to you?
                I'm not taking sides. I think these are relevant points.

                1. Seth Winter profile image85
                  Seth Winterposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Who is yelling is completely subjective, why are you guys tripping over it?

                  You can play this game all day. Well TM mother states it's her son, Z's family said it's was George screaming. TM father said it wasn't his son, but took it back. Bought and Paid for experts on both sides claim it was their guy and the FBI said they had no clue. Lets move on...

                  I'd like one of those who think Zimmerman is guilty to tell us how Trayvon ended up with broken skin on his knuckles and just a gun shot wound. No other wounds were found on TM body. Zimmerman just had wounds indicating a beating?

                  (Have a strange feeling that that question is going to be ignored or answer with a statement that they don't know but are going to try to place guilty anyways)

                  1. vveasey profile image83
                    vveaseyposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    You say "(Have a strange feeling that that question is going to be ignored or answer with a statement that they don't know but are going to try to place guilty anyways)"
                    That exactly what you did with the question about Zimmerman's claim that Martin covered his mouth so he couldn't scream. You dismiss this fact as being of  no consequence,  but this is part of Zimmerman's defense.
                    He said he had to shoot Martin because he covered Zimmerman's mouth with his hand to stop him from screaming then tried to reach for Zimmerman's gun.
                    Zimmerman's nose was bleeding so if Martin's hand was covering Zimmerman's mouth don't you think Zimmerman's blood/DNA should have been found on Martin's hand (it wasn't) and that his screams would have sounded muffled? (they didn't)
                    This goes to the credibility of Zimmerman's account of what happen don't you think? Or is his credibility not important to you?

                  2. PrettyPanther profile image86
                    PrettyPantherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    For the second time, the Medical Examiner testified that Martin did not have any lacerations (cuts) on his hands; he only had two minor abrasions, so minor that they could have happened simply by falling to the ground after being shot.

                    Also, George Zimmerman declined seeing a doctor the night of the shooting.  He went to get a doctor's note the next day because he was required by his employer.  The attending nurse testified that his nose "appeared" to be broken and she recommended he get x-rays.  He declined.

                    Just because GZ had injuries and Trayvon did not (except, of course, for the fatal gunshot wound) does not necessarily mean that Trayvon initiated the fight.  We only have GZ's word for that.  It IS clear that GZ followed Trayvon based on his own account.  The only reason anyone thinks Trayvon doubled back and attacked GZ is because GZ says so, hardly a credible source.

              2. wilderness profile image97
                wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Good point - that seems to make sense, that it was Z's blood they were looking for.

            2. PrettyPanther profile image86
              PrettyPantherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              I don't know if GZ broke his own nose, but since he didn't see a doctor until the next day and the photos from that night don't show any swelling or bruising, just some blood, one can wonder.  That, and no blood on Martin's hands.  You'd think there would be something on Martin's hands if GZ's story is true.

              1. 60
                retief2000posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                GZ's story doesn't have to be true, as we saw in the OJ case, all that has to happen is for the jury to decide that the prosecution did not cast enough doubt on GZ's innocence.

              2. wilderness profile image97
                wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                You would think there should be blood, yes.  A broken nose usually bleeds profusely and if M covered Z's mouth, you should certainly expect blood.

                It was raining (don't know how hard) and I suppose it could have washed off as I don't know how long the body lay in the rain before being covered.  I find that a little hard to believe, though, given the abilities of forensics today.

    2. Don W profile image82
      Don Wposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Seems there are two issues being played out: a legal and a social issue. The legal issue is not about whether Zimmerman set out to kill someone that day. He has been charged with second degree murder which by definition is a murder that is not planned in advance. The issue is whether or not Zimmerman acted in self-defence. That will be decided by a jury of his peers shortly.

      The social issue is about the fact that an unarmed minor lawfully going about his business, was deliberately followed by an adult, then fatally shot after he tried to run away. The reason this has blown up into a race issue is not only because a young black man who had committed no crime, was killed by a white man with a history of violence, but also because of the Sanford police department's apparent bias when dealing with the incident. This is exacerbated by the fact that prior to this the Sanford police department had been accused of taking no action against the relative of a white officer who had been involved in a violent incident with another black person.

      Rightly or wrongly the perception of those observing the case was/is that Sanford police were biased on grounds of race, which does raise the question, how would Sanford police department have reacted if they had found George Zimmerman lying dead with Trayvon Martin standing over him in possession of a gun. Would they have been as sympathetic to the claim of self-defence? I think many in the  local community would suggest they would have acted very differently (for example by arresting the person with the gun). So it is the perceived injustice, based on race, and the issues of vigilantism (aggravated by racial stereotyping) that is the main social issue. Sharpton, Jeese, and Obama have not turned this into a race issue. The alleged racially biased behaviour of Sandford police department and racial stereotyping by George Zimmerman did that already.

      1. Seth Winter profile image85
        Seth Winterposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I disagree.
        Sharpton
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SdYChiGWKU4
        When he says our lives...do you think he means "our" as in people or just black folks?

        Jesse Jackson
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tW1w0M9OV4s

        (And thing of note both these are Reverends and both are political figures in the news+both have been accused of being racists in past)

        Now lets look at Obama's son statement. We don't know who is innocent or guilty (yet) in this case. Trayvon (or Zimmerman) could of set out with the intent to commit murder. By Obama claiming his son would've looked like Trayvon, he's throwing his opinion behind Trayvon being innocent. Because what person in their right mind would say my son would look like James Holmes the Colorado mass shooting guy?

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wAPtUfOs7Gs

        1. Don W profile image82
          Don Wposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          It would still be considered a race issue without those comments, mainly because it is a race issue. Zimmerman was literally prejudiced. He pre-judged Martin on the grounds of race and socio-economic class. Also the fact that the police officer in charge of the crime scene received criticism in 2010 for failing to arrest an officer's son who had been videotaped assaulting a homeless black man, also meant there were allegations of corruption and racial bias. Those things make it a race issue. This did not become a race issue as a result of comments made by the people you mention. Rather those people made those comment because it was already perceived by many to be a race issue.

          In terms of what happened, of the two people involved, Zimmerman is the only one with a criminal record for violence (against a police officer and domestic violence). So for us observers of the case it is not unreasonable to form the view that his proven proclivity for violence, was a key factor in his decision to shoot martin. I don't think the jury will be allowed to consider that, but the public at large can, and it is largely they who will determine whether the verdict is perceived as justice or an injustice. Either way the case has racial connotations and will no doubt be discussed as part of the wider social issues surrounding race in the future.

  6. SpanStar profile image61
    SpanStarposted 3 years ago

    I read only a few days back that the doctors or forensic experts said Trayvon was shot through the heart and while still alive for about 7 minutes he was suffering from that gunshot.

    1. Seth Winter profile image85
      Seth Winterposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      And him suffering plays what role in determining a man's innocence or guilt how exactly?

      Should we find every evil man who suffered during his death and proclaim his innocence?

      1. SpanStar profile image61
        SpanStarposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Number 1 if Mister Zimmerman was this good person some of you seem to imply then there would be no question about the accusations that he's made but more than a few people do question what he has to say.

        The idea that we address suffering would indicate to the rest of the world that we are not the barbaric people the Bible has made us out to be but make no mistake the Bible does not see us apparently the way we see ourselves. If suffering doesn't move a person then who needs that person in life?

        1. Seth Winter profile image85
          Seth Winterposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          ....
          Stay away from drugs Span they are bad for you.

          1. SpanStar profile image61
            SpanStarposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Seth Winter,

            Try a self-evaluation and see if you can't elevate your ideology to a capacity compatible with society.

            1. Seth Winter profile image85
              Seth Winterposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Lol, and SpanStar stop using words too big for you. How exactly have my ideals deviated from what is compatible with society?

              By telling you drugs are bad? So are you telling me that in your society drugs are good? Or in your society is arguing that a suffering death suddenly negates any wrong doings that person might have caused?

        2. HowardBThiname profile image91
          HowardBThinameposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Spanstar - it doesn't matter whether Zimmerman is a "good" person or not. The only thing that matters is whether he feared for his life when he pulled the trigger. I haven't followed this case intently as some here have, but yesterday I read that a highly respected doctor verified much of Zimmerman's account, based on the trajectory of the bullet and Trayvon's position over Zimmerman.

          No one is saying that Zimmerman was not stupid to have followed Trayvon, but stupidity isn't against the law. Since Trayvon is dead, the Prosecution has spoken for him as best they can, through evidence and witnesses.

          I also read that the trial should be over soon and many are expecting Zimmerman to walk. Juries are unpredictable, however, so anything could happen. It really doesn't do for any of us to second-guess what either Trayvon or Zimmerman were thinking - because we'll never really know for sure.

          The jury will decide and I'm glad I don't have to.

          1. SpanStar profile image61
            SpanStarposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Howard,

            I'm afraid it does matter as to a person's character. In court or out-of-court people's character is judged.

            Being in fear of one's life isn't the only criteria for an example if I saw Mister Mike Tyson on the street and I decided I was going to punch his lights out by him now getting the best of me am I justified in reaching back and grabbing my AK-47 and killing him because I fear for my life?

            1. HowardBThiname profile image91
              HowardBThinameposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Spanstar - the jury is not SUPPOSED to judge on character. They are supposed to judge ONLY on the evidence and how it relates to the law. Some extremely slimy folks go free because the evidence was not there to convict. On the flip side, some nice and kind folks go to prison, because there was ample evidence to convict them.

              I'm afraid this has become a public popularity contest - and, let's face it - Zimmerman is kind of a pudgy, wannabe, doofus that none of us would buddy up to. But, that doesn't mean he should be convicted.

              The jurors should follow the letter of the law.

              I'm guessing that Zimmerman will walk. That's only because I think the defense presented "reasonable doubt."

              Zimmerman might be a guilty as sin - but it was a tough case to prove.

              I'll be kind of surprised if he is convicted - but if he is - I'll stand by the jury's decision, because they are the ones tasked with this unpleasant job.

  7. PrettyPanther profile image86
    PrettyPantherposted 3 years ago

    "The only thing that matters is whether he feared for his life when he pulled the trigger."

    This statement bothers me, especially in relation to this case.  George Zimmerman followed a teenager, at night, in the rain.  He wrongly profiled the teenager as a possible burglar.  He did his duty as a member of Neghborhood Watch by calling the police.  That wasn't enough.  Even after being told not to follow by the 911 operator, and in violation of his own training as a Neighborhood Watch member, he continued to follow the teenager.  He didn't identify himself.  He could have said "Hi, I'm George with Neighborhood Watch." 

    Even if Trayvon Martin turned and attacked first, I consider George Zimmerman responsible for the death of an unarmed boy.  Anyone, including a grown man, would be wondering why a random stranger is following them at night in the rain.  GZ was the one behaving in a manner that would create fear.

    George lied on national TV about his awareness of the "Stand Your Ground" law.  He left the house with a loaded gun, followed an innocent person, failed to follow instructions of the 911 operator, behaved contrary to his training as a Neighborhood Watch member, and then shot a boy through the heart and killed him.

    Sorry, but I cannot blame Trayvon Martin for any of that.  We don't have Trayvon's side of the story and I'm not inclined to cut GZ a whole lot of slack, nor am I inclined to believe he didn't lie to protect his cowardly ass.

    Just my opinion, of course.

    1. vveasey profile image83
      vveaseyposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Here's something that hasn't been brought out in this case because the focus has been on Zimmerman's right to use the 'stand your ground law"

      What about Trayvon's right to use that law? Doesn't he get the right to defend himself against someone who was following him in the dark?

      He obviously felt threaten So according to the "stand your ground law"  it doesn't matter if he attacked Zimmerman does it? because he obviously felt threaten by Zimmerman following him arround in the dark and had the right to defend himself.

      1. HowardBThiname profile image91
        HowardBThinameposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Zimmerman is not using the Stand Your Ground law. That is a separate defense that requires a separate hearing, which Zimmerman waived.

        Zimmerman is using self-defense as his defense. That's different.

        There are specific factors that must come into play in order for either defense to work. We don't really know if Trayvon could or could not have used either of these defenses, because he's not on trial. But, one factor that must be shown with self-defense is that the defendant must show that he feared for his life or he feared great bodily harm.

        Being sat on and smacked, especially if the person doing the smacking said this was the day you would die - might qualify for feeling as if your life was in danger.

        Being followed at a distance might or might not.

        Smacking someone is a crime. Following someone is not.

        I suppose it might come down to Zimmerman defending against a person committing a crime and Trayvon defending against someone not committing a crime.

        But, as I said - it makes no difference because only Zimmerman is on trial here.  As little as I've followed this - what I have seen appears to indicate that there is a "reasonable doubt" to the Prosecution's story.

        Maybe Zimmerman is making stuff up - who knows? But I don't think suspecting that is enough to convict.

        And, I have to wonder if we ever would have heard of this case had both parties been white. Or, both parties black. I even wonder if we'd have heard of it if the shooter had been black and the victim white.

        If we're only hearing about this case because of the races involved - that's not a good thing.

        1. 0
          Deepes Mindposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          We would have heard about it if the shooter were black and the victim white. The biggest issue is the way the whole case would have been handled

        2. vveasey profile image83
          vveaseyposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          You seem to believe Zimmerman though you  say he could be making this all up. That's right because Martin is dead and can't give his version.
          Zimmerman lied about never hearing of the stand your ground law
          People should be questioning Zimmerman's account not just swallowing it whole hog. He can say Trayvon started the fight because Trayvon can't refute it as he can't refute anything Zimmerman says about him

          1. Seth Winter profile image85
            Seth Winterposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            But that's just it vveasey how could Trayvon's account possibly play out, especially knowing that this youth was a troubled one. Let's not forget the facebook account, twitter messagers, texts and pictures on his phones, Trayvon wasn't an angel. Not that he deserved to die because of his past mistakes but it shows you what type of decision making process this kid might have made.

            One thing that both sides of thinking rationally can probably agree upon is that teenagers don't make the best decisions. Someone in their teen years are much more likely to try to solve something via violence rather then rational discussion.

            Case in Point: Zimmerman called the cops. Trayvon had a cell phone, why didn't he? According to his girlfriends account he was able to remain on the phone for much of the "running around." A simple 911 call would of probably prevented this whole situation.  But he didn't and that is neither here nor there. 

            We know someone was yelling for help for a good number of seconds. We know that Trayvon has abrasions on his knuckles and Zimmerman had wounds to his head, neck and back. We know TM had some experience with MMA fighting and now according to the doctor's testimony that at the time of his death, he was on top of Zimmerman.

            vvweasey if you don't think people should be swallowing this story whole, then what should they swallow...because personally I don't really see a situation where TM would be the victim here. And I haven't heard the story from someone who supports TM side that actually support the facts we know.

            So tell us vvweasey how did the situation go down? Throw out your best guess. 

            "He wrongly profiled the teenager as a possible burglar. "-And PrettyPanther how do you know he wrongly profiled the teenager with being a possible burglar. According to leaked records TM had been suspended from school for breaking into lockers and a string of burglaries were happening in the neighborhood. I am curious to see if the burglaries stopped the night Trayvon Martin was shot.

            1. PrettyPanther profile image86
              PrettyPantherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              There is no factual indication that Trayvon was a burglar.  None whatsoever.

              1. Seth Winter profile image85
                Seth Winterposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Your right Pretty Panther besides his history of breaking into lockers which lead to a school suspension and walking around at night in the rain, in the dark looking around into homes nothing supports Trayvon being an actual burglar. But we do know that Zimmerman had called the police in the past and that there were a slew of breakins in the gated community.

                If Trayvon Martin was the actual burglar or not will probably never be known, but like I said I'm curious if the breakin's have stopped since his death.

                1. Zelkiiro profile image84
                  Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Perhaps the soda bottle was his window-breaker. And the Skittles were his...dog repellant?

                  1. Seth Winter profile image85
                    Seth Winterposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Ever watch a heist movie Zelkiiro? The criminals don't just pick a place at random and decide to rob it. First they case the place out....find out what time the guards/people are going to be home and figure out what places have the best stuff. The key here is to look innocent. Don't let the victims know who you are....a hat and sunglasses work as good as a dark night and a hoodie. And then why you have the place planned out and nobodies home, you strike.

                    Turns out more places are broken into during the day, because at night someones homes. But during the day everyone is at work. Wasn't Trayvon suspended from school?

                    I'm not claiming Trayvon is the burglar...it could be anyone. Heck the burglaries might have stopped or they might be continuing. They might have stopped because a bullet killed the burglar or they might have stopped because the area is too high of a profile now..although it is a gated community so chances are the burglar lives there.

                    But the fact remains that Zimmerman had every reason to follow Trayvon. A suspicious figure walking in the rain in a neighborhood plagued with break-ins. And from the sound of it and the number of times Zimmerman had called the cops in the past (with 0 arrests) "the punks always get away."

                    I've worked security before. You follow suspicious people or people you know are breaking the law. Because otherwise the chances of the cops actually find that person are slim to none.

                2. PrettyPanther profile image86
                  PrettyPantherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  We only have GZ's word that he was looking at homes.  I don't trust his word given he is a proven liar. 

                  We can't know Trayvon's side of the story, but he was carrying Skittles and a soda while George was carrying a gun.

                  1. Seth Winter profile image85
                    Seth Winterposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    If only other criminals had Skittles and a Soda they could of been vindicated from all crimes....going to start robbing banks fairly soon with those in my back pocket in case I get caught.

                    Your right we don't know if he was actually looking into windows. He could have been walking straight home or looking into windows for pure boredom. We don't know, but we do know he was walking in the rain, in a gated community and a neighborhood watchman saw him and thought "possible guy up to no good, maybe burglar?"

                    Many people carry guns. According to Osterman (friend of Zimmerman and longtime career in Law Enforcement) he told Zimmerman to get a gun, the police aren't always there. Does that make people who carry guns bad?

                    Trayvon had a picture of a gun on his phone does that make him a bad person? Lol, although I doubt if Trayvon would of gotten that gun if he would of gotten a permit to carry like Zimmerman had.

              2. 60
                retief2000posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                B&E is frequently a crime of opportunity and usually a youth crime.

                1. PrettyPanther profile image86
                  PrettyPantherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  I repeat, there is no factual indication that Trayvon Martin was a burglar.

                  Most serial killers are white males with an average age of 29 years old.  Using your logic, Trayvon Martin would have been justified in thinking the creepy guy following him at night in the rain was a serial killer.  roll

                  1. 60
                    retief2000posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Hardly, most serial killers are not Hispanic, at least in the United States, but then again Saint Trayvon couldn't know that the "cracker" was Hispanic.  I wonder if he had known would he have switched to another racial epithet?  Ironically, in the world of reality, black males between 15 and 25 account for an enormously disproportionate amount of total crimes.  Sadly this statistic, rooted in nothing but mathematics, is described by temporary visitors to reality as racist. 

                    It is sad and tragic that Trayvon Martin is dead.  It is also sad and tragic that George Zimmerman is discussed in this thread as if he were a sociopath rather than an ordinary man.  If one takes the tone of some of this thread seriously then George Zimmerman sounds like a sociopath.  Why did he refuse all kinds of medical treatment?  Could it be because he just shot someone to death?  Not a daily occurrence one simply adsorbs and ignores.  Ending the life of another human being while fearing for one's own life would be disturbing to anyone normal.

                    The greatest victims in all of this, whether Trayvon or Zimmerman was the villian, is the Martin Family.  How many families of young black men suffer the same horrors every year ( or in the case of liberal Utopia Chicago every day)  If Zimmerman had been another young black man this would have never been news - again sadly.

                    Most disturbing in all of this is the revelation that the Justice Department of the United States launched an attack against a private citizen.  Once the dust settles in this trial, that is a HIGH CRIME and needs to be pursued.

                  2. HowardBThiname profile image91
                    HowardBThinameposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    I don't think whites are any more likely (percentage wise) to be serial killers than other races.

                  3. 60
                    retief2000posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    So every neighborhood watch should be disbanded because there is no evidence that an unknown person in a hoodie, at night, in the rain wondering through the neighborhood is a burglar or car thief or vandal, etc.... 

                    An unknown person in a neighborhood at night is cause enough to be aware.  In a neighborhood where there are frequent break ins, isn't an unknown person wondering around at night appearing to be casing houses or cars for a crime of opportunity cause for a couple of questions or a call to the police so they can ask the questions?

                    Didn't that situation merit some concern?  If Saint Trayvon was so concerned about being followed by a "creepy cracker"  why didn't he head directly to his father's house?  If he thought he was in actual danger why didn't he use his cell to call the police or his father? 

                    The big difference is I am not grasping at straws to excuse Zimmerman.  Trayvon may not have had a crowbar on him or a big black bag marked with a dollar sign but few break ins are committed by cartoon characters.  Most are committed by those capitalizing on an opportunity and a rock, a brick or a sweatshirt cushioned elbow is more than enough to break a window to reach the lock on the front door.

            2. vveasey profile image83
              vveaseyposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              See Seth that's the problem,
              it's all about what you personally believe. I stated a fact that people shouldn't swallow everything Zimmerman says because he's trying to beat a murder charge. You shouldn't swallow everything he says but look at what little facts that are known about the case.

              I don't know how "it all when down" and neither do you.

              Only Zimmerman and Martin know how it "all went down" but Martin is dead so he can't give his side of the story or refute what Zimmerman says happened

              I stated a fact that you didn't address,
              Zimmerman said that Martin placed his hand over his mouth so his screams wouldn't be heard. This was after his nose was bleeding. So shouldn't his blood be on Martin's hands? Wouldn't his scream have sounded muffled if Martin had his hand covering Zimmerman's mouth as he claimed. These questions are based Zimmerman's account of what happened, not something I made up as my "best guess" about how this "all went down"

              1. Seth Winter profile image85
                Seth Winterposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                I guess it comes down to the effectiveness of Trayvon holding a man's mouth closed. It was rainy so you could argue that both figures were slippery. While it was ruled that Trayvon was in better shape then Zimmerman, Zimmerman still had some strength. Hence being able possibly scream out.

                I don't really buy that is was Trayvon screaming. If Zimmerman had already pulled a guy with the intent of murdering Trayvon allowing him to scream for that allotted time would of been just plain stupid-and we know that Zimmerman was at least book smart (being top of his class at Law).

                As for the blood, your guess is as good as mine. But Trayvon had abrasions on his knuckles that are consistent with punching and Zimmerman definitely had the wounds of something happening. It was raining, and it sounds like the Medical Examiner was a bit of a moron and possibly botched the case. So either of those are a possibility. Trayvon was also supposedly alive for a bit before he expired and that could account for the blood being wiped off-people act very irrational when confronted with death (I work in medical field and can definitely attest to this).

                Or it could have been Zimmerman cleaning his hands for one reason or another. We don't know.

                For the record I don't swallow everything he says. But I also see this case as a very racial issue-when it shouldn't be. I see most of the Trayvon Martin supporters as racist. Supporting Martin because he's black. Look how many celebrities have jump on that banwagon. Didn't Spike Lee force an elderly couple out of their home by giving a wrong address? Because I see Martin's supporters as racist, I tend to think alot less of their opinions.

                While you did bring up a good issue about the blood and the muffled cries (and the muffled cries are completely subjective-blood isn't though)...it's just how I feel. Especially since most of his supporters use emotion rather then facts (blood being the exception).

                I haven't heard a single step by step alternative that fits the facts from Martin supporters (actually I haven't heard an alternative where a supporter didn't put more then "Zimmerman wanted to kill himself a black kid"

                1. 0
                  Deepes Mindposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Well, In spite of the implied racial undertones of the case, I don't see GZ as someone that just "Wanted to kill a black kid" I see Zimmerman as a man who saw someone he didn't know (which isn't a stretch considering that Martin was visiting his father) and was curious as to who he was and where he was going. When Martin reportedly cut between some houses (apparently in an effort to avoid Zimmerman), Zimmerman's curiosity became concern and in wanting to be a hero decided to get out of his car (Against 911 dispatch advice) to follow and potentially confront Martin. Unfortunately, plan A didn't work out as it may have worked out in his mind, so plan b (in the interest of personal safety was to pull his gun.


                  Unfortunately, I have yet to see or hear anyone try to see any possibility from Martin's side. Zimmerman supporters are painting Martin as a drug using, suspicious looking thug wearing a hoodie that beat up Zimmerman and thus deserved what he got. Martin was  a teenager walking trying to get back to his dad's house noticed that someone appeared to be following him, so in the interest of being sure, cut between houses to make sure (in the interest of fight or flight). When Zimmerman got out of his car, suspicion became certainty and flight flew out of the window and that's where fight came into play as a means of survival (considering the fact that kids are abducted frequently)..

                  The total scenario falls under the category of two people that didn't know each other, suspicion steps in, fight breaks out, Kid dies because Adult chose to get out of his car to follow.


                  But now the question becomes, what would have happened had Zimmerman left his car and Martin killed him? We already know what most likely would have happened had Zimmerman stayed in his car

                  1. 60
                    retief2000posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Nicely balanced.  It is a horrible tragedy.  It has turned into a media circus, as these things will.  Worst of all is that all the brutal murders of young black men are ignored because single event is great political drama.  Meanwhile, in Chicago young blacks are being killed every day, some are young children who are playing in a free fire zone.  In Indianapolis, not a town known for murders or racial strife, young black men are killing other young black men that puts this city on a record rate for homicides. 

                    There are profound problems facing our communities and this case is more of a media "SQUIRREL!" than a serious conversation on the why there is so much crime claiming our young black brothers and sisters as victims and perpetrators.  A crime always has two real victims, the victim and the perpetrator.

                2. vveasey profile image83
                  vveaseyposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  there is no step by step alternative because the only other person who could give it is dead

                  The rest is just what you choose to believe or what someone else chooses to believe.

                  Except what what Zimmerman said, if you believe him, about Martin covering his mouth to stop his screams from being heard,  right before he shot him.

                  If you think being able to tell if the screams sounded muffled is subjective, try it on yourself. cover your mouth with your hand and see how your screams sound.

                  I'm not saying that it wasn't Zimmerman screaming I'm saying this may suggest there is a problem with the veracity of his account of what took place

                  Same goes for the fact that none of Zimmerman's DNA, blood, traces, blood or whatever, not  being  found on on Martin's hand.

                  Wouldn't you agree that he would have had to have been really applying heavy pressure on Zimmerman's mouth to keep him quiet, since they were in a life or death struggle, that it seems unlikely that no DNA of any kind could be found on Martin's hands after they had been forensically swabbed?

                  1. Seth Winter profile image85
                    Seth Winterposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Covering my own mouth would make for a poor experiment...instead find a random person on the street. Knock them down and try to hold their mouth closed....oh yeah before you knock them down say the line "Your going to die tonight" I'm guessing it will go quite a bit different then holding your own mouth.

  8. SpanStar profile image61
    SpanStarposted 3 years ago

    I believe I'll interject my point of view. I said it before and I'll say it again-on that night I did not see possibly anything that Mister Zimmerman did write.

    First of all Mister Zimmerman was looking for Black kids, not White kids, not Hispanic kids just Black kids and low and behold here comes a Black kid.

    Just from observation this kid is looking around-now if you're looking around you have got to be guilty-of what I don't know. Perhaps you say he's casing the place simply by looking around-it's probably just me but that sounds more like projecting rather than verifying.

    He has something in his hands well if it was important enough to mention to the police then we have to assume that it was something threatening, perhaps he was diabolically hiding those Skittles because we all know how threatening they can be.

    All of these assumptions and assertions are taking place without one mentioning of any illegal activity mentioning to the police. Mister Zimmerman is saying this kid is up to no good but he hasn't said one single thing that the kid has done to formulate that opinion.

    If one cannot see the questionable behavior of Mister Zimmerman then they are not looking.

    1. Seth Winter profile image85
      Seth Winterposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Have you considered SpanStar that you just might be blinded by racism?

      1. SpanStar profile image61
        SpanStarposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Seth Winter,

        When I do I will let you know.

      2. PrettyPanther profile image86
        PrettyPantherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        LOL, you're a textbook case of projection.

        1. Seth Winter profile image85
          Seth Winterposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Lol, isn't it funny though?

          By incorrectly accusing me of projecting racist ideals could you be in fact be projecting racism?
          After all a good many of the people here are discussing this issue by talking about facts..not arguing about suffering or talking about the bible.


          I don't have a biased against any race. I do have an irrational biased towards people coming out of the city of Chicago. And you might even be able to get me for being a bit ageist but then again people under the age of 25 make stupid decisions all the time. The stats show that many teens never make it to their twenties because of poor decision making. Whether it's getting into fights, drinking/driving or just doing stupid things kids do.

          ;-)

    2. wilderness profile image97
      wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      That's really incredible that you can read Zimmerman's mind and know he went out looking for a black youngster.  That he didn't care if a white kid was breaking into a house or anything else- that the only thing he wanted was a black kid to shoot.

      Can I borrow your crystal ball?  I need some good lottery numbers...

      1. Seth Winter profile image85
        Seth Winterposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Buzz off Wilderness the crystal ball's mine, mine I tell you!

        1. wilderness profile image97
          wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          You can have it.  The darned thing is always lying anyway.

          1. Seth Winter profile image85
            Seth Winterposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            lol

  9. Uninvited Writer profile image84
    Uninvited Writerposted 3 years ago

    http://breakingbrown.com/2013/07/must-r … onviction/

    Some facts... with sources.... from conservatives

  10. Cody Hodge5 profile image83
    Cody Hodge5posted 3 years ago

    Guess it doesn't matter since he was found not guilty...


    wow....

    1. HowardBThiname profile image91
      HowardBThinameposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      As many of us expected. The State simply didn't make its case.

      1. Cody Hodge5 profile image83
        Cody Hodge5posted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I'll agree that they didn't fully prove 2nd degree murder.

        I'm just as sure that they proved manslaughter.

        1. PrettyPanther profile image86
          PrettyPantherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Agree.

        2. HowardBThiname profile image91
          HowardBThinameposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Well, this has been, and should be, a learning experience for all of us. The truth is that we will never know what happened between Zimmerman and Martin.

          1. 60
            retief2000posted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Kind of like OJ and the people he didn't slaughter.

            1. Uninvited Writer profile image84
              Uninvited Writerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Well, most of us believe OJ was guilty, as was Casey Anthony.

              1. HowardBThiname profile image91
                HowardBThinameposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                I try not to predict or second-guess these high-profile cases. Whether or not OJ, Anthony or Zimmerman were actually guilty - we still have the best justice system in the world.

                Unfortunately, it's not perfect.

              2. 60
                retief2000posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                OJ is in prison now because he was the person he was believed to have been during his murder trial.  Perhaps, if all the terrible fantasies about Zimmerman are actually true than his comeuppance awats.

      2. 60
        retief2000posted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I had posted earlier that according to a definition provided by Mighty Mom, that the facts provided by the prosecution did not prove manslaughter.   The jury asked for a clarification on the definition of manslaughter, I had the feeling then that they would acquit him of both. I am now concerned with the possibility of violence - wide spread in various communities and specifically against Zimmerman. 


        Directly from Mighty Mom's post, if her research is correct - there is no reason to believe it is not - than the jury had no choice but to acquit.

        "7.7 Manslaughter
        The pertinent part of Florida's manslaughter statute, s. 782.07(1), Florida Statutes, reads as follows.
        (1) The killing of a human being by the act, procurement, or culpable negligence of another,
        without lawful justification according to the provisions of this chapter, is manslaughter,
        a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s.775.083, or s. 775.084."

        If Zimmerman had been shooting his pistol in the air or waving it about and discharged a round striking Martin and killing him, than there would have been grounds to convict since that would have been a clear case, by the above definition, of manslaughter.

        1. SpanStar profile image61
          SpanStarposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          My thing is I don't understand why it is not premeditated? Everything about that night was deliberate by Mister Zimmerman.

          1. 60
            retief2000posted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Omniscience and omnipresence must be a terrible burden.

          2. HowardBThiname profile image91
            HowardBThinameposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            SpanStar, because Zimmerman deliberately sneaked around and spied on Martin. He didn't premeditate an actual killing. Zimmerman did some stupid things, but they were not illegal. If the evidence was correct and Martin jumped Zimmerman - that put Martin on the wrong side of the law, which made Zimmerman justified (legally, not morally) in shooting.

            It's a tragedy all the way around. But, if we believe our laws are wrong - now is the time to work toward change.

            1. 60
              retief2000posted 3 years ago in reply to this

              If Zimmerman actually believed his life was in danger than he also acted morally.  It is morally imperative to protect one's own life.

          3. 60
            Lie Detectorposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Premeditated what? He followed the kid, not against the law! The kid assaulted Zimmerman, that is against the law!

            Premeditated what?

            1. Cody Hodge5 profile image83
              Cody Hodge5posted 3 years ago in reply to this

              So stalking and profiling are OK?

              I'm not saying he didn't have a right to defend himself, but to act like killing someone is somehow a moral duty is absurd. If Zimmerman knew MMA why couldn't he put Trayvon to the ground easy? Even if he isn't good at it, you can't tell me that the 50+ pound weight advantage wouldn't have more than leveled the playing field.

              1. Seth Winter profile image85
                Seth Winterposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Wasn't it Trayvon the knew MMA not Zimmerman?

                1. Cody Hodge5 profile image83
                  Cody Hodge5posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  What happened is that the defense argued that Trayvon started a "ground and pound" offensive against Zimmerman..

                  That's why it was mentioned that Zimmerman knew MMA. Zimmerman told police that he did MMA three times a week.

              2. 60
                Lie Detectorposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Yes "stalking" and profiling is ok, hence the not guilty verdict. You, I and every citizen in this country not affiliated with law enforcement are free to profile all we want, there is zero limitation. Before the "but the 911 operator ordered Zimmerman not to follow Martin" argument is brought up, the operator has no authority to order anybody to do anything.

                Hate to say I told ya so but I told ya so!

                1. Cody Hodge5 profile image83
                  Cody Hodge5posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Riiiiiiight......

                  1. Seth Winter profile image85
                    Seth Winterposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Did he really profile though? Checkout a previous post by Wilderness on Zimmerman's past 911 calls. Seems like he profiled suspicious people, not based on color.

  11. Seth Winter profile image85
    Seth Winterposted 3 years ago

    So now come the summer riots. Imma get'z ma'self a tv!

    1. Credence2 profile image86
      Credence2posted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Trying to be funny? So, you behave like a racist, huh, Seth? The black community will remain calm but be reinforced in its suspicions of the motives of 'the establishment'. That's not going to be helpful. Zimmerman has been acquitted by a jury of his peers, so be it. But, that will not be the end of the story.....

      I would not gloat too much if I were you, your man Zimmerman, acquitted or no, is still just a flunkie. He will do all the obligatory interviews on Fox News and the like, but he will fall out of favor fast and no legitimate police force will ever hire someone with the judgment of a grade school student. "Dirty Harry" is a fictional character.

      Regardless, this issue has stirred the pot and brought attention to our continued racial divide and forces us to ask questions about 'Stand Your Ground" laws through out the nation. Through the extensive dialogue and publicity surrounding this case, forcing our concerns before all front and center, Trayvon Martin's death was not in vain.

      1. 60
        retief2000posted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I agree, it is no time to gloat.  A family has lost something irreplaceable, a child.  It is always tragic when a life is cut short, especially in circumstances that would have been vastly different if either party had done any number of things differently.  I would bet that if Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman had met on a dry sunny day and played a little pick up ball they would have had some fun together.  On a dark and rainy night, each suspicious of the other's intent, things went very differently.  It is a tragedy of the human condition and not a time to gloat.

        1. Credence2 profile image86
          Credence2posted 3 years ago in reply to this

          A most considered and thoughtful comment, thanks.

          This about more than two individuals, it is about the forces that brought them together: racial profiling,  the cavalier use and availability of firearms and again,  what constitutes legitimate self-defense. If one continue to open old wounds there can be no healing.There are too many dark, rainy nights and too few dry sunny days...

          1. 60
            retief2000posted 3 years ago in reply to this

            And here is where we will disagree.  There is nothing to suggest it was about racial profiling but, rather, recognizing a potential threat to a community that one was interested in protecting from continued break-ins and vandalism.  The 911 tape is exculpatory when it comes to Zimmerman's, "NBC tape doctoring created", racism.  As for the cavalier use of a firearm, I would not hesitate to shot anyone multiple times that was sitting on my chest and beating on me with both fists while my head bounced off the sidewalk.

            This has nothing to do with race or firearms, it has much more to do with the angry overreaction of both people involved and the ineffective nature of law enforcement facing a break down of common decency.  Martin was more interested in turning and fighting the man following him than calling the police, telling his girl friend to call the police, calling home or running the short distance to his home.  He was less than a hundred yards from home when he was shot. 

            It has more to do with Zimmerman allowing his frustration with, what he considered to be, an unreasonably low rate of crime prevention and arrest of criminals in his neighborhood.  He allowed his zeal to over rule his patience.  He followed, even at a run, someone he assumed was up to no good because Martin did not seem to be headed directly anywhere and that fit with the aforementioned criminal activity.

            Law enforcement is trying to fill in for what ALL adults used to do - demand that ALL children behave, whether they are yours or not and that children usually behaved, saying "yes, sir and no, sir" rather than "F*** you, you aren't my mother.."

            Now adults will fight and kill each other because the teacher, policeman, neighbor, coach, grocer, etc, "disrespected" their precious offspring.  Parents act like rotten, foul mouthed drunk pigs and yet expect to be respected. Children are spoiled beyond any kind of reason with material things as well as laxity of demand placed on their time, attendance and labor by their families and the culture in general.

            Trayvon Martin's parents appear to be loving and attentive, that makes all of this more tragic.  That tragedy is repeated time and again, it has little to do with guns and race. 

            Guns have been far more available than they are today - you used to be able to buy firearms at Sears and Montgomery Ward. 

            Race cannot possibly be as big an issue as it was in the time of Emmet Till or Medgar Evers.  Who doesn't live, work, play, pray with multiple races and human hues?  What sane heterosexual man doesn't love Angela Basset or Lena Horn or Diahann Carroll or etc...take my point.

            Perhaps it is time to admit the old Pogo quote, "We have met the enemy and he is us" and get beyond Al Sharpton/Eric Holder's knee jerk racial politics.  Our problem is that we no longer raise our children we spoil them and excuse them and ruin them.  We have created a world where Trayvons want to fight instead of calling the police and Georges live in frustration with the police when facing crime in his neighborhood.

            1. Credence2 profile image86
              Credence2posted 3 years ago in reply to this

              "rather, recognizing a potential threat to a community that one was interested in protecting from continued break-ins and vandalism."

              Ok, you were exemplary until now.....

              So this potential threat was a black kid in a hoodie, do you think that this Zimmerman would have trailed you or treated you in the same fashion? Was the threat in the neighboorhood at such a level that he needed to carry weapons? Zimmerman is, as I said earlier, just an insecure flunky, not suitable for taking out my laundry. He is a coward who I suspect would not be brazen as to stalk anyone except for the fact that he would have the opportunity to shoot someone. Ive has seen his ilk far too many times before. His job was to WATCH, not stalk and harrass, his stupidity and zeal cost a boy his life. All, when being a policemen, his desired profession, is more complex than just having a gun and being willing to use it. The cretin did not take the time to identify himself as a way to diffuse what was going on.

              We, because we are black, are  we to naturally expect disrespect and discourtesy? That is why kumbaya between racial groups in this country appear to be as distant in reality as Star Trek. From all the heinous comments from AP articles and such, I can come to no other conclusion except that we are a long-way from any post racial society here.

              What, do you think that the police were just going to materialize the moment Trayvon got on the phone? So its ok for the flunkie to be macho but not for Trayvon to stand his ground to protect himself from some creepy ******* as he described him.

              The racism in America is just not as blatant as it was Emmett Till's day , but attitudes die hard and this bug is far from being considered eliminated. Zimmerman, being so-called well educated, should recognize the danger of interference to himself and who it is he is stalking remember the fact that he is not duly appointed law enforcement, just a pudgy Dirty Harry wannabe.

              1. 60
                retief2000posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                "rather, recognizing a potential threat to a community that one was interested in protecting from continued break-ins and vandalism."

                Ok, you were exemplary until now.....

                1)So this potential threat was a black kid in a hoodie, do you think that this Zimmerman would have trailed you or treated you in the same fashion?

                I hope he would have treated me the same way - I am a much bigger threat to a neighborhood than some minor league criminal looking for an opportunity crime - NOT saying that is what Trayvon was.  However, opportunity criminals are usually young men and frequently clumsy and dumb.  I am not clumsy, dumb or impatient.  I am methodical, intelligent, aware, adroit, agile, wily, big, strong, skilled, calculating and armed.  Hell I probably would have made a great villain for Batman.  Instead I am merely a villain to liberals. Zimmerman couldn't handle me.

                2) Was the threat in the neighborhood at such a level that he needed to carry weapons?

                A rational person is an armed person.  It has always been so.  If you are not equipped to defend yourself you should be with those who are.

                3) He is a coward who I suspect would not be brazen as to stalk anyone except for the fact that he would have the opportunity to shoot someone.

                You and I don't know each other, but I can tell you, shooting someone in hot blood is hard enough but stalking someone just to gun them down that is a very different thing, my friend. 

                4)zeal cost a boy his life.

                That is one half of the problem the other is the boy didn't use his brain either.  We will agree that there were errors in judgement that escalated into a fight.  How could that have been avoided?  Second guessing leads to frustration. It was not avoided.

                5)We, because we are black, are  we to naturally expect disrespect and discourtesy?

                Perhaps that is part of the problem, don't we get what we expect?  If we are so ready to take offense isn't it that much easier to give?  Are black people actually, objectively, disrespected more because they are black.  I am not sure that is so but if one expects it to be so...expectations and perceptions matter.  Why do you think Al Sharpton/Eric Holder was there?  Does he protest every Hispanic killing a Black teenager - if so he might as well live in Los Angeles.  No, he was there because it was an opportunity to fan the flames.  George Zimmerman doesn't sound like an Hispanic name, but Zimmerman is as white as Obama.  Isn't Al Sharpton/Eric Holder guilty of racial profiling?

                6)What, do you think that the police were just going to materialize the moment Trayvon got on the phone?

                No, I would have expected that he would have called his father who was right in the neighborhood.  I can tell you that if my son was followed by some man, when he was 1,7 that the last thing that man would have to worry about would be my son.  He also wouldn't have had to worry about me, for long.

                Just another misstep that led to tragedy.  Tragedy is a staple of human life.  What lesson can be taken from it?

                7).... remember the fact that he is not duly appointed law enforcement....

                Neither am I but I wouldn't stand by and watch a crime without acting.  It is incumbent upon a free people to fight for that freedom and criminals crave your freedom.  Criminals feast on freedom.  When someone steals a car he steals the freedom traded by its owner for the money to buy it.  Zimmerman had a not unreasonable suspicion.  Could it have been handled differently, yes.  Was it, no.

                1. Seth Winter profile image85
                  Seth Winterposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Actually Credence it wasn't racism rather it was a prediction or premonition, if you will. And look it came true. Not a good time to be in Oakland.

                  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article … -case.html

                  Speaking of racism, wouldn't you consider it just a bit racist that an entire community of a certain color rises up to terrorize a populace just because they heard some bad news? Or for that matter instead of standing up for injustice of all colors that a certain community of a certain color causes an uproar because of an imagined injustice against a jury ruled attempted murderer?

                  1. Uninvited Writer profile image84
                    Uninvited Writerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Yes, a small group setting fire to one police car is the riots that were predicted.

                    People do more damage after their sports team. Such as the Stanley Cup riots that someone tried to pawn off as happening in Miami smile

                  2. Credence2 profile image86
                    Credence2posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    The vast majority of the protests were peaceful, the people making trouble in Oakland made it during the occupy movement and for any perceived slight. You don't think that peaceful protest in itself terrorizes the populace, do you? 1st amendment, people have the right to peaceably assemble to air grievance, you don't have a problem with that do you? You and yours are not the ones being put upon, so of course you have no skin in the game. For our community, the verdict in Florida is an affront to us all, do we not have the right to say so?

                2. Credence2 profile image86
                  Credence2posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  etief2000, you are exemplary again, you ask all the right questions, if Zimmerman had been half this reflective as the adult in the room, that tragedy could have averted.


                  1)So this potential threat was a black kid in a hoodie, do you think that this Zimmerman would have trailed you or treated you in the same fashion?

                  I hope he would have treated me the same way - I am a much bigger threat to a neighborhood than some minor league criminal looking for an opportunity crime - NOT saying that is what Trayvon was.

                  (But you know that he would not have treated you the same way)

                  However, opportunity criminals are usually young men and frequently clumsy and dumb.  I am not clumsy, dumb or impatient.  I am methodical, intelligent, aware, adroit, agile, wily, big, strong, skilled, calculating and armed.  Hell I probably would have made a great villain for Batman.  Instead I am merely a villain to liberals. Zimmerman couldn't handle me.

                  (That is why 17 year old boys are identified as 'minors', were you not 17 once and your judgment ability was not the greatest?. I expect more from an adult in an authority position.)

                  2) Was the threat in the neighborhood at such a level that he needed to carry weapons?


                  A rational person is an armed person.  It has always been so.  If you are not equipped to defend yourself you should be with those who are.

                  (If life in an armed camp is what you and so many conservatives resign themselves to, then I guess there can be no argument. On the contrary, it has not always been so. A little like going back to the wild west, have we evolved at all that the availability of lethal force and the threat to use it is going to settle differences between people? We have not moved forward but moved back!)

                  3) He is a coward who I suspect would not be brazen as to stalk anyone except for the fact that he would have the opportunity to shoot someone.

                  You and I don't know each other, but I can tell you, shooting someone in hot blood is hard enough but stalking someone just to gun them down that is a very different thing, my friend. 

                  (Have a look at Zimmerman, I did work something like what he was doing years ago and I did not feel the need to have a gun. By behaving the way that he did, Zimmerman made it more likely that he would have excuse to use his weapon against an immature and inexperienced teenager, armed only with a can of soda and candy. People who need to carry guns will always do things and take liberties that would otherwise not do, if they did not have the gun. The gun nuts are fundamentally weak people at the heart)

                  4)zeal cost a boy his life.

                  That is one half of the problem the other is the boy didn't use his brain either.  We will agree that there were errors in judgement that escalated into a fight.  How could that have been avoided?  Second guessing leads to frustration. It was not avoided.

                  (I expect a lot more from a so-called educated adult than from a teenage boy)

                  5)We, because we are black, are  we to naturally expect disrespect and discourtesy?

                  Perhaps that is part of the problem, don't we get what we expect?  If we are so ready to take offense isn't it that much easier to give?  Are black people actually, objectively, disrespected more because they are black.  I am not sure that is so but if one expects it to be so...expectations and perceptions matter.  Why do you think Al Sharpton/Eric Holder was there?  Does he protest every Hispanic killing a Black teenager - if so he might as well live in Los Angeles.  No, he was there because it was an opportunity to fan the flames.  George Zimmerman doesn't sound like an Hispanic name, but Zimmerman is as white as Obama.  Isn't Al Sharpton/Eric Holder guilty of racial profiling?

                  (Discourtesy and disrespect is treating the boy like he is a criminal without evidence supporting a determination of reasonable suspicion or probable cause, perhaps Zimmerman might have learned these concepts as part of his education. And even if he had any doubt he should have just sat tight and called and waited for the police. There is a lot of this crap going on in Texas where people can shoot and kill others for other than life threatening situations, I am glad that I don't live there. No one can protest all the injustices that go on in the US. So, why focus on the kidnapping of one white woman missing in Aruba while so many others go unreported? That happens... Sharpton and the Attorney General got involved because obviously the case was mishandled from the very beginning when Zimmerman was initially allowed to walk. The press got hold of the story and fanned the flames. I rather see the flames burn than have Zimmerman get away and the crime moved into obscurity)

                  6)What, do you think that the police were just going to materialize the moment Trayvon got on the phone?

                  No, I would have expected that he would have called his father who was right in the neighborhood.  I can tell you that if my son was followed by some man, when he was 1,7 that the last thing that man would have to worry about would be my son.  He also wouldn't have had to worry about me, for long.

                  (It is not convenient for anybody to call if someone is in close pursuit, it would have been a lot simpler if Zimmerman simply stayed where he belonged.)

                  Just another misstep that led to tragedy.  Tragedy is a staple of human life.  What lesson can be taken from it?

                  (The lesson to be learned is that the circumstances leading to this need to be evaluated and if necessary constraints put upon these community watch people having the penalties proscribed of law if they deviate)

                  7).... remember the fact that he is not duly appointed law enforcement....

                  Neither am I but I wouldn't stand by and watch a crime without acting.  It is incumbent upon a free people to fight for that freedom and criminals crave your freedom.  Criminals feast on freedom.  When someone steals a car he steals the freedom traded by its owner for the money to buy it.  Zimmerman had a not unreasonable suspicion.  Could it have been handled differently, yes.  Was it, no

                  (Do you know what you are doing? What are the legal ramifications and risk to your person and the perpetrator? No one deserves to be gunned down for stealing someone elses TV. A property crime in of itself does not merit the death penalty. Conservatives still see the world as a wild west show. If you want to act, call the proper authorities. A car is not worth a person's life, his nor yours, but again that is my progressive instincts speaking. Zimmerman should have acted on his suspicion in the manner prescribed by his employer, not go Ramboing around the neighborhood, looking for the opportunity to be the tough guy.)

  12. Alphadogg16 profile image87
    Alphadogg16posted 3 years ago

    @Lie Detector - You don't know if the kid assaulted him....nobody knows except zimmerman and the kid, and the kid cant talk. There was another case in Fla where a woman got 20 years for firing warning shots at an abusive husband who she had a restraining order against. 20 years for WARNING SHOTS. No following him is not against the law, but if he hadnt folled him, the kid would be alive.

    1. 60
      Lie Detectorposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      The testimony of witnesses proves he was attacked. A broken nose and abrasions to the back of his head proves he was attacked. The jury who heard all of this ruled not guilty to the crimes he was charged with! What further proof do you need?

      1. 0
        Sooner28posted 3 years ago in reply to this

        The jury must've agreed with you!

        1. 60
          Lie Detectorposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          The jury followed the law!

          1. 0
            Sooner28posted 3 years ago in reply to this

            I think so too, but reasonable people can disagree.

    2. 60
      retief2000posted 3 years ago in reply to this

      There are any number of "what if"s in this tragedy.  It is like rewinding an automobile accident and "what if" ing a different route home.  If Trayvon Martin had done what my sons would have done if followed in our neighborhood - that is call me on their cell phone and told me about it and Trayvon's father was anything like me, than it would be the supposed stalker who would be in trouble. 

      It is a tragedy of the human condition.  I honestly doubt that there was a single villain in this entire thing, but, rather, a string of mistakes, by both, that resulted in tragedy.  In that sense, perhaps more responsibility for the tragedy rests with Zimmerman, as the immediate reason, because he was the adult.

        Perhaps a certain amount of blame can be shared by the entire culture.  Zimmerman was frustrated that police were unable to address the problems of frequent break-ins effectively.  How many of us are frustrated that there is a criminal element that seems to be untouchable or unabated in the commission of crime.  Aren't there black communities nation wide frustrated by the killing of so many young black men by other young black men, thus stripping families and households of fathers, sons, brothers?

      I am not sure what the solution is, but it is a tragedy that needs to end and race isn't the real cause.

  13. 60
    Lie Detectorposted 3 years ago

    Why is it this kids death has the left so stirred up? Kids are being killed everyday in Chicago and Detroit, so why was this case sooooooo important?

    Could it be that the race baiters stirred the pot?

    Why did the local prosecutors decline to prosecute?

    I guess you know now.

  14. Uninvited Writer profile image84
    Uninvited Writerposted 3 years ago

    So, will Zimmerman next be going to trial for the rape his niece says he committed when she was 9?

  15. Mighty Mom profile image90
    Mighty Momposted 3 years ago

    The jury came back awfully quickly. They've ruled. So be it.

    I am not George Zimmerman's conscience. None of us is.
    But .... one would hope he would graciously accept the verdict and quietly go back to his life (hopefully resigning his post as a neighborhood watcher).
    That is not the new American way. As much of a circus as his has been, it's not over. Not by a long shot.
    This will be even more sensationalized. Zimmerman will go on talk shows. He will have someone write his memoirs. And make beaucoup bucks out of this tragedy.
    But hey. That's his right. It just comes with the terroritory anymore.
    I wish the guy well.
    Maybe he and Casey Anthony will find each other and fall in love.

    1. Seth Winter profile image85
      Seth Winterposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Because Trayvon's Mom didn't trademark "I Am Trayvon" and "Justice for Trayvon."

      As for Zimmerman, would you really blame him with all the racism from the black community. Think of Spike Lee's Incident where he told his followers an address of Zimmerman's but it was actually an elderly couple (who had to move because of all the threats and vandals).

      1. Cody Hodge5 profile image83
        Cody Hodge5posted 3 years ago in reply to this

        In a way, if I'm Travon's mother, I trademark those terms too.

        Not because I want to profit, but because I don't want any other seedy marketing whiz make money from my tragedy.

        I'm not saying that's why she did it, but I could see that being a reason.

  16. Seth Winter profile image85
    Seth Winterposted 3 years ago
    1. Uninvited Writer profile image84
      Uninvited Writerposted 3 years ago in reply to this
      1. Seth Winter profile image85
        Seth Winterposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        So your response to current rioting in LA is to post an article where the writers talks about rioting that took place by whites after the civil war. While you might have been around at that time most of the readers/writers here weren't.

        Although I'll give you that the current rioting we are seeing in definitely toned down from what we've seen in the past with Rodney King riots, but then again time will tell on that one.

        If you want to make the Trayvon Supporters off as peaceful group of individuals however I'll throw a few more articles out there...

        A few morons making their statements on twitter. Such peaceful guys...
        http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/07 … y-verdict/

        Or if you want to think about before the trial lets think back to Spike Lee's response...

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=araKrLvPsT0

        1. Uninvited Writer profile image84
          Uninvited Writerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          The protesting in LA is not a riot, neither was Times Square.

          You guys so want there to be violent protests when what violence there has been has been less than we saw here in Canada after the Stanley Cup..

          I ignore what people say on Twitter, if they mean't it they wouldn't be hiding behind their computers. It's easy to make threats online, I've seen them on both sides.

          1. 60
            retief2000posted 3 years ago in reply to this

            The LA Times disagrees.

          2. Seth Winter profile image85
            Seth Winterposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            You might ignore what people say on Twitter but it still constitutes a threat
            http://www.wpxi.com/news/news/local/tee … an-/nYprW/

            And above case isn't the only case.

            Oh and I just found this....interesting huh...

            http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/15/justice/z … ?hpt=hp_t1

            1. Cody Hodge5 profile image83
              Cody Hodge5posted 3 years ago in reply to this

              I read the second link earlier this evening....

              It still baffles me how a guy who had a 50 pound weight advantage and supposedly knew MMA couldn't fight off a teenager.

              Also, I loved how the juror says "his heart was in the right place...."

              Its still manslaughter.

              1. Seth Winter profile image85
                Seth Winterposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                First it was ruled out it wasn't Manslaughter...acquittal remember?

                It was also ruled that while Zimmerman outweighed Trayvon, Trayvon was in better shape. Plus if you think about it, if Trayvon threw the first punch and caught Zimmerman unaware (beating a man senseless while on top of him) no amount of training could stop that...shows maybe Trayvon was the violent one.

                1. Cody Hodge5 profile image83
                  Cody Hodge5posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Well, seeing as I have always weighed 50-70 pounds less than my friends, I can tell you from experience that it would take more than a lucky punch to the nose to knock someone to the ground and "bash his head into the concrete".

                  On the flip side, if Zimmerman is getting his "head bashed into the concrete" how does he have the time to get the gun, aim it perfectly and fire?

                  Oh wait, he had his arms free! And he STILL couldn't escape......or throw a counter punch at least?

                  1. Seth Winter profile image85
                    Seth Winterposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Your right why didn't he throw a punch...and we know he didn't throw a punch, no bloody knuckles.

                    Lucky shot? Because if your thinking he just came up to Trayvon and shot him point blank it doesn't attribute for Trayvon's knuckles or Zimmerman's wounds. Nor the screaming.

                    Are you saying that a mere 50 lbs is a sure thing in deciding who would win a fight?

              2. 60
                Lie Detectorposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                No it isn't or he would have been found guilty!

                Its still not guilty.

  17. Seth Winter profile image85
    Seth Winterposted 3 years ago

    More peaceful protesters...lol disgraceful. Really shows the true racists in America.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wa_vPKbKXB4

    1. Seth Winter profile image85
      Seth Winterposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Zimmerman strikes again. This time helping a family who were stuck in an overturn truck. What a villian!
      http://abcnews.go.com/US/george-zimmerm … d=19735432

      1. Cody Hodge5 profile image83
        Cody Hodge5posted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Still doesn't change what happened with Trayvon....

        1. Seth Winter profile image85
          Seth Winterposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Your right it doesn't Cody. First he defends himself against  a thug and now he helps a family in need.

  18. Dr Billy Kidd profile image90
    Dr Billy Kiddposted 3 years ago

    It makes no sense to cry for help when you have a gun and are willing to use it and did use it. Who would you be calling out to? "Oh, I'm afraid to pull the trigger and hurt some one." Is that what Zimmerman was thinking?

    1. Seth Winter profile image85
      Seth Winterposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Well under that idea Dr. Billy Kidd if he had a gun and was willing to use it why let Trayvon hit him or smash his head into the concrete? Why not just shoot him in cold blood?

      If you ask me why? I'd say because while he had a gun, he only used it to save his life, not to shoot some random guy. That he used the gun only when he feared for his very life.

      Shoe on the other foot.

      Why would Trayvon call for help? He clearly had the physical edge over Zimmerman. Or if Zimmerman pulled a gun why would he allow Trayvon to scream for help for that long?

      1. Dr Billy Kidd profile image90
        Dr Billy Kiddposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        After tracking the other man down, why would a man yell for help if he had a gun and was willing to use it?

        The question is really, Who tracked who down? Zimmerman admits to tracking Martin because he was wearing a hoody. He even called the police in the middle of the track down. And they said stop. But he didn't. That's the psychology of a man willing to kill, not a wimp calling for help. But if you think Zimmerman is some kind of wimp, that's your thing.

        1. Seth Winter profile image85
          Seth Winterposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          I recall the words from the police dispatcher not as Stop, but as "We don't need you to do that."That's not an order to stop, that's a suggestion. And with the amount of times Zimmerman called the cops on suspicious people in the past and the actually number of arrests made....well I'm sure even you Billy would at some point have enough and follow the kid...if for nothing else but to help the cops.

        2. wilderness profile image97
          wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          I guess if you're going to make up evidence out of thin air you can prove almost anything.

          Zimmerman did not even speak to the police until after the shooting; just a civilian 911 operator.  An operator who did not tell him to stop, but merely that they didn't him to follow.  An operator who has absolutely no authority to give orders to anybody.

        3. 60
          retief2000posted 3 years ago in reply to this

          I would suggest that every man is willing to kill, under a specific set of circumstances, say a young man larger than he sitting on his chest, beating on him with both fists, without any provocation and ignoring his victims head rebounding from the concrete sidewalk.  Maybe self defense is a circumstance under which nearly every man is willing to kill.

          Some men don't require that level of provocation, some merely need their numb skull girl friend to suggest they might get raped by "one of those."

        4. Don W profile image82
          Don Wposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Zimmerman also has a history of violence against women and and was charged with battery of a law enforcement officer. The charge was reduced from a felony and and he was ordered to take anger management classes as part of his sentence. So there is reason to believe he has a violent temperament. The fact that simple case of observing someone led to a physical confrontation supports that view.

          1. wilderness profile image97
            wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Or one could say that a simple case of someone watching from a distance led to backtracking and confronting the watcher.

            This was not a case of Zimmerman's actions being the sole cause of what happened.  It took two men, at least one of which intended to confront.  That one was not Zimmerman - his "violent temperament" did not cause the violence.  His "violent temperament" was indeed held in check (maybe because of his anger management classes?) until his head was pounded into the ground as far as anyone knows and to assume differently merely because he survived the violence is unreasonable.

            1. Don W profile image82
              Don Wposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Reasonably I think you could say that, which is why Zimmerman was found not guilty. It represents a reasonable doubt. However, that doesn't mean that is what happened, and it doesn't mean the jurors believe that is what happened. Some may believe that, some may not. It just means that the burden of proof for a different verdict was not met, and that the jurors (correctly in my opinion) recognised this.


              I think the point you are making is that whatever we imagine happened that night, it's all just supposition, and you're right. What isn't supposition is the fact that this case is being viewed as part of the wider social issue of race. It's case where a white man has been given the benefit of the doubt in a court of law, while a disproportionate number of black men are convicted (and executed) on far less evidence. I don't think Zimmerman should have been convicted on the evidence presented (I think the evidence was sparse to begin with, but the prosecutor was also incompetent which did not help the state's case). I also think that getting the benefit of the doubt should not depend on the color of your skin. The perception is that if you are white you are more likely to be given the benefit of the doubt in a court of law than if you are black, and I suspect that to be true. So much so that I genuinely believe that if Martin were white, and Zimmerman black, Zimmerman would have been convicted. That's a problem that needs to be addressed.

    2. 60
      retief2000posted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Wouldn't a normal person prefer not to shoot someone to death?  Seems like the prudent response to me.  When help did not come and the attack continued apace Zimmerman proceeded with the next prudent response, defending his own life with what ever means were available.  Unfortunately for Zimmerman the means at hand were deadly.   If asked, I would bet, in hindsight, Zimmerman would say he would rather have had the help or a Taser rather than have to shoot someone else to death.

  19. BigJulesMags profile image88
    BigJulesMagsposted 3 years ago

    It would be great if you could go ahead and not talk about this story anymore.

    1. Seth Winter profile image85
      Seth Winterposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Why if your chief enemy is falsehood, wouldn't a misconstrued story of a man falsely accused of racism greatly interest you? Also by posting another comment you send a message to everyone following this forum post and thus keep the wound open.

 
working